American Politics, pt. 9
6108. Macnas - 2/14/2003 3:21:07 AM Whats with the italics?
6109. Macnas - 2/14/2003 3:22:15 AM
Help! I'm being italicated and I don'nt know why!
6110. magoseph - 2/14/2003 8:38:37 AM
Here, Mac!
6111. magoseph - 2/14/2003 8:39:14 AM
Let's see.
6112. magoseph - 2/14/2003 8:39:48 AM
6113. magoseph - 2/14/2003 8:40:55 AM
So I did this
6114. alistairConnor - 2/14/2003 8:53:11 AM
OK so you can save the Irish from being Italicised...
But can you save the Iraqis from being Americanised?
6115. magoseph - 2/14/2003 9:06:34 AM
It's probably better than being franchised.
6116. jexster - 2/14/2003 10:55:10 AM
HANS BLIX stands tall before the lofty mast - Inspections Have Revealed Nothing That Substantially Contradicts Iraqi Declarations - Recent Actions Comply With UNMOVIC Request for Active Cooperation - US/BRITAIN ("OTHER GOVERNMENTS") NOT FULLY COMPLYING WITH RES 1441 REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPLY INTEL
6117. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:10:13 AM
"If Bloody Bush wants to go to war in a few weeks, this report isn't a good way to start it" Gen Barry McCaffery
6118. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:12:35 AM
Du Gamla, Du Fria
Du gamla, du fria, du fjällhöga Nord,
Du tysta, du glädjerika sköna!
Jag hälsar dig, vänaste land uppå jord,
Din sol, din himmel, dina ängder gröna.
Din sol, din himmel, dina ängder gröna.
Du tronar på minnen från fornstora da'r,
då ärat ditt namn flög över jorden.
Jag vet att du är och du blir, vad du var.
Ja, jag vill leva, jag vill dö i Norden.
Ja, jag vill leva, jag vill dö i Norden.
Translation
Thou Ancient, Thou Free
You ancient, free and mountainous North,
Of quiet, joyful beauty,
I greet you, loveliest land on earth,
Your sun, your sky, your green meadows.
Your sun, your sky, your green meadows.
You are throned on memories of olden days
When the honour of your name spread over the earth.
I know that you are and will remain what you were.
Oh, may I live, may die in the Nordic North
6119. jexster - 2/14/2003 12:21:15 PM
I don't think the networks are going to even bother covering Powell after Blix's devastating report...
Poor PantyWaist, he just a Buffalo Soldier
In the heart of America
Stolen from Africa, brought to America
Said he was fighting on arrival
Fighting for survival
Said he was a Buffalo Soldier
Win the war for America
6120. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/14/2003 12:30:08 PM
6121. jexster - 2/14/2003 1:14:24 PM
VATICAN CITY - Strong war opponent Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II held a private meeting with a top Iraqi leader Friday, urging the government of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to commit fully to U.N. weapons inspections in hopes of averting a U.S.-led attack.
The pontiff's hopeful words came hours before chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that his team had so far not found weapons of mass destruction. He spoke at a meeting that could determine whether the United States gets U.N. backing for a possible military action.
The pope met with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz for about 30 minutes Friday, gripping the Iraqi's hand firmly at the end. "God bless you. God bless Iraq," John Paul said.
6122. jexster - 2/14/2003 1:34:40 PM
"Let me first tell ya. We're winning the "war" on terror" Moron King chuckles as if to say "You may not believe it but..."
I am gonna go get some duct tape.
6123. jexster - 2/14/2003 2:29:40 PM
"White House; Use of Force can be avoided"
Just as I have said - the only way to deal with Bush is to say FUCK YOU
6124. jexster - 2/14/2003 2:37:06 PM
Mysterium fidei "God bless Iraq" J2P2
6125. judithathome - 2/14/2003 2:44:32 PM
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
(Hermann Goering, interviewed by a writer just before his suicide while awaiting trial at Nuremberg)
6126. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:35:37 PM
God bless Iraq!
The Vatican repeated "the necessity of faithfully respecting, with concrete commitments, the resolutions of the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council, guarantor of international legality."
The statement, by papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, concluded by saying the Catholic Church would continue working for peace and coexistence of peoples.
The pontiff has been one of the most vocal opponents of the possible military action, saying in the past that war against Iraq would be a "defeat for humanity." The Vatican has insisted that a preventive war has no legal or moral justification.
While in Italy, Aziz, a Chaldean Christian, also planned to participate in a prayer ceremony with Franciscan friars in Assisi.
6127. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:37:42 PM
That's EXCELLENT JAH.......Has such a familiar ring to it.....why I can hear the echo now
Zan
Edmundo
Al D
Time of the Troubles
The Faux concern
6128. AceofSpades - 2/14/2003 3:40:53 PM
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- William Shakespeare, Sonnet 103 ("The people can always be brought to do the bidding of their leaders.../")
6129. concerned - 2/14/2003 3:49:32 PM
Re. 6125 -
Who says France and Germany are peacemakers, with just about the worst war records on the planet? What they really are are losers.
6130. concerned - 2/14/2003 3:51:26 PM
France and Germany can hardly tell the difference between freedom and oppression, and they are as likely to choose oppression when they can. And we're supposed to accept their counsel?
Muwahahaha!
6131. AceofSpades - 2/14/2003 3:55:49 PM
Sorry... we just had soooooo much fun with The Mote's resident William Shakespeare experts.
Check this out!
Some samples:
Me:
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
-- William Shakespeare
"Who let the dogs out?"
-- William Shakespeare
Edmund Dantes:
"We say and say we all of noble peace /To give sweet peace a chance would chance us well."
Hamlet, "William Shakespeare"
Edmund Dantes:
"War, hunh, good God y'all, what is it good for?"
Macbeth--William Shakespeare
Me:
"I like big butts and I cannot lie/
You otha brothas can't deny/
/that when those Daisy Dukes ride up high/
You get sprung-- /
m-m-m-me so horney...
Baby got back, forsooth."
--William Shakespeare, A Midnsummer Night's Booty Call
Dick Stensland:
One day Governor Burns said to me, "Bob, why are you here first, and why do you leave last?" I said, "Governor, I'm going to do good things."
Polonius, Hamlet (II, ii, 115-117)
Me:
"2 legit
2 legit 2 quit
hey-heyyyyyy...
2 legit
2 legit 2 quit
hey-heyyyyyy...
"
-- Chorale for Mozart's Symphony Nr. 41 ("The Jupiter Symphony")
Me:
Here I am
Rock you like a Hurricane
-- Dante, The Inferno, Quatro 16, Third Canto
TabouliJones --
Blinded by the light
Wrapped up like a douche, a little odor in the night
-- Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales
6132. AceofSpades - 2/14/2003 3:56:40 PM
Me:
She had a fast machine
She kept her motor clean
She was the best damn woman that I ever seen
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ode to Beauty
TabouliJones:
I smoted him, I smoted him good
-- Al Gore quoting Genesis 8:19-36 when asked about his performance in the first Bush/Gore presidential debate
Me (x2):
It's OPP, time other people's what you get it
There's no room for relationship there's just room to hit it
How many brothers out there know just what I'm gettin' at
Who thinks it's wrong 'cos I'm splittin' and co-hittin' at
Well if you do, that's OPP and you're not down with it
But if you don't, here's your membership
You down with OPP
(Yeah you know me)
You down with OPP
(Yeah you know me)
You down with OPP
(Yeah you know me)
Who down with OPP?
(Every last homie)
--The Horse-Whisperer
Well let's bungle
in the jungle
Well that's all right with me
I'm a tiger when I want love
I'm a snake if we disagree
--Rudyard Kipling, Kim
6133. Cellar Door - 2/14/2003 3:58:43 PM
Good grief! What brought Ace back? "Perfect World" not so perfect?
6134. judithathome - 2/14/2003 4:03:59 PM
Check it out, acehole:
Urban Legends
The notable difference here is that although the Caesar quote is a latter-day fabrication, the words attributed to Hermann Goering are real. Goering was one of the highest-ranking Nazis who survived to be captured and put on trial for war crimes in the city of Nuremberg by the Allies after the end of World War II. He was found guilty on charges of "war crimes," "crimes against peace," and "crimes against humanity" by the Nuremberg tribunal and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence could not be carried out, however, because Goering committed suicide with smuggled cyanide capsules hours before his execution, scheduled for 15 October 1946.
6135. judithathome - 2/14/2003 4:05:20 PM
No Cellar, the joke is on him...this quote is real and he will likely not be back to check that fact; he certainly won't bother to mention it to his cronies, either.
6136. AceofSpades - 2/14/2003 4:09:35 PM
No, William Shakespeare said it. Barbra Streisand said so.
"sticks
and stones
may break
my bones
but names
will never
hurt me."
-- Alexander Pope, Treatise on the Power of Name-Calling
6137. judithathome - 2/14/2003 4:28:19 PM
Ah, Ace...you have the wrong quote. I messed up on the Barbra Sreisand quote and admitted it at the time but this is not the same one. Did you even read the link I provided?
Not that you give a rat's ass.
6138. jexster - 2/14/2003 5:04:03 PM
Dow Surges on News of Blix Body Blow to Bloody Bush War
6139. wonkers2 - 2/14/2003 5:04:11 PM
The Cap'n sez "Shiver me timbers look who's back, if'n ain't Ace. That'll rile up the waters a bit."
6140. jexster - 2/14/2003 5:05:57 PM
God Bless Iraq
Now perhaps its too much to hope but maybe, with the Pope's intercession, we can put this mess aside for a while and focus on the many and varied failures of a failed presidency and coming national malaise
6141. jexster - 2/14/2003 5:07:57 PM
Ace - got Osama?
got duct tape?
6142. jexster - 2/14/2003 5:10:57 PM
300 cities - 10,000,000 demonstrators against Bush War this weekend....
Storm moving in here Sat morning...hopefully we'll be on the backside by 11 on Sunday..God willing that is and God bless Iraq
6143. wabbit - 2/14/2003 5:29:07 PM
It's nice to be back to the FBI again.
President speaks at FBI on new Terrorist Threat Integration Center
6144. Cellar Door - 2/14/2003 6:57:28 PM
connie's gonna just LOVE this!
6145. concerned - 2/14/2003 7:19:55 PM
Re. 6142 -
Sometimes it seems the ideological Left has always succeeded in presenting themselves as being a waste and hindrance.
6146. concerned - 2/14/2003 7:22:13 PM
Re. 6144 -
You know, I have some ungodly password (I'm the 478,326'th person with my last name & first initials that has registered there, it seems) that I have a hard time remembering at that site. Can you excerpt?
6147. magoseph - 2/14/2003 7:29:17 PM
Is that it?
Whitewater Revisited
To the Editor:
I appreciated the correction that appeared in The Times on Feb. 2 regarding Beverly Lowry's review of my book, ''The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk'' (Jan. 26), in which she had said that Kenneth Starr convicted me ''on charges of obstruction of justice and criminal contempt.'' In fact, the jury refused to convict me on any of these charges, and this outcome was a clear rebuke to Starr. But I would like to respond to several other statements in the review.
Lowry wrote of Bill Clinton that ''the future president was governor and the McDougals owned a bank and a savings and loan'' at the time of the investment in Whitewater. Actually, Bill Clinton was not then governor, and Jim McDougal and I were not then in the banking business. The latter point might have passed without comment had she not gone on to state that ''the Clintons took part in Whitewater and irrefutably they and the McDougals trampled on some rights.'' I am baffled by the reference to ''trampled on some rights,'' and wonder if Lowry has discovered something that Ken Starr, backed by tens of millions of dollars of prosecutorial power, could not.
Finally, Lowry described the embezzlement charges brought against me in California by Nancy and Zubin Mehta. However, she neglected to mention that I was found not guilty on all counts. Indeed, after the trial, jurors expressed outrage that the case had even come to court.
I wrote my book in hopes of showing the public what really went on during the Whitewater investigation, and to give voice to the often voiceless women I met in prison. It is in the same vein that I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.
Susan McDougal
Camden, Ark.
6148. jexster - 2/14/2003 8:20:21 PM
Here's a scary thought...from a friend:
One of my correspondents is taking bets around his office as to when the first American strikes on Iraq will take place. Sentiment heavily favors initial attacks this Sunday during the wee hours. The thinking is that Monday's holiday will provide an ideal cushion against a negative
response by the markets, and many of my friend's colleagues have bought into the Administration's rumored objective of capturing Saddam within 48 hours. Any bets, guys?
TORA TORA BORA???
6149. jexster - 2/14/2003 9:03:26 PM
Only 38% of the public thinks Bush knows what he is doing on the economy...
When you cannot find Osama
Bomb Iraq
When the polls head for the crapper
Bomb Iraq
6150. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/14/2003 9:05:49 PM
[Tyrants] "Decrease not, but grow faster than the years"
Happy VD Ace!
6151. jexster - 2/14/2003 9:07:57 PM
Here's one just for you Ace:
the U.S. commentariat, with few exceptions, describes Mr. Bush as a decisive leader who really gets to grips with problems. Tough-guy rhetoric aside, this image seems to be based on the following policy — as opposed to political — achievements: (1) The overthrow of the Taliban; (2) . . . any suggestions for 2?
In the days ahead, as the diplomatic confrontation between the Bush administration and the Europeans escalates, remember this: Viewed from the outside, Mr. Bush's America does not look like a regime whose promises you can trust.
Any suggestions for #2 little man?
6152. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:02:15 PM
How about a quote from "Green Eggs and Ham" in a post from the Bush Buttboy?
6153. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:08:57 PM
Guess Ace didn't like that....too bad...I do so love to fuck him up
Maybe he'll like this better...so come out, come out wherever you are.....I wanna play
[Reuters] FRANCE, RUSSIA GET LOUD APPLAUSE
Breaking protocol, delegates sitting in the gallery of the Security Council chamber applauded first French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and then Russia's Igor Ivanov, prompting German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, chairman of the meeting, to call for order.
There was no applause for Powell's comments.
I'm just a Buffalo Soldier
In the heart of America
Stolen from Africa, brought to America
Said he was fighting on arrival
Fighting for survival
Said he was a Buffalo Soldier
Win the war for America
6154. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/15/2003 1:17:12 AM
6155. concerned - 2/15/2003 2:51:56 AM
Applause is 'news'? Jexster must be getting desperate to find something to back up his viewpoint.
6156. concerned - 2/15/2003 2:56:39 AM
Why is this thread continuing to be cluttered with Iraq spam by jex?
6157. Trouble - 2/15/2003 3:48:54 AM
MSNBC viewers got a lively hour Wednesday night/late afternoon as Donahue came live from Los Angeles at 5pm PST/8pm EST with Dennis Miller as the guest for the hour. So much good stuff, but only so much time to transcribe it. But we got down some of the best parts.
Miller so flustered Donahue that he went on a rant about how people like Miller are trying to “marginalize” liberals. Becoming a parody of himself, Donahue whined about how “you’re making us to be some sort of wimpy kind of people who, woo, woo, we don’t get it. We don’t see evil. We think everything is a nice fairy tale. That is an attempt to marginalize us.”
Donahue also claimed to be a conservative Republican: “We do not think one man should have the Army, Navy, and Marines to send the war all by himself and without the advice and consent of Congress as the Constitution calls us, upon us to do. That makes me conservative. I’m for the Constitution. I would make a good Republican.”
When Donahue charged that dropping “incendiary devices on a crowded city at night where old people and children are sleeping” will give “Osama a poster for recruiting more angry young Islamic militants,” an incredulous Miller fired back: “Oh, you believe he needs that, Phil? Do you really believe that he needs that?”
Miller's best two humorous zingers of the night:
-- On the New York Times: “If only Saddam Hussein would open an all-male country club somewhere in Iraq, so the Times could get behind this invasion.”
-- On Osama bin Laden: “I think that he made a fatal error when he said that he didn’t approve of drinking wine or adultery. Because now the French and Clinton are on board.”
6158. jexster - 2/15/2003 6:20:16 AM
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 32
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 29, 2003
Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. BYRD ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to the actions the President should take before any use of military force against Iraq without the broad support of the international community.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that, before the President uses military force against Iraq without the broad support of the international community, the President should--
(1) provide full support to the United Nations weapons inspectors to facilitate their ongoing disarmament work; and
(2) obtain approval by Congress of new legislation authorizing the President to use all necessary means, including the use of military force, to disarm Iraq .
Write your congressthing....ask her to cosponsor this or the companion HRes
6159. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:14:14 AM
Not Your Parents' Protesters in Iraq Fight
Many of the latest brand of antiwar activists are first-timers from a wide spectrum of society. It's far different from the Vietnam-era mix
"We're not going to be the silent majority any longer," she recalled thinking.
The Latts plan to march again today, this time with Jenna's mother in tow. "She's real angry," Latt said of her mother.
6160. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:15:14 AM
Link
6161. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:18:17 AM
"You haven't lived until you have heard 'We Shall Overcome' sung in Arabic," National Council of Churches General Secretary Rev. Robert Edgar.
|
God bless Iraq
6162. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:18:39 AM
Toys
6163. judithathome - 2/15/2003 11:38:22 AM
If anyone has a subscription to Salon, and is so inclined, read Senator Robert Bryd's speech that is featured in Salon's Premium section. It's called "A Haunting Silence" and is very very good...yes, I know, Robert Bryd, yada yada yada with usual conservative snarking about him...I don't care. In this speech, he is dead on in his critcism of his fellow Democrats.
6164. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:20:13 PM
If you don't have a Salon subs. try The Senator's website!
The Administration's Dangerous Wartime Rhetoric
Reckless Administration May Reap Dangerous Consequences
6165. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:21:29 PM
CNN has correspondent's all over the world covering the 600+ demonstrations...the world has NEVER seen anything like this.
6166. judithathome - 2/15/2003 12:21:37 PM
Thanks, Jex..that's it.
6167. judithathome - 2/15/2003 12:21:45 PM
Thanks, Jex..that's it.
6168. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:22:05 PM
Bush is running out of time, not Saddam
6169. Trouble - 2/15/2003 1:02:20 PM
300 people show in NYC for anti-war demonstration and CNN does 15 minutes hyping it.
Click! Time to find that switcher.
6170. judithathome - 2/15/2003 1:04:43 PM
Got your hip waders on? It's that deep in here now.
300 people....riiiight.
6171. judithathome - 2/15/2003 1:08:09 PM
Where's our intrepid reporter from the babershop in downtown Podunk, MidAmerica? Joezan must need a haircut by now; he usually times them so he can amble by the local protesters and send us the latest on his snappy repartee with them.
6172. judithathome - 2/15/2003 1:11:52 PM
People in NYC can't even GET to the main protest site because the crowds are so huge...the overflow sites are filling the streets so much, people can't even get near the main site. Take your "300" and stuff it.
6173. robertjayb - 2/15/2003 2:47:49 PM
Every bad thing; I mean every bad thing---is Clinton's fault...(Krauthammer)
You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We now pay the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. Every major challenge to America was deferred. Chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road...
6174. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:14:50 PM
Anti-war protesters gather near the United Nations Headquarters Saturday, Feb 15, 2003 in New York to protest Bush's War Against Iraq. Demonstrations and protest marches against the war drew millions of people in cities around the world Saturday.
God bless Iraq
6175. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:35:52 PM
59th & Third
Just down the street from where I had an apt 59/Park
6176. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:36:40 PM
Looks as if they had "feeder" marches all over the place...that's a hike from the UN
6177. Cellar Door - 2/15/2003 3:42:07 PM
Amazing! Only 300 people in that picture.
6178. jexster - 2/15/2003 4:03:04 PM
Before a shot is fired King Moron has millions of people all over the world hating him enough to march in the dead of winter.
He has managed to squander all of the good will felt for this country post 9-11 and beyond that turn the good will into hatred.
That takes SOME doing.
That takes a MORON
6179. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:33:05 PM
A war of words on the French
By Jennifer HarperTHE WASHINGTON TIMES
Not much ooh-la-la out there, and very few bon mots. There are a lot of weasels, though, some monkeys, a rat and one poodle.
The French are not doing well in the American press. The New York Post cover featured a doctored color photo yesterday, depicting French and German delegates to the United Nations as a pair of weasels in fancy suits.
"Weasels to hear new Iraq evidence," the Post proclaimed. The paper also suggested that an ostrich was "the national bird of France" and earlier coined the term "axis of weasels." That phrase suffered in translation in the French press, translated as "axe des faux jetons," which means "axis of devious characters."
Weasel, in the meantime, is the current word of choice to describe European allies who undermine U.S. determination to disarm Iraq — "weasel unilateralism," as the Wall Street Journal put it yesterday.
Weasel has gotten as much play in the past 48 hours as "duct tape," and journalists haven't had this much fun since "Osama Yo' Mama"-style headlines surfaced after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
There have been some serious side effects, however. Rep. H. James Saxton, New Jersey Republican, has drafted a resolution that calls for a U.S. boycott of the Paris Air Show this spring. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, has called for a boycott of French wine and bottled water.
6180. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:35:14 PM
A growing Yankee boycott of French cheeses is evidence of the "fast-ripening stink over Iraq currently souring Franco-U.S. relations," according to one British account. Things are getting downright inventive in the press, meanwhile.
"Cheese-eating surrender monkeys," a phrase borrowed from "The Simpsons" cartoon show, recently surfaced in the National Review magazine and has been echoed in the global media for days. The French and Germans have been called "an alliance of wimps," while Belgium rated the title "mini-me minion."
6181. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:37:28 PM
John Gibson of Fox News Channel theorized that the Belgians had joined in with France and Germany because their army "was too old and too fat to fight anybody."
In the Wall Street Journal, French President Jacques Chirac was called "the rat that tried to roar," while The Washington Post used the term "oily" to describe French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.
"Next time the French need their chestnuts pulled from the fire, it either will or will not be in our interest to do it. If not: Hard cheese, Jacques," Human Events, a conservative newsweekly, stated yesterday, suggesting France change its tri-colored flag — removing the red and blue, but leaving the white.
The foreign press, of course, has increased its anti-American invective, bandying about terms such as "bullies" and "cowboys." One British tabloid published its own trick photo yesterday, depicting President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the verge of a kiss.
6182. Cellar Door - 2/15/2003 4:37:44 PM
MASSIVE TURNOUT IN SUPPORT OF BUSH!!!
Just look at those pictures. The camera doesn't lie!
6183. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:38:18 PM
The American media has also come under fire, accused of being a White House lapdog that likes "its tummy tickled." The National Journal rebuffed the charge yesterday with a column titled "The Poodle Speaks." The Paris media have reported on the anti-French vitriol emanating through the American and British press with an air of bemused incomprehension. "The French don't have a very good press in the United States these days," the left-wing daily Liberation wrote Monday. The conservative daily Le Figaro echoed pride in France's long tradition of Cartesian logic when it praised Mr. Villepin's plan for reinforced arms inspections in Iraq.
"Even if it worsens French-American relations, the attempt is in any event quite logical," the paper said. Pascal Boniface, a leading French world-affairs analyst, said Americans suffered from a Francophobia as bad as the anti-Americanism that's politically correct in France. "I was in the United States last week and couldn't turn on the television without hearing nonsense about France," he said.
But there is some method to the madness in the American and French media, said Robert Steele of the Florida-based Poynter Institute, a press-watchdog group. "C'est la vie," Mr. Steele said yesterday. "Journalists use sharp satire as entrees into very serious subjects. Humor can engage readers. But caricature should have some purpose."
The press should retain some thoughtfulness and civility after chuckles cease, he said. "I don't say there's no place for humor," Mr. Steele said. "But eventually, laughs don't make us any smarter on topics as serious as terrorism and war."
6184. Cellar Door - 2/15/2003 4:39:05 PM
VIVE LA FRANCE!!!!
6185. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/15/2003 4:44:08 PM
. . . and DUCT TAPE!!!
6186. arkymalarky - 2/15/2003 5:39:47 PM
Chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure nothing terrible happened on its watch.
Too bad that hasn't been the chief aim of Bush. I guess you could change "nothing" to "everything."
6187. jexster - 2/15/2003 6:12:14 PM
Amazing how one person could be so inept.
Millions everywhere all over the planet before the first refugee, the first death, the first bullet...
Only a fucking Moron could manage that...and they were all protesting HIM!
6188. jexster - 2/15/2003 6:13:37 PM
Good one Arky...It takes a Moron to argue against peace, prosperity at home and affection for this country abroad
6189. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:32:25 PM
Since it didn't seem he liked JAH's quote from Herm Goering, maybe Ace will enjoy:
Now, we talked to Joan Hanover. She and her husband, George, were visiting with us. They are near retirement—retiring—in the process of retiring, meaning they're very smart, active, capable people who are retirement age and are retiring. —Alexandria, Va., Feb. 12, 2003.
6190. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:32:56 PM
No wonder millions are in the streets in the dead of winter
6191. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:50:03 PM
An Open Letter to the People of Europe
Please sign this letter thanking our friends in Europe and asking them to stand in solidarity with us this weekend against the Bush administration's push to make war on Iraq
6192. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:55:17 PM
6193. concerned - 2/15/2003 11:47:45 PM
Kerry Undergoes Prostate Surgery
Not an encouraging sign for his chances at a presidential candidacy.
6194. concerned - 2/16/2003 12:00:49 AM
'What, me worry?'
Dennis, the Red Menace, plans to run for president.
6195. robertjayb - 2/16/2003 12:13:01 AM
The painful parts of Washington history have often been about men trying harder to save face than lives...(Maureen Dowd)...
6196. concerned - 2/16/2003 12:21:46 AM
Oh, boy. Moron Pan Dowdy.
6197. concerned - 2/16/2003 12:30:57 AM
Re. 6147 -
As you probably know, Starr obtained 14 convictions in the Whitewater investigation which also uncovered evidence whcih led to x42 being impeached.
When anybody asks, 'Is that all?', I figure they're either being disingenuous or are just ignorant.
6198. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:24:48 AM
US Military Feeling Strain of Bush's Perpetual War for Empire
6199. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:31:38 AM
The Pentagon is now so superior militarily that it really does not like to fight alongside its allies -- it feels they slow U.S. forces down. Yet the United States still needs allies, said retired Army Lt. Col. Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, "for forward basing, niche capabilities we find valuable, and to take care of the peacekeeping" that follows each war.
If the United States keeps pursuing military hegemony, Krepinevich and others fear, it will alienate its allies and become weaker in the long run.
The same point of course made by Wallerstein in the Eagle Has Crash Landed and others listed in my "over" post a few weeks back..
He the retire Lt.Col. a double dipping Marxist???
6200. arkymalarky - 2/16/2003 1:00:26 PM
Well, I will agree with you on one thing, Concerned, and that is that the Justice Department won't find anything nearing that on Bush and Cheney. In fact, I'll venture to say they won't find anything at all.
6201. judithathome - 2/16/2003 1:09:09 PM
I think you are 100% on the money on that one, Arky.
6202. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 2:21:36 PM
6203. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:34:16 PM
Over 200,000 in SF
"Mourning Mothers" held dolls intended to look like dead children as they protested any Bush invasion of Iraq
6204. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:34:59 PM
6205. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:35:43 PM
6206. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:36:49 PM
A Fine Use for Duct Tape!
6207. Cellar Door - 2/16/2003 7:38:18 PM
Mystery Lesbian Speaks at Last!
6208. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:54:50 PM
I must say Cllr that for a town that can't support a football team and that goes to its Dodgers games in the third, leaves in the 7th inning, 100,000+ is quite an achievement!
GOD BLESS IRAQ!
Hundreds of thousands cram SF's Civic Center and UN Plaza's to protest Bloody Bush's War Against Iraq
6209. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:01:16 PM
Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators marching against George Bush make their way along Market Street toward Civic Center/UN Plazas
6210. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:06:04 PM
Well-wishers greeted Joan Baez as she marched along Market Street.
6211. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:07:42 PM
Bonny Rait & Danny Glover Lead March Against Bush's War
6212. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:26:38 PM
CBS MarketWatch: Bush's Fiscal policy is a disaster waiting to happen. It will raise interest rates, stifle, then cripple the economy. Alan Greenspan put it plainly and you have to wonder why the major US media hasn't stated the obvious just as plainly"
When you don't know what the fuck you're doing
Bomb Iraq!
6213. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:48:12 PM
Da noive!
Osama Bin Laden called our King "stoopid"
Got Osama?
Got Anthrax?
Got Duct Tape?
Bomb Iraq!
6214. vonKreedon - 2/16/2003 11:37:30 PM
Heard Wesley Clark on Russert and was very impressed by his straightforward, well thought out and clearly stated positions. If he runs for President he may force the other Dems to grow at least the semblance of balls and take actual positions on the issues.
6215. arkymalarky - 2/16/2003 11:40:39 PM
Think you can stand another Arky Democrat Rhodes Scholar? ;-)
6216. wonkers2 - 2/16/2003 11:53:29 PM
Wesley Clark would make a good Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrat nominee. How about Kerry and Clark?
6217. vonKreedon - 2/16/2003 11:58:01 PM
Kerry hasn't been demonstrating the courage of his convictions and he comes across as even more boring than Gore. At this point I don't see a Dem who has the presence that is going to be needed to defeat Bush; Clark seemed in at least this one interview to have that presence.
6218. wonkers2 - 2/17/2003 12:00:27 AM
Well, what about the governor of Vermont, good old what's his name. That would be a ticket with a lot of brain power.
6219. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 12:00:44 AM
After watching Russert, my wife and I had this image of Rove gnashing his teeth over Russert's positioning Clark immediately after Rice. It was one of those moments where Rice looked and sounded good for the administration, but then Clark just looked all the better for looking and sounding better than Rice.
6220. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 12:01:38 AM
Yeah, Dean, I've read and heard good things about him, but haven't yet seen him in a media test like Russert.
6221. wonkers2 - 2/17/2003 12:03:24 AM
I was at the Michigan Democratic convention yesterday and Kerry was the only candidate with a booth there. It was manned by two very personable and enthusiastic young college student or recent grad types. They were signing up quite a few supporters judging from their sign-up sheets.
6222. wonkers2 - 2/17/2003 12:05:04 AM
I saw Rice on Fox but missed Clark. He does come across well on television. I remember that from the Bosnian campaign.
6223. wonkers2 - 2/17/2003 12:05:59 AM
He's so much smarter than most of the generals and admirals in the Pentagon that it's pitiful.
6224. ronski - 2/17/2003 8:47:21 AM
Dean has been tested and found wanting. Even though I disagree with him on many things he is sort of a hometown favorite for me (not that I would be likely to vote Democrat), given my time spent in Vermont. Everybody up there knows him, including my brother.
I doubt Clark will go anywhere, but he is the most interesting possibility in the race.
But I don't think Lieberman should be underestimated.
6225. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 9:55:15 AM
Ron - Tell me more about Dean's testing and failure.
6226. judithathome - 2/17/2003 10:30:40 AM
Dean is almost too sure of his ideas and came across in one interview I saw as scarily so...you have to remember you are talking about Democrats, who, for the past two years have shown absolutely no spine at all. They will be terrified of a snapping puppy and much more so of a full grown, determined St. Bernard set on saving the country.
He was impressive, to me, but I'm ready for someone to step up to the plate and call this administration on some of the things they are getting away with.
6227. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:02:58 AM
Butcher of Baghdad's Military Buildup Strains US Public Safety
God bless Iraq
6228. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:04:25 AM
I like Kerry and Clark. I like anyone and Clark better than what we have now, even Lieberman and Clark.
What we have now is mental and incompetent
6229. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:06:28 AM
Dean to Slam Bush War
6230. judithathome - 2/17/2003 11:21:43 AM
Dean charges that congressional Democrats, including three who are running for president, helped give Bush "a green light to drive our nation into conflict" last fall by supporting a resolution authorizing war against Iraq even without the support of the United Nations. Dean says he would have opposed that resolution.
"That the president was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who postured for position instead of standing on principle," Dean says.
This is not the sort of thing the Democrats want to hear even though it's waht they NEED to hear.
6231. ronski - 2/17/2003 1:26:09 PM
vonKreedon,
Dean's appearances on the talk shows did not elicit rave reviews from the punditocracy even though the media has been delighted by his candidacy.
And though he has been campaigning vigorously in the important caucus and primary states for quite a while now, he is still nowhere in the polls. I think it would take a miracle for him to go anywhere, but of course many people, myself included, have always suspected that he was angling for a VP spot.
You'll recall that it was being lieutenant governor that gave him the top spot in Vermont when the incumbent governor dropped dead.
But there is something intriguing about a pro-gun, anti-war candidate in the Democratic party primaries.
6232. jexster - 2/17/2003 2:29:59 PM
Californians march against war - Guardian UK
A day after demonstrators around the world had turned out to protest US and British plans to attack Iraq, Californians arrived fashionably late yesterday and swamped the streets of San Francisco in one of the largest rallies yet seen in the US against the war.
Between 150,000 and 250,000 people attended the march, carrying placards, chalking the city squares with peace signs and lying in the road to symbolise dead Iraqi civilians. One picket pictured Tony Blair being pulled along by a pit bull terrier in a George Bush mask, denouncing "mad dogs and Englishmen".
The US city best known for its counter-culture movement in the 1960s had postponed its demonstration by one day to allow the popular Chinese new year celebrations to take place on Saturday. But being a day late did not deter the chanting protestors, who filled 12 large city blocks stretching from the waterfront to City Hall.
Bay Area anti-war coalition building the beginnings of a rainbow /Anti-war movement galvanizing minorities
Ilana Friedman takes a whack at a George W. Bush pinata, created by Latinos Contra la Guerra
6233. jexster - 2/17/2003 3:19:44 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.
In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand.
The People v. the Moron
A New Power in the Streets
6234. Cellar Door - 2/17/2003 4:29:52 PM
Media Whores Online Pop Quiz:
>Q: What do all of these men have in common?
>David Brock
>Miguel Estrada
>Frank Bruni
>Matt Drudge
6235. robertjayb - 2/17/2003 4:35:22 PM
Coming soon to the whole freakin' country: The Bush Legacy!
AUSTIN - AP - An estimated 5,000 students would be denied free college tuition promised to them by the state because of cuts designed to ease a projected $10 billion budget shortfall, lawmakers were told today.
Texas Higher Education Commissioner Don Brown told members of the House Appropriations Committee that budget cuts would mean the Texas Grant scholarship program would not be able to provide aid to all of the estimated 80,000 students who will be eligible in 2004-05.
6236. arkymalarky - 2/17/2003 9:18:42 PM
We did that to ours, too, though the governor's saying it will be brought back. We'll see.
6237. wonkers2 - 2/18/2003 12:10:32 AM
It's pretty clear that our "compassionate" conservative president is out to cut taxes for the rich and gut federal government programs that benefit the elderly, minorities and the poor in this country, and those that protect the environment as well.
6238. thoughtful - 2/18/2003 12:40:56 PM
Kristof has a point
"Finally, Iraq. Mr. Bush and his aides, like Bobby Kennedy, dream things that never were and say why not. Mr. Bush imagines the transformative effect that a democratic, stable and prospering Iraq would have on the entire Arab world.
Maybe. But it would be helpful if he also had nightmares of things that never were, to understand how policies can go wrong. It seems equally possible that invading Iraq will trigger precisely the scenario we fear — Saddam handing out anthrax or even smallpox to terrorists — and that our invasion will lead thousands of young Arabs to join Al Qaeda. Instead of becoming safer, we could be in a more perilous state than ever."
6239. jexster - 2/18/2003 1:20:36 PM
Calling all Wilsonian naifs!
Mr. Bush's Liberal Problem
The president is sinking into an ineffectual foreign policy idealism just as the left seems to be growing out of it
The man has become a menance to us and to the world
6240. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/18/2003 1:38:03 PM
6241. wonkers2 - 2/18/2003 5:46:29 PM
Rove and Divine. Where do you get the cool ideas? But, of course, it's grossly unfair to Divine!
6242. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/18/2003 6:03:46 PM
Well wonk, in wartime, we must all make sacrifices.
I happened to spot a video of "Pink Flamingos" and the big forehead made me think of Boy Genius and how effeminately wimpy Rove's face is.
6243. jexster - 2/18/2003 11:52:17 PM
The Bush War Machine - The Pentagon is Leaking Again...
US plan for new nuclear arsenal
Secret talks may lead to breaking treaties
6244. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:07:14 AM
In the interest of intelligent debate and lively discussion, comments are welcome (especially from Eddie the Macho Moron) on any or all of the following points:
- If Bush were to honestly admit that the purpose of his war were Saddam from power, he would be admitting to a breach of international law and the UN charter's principles concerning non-interference in the internal affairs of another nation;
- In as much as it has always been clear and now inspections have confirmed that Saddam is neither a clear, present, imminent or grave threat to any state, especially the US, what justifies the escalation of Iraq to the top of the list of threats to world order?
- Why is the Iraqi threat greater than Al-Qaeda, North Korea, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Indo/Pakistan arms race, southern Africa, international crime, including drug traffiking, the threat of Marxist insurrection in Columbia?
- Isn't it a fac that Iraq is by no means the only potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, and has no proven link with the most dangerous of them.
- Isn't it a fact that Iraq has been subjected to such a degree of international scrutiny since 1991 that it would be impossible for Iraq to mount any threat of any consequence to any nation in the region?
- Isn't it hypocritical for the US to condemn Iraq for immaterial violations of a UN resolution, yet abstain when Israel is condemned for disregarding dozens?
- Can the US be relied upon to rebuild the Iraqi state that it destroyed given its failure to provide aid in Afghantistan and likewise given its refusal to commit troops to peace enforcement because they might be unpopular following the US bombing;
There's a starter.
I'll return to disembowel any foolish enough to tackle these.
Eddie have at it! 6245. jexster - 2/19/2003 2:10:16 AM
An Incompetent, Unstable, Unreliable, & Bloodthirsty Regime Faces the World's Wrath
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Nation after nation from all parts of the globe demanded weapons inspectors have a chance to disarm Iraq peacefully, defying intentions by the United States and Britain to seek a resolution authorizing war.
Reuters Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
British Leader Presses Case for Iraq War
(AP Video)
UN Chief Says War Is Not Inevitable
(AP Video)
Latest news:
• Bush: Protests Won't Change Iraq Policy
AP - 16 minutes ago
• U.S. Struggles for U.N. Support on Iraq
AP -22 minutes ago
• U.N. Inspectors Visit Iraqi Rocket Sites
AP - Tue Feb 18, 3:25 PM ET
Special Coverage
Only Australia, Japan, Argentina and Peru, in varying degrees, supported the tough U.S.-British position during 27 presentations on Tuesday by U.N. members who do not have seats on the 15-nation Security Council. Another 29 ambassadors address the council on Wednesday.
6246. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:04:26 AM
__On Feb. 26, Join the Virtual March on Washington
"MoveOn.org is hosting the online action center for the Virtual March on Washington on February 26th, sponsored by The Win Without War Coalition. Please sign up here to join us. On February 26th, every Senate office will receive a call every minute from a constituent, as they receive
a simultaneous crush of faxes and email. In Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, 'anti-war rooms' will highlight the progress of the day for national media. Local media will visit the 'anti-war room' online, to monitor this constituent march throughout the day. With your help, every
Senate office switchboard will be lit up all day with our anti-war messages. This will be a powerful reminder of the breadth and depth of opposition to a war in Iraq."
6247. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:39:36 AM
This is for Rose, Andrew Sullivans' #1 cheerleader, courtesy Howie Kurtz's column this am:
Andrew Sullivan, a big booster of Bush on the war, sees the U.S. getting stuck with a very big bill:
"The real effect of the current diplomatic train-wreck that is preceding the war against Saddam is not to derail the United States from living up to its responsibilities in enforcing vital U.N. resolutions. It is to isolate the U.S. in the post-Saddam settlement. It means that not only will this war be paid for almost entirely by Americans, with some allied support. It means that reconstruction will also have to come out of the paychecks of average Americans.
"The cost right now is incalculable. But no one believes it will be much short of crippling. And any attempt to use Iraqi oil revenues to defray the cost will not only be politically difficult, but is also dependent on Saddam's not doing all he can to sabotage the oil fields while he still can. Besides, the kind of commitment we're talking about may only last a few years in Iraq (if we're lucky) but will engage the U.S. deeply in that part of the world for at least a generation.
"Now take a look at the budget just presented to the Congress by the Bush administration. The first thing you'll notice is that there is no accounting for the cost of the coming war.
"Yes, in 2000 and after, a deflationary period probably merited some spending increases. Inflation had disappeared; the economy was in a post-bubble slump; deflation stalked the earth. But 18 percent? If a Democrat had done that, the Republicans would have been all over him. And rightly so."
Pay up suckers
6248. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:44:19 AM
6249. jexster - 2/19/2003 3:58:41 PM
America Cannot Afford George Bush
Brookings/Financial Times
This year's US budget proves that George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. In 1981, President Reagan signed massive tax cuts into law. The next year, realising that the budget outlook had deteriorated more than expected, he reversed about a third of the tax cut - limiting its adverse effects on the budget. Even with that adjustment, the nation suffered substantial budget deficits throughout the 1980s.
It is now clear that Mr Bush's tax cut of 2001 is also too large. In the face of pressing security needs and the coming retirement of the baby-boomers, the nation cannot afford it. Rather than reversing part of the tax cut, however, Mr Bush wants to expand it and make it permanent. The administration's budget proposes Dollars 1,460bn (Pounds 910bn) in new tax cuts over the next 10 years - and the result is unending deficits.
6250. magoseph - 2/19/2003 5:16:30 PM
Settle down and listen up
Time for a quick primer on French history. This means you, George Will
George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Hitler.
For you, concerned. One family I know very, very well indeed, lost seven men to duty from 1914 to 1945. The last one, sent to Germany to work, came home but died shortly after from tuberculosis.
6251. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:19:56 PM
Bon. C'est vrai aussi.
6252. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:29:22 PM
I wonder how do those 1.5 million dead stack up, in both relative and absolute terms, with US dead in both wars?
Pretty damned well I bet.
But these Bush yokels are well...yokels
And George Will?
Future generations of shallow and ill-educated people might conclude that since both Josef Göbbels and George Will never served in the military, and both wrote tirelessly in favor of war, and both practiced the lower forms of journalism, there must be a functional equivalence between the two. But who would now suggest such a far-fetched analogy?
The Third Reich Syndrome:
George Will and the Collapse of Historical Knowledge
DNI
of my personal favorites.
And what do you think Edmund?
6253. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:29:56 PM
What, cat got your tongue?
6254. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:38:42 PM
Here's another primer - On NATO, will appear in tommorrow's Christian Science Monitor
Taking NATO for granted - US needs a history lesson
A few days ago the French, Germans, and Belgians balked at the proposal that they should supply military hardware to the Turks in anticipation of an Iraqi attack on Turkey. Their refusal was effectively a veto of the mutual defense commitment that lies at the heart of the NATO charter. Or so it seems.
On hearing the news, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, went ballistic. She accused France and Germany of being ungrateful wimps who had forgotten that American soldiers saved them first from fascism and then from communism. She reminded her NATO allies that the cold war cost the US $ 15 trillion. This idea that NATO was something kind and generous that the US did for Europe is a common assumption among Americans. But Ms. Rice should know better. She should realize that NATO was nothing more than cold-war realpolitik that suited the Americans as much as it did the Europeans.
So here's a little history lesson.....
* Gerard DeGroot is a professor of modern history at St. Andrews University in Scotland
6255. magoseph - 2/19/2003 5:41:34 PM
Jex,
My older son is getting married this spring and he's to receive some heirlooms. So this morning while I was cleaning a Directoire dress épée for him, I decided to look at a photo album because I had just read an Iwin link in another forum. Made me think, all that, I tell you. You'd think that a George Will would know better, wouldn't you?
6256. jexster - 2/19/2003 8:01:17 PM
Its Not Americans the French Hate - Its Bush
6257. magoseph - 2/19/2003 8:17:21 PM
It is important to note that Bill Clinton enjoys an enduring and formidable popularity not only within the French political establishment but also among average French citizens. So does Hillary Clinton, who is highly regarded in France as a champion of women's rights.
I just knew it. It's all Hillary's fault.
6258. jexster - 2/19/2003 9:12:02 PM
It's time for Democrats who oppose George W. Bush's push for war with Iraq to shut up.
Congressional Democrats, in particular, should muzzle their criticism of the president. Instead of publicly questioning his reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, they should voice strong support for the men and women Bush will send into battle -- and give the president no reason to blame them for the bad things that almost certainly will result from his handling of this situation
If Democrats lay low on war, Bush will defeat himself
USA Today
Bullshit!
Bush is going down and this country with him. This is no time for patriots to keep silent.
6259. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/19/2003 11:49:36 PM
FYI Depatment:
The War Behind Closed Doors, PBS, FrontLine, Feb 20, 9:00pm.
Check Here for local listings . . .
FRONTLINE examines the hidden story of what is really driving the Bush administration to war with Iraq. The investigation asks whether the publicly reported reasons--fear of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or a desire to insure and protect America's access to oil--are only masking the real reason for the war. Through interviews with well-placed sources in and outside of the administration, FRONTLINE unravels a story known only to the Washington insiders.
6260. concerned - 2/19/2003 11:55:28 PM
re. 6250 -
I don't doubt at all that the average Frenchman has become used to the effective incompetence and treasonous behavior of his military and civilian leadership. But when they try to elevate these shortcomings to being some sort of mark of superiority and associate them with somehow being French, they make themselves ridiculous.
6261. concerned - 2/20/2003 1:03:10 AM
Lefties want yet another conspiracy theory? How about the Jews downing the Columbia? That's right - some on the Left are claiming this with complete seriousness, in order to distract from Iraq doncha know? I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the WoW, cllrdr or jexster take this up any day now.
6262. concerned - 2/20/2003 1:05:16 AM
Who wants to play the 'distract from Iraq' conspiracy game?
6263. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:49:24 AM
Hey who wants to play "wag the dog'?
6264. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:50:29 AM
We are witnessing the end of George W. Bush.
The only question is -how many others' ends?
6265. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:51:42 AM
Don't you argee Edmund?
6266. Macnas - 2/20/2003 3:45:29 AM
re 6261
concerned,
Are you sure about that? is there a link or something you might give?
I would have thought that this kind of nonsense traditionally comes from the ultra-right turner diary reading bigots. You'll have to let me know who exactly is on your "Left" list. And yes, I know, I am on the list already.
6267. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:33:15 PM
Re. 6266 -
Why would you imagine most conspiracy theories emanate from the right?
Just about every conspiracy theory blaming Jews or the US for something, and they're manifold, derive from the Left. Example: virtually all the 9/11 conspiracy theories are Left Wing.
6268. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:35:45 PM
You're right about one thing, Macnas. Most conspiracy theories are garbage. But saying the Pentagon or Israel hatched 9/11 or that the US is involved with Iraq only for oil is just a sample of typical LW conspiracy mongering.
6269. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:39:50 PM
In fact,I submit that most of the 'suspicion' of US conservatives is based primarily on LW conspiracy theories.
6270. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:40:29 PM
Not ONLY for oil. Its also for Empire. And its also because Bush has lost his marbles and is an imbecile. And its also because the neocons want to create a martial state.
Sheesh
6271. Macnas - 2/20/2003 12:41:33 PM
Putting a pentagon/israeli plot to commit 9/11 and US interest Iraq's oil in the same catagory is nearly too rich even for you.
And I would disagree with you on where most conspiracy theories come from. I would still like to know what defines a "Leftist" in your view. I'm begining to think its anyone who holds a different opinion to yours.
6272. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:42:18 PM
Macnas -
I'd like to see your comments on the fresh conspiracy theories jexster just plopped down in the last post.
6273. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:43:51 PM
And its also because Republican religious nut jobs think that they're going to the Rapture.
Times of London cartoon accompanying story - England's most senior Archbishops (Rowan, Cantaur & Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor slam Blair's "moral" argument for war
6274. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:44:27 PM
Re. 6271 -
Macnas -
But it's the stuff that many Euro Lefties dote on since its the subject of a best selling book in France.
Leftists define themselves, typically by who they claim to oppose. Or are you asking me to believe that you who claim to be Left are simply lying for the fun of it?
Gimme a break.
6275. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:44:38 PM
Bush's problem is no one believes him, save the most unsavory of the lunatic fringe
6276. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:46:10 PM
Macnas -
Here's a little secret you're apparently not aware of. People who call themselves or belong a political party who call themselves 'Socialists' are....get ready...make sure you're sitting down for this....
Left wing.
6277. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:47:50 PM
I really hope Macnas will not now claim that nobody has ever associated socialism with the left.
6278. Macnas - 2/20/2003 1:31:31 PM
concerned
I don't agree with everything jexters says or links.
But I don't believe in swallowing every official line either, and I find questioning that, in whatever form takes your fancy, to be healthy.
In answer, as best I can, Yes I do believe that oil is a big factor in the current crisis, yes I do believe that a certain amount of empire building is one of the aims of current U.S. foreign policy.
No I do not believe that your president has gone mad, and I do not understand what "neocons want to create a martial state" means.
6279. Macnas - 2/20/2003 1:34:57 PM
concerned
If you can control your condescension for a moment, The British Labour Party are on which side of the political divide?
6280. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 1:36:28 PM
Isn't that The British New Labour Party?
6281. Macnas - 2/20/2003 1:39:12 PM
As in "new and improved"?
I don't think concerned will be fooled by such a cosmetic device as inserting the word "New" into their name. He's got those lefties pegged.
6282. Macnas - 2/20/2003 1:40:22 PM
And before I'm told off I apologise for diverting the main thrust of this thread.
6283. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 2:50:13 PM
Mac - Actually I think that the New meant, more like the Tories, much like the US Democratic Leadership Council's New Democrat meant, more like the Republicans.
6284. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 4:25:52 PM
6285. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 4:31:50 PM
I'd swear I saw that graphic somewhere else recently.
6286. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 4:34:11 PM
You couldn't have—I just finished it this afternoon.
6287. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 4:34:57 PM
Perhaps in the Iraq thread.
6288. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 4:36:16 PM
Can I look forward to also seeing in the International and the News & Current Events threads?
6289. Al D - 2/20/2003 4:47:22 PM
magoseph
We have a moment of agreement. Trashing the French is idiotic. Not only do we owe them a debt of gratitude for their help during the i8th Century, they have never been our enemies. Evie and I spent a month in France last year, and I have never met nicer people anywhere.
6290. concerned - 2/20/2003 5:09:30 PM
Re. 6281 -
Macnas -
No need to be ashamed of Lefties on my account.
6291. concerned - 2/20/2003 5:16:08 PM
IMO, nothing says exemplifies Frenchness more than the Second Empire. Eugenie had some portraits done of her as classical heroines that are absolutely hilarious.
6292. concerned - 2/20/2003 5:19:14 PM
oops - delete 'says' in my last.
6293. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 6:33:46 PM
Beat the Press-
Does the White House have a blacklist?
6294. magoseph - 2/20/2003 7:01:05 PM
Hey, Wiz, that's a good one.
6295. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:13:15 PM
magoseph -
That's weak stuff indeed, compared to this.
Don't tell me you've forgotten, already.
6296. jexster - 2/20/2003 7:15:14 PM
San Jose Mercury News :
The greatest cheers at a raucous town meeting Tuesday night in Santa Cruz came from these suggestions:
• Local elected officials should declare Santa Cruz County a sanctuary for draft resisters.
• President Bush (news - web sites) is a ``madman'' who should be impeached for treason and tried at The Hague (news - web sites) for war crimes.
• Activists should stage a national strike to stop the imminent war in Iraq.
Five hundred people filled the Del Mar Theatre for the meeting. About 50 people -- all but a handful against war with Iraq -- spoke, urging Rep. Sam Farr, D-Salinas, to help change U.S. foreign policy, which they said was being viewed with increasing disgust around the world.
6297. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:22:55 PM
Heady stuff, that.
6298. jexster - 2/20/2003 7:23:30 PM
The Road to This Hell is Paved With Bush Fuck Ups - J. Judis - LA Times
With the Cold War's end, many Americans thought we could close our air raid shelters and take the trillions of dollars that had gone into the military and put them into making our lives better by turning toward the pursuit of happiness rather than the defense of our liberty. And some of that did happen in the last half of the 1990s, during the Clinton-era boom. But only three years into a new century, the United States finds itself plagued by rising unemployment, soaring budget deficits, constricted civil liberties, the threat of terrorist attack and the prospect of a war with, and occupation of, Iraq. We've gone from the best of times to the worst of times. The Bush administration tells us that it is entirely because of Al Qaeda and now Saddam Hussein that we face these difficulties, but the dark clouds that hang over our country are largely the result of Bush administration policies.
6299. jexster - 2/20/2003 7:25:27 PM
If you thought that was heady, what did you think about the 2.5 million in Rome, the 2 million in London, and the 1/4 Million in SF?
What's the RNC going to do to top THAT?
That would be a "booboisie" riot that even King Moron couldn't afford.
6300. jexster - 2/20/2003 7:29:31 PM
Osama Praises Bush for Making his Dreams Come True
"My plan is working well. When I, Osama bin Laden, ordered the blessed events of Sept. 11, I hoped to provoke an apocalyptic conflict between the faithful and the infidels. And not only is that happening, but also the Americans and Europeans are breaking up their alliance. Indeed, the Americans are so desperate to destroy Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with the righteous destruction of the World Trade Center - that they don't care if they antagonize the major countries of all Eurasia. Happy is the man who watches his enemies fight each other. My audiotape, released Tuesday, has sealed the fate of that socialist apostate, Saddam Hussein. I see Colin Powell on CNN saying it proves a 'nexus' between my al-Qaida and his Iraq. Hah. As I said on that tape, the only connection between me and my enemies is my swordpoint hitting their neck." So writes Jim Pinkerton, former Poppy policy wonk, in his Newsday column.
James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns.
Pinkerton is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big Government--And the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He is also a contributor to the Fox News Channel
6301. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 8:39:34 PM
Thanks mags!
6303. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:06:55 PM
The George W. Diet
Lose unsightly pounds by eating like a pig - Kinsley
6304. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:49:28 PM
To: "IAC-SF"
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:21:37 -0500
From: International Action Center
Subject: [IAC-SF] MARCH 15: Emergency Anti-War Convergence on the White House - Parallel convergence in SF at Civic Center
SATURDAY, MARCH 15:
Emergency Anti-War Convergence on the White House.
Parallel convergence & march in San Francisco.
Gather at Civic Center Plaza,11 a.m.
6305. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:50:37 PM
That's great Wiz....the next thing in toons i spose...like Mark Fiore @ SFGate
6306. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 10:29:57 PM
Test
6307. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 10:31:08 PM
Test
6308. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 10:53:22 PM
That StopEsso widget is an amazing piece of animation.
6309. arkymalarky - 2/20/2003 11:40:32 PM
?
6310. arkymalarky - 2/20/2003 11:48:36 PM
Wiz,
I removed that post because I couldn't see the ones below it, but I left it in the HTML thread because I could. I don't know what the difference was, but if you can figure it out, just repost it.
6311. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:23:21 AM
6312. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2003 10:32:37 AM
Apoligies to all for the problematic post.
The Sorceror's Apprentice strikes again!
6313. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:47:18 PM
Here Comes the Republican Guard!
6314. OhioSTOPAS - 2/22/2003 9:53:13 AM
Here's another kick in the teeth to our men and women in the military from President "Help is on the way!"
6315. judithathome - 2/22/2003 10:18:02 AM
and when both houses of Congress are controlled by the president's party
And just how do you suppose they're going to vote?
The thing that is so stupid about this is that the families living off base have no choice; base housing only serves a few of the many who need it and there is a long, long wait to even be considered for acquiring base housing. Otherwise, the majority of the space allotted to military bases would be nothing but housing for personnel.
6316. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:28:29 AM
If Your Stratery Fella Meets With Al Qaeda BOMB IRAQ
Rove Met With Terrorist - WPost
6317. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:31:22 AM
Actually it was a PAL terrorist - alleged - the guy that Jeb has been yelping about but who cares?
They all look alike.
6318. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:58:00 AM
GOP Extortion Ended GAO Cheney Suit - The Hill
6319. jexster - 2/22/2003 11:10:17 AM
The New Superpower - The World v. the Moron
LA City Council Votes to Oppose Bush War
Los Angeles Joins More Than 100 US Cities Including Chicago & Philly
6320. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/22/2003 11:16:05 AM
"Read My Lips!"
6321. jexster - 2/22/2003 12:13:30 PM
Isn't it heartening to read about the BILLIONS Bush is spending to buy off Turkey, "his good friend"?
Deficits hitting record levels, tax cuts for the super rich, states going begging, Medicare/Medicaid getting savaged, Aids Drug Assistance being cut in several states to the point where in Texas and others there are waiting lists....but the Turk is doing very well thank you.
That dimwitted immoral bucket of piss
6322. jexster - 2/22/2003 12:14:07 PM
and what about the Martial Plan for Afghanistan there Edmundo?
Idiot.
6323. jexster - 2/22/2003 2:48:26 PM
I must received an email
Ami Al-Arian, his wife, Nahla, right, and children pose with presidential candidate George W. Bush and wife Laura in a March 2000 family photo.
Photo Credit: Courtesy Sami Al-arian Via AP
Without a web site I cannot post the happy picture that I received, but I am on the case!
6324. jexster - 2/22/2003 2:52:21 PM
I am SO fuckin GOOD!
Sami Al-Arian, holding daughter Lama, 6, center, with son Abdullah, 19, left, daughter Laila, 18, foreground left, daughter Leena, 14, center, wife Nahla, center right, and son Ali, 9, foreground left, pose for a photo with presidential candidate George W. Bush and wife Laura in this March 12, 2000 family photo in Plant City, Fla. Others, extreme right, are unidentified.
6325. jexster - 2/22/2003 4:10:47 PM
"We are all supporters of Hamas"
6326. Edmund Dantes - 2/22/2003 7:03:50 PM
Reverend Al wants you, Jester
Sure he aint a man in uniform, but he's got good hair.
Ditch that demagogic Stalinist from Baghdad and start kneeling for Sharpton, Professor Bedpan.
6327. Cellar Door - 2/22/2003 7:49:07 PM
Sharpton is your Dog & Pony Show, dear.
My candidate is Howard Dean.
6328. Cellar Door - 2/24/2003 11:43:40 AM
MY what a "coincidence"!
6329. magoseph - 2/24/2003 12:51:48 PM
How do you like your radio, folks?
Yes, they like it raunchy. Most people listen to radio alone in their cars, where no one needs to be PC, where it's still OK to insult women and minorities and foreigners, and no one has to fear being slapped with a harassment charge.
6330. magoseph - 2/24/2003 1:04:30 PM
About Message # 6329
And it's OK to chuckle at that coarse humor and still vote Democratic. The PC brigades may find this hard to believe, but shock jocks do quite well with black listeners and with traditional Democratic demographics, such as college graduates and city dwellers. No, Stern and Don Geronimo and Tom Leykis have no interest whatsoever in having Dick Gephardt on the show, at least not unless he's going to remove his pants. And no, they would say, there's no politics on their shows. (Sabo tells DJs who want to be talk-show hosts: "If the topic is national politics, abortion, gun control, death penalty, religion, race, we have no interest. If the topics are movies, TV, personal relationships, your strong personal feelings, stuff about the workplace—things people under 90 talk about, we'd love to hear your tape.") But even if Stern wannabes don't address abortion directly, their daily diet of searingly intimate conversation with callers hits many of those hot-button issues, and they do it almost unfailingly from a left-libertarian perspective—they are classic social liberals.
6331. magoseph - 2/24/2003 1:05:13 PM
Well, say something, concerned, please!
6332. concerned - 2/24/2003 1:38:47 PM
Re. 6331 -
First off, I hardly ever listen to 'talk radio' because I'm usually more interested in catching the weather & traffic reports, for one. Secondly, while talk radio is a good deal more informative than television fare or word of mouth regarding these matters, I prefer online media & reading newspaper articles & editorials (many of which are available online) because they are more informative & accurate than either.
As far as insulting minorities, women, etc., 'in private', I'm not comfortable around people who do so, nor do I even meet any that do, for the most part. What I post in the Mote is consistent with the types of things I say in private.
6333. concerned - 2/24/2003 1:42:10 PM
Re. 6330 -
I think a big reason that today's LW viewpoints are largely limited to sound byte media has a great deal to do with how much examination they can bear.
6334. concerned - 2/24/2003 1:43:28 PM
Even Noam Chomsky can't get much traction out of claiming that the US is a 'terrorist state' among people with means including free discourse.
6335. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/24/2003 2:50:31 PM
6336. magoseph - 2/24/2003 4:05:45 PM
concerned, who is LW?
6337. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/24/2003 4:07:05 PM
Left Wing
6338. magoseph - 2/24/2003 5:07:28 PM
Thanks, Wiz. I should have known that.
6339. OhioSTOPAS - 2/24/2003 5:30:25 PM
Jesus really is Bush's favorite political philosopher!
From today's USA Today:
"[President Bush] is a leader who takes terrible risks, yet not only seems but actually is serene and confident, almost immune to temptations to fidget or second-guess.
"The explanation is Bush's spirituality. He really does believe that after he has done his best to make the right decision, the rest is up to God. . . ."
Although it's nice he can be so "serene," I'd like the President to try a little harder to make the right decision instead of leaving it "up to God". Frankly, for the last two years He's been doing a lousy job.
6340. OhioSTOPAS - 2/24/2003 5:39:26 PM
And then there's this startling assessment of Bush by Washington insider David Gergen:
Instrument of Providence
Prof. GERGEN: Well, to--to--to come back to your original question about the role of religion in his life, because I do think that's been an extraordinarily important part of this--what we've--this tableau that's unfolded here recently--this is a man who, after all, found God in his life and--and religion became his anchor when he was in his early 40s. And I think it has been a guiding part of his life ever since. He reads the Bible regularly. And there's no question that his religion fortifies him now during this time, his religious beliefs, so that I think he feels more able to do things. Even if they--if it courts public opinion disasters, I think he's willing to do things that he thinks are necessary.
One of the interesting questions that I don't think anybody knows the answer to is whether, to--to--to some extent, he believes that--that providence intervened in his life at an earlier stage and whether, somehow, providence is now on the side of America and that he somehow may be an instrument of providence that--par--part of what he's on, as Robert Dallek suggested, is a mission that has so--some sort of theological roots. I don't think we know that. I think it's--I do think we know that religion is an incredibly important part of who he is, and it's helped him enormously.
MATHISEN: Right.
Prof. GERGEN: I don't think we know to what extent he is reli--that--that this is almost a religious-type mission that he's on.
6341. OhioSTOPAS - 2/24/2003 5:42:54 PM
Fixing the link:
Instrument of Providence
6342. magoseph - 2/24/2003 5:44:35 PM
The Blinding Glare of His Certainty
The world might have more confidence in the judgment of this President if he weren't always bathed in the blinding glare of his own certainty.
6343. arkymalarky - 2/24/2003 6:06:03 PM
Then why can't we just dump Bush and have God be president?
6344. jexster - 2/25/2003 10:01:46 AM
Saturday, Mar. 1, 10 am - all day
MASS MAILING PARTY FOR MAR.15 NATIONAL PROTESTS
Join us at the ANSWER office -- 2489 Mission St., Rm. 30 (near 21st) in San Francisco - for a mass mailing to get the word out to thousands about the next step for the anti-war movement: Mar. 15 mass actions in Washington, DC
and San Francisco.The mailing will start at 10 am and volunteers are needed all day. No experience necessary!
For more info call 415-821-6545.
6345. jexster - 2/25/2003 10:55:02 AM
Sooner or later, little Eddie will show her fat ass around here.
The sooner the better.
WORD UP. This bud's for you!
Perle Says Bush Regime was Criminally Negligent in Permitting 9-11 Attack to Occur
This was an astonishing exchange on Meet the Press:
"RICHARD PERLE: The lesson of September 11 was that you shouldn't have been voting on September 12 because we should have acted against al-Qaeda before that. We saw the camps. We heard the communications. We knew that they were planning additional acts of terror as they had undertaken previous acts of terror. And we waited. We failed to take action in a timely manner...
REP. KUCINICH: Are you saying that to be critical of President Bush? Is that what you're saying?
MR. PERLE: I'm critical of the failure to recognize the threat that Osama bin Laden posed before- everything we did after September 11 could have been done before September 11."
6346. jexster - 2/25/2003 11:10:20 AM
How much will Bush's war cost YOUR city or state?
LA - $834,800,000
San Jose - $378,700,000
SF- $279,200,000
NYC- $2,379,300,000
The Cost of Bush's Invasion
CITIES
STATES
6347. jexster - 2/25/2003 12:11:23 PM
Don't Mess With Texus!
Governors' Conference Slams Bush - Texas Gov. Perry Goes Home in a Snit
"Democrats sharply criticized Bush's budget proposals, while even fellow Republicans questioned the details. There also was some dismay that the governors' association, seeking a unified position on behalf of the states, was too harsh in assessing Bush's spending plan. Bush's successor as Texas governor, Republican Rick Perry, quit the organization, partly to save $160,000 in annual fees and partly because he was unhappy with what he believed was its criticism of the Bush administration, 'Open criticism of the resident is not an approach Governor Perry favors' spokeswoman Kathy Walt said."
6348. jexster - 2/25/2003 12:45:23 PM
I guess they do thangs diffurnt in Tejas cause we sure are fucking up in the Kingdom of Moronia.
For the first time ever, King Moron will deploy a major weapons system without operational testing.
There go your tax dollars!
>Bush Insists on Deploying Missile Defense Shield Even if It Doesn't Work
As CBSMarketWatch and David Gergen confirm - Bush has lost his marbles.
Will the US survive until we can rid ourselves of this nutter?
6349. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 1:56:13 PM
Religion has helped Bush enormously, especially politically.
6350. jexster - 2/25/2003 2:01:13 PM
Watch your mouth Wonk!
Depends if you think Zan's freaky fundies = genuine religion.
6351. jexster - 2/25/2003 2:02:26 PM
Economists Warn: W-ar Isn't The Only Way Bush is Fucking Up the US Economy
6352. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 2:06:00 PM
Just now on Jerry Gross's Fresh Air Krugman called Bush's lying to the public about his programs unprecedented in American history.
6353. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 2:10:06 PM
To illustrate Bush's Pinocchio tendencies, Krugman repeated a story from one of his columns about a liberal and a Bushie in a bar when Bill Gates walked in. And the Bush conservative remarked "This is our lucky day, the average net worth of everybody in this bar just went up by $20 billion."
6354. jexster - 2/25/2003 2:10:56 PM
what is Fresh Air???
6355. jexster - 2/25/2003 2:17:41 PM
Certainly isn't in Bush-ville these days...
Critics Decry Bush Plan to Develop New Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is this dipshit nuts or what?
6356. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 2:23:31 PM
"Fresh Air" is an NPR show hosted by Jerry Gross. She interviews a variety of guests ranging from politicos to musicians to actors. Similar to Diane Rehm's show but more oriented toward arts and entertainment. She followed up Krugman with an interview with Bartlett Editor? of the Wall Street Journal who thinks Bush's tax program was great, not because the economy needs stimulus but rather as needed basic structural tax reform. He conceded that Bush is using the current unfavorable economic situation as an excuse to push his tax reform agenda.
6357. robertjayb - 2/25/2003 2:46:06 PM
Terry Gross
6358. jexster - 2/25/2003 3:43:21 PM
Sheesh all you brainiacs and your NPR....me I listen to San Francisco Live 105! where nobody thinks about Bush's Empire but rather we ponder questions such as "Does Live 105 Suck? - a LIVE poll" 6359. jexster - 2/25/2003 3:44:07 PM
God bless Iraq
6360. magoseph - 2/25/2003 3:55:41 PM
So how did you vote, Jex?
6361. Cellar Door - 2/25/2003 4:15:26 PM
Boycott Everyone!
6362. magoseph - 2/25/2003 5:05:21 PM
If we boycott everything, where will I get my Paté de Foie Gras, my Grand-Marnier, my Occitane, mes savons, mes Marrons Glacéés? My family won't send them, they would want me to get them myself.
Maybe if I make a contribution to Alistair's Green Party...
6363. magoseph - 2/25/2003 5:06:46 PM
Tonight Crossfire will talk about boycotting French products.
6364. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 5:23:39 PM
Thanks, rjb.
6365. jexster - 2/25/2003 5:28:17 PM
Today's SF Chronicle carries an article from the Washington Post confirming something that I have been saying for nearly a year now - Bush's Iraq policy is now and always has been a lie or as Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment's non-proliferation staff put it in an article in yesterday's Post "a con job" designed "to deceive" other nations and the American people.
The SF Chron also has an article on the lastest CA public opinion survey:
62% of Californians OPPOSE Bush's War for Empire
Don't worry ma cherie, there will be NO boycott in the Golden State.
Just lower prices. Send all the Chateau Margaux and foie gras ya want to.
Who gives a fuck about Texas anyway?
Sorry JAH/Robert.
6366. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2003 5:29:05 PM
6367. magoseph - 2/25/2003 5:42:58 PM
Good, Jex! Time to pack up and move there. I have been thinking about it for a long time now.
6368. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2003 5:56:12 PM
6369. jexster - 2/25/2003 7:41:29 PM
Oh the French LOVE San Francisco! Not sure about how they feel re: SoCali...probably don't like it much...youse people have taste.
6370. magoseph - 2/25/2003 7:42:06 PM
Well, I consider muself entitled to post a silly link
6371. jexster - 2/25/2003 7:42:48 PM
Welcome to Bush's Brave New World Order
6372. magoseph - 2/25/2003 7:47:12 PM
My link is much better than your last one, Jex.
6373. jexster - 2/25/2003 7:50:40 PM
Off topic some but since I am responding to french bashing mago, I live a few blocks from and my parish church is next door to..
Bienvenue sur le site LIFA!
Le Lycée International Franco-Américain et sa section lycée, guidés par des principes de rigueur académique, dispensent une éducation bilingue de très haut niveau dans un riche environnement multiculturel. Informations additionnelles
And your link was great except I posted the pic weeks ago.
Have to get up early in le matin there mags.
6374. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 10:02:19 PM
Nearly all of Bush's policies are lies. He's the biggest liar in my memory.
6375. arkymalarky - 2/25/2003 10:31:59 PM
Don't know if this has been linked before, but Dad's got a new favorite website: News from the Whitehouse
6376. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2003 11:51:14 PM
They do wonderful parodies, arky!
6377. OhioSTOPAS - 2/26/2003 7:17:52 PM
Today President Bush said,
"By blocking a vote on Miguel Estrada, some Democrats in the Senate are flaunting the intention of the United States Constitution and the tradition of the United States Senate, itself."
You meant FLOUTING (not "flaunting"), Mr. President. Fire that speechwriter!
6378. OhioSTOPAS - 2/26/2003 7:19:11 PM
(And of course, Democrats aren't flouting - or even flaunting - anything.)
6379. judithathome - 2/26/2003 7:35:51 PM
It probably wasn't the speechwriter; it was probably the reader.
6380. jexster - 2/26/2003 8:19:40 PM
The Sunshine Patriot[s]
Tom Delay, [concerned] and the Party of Appeasement
6381. jexster - 2/26/2003 8:22:37 PM
It's easy to see why DeLay is angry. In his speech, Dean called the war a "quagmire" and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would "drag on," costing billions of dollars. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw them "before the body bags start coming home."
Maybe if Dean had stopped there, his remarks could have been shrugged off. But he went further. He accused the president of double standards and twisted priorities, implying ulterior motives. "North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead with their nuclear program with no consequences whatsoever," Dean charged. And despite the bombing of Afghanistan, he observed, "Osama Bin Laden still represents a threat to thousands of American lives."
That was bad enough, but Dean wasn't finished. He suggested that the United States should curb its warlike impulses to avoid offending other countries. "The White House has bombed its way around the globe," he sneered. "International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." As for the current war plan, Dean complained that "no one wants us to be there" and that the president's crusade "has made the Russians jittery and has harmed [our] standing in the world."
Then there was the creepy way Dean kept referring to the president. He called the showdown "Bush's undeclared war" and "Bush's bombing campaign." He described it as something "the president has put us into" and warned his audience, "We should think very, very seriously whether we are going to take ownership of the bombing"—as though the president weren't the nation's commander in chief. He urged Congress to de-fund the war and "pull out the forces we now have in the region."
Dean essentially called the United States the war's villain.
6382. jexster - 2/26/2003 8:22:53 PM
Twice now in the past decade, the overwhelming military and economic dominance of the US has given it the chance to lead the rest of the world by example and consensus. It could have adopted (and to a very limited degree under Clinton did adopt) a strategy in which this dominance would be softened and legitimised by economic and ecological generosity and responsibility, by geopolitical restraint, and by 'a decent respect to the opinion of mankind', as the US Declaration of Independence has it. The first occasion was the collapse of the Soviet superpower enemy and of Communism as an ideology. The second was the threat displayed by al-Qaida. Both chances have been lost - the first in part, the second it seems conclusively. What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind. Anatol Lieven
6383. jexster - 2/26/2003 8:26:52 PM
They were said on the House floor four years ago—on March 11, April 28, and May 6, 1999—about President Clinton's war in Kosovo. And they were said not by Howard Dean, but by Tom DeLay.
6384. Al D - 2/26/2003 9:36:48 PM
North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead with their nuclear program with no consequences whatsoever," Dean charged
This is not from a Bush speach, but as long as it was from a Dem. runing for President it interested no one. Does it make Dean a moron? Of course not. If One were to make fun a Dean for a mistake that almost anyone could make would be silly. Of course neither arky nor OhioStopas are capable of mistakes.
6385. arkymalarky - 2/26/2003 11:47:08 PM
What in the Sam Hill are you on about, Al?
6386. concerned - 2/27/2003 3:02:51 AM
Al Franken a sinister Rush Limbaugh wannabe? Now, that's funny.
6387. concerned - 2/27/2003 3:08:47 AM
Re. 6382 -
Haven't you spammed this same old crap enough times? Or do you think everybody is as hard of remembering as you are?
6388. alistairConnor - 2/27/2003 4:54:03 AM
Al is talking about the word "flaunt".
"North Korea continues to flaunt international law
some Democrats in the Senate are flaunting the intention of the United States Constitution
Sigh. The language is moving on. Looks like "flaunt" is now a synonym of "flout", instead of its opposite.
Personally, I think that journalists ought to be literate enough to correct mistakes like that in the transcripts.
6389. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2003 6:32:53 AM
Al (Message # 6384): The misuse of "flaunt" that you cite comes not from Howard Dean, but rather from Tom DeLay. (See the last paragraph of the article Jexster cites.)
6390. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2003 6:34:44 AM
By the way, the President correctly used "flout" in his televised speech last night. It looks like yesterday afternoon somebody got his speechwriter a dictionary!
6391. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:23:37 AM
White Palace WMT Counter-terror Budget Is Meager
If War on Terror's got ya licked
Bomb Iraq!
If ya wanna pull our dicks
Bomb Iraq!
6392. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:28:50 AM
Al since you seem to be starved for a Moronism, here's one that hits close to home!
"Now, we talked to {evie}. She and her husband, {al), were visiting with us. They are near retirement—retiring—in the process of retiring, meaning they're very smart, active, capable people who are retirement age and are retiring."—Alexandria, Va., Feb. 12, 2003.
6393. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:30:38 AM
Looks like Miss Laura's K-1 reading lessons have FINALLY paid off!
I retire
you retire
he she it retires
I am retiring
you are retiring....
6394. wonkers2 - 2/27/2003 10:57:44 AM
Great website, Arky. Thank your pop.
6395. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:58:59 AM
For over two years now I have been participating in John Zogby's Online polling experiments. Here are the results of the latest alongside the corresponding telephone poll.
I think link should work for everyone even though its a special ID link.
6396. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:04:13 AM
Bookmarked Arky!
Its the Landover Baptist on the Potomac site!
6397. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:10:20 AM
Damned if it isn't....I just noticed the ad in the lower right corner.
From Landover Babdist - America's Favorite Church!
A Handful of Bush Supporters Take To the Streets In Support of the President The national counter-protest was organized by FreeRepublic.Com
If you do a search of "baptist" Landover is #8.
6398. concerned - 2/27/2003 12:30:09 PM
Perhaps it's America's funniest 'church'.
6399. jexster - 2/27/2003 12:31:11 PM
Howard Dean Scores at DNC National Gathering
David Corn writes, "Dean, as the buzz-watchers agree, generated the most positive vibes at the gathering. He hit the podium with a sharp declaration: 'What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the resident's unilateral attack on Iraq?" He then blasted the party's leaders for not challenging Resident Bush on whether there should be any new tax cuts; for obsessing over a patients' bill of rights rather than 'standing up' for providing health care insurance for all; and for going along with Bush's 'Leave No Child Behind' education legislation, which he claimed would leave behind 'every student, every teacher and every school board.' After this machine-gun opening, he paused and said, 'I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.' Cue the applause? Actually, applause lights were not needed. Many in the crowd jumped up and cheered."
6400. concerned - 2/27/2003 2:08:24 PM
Fallout from 'virtual protest' shenanigans -
I read a post in another forum describing how one company just completed firing nine employees from their sales group for spending their work day making 1200 phone calls to Washington DC, sending thousands of frivolous political faxes and emails from their company computers, and that at least two were running 'virtual protest' related web sites on their work pc's.
A recreation of the probable scene when one of the former employees shows up at home:
Her: How was your day at work, Dear?"
Him: Well, uhmmmm, I don't know what to say.
Her: What happened?
Him: Well, I don't work there any more.
Her: What happened?
Him: Well, I made some phone calls to Washington, and I sent some faxes ...
Her: About what?
Him: Protesting the war.
Her: What's wrong with that?
Him: Those bastards I work for are pro-war.
Her: Let's sue them.
Him: Yeah, a class action suit.
6401. judithathome - 2/27/2003 2:26:18 PM
Actually, applause lights were not needed. Many in the crowd jumped up and cheered."
Let's hope they jump up and vote for the guy. He is just what that party needs...someone who has opposition ideas and isn't afraid to state them.
6402. jexster - 2/27/2003 2:27:11 PM
Boy you know time is running out for the Butcher of Baghdad when TD posts woeful shit like the above.
As Joe Cirincione put it, Bush's goal is to distract public attention from the costs, consequences, and overwhelming worldwide opposition to this unprecendented, immoral, and illegal war of aggression that he has been lusting for now for over a year.
The guy is nuts.
6403. jexster - 2/27/2003 3:21:17 PM
Caught on Film: A Compendium of Bush Lies
6404. jexster - 2/27/2003 3:37:15 PM
JAh - I REALLY love that guy - all the more because the sleazebucket, pissant, concerned-type patriot Tom DeLay loathes him...
Last week while at the SF LGBT Center for stop smoking class, Dean was upstairs attending a Human Rights Campaign fundraiser in his behalf. It was his third or fourth such in the past 6 months...James Hormel $$$
6405. concerned - 2/27/2003 6:11:50 PM
Re. 6402 -
Yeah, yeah. Yer nothing but talk, jexster. I don't see you laying down your job to protest.
6406. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/27/2003 6:40:43 PM
A little U.S.-Iraqi history By Robert Novak
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes.
An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.
6407. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:21:21 PM
117 U.S. cities and counties have now passed resolutions opposing the war, along with both houses of the Maine state legislature and the Hawaii House of Representatives. See the list
6408. Al D - 2/27/2003 7:49:34 PM
117 U.S. cities and counties have now passed resolutions opposing the war
What would that be % wise? about 1/10 of 1%? I would imagine they could get that much out of one or two counties in Calif.
jexster
If after the war with Iraq, we see people as happy to be liberated as the Afgans were, will your tune change at all?
6409. vonKreedon - 2/27/2003 7:55:39 PM
Al - How long after the war? The Afghanis appear to be doing much less dancing in the streets recently, in fact Karzai is concerned that he may be facing a resurgence of Taliban support given the conditions.
6410. Al D - 2/27/2003 8:01:28 PM
alistairConnor
So called T.V. reporters make frequent errors, the most glaring is for he and I, an error made most often by the highly educated. They must think for is not a preposition but an intransitive verb.
I don't follow Ohio's comments at all. The use of flaunt for flaut may not have been made by Dean as it may be made by the person quoting Dean but it was not DeLay.
6411. arkymalarky - 2/27/2003 8:02:30 PM
There are a lot of nations whose people I would love to see dancing in the streets at the toppling of their selfish governments. If we enter conflict with Iraq on that premise it makes our neglect of other much worse situations inexcusable.
6412. Al D - 2/27/2003 8:06:59 PM
In other words, arky, unless we are willing to crush every dictator in the world, there is no reason to crush any. Do you think it made any sense to attack Serbia to accomplish the removal of a leader? All of this stuff is political, and that is the sad part.
6413. magoseph - 2/27/2003 8:49:15 PM
Do you think it made any sense to attack Serbia to accomplish the removal of a leader?
Al,
I guess if we follow your reasoning, the Second World War should have been avoided. After all, we had to attack Germany to get rid of Hitler.
And, they did not have weapons with the power to destroy the planet.
6414. Al D - 2/27/2003 9:12:05 PM
magoseph
Perhaps as usual, my method of writing is obscure. Perhaps I should have used ? marks to make my meaning clear. I think it can make sense to attack a country to remove a dictator.
I have argued in the past that we should have stayed out of WWII after Hitler attacked USSR in June of 1941. We could have asked England to make peace with Germany and sold arms to both Germany and USSR depending on which country was beating the other.
What we really should have done is started preparing for war at least by 1936 if not in 1932. Aren't leaders supposed to lead a Nation, not follow the mob? I am well aware of the anti-war feeling after WWI.
6415. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 9:46:25 PM
How long after the war?
Kuwait is still pretty grateful a dozen years out. But even throwing out history's worst evil and restoring a prosperous democracy won't win you permanent gratitude.
Ask the French.
6416. Wombat - 2/27/2003 9:47:50 PM
The last post is possibly the stupidest thing I have read on the Mote since it began. That's saying something considering the amount of crap that Rosie (in his various incarnations), Concerned, and lately Jexter have been posting.
6417. Wombat - 2/27/2003 9:48:35 PM
I was referring to Al D's post.
6418. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:27:19 PM
A Triumphant Virtual March
Over one million people from around the nation jammed the White House and Senate switchboards today to register their loud and unequivocal opposition to the war. Former Congressman Tom Andrews, National Director of Win Without War, said "Well over one million phone calls were made in just eight hours by people from every state in the country. Every Senator’s office and the White House switchboard received at least two and often more calls per minute. Many callers had to settle for busy signals."
The Virtual March on Washington was organized by Win Without War, a coalition of 32 organizations including the National Council of Churches, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, NOW, and the Sierra Club.
According to Andrews, the protest was designed to give the many who don't usually take place in marches a chance to let "their fingers do their marching." As part of the protest, folks emailed, faxed and phoned their Senators and the White House to express their support for U.N. inspections. Estimates for fax and email messages are not available as yet. But it is clear, in Andrews' words, the antiwar message "got through loud and clear today."
6419. Al D - 2/27/2003 10:32:48 PM
wombat
I would imagine you never read your own posts. Wouldn't it be more polite to point out exactly what you mean? Maybe a person who can only see one side of any issue is the stupid one.
6420. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:35:32 PM
jexster
If after the war with Iraq, we see people as happy to be liberated as the Afgans were, will your tune change at all?
Of course not. First let's see the "liberation" of Afghanistan today! Not so great.
And I suppose that our 250,000 troops will be able scrounge up a few to greet them don't you?
I mean the ones that aren't busy shooting each other.
But in any event, an immoral war is not made moral by CNN
6421. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:39:13 PM
Damn Al, I didn't notice who posted the question I just answered.
Top drawer. I thought it sounded Wombatian.
Anyway, don't fret yourself about the flowering democracy crap - its all war propaganda - this weeks "story" from the Bushies. Its "morality" week because Blair is in the shit
Didn't happen in any country the US has invaded in oh about 55 years or so and its NOT gonna happen in Iraq. See post in Iraq thread - Professor Mubarak, Kuwait University - the poor guy could barely restrain his laughter at the thought.
6422. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:48:53 PM
I hear tell that some around here doubted me????
Virtual March on Washington Floods Senate With Telephone Calls
Hundreds of Thousands Participate - WPost
and hundreds of thousands more tried repeatedly all day long and connected once if that. Least I got to the Wicked Witch of the West.
6423. Al D - 2/27/2003 10:56:20 PM
jexster
You are delusional if you think Afgans aren't happy to be rid of the Taliban. Did you happen to watch Karzi's testimony before the Senate Committee yesterday? I don't read all your posts since they seem to be all of the same note, but I can't imagine you are a Saddam supporter. I might agree that it would be a huge task to make any Arab country a democracy.
Maybe we should have made a deal with Saddam; let him have his way in the Middle East as long as we got a good price on his oil. Then he could have kicked the shit out of Saudia Arabia, maybe even taken over Iran, Syria, Jordan, a modern day Saladan. If he got out of line we could always nuke him. Of course he wqould kill all them Jews, but that wouldn't bother Liberals much, I don't suppose.
6424. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:59:49 PM
I dunno how happy they are Al.. I just know that they don't have shit for a democracy, that Bush forgot to put aid in for em in his budget, and that the figure he put in is less than he gave em during the Taliban rule.
I also know that Bush is doing is damndest to make sure we don't focus on his Afghan policy, his defense policy, his Asian policy, his fiscal policy, his domestic policy....
I also know
THAT IT'S COCKTAIL HOUR!
6425. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:01:44 PM
PS Karzai - going to stand before a Republican congress in a nearly psychotic and fully deluded Emperor's capital and say "hey assholes remember us?"
Cheers
6426. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:13:01 PM
Rumsfeld was on ABB Board during Nuke Reactor Deal with North Korea
"The Swiss-based ABB on Friday told swissinfo that Rumsfeld was involved with the company in early 2000, when it netted a $200 million contract with Pyongyang. The ABB contract was to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on North Korea's east coast. Rumsfeld...was a member of ABB's board between 1990 and February 2001, when he left to take up his current post. Wolfram Eberhardt, a spokesman for ABB, told swissinfo that Rumsfeld 'was at nearly all the board meetings' during his decade-long involvement with the company... Rumsfeld's position at ABB could prove embarrassing for the Bush administration since while he was a director he was also active on issues of weapons proliferation, chairing the 1998 congressional Ballistic Missile Threat commission. The commission suggested the Clinton-era deal with Pyongyang gave too much away because 'North Korea maintains an active weapons of mass destruction programme, including a nuclear weapons programme'."
6427. Al D - 2/27/2003 11:16:54 PM
jexster
Yes, it is COCKTAIL HOUR, or glass of wine time, but don't ever let the Wiz know you imbibe. I think he's a Moron, oops, I mean a Morman.
6428. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:37:07 PM
Message # 6387
I think that Lieven's article "The Push for War" is the single most profound analysis of the issue that has been written.
I believe that his concluding paragraph cannot be repeated enough.
6429. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:37:40 PM
Wiz..mormon?
Yeah right
6430. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:38:44 PM
Wiz..mormon?
Yeah right
Aaah Marlene's Old Fashioned. Have to take ya there sometime. Its the Hayes Valley drag queen, leatherboy, neighborhood bar.
6431. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:59:30 AM
TD - This one is for you.
Dear MoveOn member,
Our Virtual March has been an enormous success -- by some
estimates, the Senate and White House received over a million phone calls, faxes, and emails today. Offices on Capitol Hill were busy with the sounds of ringing phones and conversations about the war. And media outlets from the Washington Post to the BBC covered this broad and unprecedented action.
A comment we received from a MoveOn member in Connecticut is representative:
"I called Lieberman's office, and made my statement, and then I said to the man who answered the phone, 'this must be nuts for you today' and he said, 'My day will be hell, but it is so much better than apathy. This is what democracy is all about. I think it is terrific.'
I asked him if he thought it might change the Senator's position, and he said he wasn't authorized to speak on that, but that they were overwhelmed with the number of people speaking out from Connecticut."
Members of the House of Representatives (who were not targeted) took notice: Representative Anna Eshoo from California even took the time sent us all a letter thanking us for marching. You can read it at:
http://www.moveon.org/eshooletter.jpg
6432. concerned - 2/28/2003 2:59:05 AM
Re. 6416 -
'lately Jexter(sic)'.......?
More of Wombats' ingenuous synaptical meanderings.
6433. concerned - 2/28/2003 3:12:23 AM
re. 6419 -
Al D -
Wombat probably imagined he was being quite witty with that post.
6434. concerned - 2/28/2003 3:25:59 AM
Ted Kennedy leads Senate in cycle of vengeance on judicial nominees
If the alcohol befogged Fat Chappaquiddick Bastard and Senate 'Rat Scum want to play that game, Republicans should scream 'obstruction' from the rooftops and maybe GWB should resort to recess appointments to seat qualified judges on Federal benches.
6435. Wombat - 2/28/2003 9:11:50 AM
Al D. et al.
"I have argued in the past that we should have stayed out of WWII after Hitler attacked USSR in June of 1941. We could have asked England to make peace with Germany and sold arms to both Germany and USSR depending on which country was beating the other."
If you sincerely believe that this was what the U.S. should have done, then I rest my case as to the stupidity of your post.
6436. judithathome - 2/28/2003 9:51:35 AM
GWB should resort to recess appointments to seat qualified judges on Federal benches
I think recess appointments are only good as long as the Pres is in office. They expire once he leaves.
6437. Wombat - 2/28/2003 10:10:39 AM
They are good for one year, I believe.
6438. judithathome - 2/28/2003 10:12:28 AM
Thanks...maybe the speaker I heard was counting on Bush being out soon. ;-)
6439. Wombat - 2/28/2003 10:18:47 AM
Anything's possible.
6440. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:10:39 AM
Face with a firestorm of criticism from state governors over his Perpetual War, Feed the Rich, Deficits Forever Budget
Bush Blames Hill Republicans
President's Homeland Security Explanation Creates Problems for Congressional Allies
Who can trust this sleazeball?
Certainly not France, not Russia, not Germany, not Great Britain, not the people of Iraq, not you, not me
Only those who give LOTS of money.
6441. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:11:38 AM
but there's a concerned born every minute
6442. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:18:45 AM
Rumsfeld: Estimating War Cost Impossible
Loads of steershit and poopstains everwhur
6443. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:27:02 PM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A barrage of worries depressed U.S. consumer sentiment to its lowest level in nine years in February, including the imminent threat of war, fear of terror attacks and high unemployment
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain’t easy,
And your manhood’s getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq
6444. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:32:31 PM
Yeah, yeah. Yer nothing but talk, jexster. I don't see you laying down your job to protest
I am going to walk out of class on Day X. Have marched in three protests and will do so again on 3/15. Am sponsoring a motion against the war in my local political club. Was a participant in the virtual march. Have written (and received reply!) from Josh Marshall at Talking Points. Have written scads of e-mail missives to elected officials.
And you think I spam here, you ought to see the poor sods on my emai address list.
6445. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:33:51 PM
One thing I haven't done, that I plan to begin next week - Lent - a perpetual novena for peace in Iraq.
6446. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:49:30 PM
Rift between ChickenHawks and Professionals Goes Public
I cannot recall any instance in modern history of a run up to war that has been so inept, so bungled.
Analogies welcome, even from Eddie the Echo
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country6447. Al D -2/28/2003 3:55:06 PM
Thanks...maybe the speaker I heard was counting on Bush being out soon. ;-)
judith
Don't hold your breath.
On the other hand, let me think that one over. g
I don't want to upset you.
6448. Al D - 2/28/2003 4:38:18 PM
wombat
May I give you some advice? Thank you in advance. Instead of simply declaring my post was possibly the stupidest thing I have read on the Mote you might have asked if I was serious, giving me the opportunity of saying, "Of course not!"
At one time civilized, well educated people were expected to be able to argue, hopefully with intelligence, either side of a question. For example, John Milton in taking his oral Masters was told several minutes before what his subject would be and as he walked to the podium, which side he was to argue for. It was a very serious subject, Which is more favorable, light or darkness?"
Do you think a case can me made that no war ever was really justified or worth the effort, not even the Revolutionary or Civil War?
6449. Al D - 2/28/2003 4:40:56 PM
I write the above not because I was offended by your remark, though it was offensive. I am concerned that you may use the same tack with others, not as used to being called stupid on the Mote.
6450. judithathome - 2/28/2003 5:19:23 PM
not as used to being called stupid on the Mote
Ha! There is no such beast!
6451. jexster - 2/28/2003 7:06:07 PM
PAL "Terrorist" Al-Arian Says Bush Did 'Everything We Asked'
6452. Al D - 2/28/2003 7:18:13 PM
What impresses me most in the article was what Nadler (does his obesity bother any one? I seem to remember nasty comments about one congressman during impeachment and Nadler makes him look svelte. But enough of this yiddish) had to say...............................not.
6453. judithathome - 2/28/2003 7:44:22 PM
What happened to this thread all of a sudden? (Speaking of svelte and not...)
6454. concerned - 2/28/2003 9:02:43 PM
Re. 6453 -
Your html challenged buddy did it again.
6455. Wombat - 2/28/2003 9:22:54 PM
Al D.
I am glad you were not serious. There have been people on the Mote and/or Fray who have essentially stated something along those lines. I apologize for going off on you.
6456. concerned - 2/28/2003 9:25:25 PM
Now I'm curious. Who were those people?
6457. jexster - 2/28/2003 9:36:30 PM
I am curious too!
Who is the guy on the right, the one Shaking Hands with Saddam
George Washington University: U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
6458. Edmund Dantes - 2/28/2003 9:57:52 PM
Oops, there he goes again.
6451. jexster - 3/1/03 12:06:07 AM
Professor Bedpan, why don't you slow down and actually pay attention to what you post and link? All you do is repost everything you see or someone feeds you that *looks* like it might be anti-Bush, without bothering to read it yourself.
First you did it with the general the other day who was actually calling for Bush to be more ruthless and destructive in his campaign in Iraq. Now you've posted a pro-Israel, pro-Sharon source just because you think it criticizes Bush. This from you, the most anti-Semitic poster at the Mote.
The reason your source is criticizing Bush's contact with Al-Arian is that Forward is anti-Muslim, dipshit. They don't want Bush talking to Arafat, either. From another editorial at the same site:
Bush's hard-line approach to dealing with Arafat not only shows his complete commitment to Israel as a Jewish state, but also shows a common sense understanding about the region. The Bush doctrine will create change and bring peace, if we in America have the courage and foresight to stand with him and our allies in the Middle East.
Why do you think anyone wants to read reams and reams of crap you obviously haven't even read yourself? 6459. Edmund Dantes - 2/28/2003 10:11:42 PM
Another article on Professor Bedpan's new favorite site
When confronted by terrorism, action trumps inaction. So runs the conceptual underpinning of President Bush's case for military pre-emption. Despite such tough rhetoric, America's dawdling diplomacy regarding the liberation of Iraq makes it seem as though the president has failed to heed his own rule of statecraft.
Nearly half a year has passed since Bush made the case at the United Nations General Assembly for "disarming" Iraq. More than 100 days ago, Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of going after Saddam Hussein.
In politics, as in life, everything is in the timing. Yet the administration's haggling with the U.N. Security Council over resolutions and its hectoring of the hapless inspectors serve both to embolden Saddam and those opinion elites who sanctimoniously reach for the moral high ground in covering up for the Iraqi dictator.
Why didn't you post this one, too? It's critical of Bush--how did you miss it?
Du-oh! It's critical because he's bothered to go to the UN!
But why should that matter to a spasmotic hack like you?
6461. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:17:56 PM
I didn't have my picture taken with a terrorist silly girl.
6462. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:18:14 PM
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."—Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
6463. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:19:16 PM
Yo Eddie, how's your Abraham Lincoln Brigade coming?
6464. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:22:04 PM
I've really messed what passes for your mind.
Good.
Pope John Paul II is causing heartburn among one of the resident's key constituencies: conservative Catholics. The pope is unequivocally and fervently against the war in Iraq, and George W. Bush, who fancies himself something of a spiritual leader, has to grin and bear it. His holiness cannot be attacked like other war critics, such as France and Germany." Pope John Paul II refuses to condone the war with Iraq as a "just war." Further, the idea of a pre-emptive war has brought new vitality to the ailing pontiff. Will the feisty 82-year-old take on Dubya or Saddam? Apparently he feels this is a principle worth fighting for. "No matter what they say, his holiness says war is 'always a defeat for humanity.'
God Bless Iraq Eddie
6466. Al D - 2/28/2003 10:30:33 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson022803.asp
I would suggest all read this article by Victor Davis Hanson. Maybe you, jexster, would care to link it? Thank you in advance.
6467. Al D - 2/28/2003 10:31:38 PM
wombat
As usual, you are a gentleman. It might have been me on the Mote writing such silly stuff, perhaps as stamper.
6468. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:55:09 PM
Eddie D really is ________________.
Who cares?
6469. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:45:18 PM
No matter what they say, his holiness says war is "always a defeat for humanity."
Don't let them defeat us. Look what they've done to Eddie.
6470. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:45:23 PM
No matter what they say, his holiness says war is "always a defeat for humanity."
Don't let them defeat us. Look what they've done to Eddie.
6471. arkymalarky - 2/28/2003 11:52:03 PM
I would delete the culprit of the thread widening, fix, and repost, but my stupid Model-T computer won't load enough for me to tell which one it is.
6472. robertjayb - 2/28/2003 11:54:26 PM
More pre-fascism...
WASHINGTON (AP) - The government is getting ready to test a new risk-detection system that would check background information and assign a threat level to everyone who buys a ticket for a commercial flight.
The system, ordered by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, will gather much more information on passengers. Delta Air Lines will try it out at three unidentified airports beginning next month, and a comprehensive system could be in place by the end of the year.
Transportation officials say a contractor will be picked soon to build the nationwide computer system, which will check such things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare passenger names with those on government watch lists.
6473. judithathome - 3/1/2003 11:23:42 AM
Jesus H. Christ...any terrorist reading about the plans can keep their money under a matress and hold a fake bank account and look like Oliver Milquetoast.
Meanwhile, a hacker can get into the system and retrieve all the info on passengers who are just trying to get to Aunt Mary's funeral.
But I feel safer, yes I do!
6474. Al D - 3/1/2003 8:46:42 PM
I wonder, are there any on the Mote who believe that minorities deserve special treatment in college admissions? Just trying to get a discussion started.
6475. jexster - 3/1/2003 9:44:03 PM
Yes. Just like George Bush got preferential treatment getting into Yale or in state residents get preference over out of state residents or kids from rural schools get preference over kids from Andover/Exeter.
6476. jexster - 3/1/2003 9:44:48 PM
Before the First Shot
The most common cause of recessions, a surge in oil prices, is again afflicting the global economy
6477. Al D - 3/1/2003 10:04:34 PM
jexster
In other words, you feel that just because a person is a minority, he/she should get preferential treatment? Why is that? I don't see the justification, but maybe you could explain it to me.
As to oil prices, isn't that a positive, to keep people from using so much? Isn't that a claim of the greens?
6478. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:10:43 PM
Yes it is a positive but oil shocks aren't. Short term deman for oil is rather inelastic ie you just bought that SUV so you gotta fill it up.
How are the prices in Hawaii. A local Shell station is selling its reg for 2.19 and premium "an arm and a leg"
Thanks to Bush you'll be paying an arm and a leg for a while. Thanks to GWB, your grandchildren's children will be paying for his adventures in Empire.
6479. Al D - 3/1/2003 10:17:55 PM
After oil is flowing freely in Iraq, oil prices will drop, as you know. If we cared to, we could use Iraqui oil to pay for the war, but Bush is a better man than that. Since my SUV Cad is sitting in a garage in Oakland, not to worry. Gas is $2.06 on Kauai, but we are used to around $1.70 at the best of times.
6480. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:30:02 PM
That's not necessarily true for a number of reasons not the least of which is that the Iraqi fields are pumping at or near capacity right now. There is no world surplus. If Saddam torches the fields, it'll be worse. Further, it is not in the interest of Bush and his Texas oil buddies that oil prices fall too low.
6481. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:31:34 PM
But that is the least of Bush's worries.
The Guardian's Sunday paper is breaking a story that Bush had a plan to bug UN Security council members and blackmail members into a vote. See Iraq thread
6482. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:36:20 PM
Party Hearty Al But Save Some For GWB's Wake
Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery.
The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations.
The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation.
The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'.
On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous extension, and hung up.
6483. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:43:59 PM
Al its because they get shafted on the other end. There are any number of studies that document something we both know and I must confess to having done myself ie using race as skills surrogate.
Oh she's black, he's hispanic, I dunno what kind of worker she'll be but he's white I can trust him.
Happens all the time.
We do not live in a meritocracy believe it or not.
George W. is a perfect example of preferential treatment from his youth, to his "military career", his education, his business "career", and so for you guys to get all self righteous about affirmative action is just a little silly and alot hypocritical
6484. Al D - 3/1/2003 10:53:16 PM
I agree that we do not live in a meritocracy, but I don't see the validity of preferance based on race. Wouldn't need be a better criteria? And could you possibly discuss the subject without dwelling on Bush? I'll respond Sun. or late tonight.
6485. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:51:02 PM
No I cannot. Bush is the one pressing the issue and is a perfect example of why some consideration is due race in this society unti race is no longer a factor.
Affirmative action is good for the United States, economicall and socially.
6486. concerned - 3/2/2003 2:06:53 AM
Lefties feel that 'minorities' should get preferential treatment, but only as long as they stay out in the fields of the Leftist plantation. It's a colossal bribe.
6487. Al D - 3/2/2003 2:42:12 AM
Why bring Bush into the discussion? Then it is your opinion that race, not need, should be the criteria for special consideration. If, for example, Vernon Jordan had a college age child, he should get privledge simple for being a minority. No doubt he has been to the best schools, had every imaginable opportunity. Still gets put ahead of others?
A concept, it seems to me, should stand on its own merit, not who supports it or opposes it.
6488. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:23:28 AM
I'm of two minds on the Affirmative Action issue.
One, a generation has passed, surely that's enough time. Also, big companies bend over backwards to try to hire minorities. A qualified black woman is the most desirable hire in America.
IMO the real problem with the black community these days lies squarely in the black community. Do well in school, you're "acting white." Try to have white friends, you're ostracised by the blacks. Skin too light, you're "not black enough."
In my experience the most bitter racism in the US is practiced by blacks. The second worst are white middle class Yankees. Racism among middle class Southerners has long been superceded by the phenomenon known as "liberal guilt." They overcompensate for the sins of their ancestors.
The real turning point in my experience came in the early '80s. I was born and raised in the south, poor working class, and many of my co-workers, and thus my friends, were black. My first roommate, (not college, just two guys sharing an apartment,) was black. That was 1978. Sadly, the Jessie Jackons, Louis Farrakhans, and Al Sharptons became the voice of the black community, and suddenly blacks weren't allowed to have white friends. Self-destructive. and blaming white guys like me for their problems was easier than finding the real problem.
Dismiss me as a racist if you want, but I know better. I still have enough "liberal guilt" to make an extra effort, but not enough to blame myself for something that is most definitely not my fault.
At the end of the day, I don't care what color your skin is, except that I'm jealous of your tan! :p
6489. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:29:56 AM
Viva Italia!
6490. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:03 AM
Viva Italia!
6491. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:09 AM
Viva Italia!
6492. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:14 AM
Viva Italia!
6493. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:21 AM
Viva Italia!
6494. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:31 AM
Viva Italia!
6495. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 7:33:31 AM
Ok,
viva Italia
6496. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:35:58 AM
And of course none of you will ever believe that I hit the "post" button exactly once. But it's true. Monopoly ISPs and proxy servers are great!
On a completely unrelated topic, who else thinks the ban on human cloning is stupid. Reminds me of nothing so much as the Catholic Chuch's insistence that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Blocking scientific research is absurd.
OTOH I think anyone who clones themselves is an idiot, but I see no reason to stop them.
6497. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 7:41:25 AM
I still have interest in the affirmative action discussion.
But, I think cloning organs is a good idea.
6498. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 7:47:40 AM
My family just visited a small private college in central (western) Iowa yesterday. It was schlorship day. They were specifically courting students and the offer of 2 full tuition paid scholarships brought about 60 prospects that day.
They told my daughter that this year they were really looking for African Americans to give the multi-cultural scholarship to. Seems they thought having 10 Japanese transfer students skewed their asian population already. My daughter is mixed)
6499. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 7:50:08 AM
Iowa, is 98% white according to a news report I heard last week. I didn't know that. I knew it's a predominantly conservative state, but I didn't know it had so few minorities.
6500. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 8:01:47 AM
On the drive back we visited good ol' Norwegian country, the city of Northfield Minnie-sooooootah! U-betcha!
Anyway, the campus of St. Olaf is so beautiful. The buildings inspire awe and admiration. Of course the poet in me caught up in all that.
Then we drove to the Carlton campus and it was Ok, not quite as dramatic for architecture, but nice. We saw the big green Sen. Wellstone bus parked in the street right in front of the main chapel (built to resemble a smallish cathedral). The bus had many American flags waving in the breeze. sigh...
6501. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 8:07:44 AM
Dubai,
Perhaps you hit the refresh button on your browser? If no-one has posted since your last post, that last post will reappear. I haven't tried it in a long time, maybe there is a warning now that your data will refresh, but anyway, that's the idea.
6502. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 8:33:51 AM
Nope, I have seen the double(and more)post monster plenty of times on this ISP and it is strictly an artifact of the proxy server. Usually I am off getting a beer and come back to find a dozen post clones. Know nothing about Ioway; I suggest the University of Tennessee (the VOLunteers, my alma mater.)What is she studying?
6503. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 10:08:11 AM
Dubai,
I'm just getting off to a job now, but saw your post. She's looking into biology with studies towards pharmacy.
6504. jexster - 3/2/2003 11:23:46 AM
Dear VoteNoWar Member:
Tens of thousands of people will be converging for a National Anti-War March to Take it to the White House on Saturday March 15.
There will be parallel activities in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
It has been the street protests in the United States and around the world in the last few months that have become the biggest single political factor confronting and restraining the war-makers. We have always believed that the only thing that could prevent this aggression against Iraq was for all of us -- the people of the world -- to organize and become a major political force through mass action.
The New York Times acknowledged this new political reality when it wrote about the creation of a global mass movement:
"The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge anti-war demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers in the planet: the United States and world opinion.
"In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand." (New York Times, Monday, February 17, A1, "A New Power in the Streets")
6505. arkymalarky - 3/2/2003 12:20:37 PM
Dubai, I live and work in a pretty integrated community and what you describe has never been the case for me. I think resegregation is driving a lot of the attitude that you are talking about, and ending AA is a very wrong direction to go. And if you came from the South, surely you've experienced the "White Club" approach, as I still do occasionally, of assuming since you're white it's ok to make racial remarks or observations. There's still not equality and a generation is not enough. I've seen a lot of improvement in 22 years of teaching, and my husband and I both have seen black students perform at the top of their classes in very recent years. Give it another five or ten, to the point where integrated kids who were so from kindergarten have students in school and all the old guard who remembers segregation and has biases they learned at their grandparents' knees, even if they don't realize it (I didn't attend an integrated school until 7th grade and I graduated hs in 1977), are out of the picture. Things haven't changed as much as that particular generation of white folks tries to pretend they have.
And I absolutely agree that if someone as intellectually disadvantaged as Bush can go to Yale, surely someone who's socio-economically or ethnically disadvantaged should get the same opportunity.
6506. arkymalarky - 3/2/2003 12:30:19 PM
BTW, not that it's relevant, but I don't live in the community where I work.
6507. arkymalarky - 3/2/2003 12:32:03 PM
Another observation: My husband's boss is a black woman and she's much more efficient than her white male predecessor.
6508. jexster - 3/2/2003 2:04:11 PM
Worth 1000 Words
6509. jexster - 3/2/2003 2:08:03 PM
U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something
> back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic
arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies.
Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world.
I believe it no longer.....
6510. Al D - 3/2/2003 2:16:38 PM
Why bring Bush into the discussion? Then it is your opinion that race, not need, should be the criteria for special consideration. If, for example, Vernon Jordan had a college age child, he should get privledge simple for being a minority. No doubt he has been to the best schools, had every imaginable opportunity. Still gets put ahead of others?
A concept, it seems to me, should stand on its own merit, not who supports it or opposes it.
6511. jexster - 3/2/2003 2:21:46 PM
The End of the Moron
Whatever the outcome of the next round of debate in the United Nations Security Council, the worldwide skepticism about the wisdom of Mr. Bush's course means that any war with Iraq will be seen, above all, as his war.
John Brady Kiesling, a career foreign service officer who last week resigned his post as political counselor at the American embassy in Athens to protest Mr. Bush's policy, made that point.
"We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known," Mr. Kiesling wrote Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. "Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."
Mr. Bush's position has been to seek support from the United Nations to enforce its own past resolutions against Iraq, but he has repeatedly said that he would act with whatever partners he can persuade to remove what he considers a grave threat to American security and world peace. Having staked out that ground so unequivocally, Mr. Bush will have to hold it.
"In terms of politics, it's probably highly profitable, with a rally round the flag," said Nelson W. Polsby, a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley. "If you can keep pumping that up, you get a free pass with respect to almost everything else, and he's milking that for all it's worth..... 6512. jexster - 3/2/2003 2:22:12 PM
In the modern presidency, "foreign policy is more likely to defeat than re-elect a president," said Allan J. Lichtman, a historian at American University, who cited the examples of Harry S. Truman enmeshed in Korea, Lyndon B. Johnson undone by Vietnam and Jimmy Carter stymied by the Iranian hostage crisis.
"Even some of the greatest foreign policy triumphs are no guarantee, so in strictly political terms, he's taking a great risk going to war in Iraq," Mr. Lichtman said. "His biggest danger is the economy. No incumbent president has ever been re-elected during an election-year recession, and that's one of the most potentially perilous effects of this war."
