• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Second rate reporter says what?

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / What The Hell

What The Hell

by John Cole|  June 15, 200812:12 pm| 50 Comments

This post is in: Media, War, Assholes

FacebookTweetEmail

Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon are on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, so make sure you read the transcript. Right now I am listening to Ken Pollack claim that Democrats wanted to stifle good news from Iraq because the war is good for them electorally. Sadly, no one was there to tell him to go fuck himself, so I will take that opportunity right now.

Michael O’Hanlon clearly does not have a mirror in his house, is unshaven, and looks like a cross between Kramer and John McEnroe.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open Thread
Next Post: McCain’s Support for the Troops »

Reader Interactions

50Comments

  1. 1.

    ambboogie

    June 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    what happened to Michael Ware’s nose?

  2. 2.

    Bobzim

    June 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Who’s Jim McEnroe?

  3. 3.

    ambboogie

    June 15, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    @ Bobsim.. you know.. the angry ass tennis player.

  4. 4.

    John Cole

    June 15, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Yeah, I got crossed up while writing it. I was originally going to call him Jimmy mac, then decided to just call him his real name, and the end result was Jim McEnroe, when it should have been James.

  5. 5.

    jake

    June 15, 2008 at 12:32 pm

    Yaaaawn. That bullshit is one day younger than war gone bad. Not this war, any war that isn’t going the way the numbskulls who started the mess want it to go.

    Next up: Brain dead ball-washing attention whore claims Nancy Pelosi is planting bombs in Iraq to blow up the ponies of victory and make everyone real depressed.

    Snore.

  6. 6.

    Bobzim

    June 15, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    You mean John McEnroe crossed with Jim Cramer crossed with Cosmo Kramer?

    I’m confused.

  7. 7.

    calipygian

    June 15, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    I tuned in based on your effusive praise of Zakaria’s show last week.

    This week we are treated to a balanced panel of war supporters.

    Fareed Zakaria’s “Warmed Over Old Tyme Neo-Con Hour” is something that I’m going to have trouble tuning into again.

  8. 8.

    ambboogie

    June 15, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    I just learned something!

    Fareed Zakarie broke the whole APPEASEMENT argument down by pointing out that they called Reagan (their hero) an appeaser for talking to Gorbechev!!!

    *Filing this away into my mental rolodex*

  9. 9.

    calipygian

    June 15, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Filing this away into my mental rolodex

    This is the standard wingnut response:

    “You are an idiot for comparing Obama to Reagan. Typical lib moral equivilance”

    Can’t tell those wingnuts nuthin’.

    Put that Reagan thing on Malkin’s site and I guarantee that what I wrote above will be their response.

  10. 10.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    June 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Ken Pollack claims that Democrats wanted to stifle good news from Iraq

    By any chance, did he have any examples of good news? Is it good news when Iraq’s leadership tells America to get out, and Moqtada al Sadr re-starts his offensive against American forces? Is it good news that al Sadr has ordered his faction to sit out elections? Maybe Pollack thinks we should be happy that a pair of suicide bombings killed 2 people and wounded 45 yesterday?

    Just wonderin’.

  11. 11.

    The Other Steve

    June 15, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon

    I’m curious why anybody invites them on to comment, considering neither one particularly knows anything.

  12. 12.

    kdaug

    June 15, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Ambooggie – Rugby.

  13. 13.

    Mike

    June 15, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Fareed Zakarie broke the whole APPEASEMENT argument down by pointing out that they called Reagan (their hero) an appeaser for talking to Gorbechev

    The best definition of “neocon” is “person who overestimates every threat.”

    Start with Team B, continue with Gorbachev, and proceed to Saddam.

  14. 14.

    Jon H

    June 15, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    “I’m curious why anybody invites them on to comment, considering neither one particularly knows anything.”

    Their boss, billionaire Haim Saban? Just a guess.

  15. 15.

    Jon H

    June 15, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    The best definition of “neocon” is “person who overestimates every threat.”

    Except what they overestimate the most is their own abilities.

  16. 16.

    Thom

    June 15, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    It ain’t Jim or Jimmie or James or Peter – it’s John McEnroe.

    And he does look like him. And Opie.

  17. 17.

