Washington Post:
President Bush is expected to choose a replacement for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales by the middle of next week, and former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson has emerged as one of the leading contenders for the job, according to sources inside and outside the government who are familiar with White House deliberations.
Now read this post that I wrote in May. Use it as the basis for a friendly note to your favorite member of the Senate judiciary committee. I think I’m going to get back in touch with Arlen Specter.
Incertus (Brian)
Man, I can smell the Republican attack dogs just waiting on this one. “How dare you criticize this man who lost his wife in the 9/11 attacks? He’s lost more than any of us can imagine, and you are impugning his integrity!” I think I’m going to be ill.
Phil
Since the other thread is now down far below, i’m posting my response here. John, you said:
“Now you are just being a jackass. No, I don’t think Bush blew up the WTC.”
I see I was accused of spinning the poll by some of the “people” who comment on your blog to make it sound worse than it was. In the interest of fairness, I will re-assess. The poll doesn’t necessarily suggest that the Bush administration committed 9/11. But, and I said this before too, it does claim that 3/5s of Democrats either believe or aren’t sure if Bush had advance knowledge of the attack, which would imply he let skyscrapers in his own country be blown up on purpose. For what purpose? Well who the hell knows! But if it feels good, do it! That is the liberal mantra, isn’t it John?
Now that that’s been cleared up, John can continue to assert conservatives are nutty and his new liberal friends are all that and a bag of potato chips with a straight face. I mean, to think that George Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11 and therefore allowed it to happen intentionally is a fairly rational opinion, isn’t it? Isn’t it? John? Uh, John? You still there John?
“You don’t have to be a 9/11 truther to think this has been a criminally incompetent administration, and to think the Republican party is hopelessly corrupt and has strayed totally from their alleged principles. You also don’t need to be a left-winger to notice that.”
I think the administration has made a lot of mistakes on the war, too many to document in 100 paragraphs, let alone 100 pages even. I also know countless mistakes have been made in every war since the dawn of time, even “good” wars like WWI, WWII, the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. Another thing I know is that those mistakes aren’t really talked about anymore. And do you know why that is John? Because we won them John. But you’re no longer interested in winning even though even the Blue Dog Democrats are. Guess the center has moved to the right of you John.
The Republican party is hopelessly corrupt? Hold the presses – a political party is corrupt! Is this even news? Was the Republican Party that you and Andy Sullivan supported in the past the cleanest political party in the entirety of man? Can you say with a straight face that the Democrats aren’t “hopelessly corrupt” now? Do I really need to provide you with hundreds of examples, all within the past year, that would suggest otherwise? I got news for you, corruption is a bi-partisan problem.
I think you’ve just had one too many whiffs of the vapors and now that you’ve just become a shill for the Democrats, you can’t even seem to figure out why or how it happened. You can throw out all sorts of things like Guantanamo Bay! or foreign surveillance! but the fact of the matter is that most Americans do not have a problem with these things or they would be demanding they be stopped. (On a side note, I would support the closing of Guantanamo Bay, provided the prisoners are transferred stateside to the NY Times Building, preferably in Paul Krugman’s cubicle)
Frankly, it seems like you jumped ship on the Iraq war when it became popular to do so. It doesn’t bother me to be in the minority on any issue, particularly defense issues. Wars aren’t meant to be poll tested. But I suppose for you they are. So I believe history will determine the United States and its allies (Iraqi and worldwide) won the war in Iraq, and it will have been no thanks to John Cole, Andy Sullivan or any of the loser Democrat politicians.
So you’ve made your bet John. In fact, you even switched your bet halfway through the race. But you can’t change your bet when its over. And its disgraceful that anyone who claims to have any sort of conservative affinity would bet against the finest military ever assembled by man, the United States armed forced. We expect it from the liberals as we know they’re naive. We don’t expect it from people who should know better because they’re smart. People like you John.
capelza
Incertus(Brian)… of course it didn’t stop Ann Coulter from attacking the 9/11 widows.
Phil, as one of those “people” might I tell you to that you are but a pale reflection of some much better trolls.
What are you going to do to John? March him out onto the public square and ceremoniously rip off his GOP insignia and break his sword?
No, you whine and chastise and distort. Not to mention the buttload of cliches.
craigie
Phil:
in the next paragraph:
Consistency – the mark of conservaloonies everywhere!
rawshark
Phil’s retort to ‘the republicans are corrupt’, ‘so are the democrats’. And yet you act like you’re giving a grown up answer.
I don’t think most wingnuts understand FISA. Maybe some of the guys on radio or who call into radio shows understand it but most regular people I talk to simply feel that if the democrats are against it then Bush must be doing right. Which is of course more childishness.
Typical righty. More interested in scoring rim shots with little liberal media jokes than solving issues. Maybe you should be wanting to close Gitmo because holding people indefinately without giving them opportunity to answer to charges is distinctly unamerican.
TenguPhule
See 2002-2007, Gross Politicalization and Seizure of Power using 9/11 by Republicans.
Phil, very unserious troll.
srv
On Olsen: Yes, there are people far worse than Abu G. Abu was always a lightweight, never the smartest guy in the room. Olsen is a pathological hypocrite, but he’s very smart. Probably too smart, as Addington would see him as a threat.