Since the Bloody Bastard is hell bent on murder anyway, is it wrong to wish his end sooner rather than later?
6513. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:29:34 PM
Ending my long silence, provoked by Al's attempt to start an actual discussion, everybody misses the point on affirmative action.
College admissions offices construct classes. The primary motivation for doing so is to maximize the size of the endowment, in the long run. That's why they discriminate in favor of athletes, because athletics create an object for alumni loyalty. That's why they let in people with talents outside of purely academic talent, because it makes the university experience more memorable. In the sixties and seventies, colleges recognized that society was becoming more meritocratic; you just had to look at the names of the high powered players on Wall Street, fewer and fewer wasps. They also recognized that diversity was a value in and of itself--that it made for a more enriching experience for potential contributers among alumni.
Harvard says they reject an entire classful of valedictorians, and an entire classful of perfect SAT scores. There are dozens of students at places like Bronx High School of Science or Exeter who could perfectly well go to Harvard who don't get in because the admissions office believes that a classful of greasy grinds makes for a poor college experience. They prefer people who have high SAT scores and good grades who have other interests, and succeed in those interests.
So, to start with, there is no bar, there are no rules, there is no measure that admissions officers use. The top colleges have a surfeit of qualified applicants. Someone claiming that a candidate with worse test scores or grades got in ahead of them is almost certainly wrong. If they are that low on the totem pole, depriving a particular applicant is not gonna get him or her in. The guy who was on the Math team at Bronx Science and was on the fifth best debate team who didn't get in is ahead of him.
6514. Al D - 3/2/2003 2:33:50 PM
The reason for the above post is I hit the refresh button. I was interested in rick Nelson post about the college seeking African American students. Am I correct in assuming that his daughter is part asian? So it is not minorities (asians make up around 4% of U.S. population) but specific minorities to be favored.
I would suggest you read John McWhorter's book Losing the Race.
Dubai Vol writes as if he has read the book, and I think he is on point when he mentions what the real problems are. McWhorter makes the same points. The book is longer than it needs to be, but worth reading.
6515. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:45:00 PM
However, there is one best route, and that route is to be the child of an alumnus who contributes heavily. I went to Harvard, and the least qualified, least successful students came from this group. Of course, some of the most successful students also came from this group.
The overall goal of the university is 1) to give those students a rich, memorable college experience and 2) to identify potential future contributors to the endowment. The increasingly meritocratic, globally focused society we live in behooves universities to constuct classes that mirror that society.
The universities do this with their eyes open. There was an open records policy at Harvard, and I looked at mine. I was projected at time of admission, accurately, as graduating in the middle of the class. But rather than admit another really smart kid from Bronx Science, they preferred someone from a rural area with both athletic and academic extracurricular success in constructing that class.
Likewise, when a university decides to admit a successful minority candidate, they are trying to create a better class. It's not the case that there is a top 1500 student list, based on some metric.
Now this can get silly. My nephew's mom is Puerto Rican. But he is all of a quarter Puerto Rican--his maternal grandmother is a red head from Massachusetts, and my parents are also New Englanders. His mom is a lawyer, his father a doctor. But to universities, he is Puerto Rican, and he is being sent a myriad of recruitment letters from mostly middle tier schools. He doesn't need special preferences, and he won't enrich the class in the way I've outlined above. But it may help him get in nonetheless.
6516. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:45:12 PM
This process is what will ultimately subvert affirmative action. In a generation or two, race won't work as a predictor of background. It works less well in this generation than in the last, as with my nephew. Colleges will recognize this, and stop using race as a selection criterion. But, for now, it helps create a more diverse, more interesting, and more educational experience for potential contributors to the endowment.
6517. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:47:01 PM
Al,
Can you please summarize McWhorter's point? One other reason for my ending my silence is that I'd like to encourage discussion, rather than references to outside sources.
6518. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:57:02 PM
When you talk about affirmative action in the workplace, ime with a number of large corporations, the most successful, like American Express and Microsoft, see themselves as global organizations and strive to construct a diverse workforce.
I don't think the justification can any longer be made that universities or business be forced to practice affirmative action. But I cannot see any reason why they should not be permitted to.
Hootie Johnson makes a compelling argument (although it's a loser politically, especially with KKK cheering him on) when he says that private organizations often segregate by gender. But anyone who supports Hootie's argument will have a hard time supporting the argument that affirmative action should not be permitted.
6519. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 3:02:23 PM
"So it is not minorities (asians make up around 4% of U.S. population) but specific minorities to be favored."
Again, Al, the idea is to construct a diverse and interesting class from a pool of students who can do the work, recognizing that the pool is at least three or four times the size of the class. Races that are underrepresented in that pool have an advantage, for now. But so do good tuba players, successful high school debaters, and, more to the point, children of rich alumni.
The bar is lowest for the last group, because, as I said earlier, the oveall goal is the growth of the endowment.
6520. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/2/2003 6:17:03 PM
Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
- Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members
6521. robertjayb - 3/2/2003 6:21:35 PM
The long, incompetent arm of the law in the times of pre-fascism...(Cragg Hines)
When Derek Bond, a 72-year-old British retiree, landed in Cape Town, South Africa, in late January to begin a vacation, he handed his passport to an immigration officer...
...The horror story that unfolded for Bond over the next month is a cautionary tale as the Bush administration presses Congress to expand authorization for secretive arrests, unlimited detention and a curtailment of judicial review.
6522. wonkers2 - 3/2/2003 7:21:31 PM
I know little or nothing about Dennis Kucinich other than what I saw on McNeil News hour last night. I was very favorably impressed.
6523. wonkers2 - 3/2/2003 7:27:23 PM
Bush appointed a real, honest to goodness, orthodox economist to head his CEA, Gregory Mankiw. Does that mean he's backing away from supply side, voodoo economics? Maybe daddy took him to the woodshed on his fantasy tax and budget scenarios.
6524. jexster - 3/2/2003 9:27:22 PM
Meet Mr. Credibility
Candidate or no, Wesley Clark upstages Bush on Iraq and national security
Kerry-Clark (too many medals, good aliteration)
_____- Clark (excellent!)
6525. jexster - 3/2/2003 9:28:34 PM
Mankiw wrote my Micro principles text...it was a very good book and he wasn't at kind to supply siders
I think he is window dressing.
6526. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 9:58:47 PM
"The increasingly meritocratic, globally focused society we live in behooves universities to constuct classes that mirror that society.
The universities do this with their eyes open"
I agree jay. And Al, yes my daughter is asian mix.
I think the college I'm talking about most certainly obtained a linesman during the time my daughter sought the scholarship. I saw the young man, he will do a good job for them. The coach was bantering with him and the mood between them and a couple of current students was jovial. It was apparent that this young man had some good going for him. This all occured while every family waited in the main hall of the student center waiting for the parent presentations, and the student essay, interview and group activity to begin.
I was interested in the library journals they subscribed so my wife and I browsed the library. I first noticed a single shelf display containing every sort of Affirmative Action angle upon a title. The top of the shelf showed on prominantly asking if AA were viable considering the present? I moved on to view the journal titles and found so many conservative journals I've never heard of, I was not to pleased. However, I knew where I was and would just click my heals back to Oz when I was ready.
I can't tell you the journal names, I didn't note them.
I read the cover page journal contents and saw a lot of promotion of the war. That's not bad if there is a balance of thought, which I decided to look for. It wasn't apparently a concern or they were all checked out, I found nothing.
6527. Al D - 3/2/2003 10:24:29 PM
jayackroyd
The main point of McWhorter's book is that the problem in the African American community is not properly understood. It is not that blacks are disadvantaged so much as they have an anti-intellectual attitude, more or less the points Dubai Vol made. Since McWhorter is an African American, he does not buy into the idea than blacks are inherently intellectually inferior. He also feels that AA stigmatises blacks.
Several months ago I watched a discussion on C-Span with the head of the Law Dept. of Michigan U. He made the point that having African Americans in a class aided discussion, for example, of laws on crack. That struck me as demeaning; black face-knows all about crack, probably all about rape and lots of other crime things old honky wouldn't know about.
I can understand wanting a diverse student body. But I don't think adding 30 points because one is African American is the way to achieve it. I might like to see diversity in hireing Proffs. You know, an equal # of conservatives as liberals, etc.
I'm sure arky is not a racist, but the need to point out that her husbands boss, a black woman, is better than the white guy seems, oh I don't know exactly, but at least gratuitous.
6528. Al D - 3/2/2003 10:27:41 PM
Another point. Playing the violin is a skill, making touchdowns is a skill, getting large donations is a must, but is being Puerto Rican a skill?
6529. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 11:18:32 PM
On the first point, I don't really follow the argument. Yes, it's true that some people who got into an elite school partly because of their socio-economic or racial background (as I did), may have doubts about their capability. But I am telling you, Al, that we (or at least I) were reassured by the dumb-ass rich kids that we were not there because we couldn't cut it.
On the second argument, a) I said that it is silly that my nephew gets credit for being puerto rican b) that this use of race of a criterion will gradually go away as it becomes increasingly silly and c) that being rich is not a skill.
So, in the real world of functioning universities operating in a free marketplace, if they decide to use racial and rich kid criteria in their admissions policies, what role should the federal government have in intervening in those decisions?
I say none. And I say there should also be no intervention in the elite state schools, like Michigan or Berkeley. Let those decisions be made locally, by the people closest to the situation. How could anyone, especially a conservative, have a problem with that?
(And please note that I left out the West Point amicus curiae. I'm trying to elicit your good arguments.)
6530. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 11:32:22 PM
"It is not that blacks are disadvantaged so much as they have an anti-intellectual attitude"
I can't let this stand. You can't talk about people like this. Are you saying that Condleeza Rice has an anti-intellectual attitude? Wynton Marsalis? Charles Rangel? Clarence Thomas? Thomas Sowell?
Are you saying that Tonya Harding, because she's white, has a pro-intellectual attitude?
IOW, I think you did not mean to say what you just said. Please reassure me that this is so.
6531. arkymalarky - 3/2/2003 11:51:08 PM
Nothing gratuitous, Al. You should add some dimension to your comprehension of people's posts. My point was that she is what she is without racial or gender preferential treatment in hiring or university AA.
Interestingly enough I heard McWhorter this evening on C-Span in between grading a pile of papers--now a foot or two shorter. I think you oversimplify his position, as well, but that's just from my listening to him for an hour, not reading his book.
6532. jayackroyd - 3/3/2003 12:19:14 AM
Al,
I think is an interesting discussion, and I am glad you raised it. However, I think it belongs in the slow thread, because it's a policy issue rather than a political issue.
If you would move the discussion there, I'd appreciate it.
I'd want to add that I do understand your (IMO) not clearly stated point, that there exists, in the black community an anti-intellectual segment. I'd note two things, one, that tat segment does not include the students applying to Michigan, and two, that there are interesting gender issues on this score.
That is, some girls dumb themselves down in a way unpleasantly similar to the way that some young black people do. Why both of these things happen is an interesting source of discussion. But I think it belongs in the slow thread.
6533. concerned - 3/3/2003 1:00:16 AM
From Time Magazine: In Chicago, Jesse Jackson on the Spot
When does a nightclub disaster turn into a political controversy? When the city is Chicago and one of the players is Jesse Jackson. The E2 nightclub had long been a scene. Police had been summoned there 80 times in the past two years, and residents of the neighborhood, a few blocks south of downtown, had nothing good to say about the rowdy closing-time crowds. So when 21 young African Americans were killed on Monday in a stampede down the club's narrow front stairwell and the city revealed it had ordered the club closed last summer for safety violations, many Chicagoans expected Jackson to unleash his formidable rhetoric against the club's owners.
But something quite different happened. Standing in front of the club the following day, Jackson cautioned against a "rush to find a culprit" and deflected the focus of attention from the club owner onto the city. "The fact is, safety codes were not enforced, and it's the job of inspectors and officials to do just that," he said. Coming from a civil rights advocate with a long record of giving voice to the voiceless, Jackson's temperate response to the E2 disaster seemed curious, to say the least. The E2 investigation is beginning to show that the fault for the disaster is widespread: overcrowding, obstructed auxiliary exits, a security guard's careless use of choking pepper spray on a packed dance floor to stop a fight. As for the city, it admitted that its enforcement policy had to be fixed. Its inspector visited the nightclub only in the daytime when it was closed, never at night.
6534. concerned - 3/3/2003 1:00:57 AM
The investigation has also revealed that Jackson is more closely involved with the club than he had disclosed when he spoke in front of E2 last week. In 2002, it turns out, Jackson wrote a letter to the police chief and one to a local alderman on behalf of the club owner, urging that E2 be allowed to remain open despite its transgressions. E2's owner, Dwain Kyles, has been friends with Jackson since Kyles was a child. And Kyles is, like Jackson, a bona fide member of the black political establishment. His father Samuel (Billy) Kyles was a close friend of Martin Luther King Jr. and was with King and Jackson the day King was assassinated. Samuel Kyles later opened a Memphis office of Jackson's Operation PUSH. The younger Kyles served on the successful U.S. House campaign of Jesse Jackson Jr. Kyles' ex-wife worked on Jackson's staff and was once an attorney for musician Stevie Wonder.
Kyles says the city's closing order covered only part of his club; the city says otherwise. Jackson says he was unaware of the order and was simply protecting an important African-American business. Later in the week he arranged for families of the victims to have free funeral services, and he called for an independent investigation into E2.
By week's end, Jackson's role had left bad feelings among some segments of African-American Chicago, precipitating rare open criticism of the civil rights leader. Alderman Madeline Haithcock said Jackson was "with the victims one minute, holding prayer vigils" and "with his friends the next," and Pastor Lance Davis of the J. Claude Allen CME church called Jackson's actions "disingenuous." He wants an investigation too — into Jackson.
Well, at least JJ got relatives of the victims free funeral services.
6535. concerned - 3/3/2003 1:08:22 AM
Can you imagine the outcry if anybody but a LW demagogue like Jackson had written letters to public officials asking for safety codes to be ignored?
6536. Al D - 3/3/2003 1:33:20 AM
jay
I will contiue the discussion on the other Thread since you are correct, it is not really a political issue as I have raised it. It has been some time since I read McWhorter's book so I may not have done him justice. But any generalization about a group fails when applied to the specific. But it is enjoyable to have a discussion without acrimony. And arky, I did not mean to be critical. I will try to explain what I mean Mon. goodnight all.
6537. magoseph - 3/3/2003 9:10:38 AM
Firstly, there is no such 'wing' of the Republican Party. Secondly, you haven't been paying attention, IAC. There were numerous warnings about the likelihood of Islamist terrorism ever since Jimmuh Cahtuh acquiesced to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, a tradition that Clowntoon followed closely wrt to bin Laden and al Qaeda who installed themselves into Afghani power during the mid '90's.
Answer to Message # 4108 in thread 150
Oh, there is no such wing, concerned? Then, how would you describe the KU Klux Klan, Sons of the Confederacy, and various religious fanatics such as Jerry Falwell to mention a few of those stalwarts of the Republican base?
I agree with you--the warnings were profuse and obvious. The question becomes, why did it take a sledge hammer like 9/11 to wake up Bush? I believe his focus was limited to delivering his tax cut to potential supporters of a second term.
6538. jexster - 3/3/2003 9:24:37 AM
New Evidence Emerges that Bush Cronies Conspired to Rip Off Cali
6539. jexster - 3/3/2003 12:14:35 PM
As Opposition Builds, Bush appears to be dropping out of the public debate on Iraq
Great news! I'll have less nausea.
6540. concerned - 3/3/2003 12:48:36 PM
Then, how would you describe the KU Klux Klan, Sons of the Confederacy
They're Democrat scum, Magoseph. The Confederacy and Ku Klux Klan always have been Democrats through and through and were always opposed to the Republican Party. For that matter, Republicans were barely tolerated in the South, and never had an affiliation with either group.
6541. concerned - 3/3/2003 12:59:27 PM
As far as 'religious fanatics' (whatever precisely you're implying by that other than a sui generis insult), I don't think either political party has a monopoly on them, and IAC, I don't think you can honestly say that Christians as a group are more prejudiced than other people. Besides, it's too simplistic to group the wide range of Protestant affiliations willy nilly with the Republican Party, or to classify Protestant sects as being fanatic without some attempt at providing specifics. For instance, x42 is a Baptist and GWB, I believe, is a Presbyterian. Are you trying to imply that Presbyterians are more 'fundamentalist' than Baptists? That's what it sounds like here, but it really sounds like you're just just fatuously attempting insults without really knowing what you're talking about.
6542. thoughtful - 3/3/2003 1:10:30 PM
From Brad deLong's web site (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Index.html) he quotes from Woodward's book Bush at War:
Another risk they faced was getting bogged down in Afghanistan.... Rice['s] fears were shared by others.... Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad. They would need successes early in any war to maintain domestic and international support.... Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz perked up.... Wolfowitz... believed that the abrupt end to... Desert Storm... which left Saddam in power had been a mistake.... Wolfowitz seized the opportunity. Attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain. He worried about 100,000 American troops bogged down in mountain fighting.... In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime.... It was doable. He estimated that there was a 10 to 50 percent chance Saddam was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The U.S. would have to go after Saddam at some time if the war on terrorism was to be taken seriously....
During a break, Bush joined a side discussion that included... Wolfowitz. He told them that he had found some of [Joint Chief Chair] Shelto's military options unimaginative. Wolfowitz expanded on his arguments about how war against Iraq might be easier than against Afghanistan. The president asked why he didn't present more of this at the meeting. "It is not my place to contradict the chairman of the Joint Chiefs [Shelton] unless the secretary of defense says to," said Wolfowitz, knowing Shelton was opposed to an attack on Iraq. When the group reconvened, Rumsfeld asked, Is this the time to attack Iraq? He noted that there would be a big buildup of forces in the region and he was still deeply worried about the availability of good targets in Afghanistan.
6543. thoughtful - 3/3/2003 1:10:43 PM
Reading this I was reminded of the joke about the drunk who dropped his keys in the dark but was looking for them under the lamppost as that's where the light was. Remember, Woodward was writing a paean to bush...putting his admin in the most favorable light possible!
I'd be laughing if we were talking about something else. But this is how this administration is making major decisions about human lives and war and policies that will affect major portions of the world for many many years to come! Rather than laughing, it scares the ever-lovin' out of me!
6544. wonkers2 - 3/3/2003 1:13:11 PM
Maybe they should attack some small warm place like Aruba or Bermuda or Haiti.
6545. thoughtful - 3/3/2003 1:16:02 PM
The truth about the goal behind attacking Iraq has finally come out. It's a belief in the domino theory in reverse. If we set up a successful democracy in Iraq, then all the other arab nations will be so envious, they'll fall all over themselves rushing to democracy too.
Well, lets look first at how we're doing in making life better for the Afghan people as an example. As Krugman pointed out, the Bushies even forgot to put money to rebuild Afghanistan in their budget and added it, embarrassed, at the last minute.
Go here and click on "The Big Picture". Caption reads: Ahqel Khan, 2, smiles at his grandmother, but he cannot even crawl or walk because of severe malnutrition. In Kabul, the number of children suffering from malnutrition has increased to 11 percent in 2002 from 6 percent in 2001.
Think we'll do better in Iraq?
6546. jexster - 3/3/2003 1:25:00 PM
He'll have a Martial Plan for Iraq.
Don't tell AlD about Bush's Afghan mess.
Any way to hide that from him? Al is old. May not be able to take it.
6547. jexster - 3/3/2003 1:25:52 PM
Vincente Fox: Bush Obssessed With Saddam
The Moron is over the deep end I tell ya.
6548. thoughtful - 3/3/2003 4:16:25 PM
wonkers...W. needs to outdo his predecessors...Reagan was Grenada, Bush I was Panama, so W. has to do something easy but bigger, preferably with oil.
6549. magoseph - 3/3/2003 4:38:27 PM
They're Democrat scum, Magoseph. The Confederacy and Ku Klux Klan always have been Democrats through and through and were always opposed to the Republican Party. For that matter, Republicans were barely tolerated in the South, and never had an affiliation with either group.
I question that anyone above the moronic level would buy into the absurdities that you just issued. The strength of the Republican party is known by everyone to be in the South and in the bible belt. Why don't you move into present time and quit living in the Civil War?
As far as the American fascist movement is concerned, the de facto leader of that movement (Speaker of the house DeLay who masquerades as a Republican), is welcomed by the Republican base as their leader.
6550. concerned - 3/3/2003 5:20:16 PM
Actually, the South is only slightly more Republican, than say, a liberal bastion such as Minnesota is. And, it's a very basic mistake to think that any significant number of people who vote Republican in the South were voting Democrat 35 years ago, as can be seen when demographics are considered for even a moment.
6551. concerned - 3/3/2003 5:20:56 PM
Again, if there are any American fascists, they certainly don't vote Republican.
6552. magoseph - 3/3/2003 5:36:29 PM
concerned,
Have you really resided in the United States over the last 35 years? How could you have not heard of the 'Solid South'? Of course, the people in the South who are voting republican today were voting democratic yesterday. It all began to change with the Civil Rights movement. Do some reading before you comment on these issues. I believe it would be appreciated.
Again, if there are any American fascists, they certainly don't vote Republican.
Do you mean to say they are supporters of Ralph Nader and the Green Party?
6553. concerned - 3/3/2003 5:53:44 PM
I'm pointing out that these much detested persons are in their upper 50's and above now - hardly any Republican bulwark in the South, plus at least half of them are ardently sought out for their votes by the Democrat Party, IAC.
Capische?
6554. magoseph - 3/3/2003 6:29:37 PM
You don't make any sense, concerned. Bush carried the whole bible belt. If he had not, he would have lost the election. Now if you do not know what this means in those terms, let me make it simpler. Simply put, the Republicans are in a majority in the bible belt which means that they get more than half of the vote cast. Now if you still don't get it, let's drop it. Read a few books on the subject.
6555. concerned - 3/3/2003 6:36:55 PM
IAC, Magoseph, I'm glad you agree with me that the great majority of people in the South today that vote Republican not only have nothing to do with the bad old Jim Crow Democrats but specifically vote Republican because they reject the South's racist heritage.
6556. Al D - 3/3/2003 7:32:07 PM
magoseph
Would you please define fascist for me? And then, would you explain how DeLay fits the definition? Is it enough to say you don't care much for a person to label him fascist. You have much in common with concerned, it seems to me.
6557. jexster - 3/3/2003 7:54:04 PM
Signs of the Times
- For the first time in over 30 years, North Korea dared intercept a US spy plane
- India says US "too weak" to deal with threats to peace from Bush ally Pakistan
- Turkish MP "We chose democracy over Bush"
Turkey doesn't need Patriot Missles. They can't stop the only threat to their peace and freedom. 6558. jexster - 3/3/2003 8:13:18 PM
Let's roll!
6559. magoseph - 3/3/2003 9:59:17 PM
I'm glad you agree with me that the great majority of people in the South today that vote Republican not only have nothing to do with the bad old Jim Crow Democrats but specifically vote Republican because they reject the South's racist heritage.
concerned, in the forties just after the WWll, the eleven states of the Confederacy entitled to twenty-two senators had twenty two democratic senators--not one Republican. That was the solid South. Now, the Civil Rights movement begins. The Dixiecrat movement follows. When this movement fails on a national level, the Dixiecrats take control of the Republican party of the South. Their stated objectives--maintain segregation, limit the ability of Blacks to vote, and enforce Jim Crow if not through legal means, through intimidation. That portion of the population that did not agree with the dixiecrat racist movement stayed with the Democratic party.
Looking at your post again, I have no idea what you have to do to get into the real world, but I think you should do some historical research before you put on something as childish as your last post. Your post reminds me of Hitler's statement to the German people that if the Jews started WWII, they would suffer for it.
6560. magoseph - 3/3/2003 10:01:46 PM
Would you please define fascist for me? And then, wWhateveruld you explain how DeLay fits the definition? Is it enough to say you don't care much for a person to label him fascist. You have much in common with concerned, it seems to me.
Al, I think that Delay defines fascist for you: In a general sense, whatever Delay is for, is a fascist cause and whatever he is against, is a democratic cause.
6561. judithathome - 3/3/2003 10:34:34 PM
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (Merriam-Webster)
Sounds like DeLay to me...he seems to fall within this definition quite easily...as a follower of it.
6562. concerned - 3/4/2003 1:34:12 AM
re. 6559 -
magoseph -
The Dixiecrats never 'took control' of the Republican Party in the South, which is laughably wrong. What they did do was take control of the Democrat Party in the South, winning Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina in the 1948 election.
However, as proof of how utterly baseless your attempts at smearing Republicans are, all four of these states out of nine total cast their electoral votes for Adlai Stevenson in 1952, and, except for Louisiana, the other three did again in 1956 when Stevenson won only seven states total. Again, all four states voted solidly for Kennedy in 1960.
6563. concerned - 3/4/2003 1:34:56 AM
Re. 6560 -
What an incredibly ignorant post.
6564. concerned - 3/4/2003 1:36:05 AM
I would call magoseph more of a fascist than DeLay, to tell the truth.
6565. concerned - 3/4/2003 2:00:51 AM
The Rot in America's Universities: Islands of Repression in a Sea of Freedom
excerpt:
The attempt to close down my talk also confirmed the specific sources of hostility to free speech. In theory, these could come from the extreme right, radical Christians, and pro-Israel activists; in fact, they invariably and uniquely come from the extreme left, Islamists, and anti-Israeli activists.
Related articles about the Nazis who run American universities from this site:
Duke Freshman Lives Threatened for Defending Western Civilization
Virginia State University Tyranny
Academic Freedom on Campus: A Contradiction in Terms?
Loose Lips in American Academia and the Press
University Professors vs. America
Another Lesson in Rioting 101: They Do It Because They Can
Harvard Loves Jihad--But Hates America
American Academics Who Hate America
Campus Diversity Fraud
The Balkanization of College Campuses
6566. OhioSTOPAS - 3/4/2003 6:26:07 AM
Folks, have patience with "concerned" and other Republicans who defend their party's courting of racists by pointing out that racists were Democrats 40 or 50 years ago. Yeah, it's a pathetically weak defense, but what else have they got?
6567. magoseph - 3/4/2003 8:59:22 AM
Concerned--post 6562. The Dixiecrats never 'took control' of the Republican Party in the South, ...
Dixiecrats
The Dixicrats were a group of Southern Democrats who broke away from the Democratic National party in 1948 after its national convention adopted a plank favoring civil rights legislation. They chose Gov. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as their presidential candidate, hoping to prevent either the DEMOCRATIC candidate, President Harry S. TRUMAN, or his REPUBLICAN opponent, Thomas E. DEWEY, from receiving a majority of the ELECTORAL votes. They failed in their strategy, winning only 39 electoral votes and 22.5 percent of the popular vote in the South.
After the failure of the Dixiecrat party to establish itself as a national party, Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party and the Dixiecrats throughout the South followed him. Thurmond became the Republican senator from South-Carolina until his retirement a few months back.
As a vigorous opponent of Civil Rights, Trent Lott followed Thurmond into the Republican party of Mississippi, eventually became senator and republican leader of the Senate, until his faux-pas at Thurmont's birthday party. The Bush administration, not wanting to be tarred by the anti-civil rights brush got rid of him.
The Republican party of the South, although paying lip service to Civil Rights, is riddled with fascist elements and racists. Who ever is not aware of this is simply not living in present time.
6568. judithathome - 3/4/2003 9:04:14 AM
...or is a self-"concerned" Centrist, as he claims to be.
6569. magoseph - 3/4/2003 9:11:16 AM
Yes, Ohio, but I think that Concerned is just putting on a show. I just don't believe he is serious, although a lot of right-wingers have an innate bias in respect to foreign-born Americans and especially in regard to American history.
6570. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/4/2003 9:59:28 AM
6571. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/4/2003 10:00:55 AM
6572. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/4/2003 10:19:21 AM
6573. jayackroyd - 3/4/2003 11:46:26 AM
Thoughtful writes:
"The truth about the goal behind attacking Iraq has finally come out. It's a belief in the domino theory in reverse. If we set up a successful democracy in Iraq, then all the other arab nations will be so envious, they'll fall all over themselves rushing to democracy too."
Yes, this is the first coherent reason the administration has offered. That's a very big bet. But it does permit the resolution of a primary Al Qaeda grievance--troops in Saudi Arabia. If Iraq does fall quickly, and a government is formed that isn't transparently a US puppet (two more big bets), that would create a foundation for change in a region that badly needs change. But the next step has to be resolving the problem on the Sinai pennisula, while not letting Seoul get buried in missiles.
I just don't think that Bush is up to carrying through on those next steps. The hamhanded way they have handled the diplomacy leading up to the war does not fill me with confidence.
Nicholas Kristof thinks that there is a strong religious component to Bush's position.
Messianic?
6574. robertjayb - 3/4/2003 12:39:23 PM
Amen.
See Howard Fineman's tongue-bath of a cover-story on dubya's religiosity: Goodbye Jack Daniels...Hello Jesus
6575. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/4/2003 3:30:01 PM
6576. magoseph - 3/4/2003 4:43:03 PM
Robert,
Thanks for the link. Scary article!
6577. Al D - 3/4/2003 9:51:57 PM
Are you people of the opinion that Bush is the first President to have a religious bent, or to mention God? I guess when Clinton talked of being a Baptist and making sure his picture was taking with him carrying a Bible, you all realized he just did it for effect. When Carter talked about lusting in his heart, I don't imagine you were upset by that.
I would agree that Bush's vision of a Democratic Arab country is, well, visionary. His father was criticised for lack of vision.
It seems to me that it is the U.N. that should be criticised. They passed a resolution 15 to 0 for Saddam to disarm or face serious consequences. They know, and I think most of you know, he ain't gonna do it voluntarily. It's not Bush who is the problem.
6578. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:32:45 AM
The Federal Deficit Spirals
CBO Forecast of 5 Weeks Ago is 15% light (even before Congress takes up President Bush's tax-cutting proposals and without factoring in the costs of a war in Iraq)
CBO's arcane rules (spending increases @ inflation, programs continue, revenue measures don't) grossly understate the magnitude of this fiscal disaster in the first place.
The fact that CBO had this big a bust in this short a time, this early in the legislative session, is a shocking measure of the enormity of the Bush fiscal disaster and misfeasance.
6579. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:34:40 AM
Magoseph, I'm glad you agree with me that the great majority of people in the South today that vote Republican not only have nothing to do with the bad old Jim Crow Democrats but specifically vote Republican because they reject the South's racist heritage.
Mago - drinking while posting?
6580. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:39:46 AM
You do not have to have any special experience in Southern retail politics to know that is a total crock.
Just look at the Southern state Electoral Vote tallies from 1964 on to see and understand the Southern White voter.
6581. magoseph - 3/5/2003 4:42:35 AM
Mago - drinking while posting?
Never thought concerned would do that, Jex. He believes that stuff.
6582. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:58:41 AM
Are you people of the opinion that Bush is the first President to have a religious bent, or to mention God?
If you don't like the answer, ask a different question.
I don't know what Bush believes but I do know which beliefs he panders to ad nauseum - fundamentalist, simplistic, intolerant, arrogant, and overdone.
No president in my lifetime has preached his speeches with such regularity nor so riddled them with the most excreable offerings of fundamentalism's vast store theological sewage.
6583. magoseph - 3/5/2003 5:15:30 AM
Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek: "Bush believes in God’s will—and in winning elections with the backing of those who agree with him."
6584. jexster - 3/5/2003 6:42:56 AM
"concerned...believes that stuff"
Not in the normal sense of the word.....Concerned doesn't care about plausible, reasoned, authentic belief. He believes as a propagandist, a mediocre propagandist does - believes it serves an end, strikes a generally negative emotional tone for his "adversary", and has a nice "ring".
Soviets covering the Afghan war spun tales that the soldiers built hospitals, schools, helped farmers, and were adored by the villages they obliterated. They like concerned really believed their shit.
6585. jexster - 3/5/2003 8:28:46 AM
Bush Regime's Foreign Policy Incompetence Leaves US Isolated 6586. jexster - 3/5/2003 8:29:17 AM
toys
6587. magoseph - 3/5/2003 9:16:44 AM
Are you people of the opinion that Bush is the first President to have a religious bent, or to mention God?
I believe that Bush's foreign policy is based on or strongly influenced by the Book of Revelations. Whether this is based on an inner conviction or a ploy to insure re-election by the true believers, is a matter for reflection.
6588. jexster - 3/5/2003 9:55:57 AM
Al, is the RNC sponsoring a Moron's Moron competition or something?
I hadn't even read the damned article when I wrote Message # 6582.
Evidently neither did you. The difference between us is that I didn't have to. I knew most of it already
AL: Are you people of the opinion that Bush is the first President to have a religious bent, or to mention God?
Fineman: Delivering the 'Good News'
While past presidents have invoked the name of God in public remarks, President Bush has done so, arguably, more than others-and has increasingly moved beyond broad statements on faith to include overt Christian references.
An overview:
Inaugural Address, Jan. 21, 2001Speech to Congress, Sept. 20, 2001West Point Commencement, June 1, 20029-11 Remembrance,Sept. 11, 2002State of The Union, Jan. 29, 2003Hours After Shuttle Tragedy, Feb. 1, 2003State of The Union, Jan. 29, 2003
6589. judithathome - 3/5/2003 10:08:50 AM
Not to mention the number of times he has used the phrase "Liberty is a God-given right".
6590. jexster - 3/5/2003 10:11:20 AM
I guess when Clinton talked of being a Baptist and making sure his picture was taking with him carrying a Bible, you all realized he just did it for effect. When Carter talked about lusting in his heart, I don't imagine you were upset by that
No actually Clinton IS a Baptist but, in DC at least, he attended a Methodist Church (Hillary is Methodist). And in Baptist churches at least, it is very common for congregants to bring their Bibles. Pastors, in sermons, often ask them to read passages.
As far as Carter's "lust in his heart" sure it was a bit too personal for public consumption in Playboy. But it was personal and it was honest and in fact, is one of Jesus's more profound teachings - the call to conversion of heart, intention as well as act eg "lust in heart"
[21] "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.'
[22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
6591. jexster - 3/5/2003 10:14:57 AM
War is peace and Bush is all doubletalk. I guess he is a bit embarrassed that the Papal legate is going to tell him that he is about to committ a grave, mortal sin.
- Its not MY choice to go to war. The choice is Saddam's
- It is Saddam who ignores the demands of the free world.
6592. judithathome - 3/5/2003 10:24:51 AM
Bush can never admit to being wrong when he is wrong and he can never admit to anything being his fault. "Shame on you...won't get fooled again."
6593. jexster - 3/5/2003 10:35:15 AM
That's because he has been anointed by God to root out Evil from the Earth.
Pandering pays - Ralph Read claims many Fundies actually believe this.
6594. Macnas - 3/5/2003 11:29:03 AM
Thats all very well, but it still does not address the fact that the KKK took my baby away, they took her away, away from me...
6595. judithathome - 3/5/2003 11:40:27 AM
Hahaha!
6596. judithathome - 3/5/2003 12:26:15 PM
So is no one going to comment on Judge Rhenquist's daughter resigning her plum assigment with the Bush administration?
6597. jayackroyd - 3/5/2003 12:30:12 PM
We're a happy family
We're a happy family
We're a happy family
Me, Mum and Dad.
I had Ramone's Tourettes for a couple of weeks after Joey died.
6598. magoseph - 3/5/2003 12:30:34 PM
Do you have a link, lady?
6599. Macnas - 3/5/2003 12:31:44 PM
Are you saying you wanna be sedated??
6600. jayackroyd - 3/5/2003 12:51:04 PM
Only if can't beat on the brat with a baseball bat. Otherwise i wanna be gulpin' down thorazines.
6601. jexster - 3/5/2003 12:59:47 PM
So much for Bush and his "religious" ground - puerile pietist pretense.
Pope Urges Catholics to a Penitential Mobilization Against Bush War
So distressed is the pope over the prospects of war, the Italian media have reported, he told Annan that he would go to New York to speak at the United Nations (news - web sites) if diplomatic measures fail to head off war
ROME - The prospect of war in Iraq (news - web sites) loomed over Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II's observance of Ash Wednesday as he dedicated the start of the Church's season of penitence to prayer and fasting for peace and called for efforts by all to spare humanity from a "dramatic conflict."
While the pope was encouraging the world's 1 billion Catholics to pray and fast as a penitential "mobilization" against the threat of war, an Italian cardinal he dispatched to Washington was preparing to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) to lay out the Vatican (news - web sites)'s arguments that a conflict would be immoral.
On a day in which the pope and priests worldwide imposed ashes on the heads of faithful as a humble reminder of human mortality, John Paul, during his general audience, called on all to "assume their responsibilities and make common efforts to spare humanity another dramatic conflict."
Later, in an early evening ceremony in the 5th-century St. Sabina Basilica on Rome's Aventine Hill to mark the start of Lent in preparation for Easter, John Paul urged people to "strengthen their communion with God and their brothers" in the face of "the threats of war that hang over the world."
Bush Rejects Vatican Charge That His War is Immoral
Tells Pope to Piss Off
"Render unto Caesar and mind your own bidniss"
6602. robertjayb - 3/5/2003 1:53:23 PM
Well, it's now official:
On CNN this morning a correspondent declared flatly and apropos of nothing that dubya is a devout Christian.
6603. jexster - 3/5/2003 1:57:21 PM
The US media is in full jingoist war mode. Reliable comprehensive coverage of international affairs is not possible unless several second tier print sources are used.
I read the Guardian, Times and Telegraph then look to see if the others are worth the bother
6604. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:08:26 PM
Sen Clinton Becoming A Major Force in Senate - Policy Influence, Ability to Forge Consensus With GOP Troglodytes Cited
President Clinton?
Nice ring don't you think? Peace, prosperity, competence, budget surpluses, worldwide respect, cum stains and blow jobs...
Aah the good old days!
6605. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:10:12 PM
Skill, Intelligence, Honesty, Democracy
6606. robertjayb - 3/5/2003 2:18:13 PM
Pre-fascism at the shopping mall...
NEW YORK -- (Reuters) -- A lawyer was arrested this week and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.
According to the criminal complaint filed Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, N.Y., near Albany.
... police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises."
6607. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:45:13 PM
The Federal Reserve issued another gloomy report on the Bush economy and the damage done by his war mongering.
I cannot believe they actually said this:
One bright spot for consumer demand was in the sale of items that the new Department of Homeland Security has suggested Americans should have on hand in the event of a terrorist attack.
"Terrorism fears boosted the sales of duct tape, plastic and other hardware goods in some regions," the Fed reported.
Are they being facetious?
Duct tape recovery?
6608. magoseph - 3/5/2003 2:47:53 PM
A Give War A Chance T-shirt would have been alright, you think? Hard to believe!
6609. magoseph - 3/5/2003 2:48:31 PM
Toys
6610. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:59:44 PM
If he'd ordered up some of them freedom frites....
6611. jexster - 3/5/2003 3:02:09 PM
toys
6612. thoughtful - 3/5/2003 4:08:40 PM
Duct tape recovery: desperate attempt to patch the economy together.
Who said there weren't 10,001 uses for duct tape!
6613. PelleNilsson - 3/5/2003 4:11:08 PM
It's really 'duck tape', you know. Read Safire's latest.
6614. Max Macks - 3/5/2003 4:23:05 PM
Duck Tape Recovery ... from the Non-Depresson-Depression.
LOL jexter.
6615. robertjayb - 3/5/2003 4:35:03 PM
Where's the traitor?
(Bush and al-Arian families campaigning...)
6616. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:57:13 PM
Time Has Indeed Run Out for Bush's Frenzied Push for Wary
U.S. Students Protest Possible Iraq War
AP High school and college students across the country walked out of class Wednesday to protest a war with Iraq (news - web sites), holding a series of rallies organizers predicted would be the biggest campus demonstrations since the Vietnam War.
Tens of thousands of students at more than 300 colleges and universities pledged to join in the protests, according to the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition. Thousands of students also rallied for peace in Britain, Sweden, Spain, Australia and other countries.
The Books Not Bombs protests were also geared to call attention to the effects of a war's costs on education, health care and the economy. But the focus was the looming threat of war with Iraq.
6617. jexster - 3/5/2003 5:04:40 PM
Saddam Hussein is not driving Bush's war timetable, political support is fading fast throughout the world. Bush's allies find themselves in increasingly untenable positions at home. British support, indeed Blair's political career is hanging by the slender thread of UN backing. US domestic support cannot be sustained very much longer as the coalition of the coerced finds strength in common fronts against the war.
Although I do not believe that this war is a prudent or morally supportable course, those who do can only be dismayed at the Bush regime's policy failure. For nearly a year, Bush pounded his war drums yet could not even bring the matter to resolution within his own shop. Leaks, planted news stories, anxiety over the Regime's threats all increased without point or purpose. Even as Bush insisted that he had no plan for war, the frenzied bluster, scare tactics, fear mongering that went on for months on end unnerved publics and governments everywhere and laid the ground work for a collapse of credibility and trust. The UN speech and Resolution 1441 were temporizing maneuvers that papered over real differences with a wholly illusory consensus. The Regime facing increasing domestic disquiet on the eve of the mid-term elections cynically used the UN and UNMOVIC to get over the election hump.
Sadly, the only grave and imminent risk about is not to world peace but to Bush's political standing. Those troops must move soon on Baghdad for in a matter of a few months or even weeks the only direction they'll be moving is back home.
6618. jexster - 3/5/2003 5:05:36 PM
A yes Robert the Terrorist Family Photo!
6619. thoughtful - 3/5/2003 10:34:28 PM
It was originally duck tape, but became duct tape when the color was changed to silver and used for taping air ducts.
6620. thoughtful - 3/5/2003 10:37:26 PM
Help us all we are in a bus driven by an idiot with no steering wheel, taking us all down the road of death and destruction. We are powerless to stop it.
It's all because of those hoity toities in the black robes who got to vote twice. No fair! Do over!
6621. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:34:22 AM
So Evil He Can Piss Off the Fuckin Pope -
WASHINGTON - Pleading for peace, an emissary from Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II questioned President Bush (news - web sites) Wednesday on whether he was doing all he could to avert what the envoy called an "unjust" war with Iraq (news - web sites).
Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
In a letter to Bush, the pope stood by his view that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq is immoral "unless it gets backed" by the United Nations (news - web sites).
"I assure you, Mr. President, that I am praying for you and for America," the pope wrote, according to Laghi. "I ask the Lord to inspire you to search for the ways of a stable peace, the noblest of human endeavors."
In Rome, the pope called for "common efforts to spare humanity another dramatic conflict."
"There are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose," Laghi said. "There is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the bishops in the United States, and the church throughout the world," he said.
War, Laghi told CNN, is "always a disaster."
it would be a war that would destroy human life — those people who are suffering already in Iraq, they would be really in a very bad situation."
Laghi posed a series of questions to Bush that reflected the differences between the White House and the Vatican on Iraq, said a senior administration official. The questions included the importance of an international effort to confront Saddam and what the envoy said was a gulf between the Western and Muslim worlds.
6622. concerned - 3/6/2003 2:57:38 AM
jexster sure comes up with lots of bull for somebody with no cattle.
6623. concerned - 3/6/2003 3:25:55 AM
re. 6573 -
You're wrong. Freeing the Iraqi people, and increasing regional stability has been mentioned by the administration, also.
Now, the people who want to keep Saddam in are the ones without any positive justifications (i.e. fearmongerers).
6624. jayackroyd - 3/6/2003 8:57:12 AM
Does it not bother you at all, concerned, that this language--"liberation" for instance--is the same language the Soviets used? I mean, the official plan is that we install an American general to run the country until a suitable "democratic" government is formed.
But the result of the democratic processes of our NATO ally, Turkey, are unacceptable, and we are working with an influential general to get them overturned.
This doesn't bother you? Omelettes? Eggs? That sort of thing?
6625. judithathome - 3/6/2003 10:14:19 AM
Rehnquist's Daughter To Resign Government Position; Being Investigated For Misconduct
She was appointed to the post by Bush and took office in August 2001. As inspector general, Rehnquist supervises about 1,600 employees and acts as the department's internal watchdog.
Rehnquist has been under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee and the General Accounting Office on allegations of official misconduct, including that she improperly delayed an audit of the Florida state pension system. Rehnquist has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
In addition, Rehnquist was being investigated by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency -- a group that oversees inspectors general -- because of allegations that she had a handgun in her office.
Emphasis mine.
6626. concerned - 3/6/2003 11:14:40 AM
So much for the theory that the USSC & Bush Administration were 'helping each other out' improperly.
6627. judithathome - 3/6/2003 11:30:41 AM
Why do you say that? She was obviously not qualified for that position but got the job anyhow so what makes you think it wasn't a sop to Rehnquist to give his kid a job?
This wasn't some damned clerkship somewhere.
6634. jayackroyd - 3/6/2003 1:31:28 PM
concerned--
As in the Iraq thread, you are presenting no defense. Is that a concession?
6635. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2003 2:02:28 PM
concerned only presents pre-recorded opinions. Check his recent link in International to get an insight into the intellectual milieus from where he gets them. Right now he is googling frantically to find a suitable retort.
6636. jexster - 3/6/2003 3:41:27 PM
I think concerned is an unemployed propagandist laid off from TASS circa 1989
6637. jexster - 3/6/2003 3:44:19 PM
Retail Gasoline Prices Hitting Record Highs
Record high energy prices, record budget deficits, federal budget unmanageable - the price of empire and glory for GWB
6638. robertjayb - 3/6/2003 5:07:01 PM
Generic Democrats poll well...as usual
March 6, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The "as-yet-unnamed" Democratic presidential nominee has a slight edge over President Bush, according to the latest national Quinnipiac poll.
Almost half of those surveyed -- 48 percent -- said they would support the Democratic candidate, while 44 percent said they would vote for Bush. The poll of 1,232 registered voters, conducted Feb. 26-March 3, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
6639. concerned - 3/7/2003 12:00:56 AM
re. 6634 -
Sorry. I thought you were posting rhetorically. In the dozen or so articles I've read that have dealt with Turkey's position regarding allowing US military personnel to stage from its territory for any Iraqi incursion, none mention that the US is making any effort to get the Turkish military to override its parliamentary vote in any way. As a matter of fact, the US has stopped the process of upgrading certain Turkish installations that might have been used in any action in Iraq. So, I gathered that you were either not very well informed or simply speculating.
If Saddam is deposed, have you a clearly better plan than what has been publicly revealed by the US government? If not, do you not at least understand that, apart from the political aspect, that removing the UN sanctions by themselves will benefit the Iraqi people? Do you now repudiate the whole concept of nation building? Or do you believe it cannot be effective in Iraq's case?
6640. concerned - 3/7/2003 12:02:58 AM
re. 6635 -
Wrong.
Yet again.
6641. robertjayb - 3/7/2003 12:35:54 AM
Suffer the little critters...
WASHINGTON -- With war looming in Iraq, the Bush administration this week asked Congress to exempt the Defense Department from a broad array of environmental laws governing air pollution, toxic waste, endangered species and marine mammals.
The Pentagon says its needs relief from environmental regulations that protect endangered species and critical habitats on millions of acres of military training ranges across the country.
6642. concerned - 3/7/2003 12:41:18 AM
Is is true that there is a species of frog that has adapted to existence only in muddy tire ruts on military bases?
Jes' funnin'.
6643. magoseph - 3/7/2003 10:24:59 AM
Threat Level
6644. robertjayb - 3/7/2003 5:23:24 PM
Bushies want mini-nukes to thwart WMD. Really!
The Guardian -- The Pentagon has asked the US Congress to lift a 10-year ban on developing small nuclear warheads, or "mini-nukes", in one of the most overt steps President George Bush's administration has taken towards building a new atomic arsenal.
............................
A Pentagon official said yesterday the research ban on smaller warheads "has negatively affected US government efforts to support the national strategy to counter WMD, and undercuts efforts that could strengthen our ability to deter or respond to new or emerging threats".
Boy Howdy! I'll be the U.S. press will be all over this.
Sure...
6645. robertjayb - 3/7/2003 5:24:42 PM
...bet
6646. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/10/2003 12:17:24 AM
6647. alistairConnor - 3/10/2003 3:09:43 AM
There are very few money transfers which are not taxed. Not only income, but spending, is taxed.
There is one striking exception : the buying and selling of stocks. Why is this exempt from tax?
6648. alistairConnor - 3/10/2003 3:10:13 AM
This is probably a Slow Thread issue... if anyone cares to take up the gauntlet?
6649. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:24:05 AM
There is, actually, a proposal out there to replace all taxes with a very small tax on money transfers, including the hundreds of billion that move around nightly.
But it's true that financial transactions--the paying of loans, the cashing or deposit of a check, adding or withdrawing from a savings account, purchasing or selling a government bond, purchasing or selling commercial paper--are not taxed.
6650. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 11:22:46 AM
Do you refer to the Tobin tax, Jay? Warning: don't get alistair started.
6651. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 11:29:30 AM
Yes, thanks, Pelle. What could be wrong with the Tobin tax? There are second best problems, of course, but other than that?
6652. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 11:58:55 AM
I think Tobin proposed the tax in the aftermath of the South-east Asia financial crisis. The idea was to put a brake on the fast-moving speculative funds. The problem is one of collection. There has to be world-wide compliance. No more off-shore banking, and how realistic is that?
6653. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 12:12:55 PM
I don't see why you couldn't implement such a tax domestically, on all transfers, as a revenue source. It would be minimally distorting, other than to add some friction during disruptive times. It would just drive up the price of everything somewhat, something like a superVAT.
Cheap to administer, too and hard to use as a pork distribution tool.
I like the global version too. And I think offshore banking is in trouble anyway. If there is to be any serious attempt to do something about terrorism, there will have to be greater transparency in the banking environment, world-wide.
6654. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 12:38:09 PM
SF Fed agrees with Pelle:
Pragmatic problems
6656. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 1:29:00 PM
test
6657. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 6:58:24 PM
And here's yet another reason to insist on a separation between Church and State.
6658. Al D - 3/10/2003 7:30:28 PM
unilateral=adj. done by or affecting one person or party
Liberals are bothered when Bush mentions 9/11 when asked why he is going after Saddam. It implies that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, an idea that has not been established. If his intent is to suggest it has, that bothers me too, because it is not honest. I think there is another explanation, but that is really not my point.
Every Democrat or Liberal talking about war with Iraq uses the term unilateral. That is not misleading; it is a bare faced lie, or as my friend jimbo says, a broad assed statement. I'm sure you are all bothered by that, also.
6659. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:26:00 PM
When the Btit's line up beside the american troops, when the action actually happens, then we can say bilateral. Will that suit you?
In point of fact, of course, people opposed to the United States deciding when and how to enforce UN resolutions, regardless of the position of the UN use the word "unilateral" as shorthand for "not engaging the international community in arriving at a position."
6660. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:27:03 PM
Btits=Brits. nothing freudian there.
6661. concerned - 3/10/2003 10:29:25 PM
jay -
You'll be glad to know that the Brits are already conducting operations along with the Americans in Iraq.
6662. Al D - 3/10/2003 10:59:37 PM
jay
Please don't be so patronizing. We are supported by a host of countries, and opposed by four. We have tried to get the international community in arriving at a position and it is obvious that France and Geermany had no intention of following through on 1441. The harpiong on unilateral is a propaganga divise pure and simple.
6663. Al D - 3/10/2003 11:00:52 PM
As a matter of fact, if France vetos the new resolution, they are the ones acting unilaterally, wouldn't you agree?
6664. Al D - 3/10/2003 11:03:32 PM
Also, evwen if we had the backing of the hostel four, we would still be acting, except for the British, unilaterally. Of course, it would be nice to have the French along in case things went badly so we could have some one to concede defeat.
6665. alistairConnor - 3/11/2003 5:06:49 AM
Wrong thread, Al. Wrong tone for this thread too. Sorry if that sounds patronising.
6666. alistairConnor - 3/11/2003 5:11:10 AM
I apologise for that last remark... for some reason I thought this was the Slow thread!
Wrong tone, indeed. (giggle)
6667. judithathome - 3/11/2003 10:27:06 AM
As you well know, "tone" can't be patrolled or set or whatever the hell else the tone police always say. (I haven't missed that at all...strange.)
6668. robertjayb - 3/11/2003 11:15:11 AM
Charlie Cook's right-track/wrong-track numbers:
...the latest snapshot shows President
Bush's overall job approval numbers are down to just 51 percent in the
latest Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report poll; more people disapprove of
his handling of the economy and domestic issues than approve; and there
is only a 1 percent difference between people who say they will
definitely vote for him next year and those who would definitely vote
against him.
First, the public is increasingly turning more pessimistic about where
the country is headed and that tends to color everything else. Only 34
percent of the 1,000 adults (error margin 3.1 points) interviewed last
Tuesday through Thursday believe the country is headed in the right
direction, and 54 percent said it was off on the wrong track. Combining
the most recent poll with the previous one, conducted Feb. 18-20 with
2,000 adults interviewed (error margin 2.2 points), 37 percent said
right direction, 54 percent said wrong track. Two polls each in January
and February showed the right direction percentage to be 39 percent,
with wrong track 52 percent for January and 51 percent for February.
6669. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 11:42:04 AM
"First, the public is increasingly turning more pessimistic about where the country is headed. . .
6670. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 12:59:10 PM
Bush, not content to have stolen an election in the U.S., now insists that he be given the authority to set policy for other soverign nations. How DARE France or Turkey or Germany decide how they should vote instead of taking marching orders from Dubya.
6671. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 1:03:32 PM
The U.S. Congress: from absurd to idiotic.
6672. judithathome - 3/11/2003 1:13:52 PM
You beat me to it, Bubs! I was just going to post that.
Your tax dollars at work, folks!
6673. thoughtful - 3/11/2003 1:18:04 PM
Oh brother...how OTT. I thought they usually start with burning books, not menus!
6674. thoughtful - 3/11/2003 1:26:28 PM
That would mean we'd have to change the name of Russian Dressing, Mexican Tortillas, Canadian Bacon, Irish Stew, and German Sauerkraut just to name a few...
6675. judithathome - 3/11/2003 1:31:17 PM
..and boycott Thanksgiving!
6676. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 1:35:32 PM
untwisting my French braid while humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic
Nothing but closed-lip kisses from now on, folks.
By the way, are we planning to give back the Statue of Liberty?
6677. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 1:51:56 PM
nah. That'll be partial payment for the elevendythousand dead we left on their soil.
I think you guys are a lot more the wack-jobs I mentioned than you like to admit.
bubbette? (this site needs eye-rolling emoticons, too) Bush didn't "steal" the election. News flash.
And you can thank your lucky stars that he did. (in your......um.....mind)
Algore on 9-11 would sure to have said...
"UAAAAAAAH. Waaaaaael. I'd lIIIIIIke to address the terrorist issuuuuuuue. Buuuuuuuuat. The GrAAAAAAAAAytest threat to civilization today.....is the internul kumbuuuustion Injun.
holyfreakinmoly.
you guys think I'M the dope.
6678. judithathome - 3/11/2003 1:58:36 PM
You are the only one commenting on what a dope you are...you are the one saying we must think that. I haven't seen one person here call you a dope or a moron or a wack job.
That could change, of course.
6679. OhioSTOPAS - 3/11/2003 2:04:13 PM
Bubbaette (Message # 6671): Hahaha! I now expect the editors of "The Onion" to announce they're closing up shop. There is no parody they can write that can top what comes out of our Republican Congress.
(That'll teach France! We'll remove their name from their most cherished culinary creation, French fries!)
6680. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 2:04:31 PM
Bush didn't "steal" the election. News flash.
And you can thank your lucky stars that he did.
Well make up your mind. But I stand corrected. The Supreme Court stole the election at Bush's behest.
6681. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 2:08:49 PM
Personally, I think it's even worse that the Supreme Court stole the election, because most of us would like to maintain the fiction that the Supreme Court is above politics. Of course that goes along with the rest of the fiction -- that we're a peace-loving nation, that we value freedom of speech, that we don't START trouble, etc.
6682. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 2:21:32 PM
I just like to beat everybody to the point in calling me a dope.
I also have a real hard time joining in on "serious threads", which consists mostly of hate filled rhetoric, but I do my best. I promise I'll lurk quietly like a good dope when the issues and topics are serious and thoughtful, but when the ridiculous stuff starts, I'm IN!
(btw, anything I read that I deem as spawned by hate and blind devotion on either side is the starting gun for me).
6683. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2003 2:26:36 PM
Start by reading your own posts then.
6684. judithathome - 3/11/2003 2:27:20 PM
Hey, post what you want to and don't worry about it.
Jeez, what isn't said anyhwhere that isn't driven by some sort of preconceived idea or belief system? Are we just supposed to parrot things at certain comfort levels or what?
Believe it or not, the things I say aren't driven by hatred but knock yourself out deciding what you wish to belive.
6685. judithathome - 3/11/2003 2:28:25 PM
beLIEVE...
6686. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 2:50:04 PM
Hmmmm -- how does one square these statements:
I think you guys are a lot more the wack-jobs I mentioned than you like to admit.
or
Algore on 9-11 would sure to have said...
"UAAAAAAAH. Waaaaaael. I'd lIIIIIIke to address the terrorist issuuuuuuue. Buuuuuuuuat. The GrAAAAAAAAAytest threat to civilization today.....is the internul kumbuuuustion Injun.
and
anything I read that I deem as spawned by hate and blind devotion on either side is the starting gun for me
Uh yeah, right, so evidently purely dispassionate and truth- seeking.
6687. thoughtful - 3/11/2003 2:53:40 PM
Watchit! Downtown LB, there's only one thoughtful™ in these thar threads
6688. concerned - 3/11/2003 3:07:15 PM
downtown LB -
Don't let the resident Lefties get you down with their school yard condescension and deranged, yet curiously formulaic ranting. I personally find much of it amusing, particularly from the ones who, with the utmost certitude, spout the most preposterous and hackneyed LW propaganda.
6689. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 3:14:07 PM
Get me DOWN?!?!?!
Whaddya nuts!?!?!?
I have to subscribe to some of their publications to get ammo THIS good, and its FREE!!!
I assume y'all know that Al gore DID say that in his book, right? (the part about the internal combustion engine being the most serious threat to the world today)
It'd be better if you did your "hatin'" with a sense of humor, say, like Dennis Miller.
6690. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 3:39:10 PM
It'd be better if you did your "hatin'" with a sense of humor, say, like Dennis Miller.
Evidently the only sense of humor you "get" is your own jokes. I would say that I'm sorry that my sense of humor doesn't meet your standards, but I really don't care.
6691. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 5:32:22 PM
not your fault your humor sucks. Don't take it so hard.
Most people don't laugh at hate.
6692. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 6:19:57 PM
What was the name of that guy who dropped in here and claimed he retired from the CIA or some such gov. agency?
6693. judithathome - 3/11/2003 6:50:34 PM
Chuck Barris? ;-)
6694. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 8:04:11 PM
gong.
6695. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 8:35:32 PM
Was it Rama?
6696. judithathome - 3/11/2003 9:12:26 PM
Might have been...maybe Cazart, too.
6697. Al D - 3/11/2003 10:14:54 PM
Do your best to drive this person off the Mote! Theree are already enough anti-Liberals here. Now email all your friends for the pile on.
6698. magoseph - 3/11/2003 11:01:57 PM
What are you talking about, Al? No one has tried to run anyone off the Mote.
6699. Al D - 3/11/2003 11:17:09 PM
magoseph
Oh, sorry, it was just a feeling I got from some of the posts above. But I guess you're right, he's welcome on the Mote.
6700. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2003 9:18:32 AM
Paranoids"r"Us!
6701. downtown LB - 3/12/2003 9:31:59 AM
oh come on now. Nothing would make me dig in more than an attempted roust.
I'm not anti-liberal, I'm anti-hate. :-)
6702. concerned - 3/12/2003 2:52:31 PM
Time to get some ANWR oil
Prime Oil Rig Real Estate
6703. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2003 3:13:53 PM
Uh-oh! It looks like the fascists may have slapped a restraining order on Bartcop!
6704. concerned - 3/12/2003 3:19:14 PM
Uh-oh! It looks like WoW has been made a fool of by his fellow travelers!
6705. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2003 3:45:07 PM
Connie, try not to let your mind wander. It is too small and fragile to be out by itself.
6706. judithathome - 3/12/2003 3:56:58 PM
LB, if you truly are anti-hate, good for you. I think most people can get behind that sort of thing.
Al, rein it in...Wiz asked about a former poster and I answered him; what is the big deal about that? Not every question is some nefarious conspiracy and as for e-mailing, I've e-mailed you before...does that make us conspirators in an evil plot to overthrow the Mote?
6707. concerned - 3/12/2003 4:32:19 PM
Re. 6705 -
Hold your water. I didn't want to let Bartcop's deceptive home page stand.
6708. vanTHEman - 3/12/2003 8:09:53 PM
A toast to stupidity...(Joe Conason)
6709. banjomon - 3/13/2003 12:30:55 AM
NOTICE!!!!
The Senate is ONE VOTE AWAY from approving a bill that would allow drilling to begin in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. The swing voters are Blanch Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. If this vote passes, drilling will begin in one of our last wild places, home to several endangered species. Understand that this is just the beginning for the Bush Administration. Next will be drilling in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and mining five-thousand acres of the Florida Everglades. This action cannot be stopped unless you send a letter to your State Senators NOW and ask them to defend the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. This bill will become final next Wednesday! Please go to www.savebiogems.org and take action before it's too late.
6710. robertjayb - 3/13/2003 11:43:40 AM
Got Them Mean Ole Disappearing First Amendment Blues...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Government agencies opened a package mailed between two Associated Press reporters last September and seized a copy of an eight-year-old unclassified FBI lab report without obtaining a warrant or notifying the news agency.
The Customs Service intercepted a package sent via Federal Express from the Associated Press bureau in Manila to the AP office in Washington, and turned the contents over to the FBI.
FBI spokesman Doug Garrison said the document contained sensitive information that should not be made public. However, an AP executive said the package contained an unclassified 1995 FBI report that had been discussed in open court in two legal cases.
"The government had no legal right to seize the package," said David Tomlin, assistant to the AP president.
6711. Edmund Dantes - 3/14/2003 11:39:47 PM
Battling Jim Moran suffers a knockdown
Rumor has it this guy likes to punch people--even some non-Jews once in a while.
Perhaps even his ex-wife. But of course he's a Democrat, so that's a private matter.
6712. arkymalarky - 3/15/2003 10:20:36 AM
Looks like he faced his remarks and the consequences, as did the Democratic Party--much more quickly than Lott and the Republican Party. Not that I think either man should be removed from a position due to such remarks. They were elected and appointed by their parties to their positions, and either the remarks were aberrations and genuine misstatements or the people who elected them and put them in their positions did so while fully aware of these men's views.
Evidence to back up the rumors of physical violence? Merely speculating on his wife or is there some basis for considering the possibility?
Nothing a Democrat does with a woman is a private matter. Clinton's impeachment proved that.
6713. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 11:38:42 AM
Evidence to back up the rumors of physical violence? Merely speculating on his wife or is there some basis for considering the possibility?
What difference would it make to you?
Once again, liberals think it's a conservative's job to educate them, rather than doing their own homework.
The man is an ex-boxer who frequently thinks people "deserve a punch in the nose." I think his inability to control his temper speaks for itself.
In any case, only his wife and he know for certain what went on between them during his failed marriage. Nevertheless, it's unlikely someone unable to control a tendency toward public physical violence is going to be completely "hands off" in private.
6714. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 11:39:28 AM
wife = ex-wife
6715. judithathome - 3/15/2003 12:04:41 PM
The parents of an 8-year-old boy accused of trying to carjack Virginia Rep. James P. Moran
This is funny on so many levels.
6716. vanTHEman - 3/15/2003 12:27:26 PM
Ex-Clinton aide reveals Bill lost the nuclear codes
Former President Clinton lost the codes to nuclear war the day the Monica Lewinsky affair broke, was MIA in the fall of 1998 when a decision was needed on the killing of Osama bin Laden, and was "too busy watching a golf match" to OK a 1996 bombing mission in Iraq, says a blockbuster new book by Clinton's former military aide. Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the nuclear "football" from May 1996 to May 1998, crosses a line no other "mil aide" has before in condemning his commander in chief in Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security. "This story had to be told." But a Clinton national security aide, William Danvers, tells us Clinton was never "unavailable for key" decisions and didn't jeopardize U.S. security. One story: The day the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton was to trade in his "biscuit" with the nuclear launch codes. But they were missing. "We never did get them back," says Patterson. Then there's bin Laden: Clinton ducked calls from the Situation Room to ok a Tomahawk attack in 1998, then waffled until it was too late.
6717. OhioSTOPAS - 3/15/2003 12:52:15 PM
Hee hee hee . .
The latest from Regnery Publishing. Get out your wallets, suckers!
6718. arkymalarky - 3/15/2003 1:12:12 PM
I do my homework in legitimate locations. Ohio has it. The top of the GOP realized PT Barnum was right and they've been captalizing on it (so to speak) ever since. If you can make a buck and feed the gullible what you want them to believe, then so much the better
6719. judithathome - 3/15/2003 1:14:41 PM
Yes, with all the cuts in retired military benefits, and losses in 401k plans, that guy must need a boost in his savings.
6720. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 2:14:43 PM
When Church and State work as one.
6721. Al D - 3/15/2003 8:23:32 PM
Last fall, before the elections, the Senate voted to give Bush the authority to go after Saddam. I would imagine that many felt it was the right thing to do. Some voted against it because they felt it was not the right thing to do. Same, no doubt, knew the vote would not cause them political capital; others might have felt it might, but had the courage of their convictions. They are to be admired.
It seems, though, that some simple voted yes because they felt it would hurt them politically to vote no. Now they are saying just the opposite. Is it because their views have changed, or because it think it will help them politically.
It used to be said that politics stops at the water's edge. Not any longer, unfortunately.
6722. jayackroyd - 3/15/2003 9:02:01 PM
Certainly not in 1998.
6723. jayackroyd - 3/15/2003 9:03:41 PM
That doesn't change my view that the democrats were gutless, genuflecting to the current numbers. I have no problem with people who believed the intervention was justified, but I agree there were people who thought it was not who voted for political cover.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure there were some republicans in that group as well.
6724. Al D - 3/15/2003 9:28:00 PM
Did I say there wasn't?
6725. jayackroyd - 3/15/2003 9:35:36 PM
No, and my apologies for the unwarranted assumption.
6726. Al D - 3/15/2003 9:57:13 PM
Quite honestly, I am disgusted by the duplicity of many politicians on all three sides of the fence. But your response is a bit like a kids, "But Mom, all the guys do it." That never got me very far. My son made a joke out of that.
"But Dad, all the kids do it."
"If all the kids wanted to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you?"
"Sure!"
"My Dad tried to form a block outing."
6727. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 4:06:42 PM
(Boston Globe)-- He was introduced as a military hero, but Senator John F. Kerry largely avoided the subject of Iraq during a speech this weekend to the California Democratic Party. The tactic highlighted a war's potential ramifications in this politically important state where the Vietnam peace movement flowered.
The Massachusetts Democrat, a presidential contender and supporter of a congressional resolution authorizing military force in Iraq, spent less than two minutes on the issue during a 27-minute speech Friday night to delegates attending the party's annual convention. His remarks were so spare Kerry never even uttered the word ''Iraq.''
Instead, he broached the subject by saying, ''Let me say a word about our military power and how it might or might not be used.''
A member of the audience immediately responded by shouting: ''No war, John. No war.'' A second and third yelled the same thing.
Kerry's balancing act between supporting Iraq's disarmament and urging more diplomacy brought him numerous questions from businessmen, political activists, and reporters during a two-day visit to California last week.
The perils of the issue were evident yesterday during a speech by Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, a presidential rival who also addressed the 1,750 delegates. Edwards, who like Kerry voted for the resolution last fall, was roundly booed for arguing that Iraq needs to be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction.
''It is . . . a test of presidential leadership to have the backbone to say to those who strongly disagree with you, even your friends, what you believe,'' Edwards said as some delegates shouted: ''No war. No war.''
Amid more boos, the senator added: ''I believe Saddam Hussein is a serious threat, and I believe he must be disarmed, including with military force if necessary. We cannot allow him to have nuclear weapons.''
6728. robertjayb - 3/17/2003 5:53:26 PM
Stand by for the Tyranny Alert to be raised. What's next? Orange?
6729. judithathome - 3/17/2003 5:54:23 PM
I think it's now HARD Tangerine.
6730. robertjayb - 3/17/2003 6:07:04 PM
Richard Pearle, prince of darkness, chickenhawk, and war profiteer will appear tonight on Lou Dobbs Moneyline (CNN).
6731. magoseph - 3/17/2003 6:13:18 PM
Did you read Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker, Robert? Perle is suing him now.
6732. robertjayb - 3/18/2003 4:00:05 PM
The kook who is paralyzing D.C. by claiming to have explosives aboard his tractor on the Mall must have been getting dubya's messages by mistake:
Asked why he decided to protest this week, Watson said: "I just played it by ear. The Lord told me to do it. He said, 'Time is running out, Jack.'"
Don't mess with a man on a devine mission.
Paralyzing the capital...
6733. concerned - 3/18/2003 7:54:11 PM
Looks like Teeny Little Tommy Daschole, the divisive partisan hack hypocrite who is even smaller than he looks, has stuffed his ankle down his throat again by sliming GWB wrt Iraq, saying that he's “.. saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to go to war.”
Contrast this with the diametrically opposed tone Daschole took in '98 when x42 signed the Iraqi Liberation Act that endorsed regime change: Daschle said in '98: "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Why would anybody who cares vote for a POS like Daschole?
6734. downtown LB - 3/18/2003 9:24:22 PM
because the most important issue to his constituents is often the pork-belly-futures market in Chicago, thats why.
He is a blithering idiot, isn't he?
I wish Kerry would have said something one way or the other when the protesters started shouting at him. He was too a-feared to speak up at that Star-wars-cabana-ish-convention he was speaking at.
God, I'd be SOOOO embarrased to be a democrat with these fools as my leaders.
6735. judithathome - 3/19/2003 8:41:00 AM
Every politician goes for pork and gets it. It isn't only Democrats.
It's no more embarrassing to be a Democrat than to be a Republican. That bill reducing benefits for deceased soldiers got into the list somehow and it had to take one party or the other to get it there so don't go pulling the moral high ground on anyone...we should ALL be embarrassed by our political party affiliation at one time or another.
6736. Al D - 3/19/2003 11:41:47 AM
This may not belong in this thread, but I'm hardpressd to know where to post it. If host object, move it to the Inferno.
Would any of you disagree that hate speech directed at African Americans, Jews, women, gays can and does cause violence toward individuals? The Nazi depiction in Jews as less than human led a Nation of good people to bestial behavior to their neighbors. Were the killers of Matthew Shepard, perhaps, made to feel justified in brutalizing him because of outrageous diatribes against gays? After the Okalahoma bombing President linked it to the hate speech of talk show hosts, and there was much agreement with his claim. When individuals and groups hurl hateful epithets against others can they be excused with the bromide, “Everybody is entitled to their on opinion.”? I don’t think so. They need to be shamed for their hateful speech.
Yet there is a poster on the Mote that spews hate, depicting people with animalistic, cartoons with heads being blown off shoulders, a cartoon juxtaposing two individuals, one a viscous monster responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people, with the caption, Same shit, different asshole. There is no doubt in my mind that this individual would take the same pleasure in violence done to the other as haters of gays felt with the mutilation of Matthew Shepard. This poster is not only tolerated, but seems to be enjoyed by many on the Mote. I am not suggesting he personally would do violence; Hitler to my knowledge never did violence to a Jew, but do any doubt he enjoyed seeing it done.
6737. Al D - 3/19/2003 11:42:29 AM
inJews=of Jews
6738. Wombat - 3/19/2003 11:55:32 AM
You need to get a sense of proportion, Al D, as well as a look at some of Concerned and Joe Z.'s occasional grotesqueries.
Which are you trivializing more, WoW's expressed beliefs or far-reaching and pervasive hate-speech? For the record, I am against censoring either. They have no effect on my feelings on Bush and Republicans, although I get the occasional urge to strangle WoW.
6739. Macnas - 3/19/2003 11:56:41 AM
AI D
How do you feel about political cartoons, some of which savagely lampoon your own president?
How did you feel about VanTheMan gloating over the death of one of your countrywomen in Israel by an IDF bulldozer? That was one of the worst I've seen in here. I don't agree with your view, but find it surprising that you have not judged others using the same criteria.
6740. Al D - 3/19/2003 12:03:55 PM
Wombat
You know, I have spoken directly to concerned about his trash talk toward Clinton. I think my post is reasonable and reasonably stated. If you not believe hate speach should be condemed, so be it. I have said nothing about censorship. People are free to post whatever and speak whatever, but they also should be spoken against for hateful speach, which can and does cause others to occational violence.
Which are you trivializing more, WoW's expressed beliefs or far-reaching and pervasive hate-speech? I think the answer to that is obvious, just by reading my post, keeping in mind most of the Wiz's posts.
6741. judithathome - 3/19/2003 12:13:17 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that this individual would take the same pleasure in violence done to the other as haters of gays felt with the mutilation of Matthew Shepard.
May I say if this is true of your mind, you are out of it.
6742. Al D - 3/19/2003 12:14:23 PM
Macnas
In other words, since I did not condemn vantheman, I lose my right to comment on the Wiz? Stong argument. You say you don't agree with my point. That's fine. When one is called the same as Hitler, to those, like me who actually remember WWII, with a brother still under ground in Europe, the though of assinating Hitler was a pleasant one.
Is the thought of killing Bush a pleasant one to you? I think it is to the poster of that cartoon. Because some cartoons which are savage are acceptable, does that mean that all are? You miss my point if you think I am talking censorship. The answer to bad speach is more speach. I am providing that.
6743. concerned - 3/19/2003 12:14:59 PM
Regardless of anything I've ever posted here about x42, I'm sure all would agree that it's been exceeded by an order of magnitude by the output from jexster, WoW and others regarding GWB, who haven't had a scandal a week presidency to justify any of it.
IAC, I'm very much in favor of live and let live wrt expressing ones attitudes, although my posts wrt x42 almost always have been based on some widely agreed upon and specific shortcoming or incompetency related to his official duties, and thus have more merit than simple caricatures and namecalling, although I'll be one of the last ones to object to the latter two, regardless of which side of the political aisle they come from. Therefore, people who object to my posts really just can't stand the factual heat.
6744. Al D - 3/19/2003 12:19:01 PM
Judith
Pray tell, what do all those hateful posts show? Are you condoning this hate speach?
6745. judithathome - 3/19/2003 12:25:24 PM
I'm neither condoning hate speech nor asking for it's muzzling. I'm saying I disagree with your idea that Wiz would take pleasure in the death of anyone and I'm just as sure you wouldn't take pleasure in anyone's death, either.
6746. Macnas - 3/19/2003 12:25:39 PM
AI D
I am the last person who will advocate that you or anyone else loses their right to comment. I do feel however that if you have a standard, then it should be evenly applied. Of course that’s just my take, how you apply your standards is your own affair and I respect that.
If I was to comment on WoW I would say that he has the ability to express his opinions in a visual manner that most do not, and that is the only fundamental difference between him and anyone else here. Some of his images I find good, some I do not.
How exactly you construe that anyone wants to commit murder via WoW's posts, I do not see that.
And I did not mention censorship, I did mention that VanTheMan's posts in the Israel/Palestine thread were extraordinarily callous, and wondered why you have not spoken out about those, as they are in the vein of that which you accuse WoW's posts of being.
6747. judithathome - 3/19/2003 12:26:49 PM
although my posts wrt x42 almost always have been based on some widely agreed upon and specific shortcoming or incompetency related to his official duties, and thus have more merit than simple caricatures and namecalling
But of course. I think we all know that. (s)™
6748. concerned - 3/19/2003 12:29:30 PM
Heh heh. As JAH probably would agree, I feel perfectly free to embellish my posting with caricatures and namecalling, at least for public figures.
6749. magoseph - 3/19/2003 12:31:28 PM
Al,
Many of the French bashing cartoons lately have been wickedly funny but mostly patently incorrect in the ways the French are depicted. It doesn't bother any of my French friends. We love them and email them to our French relatives. I too would never advocate a curbing of Whiz's work in this forum.
6750. concerned - 3/19/2003 12:34:11 PM
Well, I've read that most French are very different than Parisians, and I'm perfectly willing to believe it. Unfortunately for them, perhaps, it's the Parisians that have the megaphone.
6751. Macnas - 3/19/2003 12:37:07 PM
I like Parisiens, I've only ever met one who was in the stereotypical snotty mode, and he was a clerk at a checkout counter in Marks & Spencers, so maybe he had reason to be....
6752. magoseph - 3/19/2003 12:49:29 PM
Unfortunately for them, perhaps, it's the Parisians that have the megaphone.
Oh, well, then we'll let them sell to the Russians, Germans, and the Chinese. That'll fix their exports in time, a long time. The French could do with more dark beer, vodka, and tea, you know. Such snobs, really!
6753. Al D - 3/19/2003 1:00:02 PM
I'm just as sure you wouldn't take pleasure in anyone's death, either.
You are so wrong! Two years ago a two creeps murdered my nephew and for other people. Three of the people there dismembered, placed in ruck sacks, and threw in the river in the S.F. Bay Area. I would take pleasure in seeing them die. Of course, I will be long gone before that happens. Do you not think people took pleasure in the death of Hitler? A swastika sets me off to this day.
magoseph
Please don't misunderstand my post. I would not silence anybody, but I believe the message the creator of a cartoon on one who passes it on shows in the work. For example, when I see a sigh that says We support our troops----when they fire at their officers iget the messager, but they should be free to carry it. What is the message of the cartoon with Hitler/Bush and the caption Same shit, different asshole. Do you suppose that in WWII the assisation of Hitler had no appeal? The cartoon is obvious in its intent. If it is true that Bush is the tyrant Hitler was, someone ought to blow his head off. This is more than anti-war protest. What is the message of Bush's head being blown off his shoulders? That we should have voted for Gore?
6754. Al D - 3/19/2003 1:04:11 PM
If someone comes on this forum bashin gays (maybe with clever cartoons of a fag hanging from a lamp post), women, Blacks, Jews I feel sure you will all rush to his defense with, Well, we don't agree, but we respect your right to your own opinion.
6755. Al D - 3/19/2003 1:05:23 PM
If someone comes on this forum bashing gays (maybe with clever cartoons of a fag hanging from a lamp post), women, Blacks, Jews I feel sure you will all rush to his defense with, Well, we don't agree, but we respect your right to your own opinion.
6756. judithathome - 3/19/2003 1:09:42 PM
Al, you can't force people to think as you do unless you are the Supreme Court. Even then, people disagree with what that court might think is right for us to do.
I'm sorry for what happened to your nephew. Also sorry to have assumed you felt a certain way about people dying though I can certainly see how you'd wish that on those who harmed your family.
6757. magoseph - 3/19/2003 1:15:31 PM
Al,
Yes, we would, Republicans and Democrats alike. Don't confuse public figures with minorities who suffered from prejudice. Why do you use the word fag instead of gay?
6758. Al D - 3/19/2003 1:16:12 PM
I relly should proof read. I guess posts with as many mistakes as I have made are hard to read.
6759. Wombat - 3/19/2003 4:12:19 PM
Move to open ANWAR to oil exploration and drilling fails in Senate.
6760. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 4:30:05 PM
!!!
Well, I suppose that could be accounted for by the euphoria of falling crude prices.
6761. magoseph - 3/19/2003 4:45:17 PM
The bill has been dead on arrival for the last year. It never had a chance of passing, anymore than the new tax bill being presented by the Bush administration. The reason the oil is going down is because the world is awash in oil and OPEC is seen to be getting weaker, not stronger.
6762. downtown LB - 3/19/2003 5:27:11 PM
The reason is isn't passing is because there are more fools like barbera boxer and tom Daschle in the senate, than not.
If Saddam is as evil as most are saying, then I for one will rejoice in his death. Evil should die, not be put in prison.
If you are responsible for putting live human beings into a tree-shredder, you'd deserve to die, too.
Reports are, Saddam has, among other atrocities.
That ain't a human, and that sure as hell ain't worthy of pity or mourning.
The whole reason we're doing this is because saddam has to die. Not be moved by Omar's van lines to Algeria. He needs to be blown to hell.
Count my vote as one HELL-YES!
6763. arkymalarky - 3/19/2003 5:30:48 PM
I wish you'd told my Banjobro that months ago, Mag. ;-)
6764. downtown LB - 3/19/2003 5:32:52 PM
and immediately with the offensive (as opposed to defensive) comment...
"why'd you use the word FAG??huh huh huh??"
fer cryin out loud. You can say its funny for the president to be depicted in cartoons getting fagitized by osama bin laden, but WE can't use the word fag???????
Yeah, thats it.
6765. magoseph - 3/19/2003 6:15:32 PM
I wish you'd told my Banjobro that months ago, Mag. ;-)
I should let him read the two BullBoards on which I scatter my pearls of wisdom, Arky.
6766. concerned - 3/19/2003 6:20:41 PM
'Gay' used to be a perfectly good English word, before it was hijacked for use as a stereotype.
6767. RickNelson - 3/19/2003 6:33:39 PM
I'm happy to hear about the vote concerning ANWAR Wombat.
6768. magoseph - 3/19/2003 6:48:55 PM
downtown LB, public figures are fair game.
6769. Al D - 3/19/2003 7:54:41 PM
magoseph
Why do you use the word fag instead of gay?
I did so for effect. Did you find it offensive? If so, good, I intended it to be. It is borderline hate speach. When done to excess, it croses the line and one doing it should be reprimanded. But I've had my say and did not expect hardly anyone on the Mote to agree.
6770. magoseph - 3/20/2003 6:19:52 AM
No, Al, you didn't do for effect. It just escaped the tips of your fingers.
6771. judithathome - 3/20/2003 9:38:59 AM
Eight of the "idiots" who voted against the Alaska drilling were Republicans. Good for them.
6772. Al D - 3/20/2003 11:11:03 AM
magoseph
Of course, you are dead wrong, it was very calculated. Believe me, if I had the skill of the Wiz you would see posts that would turn your stomach,(but you would defend them because I have a right to my opinion). I suppose when you read A Modest Proposal you conclude Swift really enjoyed ragout of newly born baby.
6773. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 1:13:57 PM
Al, knowing that you are so stirred to anger—or that Wombat would like to "strangle" me sometimes—only confirms that my efforts to viscerally provoke the loyal opposition are successful. However, in your rage, you attribute others' posted images as coming from me. The Bush-being-sodomized-by-bin-Laden image and the different-asshole/same-shit image were NOT mine.
The exploding head image of Bush & Saddam was meant to illustrate that they are both terrorists and headaches for the entire world—though I can't see you ever being aware enough to see it.
If I was as eloquent as Senator Byrd's "Today I Weep for My Country" speech, then I would use words because it's exactly how I feel.
You fail to appreciate, or even understand, that The Bush Bunch has, from the start, behaved like an arrogant gang of thugs. They have stolen the rights and liberties for which I, and countless others, have risked our lives to protect.
But that DOES NOT mean I want any harm to come to Bush—other than losing the next election of course. If you think I want an imbecile to become a saint and a martyr, you're even dumber than I suspect.
As far as your right to feel the way you do, because your nephew was dismembered and murdered, is not for me to judge— but with your logic, mayhem and murder is always justified and, for me, it never is.
6774. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 1:26:37 PM
Al D
By the way, Al, aoften overlooked fact regarding the trumped-up war I served in: By the early '80s, more than twice as many Vietnam veterans had committed suicide than died in combat.
6775. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 1:27:33 PM
an often overlooked fact
6776. Wombat - 3/20/2003 1:44:42 PM
WoW:
Actually, I said "occasional urge" to strangle. As to what you want to happen to Bush, I am in full agreement with you. I just find many of your animations to be one-trick ponies thematically. My criticism--and occasional urges to strangle--are based on aesthetic disagreement, not political disagreement; with an obvious and well-documented exception.
6777. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 2:05:00 PM
Wombat, please feel free to critique the specific elements of my images—though we may have different esthetics with regard to how someone/something should look—I'm always eager to improve.
Start with the above image . . . or any image you find wanting.
6778. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 2:34:06 PM
Some welcome analysis.
6779. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 2:39:32 PM
This just in!
6780. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 2:56:16 PM
6781. downtown LB - 3/20/2003 3:28:16 PM
You call Bush a terrorist and you in the same breath DARE to impune MY intelligence!?!?!?
Thats just too rich. Not even a little less idiotic than any statements coming out of Bagdad these days.
Consider yourself a non issue, and a not very intelligent one at that.
6782. judithathome - 3/20/2003 3:39:45 PM
Who is the addressee of that post, LB?
6783. magoseph - 3/20/2003 4:08:12 PM
magoseph
Of course, you are dead wrong, it was very calculated. Believe me, if I had the skill of the Wiz you would see posts that would turn your stomach,(but you would defend them because I have a right to my opinion). I suppose when you read A Modest Proposal you conclude Swift really enjoyed ragout of newly born baby
Al, what really it comes down to, the true homophobic is really a repulsive human being, no matter how proficient he is or claims to be in literary pursuits.
6784. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 4:10:40 PM
What are we talking about magoseph ?
6785. magoseph - 3/20/2003 4:32:14 PM
Cellar,
To understand, you have the read the following posts Message # 6755; Message # 6757; Message # 6758; Message # 6770; Message # 6772.
6786. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 4:43:51 PM
This just in from Oregon . . .
6787. magoseph - 3/20/2003 4:55:08 PM
Whiz, thanks for posting the Frenchness Police cartoon.
6788. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 4:56:54 PM
Sure mags, don't pass this read up: Familiar, Haunting Words . . .
6789. Al D - 3/20/2003 7:16:47 PM
Wiz
I fully realized that the post I mentioned was not your work. So what. You posted it. I certainly admit the possibility that you don't wish for harm to Bush, but I don't discount the possibility either. Your hatred is deep, as evidenced by what you post. I truly believe that hate speach can drive people to commit vile acts. You are doing the same dehumanization of Bush the Nazis did of the Jews. Why not kill Bush? He isn't really human; he is the same as Hitler.
6790. Al D - 3/20/2003 7:20:27 PM
Cellar
magoseph is calling me a homophobe without coming right out and saying it. Now you and I go way back on this subject (do you remember when I asked for your help to try to get some sense into some on Free Republic?). I am not now and never have been a card carrying hater of Gays.
magoseph has the intellectual ability to understand my point, but she chooses not to.
6791. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 8:51:40 PM
6789. Al D
You've been malicious in your deluded accusations of me, Al, so I won't treat any of your addled postings with respect or concern.
If Bush is going to behave like a tyrant, then he is more than worthy of my indignant ridicule.
So go crap in your cap!
6792. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 8:56:23 PM
I truly believe that hate speach[sic] can drive people to commit vile acts.
Tell that to Lush Bimbo and Bill O'Really—-besides, If that were true, then why is Bill Clinton still walking around after the eight year hate-fest, they led?
6793. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 9:12:14 PM
Cause Big Dog is a whole lot tougher than they are.
"magoseph is calling me a homophobe without coming right out and saying it"
This was regarding what?
6794. thoughtful - 3/21/2003 10:18:58 AM
Krugman in praise of the Onion....
The Onion describes itself as "America's finest news source," and it's not an idle boast. On Jan. 18, 2001, the satirical weekly bore the headline "Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over," followed by this mock quotation: "We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
6795. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:33:04 AM
Back in 1998, Clinton spoke about Iraq:
If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.
Here is the response from the Conservative Caucus:
1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.
3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.
4) Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.
6796. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:34:42 AM
5) Wars of defense are morally appropriate. Foreign wars for purposes other than national defense are not.
6) In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.
7) The Federal government's ability to provide for the common defense (of the United States) is substantially diminished in consequence of resources expended during President Bush's "Operation Desert Storm". Not only have America's arsenal and battle-ready personnel resources not been fully restored, they have, in fact, been radically depleted since Desert Storm, in consequence of massive reductions in Congressionally authorized spending for the defense of the United States (even as expenditures for U.N. intervention operations and other "social policy objective" activities have risen). Defense analyst Peter Schweizer, now at the Hoover Institution, who favors air strikes, nonetheless observes that "[t]hanks to military cutbacks, we don't have anything close to the force that won Desert Storm. In 1991, the U.S. Air Force had 24 fighter wings to draw from. Today it only has 13. That means fewer planes and (even more importantly) pilots. Desert Storm was fought with two Marine divisions, seven active Army divisions, and combat brigades of two additional divisions. Now, that commitment alone would exhaust all of the Army's 10 active divisions." (Source: USA Today, 2/18/98, p. 15A)
6797. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:35:28 AM
8) The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.
9) If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?
10) War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?
The fundamental issue is whether Bill Clinton's military action against Iraq is important enough to die for. I am prepared to die in defense of God, family, and country---but I don't believe that this preemptive strike against Iraq is worth dying for.
6798. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:36:47 AM
Toys
6799. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:37:44 AM
Toys 6800. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:39:18 AM
toys
6801. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:40:15 AM
6802. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:47:18 AM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Hypocrisy?
6803. magoseph - 3/21/2003 12:44:09 PM
Huh?
6804. Edmund Dantes - 3/21/2003 1:10:55 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Hypocrisy?
The Conservative Caucus you link to opposes this war on Iraq as well. Thus, unlike Democrats such as Tom Daschle, they have not demonstrated shameless hypocrisy.
6805. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 2:54:22 PM
Gee, Count Mount-Me-With-Crisco, I wasn't questioning the the character of the Caucus, but rather the Bushies—who were supported by them.
6806. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 2:55:02 PM
6807. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 3:04:10 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Bankruptcy? or Torpedoes?
6808. Edmund Dantes - 3/21/2003 3:16:07 PM
I wasn't questioning the the character of the Caucus, but rather the Bushies....
I don't think you knew what you were doing at all. You just posted--likely something you saw posted somewhere else. Your own critical-thinking skills are just about nil.
And now you are either being stupid or just outright lying.
You said: "Here is the response from the Conservative Caucus." You didn't mention anything at all about "The Bushies." And then you posted "Cigars? Cigarettes? Hypocrisy?"
The Conservative Caucus was against an attack in February 1998. They are now against the current campaign to liberate Iraq. Unlike Daschle and other Democrat hypocrites, they don't seem to have flipflopped.
6809. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 4:00:16 PM
So are we to take it that you're with the Conservative caucus on this Count?
6810. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 4:03:51 PM
As always, you confuse "critical" with anal. I'll copt to being sloppy or hasty with words, but YOU made the assumption about the Caucus, Rectumhead, so don't blame me.
Go back to your Anal-Perfectionists' World where Cal's vibrator better fits your compulsions!
6811. Al D - 3/21/2003 7:20:28 PM
Edmond
Your post about Wiz's post was polite, not a rude word in it, but notice how vile is his response. We must understand, though, that this is not a happy day for both Cellar and the Wiz. The country they love (maybe not Cellar-but the Wiz says he loves America) is doing well. Now if tens of thousands of G.I.s were getting slaughered, it would be another matter.
6812. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 7:56:39 PM
I love Americans.
I do NOT love "America."
6813. Al D - 3/21/2003 7:59:57 PM
Cellar
Yeah, I have gathered that idea from all your posts. And I respect your honesty. I don't respect the other fellow's lies. He claims to be a great patriot. What a laugh.
6814. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 8:03:31 PM
6815. Al D - 3/21/2003 10:13:59 PM
You don't have the guts to say what that post means. To try and shit people that your point is they are both terrorists and a pain to the world only fools those who want to be fooled. You are about as anti-American as one can be. Your hatred pre-dates Bush.
6816. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:22:28 AM
It's "WE THE PEOPLE," Al—not "WE THE CORPORATIONS" or "WE THE OLIGARCHS."
6817. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:30:13 AM
Bombing countries who haven't attacked us is anti-American, Al. Stealing elections and rigging the judiciary with cronies is anti-American, Al. Dominating the world with bribery and extortion is anti-American, Al. Trumping democracy with greed-based capitalism is anti-American, Al. Throwing future generations into an abyss of long term debt, is Anti-American, Al.
6818. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:33:29 AM
6819. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:55:20 AM
Sunshine Patriot
Tom DeLay and the party of appeasement. By William Saletan
Cigars? Cigarettes? Yet MORE Hypocrisy?
6820. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:03:15 AM
Hey Wiz, it's a big world. You don't like this country? Go find one you like. Maybe Libya will do you. You are a real anti-American, anti-capitalist ass hole. You love predicting doom and gloom for America, but it ain't gonna happen you poor sap.
6821. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:04:00 AM
What's a matter Wiz, didn't yo manna give you enough love?
6822. concerned - 3/22/2003 3:30:09 AM
Re. 6805 -
C'mon. You're imposing a truly ridiculous set of requirements on the Conservative Caucus here, including requiring them to be able to predict the future, by saying they're hypocrites for supporting GWB in '00 when, if 9/11 hadn't occurred, there would have been little likelihood of the current administration considering military action against Iraq at all.
6823. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 10:50:58 AM
"manna?"
Reread Connie, I was talking about the 180 that Bush&Co. did with regard to "nation building"—moreover, their intentions for "regime change" in Iraq, predate 9/11.
6824. Al D - 3/22/2003 1:18:11 PM
For a guy who had a fit when concerned pointed out his spelling error, it is ironic he points out an obvious typo. But I forgive him as he is feeling sad thinking of the demise of Saddam.
There was a female Afgani author on C-Span talking about how much better things are with the Taliban gone. Wiz wanted the Taliban left in power. What a strange man.
yo mamma, Wiz
6825. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 1:28:30 PM
Your post about Wiz's post was polite, not a rude word in it, but notice how vile is his response.
6826. Al D - 3/22/2003 1:47:39 PM
Wiz
Yeah, so what's your point. Unless someone buys your shit, your response is always nasty and vile. Mine, are for the most part reasoned and polite.
6827. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 8:26:49 PM
6828. anomieme - 3/22/2003 8:36:22 PM
WOW,
I think you're a hoot.
Love your Photoshop skills, or whatever you use.
These days when I see a real pic of GWB, my brain converts him into your ape attitude.
Keep up the good work!
6829. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 9:32:13 PM
merci mon ami ! ! !
6830. Edmund Dantes - 3/22/2003 10:25:36 PM
WizardOfIgnoramous: Keep digging yourself deeper, boy.
I wasn't questioning the the character of the Caucus, but rather the Bushies—who were supported by them.
Did you even bother to notice the author of the screed you posted? Howard Phillips, dipshit. Do you know who Howard Phillips is?
I'll give you a hint: he did not support Bush in 2000.
As always, you confuse "critical" [thinking] with anal.
Nope, that's your problem because you have your head so far up your ass.
You are limited to posting inarticulate (and repetitive) images because of your almost nonexistent verbal ability. That's all well and good for creating ugly little cartoons, but on a message board one should have a modicum of ability to put together an actual sentence now and then. Since you cannot, you lift (mostly erroneous) spewings from other people and repost them here, without any evidence of judgment as to their validity, or whether they even support what you're trying to argue.
Given all that, I'm not 100 percent sure even now whether you are dishonest or just too stupid to figure out how much you missed the mark.
All it takes is that single neuron you possess--"Bush = chimp"--fire!, and lo, the Mote will be the passive beneficiary of your spastic fingers.
6831. Edmund Dantes - 3/22/2003 10:31:35 PM
Al (6811): You are likely right.
6832. Al D - 3/22/2003 11:11:56 PM
Edmons
Hear, Hear! And he is one of the favorites on the Mote. I once was convinced he was about 16, but he claims to be hero of the Viet Nam War. I was a five star General of WWII; I insist on being given the proper respect.
6833. Al D - 3/22/2003 11:18:25 PM
From the WizAs always, you confuse "critical" with anal. I'll copt to being sloppy or hasty with words, but YOU made the assumption about the Caucus, Rectumhead, so don't blame me.
Go back to your Anal-Perfectionists' World where Cal's vibrator better fits your compulsions!
The level of argumantation of a so called adult and self proclaimed war hero, and posted to an opponent who had not an insulting word in any of his posts.
6834. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 11:54:26 PM
Well geez, Count Asshole, maybe Dubya isn't a true conservative, after all—but you're still anal!
6835. concerned - 3/23/2003 2:47:21 AM
Re. 6823 -
I did, and my point wrt the CC and war in Iraq still stands.
6836. concerned - 3/23/2003 2:55:32 AM
There've been huge quantities of derisive comments coming from the Left regarding GWB's education, etc. What of that of the critics? Let's see:
Barbra Streisand Completed High School
Career: Singing and acting
Cher Dropped out of school in 9th grade
Career: Singing and acting
Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton
Career: Acting
Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year
Career: Acting
Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting
Julia Roberts Completed High School
Career: Acting
Sean Penn Completed High School
Career: Acting
Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting
Ed Asner Completed High School
Career: Acting
George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting
Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan
Career: Movie Director
Sarah Jessica Parker Completed High School
Career: Acting
Jennifer Anniston Completed High School
Career: Acting
Mike Farrell Completed High School
Career: Acting
Janeane Garofelo Dropped out of College
Career: Stand up comedienne
Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year
Career: Acting
I'd say merely completing high school, which seems to be the educational summit achieved by most LW celebrities, is not a sufficient qualification for determining what constitutes effective US foreign or domestic policy.
6837. Al D - 3/23/2003 3:09:51 AM
Well geez, Count Asshole, maybe Dubya isn't a true conservative, after all—but you're still anal!
This is adult argumentation? And this guy puts Bush down for being stupid? We report, you decide.
6838. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 10:05:20 AM
You decide what to report.
6839. judithathome - 3/23/2003 10:28:42 AM
I'd say merely completing high school, which seems to be the educational summit achieved by most LW celebrities, is not a sufficient qualification for determining what constitutes effective US foreign or domestic policy.
They are not trying to determine foreign policy; they are expressing their differences with the President's foreign policy. That is something you were lauding about this country as opposed to France over in the Iraq thread and I quote:
One reason that the US is a better nation than France is that people such as myself and jexster are free to insult the president all day long, yet insulting Chirac in France is a criminal offense.
I suppose in your version of Animal Farm, some pigs are more equal than others? You and Jex are free to insult the president all day long but others are not because they aren't up to your intellectual standards? Funny, isn't it, how when April 15 rolls around, this government isn't refusing their tax dollars. I dare say they pay a bit more than you or I do even though they are so ignorant as to only squeak through high school.
6840. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/23/2003 12:29:48 PM
Perle's Plunder Blunder
It's Richard Perle's world. We're just fighting in it
.. . The critical battle for Baghdad was yet to come and "Shock and Awe" was still a few hours away. (The hawks, who are trying to send a message to the world not to mess with America, might have preferred an even more intimidating bombing campaign title, like "Operation Who's Your Daddy?")
. . . The chesty "you repent, we decide" Bush doctrine was cooked up pre-Bush, fashioned over the last 12 years by conservatives like Mr. Perle, Mr. Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith and Bill Kristol.
. . . The confidant of Rummy and Wolfy serves as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel. That's why Global Crossing agreed to pay Mr. Perle a fat fee: $725,000. The fee structure is especially smelly because $600,000 of the windfall is contingent on government approval of the sale. (In his original agreement, Mr. Perle also asked the company to shell out for "working meals," which could add up, given his status as a gourmand from the Potomac to Provence, where he keeps a vacation home among the feckless French.)
6841. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/23/2003 12:32:55 PM
They Both Reached for the Gun — By FRANK RICH
6842. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/23/2003 12:51:31 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Gourmet meals? War?
6843. judithathome - 3/23/2003 12:54:39 PM
Well, Wiz, there is killing on both sides today...I don't think anyone is happy about what's going on.
6844. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:17:04 PM
re. 6839 -
It's dishonest of you to try to conflate two distinctly different subjects that I was discussing, or else you're simply confused.
6845. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:21:04 PM
Btw, Animal Farm dealt with people on your side of the political fence, JAH.
6846. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:21:54 PM
Or, rather, political animals on JAH's side of the political fence.
6847. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:23:09 PM
Note that it's the Socialist French, not conservatives, who are responsible for any restriction of freedom of speech, although JAH is desperately trying to turn the truth on its head.
6848. judithathome - 3/23/2003 3:29:57 PM
Concerned, you were caught making contradictory statements and I called you on it. No big deal; it happens to all of us at times. Just accept it and let it go at that.
I'm not conflating anything nor am I being dishonest. You either support free speech or you don't. If it's good for you and Jex, it's good for Martin Sheen and Natalie Maines.
6849. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:35:16 PM
JAH -
Actually I caught you trying to compare apples and oranges in order to discredit me. I didn't say word one about anybody's First Amendment rights. I said that these people were probably unqualified to dictate US foreign policy. Not the same thing at all.
6850. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:40:39 PM
The last thing I want is anybody to put a construction on my posting that these people should not be allowed to make whatever foolish statements they desire. What I am trying to do is to warn people to take their unqualified opinions with several large salt mines of skepticism.
See. Two entirely different things, and it's worth fighting to make sure the two aren't conflated by some third party.
6851. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 3:55:22 PM
connie is a congential liar, Judith.
6852. judithathome - 3/23/2003 4:30:08 PM
Concerned, if you are of the opinion that anyone here is too dense or stupid to understand that Hollywood actors are not schooled in foreign policy and that they need you to explain it all to them, then I can't expect you to understand what I am trying to say to you.
I am not trying to make you look foolish or anything; just pointing out something that appeared to me to be inconsistent. The fact you are getting so exercised over it and seeing all sorts of nefarious reasons behind it is very telling, however.
6853. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 4:33:10 PM
You don't have to try to make him look foolish, judith. He's quite capable of doing that on his own.
6854. Edmund Dantes - 3/23/2003 6:07:05 PM
concerned (6850): It's obvious to anyone with a shred of honesty and intellectual capacity what you were saying.
Stupid people equate criticizing stupidity with infringement of free speech because such speech is all they are capable of.
6855. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 12:09:38 AM
Well, Wiz, there is killing on both sides today
Only because Bush decided for all of us to invade a sovereign country that never attacked us, Judith.
[these people]unqualified to dictate US foreign policy
They "dictate: nothing—including public opinion. But that is exactly what your surrogate of corporate bribery is doing—dictating war for the rest of the world.
Stupid people equate criticizing stupidity with infringement of free speech because such speech is all they are capable of.
Now there's one stupid sentence that truly does "conflate" as well as misconflate!
Hail Caesar!
6856. Al D - 3/24/2003 1:33:09 AM
The Wiz is in his glory because the U.S, had a bad day. You think this guy has any love of America? Give me a break. Crawl back in your hole you creep.
6857. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 4:35:57 AM
Toys.
6858. magoseph - 3/24/2003 7:55:42 AM
Stupid people equate criticizing stupidity with infringement of free speech because such speech is all they are capable of.
Well said, Dantes. The response to a post should be a response to the position the poster has taken rather than an attack on the poster. What you fail to point out is that concerned is the most consistent violator of that measure of courtesy.
6859. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 10:37:08 AM
For the record, Al, I think Gen. Tommy Franks is a superb officer and I've never been prouder of our military— whom I identify with completely—that is, being forced to fight in a war that should never have been started.
Like Viet Nam, this is a viper pit that will poison America's reputation for decades—maybe forever. If you had any "intellectual honesty," as Dantes likes to say, you'd admit that this war is about domination cloaked as "liberation."
The mounting death toll of the brave and the pure in Iraq will eventually be laid at the feet of Bush and his cowardly manipulators, but not until thousands more die, regrettably.
If you think that gives me any pleasure, you're dead wrong—it only infuriates me with a cold and bitter rage that will stiffen my resolve to bring about a change of regime, here in this country.
Make no mistake, it will stiffen the resolve of many others as well.
6860. Cellar Door - 3/24/2003 10:44:24 AM
Sing Out Louise!
6861. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 10:55:00 AM
The response to a post should be a response to the position the poster has taken rather than an attack on the poster. What you fail to point out is that concerned is the most consistent violator of that measure of courtesy.
This is self-contradictory in that instead of pointing out an example within a post by concerned of his doing that which you accuse him of, you attack concerned himself.
I also doubt the practical veracity of your statement. Although because the gang that attacks him has greater numbers, as individuals they may each engage in fewer personal attacks, I expect he is no more "personal" in return than the sum of the personal attacks against him.
You are welcome to scan back through this thread in an attempt to prove otherwise. For example, I've gone back for two weeks and can find nothing by concerned comparable to "connie is a congential liar, Judith."
6862. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 10:56:12 AM
it only infuriates me with a cold and bitter rage that will stiffen my resolve to bring about a change of regime, here in this country.
Which means we can all count on even more(!) monkey cartoons.
Wonderful.
6863. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 11:47:25 AM
"That's all well and good for creating ugly little cartoons, but on a message board one should have a modicum of ability to put together an actual sentence now and then."
. . . Which means we can all count on even more(!) monkey cartoons.
Edmond, I'll gladly match the efficacy of my visuals to the verbal gruel you offer up—any time, anywhere.
Moreover, this place isn't solely a "message board" because it has the capacity to handle visuals and sound. So it's really you're limitations and lack of imagination that prevent you from expressing yourself in other forms. I would enjoy seeing your efforts to communicate in a visual language, for a fairer comparison of our communication skills.
Keep defending your merry band of ditto-monkeys and immoral apes and I'll keep painting vivid reminders of their evolutionary stage of behavioral development.
6864. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 11:51:12 AM
you're limitations = your limitations
6865. thoughtful - 3/24/2003 2:57:44 PM
More on the Richard Perle story courtesy of Maureen Dowd
The confidant of Rummy and Wolfy serves as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel. That's why Global Crossing agreed to pay Mr. Perle a fat fee: $725,000. The fee structure is especially smelly because $600,000 of the windfall is contingent on government approval of the sale. (In his original agreement, Mr. Perle also asked the company to shell out for "working meals," which could add up, given his status as a gourmand from the Potomac to Provence, where he keeps a vacation home among the feckless French.)
Although his position on the Defense Policy Board is not paid, Mr. Perle is still bound by government ethics rules that forbid officials from reaping financial benefit from their government positions. He and his lawyer told Mr. Labaton that his work for Global Crossing did not violate the rules because he did not lobby for the company and was serving in an advisory capacity to its lawyers.
But that distinction is silly because Global Crossing has so many other big names on its roster of influence-peddlers that it doesn't need Mr. Perle's Guccis for actual lobbying footwork or advice on the process. His name alone could be worth the $725,000 if it helps win the Pentagon's seal of approval.
6866. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:00:56 PM
Re. 6858 -
Care to back up that swipe at me with anything, magoseph?
6867. Al D - 3/24/2003 3:11:08 PM
There is no one on the Mote who can compete with the Wiz in vile personal attacks, and there is no one the Mote who recieves more personal attacks than concerned. Even I have insulted concerned, and insults from me are rare.
6868. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:13:03 PM
I find it a bit surprising that a certain party who is denigrating what she sees as the total lack of 'courtesy' in my posting isn't considering the level of courtesy in others' posts (eg cllrdr) to me when making her comparisons.
6869. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:15:07 PM
Not that most of it bothers me, but there are certain 'interpretations', to put it courteously, of my posting I really won't allow to go unchallenged.
6870. magoseph - 3/24/2003 3:24:02 PM
6858 - Re. 6858 - Care to back up that swipe at me with anything, magoseph?
No, concerned, I can't because I am way out of line this time. The fact that you have answered this to Cellar--"Even an idiot wouldn't believe that lie.", does not qualify my remark because Cellar has numerous times called you an idiot. How big an apology do you want?
6871. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:30:50 PM
None. We're friends here:)
6872. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:33:57 PM
Btw, what did I post that to cllrdr about?
6873. magoseph - 3/24/2003 3:35:24 PM
I find it a bit surprising that a certain party who is denigrating what she sees as the total lack of 'courtesy' in my posting isn't considering the level of courtesy in others' posts (eg cllrdr) to me when making her comparisons.
On second thoughts, concerned, maybe I do not owe you an apology since you accomplished with me what you planned to do to one of us according to Alistair: No, Mago, Cerned was just doing his ongoing Frog-baiting thing. He's hoping one of us will lose it one day, and retaliate in kind. Chance would be a fine thing.
What do you think?
6874. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:38:37 PM
I think he speculates wrongly.
6875. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 3:39:52 PM
Al D ". . . and insults from me are rare."
Hahahaha! Yeah, right and Jesus was a kangaroo!
You're the worst kind of attacker, Al, because your calumny is based on fabricated and unconscious assumptions. Some rebuttals to your invented charges:
I never claimed to be a war hero. I've never taken any glee in peoples' death, American or otherwise.
I don't hate Bush, I abhor his behavior and his hubris, though I don't doubt that he's taking us all to hell with the best of intentions.
You took issue with me comparing Dubya to Saddam, well it would seem others see these two thugs in the same light as well . . .
Notice Al, how you and Dantes haven't responded to my sincere defense of your venomous allegations above?
Do you think he'll honor us with a Photoshop response?
6876. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:39:55 PM
Btw, nice little dig there about cllrdr & his calling me an 'idiot', magoseph.
6877. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 3:55:01 PM
the efficacy of my visuals
Eh? What do your funhouse-level visuals communicate, Whizzo? That you think the President is a simian. Well, we've seen that at least a few bazillion times from you now, dearie. If you really think you do such a good job of communicating, why do you need to post basically the same picture over and over, eh?
And then there's the exploding Bush and Saddam heads. What does that say, old chum? You deny that it implies anything like violence toward the president, but if your communication is so "efficacious," then why would you need to explain that?
Your visuals are effective in demonstrating that 1) you know how to use PhotoShop; 2) your "artistic vision" is slightly more advanced than a doodler drawing Hitler moustaches on his enemies in the high school annual and perhaps blacking out the star athlete's tooth from impotent envy; 3) you tend toward the sick, favoring imagery that is violent and often mixes that violence with the lurid.