    JoAnne Martinson

    June 15, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    You and I watched the same “right-leaning” broadcast. What tripe. There’s a “disconnect” among Democrats? At least they know who’s in charge of the Russian government and what an economy is. CNN is a travesty; pretty faces – empty heads (except for Blitzer who loses on both counts).

  18. 18.

    John Cole

    June 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    It ain’t Jim or Jimmie or James or Peter – it’s John McEnroe.

    And he does look like him. And Opie.

    I think I am losing my mind. Fixed.

  19. 19.

    Rosali

    June 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Michael Ware did a good job of pointing out that this quagmire has had the effect of installing a satellite branch of Iran in Iraq’s government.

    Zakaria needs to understand that stupid jokes about being sent to Guantanamo are tasteless and not funny.

  20. 20.

    Worple

    June 15, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    He looks like Patrick McEnroe.

  21. 21.

    jrg

    June 15, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Right now I am listening to Ken Pollack claim that Democrats wanted to stifle good news from Iraq because the war is good for them electorally.

    What we need is an “War in Iraq is Awesome” channel. Oh, yeah, that was pretty much every channel from 2003-2005. It might be that the media is liberal and out to destroy the GOP – or, it might be that the GOP cried wolf on Iraqi awesomeness so many times, viewers are changing the channel.

    Either way, it would be an really good idea for Republican mouth pieces to bring up Iraq often in this election season. Mix that with a little more racism and a healthy dose of self-righteous patriotic indignation over stuff like flag pins, and they should be good to go. More power to them.

  22. 22.

    ann

    June 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Anyone notice that they kept repeating that in 5 0r 6 years, the Iraqis MAY be able to run their own country and defend their country?? If they said 5 0r 6, they meant 10 or 12. Said it was totally improbable that the US could withdraw within 18 months, and the two campaigns of Obama and McCain would be coming closer together about this….maybe somewhere between 18 months and forever? I despise them.

  23. 23.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    June 15, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    A critical point to remember about the “good news” coming out of Iraq is that Maliki and his army were NOT independently successful in the Basra offensive. The more the Americans backed them up, the more successful they were. Also the Iraqi Army is years aways from being able to do all the G-4 (supply) functions of a competent standing army. Without American firepower (air and land) and American re-supply backup the Iraqi army would be just another mediocre sectarian militia. So much for the all the success.

    The real success has been Petraeus ability to control the message. He is one genuinely smart motherfucker when it comes to handling the PR.

  24. 24.

    El Cid

    June 15, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    Remember, it’s always okay on national television to label the Democrats as pretty much troop-hating traitors, but responding to that isn’t quite as encouraged.

  25. 25.

    demimondian

    June 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    it’s always okay on national television to label the Democrats as pretty much troop-hating traitors, but responding to that isn’t quite as encouraged.

    Huh? It’s always OK to respond to that claim with the simple truth: “Yes, they are, aren’t they?”

  26. 26.

    Jon H

    June 15, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    “American re-supply backup the Iraqi army would be just another mediocre sectarian militia.”

    Or more to the point, without American re-supply they’d logically turn to Iran to fill that role.

  27. 27.

    nightjar

    June 15, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Or more to the point, without American re-supply they’d logically turn to Iran to fill that role.

    The annexation of southern Iraq by Iran is essentially a done deal. The only thing keeping it from becoming a fait accompli is our presence propping up the the puppet Green Zone Maliki government. By staying, we are only holding back and thus delaying the natural religious and political arrangememts created by at least 1400 years of history in the region.

    And when we leave, Iran will fill the void and the Sunnis will rightfully feel threatened and turn to Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni nations in the Middle East for support. And when that happens the powder keg will have the fuse lit for all out sectarian war.

    So thank you George Bush and the neocons for placing America squarely in the breach of facilitating and likely participating in a war of ancient tribes half way around the world. But then there’s oil in them thar hills and the fine print claims it’s ours.

  28. 28.

    Standard BS

    June 15, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Even if O’Hanlon had a mirror, he wouldn’t look into it, because he would be scarred by what he saw. That, or he wouldn’t see any reflection at all, because he’s one of the undead.

  29. 29.

    jake

    June 15, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    I think I am losing my mind. Fixed.

    John got the rabies!

    Or, since he’s become a DFH terrist appeaser: The Arabies!