On Phil: Gives new meaning to the Bush Derangement Syndrome. Phil can’t even depend on Peggy Noonan or Kraphammer any more.
What possesses people like Sully and Cole to like the Republican party and people like Bush? Where Phil is all into the cult worship, people like Sully and Cole are authoritarian leaning but still have a brain and/or conscience. They have some minimal capacity to reflect, self-criticize and accept responsibility.
The Phils of the world know, deep down, that their crusade has crashed, and blaming Jane Fonda just doesn’t get them the validation they crave. So they’ve got nobody else to rag on but their former fellow travellers.
The Phils of the world laugh about the truthers, but were also the same people who clung to the Vince Foster conspiracy, Travelgate, yada yada, and have the list of 80 people Hillarys ninjas murdered at the top of the bookmarks.
TenguPhule
See Pearl Harbor, gross cascading chain of failures.
Phil, pro-sexual harrassment and war profiteer supporter.
They did demand it be stopped. Bush ignored them. And the D’s are too gutless to object less they be labeled by people like Phil as ‘endangering Americans’.
And you also believe in ponies with fairy sparkles dancing in the moonlight. Clap louder, Tinkerbell!
There are words to describe people who consider war a gambling event. None of them fit to print. All of them applicable to Phil.
Tell you what, Phil. Spend 15 months in Iraq on the front lines, then come back here and try again. Because couch potatos trying to speak about subjects they obviously know nothing about look very very sheepish in here.
Bruce Moomaw
May I suggest that anyone who thinks that repeating “John” so many times somehow strengthens his argument has very serious maturation problems to begin with?
chopper
why do you put quotes around “people”? do you think we’re some fancy computer program? or do you think we’re sub-human because we don’t agree with you?
that’s awful white of you to admit.
and then you’re back to being an idiot.
first off, ‘not sure’ doesn’t mean ‘he let it happen’. it means ‘i’m not sure’. what percentage actually believe and what percentage ‘aren’t sure’ phil? why do you conflate the two?
second, here’s a hint for you – ‘had advanced knowledge’ doesn’t mean that he knew specifics. that’s why so many goopers also said yes to the poll as well.
why are you asking him? he’s center-right.
Punchy
Yes, you do. I wont even demand hundreds. Just give us 75 examples. Unless your hyperbole got the better of you.
Tim F.
Phil,
You called me “John” twelve times, made a retarded argument that grossly misstates the opinion of the people against whom you argue and you hijacked my thread. If acting like an irritating git was bannable you would be gone.
rachel
Bwahh-hah! Phil, you idiot, the original poster is Tim F. I know, Phil, it’s SOP for Bushies to “catapult the propaganda” by repeating “the facts” until somebody believes them, but calling Tim F. “John” umpty-ump times isn’t going to change the fact that he isn’t John, Phil.
The Other Steve
Phil clearly suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Xenos
I don’t think you could find a single person as guaranteed to outrage partisan Democrats the way Ted Olson will. After Leahy and Specter put together a list of consensus candidates, Olson is proposed (i know, not yet… but Bush is out of the country and the name has been put out in the papers)?
This must be Cheney: shameless cronyism, insiderism, and a policy that has its primary goal being to poke a stick into the eye of the opposition. The architect of the Arkansas project as the man bring independence to the DOJ? If the Dems have not been fully defanged by assasination attempts and blackmail, they could have a field day working over Olsons history. I hope they can do it.
The Other Steve
Ted Olsen simply is unacceptable. Can Republicans not find anybody qualified?
jake
Shorter Phil: I’m too blinded by BDS to see the Recent Entries bar! Or check the author of the posts!
Philly reminds me of the stalker freaks who think a couple of dates means you’ll be 2gether 4eva. By the time you see the fuck up lurking beneath the surface charm you know what’s coming next and get away as quickly as possible. Still, you’re not surprised when your voice mail is overflowing with long disjointed messages that state: 1. You’re an idiot for breaking up with him but; 2. He’s willing to forgive your lapse of reason if you’ll just come back.
Look out John, some where there’s a guy weeping over a print outs of posts from the “real” John. The John who loved GWB and the GOP.
Incertus (Brian)
Can Republicans not find anybody qualified?
I’m going to be picky here–Olson is no doubt qualified for the job. He can do it, and has the ability and mental acuity to do it well. He just won’t, if given the chance, because he’s a dishonest hack just like Gonzales.
The Republicans won’t find anyone honest enough to do the job well, though–you can count on that–because they have too much crap to allow an honest broker anywhere near.
mds
I’m going to be picky here—Olson is no doubt qualified for the job. He can do it, and has the ability and mental acuity to do it well. He just won’t, if given the chance, because he’s a dishonest hack just like Gonzales.
See, I’m afraid this is one of the problems with the pushback. A dishonest hack is patently not qualified to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. It was a bad concession to make in the days of Alito: “He wipes his ass with the Constitution and will dishonestly undermine decades of precedent, but based on his grades and his firm handshake he’s qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice for the next few decades.” Likewise, by the same overly-generous usage, Alberto Gonzales was qualified. I’m sorry, but “qualified” is going to have to start meaning something other than “lying, lawbreaking, Constitution-flouting political toady, but with a fancy C.V.”