Because what you produce relies on this last for its sole effect on the audience, you don't create art. You produce pornography.
6878. magoseph - 3/24/2003 3:56:30 PM
I think he speculates wrongly.
Alistair will glad to read that, concerned.
Btw, nice little dig there about cllrdr & his calling me an 'idiot', magoseph.
From me? Ouch! But you're wrong, I would never accuse anyone to be an idiot even by implication, no more than I would use profane language to anyone. I think you know that.
6879. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 4:08:55 PM
It's all in the eye of the beholder, Countess. If you liked what I do, I'd quit doing it.
I don't seeing your scrawlings and rantings ever receiving praise or encouragement.
Show me one — other than those posted by the imbeciles you are forced to defend around here.
6880. magoseph - 3/24/2003 4:09:44 PM
And then there's the exploding Bush and Saddam heads. What does that say, old chum?
It says to me that those two are thinking the same thing: bombings, and that all they will accomplish is that the world will explode as will their heads along with ours.
6881. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 4:10:37 PM
Thanks mago!
6882. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 4:12:04 PM
I don't seeing your
6883. magoseph - 3/24/2003 4:14:13 PM
Not at all, Whiz, I always have fun interpreting your work.
6884. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 4:19:57 PM
So you post pictures of Bush as a monkey ad infinitum because you think it plays to the crowd?
That's not just pornography, Wizzo, that's prostitution.
By the aesthetic standards you're espousing "The Family Circus" must rank higher than the Sistine Chapel.
Bush approval ratings back around 70 percent.
What does that say about "crowd approval," boy-o?
As for the difficulty of what you do, here's a five-minute effort on my part. It's no doubt less popular than "Dubya as Dr. Zaius, Take Number 643," but I don't dedicate my life to my art, either.
Link
6885. Al D - 3/24/2003 4:26:53 PM
magoseph
How did you interpret a post justapozing Hitler/Bush with the caption Same shit, different asshole. This was not his work; it does have meaning his cartoos really don't. And by the way, Bush's head exploding was put on the Mote way back shortly after 9/11. I was not the only one who took that to depict an assination. Do you think it meant Bush's head exploded from excessive ideas?
If someone had posted such a thing when Clinton was President, would you have approved? Do you think any expresstion of hate goes over the line, even that directed at conservatives.
6886. Al D - 3/24/2003 4:29:40 PM
Wiz
Had you been alive in the forties, would you have hated Hitler? For you to claim you do not hate Bush is palpable nonsense. You reek of hate.
6887. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 6:21:52 PM
Countess Edmond, the "Liquify" feature in Photoshop is the telltale sign of a graphic nincompoop and dilatant who can't figure out how to use the rest of the tools —but I applaud your willingness to take a risk.
However, what are you trying to express about Gore? When your technique get's in the way of your communication, it destroys the message.
I can, at the very least, make Bush look like a monkey (an easy task, granted, because he's already there), but what are you trying to do with Gore—make him wavey?—signfying what, exactly?
6888. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 6:23:37 PM
Right Al, the way you reek of love!
6889. magoseph - 3/24/2003 6:49:13 PM
magoseph
How did you interpret a post justapozing Hitler/Bush with the caption Same shit, different asshole. This was not his work; it does have meaning his cartoos really don't. And by the way, Bush's head exploding was put on the Mote way back shortly after 9/11. I was not the only one who took that to depict an assination. Do you think it meant Bush's head exploded from excessive ideas?
If someone had posted such a thing when Clinton was President, would you have approved? Do you think any expresstion of hate goes over the line, even that directed at conservatives.
I interpret a cartoon when I see it. I never saw the Hitler/bush one
.
After 9/11, many brains were seeing red, Al, or harboring exaggerated ideas of pain, bewilderment, or vengeance.
I would have approved of a cartoon depicting another part of Clinton's anatomy...
To answer your last question, Al, I have already explained my stance on freedom of expression.
6890. Al D - 3/24/2003 10:01:06 PM
Jesus Christ, I never suggested stoping someones freedom of expression, quite the opposite. The thing is, you would approve of whatever Wiz posted no matter how vile, or you would be silent about it because he is of the same political position as you are. Or you suppose he is.
When concerned was posting about Clinton (Cloontoon, White House Rapist, etc.) I spoke up against that kind of talk. What I'm talking about is speaking out against trash talk. But I give up. As Judith said, you can't force people to see things your way.
6891. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/25/2003 8:27:57 AM
Shock, Awe and Razzmatazz in the Sequel
With the new engagement in Iraq, however, the Pentagon and television news coverage are blurring the lines between movies and real life as never before, turning viewers into 24-hour couch voyeurs. In the opening days of the war the focus on television was almost entirely on the fireworks spectacle of the American air attack on Baghdad — which looked on the small screen like a son et lumière show, not the deadly bombing of a city of 4.5 million people — and on heroic and often unrepresentative images that deliberately recalled photographs and famous cinematic sequences: soldiers planting an American flag in Iraq with Iwo Jima-like determination; caravans of our troops driving across the desert, made famous by "Lawrence of Arabia"; a soldier tearing down a billboard of Saddam Hussein while video cameras rolled and smiling Iraqis looked on.
There were fewer images thus far on American television of the painful costs of war. While much of the world from the Middle East to the Philippines had seen videotape of American prisoners of war, broadcasters here initially elected not to show these scenes, and the networks said they would probably never broadcast the full version of the tape. American television showed little tape of Iraqi civilians affected by the bombing of Baghdad and little of the sometimes fierce resistance American, British and Australian forces are meeting.
6892. thoughtful - 3/25/2003 8:51:56 AM
Channels of Influence
Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.
6893. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/25/2003 9:58:55 AM
Cigars? Cigarettes? CronyCapitalistOligarchism?
6894. magoseph - 3/25/2003 11:17:42 AM
toughtful's link
Arky has bribed me to do that, thoughtful.
6895. magoseph - 3/25/2003 11:55:17 AM
Al
The thing is, you would approve of whatever Wiz posted no matter how vile, or you would be silent about it because he is of the same political position as you are. Or you suppose he is.
No, Al, I wouldn't approve of this type of cartoons, for example:...clever cartoons of a fag hanging from a lamp post), women, Blacks, Jews
As far as the war is concerned, Whiz and I do not share the same views.
6896. thoughtful - 3/25/2003 12:58:47 PM
thanks mago, didn't realize my link was broken.
6897. judithathome - 3/25/2003 1:06:43 PM
Al, you might try reading before you make accusations. Magos supports the war and has since the beginning.
6898. betty - 3/25/2003 6:57:17 PM
A very funnyentry from a friend's blog. Not for those who are humor impaired.
6899. robertjayb - 3/26/2003 6:00:28 PM
Senator Moynihan is dead...
6900. concerned - 3/26/2003 6:02:16 PM
Sorry to hear that. Another real Democrat is gone.
6901. robertjayb - 3/26/2003 6:05:17 PM
NYTimes obituary...
6902. RickNelson - 3/26/2003 7:51:39 PM
I had heard Hilary Rodham gave an announcement today. I see that was reported. Yup, he was a democrate of some standing. He's got one of those names yah remember, like Humphrey.
6903. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/26/2003 11:52:38 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Deficits?
6904. wonkers2 - 3/27/2003 8:05:17 AM
Education Arkansas-style; Justice Bush-style; Religion fundy-style
6905. RickNelson - 3/27/2003 8:10:48 AM
Rhenquist. He's so line item. Hasn't the thoughtfulness of a rock.
arky may not like your beginning tag.
6906. wonkers2 - 3/27/2003 8:11:34 AM
"Education" in Arkansas
6907. RickNelson - 3/27/2003 8:18:03 AM
Ah, that clears it up. That's just sad.
There have been cases of some sort in Minnesota and surrounding states. It's always sad when oppressive methods are used against someone or a group underserving of such abuse.
6908. concerned - 3/27/2003 4:40:27 PM
Daschole regrets timing of comments
You almost have to feel pity for sorry li'l Tommy Daschole. Now he is regretful of his miserable, saddened comments.
6909. judithathome - 3/27/2003 5:51:10 PM
Story is midway down the page...
POWs of Last Gulf War Get Stiffed
As the world watches footage of the American soldiers taken prisoners of war by Iraq, those who suffered the same fate more than a decade ago say that they're still waiting for justice.
Twenty-two Americans were shot down or otherwise taken prisoner in Iraq 12 years ago.
One of them was Marine Col. Cliff Acree, a squadron commander shot down by a surface-to-air missile and captured by the Iraqis on the second day of the 1991 Gulf War.
6910. arkymalarky - 3/27/2003 7:06:55 PM
Hey, thanks for the link, Wonk. I'd seen that here but hadn't realized that it had gotten the attention of the NYT.
Here's another one from that same district (a large one, I might add), but in the high school:
"Jacksonville Rape Suspects"
and
a local article on it
6911. Edmund Dantes - 3/27/2003 10:18:36 PM
Re 6892 and the partisan hack Paul Krugman:
What he refers to as evidence of an oligarchical conspiracy involves a country music radio station sponsoring an event related to a country music act. That is not an unusual occurrence to anyone's imagination but the hysterical "Nazis are everywhere and only I am keen enough to spot them" Mr. Krugman.
A more detailed response to his column (by me) is here, but because of the severe limits on post length at this site I'll link to it rather than repost it in its entirety.
Otherwise, I suggest Mr. Krugman double the dosage on his smelling salts prescription.
6912. Al D - 3/27/2003 11:12:35 PM
Edmond
Good job showing Krugman's non-sensable points. I don't think you'll get much of a response on the Mote. I would respond on TPW except I don't know how to get on. It seems CalGal doesn't know my email and I don't know hers. Of course, I have no idea what my password is, and they tell me there is no one by the name of stamper listed.
Ms. No was nice enough to put a link on Notes.
6913. thoughtful - 3/28/2003 9:03:30 AM
Big headline in the papers that "Pentagon Adviser is Stepping Down". Richard Perle resigned in light of criticism of mixing his personal business with government policy roles.
Read the fine print and find out he's resigned his chairmanship but will remain a member of the board.
6914. judithathome - 3/28/2003 9:10:39 AM
They're discussing it in International right now, Thoughful. Read the piece I linked to in 2116; it may not be the entire Hersh expose but it contains a ton of info.
6938. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 2:00:02 PM
So does anyone have any opinions on the political fallout of an extended war? Is Bush helped or hurt if it goes on for months rather than weeks?
6939. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 2:08:54 PM
The American people, more than 80% support, President Bush.
The fact that Saddam's thugs are executing our POW Marines only get us angrier.
6940. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 2:09:41 PM
The American people, more than 80%, support President Bush.
The fact that Saddam's thugs are executing our POW Marines only get us angrier.
6941. Cellar Door - 3/29/2003 2:24:31 PM
More propaganda. Where did you pull that 80% figure? Out of L. Brent Bozell's ass?
6942. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 2:42:36 PM
Spam king Cellar, the penis man, joins masturbation Whimey to complain about propaganda.
It is tooooooooooooooooooooooooo laugh.
6943. Cellar Door - 3/29/2003 2:59:16 PM
I'm sure you'll find this hilarious, Tiernan.
6944. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 3:08:36 PM
I never link to your sites anymore, cellar. It's always penises. You obviously have a problem.
6945. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 3:13:24 PM
Cheney, face the nation March 16:
"I think it will go relatively quickly... weeks rather than months."
6946. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 3:35:08 PM
week(s) it will be. Our troopers want to get home for the Memorial Day parades.
&
Peaceniks laugh as 9-year-old boy is executed, but cry as marines near victory in Nasairiya.
A CNN correspondent embedded with the 2nd Marines, Task Force Tarawa, reported that the operation is the latest attempt to secure the town. Nasiriya has seen sporadic fighting during the past two days.
Military intelligence officials found what they described as a treasure trove of Iraqi military information, including codes and identification, in a field in the Nasiriya area.
Col. Ron Johnson, operations officer for Task Force Tarawa, said Friday that the Marines were "very close to controlling Nasiriya and making it secure.
"If they didn't, they said they would shoot a sibling," said Marine Capt. Peter Tabash, who speaks fluent Arabic. One civilian told Tabash that a 9-year-old boy was shot because his family refused to cooperate with the paramilitary groups.
6947. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/29/2003 3:39:05 PM
Hey! Where are my posts? I wasn't the one who started flaming and my links were politically related--why were they deleted, Jay?
6948. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 3:48:52 PM
Get used to it, woody. People are sick of your monkey cartoons. Same old, same old. The jerking-off one yesterday was the last straw.
6949. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/29/2003 4:05:13 PM
That wasn't one of mine, jerk-off..
6950. Edmund Dantes - 3/29/2003 4:10:45 PM
Bush poll numbers surge
6951. Cellar Door - 3/29/2003 4:16:14 PM
Those figures are wrong. Rosie said it was 80%.
Are you some kinda commie, Count?
6952. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 6:19:27 PM
The correct number for support of the war is 78%, not 80%. So sue me.
Attn: This link doesn't show Cellar/WoW's favorite penis
6953. Al D - 3/29/2003 6:25:50 PM
jay
I think it will go relatively quickly... weeks rather than months
Wouldn't it be proper to put his entire words in your post, like when he said he might be wqrong and that in war things are unpredictable. Besides, what is the point of harping on this point of shortness of conflict. If it is important to you, please define excatly what is meant by a short war.
Well, I'll tell you the point of harping on it by you and the press; it is political, nothing more, nothing less. It is an attempt to blacken the administration. Politics used to stop at the waters edge, but not anymore by the democrats. Better to see our forces slaughtered than for Bush to look good. It is a disgusting display.
6954. judithathome - 3/29/2003 7:14:52 PM
I didn't hear you carping about what a disgusting display it was when the Republicans were smearing Clinton with their "wag the dog" theories, Al.
No one wants our forces slaughtered and no one cares if Bush looks good so long as the war is waged successfully and our troops come home intact. For you to imply otherwise is what is disgusting and you do it constantly. Give it a rest and try discussing something of substance, if anyone can even do that amongst all the flames and spamming going on around here the last two days.
6955. Al D - 3/29/2003 7:48:19 PM
You know Judith, you have been on my ass on every post I have made. email bubbette and tell her she should come back on the Mote. Forget dinner in Kona.
6956. Cellar Door - 3/29/2003 8:30:47 PM
I'll have Richard Perle sue you.
6957. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/29/2003 9:43:04 PM
6958. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 9:45:39 PM
Wouldn't it be proper to put his entire words in your post, like when he said he might be wrong and that in war things are unpredictable.
That happened because I cut the quote from a third party. But that's why god made elipses. I notice that I've mixed up my threads. Wasn't it you over in the Iraq thread demanding one source in the administration that said it would be short?
Besides, what is the point of harping on this point of shortness of conflict. If it is important to you, please define excatly what is meant by a short war.
The point is that it is now clear that the coalition prepared the battle plans under the assumption that the south would rise. That assumption has proved false. The further point is that the public was led to believe that the US held an overwhelming advantage, with talk on the aftermath "when" the war was over, before it began. Now this was partly propaganda to encourage the rising in the south, but Americans heard it. In the first few days of the campaign the government was saying to the Iraqis that defeat was inevitable and to lay down their arms and surrender. They drop five leaflets per person telling people how to surrender.
That strategy didn't work. It is now apparent that it was a centerpiece to the overall plan.
Back to my question. Is a long war good or bad for Bush? It, as Arthur Kent just said on CNN, is certainly bad for Blair.
It is an attempt to blacken the administration. Politics used to stop at the waters edge, but not anymore by the democrats.
This coming from the people screaming "wag the dog" in 1998 is pretty ironic.
6959. Al D - 3/29/2003 9:56:32 PM
jay
How did I get to be "the people"? the only war Saddam can win is the propaganga war. That he will win it in most countries of the world seems obvious. It makes me sick that he is getting support from many in the U.S. Is the need on the left to get rid of Bush so strong that all this carping about quagmire and being mis-led by Bush is needed? I get told I should shut up and stop carping, give it a rest, try discussing something of substance but the Wiz posts crap over and over again and nary a word is said by one poster on the left, except praise.
I have tried to discuss in a reasonable manner, and appreciate your responses. But let's face it, the Mote isn't the perfect place for a serious discussion.
6960. Al D - 3/29/2003 9:58:28 PM
jay
By the by, just exactly is the lengh of a long war? I don't think anyone benefits from long wars, and I pity the Iraqi people.
6961. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 10:20:16 PM
The point is not the length of the war. The point is that the strategy is broken, and the terms under which the war begun are no longer operative. Expectations have been set that were very ambitious, even if the Shi-ites had risen.
Take this from tomorrow's A Href ="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/international/worldspecial/29CND-ASSE.html"> NYTimes "A reserve officer was told some time ago, for example, that he would be needed as part of a provisional government in Baghdad, on March 28."
The old cliche is proving true--the plans did not survive the beginning of the battle. Since it's a cliche, that shouldn't surprise us. But this was started with a whole lot of hubris, and promises of minimal collateral damage. The longer it takes, the more civilians will die, especially if it comes to street fighting in Baghdad. The more civilians who die, the more this looks like Soviet-style "liberation."
The war could last so long that the American public loses patience, having been conditioned by predictions from American officials (to quote one of them, Vice President Dick Cheney) that Mr. Hussein's government would prove to be "a house of cards."
from the same article.
6962. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 10:21:26 PM
One more:
"Saddam won't win," said Richard C. Holbrooke, the former United States representative at the United Nations. "Unlike L.B.J. in Vietnam, Bush won't quit. He's a different kind of Texan. He'll escalate and keep escalating. In the end his military strategy will probably succeed in destroying Saddam.
"But it may result in a Muslim jihad against us and our friends. Achieving our narrow objective of regime change may take so long and trigger so many consequences that it's no victory at all. Our ultimate goal, which is promoting stability in the Middle East, may well prove elusive."
6963. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 10:28:46 PM
It makes me sick that he is getting support from many in the U.S.
It doesn't work that way, Al. That's like saying Bush supports Kim Chong-il because he didn't go to war against him.I don't know anyone who supports Saddam Hussein. The argument before the war was whether inspections should be continued. Now the argument is about how well the administration was prepared for adversity, and whether, it should have, for example worked out a way to establish a northern front before launching.
Or, iow, it looks like the thing that was most important to the administration was starting the war on time. UN slows things down. Screw the UN. Blix wants more time. He's out of time. Turkey won't agree to support an invasion. Screw them.
6964. Al D - 3/29/2003 10:30:58 PM
There is no way the west can lose this war, no matter how tough we have to get. We fucked up one war because we didn't have resolve, and I can't believe we would do it again. Iraqis will die in the proportion they fight. If they fight, they are not innocent civilians, even females. To defeat the strongst Nation in the world would so embolden Muslims that first Israel would be driven into the sea, and then they would pay back France, Italy, England, Christian Nations for the crudades, Spain for driving Muslims out of Spain, France colonizing African Nations, Englands occuping Palistine/Iraq, etc. Muslims have long memories and revenge a way of life.
6965. Al D - 3/29/2003 10:36:55 PM
jay
Do you really believe we could have kept troops in the ME for as long as France and Blix wanted to screw around? Do you believe that without the troops there Saddam would have put up with a weenie like Blix? You are much too bright to think that. And I am not accusing anyone of supporting Saddam, except Wiz and Cellar, but as useful idiots they are helping him win the propaganda war.
the only thing Arabs respect is power. That is why they give a grudging respect to a monster. All rulers of Arab countries can be brutal, as daddy Assad was in Syria. But Saddam tops the list.
6966. Al D - 3/29/2003 10:41:41 PM
jay
and whether, it should have, for example worked out a way to establish a northern front before launching.
Just what would you suggest? Perhaps we should have first taken over Syria, then we would have had lots of room for our forces. But maybe B. Assad will keep shooting off his mouth and give us the chance. Everybody says we're Imperialistic, so maybe we should prove them right.
But it does strike me as odd that you, a person who wants Saddam removed, and how else but by war, are so quick (10 days into battle) to start your hand wringing.
6967. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 10:45:43 PM
Al,
The point is that, as I said during the run-up to this, that proceeding without support from NATO and the UN was going to be problematic. What I suggested then was to isolate France by fixing a deadline that everyone else agreed was reasonable. That would have given time to work out the deal with Turkey.
6968. Al D - 3/29/2003 11:01:55 PM
jay
But France insisted they would never accept any resolution that called for military action. Don't you believe that France's support of 1441 was set as a fatal trap for Bush and Blair? Do you really think Syria would have voted yes unless France had assured them they would never let the U.S. go to war? In some ways, it is a blessing Bush is not of high intelligence. He would be like Hamlet, never quite knowing if action was the right step. While Bush is not as brilliant as Clinton, he is decisive, and evidently quite odd, in that he doesn't prefer blow jobs to war.
6969. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 11:36:23 PM
I believe it was well within the realm of possibility to create a deadline that Blix would have said was reasonable, and a majority of the Security Council would have supported and would have made France's obstructionism clear. As it is, the US ended up looking like an imperialist, wanting war at any price.
And, now, the fine principles of liberation, freeing the Iraqi people, preserving the infrastructure and striking only at the regime are crumbling. Things change rapidly, and it may be the case that enough southern Iraqis will come to believe that the US is not conquering the country, and will rise up. But the longer this last, and the more valid military targets we add to the list (I saw the first step down the slippery slope on Thursday, when a marine sergeant says there are certain civilian vehicle models that have been carrying munitions, and are now valid targets.)
6970. judithathome - 3/30/2003 10:02:46 AM
And I am not accusing anyone of supporting Saddam, except Wiz and Cellar, but as useful idiots they are helping him win the propaganda war.
What did you mean by this, then?
It makes me sick that he is getting support from many in the U.S.
Al, I am sorry we haven't the Perfect place here for you to post; evidently your idea of Perfect is the place where everyone aggrees with you and every thing is peachy keen. But you are right: this ain't that place.
I'm also sorry you feel we must cancel our dinner in Kona but that's your call. We were...and are...looking forward to it but if you'd rather skip it, I will understand completely.
6971. magoseph - 3/30/2003 10:06:27 AM
You two have plenty of time until then to make up and break again, in my unasked opinion.
6972. judithathome - 3/30/2003 10:07:43 AM
Ha! True.
6973. vanTHEman - 3/30/2003 4:53:16 PM
Mona Charen is scheduled to discuss her latest book Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong In the Cold War and Still Blame America First at 8:00 pmest on this week's C-Span "Booknotes".
From the book jacket: "...she exposes: Prominent liberals who served in the Clinton administration - Madeleine Albright, Sidney Blumenthal, and Strobe Talbott - all of whom turned a blind eye to the Soviet "Evil Empire", but now want to be counted as Cold Warriors..." Should be worth much more than the price of admission....
6974. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/30/2003 6:01:45 PM
6975. alistairconnor - 3/30/2003 6:16:17 PM
I believe it was well within the realm of possibility to create a deadline that Blix would have said was reasonable, and a majority of the Security Council would have supported and would have made France's obstructionism clear.
Except that France would have supported it too. Which was why the US couldn't allow it to happen.
France's opposition to war without finishing inspection was based on the simple premise that such a war was a really, really bad idea.
History will judge.
6976. Al D - 3/30/2003 6:21:35 PM
Well, that's what makes horse races. For me, removing Saddam was reason enough. The rest is window dressing. It is somewhat of a surprise that so many people want to see such a monster stay in power. But why should it be a surprise? Europe didn't mind Hitler in power as long as he just killed Jews, Christians (mostly protestants), Slavs, and Reds.
Plese don't assume I like seeing American G.I.'s die. My brother spent many years in France before they shipped his body back home.
6977. ronski - 3/30/2003 6:34:01 PM
Christians (mostly protestants)
Jehova's Witnesses, pacifist sects, perhaps, but not Lutherans and Calvinists in any greater number than Catholics, I don't believe.
6978. magoseph - 3/30/2003 6:34:17 PM
Europe didn't mind Hitler in power as long as he just killed Jews, Christians (mostly protestants), Slavs, and Reds.
The United States maintained diplomatic relations with Germany until Hitler in what appears a moment of insanity declared war on us.
6979. ronski - 3/30/2003 6:34:55 PM
ital
6980. ronski - 3/30/2003 6:35:17 PM
Fixed?
6981. judithathome - 3/30/2003 6:35:54 PM
Toys
6982. ronski - 3/30/2003 6:36:31 PM
Again.
6983. alistairconnor - 3/30/2003 6:37:14 PM
I don't want such a monster to stay in power. The question was, what is the price? It was always going to be very high, in terms of Iraqi lives, and in terms of resulting upheavals, terrorism etc. I believe that Americans supported the war because they severely underestimated that price. Obviously, they support finishing the war now it's started, but once it's over, an awful lot will have changed their minds about the whole thing being worth it.
6984. magoseph - 3/30/2003 6:37:23 PM
Mona Charen? A wannabe Ann Coulter! I hear she's a very good friend of Murdoch.
6985. judithathome - 3/30/2003 6:37:24 PM
Not backing the war is hardly the same as wanting to keep Saddam in power. Does the Pope want to keep Saddam in power? Or does he simply oppose the war?
6986. magoseph - 3/30/2003 6:47:38 PM
So does anyone have any opinions on the political fallout of an extended war? Is Bush helped or hurt if it goes on for months rather than weeks?
Jay, I believe that if Bush establishes the fact that Iraq has stocks of nerve gas, mustard gas, anthrax, etc. all is forgiven and whatever happens on the war timeline, will have little or no negative effect. I believe his real vulnerability lies in the economy. In fact, I think that he could win the war going away and go down hard in the election if enough people are losing their homes.
6987. jayackroyd - 3/30/2003 7:24:45 PM
It is somewhat of a surprise that so many people want to see such a monster stay in power.
This is the most compelling argument for the war. It is one the administration chose not to make until very late in the game. And they didn't make this argument nearly as well as Blair did.
There are several obvious rejoinders, involving other monsters, and timing (Why now? Why not 1998? Why not 1992? Why not wait six more months and get international consensus?).
6988. vanTHEman - 3/30/2003 8:07:43 PM
Bill Kristol captured the American left perfectly today when he said:
The American left hates George Bush more than they love America.
6989. Edmund Dantes - 3/30/2003 10:16:08 PM
The United States maintained diplomatic relations with Germany until Hitler in what appears a moment of insanity declared war on us.
Technically true. However, the United States severed existing trade agreements with Germany after the Nazis rise to power and recalled our ambassador in protest of Kristallnacht (1938).
More importantly, US Naval forces had already been attacking German ships for about two months when Pearl Harbor occurred. Strict neutrality had already been abandoned as soon as war broke out, with the US selling arms to the Aliies, then transferring overage destroyers to the British Navy, and finally the Lend-Lease Act was passed and then extended to the Soviet Union as soon as the latter was attacked by Germany in 1941.
6990. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/30/2003 11:47:42 PM
http://www.expatica.com/index.asp?pad=34,368,&item_id=29857George's little antics
. . . The fact that the BBC has "profusely and repeatedly apologised" to the White House and that the administration has removed control of feeds from the networks and put it in their own hands as a result of the blunder, should indicate the seriousness of what you were not supposed to see. Ditto the absolute absence of any media coverage of the incident.
The footage was the most disturbing thing on television in some time. There was US President George W Bush, being prepped for his televised declaration of war. It was not the combing of his hair, the only aspect of the coverage reported by any American media outlet (the Washington Post in this case), which was cause for embarrassment; everyone expects that. Rather, it was the demeanour — I would say antics — of the president himself.
Bush, the so-called leader of the free world, was sitting behind his desk going over his speech, as we would expect. But then it got weird. I felt like I was looking behind the curtain, and it was uglier than I ever imagined. . . .
6991. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/30/2003 11:49:06 PM
George's little antics
6992. robertjayb - 3/31/2003 12:09:39 AM
"...lackadaisical lily-dipper"
Wish I had typed that.
6993. Al D - 3/31/2003 1:52:47 AM
Edmond
Of course you are correct that Roosevelt took a dim viewe of Hitler. After June 1940, he took a much dimmer view. Why do suppose that was?
Not backing the war is hardly the same as wanting to keep Saddam in power. Does the Pope want to keep Saddam in power? Or does he simply oppose the war?
Well, I suppose this is kiss and make up time. Sorry I got so pissed. I know you don't want Saddam in power, and I know you don't want war. Me either. If I had a tooth ache I would want the pain to go away. Would it make sense to say I didn't want the dentist in my mouth? I'm not questioning your motives, just your judgement.
6994. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 3:24:52 AM
Al :
But why should it be a surprise? Europe didn't mind Hitler in power as long as he just killed Jews, Christians (mostly protestants), Slavs, and Reds.
Isn't that a little bit anachronistic? What is this "Europe" you're talking about? Sure, Hitler started persecuting people, locking them up etc in the 30s, but extermination only started once he had conquered most of Europe.
6995. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 3:39:44 AM
Monty :
Roosevelt's hands are not clean with respect to 1940-41. The State Department's eagerness to maintain close relations with Vichy France made them actively collaborate in stemming the flow of refugees (mostly Jewish) through southern France, and sabotage the work of Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee.
Just thought I'd mention that, because I've recently read Mary Jayne Gold's memoir Crossroads Marseille 1940, which I warmly recommend, and I'm very much looking forward to the film.
6996. vanTHEman - 3/31/2003 8:52:49 AM
The death of retired New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan has written yet another chapter in the bitter war between junior senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and senior senator Charles Schumer. Last Wednesday both senators received calls from the Moynihan family informing them of the senator's death as well as of their plans to announce his passing at a time convenient to the family.
Both Clinton and Schumer were participating in meetings when the calls came but evidently did not want to miss out on the PR buzz that would come from announcing the great Moynihan's death themselves.
"Clinton could barely contain herself with the news," says a Senate Democratic staffer present at the meeting Hillary was attending along with a number of other Democratic senators. "She practically ran out the door to make the announcement."
Clinton beat both Schumer's and the Moynihan family's announcements by several hours. But Schumer, instead of being angry at Clinton's ghastly behavior, was more upset that she did not follow Senate protocol and allow the state's senior senator to make the announcement.
Word now is that both Clinton and Schumer are jockeying for the better seating position at Moynihan's funeral.
6997. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 8:58:34 AM
Advisers Split as War Unfolds
Already there is a behind-the-scenes effort by former senior Republican government officials and party leaders to convince President Bush that the advice he has received from Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz -- a powerful triumvirate frequently at odds with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- has been wrong and even dangerous to long-term U.S. national interests.
Oh really? Whatever makes them think that?
Bush, who appears to value tension among his top advisers, "has been very Delphic on this and hard to read" on the emerging internal debate, a Bush adviser said.
You lucky people. You have Chance the Gardener for president.
6998. jayackroyd - 3/31/2003 9:08:47 AM
kausfiles analyzes this, and other related stories.
6999. vanTHEman - 3/31/2003 9:22:53 AM
In 1994 Peetah Jennings claimed that the American electorate had a 'temper tantrum' when they elected a Republican House and Senate.
How is it that Peetah cannot recognize the ongoing tantrum on the left about the 2000 Presidential election?
7000. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 9:45:04 AM
Humbug.
7001. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 9:45:23 AM
Haven't had a millenial in years.
7002. VanTHEman - 3/31/2003 2:49:01 PM
When anti-American war protesters descended upon Fox News Channel's Manhattan headquarters yesterday, the No. 1 cable news network used its news zipper to fire back.
In red neon letters that crawled across the building from the Avenue of the Americas to 48th Street, the peacenistas were taunted with barbs like:
"War protester auditions here today. . . . Thanks for coming!," "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them" and "Attention protesters: The Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street."
"I thought I'd have some fun with it," Fox zipper-writer Marvin Himelfarb told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz. "I couldn't resist."
7003. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/31/2003 4:37:40 PM
7004. VanTHEman - 3/31/2003 4:49:03 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - -
"A million Mogadishus"
Those antiwar leftists who equate Bush with Saddam and cheer U.S. military setbacks bring moral squalor to their cause.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Andrew Sullivan
March 29, 2003 |
The coming weeks are going to be critical for the left in this country for a very simple reason. Legitimate, important, valid or even extreme and hyperbolic arguments before a war are one thing. But they have a different salience when they are made during a war -- especially one that has barely even begun. There are already polling suggestions that the antiwar movement is at this point bolstering public support for the war. But if the antiwar rhetoric among the extreme left continues in the same vein as it has this first week, the marginalization of the left in this country, already profound, might become irreversible.
Let me take two comments this past week. In the Boston Globe, James Carroll explicitly denied any moral difference between the regime in Baghdad and the administration in Washington. He described the "shock and awe" air campaign as if it were the direct equivalent of 9/11:
"And what, exactly, would justify such destruction? What would make it an act of virtue? And is it possible to imagine that such violence could be wreaked in a spirit of cold detachment, by controllers sitting at screens dozens, hundreds, even thousands of miles distant? And in what way would such 'decapitation' spark in the American people anything but a horror to make memories of 9/11 seem a pleasant dream? If our nation, in other words, were on its receiving end, illusions would lift and we would see 'shock and awe' for exactly what it is --terrorism pure and simple."
7005. VanTHEman - 4/1/2003 10:00:37 AM
Ex-Clinton aide reveals Bill lost the nuclear codes
Former President Clinton lost the codes to nuclear war the day the Monica Lewinsky affair broke, was MIA in the fall of 1998 when a decision was needed on the killing of Osama bin Laden, and was "too busy watching a golf match" to OK a 1996 bombing mission in Iraq, says a blockbuster new book by Clinton's former military aide. Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the nuclear "football" from May 1996 to May 1998, crosses a line no other "mil aide" has before in condemning his commander in chief in Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security. "This story had to be told." But a Clinton national security aide, William Danvers, tells us Clinton was never "unavailable for key" decisions and didn't jeopardize U.S. security. One story: The day the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton was to trade in his "biscuit" with the nuclear launch codes. But they were missing. "We never did get them back," says Patterson. Then there's bin Laden: Clinton ducked calls from the Situation Room to ok a Tomahawk attack in 1998, then waffled until it was too late.
7006. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/1/2003 11:29:07 AM
Work that ballistic missile, Rosie!
7007. OhioSTOPAS - 4/2/2003 5:25:18 PM
Today’s episode of “George W. Bush: Instrument of Providence,” from today's USA Today :
"Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day."
It was God who put Bush in charge? Maybe Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were right in their post-9/11 remarks - He IS mad at us.
7008. judithathome - 4/2/2003 5:34:40 PM
I think it's wonderful Bush gave up sweets, though.
7009. magoseph - 4/2/2003 6:36:12 PM
He has a very good inner gyroscope, a stabilizer that keeps him centered.
I wonder what it is, that gyroscope. Instead of watching his war right now, I could use one to keep me centered on what I am supposed to do around here.
7010. OhioSTOPAS - 4/3/2003 6:21:12 AM
Regarding Bush's reported belief that "he was called by God to lead the nation at this time."
1. Isn't this evidence of dementia?
2. If Bush's view is correct, what does this say about God and 9/11? There was no crisis when God installed Bush in office to lead America "at this time" [i.e., the trying times since 9/11/01]. Therefore God knew what would happen on 9/11/01 when He installed Bush in office in 2000? Why didn't God use His powers to stop 9/11 instead?
3. Will any member of our lapdog press have the temerity to perhaps ask the President, or a spokesperson for the President, if the President really fucking believes this?
7011. VanTHEman - 4/3/2003 6:54:07 AM
Eagleburger: NY Times Asked Me to Trash Bush
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger revealed late Wednesday that the New York Times recently asked him to write an essay on the Iraq war - but only on the condition that he would be critical of the Bush administration.
"About ten days ago I was approached by the New York Times to write an op-ed piece," Eagleburger told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." "When I talked to them about it I was told, 'What we want is criticism of the administration.'"
"They told you that?" asked an incredulous Sean Hannity.
"Yes, right out, flat out," Eagleburger replied. "He told me, 'We want criticism of the administration.'
"Needless to say," the former Secretary of State added, "I did not write the op-ed piece."
FAIR & BALANCED NEWS FROM THE UNBIASED NYT
7012. magoseph - 4/3/2003 7:14:15 AM
...if the President really fucking believes this?
I think that Bush has two real beliefs--To win the next election requires a lot of money. He has taken care of that with his tax-cut to the wealthy. In addition, he has to hold the religious right: The true believers. With these two groups he wins. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. Every decision he and his group make is based on those two things.
7013. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 10:18:52 AM
You mean wealthy + religious right > 50% of the electorate?
7014. jayackroyd - 4/3/2003 10:29:14 AM
Wealthy = Television advertsing dollars
Religious right = turnout
Judiciously combined, you get > 25% of the eligible voters, since only half turn out. Add in the rural state bias imposed by the electoral college (and a dumbass opponent, due to be repeated in 04), and you have >50% of the electoral votes.
7015. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 10:34:51 AM
Every indication we have, every personal account and every unscripted statement from Bush - everything- indicates that the simpleton President does in fact believe that he was selected by God to be in charge during this clash between Good and Evil.
Yes, he does fucking believe it and no one should be surprised because so much of his bedrock support comes from messianic Christians who also believe it and further believe all kinds of mumbo-jumbo about the coming apocalypse.
Thankfully, the men who actually chose Bush, surround and manipulate him, and who are completely in charge, are amoral cynics. Bush can scurry around believing that God chose him all he wants.
7016. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 10:47:15 AM
jay
I get your point (and magoseph's).
7017. magoseph - 4/3/2003 10:55:59 AM
Marjoribanks,
I read him as a sly and cunning opportunist. I don't believe he has a religious bone in his body. He just plays dumbo very well.
7018. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 11:17:29 AM
For a variety of reasons — respect for the constitutional separation of church and state, deference to cultural pluralism, political expediency, modesty, uncertainty - American presidents have generally toned down the theocratic proclamations of their Puritan forbears...
The current occupant of the Oval Office is a striking exception. President Bush often sounds like a Puritan theocrat. In 2001, after the horrific events of Sept. 11, he told reporters: "Our nation was chosen by God and mandated by history to serve as a model of justice."
Bush envisions the world as a moral battleground between Good and Evil, the powers of Light pitted against the powers of Darkness. In a radio address on March 30, 2002, he said: "We place our sorrows and cares before him, seeking God's mercy. We can be confident that evil may be present and it may be strong, but it will not prevail. We are assured that history is of moral design. Justice and cruelty have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. His purposes are often defied, but never defeated."
In a 2002 speech in Knoxville, Tenn., Bush specified how to deal with evildoers: "The best way to fight evil is to do some good. Let me qualify that -the best way to fight evil at home is to do some good. The best way to fight them abroad is to unleash the military."
When militant nationalism is bolstered by religious fervor, the world has reason to be leery. When heads of state view themselves as instruments of the divine will, they tend to be oblivious to mere human opinion, particularly when it differs from their own, since those who have God on their side always (as Henry David Thoreau said) constitute a majority of one. To the anointed, wars are holy crusades. Supporters become saints, protesters reprobates. The virtuous cannot fail to see where simple truth and goodness lie.
From the Anchorage Observer via Mother Jones.
7019. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 11:18:52 AM
Doesn't the last para read eerily spot-on?
7020. magoseph - 4/3/2003 11:46:10 AM
Said Bush: Let me qualify that - the best way to fight evil at home is to do some good.
To him then, all of us who are not among the very rich must be evil. Didn't Hussein lately call for Jihad?
Doesn't the last para read eerily spot-on?
Yes, if you choose to believe his rheroric. Virtuous, Bush? Give me a break! And mind you, marj, I have been very vocal about my stance on this war, and it is not yours.
7021. judithathome - 4/3/2003 11:57:48 AM
The last paragraph in that article could apply easily to Saddam, too.
7022. magoseph - 4/3/2003 12:06:29 PM
Ouch, sorry, Dantes!
rheroric=rhetoric
7023. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 12:07:20 PM
No. Saddam is not motivated by religion. The last few years he has used religion as part of his rhetoric. Perhaps it's the same with Bush?
7024. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 12:08:29 PM
My point (and the article's point) is that Bush does see the world in a manner that makes supporters into grand heroes and opponents into craven 'evildoer'-material, and views military campaigns such as the one in Iraq as crusades to deliver us from evil. It is also readily apparent that Bush is shocked when people oppose him and his tactics, especially people who have been on his side before - in his Manichean simpleton's vision of the world it is so very easily apparent what is good and what is evil and he expects everyone else to share that view.
I suggest a re-reading of this article which was quoted above.
7025. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 12:13:03 PM
You are according Bush more brains than anyone knows he has. Cunning, a certain ability to use folksy-style, a winning aw-shucks manner, yes. Brains, the ability to pretend to be religious - no.
I wonder if Hooligan is around and would be willing to honestly state whether he (and presumably his fundie buddies) does or does not believe that Bush was ordained by God to lead a prophesied endgame leading to the apocalypse. I've taken to idly watching CBN late-night (they have news, with embedded correspondents and all that) and it is so terribly obvious that Robertson does believe it all.
7026. judithathome - 4/3/2003 12:34:44 PM
Saddam is not motivated by religion
Different ideologies, same megalomania.
7027. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 12:35:37 PM
I wasn't "according" Bush anything at all. I merely posed a question. What a gift it must be to be so dead-sure about things as you are.
7028. judithathome - 4/3/2003 12:38:13 PM
I thought he was addressing that to Magoseph, Pelle.
7029. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 12:39:34 PM
And what a curse it must be, Smelle, to read everything written on this site as a personal missive directed at you.
Thbfft!
7030. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 12:41:09 PM
I apologize marj. Maybe we (including me) should make it clear whom we respond to.
7031. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 12:46:05 PM
No problem, my Old European pal. I appreciated the opportunity to name-call gratuitously.
7032. judithathome - 4/3/2003 12:46:17 PM
Pelle:
If you had been reading the exchange between the two, you might have figured it out without a salutation. ;-)
7033. VanTHEman - 4/3/2003 12:59:04 PM
Concert-goers jam exits after anti-Bush display By Mark Brown, Rocky Mountain News April 3, 2003 Incensed fans walked out of Pearl Jam's concert Tuesday after lead singer Eddie Vedder impaled a mask of President Bush on a microphone stand, then slammed it to the stage. Most of Vedder's antiwar remarks earlier in the Pepsi Center show were greeted with mixed cheers and scattered boos. But dozens of angry fans walked out during the encore because of the macabre display with the Bush mask, which he wore for the song Bushleaguer, a Bush- taunting song from the band's latest album, Riot...
7034. thoughtful - 4/3/2003 1:27:04 PM
Is that usa toady..er...today article linked above for real?
The president is under a great deal of stress because he's given up sweets? He rarely jokes any more? He's worried about his weight and his running time? He's actually taken to reading the papers every morning? He's keeping Laura close at hand? He's had to shorten the length of some meetings? He watches war coverage on TV?
Is that for real?
Is he getting shot at? Is he waking up to the sound of gun fire? Is he wearing a flak jacket? Is he full of sand? Is he living in desert heat? Does he keep a gas mask at his side all night long? Is he thousands of miles away from his family? Does his family know where he is? Is he eating reconstituted food and MREs? Is he facing instantaneous life/death decisions as Iraqis approach him who may be either just thirsty citizens, or armed soldiers in civvies? Is he facing the wreckage and bloody corpse aftermath of bombs and battles? A bloody hand here, a torso there, picking up a wounded child from a dead mother's arms? Is he bandaging himself or his buddies after getting wounded?
Is this for real?
He's still going to bed at 10 p.m. every night. I guarantee you the unrelieved troops of the 3rd infantry division are not getting so much rest. The earliest they can be relieved by another division is weeks away thanks to Rummy's interference in military planning. See Seymour Hersh's New Yorker Piece to learn more.
Is this for real?
7035. magoseph - 4/3/2003 1:40:58 PM
Marj,
We each gave our opinion on this matter. Let's see what the others have to say about it.
7036. KuligintheHooligan - 4/3/2003 1:42:07 PM
"I wonder if Hooligan is around and would be willing to honestly state whether he (and presumably his fundie buddies) does or does not believe that Bush was ordained by God to lead a prophesied endgame leading to the apocalypse."
Looks like I decided to peek in at just the right time.
In answer to your question, marjori, I wouldn't presume to know such things, or even to surmise them. If Pat Robertson does, then that is just another reason why I don't particularly like him or his brand of Dispensationalism. These guys have for decades make declarations about this or that and haven't gotten it right yet.
However, I do believe Bush's Christian faith is extremely important to him, and for that I am very happy to have him at the helm. Clinton's claimed to be a Southern Baptist, but his faith was never really operative in his decisions, and in fact, many of the things he supported went against Baptist convictions. He was a Christian in name only. But I get the impression that Bush is a genuine believer in Jesus Christ, and for that, I am very grateful to have him as President.
Bush clearly sees the many moral problems our country has, and he seems willing to tackle those issues head on. With Clinton, you got the impression that he believed what the polls told him to believe. With Bush, he believes what he believes, and who cares if others do not. I like that. Very Reaganesque.
7037. thoughtful - 4/3/2003 1:45:24 PM
This really makes me angry. I was against this war from the beginning.
But war was decided. By some accounts, as early as last July. Certainly more than enough time to plan, prepare, ship equipment, supplies, etc. So if you want war, need war, decide for war, why on earth wouldn't you do it whole hog? Even a dope like me knows that if you are going to go to war, you need to do it the BEST way possible. Anything less means more lives lost, more wounded, more suffering and higher costs in the long run. Why on earth, even if you believe it won't be so long and messy, wouldn't you give our soldiers their best fighting chance by bringing overwhelming force, even if you don't have to use it all? Why on earth would you RELY on the assumption that the enemy will welcome you with open arms!?!?! If you want the enemy to welcome you, it's a lot easier to accomplish when they face an overwhelming force rather than a strung out one.
Certainly it can't be the money....not with this administration's desire to give billions back to the wealthy. Not with the billions they stand to make in rebuilding iraq's oil industry.
Is it Rummy's ego? He knows better than even the military professionals who he's currently hanging out to dry? He certainly was around during Vietnam....he knows why that war was lost. Has he forgotten in his dotage?
What is wrong with these people?
7038. robertjayb - 4/3/2003 1:45:59 PM
Good Lord! Good Grief!
7039. KuligintheHooligan - 4/3/2003 1:47:04 PM
However, don't assume that, just because the guy is a Christian, that I think he will make a good President. I deplored the one or two friends I had who said that, if I didn't support Pat Robertson those years ago when he made the run, that I was sinning. Also, I don't agree with everything Bush says or does. For example, his comments on Islam as a "peace loving religion" is just nuts.
It is a breath of fresh air to see a President care about moral matters, especially after the eight years in the cesspool that we had with Clinton.
Also, just keep in mind that I am not inundated with the press and the coverage of Iraq, the Presidency, and so on, while here in Africa. We get one hour of CNN a day here.
7040. judithathome - 4/3/2003 1:58:06 PM
So you think it Christian to kill people in order to liberate them? Give me the cesspool that was Clinton any old day.
7041. KuligintheHooligan - 4/3/2003 2:10:12 PM
In any war, there will be civilian casualties. But the amount of civilian casualties caused by Saddam's regime far outweigh what has been lost in this present war against his regime.
My uncle was a Colonel in the US Army, and he fought in WW2 and Korea. I asked him once if he had any problems with his Christian faith and fighting in war. He told me, "If you saw what Hitler was doing to people, how could you just sit back and not attempt to stop him." The exact same thing can be said today.
So, if you prefer that scumbag Clinton, Judith, so be it. He did nothing about Saddam, and if you like that, fine. It is your right to like what you like, no matter how stupid it might be to like it.
7042. VanTHEman - 4/3/2003 2:39:10 PM
She only hopes...
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., predicted Tuesday that the Iraq war will not only cause mass casualties among Iraqi forces, but it will also cost the lives of "thousands" of U.S. soldiers. "I think that it's very important to have as pillars of our foreign policy promoting democratic values [and] stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," the top House Democrat told CNBC's "Capital Report." Then Pelosi unloaded her morale-crushing comment, "But I think that there are other ways to go about it than to have thousands of people killed on both sides." With the exception of Rush...
7043. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 4:15:54 PM
Thanks for the response, Hooligan.
--
Now, you want to be really scared and outraged? Read these comments by ex-CIA chief Woolsey. These unbelievable statements aren't made in a vacuum - this is the man the Pentagon is heavily backing to be the interim head of Iraq's all-important Ministry of Information.
Can you imagine? Read this from any Arab's perspective, even one who is a supporter of this campaign in Iraq. Hell, read it from any sane person's perspective let alone America's allies in the region.
I hope that these comments instantly disqualify Woolsey from any post-War role. And if they don't, all of us sitting in potential target cities in this "World War IV" better get our tickets booked for distant hinterlands. What a fricking disaster.
7044. VanTHEman - 4/3/2003 4:53:19 PM
WASHINGTON, Apr 3, 2003 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Marc Racicot, Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), today issued the following statement on recent comments made by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in which he suggested America, like Iraq, needs a "regime change":
"Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war. Critical analysis offered in the best interests of the country is part of a healthy democracy. But this use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment. The men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way on the orders of our commander- in-chief deserve better from someone who aspires to that high office."
7045. judithathome - 4/3/2003 5:00:08 PM
this use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment.
Please. It's difficult to see the rhetoric for the trees.
7046. ronski - 4/3/2003 5:48:55 PM
He (Woolsey) said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda."
marj,
He's not saying America is at war with Arabs or Muslims. He is saying there is an undeclared war between America and Islamofascists, whether of the theocratic or secular variety. I agree with him.
Whether he should be appointed to a post in Iraq is another matter, but I would not have a problem with it.
7047. concerned - 4/3/2003 5:50:12 PM
Re. 7037 -
'thoughtful' -
Good stuff, that. What you lack in accuracy, you make up for in conviction.
7048. judithathome - 4/3/2003 5:59:02 PM
Whether he should be appointed to a post in Iraq is another matter, but I would not have a problem with it.
Well, that's good because he's probably packing his bags even as we read.
7049. concerned - 4/3/2003 6:01:20 PM
Re. 7046 -
Many among the Left more or less secretly admire fascism....
7050. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 6:08:21 PM
He's not saying America is at war with Arabs or Muslims. He is saying there is an undeclared war between America and Islamofascists, whether of the theocratic or secular variety. I agree with him.
Ronski,
This is an appalling oversimplification of the facts involved in the US-led campaign, of what the past couple of years has thrown up, and even of what Woolsey said (the lunatic put close US allies Mubarak and the Sauds on notice as well.)
Any attempt to put Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and al Qaeda all into the common folder marked enemy is insane and it would be a very very grave error for the US to do so and is also a grave error coming from you, a usually thoughtful man. I will detail some of these errors:
1) Al Qaeda is a non-state actor whose main enemy for the past decade (before 9/11) has actually been some of these state governments you want to pile in with it as the enemy.
2) Islamofascist is an absolutely idiotic term when applied to Mubarak or Assad - both avowed secularist strongmen who have killed more Islamists individually than the US is likely to kill Iraqis in this campaign. Furthermore, Mubarak is a very close ally of the West - he is your/my friend if you want to draw any us/them lines in the Arab sands.
3) Assad is not only cozying up assiduously to the UK - it has been one of the closest collaborators of the US in the region in the other war, you know - the war on terror and Al Qaeda. In the case of some arrests made in germany, the US hastened to have the detainees sent to Syria rather than to Guantanamo.
7051. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 6:08:47 PM
4) Iran is building ever-better relations with the West, especially the UK, under Khatami. Even with regard to the US, there has been a massive softening up of the unofficial stance. Iran, as a society, has learned to like the US. Repeatedly slapping them in the head is very stupid.
5) Saudi Arabia is the best friend the US has in the region, when it comes to economic impact. They have 25% of the world's oil reserves and have never ceased to play ball when called on. Yes, they've played an endless double game - Woolsey's comments can be seen as evidence that the US is too - but putting the Saudi leadership into the enemy folder is absurd.
7052. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 6:15:48 PM
It is totally fucking insane to call your allies the enemy, your only real partner's (UK) allies the enemy, and to lump them all in with their own sworn enemy - al Qaeda. At this rate, you may as well toss in the deeply religious and anti-war populaces of Qatar, Kuwait and UAE (all staging-grounds for this war and US collaborators) and be done with it. Everyone is the enemy.
7053. OhioSTOPAS - 4/3/2003 8:00:29 PM
From #7044:
"Marc Racicot, Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), today issued the following statement on recent comments made by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in which he suggested America, like Iraq, needs a "regime change":
""Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war. . . ."
It's a thing called an election, Marc.
7054. Al D - 4/3/2003 8:09:01 PM
It is amusing to read the liberals above going nuts. The same old really stupid Busdh bashing. That article from Mother Earth is just silly. You are all so good at googleing, why not do a search for religeous statements made by past Presidents? Now I realize that the last fellow was such a fucking liar that whatever he said had no real meaning. banks, you are such a pompus fellow that almost anyone on earth pales in intelligence to you. But have no fear, Bush has enough on the ball to get the job done. I would love to play a game a chess with you, because your ability to underestimate is remarkable.
The success of the War is driving you guys bonkers. Sure, you wish no harm to our troops, but you are really pissed that Bush just might come out of this looking pretty good.
b
But I'm sure some of you will insist it was all Blair or Powell.
7055. Ronski - 4/3/2003 9:05:55 PM
marj,
Thanks for the comments. I will respond tomorrow.
Good night.
7056. magoseph - 4/4/2003 10:58:06 AM
Get Ready for PATRIOT II
The "fog of war" obscures more than just news from the battlefield. It also provides cover for radical domestic legislation, especially ill-considered liberty-for-security swaps, which have been historically popular at the onset of major conflicts.
The last time allied bombs fell over a foreign capital, the Bush Administration rammed through the USA PATRIOT Act, a clever acronym for maximum with-us-or-against-us leverage (the full name is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism").
Remarkably, this 342-page law was written, passed (by a 98-1 vote in the U.S. Senate) and signed into law within seven weeks of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. As a result, the government gained new power to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on its own citizens without judicial review, conduct secret searches, snoop on the reading habits of library users, and so General John Ashcroft wants to finish the job. On Jan. 10, 2003, he sent around a draft of PATRIOT II; this time, called "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." The more than 100 new provisions, Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo told the Village Voice recently, "will be filling in the holes" of PATRIOT I, "refining things that will enable us to do our job."
7057. VanTHEman - 4/4/2003 2:48:43 PM
Another round of pro-American patriotism, pro-President Bush and anti-liberal jibes, jests, zingers and slams from actor/comedian Dennis Miller on Thursday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno, including a nice shot at Peter Arnett: "How am I supposed to trust the honesty of a reporter that has that bad of a comb-over on top of his head?...Hey guess what Pete? We know you're bald, okay? The outside of your skull is as empty as the inside."
From the April 3 Tonight Show on NBC, most of Miller's cutting observations about the present situation:
-- Pride in conduct of the war: "I cannot tell you how proud watching that war coverage makes me. I know a lot of people are saying that they think that it's, that you know what we're doing is imperialistic. I watch the way we handle ourselves over there and I've never felt more patriotic in my life."
-- Denouncing anti-war protesters, Miller described how he puts them into four categories, the second one made up of those who call everyone but Hussein a Hitler: "The second type you have at these parades seems to be the people who want to mislabel Hitler. Everybody in the world is Hitler. Bush is Hitler, Ashcroft is Hitler, Rumsfeld is Hitler. The only guy who isn't Hitler is the foreign guy with a mustache dropping people who disagree with him into the wood chipper. He's not Hitler."
7058. VanTHEman - 4/4/2003 2:50:59 PM
-- On the up side of war protesters: "I'll say this about the war protesters: At least most of them are only putting duct tape across their mouths so I can still tell the rest of them to blow it out their ass."
-- On the Dixie Chicks: "Surprisingly, making fun of the President on foreign land in a time of war doesn't seem to play with the NASCAR crowd!"
-- On Peter Arnett: "How am I supposed to trust the honesty of a reporter that has that bad of a comb-over on top of his head? He's got four hairs left and he's swirling them around...This guy is dangerously close to pulling hair over from another guy's head. Hey guess what Pete? We know you're bald, okay? The outside of your skull is as empty as the inside."
-- On Michael Moore: "He's going to wake up every day for the rest of his life, and he's going to tell us how he hates everything about this country except his right to hate it. And then we say that we love it and he's going to tell us what naive sheep we are and that he's the true patriot because he hates it and he sees all the problems in it. Yeah, right, Mike. You know something, if my yawn got any bigger they'd have to assign it a hurricane name, okay? "Michael Moore simultaneously represents everything I detest in a human being and everything I feel obligated to defend in an American. Quite simply, it is that stupid moron's right to be that utterly, completely wrong."
7061. VanTHEman - 4/4/2003 3:28:32 PM
The House of Representatives has passed a supplementary budget amendment excluding France, Germany, Russia and Syria from taking part in US-funded reconstruction bids in Iraq, because they opposed the US-led war in Iraq.
7062. arkymalarky - 4/5/2003 12:04:40 AM
Have they passed a resolution to collectively hold their breaths and pout? What a ridiculously petty move.
7063. Ronski - 4/5/2003 9:10:02 AM
marj,
Your main point about Woolsey, in your original post, seems to be that he is going to offend the Arab street. But in addressing the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in his remarks, read what his actual message was to their citizens:
"We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."
Hardly the sentiments of someone who wants to abuse Arabs. Rather, it is the sentiment of someone who recognizes that the U.S. has made mistakes propping up unpopular regimes in the region, and is fed up with the double dealing of those regimes.
In your subsequent post, you offered evidence of support of America by those regimes. But you miss a key point: the duplicity I refer to above.
Egypt is an ally to a degree, of course, and has been for years. It has done something the West is very happy about: cracking down on terrorists who murdered tourists (though this was clearly in the regime's own interest as well). But it continues to flout most human rights conventions, and far worse from the U.S. perspective, use its state supported media to fan hatred against the U.S. and Israel.
Syria may or may not be aiding Iraq right now, but it supports anti-Israeli terrorism.
Iraq is paused to throw off their mullacracy when the next generation takes over. We will simply let it happen, unless the mullahs get the bomb first, in which case we will deal with them before that happens.
(cont.)
7064. Ronski - 4/5/2003 9:17:09 AM
Saudi Arabia is arguably the worst case, acting like an ally in many respects while subsidizing the most virulent, anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Western, and anti-liberal form of Islam. Even in the U.S., eighty percent of the mosques are dominated by Wahabbists.
Wonderful allies? Hardly.
The WW4 meme that Woolsey used is based on the notion that America, Israel and the West are under assault from a parcel of related violent strains of Islam, both secular and religious (not just religious). Granted, the secular and religious strains would be at each other's throat if they ever won in the first place, but they are not going to be allowed to win.
All the secular opponents of the West, from the Saddam regime to the Palestinian terrorists, are happy to use the same jihadist language the bin Laden forces employ. There are distinctions between the secular and theocratic forces attacking the West, but in the end not much practical difference.
Force had to be used in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope it will prove all that was necessary. I also hope the Administration will do what Blair wants, and follow through on a new peace plan for Israel and Palestine.
As for Woolsey, good cop, bad cop is a time-honored technique. Woolsey makes a fine latter, Powell a fine former.
7065. magoseph - 4/5/2003 9:49:01 AM
Very good analysis, in my opinion, Ronski.
7066. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2003 10:43:41 AM
Ronski
What do you mean by the oxymoron "secular Islam"?
7067. JayAckroyd - 4/5/2003 2:50:24 PM
That is the 64,000 dollar question, Pelle. If that is an oxymoron, then a democratic state cannot exist in a Muslim country. IME with Muslims, it is not particularly oxymoronic, but there are states with governments that support your comment.
7068. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2003 2:59:45 PM
Is there such a thing as "secular Christianity"
7069. Al D - 4/5/2003 3:02:40 PM
Ronski
Hear, Hear! Ataturk was able to form a government with seperation of State and Islam, while the vast majority of Turks are Muslims. We often blame Islam for some of the insane behavior (opinion of many in the west). For example, honor killings, which exist in many Muslim countries, even Jordan. But such behavior pre-dates Islam. I believe such ideas existed in Jewish society; for example, when Jesus came upon a women caught in adultry by a group ready to stone the woman, he told them let the first stone be thrown by one without sin.
7070. jayackroyd - 4/5/2003 3:18:01 PM
Pelle--
There was a piece in the NYTimes Sunday magazine a couple of weeks ago about the islamist viewpoint, and it claimed that the islamists admit no separation of church and state. The guy the article was about was cited as saying that the separation of church and state in Christian societies dooms Christianity to a subsidiary role.
I happen to agree with that. The US is trailing Europe, but once you let science have its way, it becomes clear that any sort of traditional religious belief is nonsense. IMO, that's what the current battle is about--Islamic leaders recognize two things, that science is an opponent of religious belief, and American commercial culture is an insidious force undermining religious practice.
7071. magoseph - 4/5/2003 4:23:06 PM
Pelle, for what ever worth the following is, Islam also means:
a : the civilization erected upon Islamic faith
b : the group of modern nations in which Islam is the dominant religion
7072. Ronski - 4/5/2003 4:58:37 PM
I suppose it was obvious I meant Iran was ready to overthrow its mullahs, not Iraq, in Message # 7063.
Pelle,
Magoseph has answered your question about the seeming oxymoron for me, in Message # 7071.
As for the existence of a secular Christianity, there is also such a thing, as in America is (predominantly) a Christian nation. Also, in the U.S., the courts permit some religious expressions in government (on coinage, in Congress, and once the current case finishes its way through the courts, the pledge of allegiance), because they have traditional, historical overtones, and are as much as part of civil society as non-religious, non-sectarian, patriotic expression. I'd consider that secular Christianity.
But I did mean Islam as in the Islamic world, not simply Islam as a religion.
7073. Ronski - 4/5/2003 7:06:14 PM
Or, "Islam" as in "Christendom."
7074. Al D - 4/5/2003 7:10:06 PM
I don't understand some of these antiwar protesters ... Everybody in the world is 'Hitler.' Bush is 'Hitler,' Ashcroft is 'Hitler,' Rumsfeld is 'Hitler.' The only guy who isn't 'Hitler' is the foreign guy with the mustache dropping people who disagree with him into the wood chipper." -- Dennis Miller on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, April 3, 2003
7075. Ronski - 4/5/2003 7:16:21 PM
Yes. The only Jew-hater in the bunch is not Hitler.
Funny how that is.
7076. robertjayb - 4/6/2003 4:25:29 PM
Fascism creeps in on little pig feet...
(AP) Even as civil libertarians challenge police surveillance of citizens, including anti-war organizers, judges and lawmakers across the nation are easing long-standing restraints on police in the name of homeland security.
7077. thoughtful - 4/7/2003 3:26:45 PM
Jay, #7070, "The guy the article was about was cited as saying that the separation of church and state in Christian societies dooms Christianity to a subsidiary role.
I happen to agree with that. "
I disagree with that. Religion may have a subsidiary role to play in a secular government as it should, but that certainly doens't mean it has a subsidiary role to play in a nation. One need only look at the degree to which religion has flourished in America to see that it is the freeing of religion from government controls that fosters its growth.
Rather, IMO, the fear of theocratic leaders is the same fear of all dictators...that they will lose control of their people. Dictators control their subjects with threat of punishment. Religion in a theocracy is just the excuse, just as fealty to the state was the excuse in communism, fealty to saddam hussein the excuse in iraq, a relatively secular state by islamic standards.
7078. Wombat - 4/7/2003 3:45:31 PM
Al D:
Ataturk imposed a secular regime on Turkey. The democratic system such as it is came afterward. Ataturk took what was a very "western" view of religion at the time: that it was reactionary and enfeebled, and was the enemy of the modern state.
As the only Ottoman commander who was competent and successful in WWI, and who resisted the imposed post-war settlement, which dismembered Turkey, Ataturk was uniquely able to impose his views as the "father" of modern Turkey.
Unlike, say Pakistan, the guarantor of the secular republic is the army, which has two traditions, that of a secular national institution, and a propensity to meddle forcefully in politics if it feels the elected government is unsuited to govern.
7079. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 12:33:04 PM
Religion may have a subsidiary role to play in a secular government as it should, but that certainly doens't mean it has a subsidiary role to play in a nation. One need only look at the degree to which religion has flourished in America to see that it is the freeing of religion from government controls that fosters its growth.
There has been, I agree, a growth in the evangelistic orders in the US. But Christianity is dying in Europe, as are the more traditional orders in the US. You have theologians, like John Shelby Spong, essentially throwing out all but the most abstract beliefs, because you simply can't be both well-educated and buy this stuff straight from the book.
And the evangelicals are ultimately doomed, because they're talking nonsense, and you can only talk nonsense for so long.
7080. judithathome - 4/8/2003 12:37:28 PM
you can only talk nonsense for so long.
This made me chuckle and come up with about 4 really good one-liners which I will refrain from posting in an overall spirit of goodwill.;-)
7081. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 1:20:30 PM
Actually, I want to add to that.
Current liberal beliefs, which are in many ways consistent with the spirit of Christianity, like the rights of gays to marry, or, in Texas, to have sex, are very difficult to support from scripture. The gospels are silent on this subject, and Deuteronomy is very clear.
There's a real theological crisis going on among Protestants. The evangelicals are clearly wrong in any number of ways (except in the most solipsist of argument, and you are still left with weird apparition of a pro-war, pro-death penalty Christian), but the mainstream creeds are losing their center as they are forced to abstract themselves further and further from scripture. Secular humanism is only a generation or two away.
Catholics have it easier, because there's a little more coherence to the argument (death penalty bad, birth control pill bad, abortion bad, war bad). But they, too, have the problem in the US that folks pretty much feel free to ignore the vatican's strictures, when they are inconvenient.
7082. PelleNilsson - 4/8/2003 2:09:39 PM
Secular humanism is only a generation or two away.
So you will catch up with Europe in the foreseeable future?
(Sorry, Jay, couldn't resist.)
7083. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 2:12:04 PM
I hope so. and believe so.
7084. labwabbit - 4/11/2003 10:28:16 PM
Dear France, [courtesy of CSN]
"Find the cost
of freedom,
Buried in the [your] ground.
Mother Earth will swallow you [us],
Lay your [our] body[s] down.
7085. concerned - 4/14/2003 1:15:05 PM
America's Cultural Values Are Determined By Man Holding Presidential Title
A 'no-think' piece-a which actually starts out with a viable premise but then does absolutely nothing to back it up. The idea that the tenor of two presidencies could be ascertained by the nature of one stage managed public display is ridiculous. However, we do learn that the author of this piece doesn't think much of the party that freed the slaves, works hardest to promote individual freedoms and voted in the greatest numbers for the Civil Rights Act.
7086. ronski - 4/14/2003 3:10:28 PM
Pelle,
It was, I believe, Patrick Buchanan who wrote a decade or so ago that Sweden was quickly on its way to becoming the "first post-Christian" society until a "recent religious revival."
Speaking as a somewhat lapsed Lutheran, what actually is going on there?
7087. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 8:45:36 PM
Arky --
Bork is not an example of partisan blocking of a great candidate for SCOTUS. It's an example of congressional sanity.
Bork is no more conservative than three or four of the justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court. He does, however, possess a better mind than any of the current nine, even the estimable Scalia. By keeping such a good mind off the highest court, we lost an invaluable presenter of judicial reasoning.
PincherMartin: "[Clinton is]...poor at putting forth a coherent set of ideas and fighting for them."
Arky: "I disagree. He's a master at the first, and the last is due to his lack of follow-through to the conclusion (and of course sometimes there isn't one--it's a matter of maintenance), a problem he also had as governor.
You first disagree with me, but then you admit he had a problem.
He still accomplished an amazing amount as one president under the circumstances he found himself forced to work in.
Clinton had eight years as president, and the events surrounding the impeachment -- that nearly consumed his presidency -- did not take place until the final two. In his first two years as president, he failed to enact a national health care plan. This was the single most important program his administration put forward during Clinton's two terms. It was also a complete washout.
continued ...
7088. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 8:46:25 PM
After the House of Representatives turned Republican in 1994, Clinton tacked right for the remainder of his presidency, so that his accomplishments from that point on included areas -- like welfare reform - that actually alienated significant parts of his base. These are, however, still accomplishments, and I'll be happy to put them on the positive side of the ledger for Clinton's presidency. But it's important to remember that Clinton did them for his political survival, not because they were part of a long-term plan he envisioned before he became president.
The only other area of Clinton's two terms that should be accounted for is his handling of the economy. As a rule, presidents don't do much to directly control a several trillion dollar economy. Like the eight hundred pound gorilla, that size of economy tends to go whereever the hell it wants.
But in the area of the economy presidents can exercise some leadership -- the federal budget -- Clinton did make good decisions early in his presidency, and he deserves credit for doing so. It's important though to understand that in this area Clinton followed the advice of his most conservative advisors (Greenspan, Rubin).
He's neither a cad nor a liar. He's done some caddish things and has lied and I have no respect for his sexual behavior in the White House.
This reminds me of the line "I'm not an alcoholic; I just need to have a couple of drinks after work to wind down."
If Clinton is not a liar, then liars must not exist. If he is not a cad, then that word has no meaning. Even Clinton's friends and supporters admit that he has a problem telling the truth, from important things (affairs) to the more mundane (on the golf course). That Clinton is a charming liar and cad is no less true. As a young single man during the nineties, I'd have loved to hang out with the guy.
continued ...
7089. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 8:47:09 PM
The fact that his opponents were so ridiculously obsessed with it was much more detrimental to the nation, however.
They were definitely obsessed, although I don't know how harmful they were.
And I will guarantee you that you are wrong about his place in history. What history will record is the ridiculous tunnel-vision of his hard-right opposition and their funding of the baseless case of a wretched Arky hick. Enough Arkies knew plenty well what Clinton was about, but it didn't involve her. I know precious little (and that's more than I'd like to) and it involves a whole different situation than anything Paula Jones described. Whatever people think of Gene Lyons he knows exactly what he's talking about on that subject.
The preliminary results are in and they don't favor you. In a C-Span survey of historians, Clinton ranks 21st out of 41 presidents, just behind his predecessor George Bush (20th) and well behind Reagan (11th).
And keep in mind when looking at those results, that historians do not belong to the kind of profession likely to be inclined to favor a man like Reagan or likely to have been overly influenced in their rankings by the impeachment and the surrounding scandals. If anything, it's the opposite: historians belong to a class likely to favor a man with Clinton's high intelligence and general political leanings.
7090. jayackroyd - 4/14/2003 9:32:48 PM
If Clinton is not a liar, then liars must not exist. If he is not a cad, then that word has no meaning. Even Clinton's friends and supporters admit that he has a problem telling the truth, from important things (affairs) to the more mundane (on the golf course). That Clinton is a charming liar and cad is no less true. As a young single man during the nineties, I'd have loved to hang out with the guy.
This is fair, and true. What it does not recognize was that the administration was remarkably honest, as administrations go. When he said he supported welfare reform, he proceeded to implement a welfare reform policy. When he said he wanted to reduce deficits, he implemented policies that reduced deficits. This is in stark contrast to the current "healthy forests act" administration.
And he did nothing, policy-wise or personally, to justify the nuclear attacks that came from the vast right wing conspiracy. Policy-wise it's hard to see where the problem was. Personally, he did nothing that Newt or Teddy (or anyone else in Congresss who wanted to) wasn't doing at the same time.
7091. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 9:57:54 PM
He does, however, possess a better mind than any of the current nine, even the estimable Scalia.
The best minds don't always make the best justices. I would have to go back and look at the specifics of some of his positions which struck me at the time as downright bizarre, but regardless, his willingness to fire Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal was more than enough to keep him off the SC bench.
7092. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 10:17:24 PM
You first disagree with me, but then you admit he had a problem.
The problem he had is not the one you defined. He's an absolute master at "putting forth a set of coherent ideas" and can be excellent at fighting for them, though he's more shrewd than most politicians about choosing his battles, which makes him very productive. Where he falls short imo is the maintenance/follow through. He goes onto the next project and leaves the one he established unattended. That's a tendency he has had since he was governor; it's not necessarily a chronic failing. He can be very tenacious, and I think he will prove so on some very good causes now that he's out of office.
And the hostile circumstances of his presidency began from his announcement he would run the first term. They are by no means confined to the impeachment proceedings and in fact emanated from Arkansas. This is a strange small state and people have long and complex grudges that stretch further and run more deeply than in a lot of other states. It's hard to explain, but it creates an environment of hostility that is partly a result of our unique demographics.
It's more than I can go into without giving a mini-lesson in Arkansas politics and media, and that's something I'm learning the hard way myself these days. Just name me any other president who had people within his state so opposed to him--and with enough money--that they would pursue such trivia and try to follow so many avenues to ruin him even after he was elected. Yet he had some of the most doggedly loyal friends here. Susan McDougal is probably the most fascinating example.
7093. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 10:18:41 PM
(scrunching slowly out on this itty bitty twig on a very long limb) Clinton is a scrupulously honest politician (and no, I'm not referring to unfulfilled campaign promises), and for me that's the only honesty I care about. Anyone delving into anything that's none of their business deserves a lie. I think it should be routine of politicians to lie when they're interrogated about their personal activities that were irrelevant and in the past or don't interfere with the functioning of their offices. Note that I haven't made much of Bush's checkered past, though I might speculate whether it involved the loss of enough brain cells to affect his operation. There's a line, obviously, but I wouldn't necessarily draw it at legal/illegal. I also think the Gary Harts of the world reflect character flaws that have nothing to do with whether they are morally fit to be president, but whether they have enough sense to come in out of the rain.
7094. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 10:25:34 PM
But it's important to remember that Clinton did them for his political survival, not because they were part of a long-term plan he envisioned before he became president.
That's where my observation of his function as governor aids my understanding of that. Clinton is interested in success and being liked and getting a lot accomplished. He's not interested in lining his pockets or taking a power trip. When he focuses on an issue he looks at it comprehensively and goes about what he can get done that he believes will be of the best benefit. When he bites off more than he can chew, as in the comprehensive health care plan, it can fall completely, but when he has something he can work with and adjust and compromise on, he can do a great deal. He did as much for Arkansas schools and his reforms were actually a model for a while, but some of the features implemented are problematic now and with a completely different political environment the system is too centralized and difficult to adjust and leaves far too much control over public education in the hands of the executive, which violates the AR Constitution. Now we're in a big mess and I don't know how we will extract ourselves from it--but feeling the rolling eyes of the people here who have read more than enough from me on that subject, I will refrain and put away the soapbox I was digging out from under my computer table.
7095. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 10:32:20 PM
The preliminary results are in and they don't favor you. In a C-Span survey of historians, Clinton ranks 21st out of 41 presidents, just behind his predecessor George Bush (20th) and well behind Reagan (11th).
It will have to come in the context of a much longer view than that, but I have no doubt I'm right. For one thing, Reagan had much more impact on the big picture as it currently stands, so those results are not surprising (I will resist my primal urge to spit--I think Reagan was the most damaging president to the country in this century--surpassing Nixon by quite a bit--We can take that one up another day if you like). The fine tuning done by Clinton will be appreciated more in the perspective that distance of time gives, and more attention will be given to the circumstances surrounding his impeachment, why he stayed in office and fought it out, and the effect of that decision on the executive.
7096. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:37:32 PM
Rumsfeld Seeks More Power Over Personnel
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is seeking new powers that would greatly expand his office's control over both military personnel and civilian employees.
Term limits for the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be eliminated and mandatory retirement ages for top generals and admirals would be raised under the 205-page proposal sent to Congress late last week.
7097. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 7:53:51 PM
Jay --
This is fair, and true. What it does not recognize was that the administration was remarkably honest, as administrations go. When he said he supported welfare reform, he proceeded to implement a welfare reform policy. When he said he wanted to reduce deficits, he implemented policies that reduced deficits. This is in stark contrast to the current "healthy forests act" administration.
I have no opinion on this yet. The Bush administration is just two years old. So far there hasn't been anything explosive to come out about the Bush administration's ethics that has caught the public's attention. (There's just a suspiciously tight nexus of corporate interests and public policy. Personally, I wish the Bush administration would pay attention to this because I have the feeling that they are going to walk into something ugly one of these days which will stick to the front pages and that the public will care about.)
What I can say is Bush has core values that he was elected on and that he tries to implement into policies even in the face of opposition. This may or may not be a good thing, but many Bush supporters like the fact that he doesn't change his mind even if circumstances change somewhat -- they got what they elected.
One can argue that flexibility should be a job requirement for the presidency. If circumstances change then so should your policies. I don't disagree, but it's a balance depending on the importance of the policy. If Bush pushes too hard for tax cuts while the U.S. budget has growing deficits, it's difficult to find any policy Clinton believed in and would have tried to implement in the face of strong opposition. He had no governing philosophy beyond triangulation.
continued ...
7098. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 7:54:04 PM
And he did nothing, policy-wise or personally, to justify the nuclear attacks that came from the vast right wing conspiracy.
The vast right wing conspiracy?
Policy-wise it's hard to see where the problem was. Personally, he did nothing that Newt or Teddy (or anyone else in Congress who wanted to) wasn't doing at the same time.
The presidency has a large moral component to it. A president diddling a young intern in the White House upsets many people (not all of them part of the "vast right wing conspiracy") because they have an emotional connection to the presidency and to the White House that they don't have to any congressmen or Capitol Hill.
7099. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 8:29:07 PM
Arky --
When I said that Clinton didn't have a coherent set of ideas that he fought for, I meant that what he said in 1992 is different from what he said in 1994 which is different from what he said in 1998. We went from a government that would help people to the era of big government is over.
When FDR retired there was a legacy of programs which he passed that later generations of liberals would fight for. Ronald Reagan's policies and ideas also cast a shadow over later generations of Republicans. These two men were very dissimilar, but what they had in common were core values about governing that created a coherent framework later generations of politicians could use.
Even some failed presidents have this coherency to their ideas and policies. Say what you will about LBJ or Jimmy Carter, they both had certain ideas about government and what it should or shouldn't do.
Bill Clinton has no such coherency. He would fight remarkably successful pitched battles over particular policies or programs, but this didn't add up to a coherent framework. At the end of his two terms, there was nothing for him to pass on that Al Gore or other Democrats could pick up and run with. He remains popular, but mainly as a celebrity or as someone who's associated with the good times of the 1990s. What has eluded him is the sort of thing that Roosevelt and Reagan nailed: a governing legacy that would endure beyond his presidency.
7100. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:40:59 PM
When he said he supported welfare reform, he proceeded to implement a welfare reform policy.
No, he claimed to be vaguely "interested" in the idea of welfare reform during his campaign, then did nothing about for three years, vetoed two attempts to implement it, signed a third bill only after Dick Morris took a poll and told him "If you don't sign this you run the risk of losing the upcoming election," then took credit for it.
7101. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:42:51 PM
Is this the same JayAckroyd who has at various times claimed to be a Republican or an "independent voter" of some sort?
Yeah... this is the way Republicans and independents talk-- they praise Clinton for making the sun rise and they babble about dark conspiracies involving Bush's "oil cronies."
Yuhp.
I'm a Maoist, by the way. Nice to meet you. So long as we're deliberately mischaracterizing our political agendas, what the hell?
7102. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 8:47:44 PM
Arky --
It will have to come in the context of a much longer view than that, but I have no doubt I'm right.
Historians are the last group you should doubt needs to be informed of the "longer view".
For one thing, Reagan had much more impact on the big picture as it currently stands, so those results are not surprising...
Yes, but then so did many presidents who came before Clinton, and not a few of them ended up behind him in the rankings.
...(I will resist my primal urge to spit--I think Reagan was the most damaging president to the country in this century--surpassing Nixon by quite a bit--We can take that one up another day if you like).
That's amazing. You think Reagan was more damaging than Hoover, LBJ, Nixon and Carter. You have there, in order, the Great Depression, Vietnam Part 1, Vietnam Part 2 and Watergate, and Stagflation (with a host of foreign policy debacles). With Reagan, you have The End of the Cold War and Good Economic Growth.
The fine tuning done by Clinton will be appreciated more in the perspective that distance of time gives, and more attention will be given to the circumstances surrounding his impeachment, why he stayed in office and fought it out, and the effect of that decision on the executive.
I think the impeachment and the circumstances surrounding it will be forgotten (I've already forgotten it).
What you don't understand is that one of the most important events in American history took place on 9-11, and that event will affect how we look at the past, including Bill Clinton's presidency. Just as The Great Depression put the 1920s into an entirely different perspective so 9-11 is likely to cast a poor light on Clinton's governing frivolity.
7103. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:05:12 PM
VRWC? Well, actually, yes.
The weirdest thing about all this was that the core of what Scaife pulled his stuff from involved people I've seen and met and am familiar with, many who don't live terribly far from me. Jim McDougal used to eat at the same restaurant every Saturday--well after all this Whitewater stuff broke. I saw him in the Wal-mart parking lot once driving a red sports car with a blonde in the passenger seat--at the height of his fifteen minutes, I guess. I've posted this before, but I don't know if you read it, but Clinton sat at a tiny high school basketball gym and talked to my in-laws for an entire half of a game. He had come to watch a player who was getting a lot of attention and planning to play for the Razorbacks. He was always very gregarious. Susan McDougal has moved back to AR, btw, and my parents met her the other day at a book-signing. She lives fairly close. And they visited the yard of the woman who designed Hillary Clinton's inaugural gown the other day on a tour of lawns and talked to her quite a bit. It was very strange seeing all these people drawn into this vortex that was the Paula Jones "scandal" and Whitewater. She's used up her fifteen minutes and all the money that went with it, too, and ironically I believe she and Susan McDougal live in the same town. Made me glad I was too insignificant to associate in their circles, though friends of friends....
7104. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:05:55 PM
What has eluded him is the sort of thing that Roosevelt and Reagan nailed: a governing legacy that would endure beyond his presidency.
That may be, but he was president in less focused times with general prosperity and few major issues for one thing, and for another, he's more a problem-solver and one who looks at specific programs rather than a broad spectrum of policies working toward one big picture. In AR he operated the same way and he had issues he addressed that were important and got a lot of good things done, but I see your point here as well as nationally that there was nothing for a successor to grasp except his success, and it was a thorny tactic that Gore avoided, which was probably a mistake for him. I think he should have drawn closer to Clinton for his own presidential run, but even with no scandal Clinton has a way of overshadowing others, even when he doesn't mean to.
Clinton's interview with the Atlantic was very interesting, because he talks through his thought processes and you can see what those areas of focus are. He's really an amazing man, and much of what he says is in a casual, personal style that adjusts itself to any environment naturally. It can make him seem oblivious to what's truly important, though, especially wrt his own behavior.
Dale Bumpers is the supreme, though, of AR politics, among some very great ones, and Clinton learned politics at his knee. I would have dearly loved to see that man as president, but his chance came a bit too late in his career. He has a book out now that is getting a lot of positive attention. Maybe this summer I'll get the luxury of some reading time and put it at the top of my list.
7105. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:10:22 PM
Historians can't work with the future. They work with what's past in relation to now. I think perspective will be different on Clinton twenty years from now, because not enough time has elapsed for a president who led in relative peace and prosperity with no major crisis (end of Cold War, Depression and WWII and Civil War, etc etc) to deal with.
What 9/11 will cast a light on is the despicable response to every action Clinton took to handle it while he was president by his opponents in congress and their inexcusable deflection of a serious issue to trivial pursuit and a costly and embarrassing (and no, I don't mean any lurid details that came out--except DeLay and whipped cream. Ugh.) impeachment process.
7106. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:18:01 PM
PM,
You're oversimplifying for the other men. Hoover didn't single-handedly collapse the economy, and while LBJ's escalation of VN was inexcusable and ruined him, he didn't start the conflict and he was operating under a widely accepted US policy at the time. Nixon's was a self-contained, self-destructive evil that damaged America's view of politicians in ways that I think have had some lasting effect, but political cynicism is nothing new, either, so I don't think we can rest all that on his shoulders.
Reagan's long-term impact on this country and a large number of the working class and the corruption and undue influence of the filthy rich on national policy has been far more damaging for far longer. And now here we have Trickle Down # 2 running with skyrocketing deficits saying a tax cut to the rich will fix everything. It didn't in the 80s. The prosperous times so mistily looked back on weren't all that great, even in relation to the two prosperous periods it was sandwiched between.
Dang.
Gotta go do my taxes. I'll try to look in later or tomorrow.
If you knew how busy I've been the last few months, you'd realize how much I've enjoyed this discussion and the diversion of the last few days.
7107. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 9:24:34 PM
I'm confuuuuuuused again, Arky. During Clinton's second term, we were assured again and again that there would be no need for him to step down in the interests of national security because he was darned good at "compartmentalizing" between fighting his various lawsuits and impeachments and actually conducting the business of the country.
Now that that has been exposed to be a lie, you put the blame on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Incidentally, I think your premise is false. Far from stopping Clinton from taking military action against Saddam and Al Qaeda, the impeachment fight actually CAUSED him take the only action of his presidency in defense of actual US security interests. You will recall he suddenly declared that Saddam's deceptions, which he had allowed to occur for six years, were suddenly unacceptable the very day Monica Lewinsky returned to give testimony before a grand jury and thus demanded Operation Desert Fox.
And of course it seems that only an impeachment vote was capable of FINALLY provoking Clinton into some sort of (insignificant and piddling) military action against Al Qaeda. You remember the Monica Bombs, right? They occurred on the eve of the impeachment vote.
Before the impeachment vote-- no action against Al Qaeda. Just some empty talk about "justice."
After the impeachment vote -- again, no action against Al Qaeda. More talk about "justice." No military action; not even any strong diplomatic action.
So don't whine about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy tying your beloved fatboy's hands. The only time this low character bothered to even attempt a pinprick attack on America's enemies was when he needed to do so to boost his poll ratings.
7108. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:27:48 PM
No, I'm talking about the government's resources and focus. No one tied his hands, they just didn't use their own to help. They had more important things to do. Look at how all the executive departments and congress have worked on this issue despite the president they have to work with now.
I'll have you know you are making my husband glare at me. He thinks I'm installing the tax program while he channel surfs.
7109. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 9:28:02 PM
Laugh. You Democrats have some nerve speaking of "Osama bin Forgotten." Osama bin Forgotten from 1992-2000, EXCEPT on the one occasion Clinton was facing impeachment and reached out for some dark, swarthy enemy to shoot missiles at in an attempt to appear "Presidential."
I'd be more inclined to believe the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Stopped Clinton from Attacking Osama" theory if the pattern were the opposite, that is, if Clinton had been crusading to attack/apprehend bin Laden all during his Presidency but was forced to stop during impeachment.
The truth is of course the exact opposite. He did nothing for eight years. Except that one day, the day before an impeachment vote, he suddenly decided it made good sense to lob a missile into a Sudanese aspirin factory.
7110. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 11:30:59 PM
7109 illustrates my point beautifully. The dis/misinformation that still flies through the air is pointless to address for the humpteenzillionth time.
And yes, Ace, we believe that those funny little men with the squinty, slanty eyes and the pale green cast to their skins took you with them in a wienie-shaped vessel and took your brain out and studied it and put it back with some tiny microchip tucked away in it somewhere.
And the continual reference to 9/11 as though any discussion on anything foreign or domestic has to have it as the central focus or the opposing view is out in left field, so to speak, is idiotic. Surely you people can do better when seeking a substantive defense for the action/inaction of a president.
7111. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 1:23:06 AM
Arky -- Message # 7103
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? No
Lone Right Wing Billionaire? Yes
Even your link says this: "If it's a conspiracy, it's a pretty open one. Scaife's tax-exempt foundations disclose their grants on the Web. Among them: $2.4 million over several years to American Spectator to pay for anti-Clinton reporting, even a private eye to dig up dirt. And millions more went to other anti-Clinton groups."
So, Arky and Jay, where's the vastness? Where's the conspiracy?
7112. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 1:46:27 AM
That may be, but he was president in less focused times with general prosperity and few major issues for one thing...
I'll grant that this works somewhat, but on the other hand, the rankings reflect the importance of what was going on at the time of the presidency.
Like many other presidents, Clinton may have had bad luck in that nothing disasterous happened to the country on his watch, but this has happened to several other mediocre presidents as well. Clinton can be graded down, however, for not recognizing the threat of terrorism or of WMD. It's true that few others at the time did, but a great president (like Washington or Lincoln or the first Roosevelt) anticipates what will be important in the future and moves to position himself and the country to deal with it.
If Clinton is a great president, then so is Calvin Coolidge. Silent Cal also presided over a period of remarkable economic growth with no real wars and no serious problems. Of course, when Cal retired in 1928, he also didn't anticipate the looming disaster that hit the country just over a year later. Not too many people remember Silent Cal anymore.
continued ...
7113. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 1:47:18 AM
Like the 1920s, the 1990s are probably going to be remembered as a political interregnum, a time of transition. Clinton certainly thinks of it this way and he's bright enough to recognize that it will affect his legacy in a negative way.
It's probably not fair to either the Republicans of the 1920s or to Clinton and Bush Senior of the 1990s, but that's how it usually happens.
...and for another, he's more a problem-solver and one who looks at specific programs rather than a broad spectrum of policies working toward one big picture.
I agree, but this is what I meant when I said Clinton doesn't have a coherent set of policies that he fights for. He tacks left; he tacks right; he triangulates; he's a problem solver who waits for problems to pop up before working on them.
7114. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 2:17:03 AM
Arky --
Historians can't work with the future. They work with what's past in relation to now. I think perspective will be different on Clinton twenty years from now, because not enough time has elapsed for a president who led in relative peace and prosperity with no major crisis (end of Cold War, Depression and WWII and Civil War, etc etc) to deal with.
Historians have historical perspective which allows them to understand very clearly that opinions on the presidents change, as well as why they change.
What 9/11 will cast a light on is the despicable response to every action Clinton took to handle it while he was president by his opponents in congress and their inexcusable deflection of a serious issue to trivial pursuit and a costly and embarrassing (and no, I don't mean any lurid details that came out--except DeLay and whipped cream. Ugh.) impeachment process.
Please. You're not speaking to some young dufus in your classroom. Ace is absolutely correct that, if anything, Clinton was emboldened to take action rather than prevented from it. Let's look at this chronology:
August, 1998: Clinton undergoes Grand Jury testimony.
August, 1998: U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan.
October, 1998: House votes to hold impeachment inquiry.
December, 1998: House impeaches Clinton.
December 1998: Operation Desert Fox against Iraq.
February, 1999: Senate votes to acquit Clinton.
March, 1999: NATO action against Kosovo.
That's three U.S. military actions in just six months at the same period in which the scandal was at its height.
7115. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 2:54:21 AM
You're oversimplifying for the other men. Hoover didn't single-handedly collapse the economy, and while LBJ's escalation of VN was inexcusable and ruined him, he didn't start the conflict and he was operating under a widely accepted US policy at the time. Nixon's was a self-contained, self-destructive evil that damaged America's view of politicians in ways that I think have had some lasting effect, but political cynicism is nothing new, either, so I don't think we can rest all that on his shoulders.
All true, but those men did in fact preside over disasterous times for which they are partly responsible. Hoover was slow to recognize the extent of the Great Depression and the role the government played in creating it (although it's questionable anyone recognized the government's role at the time). LBJ was responsible for escalating the Vietnam War far beyond anything done by his predecessors and at the same time severely limiting the ability of the military to attack North Vietnamese strongholds. Nixon is responsible for largely continuing LBJ's strategy of "not" going for the win in Vietnam as well as wholly responsible for the corruption in his administration.
Reagan's long-term impact on this country and a large number of the working class...
Some economists argue that this is more the fault of globalization than anything Reagan did, and that it was unavoidable.
...and the corruption and undue influence of the filthy rich on national policy has been far more damaging for far longer.
The undue influence of the *filthy* rich and their filthy *lucre*?
Reagan's economic ideas can be explained in two words: lower taxes. This is the legacy that everyone from the two Bushes to Clinton have had to deal with and it is now generally accepted that no serious candidate for president can call for (at least openly) a return to higher taxes.
continued ...
7116. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 2:54:41 AM
While the filty rich undoubtably have benefitted greatly from this policy, many other people have as well, and that is the key to its continuing popularity.
...And now here we have Trickle Down # 2 running with skyrocketing deficits saying a tax cut to the rich will fix everything.
You know those deficits were much discussed by people in the 80s who hated Reagan's economic policy. Critics at the time argued that the problems of the deficits created by Reagan's policy would plague the U.S. economy for several decades. Yet, in fact, Reagan was out of office about a decade before the U.S. budget deficit came down to lows not seen since the 1960s.
The prosperous times so mistily looked back on weren't all that great, even in relation to the two prosperous periods it was sandwiched between.
Hahaha! Yes, the seventies were certainly a prosperous time.
7117. OhioSTOPAS - 4/16/2003 6:54:39 AM
Pincher offers a defense of Reaganomics: It only took ONE decade for Reagan's successors to cure its failures.
7118. OhioSTOPAS - 4/16/2003 6:57:40 AM
Ace: Take a break from your complaining that Clinton didn't catch Osama Bin Laden and explain to us what Bush did, if anything, when he took office. It looks to me like Bush's determination to be the non-Clinton led him to do NOTHING. If so, you Bush defenders really shouldn't complain that Clinton didn't do enough.
7119. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 7:12:35 AM
Ohio --
Pincher offers a defense of Reaganomics: It only took ONE decade for Reagan's successors to cure its failures.
No, it took only one decade to erase the deficits; the economy was in good shape by the early nineties. This was contrary to the scare-mongers who claimed the U.S. might never recover from the Reagan budget deficits.
7120. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 7:16:37 AM
If so, you Bush defenders really shouldn't complain that Clinton didn't do enough.
I didn't complain that Clinton didn't do enough. I said a great president anticipates where the country is heading because he anticipates future problems and prepares the country to meet them. Clinton did not do that. For this reason -- among many others -- he should be judged, and will be judged, a mediocre president.
7121. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 8:22:00 AM
"Reagan's economic ideas can be explained in two words: lower taxes. This is the legacy that everyone from the two Bushes to Clinton have had to deal with and it is now generally accepted that no serious candidate for president can call for (at least openly) a return to higher taxes."
The above is what gets me worked up. The idea that anyone can believe such utter nonsense stalls my brain. How can you believe this? Check what happened, show me where the consequence of Raygunomics didn't raise taxes? Gas and other sales taxes skyrocketed because all the weight of govt was shifted more or less closer to home. While at the same time the Federal taxes were used to build a peace time military machine unprecedented in its sprawling capacity for waste. Did you get to use one of the $1,000 dollar toilet seats or $500 dollar ash trays? I sure as hell didn't.
And what of SDI. I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn if you believe the spin of SDI back in the Raygun years.
The consequences of long-term decentralized government, which meant the qualifying for need Federal dollars means more spending by local governments to prove one needs those federal dollars is a larger, broader, more encompasing raise in taxes than the glib "no new taxes" humbug of Republican minions. And lastly the deficit related to Raygunonmics is now being rebuilt. Again, to pass another burden of debt reduction to another generation, who will again have to repeat legislation, that already exists, to balance the budget. Social Security will continue to be cause for concern and uneasy blue collar workers will continue to absorb burdens placed upon them by the lie of "no new taxes".
7122. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 8:33:32 AM
And should we get into deregulation?
Run free you hippy dippy rich fat cats. Let your emissions go, drop your waste nilly willy, expand your use of fertalizer and pollute local water resources, let alone other blooms down stream. We mighty know-it-alls knight thee with deregulation. Why, because we don't want to raise your taxes. No, we just want to shift what we do have away from such idealistic nonsense and the burden of social programs to the making of our mighty war machines. Especially hogs like SDI that will be an utter waste! Let's run among the flowers and fields, drill a well here, there, everywhere. Oh, and that toxic-waster super fund we're setting up. It'll take care of all the PCB toxins of earlier willy nilliness. Don't worry, be happy, believe us, let us take care of it all. There, there (pat, pat - upon your widdle head)
7123. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:16:08 AM
Rick --
I wish I knew what got you worked up so much, but half the time I can't understand what you're trying to say.
But to be a good sport, I'll venture a guess based on what I can make out:
In response to what I called Reagan's political (remember this word) legacy, you said that other taxes -- state, gas, etc. -- are higher than when Reagan took office. Being a taxpayer in California under Governer Gray Davis, I can vouch that indeed some taxes have gone up.
And the truth is that, overall, the federal taxes the government collects haven't changed all that much since Reagan took office. Under Reagan, they dropped. Under Clinton, they were raised. Under Bush Jr., they've been dropped again. The net effect has been that federal government collects approximately the same amount of taxes (as a percentage of the GDP) as it did in 1980.
But the same is true when you add state and local taxes. In fact, in 1981, when Reagan took office, total government receipts were just over 28% of the GDP. In Clinton's last year, they were 30.7% Last year (2002), after Bush's tax cut, they were 27.5% (almost all of the change was due to a decrease in federal government receipts).
But my point is that, since Reagan, successful presidential candidates have found it necessary to run on promises not to raise people's taxes. Sometimes those promises have been broken. Sometimes they've been massaged (calls for the wealthy to pay their fair share). But the general precept is respected.
7124. pseudoerasmus - 4/16/2003 12:16:27 PM
Message # 7116
You know those deficits were much discussed by people in the 80s who hated Reagan's economic policy. Critics at the time argued that the problems of the deficits created by Reagan's policy would plague the U.S. economy for several decades. Yet, in fact, Reagan was out of office about a decade before the U.S. budget deficit came down to lows not seen since the 1960s.
You make it sound as though those deficits went away all by themselves and those critics were silly raising those alarms. Well, the deficits did not disappear by themselves. The deficits disappeared, and surpluses were generated, because (1) federal spending fell by more than 3% of GDP in the 1990s; and (2) taxes had been raised under Clinton, Bush I and Reagan (viz. the 1986 tax reform act). So the prognostications of the critics were "wrong" only because those actions which the critics themselves, out of alarm, advocated to reduce the deficits were implemented.
Hahaha! Yes, the seventies were certainly a prosperous time.
Annualised average growth rate of real GDP per capita
1970-80: 1.52%
1971-80: 1.67%
1981-89: 1.87%
1981-90: 1.67%
No matter how you define the 1970s and the 1980s, the growth rates were not terribly different in either decade, despite the propaganda about both decades to the contrary.
7125. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 12:36:21 PM
PE --
You make it sound as though those deficits went away all by themselves and those critics were silly raising those alarms.
They were silly to raise the alarms in the manner they did, since the suggestion was that Reagan was doing something so outrageously wrong, it would be impossible to recover in the short term.
7126. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 1:11:33 PM
They were silly to raise the alarms in the manner they did, since the suggestion was that Reagan was doing something so outrageously wrong, it would be impossible to recover in the short term.
If they were kept in place. They weren't.
Federal taxes at the end of Reagan's term were higher than at the beginning. He gave it all back, in payroll taxes and loophole closing in the 1986 tax reform and ss reform packages. It's another of the Big Lies told by the wing nuts--that Reagan cut taxes. It's like the Big Lie of opposing big government, as we are seeing played out yet again, it is about who gets the money, not how much is spent.
Then Bush 1, courageously, politically suicidally but in his what I've come to view as his longstanding commitment to public service and doing the right thing, went back on a key campaign promise.
And then Clinton, in not as courageous, but pretty farsighted as presidential decisionmaking goes, listened to Robert Rubin, took the slowing of growth early in his administration (and the resulting Gingrich revolution) upon the promise of the value to the economy of surpluses rather than deficits in the long haul. Which proved correct.
And has now been dumped in narrow pursuits of campaign funds, and Bush 2's political base. Fortunately, the senate will contain some of this, and Bush's need to look centrist, will contain some more. (The turn to the center has already started, with two recent environmental bills, limiting diesel emissions and taking down the Miltown dam, that are unimpeachably good ideas from the green point of view.)
In fact, thinking about this as I type, the senate containing it may be the best possible political result. He can pull off Clinton's trick of taking the money, and then not pursuing the policy, by blaming the failure to get his tax bill through on the democrats. That's certainly turning the tactic up a notch, if things fall right.
7127. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 2:03:34 PM
It's another of the Big Lies told by the wing nuts--that Reagan cut taxes. It's like the Big Lie of opposing big government, as we are seeing played out yet again, it is about who gets the money, not how much is spent.
Again, is this the same JayAckroyd who claimed to be, several years ago, a moderate Republican?
I think it's awfully strange that a "moderate Republican" should write like the most crazed, Fergussen-Foont-Footjobbing liberal partisan puler, but then, I've got to accept that this is the truth, because liberals don't lie.
They keep telling me so, so it must be true.
7128. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 2:39:00 PM
And then Clinton, in not as courageous, but pretty farsighted as presidential decisionmaking goes, listened to Robert Rubin, took the slowing of growth early in his administration (and the resulting Gingrich revolution) upon the promise of the value to the economy of surpluses rather than deficits in the long haul.
Incomprehensible.
7129. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 2:48:08 PM
Federal taxes at the end of Reagan's term were higher than at the beginning. He gave it all back, in payroll taxes and loophole closing in the 1986 tax reform and ss reform packages. It's another of the Big Lies told by the wing nuts--that Reagan cut taxes
You're wrong. In 1981 federal taxes as a percentage of GDP were 19.6. After the tax cuts they shrank as low as 17.4 percent. By the end of Reagan's term they had crept back up, but only to 18.3 percent.
Total federal tax revenue did grow, but because the economy grew. Not because taxes went up.
7130. Al D - 4/16/2003 5:08:20 PM
Since I am not an economist, nor near as smart as any of the above, I have to use road scholar thinking. Now I understand that a President is favored by a good economy, and hurt by a bad economy. I also reason that Presidents like to get re-elected and loved by the populace. therego, it seems reasonable to me that any President would do everything he could to keep the economy flowing.
And yet, there are times when the econmy goes down, and it isn't always in the 2nd term of a President. Do you suppose it is possible that the President doesn't have a lot to do with the ups and downs of the economy?
7131. ee - 4/16/2003 5:13:44 PM
NO WAY its all Bush. Reagan too.
7132. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:14:47 PM
Heyyyy!! PE and EE!!
EE, When your dad began posting again, I was wanting to get time to email and get him to prod you back in here. Please stick around!
Now I'll go back and read the thread.
7133. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:21:56 PM
Message # 7111It was not a lone billionaire, PM. Did you read the article? Please look at all the connections there. A mere skim will not do. There was a vast network he managed to gather around him, due partly to issues here, and due partly to the RW groups willing to work with congressional support who have interesting ties to him. I've explained this many times.
7134. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:27:36 PM
Clinton can be graded down, however, for not recognizing the threat of terrorism or of WMD,/i>
Now that's bullshit, and you and I both know it. They stopped a major plot on the millennial in Los Angeles, and there is plenty of evidence he put it as a priority when most of his political enemies pooh-poohed it. I linked something on that the other day, as well.
I guess Cal and Clinton have it in common that they should've realized the disasters of Hoover and Bush II were looming on the horizon. Or is that the fault of the voters/USSC? And while I don't blame Hoover for the Depression for obvious reasons, I certainly blame the Bush II (or whoever winds him up every morning) for the stagnation we're in now and the budget problems we're having.
7135. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:29:58 PM
He tacks left; he tacks right; he triangulates; he's a problem solver who waits for problems to pop up before working on them.
Oh puhleeeze. Wrong again. Besides, how do you work on problems before you have them?
7136. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:31:21 PM
You're not speaking to some young dufus in your classroom.
No, I'm talking to an old one who could have gotten some good out of having been in my classroom.
7137. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:33:26 PM
Your timeline proves nothing except that Clinton competently handled crises while dealing with an idiotic single-minded Republican-dominated congress.
He didn't create those situations did he? He didn't ignore any that arose did he? So exactly what did your timeline prove?
7138. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:35:42 PM
Yes, the seventies were certainly a prosperous time.
I was referring to the fifties and sixties. I didn't say anything about decades.
7139. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:40:22 PM
Oh my.
7140. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 8:41:10 PM
From http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec10.pdf
Taxes
1980: 18.9% of gdp
1988: 18.1% of gdp
This is a revolution? And all that it did was put off taxes, by running deficits in the 20s instead of the teens for the Reagan period. The supply side growth thing simply didn't happen. Fiscal discipline in the Bush and Clinton administrations drove down deficits and lowered interest rates, which fueled the nineties recovery.
7141. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 9:32:57 PM
Jay --
1981 (when Reagan assumed office): 19.6%
1989 (when he left): 18.3%
1984: (lowest of Reagan's tenure): 17.4%
The figure for tax revenue as a percentage of GDP had been in the 17th percentile for most of the 60s and 70s. Except for 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War, and for the last two years of WW2 (1944 and 1945), federal revenues had never surpassed Carter's last year in office.
That is, until the last five years (1998-2002):
1992: 17.5%
1993: 17.6%
1994: 18.1%
1995: 18.5%
1996: 18.9%
1997: 19.3%
1998: 19.9%
1999: 20.0%
2000: 20.6%
2001: 20.7% (est.)
2002: 20.2% (est.)
2003: 19.7% (est.)
2004: 19.4% (est.)
2005: 19.2% (est.)
2006: 18.9% (est.)
Please note that even by the standard of the last thirty years, we aren't getting into uncharted territory here with Bush's tax cut. Clinton, on the other hand, had raised federal spending to levels it had never been before.
7142. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 9:35:29 PM
PM,
I knew what your post was espousing. And that has become plain. However, it's just as easy to say, if a pres. cand. speaks about raising taxes that's a losing proposition.
What I came away with is that there is a premise that these politicians continue to evoke, and all to many hear only what they want to hear.
I am tired tonight, so again, you may find this not the least bit in tune with your line of thinking.
What the Reagan years did with deregulation, decentralization and reallocation of tax revenues to higher military spending [upon wasted SDI in particular] was to realign the states tax structures to fit their own particular constituencies. The agendas vary widely, some states still have no sales tax, some like Minnesota have among the highest. There are huge gas taxes here as well. And let's bring up property taxes; home and liscense tabs for your vehicles.
The taxes of the federal government, correlate to the taxes of the states and local municipalities. Therefore is one realigns and restructures, that is the trickle down reality. Not that the money of the rich-fat-cat saving from his huge tax relief creates more jobs. Hogwash!
7143. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 9:35:44 PM
Minnesota is to damn liberal for its own good, but that doesn't matter now, it's realigning under the new Republican governor Pawlenty, which took its cue partly from former governor Ventura. Don't raise taxes any more (ha!) and spend less upon the programs that already exist. Tighten the belt, suck it up. And Pawlenty admits that the social programs meant to help the homeless and the poorest are being cut and those people will have further difficulty.
A lot of this is undefinable.
Whose doing the study to find out how many homeless there are? Whose studying the statistics of what makes a poor person suffer? Whose doing anything to quantify anything that will relate to the social framework of anything that has to do with the poor? My point is it wont likely be a government survey, nor a federal commission, nor anything to do with a political agenda. A non-profit might to something focused, but never a broad scale.
What I cannot understand is short-sightedness. The inability or perhaps more likely the lack of desire to care about anything that might be of concern to the poor. A lot of people know nothing about the poor and care even less. Then let's move beyond the poor to the blue collar worker, the service class and the struggling 20-30 somethings'.
It takes another broad sense of vision to open ones eyes to the needs of this group. What do they need, where do they get it, what might be of concern to this class? High food and gas prices are way up on the list. High rent and low cost housing is top on the list. Then day care, schools, and health care. Single moms might commonly fall into this class. Not the sure minded, professional, well educated mom, I'm talking about the average mom.
There's too much to get to. I'll just have to stop. This could go on and on. But, if I'm not getting any point across, then I'll have to look for a different tack.
7144. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 9:47:18 PM
However, it's just as easy to say, if a pres. cand. speaks about raising taxes that's a losing proposition.
No, it's not. We were discussing why that's the case. I'm arguing that Reagan had a lot to do with that.
As for SDI, it's not that important frankly. You may not like it, and you may be right that it was useless (although the Russians were sure worried about it), but it doesn't add up to much more than a needle in the budgetary haystack.
7145. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 9:55:36 PM
You want to give Reagan credit for the trend of Pres. candidates to state they will not raise taxes. Now do you see that I know what you mean?
But, I'm saying, so what? What's that got to do with anything anyway?
That I don't like SDI is just a needle in the haystack I'm equating that bit to. I'm trying to open the idea of tax cuts to the reality that they truly do not mean a tax cut is taking place everywhere. Fed. tax cuts mean raising taxes elsewhere. That's what I'm saying, that's what my examples are equating.
7146. Al D - 4/16/2003 9:57:48 PM
Rick
Do you have any concept of individual responsibility, or do you just view people as a series of victims? I know from your posts that your life has been no bed of roses, mine has not been either. It wasn't until my 40's that I stopped seeing myself as a victim, my bosses as my enemy, and decided to get to work tending my own garden. Now if a meteor falls out of the sky and injures a person, I'll give him victim status. But many so-called victims create their status.
The above is a little off the wall, I realize.
7147. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 10:00:26 PM
Look Pincher, I don't want to get into an argument about fact, but here are the Statistical Abstract Numbers:
Stat abstract
But, iac, my point is there is no significant difference in democratic or republican positions on the size of government, or in the level of taxation. They want it as big as they can get the public to stand. Lately, in the last 20 or so years, the republicans have wanted to fund this agreed upon size of government with deficit spending. The last democratic administration wanted to fund it with current revenues. The ultimate level of taxation is the same, regardless of funding mechanism. You cannot reduce the size of government without reducing spending. The republican Big Lie is denying this fundamental fact.
The claim that they are funding it with deficit spending is hollow, because they have to get the revenue at some point, as Reagan did in 1986.