  30. 30.

    LiberalTarian

    June 15, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Did any of them have the wherewithall to address this McClatchy article? Particularly this part:

    Rather than taking a closer look at whom they were holding, a group of five White House, Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers who called themselves the “War Council” devised a legal framework that enabled the administration to detain suspected “enemy combatants” indefinitely with few legal rights.

    The threat of new terrorist attacks, the War Council argued, allowed President Bush to disregard or rewrite American law, international treaties and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to permit unlimited detentions and harsh interrogations.

    The group further argued that detainees had no legal right to defend themselves, and that American soldiers — along with the War Council members, their bosses and Bush — should be shielded from prosecution for actions that many experts argue are war crimes.

    With the support of Bush, Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the group shunted aside the military justice system, and in February 2002, Bush suspended the legal protection for detainees spelled out in Common Article Three of the 1949 Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, which outlaws degrading treatment and torture.

    To Paraphrase: “War crimes? What war crimes? In a time of war, the President is immune from culpability for committing war crimes.” How did I miss the coup d’état where George W. Bush became Emperor?

    Did Fareed give that discussion any airtime??

  31. 31.

    ThymeZone

    June 15, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    While Zakaria initially supported using military force against Iraq, he argued for a United Nations-sanctioned operation and occupation with a much larger force (approximately 400,000 troops). He also called for a Bosnia- or Kosovo-style occupation that was international, rather than American, in nature. He wrote a Newsweek cover-essay the week the Iraq war began entitled “The Arrogant Empire”, which detailed the failures of the Bush foreign policy in the run-up to the war.

    He was an early and aggressive critic of the occupation, arguing against the disbanding of the Iraqi army and bureaucracy, which the administration accomplished under the guise of “de-Baathification”. He predicted that accelerating the build-up of the Iraqi military would create a Shia and Kurdish army that would exacerbate the sectarian tensions in the country. Four months into the occupation, his columns bore such titles as “Iraq Policy Is Broken,” and in September 2003 he wrote a cover story for Newsweek entitled “So What’s Plan B?” In February of 2005, the week before Iraq’s elections, he wrote, “no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in Iraq are increasingly grim.” In his October 2006 Newsweek cover essay, Zakaria called for a reduction in American troops in Iraq to 60,000 by the end of 2007.

    Just thot you might be interested in this wiki excerpt.

  32. 32.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    June 15, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Zakaria, and many others, were supporters of the war in the earliest stages along with the many caveats stated in the wiki piece. Unlike, Zakaria and the others, I was against it. I am not smarter than any of them, but I believe I used better judgment. Why? Because I once fought in an ill conceived war fought by this country’s leaders. I promised myself I would NEVER support a war that did not fall within certain strict criteria.

    1. Did they attack us?
    2. Did they attack an ally with whom we have a formal mutual defense treaty?

    If I can’t answer yes to one of these I do not support any war fought by our government. Period.

    Darfur? No.
    Bosnia? No.
    Rwanda? No.
    Iraq? No.

    Afghanistan? Yes. And Bush fucked that up because he just had to have Saddam.

  33. 33.

    Koz

    June 15, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Oh get off it. The Democratic Party has had one grand total of one policy on Iraq or terrorism that they’re willing to be held accountable for. Ie, that no matter what happens, the Democrats should never suffer politically.

  34. 34.

    ThymeZone

    June 15, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    the Democrats should never suffer politically.

    Against whom?

  35. 35.

    Dennis - SGMM

    June 15, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Ah, the unmistakable odor of stupid wafting off of a troll.

  36. 36.

    Rosali

    June 15, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Did Fareed give that discussion any airtime??

    Fareed brought up Guantanamo in a stupid joke. He said: “many of you also complained about this background…We hear you. And we are getting rid of that background, right now. And the person responsible for this is now at Guantanamo Bay.”
    So he thinks that Gitmo detentions are a laughing matter. Maybe it was just a weak attempt at humor but it was incredibly tasteless. On a week when the Sup Ct decided in a narrow 5-4 decision that indefinite detentions and military kangaroo courts are unconstitutional, I would have expected a serious discussion about what the future trials would look like, differences in the McCain/Obama positions, or other related topics.

  37. 37.

    4tehlulz

    June 15, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Remember when the trolls actually tried hard?