The claim is especially hollow now. It is deeply ironic to hear republicans, in control of the White House, Senate, and House saying that they need to cut taxes because that is the only way to reduce the size of government. That may have been true when control of the government was mixed (it was a lie then, but never mind), but there is now nothing stopping the republicans from voting in a greatly reduced government, funded by a fiscally sound budget process.
Instead they choose pork, and lots of it.
7148. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:01:34 PM
It was not a lone billionaire, PM. Did you read the article?
No Arky, I didn't. I just surmised that it must be about a lone billionaire and then, through my miraculous powers, cited something from the article without having actually read it.
Please look at all the connections there. A mere skim will not do. There was a vast network he managed to gather around him, due partly to issues here, and due partly to the RW groups willing to work with congressional support who have interesting ties to him. I've explained this many times.
Yes, there were a lot of connections. Being a billionaire will do that for you. But in my "mere skim" I was still able to deduce that our lone billionaire doesn't always get his way, even with his conservative colleagues, and that the "vastness" and "conspiratorial" nature of the relationships was heavily overdone by you and Jay.
7149. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 10:05:08 PM
Well, Al, As you can see I stopped getting on with my post 7143, because I was about to get into what you've just posted. The reality of many poor is self destructive behavior. Drugs and alcohol, crime and punishment.
The social fabric of this class is very complicated. There are many things that give rise to this class and you have noted that you understand some of it. And you've noted that I also understand some of it. That you ask if I understand the concept of individual responsibility is a good question.
That question opens up the counter question of do we need to understand the concept of community and the responsibility of community members to help the less fortunate within that community. Not just true victims, but those who have fallen. Do we need to help the one who has chosen the wrong path via drugs and alcohol?
There is another problem with this that I know you'll think. That's whether these problems are punishable crimes and the like. Well sure, some are. But, then there are the less inclined to deviant behavior, but just as inclined to screw up their life with drugs and alcohol. That's why there are programs for these people. I cannot get into the crime aspect. It's the most complicated and the most hopeless of persons.
7150. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:06:58 PM
Jay --
Why should I go to that site (which I can't read anyway), when I can just go the official U.S. government site on the budget
Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables
Click on Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 1996) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940-2006
7151. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 10:07:28 PM
One last note. Since when has it been the case that the conservative position is that tax rates should be constant wrt to the gdp? How can there be tax cut if you're paying more each year?
It's always irritated me to see articles in the newspaper quoting, without comment, (usually democrat) claims that reductions in the rate of increase of spending are cuts in spending. This whole baseline budget thing--that we are gonna spend x% of the GDP on NPR, ad infinitum--is deeply broken. There's stuff that does not depend on the size of the population or the economy, and there's stuff that does depend on those things that needs periodic reexamination. Treating the current set of expenditures as the permanent set of expenditures is part of a very broken, very corrupt political process.
On this score, Bush 2 deserves some credit. I generally don't agree with the administration's priorities, but they have shown a willinginess to make substantial changes in the baseline budgets.
7152. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 10:15:45 PM
PM, from your source. (Stat Abstract is also an official source of govt statistics.) As percent of gdp. I really don't get it. I'm saying that the dems and reps are the same in their treatment of spending, and in taxation. Are you saying this data indicates otherwise?
Year GDP recpts outlays deficit
1980 2,732.1 18.9 21.6 (2.7)
1981 3,061.6 19.6 22.2 (2.6)
1982 3,228.6 19.1 23.1 (4.0)
1983 3,440.5 17.5 23.5 (6.0)
1984 3,839.4 17.4 22.2 (4.8)
1985 4,136.6 17.7 22.9 (5.1)
1986 4,401.4 17.5 22.5 (5.0)
1987 4,647.0 18.4 21.6 (3.2)
1988 5,014.7 18.1 21.2 (3.1)
1989 5,405.5 18.3 21.2 (2.8)
1990 5,735.6 18.0 21.8 (3.9)
1991 5,930.4 17.8 22.3 (4.5)
1992 6,218.6 17.5 22.2 (4.7)
1993 6,558.4 17.6 21.5 (3.9)
1994 6,944.6 18.1 21.1 (2.9)
1995 7,324.0 18.5 20.7 (2.2)
1996 7,694.6 18.9 20.3 (1.4)
1997 8,185.2 19.3 19.6 (0.3)
1998 8,673.5 19.9 19.1 0.8
1999 9,130.4 20.0 18.7 1.4
2000 9,824.4 20.6 18.2 2.4
2001 estimate 10,312.7 20.7 18.0 2.7
2002 estimate 10,857.8 20.2 18.1 2.1
2003 estimate 11,445.8 19.7 17.6 2.1
2004 estimate 12,059.2 19.4 17.2 2.2
2005 estimate 12,701.2 19.2 17.1 2.1
2006 estimate 13,375.7 18.9 16.6 2.3
7153. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:29:48 PM
Jay --
But, iac, my point is there is no significant difference in democratic or republican positions on the size of government, or in the level of taxation.
There is not a huge difference, but there are differences, and I prefer the Republicans calls for lower taxation and higher spending on defense. I don't care much for the budget deficits, but I prefer forcing the Democrats to lower non-defense related spending later than I do waiting around expecting them to do so.
They want it as big as they can get the public to stand. Lately, in the last 20 or so years, the republicans have wanted to fund this agreed upon size of government with deficit spending.
That's true of two Republican administrations (Reagan and Bush Jr.) and perhaps the current congress, but it is not true of the first Republican-controlled congress, which was instrumental in persuading Clinton to maintain fiscal conservatism in the second half of his first term.
The last democratic administration wanted to fund it with current revenues. The ultimate level of taxation is the same, regardless of funding mechanism. You cannot reduce the size of government without reducing spending. The republican Big Lie is denying this fundamental fact.
If you're talking about supply-side economics, I agree. It's a bunch of crap. But, again, my support for the policy is based on expectations. I can wait until the end of forever for Democrats to help in lowering spending or I can go along with voodoo economics in the knowledge that Democrats will then be forced to lower spending, which they otherwise would not do.*
*My use of "lowering spending" should also include maintaining spending at current levels.
continued...
7154. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:30:09 PM
The claim that they are funding it with deficit spending is hollow, because they have to get the revenue at some point, as Reagan did in 1986.
That's not true. It depends on what you think the future might have been like without the deficits. The level of government revenue has been fairly steady for the last twenty years, but there is certainly an argument that if taxes hadn't been lowered, and the resulting deficits hadn't happened, federal spending could have continued to rise to European-like levels.
The claim is especially hollow now. It is deeply ironic to hear republicans, in control of the White House, Senate, and House saying that they need to cut taxes because that is the only way to reduce the size of government. That may have been true when control of the government was mixed (it was a lie then, but never mind), but there is now nothing stopping the republicans from voting in a greatly reduced government, funded by a fiscally sound budget process.
Instead they choose pork, and lots of it.
Pork is a miniscule part of the budget. Saying pork is responsible for the budget mess is a little like saying welfare queens are responsible for it.
7155. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:35:53 PM
Jay --
Depending on where the tax cut is allocated, the difference between the government collecting 20 percent of the GDP and 17 percent could be significant.
You could practically fund the entire armies of Europe and Asia in that 3% difference.
7156. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:38:10 PM
Correction: not "could" be signficant, but *would* be significant. It's just a question as to who would benefit from the tax cuts (and who would later suffer from the spending cuts).
7157. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:01:48 PM
Arky --
Now that's bullshit, and you and I both know it. They stopped a major plot on the millennial in Los Angeles, and there is plenty of evidence he put it as a priority when most of his political enemies pooh-poohed it. I linked something on that the other day, as well.
Let me be clear: I do not blame Clinton for 9-11. I do not think that Clinton was much different in the compromises he made with terrorists than either Reagan or Bush Sr. At a detailed level, one might make that argument, but I don't choose to do so.
We are talking about the difference between what historians think of as "great" and "mediocre" presidents, not about assigning blame for particular incidents. No serious historian is going to directly blame Clinton for 9-11, but undoubtably there will be many historians who see Clinton as not having foreseen or grasped -- as a great president would -- future opportunities and threats. And they will downgrade him accordingly.
I guess Cal and Clinton have it in common that they should've realized the disasters of Hoover and Bush II were looming on the horizon.
Coolidge actually believed that the good times of the 1920s were coming to an end and left office early because he thought he wasn't the right man to handle them. He could have run for reelection in 1928.
There are good arguments for saying Clinotn should have realized that terrorism and WMD were the threats he must prepare the nation for in the future, instead of, say, wasting time and rhetoric arguing that humanitarian missions would be the new focus.
But the important thing is not to assign blame, but to look at the presidency in retrospect and rank it. Fairly or not, the Great Depression has an effect on how the Republican presidents of 1920s are considered by historians. Fairly or not, 9-11 will have an effect on how Clinton is judged.
continued ...
7158. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:02:24 PM
Or is that the fault of the voters/USSC? And while I don't blame Hoover for the Depression for obvious reasons, I certainly blame the Bush II (or whoever winds him up every morning) for the stagnation we're in now and the budget problems we're having.
Budget problems? Yes. Stagnation? No. We just got out of one the most successful decades in U.S. economic history, one that blew up an enormous bubble of wealth. We were bound to hit the skids for a while no matter who was in charge.
7159. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:08:47 PM
Oh puhleeeze. Wrong again. Besides, how do you work on problems before you have them?
You anticipate they will be an even larger problem in the future, Arky. It's not as if terrorism or WMD didn't exist in the 1990s. It's not as if some people were not arguing at the time that terrorism and WMD would be major problems for the U.S.
To be fair, I think the Bush administration didn't anticipate -- any better than the Clinton administration -- that terrorism would be the problem it's become, but I do think that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did foresee that WMD and rogue states would be major issues the U.S. would have to tackle.
7160. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:10:51 PM
Pincher: "You're not speaking to some young dufus in your classroom."
Arky: "No, I'm talking to an old one who could have gotten some good out of having been in my classroom."
I would have been unbearable, throwing spitballs and teasing you unmercilessly. ;-)
7161. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:13:25 PM
Your timeline proves nothing except that Clinton competently handled crises while dealing with an idiotic single-minded Republican-dominated congress.
He didn't create those situations did he? He didn't ignore any that arose did he? So exactly what did your timeline prove?
Weren't you just arguing with Ace that he couldn't deal with these important affairs of state because dealing with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was taking up all his time?
7162. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:22:31 PM
Arky Message # 7138
I was referring to the fifties and sixties. I didn't say anything about decades.
No, you said in Message # 7106: "The prosperous times [Reagan's 80s] so mistily looked back on weren't all that great, even in relation to the two prosperous periods it was sandwiched between."
I can understand Clinton's 90s being one prosperous side of the sandwich, but how do the 50s and 60s sandwich up against the other side of Reagan's 80s?
Please, you're better off with PE's defense that the seventies were more prosperous than everyone thought at the time.
7163. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:24:09 PM
That's ten posts in a row so I think I'll give it a rest.
7164. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 11:24:48 PM
PM--
I'd like to continue the discussion of the parties' views of debt, taxes and spending, but am out of gas right now.
The issues I am most interested in are policy issues rather than political issues; perhaps the discussion belongs on the slow thread. I am still struggling to find a way to make this a political thread. That is, a thread focused not on policy, and not on who is evil and who is not, but on the mechanics of how these guys achieve their goals. The presidential election cycle has now begun. Any suggestions on how to make this a discussion about politics, rather than a partisan screamfest, would be appreciated.
Here, or at my email address, jay@ackroyd.org. This request for advice and suggestions is directed at all participants.
7165. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 11:29:12 PM
That's true of two Republican administrations (Reagan and Bush Jr.) and perhaps the current congress, but it is not true of the first Republican-controlled congress, which was instrumental in persuading Clinton to maintain fiscal conservatism in the second half of his first term.
All right. One comment before I shut down. You're crediting the '94 congress, and I'm crediting Rubin and Clinton. That's a bootless argument; there's no way to say who is right, and it is probably true that we are both right, and both wrong.
7166. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:35:26 PM
Jay --
I think Rubin, Greenspan, the Republican Congress, and, yes, even Clinton deserve credit.
7167. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 11:44:57 PM
Right, Greenspan did play a key role, on both the congressional and executive branch sides. Thanks for pointing that out.
7168. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 11:47:20 PM
I'm shutting down too, but I must protest that I did have the 50s and 60s in mind when I posted that, so the 70s is a semantics thing. Call it the mayo or the lettuce--no, cheese--inside the first slice of bread, which would be the time I was referring to in the 50s and 60s, by way of comparing the 80s with the other two periods for perspective on how disappointing it actually was.
And no, I was arguing with Ace that Clinton did an amazing job of staying focused when all those morons who drove the impeachment could focus on was how much titillation they could get from delving into his pecadillos.
7169. Al D - 4/17/2003 12:50:33 AM
Ill just pick up on one point: great Presidents percieve problems and guide the Nation toward a solution. Should Roosevelt prepared the U.S. for war starting after he was elected in 1936? Instead he ran as an anti-war candidate against Wilkie, who was also anti war. For sure the majority of the country was anti-war, but leaders did nothing to make them face the facts. Maybe Roosevelt would have stayed anti-war had not Hitler attacked Russia in June, 1941.
7170. jayackroyd - 4/17/2003 10:35:30 AM
Michael Kinsley in Time argues in the same fashion wrt Bush, saying, if nothing else, he is a leader by taking these very bold actions.
Excerpt:
Bush's decision to make war on Iraq may have been visionary and courageous or reckless and tragic or anything in between, but one thing it wasn't was urgently necessary. For Bush, this war was optional. Events did not impose it on him. Few public voices were egging him on. He hadn't made an issue of the need for "regime change" during the presidential campaign or made it a priority in the early months of his Administration. If he had completely ignored Iraq through the 2004 election, the price would have been a few disappointed Administration hawks and one or two grumpy op-eds.
7171. Wombat - 4/17/2003 10:37:00 AM
From 1940 on, Roosevelt was preparing the country for war. The draft was reintroduced in 1940, "cash and carry" arms sales were permitted to the British and French, neutrality laws were evaded to favor the British.
7172. Wombat - 4/17/2003 10:38:16 AM
If Pincher would tease Arky "unmercelessly" than he wouldn't be teasing her much at all.
7173. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:35:39 PM
Wombat --
Good catch. I mixed together "unmercifully" with "mercilessly".
7174. judithathome - 4/17/2003 1:43:51 PM
Been listening to Bush too much.
7175. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:44:19 PM
Or you.
7176. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:45:45 PM
FDR's preparation for WW2 is a good example of what I was talking about before, but not in the way Al D suggests.
Many historians think FDR's war preparations were wise decisions that helped ease the United States entry into the war. But those policies were not only taken in the absence of public support, they were often taken in the face of public opposition. Still, historians generally give FDR good marks for his pre-1941 moves.
7177. judithathome - 4/17/2003 1:46:32 PM
Oh, okay...forgive me for trying to make a joke and be pleasant. So sorry I didn't precede it with an insult.
7178. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:50:09 PM
Judith, was that remark your way of being pleasant? Then so was mine.
Now that we know how to be viciously pleasant to each other, why don't we dispense with exchanging insults.
7179. judithathome - 4/17/2003 1:54:23 PM
Jeez, sounds good to me.
It is well known that I am not a Bush fan and I did happen to think it was funny that you said you'd mixed the two words, as Bush sometimes does. So yes, I was trying to be pleasant and make a joke. After your blistering remarks of the other day toward me, I thought I'd just try to move on and I see that in order to do so, I shall just have to not address you at all after this.
7180. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:59:08 PM
After your blistering remarks of the other day toward me, I thought I'd just try to move on and I see that in order to do so, I shall just have to not address you at all after this.
My blistering remarks towards you were well-deserved.
As for you not addressing me, I hope you don't mean in the same way you don't address Rosie. I don't think I could put up with all that attention from you.
7181. magoseph - 4/17/2003 2:20:23 PM
You just came back some time ago, Pincher, and you haven't been witness to Rosie's unprovoked attacks on Judith, you know.
7182. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 2:38:29 PM
magoseph --
I wouldn't defend Rosie if he had sprang from my own loins.
The joke is that Judith often seems to address Rosie even after publicly forswearing to do so. Now that she's making similar public promises to me, I'm hoping she's more true to her word.
7183. magoseph - 4/17/2003 3:25:51 PM
Alright, Pincher, you have the last word on this matter.
7184. Al D - 4/17/2003 5:19:25 PM
If someone tells you you have the last word, you really don't. Perhaps I've been listening to Bush too much. I had a friend you used to try to end every discussion with "Well, in the final analysis..." Oh yeah, who says so.
7185. concerned - 4/17/2003 5:32:06 PM
As of this moment, I have the last word.
So, there.
7186. arkymalarky - 4/17/2003 9:59:10 PM
Not any more, babbaloo.
Message # 7173
I caught it, but I didn't want to feed into the Persnickety Teacher stereotype by pointing it out. Being and Arky and a public school teacher is tough enough without feeding the fire.
I was reading an article the other day about the Language Police that have arisen since Bush came to office, and the article gave an example of one of his Bushisms explaining that his education program "would resignate with parents." This is why I continually tell people his "No Child Left Behind" program should be retroactive to its creator.
I wonder if a shock collar would help that sort of thing. Maybe Laura could be the one to wield it, since she was a school librarian.
And, ahem, it's "had sprung."
Sorry. I'll quit now--that is unless someone wants to pay me for grammar tutoring to help defer the tax I owe according to that idiotic program I used yesterday, April 16. I hope they have a net connection in jail.
7187. arkymalarky - 4/17/2003 10:01:45 PM
correction: and=an
7188. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 2:23:04 AM
Arky --
I make mistakes like that quite often. But then so does everyone else. Even in Wombat's correction, he misspelled my unpretty creation "unmercelessly".
One of the sentences you wrote (the one I mentioned before with the two "ifs") was certainly not something an English teacher should show off to the class, unless it would be as an example of how not to write.
7189. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 6:41:35 PM
Oferpetesake. Talk about sensitive, Mr. Kettle. Or maybe too thick to get it. I haven't decided yet. I said that in the context of the discussion. If I were into corrections, just dealing with AlD would be a full time job.
Sorry Al, but you know it's true, and I know they're mostly typos.
And while I'm at it, PM, you could learn a thing or two about dishing it out and taking it, or standing the heat or one of those axioms.
(PS and FYI--sentence fragments are ok when used as an element of style or tone)
7190. seadate - 4/18/2003 6:47:29 PM
How can you not just love Arky.
7191. seadate - 4/18/2003 6:48:26 PM
And that's as political as I'm gonna get.
7192. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 6:58:04 PM
Kiss! You know I'd never let politics come between us!
7193. seadate - 4/18/2003 7:00:55 PM
Not meaning to be be condecending, Arky. I know your post was serious, I just thought it was funny.
7194. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 7:18:52 PM
Not really, and I know you well enough to know you don't do condescending. I rarely ever take anything seriously here.
7195. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 7:20:24 PM
IOW, my post wasn't really serious. My point was, though.
7196. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 10:37:19 PM
Arky --
Oferpetesake. Talk about sensitive, Mr. Kettle. Or maybe too thick to get it. I haven't decided yet. I said that in the context of the discussion. If I were into corrections, just dealing with AlD would be a full time job.
Sensitive? Not at all, Mrs. Pot. I've enjoyed our back-and-forth.
And while I'm at it, PM, you could learn a thing or two about dishing it out and taking it, or standing the heat or one of those axioms.
I think I both dish it out and take it pretty well.
But in this case I wasn't the slightest bit put off by your seconding of Wombat's correction. I hope you continue to point out my errors; I know I will continue to point out yours. It could be the basis of a wonderful relationship.
7197. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 10:55:28 PM
Hmmm. Sounds a bit S&M for me. I'll bet you'd play prescriptivist, too, just so you could zap me more often and take advantage of my Southern idiom.
7198. judithathome - 4/19/2003 1:09:29 AM
Bush Goes AWOL: Eric Alterman
...But as with Vietnam, "W" is AWOL and Cheney has "other priorities." They have not merely ignored "homeland" protection, they have sabotaged it. Shocking, yes. But don't take my word for it. A January Brookings Institution report explains, "President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the country remains more vulnerable than it should be today." A Council on Foreign Relations task force chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman concurs: "America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil," it warns.
7199. Edmund Dantes - 4/19/2003 6:43:00 PM
But don't take my word for it. A January Brookings Institution report explains, "President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the country remains more vulnerable than it should be today."
Sorry, Mr. Alterman, but I won't take your word for it, nor that of the Brookings Institute report which you cite.
According to this Gannett News Service graphic, Bush recorded zero vetoes in his first two years in office:
The January 2003 Brookings reports doesn't list which measures it's talking about because such measures don't in fact exist.
7200. magoseph - 4/20/2003 8:09:02 AM
The War at Home
While President Bush pursues the fight against terrorism and the military effort in Iraq, he's also staging a new battle on the home front for his domestic programs. Last week he began by stumping the country for his tax cut plan, a cornerstone of his presidential ambitions. Mr. Bush's successful prosecution of the war in Iraq does not mean that Americans must now fall in line behind his misguided domestic agenda. On almost every front, it is a disaster, a national train wreck that must be headed off for the country's well-being.
As far as the big tax cut for the rich is concerned, that was the Bush pay-off for financing his capture of the presidency--anyone who has any grasp of economic reality knows that when you have over-capacity, you can't create additional capacity with a tax-cut. However, this article is worth reading because it really exposes the total lack of morality that is the hall-mark of the Bush administration.
7201. alistairconnor - 4/20/2003 8:25:21 AM
Not at all, Mrs. Pot
Frankly Pincher, you've crossed the line here. You're accusing Arky of being married to Pol?
7202. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2003 10:19:35 AM
Re 7199: Are you serious, Eddie? You devote a post to "refuting" the Brookings Institution's statement that "President Bush vetoed . . . measures proposed by Congress . . ." with the undisputable fact that President Bush has not exercised his Presidential veto against any law enacted by Congress. How could the Brookings Institution make such an outrageous, easily refuted, lie?
Here's a clue, Eddie: The verb "veto" does not necessarily mean formal exercise of a President's constitutional authority. It also means simply to forbid, to disapprove, to prohibit. Obviously that is the sense in which the quoted sentence uses the word "veto".
Surely you're smart enough to figure this out by yourself. Maybe, as conservatives so often do, you saw a criticism of Bush and had your reason overcome by your feeeeeeeelings.
7203. judithathome - 4/20/2003 11:07:08 AM
Nice catch, Ohio.
7204. arkymalarky - 4/20/2003 12:31:07 PM
Hey Alistair, at first I thought he was accusing me of *being* him.
The economic effect the Bush administration's policies has had on the states is unreal. I don't know what they're going to do. Ours is in a deadlock and funds have been cut to the bone and there are necessary things that have to be addressed. We had the second longest legislative session in history (they only meet every other year) and they adjourned without passing a budget and the governor will now call a special session he sets the agenda for and it will likely make matters worse, since he's engaged in a big powerplay with congress rather than listening to options and hashing out compromises, and the major media is behind him.
I've never seen anything like it in all my years in AR. The closest state university to us, where my dad taught, will offer NO academic scholarships to incoming freshmen next fall (the one coming up was already in place), and Mose almost didn't get hers funded where she's attending.
7205. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2003 1:21:34 PM
Further to my Message # 7202: In August 2002, President Bush rejected some homeland security spending authorized in a bill passed by Congress. Although not technically a "veto" (but maybe a "pocket veto"), this may be what the Brookings Institution is talking about.
7206. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2003 1:27:46 PM
This article by Jonathan Chait of The New Repulic is a strong critique of the Bush Administration's homeland security efforts, or rather lack of efforts.
(At least so I've read; the entire article is not available online and I have yet to read it.)
7207. robertjayb - 4/20/2003 1:38:20 PM
WRT education funding: pigs are flying over my CenTex community this morning. Hell, they're not just flying, they're doing barrel rolls and chandelle turns and all manner of stunts. Reason is...our local rag has a half-page editorial calling for a state income tax to fund public education. Stunning heresy on this Easter day.
7208. judithathome - 4/20/2003 2:04:20 PM
I'll bet it was placed by some Rick Perry toadying minion who can't be treaced back to him.
You are so right...pigs are flying but that will be nothing to compare to what the fan output will be if they try to put this through.
7209. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2003 3:46:09 PM
Time Magazine
WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS?
. . . For months before the war began, everyone from Bush on down argued that Saddam's arsenal of biological and chemical weapons was so dangerous that destroying it was worth a war. They laid claim to information so certain that Colin Powell was able to provide graphic details to a U.N. audience in February. Pentagon officials were confident that the quality of their intelligence would lead troops to the illicit stockpiles fairly quickly once U.S. boots were on Iraqi soil. Now they're adjusting the picture: the Pentagon says its soldiers are no more likely to stumble over a weapons cache than top U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix was. "Things were mobile. Things were underground. Things were in tunnels. Things were hidden. Things were dispersed. Now, are we going to find that? No, it's a big country," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week. "The inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt that we will;what we will do is find the people who will tell us."
However sanguine officials sound in public, in private the pressure is rising. The Pentagon dispatched an entire brigade . . . and offered $200,000 bounties for any weapons of mass destruction (WMD) uncovered. Local officers were authorized to make payments of $2,500 on the spot. "The White House is screaming, 'Find me some WMD,'" says a State Department official . . .
Even the hard-liners concede that they have confirmed absolutely nothing so far. . . Some officials now question whether huge stockpiles will ever be found: it's easy to hide a liter of anthrax, but not the factory-size facility needed to produce it. . . .
7210. Edmund Dantes - 4/20/2003 6:19:41 PM
The verb "veto" does not necessarily mean formal exercise of a President's constitutional authority. It also means simply to forbid, to disapprove, to prohibit. Obviously that is the sense in which the quoted sentence uses the word "veto".
Surely you can't be serious. In that case the language they should use is "President Bush forbade, disapproved, or prohibited measures by Congress."
In the interactions between Congress and the President veto has a very specific meaning, and you know it, but as usual there is no depth to which you won't seek in trying to find cover for your partisan position. In this case, moreover, you don't even know if there's any cover to be had. You have no idea what the Brookings Institute is talking about--and of course Alterman doesn't either because he lifts the language wholesale from the Brookings report. So you are left with saying that you believe that is the sense in which they meant the word. You believe that because you are a partisan hack who doesn't mind it when those "on your side" use clearly false language (i.e., lie).
"The President vetoed a specific and cost-effective measure proposed by Congress."
There is no ambiguity in the above sentence except for that ilk who argue about the meaning of simple words like "is."
Although not technically a "veto" (but maybe a "pocket veto")...
Then again, I may give you too much credit. Obviously you have no idea what a pocket veto is, if you think what you've described is "maybe a 'pocket veto.'"
7211. Edmund Dantes - 4/20/2003 6:32:54 PM
President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities...
"Veto" we've already covered; it's a lie.
"Specific"--well, no one seems able to list these "specific" proposals.
"Cost-effective"--another word that should be a flag to any critical reader that this is propaganda. What does cost-effective mean? It means the benefits outweigh the cost. Yet in this case we're talking about some specific measures--that no one seems able to list--that were never approved. Hence, how could they be cost-effective?
Presumably, these measures would be designed to prevent terrorism, correct? The only way they could be cost-effective is if they actually prevented a terrorist act that would have resulted in more damage than the cost of the measures themselves.
Given that since 911 we have yet to experience any successful terrorist acts in the US, there have been zero acts that these measures might have otherwise prevented. Therefore, any expense for such measures would not be cost-effective.
In fact, cost-effectiveness is extremely difficult to measure hypothetically in the case of terrorism--unless someone merely wishes to grind an ax.
7212. vonKreedon - 4/20/2003 9:58:47 PM
If in fact Bush has not exercised his Veto power on the security measures being discussed then the article is dishonest. When talking about the President and using the term veto one is being quite specific.
7213. OhioSTOPAS - 4/21/2003 5:28:08 AM
President Bush himself characterized his August 2002 action as a sort of "pocket veto."
I agree that "vetoed" is not the most precise word for Bush's actions. I propose "put the kibosh on" instead.
7214. magoseph - 4/21/2003 6:29:37 AM
Religious people are gaining influence in government.
Fellowship finances townhouse where 6 congressmen live
WASHINGTON — Six members of Congress live in a million-dollar Capitol Hill townhouse that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.
The lawmakers, all of whom are Christian, pay low rent to live in the stately red brick, three-story house on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol. It is maintained by a group, alternately known as the ''Fellowship'' and the ''Foundation,'' that brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion.
Few in the Fellowship are willing to talk about its mission. It organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by the president, members of Congress and dignitaries from around the world. But the group leaves its name off the program, even though it spent $924,373 to be host of the event in 2001, bringing in $606,292 in proceeds, according to the most recent available IRS records. It pays travel expenses for foreign officials to attend.
7215. concerned - 4/22/2003 12:49:04 PM
Prayer breakfasts, low rent. Where will this all end? I think you're on to something big, magoseph.
7216. magoseph - 4/22/2003 6:32:43 PM
Yeah, religion and politics do mix, concerned!
7217. ronski - 4/22/2003 8:22:09 PM
As Here, For Example
7218. judithathome - 4/22/2003 10:24:57 PM
This is a great response to what Ronski linked in:
Howard Dean Speaks Out
In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum's remarks.
That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments-comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their families-is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive...
7219. robertjayb - 4/22/2003 10:27:58 PM
Students, Prof say Fred Fielding was Deep Throat...(Chicago Tribune)
WASHINGTON -- Attempting to solve one of America's greatest political mysteries, student investigators at the University of Illinois have concluded that former White House lawyer Fred Fielding is the Deep Throat who broke the Watergate scandal wide open.
Some of the students and their teacher, Bill Gaines, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner for the Tribune, named Fielding as their choice for Deep Throat in a press conference at the Watergate Hotel, site of the famed break-in at the Democratic National Committee nearly 31 years ago.
7220. magoseph - 4/23/2003 7:17:03 AM
I have no patience with people like Santorum because religion has impacted their ability to reason.
He states he has no quarrel with the fact that some individuals have a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. However, evidently based on his religious prejudice, he demands that they not act out their natural desires. There is absolutely no difference between the rantings of the Shia mullahs in Iraq and those of Senator Santorum. Except perhaps those in Iraq come from an uneducated and backward society while this official as had all the benefits that flow from a secular society. It is really a testimony to the weakness in some aspects of our political system that an individual of this caliber could actually be elected to the Senate of the United States.
7221. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 10:27:19 AM
I'm home sick so might as well complain a bit.
I'm still rankled by the idea that presidential candidates use the prolific worded phrase "no new taxes" and expect to be believed. Specifically here at home it is a crock of crap. The smell is overwhelming.
What oozes from the doors of home town government is that with budget cuts and no new taxes, but with subsidies, bloated salaries of servants (elected or otherwise) and the stupid "Light-Rail" project here at home there is a woeful undermining of local municipalities. My home town is facing a 50% cut in funds next year and 100% the following year.
Ok, so what was the state funding?
Schools, roads and infrastructure. Nothing important!
So, my local rag is mentioning budget meetings that are coming up to raise fees and property taxes.
Trickle down economic shit!
My property taxes have doubled in the 10 years I've lived here. And now they'll in one swoop possibly add 50% or more. Seems acceptable in light of the need to fund education and the like, but my spending to local business will decline by that measure, my income staying the same but now less when that tax hits.
So, no new taxes is the mantra of swine and the idiots who believe in it are fools.
We pay to park in a park's parking lot, we pay to use public parks, we pay to park on public streets, we pay huge fees to park on ramps, we pay, we pay ,we pay! I can think of some tea spillers who didn't much like taxation like this.
What is my response to the fees? What can I do? I pay if I have to use the facility to which the fee applies. Otherwise I absolutely avoid it. So far Malls have free parking, if they ever charge I will never, ever use that mall. I avoid downtown because of this. I avoid many parks because of this. It's my loss because these parks are nice. But, so are the free gardens and evirons.
Sigh, So much to complain about.
7222. judithathome - 4/23/2003 11:15:47 AM
Sprint To The Finish For GOP
...The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2.
The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.
The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combatting terrorism, Republicans said. Not incidentally, they said they hoped it would deprive the Democratic nominee of critical news coverage during the opening weeks of the general election campaign...
Ah well, if you've got it, milk it for all it's worth, I guess.
7223. concerned - 4/23/2003 12:51:12 PM
Remember 2000? Well, Ralph Nader wants to do it again in 2004.
Ralph Nader - the candidate for liberals with consciences.
7224. jayackroyd - 4/25/2003 9:49:34 AM
Can somebody explain to me what the heck Santorum meant? I mean, I understand the punch line--that Americans have no right to privacy, and the government may regulate their sexual behavior in any way it chooses.
My question is why is he talking about bigamy and sodomy at the same time? Bigamy is not about conduct--it's about government recognition of a contractual arrangement. The state only recognizes on marriage at a time as valid. Bigamy has nothing to do with privacy rights.
Is he trying to simultaneously make an argument against homosexual marriage? I just couldn't follow the reasoning. Can someone explain?
7225. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 10:09:19 AM
Lindner, a local Minnesota House member was just cleared for ethic violations. Matt Entenza has stated that the committee was partisan.
I say that this is the problem that occurs when the top leads via Religious bigotry, subtle or otherwise. Now we have two examples of overt bigotry. Lindner here in my home state and Santorum.
My opinion of the problem is that these actions are coming to the fore because of the environment they think they're in. It's obvious to me that these politicians have decided their free speech rights take precedent to pander to the religious conservatives within their constituancies.
Locally, subverting the truth of the Nazi holocaust isn't important as long as the agenda of pandering is met. This is sick shit!
7226. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 10:18:07 AM
I'm rankled again today because a concealed gun bill has passed. Overwhelmingly passed by outstate republicans, this is another farce of the far reaching bigoted actions of conservative religious fanatics. Damn I'm getting pissed.
Fortunately my local congressman voted no, but so did the majority of inner city-suburb members. You see they know the truth, the city can ill afford to have concealed weapons running around. We have enough gun related violence to open the door to vigilantes. F'n, f'n, f'n...
7227. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 10:29:09 AM
"Conservative Republicans, including Gary Bauer, rallied to Santorum's defense.
"I think that while some elites may be upset by those comments, they're pretty much in the mainstream of where most of the country is," Bauer said."
Santorum uses his "feelings" of what the American family is to conduct himself in a self-proclaimed moral manner. Is he moral? Whose going to find dirt about his life? He's a target for smear so what's he in for? I wonder?
His remarks are plane and flat, clearly bigotted toward homosexuals. This was malicious, he intended to equate the lifestyle of homosexuality to polygamy, incest and adultry. Owing that more commonly people find polygamy and incest abhorrent. I think many will pshaw adultry because they are guilty themselves. Reckless and malicious is what I think it'a all about.
It's coming from sitting in prayer meetings in the White House, getting vibes about the religious voter strength and pandering to those votes.
7228. PelleNilsson - 4/25/2003 10:58:47 AM
Just out of curiosity, how does American law treat sexual intercourse with animals? Is there a name for it. I got "not in dictionary" when I tried the Swedish word.
7229. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:03:50 AM
I think it's bestiality.
7230. PelleNilsson - 4/25/2003 11:11:15 AM
You are right. I looked it up. It carried the death sentence here until 1734 while homosexuality was not a crime at all.
7231. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:14:40 AM
I think objective thought among American politicians is fast degrading.
7232. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:19:44 AM
Re. 7230 -
History aside, it's a state level issue in the US today. I imagine the great majority of states prohibit it, but a running joke is that bestiality is not illegal in Missouri. How is it in Sweden?
7233. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:21:34 AM
Re. 7231 -
RN -
I don't think Pelle's parchments and foolscaps exactly contain the last word here.
7234. PelleNilsson - 4/25/2003 11:26:11 AM
It became decriminalized 50-60 years ago. I guess people who are caught in the act are offered psychiatric care, but I don't know. Such stuff doesn't make the news.
7235. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:28:01 AM
How about if it's Fido that's humping one's leg?
7236. magoseph - 4/25/2003 11:35:50 AM
G.O.P. Hypocrisy
...gays and lesbians are more than just sons and daughters. We're moms and dads, too. My boyfriend and I adopted a son five years ago, and we plan to adopt again. As more same-sex couples start families, it's going to be harder for Republicans like Mr. Santorum to say we are somehow a threat to the American family.
As much as it may dismay Mr. Santorum and his defenders, there really is no word other than "family" to describe the three people who live in my house. When it comes to marriage rights, gays and lesbians are willing to play semantic games. We will use awkward phrases like "civil union" and "domestic partnership" so long as we can get what our families really need: the rights, responsibilities and safeguards of legal marriage. But two adults who love each other and are raising children together? What are we if not a family? What other word is there for us?
7237. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:37:57 AM
True enough, it's a state issue. But having the 3rd highest ranking republican use reckless bias this way stimulates that very same reckless bias in others.
7238. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:39:29 AM
What should not be lost sight of is that the preferences society confers on the family is for the benefit of the children. This is actually something that conservatives have a considerably more solid grasp of than Lefties.
7239. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:42:16 AM
Re. 7237 -
RN -
I haven't actually scanned what Santorum said. Maybe I should do so. Btw, prostitution is legal in Nevada - another area where states, rather than the Federal Government decide what is legal or not.
7240. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:44:57 AM
Abortion used to be another states rights issue, until Roe vs Wade.
7241. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:47:21 AM
As same-sex or marriage otherwise still is.
7242. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:51:13 AM
The problem is adult consensual sodomy in Texas. Again it's pandering to the conservative religious right in Texas that brings this issue forward. And it's a Pennsylvania politician putting his foot in it. It is no ones business when adults consent to sex. It's their sex not the governments. There are clearly illegal sexual acts, rape, incest, and anything of any kind to do with children. Polygamy is in my mind weird, but I'm of the opinion it's less important and doesn't have a place in the legal system. It's a waste of legal dollars to go after polygamysts by faith. If it's a bigamyst then I think otherwise. Those who knowingly marry others and withold divorce or do it in secret are criminal.
7243. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:54:22 AM
I personally see a lot of wisdom for not allowing the Federal government to encroach on state prerogatives for these 'privacy' issues in either direction, politically.
7244. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:55:48 AM
As soon as Bush appoints a Supreme Court Justice then Roe vs Wade is sure to be reversed. I think there are huge problems with abortion, but I cannot put a women's life above the fetus when her life is in question. Nor can I defer an anti-abortion law if the woman were raped. The issue becomes cloudy when population control and timing is the issue. These become very problematic when it's more than three months. I'm against abortions after the first tri-mester.
7245. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:57:42 AM
I meant "nor can I defer to an anti-abortion law" not defer to it.
7246. concerned - 4/25/2003 12:01:14 PM
RN -
You'll have to come up with a more plausible scare scenario then that. GWB will not repeal RvW, although PBAs are probably on their way out, and good riddance.
OTOH, the justification for the Left to tell that kind of obvious whopper is painfully obvious. It keeps the LW lumpen proletariat committed to their idiotic narrow minded single issue 'litmus test' criterion for judicial selection.
7247. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 12:01:44 PM
Well I'm in a state of tiredness myself. I think it's time to read the 4 cantos of "Pale Fire" then some of the book. bbl
7248. concerned - 4/25/2003 12:01:55 PM
used 'obvious' one too many times...
7249. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 12:03:11 PM
hahahahaha, you got that right. That litmus test has worked just fine by my way of seeing it.
Gotta go.
7250. concerned - 4/25/2003 12:07:24 PM
But what about the world of other more important issues that should qualify such juridical selections? The litmus test approach is nothing but a colossal copout strictly meant to pander to a narrow constituency. What's worse, in practice, its main result is that it usually leads to poorly qualified candidates being seated on the bench.
7251. concerned - 4/25/2003 12:09:23 PM
After all, no judge worthy of the name can hold party politics or sleazy social engineering paramount over his or her duties.
7252. concerned - 4/25/2003 12:10:32 PM
But 'judges' like that are exactly what the Left want to oppress and degrade society with.
7253. concerned - 4/25/2003 12:16:43 PM
I'm a bit surprised to see even RN essentially saying "Hahahah! I agree the 'litmus test' approach is basically worthless, but that's what we want!"
7254. concerned - 4/25/2003 1:02:31 PM
Btw, since all Lefty candidates for the bench now come with litmus strips taped to their foreheads, wouldn't it really be more accurate to call them pre-judges?
7255. concerned - 4/25/2003 4:08:32 PM
Paul Krugman, another 'politics uber alles' type caught cooking his economic figures to slam a GWB jobs plan
7256. wabbit - 4/25/2003 4:20:47 PM
I read the Krugman article the other day and was shaking my head, wondering what I had missed.
7257. concerned - 4/25/2003 5:46:44 PM
I just read Santorum's actual comment about 'consensual sex' in the home, and he sounds a little off base, or mixed up there.
He has more of a point wrt the (intentional) deleterious effects of the revolutionary Left on American family structures and its spillover effects on LW policy making in general. Tearing down the two parent family structure was part of the original international Communist plan to destabilize American society.
7258. judithathome - 4/25/2003 7:01:16 PM
Diplomats Hit Back At Newtie
U.S. diplomats hit back at former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, likening his attack on the State Department this week to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt for communist infiltrators in the 1950s.
"You have essentially accused these employees of treason. ... However you do not have proof. Your charges are spurious," the American Foreign Service Association told Gingrich in a letter dated Wednesday and released on Friday.
"As such, they will be consigned to the dust bin of history where they belong, along with that paper Senator Joseph R. McCarthy held up ... claiming to 'have in my hand a list' of traitors in the State Department," said the letter, signed by association president John Naland...
...The newspaper USA Today quoted Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage as saying: "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds (medications) and out of therapy."
7259. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:24:50 PM
concerned,
It's not hard to understand why the litmus of Roe V Wade is paramount. If that one particular issue becomes the contest, it is virtual proof of objectivity. It's that simple for me. Not that other very important issues are in line. It's this one which begins my opinion.
7260. jayackroyd - 4/26/2003 9:33:43 AM
On Santorum
Reading the traffic here, I still don't understand what he was trying to say. There's a distinction between regulating marriage and regulating sex. Talking about bigamy and sodomy in the same sentence is confusing. It's not illegal to have three people in a bed. It is illegal to be married to two people. Can anyone help?
I know I disagree with him. But I don't know, yet, what he was saying.
On RvW, it is not gonna be reversed. The NARAL people are crazy. Late term abortion gives them a myriad of political opportunities that they are failing to exploit. They can use it to point out the deep hypocrisy of the right in its desire to regulate laws at the federal level that RvW, and conservative philosophy, says should be regulated at the state level, or even at the individual level.
They should be exploiting the opportunity to expose the fact that conservatives don't really care about abortion, by offering to trade a concession on late term abortion for increased funding of contraceptive and sex education programs in high schools.
But instead they insist that women should be able to abort a fetus, even if it is viable. That goes beyond RvW, and undermines the support for it.
7261. jayackroyd - 4/26/2003 9:34:43 AM
"Tearing down the two parent family structure was part of the original international Communist plan to destabilize American society."
Are you serious?
7262. judithathome - 4/26/2003 9:46:12 AM
"Tearing down the two parent family structure was part of the original international Communist plan to destabilize American society."
Jay, it was on page 4, paragraph 3. How did you miss it!
7263. arkymalarky - 4/26/2003 10:49:17 AM
What Concerned doesn't realize is that that part of the Communist plot was actually a Fascist propaganda plant to foil the Communists and bring the Conservative Reactionaries out of the woodwork to support and assist those who will form the New World Order around the Uebermensch who would maintain control and prosperity and defend all that's good and pure about the race--I mean nation--born to lead the world masses to the Right Way as they take their destined place at the head of the New World Nation whose government center will be, of course, the United Nations, which they will have saved from Communist and Socialist domination, and whose center will be moved, naturally, to Houston, Texas.
7264. jayackroyd - 4/26/2003 11:51:30 AM
Here's the full Santorum transcript. It still doesn't make sense to me, other than his firm belief that the government gets to say what sex acts people may engage in. It also shows that today's conservatives have a very weird notion of minimal government intervention in people's lives.
Polluters should be self-regulating, but people should be limited to officially approved sex acts?
transcript
7265. anomieme - 4/26/2003 4:22:41 PM
I cringe when I hear a Republican talking about freedom and liberty. What they really mean is that they want to bestow freedom to be just like them.
In fairness, the Dems have been guilty of carrying on the hopeless drug war to the point of ridicule.
It's an interesting exercise to review all the ways Americans are not free.
Perhaps we need a liberator. We have democracy, but in many respects we don't have liberty.
7266. Al D - 4/26/2003 7:11:03 PM
I know I disagree with him. But I don't know, yet, what he was saying.
The above is so funny.
We have democracy, but in many respects we don't have liberty.
I'm not sure I agree with either of these statements, but I might agree with the 2nd. Could you give some examples of how we lack liberty?
7267. anomieme - 4/26/2003 7:14:38 PM
Al D,
Oh come on. A lady just had to go to court to have the righyt to bare her breast.
Breast feeding insanity
Pot laws in California
Drug laws
Speed limits (ask Montanains)
We could go on...
7268. Al D - 4/26/2003 7:20:27 PM
All of these are pretty silly and of very little consequence. We would have had some meat to chew on instead of dry bones had you mentioned that brothers and sisters cannot marry, or that one needed a licence to cut hair or do dread locks, or one is not free to build a home to his tastes, or use his property as he sees fit. As to speed limits, I have no idea where you drive, but in Ca. for all practical purposes, they are meaningless.
7269. anomieme - 4/26/2003 8:02:50 PM
Al D,
You are as free as you can handle, I guess.
You are also happy to impose your limitations on others.
7270. jayackroyd - 4/26/2003 10:00:57 PM
I know I disagree with him. But I don't know, yet, what he was saying.
The above is so funny.
Can you please explain what he is saying? I do disgree with the conclusion--that the government can and should regulate personal sexual behavior. But I really have no clue how he gets there.
7271. anomieme - 4/27/2003 2:16:30 AM
Al D
Wouldn't know a nipple if it dripped in front of him...but he would object.
7272. RickNelson - 4/27/2003 8:45:06 AM
Jay,
In all honesty, I think I'm right with my opinion well back now in this thread. You asked and I followed with something. I still think that. Where others are on the idea of Santorum is yet to materialize. Perhaps you're holding back for more opinions. Even concerned saw little merit with his remarks until he wanted to stress how conservatives care about family values.
And that's the crux of the matter. These are family value standings which one president started to espouse as the root of so many issues. Which was it? Reagan? Al D?
Anyway, family values and the religious right standing just behind that right shoulder, but carrying a gigantic bloated agenda, is a political button for some. This was Santorums turn. I think he was emboldened via the way this president espouses the "will of God" and encourages regular prayer meetings in the White House.
I used to agree with mixing prayer meetings with business, now I don't. It's a long issue going into detail in this Religious thread. Now I stress seperation of ideology of religion and business or politics. I stress objectivity. This is a case of pushing the envelope of an extreme ideal.
Santorum thinks he's gotten away with it. His constituancy will let him know. I would spread my two cents about him to have him voted out.
Here I just watched a gun control vote. My congressman voted no to concealed weapons. I am satisfied that I voted him into office.
7273. OhioSTOPAS - 4/27/2003 9:05:56 AM
Holding up "No War for Oil" sign is evidently a crime.
At least it is if you're less than half a mile away from the President.
I wouldn't think so, but the local U.S. Attorney says it is. And he must really know his stuff to have been appointed to that important position.
7274. RickNelson - 4/27/2003 1:48:08 PM
Ohio, It gets tiring, eh?
I noticed that it's an Ohio R. senator who is strongly opposing Bush's tax cut plan. V- Somehting. First I've heard his name. The interview was good and I agree with what he says, yet I don't want a tax cut at all.
I've not read any economic reports, but for me, putting the next generations in debt, as was done to me and now mine, is unacceptable. That's what Sen. V. says, he doesn't want debt for the next generation. Well duh!
Bush is an idiot about taxes. I am too, but he's not supposed to be. Mine is ignorance, pure and simple I don't have time to investigate the issues broadly. My little microcosm has its problems. When I hear lucid debate via this sen. V. from Ohio, I totally agree with his hawkish against debt stance. But, I'm more hawkish yet!
And George Will agreeing with Santorum's idea of where to draw a privacy line in the sand wrt homosexuality compared to the other mentioned sexual deviations is abstruse at best.
7275. RickNelson - 4/27/2003 1:59:33 PM
Then Gephardt's health plan was given Kudo's all around (George Stephanoplis' "this morning") (same place I heard Geroge will).
I'm not so sure yet. They like the sweeping nature of the proposal. I then heard the woman comment how a sole proprietor might find the added expences of facilitating the tax too heavey a burden and cause the shop to close. I'm going the sole proprietor way, I don't know anything yet, I'm to busy and then this that and the other thing.
OH MY GOD cut back even more on Mote time!
hahahahahahah
I'll just have to make time, eh?
7276. judithathome - 4/27/2003 2:03:39 PM
Someone needs to tell Jonah Goldburg that beard is not a good look for him.
7277. judithathome - 4/27/2003 2:41:28 PM
Ha! He must be reading the Mote! On the live segment of Wolf Blitzer's show, Jonah is clean shaven.
7278. jayackroyd - 4/27/2003 2:49:42 PM
Voinivich. Former mayor of Cleveland, former governor of Ohio.
7279. RickNelson - 4/27/2003 6:20:22 PM
Yeah, that's the name, thanks jay.
7280. jayackroyd - 4/27/2003 6:25:35 PM
Voinovich, I think is more correct.
7281. jayackroyd - 4/27/2003 9:42:06 PM
7240. concerned - 4/25/03 11:44:57 AM
Abortion used to be another states rights issue, until Roe vs Wade.
Sorry, I missed this. The court held that there was no compelling state interest in the fetus before viability. The states certainly can regulate abortion in the third trimester, under Roe v Wade. The anti-choice forces want to remove this power from state hands with a federal legislation banning some variation on third trimester abortions. There is no principled states right issue on their side.
This gets complicated because state attempts to regulate third trimester abortions have run afoul of Roe v Wade because the language of the bills have overreached, not clearly limiting the prohibition to viable fetuses, or the third trimester, at least in the view of the courts that have reviewed such laws.
In my view, the pro-choicers have missed a huge opportunity here--to expose the actual anti-choice agenda, as not concerned with abortion, but with limiting women's rights. They could easily trade off late term abortion for improved access to contraception and sex education for young women. This would be a win-win for the two groups, reducing the pregnancy rate, and also the unwanted pregnancy rate, which would in turn reduce the rate of abortion. That is, it would be win-win if the right to lifers were actually concerned with reducing the number of abortions.
7282. Edmund Dantes - 4/27/2003 10:43:15 PM
Pinnacle of Power
In that moment, I thought I saw the problem the Democrats face in trying to defeat this President Bush. No one, not even the most partisan of politicians, thinks it prudent to challenge Bush on his strong suit -- leadership....
It is not just partisan Republicans who make this point. In an early April Gallup-CNN-USA Today poll, 80 percent of those surveyed said they agreed with the statement that Bush "is a strong and decisive leader" -- an all-time high in that survey's measure of this trait.
...[T]here is little the Democrats can do to shatter the reputation for strong leadership Bush has built, and not much their presidential candidates can do to win equal reputations for themselves.
7283. concerned - 4/28/2003 3:23:31 PM
re. 7259 -
Ir'a perfectly possible to oppose RvW, yet not oppose abortion per se on two separate grounds: first that this is a decision that should be made on a state, not a Federal level, and also that it should be a legislative, not a judicial decision.
How do you factor this belief set into your calculations? As far as I can see, it's perfectly consistent, valid and respectable.
7284. concerned - 4/28/2003 3:24:18 PM
It's....
7285. concerned - 4/28/2003 3:25:50 PM
And, RN, can you give a synopsis of this so-called 'right to privacy' which is really nothing of the sort, btw., before 1965?
7286. concerned - 4/28/2003 3:29:07 PM
One could just about say that the activist USSC of the early '70's took a specious definition of a nonexistent right they chose to call 'privacy' and used it in violation of the ninth and tenth articles of the Bill of Rights to usurp states rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Thus, one can easily oppose RvW while being pro-abortion.
Can you imagine a reasonable argument that refutes the above?
7287. concerned - 4/28/2003 3:30:00 PM
Not impassioned, reasonable.....
7288. concerned - 4/28/2003 3:33:25 PM
My biggest objection to this definition of 'privacy', IAC, is that it requires a gigantic & very public effect on peoples' lives and wills. Thus, it cannot really be privacy in any real sense, can it? First, let's find a better word to describe this artificial 'right', ok? 'Privacy' simply doesn't cut it.
7289. concerned - 4/28/2003 3:38:05 PM
I happen to believe that RvW is marginally justifiable at the present time, btw. I'm merely adding badly needed context to a subject which has been remarkably free of it until now.
7290. RickNelson - 4/28/2003 4:10:58 PM
concerned,
Are you kidding? Hell no. I've not studied the "right to privacy" issues of late let alone pre-1965.
However, what little I can consider would be along the lines of what I think are my state's search laws and and the newer rights of the feds to tap and otherwise spy on us.
I'm not particularly interested in this issue, except where commercialism and crime come into play. I want privacy from commercial spammers and information stealers. Just like you.
As for privacy, you've got some ideas, spill 'em.
7291. concerned - 4/28/2003 4:49:09 PM
First thing is I imagine the majority of the objections to RvW at the time it was ruled upon were based on the points I raised rather than objecting to abortion per se. But, that was far too sophisticated for the media to report then or now. That made it much easier for most activist type people to cast aspersions on the 'troglodytic' 'knuckle dragging' establishment, as they perceived it.
7292. concerned - 4/28/2003 4:50:16 PM
Oh, I forgot, 'sexist', which may have had some truthfulness, but not in the way that the accusers probably imagined.
7293. concerned - 4/28/2003 5:31:41 PM
Let's go save the spotted owl, dewd!
Kewl!
SEEING SPOTS: The Spotted Owl Fiasco
excerpts:
Due to overregulation which virtually stopped logging in Pacific forests, regulations which the Service now claim were never needed to "save" the spotted owl, forest fires are soaring (see chart). What isn't logged by humans is now burned by Mother Nature. Amazingly, all these fires appear to have not bothered the birds one bit. They simply flew away when threatened, begging the question: If all this fire didn't burn the birds out, why was logging considered such a dire threat?
Note the orders of magnitude annual increase in SW acreage lost to fire as compared to before 1950 mostly due to regulations dreamed up to 'save' the 'cute & cuddly' environment.
Are we talking the environmentalist version of 'dumb and dumber', or what?
7294. concerned - 4/28/2003 5:39:21 PM
Btw, Xlowntoon bought in whole hog on this no-logging foolishness.
7295. RickNelson - 4/28/2003 5:48:24 PM
"The California spotted owl is recognized as a sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service and a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game."
Perhaps you'ld care to read the US Fish and Wildlife report yourself rather than one by the fur industry.
Propagandistic diatribe is just gobbled up isn't it.
The way to look at it isn't from either extreme!
Those who think spiking trees against loggers or destroying animal experimental labs is Ok are wrong! Those who think one study closes a subject are wrong!
Those who agree to watch the situation, consider the options, and try to do the best possible action are right!
7296. RickNelson - 4/28/2003 5:56:34 PM
I'm no tree hugger concerned.
I've never said as much and you don't mean me.
I herald the cry of reasonable choices, look at it, try and try again, fall and get up, look around the corner and see what might be seen. I've hang ups, just like anyone. When I see unreasonable diatribe my gut reaction wouldn't be typable. I usually need time to find what my thoughts on the matter are before I jump up and swing my mighty viking ax on someones head.
7297. concerned - 4/28/2003 6:29:23 PM
Actually, I would just like to see those involved in the timber industry to keep their jobs, owls permitting. I think I have pointed out who's been flailing their axes and at whom's heads.
7298. concerned - 4/28/2003 6:33:13 PM
There are the threatened Northern and Mexican Spotted owls, but they don't live in the same area as the California Spotted Owl, so wholesale bans on logging throughout the West are clearly not indicated.
Tell you what. Living in a forested area, as I do, I would prefer my neighbor to keep his undergrowth under some control than to be threatened by an out of control forest fire, given the alternative. Make sense?
7299. concerned - 4/28/2003 6:34:28 PM
Undergrowth & old/dead growth, I should say.
7300. concerned - 4/28/2003 7:44:54 PM
Psycho Loggers Rampage Action in Downtown Eugene
I don't know about you, but this photo doesn't just tug at my heartstrings - it yanks them right out. I don't think I'll ever be able to look at cedar siding again without the tears streaming down my face.
7301. jayackroyd - 4/28/2003 7:47:03 PM
Ir'a perfectly possible to oppose RvW, yet not oppose abortion per se on two separate grounds: first that this is a decision that should be made on a state, not a Federal level, and also that it should be a legislative, not a judicial decision.
How do you factor this belief set into your calculations? As far as I can see, it's perfectly consistent, valid and respectable.
Yes, you can, and yes it is, in a vacuum.
But then you have to deal, constitutionally, with the results of the Civil War. Before the Civil War, states regulated citizen rights. The constitution said "Congress shall not" restrict various activities. But states could.
After the civil war, the federal government reached past the state governments to protect individual rights, via the equal protection clause. States could no longer enslave people or deny them their rights under the constitution or the bill of rights. The federal government became the enforcement agency against tyranny by the states against their citizens.
(This, btw, strikes me as a more conservative position than the states' rights position. Rights inhere in the citizen, and not the government.)
In Griswold, the Court said that an obvious implication of the rights of individual citizens of freedom from interference in their lives by state governments is that the state governments cannot regulate their sexual practices, absent a compelling state interest. (This also strikes me as a more conservative position than saying the CT legislature gets to say whether or not I can buy a condom. Nobody can say seems more conservative.)
7302. jayackroyd - 4/28/2003 7:47:24 PM
This is a direct implication of the rights of citizens to not be interfered with by the government, in this case, intrusive state governments.
The Griswold opinion defined the right to privacy--the right that Santorum objected to. I think the longer transcript of that interview makes it clear why the acceptance of a right to privacy is a good idea, and a conservative idea.
7303. concerned - 4/30/2003 12:06:49 PM
(Larry Flynt to pay) Big Bucks for Bush Babe Nude Video
Just thought Lefties would want to know that their cultural icon and golden boy Child Molester Flynt is still up to his old tricks, but doing it mostly for the money again, now that his...publication.. is not preferred WH reading material. Btw, what ever happened to his much anticipated by Lefties expose that was going to destroy the GWB Administration?
7304. jayackroyd - 4/30/2003 12:17:00 PM
Time makes a pretty good case that the presidential election is already over.
The Bushies are talking about doubling their take--which would mean $240 million dollars to spend in the, what, 8 weeks after the convention. Against a Democrat who has already shot a good fraction of his much smaller wad in the primaries, and has had to run to the left of center to get to the general.
Every third week over the next year, we'll see another Bush initiative intended to move him to the center in public opinion.
My guess is that they are hoping to lose the tax cut fight, holding their base by fighting publicly, sighing with relief when they lose.
Grover Norquist has a particularly good quote about how the administration has stayed focused on first tier issues with the republican base, while being willing to compromise on second tier issues.
As the democrats flail in front of the Children's Defense Council.
7305. judithathome - 4/30/2003 2:07:43 PM
Bush can't lse on his tax (jobs creation) cut issue: gutting it will mean he can claim it would have worked and passing it can give him the smug assurance that it's going to work.
7306. Ms. No - 4/30/2003 2:58:26 PM
Concerned,
Why do you call Flynt a child molester?
7307. judithathome - 4/30/2003 3:25:20 PM
Didn't Flynt's daughter claim he molested her when she was a child? Or am I getting her mixed up with the daughter of Jerry Lee Lewis?
7308. Ms. No - 4/30/2003 3:29:04 PM
I hadn't heard that. I know she runs his casino and the Hustler store here in LA.
7309. judithathome - 4/30/2003 3:33:06 PM
Well, maybe I am thinking of someone else.
7310. Ms. No - 4/30/2003 3:34:54 PM
Ah, different daughter. I see that his daughter Tonya most certainly does allege abuse of both her and her sister.
7311. judithathome - 4/30/2003 3:36:02 PM
Nope, I was right...
In 1997 Flynt-Vega brought up charges against Larry Flynt for sexual molestation. She includes examples of both sexual and emotional abuse in the book. Flynt-Vega and her father no longer speak to each other. She says it was her faith in God which helped her to heal and continue with her life.
7312. judithathome - 4/30/2003 3:36:54 PM
Oh, that explains it...I hadn;t realized there were two...
So I was only half right...ha!
7313. Ms. No - 4/30/2003 3:40:21 PM
There were allegations of abuse (still trying to find out who brought the charge) of another daughter, Teresa, but she denies that such abuse ever took place.
7314. concerned - 4/30/2003 3:54:51 PM
Re. 7306 -
Have you never heard of his daughter Tonya Flyn-Vega and her accusations of sexual molestation by her father who, btw, does not deny it?
And we also have this excerpt from "The People vs. Larry Flynt: A feminist critique and protest" by Diana E. H. Russell, Ph.D:
Journalist Matt Labash describes concrete evidence substantiating the claim that Flynt sexually molested another of his daughters, Theresa, when she was 12 or 13 years old. Labash heard and transcribed an audiotape that Althea recorded when she confronted Larry about Theresa's disclosure that he had sexually abused his daughter in 1983 (1997, p. 26; also see Rider, 1997). Larry admitted on the tape that he had told Theresa that "he wanted to see if she was built like her mother," and that he had directed her to take off her gown and panties and to lie down next to him on the bed (Labash, p. 26). Larry also admitted on tape to telling Theresa: "Your c___ even looks like your mother's" (Labash, p. 26). When Althea demanded to know if he had spread Theresa's legs, Larry responded, "No, she didn't want me to" -- thereby admitting that he had either proposed doing this or started doing it.
Such are the Xlowntoon Administration's heroes.
7315. concerned - 4/30/2003 4:01:29 PM
To sum up, if Child Molester Flynt has admitted to pedophilia, that's good enough for me.
7316. concerned - 4/30/2003 4:06:42 PM
Could you imagine an 'All in the Family' type TV show based on the Flynts?
7317. judithathome - 4/30/2003 4:56:45 PM
Concerned, have you even read any of the posts past #7603? MsNo and I discussed Flynt's actions with his daughters. I even linked to and quoted the one you cited....
I think you read something and are in such a hurry to counter what your read, you just skip all posts after and rush to post. Try slowing a bit and reading a little further before you jump to the conclusion that others are so woefully uninformed. ;-)
7318. Ms. No - 4/30/2003 5:13:47 PM
Looking over what was available online it all stems from two sources: the allegations of his daughter Tonya and then the allegations of various people who claim that journalist Matt Labash claims to have heard a tape provided by Flynt's 4th wife, Althea, on which Flynt admits to sexual contact with his daughter Teresa --- the daughter who denies that he molested her.
All in all it's anybody's guess. Tonya's allegations are no more or less credible than Teresa's denials. No civil or criminal charges have ever been brought. It's worth noting that Tonya and her mother were apparently abandoned by Flynt and she now makes her living as an anti-porn activist. Also worth noting, to the best of my knowlege, Teresa is in Flynt's good graces and may reap whatever financial benefits that entails.
7319. concerned - 4/30/2003 5:18:37 PM
There's the tape, of course, with Flynt admitting that he has sexually molested his children.
Plus, Child Molester Flynt has not denied any of it.
The 'good graces' were the problem when Child Molester Flynt attempted to get his daughter to spread her legs for him.
7320. concerned - 4/30/2003 5:29:51 PM
If Child Molester Flynt hadn't made it his lifetime quest to choke his chicken, I might be less likely to pass judgment. But he publishes a magazine in which the subjects of incest, sex with children and bestiality are intended to be received with nothing more than humor and lust. I've never seen any serious suggestion that Child Molester Flynt, as much as he thinks he can get away with, doesn't practice what he preaches.
7321. concerned - 4/30/2003 5:35:13 PM
Besides, Ms. No, what's wrong with calling a child molester a child molester? Flynt probably would take it as quite the compliment if he heard it. Do him proud.
7322. judithathome - 4/30/2003 5:39:59 PM
Well, nothing is wrong with calling a child molester a child molester if he IS one but I must have missed the trial where he was judged to be one and sent to prison for it.
7323. concerned - 4/30/2003 5:43:51 PM
JAH -
Guess Flynt was just a little too smart/had a little too much influence for that. Difference between you & me is that getting away with murder lowers him in my estimation while it apparently raises him in yours.
7324. concerned - 4/30/2003 5:45:27 PM
That's how the Nazis got away with their gas chambers and death camps while surrounded by all those 'good Germans' for years on end.
7325. judithathome - 4/30/2003 5:51:14 PM
Jesus, get a grip. He hasn't been raised in my estimation at all. I was just pointing out that until the man is proven guilty, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
I happen to think he is scum, frankly. But I have no idea if he is a child molester or not. And neither do you.
7326. concerned - 4/30/2003 5:52:42 PM
The near equivalent of this conversation probably occurred millions of times in WWII era Germany:
'I hear they're gassing Jews in Buchenwald'
'I doubt it; nobody's been convicted and thrown in jail for it. So, shut up'
7327. concerned - 4/30/2003 5:58:38 PM
I was just pointing out that until the man is proven guilty, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Let's stop playing at legalese, shall we? It's a virtual certainty that he's guilty of these things. He's even admitted to them on tape. I just hate to see you waste your time in some phony pretense that the bum never looked askance at his offspring.
7328. judithathome - 4/30/2003 5:59:43 PM
You are sooooo quick to jump to that Nazi comparison. Just the centrist in you coming to the fore.
Well, what if someone told me they had proof that you were an axe murderer? You say you're not but how do I know you're not lying? Hell, I'll just start calling you an axe murderer because after all, someone said you were and you have a lot of influence and might have been given preferential treatment due to that influence and this person is someone who is never wrong...damn! here I am communicating with an axe murderer all these years and didn't even know it!
7329. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:01:18 PM
Nixon was never charged and thrown in jail for anything, either. He must be entitled to a presumption of innocence, right?
7330. judithathome - 4/30/2003 6:02:23 PM
Hey, let's drop it then...but only after you agree you're perfectly happy leaving yourself open to being sued by Larry Flynt.
The above remark is a JOKE...before you get all het up and accuse me of some leftist, amoral conspiracy.
7331. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:03:43 PM
Now we come to the crux of the biscuit. Nixon was a Republican so, of course, to Lefties, it's just peachy keen to judge him guilty without conclusive proof. And how about Clarence Thomas?
Away with this politics based judgmentalism, I say.
7332. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:05:27 PM
re. 7328 -
Well, if you somehow obtained a transcript of me admitting to an axe murder, you could be on to something.
7333. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:06:21 PM
And a suitable victim would have to be produced.
7334. Ms. No - 4/30/2003 6:08:07 PM
Concerned,
There's the tape, of course,
Of course. But who's actually heard it? Nobody that I could find. There are plenty of mentions of the journalist who supposedly aquired this tape from Flynt's wife, but not one of them claims to have actually heard the tape. That's a LOT of mileage to get out of evidence nobody can corroborate--- or that I didn't see anyone corroborate.
Plus, Child Molester Flynt has not denied any of it
And so? He's not obliged to respond. It says nothing at all to his guilt or innocence on the matter.
The 'good graces' were the problem when Child Molester Flynt attempted to get his daughter to spread her legs for him
I have no idea what you're trying to convey here.
If Child Molester Flynt hadn't made it his lifetime quest to choke his chicken, I might be less likely to pass judgment.
Do you accuse all suspected chronic masturbaters of child molestation?
But he publishes a magazine in which the subjects of incest, sex with children and bestiality are intended to be received with nothing more than humor and lust.
Still not proof that he's a child molester. I'm also curious as to whether you're fully informed of the contents of Hustler or whether you're just parroting the words of Feminists Against Porn and the Religious Right.
I've never seen any serious suggestion that Child Molester Flynt, as much as he thinks he can get away with, doesn't practice what he preaches.
I've never seen any serious suggestion that you aren't a child molester, but that doesn't make me believe that you are one.
Besides, Ms. No, what's wrong with calling a child molester a child molester?
Nothing, provided that he actually IS a child molester.
7335. arkymalarky - 4/30/2003 6:15:08 PM
Nixon was pardoned.
Hey, I didn't know Concerned was an ax murderer! Learn something new every day.
7336. judithathome - 4/30/2003 6:16:19 PM
Well, he is and damned if I knew it, either, but I will not let a day go by now without mentioning it.
Twice.
7337. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:21:47 PM
Re. 7334 -
I'm just rather surprised that you are adamant in effectively calling Tonya Flynt-Vega a liar, and in twisting every thing possible to exonerate this man. That's what every word of your post says to me. The fact that you are reacting exactly as if no evidence or testimony existed either way or at least that there was even a little contradictory evidence, when there is no contradictory evidence but a great mass of evidence, including a taped confession (that nobody denies the existence of but yourself - permit me to laugh) that all points toward a definitive conclusion, does not say much for your powers of discrimination.
7338. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:23:12 PM
arky & JAH -
Bot' yez got the hotz for Flynt, huh?
7339. arkymalarky - 4/30/2003 6:24:15 PM
Well people need to know these things. We don't want any sort of predators wandering amongst our midst like X42Clowntoon did for eight dangerous years. Of course as an Arky I've been in danger from the man for over 30 years, and without the benefit of a Concerned ax murderer to point out my peril for almost 25 of them.
7340. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:24:31 PM
I know that if, tomorrow, Flynt admitted he had voted for Reagan, that'd shut all of you up in an instant.
7341. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:25:09 PM
That's what I think is really delicious about all this.
7342. arkymalarky - 4/30/2003 6:25:22 PM
What does Flynt have to do with you being an ax murderer? Are you saying that because Flynt exists all other dangerous individuals are irrelevant?
7343. judithathome - 4/30/2003 6:27:20 PM
Bot' yez got the hotz for Flynt, huh?
I think I can speak for bot' us and say no, we do not.
But why am I not surprised you think we do just because we say the man has not been judged to be a child molester by a jury of his peers?
7344. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:27:43 PM
Just convince them of one well selected political irrelevancy, and Ms. No's, JAH's & arky's judgmental processes are preprogrammed to go into a prewired 180 degree power spin.
7345. judithathome - 4/30/2003 6:29:10 PM
You are insane, concerned. That is true.
7346. arkymalarky - 4/30/2003 6:29:43 PM
I haven't said anything about Flynt at all. Why is Con'd so caught up with Flynt? I'm wanting to know about this ax murdering stuff.
7347. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:31:33 PM
I think I murdered a tree with an axe once when I was a kid.
7348. judithathome - 4/30/2003 6:32:13 PM
Did it fall to the right?
7349. arkymalarky - 4/30/2003 6:35:42 PM
It always starts in childhood. First a tree or two, then a wayward squirrel or rabbit, and before you know it you've moved from there to the neighbor's cat, and then it's just a small skip from there to the neighbor.
7350. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:38:47 PM
Re. 7346 -
Because of the amazing total refusal of some to even consider the likelihood of some of Flynt's behavior that they find distasteful, for no better reason than it would threaten their own worldviews, I suppose. They've been programmed to see the guy as some sort of icon, so they just won't have anybody going around giving him clay feet. Thus, we get this foolishness from them about the US legal system, etc. when the very same individuals ache to go on the warpath at the least hint of impropriety by somebody they regard as their political enemy (such as Clarence Thomas).
7351. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:42:39 PM
I'll just about bet that, even right now, all t'ree yez believe Ms. Hills allegations re Thomas more than any possibility of Flynt not treating his daughters with the utmost of decorum.
Am I right, or am I right?
7352. arkymalarky - 4/30/2003 6:44:19 PM
Where in blue blazes do you get all this stuff? Last I saw, Flynt wasn't a Supreme Court justice, and neither is OJ Simpson, or Robert Blake, or even X42Clowntoon, for that matter.
7353. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:57:14 PM
Believe what you prefer (you will anyway), but now this icon of the Left wants to give you GWB's daughters buck nekkid for ten bucks or whatever Hustler charges nowadays.
7354. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:58:05 PM
Such an admirable person for Lefties to look up to.
7355. concerned - 4/30/2003 6:59:13 PM
NAMBLA and pedophiles of all sorts have much to thank you for.
7356. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:02:30 PM
As for being sued by Child Molester Flynt, I have no worries whatsoever. I'd write him a personal letter chastizing him on the subject tomorrow, if that's what I cared to do.
7357. Ms. No - 4/30/2003 7:11:06 PM
Copncerned: Message # 7337
I'm not sure whether to believe you are willfully misunderstanding me or whether you are incapable of comprehending what is written.
Where did I call Tonya Flynt a liar?
Nowhere.
I pointed out that Flynt has TWO daughters both of whom he is alleged to have molested. One says it's true the other says it's not. She said she said. Equal until somebody other than a girl who stands to gain comes up with some evidence. I quite clearly stated that the daughter who claims not to have been molested is NO MORE BELIEVABLE than the daughter who claims she was.
You. Do. Not. Read. What. I. Write.
Secondly, the infamous tape is NOT about Tonya Flynt. It is about Teresa Flynt. The daughter who claims that she was NOT molested.
I didn't say the tape doesn't exist. I said that the people holding it up as evidence of Flynt's guilt haven't even heard it so they really don't know what's on it. Nor do they even know for sure that it exists. They are all quoting allegations from a single unverified source.
I haven't said Flynt is innocent, but I'm also not ready to brand the man as a child molester based on hearsay which is all you have.
7358. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:18:35 PM
I see nowhere that Theresa Flynt denies the content of the tape transcript I posted. She, btw, besides working for Hustler, runs or has run an 'erotic store' called Hustler Hollywood.
My take is that Theresa Flynt accepts adult-child sex as being normal. Consider that.
7359. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:19:42 PM
Ms. No -
Since when has an influential article by a PhD been downgraded to 'hearsay'? Just now? Do tell.
7360. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:22:52 PM
My take is that Theresa Flynt accepts adult-child sex as being normal.
Or at least nothing to go to court about....
7361. judithathome - 4/30/2003 7:24:55 PM
They've been programmed to see the guy as some sort of icon, so they just won't have anybody going around giving him clay feet.
Where do you get off thinking we hold this asshat up as some sort of icon? I have never liked the man and think his magazine degrades women...I should say, the one I saw back when he fist started publishing did. I don't care for the guy but he HAS gone up against the government before and I'm certain he can handle being thought a pervert by you. Read my post: I do not think this guy is cool in any way.
I'll use one of your own tactics on you: would you be this frothed up if it were Chelsea Clinton he was threatening to show buck naked? I'm sure you would; you're just trhat kinda guy.
7362. judithathome - 4/30/2003 7:26:46 PM
She, btw, besides working for Hustler, runs or has run an 'erotic store' called Hustler Hollywood.
If you would ever read what people post, you'd see MsNo posted that hours ago. The store is the Hustler Store and is owned by her father.
7363. judithathome - 4/30/2003 7:28:10 PM
So now you are judging his daughter as being amoral, too...jeez, it just never ends with you, does it?
7364. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:31:22 PM
Re. printing Chelsea in the raw - Flynt probably doesn't relish the thought of the likely personal retribution he'd suffer from Xlowntoon cronies, the loss of support by the anti-right ideologues he has enjoyed so far, or the probable complaint letters he'd get from his regular customers.
7365. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:34:42 PM
Re. 7363 -
JAH -
I suppose it's safest to defer to your judgment on the morality of the types you meet in erotically oriented venues.
7366. judithathome - 4/30/2003 7:35:54 PM
I wasn't asking about what Flynt thought...I was asking if you'd be as incensed. Which I will take your answer in 7364 as being no. Either that or you are evading the answer.
Both work for me.
7367. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:36:04 PM
If you say they're all boy scouts and girl scouts, why should I disagree? It's funnier not to.
7368. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:37:22 PM
Re. 7366 -
I'm not incensed. I think it's a repulsive thing to do and only deepens the stain on LW notions of morality.
7369. judithathome - 4/30/2003 7:37:28 PM
I suppose it's safest to defer to your judgment on the morality of the types you meet in erotically oriented venues.
And I suppose I can glean from this tortured response that you are an idiot asshat.
7370. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:40:18 PM
JAH -
You're the one that walked straight into that one with your eyes presumably open:)
7371. judithathome - 4/30/2003 7:41:52 PM
Well, I'm going to cede to you the low ground and go grill some portobello mushrooms and sweet onions for dinner.
Have a nice evening.
7372. concerned - 4/30/2003 7:43:19 PM
You, MsNo & arky also.
7373. jayackroyd - 4/30/2003 8:06:25 PM
,i>Believe what you prefer (you will anyway), but now this icon of the Left wants to give you GWB's daughters buck nekkid for ten bucks or whatever Hustler charges nowadays.
Would it be okay if it were Rupert Murdoch publishing the pictures? Do yuo think he wouldn't?
IAC, free markets are free markets, aren't they? It's not like the girls are minors.
7374. arkymalarky - 4/30/2003 8:10:41 PM
How did he get these pictures anyway? I will venture to say (in a blatant hit and run) that similar pictures of Chelsea are nonexistent.
G'nite Con'd.
7375. jayackroyd - 4/30/2003 10:03:18 PM
Thoughtful analysis of defense budgeting
Comments?
7376. concerned - 5/1/2003 1:50:08 AM
re. 7373 -
I wouldn't approve of any magazine or other periodical publishing such pictures of any private individual without their prior permission.
7377. concerned - 5/1/2003 1:53:20 AM
Liberals meet unexpected resistance
by: Ann Coulter
excerpts:
It's been a tough few weeks all around for the anti-war crowd. On Sunday, the London Telegraph reported that documents had been discovered in Baghdad linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Hussein and bin Laden had a working relationship as far back as 1998, based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. As we go to print, it's Day Four of the New York Times' refusal to mention these documents.
Government documents have also been found in Iraq showing that a leading anti-war spokesman in Britain, Member of Parliament George Galloway, was in Saddam Hussein's pay. Scott Ritter, former U.N. arms inspector turned peacenik turned suspected pederast, immediately defended Galloway in a column in the London Guardian. With any luck, Tariq Aziz will now step in to defend Ritter.
For the limited purpose of attacking Santorum, liberals agreed to stipulate that adultery is bad. After spending all of 1998 ferociously defending adultery as something "everyone" does and "everyone" lies about, liberals claimed to be shocked to the core that anyone would compare homosexuality to such a morally black sin as adultery.
When you get liberals to come out against both looting and adultery in the same week, you know the left is in a state of total disarray. They shouldn't feel so bad. Their boys put up a good fight in Iraq for 17 days.
7378. concerned - 5/1/2003 1:56:19 AM
Btw, there is hardly a more discredited animal on the face of the earth today than the Ritter Critter.
7379. Snowowl - 5/1/2003 3:21:31 AM
For the limited purpose of attacking Santorum, liberals agreed to stipulate that adultery is bad. After spending all of 1998 ferociously defending adultery as something "everyone" does and "everyone" lies about, liberals claimed to be shocked to the core that anyone would compare homosexuality to such a morally black sin as adultery.
Why would anyone compare homosexuality to adultery? Adultery is the breaking of a marriage vow - that is, adultery is a conscious act. Being homosexual is not a conscious act, unless you are under the misguided impression that people simply choose their sexuality.
7380. PincherMartin - 5/1/2003 4:14:53 AM
Snowowl --
Adultery -- like homosexuality -- happens to be illegal in some U.S. states. Like the laws against sodomy, it is also mostly unenforced.
By claiming that adultery is a bad thing, liberals can make the distinction that sodomy laws should be removed from the books without claiming the same need for laws against adultery (among other sexual deviances that are against the law).
7381. jayackroyd - 5/1/2003 6:07:17 AM
You'll note that, as usual in these wingnut smears, Coulter doesn't quote anyone in the excerpt posted. What's funny is she makes up both sides. No quote from anyone saying "everyone does it" (although she may be able to find one that says "Newt Gingrich does it." or "Bob Livingstone does it." You can be sure there is no risk of real legislatures passing real laws putting real people into jail for adultery.)
And, on the other side, no quotes from anyone saying that adultery is morally black.
It's a typical tactic, meant to distract from the real issues:
1) Santorum is expressing a widely held republican view--that the government can and should regulate all American sexual behavior.
2) Santorum, #3 in the party, is an idiot, who can't construct a coherent argument. I also note that nobody was able to explain to me what the heck he was talking about. (SOrry, Rick, I thought you were raising side issues. My question was, literally, what is he trying to say here.)
7382. jayackroyd - 5/1/2003 6:09:12 AM
Herztberg agrees with me
One might point out, a little wearily, that bigamy and polygamy, like other forms of marriage, are matters of contract law, not of private consensual sex. Or that Santorum’s logic would dictate the criminalization of adultery as well as homosexuality, with potentially devastating consequences for both Houses of Congress. Or that to say that homosexuality is “no problem” but actually doing anything homosexual should be punishable by law is like saying that freedom of conscience includes the right to think heretical thoughts but not to utter them. Or that Santorum believes that while individuals have no “right to consensual sex within the home” the state does have “rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions,” which is to say their feelings. Or that—oh, never mind. It’s probably unfair to parse Santorum’s pronouncements as if they were products of ratiocination.
7383. jayackroyd - 5/1/2003 6:15:25 AM
Pincher--
That's not SnowOwl's point. Adultery is about the marriage contract. Fornication is like homosexual relations, adultery is not.
Now there are no doubt laws against fornication too.
But are you, or anyone else who claims to be conservative, prepared to defend the government regulating sexual behavior? If a cop sees a couple walking out of a bar and getting into a car together, when he knows they are not married, is that probable cause? Break down their door so you can catch them in the act, book 'em, and jail them? Are you gonna stake out gay bars?
That's the logical implication of Santorum's position.
7384. jayackroyd - 5/1/2003 6:17:14 AM
I wouldn't approve of any magazine or other periodical publishing such pictures of any private individual without their prior permission.
Goodbye Rupert Murdoch.
Are you serious? Prior approval of all photos of individuals?
7385. PincherMartin - 5/1/2003 10:05:55 AM
Jay --
That's not SnowOwl's point. Adultery is about the marriage contract. Fornication is like homosexual relations, adultery is not.
Regardless of what Snowowl's point was, I was simply answering her question of "Why would anyone compare homosexuality to adultery?" I was just echoing Coulter's point, since it appeared that Snowowl didn't read the article. However, her question may have been rhetorical.
Now there are no doubt laws against fornication too.
Perhaps so, and like the laws against adultery and sodomy, they are unenforced at least 99.99% of the time.
But are you, or anyone else who claims to be conservative, prepared to defend the government regulating sexual behavior?
I'm a firm believer in regulating sexual behavior. There's just too many perverts out there.
If a cop sees a couple walking out of a bar and getting into a car together, when he knows they are not married, is that probable cause? Break down their door so you can catch them in the act, book 'em, and jail them? Are you gonna stake out gay bars?
That's the logical implication of Santorum's position.
Since we have laws on the books right now that would allow us to do such things, your hypothetical and highly exaggerated scenario is just a logical exercise, to say the least. For any one act of sodomy that's charged in this country, I would guess that a million go uncharged.
The logical implication of your opposing argument, however, has not been tested, so we have no idea what the consequences of it would be. But if the availibility of deviant porn is any indicator, then Santorum has more right to be worried about the rise in incest, bestiality, and other such sexual deviations than you have of your hypothetical scenario.
7386. PelleNilsson - 5/1/2003 10:43:10 AM
So, Pincher, is your position that the existing laws against adultery and sodomy should be vigorously enforced?
7387. PincherMartin - 5/1/2003 10:45:48 AM
No, my position is the status quo. Do not play into homosexual fantasies that what they do in the bedroom is equal to heterosexual acts, but do not enforce the laws either.
7388. PincherMartin - 5/1/2003 10:48:58 AM
Pelle -- You're a sensible guy about half the time. Do you really think that 1) homosexual acts should be given full equality before the law on the same basis as heterosexual acts, and 2) that homosexuals are persecuted to even a minor degree by these laws?
7389. marjoribanks - 5/1/2003 11:01:26 AM
Idly, I must ask what the following means -
Do not play into homosexual fantasies that what they do in the bedroom is equal to heterosexual acts
Equal? Not equal? Please explain what this gibberish means in the context of consensual acts between adults.
7390. PelleNilsson - 5/1/2003 11:07:39 AM
Pincher
I don't think the law should bother about sexual acts between consenting adults anymore than it should be bothered about who prefers tea over coffee.
7391. PincherMartin - 5/1/2003 12:12:13 PM
Pelle --
I don't think the law should bother about sexual acts between consenting adults anymore than it should be bothered about who prefers tea over coffee.
You didn't answer my questions.
7392. Ms. No - 5/1/2003 12:51:32 PM
Concerned,
Since when has an influential article by a PhD been downgraded to 'hearsay'? Just now? Do tell.
Since it isn't her evidence and she never saw the tape or heard it. She (like all the other online sources) read an article published by Matt Labash in the Weekly Standard wherein he claimed to have heard and transcribed this tape. He may very well have done so. It may be the real deal, but Diana Russell doesn't know it and neither do you. Therefore, it's hearsay. You heard Diana Russell say that she heard Matt Labash say that he had heard this tape that Althea Flynt told him was legitimate.
7393. Ms. No - 5/1/2003 12:52:52 PM
Jay,
I didn't realize the conversation was still going on here and I replied to your question in Sex yesterday. I'll re-post here.
brb
7394. Ms. No - 5/1/2003 12:59:24 PM
Ah, I see you saw my posts there. Anyway, I'm reposting the salient part:
I agree with Jayackroyd that bigamy and polygamy are legal issues rather than privacy issues and Santorum misspoke by including them. Santorum's own moral values possibly blinded him to the difference, however, I get the jist of what he's saying and at root, he's right. If consensual sex between adults is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, then that includes ALL consensual sex ---het, gay, adulterous and, yes, even incestuous.
Where Santorum and I disagree is on whether adults DO have this right. I say yes. Santorum obviously says no.
7395. PelleNilsson - 5/1/2003 2:25:01 PM
Pincher
You didn't answer my questions.
That must be because my denseness prevented me from understanding them. Pls rephrase.
7396. Daniel Sickles - 5/1/2003 2:42:10 PM
If a bill came up to repeal a sodomy law, I'd support it.
But Lord, would it be pretty far dwon the list of pressing political issues.
And bigamy, polygamy and sodomy are both privacy issues and legal issues, in that they are illegal in jurisdictions, and one can argue that the illegality is an imposition of one's privacy.
Hence, what Santorum said, while politically unpalatable, weas pretty pedestrian.
7397. Ms. No - 5/1/2003 3:26:18 PM
Sickles,
I agree, but then, I thought what Lott said at Thurmond's birthday bash was pretty unremarkable. It certainly wasn't a surprise to anyone who knew him. I'd far rather people speak up clearly if they have views I disagree with. Then I know to avoid them. I'm irritated by the tendency on both sides of the political spectrum to squawk like broody hens when they get caught portraying an unpalatable truth that doesn't jive with their preferred media image.
Politicians are far more concerned about spin than any of the issues they try to cover up with it. I can respect Santorum's willingness to stand by his beliefs at the same time as I disagree with his values. If his party is distancing itself from him because of such then shame on them.
7398. Al D - 5/1/2003 4:51:44 PM
It really isn't a question of what people have the right to do or not to do. States can have laws that permit prostitution or forbid prostitution. The question is, and I believe this is what Santorum was driving at, does the Constitution of the U.S., under the right to privacy, give people those rights. If so, it would seem any sexual behavior must be permitted. I believe people should have the right to engage in any behavior that does not harm another directly, but I also cede to States the right to prohibit certain behavior. It is then the duty of sane citizens to elected different politicians.
7399. Ms. No - 5/1/2003 5:43:42 PM
Al,
Prostitution is arguably about commerce more than about sex so I have no beef with the States claiming it falls under their jurisdiction (okay, I do, but it's off topic), but I have a major problem with States passing laws that violate what I see as a constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of my own body.
I also have a huge problem with the fact that these laws are only enforced to harrass otherwise law-abiding citizens. Nobody breaks into the home of Mr. and Mrs. Jones to ensure that they're not engaged in "lewd acts" unless they have a beef with the Joneses. Even worse is the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Jones can flout the sodomy law with impugnity as many times a night as Mr. Jones can oblige while Neil and Bob can be tossed in jail for it.
Can you imagine the outrage if such a law were applied equally to all people? The fact that it isn't argues that the only reason the laws are still on the books is to persecute people when you can't get them for anything else.
7400. Edmund Dantes - 5/1/2003 7:41:32 PM
One of the guys:
7401. jayackroyd - 5/1/2003 8:32:38 PM
The question is, and I believe this is what Santorum was driving at, does the Constitution of the U.S., under the right to privacy, give people those rights. If so, it would seem any sexual behavior must be permitted. I believe people should have the right to engage in any behavior that does not harm another directly, but I also cede to States the right to prohibit certain behavior. It is then the duty of sane citizens to elected different politicians.
I don't follow this, Al. Do you believe that people have the right to engage in any consensual behavior or not?
7402. Wombat - 5/2/2003 8:23:21 AM
I trust that Senator Santorum does not engage in or tolerate sexual acts such as fellatio or cunnilingus with his wife. Perhaps someone should ask him.
7403. magoseph - 5/2/2003 10:43:08 AM
AT THE CENTER of the dispute is a more-than-800-page secret report prepared by a joint congressional inquiry detailing the intelligence and law-enforcement failures that preceded the attacks—including provocative, if unheeded warnings, given President Bush and his top advisers during the summer of 2001.
The report was completed last December; only a bare-bones list of “findings” with virtually no details was made public. But nearly six months later, a “working group” of Bush administration intelligence officials assigned to review the document has taken a hard line against further public disclosure. By refusing to declassify many of its most significant conclusions, the administration has essentially thwarted congressional plans to release the report by the end of this month, congressional and administration sources tell NEWSWEEK. In some cases, these sources say, the administration has even sought to “reclassify” some material that was already discussed in public testimony—a move one Senate staffer described as “ludicrous.” The administration’s stand has infuriated the two members of Congress who oversaw the report—Democratic Sen. Bob Graham and Republican Rep. Porter Goss. The two are now preparing a letter of complaint to Vice President Dick Cheney.
(continued)--The Secrets of September 11
The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it? NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE April 30 — Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks, administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks.
7404. jayackroyd - 5/2/2003 11:06:59 AM
Great speech. Great setting.
That was the apex of the Bush presidency, right there. The question is how far down will he go from here? And is it possible to get as low as any of the democrats?
7405. judithathome - 5/2/2003 11:16:10 AM
If you mean in the polls, I doubt it but if you mean personally, there's always room at the bottom and he is just as capapble of being a shit as anyone else.
7406. judithathome - 5/2/2003 11:35:30 AM
Loyalty Day
This Loyalty Day, as we express allegiance to our Nation and its founding ideals, we resolve to ensure that the blessings of liberty endure and extend for generations to come.
I'm sure he's hoping most Americans will go out on Loyalty Day and spend spend spend on those Loyalty Day Sales which will be a natrual outgrowth...boost the sagging economy or you're not a loyal American!
Of course, like his tax plan, the benefits of Loyalty Day Sales won't be felt til next year...it's on May 1. Missed the chance this year....
7407. Ms. No - 5/2/2003 11:52:55 AM
Wombat,
I would lay odds that Santorum believes sodomy is limited to male/male sex. A lot of people believe this regardless of their religious or political leanings. What I wonder about is how a law against blow jobs ever made it onto the books. I'd almost be willing to believe in Pike's secret war on men in light of that law.
Can I just interject that every time I hear "Saddamites" on the radio I giggle?
7408. Wombat - 5/2/2003 1:19:19 PM
Ms. No:
The 19th Century was a much less enlightened time than ours. There is also that pesky puritan streak.
I imagine that Senator Santorum would either deny it, or claim that it is none of our business. I am sure the irony of the latter response would be lost on him.
7409. PincherMartin - 5/2/2003 1:41:23 PM
Puritanism?
I thought Puritanism in America died out with the Passenger Pigeons in the early twentieth century.
7410. Ms. No - 5/2/2003 2:07:06 PM
Wombat,
There were a number of rather ascetic religious factions that settled here although the Puritans are the ones who generally get the blame for sexual repression. I don't know that the Puritans carry more than their fair share of responsiblity or whether it's just a convenient title that everyone recognizes. When you say Puritanical people know what you mean.
This kind of crosses over with a discussion in the Sex thread --- why is there such focus on prohibiting consensual sex acts while there is far less focus on preventing non-consensual sexual assaults.
The Victorians probably deserve more of the blame for our sexual repression and obsession than the Puritans. Victorian mores are predominantly secular, however. I think their modern day heirs are certain factions of extreme feminists although they'd vehemently protest that much of what they believe is part of the Victorian Cult of Womanhood.
7411. Al D - 5/2/2003 2:47:44 PM
I don't follow this, Al. Do you believe that people have the right to engage in any consensual behavior or not?
Yes, if it does not cause direct harm to either or others. I would not say they have the right to kill each other, but each certainly (in spite of any laws prohibiting) has and should have the right to take his/her own life. I do not see such protection in the U.S. Constitution under a right of privacy. Anti sodomy laws are terrible, and for the most part not inforceable. To object to such laws based on some idea that the U.S. Constitution allows such under a right of privacy misses the point, and if accepted would allow all most all behavior now prohibited by some states to become legal.
Ms. No
Prostitution is arguably about commerce more than about sex so I have no beef with the States claiming it falls under their jurisdiction
You don't think this is a debatable statement?
7412. Ms. No - 5/2/2003 3:19:14 PM
AlD,
No, I DO think it's debatable ---hence the "arguably" in my post. I think it depends on who you ask to some degree. Certainly prostitution is about sex --- how could it not be? But because it is a business I think it might fall within State jurisdiction. I really don't know anything about what commerce falls under Federal as opposed to State jurisdiction and what the criteria are for deciding it.
Personally, I'm for legalization. If prostitution were recognized as a legitimate industry then it could be regulated and many of the health and public safety threats associated with prostitution could be greatly reduced. I think it's a lousy way to make a living, but it can't be eradicated and I think we have a duty as a society to make it as safe as we can.
7413. robertjayb - 5/2/2003 5:08:21 PM
Put yer money down, Mate...
SYDNEY, Australia, May 1 (UPI) -- Shares in Australia's Daily Planet more than doubled in value Thursday as investors flocked to purchase a stake in the world's first listed brothel.
The Daily Planet began trading on the Australian Stock Exchange at 70 cents, compared to the 50 cents issue price under its $3.75 million initial public offering.
By the end of the day, Daily Planet had more than doubled its initial value, closing at $1.09 with more than 1.4 million shares changing hands.
The Melbourne-based company, which first tried to be listed in 1994, is the world's first listed brothel, and is doing so with the help of ex-Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss.
7414. judithathome - 5/2/2003 5:15:50 PM
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
In his best-selling anthology, “The Book of Virtues,” William J. Bennett writes: “We should know that too much of anything, even a good thing, may prove to be our undoing … [We] need to set definite boundaries on our appetites.”
DOES BENNETT? The popular author, lecturer and Republican Party activist speaks out, often indignantly, about almost every moral issue except one—gambling. It’s not hard to see why. According to casino documents, Bennett is a “preferred customer” in at least four venues in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, betting millions of dollars over the last decade. His games of choice: video poker and slot machines, some at $500 a pull. With a revolving line of credit of at least $200,000 at each casino, Bennett, former drug czar and secretary of Education under Presidents Reagan and Bush, doesn’t have to bring money when he shows up at a casino.
More than 40 pages of internal casino documents provided to The Washington Monthly and NEWSWEEK paint a picture of a gambler given the high-roller treatment, including limos and tens of thousands of dollars in complimentary hotel rooms and other amenities. In one two-month period, the documents show him wiring more than $1.4 million to cover losses at one casino. In one 18-month stretch, Bennett visited a number of casinos for two or three days at a time. And Bennett must have worried about news of his habit leaking out. His customer profile at one casino lists an address that corresponds to Empower.org, the Web site of Empower America, the group Bennett cochairs. But typed across the form are the words: NO CONTACT AT RES OR BIZ!!!
7415. robertjayb - 5/2/2003 5:21:06 PM
William J. Bennett, holy man, enjoys a flutter...(Washington Monthly)
William J. Bennett has made millions lecturing people on morality--and blown it on gambling.
7416. robertjayb - 5/2/2003 5:22:46 PM
Hat Tip to Judith...
7417. judithathome - 5/2/2003 5:25:33 PM
It's good enough to post twice. He really IS a Republican, isn't he?
7418. AceofSpades - 5/5/2003 1:58:51 AM
I saw the democrat debate.
Judith, I'm suuuure you noticed how much John Edwards blinks his eyes as he talks. It's terribly destracting, and surely a sign of low-grade mental retardation.
Can I assume you will not be voting for him, even were he to capture the nomination?
7419. KuligintheHooligan - 5/5/2003 6:36:29 AM
I find it rather amusing to see Judith jumping all over Bennett, while the entire time ole scumbag Clinton was in office, she had nothing to say about his scumbag ways. Hypocritical, just like Bennett it seems.
7420. KuligintheHooligan - 5/5/2003 6:43:28 AM
The Puritans actually celebrated sex as a gift from God, and reveled in it in the confines of a monogamous marriage. They only opposed it when used in an ungodly fashion, such as homosexuality, adultery, and so on. The Puritans actually can be credited with viewing sex as something good and positive when exercised in the right way, and actually influenced positively the move from a more staunch Roman Catholic view of sex, where even in marriage it was still deemed, in part, sinful.
7421. jayackroyd - 5/5/2003 9:38:05 AM
KtH--
Yes, it is the stunning hypocrisy that is interesting in both cases. The real stunningly hypocritical people duruing the Lewinsky saga were Republican politicians like Gingrich condemning the president for shtupping a staffer, while they were shtupping staffers.
And the feminist organizations, presented with an open and shut case of sexual harrasment of the first order, supporting the president, proving that they too are without principles.
"I try to be cynical, but it's hard to keep up."
Lily Tomlin
7422. concerned - 5/5/2003 10:40:19 AM
Re. 7421 -
There's plenty of rapists who need your sympathy more than x42 does.
7423. marjoribanks - 5/5/2003 10:52:12 AM
They only opposed it when used in an ungodly fashion, such as homosexuality, adultery, and so on.
You, Hooligan, realize that you are a fringe religious fanatic, on the same level as the worst mullah your fundie buddies like to deride, right?
7424. concerned - 5/5/2003 11:12:33 AM
So, rjb & jah, does this mean that you two are inalterably opposed to the perfectly legal casino gambling that Bennett indulges in (however stupidly), or do you plan the occasional excursion to Vegas, Atlantic City or the local riverboat casino yourselves? Just curious.
7425. concerned - 5/5/2003 11:40:18 AM
Katherine Harris Not Responsible for Felon Purges
excerpted:
In its January 1 issue, the New Republic reported that the list-producing firm had been hired "months before the election." In fact, the law mandating the purge (Florida Statute 98.0975) was passed in the wake of a Miami mayoral race in which a judge found felons and dead people to have voted. The law stated: "By Aug. 15, 1998, the division [of elections] shall provide to each county supervisor of elections a list containing the name, address, date of birth" of every registered voter in that county who, "(a) Is deceased; (b) Has been convicted of a felony and has not had his or her civil rights restored."
The law also reads: "[I]n order to meet its obligations under this section, the division shall annually contract with a private entity." Accordingly, in 1998, Florida Division of Elections Director Ethel Baxter, now a registered Democrat, hired Database Technologies (DBT), which compiled a list that was distributed to the 67 county election chiefs. (DBT merged with ChoicePoint after compiling the 2000 list, and adopted ChoicePoint’s name.)
Current Florida Elections Division Director Clay Roberts told Human Events that Harris "had no role" in the process.
Similarly, Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections David Leahy said that he had no contact with Harris in carrying out his purge.
ChoicePoint Vice President James Lee said that Harris was briefed only on the contract that her office inherited.
7426. concerned - 5/5/2003 11:40:32 AM
Another unproven charge is that voters were erroneously disenfranchised by the list. The list contained many names of individuals who were not felons, and some counties acted to remove these voters from the list. Some individuals have come forward describing "horror stories" of having to swear under oath that they were not felons in order to vote.
But no one has yet identified a single eligible voter who was actually and finally kept from voting by the purge.
So, can any Lefty here tell me how is it ok for the likes of Salon, Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters to shamelessly fabricate a racist conspiratorical libelous tissue of lies attempting to blame Kathleen Harris and the Republican Party for something they had no significant role in creating?
7427. concerned - 5/5/2003 11:41:18 AM
...Katherine, not Kathleen....
7428. concerned - 5/5/2003 11:45:31 AM
&, sorry, 'not liking' Republicans doesn't cut it.
7429. robertjayb - 5/5/2003 5:56:56 PM
William J. Bennett, public scold, cashes in chips...
"It is true that I have gambled large sums of money. I have also complied with all laws on reporting wins and losses," Bennett said in the brief, written statement issued through Empower America, the conservative think tank he runs with former Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y.
"Nevertheless, I have done too much gambling, and this is not an example I wish to set," Bennett added. "Therefore, my gambling days are over."
Too bad. I was hoping he would switch his action to Indian-run casinos.
7430. judithathome - 5/5/2003 6:04:59 PM
I find it rather amusing to see Judith jumping all over Bennett, while the entire time ole scumbag Clinton was in office, she had nothing to say about his scumbag ways. Hypocritical, just like Bennett it seems.
I guess linking to an article of interest is "jumping all over Bennett" and I see, as usual, Kuligin, you show your own failings by attacking the messenger rather than the man who would be the moral arbiter of us all.
7431. judithathome - 5/5/2003 6:08:43 PM
rjb & jah, does this mean that you two are inalterably opposed to the perfectly legal casino gambling that Bennett indulges in (however stupidly), or do you plan the occasional excursion to Vegas, Atlantic City or the local riverboat casino yourselves? Just curious
Can't speak for RJB but no, I do not go to Vegas or Atlantic City or riverboat casinos. I find them all boring. And Vegas is depressing to me precisely because of all the people trying to hit the jackpots so desperately. Sorry to burst your little bubble. I don't even play Bingo.
7432. judithathome - 5/5/2003 6:34:51 PM
A little primer on what our leader has done for us lately:
Bush Track Record
Since January 2001 the AFL-CIO has tracked President Bush's record on working family issues. Compiled here is his complete record on the issues America's workers and families care about.
7433. KuligintheHooligan - 5/5/2003 6:40:36 PM
"you are a fringe religious fanatic"
Fringe? Naw! My religious views are shared by, oh, about 30 million other Americans. Hardly fringe.
7434. KuligintheHooligan - 5/5/2003 6:44:37 PM
Dear Judith,
You obviously did more than just link an article, and your little Republican comment afterward shows that clearly. Pointing out your hypocrisy, though, is just plain fun, that's all.
You are a real dear, I must add. When your very same tactics are used against you, you consistently cry foul. You are sooooo much fun.
7435. judithathome - 5/5/2003 6:49:09 PM
You are a real piece of work, too. I must say I'm happy you enjoy skewering me so much...shows your immaculate lack of class and true christian heart.
7436. jayackroyd - 5/5/2003 7:13:22 PM
"So, rjb & jah, does this mean that you two are inalterably opposed to the perfectly legal casino gambling that Bennett indulges in (however stupidly), or do you plan the occasional excursion to Vegas, Atlantic City or the local riverboat casino yourselves? Just curious."
The point, of course, is that there is something deeply unseemly, and hypocritical, to tootle around in limos, staying in expensive suites (I'm still hoping for the hookers) pouring tens of millions down the toilet (There can be no doubt. You wanna bet 40 or 50 million dollars on slots, you WILL lose 8 million. [Or conversely, to lose 8 million, you've gotta bet 40 million or so.])
And then stand up, and ask fundies to listen to you talk abuot virtue? Does he tithe? Were these virtuous works?
Sure, it's legal. Sure, it's his right to do it. But it does undermine his ability to persuasively speak about value of virtue and the evil of vice.
And to say, well, I never said GAMBLING was bad, so I'm not a hypocrite, is like Clinton saying I never said blow jobs were bad, so I'm okay. (Which he sorta did, of course.)
7437. KuligintheHooligan - 5/5/2003 8:19:47 PM
Exposing hypocrisy is PREEMINENTLY Christian Judith. Even you should know that, unless of course, you never read the Gospels.
7438. judithathome - 5/5/2003 8:23:13 PM
I've obviously forgotten everything I ever read in the Bible, Kuligin. According to you, anyhow.
There are tons of things that are PREEMINENTLY Christian and I'm sure you think you are doing them all. I don't happen to agree.
7439. Edmund Dantes - 5/5/2003 9:24:48 PM
A little primer on what our leader has done for us lately:
What's this "us" when talking about working people? Did you suddenly get a job and are now "judith@7-11?
7440. judithathome - 5/5/2003 11:04:51 PM
I have a job, Edmund. I run my own business and it is successful; I have yet to show a loss on it though this year may be the first. It may not impress you but I make money and pay taxes on it...state taxes and income taxes. In order to do that, I have to have an income.
So go ahead, make your denigrating little remarks and have your little fun. It must make you feel so manly to do so.
7441. arkymalarky - 5/5/2003 11:17:10 PM
Judith, I'm suuuure you noticed how much John Edwards blinks his eyes as he talks. It's terribly destracting, and surely a sign of low-grade mental retardation.
I don't know about Judith, but if it proves to be a case of selecting the lesser of two retards come Nov '04, I gladly will.
WRT Bennett/Clinton--Clinton never preached to me.
Who wants to start a betting pool on how long before Bennett gets caught doing it again, thus adding lying to his hypocrisy?
7442. judithathome - 5/5/2003 11:19:47 PM
Oh, he won't do it again...he "can handle it", remember?
7443. arkymalarky - 5/5/2003 11:20:46 PM
Hahaha. Yep. Right there with the smokers and alkies. Not to mention hopheads.
7444. judithathome - 5/5/2003 11:21:49 PM
And Edmund, I take it you have no way to refute the things in the link I provided since all you seemed to want to comment on was the fact you think I don't work sufficently enough to qualify as one who is getting screwed over by GW Bush's policies.
7445. KuligintheHooligan - 5/6/2003 2:24:48 PM
"Who wants to start a betting pool on how long before Bennett gets caught doing it again, thus adding lying to his hypocrisy?"
I'm not so sure that's a good idea. If the pool gets large enough, it may attract Bennett!!
7446. judithathome - 5/6/2003 2:26:27 PM
Ha! Excellent point!
7447. Al D - 5/6/2003 3:02:12 PM
What curious values some have: gamble, not only legal but promoted in many states, =evil. A President, insisting he is happily married, getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and lying about it, well not really a bad thing, and lying about sex, everybody does it.
7448. ronski - 5/6/2003 3:07:12 PM
Well, getting blow jobs is legal in a majority of jurisdictions, and not enforced elsewhere, at least for heterosexuals, and, of course, only if Santorum does not get his way.
Disclaimer: Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as a defense of Clinton.
7449. judithathome - 5/6/2003 3:07:15 PM
It's not the gambling, it's the priggish acting like a moral paragon when not gambling and telling everyone else how to act morally while looking down his nose at "certain" people who don't measure up to his standards.
7450. judithathome - 5/6/2003 3:08:35 PM
Ronski, I saw a cute tagline at the Atlantic:
Santorum is opposed to the love that dare not bark its name....
7451. ronski - 5/6/2003 3:10:56 PM
And, the way I look at it, the across-the-board claim that some things are objectively morally wrong without making any distinctions, while slicing arguments about gambling thinner than prosciutto.
7452. ronski - 5/6/2003 3:11:55 PM
(**51 to **49).
7453. ronski - 5/6/2003 3:18:12 PM
The barking reference reminds me of a story a friend just told me about her 7-year-old. The boy was out with a friend of his mother's, who has MS and uses a large, unclipped poodle as a kind of help dog (they're purportedly very smart).
The poodle jumped another dog, the way dogs do. The boy asked why he was doing that. The woman said, "He's showing dominance over the other dog."
About a week later, after watching some of the news coverage of the invasion of Iraq, the boy said to his mother, "Bush is showing dominance over Saddam Hussein."
7454. judithathome - 5/6/2003 3:23:48 PM
That's very cute...
And poodles are extremely smart.
7455. judithathome - 5/8/2003 7:45:12 AM
Robert Bryd is coming under fire for his scathing remarks about Bush's latest photo op. On CNN this morning, a commentator said the Democrats are taking a risk if they support Bryd's remarks because this war and this President are so very popular with the American public.
Let's just lay down and die, why don't we? God forbid the opposition party make any remarks that won't set well with the popular President. I mean, why not just do away with the two party system altogether. It would seem that's almost a fait accompli, anyhow...just make it official.
7456. jimmy page - 5/8/2003 8:45:13 AM
Judith-
That's quite an overreaction o your part. The problem isn't that the Dems are making remarks opposing the president, it's WHAT they're choosing to gripe about. The Dems are slitting their own throats.
You've got Daschle "saddened and concerned" that diplomacy failed, while in '98 he supported action.
You've got Kerry talking about "regime change" in the US.
You've now got Byrd griping about a trip to a carrier and the Dems griping about Bush wearing a flightsuit. Did they gripe about this though?
Nope. THe issues they're choosing are just stupid.
Who's out there really hitting Bush about the tax cut plan? You'd think that's where the Dems would be out front wouldn't you? But you're not hearing it because they're choosing stupid issues. They've got no one to blame but themselves.
7457. judithathome - 5/8/2003 8:49:05 AM
I know...I've been saying as much for months now.
I guess you missed me comparing the Democrats' spines to those of cuttlefish.
7458. robertjayb - 5/9/2003 12:16:53 AM
It worked for Pooty Poot...
20 March 2000
MOSCOW -(Reuters)- Russian Acting President Vladimir Putin took a flight in a fighter jet to Chechnya on Monday, using the extraordinary trip to boost his image as a tough and decisive leader ahead of a presidential election.
Putin already has a strong lead in opinion polls ahead of the March 26 vote and has used such image-building stunts before. The visit to the war-torn region was itself unexpected and had not been previously announced.
Video footage of the 47-year-old acting president sitting at the controls of the jet in the co-pilot's seat and climbing energetically from the cockpit were shown on all Russia's main television stations, dominating the afternoon news programme.
"It's a good machine, beautiful, high-powered and very obedient," Putin told NTV commercial as he stood on the runway after leaving the jet, one of a type which has been used against rebels during Russia's six-month-old offensive in Chechnya.
He wore a bomber jacket and pilot's mask and Itar-Tass news agency said Putin even flew the jet himself during the trip.
7459. concerned - 5/9/2003 4:34:16 PM
Democrats are all at sea
Written by a Democrat, mind you. Btw, why didn't Waxman, Byrd, et al have any criticism of Xlowntoon's flamboyant 100 million dollar junket to China that accomplished nothing of significance?
7460. concerned - 5/9/2003 4:38:02 PM
But for all that, Bush's decision to take out Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. And as for the news that Bush is now trying to use the result to help himself -- well, do we really have to trot out the old Casablanca line about being shocked to find there's gambling going on here?
There's nothing that the LW Greek Chorus is better at than to produce the appropriate histrionics on cue.
7461. judithathome - 5/9/2003 4:38:47 PM
Who gives a shit? That was then, this is now. For cripe's sake, get off that Clowntoon this, Clowntoon that.
Your side bitched their heads off when he was President, now it's your turn to listen to us....as you so famously said when Bush was elected, GET OVER IT!
7462. Edmund Dantes - 5/9/2003 11:55:13 PM
I have a job, Edmund. I run my own business...
Then you're a proprietor, not an employee. You still don't have much in common with the membership of the AFL/CIO.
And Edmund, I take it you have no way to refute the things in the link I provided since all you seemed to want to comment on was the fact you think I don't work sufficently enough to qualify as one who is getting screwed over by GW Bush's policies.
Okay, Entrepenuer@Home. Let's just take one example from your link: "Proposes new rules to deny Earned Income Tax Credit to working poor"
What's the first explanatory line underneath that?
"The Bush administration wants to require working poor families to submit extensive new documentation to prove their eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)."
Is that translate to denying anyone actually eligible for the credit? Nope. It's making sure that the people who deserve the money get it. Apparently the AFL/CIO position (and hence yours) is that it's wrong to deny frauds government money.
7463. Edmund Dantes - 5/9/2003 11:56:09 PM
Is that = Does that
7464. Edmund Dantes - 5/10/2003 12:07:45 AM
Proposes rule to end overtime pay for millions of workers.
What does the explanation say?
"While the rules raise the income ceiling for some low-income workers to automatically qualify for overtime, many low-income workers would remain uncovered by that automatic protection, and the new rules propose confusing standards on whether low-income supervisors qualify for overtime protection."
The change actually makes more workers eligible than before because by raising the income ceiling, more workers are under it. As to "confusing standards," they're actually simplified compared to what they are now.
See here for a longer rebuttal (as well as a slam of your favorite columnist, Molly Ivins.
The Bush administration backs an anti-family bankruptcy proposal that the U.S. House of Representatives passed 315–113 March 19.
315 - 113? Sounds to me like it has strong bipartisan support. The NY Times article says the measure makes it harder to declare bankruptcy and avoid paying one's debts. Doesn't sound to me like that's all that bad.
Proposes to end federal low-income housing program for 2 million families
Yep, Bush proposes ending the program at the federal level and transferring to the states via a block grant. Since people live and buy houses within a state, seems reasonable to me that a state government would do a more efficient job of administering such a program than a department way off in Washington, D.C.
Those are the first few examples of the AFL/CIO's list of Bush's "attacks" on working families. If you want to pick another specific rather than their entire laundry list of ludicrous belly-aching, I'll be happy to respond.
7465. judithathome - 5/11/2003 10:37:45 AM
No, that will do just fine.
7466. rdbrewer - 5/11/2003 6:03:59 PM
The AFL/CIO isn't being guarded any more by hardened socialist haters, like Gompers and Meany. It was never meant to be a socialist orginazation. Since then, however, the socialists have taken over. (I'm sorry; make that "the dirbag socialists.") That is why they are now automatically anti-Bush and anti-conservative. If only labor types were taught the truth.
7467. judithathome - 5/12/2003 9:20:06 AM
Broder: Bush Steering Clear of 'Wealth Effect' in Pitching His Tax Cut
... The political reason the White House is reluctant to make this argument front and center in its lobbying campaign is evident: It's too easy for the Democrats to describe it as trickle-down economics. The very term "wealth effect'' sounds as if the main beneficiaries would be the wealthy.
But there is also an economic reason for keeping this argument locked in the closet -- only briefly exposed to daylight. The "wealth effect,'' in the short-term at least, is less likely to create jobs than several other alternative uses of those billions.
7468. judithathome - 5/12/2003 10:41:04 AM
Who Says Democrats Have No Spines?
A group of Texas state representatives reportedly plans to leave the state with the intent of breaking a legislative quorum.
One of the organizers told the San Antonio Express-News in Monday's editions that the action was planned this week as retaliation against the state's Republican leadership.
The plan by Democratic House members, if successful, would derail and likely kill major pending bills that have been termed a priority by the Republican-controlled Legislature.
7469. PelleNilsson - 5/12/2003 11:54:27 AM
Third world tactics.
7470. concerned - 5/12/2003 12:04:16 PM
They do JAH proud.
7471. judithathome - 5/12/2003 12:10:39 PM
Yes, they certainly do, Concerned.
If the Democrats were in the majority and the opposition party did this, you'd be crowing from the highest pillar over it.
You have no idea what is going on in this state so gloat all you want but if this happens, at least we won't have gerrymandered districts slanted toward more Republican representation for the sole purpose of getting more Republicans installed in the House of Representatives so NO opposition will be possible. Sometimes drastic measures are forced on people.
In a state that has been allowed to reach a ten billion dollar shortfall under the Bush Republicans, I think the time is now.
7472. judithathome - 5/12/2003 12:14:05 PM
Of course, this may upset the true Texans, the ones eagerly waiting for Governor Good Hair to sign the billion dollar Dallas Cowboy new stadium bill, HB 111, so the tax payers can pay for it. That's the sort of "crucial" government business the Bush Boys are so exercised about...
7473. Ms. No - 5/12/2003 12:14:42 PM
So how did role call go this morning Judith? I don't know anything about the legislation they're trying to stall or whether I might ever approve of such a tactic depending on the situation, but it strikes me as uncomfortably similar to the popular liberal tactic of "leaving in a righteously indignant huff".
And that pisses me off. I'm sick and tired of all of the breast beating of people who are too chicken shit to stick it out and fight the good fight. They've got a bad case of Scarlett O'Hara-itis and Frankly, my dears, the opposition doesn't give a damn.
Leave the field in protest? Fine. We'll make a note of the fact that you had lovely posture as you conceded the battle to the opposition. I think you can guess where we'll be filing the note.
The Texas case is a bit different since a large enough absence will stall proceedings rather than just leave them to advance without argument. What all of this really says to me is that the Dems need to do a major revamp of their thinking. They need to separate themselves from the Republicans and cut away the dead-weight of the hippy liberals who won't show up at the polls anyway.
Until they can offer a true alternative, they're going to have to keep running to stand still.
7474. concerned - 5/12/2003 12:16:07 PM
If the Democrats were in the majority and the opposition party did this, you'd be crowing from the highest pillar over it.
No, I wouldn't. Such extralegal, and I may add, cowardly actions demean the democratic process, are a sign of disrespect to the consituencies of the politicians who pull stunts like that and I would never encourage such antics IAC.
7475. judithathome - 5/12/2003 12:19:39 PM
Oh well, it is a moot point now; they are under "house" arrest.
They Are Either With Them Or Against Them
The Texas House was locked down Monday morning after an organized boycott by Democrats angry about efforts to redraw the state's congressional map in favor of Republicans.
A letter signed by 53 House Democrats was delivered to the House parliamentarian Monday morning, notifying officials that they would not be attending the session.
The letter asks that their voting machines be locked until they personally return to ask that they be unlocked.
House Speaker Tom Craddick ordered the doors of the House chamber locked and stationed Department of Public Safety officers at the exits to prevent House members from leaving. Some House members were being allowed into the chambers.
"Smarmy, to the highest degree," is how state Rep. Joe Nixon, R-Houston, described the move. Nixon carried controversial legislation, House Bill 4, a massive lawsuit-limitation bill that took two weeks to pass the House floor.
7476. concerned - 5/12/2003 12:21:52 PM
Re. 7471 -
Besides, JAH, have you considered that such poorly thought out tricks also lend themselves to manipulation by the 'opposition' party who can keep reintroducing said legislation while making political hay at the expense of the truant 'Rats?
7477. concerned - 5/12/2003 12:24:54 PM
7476 was posted before I saw 7475 which indicates just how STOOPID Texas 'Rats really are.
7478. judithathome - 5/12/2003 12:28:03 PM
Yes, they are stupid. Almost as stupid as the Republicans.
7479. Ms. No - 5/12/2003 12:39:58 PM
I'd pay to visit this museum.
7480. JJBiener - 5/12/2003 2:17:58 PM
Am I the only one here to see the irony of a group of people operating under a name taken from the very process they are trying to subvert? I guess you can say they standing (or in this case running) on principle, but it isn't a democratic principle.
7481. judithathome - 5/12/2003 2:41:25 PM
Oh JJ, it hardly matters in Texas. The Texas Democrats are the most Republican group you have ever seen. It's all a pose.
7482. robertjayb - 5/12/2003 3:29:51 PM
Delay's power grab prompts Killer Bees II...(statement)
The redistricting plan scheduled today before the Texas House of Representatives is the ultimate in political greed — it is undemocratic, unjust and unprecedented. It's a power grab by Tom DeLay, pure and simple. The current congressional plan has been ruled by our United States Supreme Court to be constitutional and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Elections have been held, and we should respect the will of Texas voters.
7483. JJBiener - 5/12/2003 3:40:00 PM
Are the Democrats pretending that they don't engage in gerrymandering when they are in power?
7484. robertjayb - 5/12/2003 3:40:19 PM
About the original 1979 Killer Bees...
George Strong: The Lt. Governor, Bill Hobby, wanted to pass a
bill that would help former Governor John Connally and perhaps then California
Governor Ronald Reagan. Hobby want to create a presidential primary separate
from the primary date that the state used to nominate its candidates in the
Democratic and Republican primary. The theory was that some Democrats would
vote for Connally in the Presidential primary and move back to the Democratic
primary at the regular primary election date.
To break a quorum twelve State Senators ducked out the back door and closed
down the Senate for five days. They did not want a separate primary. They hid
out, while the press and even the Texas Rangers looked for them.
7485. wonkers2 - 5/12/2003 7:49:15 PM
Heard John Kerry at the annual Democratic Jefferson-Jackson dinner last Saturday. He did a workman like job. His best line--"My recent surgery caused me to learn the value of duct tape and plastic splints!"
7486. arkymalarky - 5/12/2003 11:00:34 PM
Hell yeah, they need to go for it. It's the thing for a politician with guts and conscience to do to keep something that drastic from happening to the system that makes it difficult or impossible for the state to have fair elections in the future.
When the Democrats took back power in AR after Reconstruction, farmers and workers, black and white, challenged them with a new Union Labor Party that would have won the governorship in 1888 had the Democrats not controlled the counting at the time. After their near loss they passed legislation that actually gave Democrats control of the election process and implemented Jim Crow in the 1890s along with poll taxes and literacy tests and other laws that not only kept poor people from voting, but ensured that Democrats would control the process start to finish.
7487. judithathome - 5/13/2003 9:29:28 AM
Well, when the going gets rough in the Texas House, the Republicans know how to take matters in hand and solve the problem: they've issued a deck of "Chicken Ds" cards with pictures of the missing Democrats.
7488. JJBiener - 5/13/2003 10:37:47 AM
Arky, you act like this is the first time the party in power has redrawn districts for their benefit. Hell, in 2000 the Democrats in many states ran on the fact that if they won they would be able to redraw the districts to ensure Democratic domination of the state houses.
For them now to come out and whimper because Republicans are doing what they themselves had planned to do is pure and finely-tuned hypocrisy.
7489. JJBiener - 5/13/2003 10:38:40 AM
Judith - they've issued a deck of "Chicken Ds" cards with pictures of the missing Democrats
I like it.
7490. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:06:41 AM
The NYT is a racist rag!
excerpt:
They found that since he began working for the New York Times on June 9, 1998, Blair has 725 bylined stories – 50 of which had to be corrected – 6.9 percent.
So the Standard ran a Nexus check on two of the New York Times most celebrated bylines, to see how many corrections their stories required. The results, since June 9, 1998:
Washington Bureau Chief Adam "Major League" Clymer: 400 bylined stories – 35 requiring corrections (9 percent).
Associate Editor R.W. "Johnny" Apple: 327 bylined stories – 46 requiring corrections (14 percent).
So, the major difference between Jayson Blair and the rest of the liars at the NYT, besides the fact he is black, is that he worked harder than some of them.
7491. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:15:42 AM
What if the 'Rats put up a presidential candidate in 2004 who has a lower SAT than GWB? Just curious as to the rankings of the current potential candidates.
7492. judithathome - 5/13/2003 11:17:04 AM
Only you could see this story this way, Concerned. His "corrections" were because he LIED...not because he misquoted an actual source or transposed numbers.
7493. judithathome - 5/13/2003 11:19:02 AM
What if the 'Rats put up a presidential candidate in 2004 who has a lower SAT than GWB?
What if they put up one who has a higher one? What if they put up another Harvard MBA, one with a history of successful businesses in his past?
7494. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:24:02 AM
Re. 7492 -
So, your argument is that the others are mere incompetents, thus deserve to be kept on by the NYT?
7495. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:27:32 AM
Re. 7493 -
Well, if the 'Rats don't field somebody who tops GWB's score, their campaign slogan might as well be: "Vote for our guy. He's dumber than a chimp."
7496. judithathome - 5/13/2003 11:36:19 AM
So, your argument is that the others are mere incompetents, thus deserve to be kept on by the NYT?
Not at all...is your argument that they should keep a LIAR on just because he's black?
(Irritating when your own tactic is turned on you, isn't it? I know very well that you didn't mean that but that is exactly how you try to bend an argument to your advantage, by defining what I meant...even though you know very well that is not what I meant at all. I know you do this on purpose because I know you are smart enough to understand what people mean when they write it out in plain English for you.)
7497. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:38:03 AM
My suggestion is that the 'Rats scour their ranks for somebody who got a perfect 1600 score on the SAT. That'll give them the 2004 presidency for sure.
7498. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:40:31 AM
Re. 7496 -
JAH -
My suggestion is that maybe it's time for the NYT to do the world a favor and finish the job of cleaning out their deadwood.
7499. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:41:00 AM
Well, that's two suggestions in a row.
7500. judithathome - 5/13/2003 11:47:45 AM
Well, why didn't you say that in the first place instead of implying I was in favor of keeping incompetents on at the paper?
7501. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/13/2003 11:53:48 AM
Speaking of "Deadwood" . . .
7502. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:54:52 AM
An unwritten Mote RoE say that when one Motier starts in on another with an inane, improbable accusation like you did with me, the victim has the right to respond with a humorous question that further elucidates the situation at hand.
7503. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:55:04 AM
An unwritten Mote RoE says that when one Motier starts in on another with an inane, improbable accusation like you did with me, the victim has the right to respond with a humorous question that further elucidates the situation at hand.
7504. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:56:00 AM
Yo 'dere, WoW.
7505. judithathome - 5/13/2003 11:58:28 AM
Since it is unwritten, I'm assuming you have to repeat it twice to bring it to my attention? ;-)
7506. judithathome - 5/13/2003 11:59:44 AM
inane, improbable accusation like you did with me
I knew I was right! You'd have ignored it otherwise.
7507. judithathome - 5/13/2003 12:00:14 PM
WIZ! Welcome back to the funhouse!
7508. concerned - 5/13/2003 12:14:37 PM
Re. 7505 -
The first one had an annoying (to me) typo. If the Mote allowed its posters to edit already posted messages for a few minutes, I'd certainly appreciate it:)
7509. JJBiener - 5/13/2003 4:32:46 PM
If the NYTimes fired everyone of their writers who has lied, they would have to discontinue their op-ed page.
7510. judithathome - 5/13/2003 4:44:23 PM
So I guess all of them turn in pieces from around the country without ever going on site or actually interviewing the real people being quoted? This guy was a is a pathological liar, JJ. It's not just a few instances of fudging the facts here and there.
I'm sure if every newspaper in the country were suddenly cleared of people who skirt the truth, they'd all have to shut down.
7511. JJBiener - 5/13/2003 5:10:06 PM
Judith - I have a joke for you.
A man walks up to a rather well-dressed woman at a party. He says to her, "Would you make love to me for a million dollars." She thinks for a moment and says, "For a million dollars I probably would." He then asks her, "Would you make love to me for five dollars." The woman is angry and says, "Five dollars? What do think I am?" The man says, "We've established that. We are just dickering price."
I have seen many writers on NYTimes make up "facts" to support their opinions. It is not mere fudging as you claim. It is to the Times' credit that they took this action, but they could do a lot more to clean up their act.
7512. judithathome - 5/13/2003 5:12:30 PM
So could EVERYONE....Congress, the Washington Post, Hollywood, everyone.
7513. JJBiener - 5/13/2003 5:20:49 PM
Judith - So that makes it alright?
7514. judithathome - 5/13/2003 6:06:00 PM
No...where did I say that? I'm not saying it makes anything right. I'm just pointing out that the New York Times is hardly the only place that this happens.
What is it with people on the right? If someone posts something, they immediately have to rephrase it as "so you are saying"...thus and so and nine times out ten, it isn't remotely what has been posted.
I'm not picking on you, JJ, but just today, Concerned did it with one my posts and now you...I guess I am not very clear in what I am trying to say, huh?
7515. concerned - 5/13/2003 6:13:39 PM
JAH -
I have to say that I've never seen such a pack of worthless sniveling do nothing cowards as your Texas House 'Rats. I hope they stay in Oklahoma for a good long time, then have to find real work after the next election cycle because they sure are the sorriest excuses for politicians I've ever seen.
7516. JJBiener - 5/13/2003 6:16:04 PM
Judith - I don't think either of us are being very clear. I apologize for my part. I am simply mystified that people are agog over this. There was just a piece on television about the guy at New Republic. I would not be at all surprised if we find out that these two are not the only ones who are guilty of this.
Have a good evening. I am heading out to jam with my new band.
7517. concerned - 5/13/2003 6:23:52 PM
Rather than have the FBI haul the Texas truant House 'Rats back, I'm in favor of docking their pay on an accelerating scale the longer they refuse to do their jobs so that at the end of three months, they lose an entire years pay.
7518. arkymalarky - 5/13/2003 6:30:05 PM
Arky, you act like this is the first time the party in power has redrawn districts for their benefit. Hell, in 2000 the Democrats in many states ran on the fact that if they won they would be able to redraw the districts to ensure Democratic domination of the state houses.
JJ, did you read my post? I gave an example of just that and much worse in AR in the 1890s. Who gives a shit if it's the first time. It's the responsibility of those who will to stop it if they can. "This isn't the first time...." is a lame response to any argument.
7519. arkymalarky - 5/13/2003 6:32:06 PM
One of the absolute finest politicial leaders of this century I had forgotten how much so, and it's a pleasure to have found such an example incidentally and be reminded again. I will look forward to reading his book this summer.
7520. judithathome - 5/13/2003 6:32:07 PM
Yeah, they are paid so very much to attend a meeting for a few weeks of the Texas legislature every two years.
These aren't career politicians, Concerned.
7521. concerned - 5/13/2003 6:32:16 PM
Here's arky arguing for unlimited Democrat dirty tricks.....
7522. judithathome - 5/13/2003 6:34:04 PM
Arky, I just love that guy; he has a rapier-like wit.
7523. judithathome - 5/13/2003 6:35:03 PM
Here's arky arguing for unlimited Democrat dirty tricks.....
And here's concerned, lying like a reporter for the NYT.
7524. judithathome - 5/13/2003 6:36:06 PM
7522 was referring to Arky's link....just in case anyone thinks I meant the centrist there.
7525. arkymalarky - 5/13/2003 6:48:17 PM
Con'd, take time out to read what a real American political thinker has to say and see if you come out a little more balanced.
Judith,
He does, and great heart and a clear understanding of his subject, and unmatched perspective. He's truly a perfect example of the Great Southern political lawyer, the one that Faulkner had a knack for revealing glimpses of in characters who were distorted when shown through their raised whisky glasses. He also happens to be a fine example of the quality diamonds a rural community can cut.
7526. arkymalarky - 5/13/2003 8:08:21 PM
Con'd must still be reading.
7527. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:34:27 PM
I just glanced over Bumpers boring little partisan stemwinder. He's wrong about many things, such as the basic nature of the proceedings, and the crimes against the state that x42 committed by lying for months on end to Federal Officials, committing crimes against the State by using Federal resources for private ends, committing political crimes against the state by trying to destroy the people who were judging his actions, etc. That is what got him impeached and caused the vote for his removal from office.
7528. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:37:45 PM
Notice how what Xlowntoon was impeached for has nothing to do with what the Left prefers to say he was impeached for. But Lefties are notorious liars about these things.
7529. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:40:02 PM
Notice how what Xlowntoon was impeached for has nothing to do with what the Left prefers to say he was impeached for. But Lefties are notorious liars about these things.
Might I add that the Left has swung from one extreme to the other regarding Clarence Thomas and x42, which proves that all they really believe in is power and that their political ethics are nonexistent.
7530. concerned - 5/13/2003 11:50:11 PM
Btw, since you haven't followed your own advice and 'gotten over it', it's officially open season on x42?
7531. wonkers2 - 5/14/2003 12:14:17 AM
I heard the Bumpers interview on NPR and ordered his book for my son who is a lawyer. What a wise and wonderful man.
7532. wonkers2 - 5/14/2003 12:15:33 AM
Bush is the one who deserves to be impeached. Ramsey Clark was quite convincing on this in his address to the National Press Club this week.
7533. concerned - 5/14/2003 12:21:51 AM
Ramsey Clark, the anti-semitic stalinist sympathizer?
7534. concerned - 5/14/2003 12:26:13 AM
I don't see how Clark can reconcile his ready acceptance of murderous regimes such as Kim Jong Il's with his opposition to the US.
7535. arkymalarky - 5/14/2003 1:00:34 AM
Concerned the Centrist. Yep. That defines him alright.
(talking over Con'd's pointy head)
Wonk, I agree. I used to hear about the Gilette coon supper he talks about, but haven't in a long time. I wonder if they still have it. I hate that he was unable to find a right time to run for president, but I think it may be good that he never did. He was an ideal congressman.
7536. concerned - 5/14/2003 1:23:33 AM
Re. 7534-
This was somewhat of a rhetorical statement in an attempt to be polite, btw. I actually have a fairly good idea of why Clark is 'that way'.
7537. judithathome - 5/14/2003 10:39:51 AM
Yes, you proved that with this remark:
Ramsey Clark, the anti-semitic stalinist sympathizer?
7538. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/14/2003 11:13:36 AM
For Judith . . .
7539. judithathome - 5/14/2003 11:25:58 AM
Perfecto, Wiz!!
7540. Macnas - 5/14/2003 11:46:55 AM
Hello Wiz, good to see you again.
7541. robertjayb - 5/14/2003 12:49:19 PM
Wiz!
7542. concerned - 5/14/2003 12:56:02 PM
Hey, Wiz - can you get jex back here - he's safe now that Iraq's blown over.
7543. PelleNilsson - 5/14/2003 1:37:00 PM
Hello Wiz!
7544. wonkers2 - 5/15/2003 11:10:32 PM
There was quite an interesting front page article in the NYT this week on Teresa Heinz Kerry. She's quite a high powered and outspoken lady. Born Portuguese in Mozambique; speaks 5 languages; very smart and good looking; net worth more than half a billion. Some Dems think she's a bit much for Kerry's election campaign. I think she's make a great campaigner and first lady.
7545. robertjayb - 5/16/2003 12:11:38 AM
Squandering Prosperity: A Slow 1929...(The American Prospect)
The hallmark of the Bush approach to the economy is its absolute rigidity. On matters economic, Bush is a monomaniac with a bad idea, a doctor who prescribes the same all-purpose snake oil no matter what the ailment. And while Bush is not responsible for the post-boom bust in which America finds itself, his refusal to contemplate any remedy save his own for the economy is directly responsible for the increasing longevity and severity of the bust.
7546. robertjayb - 5/16/2003 12:47:44 AM
Paths of Glory...Paul Krugman
...the pursuit of televised glory — which led the Bush administration to turn its attention away from Al Qaeda, and to pick a fight with a regime that, however nasty, posed no threat — has made us much less safe than we should be.
7547. robertjayb - 5/16/2003 1:16:12 AM
I know...Let's put on a show...
WASHINGTON, May 15 — George W. Bush's "Top Gun" landing on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most audacious moments of presidential theater in American history. But it was only the latest example of how the Bush administration, going far beyond the foundations in stagecraft set by the Reagan White House, is using the powers of television and technology to promote a presidency like never before.
7548. concerned - 5/16/2003 1:46:03 AM
Re. 7547 -
Oh, come on....
7549. JJBiener - 5/16/2003 1:41:00 PM
RJB - George W. Bush's "Top Gun" landing on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most audacious moments of presidential theater in American history.
I will tell you what I told the person who sent me that article this morning. Politics is perception. (No that isn't original. It is from The American President.) Clinton was a master at manipulating perception. It was how he managed to remain popular with a large percentage of the population despite the fact that was shown to be guilty of at least most of the things he was accused of.
In the media age, a politician has to know how to use the media to further their agenda and to present a popular image. Kennedy is probably the first president to really master this. Reagan improved upon Kennedy, and Clinton improved upon Reagan. Now Bush is taking the next step.
It is as simple as that.
7550. judithathome - 5/16/2003 3:05:44 PM
JJ, part of what you say is correct...Bush is simple.
He is "improving" on nothing; rather, he is driving this country to hell and certain deflation. If that is your idea of an improved hero, I don't envy you your dreams. But to me they are nightmares.
7551. concerned - 5/16/2003 3:18:05 PM
Not sure if Alphonso cleaning Tipper's tonsils in public was more audacious or nauseating.
7552. concerned - 5/16/2003 3:20:42 PM
Re. 7550 -
Does that mean that if the Democrats put up a candidate in 2001 with a lower SAT than GWB, you're not voting?
7553. judithathome - 5/16/2003 3:20:45 PM
Could have been a simple public display of affection? Naaaaah....had to be a grab at the spotlight!
Too bad he couldn't have swung in on a vine in a lepoard skin and grabbed her up with a Tarzan yodel at full throttle...maybe on an aircraft carrier.
7554. concerned - 5/16/2003 3:20:55 PM
Re. 7550 -
Does that mean that if the Democrats put up a candidate in 2004 with a lower SAT than GWB, you're not voting?
7555. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 3:21:08 PM
POWER TO THE PEOPLE...THE RICH PEOPLE, THAT IS...
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Howard Dean's family net worth rose $326,500 in the past year to nearly $4.24 million, according to a financial disclosure statement filed in connection with the Democrat's presidential campaign.
7556. concerned - 5/16/2003 3:21:33 PM
Please ignore 7552.
7557. judithathome - 5/16/2003 3:25:52 PM
Re 7552:
Why on earth would you glean that from me saying Bush is simple? I don't give a shit what his SAT scores were...they clearly don't mean dip since he has failed in every business he's tried. Except the one he's bullshitting his way through now.
I wouldn't be surprised if your SATs were higher than Bush's but I sure as heck don't want you running the country.
7558. judithathome - 5/16/2003 3:29:13 PM
PooBah, let's compare that to what the Bush's have, why don't we? Four million is peanuts. We've gone so far beyond millions in this country. The standard now is billions.
7559. robertjayb - 5/16/2003 3:29:48 PM
Make no mistake about it, the bushies have a grand image machine. Makes me wonder if they have Leni Riefenstahl on retainer. She's only about 100 and the message is a familiar one.
7560. concerned - 5/16/2003 3:41:33 PM
Talk about posturing, we have Xlowntoon's hugely wasteful $100 million junket to China that accomplished nothing substantive.
7561. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 3:45:34 PM
Fact is, getting a good and sensible politician to even run for president is becoming more and more difficult for both parties. It's not just the media, though certainly that's an important part of it.
Clinton was a very good president, in that he did a lot of good things that benefited the country, yet the constant criticism he still gets over his every nuance is unprecedented. I don't have a lot of personal respect for him, but I also know from having watched him as a politician for years here before he was in DC that he's not the demon his opposition made him out to be--not nearly. It would have been far more evident in this little state, especially with all he did in education while I was teaching (some I was and am opposed to and I think did long-term damage, and some good). Bumpers' perspective on all that is as dependable as anyone's in the country.
Anyway, no good and intelligent politician with any blemishes and a family is going to dive into a campaign without a lot of thought, and I think it's kept Democrats and Republicans alike from having strong front runners, and will only get worse. The only real difference between Dems and Reps in that regard is that Reps automatically have someone to run in '04, just as the Dems did in '96. In some ways this goes back to the 1972 campaign and consequences of Watergate, and of course it's gone on off and on to some degree or another from the first election.
Also, the primaries have become so difficult for a good candidate to break through. I think a lot of people who voted for Gore would have voted for McCain had that been the matchup.
7562. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 3:47:27 PM
Bush Jr. made his money the old fashioned way--through his buying and selling of a professional baseball team.
He's not a Harvard MBA for nothin'.
According to "First Son" by Texas newspaperman Bill Minutaglion, he earned it.
7563. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 3:47:31 PM
I heard today that Rove will be handling his campaign.
7564. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:00:42 PM
During Xlowntoon's terms in the Arkansas governor's office, the state declined from 47th to 48th in the nation in percentage of adults with high school diplomas and the NYT reported that Arkansas went from 20th to 25th out of 28 states that used ACT rankings to as their primary college entrace requirement. Anyone who thinks that is 'doing good' is a menace to the field of education.
7565. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:02:48 PM
For those who haven't a clue, since there are only 50 states in the nation, ranking 47th is very, very bad, and ranking 48th is even worse.
7566. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:06:03 PM
About the only arguably good, hell, even intentional things of substance Xlowntoon accomplished as president were Republican initiatives: GATT, NAFTA and welfare reform.
7567. judithathome - 5/16/2003 4:07:12 PM
Pooh Bah, he didn't use his own money to buy that team. I know the widow of Eddie Chiles; she is in the same garden club as I and she knows exactly how Bush got that team and how he made money off it and she doesn't mind letting people know even though she is a staunch Republican. So don't tell me about his Harvard MBA...he hasn't earned much of his money, if any.
7568. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:08:44 PM
gays in the military? crash and burn
ethiopia? crash and burn
health care reform? crash and burn
haiti? crash and burn
terrorism? crash and burn
middle east peace? crash and burn
About all scandal a week boy did on his own was terrorize the female help and get his sorry ass impeached.
7569. judithathome - 5/16/2003 4:08:47 PM
Eddie Chiles being the former owner of the Texas Rangers and from whom Bush "purchased" the team.
7570. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 4:10:20 PM
Oh stop being a moron, Con'd (and could you get the sun to come out from behind the clouds while you're at it? And it's a little too humid outside). The impact wasn't immediate, and over the long term we have improved considerably, largely because of what he implemented and what's been built on since then, and a lot of what he did was emulated elsewhere. We are a very poor state with pockets of extreme poverty and it will take more than structural reforms to improve out national standing in a lot of things.
7571. judithathome - 5/16/2003 4:10:31 PM
Concerned, your pathological interest in Clinton is bordering on the sexual. Are you in love with the guy or something? You're acting like a spurned lover or something.
7572. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:16:35 PM
When I see bilge about what a great leader x42 was, I figure the equal time clause kicks in. Besides, JAH turns right around and rips on GWB two out of three.
7573. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 4:18:06 PM
According to the book, Bush invested $700,000 of his own money. Cash that he had made from his oil investments and Air Force salary. The best thing that it did was make him a hands-on Texas politician, as ex-Gov Annie Richards found out.
7574. Ms. No - 5/16/2003 4:19:19 PM
Okay, so this is a more appropriate thread for this topic. I had a question regarding rdbrewer's post in International Message # 2574 in thread 139
rd,
I would say that almost any libertarian is going to be more objective than almost any socialist or social conservative.
Why? Objectivity has to do with what one will allow as pursuasive evidence not with what one's ultimate goals are.
7575. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:22:55 PM
arky -
To give due credit, I notice a bit belatedly that at least you weren't just one sided about x42's Arkansas education record.
7576. judithathome - 5/16/2003 4:23:46 PM
Air Force salary
Ha!
Yes, I'm certain you'd rather believe that. Go right ahead. Excuse me if I choose to believe people who were actually involved.
Concerned, Bush is president NOW...that is why I can rag on him. He is in office NOW.
7577. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:30:31 PM
Castro: 'We're #1 and North Korea is #2!'
Cahtuh: 'Yeah!'
7578. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 4:32:18 PM
The big mistake that some make about the current president is comparing GWB to his dad.
Better to understand his blue-haired WASP mother who moved from the rich Long Island Sound coastline of Rye, NY to Midland, Texas. She was the one who taught him. Tough woman, even after the death of her first daughter.
Yes. Bush Jr saved every penny, according to FIRST SON, including his military salary. Being a Harvard MBA, he made great contacts and kept his investors happy.
Once he stopped drinking, married that beautiful smart book-reading teacher, his sail was set.
7579. judithathome - 5/16/2003 4:33:43 PM
Oh, I get it now...PoohBah is a satirist.
7580. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:38:47 PM
PoohBah - watch what you say about GWB--anything positive and, BANG--JAH will be all over you like cornbread on a hotdog.
7581. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 4:44:53 PM
You're right, Con'd, I'm not. And some of what he did that had a negative effect is what we're having to deal with now, mainly increasing the power of the executive over the state's education system. It happens that it's hurting under a Republican governor, but either way, it's one reason I responded the way I did to the Dems walking out in Texas.
I'm all for anything that stops an attempt to mess with the balance of power of the three branches (state or national level and a huge reason I thought Clinton's impeachment a terrible mistake that was motivated solely by partisan politics), or to mess with the power of the people's votes based on socio-economic, racial, ethnic, party-line, or any other criteria. It takes guts for a minority to stop a move by the party in power to entrench either its position or that of one of the branches it controls. They never seem to think beyond their actions to the fact that in the future someone might be using the power they provided against them. It's exactly what happened with Clinton in AR (though Little Rock and other larger areas, Dem or Rep, still mistakenly think it's a good thing--it just hasn't come around to biting them in the butt yet).
It's also the reason I oppose term-limits and restricting felons from voting.
7582. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 4:45:00 PM
She should read some books on the subject, concerned.
Why some would want to portray him as a moron is beyond me. The guy kepts winning on every front---while his enemies try to excape to cheap hotels in bone-dry OK.
7583. Ms. No - 5/16/2003 4:45:12 PM
PoohBah - watch what you say about WJC--anything positive and, BANG--concerned will be all over you like cornbread on a hotdog.
7584. Ms. No - 5/16/2003 4:47:22 PM
Sorry, concerned, I just couldn't help it. It gave me the giggles.
7585. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:50:33 PM
Yah got me there, Ms.No.
7586. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 4:51:04 PM
I'd have ended the sentences at "watch what you say." MsNo. One hardly need mention even the initials to get Con'd going on x42.
7587. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 4:51:59 PM
But at least he's aware, as noted in '85. That's more than I can say for a lot of folks.
7588. judithathome - 5/16/2003 4:52:10 PM
PoohBah, I don't need to read any more books on Bush. I can see for myself, both when he was my governor and when he owned the baseball team in my city and from what the people who socialized with him tell me about him. I can also see what he is doing to this country now.
Concerned is a centrist. I guess that means the right can do wrong and the left can do nothing right. At least his brand of centrism leans that way.
By the way, PooBah, do you by any chance post at the Atlantic?
7589. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 4:53:54 PM
Clinton is an amazing politician. But he destroyed the Democratic Party by losing the House of Representatives to the Republicans in 1995.
7590. concerned - 5/16/2003 4:59:02 PM
Re. 7589 -
What's pathetic is that Xlowntoon's supporters rationalize all that away in their zeal.
7591. judithathome - 5/16/2003 5:00:33 PM
We wouldn't be so full of zeal if it didn't get you in such a swit, Concerned. ;-)
7592. concerned - 5/16/2003 5:01:10 PM
Actually, x42 was instrumental in throwing both the House and the Senate to the Republicans in the '94 elections with his unpopular initiatives.
7593. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 5:01:43 PM
Senate passes tax cut !
What a VICTORY !
7594. concerned - 5/16/2003 5:09:37 PM
Re. 7591 -
I sorta wish a real true believer like godlessclif, or even jexster would start posting here (with reduced spam, of course). Posters like them make it easier for me to look really astute. Ol' AC & wonkers are too much nice guys to satisfactorily really rake their occasional wing nut blathering over the coals.
7595. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 5:17:55 PM
Democratic partisan Susan Estrich has written a column in which she basically tells the Clintons to get the hell off the stage.
This is a sure sign that reality is dawning on some of these Democrats, because there are a decent percentage of them who think their only hope is Bill Clinton in power, strategizing, and Hillary in the White House, but not Estrich.
Estrich pulls no punches. She realizes the Clintons are holding Democrats back. She goes so far as to say, "Can we be honest with ourselves? Hillary Clinton is never going to be president."
Many think that the Democrats are hog-tied by the Clintons, and as long as Terry McAuliffe is at the chairmanship of the DNC, the Clintons are still running the show.
7596. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 5:22:14 PM
Where is the idea that she wants to be president coming from? I've been stupendously busy the past six months or so, but I can't find the source for all that Hilary Prez talk. Any talk of the Clintons controlling the Dems is goofy paranoia. They don't get anyone's attention but Republicans, who still can't resist trying to milk them for all they're worth (which was never a lot to begin with).
7597. concerned - 5/16/2003 5:26:35 PM
How's Hilliary getting along with Gephardt nowadays?
7598. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 5:37:10 PM
South Korea's president says that although North Korean leaders are more fearful of an American attack following the war in Iraq, that alarm may be "helpful" in resolving the ongoing nuclear standoff.
President Roh Moo-hyun met U.S. counterpart George W. Bush in Washington this week, and said Pyongyang is nervous after witnessing the United States' military capabilities during the war.
Asked if that fear helps or hurts efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions, Roh said in a television interview, "I think there is a bigger possibility of this factor being a helpful one towards peaceful resolution."
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/CNN-BOX-ARTICLE.html
That IDIOT, George W. Bush, BLUNDERED into another ingenious policy.
7599. judithathome - 5/16/2003 5:40:53 PM
Where is the idea that she wants to be president coming from?
From people like Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak. In other words, from Republicans.
7600. Edmund Dantes - 5/16/2003 5:45:00 PM
It's official: Four more years
7601. Pooh-Bah - 5/16/2003 5:46:28 PM
The idea that she wants to move back to Penn Ave comes from the fact that Arkansas-mother Hillary moved to New York and became a senator. Took a lot of White House furniture in the process.
She probably has a picture of herself shaking RFK hand somewhere.
7602. judithathome - 5/16/2003 5:47:02 PM
Nice that he made it official since he's been on one long campaign stump since 2001.
7603. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 5:47:25 PM
That's what I thought, Judith.
7604. Edmund Dantes - 5/16/2003 5:47:39 PM
All the Rodham talk is because none of the current Democratic candidates set NOW and the other party faithful's hearts a-flutter, post-WJC.
7605. judithathome - 5/16/2003 5:48:40 PM
PooBah, you sound so familiar. It's not just because you cound like Concerned, either.
7606. judithathome - 5/16/2003 5:49:52 PM
sound...not cound. Although "cound" could easily be a coined word for "sounding like Concerned".
7607. Edmund Dantes - 5/16/2003 5:51:10 PM
Good one, Judy.
Just when I think this place is becoming boring and staid, cound on you to let loose a corker like that.
7608. concerned - 5/16/2003 5:52:07 PM
Re. 7599 -
Don't you believe it. The following line: The Hillary Clinton Forum has been supporting Hillary for President since 1995 comes directly from the home page of http://www.hillary.org/
7609. judithathome - 5/16/2003 5:54:29 PM
Why, thank you Mister Dantes. I know I can count on you to show your true inclination to act as the courtly genmtleman we all know and love when the occasion arises.
7610. concerned - 5/16/2003 5:54:30 PM
So, let's not try to pin this on 'Republicans', ok?
7611. judithathome - 5/16/2003 5:55:25 PM
(By the way, Arky...#7609 is my first entry in the response contest.)
7612. judithathome - 5/16/2003 5:58:09 PM
Oh wake the hell up, Concerned...that isn't sponsored by Hillary Clinton.
From the site:
The Electronic Democracy ™ accepts no responsibility for the opinions expressed in the forum
Political Forum Rates
To set up a Political Forum for your own favorite person, candidate or cause please contact us in one of the following ways:
7613. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 6:00:36 PM
Hahaha.
Hey, I should dig up some of my recent gems. I think they would be easily adaptable.
Con'd aside (because I can't help it, I just like the guy!), the obsession of the RR over the Clintons STILL is beyond bizarre.
7614. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:01:07 PM
No, you wake up, JAH. I just showed that it's not Republicans driving the talk about a possible Hilliary candidacy for president with that big ass forum promoting same I linked.
7615. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 6:02:23 PM
The Republican Right Bogeyman:
If you go in there, the CLINTONS will get you.
If you don't behave, the CLINTONS will get you.
7616. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:07:04 PM
JAH is easily confused since she conflates comments on a subject by Republicans as being the source of the idea itself. She incidentally doesn't notice that she's also totally ignoring the large minority of Democrats who support Hilliary's candidacy for president.
7617. judithathome - 5/16/2003 6:07:58 PM
Concerned, not a day goes by that Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson or Bill O'Reilly doesn't make some comment about Hillary running in 2008.
I doubt anyone besides you thinks that site you linked to was put there by the woman herself.
The Republicans TALK about her being a candidate more than the Democrats ever have. And you know it.
7618. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/16/2003 6:11:33 PM
It's an interesting story.
7619. judithathome - 5/16/2003 6:11:53 PM
She incidentally doesn't notice that she's also totally ignoring the large minority of Democrats who support Hilliary's candidacy for president
I'm surprised you have enough tin foil left in your neighborhood to save leftovers, what with wrapping your hea in such thick layers of it.
Not only am I not ignoring that fact, I have never once mentioned any belief that Hillary should run or that she has any support whatsoever from anyone. Are you completely daft? And I love that "large minority"...nice touch.
7620. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:13:18 PM
I doubt anyone besides you thinks that site you linked to was put there by the woman herself.
What makes you think I ever thought that myself? I just nailed your flaming turkey of an idea about the a Hilliary run for president being nothing more than some sort of deep laid Republican conspiracy.
7621. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:13:28 PM
I doubt anyone besides you thinks that site you linked to was put there by the woman herself.
What makes you think I ever thought that myself? I just nailed your flaming turkey of an idea about a Hilliary run for president being nothing more than some sort of deep laid Republican conspiracy.
7622. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:14:20 PM
thread admin: please delete first one of duplicate post. TIA:)
7623. judithathome - 5/16/2003 6:16:18 PM
Concerned, take a deep breath and exhale slowly. You truly need more oxygen to your brain.
7624. judithathome - 5/16/2003 6:21:31 PM
I said that Republicans are talking about it more than anyone else. I said that Republicans are talking about it, period. I said they are mentioning it more than anyone.
Got that? Please, read it slowly. Arky said where is the idea that she is running for president coming from...I said Republicans. They are the ones talking about it. Democrats are not mentioning it over and over. Hillary is not mentioning it over and over. The people who ARE mentioning it over and over are Republicans.
7625. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:23:29 PM
The Republicans TALK about her being a candidate more than the Democrats ever have. And you know it.
If you say so. You probably listen to more talk radio than I do, IAC. Myself, I've now discussed the subject more with you right now & here more than I ever have in my life before. But, JAH, you would have to do nothing less than prove that Hilliary is not one of the most popular choices among Democrats for president as of today to even make a dent in my rebuttal of your silly proposition.
Plus, there's just something sorta pathetic about you going on about how 'Republicans' discussing the subject being the only thing propping up Hilliary's chances at becoming the Democrat presidential candidate.
7626. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:25:13 PM
Re. 7624 -
You're wrong. Millions of Democrats talk about Hilliary for prez aplenty. It's just that a handful of them don't get paid to do it on talk radio.
Sheesh!
7627. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:27:48 PM
Arky said where is the idea that she is running for president coming from...I said Republicans.
And you're wrong. It comes from Hilliary supporters. And I proved this with the link--since 1995 it said. Your position on the subject is patently ridiculous, JAH.
7628. judithathome - 5/16/2003 6:31:05 PM
I think we are both rather pathetic to keep going on and on about it, myself. But frankly, I find this:
there's just something sorta pathetic about you going on about how 'Republicans' discussing the subject being the only thing propping up Hilliary's chances at becoming the Democrat presidential candidate
to be a ludicrous statement. It IS the only thing propping it up because she will likely never have a chance in hell of getting the nod. No way, no how. But the more they discuss it and bandy it around, the more people like you will believe there is a chance...or that the Demmocrats even want her to be a candidate. I've got a clue for you...they don't.
Okay, I can think of one who does...Paul Begala.
And I only listen to NPR, not a lot of talk radio in my life at all.
7629. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:31:21 PM
I'm upset. Nobody's thanked me for finding the self-proclaimed Oldest, most famous, and most popular political forum on the Internet
Salon, Free Republic, the Mote, step aside. Hilliary's comin' through.
7630. judithathome - 5/16/2003 6:34:16 PM
The Political Forum they were referring to in that claim is the Electronic Democracy Forum, not the Hillary section of it.
7631. judithathome - 5/16/2003 6:37:13 PM
Excuse me, not "just" the Hillary....
7632. judithathome - 5/16/2003 6:39:38 PM
Have a nice weekend, Concerned.
7633. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:41:20 PM
Re. 7630 -
Well, gollee, JAH. If the wrong end of you ain't speaking, then how'd that sentence I quoted wind up directly under "Hillary Clinton Forum" without even a hint of any disclaimer whatsoever?
7634. concerned - 5/16/2003 6:44:52 PM
Re. 7632 -
You, too, JAH. Don't worry - I won't be rooting for her -I'm a Naderite this election season.
7635. Ms. No - 5/16/2003 6:55:27 PM
I just found 27 Internet forums that promote Mickey Mouse for President.
7636. Ms. No - 5/16/2003 6:58:57 PM
He's way ahead of the competition. Donald Duck has 12 sites and Goofy's only got 10.
All of them are doing better than the underdog, Santa Claus. He's got a song but no bbs. I doubt he'll even make it to the primary.
7637. concerned - 5/16/2003 7:15:49 PM
Well, after all that, I would say that Hilliary would most likely be, if elected, a better president than her husband was, if not as popular.
7638. concerned - 5/16/2003 7:22:04 PM
Probable Characteristics of a Hilliary presidency:
Pluses:
1)Not a scandal a week.
2)Discernable policy positions with a little constancy.
Minuses
1) She's deeply polarizing- probably couldn't build a bipartisan consensus to save her life.
2) Probably too much of an ideologue.
3) History of being excessively secretive.
7639. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 7:41:42 PM
My cartoon president pick
7640. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 7:44:01 PM
Pogo+president got 16,500 results on Google. And best of all, he's big in Florida.
7641. concerned - 5/16/2003 7:49:18 PM
Btw, I clicked some of those other 'electronic democracy' domain urls. They either routed me back to a Hilliary forum or were inactive. Nothing wrong with that, of course....
7642. concerned - 5/16/2003 7:50:09 PM
Arky -
Don't know about you, but I'm about all Hilliaried out at the moment.
7643. arkymalarky - 5/16/2003 8:47:21 PM
I've been Hillaried out since she was first lady of AR. I have a lot of regard for her competence, but I'm not fond of her for reasons I don't really know myself.
7644. ronski - 5/16/2003 10:13:54 PM
I have a lot of regard for her competence...
In what, exactly?
7645. rdbrewer - 5/17/2003 11:32:56 AM
Ms. No,
I said: "I would say that almost any libertarian is going to be more objective than almost any socialist or social conservative"
You said: "Objectivity has to do with what one will allow as pursuasive evidence not with what one's ultimate goals are."
Maybe one's ultimate goals are determined by what one will allow as persuasive evidence.
7646. judithathome - 5/17/2003 11:46:28 AM
Moebius Strip...
7647. arkymalarky - 5/17/2003 12:06:29 PM
Ronski,
Hillary Clinton was always known as an excellent lawyer, and her ability to amass, organize, and synthesize information is phenomenal. In addition she's an excellent parent and a very articulate and accomplished spokesperson for issues she works on. She's not compelling, but she knows her stuff and is excellent at presenting and defending it. No one who knows anything about her would deny her any of that.
7648. arkymalarky - 5/17/2003 12:14:03 PM
She can be combatitive and is not one you'd find fun to debate with, from what I hear, but finding a chink in her armor would be hard as well. I know from those who've dealt with her directly, and through the education reforms she was in charge of in AR that I discussed earlier. She's excellent at plain, old-fashioned, competent work on programs of Clinton's (or anyone else's), and they actually function well as a pair, he as the promoter and the one who can clearly deliver the big picture and she as the one who can follow through with the grunt labor and see that it's done correctly. They both have too much hubris and a tendency to bite off not more than they can chew, but more than what the people are ready to absorb, and they don't take a long enough view, imo, for what will happen with their reforms in the hands of others and and what likely non-direct impacts will be.
7649. concerned - 5/17/2003 5:14:29 PM
I find it easy to find chinks in what you call her 'armor'.
7650. concerned - 5/17/2003 5:15:08 PM
Being too much of an utopian would qualify as such.
7651. arkymalarky - 5/17/2003 11:12:20 PM
Oh pooh. If it's that easy, surely you can do better than that.
7652. concerned - 5/18/2003 4:03:43 AM
How is this suddenly some sort of contest. I could create a laundry list, if I want to. The woman is full of weaknesses.
7653. concerned - 5/18/2003 4:05:53 AM
And, for another, there's her excessive secretiveness....
7654. judithathome - 5/18/2003 10:05:05 AM
Oh, you mean like Bush, who is sealing records faster than they can be made?
7655. arkymalarky - 5/18/2003 12:42:04 PM
If you could create a laundry list, be my guest, Con'd. It isn't a contest. I made some assertions about Hillary based on what I know and you said you could come up with a lot of things that contradict them.
So have at it. Don't be shy.
And be specific. Secretive and utopian are far too general. I could say that about you. You could say it about me, for that matter.
7656. arkymalarky - 5/18/2003 12:42:41 PM
(I can just see him now, bent over his keyboard and poring through Freeper archives)
7657. concerned - 5/19/2003 2:15:26 AM
Re. 7655 -
Easy there, girl!
Here's another weakness of hers (#3): Hilliary also is very poor at building a consensus.
7658. concerned - 5/19/2003 2:16:10 AM
re. 7655 -
Not at all. I just have seen how she operates.
7659. concerned - 5/19/2003 2:17:45 AM
weakness #4: Hilliary doesn't tolerate differences from her opinions at all well.
7660. concerned - 5/19/2003 2:20:17 AM
weakness #5: Hilliary has demonstrated a low regard for facts as well as legal and constitutional precedent.
7661. concerned - 5/19/2003 2:20:51 AM
Five is getting to be quite a lot, but I can keep on going...
7662. concerned - 5/19/2003 2:30:30 AM
'Clinton Wars' Seems to Be Proving an Apt Title
Well, that's why he was nicknamed 'Sid Vicious' in the first place. He has always been a Xlowntoonian hack liar who won't back off when faced with the truth. The fact that he has managed to pack a whopper about Matthews into two sentences is a damning indictment of the truthfulness of his book.
7663. Ms. No - 5/19/2003 1:58:34 PM
rd re: Message # 7645
Maybe one's ultimate goals are determined by what one will allow as persuasive evidence.
One's ultimate goals are determined by one's value system which is entirely subjective. You strive for what you desire. How you determine the best method of achieving that desire is the objectivity/subjectivity question on topic.
In the context of this discussion, one's ultimate goals break down along party lines. You stated that Libertarians are more objective than those to the farther left and right of them ---leaving room for the extremes in all parties.
Without knowing how you're defining the criteria for objectivity I must tend to think that your judgement is subjective based on the fact that everyone thinks himself objective or that his political party is more in the right or more objective.
For instance, ask concerned about his objectivity or the relative objectivity of Republicans. You could ask Wiz the same questions about himself and his party affiliation and he's likely to tell you the same thing.
I tend to judge the objectivity of a poster by his level of vehemence toward perceived opponents. Name calling, obvious partisanship, wild accusations all lower my estimation of the individual's level of objectivity.
I've known fewer Libertarians than Dems or GOPers, but I can't say that they were significantly more objective or reasonable than anyone else. They have agendas like anyone else and some of them are rational, reasonable people and some are not.
7664. robertjayb - 5/19/2003 2:23:02 PM
Ari the Liar will follow his heart...(WashPost)
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, whose televised briefings gave viewers a daily window on President Bush in wartime, said today that he will resign this summer, probably in late July.
The change will leave Bush with a new face at the podium as he embarks on his reelection race. "I love this job," Fleischer told reporters at his off-camera "gaggle" this morning. "My heart tells me it's time to go."
7665. arkymalarky - 5/19/2003 5:59:22 PM
Con'd,
I mentioned #3 and #4 first.
7666. arkymalarky - 5/19/2003 6:00:16 PM
And I agree that 5 is quite a lot--to swallow.
7667. iiibbb - 5/20/2003 8:38:18 AM
I don't know what portion of vote spectrum I reside... however I don't like Kerry. If the Dems run Kerry this will be another sucky election. I think Mass. Democrats embody everything I dislike about the democratic party, and have none of the qualities I do like.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/915446.asp?0cv=CB10
I really recall him showing a lot of leadership wrt terrorism etc. Coulda-Woulda-Shoulda critiques are bogus as far as how we coulda-woulda-shoulda handled Saddam and Terrorism. Between the benefits of hindsight, and the fact that alternative plans never had to be tested by reality makes this kind campaigning a sure way to lose my vote at least.
And my vote is one of the ones that is actually up for grabs this election rather than those who will, and always have, voted for their 'party'.
7668. iiibbb - 5/20/2003 8:43:11 AM
What I want to know is what are you gonna do to fix the problems.
Major issues in my mind (in no particular order)
1) Social Security going bankrupt
2) Terrorism
3) Out-of-control litigation in this country
4) Energy crisis (not now, but the one coming down the pipe) and other environmental conservation issues. How are we going to make this country cleaner and more efficient?
7669. iiibbb - 5/20/2003 8:43:56 AM
5) Balancing the budget
7670. iiibbb - 5/20/2003 8:50:26 AM
I am very wary of 'Universal health care" mumbo jumbo. Everything the gov't touches turns to shit as people learn to manipulate the system. If the gov't fails on social security (and it will), then it will fail on health care. It will be a morass. Socialized medicine sucks... long waits and people are just treated like livestock.
7671. robertjayb - 5/20/2003 12:04:16 PM
Creeping fascism alert: Watch your step!
Houston Chronicle---WASHINGTON -- Watch your step! The Pentagon is developing a radar-based device that can identify people by the way they walk, for use in a new anti-terrorist surveillance system.
Operating on the theory that an individual's walk is as unique as a signature, the Pentagon has financed a research project at the Georgia Institute of Technology that has been 80 to 95 percent successful in identifying people.
If the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, orders a prototype, the individual "gait signatures" of people could become part of the data to be linked together in a vast surveillance system the Pentagon agency calls Total Information Awareness.
7672. robertjayb - 5/20/2003 1:24:16 PM
Screw all but the bosses...(Molly Ivins)
...when Republicans talk about "flexibility," it means letting business do whatever it wants without standards, mandates or worker and consumer rights.
7673. Wombat - 5/20/2003 1:29:33 PM
iibbb:
As opposed to our "system," which has long waits, people treated like cattle, and an existing inefficient bureaucracy that is seeking to make a profit.
7674. iiibbb - 5/20/2003 4:40:14 PM
Our system is better...
perhaps both systems treat people like cattle, but I think a gov't run system has a much higher propensity for it.
I've been through some minature socialized systems before. They are worse than when I had real insurance and could chose my doctor. About the only thing nice about it was that they handed out cold medicine like it was going out of style.
I was on food stamps for a time. I imagine that public health care would work about the same. Now talk about a place where you were a number instead of a name... plus long waits... plus inane paperwork. At least you can sue your insurance company and dr if they screw you bad enough... but if the gov't were in charge... then what?
Gov't health care would start out ok I'm sure... but 20-30-40 yrs down the road it will be an unaffordable package of 'benefits' including boob jobs and self-esteme transplants.... all done to the lowest bidder.
No thanks.
If the gov't wants to subsidize health insurance, then fine... just write me a check, but hell if I'm going to vote for gov't run health care.
7675. concerned - 5/20/2003 5:09:16 PM
Socialized Medicine Horror Stories from North of the Border - at least you have the 'consolation' they're not taking your money....before it's filtered through a dozen layers of government bureaucracy, that is.
7676. concerned - 5/20/2003 5:11:58 PM
And remember, wrt socialized medicine - Big Brother won't let you sue for malpractice.
7677. concerned - 5/20/2003 5:14:41 PM
But, overworked, understaffed, underpaid, underequipped quota-ridden salaried socialist medicine health care workers never, ever make mistakes or cut corners, right?
7678. judithathome - 5/20/2003 5:22:06 PM
I would like to advise all of you to buy a copy of Harper's Magazine, June issue, and read Get Rich or Get Out by Thomas Frank; it is subtitled Attempted Robbery with a Loaded Federal Budget.
Very enlightening and here is a little footnote to whet your interest:
A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the 2001 and 2002 tax cuts caused roughly 30% of the decline into deficit and that if they had not been enacted the budget would soon be back in surplus.
7679. concerned - 5/20/2003 5:29:37 PM
Anybody who starts out with the premise that reducing taxes amounts to robbery isn't likely to reach many sensible conclusions.
7680. judithathome - 5/20/2003 5:37:59 PM
Read the article and then tell me what you think. I think you might be surprised.
7681. wonkers2 - 5/20/2003 6:16:38 PM
Every time I have a chance to ask a Canadian how he likes Canada's single payer system I do so, and so far every one has said he likes it. And none has expressed more than minor issues with it. Not one has claimed that patients are "treated like cattle." In the U.S. too many are not treated at all. The main problem with our system is the inefficient and parasitic insurance industry and crooked for profit hospitals.
7682. wonkers2 - 5/20/2003 6:25:35 PM
And of course perhaps the most fundamental problem is tying it to employment with no requirement that employers provide health insurance. This means that a large proportion of the population has no health care insurance and don't receive adequate care.
The Social Security system will be fine for a long time with only minor changes. Here the fundamental problem is that with increased life expectancy the number of retirees compared to the number of workers supporting them is growing. Retirement is a relatively recent concept and needs to be refined and modified to encourage people who are able to do so to work longer. There is a fair amount of evidence that retirement is not good for mental or physical health.
7683. arkymalarky - 5/20/2003 7:39:31 PM
Socialized medicine sucks... long waits and people are just treated like livestock.
And we'd notice any difference from now?
7684. arkymalarky - 5/20/2003 7:40:40 PM
Oops. I see Wombat already pointed that out.
7685. arkymalarky - 5/20/2003 7:43:42 PM
There is a fair amount of evidence that retirement is not good for mental or physical health.
I'd like to test that one myself.
7686. iiibbb - 5/20/2003 8:45:19 PM
Message # 7681 And they are comparing what they like to what else they've experienced? I've talked to Canadians who complain that they can't change doctors when they want a second opinion.
Message # 7683
If there's no difference then why do you want to switch. The gov't would bungle this job... I have no doubt. When it comes to caring about customers... gov't workers are some of the lowest of the low. Nice people, little or no motivation to excel.
7687. arkymalarky - 5/20/2003 8:53:21 PM
Actually, what I want is better and much more broadly available government-subsidized health insurance for the working poor and a prescription drug plan. I'd also like to see major changes in insurance companies, but that's a separate issue.
7688. iiibbb - 5/20/2003 9:36:58 PM
but that's a whole different animal than public health care modelled after Canada. I would find something like that more agreeable.
Of course another way to reduce medical costs is to bring the whole medical profession back in line with reality. Drs have to make so much just to afford malpractice insurance. Our sue-happy society is one major factor that's made medical costs so high.
7689. OhioSTOPAS - 5/21/2003 6:21:42 AM
. . . and collusion among insurers has NOTHING to do with it, I'm sure.
7690. RickNelson - 5/21/2003 6:26:23 AM
I'm George Bush, Uh huh, hhhhhhuuuuuhhhhhhh, yuk yuk, I make jobs through small business entrepreneurs. My tax cuts to the small business' will stimulate the economy just like MCT Industries .
Associating with these owners is my honor, I'll help them any way I can. Give them contracts they sell the next day to a legitimate business, let them have ride along privileges with other larger contractors and make sure that they all get an even chance to bid and be awarded government contracts. I'm gonna be a gol-durn good prezeeeeedent fur sure!
7691. OhioSTOPAS - 5/21/2003 6:29:29 AM
How is the just-passed tax cut for dividend income - taxed at one-half for one year, tax-free for two years, then fully taxable again in the fourth -justified as sensible tax policy?
It's obvious (if it wasn't already) that the Republicans' goal in tax legislation is simply to cut already-wealthy persons' taxes by as much as possible, by whatever statute can get 51 votes. They have no other legislative objective in this area.
7692. RickNelson - 5/21/2003 6:42:00 AM
By the way, wrt the above link "Michael Kinsley wrote this article for the Washington Post."
7693. iiibbb - 5/21/2003 7:52:08 AM
If there is collussion among insurers the answer is not to federalize health care... the answer is to demand that laws be passed that prevent it... or if it already falls under anti-trust then fucking convict them.
But don't try to convince me that national, sociallized health care, is not going to be a complete screw job.
7694. judithathome - 5/21/2003 9:21:20 AM
Ohio:
It's obvious (if it wasn't already) that the Republicans' goal in tax legislation is simply to cut already-wealthy persons' taxes by as much as possible, by whatever statute can get 51 votes. They have no other legislative objective in this area.
Oh yes, they certainly do...pick up a copy of Harper's magazine as I advised upthread and read that article. Your blood will boil for sure.
They have laid it all out in the budget, a conglomeration of about 8 books which they are certain no one will take the time to read. These guys have some kind of gall...you really must read that article. Unfortunately, it is not on-line.
7695. judithathome - 5/21/2003 9:25:05 AM
And I know the author's premise is correct because his analysis of Bush's plan is exactly what Bush did in his former business dealings and in Texas as Governor. He gets his and his friends get theirs and then he's off to another job, smirking all the way to the bank and leaving the messes for others to clean up and worry about. It is a pattern that has held his entire life.
7696. robertjayb - 5/21/2003 2:38:01 PM
True to form: A GOP, DPS coverup...
AUSTIN, Texas - (KRT) - One day before Democrats ended their boycott of the Texas House last week, the Texas Department of Public Safety ordered the destruction of all records and photos gathered in the search for them, documents obtained Tuesday show.
A one-sentence order sent by e-mail on the morning of May 14 was apparently carried out, a DPS spokesman said Tuesday. The revelation comes as federal authorities are investigating how a division of the federal Homeland Security Department was dragged into the hunt for the missing Democrats - at the request of the state police agency.
7697. robertjayb - 5/21/2003 2:44:18 PM
Amazing how easily the Homeland Security apparatus was dragged into a matter of domestic partisan politics. That can't happen here---this is America. John Ashcroft will want to look into this for sure. Yeah...Right...
7698. arkymalarky - 5/21/2003 7:28:34 PM
I imagine that's just a little preview of what we can look forward to, Robert. I'm kicking into full paranoia mode, I must say.
3i3b,
Our sue-happy society is one major factor that's made medical costs so high.
That's what they want you to believe. There was a fascinating piece on NPR a while back about how insurance premium increases actually correlate to low interest rates, not higher awards in lawsuits. To say nothing of the fact that their profits are sky-high.
7699. Pooh-Bah - 5/21/2003 10:47:54 PM
As most will acknowledge, you can rarely believe what's broadcast on NPR.
7700. arkymalarky - 5/21/2003 10:54:02 PM
Bah, Pooh. It's one of the few real news sources left in the US.
7701. jayackroyd - 5/21/2003 11:00:26 PM
7698
Yes, that's true Arky. But it's also true that there is a cycle of rising premiums, rising profits, followed by falling premiums as insurance companies try to gain share. Then a splash of bad stuff happens and rates rise again.
As far as medical malpractice insurance goes, there have been a couple of studies that showed that most botched treatments do not result in suits or any other action and that many suits are not the result of botched treatments.
Howsoever, I have no sympathy as long as the AMA and state licensing boards choose to protect, rather than boot out, incompetent practicioners.
7702. arkymalarky - 5/21/2003 11:05:45 PM
I agree with you about the doctors.
7703. robertjayb - 5/22/2003 1:54:39 AM
7704. judithathome - 5/22/2003 10:18:21 AM
Excellent, Robert.
7705. judithathome - 5/22/2003 10:43:10 AM
Yes, Republicans have ethics. They are just a tad different than the ones most people have.
Top GOP Chief Says She Lied Deliberately
The Texas Republican Party chief told colleagues last week that she was deliberately using language in public statements that connoted "criminal wrongdoing" in a Democratic walkout that shut down the state House.
She acknowledged at another point in the conversation that the act was not criminal, but that it "probably should be," according to a tape of a conference call with party leaders obtained by the Chronicle.
State GOP Chairwoman Susan Weddington also said she believed that "God will protect the work we're doing" in support of Republican efforts to seek major changes in state government, including cuts in health care and other services.
Weddington, a Christian activist from San Antonio who has headed the state GOP since 1997, said in an interview Wednesday that she was referring to her own personal faith and not suggesting that God was taking sides in political battles.
"I just have a trust that God will protect me from the people who attempt to malign," she said.
(emphasis mine)
Let's hope some of the Democrats who stood their ground are Christian and have the same beliefs that God is protecting them from Weddington.
7706. concerned - 5/22/2003 12:03:24 PM
Re. 7705
'Rats have thin skin in Texas, eh, JAH? So, how is it that 'Rats believe that only they should be allowed to redistrict, even to redress electoral imbalances, as the Republicans are now trying to do in Texas?
7707. concerned - 5/22/2003 12:06:54 PM
Actually, I believe there are in fact legal issues when state legislators scurry away to some no-tell Motels over state lines to avoid their sworn duties. I'd just as soon they stay in OK.
7708. judithathome - 5/22/2003 12:23:04 PM
Concerned, despite your low opinion of the Democrats, they were not trying to uphold THEIR redistricting plan; the plans drawn up and that are in place and that meet the criteria mandated by the 200 census were done by an impartial court. They don't favor one party over the other. They were done by the court, not by one party or the other. But that is not enough of an assurance for Tom DeLay...he has been told to go to states where there might a be snowball's chance in hell of a Democrat sneaking in and being elected and redrawing the districts to favor Republicans because Bush's poll numbers are slipping and people may start to catch on that the idiot and his party are leading this country into a serious economic disaster.
I guess you have no comment on the fact the main representative of the Republican party in Texas deliberately lied and seemed quite proud of the fact. I guess that is right up your alley of admirable behavior. Seems to be since the only thing you can find to gripe about is that the Democrats blah blah blahdety blah.
7709. judithathome - 5/22/2003 12:23:42 PM
That's 2000 census, not 200.
7710. concerned - 5/22/2003 12:42:14 PM
When is using a connotation 'lying'? When JAH says so.
7711. concerned - 5/22/2003 12:45:27 PM
What connotation are we talking about here?
The phrase 'on the lam' was used wrt the truant 'Rats by the state GOP chairman.
It'd be highly entertaining for JAH to actually attempt to show how saying this amounts to a lie to anybody not living in a looking glass reality.
7712. judithathome - 5/22/2003 12:46:38 PM
When is using a connotation 'lying'?
When the lady admits doing so and knowing she was doing so and knowing it was untrue but doing so anyhow.
Careful...you're starting to parse what is is.
7713. concerned - 5/22/2003 12:48:26 PM
How's this? When Lefties stop lying about GWB's intelligence, maybe Weddington might reconsider using the phrase 'on the lam' to describe the flight of the Texas 'Rats. Oh, and the Texas media has regularly used precisely the same phrase in this context, so does this mean that they are all fabricating also, JAH?
7714. judithathome - 5/22/2003 12:48:55 PM
What is it about this staement that eludes your beleagured mind?
The Texas Republican Party chief told colleagues last week that she was deliberately using language in public statements that connoted "criminal wrongdoing" in a Democratic walkout that shut down the state House
7715. judithathome - 5/22/2003 12:51:20 PM
I'm finished making my point with you, concerned. Nothing I say will sway you and vice versa.
We seem to be the only people posting in this thread and I am leaving it to you, with my blessing. Spew on all you wish.
7716. concerned - 5/22/2003 12:57:15 PM
Sorry, JAH. You (and maybe Molly Ivins, but maybe even she wouldn't go there) are the only one jumping off that precipice of calling Weddington a liar for using a mere connotation which is not actually (horrors!) a denotation.
And, how have you forgotten? Using connotations in this way is only one of the tamer rhetorical tricks of most Lefties, so try not to wound your fellow travelers too grievously here, since they just can't stop lying anyway, by the standards you are placing on Weddington, and the Texas media, and just about everyone else who is disgusted by this shabby trick from the Texas House 'Rats.
Besides, the LW 'ethics' (such as they are) playbook specifically say borrowing the tactics of the political opposition is just peachy. So, argue your way out of that one, if you dare.
7717. concerned - 5/22/2003 12:59:39 PM
Re. 7714 -
So, show me where it says she lied. (It doesn't).
7718. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2003 1:07:47 PM
Pinned down and writhing.
7719. concerned - 5/22/2003 1:16:16 PM
Besides, usage of the phrase 'on the lam' is sometimes used facetiously or applied to situations in which the truant is guilty of wrongdoing or his/her/its absence creates real or potential difficulty of some sort, but has not broken any specific law. So, Weddington cannot honestly be said to have lied here.
Examples:
Eight Thousand Atlantic Salmon on the Lam in Clayoquot Sound--www.ancientrainforest.org
Glam On The Lam! Gift Sets--Glamkitty
Texas Democrats stay on the lam -- The Washington Times 5/14/03
7720. concerned - 5/22/2003 1:18:55 PM
Pelle -
If you don't dare come down from the fence wrt JAH's assertion, then your post must be self-referential.
7721. concerned - 5/22/2003 1:20:04 PM
I'm ready to laugh at Pelle, too, if he infers the WT is 'lying', too.
7722. concerned - 5/22/2003 3:15:39 PM
IAC, regardless of whether we're talking making it or breaking it, the Texas House 'Rats are still on the lam because they're running away from the law.
7723. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2003 4:13:14 PM
Pinned down, writhing and huffing.
7724. wonkers2 - 5/22/2003 5:27:46 PM
I hope everybody caught Frank Rich's devastating column on the decline and fall of Bob Bennett in last Sunday's NYT. It was one of his best. Very smart man.
Also, I heard that Warren Buffett wrote a great op-ed recently in the Washington Post exposing Bush's tax program for what it is--a give-away to the rich. He compared what he would get out of the program (a lot) versus the benefit to his secretary (very little). But to listen to Bush his program is designed to benefit low and middle income folks. He has less respect for the truth than anybody since Nixon. Maybe less than Nixon.
Meanwhile, his education program is bombing all over the country because local politicians can stand the heat from parents whose kiddies don't pass the test for graduation. The program is being exposed for the fraud that it is.
And I wonder when the suburbanites will figure out why it is that their college grad kids are moving back in because they can't get anything more than minimum wage jobs, thanks to Bush's economic follies.
7725. concerned - 5/22/2003 6:20:27 PM
Gosh, wonkers. What if they never figure that out?
7726. robertjayb - 5/22/2003 6:30:24 PM
Last night on Nightline Warren Buffett was asked about charges of class warfare leveled at opponents of the bushie tax scheme. He replied that if there was a class war then we (meaning himself and other rich people) are winning.
7727. arkymalarky - 5/22/2003 6:33:56 PM
Meanwhile, his education program is bombing all over the country because local politicians can stand the heat from parents whose kiddies don't pass the test for graduation. The program is being exposed for the fraud that it is.
It's wreaking havoc, especially since they've bled the states of funds to support it. Fat cats are getting federal tax cuts, and what little the rest are getting is being replaced by state taxes that are even higher, just so the states can stay afloat.
I've been suggesting "No Child Left Behind" be retroactive back to its creator. It's not a bad idea, but like most of his, it's incredibly simplistic and no means of implementing it or adjusting for it is offered.
And yes, Con'd (preemptive is so "in" these days, I thought I'd try it), we all know that Bush supposedly had higher SATS than Gore. Maybe the classification of idiot savant applies more broadly than we realized.
7728. OhioSTOPAS - 5/22/2003 8:54:42 PM
Did Connie say Bush had higher SAT's than Gore? I must have missed that.
Defending Bush: "He IS smart: he had decent SAT's when he was 16!" Well, one goes with what one's got.
7729. OhioSTOPAS - 5/22/2003 8:56:39 PM
The American Prospect on Texas Redistricting and Other Republican Games:
"In Texas last week, Tom DeLay tried unsuccessfully to reopen the state's decennial reapportionment process, which was signed, sealed and codified last year. . . . Republicans abruptly announced the resumption of hostilities that by law and custom were over, for the simple reason that the Reeps thought they could win big. To be sure, some democratic niceties may get trampled in their zeal. By law, reapportionments are to be enacted just once a decade, following the census, which keeps the majority party from perpetually reinventing districts to its own advantage (and the bewilderment of constituents). But with Republicans winning control of the Texas Legislature last November, DeLay was certain he could squeeze more GOP congressmen out of Texas if his Austin underlings would just redraw those lines one more time. . ..
"The plebiscite suddenly called to exploit a shift in public sentiment, the ceaseless redrawing of districts to maximize the margin of the majority party, the (come to think of it) election of a president by a partisan court -- these are less the marks of a mature democracy than they are of a banana republic. Which, I suppose, is what you get from a government of banana Republicans."
7730. arkymalarky - 5/22/2003 11:45:58 PM
Our Republican governor was really mad in the 2000 election and accused Democrats of messing with the voting. He called AR a banana republic, and the bitter irony of that in light of how things are now is painfully obvious.
Gov Huckabee wants outside supervision of AR's election process
Of course the same news mag thinks Huckabee is just peachy since they support consolidation based on numbers only. They couldn't care less what his plan actually SAYS. That would require reading more than 5 minutes.
We lost another banana Republican governor today--Frank White died. He was famous for 1) defeating Clinton in 1980, 2) losing again to him in 1982, and 3) supporting a creation science law that was struck down in the USSC. AR political cartoonist George Fisher used to always draw him eating a banana because of #3. I tried to find a cartoon of it, but no luck.
7731. arkymalarky - 5/22/2003 11:50:30 PM
Hmm. Rereading that op-ed, it's accurate down the line, to a T--completely pegged. Too bad they don't still see the same disgusting tactics and characteristics now that he happens to be on an issue they like. He's a courageous maverick these days.
Ugh.
7732. concerned - 5/23/2003 2:32:53 AM
Re. 7728 -
Sorry to disappoint you, but I never posted any such thing. Perhaps arky can explain why she told this fib about me.
What I did post is that if the Democrats throw up a candidate for the 2004 election who has not scored as well on the SAT as GWB has, given the 'Rats frantic efforts to capitalize on Bore's relative SAT scores during the 2000 presidential campaign season, the Republicans have earned the right to rub the Dems' noses in it up until election day. So, actually, what I posted about this was entirely different that what arky said I did. Capische?
7733. judithathome - 5/23/2003 10:27:15 AM
Here's two great ideas in bold type (emphasis mine): Riding A New Wave
It seems as if Wesley Clark is everywhere these days. Clark, a highly decorated military officer who served as Commander of NATO during the campaign in the Balkans, is now a military analyst for CNN. He's among the most popular of a new crop of talking heads getting plenty of airtime recently with the United States' invasion of Iraq.
But Clark made news earlier this year for something that has nothing to do with war, when he was named as chairman of WaveCrest Laboratories, a formerly obscure Virginia company that's on the verge of making its own big news.
WaveCrest's focus is on a patented Adaptive Motor the company claims will revolutionize transportation as we know it. With silent operation and zero emissions, the WaveCrest approach would replace the entire drive system of an automobile -- combustion engine, transmission, differential, cooling system, mufflers, catalytic converters and tail pipe -- with a single motor positioned at each vehicle wheel. By losing the drive system, which can account for more than half the total weight of a car, WaveCrest claims the resulting vehicle will be lightweight, efficient, and cheaper, since so many typical engine components would be eliminated.
The motor can be designed "into the kind of doughnut shape that Detroit has been looking for for years," Clark said to the Washington Post. "This fits in the wheel of a car."
WaveCrest demonstrated good timing in appointing Clark now, capitalizing on his newfound popularity and garnering some new publicity in the process. The hype has especially picked up amid rumors that Clark is mulling a run for the presidency, with some Internet posts saying that Clark's move could play well with the environmental vote.
7734. Wombat - 5/23/2003 10:33:40 AM
Tom DeLay only believes in democracy when the Republicans are losing.
7735. robertjayb - 5/23/2003 3:57:39 PM
DeLay cops to role in aircraft search...
U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay admitted Thursday he provided Texas Speaker Tom Craddick with the same information that state police used to enlist a homeland security agency in the search for runaway Democratic legislators.
7736. judithathome - 5/23/2003 4:01:37 PM
That sleaze.
7737. judithathome - 5/23/2003 4:05:21 PM
Homeland Defense Secretary Tom Ridge, meanwhile, said Thursday his agency is investigating "potentially criminal" misuse of the federal air interdiction service by the DPS.
DeLay said he played no part in the DPS' decision to contact the federal air interdiction service. And Craddick denies knowing anything about how the DPS came to call the agency.
"I don't know who contacted who," Craddick said
Craddick just looks worse and worse. He looked like a weak choice for Speaker before but now?...limp lizzy.
7738. wonkers2 - 5/23/2003 4:36:39 PM
Forwarded by a friend: George Bush's record breaking accomplishments:
1. Biggest annual deficit
2. Most private bankruptcies in any 12-month period
3. Biggest drop in stock market
4. Most vacation days in 1st year in office of any president
5. Presided over worst security failure in U.S. history after taking entire month of August on vacation
6. 2 million Americans lost their jobs in his first 2 yrs.
7. Appointed more convicted criminals than any President
8. Cut health care benefits for war veterans
9. All-time record for people world wide demonstrating in protest of a U.S. president, shattering record for any individual protested in history of mankind
10. Abrogated, backed out of or refused to sign more treaties than any president
11. Presided over the biggest corporate stock frauds in the history of the world
12. First president to order an unprovoked attack and occupation of another nation
13. Created largest federal government bureaucracy
14. Largest annual federal budget increases
15. U.S. removed from U.N. Human Rights Commission
16. Most corporate election campaign contributions
17. Most money spent on focus groups and polls of any president
18. First president to run and hide when U.S. attacked
19. With his disengagement policy, created most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations ever
20. 1st president to have 71% of Europeans view U.S. as greatest threat to world peace
21. Compromised more individual freedoms and civil liberties than any president
Kelly Kramer (edited/shortened by wonkers2)
7739. ronski - 5/23/2003 6:10:19 PM
Wonkers' post is all very silly, but I especially love the last one:
Compromised more individual freedoms and civil liberties than any president.
Clearly the author hasn't heard of Lincoln.
7740. concerned - 5/23/2003 6:17:23 PM
Re. 7738 -
One would certainly live up to the appellation 'Bonkers', and then some, by personally assigning responsibility for this pack of lies to GWB.
7741. concerned - 5/23/2003 6:19:50 PM
The only guilty party I see is whoever fabricated the list.
7742. concerned - 5/23/2003 7:37:19 PM
From NYP online:
May 23, 2003 -- SENATE Minority Leader Tom Daschle blundered yesterday when he accidentally mixed up two black reporters who've been covering him for years. PBS off-camera reporter Linda Scott, who has covered Congress for more than 20 years, raised her hand at a press conference to ask the South Dakota Democrat a question about the Republican economic stimulus package. Daschle apparently got her confused with CBS producer Evelyn Thomas, the only other African-American female television producer who regularly covers Congress. Thomas was not even in the room at the time. "Yes, Evelyn," said the Senator, nodding at Scott. The other reporters present at the time gasped. Daschle's slip left Scott visibly angry; she pointedly told Daschle that she looks nothing at all like her black colleague. "It's Linda, and I know we don't look alike," fumed Scott, who then asked Daschle about the tax cut. Later, Scott told The Post's Vince Morris she's bitter, but that Daschle isn't the only politician to do it: "To me it's that old thing about 'oh, they all look alike,' " said Scott.
I'm deeply saddened and perturbed by Daschole's racist attitude.
7743. arkymalarky - 5/23/2003 8:22:02 PM
I'm a Democrat, Con'd. A Liberal Democrat. Telling fibs is just part of our nature. Or it could be that part of our nature is to too often and too quickly skim rants of Far Right...I mean Centrist...Republicans. I mean Non-Partisans. Non-Partisan Centrists. That's what I meant.
7744. wonkers2 - 5/23/2003 9:23:48 PM
"I'm deeply saddened and perturbed by Daschole's racist attitude."
What a crock!
7745. wonkers2 - 5/23/2003 9:26:29 PM
From a representative of the party of lawn jockeys, sadly once the party of Lincoln.
7746. arkymalarky - 5/23/2003 9:33:23 PM
When I'm busy I'm like my grandmother was. She used to just file through the list of grandkids until she hit the one you responded to. I do it all the time with students when I'm in the middle of something, without regard to race or gender. Just because the two women happened to be black means jack.
Except in the fevered brains of the Righ-Wing dominated media, of course.
7747. arkymalarky - 5/23/2003 9:35:28 PM
They do it to me, too, btw. I'm never offended at being called the wrong teacher--or flattered as the case may be. It's especially that way when we're wrapping up a hectic semester. If everyone was that hyper-sensitive about it no one would be speaking to anyone else by the end of the term.
7748. jayackroyd - 5/23/2003 10:08:32 PM
I also got the email wonkers is citing. I thought the first half was funnier:
George W. Bush Resume
Past work experience:
--Ran for congress and lost.
--Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
--Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
--Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa.
--With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
Accomplishments:
--Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
--Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America.
--Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
--Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
--Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.
Concerned and Ronski need to get a life. I suppose the guy who wrote this stuff may be serious, but it's impossible to take it seriously.
7749. judithathome - 5/23/2003 10:44:11 PM
SENATE Minority Leader Tom Daschle blundered yesterday when he accidentally mixed up two black reporters who've been covering him for years
Maybe he needs to take a page from Bush's log and call them all by stupid nicknames. Or refer to them as "major league assholes"...yeah, that's the ticket!
7750. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/23/2003 11:35:59 PM
. . . Every Memorial Day I think about what these men did and what we owe them. They didn't go through hell so Kenny Boy Lay could betray his investors and workers at Enron, or for a political system built on legal bribery. It wasn't for corporate tax havens in Bermuda, or an economic system driven by the law of the jungle, or so a handful of media buccaneers could turn the public airwaves into private sewers.
Sure, to paraphase Donald Rumsfeld, freedom makes it possible for people to be crooks, but so does communism, and fascism, and monarchy. Democracy is about doing better. It's about fairness, justice, human rights, and yes, it's about equality, too; look it up.
I was never called on to do what soldiers do; I'll never know if I might have had their courage. But a journalist can help keep the record straight, on their behalf. They thought democracy was worth fighting for, even dying for. The least we can do is to help make democracy worthy of them. [Bill Moyers]
7751. robertjayb - 5/24/2003 1:10:21 AM
FAA to review plane search propriety...
WASHINGTON (AP)--Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has ordered a review of the Federal Aviation Administration's role in helping U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay track the plane of a Democrat who led a walkout from the Texas legislature.
The review is the second federal agency inquiry into how Texas Republicans handled a Democratic walkout aimed at killing a congressional redistricting bill that would likely hand the GOP four additional seats. The Homeland Security Department has also announced an investigation into how its resources were used.
7752. robertjayb - 5/24/2003 1:19:09 AM
Cross examinations coming?
A grand jury in Travis County, which includes the state capital of Austin, is investigating the destruction last week of state documents related to the manhunt by the state police, who had been ordered by Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick and other Republican lawmakers to round up the absent Democrats and bring them back to the Capitol.
District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, said yesterday that his office was looking into the matter but would not confirm the grand jury's involvement.
"We are currently examining the circumstances surrounding the destruction of those records," Earle said in a telephone interview from Austin. "The questions include what records were destroyed under what authority and why the records were destroyed so quickly."
7753. concerned - 5/24/2003 2:26:16 AM
I suppose the guy who wrote this stuff may be serious, but it's impossible to take it seriously.
Wombat took it seriously enought to effectively solicit comments in this forum on it, such as yours......care to get a life?
7754. concerned - 5/24/2003 2:28:37 AM
Sorry, I meant Wonkers.
7755. concerned - 5/24/2003 3:26:38 AM
From rjb's link:
The plane information is routinely available, the FAA spokesman said, but the department's general counsel will still conduct an internal review as to whether DOT employees acted appropriately.
``I asked a staffer to contact the FAA for publicly available flight information that any member of Congress gets from FAA--or you can get it off the Internet--as to the whereabouts of a certain plane, of a certain tail number.
So, the entire disturbance is over nothing more than whether a DeLay staffer made a phone call to the FAA rather than logging onto the internet to obtain generally available public domain information.
The 'Rats must be desperate to be gnawing on content free tripe like this.
7756. concerned - 5/24/2003 3:34:02 AM
How about having some investigations into the wrongdoings of the truant Texas House 'Rats who are defaulting on their sworn responsibilities as legislators? Those would be far more substantive.
7757. concerned - 5/24/2003 3:49:09 AM
Re. 7752 -
No source? What documents were suspected of being 'destroyed' - I destroyed several myself today at work - they were obsolete file and document printouts along with a couple of old flyers and magazines that I either shitcanned or shredded. Why not have the Travis County Grand Jury investigate me while they're about their foolishness?
7758. concerned - 5/24/2003 3:54:36 AM
If there's no source for rjb's cite, it must be because those dastardly Republicans destroyed it. Yeah, that's it...
7759. judithathome - 5/24/2003 11:41:25 AM
Keep squirming, Concerned. Soon we will have Securitygate. And you can keep blowing off that there's nothing there...and there may well be nothing there...but you'll get to see how it feels to have a something made of nothing.
Of course, there was no reason to destroy those documents and by having done so, the DPS makes it look as though something could have been made of something.
7760. wonkers2 - 5/25/2003 9:28:29 AM
Why Bush's Education Policy Isn't Working
Some facts from our Sunday paper illustrate the fradulence of Bush's high stakes testing policy. The headline is "Michigan still shortchanges poor schools." The highest per pupil expenditure in the Detroit area is $6148 per year in Bloomfield Hills, a rich suburb where sixth graders all get Palm Pilots. The lowest is Clintondale, a poor McComb county suburb where the annual per student expenditure is $2030, only one third of its rich neighboring community. The city of Detroit spends $3100 per capita, 50 percent more than Clintondale but only half that of Bloomfield Hills. Moreover, a significant portion of Detroit's expenditures goes for court mandated district-wide busing, and maintenance of aging physical facilities.
These differences in funding are reflected in fundamental differences such as teacher-pupil ratios and class sizes--15 students per teacher in Bloomfield Hills and nearly double that in Detroit--teacher salaries, curriculums and support for extra-curricular activities. These differences in turn are reflected in standardized test scores and graduation rates.
Bush's policy of mandating testing as a way to improve education without the funding/policy/teacher training/salary/class size/administrative structure, etc, improvements is a fradulent and empty promise.
How to improve education is not a mystery--just go to Bush's own roots--Andover Academy, Bloomfield Hills public schools or other rich kids'schools and look at the per-pupil resources provided, teacher qualifications, class sizes, counselling services, etc. The only possible justification for Bush's high stakes testing is that, by exposing deficiencies, it may cause some communities, if they have the resources, to address the problems.
7761. wonkers2 - 5/25/2003 10:02:33 AM
In the meantime, students in deficient school systems who didn't drop out, got passing grades, and did what was expected of them may be denied diplomas, due to the failure of their system. Not a good solution. It puts the cart before the horse. The deficient systems should be improved before labelling the students as deficient. Where is our fundamental sense of fairness?
7762. wonkers2 - 5/25/2003 10:10:47 AM
There's a priceless op-ed on Iraq by Maureen Dowd in this morning's NYT. Also a good one yesterday by Krugman on the very real danger of Japanese-style deflation in the U.S. Not pleasant reading.
Erratum: I obviously meant Bill Bennett, not Bob, above in my comment on Frank Rich's reduction of Bill Bennett to a hypocritical, stinking pile of shit in his May 18 piece entitled "Tupac's Revenge on Bennett."
7763. ronski - 5/25/2003 11:13:05 AM
A single comment about a post's historical inaccuracy and I'm accused of obsessing? Hrrummph.
7764. judithathome - 5/25/2003 11:31:53 AM
by exposing deficiencies, it may cause some communities, if they have the resources, to address the problems.
But they won't have the resources because they are out of money. I think over three quarters of the states in this country are running deficits and most are cutting education funds, not adding to them.
7765. judithathome - 5/25/2003 11:35:45 AM
And this morning I hear the Bush administration is mulling over taking steps to destablize Iran's goverment. As Reagan once said, there he goes again.
The American people are going to wake up one morning with no hope and none to be had because it is all being shoveled overseas to fight wars with nations we are later going to rebuild. While this one crumbles from within.
7766. wonkers2 - 5/25/2003 2:09:22 PM
Garrison Keillor's take on Bush's tax program. It's a trickle down program--cutting taxes for the rich will trickle down to ordinary folk in the form of bigger tips.
7767. judithathome - 5/25/2003 2:12:15 PM
Except many rich people are notoriously cheap tippers.
7768. ronski - 5/25/2003 2:40:03 PM
The American people are going to wake up one morning with no hope and none to be had because it is all being shoveled overseas to fight wars with nations we are later going to rebuild. While this one crumbles from within.
Sounds serious.
7769. judithathome - 5/25/2003 3:02:46 PM
Well, maybe I was a tad dramatic in that post. But I do think it is folly to take on another war in a country we wish to "destablize" when we still have two that are in shambles thanks to us.
On the news this morning was a report that today in Iraq, more children are suffering from malnutrition than before the war. We need to learn how to do a better job repairing the places we destroy before we start in on another one.
7770. judithathome - 5/25/2003 3:03:58 PM
Left out an "i" in destabilize.
7771. ronski - 5/25/2003 6:18:07 PM
I read the Iran story. I can't think of country that needs destabilization more. And now is the time to do it, not a couple of years from now when they have nukes.
The young people in the country want to get rid of the mad mullahs, anyway.
7772. judithathome - 5/25/2003 11:03:53 PM
Seems like we've heard that old song before. Think they will be shooting at our young soldiers after the liberation?
7773. wonkers2 - 5/26/2003 9:42:46 AM
The neocon Pentagon liars have moved on from Iraq to Iran. There's another story about Iran every day preparing the American public for another possible conflict. After Iraq I wonder if we will be so easily duped by lies and exaggerations about alleged dangers from Iran.
7774. ronski - 5/26/2003 11:03:25 AM
You mean Iran's mullahs do not want to build an Islamic bomb?
Whew! Am I ever relieved!
7775. ronski - 5/26/2003 11:06:40 AM
Think they will be shooting at our young soldiers after the liberation?
Not the young people. Anyway, it's not the plan to send troops.
Not that I am at all sure it will work. Probably time will end that regime, not what the U.S. does.
7776. judithathome - 5/26/2003 11:21:02 AM
Ronski, are you okay with the US jumping every country that is rumored to have ideas about WMD? And do you trust the intelligence the US is being given?
I'm skeptical and yes, I would be skeptical if a Democrat administration were in power, too. This rush to destabilize governments and start wars is a bad idea.
7777. judithathome - 5/26/2003 11:22:53 AM
After all, the intelligence we were given prior to 9/11 was a little less than stellar and much of what we've been told about Iraq was not proven...what is it that makes this administration trust so much intelligence that might be bogus?
7778. ronski - 5/26/2003 11:46:16 AM
Actually, I'm committed to the notion that we should prevent any rogue state from developing nuclear weapons.
But there are distinctions to be made, for sure. North Korea does not pose as great a threat as a nuclear Iran would, for example. The North Koreans are just trying to blackmail the U.S. We give them money, etc., and things should be fine.
Extremist Islamic countries are another matter. They have too many people in their midst who want to nuke Israel and the U.S., whatever the consequences.
I would also be concerned about some non-Islamic states, who might see selling nukes as a way to make money, but I think that scenario is far less likely. Just needs watching.
As for whether our intelligence is any good, it certainly seems to have been wanting in Iraq, though I think it was worth going in there anyway.
The following was added by one of our cats:
mnj
Cat code, perhaps; the way they communicate with one another the Internet?
7779. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2003 12:53:36 PM
The notion that Iran is an "extremist Islamic country" is very, very dated.
7780. robertjayb - 5/26/2003 1:02:46 PM
Houston Chronicle
7781. ronski - 5/26/2003 1:04:42 PM
Not really, given the theocrats' continuing power. I certainly wouldn't trust that leadership with the bomb.
Much of the rest of the citizenry, especially the young, are not extremist at all, which is precisely the point I have been making.
But they perhaps could use a little help overthrowing the mullahcracy, and perhaps they don't really need it.
7782. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2003 1:34:24 PM
Open US support of the opposition in Iraq would be a kiss of death. Unfortunately, it seems to have been delivered already in another demonstration of the ineptness of US diplomacy as conducted by the Pentagon.
7783. alistairconnor - 5/26/2003 3:34:37 PM
Alaska State Resolution
Passed Unanimously in the Senate on May 20, 2003
Passed in the House 37-1 on May 21, 2003
Hawaii Senate Resolution Opposing the USA PATRIOT Act reaffirming the state of hawaii's commitment to civil liberties and the bill of rights
I find myself moved to tears by these affirmations of Pacific values.
7784. robertjayb - 5/26/2003 6:11:47 PM
Blasphemy from a Federal Reserve banker...
WASHINGTON -- (Reuters) -- A large gulf between the rich and poor can tear at a society's fabric, departing New York Federal Reserve Bank President William McDonough said last week, calling U.S. income disparity "unsustainable."
"Certainly rewarding achievement is good, but the disparities in income distribution when taken too far have the potential to distort the economic and social fabric of our societies," McDonough said in a commencement address at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
7785. wonkers2 - 5/26/2003 7:12:31 PM
The rationale for executive compensation is based on false or at least partially false or simplistic assumptions about what motivates people to work hard and be productive. These false assumptions about human motivation have led to grossly excessive payments linked by various schemes, (usually devised by the executives themselves to justify their compensation) to profits or alleged performance. It isn't necessary and is in fact counter-productive to link compensation so directly to "performance" or to pay CEOs 400 times the average wage in their companies. Such schemes have proven to be a license to steal.
7786. jayackroyd - 5/26/2003 11:02:11 PM
You're being way too subtle, imo, wonkers.
The people who sit on boards are ceos, and they decide the value of ceo performance. When things are good, ceos are to be rewarded for their effectiveness. When things are bad, ceos are to be rewarded for staying around in times of trouble. And, of course, if ceos fail and are fired, they deserve guarantees of their future financial security, because, um, well, because they're CEOs, like the board members are.
It's a disgrace, and if the big shareholders don't step up, it will continue.
7787. wonkers2 - 5/26/2003 11:30:06 PM
License to steal. Too subtle? We agree. It's a disgrace. Too bad more don't follow the example of Sam Walton, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner and Herb Kelleher. Too many are grabbing the money but not delivering the goods.
But my point is that people can and are motivated by many things other than money. But our compensation systems are premised only or primarily on money.
7788. robertjayb - 5/27/2003 12:46:03 AM
Seeking a fiscal train wreck...(Krugman)
The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum." So wrote the normally staid Financial Times, traditionally the voice of solid British business opinion, when surveying last week's tax bill. Indeed, the legislation is doubly absurd: the gimmicks used to make an $800-billion-plus tax cut carry an official price tag of only $320 billion are a joke, yet the cost without the gimmicks is so large that the nation can't possibly afford it while keeping its other promises.
But then maybe that's the point. The Financial Times suggests that "more extreme Republicans" actually want a fiscal train wreck: "Proposing to slash federal spending, particularly on social programs, is a tricky electoral proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the tantalizing prospect of forcing such cuts through the back door."
7789. robertjayb - 5/27/2003 1:14:42 AM
Rosemary Wood* is alive and well and working in Austin
Houston Chronicle--AUSTIN -- Texas state police officials on Monday blamed a faulty duplication machine for a five-hour gap in a Capitol security tape that was given to a House committee investigating how authorities handled the Democratic walkout.
"I don't know if people are trying to run out the clock so we're not in town any more or if it's just incompetence. Either one is bothersome," said Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, chairman of the House General Investigating Committee.
*(for the chronologically limited: Rosemary Wood was the Richard Nixon secretary who erased 18 1/2 minutes of smoking gun Watergate tape.)
7790. OhioSTOPAS - 5/27/2003 6:35:37 AM
What robertjayb calls "chronologically limited," others would call "not as old as dirt."
(Alas, I am a member of the old-as-dirt club and therefore remember Rosemary Woods well.)
7791. judithathome - 5/27/2003 9:55:08 AM
Ohio, those were the days, huh? A president shaking his fist at the public and declaring "I am not a crook!"; cover-ups; secrecy about meetings in the White House; telling the public one thing while doing another; the palace guard obscuring what was really going on....ah, yes.
7792. Wombat - 5/27/2003 11:58:09 AM
North Korea is much more dangerous. If/when we give in to their blackmail, they will attempt to find a way around whatever agreement is signed, and continue selling nuclear and missile technology to whoever has the money to buy it.
7793. wonkers2 - 5/27/2003 12:34:56 PM
I'm pleased to report that I've tested the NYT front page article on Teresa Heinz Kerrey on four women in my life, including my own spouse, and all of them said they would be more, not less inclined to vote for Kerrey for President because of his brainy and outspoken wife. Three of the four are Democrats and one is an independent.
7794. judithathome - 5/27/2003 12:47:00 PM
Can you link to the article, Wonkers?
7795. wonkers2 - 5/27/2003 6:31:46 PM
I clipped it and gave it to a lady friend. I think it's too old to link. It was a couple or three weeks ago--front page NYT. Teresa is a very interesting, beautiful and high powered lady--willing to talk about most anything from her work on health care in Massachusetts to her botox treatments and pre-nuptial agreement. Born Portuguese in Mozambique; speaks 5 languages; very beautiful, bright and outspoken; and very rich (Heinz 57). The GOP is worried about getting her riled up enough that she will pour millions into hubby's campaign. Kerrey's campaign people worry that she's too outspoken and unconventional for middle America. But some compare her charisma to Jackie Kennedy's. The only thing lacking are nude shots from Skorpios.
7796. judithathome - 5/27/2003 6:38:17 PM
Thanks...she sounds like just the ticket. A smart looker. ;-)
7797. wonkers2 - 5/27/2003 6:38:50 PM
Kerrey's best line to date: "Santorum, that's Latin for asshole!"
7798. wonkers2 - 5/27/2003 6:40:09 PM
Yes, an unbeatable combination!
7799. marjoribanks - 5/27/2003 10:18:12 PM
I've thought for a while now that Kerrey was the Dem with the best chance of bloodying Bush in the next elections, though I'm rather unsure of the kind of people (Gore's crew) he's hired to run his campaign.
But after Bush's silly flyboy photo-op speech, and the apparent likelihood that those photos are going to be signature images in 2004, I think Kerrey can do more than just dent Bush - he can make him look like a poseur, a fancy-dress punk, by juxtaposing his very real vet experience in Vietnam to Bush's dress-up.
--
Kerrey/Graham, that's the ticket. One-two North-South punch, Kerrey hammers on the economy, Graham on security.
7800. judithathome - 5/27/2003 10:22:49 PM
I think it is traditional that a senator can't win the presidency, though. I mean, they usually don't.
Unless Bush really flubs up in a big way, I think his brainwashed minions are going to put him in office for another 4 years.
Of course, I won't care because I will be opening my veins in a tub of warm water the morning after the election.
7801. Edmund Dantes - 5/27/2003 11:01:29 PM
Kerrey's best line to date: "Santorum, that's Latin for asshole!"
Line is Bob Kerrey's, not John Kerry's.
7802. Edmund Dantes - 5/27/2003 11:06:00 PM
What Bush doesn't have is contempt for the average American's intelligence, as the intellectual bullies seem to. Their language may be fortified with concern for the ordinary among us, but it's phony--a paternal concern, not a fraternal one; they're sure they know better what's best for us. And that, ultimately, is what they dislike most about the president. It's not so much that he's stupid. It's that he doesn't think we are.
Joel Engel
7803. judithathome - 5/27/2003 11:11:36 PM
Oh yes, he most certainly does have contempt for the average American's intelligence. Or should I say, Karl Rove certainly does. They are both having a huge chuckle at the average American's intelligence.
7804. concerned - 5/28/2003 1:55:32 AM
PETA upset over treatment of fiberglass elephant
JAH -
What say you about the intelligence of these Americans?
7805. concerned - 5/28/2003 2:27:19 AM
But the good news is that they probably feel about GWB about the same as you do, JAH:)
7806. judithathome - 5/28/2003 8:19:33 AM
Concerned, I have long suspected that half of the voters out there are morons. And I'm not judging that on the fact many of them voted for GWB.
7807. arkymalarky - 5/28/2003 12:06:18 PM
If we dragged out Phyllis Schlafly as often as you drag out PETA as a representation of the Right (I mean Centrist Republicans), you'd cry "foul" on a regular basis, Con'd.
7808. concerned - 5/28/2003 12:17:36 PM
Why don't you give it a whirl & we'll see? But remember, I've learned to ignore at least most of jexster's wretched excess.
7809. concerned - 5/28/2003 12:19:12 PM
A book about Clinton's wasted second term, by his toesucker advisor
7810. arkymalarky - 5/28/2003 12:20:18 PM
Ahhh, I see! Are you saying, then, that I should ignore your PETA-waving as "wretched excess"?
7811. arkymalarky - 5/28/2003 12:22:17 PM
Dick Morris is a pathetic idgit who, like Paula Jones, has nothing of insight or interest to offer and is actually quite repulsive on many levels, but is desperate to extend that 15 minutes of fame he got from knowing Clinton at the expense of the wealthy but frothing Clinton-Hating Brigade.
7812. concerned - 5/28/2003 12:39:47 PM
Actually, I was thinking more of jexster spamming which occasionally bothered me. I'd see a link of his in a thread, then see it in another thread, then a couple of weeks later, he'd spam the link all over again.
7813. concerned - 5/28/2003 12:41:35 PM
Arky admits that Willy Jeff Xlowntoon hired 'pathetic idjits' as advisors? Now, we're getting somewhere.
7814. concerned - 5/28/2003 12:42:49 PM
Re. 7812 -
Multiply that by ten, & that'd get me a little bemused, or whatever.
7815. arkymalarky - 5/28/2003 2:05:22 PM
One pathetic idjit.
7816. wonkers2 - 5/28/2003 2:27:04 PM
One pathetic, toe-sucking idgit.
7817. wonkers2 - 5/28/2003 2:34:56 PM
Edmund Dantes, Thanks for the correction. I can never remember how to spell Kerry/Kerrey. Teresa Heinz Kerry was mentioned in the same item as Bob Kerry's remark about the assholity of Sanctus Santorum. She apparently agrees with Bob Kerry on that point.
7818. judithathome - 5/28/2003 2:59:47 PM
Wonk, you did it again...just remember that Teresa has two "e"s and John doesn't.
7819. robertjayb - 5/28/2003 4:02:59 PM
WaPo Ombudsman commits candor---sort of...
Several readers believe that The Post "has some problems of its own with the veracity of its reporting," as one put it. He was referring to the paper's exclusive April 3 front-page account of how Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, according to "U.S. officials," fought during an Iraqi ambush, continued firing after sustaining multiple gunshot wounds and being stabbed, and shot several Iraqi soldiers before running out of ammunition. This account, which has remained exclusive to The Post, is by far the story that readers continue to question most. I wrote a column about this on April 20, but the questioning, which has nothing to do with Pfc. Lynch but everything to do with anonymous news sources, continues. In fact, it is increasing as journalism is put in the spotlight. If there is a different version, or a confirming version, of this that is authoritative, I hope somebody will write it, along with a more probing account of her rescue.
7820. judithathome - 5/28/2003 4:12:20 PM
Wonder why, with all the fame seeking done via media, Jessica and her family have yet to appear on Larry King or Oprah...I think it's a case of Rumsfeld-induced amnesia with the entire group. Before they went to Germany to see her, the family was having press conferences and interviews all over the place. Since returning, nary a word.
7821. robertjayb - 5/28/2003 4:14:41 PM
But Jessica is our Warrior Barbie, our courageous, blonde and blue-eyed symbol of what makes this country great. Injuries from a vehicle turnover are bad, for sure, but stab wounds and bullet holes make for real drama. And the image of this little darlin' blazing away at hanky-headed evil-doers until her ammo ran out makes up for a lot of invisible WMD. Just ask Karl Rove.
7822. ronski - 5/28/2003 8:24:33 PM
North Korea is much more dangerous.
I disagree. Islamic countries contain far more people motivated by an ideological desire/religious fervor to visit nukes on the U.S. and Israel.
With the collapse of world state communism and more or less its ideology, NK is basically in it for the money.
Much easier to deal with.
I did not say they were no threat. They bear not only close watching, but the willingess to use force against them if that becomes necessary, despite the terrible consequences for very many East Asians (and why China is going to work with us, or at least not against us, on this one).
7823. wonkers2 - 5/29/2003 12:07:08 AM
Neither North Korea nor Iran is capable of more than a big pinprick on the U.S. But I'm inclined, as is Ronski, to fear the crazy fundamentalist Islamists more than the North Koreans. At least we know who in Korea is in charge.
7824. robertjayb - 5/29/2003 12:45:26 AM
Leave no child behind...Ooops!
WASHINGTON, May 28 — A last-minute revision by House and Senate leaders in the tax bill that President Bush signed today will prevent millions of minimum-wage families from receiving the increased child credit that is in the measure, say Congressional officials and outside groups.
Most taxpayers will receive a $400-a-child check in the mail this summer as a result of the law, which raises the child tax credit, to $1,000 from $600. It had been clear from the beginning that the wealthiest families would not receive the credit, which is intended to phase out at high incomes.
7825. robertjayb - 5/29/2003 12:45:31 AM
Leave no child behind...Ooops!
WASHINGTON, May 28 — A last-minute revision by House and Senate leaders in the tax bill that President Bush signed today will prevent millions of minimum-wage families from receiving the increased child credit that is in the measure, say Congressional officials and outside groups.
Most taxpayers will receive a $400-a-child check in the mail this summer as a result of the law, which raises the child tax credit, to $1,000 from $600. It had been clear from the beginning that the wealthiest families would not receive the credit, which is intended to phase out at high incomes.
7826. robertjayb - 5/29/2003 12:46:20 AM
Ooops!
7827. concerned - 5/29/2003 11:51:12 AM
Since screwing the help is a venerable, if not honorable, Democrat presidential tradition, I guess Lefties feel obligated to invent a 'Monica Lewinsky' for GWB if there is none in reality. And this AA political cartoonist manages to slip in racial overtones at the same time. Slick.
7828. wonkers2 - 5/29/2003 11:52:42 AM
That's criminal. But of course the top one percent have several houses to maintain and nannies and servants to feed in addition to their children. In actuality, they need the dividend tax cut more than the minimum wage families. Besides, they can be counted on for big contributions to the GOP in contrast to the minimum-wagers who contritute hardly anything.
7829. concerned - 5/29/2003 3:35:46 PM
This Khalil Bendib is not an AA himself, but hails from 'North Africa' & works out of Berkeley. Here's a Bendib flashback:
7830. judithathome - 5/29/2003 4:31:00 PM
Oh that cartoon is really rich. No one believes in the almighty dollar more than the current administration. Give it a rest...you're stuck with a guy who mouths "no child left behind" while taking money out of their pockets.
I hope there IS a God so Bush will have to answer to him for all these lies he floats day in and day out.
7831. concerned - 5/29/2003 4:47:54 PM
Buh, but, Judith - this guy has the noive to suggest that LIEberman & Bore are being hypocrites.
7832. concerned - 5/29/2003 4:49:14 PM
And this 'toon doesn't have anything to do with the 'toon, either.
7833. Wombat - 5/30/2003 1:31:00 PM
Ronski, Wonkers:
Who do you think will sell nuclear technology and/or missile technology to Moslem fundamentalists? North Korea.
In addition, any attempt to respond by force would devastate South Korea as well.
7834. ronski - 5/30/2003 1:48:28 PM
Who do you think will sell nuclear technology and/or missile technology to Moslem fundamentalists?