    Me neither.

  38. 38.

    Wilfred

    June 15, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Re Zakaria:

    He was an early and aggressive critic of the occupation, arguing against the disbanding of the Iraqi army and bureaucracy, which the administration accomplished under the guise of “de-Baathification”.

    This is what I mean by critical reading. I am an outspoken critic of the occupation, meaning I want it to end. Period. Zakaria is a critic of how the occupation was handled – just like McCain.

    Zakaria is an exmaple of what Salman Rushdie called cultural amphibians. He will always have a place at the table because he spouts the administration line in the costume of the Other, when in fact he is the Same.

  39. 39.

    GSD

    June 15, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Zakaria needs to understand that he fits the profile of someone who could get sent to Guantanimo and held there indefinately by the Bush/Cheney cabal.

    What a dildo.

    -GSD

  40. 40.

    Mike

    June 15, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Michael O’Hanlon clearly does not have a mirror in his house, is unshaven, and looks like a cross between Kramer and John McEnroe Tatum O’Neal.

    Fixed.

  41. 41.

    ThymeZone

    June 15, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Zakaria is a critic of how the occupation was handled – just like McCain.

    I’m afraid I don’t know enough about Zakaria to argue that one way or the other. I do know that his choice of guests made me cringe.

  42. 42.

    Koz

    June 16, 2008 at 5:14 am

    This is what I mean by critical reading. I am an outspoken critic of the occupation, meaning I want it to end. Period. Zakaria is a critic of how the occupation was handled – just like McCain.

    You mean you’re cheerleading for America to lose, where as John McCain (and Zakaria too presumably) are looking for ways for America to win. No wonder we’re still in Iraq.

  43. 43.

    Koz

    June 16, 2008 at 5:16 am

    If I can’t answer yes to one of these I do not support any war fought by our government. Period.

    Great. The US went to war without you. Now what?

  44. 44.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    June 16, 2008 at 6:16 am

    You mean you’re cheerleading for America to lose

    That’s so stupid. You’re saying that if we decide we’re sick of being bogged down in Iraq for no good reason and decide to leave on our own accord, we’ve lost. Really? You really think that?

  45. 45.

    4tehlulz

    June 16, 2008 at 8:21 am

    I wonder how many tours Koz has done. His experiences over in Iraq would add valuable information to the debate.

  46. 46.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    June 16, 2008 at 9:39 am

    You mean you’re cheerleading for America to lose

    And here’s the nut of the whole thing; what does it mean to “win” in Iraq? What is the victory condition, at which point we can bring everyone home? What does it mean to “lose”?

    I mean, by Bush’s standards, the mission was accomplished years ago. So why are we still there?

  47. 47.

    SnarkyShark

    June 16, 2008 at 9:40 am

    You mean you’re cheerleading for America to lose

    You can not win or lose an occupation. You can only leave or stay.

    This aint a fucking football game you stupid git.

  48. 48.

    Tax Analyst

    June 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    SnarkyShark Says:

    You can not win or lose an occupation. You can only leave or stay.

    Point…Game…Set…Match…no matter which McEnroe (or Opie) somebody looks like.

    POTD. Simple truth can be so elegant sometimes.

  49. 49.

    Koz

    June 16, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    You’re saying that if we decide we’re sick of being bogged down in Iraq for no good reason……

    I didn’t see the Zakaria thing, but this is presumably what he’s talking about. We were getting bogged down in Iraq in 2005-2006. The game has changed since then, and if you don’t know that, it might have something to do with the fact that the MSM is filtering the news away from you.

  50. 50.

    Koz

    June 16, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    And here’s the nut of the whole thing; what does it mean to “win” in Iraq? What is the victory condition,…

    The point where we can say that it’s not inevitable that the Middle East is ruled by the Saddam Husseins, ayatollahs, or Osamas of the world.

    I mean, by Bush’s standards, the mission was accomplished years ago. So why are we still there?

    I dunno, maybe because not everything Bush said turned out to be right, if that possibility isn’t too wild to contemplate.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Lyrebird on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:23pm)
  • Roger Moore on What the Hell Is Happening In Israel? (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:21pm)
  • Gin & Tonic on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:21pm)
  • Geminid on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:21pm)
  • cain on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 6:19pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!