Not if we buy them off, which is what they want.
7835. vonKreedon - 5/30/2003 2:06:10 PM
Ron - Are you advocating a policy of appeasement toward NK?
7836. Wombat - 5/30/2003 2:17:54 PM
Ronski:
If we buy them off, they will take our money and continue doing what they were doing before. That way they would get even more money.
7837. ronski - 5/30/2003 2:33:55 PM
vonKreedon,
No. Only buying time while we work towards regime change with the help of the international community.
Wombat,
As I said in an earlier post, we watch them closely (while working towards the above), as opposed to falling for what the North Koreans promise hook, line, and sinker like Clinton did.
I hope you are not implying that I think North Korea not a serious problem. I keep saying that it is.
It's just a different problem, and somewhat different in magnitude and immediacy, than the problem of Islamic states such as Iraq (formerly) and Iran developing the bomb.
7838. vonKreedon - 5/30/2003 2:51:04 PM
Ron - I'm in agreement with you, but how is that different than the "appeasement" that was rejected regarding Iraq?
7839. ronski - 5/30/2003 5:16:58 PM
vonK,
I don't remember appeasement so much being the issue in Iraq, but whether Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S. (and Israel; and perhaps other states in the region, as it had in the past).
Now, it may well prove that Iraq was no longer developing nukes, and not doing much in the way of other WMD, after all.
But there was another issue, recognized by some pundits (mostly the better bloggers), that getting a foothold in the region (a sounder, more central one than Afghanistan provided), was necessary to stem the tide of a group of anti-U.S. pathologies in the Arab world, whether religious (al Qaeda; Taliban; Iranian clerics) or secular (the Baathists).
It was likened to invading Morocco early in WW2, despite its having done nothing to the allies particularly besides having the Vichy French around, in order to launch the ultmate attacks on the Fascists in Europe.
I liked that idea.
7840. Edmund Dantes - 5/31/2003 1:32:12 AM
Chris Hitchens
It may seem sordid or trivial now, but if a certain Gap dress had not been retained, Lewinsky could successfully have been denounced and humiliated as just a bit nutty and a bit slutty by a man who had once dangled the promise of a permanent relationship before her dazzled eyes. And a callous perjuror would have flouted his own legislation. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that to permit this would be to acquiesce in an offense if not a crime. I had the ability to nail the lie, and when contacted by the House Judiciary Committee about the matter, I did so nail it. And I would do it again. I wish I'd had the chance to do it for Juanita Broaddrick, whose story of rape has withstood fairly rigorous challenges.
7841. arkymalarky - 5/31/2003 11:37:29 AM
Seeing that Monica Lewinsky was intent on keeping secret what a "friend" chose to capitalize on, Hitchens isn't nearly the chivalrous knight he paints himself. And the Broaddrick story has withstood nothing. Nothing credible has been offered or accepted anywhere legitimate, so I find your use of "withstood" to be quite a stretch.
Hitchens may lift it as high on those Atlas shoulders of his as he may, it was and is still trivial pursuit and he's a Don Quixote--defending the honor of women who aren't interested in his defense. If it's not trivial, then so many more, including one Mr. Hutchinson from Arkansas, would have been pursued in court and in congress for their relationships with employees and the lies they told to cover them up. I don't know of any that were involved in open marriages, and Hutchinson certainly wasn't, so lying was a daily necessity, on the job and off, for him to have maintained such an affair. The fact that he made her an honest woman by leaving his wife and children to marry her makes it worse rather than better in the eyes of most people, including his supporters.
Hutchinson learned that even with friends in high places and no one with money wanting to destroy him politically and facing an opponent who never mentioned the situation in the campaign, the people have better sense and longer memories than they're often given credit for, at least on the state level. They vote according to the values they believe in and elect candidates they believe reflect and promote them. In his home base, those values are very socially conservative. His former supporters remembered when they cast their ballots, especially the rank hypocrisy of it all.
And it's been a while, but where was a "permanent relationship" suggested in the Lewinsky scandal? I don't remember that ever having been brought up.
7842. arkymalarky - 5/31/2003 11:39:41 AM
I would correct that to Hitchens' use of "withstood" and redirect the post to the content of the post above, since the entire paragraph evidently came from his article.
7843. judithathome - 5/31/2003 11:45:18 AM
The idea of a permanent relationship was entirly in Monica's head. Wishing doesn't make it so.
7844. wonkers2 - 5/31/2003 2:02:52 PM
Hitchens should be writing for the National Enquirer. He's a drunk and a slime ball.
7845. judithathome - 5/31/2003 2:53:10 PM
Yeah, his Evian bottle he carries to every interview is full of vodka. He thinks no one is aware that the eau d'vie is really eau d'potato.
7846. concerned - 6/2/2003 6:50:22 PM
Fisking Krugman's Drivel
7847. concerned - 6/2/2003 6:52:17 PM
Definition of Fisk:
verb. To deconstruct an article on a point by point basis in a highly critical manner. Derived from the name of journalist Robert Fisk, a frequent target of such critical articles in the blogosphere (qv).
Usage: "Orrin Judd did a severe fisking of an idiotic article in the New York Times today..."
7848. judithathome - 6/2/2003 6:58:01 PM
That word comes dangerously close to something being done to the country.
7849. concerned - 6/2/2003 7:02:37 PM
Hi, JAH -
What Dems need is to find a Conservative with a catchy name who regularly indulges in trademark idiocy. Things really have tailed off on your side of the aisle since we used to hear about 'Repugs' & 'Flush Rush'.
7850. arkymalarky - 6/2/2003 7:52:38 PM
Following is a response to Con'd's #62 about what kind of Dem presidential candidate we'll go for in International, to prevent a downward spiral there toward American politics:
It's up to the Rich Right Republicans who continue their ever-tightening grip on the election process in the US.
Which will have powerful and long-lasting impact on the international environment, I might add.
7851. arkymalarky - 6/2/2003 7:55:29 PM
Hi, JAH -
What Dems need is to find a Conservative with a catchy name who regularly indulges in trademark idiocy. Things really have tailed off on your side of the aisle since we used to hear about 'Repugs' & 'Flush Rush'
What bubble have you been living in since Bush was elected, Con'd (actually, I think you must've crawled into it somewhere around the Harding administration, before the Teapot Dome Scandal)?
7852. concerned - 6/2/2003 10:14:04 PM
Re. 7851 -
Did you see me referring to x42 as 'Sir, Mr. President, Sir!' just because his popularity ratings were through the roof? Noo-ooo!
Maybe wonkers is right for once, and Dems do have an invertebracy problem.
7853. concerned - 6/3/2003 11:29:47 AM
More Lies From Krugman
7854. concerned - 6/3/2003 11:35:00 AM
From Realclearpolitics.com:
Tuesday, June 3 2003
PROFESSOR PAUL: Paul Krugman is without question the most dishonest pundit in America. I keep vowing to stop writing about his columns, but then I wake up two times every week to see that he's reached a new low.
Today Krugman offers a sweeping indictment of the Bush administration for continually misleading the public. (Pause here to clear throat from the choking hypocrisy). I'll skip over Krugman's way, way, way overstated case on WMD's and get straight to the tax cut issue. Krugman says:
"the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes."
Well, we know the eight million children Krugman refers to are members of families who already don't pay any federal income taxes. Krugman also doesn't cite the income level of the 50 million households who get nothing. Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, he drops the conspicuously vague phrase, "a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes."
Why does Krugman use this phrase instead of citing a statistic to support his case here? C'mon Paul, you're an economics professor for God's sake, you should know the numbers. Is it because Krugman is really referring to people who pay the payroll tax (not federal income tax) but he doesn't want to admit it?
Here's another good question: how is one of the most liberal, hyper-partisan, and misleading "pundits" in America also able to double as "respected" Professor of Economics at one of the country's most elite learning institutions?
7855. concerned - 6/3/2003 11:36:36 AM
Remember, if you pay net Federal taxes, you're rich, according to Lefties.
7856. wonkers2 - 6/3/2003 3:35:33 PM
More truth from Krugman. here 7857. OhioSTOPAS - 6/3/2003 5:06:37 PM
From the piece linked by Wonkers, here's Krugman's dead-on (sadly) depiction of the media in action:
"Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up."
7858. concerned - 6/3/2003 5:40:06 PM
Only an idiot or a naif could accept as valid Krugman's wild distortions regarding the news media.
7859. arkymalarky - 6/3/2003 11:27:37 PM
But the interns are safe.
7860. arkymalarky - 6/3/2003 11:28:11 PM
Oops. Thought I was posting in the Iraq thread.
7861. OhioSTOPAS - 6/4/2003 7:01:35 AM
From today's New York Times:
"The House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, said today that the House would not consider a Democratic measure to provide an increased tax credit to 6.5 million low-income families who did not receive it in the new tax law.
"Mr. DeLay, a Texas Republican, said the increased tax credits would be approved only if they were part of a broader tax-cut package, possibly including permanent repeal of the estate tax . . . "
Ah, yes. Using poor people as hostages to push through a tax cut for rich people. The Republican party modus operandi in action.
7862. judithathome - 6/4/2003 8:20:57 AM
Compassionate conservatism at work!
7863. arkymalarky - 6/4/2003 1:18:58 PM
This is where I just get sick. I can't talk about Bush and the Republican Right's domestic policies without retching.
7864. wonkers2 - 6/4/2003 1:37:53 PM
Dee-Laaay, the diminutive bug killer.
7865. arkymalarky - 6/4/2003 1:56:48 PM
Here's another potential one.
I really don't think they want to go there, but I can see how they'd rather spend the money and keep them dependent while talking out the other side of their mouths about lazy welfare mothers than have the poor really taking an active part in the system. We're working hard to counteract that here, with poor and middle class, both liberal and conservative, working together to keep control over their own destinies, which they suddenly realize could be down the same road to the same end--with the Real Republican Rightists (even Con'd the Centrist isn't one of those) grinning like cheshire cats, holding their pot of gold on the other end.
7866. concerned - 6/5/2003 11:03:35 AM
The rain of Raines reign has ended. Will he be arraigned?
7867. robertjayb - 6/5/2003 11:36:24 AM
No, but a good cross-examination would be interesting
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times announced on Thursday that Executive Editor Howell Raines, dogged in recent weeks by a plagiarism scandal by a young reporter, has resigned, along with Managing Editor Gerald Boyd.
The newspaper said Joseph Lelyveld, former executive editor of the Times, was named interim executive editor, assuming the responsibilities held by Raines.
7868. robertjayb - 6/5/2003 4:03:47 PM
Gene Lyons knows Lelyveld...yesterday's column via Bartcop...
As one with firsthand experience of The New York Times' arrogant condescension, I've enjoyed watching
its editors get a comeuppance. Back when the newspaper invented the Whitewater hoax, executive editor
Joe Lelyveld accused me of "wild and shoddy journalism" for deconstructing its coverage. Declining to appear
at a Harper's magazine forum at the National Press Club, he maligned my work in a privately-circulated letter
to Times subscribers alarmed by its revelations. Typical.
In the end, my reporting held up. Badly-written Times dispatches filled with semi-facts and half-truths did not.
Reporting a $200,000 real estate deal ain't brain surgery. Correct the errors, fill in the blanks, and Whitewater's
"scandalous" aspects disappeared. But Times editors chose to help GOP partisans hogtie a president rather
than write a correction. Had Lelyveld paid attention, he might have been spared the Wen Ho Lee fiasco,
among others.
7869. judithathome - 6/6/2003 12:58:08 PM
Paul Krugman's Latest
Most media attention has focused on the child tax credit that wasn't. As in 2001, the administration softened the profile of a tax cut mainly aimed at the wealthy by including a credit for families with children. But at the last minute, a change in wording deprived 12 million children of some or all of that tax credit. "There are a lot of things that are more important than that," declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader. (Maybe he was thinking of the "Hummer deduction," which stayed in the bill: business owners may now deduct up to $100,000 for the cost of a vehicle, as long as it weighs at least 6,000 pounds.)
Less attention has been paid to fine print that reveals the supposed rationale for the dividend tax cut as a smoke screen. The problem, we were told, is that profits are taxed twice: once when they are earned, a second time when they are paid out as dividends. But as any tax expert will tell you, the corporate tax law is full of loopholes; many profitable corporations pay little or no taxes.
The original Bush plan ensured that dividends from such companies would not get a tax break. But those safeguards vanished from the final bill: dividends will get special treatment regardless of how much tax is paid by the company that issues them.
I think DeLay missed the meeting where Bush declared he would leave no child behind. I guess he won't, so long as their daddies own Hummers.
7870. arkymalarky - 6/6/2003 5:34:23 PM
Technically if children are all placed on the low level, then no child is left behind. The ones who can afford to be are just way ahead--or it doesn't matter if they aren't. "You too could start out a clueless rich kid and grow up to be a president."
7871. judithathome - 6/9/2003 10:42:08 AM
Neat little cartoon showing what your tax cut is compared to some fat cat CEO's:
TonyCartoon From Slate 7872. judithathome - 6/9/2003 10:45:12 AM
I set our income against Don Carty's because he lives in the general area we do...North Texas. The difference in our tax cut to his was about $499,000.
7873. arkymalarky - 6/9/2003 12:34:04 PM
Heck, I'll take his tax cut for my income and be more than glad to get it.
State taxes are going up anyway, and any benefits of the middle and working classes will be offset by that and higher expenses and higher unemployment.
The state gave a dinky little raise after saying it would raise teacher salaries by $3,000, and health insurance went up. Someone needs to get a grip on the insurance racket. We haven't had a raise yet that wasn't hand-in-hand with an insurance increase that cost more than what the raise paid. I've actually gotten cheaper insurance WITH THE SAME COMPANY for Mose over the last several years.
That's for the state, btw. My district and Bob's gave the promised raise and more, so I'm happy with my salary. If I could get the time to get my masters it would raise it by around $5,000 more. Maybe next spring.
7874. jexster - 6/10/2003 10:25:35 AM
(June 9th, 2003 -- 7:38 PM EDT // link)
Till now we've assumed that the Department of Homeland Security got hoodwinked into getting involved in the manhunt for the Texas Democrats. Apparently that's not so. (Note to Joe Lieberman, Dan Gerstein, et al.: did you guys pick up on this?) One of the things Homeland Security did to help the Texas Republicans was to put out what amounted to an APB, calling various Texas airports to see if they could track down the Democrats in question. When an official at one of the local airports contacted by Homeland Security asked what was up, the Homeland Security official told him it didn't have anything to do with a downed plane or any problem like that. "This is just somebody looking for politicians they can't find," an unidentified official told Marvin Miller, an airport official in Plainview, Texas, according to a Saturday article in the Washington Post.
So much for an innocent misunderstanding. So much for 'homeland security'. (Note to Tom Ridge: Where's that IG Report?)
-- Josh Marshall
7875. jexster - 6/10/2003 10:32:17 AM
Forum on U.S. foreign policy
The Oakland, Calif.-based Independent Institute is holding a public forum on U.S. foreign policy titled "Preemptive War Strategy: A New U.S. Empire?" on June 25. If you're interested in hearing more about the libertarian critique of the war, you can sign up to attend the event at the institute website.
http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/030625ipf.html
7876. judithathome - 6/10/2003 11:23:28 AM
Politics As Policy
Every president for nearly a century has had political operatives in the White House to advise him on how his decisions would play with the public and tell him what the ramifications of policy would be on his reelection prospects. But few Americans are cynical enough to believe that this political gamesmanship is anything other than a means to an end, the end being to effectuate policy. Teddy Roosevelt had trusts to bust and Manifest Destiny to fulfill; FDR a Depression to tame; Richard Nixon a détente to achieve; Ronald Reagan a government to shrink and a Cold War to win; Bill Clinton social programs to save from the conservative hatchet.
And so it has always been — until now. From the moment of his disputed election in 2000, President Bush has been dramatically reversing the traditional relationship between politics and policy. In his administration, politics seem less a means to policy than policy is a means to politics. Its goal is not to further the conservative revolution as advertised. The presidency's real goal is to disable the Democratic opposition, once and for all.
7877. jexster - 6/10/2003 12:13:33 PM
Did you know that the investigation of what went wrong in the run-up to 9-11 is currently funded at $15 million, less than one-fourth of what the Republican-led Congress authorized for the Monica Lewinsky investigation?)
7878. robertjayb - 6/10/2003 5:30:42 PM
via Bartcop:
7879. robertjayb - 6/10/2003 8:32:48 PM
No surprise here...
June 10, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) --Congress' top budget analyst warned Tuesday that the government is on track this year for a record deficit exceeding $400 billion, which provides fresh fodder for President Bush and Democrats to use in their battle over taxes and spending.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had estimated last month that the 2003 shortfall would surpass $300 billion. But that was before lawmakers approved fresh tax cuts for families and investors plus aid for cash-strapped states, projected to cost $61 billion this year alone. It also did not fully reflect the economy's malaise, which has constricted revenue.
The deepest shortfall ever, $290 billion, occurred in 1992. This year's deficit will be the second straight, a jarring turnabout from the four consecutive annual surpluses that marked the last years of the Clinton administration.
7880. jexster - 6/12/2003 10:32:13 AM
Working on not one but TWO campaigns now...
Sorry Robt, I defected from Kerry but still on his mailing list
And potenially the strongest candidate California politics has produced in some time...
Elect Gavin mayor, look for him to run for DiFi's seat on retirement....the guy's got that Charisma thing
7881. judithathome - 6/12/2003 10:36:30 AM
Is he any relation to John Gavin?
7882. jexster - 6/12/2003 10:46:10 AM
No Gavin Newsom. Silver spoon fed spoiled spawn of retired CA Supreme Court Justice, party boy buddy of J. Paul Getty III, a "conservative" San Franciscan who oppresses the 15000 poor homeless , 2000 sleeping and shitting on our streets, toady for the EVIL downtown corporate machine, a democrat that even a Republican could vote for...
OOO and EYE Candy...Butch eye candy
7883. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/12/2003 2:23:35 PM
7884. jexster - 6/12/2003 2:59:31 PM
DISCLAIMER - Any resemblance of the preceding WOW depiction of Bush to an actual Mongoloid idiot is purely coincidental
7885. concerned - 6/13/2003 11:04:45 AM
On the Courts: The Democratic Filibuster Invites 'Systemic Collapse'
I half expect to hear from the Left that their trampling on the US Constitution is a 'good' thing.
7886. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/13/2003 11:13:13 AM
Let's get it straight on who exactly "The Trampler" is . ..
7887. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/13/2003 11:20:57 AM
And that "crazy guy,"Tom Delay would never try to get a "lock on power" that would trample the Constitution?
7888. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 11:31:28 AM
Robertj,
Of course, Ken Lay contributed nearly equally to both paries (he contributed more to the R's by about a 5-4 ratio) and was one of the biggest donors to Clinton and the DNC while they owned the White House.
But I guess it would be too much to ask for accuracy and honesty. The left has only lies to peddle.
7889. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/13/2003 12:04:48 PM
But I guess it would be too much to ask for accuracy and honesty.
With all of the attention on energy issues and the Bush administration's recent release of a National Energy Policy, it's instructive to take a look at political contributions from the energy industry, predominantly in the oil and gas and the electric utility categories, and to attempt to follow that money.
It's not surprising that the energy industry gave the majority of their $32 million campaign donations to former oil businessman George W. Bush and the Republicans in last year's presidential election. But the size of that majority is worth noting. Republicans received 78 percent of donations compared to 20 percent for Democrats in the oil and gas category, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Bush received $1.8 million from oil and gas companies in the 2000 election cycle, over 13 times as much as his opponent Al Gore, who received $137,000.
The biggest single donor in the oil and gas category for the 2000 election cycle was Enron, giving over $2.3 million to both political parties, with almost three-quarters of that going to Republicans. In the 2000 election campaign alone, the Bush campaign received over $110,000 from Enron and its employees, with another $300,000 donated to the Inaugural Committee after the election.
Frontline: Power Politics
7890. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 12:10:40 PM
The biggest single donor in the oil and gas category for the 2000 election cycle was Enron, giving over $2.3 million to both political parties, with almost three-quarters of that going to Republicans.
Asshole, what did Enron donate to the Democrats when Clinton was in office? Did you think that Ken Lay and Enron just poofed into existance in July 2000?
I note you choose your sources and timeframes carefully.
Enron made a huge investment in the Clinton White House from 1995-2000.
7891. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 12:13:30 PM
Payment Received
Enron, Time reported, "showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated an unknown sum of cash in O'Leary's name to a charity called "I Have a Dream." And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its largest single contribution ever - $100,000 - to the Democrats.
Time's Michael Weisskopf neglected to report the voluminous evidence of Democrats and Clinton administration's cozy relationships with Enron.
According to columnist Robert Novak, "a bipartisan Senate Finance Committee investigation has found that Enron Corp., no paragon of free-market deregulation, gorged itself on corporate welfare. The Clinton administration gave more than $650 million in Export-Import Bank loans to Enron-related companies."
As NewsMax.com reported Jan. 17, "Enron Corp., cited by Democrats as a big giver to President Bush and the GOP, gave a cool $420,000 to Democrats when the corporation was desperate to get the Clinton administration's help in having the potentially disastrous Kyoto treaty made the law of the land."
From 1990 to 1994 Enron gave 42 percent of their donations to the Democrats, according to The Center for Responsive Politics.
But let's just focus on the 2000 cycle. Because that's the factoid that most advances your partisan interest, the truth be damned.
7892. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 12:15:12 PM
Ken Bentsen, D-Texas, is the congressman who received the most money from Enron in the past 12 years. He got $42,750. The second-largest receiver was Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, who received $38,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
I assume these were bought and paid for politicians, right?
7893. concerned - 6/13/2003 12:16:47 PM
Re. 7887 -
No, he wouldn't. Why isn't it a surprise you're attempting to justify the 'Rats wiping their ass with the Constitution by pointing fingers elsewhere? Don't you see how bankrupt such a tactic is?
7894. OhioSTOPAS - 6/13/2003 1:02:31 PM
From CBS News, January 2002:
“Since 1989, Enron has made a whopping $5.8 million in campaign donations, 73 percent to Republicans and 27 percent to Democrats.”
Wrong again, Ace.
7895. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/13/2003 4:53:16 PM
Asshole In Spades: "Enron made a huge investment in the Clinton White House from 1995-2000."
Clinton has nothing to do with the issue of "accuracy and honesty," and your fictitious " 5-4 ratio" of contributions, Buttmouth.
7896. robertjayb - 6/13/2003 6:04:55 PM
Bill and Hill doing okay, thanks...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's book deal paid her $1.1 million last year, but that pales in comparison with the more than $9 million her husband, Bill Clinton, earned from dozens of speeches around the world.
7897. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 6:08:19 PM
And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its largest single contribution ever - $100,000 - to the Democrats.
Nope. Nothing to do with Clinton.
And I'm sure they didn't speak to each other during their golf games.
7898. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/14/2003 1:20:57 AM
Still denial and refusal to admit the truth, Shit4Brains? Nevertheless, your statements are still false and ruthlessness will always be de rigueur for you creeps.
7899. Max Macks - 6/14/2003 5:13:30 PM
First time I checked out this thread.
I see there a high level of debate goes on here !!
But some of you might tell me just WTF the Democrats
in Congress are doing. Are they still so afraid
to challange Bush and what he has done?
Perhaps this has been discussed at length before
but I have been here to see/read your opinions.
7900. arkymalarky - 6/14/2003 6:09:34 PM
Hey Max. The Politics thread has always been pretty much flinging across lines, with some good debates sprinkled here and there.
I think the Democrats are in the "give him enough rope" frame of mind. They're just not sure whether "him" is Bush or the next Dem candidate for president.
7901. concerned - 6/15/2003 1:23:23 AM
"Say what you want about the President, but we know his friends have convictions." —Congressman Dick Armey (R-Tex.), on President Clinton
7902. concerned - 6/15/2003 1:24:13 AM
"You know, if I were a single man, I might ask that mummy out. That's a good-looking mummy" —Bill Clinton, looking at "Juanita," a newly discovered Incan mummy on display at the National Geographic museum
"Probably she does look good compared to the mummy he's been fucking." —Mike McCurry, making an off-the-cuff joke to reporters
7903. concerned - 6/15/2003 1:26:47 AM
"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." —James Carville, responding to Paula Jones' sexual harassment allegations against Bill Clinton
Looks like that's how the Democrat Party found us a president.
7904. concerned - 6/15/2003 1:31:47 AM
David Letterman (to Chris Rock): "I was surprised to hear that you've decided to end the run of your show." Rock: "Well, you know, Clinton left. Why do a comedy show? You can't top that! We had the greatest comedy president ever! It is downhill from here. Bush, you know, he's 'ha ha funny.' He's like, you know, 'this milk tastes funny' funny. ... Clinton is like 'fall on the ground, hysterical, W.C. Fields funny.' Rodney Dangerfield funny."
7905. concerned - 6/15/2003 1:35:40 AM
"Hillary Clinton is the junior senator from the great state of New York. When they swore her in, she used the Clinton family Bible. You know, the one with only seven commandments." —David Letterman
7906. concerned - 6/15/2003 1:49:12 AM
7907. concerned - 6/15/2003 2:17:17 AM
IRAQI INFORMATION MINISTER VOWS BIG CHANGES AT NEW YORK TIMES
7908. concerned - 6/15/2003 4:20:01 AM
7909. judithathome - 6/15/2003 11:22:58 AM
I love to see the right in such a froth over the possibility of Hillary running for President. Just imagine how they will act if she actually does run...
7910. judithathome - 6/15/2003 11:35:03 AM
Interesting read here:
Civil Liberties Watch
7911. judithathome - 6/15/2003 11:41:57 AM
And for those who like their Sunday comics:
Go Here
(notice the truck in the upper right that is emblazoned "Patriotism To Go")
7912. jexster - 6/15/2003 3:17:40 PM
7913. robertjayb - 6/15/2003 5:38:01 PM
jexster's latest choice wins straw poll---Snoore!
MILWAUKEE – Former Gov. Howard Dean was victorious in a straw poll of Democratic activists at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention.
Dean beat eight competing Democrats in both categories -- delegates and alternates, and official guests.
John Kerry was second to Dean in the delegate count (126 to 33). Kerry also was second to Dean in the guest count (77 to 17).
Dean's combined total of 203 topped Kerry's combined total of 50.
Straw polls are meant to be rigged, but there's something almost Roveian about this degree of overkill. Tell the team to lighten up, jexster, lest they appear overanxious.
7914. concerned - 6/15/2003 11:54:02 PM
re.7912 -
Text hard to make out.
7915. concerned - 6/15/2003 11:54:51 PM
Re. 7909 -
...and loses.
7916. jayackroyd - 6/16/2003 8:52:50 AM
7899
The real question is whether any of the democrats can play hardball.
Delay is playing hardball. He is setting federal officials out after Texan legislature to gerrymander the state in a mid-decade redistricting effort.
Bush (or maybe I mean Rove) is playing hardball, scheduling the republican convention in New York, as late as I ever remember it being scheduled, to use 9/11 one more time as a political tool, while not ever delivering on that $10 billion.
The Senate Judiciary members are playing hardball, denouncing democrats for following, in a weaker way, some of obstructionst tactics used by the republicans when they were in the minority. The republicans are now trying to reverse the filibuster rules that they exploited as a minority party.
Is there a democrat who can stand up and fight back? Surely not Tom Daschle, who looks like he's gonna burst into tears whenever he gets angry. Gephardt is still living in 1970, singing Pete Seeger folk songs.
Bush is expected to raise $20 million in two weeks. The campaign plans to spend $170 million before the convention, and then get federal matching funds for the general election campaign. Is there a prayer that any one of the bumblers running can stand up to that?
7917. judithathome - 6/16/2003 10:39:16 AM
Seems to be the answer is no.
After Bush lays that cornerstone at the 9/11 monument during (or right after) the close of the convention, it'll be sheer luck if any Democrats bother to leave the comfort of their safe and mortaged homes to cast a vote.
From now on, they should stop with the talk about campaigning against Bush and just flat out use Rove's name every time they make a public appearance. They're not running against anyone but Rove; why not come out and say so?
7918. concerned - 6/16/2003 11:11:38 AM
Re. 7916 -
The 'Rats are 'fighting'. It's just that you seem to be unwilling to recognize their 'slimeball' tactics. From the Texas House 'Rats who fled the state to avoid voting on the redistricting mandated by voter distribution changes to the Federal Government 'Rats who 'legislate' by filibuster, their methods are questionable constitutionally and legally, and it appears even you can't bring yourself to endorse them.
7919. arkymalarky - 6/16/2003 11:23:22 AM
Con'd, surely you don't even believe what you just posted. There's got to be a line somewhere in that gray matter of yours.
Republicans would have been right to do the same thing the Democrats did in Texas if the situation were reversed. People should rise up when the vote of the people is messed with in any way.
I get absolutely nauseous at the way RWR's take an issue and scream about it when the Democrats are in power--term limits, balanced budget amendment, etc--and when Democrats are in the minority they want to take those powers too. What Democrat called for an end to the filibuster when the Republicans used it? They so blatantly want to adjust all the rules to keep themselves in power that I truly wonder how anyone can support them as a party.
7920. judithathome - 6/16/2003 11:36:26 AM
From the Mouth of a Former Aide
In a series of interviews, Beers, 60, critiqued Bush's war on terrorism. He is a man in transition, alternately reluctant about and empowered by his criticism of the government. After 35 years of issuing measured statements from inside intelligence circles, he speaks more like a public servant than a public figure. Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."
The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States' counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy."
7921. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/16/2003 11:38:34 AM
What is going on in Washington? What is the larger agenda behind the amazingly aggressive right wing moves coming from the White House?
7922. judithathome - 6/16/2003 11:39:28 AM
to avoid voting on the redistricting mandated by voter distribution changes
Voting mandated by Tom DeLay...the redistricting had been done in 2001 as LAW MANDATES. This was merely a ploy to grab more votes to swing their way and you know it. But I don't expect you to get it at all because I've told you more than once and you just refuse to see it.
7923. concerned - 6/16/2003 12:06:21 PM
JAH - You agree with me, then contradict yourself in the next sentence. It's the Travis County part (if not also others) of the 2001 redistricting that the 'Rats are obstructing.
7924. concerned - 6/16/2003 12:08:08 PM
Republicans would have been right to do the same thing the Democrats did in Texas if the situation were reversed. People should rise up when the vote of the people is messed with in any way.
Wrong, and wrong again.
7925. concerned - 6/16/2003 12:09:51 PM
Why the pretense that it's not the 2001 redistricting plan that the Texas House 'Rats are obstructing in Travis County?
7926. judithathome - 6/16/2003 12:27:50 PM
Because it is not. The 2001 plan was handed down by a judge. It's a done deal.
7927. concerned - 6/16/2003 12:29:03 PM
Not in Travis County it isn't. Check your facts.
7928. jexster - 6/16/2003 12:44:10 PM
Affairs of State
Dubya opened a long weekend of golf and fishing by hooking his first drive into a riverbank. He found his stroke on his second try, cheered by his father, who proclaimed it a "good ball!", just before bouncing his giggly monosyllabic son on his crusty knee and letting him suckle from his nipple and then burping him. The first President Bush drove their golf cart up to the first tee, the current president riding shotgun with his feet up on the dash. "Good morning, everybody!" he giggled to a group of reporters, each and every one of whom quietly prayed with every fiber of her being that she could be somewhere, anywhere else at that moment. The smirking little Shrub, who has spent more days of his presidency on vacation than any pres in history, and his crust-monkey father, whose current career as a member of the invidious Carlyle Group, raking in millions off the bogus war in Iraq via military contracts, and who controls the Bush WASP mafia conglomerate, appeared happy to be in each others' company, spanking each others' butts and lighting each others' cigars and talking about how neither has had sex since 1969. "It's a wonderful day to be sucking the goddamn miserable nation dry!" Bush Jr. gleefully spouted, before smacking himself in the face with a seven iron and falling unconscious. "Goddamn, that is so cute!" Bush Sr. exclaimed, admiring his son's antics, just before impaling himself on the gearshift and crumbling over in pain onto the concrete pathway. Mark Morford
7929. concerned - 6/16/2003 12:46:28 PM
From Knoxiousnews.com
Gore backers rally, urge run in '04 election
June 16, 2003
NASHVILLE -- Their leader says he's not interested, but that hasn't stopped Al Gore fans from trying to get him to run.
About 100 people turned out Saturday for a rally on Bicentennial Mall aimed at persuading the former vice president to once more run for president. They promise more efforts in the future.
Gore, who lives in Nashville, did not attend the rally. He said in December he would not run in the 2004 election, but that has not discouraged some supporters.
"I believe Al Gore can see what's going on in this country, and he knows it's not a pretty picture," said Nancy Moynihan of Houston. "This has gone beyond whether Al Gore wants to run or not. This is a call to arms."
Gore, who won the popular vote in the 2000 election, has done better in recent polls than the other Democrats running for president. An American Research Group poll in May had Gore getting 25 percent of the vote, compared with John Kerry's 17 percent.
Hey, why not? If nothing else, it could set him up as the Dem front runner in 2008.
7930. jexster - 6/16/2003 12:49:15 PM
Former Bush NSC Counterterrorism Director Blasts WOT - Quits - Joins Kerry Campaign
7931. judithathome - 6/16/2003 12:51:52 PM
I posted that upthread already, Jex.
7932. jexster - 6/16/2003 7:20:11 PM
OOPS, my bad..
How bout this one!
NY DAILY NEWS: If Powell Had Any Honor, He Would Resign over Weaponsgate
"There were no dead bodies in the scandals at The
New York Times. But in the end, [Howell] Raines took the fall with as much grace as he could muster. If [Colin] Powell discovers that he was snookered the way Raines was snookered by Jayson Blair, he should do the same. The Bush administration is filled with people devoid of shame.
But Powell is from the Bronx. He's a soldier and was pledged to avoid the unnecessary deaths of soldiers. He knows better than to defend the indefensible. The way out, as someone once said about Vietnam, is through the door."
But he a Buffalo Soldier....Win the war for America
Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
Driven from the mainland
To the heart of the caribbean
7933. judithathome - 6/17/2003 10:16:53 AM
Say One Thing, Do Another
Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.
The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.
It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric — and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny — lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda.
7934. jexster - 6/17/2003 1:27:55 PM
Radiohead's New Album 'Hail to the Thief' Explores Orwellian State of Bush Regime
From Seattle University's Spectator:"Hail to the Thief, a reference to George W. Bush's non-military coup of the White House, will strike a chord in those who pay attention to the message. Going beyond simple Bush bashing, lead singer Thom Yorke brings his haunting voice and lyrics to an album that references George Orwell's 1984 throughout, beginning with the very first track, '2+2=5'. As drawing comparisons between the Bush administration and Big Brother become easier and easier, Yorke and the boys are adding a suitably daunting and ominous soundtrack... Many of the tracks on Hail to the Thief are guitar-based, but most of the album has a wide mix of synthesizers, piano, guitar, computer programs, and other odd instruments. Each one adds a new level of interest to every eerie track... But the entire concept and theme of Big Brother (or George W. Bush) is punctuated by special effects or synthesizers, compelling you to watch your back and wonder if he really is watching."
7935. jexster - 6/17/2003 2:00:12 PM
To try to look for a justification for the war after our young men and women have been buried, is immoral, unjust and unacceptable. Max Cleland - Speech to Young Democrats
7936. wonkers2 - 6/17/2003 7:06:39 PM
Has America Become a Bully Boy?--exerpts from John Rossnant's review of Clyde Prestowitz's "Rogue Nation--American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions," Time Magazine 6-16
In Oct '99 candidate Bush told a campaign audience: "If we are a humble nation, other nations will see that and respect us." Alas, if he had only stuck to that idea.
Instead, in case after case the Admin. thumbed its nose needlessly at the rest of the world. It walked away from a welter of international agreements (Criminal Court, Kyoto, ABM treaty, etc.) In Sept the Admin. published "The Natn'l Security Strategy of the U.S. enshrining the doctrines of preemptive war an overwhelming U.S. military superiority. That document and the Iraq war confirmed for many foreigners that the U.S. had become the bully of the block.
According to Prestowitz, Regan trade negotiator, a self-styled, small gov't conservative: The imperial project of the so-called neo-cons is not conservatism at all but radicalism, egotism, and adventurism articulated in the stirring rhetoric of traditional patriotism....
The Kyoto decision became a metaphor for American profligacy, unconcern and arrogance.
Prestowitz' litany of U.S. snubs, gaffes and heavy-handedness overseas makes for depressing reading. Almost without fail, Bush displayed a tin ear in responding to the concerns of the intl community.
7937. wonkers2 - 6/17/2003 7:08:48 PM
Pete Peterson, another long-time Republican, recently published in the NYT Magazine an even more damning critique of Bush's tax and supply-side economic policy.
7938. jexster - 6/18/2003 11:07:41 AM
Bush's 9/11 coverup?
Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence failures that took place on its watch.
7939. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/18/2003 12:26:34 PM
7940. jexster - 6/18/2003 12:46:24 PM
Aaah the Old Texas Two Step Bait and Switch....Even as State university fees go through the roof....Bush has fucked you again
Yes, it's the old bait-and-switch: Hallelujah to the rafters about how you're lowering taxes; then, in late May, without informing either Congress or the public, sneakily take back some of those tax cuts -- from the less well-off, of course, it's more fun that way -- via an accounting sleight-of-hand that stiffs millions of college students.
Starting this fall, the Department of Education's rejig of a formula governing financial aid will reduce by "hundreds of millions of dollars" the government's contributions to higher education, The New York Times reports. The Times says the changes "will also have a ripple effect across almost every level of financial aid, shrinking the pool of students who qualify for federal awards, tightening access to billions of dollars in state and institutional grants and, in turn, heightening the reliance on loans to pay for college." How much extra each student's family will have to shell out annually depends on each student's situation, from under $100 to more than $1,000. (The Times walks you through it.)
Better luck getting a grant to Baghdad U.
7941. wonkers2 - 6/18/2003 3:18:05 PM
Bush should be impeached. He's the biggest liar since Nixon and not half as smart.
7942. concerned - 6/18/2003 3:44:22 PM
Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence failures that took place on its watch.
'Every attempt'? Bet you can't name even one.
7943. judithathome - 6/18/2003 3:52:07 PM
Probably not...the way they close off every thing and cite "national security" these days.
7944. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/18/2003 5:12:23 PM
7945. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/18/2003 5:13:21 PM
EVERYTHING is bait and switch with these thugs.
7946. robertjayb - 6/18/2003 7:25:20 PM
Politics looking a little crazy? (Arianna Huffington)
Since I'm not a psychiatrist, I consulted the work of various experts in the field in order to get a better understanding of the fanatical thinking that is driving the Bush administration's agenda — and scaring the daylights out of a growing number of observers.
Dr. Norman Doidge, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, lists among the telltale symptoms of fanatics: an intolerance of dissent; a doctrine riddled with contradictions; the belief that one's cause has been blessed or even commanded by God; and the use of reinforcement techniques, such as repetition, to spread one's message.
7947. robertjayb - 6/18/2003 11:01:23 PM
Bushies hate revisionist history---better to fix things from the get-go...
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.
7948. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/19/2003 12:03:52 AM
. . . symptoms of fanatics: an intolerance of dissent; a doctrine riddled with contradictions; the belief that one's cause has been blessed or even commanded by God; and the use of reinforcement techniques, such as repetition, to spread one's message.
Thanks for the great links, Robert, it gives one an idea of just how wide the Baboon Circle Jerk's® circle has grown.
7949. alistairConnor - 6/19/2003 6:18:21 AM
I like this : "As it went through the review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change," Ms. Whitman said.
No consensus between the politicians and the scientists about the science.
Like Galileo, they were forced to recant their heretical science.
7950. jayackroyd - 6/19/2003 7:25:01 AM
From the june 17 WH press briefing
Q And also in the last, 2000 and coming up, the President will accept federal funds in the general election.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Is there any dash of hypocrisy in that he doesn't contribute to that fund when he files his tax returns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, interestingly, we talked before about taxpayer-financed elections, and while for the congressional races, Senate races and House races, and for overwhelming majority of the funds that go to presidential races is voluntary, there is that check on the tax reforms. And the best I remember this from IRS data is something like only 12 percent, or down to 8 percent of the American people check that box. So I think the President is in pretty good company with a number of American people who do not check that box.
Q Why would he take the money, then?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, he's not taking the money for the primary campaign; he will take it for the general.
7951. concerned - 6/19/2003 11:16:35 AM
Ennui must be rotting peoples' minds if they think that checking or not checking the presidential election fund box on their tax returns can imply hypocrisy or has partisan implications.
7952. robertjayb - 6/19/2003 6:35:04 PM
Ho, Ho, Ho! Orrin Hatch, self-righteous scold, is a software pirate...
WIRED NEWS---Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.
But Hatch himself is using unlicensed software on his official website, which presumably would qualify his computer to be smoked by the system he proposes.
The senator's site makes extensive use of a JavaScript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.
"It's an unlicensed copy," said Andy Woolley, who runs Milonic. "It's very unfortunate for him because of those comments he made."
7953. Absensia - 6/19/2003 7:03:03 PM
Hahaha, have to love it.
7954. judithathome - 6/19/2003 7:04:37 PM
7955. judithathome - 6/19/2003 7:07:54 PM
Robert, did you see where Ms Rylander-Strayhorn refused to pass the budget because it is so far underfunded and that if it isn't fixed by Augist, schools can't open in Texas in September? Leave no child behind, right? What a legacy GW left behind!
Of course, the guy with the great hair thinks it more important to gain more seats for Republicans than to fix the faulty budget. Typical.
7956. judithathome - 6/19/2003 7:56:10 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs
And these are the guys who would never stretch the truth about weapons of mass destruction. What morons.
Fool me once....
7957. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/19/2003 8:26:40 PM
7958. jayackroyd - 6/19/2003 9:28:34 PM
7951
Let me spell it out for you, then, connie.
"Do you check off the box, sir?"
"No I don't. I object in principle to federal funding of election campaigns. That's why I won't contribute MY dollar."
"does this principle extend to your not TAKING money from federally funded election campaigns?"
"Well, no, I'll take a hundred fifty million or so, 'cause I need it, but I will not contribute one dollar, on principle."
"All right, sir, I see. Wrong in principle, no dollar forthcoming. Expedient in fact, hundred million or so incoming. Do I have it right?"
7959. robertjayb - 6/19/2003 10:40:35 PM
Tom DeLay, pest, makes list of Texas' worst legislators...
WASHINGTON - He's not a Texas lawmaker, but because he messed with state business, U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ended up on Texas Monthly magazine's list of Top 10 Worst legislators.
Only one other federal official has made the Texas Monthly lists of best and worst legislators, compiled as a report card on state lawmakers for 30 years.
Federal district Judge William Wayne Justice was put on the best list because of his many rulings that prompted state reforms, said Texas Monthly executive editor Paul Burka.
Under the heading "Pest," DeLay is criticized for pushing the Texas Legislature to take up a congressional redistricting bill late in the 140 day, biennial session. The bill prompted state Democratic representatives to head to Ardmore, Okla. for nearly a week and an ensuing manhunt that involved a federal anti-terrorism agency.
7960. concerned - 6/20/2003 4:15:14 AM
Re. 7951 -
'Principle' my ass. You would never require such asceticism of any Democrat.
7961. concerned - 6/20/2003 4:16:31 AM
Re. 7958 -
'Principle' my ass. You would never require such asceticism of any Democrat.
7962. concerned - 6/20/2003 4:27:43 AM
jay -
if you want to delete 7960 & this post, that's okely dokely with me.
7963. jexster - 6/20/2003 11:43:44 AM
John Kerry has taken an enormous risk by declaring that President Bush "misled every one of us" on the Iraq war. A new Harris poll shows that only 37 percent of the public agrees that Bush manipulated the evidence; only half the country would think that Bush lied even if the claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda ties are proven to be overblown. And, in the strange universe we inhabit, it is the Democrats who have to worry about appearing to politicize the query into how Bush sold the war, even after Vice President Cheney appears to have ordered the congressional GOP to squelch an open investigation. Basically, the issue is a minefield for a presidential candidate.
But Kerry--the frontrunner, remember--is putting the manipulated intelligence at the center of his candidacy, calling Bush's war lies "one reason I'm running to be president of the United States." That's breathtakingly brave. And it coheres with Kerry's "new patriotism" theme. Kerry framed the issue yesterday in terms of "America's credibility"--which, as Tony Blair is rapidly learning, is seriously diminishing with every passing WMD-less day....
Kerry is going to face a lot of challenges in the weeks ahead now that he's come to this position: In particular, he will need to eventually take a stand on whether or not the war was justified, and what the implications of that position are for our occupation of Iraq. These are not easy questions. Without a congressional investigation, a politician who supported the war--like Gephardt and Lieberman, for instance--could easily pretend the questions don't exist, or they're not pressing. But Kerry is proving that he will not take the easy road when it comes to a matter of war and peace, which is downright presidential.
The New Republic
7964. jexster - 6/20/2003 11:48:09 AM
7965. jexster - 6/20/2003 11:50:33 AM
FYI - The Senator's Son, the fortunate one, recently asked me to "edit" a biography of his father, written by his dad's former law partner.
Sold as a "big edit" to be sure, this mess needs a complete rewrite...
I am going to ask for a grant from the LSU History Dept.
7966. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/20/2003 12:29:29 PM
7967. Edmund Dantes - 6/20/2003 4:36:19 PM
"No I don't. I object in principle to federal funding of election campaigns. That's why I won't contribute MY dollar."
It is not "my" dollar at that point. As the first sentence states, it's federal funding of election campaigns. Anyone who fills out a 1040 knows that your refund or payment is totally unaffected by checking the box. Instead, a checkmark affects how the federal government spends $1 of its money.
Should the government offer such funds to one's opponent, then of course both candidates are entitled to those funds.
It's foolish or disingenuous to obscure the fact that many people take advantage of government programs that they might not support and would like to do away with. You can spin it as Bush is not contributing to the fund, but in actuality he is specifying that the government not contribute in his name. His tax contribution is going to other programs, just as I'm sure you'll feel entitled as a taxpayer to take advantage of any future missile defense system, regardless of whether you'd personally endorse it on a line item budget.
Moreover, I'm confident that were his Democratic opponent to forego federal campaign contributions, Bush would too. Against receiving millions of dollars back, the fact that such an opponent is willing to specify $1 be put in is incidental.
7968. robertjayb - 6/20/2003 5:54:52 PM
No knocking over 7-11s for Dean's kid...
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Friday that his 17-year-old son was cited in the burglary of a Vermont country club with four teenagers searching for liquor.
Dean, who canceled several campaign appearances, said his son, Paul, and teammates on a high school hockey team apparently were discovered early Friday morning at the Burlington Country Club by a police officer on routine patrol. Dean said it was his understanding that his son would be charged as an accessory.
7969. jexster - 6/20/2003 10:25:19 PM
Edwards: Bush is a Crook-Coddling Pinko
7970. wonkers2 - 6/21/2003 7:39:04 AM
Gale Norton Rouses Congress
The Bush administration in particular its interior secretary, Gale Norton, has always wanted to transfer more control of America's public lands to state an d local governments and to open them to a wider range of commercial and recreational uses. But Congressional Democrats and some moderate Republicans are only now realizing that what Ms. Norton is trying to engineer is not just a rebalancing of the scales but a revolution in public policy deeply at odds with a long bipartisan tradition of environmental stewardship and more threatening than anything attempted by James Watt, Ronald Reagan's reactionary interior secretary and Ms. Norton's onetime mentor. More bad news here
7971. jayackroyd - 6/21/2003 11:15:34 AM
'Principle' my ass. You would never require such asceticism of any Democrat.
I don't vote for democrats because they are as much in the tank as the republicans. It has crippled them, because they can't vote against the money flow.
7972. jayackroyd - 6/21/2003 11:52:57 AM
John Edwards has found the line.
Saletan summarizes
The upshot is that he is attacking Bush as a tool of big government and big corporations stealing from the little guy.
Edwards is the only one who can do this, because his contributor base is consistent with that story--he gets his money from tort lawyers who he also casts as dogooders for the little guys crushed by the evil corporations and indifferent government.
He's gonna hafta fight off the opponents focusing on class action assholes getting the consumer a coupon while clearing tens of millions. But it would be a coup to come up with a reform to that insanity.
Otherwise, he's got coherent message that attacks Bush's weaknesses. OTOH, he doesn't, and won't, have 170 million dollars for the general--and won't be able to spend his primary dollars on uplifting positive messages about himself.
7973. jayackroyd - 6/21/2003 11:55:15 AM
Excerpt:
The truth is, no matter what either party tells you, the greatest thing holding our economy down isn’t that wealth is taxed too much or that the government spends too little. More than anything else, what’s holding our economy down is the callous view of a few at the top in Washington and in the corporate world that the values that got us here can now be left behind.
American’s small businesses create jobs better than any government program. Our markets allocate capital more efficiently than any bureaucrat.
Yet our free enterprise system also depends on values: innovation, integrity, hard work, and great rewards for honest success. When those values disappear, our country suffers. The flood of corporate scandal in these past few years has not only torn at the roots of public confidence, but washed away the financial security of millions of Americans through layoffs, bankruptcies and destroyed pensions.
Our economy, our people, and our nation have been undermined by the crony capitalists who believe that success is all about working the angles, working the phones, and rigging the game, instead of hard work, innovation and frugality.
And these manipulators find comfort in an Administration which, through its own example, seems to embrace that ethic.
7974. jayackroyd - 6/21/2003 11:55:29 AM
Excerpt:
The truth is, no matter what either party tells you, the greatest thing holding our economy down isn’t that wealth is taxed too much or that the government spends too little. More than anything else, what’s holding our economy down is the callous view of a few at the top in Washington and in the corporate world that the values that got us here can now be left behind.
American’s small businesses create jobs better than any government program. Our markets allocate capital more efficiently than any bureaucrat.
Yet our free enterprise system also depends on values: innovation, integrity, hard work, and great rewards for honest success. When those values disappear, our country suffers. The flood of corporate scandal in these past few years has not only torn at the roots of public confidence, but washed away the financial security of millions of Americans through layoffs, bankruptcies and destroyed pensions.
Our economy, our people, and our nation have been undermined by the crony capitalists who believe that success is all about working the angles, working the phones, and rigging the game, instead of hard work, innovation and frugality.
And these manipulators find comfort in an Administration which, through its own example, seems to embrace that ethic.
7975. jayackroyd - 6/21/2003 12:36:49 PM
One more excerpt.
Make no mistake: this is the most radical and dangerous economic theory to hit our shores since socialism a century ago. Like socialism, it corrupts the very nature of our democracy and our free enterprise tradition. It is not a plan to grow the American economy. It is a plan to corrupt the American economy and shrink the winners’ circle.
This is a question of values, not taxes. We should cut taxes, but we shouldn’t cut and run from our values when we do. John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan argued for tax cuts as an incentive for people to work harder: Americans work hard, and the government shouldn’t punish them when they do.
This crowd is making a radically different argument. They don’t believe work matters most. They don’t believe in helping working people build wealth. They genuinely believe that the wealth of the wealthy matters most. They are determined to cut taxes on that wealth, year after year, and heap more and more of the burden on people who work.
7976. jayackroyd - 6/21/2003 12:42:37 PM
cont
How do we know this? Because they don’t even try to hide it. The Bush budget proposed tax-free tax shelters for millionaires that are bigger than most Americans’ paychecks for an entire year. And just last week, Bush’s tax guru, Grover Norquist, said their goal is to abolish the capital gains tax, abolish the dividend tax, and let the wealthiest shelter as much as they want tax-free.
Look at the choices they make: They have driven up the share of the tax burden for most working people, and driven down the burden on the richest few. They got rid of even the smallest tax on even the largest inheritances on earth. This past month, in a $350 billion bonanza of tax cuts on wealth, they couldn’t find $3.5 billion to give the child tax credit to poor people who work. Listen to this: They refused to cut taxes for the children of 250,000 American soldiers who are risking their lives for us in Iraq, so they could cut dividend and capital gains taxes for millionaires who were selling stocks short until the war was over.
The president keeps promising his plan will create jobs – but it hasn’t, it won’t, and that’s not why he did it. He said he wanted to end the double taxation of dividends. Then he turned around and signed a bill that lets people shelter dividends from companies that don’t pay taxes at all, including companies that evade taxes by setting up headquarters in Bermuda.
7977. jexster - 6/21/2003 8:47:38 PM
Good work Jay!
Yes I must admit, Edwards has the right populist tone.
7978. jexster - 6/21/2003 8:50:03 PM
Now Robert will have to do two drive by slimes instead of one for his bud JK! ;)
7979. wonkers2 - 6/22/2003 9:15:09 AM
On the eve of a Supreme Court decision in the U of Michigan cases, here's a nuanced opinion on affirmative action from Orlando Patterson. here
7980. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/22/2003 1:14:57 PM
"To believe that people cannot change or institutions cannot improve is to be a person without hope and there are such people and they spend their lives manufacturing ideologies ... whose chief purpose is never to explain life but to limit it, never to broaden horizons and lift the sight and bring light but rather to ward against vision under the cover of darkness, under which cover heinous crime may be committed with impunity. If you believe this, then you have a job waiting for you in the Bush administration. There's never been a more appalling Congress or a more complacent judiciary or an administration more reckless, irresponsible or cynical than the unscrupulous war criminals currently in quasi-legal occupancy of the White House. The world has never been in such dreadful shape."
[Tony Kushner]
7981. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/22/2003 6:10:50 PM
7982. robertjayb - 6/22/2003 7:08:24 PM
"Not mean-spirited, just passionate," says Tom Delay...(a Houston Chronicle profile)
7984. judithathome - 6/22/2003 8:11:45 PM
Was that the ghost of Wonkers past?
7985. judithathome - 6/22/2003 8:17:45 PM
At times, DeLay's contempt for what he perceives as the corrosive effects of liberalism and godlessness in America is manifested in extraordinary, fire-and-brimstone oratory. A favorite bogeyman: The Left.
"We know that the Left's malevolent campaign to undermine the notion of truth itself comes at a frightful price," DeLay declared in a recent floor speech.
"Their malignant hold over the intellectual life of this country must be exorcised, and men and women who are willing to speak the truth offer our only hope of reclaiming our culture from the grip of a hedonistic, reckless and destructive descent into nihilism," he said.
Good lord, now we know who Concerned really is and what he does during the day!!
7986. arkymalarky - 6/22/2003 8:55:27 PM
Except I think Con'd is sane and I think DeLay is a psycho. What a monomaniacal freak.
7987. robertjayb - 6/23/2003 11:14:28 AM
Race-based admissions okay---Supremes...
June 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of race in college admissions, upholding an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan's law school while striking down a separate undergraduate policy.
The court said 5-4 that the law school policy, aimed at boosting black, Hispanic and American Indian enrollment, was a legitimate way to ensure a racially diverse campus.
``The law school's educational judgment that such diversity is essential to its educational mission is one to which we defer,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said for the majority.
A separate 6-3 majority said the undergraduate policy was too broad, failing the constitutional test of ``narrow tailoring.''
The decisions ensure that public and private universities can continue to use race as a factor in admissions, something hundreds of schools do.
7988. robertjayb - 6/23/2003 11:28:25 AM
A better article on the Michigan decision...
WASHINGTON--(AP)-- In two split decisions, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions to universities, but limited how much a factor race can play in the selection of students.
The high court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan, but did not go as far as opponents of affirmative action had wanted. The court approved a separate program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.
7989. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/23/2003 12:14:41 PM
Can't wait for them to address porn . . .
7990. wonkers2 - 6/23/2003 1:09:08 PM
The Supreme Court decision is good news. Baake remains the law of the land. Narrowly tailored, race is a valid consideration in college admissions. Pragmatism prevails over principle.
7991. concerned - 6/23/2003 5:57:40 PM
Sounds like the USSC made the right decision, but I would like to become more familiar with the specific implications before giving my ultimate approval.
7992. concerned - 6/23/2003 6:00:06 PM
Economy not to Blame for States' Budget Woes
Why am I not surprised that California turns out to be the worst managed state in the union financially? And now there's a petition circulating to dethrone Grayout Davis.
7993. concerned - 6/23/2003 6:02:58 PM
Re. 7985 -
Keep trying, JAH:)
7994. jexster - 6/23/2003 7:48:55 PM
Howard Dean - Left Wing Imposter, Closet Centrist
7995. jexster - 6/23/2003 7:50:56 PM
Concerned now a Democrat???
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopefuls called Monday's divided U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rulings on racial preferences a defeat for President Bush (news - web sites), and a reminder of the need for defenders of civil rights on the nation's highest court.
"The rulings may be mixed, but the message is clear: affirmative action is constitutional and President Bush's efforts to undermine it have failed," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, one of nine contenders for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination
7996. jexster - 6/23/2003 7:55:17 PM
Bush - A Liar or a Moron?
Yes.
7997. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/24/2003 1:56:39 AM
It's because Bush is a functionally not-bright man. . .
When these statements turn out to be untrue, Bush's feigned certainty alone justifies calling these statements lies.
7998. Macnas - 6/24/2003 4:50:13 AM
All hat and no cattle?
7999. judithathome - 6/24/2003 9:34:21 AM
Very much...
8000. judithathome - 6/24/2003 9:34:39 AM
so!
8001. jexster - 6/24/2003 10:57:38 AM
"Suppose that a politician — or a journalist — admits to himself that Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into war. Well, launching a war on false pretenses is, to say the least, a breach of trust. So if you admit to yourself that such a thing happened, you have a moral obligation to demand accountability — and to do so in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless political machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to believe that its leaders have exploited 9/11 for political gain. It's a scary prospect.
Yet if we can't find people willing to take the risk — to face the truth and act on it — what will happen to our democracy?"
Denial and Deception
Here I am Lord, send me.
8002. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/24/2003 11:09:17 AM
"Yet if we can't find people willing to take the risk — to face the truth and act on it — what will happen to our democracy?"
8003. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/24/2003 11:10:10 AM
All brazenness, no brains.
8004. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/24/2003 11:10:42 AM
Bush, I mean!
8005. robertjayb - 6/24/2003 11:12:31 AM
Judith the Sneak strikes again.
8006. jexster - 6/24/2003 11:46:05 AM
8007. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/24/2003 5:55:18 PM
8008. wonkers2 - 6/24/2003 8:57:53 PM
For our resident experts on racism, Ace and Sickles: Your favorite lawn jockey does it again. How d'ya like them apples? Wonkers, the racist, likes 'em just fine.
8009. jexster - 6/24/2003 9:10:40 PM
Voted at 8 this morning!
Voting Begins in Online U.S. Democratic 'Primary'
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Voting opened with a few hiccups on Tuesday in an online Democratic presidential "primary" held by MoveOn.org, a 1.4 million-member advocacy group that is considering endorsing a candidate in 2004.
Voters in the virtual primary reported delays in getting ballots on Tuesday and were unable to get on the site for 45 minutes during morning crunch time. Organizers said voting was heavy, but the problems had been ironed out and everyone would get ballots.
"There were lines at the polls for about 45 minutes," said Zack Exley, organizing director of MoveOn, a liberal group formed in 1998 to oppose the impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton (news - web sites).
Voting will continue for 48 hours -- until midnight EDT on Wednesday -- with the results announced on Friday. If any candidate gets more than 50 percent, he will win the group's endorsement, which is likely to bring a windfall in campaign contributions and grass-roots support.
Exley said MoveOn will send an e-mail to members on Tuesday night reminding them to vote.
The cyberspace primary comes more than six months before the real thing begins in Iowa and New Hampshire, but the candidates are watching the results with anticipation.
8010. robertjayb - 6/25/2003 12:46:42 AM
What a cunning man Clarence Thomas is...(Maureen Dowd)
Justice Thomas's dissent in the 5-4 decision preserving affirmative action in university admissions has persuaded me that affirmative action is not the way to go.
The dissent is a clinical study of a man who has been driven barking mad by the beneficial treatment he has received.
............................
President Bush and Justice Thomas have brought me around. I don't want affirmative action. I want whatever they got.
8011. robertjayb - 6/25/2003 12:57:51 AM
Bad planning...(Thomas Friedman)
President Bush is sure lucky no weapons of mass destruction have been found yet in Iraq.
Because had we found these weapons our entire focus today would be on the real issue: why the Bush team — which wanted this war so badly and had telegraphed it for so long — was so poorly prepared for postwar Iraq.
I still believe that with the right effort Iraq can be made a decent place. But that task has been made much harder because of the Pentagon's poor planning for postwar Iraq. If the Pentagon's lapses can be overcome — and I hope they will be — then we should learn from them for future wars. If they can't be overcome, then they will be grist for next year's who-lost-Iraq debate.
8012. wonkers2 - 6/25/2003 6:40:52 AM
Bush finally realized that without AA he would never have gotten into Yale or Harvard. So, he praised the Supreme Court decisions.
8013. concerned - 6/25/2003 7:13:04 PM
From Andrewsullivan.com:
THE 'INGRATITUDE' OF THOMAS: It would be hard to find a more appalling example of racial animus than in Maureen Dowd's column this morning. For some reason I guess I do understand, Clarence Thomas isn't just opposed by many on the Left; he is hated. He is hated because he is, in Dowd's extraordinary formulation, guilty of "a great historical ingratitude." The good negroes, in Dowd's liberal-racist world, are those grateful to their massas in the liberal hierarchy: they are grateful to Howell and Gerald and Arthur; and they know their place. For them to express the psychological torment of being advanced for racist reasons, to explain in graphic, brave and bold terms the complexity of emotions many African-Americans feel as 'beneficiaries' of racial preferences, is unacceptable. To describe such a person who has been courageous enough to put these feelings into a powerful dissent as "barking mad" is nothing short of disgusting. Yes, there are all sorts of psychological inconsistencies in Thomas' journey. But that, in part, is the point! If Dowd supports "diversity" as a good thing in elite institutions, why isn't it a good thing for one black Justice to contribute his own experience as part of a landmark judicial ruling? Of course I don't know whether Dowd supports diversity in this sense. That would require her to argue something - of which she is apparently incapable. And then Dowd, of all people, complains that Thomas is more interested in his own personal dramas than "bigger issues of morality and justice." When was the last time you read a Dowd column that grappled with "bigger issues of morality and justice"?
That's real ingratitude for ya, huh, Lefties? Democrats have kept Thomas's ancestors clothed and fed (kinda) for centuries and are still doing what they can to keep AAs on the dole, and this is how he pays you back? The 'nerve' of this (insert favorite LW-racist epithet here).
8014. jayackroyd - 6/25/2003 10:38:43 PM
That would require her to argue something.
Back at you, Andrew.
But you have to admit that there is something deeply ironic in the one person in the nation who is a member of the institution that most clearly has a quota system is the one railing against them. We got the woman seat, the southern seat, the Jewish seat and the black seat.
The cynical appointment of a minor official who happened to be young, black and conservative to the black seat was an appalling exploitation of the quota system that is in place in the Supreme Court.
His inexperience and underqualification have been made clear by his silence and the little opinion writing he has done. I haven't read the opinion yet, so I can't say whether this most recent piece is a variation, but we will see.
This is not, btw, an ideological issue. Scalia is a polar opposite of Thomas, scathingly articulate in his opinions. He is, to my mind, as important to the court as Douglas was, and for similar reasons.
On the AA issue in general, the summaries I've seen of the O'Connor opinion, where she says this will all fade away in 25 years were a reassuring indication that she gets it. She was apparently influenced by all those free enterprise organizations that submitted amicus briefs speaking to the value of a diverse workplace.
Finally, I find it hard to understand why a non-interventionist, states-rights court finds it necessary hve the federal government instruct a university how to properly construct a class.
8015. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 10:39:54 PM
Clarence Thomas uses his color when it suits him. AA was fine for getting him where he is. If he's asked similar questions about his behavior in his confirmation hearing to what Clinton was asked after being elected president it's a high-class lynching.
I'm for college opportunities for all underprivileged Americans who show promise and talent over people who can afford to buy degrees.
Who's the black man at Berkeley, I believe, who's written on the subject and is fairly conservative? His name escapes me, but he was mentioned in here a while back and he's one who effectively discusses the more conservative side of issues like AA. I would try harder to remember his name if I had more incentive at the moment.
8016. wonkers2 - 6/25/2003 10:48:48 PM
Sullivan--"Why isn't it good for one black justice....?"
It isn't good because Thomas isn't a black justice. He's an oreo cookie, an Uncle Tom, a lawn jockey who bailed on hiw own race and sucked up to the conservative white establishment in order to feather his own nest. Thomas couldn't carry Thurgood Marshall's bookbag.
8017. concerned - 6/25/2003 11:01:03 PM
Lester Maddox = Lifelong Democrat
8018. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 11:03:33 PM
Con'd=Lifelong Centrist
8019. concerned - 6/25/2003 11:05:50 PM
wonkers - you sound like the kind of person who could have given Maddox a run for his money with an axe handle.
8020. concerned - 6/25/2003 11:07:09 PM
Re. 8018 -
No, arky. I once, long ago, considered myself a LW liberal.
8021. concerned - 6/25/2003 11:09:51 PM
That was back when I tended to absorb or assume political attitudes without thought.
8022. concerned - 6/25/2003 11:11:57 PM
Even through much of the '80's, I was waiting for the Left to come back to its senses. Around '88, seeing no real signs of that, I threw in the towel regarding the Democrat Party.
8023. judithathome - 6/25/2003 11:15:25 PM
Arky, do you mean Ward Connerly?
8024. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 11:18:49 PM
Well, Con'd I'm glad you're a thinking man now. ;-)
Judith,
No, this is a younger man. I looked images of Connerly up in Google to see, since it didn't sound like him.
8025. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 11:19:45 PM
Mingle amongst the working classes for a while, Con'd and you might be drawn back into the fold. At least here in AR.
8026. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 11:30:57 PM
I don't know if "conservative" was really accurate, since he's much more complex in his thinking than that kind of label fits, but it was John McWhorter.
8027. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 11:32:05 PM
I must also say, totally irrelevantly, that I find his looks totally compelling.
8028. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 11:32:34 PM
And they're even moreso when he's talking.
8029. concerned - 6/25/2003 11:33:22 PM
Well, arky, there's a couple things about me and politics. What my neighbor or relative believes doesn't affect what I believe and never has. And I think local and national politics are quite distinct and need to be considered largely separately.
8030. judithathome - 6/25/2003 11:34:05 PM
Dittos on that one...I've seen him in interviews. Compelling is certainly the word.
8031. judithathome - 6/25/2003 11:35:23 PM
That last post was about McWhorter.
Concerned is rather compelling, too, but in a totally different way. ;-)
8032. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 11:37:37 PM
And I think local and national politics are quite distinct and need to be considered largely separately.
But the genius of the Republican Party is that they don't, although Democrat Tip O'Neil is the one credited with stating that truism. Local Arkansans, many of them longtime Republicans but not rich--socially conservatives, mostly--are regretting it now and it may be too late.
8033. judithathome - 6/25/2003 11:40:27 PM
Hey, Ted Koppel is about to interview Rand Beers, the guy who quit working for Bush and joined Kerry's campaign...I want to watch this. Catch y'all tomorrow!
8034. arkymalarky - 6/25/2003 11:41:11 PM
Rats. I don't get the networks.
8035. concerned - 6/25/2003 11:42:37 PM
C Ya, JAH.
8036. wonkers2 - 6/26/2003 7:37:13 AM
Observation: The people who are now bleating 14th amendment purists against affirmative action are the same ones who opposed civil rights legislation at every step of the way. They are now insisting on non-discrimination in college admissions, but where were they on every piece of civil rights legislation? They fought it every step of the way.
Where are they on equal school funding? Opposed naturally.
Where are they on graduated income tax? Opposed naturally.
Where were they on school integration? Most of them opposed it.
But now they are principled 14th amendment purists. The veils hiding their true attitudes are quite thin.
8037. arkymalarky - 6/26/2003 9:56:19 AM
Where are they on equal school funding? Opposed naturally.
Where are they on graduated income tax? Opposed naturally.
Where were they on school integration? Most of them opposed it.
Aaaaamen. Especially to the first one.
8038. marjoribanks - 6/26/2003 10:04:47 AM
Rand Beers is not that compelling a figure because he (a) plays the 'I'm not going to compromise intelligence' game and thus relies on nods and winks and some innuendo and (b) he's gone and politicized himself by joining the Kerry camp.
But I'd still like to hear him out, though in front of lawmakers not Koppel.
8039. judithathome - 6/26/2003 10:31:36 AM
Well, Koppel was all that was available last night at 10:30 so I was pleased to hera him, regardless. What he said si playing out...this administration was not equipped for the job in Iraq.
Supremes just shot down Texas' sodomy law.
8040. judithathome - 6/26/2003 10:32:32 AM
Skip all the typing mistakes.
8041. jexster - 6/26/2003 11:19:51 AM
Oh boy I can now have sex with Edmund Dantes in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri,Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
8042. judithathome - 6/26/2003 11:25:54 AM
Well, they didn't rule on insanity so yeah, I guess you could if so inclined.
8043. Macnas - 6/26/2003 11:29:28 AM
Not Arky land?
8044. alistairConnor - 6/26/2003 11:41:48 AM
While we're on the subject...
Hetero-anal farce A 40-year-old woman has picked up a 20-year-old youth at the gym. They have gone back to his place, where anal sex featured on the carte du jour, much enjoyed by both until the couple make an appalling discovery: they are joined together as if with superglue and unable to part. The boy rings his father, a gynaecologist, and begs him to come and release them. Dad proves to be a gloriously smug old smoothie, bursting with paternal pride that his son has made such a conquest and totally unable to resist appalling double entendres. The lovers, still enduring their unorthodox coitus (non) interruptus, and with the young lad, Tito, experiencing a series of noisy involuntary orgasms, cover their shame beneath an enormous parachute, with the woman, Beatrice, at first refusing to show her face. But when she finally does, she recognises that the boy's father, Tobia, is the long-lost sweetheart of her youth, with whom she once enjoyed a sensational night of passion.
8045. jexster - 6/26/2003 11:42:03 AM
MARTIN SHEEN
Dear John,
Please do something after reading this email. Do what you can, but please do something.
A few days ago Howard Dean did something we haven't seen in our country in decades.
He called on all of the American people to participate again in our common future.
Governor Dean spoke out loud and clear against the crisis of community our current President has created at home, and against the Bush administration's abandonment of the heritage of America as the Idealistic Moral force in the world.
And then he said this:
"The history of our nation is clear: At every turn where there has been an imbalance of power, the truth questioned, or our beliefs and values distorted, the change required to restore our nation has always come from the bottom up from our people.
You have the power to reclaim our nation's destiny."
Each of us acting alone -- which is what the Bush people think America should be -- leaves us powerless to change Washington or the direction of our nation.
But if Americans --all of us -- do something, and do it together, we really do have the power to change forever the way politics is conducted in our country and make a profound impact on our nation's future.
Over 121,231 of us have signed up to support Howard Dean's campaign to take back our country.
Think about that, 121,231 Americans.
8046. jexster - 6/26/2003 11:42:20 AM
If each of us contributed $100 today it would mean over $12 million dollars in contributions to Howard Dean's campaign in one day and we would not only shock the press and pundits we would take a giant leap towards taking back our country.
And so I am asking you to join me today in giving what you can -- $100 if you can, but do something, contribute whatever you can afford to contribute but please contribute today.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute
Please do not delete this email before taking a common action with the other 121,230 of us who are committed with you to returning government to the people and helping Howard Dean become our next President.
Martin Luther King Jr. said "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
What is happening to our country today matters-- Howard Dean is not silent, on the contrary. In one day we can provide the resources needed to make sure his voice and ours is heard loud and clear -- "we want our country back."
http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute
Please forward this email on to someone else, to help me spread this message.
I am a supporter of Howard Dean and all that I ask is that today we all do something together to move his candidacy and the cause of America forward.
Thank you,
Martin Sheen
8047. wonkers2 - 6/26/2003 12:54:47 PM
Scalia took the unusual step of reading his dissent in the Texas sodomy case from the bench, saying "The court has signed on to the homosexual agenda. The court has taken sides in the culture war." He reportedly added that he "had nothing against homosexuals." Yeah, right! Of course his little pull-toy and one time porn devotee, Clarence "Lawn Jockey" Thomas and Chief "Justice" Rehnquist voted with Scalia.
8048. jexster - 6/26/2003 2:45:58 PM
Damn Porch Monkey...The Moron will probably make him CJ
At least Cllr can fuck Danny Boy in Virginny now.
8049. jexster - 6/26/2003 2:48:52 PM
Bush's 'Re-Elect' Drops to 40%
The media keeps portraying Bush as "popular," but political pros know that any incumbent whose "re-elect" number is below 50% is in deep doo-doo. According to the latest Ipsos-Reid poll, Bush's "re-elect" is now at 40%, only 2% above his lowest-ever rating of 38% - despite "winning" two wars and strutting his "stuff" [puke!] across the deck of the
U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Meanwhile 32% will "definitely vote for someone else," and 26% will "consider someone else."
Fightin Fred Thompson, doing what he does best - acting like a politician, on Law & Order last nite:
"Politicians have to have a war on something. Its how they get re-elected."
8050. judithathome - 6/26/2003 3:55:49 PM
If You Want That Info, You'll Have To Pry It From My Cold Dead Hand...
...The administration's Medicare chief threatened to fire his top actuary, Rick Foster, if Foster released his calculations to Capitol Hill Democrats who requested the analysis, officials said.
Medicare chief Tom Scully said in an interview Wednesday that Democrats had no right to request the information from Foster in the first place.
"They don't have the right on the Hill to call up my actuary and demand things," said Scully, chief of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "These people work for the executive branch, period."
Scully said he would release the analysis "if I feel like it."
8051. arkymalarky - 6/26/2003 4:59:33 PM
And who does the Executive Branch work for?
Nevermind. I think we know.
8052. arkymalarky - 6/26/2003 5:03:07 PM
Encountering that sort of arrogance on the state level more than I care to lately, Thomas Nast keeps popping in my mind, especially his cartoon of Boss Tweed (I forget in what caricature--Roman Emperor watching Justice be shredded by lions, maybe?) with a caption that was a quote from Tweed, "As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?" But Tweed couldn't bribe or threaten Nast's removal from his job.
8053. concerned - 6/26/2003 6:28:16 PM
Re. 8036 -
You're just being absurd.
To deflate just one of your ridiculous assertions: Most of the DEMOCRATS who opposed school integration have died already, ferchrissakes.
8054. concerned - 6/26/2003 6:31:02 PM
Where are they on equal school funding? Opposed naturally.
Only an ignoramus would suggest that the Federal Government controlls public school funding.
8055. concerned - 6/26/2003 6:32:04 PM
Where are they on graduated income tax?
This is bullshit. 'They', btw, is indeterminate, from Bonkers' context.
8056. concerned - 6/26/2003 6:35:35 PM
To sum up, Wonkers refers to totally disparate groups of mostly deceased people to make his confused little opposition list.
8057. arkymalarky - 6/26/2003 7:37:39 PM
Did Wonk say federal government?
8058. arkymalarky - 6/26/2003 7:45:46 PM
And besides that, as little as they put into it they ought to have much less say in what states do, and they ought to think things through like No Child Left Behind before implementing them. The requirements are very expensive for poor states, which also are hardest hit by them. You can't just slap something like that down in one bill, no matter how good the ideas and intent, without many details for implementation.
Part of the problem is that they keep forgetting that not everyone has an SUV, the right work hours, and plenty of money for gas to drive little Susie to whatever school she chooses to attend. People who do send their kids to private schools anyway if their neighborhood schools aren't good. So once again the working poor are left out of "school choice" and poor districts receive no help to improve and so they get further punished for it. It's like kicking someone down as you tell them repeatedly to get up.
"You can't attract teachers because your property tax base is too low to offer nice salaries and facilities?" BAM! "You can't get your kids from zero to 75% on tests, even though they came to kindergarten not knowing how to use a fork, much less identify their colors or letters and 90% are on free lunches?" BAM!
8059. jexster - 6/26/2003 10:10:19 PM
Big Party tonight in Castro.
WE CAN HAVE SEX IN TEXAS!
Whoopee fuckin do.
8060. judithathome - 6/26/2003 11:03:48 PM
Strom Thurmond...RIP
8061. jexster - 6/27/2003 10:51:41 AM
Toward One-Party Rule: The Plan to Build the GOP Fascist State
8062. jexster - 6/27/2003 11:24:01 AM
SAN FRANCISCO, June 26 Gay men and lesbians poured into the streets today to celebrate a Supreme Court decision striking down or strictly limiting the country's last remaining sodomy laws in 13 states.
Happy Pride Weekend to all!
8063. jexster - 6/27/2003 11:25:42 AM
8064. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/27/2003 11:42:44 AM
8065. robertjayb - 6/27/2003 12:22:19 PM
MoveOn.org primary poll results (consumer warning: This paste is liftedon faith from Democratic Underground as MoveOn's site is jammed:
RESULTS (sorted by most votes):
DEAN------43.87%
KUCINICH--23.93%
KERRY-----15.73%
EDWARDS---3.19%
GEPHARDT--2.44%
GRAHAM----2.24%
BRAUN-----2.21%
UNDECIDED-2.01%
OTHER-----1.93%
LIEBERMAN-1.92%
SHARPTON--0.53%
There were 317647 votes cast.
8066. jexster - 6/27/2003 1:31:29 PM
Beat me too it, you friggin Kerry plutocrat
8067. jexster - 6/27/2003 1:33:42 PM
This is from an official MoveOn communique
BRAUN 7021 2.21%
DEAN 139360 43.87%
EDWARDS 10146 3.19%
GRAHAM 7113 2.24%
KERRY 49973 15.73%
KUCINICH 76000 23.93%
GEPHARDT 7755 2.44%
LIEBERMAN 6095 1.92%
SHARPTON 1677 0.53%
OTHER 6121 1.93%
UNDECIDED 6378 2.01%
317647 100.00%
8068. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/27/2003 2:04:13 PM
Dean/Kucinch '04!
8069. jexster - 6/27/2003 2:07:03 PM
Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
8070. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/27/2003 2:17:34 PM
Bushnocchio: "United We Stand . . . To Make A Killing!"
8071. arkymalarky - 6/27/2003 6:24:44 PM
I personally think it's possible to be maliciously stupid. Like the Slate article on whether Bush is a liar or dumb.
8072. concerned - 6/27/2003 7:01:37 PM
Re. 8058 -
This calls for 'drastic' measures, all right. Like just saying 'no' to single parenthood.
8073. concerned - 6/27/2003 7:06:03 PM
Re. 8059 -
Say, isn't this the same USSC that shut down SCOFLA's attempted presidential coup 7-2 in 2000? What gives?
8074. concerned - 6/27/2003 7:06:53 PM
Stop screwing your kids. Stay married.
8075. concerned - 6/27/2003 7:13:20 PM
Actually, I agree with the definition of 'privacy' that the USSC used to reach its ruling regarding state sodomy laws.
That is opposed to the ersatz 'privacy' that is claimed to be required for the imagined 'right' to have abortions.
8076. arkymalarky - 6/27/2003 7:14:56 PM
Con'd, excuse me, but you live in bubble-land if you think we're talking about single parents here. Do you have any dealings with the working poor? If not, you ought to enlighten yourself by getting out more. Lots of my students have two working parents and are still disadvantaged, and as nice a pipe dream as it would be for every married couple to endure every possible situation to stay married, it's not a good thing in practice, even, as often as not, for the children.
And for those whose response is that working poor should get educated and get better jobs, I have no interest in such elitist thinking. It would be so nice if we all had the same opportunities and situations, but we don't, and you can't explain that to the insulated suburban middle class who persist in thinking that if they can't see it it must not exist. But that's all right. The rich are screwing them over daily now and they can't see that either. They also persist in thinking they're upwardly mobile and heading for that category themselves.
Suckers.
8077. concerned - 6/27/2003 7:23:20 PM
Lots of my students have two working parents and are still disadvantaged...
That's still lots less than who are disadvantaged because their single parent couldn't be bothered to provide for them properly by staying with their other biological parent.
Bottom line, I think the large majority of single parents are simply selfish or misguided people, because they wouldn't do that to their kids if they knew or just plain gave a fuck how much single parenthood hurts children.
8078. concerned - 6/27/2003 7:25:02 PM
Arky -
Having the option of two wage earners in a household is vastly preferable when there are dependent children nine times out of ten, independent of educational status.
8079. concerned - 6/27/2003 7:25:58 PM
Most single parents=selfish and/or misguided.
Am I being clear about this?
8080. arkymalarky - 6/27/2003 8:23:33 PM
You've never been married, have you? I asked in the cafe but you may not have seen it.
You are clear--clearly so overly simplistic in your world view that you can't adjust for circumstances in any issue. At least it explains a lot. It would be nice if life and people were as simple and easy to manage as you paint them.
8081. betty - 6/27/2003 8:27:59 PM
concerned, are you advocating that parents tolerate abuse (physical and/or mental) for the sake of their child? are you advocating that parents endure repeated infidelity for the sake of their children? are you advocating that parents remain unhappy for the sake of their children?
Outside of educational success very little is determined by parental income, and huge success is being had with joint custody as far as emotional well being of children. And still psychologist say that the number one determinant of a child's happiness in adulthood is her or his parent's own happiness.
since the average couple considers divorce for SIX years before they actually file, with all likelihood the child saw his/her parents model "unhappiness" for a significant portion of her/his life. It would seem that decent, accessible and affordable mental health care (including marital counseling before the shit hits the fans) would do considerably more to improve children's state than decreasing (or increasing) the divorce rate.
8082. concerned - 6/28/2003 5:31:09 AM
Which one was it that was supposed to be the 'rich man's party' again? From the WP:
Democrats Discovering Campaign Law's Cost
Saturday, June 28, 2003; Page A05
The evidence is growing that Democrats shot themselves in the foot by forcing passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricting what had been unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties.
A report released yesterday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, found that, contrary to common perceptions, Republicans have a big advantage over Democrats in donations from small donors, while Democrats are king among only the biggest.
The study, analyzing donations during the 2002 campaign cycle, found that those little guys giving less than $200 to federal candidates, parties or leadership political action committees contributed 64 percent of their money to Republicans. By contrast, those fat cats giving $1 million or more contributed a lopsided 92 percent to Democrats. The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000.
"The findings illustrate the Republicans' strong advantage over Democrats in the current system," the center concluded. That's for sure. With the McCain-Feingold law capping total contributions at $95,000 per person, the Democrats are plain out of luck.
Less surprising was the finding that 94 percent of congressional candidates who outspent their opponents won their races.
The study also found that only one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans gave $1,000 or more. Total spending in the 2002 cycle by candidates, parties and interest groups was $2.2 billion, down from the $2.9 billion spent in 2000 but significantly more than the $1.7 billion spent in the 1998 midterm election.
8083. concerned - 6/28/2003 5:36:34 AM
arky -
Just about every bad thing that you claim justifies divorce is several times worse in single parent households with dependent children. You name it: partner abuse, child abuse, crime, poverty, drug use, social maladjustment, mental illness, low educational accomplishment.
It's safe to say that the person who initiates the divorce is putting his or her children, not to mention themself at a serious overall disadvantage nine times out of ten.
8084. concerned - 6/28/2003 5:43:35 AM
I half expect a sudden change of attitude among Democrats regarding the necessity for McCain/Feingold.
8085. concerned - 6/28/2003 5:53:35 AM
Re. 8081 -
betty -
You raise some good points, of course. I am in no way advocating anything like 'abolishing' divorce. Instead, why not try to reduce it by, say half, at least when dependent children are affected?
Anybody with two good brain cells can see that the US divorce rate of over 50% is not just ridiculously high, showing the ignorance of the deleterious effects of their actions and what an abysmal lack of personal commitment many alleged 'adults' exhibit in the US, but is anomalous worldwide. Even most 'sophisticated' European nations don't approach that staggering figure.
8086. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 9:14:51 AM
Democrats' 2004 campaign slogan:
Dean--just nutty...enough!
8087. judithathome - 6/28/2003 10:45:16 AM
Dean: At least he has a vocabulary!
Dean: He can even pronounce vocabulary!
8088. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 10:57:30 AM
Con'd I agree with all that in your last post. It's your ignoring the plight of working poor and lower-middle-class people and their children, married or not.
8089. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 10:58:03 AM
Dean has a thought and a principle and he owns them.
8090. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 11:32:29 AM
Dean has a thought and a principle and he owns them.
Russert: Let me show you something in April you had to say about your competitors. “I think we’re going to beat the living daylights out of these other candidates because they need a backbone transplant.” Who?
Dean: Oh, you know I never would say on this show.
Russert: But you believe some of your Democratic contenders, opponents need a backbone transplant?
Dean: At that time what was going on was that a number of people had voted for the war and were going to Iowa saying “Well, I only”—some of them are still doing it. I...
Russert: Who?
Dean: I’m not going to mention them by name. There’s no need to do that.
Russert: But, Governor, if you’re a straight-talking, blunt-speaking candidate and you’re saying some of your opponents need a backbone transplant, who needs a backbone transplant?
Dean: There are a number of people, Tim, who have gone out on the campaign trail, one as recently as last week, and said “I only voted for the resolution to go to war with Iraq because I knew that the resolution would force the president to send the matter to the United Nations.” That is false.
Russert: Who said that?
Dean: I’m not going to tell you who said that.
Dean 2004: Principled...backboned.
8091. judithathome - 6/28/2003 11:34:25 AM
He must be scaring the hell out of someone or he'd be ignored by all you patriotic, Top Gun Americans.
8092. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 11:38:26 AM
Dean: At least he has a vocabulary!
Russert: Well, you apologized to Bob Graham.
Dean: No, I didn’t.
Russert: You called the AP and recanted the statement.
Dean: I called the AP and said, “I’m sorry I said that.”
Russert: Well, that’s an apology.
Dean: No, it’s not.
Russert: “I’m sorry I said it” is not an apology?
Dean: I didn’t actually say I’m sorry. I said, “I shouldn’t have said it because it’s not my business to handicap the races.” Look, Tim, if I make a mistake, I’m happy to say so, and I’m happy to say why I made a mistake. But to say that I don’t have the temperament to be president, I actually think maybe I have a better temperament to be president because wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who’s actually admitted he was wrong when he made a mistake?
Dean 2004: Apology isn't in his vocabulary!
8093. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 12:37:19 PM
Wow, what a damning interview. If nit-picking is your game, Dean's your man.
8094. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 12:40:05 PM
What I'd like to know is how much these patriots will love their country more than the rest of it and support it through any action if Dean's elected. As much as they did when Clinton was president? All of a sudden disliking Bush and his actions is un-American, but criticizing the administration was just the opposite when Clinton was president.
These people are so transparent it's pathetic.
Russert: What people?
Arky: I'm not naming names. They know who they are.
8095. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 12:41:01 PM
rest of *us*, that should read
8096. judithathome - 6/28/2003 1:07:17 PM
Didn't you know, Arky? Top Gun has laid down a fiat: you're either with us or against us. Ergo, all who question or disagree are traitors.
8097. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 1:27:58 PM
What I'd like to know is how much these patriots will love their country more than the rest of it and support it through any action if Dean's elected.
That's a nice little change of the subject, but true Americans always support their country against foreign enemies.
And nitpicking? The cackling Democratic henhouse here does nothing but pick at nits. Say, @theHome: How many times did Bush blink in his last speech?
Dean 2004: He supposes it's a good thing Saddam is gone
8098. judithathome - 6/28/2003 1:34:45 PM
God, Edmund, I thought you had more originality than to cop one of Ace's lines! So it's come to this, has it?
You not only pick nits but you whine about people talking over your "excellent" points and arguments.
How the mighty have fallen.
8099. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 1:44:31 PM
...whine about people talking over your "excellent" points and arguments.
Bitch.
Not whine. Bitch. And Pincher's the only goober here left with sufficient intelligence to tell I was joking. margarinebank complained that I wasn't putting my sharp, pointed rejoinders here, and alistairchienner belly-ached about my "what's the frequency?" ratio, so I wanted to point out to them that my lovely prose was being obscured by flung dingleberries, luv. Pearls before swine and all that, dollface.
I'm about to post another Dean quote (which I would include now except for the ridiculously low character limit this site enforces), so please excuse me if I don't return your sweet nothings for a moment.
Kiss kiss.
8100. judithathome - 6/28/2003 1:47:40 PM
Artificial pearls at best...
You can take your pearls and stick them where you'll better enjoy the sensation...I'm off to boost the economy.
8101. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 1:50:46 PM
Dean has a thought and a principle and he owns them.
Dean 1992: I don’t support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can’t really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn’t be in the business of taking people’s lives.
Dean 1997: Until life without parole means life without parole, the public is not safe without a death penalty....Until we have a judicial system that can adequately protect us, the only thing that will is the death penalty.
Dean, also 1997: If I thought the death penalty was going to stop the next depraved murder that might occur in Vermont, I would ask the Legislature to enact it....I truly don’t believe it’s a deterrent.
Dean, last week: As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer. The events of September 11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment.
Dean 2004: Because the death penalty is just a nit.
8102. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 1:56:10 PM
You can take your pearls and stick them where you'll better enjoy the sensation...I'm off to boost the economy.
Cheers! Hope you have better luck stimulating the economy than your naughty, nasty girl talk did with my prostate gland.
8103. jexster - 6/28/2003 1:56:12 PM
Shall I sign you up? "Nit" your first name, last "wit"????
8104. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 1:56:39 PM
Toycheck
8105. jexster - 6/28/2003 1:58:02 PM
Its Rainin Men Hallelujah!!!
Up to 1,000,000 To Attend Pride Parade
Sisters are doin' it for themselves.
Standin' on their own two feet.
And ringin' on their own bells.
Sisters are doin' it for themselves
8106. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 2:06:18 PM
"I don't need Bush's tax cut....I have never worked a fucking day in my life!"
--Democratic Congressman Patrick Kennedy, to Young Democrats party.
8107. PelleNilsson - 6/28/2003 2:24:36 PM
As a person who doesn't know who this chap Dean is, I find the recent posts quite funny. Edmund returns to form.
8108. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 2:25:05 PM
Please post the sources of your quotes, Ed.
I'll be impressed when there's enough to fill a book of "Deanisms."
And true Americans don't go around defining what American citizens are and are not truly American. Only fascists do that kind of winnowing.
8109. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 2:27:34 PM
Tax cuts are to non-workers, if Ed knew what was up with Republican tax reform. They are removing taxes from incomes that people don't work for. So the non-working rich are exactly the ones who are getting the tax cuts.
But Ed will take his licks as a working stiff paying more than his share because he's a "TRUE AMERICAN."
8110. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 2:29:42 PM
Speaking of quotes, one of the wackiest actions of the RRR (Radical Right Republicans--you know, the ones who are directing policies at the moment?) was to take old Quayle quotes and try to attribute them to Gore.
8111. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/28/2003 6:32:49 PM
8112. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 7:17:43 PM
Please post the sources of your quotes, Ed.
Everything but the death penalty stuff is from the Russert interview. Surely you don't find anything in Dean's death penalty waffles Dan Quaylish? (Clintonesque perhaps, but Dan Quaylish?) Russert refers to the death penalty quotes, too, but that's not where Dean first made them of course.
Some more of Dean's death-penalty principles:
Dean: ....In 1964—excuse me, in 1994, in the very paper that this was printed in, they ran a series of articles saying I was rethinking the death penalty. This has nothing to do with running for president. It happened while Bill Clinton—before Bill Clinton had even run for his second term. I began to rethink the death penalty in 1994 because of the Polly Klaas case.
Russert: But in terms of rethinking—let me show you what you did say in ’92 and think about...
Dean: That’s right. You don’t have to show me. I know what I said in ’92.
8113. Edmund Dantes - 6/28/2003 7:18:16 PM
And now this messy whopper(!):
Dean:...The problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn’t come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn’t work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there’d be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never [be] part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn’t commit the crime.
So according to Dean, letting a guilty guy go free "on a technicality" (AKA due process) is "every bit as heinous as putting to death somebody who didn't commit the crime."
Dean 2004: We'll fry 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
8114. robertjayb - 6/28/2003 8:23:35 PM
Scalia is Archie Bunker in a high-backed chair...(Maureen Dowd)
WASHINGTON — Antonin Scalia fancies himself the intellectual of the Supreme Court, an aesthete who likes opera and wines, a bon vivant who loves poker and plays songs like "It's a Grand Old Flag" on the piano; a real man who hunts and reads Ducks Unlimited magazine; a Catholic father of nine who once told a prayer breakfast: "We are fools for Christ's sake. We must pray for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world."
8115. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 8:33:19 PM
My Quayle remark wasn't referring to Dean, but was by way of explaining why I wanted the source of the quotes.
8116. arkymalarky - 6/28/2003 8:35:01 PM
And picking presidents on the basis of opinions like that is what got us into this mess in the first place. I couldn't give a rip about how the man feels about the death penalty. It's a state issue. I want to know how he feels about federal issues that affect the general population and so far I like what I'm hearing. But it's early and I'm swamped with local and state issues at the moment so I haven't paid a lot of attention yet.
8117. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/28/2003 9:48:02 PM
I do so enjoy the hypocrisy and utter denial of the right.
Ignoring that Bush put more people to death in Texas than any other governor in the nation, Dean is, of course, the thoughtless villain . Moreover, their corporate porch monkey and his handlers have almost completely dismantled democracy and rebuilt McKinley's oligarchy . . . all the while screaming "class warfare and eastern establishment elite" with regard to this week's SCOTUS decisions.
8118. robertjayb - 6/28/2003 10:19:54 PM
Remember what happened to Trent Lott...Keep me away from that old fart...
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney will represent President Bush at the funeral of Strom Thurmond on Tuesday, the White House says.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also will go to the First Baptist Church in Columbia to pay respects to the former Republican senator, said state Sen. John Courson.
8119. jexster - 6/28/2003 11:27:25 PM
Old pirates yes they rob I
Sold I to the merchant ships
Minutes after they took I from the
Bottom less pit
But my hand was made strong
By the hand of the almighty
We forward in this generation triumphantly
All I ever had is songs of freedom
Won't you help to sing these songs of freedom
Cause all I ever had redemption songs, redemption songs
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
Cause none of them can stop the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look
Some say it's just a part of it
We've got to fulfill the book
Won't you help to sing, these songs of freedom
Cause all I ever had, redemption songs, redemption songs, redemption songs
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
Cause none of them can stop the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look
Yes some say it's just part of it
We've got to fulfill the book
Won't you help to sing, these songs of freedom
Cause all I ever had, redemption songs
All I ever had, redemption songs
These songs of freedom, songs of freedom
8120. jexster - 6/29/2003 9:55:05 AM
State laws could tumble, he huffed, barring masturbation. Next, Sister Scalia will tell us it makes you go blind.
8121. jexster - 6/29/2003 4:55:02 PM
Some folks talk the talk
I walk the walk.
When Black Block Anarchists rushed mayoral candidate, Supervisor Gavin Newsom's car in the pride parade, they failed to take into account the fact that I was a contingent monitor walking next to it.
GET BACK BITCH OR I WILL FUCK YOU UP!
I have a souvenir - one of their big orange anarchist banners.
8122. robertjayb - 6/29/2003 5:09:28 PM
Did you have Grandpappy's cavalry saber?
8123. jexster - 6/29/2003 5:14:39 PM
6'5 220#
Think Jesse Ventura.
I didn't have to lay a finger on anyone. They ran.
8124. jexster - 6/29/2003 5:15:21 PM
Let the Culture Wars Begin!
Frist Calls for Gay Marriage Ban
8125. robertjayb - 6/29/2003 5:18:22 PM
Yessuh, Mr. jexster, Suh. I gon' be more 'spectful of you now.
8126. alistairconnor - 6/29/2003 5:21:41 PM
Jex, I sympathise. Pacifist that I am, I almost had to be physically restrained in a couple of demonstrations last year when the pretty young anarchist boys and girls started chanting really silly slogans right in front of me.
8127. jexster - 6/29/2003 7:09:18 PM
Yes they were lurking in anti-war marches here.
Then I had some sympathy. That was a matter of life and death literally. This was a fucking mayor's race!
And it wasn't the first time that these folks attacked Gavin either. They caused a bloody riot at a Newsom fundraiser held at the LGBT Center.
Ah well...as I told Gavin such is the lot of a radical centrist.
Two fights for the price of one...
Now where's little Eddie Ace...
here Eddy..here boy
8128. jexster - 6/29/2003 7:11:41 PM
We're 20 points ahead of the closest competitor anyway.
Guess I am in line for Chief of Police.
Sister Constance Craving, with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, flirts with spectators as he walks down Market Street for the annual Gay Pride parade. In San Francisco and other cities nationwide, revelers marched, danced and carried banners congratulating the Supreme Court for its landmark ruling as rainbow flag-waving crowds lined the streets.
8129. jexster - 6/29/2003 7:15:00 PM
"I guess all those hours of Sandra Day O'connor watching 'Will & Grace' finally paid off, " gay supervisor, comedian, and mayoral candidate Tom Ammiano
8130. wonkers2 - 6/29/2003 7:21:10 PM
Bush put more people to death in Texas than any governor in history, never bothered to read the clemency appeal files, and only once granted a stay according to someone on NPR who studied the files. He also found some innacuracies in the summaries of the files. In one case mentioned, the summary, innacurately, said that there was no evidence of insanity (or was it mental incompetence), but it didn't matter because Bush apparently wasn't interested enough to read the memos anyway. Of course the White House denies this.
8131. jexster - 6/29/2003 8:11:32 PM
No known motive for group's attack on Newsom at pride parade
Bay City News Sunday, June 29, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A handful of people tried to attack a San Francisco supervisor as he made his way down Market Street during today's Gay Pride Parade, police said.
Supervisor Gavin Newsom was reportedly uninjured when [ten to twelve], all clad in black and wearing pink bandannas around their necks, allegedly shouted threats as they tried to approach the car he was in, according to Sgt. J.R. Seim.
Seim said the suspects were placed in a police van and could be charged with possession of a deadly weapon because some were carrying signs tied to copper pipes.
Heather Hiles, a spokeswoman for the Newsom for Mayor Campaign, said Newsom continued along the parade route after the incident.
She said it remains to be seen why the group threatened him.
"We believe in everybody's right to free speech," she said. "But if they have an issue they want to talk about, it should be in an appropriate way."
8132. jexster - 6/29/2003 8:13:06 PM
Who wants a piece of me?
8133. Edmund Dantes - 6/29/2003 9:55:17 PM
Mama said knock u out.
8134. concerned - 6/30/2003 1:20:21 AM
Pacifist that I am, I almost had to be physically restrained in a couple of demonstrations last year when the pretty young anarchist boys and girls started chanting really silly slogans right in front of me.
I would have liked to have seen that. AC blowing a gasket over a fellow Leftist.
8135. concerned - 6/30/2003 1:29:26 AM
A handful of people tried to attack a San Francisco supervisor as he made his way down Market Street during today's Gay Pride Parade, police said.
The article plays coy about identifying the group, an almost certain sign it is LW.
8136. judithathome - 6/30/2003 8:20:22 AM
Nothing But Lip Service
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
8137. judithathome - 6/30/2003 8:21:26 AM
The article plays coy about identifying the group, an almost certain sign it is LW.
Of course....because conservatives are such an all encompassing party.
8138. concerned - 6/30/2003 10:32:35 AM
Re. 8137 -
Actually, it's a standard ploy by the LW media to attempt to exculpate those on its own side of the political aisle while seldom if ever doing the same for a suspected RW perp.
8139. judithathome - 6/30/2003 10:38:45 AM
Oh sure. I see what a pass they gave Clinton.
8140. concerned - 6/30/2003 10:51:16 AM
Re. 8139 -
Wrt the LW media & Xlowntoon, I believe it was mostly titillation. Sort of a 'Look what outrageous thing that wuvvable scamp is doing this week. Ain't he cute?'. Even though the Xlowntoon Administration was unprecedently close mouthed about explaining its own affairs and policies to the American people, there was always enough out in the open corruption to keep the friviolous entertained. Wrt the RW elements of the media who are familiar with such things as the US Constitution, probity and good governance, reactions ranged from almost entirely honest bemusement to outrage. After all, anyone can see that, relatively speaking, GWB has virtually no personal scandals to trumpet on the media - not that they haven't tried with Enron, his daughters, etc....
8141. arkymalarky - 6/30/2003 11:20:10 AM
Con'd, I'm afraid I must recant what I said about you a week or so ago. You're on a completely different plane.
8142. jexster - 6/30/2003 11:22:30 AM
Tomorrow, thoughts on Wes Clark and Howard Dean. The Dean fund-raising story is like a thunderclap over the Democratic party. Yesterday, Dean told reporters he had already raised $6.2 million in the quarter ending June 30th; and his campaign manager Joe Trippi says they're going to try to hit $6.5 million by tomorrow night. That will quite possibly end up being more than any of the other Democratic candidates this quarter. I'm no Dean booster. But that news is huge, demonstrating both the improbable strength of Dean and the demonstrable feebleness of the establishment contenders.
-- Josh Marshall
8143. jexster - 6/30/2003 11:33:19 AM
Dean for America
Dear John,
As I sit here writing this, I find myself searching for the right words, the right way to explain what has happened, how it happened, and why today is so important.
History is being made.
Thank you for putting us in this position and making us stronger every day.
Joe Trippi
Campaign Manager
Dean for America
8144. jexster - 6/30/2003 11:41:12 AM
Republican Hate
From Sundays This Week, comments from Majority Leader Bill Frist ...
"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually — or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's This Week.
Where to start? Does Frist seriously think that the right of privacy, particularly with regard to the sanctity of the home, is going to be used to 'condone' what most people might consider 'criminal activity'? Like robbery, child abuse, drug use or trafficking, counterfeiting, murder, and so forth?
Really?
Or, is it just that he thinks -- and wants to signal that he thinks -- gay sex is or should be criminal?
-- Josh Marshall
8145. jexster - 6/30/2003 11:42:43 AM
Rhetorical question.
Its the Same Old GOP hateful horsehit doublespeak....
If only Strom Thurmond had been President...
8146. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2003 11:43:09 AM
I note that the Economist is using McGovern and Mondale as a yardstick for assessing Dean's chances in 2004.
8147. concerned - 6/30/2003 11:47:29 AM
I do believe Democrats are more sorry to see Strom gone than Republicans are. A hoary symbol of erstwhile racial intolerance can no longer be used against Republicans, however unfairly it has been in the past.
8148. concerned - 6/30/2003 11:52:02 AM
Of course, all are aware that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until '64 or so.
8149. judithathome - 6/30/2003 12:02:42 PM
note that the Economist is using McGovern and Mondale as a yardstick for assessing Dean's chances in 2004.
I'd rather see them using Clinton as a yardstick...he didn't have a snowball's chance, either, remember? ;-)
Ah, where is a Pamela Harriman when you need one?
8150. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2003 2:15:12 PM
To amplify (of course the Economist is center-right, on the other hand the European centre is left of the American one):
For good or ill, Mr Dean has decided to climb on the back of the leftist tiger. He cannot climb off without being eaten alive.
The sight of Mr Dean on the tiger's back is striking terror into the party establishment. On Capitol Hill Democrats worry that a Dean candidacy will not only allow Mr Bush to sweep the electoral college but also to cull vulnerable Democrats in the conservative south and the middle-American heartland. What chance has a liberal north-easterner backed by money from Beverly Hills and Harvard Yard of helping the Democrats in vulnerable Senate seats in Arkansas, South Carolina and the two Dakotas?
Liberal populism has invariably proved to be a disaster for the Democrats. The reason why McKinley was able to usher in 30 years of Republican hegemony was that he was confronted by William Jennings Bryan and his agrarian populism. George McGovern and Walter Mondale led their liberal armies to two of the worst defeats in American history. It is hardly likely that the old-time religion will go down better in the age of global terrorism.
Besides, Mr Dean does not have to win [the nomination] for his party to lose . His insurgency is already tugging other candidates to the left. Hardly a day goes past without the other front-runners producing some new piece of populist rhetoric.
8151. arkymalarky - 6/30/2003 2:18:20 PM
The Senate seat in AR isn't vulnerable. Blanche Lincoln is extremely popular. I'm also beginning to believe that the Democrats need to stand out on principle and have a clear enough voice of opposition to actually be a choice. The mealy-mouthed route certainly hasn't served them well lately, and frankly, liberal as McGovern was, especially, he did not have a strong political persona, and Mondale certainly didn't.
8152. arkymalarky - 6/30/2003 2:24:51 PM
The problem with the Democratic liberal left is that if it goes too far left its different interests begin to pull against eachother. The Republicans have been ingenious a maintaining a broad base with a broad and simple message, and those who counter them will have to play the same way. As much as I like to explain in detail why I think how I do about an issue, the Democrats are going to have to hit home with short points repeatedly. That's why the most popular Republican presidents since WWII have been dumb as dirt. It's easy to keep them to a few resonating lines that fit well into the format through which most Americans get their information. You can go to both Reagan and Bush Jr and quote one-liners from them all day, but JFK was the last Democrat who could do that, though his were much more intelligent and much better.
8153. jexster - 6/30/2003 2:53:33 PM
The Jessie Lynch Lie
WashPost Ombudsman: Post's Jessica Lynch Mythology 'Had Huge Propaganda Value. It Was False'
8154. jexster - 6/30/2003 2:57:01 PM
I already identified the group Arky. I was an up close and personal eyewitness.
I have their banner.
"Queer Mutiny" aka "Gay Shame", the pink wing of the Black Block Anarchists, same folks WTO Genoa, Seattle....
A few months ago they started a bloody riot outside the LGBT Community Center in protest of a Newsom Fundraiser.
I was an eyewitness to that as well as I was attending a stop smoking class at the Center at the time.
Gavin told me yesterday that these folks have also terrorized customers at his businesses in SF, two restuarants and two liquor stores.
8155. jexster - 6/30/2003 2:58:19 PM
Two fights for the price of one...I am as happy as a Grand Old Poopstained Pig in BushShit
8156. jexster - 6/30/2003 3:05:01 PM
8157. jexster - 6/30/2003 3:08:09 PM
"Queer Mutiny, Consumer Units" to be precise.
And it smells.....I am going to have to disinfect my trophy.
8158. jexster - 6/30/2003 3:14:35 PM
When in SF or skiing Squaw Valley, visit the The Plumpjack Cafe, Gavin Newsom Prop.
Located in the heart of the Bermuda Triangle where straight singles mysteriously disappear.
8159. jexster - 6/30/2003 7:42:45 PM
The Support Our Troops Lie
"In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately..." Army Times Editorial
8160. robertjayb - 7/1/2003 12:43:32 AM
The Attack was Spectacular...A BuzzFlash.com bill of particulars on warnings before 9/11 and coverups since...
"The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."-- CIA Intelligence Report for President Bush, July, 2001 (60 Days Prior to 9/11) [LINK]
"President Bush and his top advisers were informed by the CIA early last August that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden had discussed the possibility of hijacking airplanes." - The Washington Post, May 16, 2002 [LINK]
"Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence failures that took place on its watch."-- Salon.com, June 18, 2003 [LINK]
"If I did anything like this as a policeman, and killed 3,000 people, with this much evidence against me, I'd spend 100,000 years in jail." --former New York City police officer Bruce DeCell, the Nation, June 19, 2003 [LINK]
8161. jexster - 7/1/2003 10:56:14 AM
Felony charges for 6 in Newsom incident
Gay Shame group allegedly rushed supervisor at parade
Ain't He Purty!
8162. jexster - 7/1/2003 11:06:03 AM
Note Arky...tommorrrow's news today courtesy Jexster's Early Edition...
This thing is escalating to the point where my trophy may be evidence in the case.
The intent was literally to join the parade," said Mary Woods, a 24-year- old Gay Shame spokesman. (All Gay Shame members use the name "Mary.") Gay Shame objected to the parade's corporate sponsors and the presence of "straight conservative" Newsom, he said.
Woods and others said Newsom supporters "roughed up" some demonstrators before police intervened.
Newsom spokesman John Shanley dismissed the group's assertions, saying police had intervened before the situation escalated.
It was the second time this year that Gay Shame members have been arrested protesting Newsom and his policies, particularly toward the homeless.
In February, two men were arrested outside the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center on Market Street, where Newsom was attending a fund-raiser.
8163. betty - 7/1/2003 11:36:35 AM
concerned
re: 8085
the 50% divorce rate (it's actually 40% by the way) is misleading if you are using it to discuss those with dependent children. I'm having difficulty locating the statistics on line, but the divorce rate is significantly lower for couples with dependent children.
(I also found it ironic that the SE--also known as the bible belt--has the highest regional rate of divorce)
8164. jexster - 7/1/2003 12:45:37 PM
8165. judithathome - 7/1/2003 12:52:37 PM
Too small..they type is unreadable, Jex.
8166. jexster - 7/2/2003 11:31:03 AM
I try not to violate the 425 rule....
More tales of derring-do
Charges to Be Dropped in Newsom Parade Assault "Pending Further Investigation"
Like my pending interview with Inspectors from the Special Investigations Division (Nash Bridges' Boys)!
I turned the physical evidence over yesterday for CSI CRIME INVESTIGATION. I told the Inspector some things that do not support the defendants claims...
Stay tuned..
8167. jexster - 7/2/2003 12:11:17 PM
"And now here we are, at a shimmeringly historic moment where we cannot help but note the delicious irony, the divine karmic genius of it all.
When we cannot help but notice how millions of progressive love-minded Gay Pride folks across America, from S.F. to N.Y., from Atlanta to Seattle to Chicago, were actually cheering on the Supreme Court last week -- the same crusty bunch that snuck BushCo into office in the first place -- for slapping the tragically heartless GOP right across its wan butt with a leather whip and a shocking 6-3 decision, stunning the Christian right into disbelief and abject terror. "
How to Learn to Love Sodomy
8168. wonkers2 - 7/2/2003 5:43:50 PM
Walmart adds gays to its non-discrimination policy, following the lead of 9 of 10 Fortune 500 companies. (197 of Fortune 500 companies provide health care coverage for same-sex partners.)
Bush's favorite SC Justice, Antonin Scalia dissents on decision invalidating anti-sodomy laws, saying the court has opened the door to masturbation, incest, bestiality, adultrey in the bedroom. My logic professor would have flunked him on that one.
Frist advocates a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages.
Bush has no position on Frist's proposal.
The majority of the Fortune 500 companies and a bunch of generals support affirmative action in college admissions.
Bush's Solicitor General, Ted Olsen, buddy of Ken "Smiley" Starr, files brief for Bush administration against affirmative action at U of M.
What's going on here? Bush is letting himself be painted into a corner with the lunatic right.
8169. robertjayb - 7/2/2003 5:51:35 PM
jexster, the intimidator:
Here ya go, jex, a blogger's account of Driving Dr. Dean...
8170. jexster - 7/2/2003 6:13:38 PM
Thanks Plutocrat
8171. jexster - 7/2/2003 6:14:12 PM
8172. jexster - 7/3/2003 11:21:15 AM
Billionaires for Bush
Pinnochio Moron Reaches New Heights of Crony Capitalism
8173. jexster - 7/3/2003 11:33:09 AM
Unrest in Iraq Poses Political Threat to Bush
Public opinion about the reconstruction effort has deteriorated Brownstein
Bring it on.
8174. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/3/2003 8:54:17 AM
8175. jexster - 7/3/2003 8:25:11 PM
Lautenberg: 'I Never Heard Any Military Commander -- Let Alone the Commander in Chief -- Invite Enemies to Attack U.S. Troops'
Bring It On!
We bad..
8176. Edmund Dantes - 7/4/2003 10:47:11 AM
HAVE you ever noticed that whenever you hear liberals talk about what's great about America, they often end the sentence by noting that America's greatness lies in the right of all citizens to criticize her?
Every individual American has his own reasons for loving America, which means there are at least 280 million different ways of understanding and appreciating the United States. What follow are some of my more petty reasons. I offer them as a spur - to give you a chance to think about what would be on your list.
8177. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:00:09 AM
Have you ever noticed how all right wing ultra-nationalists sound the same?
8178. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:01:35 AM
I like living in America because that means I won't be at risk of a Bush "liberation".
8179. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:02:39 AM
I love living in America because I can terrorize Gay Shame Anarchists and little right wing animals like Eddie Dantes
8180. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:05:04 AM
"My answer is bring them on."
I like living in a country where my president makes me feel like a man.
8181. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:06:23 AM
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am
determined to solve the problem in the Middle
East. If you help me I will act, and if not,
the elections will come and I will have to
focus on them."
I like living in America because God lives here.
8182. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:07:18 AM
I like living in America because the French are only tourists.
8183. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:07:55 AM
Thank you so much Eddie.
8184. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:24:45 AM
I like living in America because only in America can a lying moron become president:
"You've also got to measure in order to begin to effect change that's just more—when there's more than talk, there's just actual—a paradigm shift."—Washington, D.C., July 1, 2003
8185. jexster - 7/4/2003 11:27:54 AM
Have you ever noticed how much Eddie Dantes sounds like Ann Coulter?
Has she no shame?
Of course not, and now we know why: In her new book "Treason," Ann Coulter reveals that her role model is Joe McCarthy
8186. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/4/2003 11:40:26 AM
A PEEK INTO CONGRESSIONAL CORRUPTION
7/2/2003
Contrary to popular perception, it's actually quite easy to get the attention of most members of congress on an issue of particular concern to you – just write your request on the back of a big campaign check.
Alas, though few of us peasants have the wherewithal to spread five-figure checks around the capitol, so we're left out of this insider's game. Of course, congress critters themselves indignantly deny that any such game goes on, but every now and then, the congressional log gets lifted... and we get an eyeful of the ugly squirmies underneath.
The latest ugly incident involves a Kansas corporation called Westar Energy Inc. and four top congressional leaders. We only know about this because some Westar executives were caught this year in a mess of criminal activity, and the subsequent investigation turned up a most interesting email from a Westar vice-president to the other executives.
The company wanted an exemption from a federal regulation and hoped to have its exemption slipped into an energy bill. "We have a plan for participation to get a seat at the table," says the email, which then bluntly names the price: "The total package will be $31,500 in hard money (individual) and $25,000 in soft money (corporate)."
It then names the four congress critters who named the price – Reps. Tom DeLay, Joe Barton, Billy Tauzin and Sen. Richard Shelby. The money was paid – and sure enough, Rep. Barton slipped Westar's exemption into the bill.
When the email became public, all four of these congressional squirmies feigned outrage that anyone could even think they would trade legislative favors for campaign cash. But there it was – they admit they took the cash... and promptly did the deed, all behind what they thought at the time were securely closed doors. - Jim Hightower
8187. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/4/2003 11:41:05 AM
toys
8188. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/4/2003 11:47:52 AM
The REAL State Of The Union
8189. jexster - 7/4/2003 12:10:45 PM
8190. jexster - 7/4/2003 12:16:19 PM
Great site Wiz! I've booked it...
And good work - you seem to have brought little Eddie out of his home toilet
8191. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/4/2003 1:04:04 PM
Ha! Thanks and Happy Independence Day, jex.
8192. jexster - 7/4/2003 1:19:24 PM
Duhbya Wants to Take Eddie to a Gay Bar
8193. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/4/2003 2:09:13 PM
The aging of the 'Merkin hero . . .
8194. robertjayb - 7/4/2003 5:04:48 PM
A Government Information Awareness site...(Anti-Big Brother?)
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- AP -- Its creators hope it will become a Google of government, a massive Internet clearinghouse of information to help citizens track their leaders as effectively as their leaders track them.
On Friday, Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab plans to debut a Web site called "Government Information Awareness," a project that aspires to be far more than just another, dime-a-dozen assemblage of government documents and resources.
Instead, GIA hopes to create an enormous but self-sustaining community where, as occurs with popular Web sites eBay and Google, the users do the work of keeping it running and credible.
Its creators at Media Lab -- a research center whose eclectic projects bridge technology, the arts and media -- view the project not just as a way to pool the collective wisdom of government watchdogs but also as a tool to counter new government technologies that are consolidating information about citizens.
8195. jexster - 7/4/2003 5:29:13 PM
Bush Vows Perpetual War Against Voices in His Head
8196. Edmund Dantes - 7/4/2003 9:34:08 PM
Bush celebrates America's birthday with troops
"Without America's active involvement in the world, the ambitions of tyrants would go unopposed and millions would live at the mercy of terrorists," he said. "With Americans' active involvement in the world, tyrants learn to fear and terrorists are on the run."
8197. wonkers2 - 7/5/2003 7:22:22 AM
More bullshit from our President. He implied that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and claimed that Iraq posed an "urgent threat to the U.S. justifying our preemptive strike."
8198. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/5/2003 5:52:46 PM
8199. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/6/2003 12:31:47 AM
July 4th Protest Drives President Bush Out of Philadelphia
8200. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/6/2003 12:41:22 AM
8201. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/6/2003 12:53:18 AM
8202. wonkers2 - 7/6/2003 12:11:43 PM
Darline Stephens, Anniston, Ala., April 25, 2003
"I live about 5 or 10 miles from chemical weapons. We're over there searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we have them here in our hometown. I didn't know this stuff was at the Army Depot all these years. I just heard last year. It takes seven years to burn the chemicals to get rid of it all. We didn't really believe they were going to burn something that could kill us until they started telling us to get our masks..... more here
8203. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/6/2003 12:45:54 PM
". . .Let's apply the A.A.D.D. quiz to our fidgety president and his foreign policy team:
"I find my mind wandering from tasks that are uninteresting or difficult." (Like nation building, which we said we'd never do but are muddling through now, with no coherent strategy, in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East, and soon in Liberia.)
"I say things without thinking and later regret having said them." (Such as declaring we have "prevailed" in Iraq two months before the commander there admits, "We're still at war." Or bubbling about the statue of Saddam falling and then months later posting a $25 million bounty on the real Saddam's head. Or saying Saddam had W.M.D.'s that posed an imminent threat to us and then failing to find a single warhead. Or saying we'd already found the weapons when all we'd found was some trashed trailer. Or saying we'd get Osama "dead or alive" and Al Qaeda was "on the run.")
"I make quick decisions without thinking enough about their possible bad results." (Such as how our troops will be targets in hostile, dangerous territory, stuck there for years sorting out tribal and sectarian warfare.)
8204. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/6/2003 12:46:28 PM
"I have a quick temper, a short fuse." (Like the president, taunting the Iraqi militants, saying, "Bring 'em on." Shouldn't that sort of trash talking be reserved for football and Schwarzenegger sequels?
"I have trouble planning in what order to do a series of tasks or activities." (Such as threatening to rumble with North Korea and Iran while we're still prone to stumble in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
"In group activities it is hard for me to wait my turn." (Why wait for the pansy allies, even if you'll need their help after?)
"I usually work on more than one project at a time, and fail to finish many of them." (Yes. Al Qaeda is recrudescing. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is coming back, warlords rule and the vice and virtue police are at it again. Iran and North Korea are defying us. Saddam is still lurking, even as we struggle in Iraq to get the lights on, the oil industry up and the violence down. We say everything is O.K. while the senators who went to Iraq last week say we're stretched thin in the face of more and more attacks by Saddam loyalists.
Yep. These guys definitely have E.A.D.D. — Empire Attention Deficit Disorder. "
Ritalin for America
By MAUREEN DOWD
8205. wonkers2 - 7/6/2003 2:08:11 PM
How does that old country song go?--"Lookin' fer weapons in all the wrong places."
8206. robertjayb - 7/6/2003 3:56:16 PM
8207. Edmund Dantes - 7/6/2003 4:36:24 PM
Happy birthday, Mr. President
8208. wonkers2 - 7/6/2003 5:52:18 PM
Hardly recognizable. Must have been retouched.
8209. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/6/2003 6:33:37 PM
Here's the unretouched original . . .
8210. Edmund Dantes - 7/6/2003 6:56:57 PM
What a clever little monkey you are, Whiffer!
Especially having Laura's breasts so saggy. I think you should have showed a bit more imagination, though. See how her hand is shaped? Why not pop a beer can in there while you're at it. And you forgot the Hitler moustache on GWB.
Guess without your "collaborator" you forget all the subtle touches that separate artistic genius from teenage bathroom doodling, eh?
At a $3.5 million fund-raising dinner in Los Angeles late last month, the president thanked the crowd repeatedly for its standing ovation, but also flashed an "all right-already" determination to get on with his speech. After 20 minutes of talking, there were 10 minutes of handshakes. Then it was out the door and to Air Force One.
Bush Nets Record Returns in Fund Raising
$3.5 million in 30 minutes? Why, he works even faster than you, Whiffer.
8211. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/6/2003 7:04:53 PM
Oh Mount-Me-With-Crisco, those are good Republican breasts, kinda like Pat Nixon's coat.
And speaking of little monkeys who hear, speak & see no evil , there's a flag just for you . . .
8212. Edmund Dantes - 7/6/2003 7:22:16 PM
8213. Al D - 7/6/2003 8:19:38 PM
Would it be correct to say that there are events the Democrats would not be happy to see? For one, a good economy. How about a peaceful resolution between Israel and Palestine, or a happy outcome in Iraq. Would they be pleased to see Iran get rid of a secular government and become more friendly with the U.S.? Would they delight in seeing a terrorist attack on America so they could crow that Homeland Defense is a failure? It's sad, but probably accurate.
I see that jexster and poor, sad WofW are back dominating the Mote.
8214. jayackroyd - 7/6/2003 9:38:02 PM
Let's see, Al.
Did Republicans stand up behind Clinton and support his defense of the nation against Al Qaeda?
Did they praise his commitment to a balanced budget and welfare reform?
Did they praise and support Robert Rubin's deft handling of the Mexican debt crisis?
Did Bush commit to support nation-building in his campaign, supporting Clinton in his efforts to rebuild central Europe?
Did they praise and support the Oslo initiatives?
8215. wonkers2 - 7/6/2003 9:51:37 PM
Al, you are a cynic. Here's one Democrat whose answer is yes to your first three questions and no to the last.
8216. wonkers2 - 7/6/2003 9:57:16 PM
Al, are you saying that Bush should not be accountable for the rotten economy with unemployment the highest in eight years? How about for his kowtowing to Ariel Sharon until very recently. I'm glad he is finally showing some interest in Palesting. Not sure what you mean by Iran "getting rid of a secular government" and becoming more friendly with the U.S. Iran has a secular government with very little power. The de facto government is still in the hands of the Islamist fanatics. I would like to see Iran's secular government take power away from the muslim fundamentalists and become more friendly with the U.S. If Bush accomplishes this or allows it to happen peacefully, he'll get full credit from me and most other Democrats.
8217. wonkers2 - 7/6/2003 9:59:24 PM
WOW--Great restoration job on the photo of Laura and her Bush.
8218. Edmund Dantes - 7/6/2003 10:13:59 PM
Did Republicans stand up behind Clinton and support his defense of the nation against Al Qaeda?
Didn't notice that he did this.
Did they praise his commitment to a balanced budget and welfare reform?
Welfare reform passed primarily because of Republicans. Clinton had vetoed it several times before, and no Republican senator voted against it when it passed, whereas 21 Democrats did. In the House Democrats were split 98 - 98, and Republicans supported it 230 - 2. Clinton's "commitment" was based on an election-year need to deprive Bob Dole of the issue.
Did they praise and support Robert Rubin's deft handling of the Mexican debt crisis?
Robert Rubin was likely the person in the Clinton administration to receive the most praise from Republicans.
Did Bush commit to support nation-building in his campaign, supporting Clinton in his efforts to rebuild central Europe?
Evidently the nations of Eastern and Central Europe are happier with Bush than those of Western Europe.
Did they praise and support the Oslo initiatives?
Clinton had very little to do with Oslo. The last-gasp Clinton efforts in 2000 are generally regarded as a failure and blameworthy in that they raised unreal expectations.
8219. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/6/2003 11:55:34 PM
Prototypically, Al and Anal-Retento evade the salient points by fabricating sentiments or inventing a convenient history.
The truth is coming out boys . . .
Interview:
27-Year CIA Veteran by Will Pitt
8220. Edmund Dantes - 7/7/2003 12:16:10 AM
WhifferOfWhimsies: All you can do is doodle, so don't talk about "evading salient points," when your worldview consists of pornographic funhouse mirror images of sadomasochism induced by too many psychedelics ingested at an impressionable age and nightmarish evenings spent as you.
At least I actually have a vague idea of what's been posted here before, dipshit, whereas your fetish-filled brain can't keep track of anything except the mouse button and your thoroughly crusted hanky.
For example, the William Pitt story was posted last week, Crayon-boy.
And rebutted in posts 10399 and 10421 of "Conflict in the Middle East"--which is the more appropriate thread.
Now, how about a picture of a horsey?
8221. concerned - 7/7/2003 12:52:32 AM
Did Republicans stand up behind Clinton and support his defense of the nation against Al Qaeda?
Yes. In as far as it existed, which wasn't much.
Did they praise his commitment to a balanced budget and welfare reform?
Yes, as much as made sense wrt welfare reform. Wrt the 'balanced budget' situation, I don't discern that x42 ever had any real commitment to such a thing.
Did they praise and support Robert Rubin's deft handling of the Mexican debt crisis?
Why should sleight of hand that ultimately benefitted Goldman Sachs deserve praise?
Did Bush commit to support nation-building in his campaign, supporting Clinton in his efforts to rebuild central Europe?
Since x42 himself didn't commit to it originally, why should anyone else swear fealty to such an idea?
Did they praise and support the Oslo initiatives?
Given that the Oslo initiatives were worse than useless, why should a rational person praise them?
8222. concerned - 7/7/2003 1:11:24 AM
Given, as ED points out, that x42's support of welfare reform appeared to be the result of pure political calculation, Jay would agree, I'm sure, that expecting very much praise from Republicans, given that context, would be strange.
8223. alistairConnor - 7/7/2003 3:55:43 AM
Message # 8212
You're right, Edmond. These people are thought criminals. I hope their children denounce them to Homeland Security.
8224. jayackroyd - 7/7/2003 8:53:40 AM
8218
I'll just note that the answers were all "no" except for Rubin, where the answer was if they had said anything nice, it would have been about Rubin.
8221
Al Qaeda: Except for a few neocons, the chorus was "Wag the Dog."
wrt to the budget, all I know is that when Clinton took office, it was deficits for as far as the eye could see, when he left office, it was surpluses for as far as the eye could see, and now, with a republican house, a republican senate and a republican presidency we're back to deficits for the foreseeable future.
I'll skip the rest, because the point was that it is not surprising to see politicians criticize the policies of the opposition, which was my point. You and Eddy/Indy/Monty have made that point admirably. It's not about policy. It's about politics.
8225. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/7/2003 11:55:19 AM
Moreover, they boast that the Chimp-in-Chief can raise more money than all the other parties combined, meaning they can bribe and usurp democracy more efficiently than any administration in history.
How utterly evil to dismantle America—branch by branch, law by law, shady deal by shady deal—all under the guise of of nationalism and patriotism.
8226. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/7/2003 11:56:20 AM
8227. jexster - 7/7/2003 12:39:26 PM
Had Enough of the Flag Yet?
THE week before Independence Day, the Dixie Chicks played the Washington MCI Center, a mere dozen blocks or so from the White House. "Well, what do you know, Washington, D.C.," said the singer Natalie Maines, prompting a standing ovation from the crowd. "If I'm not mistaken, the president of the United States lives here." Then, as The Washington Post reported, the cheers grew even louder.
As we conclude this Fourth of July weekend, let us not forget the happy denouement to the saga of Ms. Maines, whose crime against America was to tell a London audience in March that she was "ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." What followed were boycotts, death threats and a ritualistic network TV flogging in which, as Jim Lewis put it in Slate, Diane Sawyer demanded that the Chicks "affirm their patriotism and their support for the troops" in the "tradition of a Stalinist show trial."
8228. Ms. No - 7/7/2003 1:06:27 PM
Happy to report that the subject responsible for credible threats of violence and death at the Dallas Chicks show last night was apprehended on unrelated charges before he could attend the concert. All performers and crew got safely to the hotel.
That's the call my roommate sat and waited for all day yesterday, hoping that her boyfriend wouldn't suffer injury or death because some nut thinks it's patriotic to kill people whose opinions differ from one's own.
8229. judithathome - 7/7/2003 1:10:32 PM
because some nut thinks it's patriotic to kill people whose opinions differ from one's own.
Well, I'm sure the nut thought he knew best and was doing the right thing and all dissenters are unpatriotic and deserve to die. Simple when you just give in and think like they do...that's all they want, MsNo...
8230. jexster - 7/7/2003 1:18:46 PM
In the land of the Moron, Duhbya is king...
Counterintelligent
How the GOP keeps the FBI stupid - Josh Marshall
8231. OhioSTOPAS - 7/7/2003 4:28:41 PM
Good riddance.
Michael Savage fired by MSNBC.
8232. robertjayb - 7/7/2003 4:29:20 PM
Just say what you think, Howard...(Concord Monitor)
DEERFIELD - Carol Knieriem sipped on a glass of lemonade as former Vermont governor Howard Dean told a crowd packed inside a Deerfield house that President Bush is "foolish" on foreign policy and that America is quickly becoming the next Argentina.
-------------------
"We need a high moral tone," Dean said. "I'd like a different foreign policy than, 'Get out of my way or I'll see you in the parking lot after school.' "
---------------------
"I say Argentina and people laugh," Dean said. "When you have a Republican president who promises tax cuts and has middle class people pay for them, sooner or later we do get to be like Argentina. It isn't really that funny."
Bush, Dean said, is not a conservative, but a radical.
Borrow and spend, Dean said, is "exactly what happened in Argentina and the same kind of politics: Promise them everything."
-----------------
Knieriem, who had come from Manchester to Deerfield to hear Dean liked what she heard.
"I'm going to support him," Knieriem said as she climbed into her car. "He really means what he says."
8233. robertjayb - 7/7/2003 5:05:26 PM
This oughta bring good luck in Africa...
8234. Ms. No - 7/7/2003 5:15:20 PM
Ohio,
I'm a bit bewildered. Why did MSNBC hire him in the first place? It's not as if his views were a secret or as if he were the least bit shy about voicing them.
It's the same thing for me as the whole Trent Lott fiasco. I continue to shake my head in wonder when people claim they are shocked and horrified by such things. Very obviously people are neither shocked nor horrified by anything other than the fact that they've been caught with their pants down.
8235. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/7/2003 5:59:35 PM
This oughta bring good luck in Africa...
Our Banana-In-Chief!
8236. jexster - 7/7/2003 11:28:52 PM
The Californication of American Democracy
In March of last year, San Francisco voters passed a charter amendment requiring a so-called "instant runoff" election for all city offices. It is to be effective 11/03. The City Elections Department has had real trouble getting a software program that will calculate the results and may not have one in place even 20 months after passage.
If they are unable to come up with a workable Secretary of State approved package, the votes will have to be hand counted. The City is also planning for regular first and second primary per a rather loose interpretation of "voter intent' by the City Attorney that the electorate did not wish the system to go into effect if an expensive handcount would be required.
8237. jexster - 7/7/2003 11:29:05 PM
What is instant runoff?
Well it isn't a runoff. It isn't even an election. It is a political scientist's mad dream made real.
This is how it works:
San Francisco voters Tuesday approved Proposition A, making San Francisco the first large city in the nation to approve instant runoffs for local elections. With instant runoffs, the city would no longer need to hold separate runoff elections if no candidate wins a majority of votes during a primary election.
ROUND 1 Voters' first choices are counted to see if any candidate won outright with a majority of votes. In this case, Joe Jones has the lead but not the majority, so there's a second round of counting.
ROUND 2 The candidate with the fewest votes, John Brown, is eliminated. All the people who voted for him have their votes distributed to their second choice.
ROUND 3 The count continues if still no candidate has a majority of votes. The next candidate with the fewest votes, Jane Doe, is eliminated. All the people who voted for her have their votes distributed to their next choice. By now, some voters' first and second choices may have been eliminated and their votes would go to their third choice.
ROUND 4 In this example, the fourth round of runoff votes shows that Bill Smith has now reached a majority vote and is the winner.
Next the real world.
8238. jexster - 7/7/2003 11:46:14 PM
In the example above there are four elections but only one is real, only the first round. The others are manufactured. The "majority" who elected Mr. Smith does not exist.
Some voters, like me, who are voting for the candidate who presently leads in the polls by a 20 point margin and who will probably maintain that lead throughout, will likely vote only once if, as expected, our man doesn't get eliminated in the fake elections that follow in the Elections Dept offices
8239. jexster - 7/7/2003 11:46:31 PM
Other voters also face the same fate but those who vote for the strongest candidate are most likely to be "disenfranchised" in the 2d, 3d..."runoffs". Some voters by contrast will have votes in as many "runoffs" as it takes to establish "a majority."
Now imagine you are pollster. Polls have been run but none to my knowledge have tried to simulate this "election". And it isn't an easy task when you think about it.
The system gives an incentive for many candidates to throw their hats in the ring in the hopes that they will be a voter's second or third choice. The lesser of two evils has become the lesser of two, three, four five evil mediocrities.
No pollster will get a reliable result with a phone poll. Imagine you are called, "I am going to read you the list of 9 candidates for mayor. Please rank them 1-2-3." Click.
But can the pollster do much better if he polls in person? Will the respondents have second and third choices that they are likely to vote for? I rather strongly suspect that a large majority of the electorate will not really care about their second or third choices and that minds will be made up "eeenie, meenie, mineee, mo" in the voting booth.
Other problems: No candidate dare put forward any program that will upset anyone for fear that she won't be that minorities down ballot choice. Similarly, while it is not in the interest of the front runner to attack any opponent, conversely it is in the interest of all laggards to attack the front runner.
What a crock of shit.
8240. jexster - 7/8/2003 12:03:09 AM
This is a problem that could make the Dr. Slackjaw's and Strangeloves of the world wealthy.
The only polling method that I would think would work would be a logistic regression/Monte Carlo simulation of the Frankenstein monster aka an election.
After all, it is a crap shoot no?
8241. alistairConnor - 7/8/2003 5:39:48 AM
I actually like preferential voting ("instant runoff" is a stupid name for it) specifically for municipal elections.
Some voters, like me, who are voting for the candidate who presently leads in the polls by a 20 point margin and who will probably maintain that lead throughout, will likely vote only once
No harm in that. Your vote counts. Not much point in declaring a second preference if you're confident your candidate will go to the final round of counting.
Other voters also face the same fate but those who vote for the strongest candidate are most likely to be "disenfranchised" in the 2d, 3d..."runoffs".
I have no idea what you mean by "disenfranchised". Your first vote counted. Why should you get another?
Some voters by contrast will have votes in as many "runoffs" as it takes to establish "a majority."
What that means is : your first choice is eliminated. Your second choice is eliminated. So your views are not going to be well represented by the winner; but at least your third-choice vote will count, this limits the possiblity of someone you really, really don't want getting elected.
My home town has a hard-right mayor, elected by about 30% of the vote against two left-wingers and a centrist. No way he could have been elected in a preferential vote.
On the other hand, it's a radical change for US voters, and will tend to break down the two-party system. A good thing, in my opinion.
8242. marjoribanks - 7/8/2003 9:18:13 AM
Earlier this morning, I saw Bush deliver his speech at Goree island.
Whatever else one can say about the man, it is at times like this that it is near impossible to doubt his sincerity and fidelity to certain closely-held ideals. The speech was superb, about as good as one could ask for given the position of the man delivering it, and Bush spoke with real conviction and, dare I say it, moral clarity.
News Account.
8243. judithathome - 7/8/2003 9:26:09 AM
Bush's War Against Evil
But there's the problem with President Bush. It is not the moral immaturity of the texts he reads. Like his callow statement in the National Cathedral, they are written by someone else. When the president speaks, unscripted, from his own moral center, what shows itself is a bottomless void.
To address concerns about the savage violence engulfing ''postwar'' Iraq with a cocksure ''Bring `em on!'' as he did last week, is to display an absence of imagination shocking in a man of such authority. It showed a lack of capacity to identify either with enraged Iraqis who must rise to such a taunt or with young GIs who must now answer for it. Even in relationship to his own soldiers, there is nothing at the core of this man but visceral meanness.
No human being with a minimal self-knowledge could speak of evil as he does, but there is no self-knowledge without a self. Even this short ''distance of history'' shows George W. Bush to be, in that sense, the selfless president, which is not a compliment. It's a warning.
8244. marjoribanks - 7/8/2003 9:37:07 AM
Well, in the context of my above comments, I disagree that Bush unscripted=moral void.
In fact, he has a cartoonish, Manichean, heavily born-again-Christian core to him. It may be a naive, simplistic and useless core when it comes to the endlessly shaded-grey and amoral world of international relations, but on simple questions of right and wrong like those addressed at Goree Island, the lack of guile comes off as powerful and righteous.
--
Most interesting in that speech, by the way, was the reference (a couple of times) to Nelson Mandela - who has been one of the most stringent critics of Bush's administration. By invoking Mandela and Robbens Island, Bush came off as statesmanlike and forgiving.
Believe it, or not.
8245. judithathome - 7/8/2003 10:39:32 AM
I'm sure his speechwriter is brilliant.
Tell me, what do you think of his remark the other day..."Bring 'em on!"
And I have seen far too much of his moral certitude to be impressed. Yes, he has that old time religion but he doesn't have the stuff for follow-through. He can SAY all the upright and morally straight things he wishes but then he turns around and does some pretty unChristian stuff on his own.
8246. judithathome - 7/8/2003 10:41:22 AM
And as to the Mandela reference, I'd bet money Rove asked that be put in because Mandela is refusing to meet with Bush and Rove wanted a "gotcha" that would resound clearly.
8247. marjoribanks - 7/8/2003 10:42:17 AM
Of course Bush is capable of the silliest things, the stupidest and most cowboy-like utterances.
But he's the Prez, and when the President delivers a speech such as the one in Africa this morning, it can have real historic value.
This one does.
8248. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/8/2003 10:51:14 AM
Believe it, or not.
And I don't, for the internecine nature of his either/or extortions and because he's really just exploiting the opportunity for political gain.
Bush's promises are as empty as his power to form a mental image. It's the same superficial aping found in show business or cheer-leading, where some creative-type blocks out a routine for the attractive stooge with discipline--hence, Ronnie, Dubya—and soon, Arnie.
I can admire the skills of the writers, and even the bad actor who can exploit the agitated rabble for commerce and domination—but the results will only lay more traps for more fools..
8249. judithathome - 7/8/2003 10:51:20 AM
Well, good for him, then.
8250. robertjayb - 7/8/2003 10:56:27 AM
The key is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.
8251. marjoribanks - 7/8/2003 11:00:20 AM
Wizardo,
It's useful to really try to understand your opponents.
Our Prez has few ideas, and likes ideas not at all. But those ideas he seems to follow up on in quite a solid manner.
What he does know is good and evil. Simplistic, but that's what we have. More paramount than even that, more important is loyalty. Someone somewhere has prodded him to act this way towards Africa thanks to a fortunate alignment of loyalty and Manicheanism.
We have to celebrate, perhaps mutedly, the fact that an American President has delivered such a speech in Africa, given the historical record. It is something new, different and will resonate strongly in that part of the world.
Cynical, meaningless, whatever. Let's see. Right now, the rhetoric is commendable and should be credited until it is not followed-up on.
8252. judithathome - 7/8/2003 11:04:05 AM
I've never doubted Bush can show loyalty.
8253. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/8/2003 11:05:52 AM
Right now, the rhetoric is commendable
Indeed, Marj, however, one should not forget that Nixon may have opened up relations with China, but he was still a gangster with deep seated flaws that ultimately subverted our constitution and undermined our trust in government.
8254. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/8/2003 11:08:27 AM
The key is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made
How true, Robert!
8255. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/8/2003 11:12:19 AM
8256. robertjayb - 7/8/2003 5:25:14 PM
Energy panel suit may proceed...
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court dealt a setback to the Bush administration Tuesday, refusing to stop a lawsuit delving into Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s contacts with the energy industry as his task force was drafting the White House's energy policy.
In a 2-1 ruling, the court rejected the government's arguments that the lawsuit would be an unconstitutional intrusion on the operations of the executive office of the president.
8257. concerned - 7/8/2003 5:31:41 PM
re. 8256 -
The primary result of this ruling is likely to make it more difficult for this and future administrations to coordinate Federal energy policy with businesses and private individuals since there will be a fear that proprietary information will be made public thereby.
8258. alistairConnor - 7/9/2003 11:25:08 AM
Déjà vu... where have we seen this sort of behaviour before?
The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.
The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission's chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to "intimidation" of the witnesses.
The best we can hope for is that it'll turn out in the end that they had nothing to hide after all... just like Saddam.
8259. jexster - 7/9/2003 11:29:56 AM
Independent Terrorism Commission Slams Bush Policies, DoD Stonewalling
8260. jexster - 7/9/2003 11:30:45 AM
Time we got rid of the crazed bunch of crook, con men and incomepetents
8261. jexster - 7/9/2003 11:44:04 AM
AC - you ditsy Greens! Had same debate with my greenie poli sci prof buddy at SFSU
Your vote doesn't count if you happen to choose as your #1 the person who is number 1 or 2 in the first round, which is the real and only election. The voters whose candidates are eliminated have their "votes" counted in the subsequent rounds. So for instance, I vote Smith, you vote Jones, Concerned votes Bush/SMith...Smith and Jones 1-#2 and Bush out. Concerned votes again. You don't. You have voted once. I have voted once. Concerned votes twice.
Futhermore it isn't really a vote though it is treated like one. Its a manufactured choice, a false choice. By its nature there is no campaign Smith Jones that Concerned is faced with. He likes Bush. He doesn't care about Smith. He worked for Bush. The proponents in fact claim that this reduces negative campainging. Well I submit that eliminates campaigning and issue differentiation all except against the front runner
In this simple example there has never been a race between Smith and Jones for Concerned to vote in.
This isn't democracy. This is a perversion, a FrankenDemocracy. And it will drive voter participation in to the toilet as campaigns are further gutted of any meaning and elects officeholders who have nothing to commend them except that the are the least controversial.
Every one love Mother Theresa. No one thinks she'd make a good president. Everyone votes her as #3.
Eeeenie meeenie minee mo...Mother T here we go.
Californicated democracy.
The rest aren't choices.
8262. jexster - 7/9/2003 11:48:07 AM
Forgot the most important point.
Studies show that a large number of voters in real elections make up their minds the night before, some in the voting booth.
I bet that over 50% will be making up their down ballot choices in the voting booth and will "elect" a person that no one cares about and that no one will follow
This will particularly be so with down ballots on down ballots ie more so Supervisor than on DA than Mayor etc.
Great Green Golbs of Goofballs
8263. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/9/2003 1:19:14 PM
8264. jexster - 7/9/2003 1:31:39 PM
Army Releases More Details About Bush's JEssie Lynch Lie
8265. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/9/2003 2:29:36 PM
8242. marjoribanks - 7/8/03 9:18:13 AM
Earlier this morning, I saw Bush deliver his speech at Goree island.
Whatever else one can say about the man, it is at times like this that it is near impossible to doubt his sincerity and fidelity to certain closely-held ideals. The speech was superb, about as good as one could ask for given the position of the man delivering it, and Bush spoke with real conviction and, dare I say it, moral clarity.
On Goree Island, Bush Visit Sparks Anger
GOREE ISLAND, Senegal (Reuters) - President Bush made an eloquent speech but did not win many friends during his brief visit to Goree Island off Senegal on Tuesday.
"We are very angry. We didn't even see him," said Fatou N'diaye, a necklace seller watching dignitaries file past to return to the mainland at the end of Bush's tour.
N'diaye and other residents of Goree, site of a famous slave trading station, said they had been taken to a football ground on the other side of the quaint island at 6 a.m. and told to wait there until Bush had departed, around midday.
8266. jexster - 7/9/2003 2:42:11 PM
IF BUSH IS HIDING SOMETHING, HE HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE
9/11 Commission Says U.S. Agencies Slow Its Inquiry
By PHILIP SHENON The New York Times
WASHINGTON, July 8 The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.
Bush lies, Americans die
8267. jexster - 7/9/2003 2:52:53 PM
STUCK IN QUAGMIRE, SEND ROADMAP Emperor Moron
8268. jexster - 7/9/2003 2:56:38 PM
Summer Vacation Photos
8269. jexster - 7/9/2003 2:56:43 PM
Summer Vacation Photos
8270. jexster - 7/9/2003 3:10:40 PM
Coaltion of Quicksand, Bush Approval Ratings Sink
8271. jexster - 7/10/2003 10:33:25 AM
Bush Lies, Tax Dollars Fry
The Pentagon is spending nearly $4 billion a month in Iraq, a "burn rate" that is likely to continue far longer than the Bush administration intended due to ongoing attacks on U.S. forces, according to private and government cost projections.
the messy aftermath -- with its guerrilla-like attacks, looting and sluggish rebuilding efforts -- threatens to drain the Treasury well into next year and beyond.
8272. jexster - 7/10/2003 11:00:16 AM
Honor French Resistance, Celebrate Bastille Day
Lavandou, Upper Connecticut Ave., NW. Wash DC (Cleveland Park Metro)
Northern California: Bistro Jeanty, Yountville, Napa Valley
8273. jexster - 7/10/2003 3:19:11 PM
Amid rising casualties in Iraq and increasing criticism, Bush pleads for patience. AP
Go plead in the International Criminal Court ...lying bastard
8274. jexster - 7/10/2003 5:57:23 PM
The We Love Our Troops Lie: Bush Blocks Increased Benefits For Dependents of War Dead
8275. alistairconnor - 7/10/2003 6:08:36 PM
Do you folks know about this story?
Billed as "bigger than watergate"... which may be an exaggeration. Or not.
It seems that Diebold's widely-used electronic voting software has "backdoors" that would allow insiders to tamper with the counting, leaving no traces...
Here's how...
8276. wonkers2 - 7/10/2003 7:27:46 PM
Seems to me it would be hard to keep such a scheme secret for long because a lot of people would have to be involved. I put it in the same category as ones like LBJ or the CIA killed JFK or Hitler was alive and well in Paraguay after WWII. However, I hasten to add that I am incapable of evaluating the technical feasibility of such a scheme.
8277. jexster - 7/10/2003 9:07:39 PM
The Company Strikes Back!
Bushies yesterday were leaking to the Post that Tenet was to blame for including the uranium lie in the SOTU address.
Now the Company strikes back in the lead story an excloo to the CBS Evening News...not so the CIA told them to take it out and the White House refused....
The lie was too good lose
Don't mess with the Company you stupid shit...you might find an armadillo head in your bed...
8278. OhioSTOPAS - 7/10/2003 10:09:28 PM
Alistair: Exit polling used to serve as a check on a dishonest or flawed vote count. Is exit polling ever coming back?
8279. robertjayb - 7/11/2003 12:41:13 AM
Texas GOP misused state troopers in redistricting flap...(Houston Chronicle)
AUSTIN -- Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick overstepped his authority by dispatching state troopers to search for Democratic state representatives who bolted in May to kill a redistricting bill, a state district judge ruled Thursday.
State District Judge Charles Campbell ruled that a state government code defining the role and limits of Texas Department of Public Safety officers superseded a House Rule employed by Craddick to hunt down the legislators.
8280. alistairConnor - 7/11/2003 5:37:16 AM
Wonk :
Reading the background to the Diebold business, it seems to me from a technical point of view, that bad design and poor project management is sufficient to explain the general chaos and security loopholes surrounding the voting machines. By principle, I always prefer to credit incompetence and bad luck rather than conspiracy.
But from what I've seen, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that "backdoors" were deliberately left open. The fact that they used an inherently insecure database format, and the "triple ledger" vote-counting tables, certainly makes plausible the accusation that the insecurity is by design, in order to allow tampering by insiders without leaving any trace.
In general, it seems to me that any electronic voting system (i.e. a system that leaves no physical, independently verifiable trace of a vote) needs to be built rigorously and with complete transparency. In the case of the Diebold software, they stonewall any requests for information on the grounds that this would compromise the security of the system, by opening it to hacking. This is completely unacceptable : it is perfectly feasible to build a system which is unhackable, while publishing its specifications. This is, in my view, indispensible, otherwise it's not legitimate to abandon hard-copy voting.
It's clear that Diebold has a great deal of technical incompetence and mismanagement to cover up. The problem is, suspicion about tampering is completely legitimate insofar as they are incapable of proving the contrary. This system needs to be scrapped.
8281. jayackroyd - 7/11/2003 8:47:41 AM
Computerized voting in general is problematic, and has to be backed up by some paper system for recounts.
Now I didn't read the links carefully--I found the tone offputting--but it seems to me that the first, local, ledger is the ledger of record when disputes arise.
8282. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/11/2003 10:11:39 AM
8283. marjoribanks - 7/11/2003 10:18:55 AM
Well, with Condoleeza Rice's sharp transferral of accountability for the Niger uranium lies to Tenet and the CIA today, one must be prepared for a truly scorched-earth Presidential campaign.
Bush has the ability, given his funds and his position, to play the high-road. But I have the feeling he'll be bloodied early, perhaps on corporate malfeasance, and then the gloves will be off and we might see the ugliest campaign (on both sides) in the past few decades.
Certainly, unlike the last couple of campaigns, we're likely to see two sides that don't just disagree - they loathe and distrust each other and see the opponent's ideas as disastrous for the country.
8284. wonkers2 - 7/11/2003 10:28:51 AM
Alistaire, Makes sense to me.
8285. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/11/2003 10:51:40 AM
Me too!
8286. jexster - 7/11/2003 11:18:15 AM
The Miami Herald reports: "A long-awaited final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will be released in the next two weeks, containing new information about U.S. government mistakes and Saudi financing of terrorists. Former Rep. Tim Roemer, who served on the House Intelligence Committee and who has read the report, said it will be 'highly explosive' when it becomes public... The report will show that top Bush administration officials were warned in the summer of 2001 that the al Qaeda terrorist network had plans to hijack aircraft and launch a 'spectacular attack.'' Hill would not discuss details of the report, but said it will contain 'new information' about revelations made last year, when the joint House-Senate investigation held nine public hearings and 13 closed sessions. The final report was completed in December. Since then a working group of Bush administration intelligence officials has 'scrubbed'the report, objecting to additional public disclosures
Roemer, fortunate I didn't trash his bro in law's wedding last Oct with a public tar and feathering for his war vote, doing penance????
8287. jayackroyd - 7/11/2003 11:35:50 AM
There's a typo in that Miami Herald link.
It would be ironic if this kind of thing took down the administration.
There is, by all accounts I've seen, a flood of threats coming into the intelligence community all the time. I know when they are peaking by how Grand Central Station is being secured.
In spite of what must have been a number of credible threats, nothing has happened. Obvious targets that can't possibly be protected, like the 4th of July fireworks display on the East River, have not been attacked.
9/11 is looking more and more like an aberration--that the organization is really only capable of small scale bombings.
8288. jayackroyd - 7/11/2003 11:40:07 AM
I thought the irony obvious, but I'll say it anyway--it would be ironic if the adminstration was damaged by something that they couldn't really have been expected to anticipate.
Yes, it's true that terrorists tried a similar thing before, hijacking a plane in Paris, with intention of flying it into the Eiffel tower. Yes, I think it's true that if the FBI had simply investigated foreign nationals attending flight schools, they could have stopped 9/11.
But false alarms are so numerous, and threats so vague that it is hard to really blame the administration for that bolt out of the blue.
There's plenty else to blame them for, but they've been like teflon wrt those issues. So it would be amusing seeing them fighting off a canard, after they have created so many of their own.
8289. jexster - 7/11/2003 11:40:54 AM
Thanks Jay...with all the Iraq noise obscuring this issue, I agree it could be a sleeper...the families have been expressing frustration with Bush's post 911 performance and particularly with its efforts to scrub the report...they are not happy campers...
8290. jexster - 7/11/2003 11:58:07 AM
And of course there is "noise" in intelligence....unless it happens to be the "faith based intelligence" used by the Bush war mongers
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
--Dick Cheney
Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
8291. jayackroyd - 7/11/2003 12:10:45 PM
The timing isn't so hot for them. The uranium thing is damaging their credibility wrt to WMD in Iraq. It will be hard for them to stand forthrightly on their high horse and say that they did all that could be done, even if they did do all that could reasonably be expected of bureaucrats and govt lifers. Especially when guys like Lee Hamilton are talking about coverup and obstruction.
8292. jexster - 7/11/2003 12:23:22 PM
The bitch fight between Bush and the CIA is becoming comical or would be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic.
Used to be the buck stopped with the President, back in the days we had a president..but there's never been much honor among thieves I suppose
I have to tell you that I'm stunned by how pointed and personal this Niger-uranium controversy is becoming, and so quickly. Condi Rice gave a fifty-minute briefing on Air Force One today in which she explicitly sought to pin the blame for the entire matter on CIA Director George Tenet...Josh Marshall
8293. jexster - 7/11/2003 12:23:42 PM
toys
8294. wonkers2 - 7/11/2003 12:28:37 PM
Curious Bush logic. Even though we know that the Iraq/Niger/uranium story is false, it's "factually correct" to cite it so long as it is attributed to British intelligence, not our own.
8295. jexster - 7/11/2003 12:30:42 PM
I love Marshall - obviously
..here's some interesting comments on the dynamic of press coverage of the Big Lies...
I've long been fascinated by the dynamics of breaking news stories. One would imagine they move through a slow aggregation of facts. But that's seldom the case. A story can be reported by a good reporter with solid sources and nothing happens. Then the same story is reported a few weeks later and it explodes. Not so much the facts but the context is different, the moment, the mix of suspicions and momentum. It's reminiscent of the patterns discussed by historians of science like Thomas Kuhn or the sociologist Karl Mannheim.
But then I ditched that academic career (for early American colonial history), didn't I?
So let's cut to the chase
8296. wonkers2 - 7/11/2003 12:31:21 PM
Reminds me of Clinton's locutions on the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinski. But the subject is just a touch more momentous than Monica.
8297. jexster - 7/11/2003 12:38:29 PM
Reminds Marshall too...
(Let's just agree that Republican grousing about 'depends what the definition of 'is' is' just ain't gonna have the same sting anymore, will it?)
8298. jexster - 7/11/2003 12:39:04 PM
Reminds me of "Pinnochio Bore"
8299. wonkers2 - 7/11/2003 1:20:35 PM
Marshall's piece is the best and most complete I've seen. They must have classes for NSC,DOD and State Dept appointees on how to lie without committing perjury! Condoleeza Rice's performance was especially devious and despicable. Powell wasn't far behind. Fleischer talked himself around in circles.
8300. robertjayb - 7/11/2003 1:21:19 PM
Houston Chronicle
8301. judithathome - 7/11/2003 1:36:50 PM
Rice says the speech was cleared in its entirity by the CIA...so they read all these things routinely?
Basically, it's all Clinton's fault. Just asl Concerned. After all, Clinton gutted the CIA all through the 90s, right? Ergo....
I'm just glad the media is finally discussing the damned thing.
8302. concerned - 7/11/2003 1:38:51 PM
Earth to JAH -
Hellooo. We're talking the SOTU here. Can you conceive of a reason that the CIA wouldn't be reviewing it?
8303. jexster - 7/11/2003 1:43:15 PM
As the thieves stab each other in the back, it looks like Doctor Dean's spinal transplant is taking..
The War Cost Lie: Democrats Pounce
8304. jexster - 7/11/2003 1:45:01 PM
The CIA DID review it. The CIA told them it was a lie. They knew it was a lie..its all laid out in Marshall's columns
How pathetic. Can't these folks take responsibility for anything?
First they try to stab Blair in the back, now Tenet.
You just can't trust this lying scum to do anything but lie.
8305. jexster - 7/11/2003 1:45:32 PM
Pinnochio Moron.
8306. wonkers2 - 7/11/2003 1:46:08 PM
The true issue is who knowingly put the known to be false story in the State of the Union (and was Bush aware of what was going on). The CIA disassociated itself from the phony uranium story. What other basis would Tenet have had to have the story removed than that it was false? He had already pointed it out to anybody who would listen. As Condi and Powell said, the statement was "factual"--British intelligence had reported falsely that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. The CIA, by its objections, in effect forced Bush's speech writers and the Condi Rice and the NSC to make it clear that the false report came from UK intelligence, not CIA. Now Rice is blaming Tenet. It's obviously CYA time at the White House.
8307. marjoribanks - 7/11/2003 1:49:27 PM
Oof, that chart hurts.
8308. wonkers2 - 7/11/2003 1:50:54 PM
Of course Rumsfeld only learned "recently" the report was false although Seymour Hirsch reported that it was in a New Yorker article March 30. Apparently Rummy hasn't had time to read his New Yorkers until recently.
8309. jexster - 7/11/2003 1:51:51 PM
and as we cringe at the spectacle of our President stabbing his allies and colleagues in the back, let's not forget the larger picture...
These criminals KNEW they were warmongering lies to the American people.
They deliberately withheld information from the UN while actively trying to thwart an inspection program that would have proved what they knew at the time, what I knew at the time and what we all know now - the Bush administration manipulated us into a criminal war of aggression for which they offered lies and pretexts and for which they had no exit plan.
They slimed the world..and they made an idiot of Concerned, Eddie Dantes etc (not that that was so hard to do)
8310. concerned - 7/11/2003 1:52:39 PM
Bush has the ability, given his funds and his position, to play the high-road. But I have the feeling he'll be bloodied early, perhaps on corporate malfeasance,
'Corporate malfeasance' has already been tried and has failed to put a dent in the Bush Administration in the form of a year long Enron witch hunt, conducted locally in the Mote by jexster, btw. Additionally, GWB merely has to point to the fact that, in the wake of numerous financial scandals stemming from the out of control corporate atmosphere that developed during the latter part of 'It's the Economy, Stupid''s reign, GWB has signed into law new corporate accountability legislation that quadruples maximum jail terms to 20 years, establishes an independent board to oversee the accounting industry and increases funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as requiring top company executives to personally vouch for the accuracy of their company's accounting reports and banning insider loans.
8311. marjoribanks - 7/11/2003 1:58:22 PM
Gallant as Jexster's salvoes on the Mote are, I suggest that a couple of nicely produced television advertisements on the ties between Cheney (and Bush) and a range of corporate criminals will be more successful in affecting Bush's campaign stances.
Those kinds of ads will probably be the part of the first "negative" wave of campaign communications from the Dems, and will only presage what will come after.
8312. jexster - 7/11/2003 2:02:53 PM
Nice TD..
Where's the Butcher of Baghdad gonna find another war to cover up the mess he has made in Washington and the rest of the world
If he tries another carrier landing, better have a carrier around to land on.
8313. jexster - 7/11/2003 2:03:37 PM
Who can now believe anything Bush says?
8314. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/11/2003 2:05:13 PM
A toy like this might do him in—Jesus, I wish the Democrats had some imagination.
As Mark twain said: " Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand."
8315. concerned - 7/11/2003 2:13:10 PM
Re. 8314 -
WoW -
Sounds like you have a business to start and a mission to accomplish here.
8316. concerned - 7/11/2003 2:16:01 PM
Can you turn it into a gif & have his head explode, too?
8317. judithathome - 7/11/2003 2:18:23 PM
GWB has signed into law new corporate accountability legislation that quadruples maximum jail terms to 20 years, establishes an independent board to oversee the accounting industry and increases funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as requiring top company executives to personally vouch for the accuracy of their company's accounting reports and banning insider loans.
Maybe he can do something for the creditors of Enron who learned they will only be getting 14¢ on the dollar of what they are owed.
8318. judithathome - 7/11/2003 2:19:04 PM
Toys; sorry.
8319. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/11/2003 2:19:32 PM
I'm in the prophetic mysticism racket, connie—I don't do business or missionary work! ;-}
8320. jayackroyd - 7/11/2003 6:04:15 PM
'Corporate malfeasance' has already been tried and has failed to put a dent in the Bush Administration in the form of a year long Enron witch hunt, conducted locally in the Mote
Actually that stuff is just ripening. A lot of time has passed and the Enron guys and the Tyco guys are still not in jail. As Banks said, it's easy to imagine a very tough set of attack ads from a free-speaking, unaffiliated organization like a union. One ad could talk about Ken Lay's unemployment benefits vs the benefits of the employees let go by Enron. And then another could show his Enron stock profits, compared to the 401K results of ordinary Americans who believed him when he lied about the company's financials.
8321. judithathome - 7/11/2003 7:00:57 PM
Just broke on CNN:
"Jamie McIntyre reports that Tenet has issued a two-page statement saying that the CIA did in fact approve the State of the Union address, that he accepts full responsibility, and that the President fully believed that the speech was factually accurate. He furthermore stated that the text of the speech was factually accurate as it cited a British report. He said the CIA should have insured the language was removed, and that the agency takes full responsibility."
8322. jexster - 7/11/2003 8:50:40 PM
Bush Approval Rating Plummets 9 points in 18 Days
PORTRAIT OF MISTER BUNNY PANTS CHOKING HIS CHICKEN
8323. jexster - 7/11/2003 9:09:22 PM
Zbigniew Brezinski - "Credibility is a most important US asset in the world. The reason most governments believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD was because we said it. It is an extremely precious national asset and it has been squandered."
8324. jexster - 7/11/2003 9:13:13 PM
Tenet fell on his sword for Bush...
The sequence is
- Appears in NIE with qualifier "extremely dubious"
- WH includes in speech draft over CIA objections
- WH includes in final draft, CIA, properly chastened remains silent
As the CEIP analysis linked in Iraq thread points out, it is the NIE's that are the key specifically the one issued a year before ..which apparently was cooked by Rummy...
And which still wasn't good enough for those wackos in the Pentagon because they set up their own in house department of cookery in mid '02...
Stay tuned...
8325. jexster - 7/11/2003 9:14:35 PM
I'll bottom line it 4yall
BUSH LIES, PEOPLE DIE
One billion bucks a week....
Gimme a jizz stain on a dress, it is a less costly spot removal job
8326. jayackroyd - 7/11/2003 11:46:25 PM
Jexster's favorite blogger does a pretty good job analyzing this.
Mostly obvious. If you have ever been inside the preparation of a major corporate or governmental statement, it will seem familiar.
Most interesting is his assertion that, despite all the (to my mind accurate) fingerpointing at the white house and dod, the CIA did fuck up. Tenet should have said "No. This is intelligence we know to be false and we are not signing off on it. We are not letting it in on a technicality. And if you don't like it, you can have my resignation."
This would have caused a shitstorm of major proportions at a moment of crisis, but, it should be noted, the crisis was of the White House's manufacture. It's now clear that there was no security crisis, whatsoever, stemming from Iraq.
But it is nonetheless the DCI's responsibility to not let bad intelligence into vital presidential communications, even at the possible expense of his job.
But, ultimately, the words are the president's, said by the president, in his single most important annual address. Fobbing this off on Tenet is weak, and makes him look even more like a hollow bully. In the wake of "Bring 'em on", it makes him look especially bad.
I agree with Banks, that the Africa speeches have been effective. But nobody cares about Africa, as should be painfully evident by the US and European agricultural protectionist policies.
He's got a problem, and no obvious way to fix it in a good electoral timeframe. Even if there is progress toward an Iraqi government, it looks like there will be a few American casualties every week for an indefinite period. Maybe getting Saddam would help. But he's already been unable to get one guy, and now he's looking for another one guy with more resources to hand.
8327. concerned - 7/12/2003 3:43:29 AM
- WH includes in final draft, CIA, properly chastened remains silent
You're just spouting bullshit, jexster. For some reason, you think this administration operates like the last one, and you're wrong. As we all know, the CIA required that other statements relating to the same matter, specifically regarding allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain 'yellowcake' ore from Niger be removed from the speech and the WH fully complied with all such requests.
If the CIA had felt there was credible evidence at the time of the SOTU that the information was forged, it presumably would have told the administration, there being no reason to adopt the craven attitude under any circumstance that jexster proposes, and the entirety of the text relating to the African Uranium would have been dropped from the SOTU with no further ado.
8328. concerned - 7/12/2003 3:51:57 AM
read: SOTU address
8329. concerned - 7/12/2003 3:53:21 AM
The plain truth from Condoleezza Rice:
If the C.I.A., the director of central intelligence, had said, `Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone, without question," she added. "If there were doubts about the underlying intelligence, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president or to me."
8330. OhioSTOPAS - 7/12/2003 8:02:58 AM
Uh-huh. Condi had better wear a dress when she says stuff like that. Pants would be in flames.
8331. jexster - 7/12/2003 10:40:39 AM
Questions begged:
If Tenet is guilty of not pushing hard enough for the truth, who was pushing the lies?
8332. jexster - 7/12/2003 10:43:15 AM
All I assume concerned is the obvious:
Bush stabs anyone in the back as political convenience suits
Bush doesn't take responsibility for actions unless convenient to do so
Bush passes the buck
Bush lies
People die
8333. jexster - 7/12/2003 10:44:26 AM
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
--Ari Fleischer
Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
--Ari Fleischer
Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003
8334. jayackroyd - 7/12/2003 10:45:03 AM
concerned--
Are you just not reading the news on this story? This column started the firestorm.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
snip
For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.
snip
If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
snip
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
8335. jexster - 7/12/2003 10:45:40 AM
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
--Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
--Robert Kagan
Neocon scholar
Washington Post op-ed
4/9/2003
8336. jexster - 7/12/2003 10:47:42 AM
I also know that we are spending a billion dollars a week and about a bodybag a day because Bush launched an aggressive war without justification.
That's a crime against humanity, not to mention against the taxpayer!
8337. jexster - 7/12/2003 10:58:09 AM
Concerned's problem is Pinnochio Moron.
8338. jexster - 7/12/2003 11:00:58 AM
LAT: Meet Howard Dean, Radical Centrist
8339. jayackroyd - 7/12/2003 11:02:26 AM
But even before the column there were numerous news stories that the document was an obvious forgery. There's no doubt that the administration lied about the threat of nuclear attacks from Iraq.
There is also now no doubt that they were wrong about the threat to the region from non-nuclear wmd, and way, way wrong about the threat to the US. Whether they lied or not requires Clintonian parsing of phrase and meaning, and faith that they are telling the truth in the recounting of their reasoning. It looks like Rice is lying about the sequence of events in the Niger uranium document, so that makes it still trickier to work out.
Of course, Clinton reserved his mendacity for his private life. Bush reserves his for his public life. (See this article for an example.)
Which is worse?
I report, you decide.
8340. jexster - 7/12/2003 11:25:26 AM
We've seen the future, and it's been deleted.
Scary. I'd be concerned if I were you.
8341. jexster - 7/12/2003 11:40:01 AM
Don't worry TD, there's still the ever popular "God told me to do it" defense.
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am
determined to solve the problem in the Middle
East. If you help me I will act, and if not,
the elections will come and I will have to
focus on them."
I mean what's a little lie between ole buddies like Duhbya and the Ancient of Days???
8342. jexster - 7/12/2003 11:53:58 AM
Key finding of ABC/Post Poll spells big trouble for the Butcher of Baghdad...
An overwhelming majority of Americans -- 80 percent -- said they fear the United States will become bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.
"I'm worried about how long we're going to be there," said Betty Stillwell, 71, a writer from central California. "We were supposed to be in there and out. By now I thought they would have set up a government, and they haven't done that yet. . . . I think the whole thing was poorly planned, no thought to the aftermath."
8343. jayackroyd - 7/12/2003 12:51:48 PM
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am
determined to solve the problem in the Middle
East. If you help me I will act, and if not,
the elections will come and I will have to
focus on them."
You really should remove the quote marks. I don't know in what language Abbas and Bush had their talks, nor whether Abbas's quotation was in English, so at best this is a non-native English speaker recollecting a conversation with an agenda in mind spoken by someone who also has an agenda.
At worst, it's the translation into English of a translation from English into Arabic by a manipulative pseudo-diplomat.
I don't think it can be taken on its face.
8344. concerned - 7/13/2003 1:09:33 AM
Of course, Clinton reserved his mendacity for his private life.
Of course, Xlowntoon was impeached for his mendacity. Sorry, Jay. Lying while under oath will never be considered part of ones 'private life' by any responsible person, ever.
8345. arkymalarky - 7/13/2003 1:14:36 AM
And nothing is private when the RRR is investigating. The truth must out, no matter how trivial and irrelevant, if it's about the right person.
8346. concerned - 7/13/2003 1:20:12 AM
Jay also has conveniently forgotten the many times Xlowntoon has lied or misled federal officials about campaign finances, travelgate, his foreign policy, his domestic policy, his finances, his use of government employees for non-official duties and vice versa. You name it.
All Jay remembers is that Xlowntoon has 'never been' mendacious about 'anything' but his private life. Better consider seeking treatment for whatever degenerative mental disorder is affecting your memory and judgment, Jay.
8347. concerned - 7/13/2003 1:28:55 AM
For one, does Jay really think for a moment that Xlowntoon's real motive was effectively 'battling' international terrorism with his one shot cruise missile exercises? If so, I think I can find some bridges for him to acquire.
8348. concerned - 7/13/2003 1:41:10 AM
When Xlowntoon reversed his position on welfare reform, does anyone believe that the people who supported him because they believed his repeated assertions that he would maintain the status quo or increase entitlements (whether it was the right thing to do is a separate issue) didn't feel that they were lied to and betrayed?
8349. robertjayb - 7/13/2003 2:17:37 AM
National House of Waffles...(Maureen Dowd)
Dissembling over peccadillos is pathetic. Dissembling over pre-emptive strikes is pathological, given over 200 Americans dead and 1,000 wounded in Iraq, and untold numbers of dead Iraqis. Our troops are in "a shooting gallery," as Teddy Kennedy put it, and our spy agencies warn that we are on the cusp of a new round of attacks by Saddam snipers.
8350. OhioSTOPAS - 7/13/2003 6:56:26 AM
Concerned refers to "the many times Xlowntoon has lied or misled federal officials about campaign finances, travelgate, his foreign policy, his domestic policy, his finances, his use of government employees for non-official duties and vice versa. You name it."
Okay, give us a few examples. When I get back next weekend, I'll match you at least 2 for 1 with Bush lies.
8351. wonkers2 - 7/13/2003 7:00:43 AM
10:1.
8352. wonkers2 - 7/13/2003 7:08:21 AM
Meanwhile, unemployment inches upward, with new unemployment insurance claims for the week ending July 5, 439,000, and continuing claims at 3.82 million, both the highest in 20 years. Also, fears of deflation continue at the Fed. Bush's trickle down tax cuts apparently aren't doing their job.
8353. jayackroyd - 7/13/2003 7:57:09 AM
Jay also has conveniently forgotten the many times Xlowntoon has lied or misled federal officials about campaign finances, travelgate, his foreign policy, his domestic policy, his finances, his use of government employees for non-official duties and vice versa.
Those things you can cite specifically led to intense investigations that revealed....nothing.
But you're looking at the wrong side here. I'm saying that Bush has repeatedly lied about important public policy issues. Do you deny that?
8354. wonkers2 - 7/13/2003 8:00:32 AM
Bush is a bigger liar than Nixon.
8355. jayackroyd - 7/13/2003 8:24:04 AM
On welfare reform, connie, we have a good example of the difference. Clinton said he wanted welfare reform, and then implemented the changes necessary in the system. Bush has repeatedly taken a policy position that was never implemented. We may be seeing it happening again with his African AIDS position.
Or he has flatly mischaracterized the intention of his programs as with the "Healthy Forest Initiative" or with his "jobs program" of cutting taxes for the rich.
Finally, he is an enthusiastic participant in the biggest GOP lie of all-- that they favor small government. We have a republican house, a republican senate, a republican president. What does that mean? Explosive spending growth, and deficits for as far as the eye can see.
8356. jexster - 7/13/2003 11:19:07 AM
Bush may think this is behind him ...
The question is who was it that the CIA failed to fight with sufficient vigor?
CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct.
Why Bush Cited It In Jan. Is Unclear
Iraq Uranium Story Cut in Oct.
CIA head got deletion from Bush talk 3 months before State of the Union
But what's one little lie in a whole pack???
8357. jexster - 7/13/2003 11:41:05 AM
OUT OUT DAMNED SPOT!
Bush Pee'ed on His Poodle, Poodle Bites Back
Britain and America suffered a complete breakdown in relations over vital evidence against Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, refusing to share information and keeping each other in the dark over key elements of the case against the Iraqi dictator.
In a remarkable letter released last night, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, reveals a catalogue of disputes between the two countries, lending more ammunition to critics of the war and exerting fresh pressure on the Prime Minister.
8358. jexster - 7/13/2003 11:43:56 AM
Excellent Advice!
Richard Butler, who was executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission to Iraq from 1997 to 1999, said that anyone who had claimed that there was a link between Niger and Iraq should resign.
Referring to Australian politicians who had made similar claims, only to withdraw them and apologise later, Butler said: 'In the justification for the war, these claims were false and known to be false.
'A Minister who misleads Parliament must accept responsibility for it and resign. Ministers must be held responsible, not public servants.'
8359. jexster - 7/13/2003 11:51:37 AM
What's One Little Lie in a Whole Pack???
Bush Lied About Al Qaeda Links
8360. jexster - 7/13/2003 11:54:44 AM
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
8361. jexster - 7/13/2003 12:01:58 PM
The cost of the war and occupation of Iraq could reach $100 billion through next year, substantially higher than anticipated at the war's outset, according to defense and congressional aides. This is raising worries that other military needs will go unmet while the government is swamped in red ink.
The War Cost Lie
8362. jexster - 7/13/2003 12:03:44 PM
Jay also has conveniently forgotten the many times Xlowntoon has lied or misled federal officials about campaign finances, travelgate, his foreign policy, his domestic policy, his finances, his use of government employees for non-official duties and vice versa.
And Jay is of course correct, not one of these allegations was true.
Yet the delicious irony is not that TD continues to peddle this shit but that he's using it as a defense to Bush's bloody lies.
8363. jayackroyd - 7/13/2003 12:06:20 PM
who was it that the CIA failed to fight with sufficient vigor?
Looks like Rice. The second post story cites her deputy. Coordinating the different voices and arriving at a consensus to present to president is her job.
What's also interesting about this is the complete removal of Bush's voice in the process of preparing the speech. It's like the weird phrase in the Howard Dean ad where he says "and that's why I approved this message"
In principle, this was not simply about presenting an accurate case for war to the public. It is very strange that this is not about whether the president was given the proper information to evaluate the threat Iraq posed, but whether he justified the war honestly.
In other words, the subtext in all this is that Bush was going to war against Saddam, for reasons other than the stated reasons, and everyone knows it. The question in the media is not "was the president adequately informed about the nature and imminence of the threat?" but "did the case that sold the war to the public actually have a factual basis?"
Regardless of the answer to the second question, it is still the case that the stated reasons were not the real reasons.
8364. jexster - 7/13/2003 12:13:20 PM
She sure is squirming...I saw her by accident (I never waste time watching liars)...she did not look at all comfortable...rarely made eye contact..
But the problem and she knows it, isn't this one lie...this is but the end product of a determined and deliberate war mongering scheme...
It is not going away. He needs another war.
8365. jexster - 7/13/2003 12:15:00 PM
Those sleazy attempts to blame Britain and the CIA, Bush has turned his "lightning rods" into echo chambers.
8366. jexster - 7/13/2003 12:17:52 PM
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Republicans contended that President Clinton had stretched the military too thin with the deployment of 10,000 troops in the Balkans, Kosiak noted. Now, there are 16 times that many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, and the grumbling is beginning again
Bring em on
Let's roll
BTW is Reagan dead yet? I noticed the commissioning of the USS Raygun.
8367. jayackroyd - 7/13/2003 12:19:01 PM
Next the al qaeda story will get center stage, while the uranium thing will keep on dripping along. He blew his best change of stopping it with a "the buck stops here" set of remarks at a press conference. Now the story is the cover up,and cover up stories have legs.
They really need to find Saddam, for their sakes, the sake of the Iraqis and for the troops.
8368. jexster - 7/13/2003 12:21:14 PM
More and more, with Bush administration pronouncements about the Iraq war, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
The National House of Waffles (and Crawfish)
8369. judithathome - 7/13/2003 12:53:34 PM
Jex, will you please note that Robert already linked that 20 posts ago.
8370. jexster - 7/13/2003 1:39:41 PM
But it fit so nicely with my concern for concerned and his for me!
"There is no finer position than, having been alone and ridiculed, to be proved right" Chris Mathews, Speaking of Howard Dean
8371. jexster - 7/13/2003 4:05:16 PM
Say G'nite Condo, Say G'nite TD
I was most curious this morning to see Wolf Blitzer's interview with Condi Rice
She is, to use the vocabulary we used back in the 20th century, lying.
Like the lawyers say: if the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table.
Rice is banging on the table.-- Josh Marshall
8372. wonkers2 - 7/13/2003 5:16:01 PM
Marshall's right about Condolezza Rice's interview with Wolf Blitzer--she was pathetic. Still spinning the same lies as she was two years ago, the smoking gun/mushroom cloud bullshit. Powell has been almost as bad.
Also, Bob Woodward's interview with Larry King was disappointing. He sounded almost like an apologist for the administration. He has become a toothless tiger. Maybe he always was. And "Smiley Russert" is sounding more and more like Ari Fleischer.
8373. arkymalarky - 7/13/2003 5:16:49 PM
I'm smouching that "banging" quote. I'd heard it before, but it's perfect for the current environment.
8374. wonkers2 - 7/13/2003 5:20:16 PM
Rice was shameless in blaming Tenet for not forbidding HER staff from including the Niger material in Bush's speech although he had already nixed the story months before for Bush's Cincinnati speech and everybody but the janitor knew the story was a lie. She even blamed Tenet for the compromise language attributing the fraudulent story to the British in order to make the lie "factual." This is straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
8375. AceofSpades - 7/13/2003 5:50:52 PM
"No Links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Chapter 657:
Alleged Qaeda Group Says Behind Iraq Attacks-TV
2 hours, 34 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
DUBAI (Reuters) - A group claiming to be linked to the al Qaeda network said in an audio tape aired on an Arab television station on Sunday that they and not the followers of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) were behind attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq (news -web sites).
"I swear by God no one from his (Saddam Hussein) followers carried out any jihad operations like he claims...they (attacks) are a result of our brothers in jihad," said the unidentified voice on the tape which was broadcast by Dubai-based Al Arabiya television.
The voice on the tape, which Arabiya aired along with a photograph of an unidentified white-bearded man wearing a turban, also warned of a new anti-U.S. attack in the days to come which would "break the back of America completely."
It was not clear if he was referring to an attack in Iraq or somewhere else.
The voice said the "Armed Islamic Movement for Al Qaeda, the Falluja Branch" -- a previously unheard of name -- was behind the attacks in Iraq and that its members were dispersed all over Iraq.
Earlier this month, an audio tape said to be made by Saddam urged Iraqis to fight the U.S.-British occupation of Iraq.
Gentlemen, set your phasers to "Ignore"!
You certainly don't want your kneejerk ideological bumpersticker slogans compromised by dirty facts.
8376. jexster - 7/13/2003 6:19:21 PM
Oh boy, the Ace of Spades...
I did need to take a piss.
8377. jexster - 7/13/2003 6:24:56 PM
Speaking of spent rods..
What do you think of this Fat Boy??
SEOUL, July 13 — North Korea (news - web sites) claims to have reprocessed all its spent nuclear fuel rods while restarting a small experimental reactor and working on two much bigger reactors, a South Korean report said today.
8378. Absensia - 7/13/2003 6:48:14 PM
Missing Democrats an 'affront' to NAACP
Delegates expect to see candidates, Mfume says
The NAACP's top leadership lashed out Saturday at several of the major Democratic candidates for president, calling their intention to skip Monday's candidate forum an ''affront'' to the nation's oldest civil rights organization.
As many as four of the nine candidates have refused to participate in the forum, expressing reluctance to appear on stage with their rivals in a debate format, NAACP officials said.
As of late Saturday, Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Reps. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio were not expected to attend. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was scheduled to attend, along with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry plans to go to the convention, but his campaign is pressing for a change in the debate format.
The actions drew outrage Saturday from NAACP President Kweisi Mfume and Chairman Julian Bond, who told The Herald that any candidate who skipped the forum would lose credibility with black voters.
''If you can't come to the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization's national conference to lay out what you believe in and the direction you think our country should go in, you certainly have no legitimacy going into black communities asking for votes,'' said Mfume, as he prepared to welcome delegates to the NAACP's annual conference. ``If you can't do a forum where you're simply asked a question and asked to respond, the question is can you really lead?''
More from the Miami Herald: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6291857.htm
The NAACP is credited with registering 2 million new voters in 2000 and almost putting Al Gore in the White House. It plans to play a vigorous role again in 2004.
8379. jayackroyd - 7/13/2003 8:45:56 PM
I'm so confuuuused!!!!
A group claiming to be linked to the al Qaeda network said in an audio tape aired on an Arab television station on Sunday that they and not the followers of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) were behind attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq
The president said that al qaeda was linked to Saddam Hussein. Was he mistaken? Did George Tenet not tell him that nobody in the intelligence community believe there were such links? Did Condi Rice not brief him before his 10 pm milk and cookies about what the grownups were doing in the situation room?
And now, al qaeda is saying there aren't any links.
I'm so confuuuuuuused!
Maybe the president can explain. Oh, no, that's right. He reads what they give him to read. Maybe whomever George Tenet was supposed to overrule on the uranium business can explain.
I'm even more confuuuuuuused. Who was that? Who wrote those sixteen words that Tenet should have had removed? Why haven't they told us who wrote those sixteen words, and won the argument over Tenet to have the president say them?
I'm really confuuuuuuused!!!! Isn't it up to president to decide these things? I thought maybe Dick Cheney was making the key decisions, but it never occurred to me that George Tenet determined the contents of the state of the union address.
Maybe Bush is confuuuuuuused too. Or was.
8380. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/14/2003 1:36:25 AM
8381. Time - 7/14/2003 1:41:51 AM
That is Whoopi Goldberg pushing down Jay Leno's head?
Could you explain, how that broken would find the bone.
8382. concerned - 7/14/2003 5:24:36 AM
Those things you can cite specifically led to intense investigations that revealed....nothing.
Jay - if you are serious about the above, you are an incompetent. The fourteen or so convictions from Whitewater are.....nothing? Not likely.
8383. concerned - 7/14/2003 5:27:31 AM
Re. 8334 -
I had already mentioned - twice - that the CIA had the reference to 'yellowcake' ore removed from the SOTU speech.
It seems it is you who are not reading.
8384. concerned - 7/14/2003 5:31:38 AM
Re. 8382 -
I seem to remember a little matter of x42 being impeached as a result of these investigations. He was a worthless president in many ways that count, but even I wouldn't call his impeachment 'nothing' because of that.
8385. concerned - 7/14/2003 5:44:33 AM
Re. 8379 -
You're easily confused. Aside from the fact that Saddam is out of power, on what grounds do you justify taking Al Qaeda's word at face value, anyway? Because of their 'commitment to our welfare', perhaps?
8386. concerned - 7/14/2003 5:53:30 AM
Perhaps Jay is impressed by what he sees as their unwavering record of honesty - only god knows how anybody could arrive at that opinion regarding this mendacious pack of treacherous murderers, though.
8387. jayackroyd - 7/14/2003 7:11:40 AM
8382
Those convictions turned out to have nothing to do with Clinton.
8383
It seems to me that you've not been following this news story.
8384
As with the other divisive, partisan and hollow attempts to destroy the Clinton presidency, the impeachment came to nothing. The senate didn't come close to convicting, and his support among voters held steady. Because there was nothing there. Bush, on the other hand, looks to have knowingly lied to the american people in order to prosecute a war he wanted for other, still unstated reasons.
8385 8386
Because they have always expressed opposition to the secular Baathist regime. This statement is consistent with past statements in favor of the elimination of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by an islamist regime. This is why I'd said, before the conflict started, that the al qaeda link was a transparent lie, driven by the need by the administration to conflate Iraq with 9/11 among voters who don't follow the news closely.
This tendency among many people to not follow the news closely worked for him then, but works against him now as he tries to control the firestorm. For example, Rumsfeld pointed out on Meet the Press yesterday that the May 1 aircraft carrier speech was worded very carefully--"Major combat operations" had ended. That is what Bush said--they played a tape. But that is not what people heard, what the press is reporting, and what Bush is ultimately struggling against. What they heard is "the war is over" just as what they heard when he talked about iraq and al qaeda, was "Iraq was involved in 9/11." It will take time to erase that lie, but the seeds for its erosion are planted in his saying the war is over when it clearly is not.
8388. jayackroyd - 7/14/2003 7:40:49 AM
Looking quickly at the papers this morning, and remembering Rumsfeld yesterday, they are falling into the technically correct trap.
The worst thing a politician can do is mislead people, and then say afterwards that what he said was, strictly speaking, correct, because it costs him the honest mistake defense. Moreover, he now is saying, implicitly, that he was intentionally misleading, that he had said something that later he could claim was technically true, but that he knew would be interpreted more broadly. Part of this is bureaucratic shilly-shallying--to get Tenet to agree to the 16 words, they had to weaken the claim. He'd sign off on the weakened claim, because it was technically true although not believed by US intelligence.
So now Bush's people are in the position of saying that they intentionally inserted language (note again that Bush is not, apparently, involved with the content of the sotu) that described facts that our intelligence agencies believed to be false and that a special envoy sent out to investigate the question believed to be false.
Why did they do this? To associate Saddam Hussein with an imminent nuclear threat that turned out not be true. In fact, they did it to mislead the American people in the true assessment by US intelligence of the threat, and the imminence of that threat to the United States. When they say "but it was technically true" or "the mushroom cloud thing was just a hypothetical illustration" they demonstrate the nature of the deception--premeditated, not mistaken.
8389. jayackroyd - 7/14/2003 7:43:14 AM
You can't help thinking how much Bush must hate this. All this hairsplitting nonsense, parsing CIA estimates, examining past speeches one word at a time.
8390. jexster - 7/14/2003 11:54:01 AM
And they're off...
Filing Period Opens Today in SF Mayor's Race
Front Running Hottie Gavin Newsom and Leftie Angela Alioto Set to Square Off in Crowded Field
8391. robertjayb - 7/14/2003 1:43:55 PM
Bunch of Bull! Ari the Liar's elegant response...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday dismissed as a "bunch of bull" charges that President Bush used disputed intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq and said there was no need to delve further into the matter, which Democrats want investigated.
8392. arkymalarky - 7/14/2003 2:23:29 PM
Message # 8382
14 podunk Arkies who were doing the same thing during the S&L crisis the Bushies were doing on a much smaller scale. I know! Let's start up an investigation of their role at that point in history and spend multi-millions of dollars seeing if we can dig up fourteen convictions. I'd bet we could, and they'd be bigger catches by far than the likes of Jim and Susan McDougal, Charlie Trie and Web Hubbel. They did manage to knock off our governor, Jim Guy Tucker. Maybe he was the one worth all those millions of federal money.
8393. arkymalarky - 7/14/2003 2:24:18 PM
Clinton's impeachment wasn't nothing. It was over nothing.
8394. arkymalarky - 7/14/2003 2:25:56 PM
But if you're intellectually honest and consistent, Con'd, you'll support a thorough investigation into allegations against Bush&Co which at this point look like they could be a lot worse, and are certainly a lot more relevant to the American people.
8395. judithathome - 7/14/2003 3:02:29 PM
Click here to see who wrote the SOTU...it's a slideshow.
But what are you going to believe? The truth or your lyin' eyes?
8396. jexster - 7/14/2003 3:29:50 PM
I BELIEVE IN GOD
The Father, the Almighty
Maker of Heaven and Earth
Of all that is
Seen and unseen....
AND in George His Annointed Our Lord...
WHO on the Sixth Day Didst Smite Saddam
And who landed on an aircraft carrier...
Windows MediaPlayer 2MB Broadband
8397. jexster - 7/14/2003 3:37:49 PM
Demand the Truth NOW!
8398. jexster - 7/14/2003 3:38:47 PM
Great moments in the passive voice ...
I think the bottom has been gotten to ...
No, we said it didn't rise to a Presidential level. That's what we've said, that in hindsight, we now realize it did not rise to a Presidential level. There is still -- it would be also erroneous for anybody to report that the information about whether or not Iraq sought uranium from Africa was wrong. No one can accurately tell you that it was wrong. That is not known.
Ari Fleischer
Final Gagglefest
July 14th, 2003
Onward and upward ... jmm
8399. concerned - 7/14/2003 3:40:23 PM
Re. 8387 -
Since you've now arbitrarily defined everything up to and including criminal convictions and impeachments as 'nothing', you've lost all credibility in this discussion.
But, to avoid additionally being an abject hypocrite, you now are obligated to apply the same rules to Republicans as you are cheerily using to judge to x42 ex post facto.
Remember, according to your standards, nothing, including wrongdoing potentially leading to criminal conviction or impeachment merits criticism on the basis of malfeasance. You've already made it blindingly clear that this is precisely your attitude wrt the Xlowntoon Administration and all its associates.
8400. jexster - 7/14/2003 3:42:10 PM
Two words for you
Pinnochio Moron
8401. jexster - 7/14/2003 3:43:45 PM
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
--George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
8402. concerned - 7/14/2003 3:47:55 PM
Re. 8394 -
arky -
I'd support such an investigation, as long as it is flexible enough to follow the evidence rather than merely being a anti-GWB witch hunt in masquerade.
You've probably heard by now that the UK foreign secretary Jack Straw is insisting that the Niger yellow cake uranium ore lead is true, after all. Given this, perhaps it's a little worse than premature to insist that the Bush Administration is 'lying' about Saddam looking into importing uranium ore from Africa after all? It certainly seems that way.
8403. concerned - 7/14/2003 3:51:53 PM
To put it another way, to insist that GWB was lying in his SOTU speech at this point is to be a liar in actuality.
8404. jexster - 7/14/2003 3:53:11 PM
The Alphajets of the Patrouille de France fly over the Arc de Triomphe during the Bastille Day military parade on the Champs Elysees in Paris Monday, July 14, 2003.
8405. jexster - 7/14/2003 3:57:05 PM
No in fact he was lying, in demonstrable point of fact. In fact we KNEW he was lying, or at least those of us with any discernable inttelligence.
The larger question is how far did his lies reach?
I submit that everything he or his administration said in the run up to war was deliberately either untrue or made without regard to the truth for in demonstrable fact, there was doubt, substantial doubt about Iraqi WMDs.
Bush and his henchmen knew this and they deliberately undermined the democratic processes in this country and international law because they wanted this war for reasons that they never shared with the American people
They stand accused as criminals but as I have repeatedly said none of this is news.
8406. jexster - 7/14/2003 4:00:56 PM
Straight outta parseville, baby!
An interesting meditation on the newfound distinction between 'accurate' and 'true' in a back and forth this morning in Ari Fleischer's final press gaggle ...
Questioner: Does the President consider the whole Niger uranium story finished?
Fleischer: I think as far as the President is concerned, he's moved on. The President
Questioner: What do you mean, "moved on"? That we shouldn't get to the bottom of it?
8407. jexster - 7/14/2003 4:01:26 PM
Pinnochio Moron
8408. jexster - 7/14/2003 4:02:46 PM
Quote number one ...
"I will bring honor to the process and honor to the office I seek. I will remind Al Gore that Americans do not want a White House where there is 'no controlling legal authority.' I will repair the broken bonds of trust between Americans and their government."
-- George W. Bush
March 7th, 2000
8409. concerned - 7/14/2003 4:10:31 PM
Sorry, jex. This one is unspinnable. It would not be logically possible for GWB to have told a lie when he claimed that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Africa if that in fact turns out to be case as British Intelligence insists.
Better hang it up, because everybody can see you're doing nothing but farting lies, yourself, on this one.
8410. judithathome - 7/14/2003 4:16:42 PM
that in fact turns out to be case as British Intelligence insists.
British Intel is trying to cover IT'S ass, just as Bush is trying to do with his "move on" pronouncement. HAs anyone been made privy to thei new evidence?
Face it, Con, your little god has feet of clay.
8411. thoughtful - 7/14/2003 4:25:15 PM
jexster, you so misunderstand the bush administration.
This is the administration of moral clarity....provided your morals include lying.
I'm making a list of the lies the administration has already told that I can remember, though I'm sure there are more.
- Yellow cake
- 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX; 30,000 munitions to deliver chemical agents
- $15B AIDS package. In reality it's much smaller...in fact Bush didn't even request $3B necessary in this year's budget to meet his stated objective. (Google Linda Bilmes of Harvard to see her piece on why they are already far short of the promised $15B)
- Tax cut for every taxpayer/leave no child behind, though the tax bill excluded extention of the child credit to working poor families
- "I hit the trifecta" when no one could find evidence that he ever made the excuses he later relied on for his ballooning deficits
- 60 lines of stem cells available for scientific research
- ANWAR impact on the environment where they added up the sq. ft. of the base of the brackets to support the pipeline rather than the entire area covered by the pipeline
- budget that would never pass "truth in lending" laws due to the dishonesty of the sunset provisions among others. (I call one of them, the kill granny before 12/31/2010 provision.)
- Lies of omission, like deleting from the gov. web site that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer or the EPA report that dismissed global warming out of hand
- And just for fun, the "no nation building" Gov. W promised during the campaign.
8412. jexster - 7/14/2003 5:13:05 PM
ANOTHER LIE: The Rosebush
VIENNA, Austria - A top U.N. weapons hunter says it would have been "virtually impossible" for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with equipment recently dug up from a Baghdad backyard, as the Bush administration contends.
It would be easier to list the times Bush told the truth.
Wolfowitz: Sinseki Troop Estimates "Way off the Mark"
Rumsfeld: More Troops Needed in Iraq
Iraq Military Cost to top 100,000,000 This Year
U.S. Convoy Is Attacked in Iraq, Killing 1 Soldier and Wounding 6
8413. jexster - 7/14/2003 5:13:41 PM
100,000,000,000 (that wasn't a LIE, that was a typo)
8414. arkymalarky - 7/14/2003 5:54:01 PM
Suuuure.
8415. concerned - 7/14/2003 6:08:36 PM
I submit that everything he or his administration said in the run up to war was deliberately either untrue or made without regard to the truth for in demonstrable fact, there was doubt, substantial doubt about Iraqi WMDs.
In jexster's alternate universe, neither the facts of the matter nor the CIA nor the best opinions widely held throughout the rest of the world ever existed. Because, if they did, he couldn't sustain a pretense of asserting that the GWB administration ever misled anybody on the matter.
The obverse side of jexster's consistent bloviation about GWB, of course, is that jexster has a great deal of confidence in the Bush Administration's capabilities to the extent that he holds them up to much higher standards than he would anybody else.
8416. concerned - 7/14/2003 6:21:08 PM
Re. 8411 -
Better give your 'memory' a reality check, 'thoughtful'.
For example, you cannot provide any cite that the GWB administration lied about 'yellowcake', because the simple truth is the only liar about it is you.
8417. concerned - 7/14/2003 6:23:36 PM
or,rather, that 'thoughtful' is lying about the Bush administration re. 'yellow cake'.
8418. concerned - 7/14/2003 6:25:31 PM
If it's a LWer telling lies, that does not reflect badly on the prevaricator, according to the LW playbook, particularly if it's a BIG lie.
8419. concerned - 7/14/2003 6:31:53 PM
I've seen and heard more than enough LWers at all levels, of private and public life, brag about their success in lying to, cheating, assaulting and misleading people. Interestingly enough, I've never seen nor heard of a conservative brag about this shameful psychopathic trait.
8420. jexster - 7/14/2003 6:43:46 PM
When George W. Bush ran for president, one of his big selling points was responsibility. Americans were tired of Bill Clinton's fudges and legalisms. They were tired of hearing that the latest falsehood was part of a larger truth, or that it was OK because the president had attributed it to somebody else, or that the country should "move on." Bush promised to end all that. He promised an "era of responsibility" in which leaders and citizens would no longer "blame somebody else."
This month, Bush was given a chance to make good on those promises....
The Buck Stops There
Bush shifts the blame for his Iraq whopper. Saletan
8421. jexster - 7/14/2003 7:10:34 PM
Who Is Buried in Bush's Speech?
The truth has been shot! Round up some unusual suspects.
By Michael Kinsley
8422. jexster - 7/14/2003 7:16:39 PM
"Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum, "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"
That Kinsley busts my chops!
How are your chops Eddie?
8423. robertjayb - 7/14/2003 7:24:00 PM
Broke---but managable. Well, that's a relief...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House is expected on Tuesday to project record-breaking budget deficits this year and next in excess of $400 billion, an amount Democrats and some fiscal conservatives said approached crisis proportions.
White House officials said the bigger deficits were "manageable" in size and reflected the nation's economic and national security needs following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
8424. wonkers2 - 7/14/2003 7:40:53 PM
Kinsley got it just right. That's why he's a famous editor and wonkers is posting on the Mote.
8425. jayackroyd - 7/14/2003 10:13:26 PM
Since you've now arbitrarily defined everything up to and including criminal convictions and impeachments as 'nothing', you've lost all credibility in this discussion.
What are you talking about? Clinton was not convicted of anything, and the impeachment also did not lead to conviction. It turned out that senate concluded that there was nothing to the house allegations. Found innocent.
But, to avoid additionally being an abject hypocrite, you now are obligated to apply the same rules to Republicans as you are cheerily using to judge to x42 ex post facto.
What are you talking about? I don't think there is any criminality in Bush's behavior. I don't think he should be impeached. I think he should be called to justify why he systematically misled the american people about the reasons for this war, and come clean about what those reasons were.
Remember, according to your standards, nothing, including wrongdoing potentially leading to criminal conviction or impeachment merits criticism on the basis of malfeasance. You've already made it blindingly clear that this is precisely your attitude wrt the Xlowntoon Administration and all its associates.
What are you talking about? People who committed crimes in AK were prosecuted and convicted. The president was charged with yellow journalism attacks ranging from rape to not telling the truth under oath about a sexual peccadillo. He was found innocent of all of them, despite a massive attempt to build a case, prosecuted in the courts and the press.
Are you saying, that to be consistent, we should launch such an investigation against this president? There are certainly things dicier in his past than whitewater. Is you position that we should pursue the rectitude of every sitting president as aggressively as possible, as with Clinton?
8426. jexster - 7/15/2003 12:30:40 AM
Isn't it amazing how the press went to sleep and suddenly awoke to discover the truth available to any sentient being a year ago?
But thanks be to God (not the little god that speaks to our emperor), that the press has awakened...
The Bush administration took office pledging to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House. And it's true: Bush has not gotten caught having sex with an intern or lying about it under oath. But he has engaged in a pattern of deception concerning the most fundamental decisions a government must make. The United States may have been justified in going to war in Iraq--there were, after all, other rationales for doing so--but it was not justified in doing so on the national security grounds that President Bush put forth throughout last fall and winter. He deceived Americans about what was known of the threat from Iraq and deprived Congress of its ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to take the country to war. John Judis, The New Republic 6/30/03
Hopefully we will get beyond the obvious to the nearly obvious - the entirety of Bush lies by which he has murdered Iraqis and Americans by the thousands, and for nothing.
NOTHING
Yes Eddie for NOTHTING
BRING IT ON!
8427. jexster - 7/15/2003 12:48:15 AM
The Bush argument blaming the CIA for failing to remove this falsehood from the president's speech is based on the logic of "stop me before I lie again."
Damned funny eh TD?
You and Eddie and that professor/archivist go tell that to the newest widow.
8428. jexster - 7/15/2003 12:56:01 AM
No more aircraft carrier landings, only the devil and the deep blue sea....
White House to Project Record Budget Deficits
Maybe we should all move to Iraq so that we can get some help from our Little Emperor?
Whaddya say Eddie?
8429. arkymalarky - 7/15/2003 1:11:36 AM
Crimes were committed in Alaska?
8430. wonkers2 - 7/15/2003 8:26:35 AM
Pattern of Corruption-- "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."-here
8431. wonkers2 - 7/15/2003 8:31:53 AM
Sixteen Words and Counting---"What troubles me most is not that single episode(Niger), but the broader pattern of dishonesty and delusion that helped get us into the Iraq mess--and that created the false expectations undermining our occupation today. some in the administration are trying to make Mr. Tenet the scapegoat for the affair. But Vereran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired spooks, issued an open letter to President Bush yesterday reflecting the view of many in the intel community that the central culprit is Vice President Dick Cheney. The open letter called for Mr. Cheney's resignation." Here
8432. jayackroyd - 7/15/2003 8:32:47 AM
Sorry Arky. AR not AK.
8433. jexster - 7/15/2003 10:59:54 AM
From "Pattern of Corruption", a question:
More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?
How did we get into this mess?
8434. jexster - 7/15/2003 11:00:52 AM
The professor is back from vacation.
8435. jexster - 7/15/2003 11:13:30 AM
Kristof's article points to the larger problem alright, the Bushies Practice to Decieve
8436. jexster - 7/15/2003 11:19:46 AM
Budget Deficit to Top $450 Billion: 50% higher than Bush Said 5 Months Ago
Actually the budget is totally out of control. The estimate is 50 billion higher than LAST WEEK's estimate.
The Republican CBO cannot even keep track of it.
"This is shock and awe" Senate GOP aide
8437. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/15/2003 1:30:06 PM
If the Dems are wise, they'll jujitsu the Republithugs into a Dem victory in '04, solely, with the points in this book . . .
[Click Image for link]
8438. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/15/2003 1:30:33 PM
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
As the worldwide outpouring of post-9/11 sympathy for America has given way to worldwide anti-American protests, Americans are asking why the world hates us. This nuanced but unsparing book gives a bill of particulars. American high-handedness has exacerbated tensions in hot spots from the West Bank to the Korean peninsula. American unilateralism has sabotaged a host of international agreements on such issues as land mines, biological weapons and the International Criminal Court. America preaches free trade while protecting its steel, textiles and agriculture from foreign competition. America, Atkins argues, runs a wasteful, SUV-centered economy while it rejects treaties on the environment and global warming. America's self-proclaimed role as champion of democracy flies in the face of its history of installing and supporting dictators in countries from Indonesia to Iraq. Most of all, Atkins says, the world fears America's overwhelming military might, now ominously paired with a doctrine of "preempting" the emergence of rival powers. These problems have been much discussed of late, but Prestowitz, author of Trading Places, pulls them together into a comprehensive and historically informed survey of contemporary U. S. foreign relations. Although he forthrightly calls the United States an imperial power, Prestowitz, a former Reagan Administration trade official, is by no means anti-American. He insists that America's intentions are usually good, and that the world likes and admires Americans when they live up to their own ideals. Still, his is a damning portrait of the United States as seen through the angry, bewildered eyes of foreigners: selfish, erratic, hypocritical, muscle-bound and a bad citizen of the world.
8439. thoughtful - 7/15/2003 1:37:13 PM
Try this, my poor verity-challenged friend:
Concerned says, "Bush is Russian."
I also have people who work for me telling me that Bush is not Russian. Various sources including people who work for me whose job it is to know, including my people on the ground in Russia, and the Russians, and my own intelligence people telling me Bush is not Russian. However, I have a strong incentive to bring about regime change and feel making the case that Bush is Russian will help me achieve my political goals. So I ask them, is it ok if I say Bush is Russian? and they say no, because there is no reliable evidence that he is. So then I say, well, Concerned says he's Russian so I'll refer to him as the source of the information. So I say "Concerned learned that Bush is Russian." I know it's not true and I know that just because concerned says it's true, doesn't make it true, and I can always blame the misinformation on concerned and still be correct, even though "learned" suggests it's a point of fact when in fact I know it isn't a fact, but it makes my case stronger. Besides, when you're GOP, the ends justify the means.
Sorry, but, in my morally hazy world, a lie is still a lie, even if you credit someone else with saying it...the fact that you are selling it as fact, when you know it isn't, makes it your lie.
8440. robertjayb - 7/15/2003 2:34:49 PM
$455 billion projected for this year, $475 billion for next. And those numbers exclude the $4 billion/month expense of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
So the numbers should really say $503 billion for this year, and $523 billion for the next. And Republicans are somehow better stewards of the taxpayer's money? (lifted from dailykos)
8441. wonkers2 - 7/15/2003 3:37:02 PM
Marshall has it right.
In Bush the neocons found somebody not too bright, superficial and malleable, especially with Cheney's and
Rumsfeld's support support. This cast of characters put Powell in the minority. Rice is an opportunist unlikely to take a principled positiont. (Note: I refrained from calling her a lawn jockey.)
8442. jexster - 7/15/2003 3:43:10 PM
Damn you Wiz!
Beat me to it!
"Rogue Nation" is now a Judy Wooddruff, CNN All Politics, "page turner" selection.
Just saw an interview with the author, quite good.
"Reduced to the pathetic state trying to cover our unilateralism by begging Honduras to send 500 troops when no other countries will help us."
The feckless, reckless, pointless, purposeless, deceitful and gross immoral Bush foreign policy chickens are coming home to roost. You never would have seen this just a month ago, not to mention 3, 4, 5, 6.....
8443. jexster - 7/15/2003 3:53:49 PM
Forget staying on the message. The Bush team has been contradicting each other non-stop ever since the uranium claim was proven to be false. It's so bad that Duhbya's aides can't even agree on whether their boss is pissed off at his intelligence chiefs or not.
But of course, the Emperor Moron is hardly much help. His latest whoppers include: one, the CIA did not raise doubts about the Niger claim until after the State of the Union speech; two, he made the decision to go to war after the U.S. gave Saddam "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." A Washington Post article (which documents the mind-boggling flurry of contradictory statements issued by the Bush ranks in recent weeks) notes that Bush's position is at "odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged … that the CIA raised doubts … more than four months before Bush's speech." And we all know that Bush was the only person who was less enthusiastic than Saddam about letting U.N. inspectors do their job.
8444. jexster - 7/15/2003 3:55:48 PM
And TD is over in the Conflict thread muttering to himself about how "left wingers" are tripping over themselves?
Dislexia?
Macular degeneration?
8445. thoughtful - 7/15/2003 4:16:58 PM
The oddest thing about all this is that this is the administration that demanded fealty and loyalty from all staff members....can you imagine what would really be going on if the staff were free to speak their minds?
8446. concerned - 7/15/2003 6:01:11 PM
Re. 8443 -
jexster has it exactly wrong, as usual, about GWB's SOTU speech statement.
But, what's a few lies, or a whole boatload, for that matter, among Lefties?
8447. jexster - 7/15/2003 7:16:06 PM
When Bush isn't lying it looks like he's living on another planet.
Take for instance,
Look at the president's final remarks from his press opportunity with Kofi Annan yesterday ...
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.
The man is a total moron!
8448. jexster - 7/15/2003 7:24:38 PM
" I am ready,” said the emperor. “Does not my suit fit me marvellously?” Then he turned once more to the looking-glass, that people should think he admired his garments.
The chamberlains, who were to carry the train, stretched their hands to the ground as if they lifted up a train, and pretended to hold something in their hands; they did not like people to know that they could not see anything.
The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed: “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid. Never emperor’s clothes were more admired.
“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist
Andersen (1837) "The Emperor's New Suit"
8449. jexster - 7/15/2003 7:30:15 PM
Tell me what's wrong with Message # 8443 TD...would you like me to give you news quotes or would you prefer WH transcripts?
Why don't you just tell me what Bush offered as a pretext for war we can take seriously?
And don't feel constrained...we're open to post-war "pretexts" too (a contradiction in terms that could only have meaning in the Mind of the Moron)
8450. concerned - 7/15/2003 9:32:16 PM
Several things - harboring terrorist organizations, possessing and developing ABC WMD - destroying Iraq as a viable nation - invading neighboring countries and using WMD on their citizens - killing hundreds of thousands of his own people.
All powerful reasons individually, and in the aggregate, providing an almost unchallengable justification for Saddam's deposal.
8451. concerned - 7/15/2003 9:41:41 PM
Parental Consent Needed For Tattoos, Not Abortions
Whatever justification there is for having an abortion, it has nothing to do with any right to 'privacy' as it is defined in the English language. The addled SCOFLA whose attempted 2000 presidential coup was foiled is now doing its best to break the bonds of trust and responsibility between parents and dependents in families by making it illegal for a doctor to inform the parents of their child's abortion(s), although, and this glaringly highlights how specious the so-called 'right to privacy' wrt abortions is since the very same child would, by law, have to obtain prior parental consent for something as relatively inconsequential as body art.
8452. concerned - 7/15/2003 9:54:42 PM
Btw, care to guess who gets to pay for the abortions in question? That's right. The same parents whose daughter and the SCOFLA conspired against before and during the abortion itself, thus certainly laying the ground for much unnecessary grief and the subsequent disruption of the relationships between parents and daughters in said families.
8453. jexster - 7/15/2003 10:24:26 PM
With all respect due our own Wizard of Mote-istry, how about a picture TD..you need some comic relief to go along with that single malt...
8454. jexster - 7/15/2003 11:30:39 PM
Bend Over Eddie D., Here It Comes Again
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Senate Democrats criticized President Bush on Tuesday for spiraling costs of the Iraq war and for not seeking more international help in Iraq's rebuilding in the face of skyrocketing U.S. budget deficits.
The charges came as the White House tried to deflect accusations that it exaggerated intelligence on Iraq's weapons to justify the war and announced that the federal deficit will balloon to a record $455 billion this fiscal year.
Your Emperor ain't got no clothes.
What are you wearin?
8455. jexster - 7/16/2003 11:21:58 AM
The SOTU Lie: Old Yellocake Was Running Out of Bush-shit
UN Inspectors Had Disproved the Rest
8456. jexster - 7/16/2003 12:05:42 PM
Old Yellowcake Has Nothing Left to Lie About
8457. jexster - 7/16/2003 12:25:57 PM
"How can Bush, with Kofi Annan at his side, say Saddam 'wouldn't let [UN inspectors] in' when everyone in the world knows this is not true? Bush's statement - delivered with utter seriousness with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at his side - cannot be excused as a misstatement... If George W. Bush now believes saddam 'wouldn't let [UN inspectors] in,' then it is self-evident that he has simply lost touch with reality. In plain English, Bush has gone mad... We, the undersigned, believe George W. Bush is demonstrably insane. Since the Nation continues to be at war, with soldiers fighting and dying each day in Iraq, we call upon him to once again invoke the 25th Amendment. If he fails to do so, we call upon Dick Cheney and the Cabinet to do so for the sake of the Nation."
Bush is Looney Toons - Sign the Petition to Invoke the 25th Amendment!
8458. concerned - 7/16/2003 12:33:05 PM
Whatever else you think of it, ya gotta admit that the 'God ordered that I smite his enemies' style rhetoric makes a bigtime impression on sand monkeys, especially when you have your boot on their necks.
8459. concerned - 7/16/2003 12:43:18 PM
It turned out that senate concluded that there was nothing to the house allegations. Found innocent.
You don't appear to understand much of anything, jay. All the Senate did was to vote on whether Xlowntoon's derelictions were of such a magnitude that he should be removed from office. Their vote in no way could exculpate him of anything.
8460. Wombat - 7/16/2003 1:15:22 PM
Re 8458
Pity that the "sand monkeys" in Iraq haven't quite gotten that message.
The message resonates more with wannabe macho types such as yourself, Edmund D., Acey, and Niner.
8461. wonkers2 - 7/16/2003 1:38:05 PM
Many if not most serious scholars long ago concluded that the impeachment of Clinton was a big mistake--not in the national interest and pursued in a needlesly lurid, partisan and unfair way by Kenneth Starr, the dancing baby, and some of his right-wing buddies.
8462. wonkers2 - 7/16/2003 1:40:29 PM
Bush, far more than Clinton, deserves to be impeached. He continually lies about matters of grave importance to the nation.
8463. thoughtful - 7/16/2003 2:25:42 PM
Of course these remarks about the whys of war with Iraq are all irrelevant...to the bushies that is. They had discussed going to war with Iraq right after 9/11 and had decided by July 2002 according to Nicholas Leyman's How it came to war article, the "him" below being Richard Haass, the director of the policy-planning staff at the State Department
"I asked him [Haass] whether there had been a particular moment when he realized that war was definitely coming. “There was a moment,” he said. “The moment was the first week of July, when I had a meeting with Condi”—Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national-security adviser. “Condi and I have regular meetings, once every month or so—she and I get together for thirty or forty-five minutes, just to review the bidding. And I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that decision’s been made, don’t waste your breath. And that was early July."
So regardless of any prior or subsequent information, the decision had been made and it was only a matter of when not if. The high-falutin' reasons about nuclear weapons or WMD or links with Al Qaeda or saving the people of Iraq were all window dressing to garner some political acceptance to a decision that was already made.
As to why Iraq, see various Wolfowitz remarks including that we can beat Iraq and it's floating in a sea of oil.
8464. jexster - 7/16/2003 3:34:02 PM
David Broder: Shadow of Defeat Falls on Bush Residency
Tim Noah Catalogues Old Yellowcake's Lies, Iraq and Beyond
Part I
8465. robertjayb - 7/16/2003 5:00:16 PM
GOP meltdown on Texas redistricting...(the expression, "...like a monkey fucking a football" comes to mind)
AUSTIN -- AP -- A Republican state senator whose congressional redistricting proposal had been anxiously awaited by fellow lawmakers angrily left a Senate committee meeting Wednesday and said he wasn't unveiling any congressional maps.
"I'm out of the map-drawing business. Senator Staples now has that business," Sen. Chris Harris, R-Arlington, said at a meeting of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee. He said the maps were drawn by the attorney general's office and a "computer glitch" had rendered them unable to stand up to court scrutiny.
He then abruptly left the room at the Capitol.
8466. concerned - 7/16/2003 5:08:52 PM
Re. 8463 -
Almost everything referred to in this post is taken out of context, is seriously misrepresented or just plain wrong. Josef Goebbels would be proud of 'thoughtful'.
8467. judithathome - 7/16/2003 6:32:05 PM
And Hitler would be proud of you...believe, believe my little bratwurst, no matter what is going on before your very eyes!
8468. arkymalarky - 7/16/2003 6:35:32 PM
Did he hold his breath and turn blue, Robert?
There may be some very interesting governmental goings on in AR in the next few weeks, and maybe even days. It's already getting pretty involved.
8469. Magoseph - 7/16/2003 7:10:47 PM
Bill is coming back home?
8470. jexster - 7/16/2003 7:49:48 PM
Ladies, Gentlemen, Mags...
Meet my new friend
OLD YELLOWCAKE
Lt. Greenwald (Jose Ferrer): I'm afraid the defense has no other recourse than to produce Lt. Harding.
Queeg: Now there's no need for that I know exactly what hell tell you. Lies! He was no different than any officer in the wardroom -- they were all disloyal, I tried to run the ship properly by the book but they fought me at every turn. If the crew wanted to walk around with their shirttails hanging out that's all right let them take the tow line. Defective equipment no more no less, but they encouraged the crew to go around scoffing at me and spreading wild rumors about steaming and circles. And then old yellow stain. I was to blame for Lt. Merrick's incompetence and poor seamanship. Lt. Merrick was the perfect officer but not Captain Queeg.
Ah, but the strawberries! That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist! And I'd have produced that key if they hadn't pulled Caine out of action! I-I-I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer and!......(realizes he has been ranting, babbling)
Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory if I've left anything out, why, just ask me specific questions and I'll be glad to answer them...one-by-one...
8471. wonkers2 - 7/16/2003 8:00:46 PM
Desperation: Gordon Liddy on Chris Matthews' Hardball defending Bush's deceits on WMD.
Liddy: Saddam Hussein is a maniac. [Takes one to know one!]
8472. jayackroyd - 7/16/2003 8:08:36 PM
8458, 8459
concerned, are you sure? Blue, with occasional white fluffy clouds?
All the Senate did was to vote on whether Xlowntoon's derelictions were of such a magnitude that he should be removed from office. Their vote in no way could exculpate him of anything.
Of what? The senate decided that entrapping the president to lie "under oath" about a few sexual encounters was not a convictable offense. There were no other derelictions under consideration.
And now you're faced with the fact that the wingnuts have lowered the impeachment bar to lying about oral sex with staffers. It's already cost the wingnuts a couple of Speakers. is that that the standard the congress wants to follow?
And, now, given that is the impeachment bar, why aren't the conservatives calling for the impeachment of Bush?
I reiterate. Like Clinton, he has done nothing impeachable. I say let the voters decide. But the wingnuts said that lying to the American people about a blow job was an impeachable offense. Why aren't they saying the same thing about lying to the american people about a threat to their security?
8473. wonkers2 - 7/16/2003 8:14:58 PM
Bob Graham uttered the "R word" in California where he was defending Gray Davis. He suggested that Bush, whose economic policies were at the root of California's problems, not Davis should be impeached.
8474. arkymalarky - 7/16/2003 8:31:14 PM
I'll say this, Mag, he'd receive a far warmer reception than the current governor would in most parts of AR.
8475. jexster - 7/16/2003 9:18:16 PM
Lost in all the hoopla about budget lies and war lies, the Bush Star Wars boondoggle....
An extensive study by a national group of scientists raised serious doubts yesterday about the likely effectiveness of some weapons that President Bush is pursuing in his drive to develop a system for defending the United States against ballistic missile attack.
American Physical Society Slams Yellowcake's NMD
How many bombs was DPNK able to get out of those spent rods????
8476. concerned - 7/16/2003 9:49:05 PM
Re. 8472 -
jay -
Talk to me about this when you think you can do it without special pleading for the Democrat Party and making excuses for Xlowntoon as if he were an adolescent psychopath instead of a former CiC, but not before then. Otherwise, you'll just continue to embarrass yourself.
8477. jayackroyd - 7/16/2003 10:26:09 PM
That's what I'm doing, now, concerned. Find me a post with special pleading for the democratic party or "making excuses for Xlowntoon as if he were an adolescent psychopath."
You may want to look in your own mirror, and see if there is some pinkness forming on your countenance.
So I ask you--is lying about oral sex with a staffer now the bar for impeachment? Is lying about the reasons for entering into a war above or below the oral sex with a staffer bar?
I rereiterate. I don't think either meet a standard to justify impeachment--but I want you to explain how Clinton's impeachment was justified and Bush's is not.
8478. jexster - 7/17/2003 12:05:18 AM
Kerry: Old Yellowcake, Trafficker in Lies
8479. thoughtful - 7/17/2003 8:53:45 AM
Concerned, I have to admit, your blind loyalty to the bushies is something to behold. If Tenet fails as a scapegoat, perhaps you can volunteer in his stead.
They said Iraq had strong Al Qaeda connections...they didn't. They said Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program...they didn't. They said Iraq was actively seeking to buy materials to be used in nuclear weapons development. They weren't. They said Iraq had literally tons of chemical weapons. They don't. They said Iraq represented a clear and present danger to US security. It didn't.
Maybe you are willing to buy those as the real reason they picked war with Iraq. I don't. I prefer Tom Friedman's argument that they had to step into the middle east somewhere, kick ass, and show we were willing to die for our national security as a way to convince these people we were not to be messed with. I'm not saying I agree with it, but at least it is an argument that has some merit.
But to declare oneself the administration of "moral clarity" and then to include what was already discredited information (it had been removed from a W speech in October because it was debunked) sell it as a reason for the nation to go to war, and then scramble to find a scapegoat for it's inclusion, just stinks of same-old politics as usual.
But you obviously can't see that through your concerned-colored glasses with their steep right-ward astigmatism.
8480. marjoribanks - 7/17/2003 9:39:05 AM
#8479 is extremely lucid and, well, thoughtful.
I think there is relatively little political gain to be made in pointing out lies and dissembling when it comes to the case made for War in Iraq. For one thing, those excuses were transparent long before we were collectively surprised by the lack of WMD in Iraq. For another, the WMD still may show up, and then all the short-term political gain being carved out now disappears.
More importantly, there is almost no doubt that Blair and Bush will be seen on the right side of history in their war-making. Not next week, not even next month, but in time they will surely be seen as having made a bold, historically consequential, move in injecting fearsome permanent Western power into a troubled and troubling region.
The meaningful criticism, and the real political capital, is to be made when it comes to the astonishingly shabby preparations made for post-Hussein Iraq, in the outright deception in creating of public (and military) expectations of what a long-term occupation is going to entail, and the criminally short-sighted destruction of US alliances and multilateral frameworks which should have alleviated sole US responsibility for what is patently an international matter.
For all of these last matters, there should rightly be hell to pay.
8481. marjoribanks - 7/17/2003 9:40:27 AM
The cartoonishly-stupid right winger's knee-jerk pronouncements on these matters should, of course, be ignored completely.
8482. marjoribanks - 7/17/2003 9:44:25 AM
Lastly, there is no doubt whatsoever that Blair and Bush (and Chirac, and the Russians, and the Arabs, and the Iraqis themselves) genuinely believed that Iraq had unconventional military capability and was likely to use it if the regime was threatened.
I think it now entirely in the realm of possibility that we will find (maybe years from now, hopefully not to our collective cost) that Iraq transferred tons of chemical or biological agents to state or non-state actors in the region. This is not a reason to storm Damascus, but it should keep us rather worried until we know for sure one way or the other.
8483. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 10:36:01 AM
banks--
A while ago, Alistair and I raised the possibility that there simply weren't any CBW left in Iraq at the time of the resumption of UN inspections. At the moment it seemed like wacky speculation, but my argument was that the simplest explanation for the inspectors finding nothing, the Iraqis using nothing, the troops finding nothing during the conflict and nothing having been found after the end of combat operations is that there was nothing to be found. The obvious response to this speculation was that it meant that he was permitting the nation to suffer from sanctions for no reason. The response to that response was 1) he didn't care about how much iraqis suffered and 2) being seen as having these weapons was both a deterrent and a statement of strength in the region.
After I raised the speculation, I found myself reading news stories about the intelligence differently. The basis for the belief that he still had weapons, as he unquestionably did in 1998, always seemed to be based on claims that he had them. There was a running assumption in all the analyses that when he said he had them ("admitted" was the verb usually used) he was telling the truth and when he said he didn't("claimed" was the verb in that case), he was lying.
It was interesting to mentally swap those verbs in some of those stories.
Moreover, I noted that it would be difficult for an Iraqi scientist to persuade a skeptical inspector or intelligence official that THIS time he was telling the truth.
It turns out, according to this new republic piece, Vanishing act , that it was also difficult for the Iraqi scientists to reconstruct just what was where, when it was there, and whether it was still there. Saddam may have been told there were weapons when there were not.
8484. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 10:36:14 AM
IOW, we are getting close to the point where the null hypothesis is "No weapons." Pincher said if they weren't found by the end of August, then he'd believe there weren't any. Time will tell.
However, as you point out, there is no doubt that the US believed the weapons were there. Unlike the nuke and al qaeda claims, it was clear that the US believed these weapons posed an active threat. The way the military was equipped proves that.
So if no large cache of weapons is found, there was a massive intelligence failure. Whatever methods of corroboration of reports from exiles, reading of Iraqi doucments, whatever, were used, they were apparently read with a strong underlying conviction that the weapons existed. I hope the CIA is embarking on a serious study into why that happened (and, no, it is no excuse that everybody else got it wrong, too.)
8485. Wombat - 7/17/2003 10:37:39 AM
The major impact of the yellowcake controversy is more likely to be a critical media view toward Bush Administration statements in other areas, hopefully leading to a flood of analysis and adverse criticism that has so far been lacking.
As to the long term view on the "rightness" of the invasion of Iraq and overthrowing Saddam, if the U.S. is able to salvage its so far shoddy record there, it will be seen as a triumph. This will require involvement of the international community, and a long-term commitment of asizeable military force. It will also require a far more dedicated effort at nation building from an administration that disdains it.
This is nothing that I haven't written before over the last year. So far, I am not encouraged.
8486. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 10:41:47 AM
Here's an interesting piece about the fact that the nuke claims were being eroded over time by the inspectors' activity. Marshall points out that it gives a different meaning to the notion that the administration had to act before they ran out of time.
Nuke Data Diminished over Time
8487. jexster - 7/17/2003 10:57:06 AM
We could use a few Conservatives here!
In a rowdy House of Commons session today, the Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, told Mr. Blair, "You are rapidly becoming a stranger to the truth," as lawmakers bellowed disapproval, waved their papers in the air and accused him of having "duped" them into going to war.
"You have created a culture of deceit and spin at the heart of government," Mr. Duncan Smith said, exploiting the government's most vulnerable aspect as portrayed in new polls showing public trust of Mr. Blair at the lowest point of his six years in power.
8488. marjoribanks - 7/17/2003 10:59:23 AM
As to the long term view on the "rightness" of the invasion of Iraq and overthrowing Saddam, if the U.S. is able to salvage its so far shoddy record there, it will be seen as a triumph.
Well, there is no doubt that the record will improve. For one thing, no one is going to be cutting and running, so you will the see the West in Iraq for a decade or more. For another, there is a relatively (for the region) transparent process of governance underway that will right itself one way or the other given the intense scrutiny that is a current condition. The UN will come in, NATO will participate, some balance will find itself.
The damage, for what it is worth, has largely been done to the hilt already. And there should be some accountability enforced even as the record improves, because while we all (mostly) agree that the right thing was generally done there is no reason to accept it being done in such an irresponsible, mendacious, manipulative, continually deceitful manner. The way it is being done is a disservice to this country and to the Americans who are footing the bill.
8489. Edmund Dantes - 7/17/2003 10:59:38 AM
The criminally short-sighted destruction of US alliances and multilateral frameworks which should have alleviated sole US responsibility for what is patently an international matter.
This is what is known as wanting one's cake and eating it too.
Facts:
1) Those opposed to the war (not necessarily you, but in general the same people who--as you in the post under consideration--view the war primarily through its impact on domestic politics) gleefully related every setback the Americans encountered in attempting to build international support, especially for regime change. They hoped the international community would succeed in blocking us, not that we would succeed in forging a widespread international coalition aimed at toppling Saddam.
In particular the international community (and many here) objected to this, which you say is the worthiest achievement of the intervention: "a bold, historically consequential, move in injecting fearsome permanent Western power into a troubled and troubling region." They have a one-word description for it: imperialism.
2) Considering just the specific example of Turkey, during those negotiations when the Bush administration offered many billions of dollars to "buy" cooperation, posters here ridiculed this attempt. Or, considering other examples, Britain, Spain, Italy, and the nations of central and eastern Europe have all been laughed to scorn by the same people who would now claim we haven't treated our allies well. Begging after those who despise you while spurning those who cooperate with you and wish you well fails to evidence any great skill at building diplomatic coalitions.
(cont.)
8490. Edmund Dantes - 7/17/2003 10:59:49 AM
3) Finally, and most importantly, it is absurd to talk about the result you like--regime change, increased US influence (if you prefer to say Western, whatever)--without a bruising of relations with countries like France. The 1998 Clinton bombings also had such consequences, and only the fact that they were limited to five days lessened the problem then.
Saddam's defiance of the UN had continued in one form or another for more than a decade when Bush took office. International consensus for maintaining even economic sanctions had thoroughly eroded, and there was certainly no international support for stronger action.
You can't have the result you applaud without the methods you condemn.
8491. marjoribanks - 7/17/2003 11:03:15 AM
Run along, last-baboon-in-the-pile.
Jexster has undertaken the task of rehabilitating the likes of you, I will be handling some of the more grey-backed simians.
8492. jexster - 7/17/2003 11:05:01 AM
Its not just the nuke claims that were being eroded Jay it was all claims, all except the Niger one.
They then withheld the evidence on that for a few more weeks, and then of course, it was too late when the IAEA disproved that one.
In fact, the UN wasn't able to confirm a single claim that Bush made and that's why they started ratcheting the pressure up so much at the end, bellowing threatening, changing the name of french fries and all that holy horseshit.
8493. jexster - 7/17/2003 11:06:19 AM
Thanks Marj....I have one helluva job to do....
8494. jexster - 7/17/2003 11:08:23 AM
Wonder how the Turks are feelin these days about their Great Ally Old Yellercake?
You remember all that hoooey about how France & Germany were so disloyal....
Crock.
ALL of it was a crock...
8495. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 11:20:26 AM
Its not just the nuke claims that were being eroded Jay it was all claims, all except the Niger one.
In hindsight, the cbw claims were being eroded. Another six month of inspections with no results might well have had an impact. But at that time, there was little doubt that Iraq had these weapons. Hell, even Alistair believed it.
But here is where it gets sticky, if you're gonna keep shouting like this. Yes, it is now clear that 1) the president's claimed reasons were pretexts and 2) we still don't know the reasons the administration wanted this war. And, yes, that's a bad thing.
But, having taken the country, and, if, as Banks (and I) think, there will eventually be progress to a more transparent, secular state in the center of a very volatile region. Do you think we'd be better off, right now, with Saddam in power?
8496. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 11:23:16 AM
Eddy--
You gotta find some new tricks. The old wingnut trick of quoting "those opposed to the war" or "the same people" is pretty old. Why don't you find some real quotes from real people "gleefully" praising US setbacks, and the refute those?
8497. jexster - 7/17/2003 11:26:05 AM
Marshall opens today with:
I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, 'no controlling legal authority.' I felt like that there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that--I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom, and that's not good for the country.
George W. Bush
October 3rd, 2000
8498. jexster - 7/17/2003 11:27:37 AM
GOP State Attorneys General Laundering Corporate Contributions
8499. jexster - 7/17/2003 11:35:10 AM
Browbeating our intelligence agencies wasn't enough for them.
Salon reports: "The Pentagon's innocuously named Office of Special Plans served as a unique, hand-picked group of hawkish defense officials who worked outside regular intelligence channels. According to the Department of Defense, the group was first created in the aftermath of Sept. 11 to supplement the war on terrorism; it was designed to sift through all the intelligence on terrorist activity, and to focus particularly on various al-Qaida links. By last fall it was focusing almost exclusively on Iraq, and often leaking doomsday findings about Saddam's regime. Those controversial conclusions are now fueling the suspicion the obscure agency, propelled by ideology, manipulated key findings in order to fit the White House's desire to wage war with Iraq. "
8500. jexster - 7/17/2003 11:54:40 AM
Is the CIA pushing a regime change???
WASHINGTON - CIA Director George Tenet told members of Congress a White House official insisted that President Bush 's State of the Union address include an assertion about Saddam Hussein's nuclear intentions that had not been verified, a Senate Intelligence Committee member said Thursday.
Sen. Dick Durbin, who was present for a 4 1/2-hour appearance by Tenet behind closed doors with Intelligence Committee members Wednesday, said Tenet named the official. But the Illinois Democrat said that person's identity could not be revealed because of the confidentiality of the proceedings.
8501. jexster - 7/17/2003 1:57:46 PM
Gen. John Abizaid, Commander Occupation Forces Iraq: U.S. troops are facing a "classical guerrilla-type campaign"
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: We're not in "anything like a guerrilla war."
Old Yellowcake: We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"
8502. jexster - 7/17/2003 2:24:48 PM
Damage Control Inc. - Bush Words Not to Live By (Fiore)
8503. jexster - 7/17/2003 3:56:22 PM
Old Yellowcake - little more than the guy in the presidential suit (Huffington)
8504. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 4:17:16 PM
Now the administration is reneging on the AIDS commitment to africa TNR
I also got my first small business stimulus package from the administration yesterday. I am going to be assessed a retroactive (back to 2000) unemployment insurance surcharge because the federal govt's unemployment fund has made overly optimistic assumptions about interest generated by the fund.
8505. jexster - 7/17/2003 6:55:09 PM
GOP Blocks Senate Intel Probe
8506. jexster - 7/17/2003 7:22:30 PM
Bush Insists Iraq Was Trying to Rebuild Nuke Program
Who told him????
Same one who told him that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in?
Was it...was it
GOD?
8507. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 10:09:26 PM
Today's presidential press conference:
QUESTION: Regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the White House for that line, I'm wondering where does the buck stop in this White House? Does it stop at the CIA, or does it stop in the Oval Office?
Scott McClellan: Again, this issue has been discussed. You're talking about some of the comments that -- some that are --
QUESTION: I'm not talking about anybody else's comments. I'm asking the question, is responsibility for what was in the President's own State of the Union ultimately with the President, or with somebody else?
Scott McClellan: This has been discussed.
QUESTION: So you won't say that the President is responsible for his own State of the Union speech?
Scott McClellan: It's been addressed.
QUESTION: Well, that's an excellent question. That is an excellent question. (Laughter.) Isn't the President responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth?
Scott McClellan: We've already acknowledged, Terry, that it should not have been included in there. I think that the American people appreciate that recognition.
QUESTION: You acknowledge that, but you blame somebody else for it. Is the President responsible for the things that he said in the State of the Union?
Scott McClellan: Well, the intelligence -- you're talking about intelligence that -- sometimes you later learn more information about intelligence that you didn't have previously. But when we're clearing a speech like that, it goes through the various agencies to look at that information and --
QUESTION: And so when there's intelligence in a speech, the President is not responsible for that?
Scott McClellan: We appreciate Director Tenet saying that he should have said, take it out.
8508. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 10:12:14 PM
QUESTION: Let me come back to your "nonsense" statement here, and let me slice it as thinly as I possibly can, just growing out of what Scott asked. Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information included in the State of the Union and negotiated with the CIA to find a way to put it in to the State of the Union?
Scott McClellan: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and went through negotiations with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: That there were discussions? Speech drafts go -- we've stated that these speeches go out to the principals, it goes out to the State, it goes out to DOD, it goes out to CIA, when it's going through the drafting process.
QUESTION: Scott, you said it was "nonsense" to say that the White House was pressuring the CIA to put this in the speech. Is it nonsense to say --
Scott McClellan: I think the question that you asked about was that someone was insisting --
QUESTION: Durbin said, a White House official insisted --
Scott McClellan: -- insisting that it be put in there in an effort to mislead the American people, I think is what --
8509. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 10:15:30 PM
QUESTION: You didn't explicitly give a motive.
Scott McClellan: And I said I think that's just nonsense.
QUESTION: I'm just trying to slice it a little bit narrowly, to say, is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: Are you asking me to characterize the discussions that occur going on during the speech drafting process? I don't --
QUESTION: I'm saying, does your "nonsense" statement apply to the idea that the White House wanted it in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: I think that it still goes back to, these drafts go to the various agencies, it goes to the CIA, this is an intelligence matter. It was based on information in the National Intelligence Estimate. That's the consensus document of the intelligence community, and that's what the information was based on in that speech.
QUESTION: So what I asked you about in that speech, your "nonsense" statement --
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you --
QUESTION: You're trying to walk me out the door. (Laughter.)
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through this.
QUESTION: So your nonsense statement doesn't apply to what I just asked you?
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through the drafting process. And that's why I was trying to put it in context, so you understand how this occurs.
8510. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 10:16:05 PM
QUESTION: Scott, on Keith's question, why can't we just expect, basically what would be a non-answer, which is, of course the President is responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth. I mean, that's a non-answer. Why can't you just say that?
Scott McClellan: This issue has been addressed over the last several days.
QUESTION: Why won't you say that, though, that's, like, so innocuous and benign.
Scott McClellan: The issue has been addressed.
8511. jexster - 7/17/2003 10:31:18 PM
Wasn't that a mess!
CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.
While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq it would be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton's lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
8512. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 11:06:01 PM
The republicans are gonna be reaping the whirlwind they have sown.
I think Graham's making a serious mistake here, unless he is not really running for president. The claim needs to bubble out from lower level folks, preferably southern (as he is, yes, I know)--but from some congressman in a safe seat who voted against Clinton's impeachment.
Or, on second thought, from some democrat who voted for it.
It won't come to anything, because as I mentioned some time ago, the democrats just don't play hardball. But it would be an interesting distraction. And it would be really amusing to see republicans "shocked shocked" at the unpatriotic attacks on America's president. Just as they are "shocked shocked" to see judicial appointments backed up.
8513. jayackroyd - 7/17/2003 11:30:37 PM
Thinking again, what an organization like moveon should do is plant questioners in press conferences called by the House members who served as Clinton prosecuters. They should ask whether Bush has yet lied enough to justify the prosecution they pursued against Clinton for lying. They could do this repeatedly, as the gloves come off and the drip, drip drip continues.
We're still waiting for the false al qaeda links stories. If they handle those as badly as the nukes, they'll still be spinning during the election period.
I ask again, where is Karl Rove?!? He can't be letting this happen. The way out was a no-brainer.
8514. jexster - 7/18/2003 10:20:10 AM
haven't administration officials said they'll cut the deficit in half by 2008? Yeah, right.
I could explain in detail why that claim is nonsense, but in any case, why bother with what these people say?
Amen Professor K.
8515. jexster - 7/18/2003 10:24:20 AM
Graham is just a little ahead of the curve. On the day that the Republican Senate voted to kill the basic investigation.....well not a chance that Tom DeLay will let that happen.
But he is correct, the intelligence process was deliberately undermined and corrupted with the end result that America was misled into a war.
Further, Graham, a member of the Intelligence Committee, just announced to the cadres of disgruntled intelligence officers that Bush is trying to shiv, that his office door and backdoor are wide open.
8516. jexster - 7/18/2003 11:04:29 AM
Play The George W. Bush Credibility Twister
8517. jexster - 7/18/2003 11:35:20 AM
Old YELLOWCAKE is radioactive!
"It is Mr Blair's paradox that his very success in rebuilding his relationship with Mr Bush may have finally wrecked his relationship with his own power-base" WSJ Europe
"Once the White House's stand-up guy, now Mr Blair looks as if he is being used as their fall-guy" Evening Standard
"The prime minister's visit coincides with the decision taken by his friends in the White House and Pentagon - one perhaps should now say his former friends - to make him take the fall for Mr Bush in the matter of the false information used in the president's state of the union address" "International Herald Tribune
"Mr Blair [has] converted a marriage of platonic dignity into one of puppy love" TImes of London
8518. jexster - 7/18/2003 12:02:53 PM
Like I said...
"You see, to focus on the State of the Union address -- heinous as it is to have the president say something that's not truthful, that's sort of a sideshow. As a matter of fact, I would describe that as a red herring. That pales in significance to what really happened with this information from the forgery, and that is, that it was used in September and early October as the main justification for Congress voting to give the president authority to wage an unprovoked war... During the summer, we all know that the president decided to make war on Iraq. [Chief of
Staff] Andy Card said they were going to market something new, but they couldn't do that in July and August -- you don't do that in the summer -- so in September we're going to start doing that. And sure enough, Vice President Cheney issued a major declaration on the 26th of August...
the precursor of what was to come, and he exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein in a most, most significant manner." CIA Veteran Ray McGovern
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002
8519. jexster - 7/18/2003 12:52:46 PM
Behind the Scenes: State of the Union Preparation (www.whitehouse.gov)
Working at his desk in the Oval Office, President Bush reviews the State of the Union address line-by-line and word-by-word.
8520. concerned - 7/18/2003 1:37:11 PM
Re. 8512 -
The 'Rats (most of them, at least), are not so deranged that they don't realize that any real effort to impeach GWB over any aspect of Operation Iraqi Freedom would be radioactive for the Democrat Party, since it would expose any of them involved as no better than frivolous, intellectually dishonest hacks. OTOH, perhaps the Democrat Party is actually desperate enough to take a page from the Islamist terrorist handbook and is considering suicidal attacks against the Bush Administration.
8521. jexster - 7/18/2003 2:48:39 PM
The right wing yellowcake crowd does it again
"The Washington Times said Tuesday it regretted publishing what it said was a forged letter in the name of a U.S. ambassador and was working with the State Department to track the origin of the document. The letter, in the name of Stephan Minikes, ambassador to the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, accused U.S. career diplomats of disloyalty to the
objectives of the Bush administration. We have been ... informed from the highest level at the State Department, and we accept as true that the ambassador was not the author of this letter,' editor in chief Wesley Pruden
said in a written statement."
Moonie Times Admits Publishing Fake State Dept. Letter
8522. jexster - 7/18/2003 2:52:26 PM
8523. jexster - 7/18/2003 3:24:05 PM
QED the Yellowcake Crowd
The Truth Hurts: Bushies Set Out to Smear ABC Correspondent Who Reported on Declining Troop Morale
8524. concerned - 7/18/2003 3:36:18 PM
Re. 8504 -
Gosh. That's too bad, jay.
Now I, OTOH, saw an $80/month boost in my take-home pay due to the GWB tax cut.
Btw, I understand the Russian flat tax system is becoming a great success.
8525. Wombat - 7/18/2003 3:49:12 PM
I too have seen a minor increase in my take home pay thanks to the Bush tax cut. I have also seen an increase in my state and property taxes, also thanks to the Bush tax cut. My kids' schools are going to be losing teachers, as the state has to cut back its school funding, thanks to the Bush tax cut.
8526. concerned - 7/18/2003 3:55:55 PM
Re. 8525 -
You may want to appeal a property tax assessment increase, as I have. The local assessor greedhead tried to double mine, but I was able to keep it down to about 15%.
Since the Federal Government only provides about five percent of the funding of public schools, you should probably look elsewhere for the real cause of any teacher layoffs.
8527. concerned - 7/18/2003 3:59:50 PM
Or you could tell me precisely which Federal funding your state feels deprived of that affects their support for public schools.
8528. arkymalarky - 7/18/2003 5:29:48 PM
I don't make enough money to have seen any impact of the Bush tax cut except, as Wombat notes, in my state and local taxes and the increased strain of a sluggish economy, since I don't live in the northwest corner of the state.
Who'da thunk the Wal-Mart kingdom would so far surpass Silicon Valley. It certainly doesn't translate to even statewide effects, however, much less nationwide. It simply provides one handy place for poor folks to make and spend their money. Saves gas, I guess.
8529. arkymalarky - 7/18/2003 5:43:41 PM
In the meantime, here's the type of fun stuff I've been getting to deal with all summer while the governor tries to turn our high school system into a Wal-Mart style shopping center:
We're Ignorant Obstructionists Who Don't Want to be Improved
And no, I'm not the lady in question, though I am the source for her term that offended Mr. Max so, which she asked if she could use.
8530. judithathome - 7/18/2003 5:53:06 PM
feudal school lords.
Ha!
8531. arkymalarky - 7/18/2003 7:08:17 PM
Yeah, we've got a wonderful little feudal system going on here, from all I'm told, with superintendents controlling their fiefdoms and keeping all us poor serfs under the weight of ignorance and poverty. But we have the enlightened and benevolent dictator of our banana republic (his term) to lead us by the hand to a better condition. I feel so...undeserving.
8532. jayackroyd - 7/18/2003 8:31:24 PM
< A Href ="http://slate.msn.com/id/2085833/"> A nasty one from Saletan.
Since we apparently, according to Condi Rice believe the British implicitly:
On Fox News Sunday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice explained, "The British themselves stand by that statement to this very day, saying that they had sources other than sources that have now been called into question to back up that claim. We have no reason not to believe them." When asked whether she had checked out Britain's sources, Rice demurred, "The British have reasons, because of the arrangements that they made, apparently, in receiving those sources, that they cannot share them with us. … We have every reason to believe that the British services are quite reliable."
then we must believe in other British conclusions, without the need for US review, as with, e.g.:
The Feb 2003 whitepaper that said:
"Carbon dioxide emissions [are] the main contributor to global warming."
He has four other examples, with links to the white papers.
Why are they handling this so badly?
8533. robertjayb - 7/18/2003 9:25:13 PM
What's this, then? A Democrat who will fight? Clone that son-of-a-gun---even if he is 72!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Irate Democrats and Republicans swapped insults and accusations during a stormy congressional committee meeting on Friday that saw one member called "a fruitcake" and the chairman summon police.
The two sides dispute why the police were called to the House Ways and Means Committee room during a meeting in which the panel was considering pension legislation.
Republicans said they felt physically threatened, while Democrats said the Republican chairman had the police called to try to stop them from meeting separately to discuss the bill in a committee side room.
8534. wonkers2 - 7/18/2003 10:09:19 PM
Rice is being dishonest.
8535. jayackroyd - 7/18/2003 10:14:24 PM
Sure she is. But they've gone from sure-handed wielders of teflon to stumbling, bumbling wafflers. What happened?
8536. wonkers2 - 7/18/2003 10:18:28 PM
The DEMs finally latched onto something with a little traction--the fatal 16 little lieing words.
8537. wonkers2 - 7/18/2003 10:25:25 PM
IMPEACH BUSH! PASS IT ON! G'nite.
8538. judithathome - 7/18/2003 10:28:31 PM
Bush was stammering like a schoolboy caught putting a toad in the teacher's desk yesterday during the press conference with Blair. Blair, on the other hand, was steely eyed and even though he sounded like he was deliviering a load of BS, he was damned steady in doing it.
8539. wonkers2 - 7/19/2003 11:42:02 AM
"Food fight" in House of Representatives GOP committee chairman calls cops on Dems"
Representative McInnis (GOP): "Shut up!"
Rep Pete Stark (Dem Calif.): "Oh you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come on over here and make me. I dare you. You little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake."
Committee Chair Thomas: "Recess is over. The classroom has resumed."
More here 8540. concerned - 7/19/2003 2:26:29 PM
What GWB said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Even if it turns out the information is/was false, anybody can see that the above is necessarily a true statement.
The liars are all the Lefties who are trying to give their pathetic fiction 'traction'. They've already impeached their own credibility, and I'll enjoy seeing them self immolate in public opinion along with their flaming turkey of a lie.
8541. wonkers2 - 7/19/2003 5:03:34 PM
Pete Stark for President!
Campaign slogan---A candidate with cojones!
8542. arkymalarky - 7/19/2003 5:28:50 PM
They've already impeached their own credibility, and I'll enjoy seeing them self immolate in public opinion along with their flaming turkey of a lie.
Since it's exactly what we did to you "Centrists" when you pushed for impeachment, I guess turn about would be fair play--if your post were anywhere within the remotest realm of the minutest shade of truth.
8543. arkymalarky - 7/19/2003 5:30:34 PM
That would have possibilities of a good bumpersticker too, Wonk. I think I'm in slogan mode from all this state stuff. "My senior citizen can beat up your millionaire."
8544. concerned - 7/19/2003 10:03:01 PM
Re. 8542 -
Funny. Xlowntoon was still impeached the last time I checked.
8545. arkymalarky - 7/19/2003 10:19:59 PM
Your boy's term ain't over yet there, Con'd.
8546. arkymalarky - 7/19/2003 10:23:57 PM
And when he was impeached, you "Centrists" were "self immolated in public opinion." Republicans may have gained a bare hold on political control, but many of the key players in the push for impeachment are now trying to make it in the private sector, included our own dearly beloved Tim Hutchinson, who was skewered by the "glass houses" principle.
8547. concerned - 7/19/2003 10:26:18 PM
Well, if it's control of both houses of congress and the presidency, I guess I'd take it, but that's not what I meant when I used the phrase.
8548. robertjayb - 7/19/2003 11:25:22 PM
Let's blame Canada...(Maureen Dowd)
...we are witnessing is how ugly it can get when control freaks start losing control. Beset by problems, the Bush team responds by attacking those who point out the problems. These linear, Manichaean managers are flailing in an ever-more-chaotic environment. They are spending $3.9 billion a month trying to keep the lid on a festering mess in Iraq, even as Afghanistan simmers.
8549. jexster - 7/20/2003 3:32:40 AM
WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s popularity slipped on growing doubts about the Iraq war and the flagging US economy some 16 months ahead of the 2004 presidential elections, according to a poll.
Bush's approval rating is at nearly its lowest point in his presidency, with just 53 percent of those polled approving of the job he is doing, down from 58 percent a month before.
A growing number, 47 percent, said the time has come for new head of state, according to a Zogby International poll. That percentage rose by 11 percent in a month.
"What has been propping up the president in the past few months is his personal favorability rating," now at 57 percent, said John Zogby, pollster of Zogby International.
"This alone has slipped nine points in the pasts months. If he cannot count on a large majority of Americans to like him personally, this could spell doom for his re-election hopes because he has little support for his overall performance and how he is rated on the issues."
8550. alistairconnor - 7/20/2003 7:02:57 AM
[Trawling back a few days]
Jay, Message # 8484 the "null weapons hypothesis" :
However, as you point out, there is no doubt that the US believed the weapons were there. Unlike the nuke and al qaeda claims, it was clear that the US believed these weapons posed an active threat. The way the military was equipped proves that.
I disagree. This only works if you consider "the US" as a monolith. It's clear that the military believed the weapons existed, but I can not believe that (for example) George Tenet did. I believe that it's less an intelligence failure than a political failure.
Message # 8495
...Hell, even Alistair believed it.
I believed it for a few hours when they broke out the chem suits, then reverted to scepticism when nothing happened. The idea of a political/intelligence failure of that magnitude didn't occur to me at that time. I'll remember to be more sceptical in future. Like nearly everyone else in the world.
8551. alistairconnor - 7/20/2003 7:10:56 AM
Wombat, Message # 8485 As to the long term view on the "rightness" of the invasion of Iraq and overthrowing Saddam, if the U.S. is able to salvage its so far shoddy record there, it will be seen as a triumph. This will require involvement of the international community, and a long-term commitment of asizeable military force.
There is still a potential for long-term benefit for Iraq, sure. This is predicated on getting a significant international military presence into Iraq, which is predicated on an explicit UN mandate, which is predicated on handing over control of nation-building to the UN.
I think that's what they will end up doing, but it's such a complete disavowal of the Rumsfeld doctrine that it's hard to see any such success reflecting well on the Bush administration. The positive results won't be manifest in an electorally-useful timeframe; but the painful concessions to international legality will be.
8552. jexster - 7/20/2003 8:57:13 AM
Zogby
8553. jexster - 7/20/2003 9:11:34 AM
As to the long term view on the "rightness" of the invasion of Iraq and overthrowing Saddam, if the U.S. is able to salvage its so far shoddy record there, it will be seen as a triumph. This will require involvement of the international community, and a long-term commitment of asizeable military force.
Not to mention cost Empire on a Shoestring
8554. jayackroyd - 7/20/2003 9:33:13 AM
8550
Sure, the military. I meant "the government" when I said "the US." Yes, the magnitude of the failure is quite striking. When we first discussed the possibility that there just weren't any weapons to be found, I suggested the size of the intelligence failure represented by weapons not being found was itself a deterrent in speculation in that area.
8555. jexster - 7/20/2003 10:07:38 AM
As to the long term view on the "rightness" of the invasion of Iraq and overthrowing Saddam
Whatever "salvage" means to this unknown audience, five, ten, twenty years from now, the demon Saddam will have lost its psychotic hold on all but the most disturbed leaving only the question:
Was it right for the United States to wage an unnecessary aggressive war based on lies?
Of course, I guess it will also depend then as now on whom you ask. Arabs? Shiite mullahs? Islamic fundamentalists? The relatives of those 20-30,000 people we killed?
Tom Friedman? He might agree.
8556. alistairconnor - 7/20/2003 10:11:21 AM
Message # 8489 Dantèsque,
Synthetically, it seems that you are arguing that the ends justify the means; and that those who are happy with the ends are obliged to embrace and absolve the means (in particular : deception, arm twisting, damage to alliances).
Conversely, for you, it seems, anyone who is unhappy with the methods must necessarily be unhappy with the results. But there is absolutely no logical basis for this. It's simply a non sequitur. (Unless you are working inside a crusader mentality, where everyone who does not enlist behind the banner of the self-appointed apostles of Good is necessarily Evil.)
My fundamental objection to the war is the lack of clarity and transparency about the means employed and about the ends pursued. I am happy that the possibility is now opened for democracy and prosperity in Iraq (at some future date), because there was no prospect of that under Saddam's rule. However, I worried that the modus operandi would establish a disastrously bad precedent. This worry seems displaced now, because of the manifest inability of the US to build ad hoc coalitions, which was fundamental to the Rumsfeld doctrine.
8557. jexster - 7/20/2003 10:57:00 AM
"Or you could tell me precisely which Federal funding your state feels deprived of that affects their support for public schools."
The money that the "education president" is wasting on empires and massive budget busting tax cuts for the rich? The money that governors asked for and some Democrats tried to get in the form of revenue sharing grants to the states? The "leave no child behind" money. That money.
8558. jexster - 7/20/2003 11:55:54 AM
Synthetic Sophistry a la Dantes -
That US citizens should not primarily view figthing foreign wars through US domestic lenses. Which country's interests should primariy inform us? Turkey's? The Arab States? France's?
That the selfish, narrow, provincials who opposed the war were "gleeful" at 80-90% opposition abroad
That GWB and his faithful apostles were, by implication, rose above trivial domestic concerns for the good of Turkey, France, Germany, Kuwait, Iraq, etc when in point of demonstrable fact, it was precisely Bush's domestic political myopia that drove this whole adventure from the start.
George Bush never could have sold this war to his domestic audience on the basis of regime change alone. Bush glided the threat lily because he knew that he wouldn't get DOMESTIC support by telling the truth.
Who is Eddie kidding but himself with this "domestic political" nonsense? The only difference between us is that in my domestic political view theUS government's moral, strategic, and political position in the world is a matter of particular domestic political concern to me and markedly less for Eddie D.
For all the reasons that AC mentioned and others as well, the international cost to the US far outweighs the benefits of a regime change in Iraq - for domestic political reasons you understand.
8559. jexster - 7/20/2003 12:20:57 PM
Oh and FYI Eddie, "imperialism" is not just for lefties anymore nor for that matter even just war opponents. The Empire has been proclaimed by notable proponents including the WSJ editorial page.
Same word for neocon true believes, the word conjures visions of Manifest Destiny, for others, British colonial tyranny.
But a rose by any other name smells just as sweet to James Baker III, for him its all about the oil...pretty fucking imperialist eh?
According to the right-wing WorldNetDaily, Cheney began planning the invasion of Iraq in April 2001 - five months BEFORE the September 11 attack that was the ultimate excuse for the invasion. Cheney's "secret
White House task force solicited input from the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. The Baker report, which was submitted to Cheney in early April 2001, recommended considering a 'military' option in dealing with Iraq, which the report charged
was using oil exports as a 'weapon,' by turning its spigot on and off to 'manipulate oil markets,' WorldNetDaily has learned. The report advised the Bush administration to, at a minimum, bring UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq, and then, 'once an arms-control program is in place, the
United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investment inside Iraq' to gain greater control over the reserves, and 'inject' more stability into world oil markets."
8560. jexster - 7/20/2003 1:05:28 PM
Forget the grotesque Neocon vision of "democracy, liberation, "western influence".....they're either mirages or pretexts to cover up the other equally delusional plan - the New American Empire of Client States.
The REAL benefit - arms control. The real winner of the Iraq war...
The Noble Swede, Dr. Blix and his UN Arms Inspection Comrades
And dare we hope - a US cured of mad cowboy disease
8561. wonkers2 - 7/20/2003 1:32:42 PM
Just now on Wolf Blitzer, retired army General William Odom, formerly of the NSA, sharply criticized the Bush administration for a failure in the interaction of the political and intelligence sides of the govermment, rather than for an intelligence failure on Iraq.
Beyond this he expressed doubt that Iraq had a viable nuclear weapons program that posed a threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region. He also expressed the opinion that chemical weapons should not be called weapons of mass destruction, saying that if a chemical shell landed near him he would simply put on his gas mask. With regard to biological weapons, scenarios resulting in considerable loss of life can be envisioned. However, Iraq was unlikely to have had anything that posed an iminent threat to the U.S.
8562. jexster - 7/20/2003 1:56:19 PM
Although oft criticized generally by way of reductio ad absurdum, the discussion raises, thanks to Eddie and AC's lucid reply, my other "primarily domestic political concern" - Just War Theory and the Doctrine of Double Effect:
This reality leads to the jus in bello meaning of proportionality. Each action must be judged for its consequences, and the minimum amount of force required to thwart the aggressive intentions of the opponent are all that is allowed.
Out of questions of proportionality and discrimination comes the doctrine of double effect, which is a way of reconciling the good and the bad inherent in most acts of war. Walzer offers four conditions that must be met in order for acts with evil consequences like the killing of civilians to be just:[14]
1) The act is good in itself or at least indifferent...that it is a legitimate act of war.
2) The direct effect is morally acceptable - the destruction of military supplies, for example, or the killing of enemy soldiers.
3) The intention of the actor is good...he aims only at the acceptable effect; the evil effect is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends.
4) The good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for the evil effect...
Walzer further argues that double effect also requires what he calls double intention. Not only must there be some good to be achieved, but also there must be an effort towards seeing “the foreseeable evil be reduced as far as possible.”[15] It is incumbent upon the soldier to accept some risk in the interest of reducing noncombatant casualties.
These criteria for the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello have served to frame debates about the morality of war for centuries.
8563. jexster - 7/20/2003 3:11:45 PM
These much-noted embarrassments (Refusals to send troops for US "Coalition") are but symptoms—logical corollaries—of the underlying problem, which is that Bush and his top advisers deluded themselves into presuming, against all historical precedent, that they could rebuild Iraq on their own in the first place.
One of the year's saddest official documents is the U.S. Agency for International Development's "Vision for Post-Conflict Iraq," a 13-page internal policy memo, dated Feb. 19, 2003 (leaked a few weeks later to the Wall Street Journal), that, read in retrospect, exposes the administration's full naiveté. ...
the memo contains this poignant decree: "The national government will be limited to assume national functions, such as defense and security, monetary and fiscal matters, justice, foreign affairs, and strategic interests such as oil and gas," while local assemblies will handle all other matters "in an open, transparent and accountable manner."
Should we laugh or cry at this noble plan to mate Jefferson with Hamilton on the democratic breeding grounds of the New Mesopotamia? The remarkable thing about the passage is that not a single noun or adjective turns out to have any bearing on the current reality. "
The assumptions of America's postwar policy have crumbled, so it should be no surprise that the policy is on the verge of crumbling, too. Leaving is not a real option; it would be a hideous thing
But staying, at least under the current arrangement, isn't much of an option either. We can't afford its price, in money or lives.
The United Nations - Bush's Only Face Saving Option
Powell hasn't the guts nor the clout with Emperor "Bring Em On" to pull this off anytime soon. His trial balloon recalls his scheming last summer to thwart the War Party but such tactics simply show how weak his internal position is.
8564. OhioSTOPAS - 7/20/2003 4:22:02 PM
Dennis Hastert gave quite a performance today on "Meet the Press." In response to Tim Russert's first question about Iraq, he launched into a long non sequitur recitation about September 11, 2001 and how awful it was. In discussion about making the child care tax credit available to low income working people, he twice said such people paid "no taxes" (even though, of course, people whose income falls below the cutoff for paying income taxes still pay a significant percentage of their income in other federal taxes and state taxes). Furthermore, Hastert contrasted such people with "working people" as if low income working people don't work. (?!?)
I'll read the transcript when it comes out to see if Hastert made more sense in print, but I doubt it. Is this really the Republicans' best case for their positions?
8565. OhioSTOPAS - 7/20/2003 4:24:42 PM
Speaking of Hastert's non sequitur, I see that Fox News, the GOP's cheerleader, still labels every dispatch about the fighting in Iraq with the graphic "WAR ON TERROR."
8566. jexster - 7/20/2003 4:49:36 PM
There are working people and there are working people. Low income working people don't have child care expenses because they can't afford to care for kids.
Then there are American people who cannot afford the care of our Child-in-chief or believe his childlike lies:
8567. jexster - 7/20/2003 4:50:19 PM
THE CAUSES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEW DEFICIT FIGURES
By Richard Kogan CBPP
the Office of Management and Budget released new figures showing this year’s budget deficit growing to $455 billion. That figure is almost $800 billion worse than the projection for fiscal year 2003 that OMB issued in February 2001; at that time, OMB forecast a surplus of $334 billion in 2003. What happened?
The President has blamed the war and the recession for the turnaround in the nation’s fiscal fortunes, ignoring the role of tax cuts.[1] Yesterday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer again suggested the war is the culprit.[2] Congressional Budget Office data show, however, that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 will cost nearly three times as much over 2003 and 2004 as the combined costs of the fighting and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, the costs of reconstruction and relief after the September 11 terrorist attacks, increased expenditures for homeland security, and the cost of dealing with terrorism on a worldwide basis. The degree to which the cost of the tax cuts exceeds the cost of the war on terrorism will grow still larger in years after 2004.
The budget picture over the next ten years also is grim. In an analysis issued last week, we projected deficits totaling $4.1 trillion over the coming decade if tax cuts are extended and other likely costs (such as a prescription drug benefit) are incurred. Outside of Social Security, our figures show ten-year deficits totaling $6.7 trillion. Other analysts have reached similar conclusions: Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of the Concord Coalition, estimates $4.0 trillion in deficits over the next ten years, while Goldman Sachs projects $4.5 trillion in deficits.
8568. jexster - 7/20/2003 5:05:21 PM
Enjoy Hastert did ya?
Then you'll love this from his fellow jesters in the Imperial Troop of House Clowns.
The Orwellian Claim that the Deficits are
“Spending-driven” and Unrelated to Tax Cuts
In response to the release of the new deficit figures today, House Republican leaders rushed to blame federal spending as the culprit and to absolve the large tax cuts enacted in recent years. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay termed the swelling deficit as a “spending-driven deficit.” House Budget Committee chairman Jim Nussle used the same phrase and explained: “Tax cuts do not cause deficits.…You only borrow money in Washington for spending. These are spending-driven deficits.” a
In fact, deficits are caused by the imbalance between revenues and spending. Under the Nussle-DeLay theory, if policymakers cut spending but cut taxes more, thereby producing a deficit, the deficit would be “spending-driven” because spending would exceed revenues. Under this odd theory, one could cut taxes year after year — or even eliminate taxes altogether — and deficits would still be spending-driven, rather than caused by excessive tax-cutting. This construction of how tax cuts cannot cause deficits and deficits are always spending-driven is an example of what George Orwell called “doublethink.”
8569. wonkers2 - 7/20/2003 5:36:54 PM
Hastert ia moron, but he comes off as a decent guy if you don't pay attention to what he's saying.
8570. jayackroyd - 7/20/2003 7:28:41 PM
"Spending driven deficit"
Last I looked there was a republican house, republican senate and a republican president. This rhetoric doesn't work. They could have made the spending cuts necessary to bring the budget into balance, if they wanted to make tax cuts.
They didn't. In fact they've raised discretionary spending while doing nothing to control entitlement spending. It's the Big Lie the republicans have been running out since Nixon--that they believe in smaller government. They don't. All they care about is whose snout is in the trough.
Just like the democrats.
8571. jexster - 7/21/2003 10:12:38 AM
The CIA reported to the putative president last fall that Saddam More Dangerous in Defeat Than in Power
Not much of a threat either way you cut it unless you have the misfortune of a servin of His Majesty the Moron in the Colony.
8572. jayackroyd - 7/21/2003 10:50:58 AM
This selective release of the NIE is crazy, just continuing the drip....drip....drip. Moreover, someone is eventually going to ask why the document was classified. There's no answer they can give that does not 1) demonstrate they're releasing things selectively not for national security reasons but political reasons and 2) create a clamor for more material to be released.
The Post, in the article jexster linked, says the NIE says what many of us were saying at the time, that forcing Saddam into a corner could well increase the risk of his supplying terrorists, as a last-ditch act of revenge.
A more disturbing article appeared in yesterday's NYTimes.
Nothing newer than '98
The article says that the basis for the wmd and nuke assessments was UN Inspector activity up to the point the inspectors were thrown out in 1998.
"Once the inspectors were gone, it was like losing your G.P.S. guidance," added a Pentagon official.... "We were reduced to dead reckoning. We had to go back to our last fixed position, what we knew in '98, and plot a course from there. With dead reckoning, you're heading generally in the right direction, but you can swing way off to one side or the other."
[snip]
In a series of recent interviews, intelligence and other officials described the Central Intelligence Agency and the White House as essentially blinded after the United Nations inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in 1998.
8573. jayackroyd - 7/21/2003 10:53:33 AM
Combine this analysis with the Post story a few days ago about the nuke justifications being gradually eroded by the inspectors work before the war, and you have to wonder how long it will take before someone points out that six more months of inspections may well have shown that Iraq posed no threat to the US or the region.
At this point, there is not question that the stated reasons were not the real reasons. The president really needs to state why we entered this war.
8574. thoughtful - 7/21/2003 2:16:41 PM
Biggest unanswered question on yellowcake....
who forged the documents and why?
8575. alistairconnor - 7/21/2003 4:21:10 PM
Insofar as they were known to be false and were used anyway, does it actually make any difference?
Would it be any worse if they were sourced to the Pentagon or to the CIA?
8576. concerned - 7/21/2003 4:21:38 PM
Re. 8573 -
Unfortunately, keeping some 200,000 coalition forces in place and inactive for that period of time appears not to have been an option.
8577. concerned - 7/21/2003 4:22:58 PM
Re. 8575 -
Probably if that had happened, they would have been rejected almost immediately. Remember that they arrived at the US with the imprimatur of British Intelligence.
8578. jayackroyd - 7/21/2003 4:28:21 PM
So you send some of them home for 4 months.
Look, concerned, I think the administration may have had a case that would have stood up to scrutiny. It would have been a hard-nosed neo-con case, and may not have had much coalition or US support. But they wouldn't have had to make stuff up, exaggerate what they had, denigrate prtty significant countervailing evidence.
The president made one of a series of very big bets. He'd made and won some very big bets in Afganistan.
In this case,he was betting enough wmd material would be found, so that the false statements made to ensure broad support at home would not be scrutinized.
8579. OhioSTOPAS - 7/21/2003 5:52:39 PM
That's what happens when you have a President who thinks his gut feelings are guided by God.
8580. concerned - 7/21/2003 6:08:10 PM
Re. 8578 -
Actually, I'm in agreement with you on this one. If it hadn't been for 9/11, it's questionable, at best, whether any attack on Iraq would have been justifiable. Given the benefit of hindsight, it appears that Saddam's intransigence cost him more dearly than whatever WMD he still possessed during the runup to the conflict. He perhaps was lulled by all the turbulence surrounding the 'peace' protests and Ol'Yurrup's lack of support into placing his bets that the US wouldn't follow through, and he might have pulled it off if he had only been significantly more conciliatory than he was.
8581. OhioSTOPAS - 7/21/2003 6:09:28 PM
Here is the transcript of Sunday’s Meet the Press (discussed in my Message # 8564 above). Highlights:
MR. RUSSERT: Since the president said that major combat military operations were over in Iraq, we’ve lost an American serviceman on the average of one a night, we haven’t found Saddam Hussein, we haven’t found weapons of mass destruction. You just heard Ambassador Bremer say we’ll be there for years at a significant cost. How troubled are you by the situation in Iraq?
REP. HASTERT: Well, Tim, I think you have to look at the big picture. You know, when 9/11 happened, almost two years ago now, we saw two planes go into the World Trade Tower . . . [blah blah 9/11 blah blah Saddam blah blah]
MR. RUSSERT: ...why not just [extend the child tax credit to] these Americans between $10,000 and $25,000, 11 million kids?
REP. HASTERT: Because, first of all, they don’t pay taxes [What ?!?], and they are getting a tax credit even when they don’t pay taxes. The second part, what about other Americans that are actually working [Double What?!?]and paying taxes? . . .
Also, Senator Joe Biden – interviewed later - got in some good stuff:
On Hastert’s opposition to the child credit: “I watched the folks back here watching your show. They’re all going, ‘Huh?’”
And in response to Russert’s question, “If a Democratic president stood up in the State of the Union and uttered 16 words which they said were mistaken about national security and intelligence, what would be the reaction of the Republicans?”:
“You know the answer, I know the answer, the whole world knows the answer. They would have ripped his skin off.”
8582. concerned - 7/21/2003 6:33:26 PM
Re. 8581 -
What a 'surprise'. Removing 75% of the original tax decrease means somebody doesn't get a greater subsidy from Uncle Sam. How shocking.
8583. arkymalarky - 7/21/2003 10:59:04 PM
Poor states like mine are passing regressive taxes to pay for budget shortfalls that are largely caused by the federal government. Why would Hastert begrudge those people? That kind of stuff really makes me sick.
Joe Biden's good at that sort of thing. The Democrats need a few hard-hitters like that who aren't running for president on more talking head shows. I think Carville did Clinton a great deal of good in that role. I never will forget the first time I saw him interviewed. I on't even remember the network or interviewer, but I remember the feeling that Carville proved to that man on national television that looks and accent don't tell you anything about how intelligent someone is. He seemed visibly stunned at how direct and incisive Carville was.
8584. jexster - 7/22/2003 3:34:26 PM
8585. vonKreedon - 7/22/2003 4:17:22 PM
Bush's numbers are falling, if only someone elses numbers would rise. According to Zogby's latest poll, Bush is close to pre-9/11 overall approval numbers. Worse yet, for Bush, more likely voters want him out than want to return him to the WH (47% to 46%). The ONLY area that Bush gets positive marks is in the War on Terror (59% - 40%). Even on overall foreign policy Bush gets the short end of a split (49%-50%). Jobs and the economy, the area that lost his father the WH, is a dismal 33% positive, 66% negative. Bush's big tax cut also seems to have fallen flat, Bush has a 45% positive to 54% negative rating on taxes.
He is starting to look very vulnerable accross the board. Now, if only someone coherent would show up to take him on.
8586. arkymalarky - 7/22/2003 4:39:49 PM
It will take a little bit for someone to move out front, but I think unless there's a big turnaround for Bush in the next few months Democrats have a really good shot at '04, and they're beginning to show a little more nerve. Howard Dean, even if he doesn't end up the leading candidate, has been good for helping improve the tone for the Democrats and they're seeming less mealy-mouthed than they did in '02. I was really disgusted with their handling of mid-term campaigns.
8587. Max Macks - 7/22/2003 7:31:32 PM
Trouble with the Democrats is that they are not accostomed
to using lies as the Rebupicans have been doing
since Reagn and the hostages in Iran.
Someone counted the number of times that Bush linked
9/11 with Saddam and Iraq.
And I agree the Democrats need people like Carville
to counter the likes of Karl Rove and Tom DeLay
They would do well to get some kind of media out
let . All the commerical TV stations seem to have
a pro Bush stance ...which is both disgusting and
surprising.
8588. wonkers2 - 7/22/2003 7:48:09 PM
Carville is a cool guy. I once met him on the street in DC and he couldn't have been nicer. We both went to LSU, he as an undergrad, I to high school.
8589. jexster - 7/22/2003 7:50:13 PM
The Blame Game:
Enough to Share - Another Bush Aide Falls On Sword for Bush Lies
8590. wonkers2 - 7/22/2003 9:33:53 PM
Details of two memos and a phone call "slipped from Hadley's attention" when the State of the Union was being put together. And other people could have raised their hands (and objected) but failied to do so.
Details, minor details!
8591. jexster - 7/23/2003 8:49:56 AM
Ex Car Thief Makes Millions on Viper Car Alarms Gains Promotion to GOP Hitman
8592. jayackroyd - 7/23/2003 8:55:08 AM
Drip drip drip.....
The president is not a fact checker. He technically told the truth. Okay it WAS a white house guy who added that language.
They're giving this story legs.
8593. jexster - 7/23/2003 8:56:24 AM
Bush Won't Roll to Aid Liberia
8594. jexster - 7/23/2003 8:59:53 AM
It would be one thing if the administration had pursued this war because of weapons of mass destruction and, in so doing, pumped up the evidence to strengthen the case. Perhaps, one might hypothesize, they knew there was a lot of chemical and biological weapons production underway and the beginnings of a major push for nuclear weapons and, to seal the deal, said the nuclear program was further along than it was.
But this greatly understates the scope of the problem. Not only was the WMD issue (and the allied issue of Iraq's connection to al Qaida) systematically exaggerated, the entire WMD issue -- and the nexus to non-state terrorist groups like al Qaida -- wasn't even the main reason for the war itself. So the case for war amounted to one dishonesty wrapped inside another...
8595. jexster - 7/23/2003 9:04:00 AM
On the connection between the WMD lie and the Liberation lie on the way to discovering a truth some of us have known for over a year....
The fact that the administration never leveled with the public -- or in some ways even itself -- about this shielded it from the kind of scrutiny which would have revealed just how little the administration had thought through the sheer complexity of what it was trying to accomplish. This created the need to goose up secondary issues like WMD to gain a public rationale for the war. If you're wondering why so little planning seems to have gone into what on earth we were going to do once we took the place over it's because so little of the debate leading up to the war had anything to do with these questions or for that matter what we were actually trying to achieve by invading the country.
8596. wonkers2 - 7/23/2003 9:35:35 AM
Bush's "Leave No Child Behind" policy leaves 43,000 third graders behind in Florida More Here
8597. wonkers2 - 7/23/2003 9:58:46 AM
The noose tightens around Riceroni's neck as she was listed as recipient of one of written CIA warnings on Niger yellowcake report forgotten/ignored by her deputy Stephen Hadley. Hadley's mea culpa contradicts earlier statements by Riceroni in an effort to pin the tail on Tenet and weasel out of her own responsibility for herself.
Three months later (after Tenet's warning), on January 24, another senior CiA official, Robert Walpole, sent Mr. Hadley and other White House officials another memorandum that again said Iraq had sought to obtain the uranium, citing the language in the Oct. 1 intelligence estimate.
That memorandum, which was not part of the White house discovery this weekend, was intended to aid Secretary Powell as he prepared to make the case at the UN. But it arrived at the White House just four days before the State of the Union speech and seemed to support the president's now disputed statement. It contained none of the cautions that Mr. Tenet had voiced by phone to Mr. Hadley and in the two memos sent just before the president's speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7.
Question: Who is Mr. Walpole and what or who prompted his memo contradicting his boss, Mr. Tenet.
This is a case for Hercule Poirot!
Full story here.
8598. jexster - 7/23/2003 10:25:47 AM
Follow the Bouncing Buck
Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA
Oct. Memos Raised Doubts on Iraq Bid
"I believe they've moved that sign 'the buck stops here' in the Oval office to the buck stops here in the Lincoln bedroom," October 2000 8599. jexster - 7/23/2003 10:26:09 AM
liar
8600. jexster - 7/23/2003 10:30:16 AM
Weapons of Mass Redaction
8601. wonkers2 - 7/23/2003 10:43:06 AM
Bush's latest--nomination or abomination??-William Pryor. Wonder where he finds these guys? Richard Pryor would be a much better choice!
Pryor has views far outside the political and legal mainstreem. He has called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination" of constitutional law in our history. He recently urged the Supreme Court to uphold laws criminalizing gay sex. He has defended the installation of a massive Ten Commandments monument in Alabama's main judicial building which a federal court recently held violated the First Amendment. And he has urged Congress to repeal an important part of the Voting Rights Act. More on Bush abomination here
8602. jexster - 7/23/2003 10:45:49 AM
The Ad Bush Doesn't Want You to See
Read His Lips
Republicans are trying to bury the truth again -- and we need your help to stop them.
Starting today, your Democratic Party is launching a hard-hitting TV ad campaign that demands an independent, bipartisan investigation into President Bush's misleading statements in his 2003 State of the Union address.
But the Republican Party is feverishly working to keep this ad off the air.
Why? Because they are afraid of the truth.
Since this scandal first broke, the White House and Bush have been scrambling to bury the truth:
* They've attacked reporters who have written critical stories of what Bush knew and when.
* Bush's Republican allies in Congress defeated the first call for an independent investigation on a party-line vote.
* And now the President's lawyers at the Republican National Committee are trying desperately to keep this TV ad off the air.
A lawyer from the Republican National Committee has now sent a threatening letter to TV stations in Madison, WI (where the ad is currently running) trying to intimidate stations into not running the ad. (The text of the letter is below.) The DNC ad, however, is 100 percent true -- the President misled the public during the State of the Union.
Don't let Republicans and the White House bury the truth.
Sincerely,
Terry McAuliffe
Chairman
8603. Macnas - 7/23/2003 11:04:31 AM
This is kind of funny
But then I don't live there.
8604. arkymalarky - 7/23/2003 12:07:10 PM
Those of us who do have to laugh to keep from crying.
Wonk,
That No Child Left Behind is throwing schools everywhere--no matter what the state, demographics, or any other condition of the district--into a complete tailspin. It's one of those things that sounds good on paper until you look at how to implement it, and it's completely impossible. I may have posted this before, but my position on NCLB is it should be retroactive back to its creator.
If people like Bush would see things as they are instead of the Dick and Jane version...but they look at the immediate issue, slap on a program for it (or plan an invasion) and dust their hands off as they turn their back on chaos, saying "Problem solved," while the rest of us have to deal with their mess.
8605. arkymalarky - 7/23/2003 12:10:26 PM
Then you get someone like Clinton, who of course has his flaws, to clean it up and get things going again, and all they can talk about is his pecadillos and how his policies and people have nothing to do with the better conditions. And he's no sooner out the door than they begin reconstructing the same mess, but worse.
8606. jayackroyd - 7/23/2003 12:36:32 PM
8602
Where is Rove? Are they crazy? Let them run the ad in Madison. Let it show up one night on the news shows, and then be done with it. Let Bob Novak and Bill O'Reilly rip if for them. (What's the point of having a vast right wing conspiracy if you're not gonna use it?) One news cycle. Over.
It's now on its third cycle, and they're in a lose-lose situation. If it runs, it's going to be bigger news than if they had done nothing, if it doesn't then they're faced with an even better ad. With a Michael Powell sequel. And even more people will see the original ad, run for free in various venues--like this one. Is the ad itself up on the dems website?
What is Rove thinking? Was the speculation that Hughes was essential to managing the message correct? This is so incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
Wonkers, will you now concede that this story is not over?
8607. concerned - 7/23/2003 12:51:31 PM
Biden campaign fund looted
Aide charged with embezzling $350,000 from Senator
I can just see Biden's presidential campaign slogan now: 'Trust. Honesty. Fiscal Responsibility. Help me learn these concepts in office by voting for me in 2004.'
8608. concerned - 7/23/2003 12:55:28 PM
Re. 8606 -
You were happy enough to be intentionally misled nine ways to Sunday when President Pantload was in office. What was that about his Beyond the Looking Glass definition of 'is' and other words?
8609. concerned - 7/23/2003 1:18:06 PM
Jexster's, wonkers' and jay's obvious fixation on one truthful sentence in the last SOTU speech is laughable. I don't see any legs on this one -just some slime smearing by slugs.
8610. wonkers2 - 7/23/2003 4:41:20 PM
Jay? You lost me there. What story did I say was over? I'm the first one to express the opinion that Bush should be impeached for all the lies he has told to the American people. I am happy to see recognition of this gaining momentum and not entirely surprised.
8611. jayackroyd - 7/23/2003 4:51:29 PM
Maybe it was Ohio.
8612. wonkers2 - 7/23/2003 4:52:15 PM
Arky, We agree. Education will only be improved by improving fundamentals like the following; for example: more equal funding,
better teacher education,
higher pay for teachers,
smaller classes,
smaller schools and less centralized administration, greater emphasis on reading, writing, math and science, more days/hours in the school year, etc.,
NOT by Bush's empty slogans and simplistic gimmicks.
8613. Al D - 7/23/2003 5:15:45 PM
When I went to school in the '40's great[er] emphasis on reading, writing, math and science, more days/hours in the school year, etc., was the rule, but teachers pay was not high, I'm sure total costs were much lower in relative terms. Schools were smaller and discipline was strict. I liked spelling bees the most, 'cause it gave me time for a nap.
8614. arkymalarky - 7/23/2003 5:19:59 PM
Oooh, ooooh, oooh! You need to get down to AR for the next few weeks and help us fight the fight. The fall special legislative session will determine a lot in all those areas.
And the state standards-based tests have the potential to become a joke, because they're made by private companies and their measurements, level of difficulty, etc, aren't consistent. It's not actually a bad idea, but when states contract the tests, if they're not carefully constructed, or if they're easily manipulable from one year to the next, what have we really learned from the results? I'd rather have a norm-referenced test and at least see how we stand in comparison to elsewhere based on the same criteria.
The English ones are pretty good, but the math has fluctuated a great deal and Bob (a math teacher) has found errors on samples of test questions published in the newspaper. In fact, I found a pretty glaring error on a released English test, which means it had already been given and student tests were graded with that error there.
8615. arkymalarky - 7/23/2003 5:21:09 PM
That was to Wonk, but you come on too, Al. Just don't be sending out written circulars unless someone checks them first. ;-)
8616. robertjayb - 7/23/2003 5:56:52 PM
jexster, what's up with the recall? Seems Calif is trying to top TX in goofy politics. This seems to suggest Cruz Bustamente could wind up as governor. Any chance of that happening?
8617. jayackroyd - 7/23/2003 10:08:34 PM
8616
CNN seemed to be saying that it's a done deal. This'll be interesting.
Or should I say it should be interesting....dickhead.
8618. concerned - 7/24/2003 2:11:33 AM
You all make me ashamed of my grade school that had 'large' classes in leaky decrepit un-air-conditioned buildings during 90 degree-plus weather using shabby 25 year-old textbooks and with no computer resources.
If you actually believe all the whining about the above factors nowadays, you'd wonder how anybody graduating from eighth grade before 1975 could ever have spelled 'cat'.
Speaking of NEA-sanctioned public school education:
Teacher gets big NEA job despite sexual misconduct
8619. concerned - 7/24/2003 2:23:44 AM
Pure Educational Potential from arky's neck o' the woods
8620. concerned - 7/24/2003 3:13:44 AM
8621. judithathome - 7/24/2003 11:16:07 AM
'Trust. Honesty. Fiscal Responsibility. Help me learn these concepts in office by voting for me in 2004.'
Adapted from a GW Bush slogan from 2000 and amended for the current campaign to include..."because I sure as hell didn't get it this time around."
8622. Max Macks - 7/24/2003 1:05:06 PM
ssurprised , if Yahoo story is true, that the recall special election will be held .
Many people in my part of Calif. doubted it would pass
because of what it will cost.
In reading the Yahoo story I found that only a percentage
of the number of votes that Davis got were necessary
to get the special election , not the percentage of
the Calif. population.
Davis problem is what other governors are facing
budget problems caused by Bush's giving away so much
of the Clinton surplus. so fed money is less now
for the states.
It might be interesting if the recall election
occurs to see how Arnold Swarzenburger does.
8623. Ms. No - 7/24/2003 1:39:40 PM
Thanks for the ad link, Jex. This is the comment I left:
Rock: Admitting you lied to the American people in order to promote a war in which their sons and daughters will die.
Hard Place: Admitting you're the only man in Washington who didn't know the claims were false.
ROCKBushHARD PLACE
8624. Ms. No - 7/24/2003 2:04:56 PM
I'm furious over the recall for a couple of reasons.
First of all because I completely and totally disapprove of recall efforts. You voted him in, you'll have to wait and vote him out. If an elected official has done something illegal, or abused his office then prosecute but just because things don't go your way or even if he's a lousy governor is no reason to waste tens of millions of tax-payer money and bring government to a halt so you can change your duly given vote.
Essentially a recall petition allows a minority of Californians to overturn the votes of all other California voters on a whim. 7.3 million people voted in the November 2003 election. Their votes will now be jeopardized by 1 million petition signers---- most of whom already cast their votes back in November.
Secondly this recall effort was a total joke until Darrell Issa decided that a million dollars was a bargain basement price to buy the Governorship of California after the 8 million he spent trying to become a Senator. Yes, Issa has bankrolled the recall effort. A hell of a lot cheaper than campaigning during a regular election.
8625. concerned - 7/24/2003 2:15:44 PM
Re. 8622 -
Gray Davis having been governor since 1999, he certainly bears much responsibility for the state's fiscal problems, considering his big spending proclivities and his reflexive tendency to deflect criticism and point fingers has only hurt his cause.
However, Davis's problems are not all his own fault, or even the Democrat Party's. California also has one of the largest ongoing influxes of immigrants, many of them illegal, and that is a factor that does nothing to stretch budgetary dollars; in fact quite the opposite.
8626. concerned - 7/24/2003 2:17:21 PM
Re. 8623 -
Irony here that you lied and GWB didn't.
8627. concerned - 7/24/2003 2:33:38 PM
Guess the idea seems to be that if you're going to be hoist by your own petard, make sure the sky's the limit.
8628. concerned - 7/24/2003 2:34:50 PM
That said, keep it up, Ms. No!
8629. concerned - 7/24/2003 2:57:09 PM
An uplifting economic editorial
8630. Ms. No - 7/24/2003 3:11:21 PM
Excuse me? I can't recall that I've ever personally attacked you. Your comment was both uncalled for and untrue.
Despite our political differences of opinion I had not previously any cause to personally dislike you. Clearly I was mistaken in my assessment of your integrity.
8631. jexster - 7/24/2003 3:11:41 PM
The GOP Coverup Continues
Old Yellowcake Tries Dirty Tricks to Force Richard Durbin (D-IL) Off the Intelligence Committee
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) "accused the White House on Tuesday of trying to have him removed from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee in retaliation for remarks critical of the administration over Iraq. Durbin charged that the White House had floated a bogus story that he had disclosed classified information regarding Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction. 'The White House allegations ... were, in fact, false, and inaccurate,' Durbin said on the Senate floor. 'Sadly, what we have here is a continuing pattern by this White House,' Durbin said. 'If any
member of this Senate ... questions this White House policy ... be prepared for the worst.' ... The flap stems from Durbin charging last Thursday that CIA Director George Tenet told the intelligence committee that a White House official had insisted on including a disputed allegation about Saddam Hussein 's push for nuclear weapons in Bush's State of the Union speech last January. "
8632. Ms. No - 7/24/2003 3:13:50 PM
Jex,
I caught the tail end of some official blubbering an apology to Congress yesterday on NPR but I didn't hear the full story or even who the parties involved were. Do you know anything about this? Could you point me toward some info?
8633. jexster - 7/24/2003 3:19:04 PM
The recall - more of the SOS - Californicated politics
Car thief who turned his knowledge into Viper Car alarm fortune spends millions on paid signature gatherers.
Thanks to Californicated government, 60% is required to pass a budget. The GOP threatened to finance oppostion to waivering Republican assembly members if they agreed to any tax increase to cover the state's deficit. Of course, 55% budget is there but not with the GOP playing stupid games.
They will lose.
>The Demos aren't running anyone.
>Demos will begin recall of any Republican that wins on 10/7
>No Republican in his right mind would run, so there will only be two on ballot, two certifiable nutters - Bill Simon who lost in November and the car thief
>51% in favor in recent poll will drop to 40% when the voters see the deal here
Interesting angle...some counties do not have voting machines because they were in the middle of a change
8634. Ms. No - 7/24/2003 3:20:45 PM
Nevermind, I found it. It's Bill Thomas.
8635. jexster - 7/24/2003 3:24:28 PM
More from the Car Thief's looney bin:
San Francisco has its first IRV mayoral election set for 11/7, but has no approved system in place to do it yet...Dept of Elections now preparing 3 different types of ballot systems for November and on top of all that will have to run this statewide disaster one month earlier
Bottom line - the GOP is demanding massive cuts in schools, transportation, medical care, and a multi-million dollar special election that will could leave a mental defective Republican governor in charge of a state that hates his guts and a hostile democratic legislature and elected executive officers who want to cut his balls off...
Think OLD YELLOWCAKE
8636. jexster - 7/24/2003 3:26:32 PM
Robert - am down yonder in your fair State, 21st Congressional (?) ...
This does top Perrymandering for sleaze
8637. jexster - 7/24/2003 3:30:31 PM
Ms. No that must be the WH fella who apologized for letting Bush Lie..
Another "Stop Me Before I lie Again, Follow the Bouncing Buck Moment"
I linked up thread and Conflict ... all very comical if it weren't so damn tragic, the fact that NOTHING that Bush said pre-war was true...nothing yet many knew this and said so before the war so none of it is really NEWS!
A foreign policy on crack
8638. jexster - 7/24/2003 3:34:40 PM
You aren't speaking of Steven Hadley RU No???
So now we have Stephen Hadley, Condi Rice's number two, stepping forward to take the blame for not keeping the uranium line out of the State of the Union speech. This buck may eventually stop at the president's desk, but it's amazing how many stops it makes along the way, isn't it?
Someone else is stepping up to save the honor of Old Yellowcake now????
8639. Ms. No - 7/24/2003 3:46:00 PM
No, Bill Thomas is head of the House Ways and Means Commitee. A fracas broke out on Friday over a bi-partisan pension bill and he called in the cops to roust some of the Democratic members of the committee.
8640. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 3:54:04 PM
Con'd, that website in 8619 made the rounds through Mose's bunch a while back. It is hilariously disgusting and very un-PC to laugh at, which of course means it had me rolling.
On teachers and schools, what you describe that you had is not much different from some schools in the poorest part of the state here and now. Now that other state-supported public schools have so much more due to high local property tax bases, they're going to have to balance it out some by order of the Arkansas Supreme Court. The lawsuit that resulted in the need for a reform package described unbelievable circumstances for some poor districts. Property has no value there, so property tax can be the highest percent in the state and still bring no money to the district.
The AEA (state branch of NEA) opposes our ideas for helping poor districts and rural areas, which are actually proven more cost-efficient and more effective for education and better for disadvantaged kids. I am not and have never been a supporter of the AEA or its agenda. It doesn't concentrate efforts on small or poor districts or statewide--except when Bill Clinton required teachers to take a minimum competency test in math and writing. They pitched a huge hissy over that. And lost. I took the test, made zero errors, and went on about my business. Had they put all that energy into teacher salaries and equalizing public schools to at least a basic minimum we might not be going through all this now.
(cont)
8641. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 3:54:44 PM
They also ignore that the main plan being promoted supports the types of businesses that have thrived here on unskilled, working poor at little to no benefits--Wal-Mart and the poultry and log industries. Higher-tech companies will hardly look at us, especially in the east and south, despite our dirt cheap corporate tax base and low cost of living and operation for businesses, because they don't have a qualified pool of workers to select from and their managers don't want to move their families into economically depressed areas with bad schools and no cultural activities.
8642. concerned - 7/24/2003 6:00:48 PM
Re. 8640, 1:
That's an impressive test result, arky. Of course, I believe that a better educational environment and smaller classes are helpful. However, if I had been led to believe that the school I went to wasn't a place I could learn because of its relative deficiencies, I can see that that could be a potentially major factor in reducing my incentive to study.
8643. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 6:12:48 PM
Response to Con'd from Iraq thread (on race):
1) Not so. If you were a teacher who looked toward your own promotion to a state or administrative position, and the policies you supported to move yourself upward went against the basic values of a free public education, public school teachers, equality of opportunity, etc, I wouldn't have a term for you so I'd just call you a selfish moron who put yourself above the interests of your group. You as an individual might not be able to think for yourself and that would explain your position. OR you might just be a selfish boob who'd sell everyone else down the river (another racial term, there) just to get yourself a free ride up it.
2) See one: If you as an individual sell out the values and benefits to your peers for personal gain it may or may not have jack to do with comprehension. The result is the thing, and I would still call you a selfish moron.
3) Bingo. Their self-interests trump everything else.
Let's take Sam Walton (though I'd rather not). He has made a fortune off of selling to and employing working class people who have little chance to move up and rarely work enough to receive benefits. It's all most have though, in that Catch-22 of a working class economy. If his heirs promote educational policies to continue that instead of encouraging policies that increase performance of poor students and step them up to a level beyond unskilled worker then they're putting their interests above those of impoverished children. Thus they would be rich selfish morons. I'm not saying that's the case. They've kept a low profile here.
8644. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 6:13:11 PM
As for your last point, it's a very aggressive effort to maintain a unity of purpose. It would only become divisive if it were directed in extremes against anything that wasn't radically favoring black issues over everything else. In that case, those who go to those links would be anti-American LWers and voila! You now have a label that fits the ones who've been using labels on you.
8645. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 6:14:16 PM
to those lengths
8646. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 6:32:08 PM
Thanks Con'd, but it was a mickey mouse test. My subject area tests were much harder--the NTEs. I did well in both (don't remember how well--I've slept since then), but I didn't feel like I did at the time. Bob was the same for the NTE in math.
Of course, I believe that a better educational environment and smaller classes are helpful. However, if I had been led to believe that the school I went to wasn't a place I could learn because of its relative deficiencies, I can see that that could be a potentially major factor in reducing my incentive to study.
It's not that so much, as no teachers will work there and college educated people don't want to live there. In fact, you'd likely be impressed at how willing those kids are to work at school. If you've never seen the Delta, it's hard to imagine. And in south Arkansas I have a friend who's counselor at a small, poor, mostly minority school in which %100 of the elementary kids are on free or reduced price lunches. Every little kid in that school from kindergarten through sixth grade. And they try, and behave, and have no discipline problems, and are putting in as many programs as they can with grant money, but over 1/4 of their staff is uncertified. The community taxes its own property very high to help keep the school, but their property isn't worth anything, so it brings nothing.
(cont)
8647. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 6:32:31 PM
The richest part of the state (one of the richest in the country) could give a little so these kids could have a decent community school where their parents can participate and they don't have to ride a bus and be outsiders in another school. Some of the same people who'd give money to UNICEF or sponsoring overseas children scream bloody murder if their taxes are raised an iota to help other Arkansans. Off on a tear again, but it just makes me sick. And now the governor is traveling the state talking to Chambers of Commerce in richer districts, mostly white, telling them that they will be "taxed beyond their wildest dreams."
It's not like it used to be when teaching was considered part time work and single women or those who didn't need a lot of money were glad to do it. Teachers now expect to be paid well, because more is expected of them in terms of time put in and outcomes. We can't compete with the private sector as a result. Last year the entire state of Arkansas only graduated one certified chemistry teacher. And we certainly aren't going to get them from other states, since all the surrounding states pay more than we do. The schools with money pay well, but most schools don't. They can't.
The Lake View (the district that began the suit over ten years ago) math department was one man who taught 7-12 math and was uncertified, so they paid him a substitute's salary of $10,000 a year and he made $5000 driving a bus.
8648. wonkers2 - 7/24/2003 6:34:46 PM
I bet there weren't a lot of his students accepted at Georgia Tech, let alone MIT or Cal Tech.
8649. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 6:38:17 PM
One point about absorbing districts--demographics are such here that you're almost always merging one poor district with another and making a bad problem worse because of the incoming students' lack of community grounding and pride of place and ability to participate in activities.
8650. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 6:42:53 PM
No, Wonk, there weren't. And that man was doing his best to try to teach them. Many of these schools have 100% remediation in college for math and English.
I taught in a tiny (88 k-12), almost 100% black school that did well. We were the lowest paid teachers in the state, but it was a great place to work. A lot of former students from the two years I was there got college degrees and are doing well. But they shut us down anyway.
8651. wonkers2 - 7/24/2003 6:51:19 PM
Bill Gates and Warren Buffets are more admirable in many ways than Walton. However Walton deserves credit for creating a highly efficient organization based on many concepts that go way beyond cheap labor and conservative politics. This enables Walmart to bring value to its customers many or most of whom are on limited budgets. On the other hand, Walmart has put a lot of small enterprises out of business and reduced the variety of products available to consumers. It has also hurt specialty stores like those who sell fishing tackle, for example, at higher prices but who also provide useful advice to customers and who stocked parts and repaired the tackle they sold. You won't find anybody at Walmart who can tell you what the fish are biting on or sell you a spare part let alone repair something. How did I get off the track onto fishing tackle?
8652. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 7:00:36 PM
However Walton deserves credit for creating a highly efficient organization based on many concepts that go way beyond cheap labor and conservative politics. This enables Walmart to bring value to its customers many or most of whom are on limited budgets.
I agree to a point, and I don't think they're a bad company, certainly not intentionally (at least I hope not). The main problem is that there's so much there that,as you say, they drive out competition and people end up getting pretty much everything there for convenience, and it's designed in a way that promotes impulse shopping. The poor become dependent on them for work and everything they buy and it's like a huge version of the old sharecropping merchants and planters system or the company town and store.
What you say about fishing tackle applies to everything there--sporting goods, sewing supplies, art supplies, electronics, automotive--you name it.
Also, being centered in AR, they don't promote policies that elevate the state, imo. They're satisfied to let all that money sit in the northwest corner, which used to be dirt poor and is now thriving. Little Rock acts like the center of the state, and the northwest corner has a tendency to act like it's another state entirely. Which it de facto is.
8653. robertjayb - 7/24/2003 8:06:48 PM
Oh, dear! The model for "No Child Left Behind" is in the ditch...(Houston Chronicle)
As Education Secretary Rod Paige whips up support for the No Child Left Behind Act, recently released statistics call into question the lasting effects of Houston and Texas school reforms that led to the legislation.
Two test results, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills and the National Assessment of Educational Progress, bring to light the differences between the scores of white students and minority students. Ten years into the current incarnation of the state accountability system, Houston minority students -- who comprise more than 90 percent of the enrollment -- are as far behind as they were in the beginning, the tests show.
8654. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 8:39:46 PM
If they don't do something that actually changes how the poorest performing schools are operated and how they recruit and retain teachers they will never see any improvement. The stupid mindset of tacking on a plan to an existing system and getting results is as tiresome as the Republican accusation that Democrats throw money at problems.
I'm all about the Bill Gates high school model at the moment. It makes the most sense to me.
I've begged them to at least make a statement about what's going on here. They're not a speck interested in AR. I guess because it's such a hornets' nest here. I'm sure they're like other foundations and are only interested in providing grants and support for areas (cities) that welcome the chance to try something to fix their systems with guidance and help, not diving into the middle of a state brawl.
Chickens.
8655. wonkers2 - 7/24/2003 10:28:16 PM
Gates Foundation on small high schools: "Studies show that small schools have higher attendance rates, higher grade point averages, lower drop-out rates and students and teachers who report greater satisfaction with the educational experience."
Gates finally caught up with what wonkers has been saying for years including posts to the FRAY shortly after its inception. I started saying it before that as a result of comparing my kids' experience in a big suburban high school with my own experince in a graduating class of 40 or thereabouts.
The Bush program is a nearly total fraud.
8656. wonkers2 - 7/24/2003 10:30:54 PM
Arky, thanks for the link to the Gates Foundation material. I'm going to spend some time on it and perhaps forward it to our school board and to Governor Jennifer Granholm (She's very on-the-ball and has probably seen it already).
8657. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 10:50:31 PM
You're welcome. Isn't it great? It confirms my own experience with schools that make progress closing the achievement gap, as I've always worked in very well integrated (30-50% black, except the almost 100% black tiny one I mentioned) small schools. It also has a lot of additional resources and links with great information. One group they've used in their research work is one I'm working with right now, Rural School and Community Trust. They've helped us immensely.
I wish our state would take an interest in the Gates Foundation work. I've sent it out everywhere I could, especially to legislators. The governor's managed to get everything in turmoil and pit communities against eachother by promoting consolidation and trying to scare the wealthier districts, and people are just now beginning to talk about real alternatives.
8658. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 10:52:02 PM
Crud. Messed up the link.
RSCT
8659. arkymalarky - 7/24/2003 10:54:25 PM
What am I doing wrong here? RSCT
Duh. Forgot the http. I need a vacation.
8660. jayackroyd - 7/24/2003 11:13:43 PM
Looking for comments on Cheney's speech today.
Best if they were on topic.
Not "he's a lying scumbag" or "Now we hear the truth" but whether the speech can stop the firestorm. Imagine, for a minute, that you're James Carville or Mary Matlin, and you're having breakfast together Friday morning after Cheney's speech. What would you say to each other?
8661. jayackroyd - 7/24/2003 11:20:13 PM
Well,now I'm pissed off. I did a yahoo search to check the spelling of Mary M..n's name, and found what I posted. But now I read slate's chatterbox and he has it the way I first spelled it, Matalin.
In any case, he frames the issues wrt Cheney's speech pretty well.
8662. arkymalarky - 7/25/2003 12:09:30 AM
I looked everywhere for what Governor Huckabee's been saying in talks to districts, and this was the only detailed article I found.
Much of what he says about the ASC ruling is misleading. The ruling largely upheld the chancery court ruling.
Since both are long (the ASC decision is 93 pages) it takes reading them to see where the governor's misleading statements wrt the state's options are. People are doing that, though, and printing it wherever they can get the information out, which is limited in AR.
This was my favorite quote from him, though: "We will have the Robin Hood approach. It will be the only option. We'll raise taxes beyond your wildest capacity. Then we will start Robin-hooding the more efficient and wealthier districts in order to prop up the districts in which you may only have two kids in a chemistry class, but you got to equip it, you got to staff it, and if only two kids show up, you're still going to have to offer chemistry and language classes," Huckabee said.
First, small schools aren't where the money/efficiency problem is coming from. Little Rock is one of the biggest culprits there. Of course they claim they can't help it because of compliance with a desegregation ruling from years ago, but that's beside the point. Poor districts need the added help. Second, his plan doesn't address the court mandates. Third, the "Robin Hood" approach is exactly what the court demanded.
8663. robertjayb - 7/25/2003 1:10:25 AM
Eric Alterman is amazed:
It cannot possibly be a coincidence that William Kristol has chosen to defend President Bush and his slacker war against terrorism by impugning Richard Gephardt with the same phraseology that his father used half a century ago to defend Joe McCarthy. In this morning’s Washington Post, Kristol writes, “But the American people, whatever their doubts about aspects of Bush’s foreign policy, know that Bush is serious about fighting terrorists and terrorist states that mean America harm. About Bush’s Democratic critics, they know no such thing.” In the journal Commentary in 1952, during the McCarthy era, Irving Kristol wrote, “For there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy; he, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”
This is truly amazing. It explicitly links the Neocons’ exploitation of the threat of terrorism to that no-good drunken bum, Joe McCarthy, and his use of the charge of “Commie” to ruin lives on a whim through a deliberately stoked mass hysteria. I think there is a great deal of this going on right now, but even I would have been reluctant to go so far. But there it is. The charge worked for McCarthy — at least for a while — and Kristol now seems certain it will work for his team as well. Just one question: Have they no shame? At long last, have they no sense of decency left?
8664. Daniel Sickles - 7/25/2003 9:22:39 AM
wonkers
I'm not sure why you want to continue the dialogue. You're a stone cold racist and the good folks here support you unreservedly because you're their kind of stone cold racist just as the NAACP holds their tongue when Bob Byrd or Cruz Bustamante say "nigger" or Jesse Jackson says "hymie." Or Al Sharpton starts a pogrom.
8665. wonkers2 - 7/25/2003 11:56:59 AM
Sorry, you little weenie clerk lawyer, I am not a racist, unless by your twisted logic you are referring to my longstanding support for minority rights, affirmative action where warranted and policies which benefit various disadvantaged groups. The only reason you have cited for your absurd insult is my use of two terms commonly applied by blacks and whites to Clarence Thomas and his ilk, Uncle Tom and lawn jockey. That doesn't qualifies me as a racist.
You are the one who, lacking logic or facts, constantly resorts to invective and insults. Why don't you give it up you little asshole?
8666. wonkers2 - 7/25/2003 11:57:49 AM
Addendum, little prevaricating asshole.
8667. arkymalarky - 7/25/2003 12:05:02 PM
The only people whose opinions regarding someone's racism count are the ones targeted. Since I know what the terms Uncle Tom and lawn jockey mean in an inter-racial context, I wouldn't put a whole lot of effort into countering Mr. Sickles' labels. The righteous indignation of one white man over what he personally defines as a racial slur doesn't count for a lot.
8668. judithathome - 7/25/2003 12:25:44 PM
he has it the way I first spelled it, Matalin
Jay, I can put this to rest easily enough...in my signed copy of her book, she spells it MATALIN. (She also complimented me on my art deco-era pin when she signed my book. She's nice in person.)
8669. Wombat - 7/25/2003 12:32:46 PM
I find Wonkers' descent into racially derogatory language particularly off-putting. It does nothing to burnish the impression he seeks to make as a champion of the racially oppressed. Rather, it makes him sound like a Sharptonian sloganeer.
8670. wonkers2 - 7/25/2003 12:47:18 PM
The terms I used, although they refer to the race of the persons to whom they are directed, are not racially derogatory. They are merely short hand expressions commonly used to describe members of a group who, in order to further their own career or circumstances, have joined the opposition. Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly are two currently prominent examples. Both terms have a long and honorable, non-racist history. I guess quisling from WWI would be a comparable term. I'll have to look it up. Sickie is the one who has kept the discussion going by calling me a racist by some of his usual twisted logic and invective. Kindly note that invective was directed toward Condolezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, et al, who I consider to be fair game, not toward any participant in this forum, in contrast to that of sicko. He started the dispute. I merely responded in kind.
8671. wonkers2 - 7/25/2003 1:07:38 PM
Encarta defines Uncle Tom as follows:
n. a highly offensive term used to describe a Black man who is thought to be too solicitous of or subservient to Caucasians (insult) [Mid-19thC. After a character in Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin."]
It may be a stretch to apply the term to Powell or Rice, but, in my estimation, Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly fit the term to a T.
quisling n. a traitor, especially somebody who collaborates with an occupying force (dated) [Mid-20th c. Named for Vidkun Quisling.] quislingismn.
Word Key: Origin
Vidkun quisling was a Norwegian politician who from 1933 led the national Union Party, the Norwegian fascist party. (Quisling was not his real name--he was originally Anbraham Lauritz Jonsson.) When the Germans invaded Norway in 1940 he gave them active support, urging his fellow Norwegians not to resist them, and in 1942 he was installed by Hitler as his puppet premier. In 1945 he was shot for treason.
Wombat, would you prefer for me to call Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly quislings? That term wouldn't be far from the mark, in my opinion. Or in your estimation aren't white folk allowed to make derogatory remarks about black folk? By the way, your likening me to Al Sharpton might be considered derogatory to either me or to him or to both and possibly racist as well by your own shaky logic.
Anyway, what's wrong with a little sloganeering on the Net or a little hyperbole or polemics? I plead guilty to all the above but not to racism. Is it less offensive to refer to George Bush as a simian or moron than to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom?
8672. Wombat - 7/25/2003 1:22:04 PM
Wonkers:
Quisling was an individual who personified the term "traitor" in World War II. He was Norway's former defense minister, who attempted to place himself in charge of a puppet regime after the Germans conquered Norway (and may have also played a role in sabotaging the Norwegian mobilization in the run-up to the invasion). Note that there is no racial or ethnic component to "Quisling."
The correct term you seek, which does relate to Quisling, would be "race traitor." This seems to have with it an assumption that people of a particular race should behave in a certain way in order to avoid this label.
Not being part of a racial minority, I would not presume to speak for them, but as an individual, I would be highly offended should someone try to suggest that I should try to behave a particular way, or support particular policies, or political parties, in order to remain true to my racial group.
8673. judithathome - 7/25/2003 1:29:27 PM
I would be highly offended should someone try to suggest that I should try to behave a particular way, or support particular policies, or political parties, in order to remain true to my racial group.
This seems to be the way the administration sees it these days, not to mention every Republican you see. If you dissent from their norm, you are branded a traitor and called unpatriotic. It is as though they consider dissenters another race entirely...and an inferior one.
You see it here whenever the Perfect Worlders swoop in for target practice.
8674. Wombat - 7/25/2003 1:32:22 PM
Wonkers:
Call them what they are: Careerists (Powell, Rice); a token (Thomas); misguided (Connerly)
8675. wonkers2 - 7/25/2003 1:35:55 PM
Race traitor is a good, if less colorful way to put it. Uncle Tom is the commonly used term. I am sure that Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly don't like being called Uncle Toms or race traitors. But that's what they are, in my opinion. Clarence Thomas couldn't have done more to distance himself from his race. He weaseled himself into Yale Law School by affirmative action, joined the GOP, not just a Black Republican like Senator Brooke of Massachusetts, but a right wing Reaganite, was appointed head of the EEOC and attempted to sabotage its efforts to end discrimination, married a white woman and was appointed by George Bush as perhaps the least qualified member of the Supreme Court in modern history where he voted with the minority against affirmative action at University of Michigan. The majority of blacks consider him an Uncle Tom or as you put it "a traitor to his race." Which in my opinion is a perfectly accurate description.
8676. concerned - 7/25/2003 1:37:07 PM
Jay Rockefeller angers Daschle, Howard Dean Staff stunned at Clinton
"He had to have done it for Hillary. They are up to something," says a Howie Dean presidential campaign staffer in New Hampshire. "We can't believe our party's leader would stab us in the back unless there was something more to it.
Imagine that. Their 'leader'(lol) 'stops' Daschole, etal from stabbing GWB in the back and they whine about him stabbing them in their backs. Btw, when have x42 and Hilliary ever not been 'up to something'? Life must be just full of surprises for these LWers with ADD attention spans.
8677. Wombat - 7/25/2003 1:40:24 PM
So a black who marries a white is a traitor to his/her race?
8678. Daniel Sickles - 7/25/2003 1:44:11 PM
married a white woman
It's like peeling one very large bigot onion.
On that note, Daniel Sickles, race traitor (I truck with non-Puerto Ricans) bids you a fine weekend.
8679. concerned - 7/25/2003 1:45:30 PM
He weaseled himself into Yale Law School by affirmative action.......married a white woman.....
Democrats are no doubt thankful that they can call on Robert Byrd for advice on these types of cases.
8680. Edmund Dantes - 7/25/2003 2:05:12 PM
This [calling people race traitors] seems to be the way the administration sees it these days, not to mention every Republican you see. If you dissent from their norm, you are branded a traitor and called unpatriotic.
You are such an illiterate stoop. Do you see these words: "in order to remain true to my racial group"? Do you even see them? Do you have any concept of what words mean?
Patriotism has nothing to do with race, you hopeless simpleton. Not every conversation has something to do with you and your over-weening persecution complex.
Wombat: So a black who marries a white is a traitor to his/her race?
Why are you even trying to talk to bonkers about this subject?
"Race traitor" is as racist a phrase as anyone can come up with, short of "nigger lover." It presupposes the idea that one holds more loyalty to people of one's own race than to people not of one's race. Any white historically who supported integration and/or civil rights for blacks was called a race traitor. The phrase resonates with the Ku Klux Klan and their ilk and has much ideological commonality with Hitler's Mein Kampf, which treated the terms nation and race interchangeably.
Or in your estimation aren't white folk allowed to make derogatory remarks about black folk?
If you make remarks about blacks based on their blackness, then you are making racial remarks. If these remarks aren't true or stereotype, then they are racist. Implying that Thomas et al must be a certain way or they are somehow "less black" is racist. 8681. judithathome - 7/25/2003 2:10:29 PM
You are such an illiterate stoop. Do you see these words: "in order to remain true to my racial group"? Do you even see them? Do you have any concept of what words mean?
And you can stick it up your ass.
8682. judithathome - 7/25/2003 2:14:37 PM
Not every conversation has something to do with you and your over-weening persecution complex.
And not every remark I make has anything to do with you, either. I don't spend my days waiting for you to pounce; I made one remark and here you come, jumping in to sling the shit.
You make me sick...you are like some old man who waits to peek at little girls as they walk home from school. You're truly sick....get a friggin' life and give up this obsession you have with the Mote in general and with me in particular. It's unseemly and just a lot crazy.
8683. arkymalarky - 7/25/2003 3:26:36 PM
I won't argue with Wombat's point. I'm not very PC when it comes to stuff being said, considering all the piles I've read through the years here, many from the ones squealing loudest about racism. The racist label Mr. Sickles is so fond of flinging around is idiotic to anyone who knows what the terms mean.
As someone who is not black, the only person among conservative Republicans I see as fitting the labels (however PC you choose them--race traitor's as good as any, I guess) would be Clarence Thomas, because he took advantage of all the ways he could benefit from race and then didn't support the same for others. Colin Powell hasn't been a wallflower about racial issues, including Affirmative Action, and, though to a lesser degree, neither has Condoleeza Rice. There are issues that are racial issues--AA, fair housing, etc etc. To pretend they're not is ridiculous. Take any other group--gays, women, Native Americans, whatever--and if they do the same as Clarence Thomas in their respective groups then it's the same thing.
The fact of the continued issues of importance to African Americans necessitates an amount of unity, just like with any other group that is working toward more fair and equitable status.
8684. arkymalarky - 7/25/2003 3:27:00 PM
I really like seeing the issue of returning voting rights to felons who've served their time get some attention and state laws changing as a result. The percentage of incarcerated black Americans makes that an important racial issue. Closing the achievement gap is another one, and the focus of black Americans on resegregation and neglect of public schools in mostly black areas of various states is another legitimate issue that blacks would naturally expect a certain amount of racial unity on, just like rural people are working on the same page with school reform in AR. You don't sit in rural AR and suggest that consolidation might not be such a bad thing afterall without getting an earful and being labeled a traitor to your comrades. Fair or not, it's the way the game has to be played when you're the minority in a democracy or your group gets nowhere. It's only natural for people in your interest group to see you in a hostile manner if they sense you're making gains at their expense.
8685. marjoribanks - 7/25/2003 3:30:31 PM
This particular variety of name-calling, among these participants, is deathly boring, like watching a game of no-stakes poker.
Having said that, it is a bit strange to see Mr. Pickles once again assume the judge's mantle, this time in the category of 'who is a racist'.
Not surprising, since the little circle-jerk loves to mount their baboon Inquisitions.
Strange. Because Mr. Pickles' companion, the gibbering ApeofHades, is the most inarguably bigoted, most transparently racist, poster who has participated in this forum for years.
Mr. Pickles will torture the definition of the word 'racist' to shoehorn in Wonkers, yet the Puerto Rican in him is silent to the unending flow of much, much, worse from the ApeofHades.
Even by the gutter-level record of the circle-jerk, the double standard is glaring. And that is the last I shall say on the matter.
---
To the specifics of Powell and Rice, I find the implied criticisms quite inappropriate. Rice integrated a school, has spoken out clearly on matters like affirmative action, and cannot be remotely placed in the same category as Clarence Thomas. Powell, similarly, has distinguished himself among his Repub contemporaries time and again on matters related to inclusion. I suggest a reading of his speech at the Republican convention in 2000 - this is a man of principle.
8686. marjoribanks - 7/25/2003 3:31:47 PM
cross-post.
8687. wonkers2 - 7/25/2003 3:33:14 PM
Wombat, as you are wont to do, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. When I typed the words I knew you'd come back with that simplistic comment. No, of course, a black or a white marrying someone of another race is not being a traitor to one's race. But in Thomas's case, it's part of a pattern of withdrawal from and denial of his blackness. He could have gone to Howard Law School, joined the NAACP and the Democratic Party, supported the civil rights movement and married a Black woman. He chose to do otherwise. That's his privilege. The fact that he married a white woman is not a problem for me or an indication of anything other than the fact that he met and fell in love with and married someone who I have no doubt is a very nice person, albeit probably not a good judge of character. Thomas may also be a nice person, pathetic but nice but in way over his head. It was a travesty for George Bush I to appoint him to fill Thurgood Marshall's seat on the Supreme Court. Thomas is against nearly every thing Marshall stood for. That's why many Blacks hate Thomas and few have any respect for him.
8688. marjoribanks - 7/25/2003 3:37:15 PM
I suggest that this matter be dropped. It is distasteful to watch both sides of the silly debate, and no one - including Mr. Pickles - thinks that Wonkers is racist.
8689. Wombat - 7/25/2003 3:46:21 PM
Wonkers:
If you knew that I--and of course the less liberal posters on this thread--would react that way, why on earth did you say it in the first place?
As to Thomas' character and qualifications, and the circumstances of his education and career, I am in complete agreement with you. He was and is manifestly unfit to be a supreme court justice, and was only appointed because he was black (ie, a token). His actions and writings on the bench are a disgrace and an insult to the man he succeeded.
And yet, Wonkers, you describe measures of what constitutes "blackness" that I find condescending--at best.
8690. PelleNilsson - 7/25/2003 4:24:03 PM
I agree with marj. This is a silly, pointless discussion which is fueled by Daniel for his own amusement.
8691. jexster - 7/25/2003 4:34:28 PM
The Know-Nothing Congress:
What the Republicans Don't Want You To Know About Old Yellowcake's Iraq
Last week, as brows furrowed and evasions spread about uranium cake, aluminum tubes, and the 16 words in the State of the Union address—all issues that feed into the larger, and more politically damaging, question of why we went to war in Iraq—the U.S. Senate held a three-day debate over the military budget, during which the Republican majority bluntly quashed seven separate attempts to require, or even simply seek, answers to these increasingly intriguing puzzles
8692. jexster -7/25/2003 4:37:03 PM The Cost of War Counter: An Up to the Millisecond Count of the Cost of Yellowcake's Big Adventure
Now >$70,000,000,000
8693. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/25/2003 4:48:20 PM
Pickles and Mount-me-with-with-Crisco can't respond at the moment; they're attending an important lecture on affirmative ejaculation.
8694. concerned - 7/25/2003 5:01:02 PM
Re. 8684 -
Voting rights for felons should not be treated as a race based issue. It should also remain a states rights issue.
8695. jexster - 7/25/2003 5:06:50 PM
Yellowcake Revisionism
let me try briefly to address two of the more commonly-heard ones.
First is that captured in Charles Krauthammer's column this morning. Responding to the many charges of exaggerated or manipulated intelligence, the plea is essentially nolo contendere, no contest. Whether the intelligence was cooked or not, they say, we and the region are better off for having invaded when we did.
I think that for anyone seriously following events in the region, that judgment is still very much in suspense. The truth is that it's too soon to know with any certainty what the long-term results of all this are. But, however that may be, this strips down to an ends justify the means argument. Simple as that.
The means the White House used to get the country into Iraq are quite capable of being analyzed independently from the results of the invasion. Anyone who argues otherwise is really cynical in the extreme.
The other argument is that advanced by Dick Cheney yesterday in his speech at AEI. That was, essentially, this: knowing what we knew then we had no choice but to act.
I agree.
In fact, I said so many, many times in magazine articles and in these virtual pages. But Cheney's is only an attempt to retrospectively distort the debate to such an extent that the choice was one between doing nothing and launching the war with only one significant ally in March 2003. (And, no, don't even try to tell me about Poland and Spain.) Cheney is simply trying to pitch the ludicrous notion that everyone who doesn't drink the neocon Kool-Aid spends their spare moments teary-eyed over the rough shake Saddam got growing up on the mean streets of Tikrit.
-- Josh Marshall
8696. concerned - 7/25/2003 5:07:15 PM
Re. 8690 -
You're wrong. Neither political party, nor its members & representatives has a special dispensation to make racialist, if not actually racist comments based on ethnic or social groups and expect to avoid criticism for it.
I maintain that African Americans are no less individuals than you or I and should not be required to kowtow to some political party's agenda wrt their ethnic backgrounds any more than someone of, say, Asian background, particularly given the Democrat Party's filthy, reprehensible record in that area.
8697. jexster - 7/25/2003 5:19:45 PM
Frankly TD, California, the heart of the anti-asian racism in this country was an overwhelmingly Republican State.
Likewise California's recent anti-immigrant wave was led by republicans.
Your choice of "kowtow" was revealing.
BTW, the Cyberpatrol on my 9 year old nephew's computer will not let me access either this or the Conflict Thread.
REASON: Hate Speech
8698. jexster - 7/25/2003 5:29:35 PM
What WOULD Old Yellercake say TD!
Watching BushCo Crumble
Ratings slipping, economy tanking, lies spiraling, credibility shot. Try not to cheer
(By Mark Morford)
This is what happens when it's all a house of cards.
This is what happens when you build your entire presidency on an intricate network of aww-shucks glibness and bad hair and cronyism and corporate fellatio and warmongering and sham enemies and economy-gutting policies and endless blank-eyed smirks that tell the world, every single day, whelp, sure 'nuff, the U.S. is full of it.
8699. arkymalarky - 7/25/2003 6:11:58 PM
You're right on felons voting, Con'd, but I was pointing out that since a disproportionate percentage of black men are convicted on felony charges it is an issue the NAACP and African-American advocacy groups have taken up.
And read 8684 again, very slowly and carefully, all the way to the end. As one who's always belonged to the empowered group in this country you can't understand the value of that statement by direct experience, but you should be able to comprehend it. Move to, say, France, and you might understand it a bit better.
8700. arkymalarky - 7/25/2003 6:13:57 PM
When you talk about voting power and political influence you can't have the luxury of looking at things as "individuals." Unless you belong in your particular category. And probably mine, by now.
8701. arkymalarky - 7/25/2003 6:15:49 PM
And then there's the ethics of taking advantage of a policy you then oppose once you've gotten yours, which I find rather despicable.
8702. arkymalarky - 7/25/2003 6:17:40 PM
And when it suits you pulling out your own race and using it once you're legitimately questioned, as anyone should be when issues arise as they're being approved for the Supreme Court, calling the process a "lynching." Wonder why Clinton didn't say that about the impeachment hearings?
8703. robertjayb - 7/26/2003 1:14:27 PM
We need an anti-writing-on-the-flag amendment...
8704. robertjayb - 7/26/2003 1:27:31 PM
US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 8 (Respect for Flag):
(g)
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
8705. robertjayb - 7/26/2003 1:37:37 PM
Fellow Jingos Unite!
Contact your elected officials today in support of a constitutional amendment banning flag writing.
8706. judithathome - 7/26/2003 2:46:20 PM
Looks Like They Had SOME Plans For After The War
8707. Al D - 7/26/2003 3:59:12 PM
I suggest that this matter be dropped. It is distasteful to watch both sides of the silly debate, and no one - including Mr. Pickles - thinks that Wonkers is racist
Perhaps wonkers is not a racist in the sense that he would actively discriminate against blacks. However, he doesn't seem capable of seeing blacks as individuals, but only as members of a political philosopy. When one disagrees with ones views, why bring his race into the issue? If I were to praise Powell, Rice, Thomas and then start calling Jackson racist terms would wonkers call me a facist? I would guess he would. The racist remarks he makes should not be tolerated by anyone, but I'm sure real racists would get a kick out of them. The point being that real racists hate Jackson and Thomas.
And Marj, you're really a bright guy, but you don't know how everyone on the Mote thinks.
8708. alistairconnor - 7/26/2003 4:51:09 PM
I see this as an Individualism vs. Collectivism debate.
Individuals (particularly in the USA) have a right to make their own way through the world, using whatever advantages they can muster (fairly or unfairly), being loyal to, or betraying, their family, their friends, their class, their ethnic group, their generation, their mentors...
Others will prefer solidarity to individual advancement.
Depending on one's political orientations, one will identify with, admire, criticise, abominate one or the other of these two perspectives.
Personally, I decline to judge other people with respect to their choices in this regard, particularly when I am not part of the group concerned. On the other hand, public figures are open to this sort of scrutiny, and it is legitimate for other people to do so.
Where does race come into it?
8709. wonkers2 - 7/26/2003 5:50:16 PM
The only things Clarence Thomas hasn't done to distance himself from his race is have his hair straightened and skin bleached and plastic surgery on his face. All of those things would be his privilege as are the conservative judicial and political philosophy he has adopted. It's also my privilege to repeat what most blacks call him for his actions--an Uncle Tom. He fits the definition to a T as does Ward Connerly. I make no apology to anyone for pointing this out.
And Al D I wouldn't call you a fascist. I try to express and explain my disagreements without name calling against participants in this forum. Or, at least I avoid initiating name calling. On occasion, I do respond in kind. You and other Republicans who think Thomas and Connerly are the greatest thing since sliced bread are free to defend them any way you want. But you could do so without turning logic on its head and calling someone a racist. I have attempted to explain why I think Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom. If you don't think he is why don't you explain why?
Edward W. Brooke, former senator from Massachusetts is an example of a Black Republican, an elected state attorney general who married a white woman, if my memory serves me, who has never been called an Uncle Tom. He would have been a much better choice for the Supreme Court than Thomas, in my opinion. I suppose his age was against him as well as his moderate political philosophy and support for civil rights.
8710. jexster - 7/27/2003 12:38:16 PM
Portrait of a Moron Gone Mental: How Old Yellowcake Deludes Himself (Joe Klein, (Time)
"Lying is witting: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." This is weirder than that. The President seems to believe that wishing will make it so — and he is so stupendously incurious that he rarely makes an effort to find the truth of the matter. He misleads not only the nation but himself. Every worst-case Saddam scenario just had to be true, as did every best-case post-Saddam scenario. Bush's talent for self-deception extends to domestic and economic policy. He probably believes that he's a compassionate conservative, even though he has allowed every antipoverty program he favors to be eviscerated by Congress. This week's outrage is the crippling of AmeriCorps, which he had pledged to increase in size. He probably believes that his tax cuts for the wealthy will help reduce the mammoth $455 billion budget deficit (which doesn't include the cost of Iraq), even though Ronald Reagan found that the exact opposite was true and had to raise taxes twice to repair the damage done by his 1981 cuts. And Bush probably believed, as the sign said, that the "mission" had been "accomplished" in Iraq when he landed on the aircraft carrier costumed as a flyboy. He may even have believed that he was a flyboy.
"
8711. wabbit - 7/27/2003 1:10:12 PM
Watergate revisited: what did Nixon know and when did he know it? Magruder now claims Nixon himself ordered the break-in.
8712. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/27/2003 6:54:01 PM
8713. Edmund Dantes - 7/27/2003 10:19:05 PM
WhifferO'Whimsies:
I like this one better, hoss...
8714. ronski - 7/27/2003 10:53:49 PM
alistair,
SVP, define "fairly" and "unfairly."
These words carry much import in American political debate these days, so I am curious.
8715. jexster - 7/28/2003 12:26:37 AM
If Old Yellowcake is Hiding Something, He Has Something to Hide
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading Republican senator on Sunday called on the Bush administration to release most of the classified portions of a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the sections were withheld only to avoid harming relations with other countries.
Selby Blasts Old Yellowcake For 9-1-1 Coverup
8716. jexster - 7/28/2003 12:41:55 AM
Message # 8676
Glad to see you like Bill Clinton.
Sorry TD, newsflash...he cannot run again...you blew it.
8717. alistairConnor - 7/28/2003 4:44:31 AM
Ronski : Message # 8714
alistair,
SVP, define "fairly" and "unfairly."
These words carry much import in American political debate these days, so I am curious.
What I said
Individuals (particularly in the USA) have a right to make their own way through the world, using whatever advantages they can muster (fairly or unfairly), being loyal to, or betraying, their family, their friends, their class, their ethnic group, their generation, their mentors...
What I consider fair or unfair on a case by case basis (I don't make blanket judgements) is of no relevance. My point is that, according to the dominant ideology in the USA, it doesn't matter where you came from, or how you got where you are : everyone has a right to be judged on what they are (or what they appear to be).
However, I believe that this ideology induces a sort of blindness that can be unhealthy : it implies that everyone is self-made, whereas in reality, a great deal of political power has been captured by more or less occult elites.
So, for example, George W Bush (or Al Gore) would not have got where they were without being their fathers' sons (in any case, I am blind to the natural ability and talent that would have got them there under their own steam). I see no great (moral) difference between this, and the situation of Clarence Thomas, who is where he is by benefit of being black.
As an individualism/collectivism issue, it's quite a complex one : the right, in general, has no problems with the existence of privilege and caste within society; they promote forms of social organisation which tend to perpetuate privilege by inheritance (tax regimes, education funding...) and explicitly hand political power to the rich (political campaign finance regimes, private funding of recall petitions...)
(cont'd) 8718. alistairConnor - 7/28/2003 4:55:47 AM
The left, instinctively, likes the idea of an individual being true to his origins, and representing the interests of the disadvantaged.
So the implicit beliefs of both left and right contradict somewhat the model (or myth) of the self-made man beholden to no-one. This is surely the founding myth, or ideology, of the USA, and is surely worth defending.
The left also supports other forms of privilege designed to counteract imbalances (affirmative action) which sometimes bite them on the arse. Thomas on the Supreme Court is a disgrace because he is way over his head, not because of his political orientations or his colour. Why does everyone make such a fuss about AA privilege, without making the parallel with wealth-based or inherited privilege? Not necessarily out of racism, perhaps simply because it's so much more visible, impossible to deflect attention from.
Nevertheless, the privileged Bush jr and Gore jr are/were way over their heads too (Gore should never have lost such an easy election, he has only himself to blame). This is the true sign of decadence in the US political system. Time for some candidates who owe nothing to an inherited situation, or to major financial backers. Time for a revolution, and the abolition of privilege.
8719. jexster - 7/28/2003 7:45:21 AM
"I like this one better, hoss"
For our international audience, the white red neck form of horse..es muy macho
8720. jexster - 7/28/2003 7:47:32 AM
8721. jexster - 7/28/2003 7:50:07 AM
You know the administration is in trouble when they are already drawing criticism for what was supposed to be a big PR coup, i.e. the killing of Uday and Qusay.
The intelligence community is questioning the wisdom of deploying 200 heavily armed U.S. troops, backed by missiles, armored personnel carriers and helicopters to take out a group of men lightly armed with AK-47s and pistols.
A British intelligence officer told Newsweek, "The whole operation was a cockup. There was no need to go after four lightly armed men with such overwhelming firepower. They would have been much more useful alive."
8722. jexster - 7/28/2003 8:13:50 AM
Just weeks ago, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, made a trip to the Middle East that was widely seen as advancing the peace process. There was speculation that she would be a likely choice for secretary of state, and hopes among Republicans that she could become governor of California and even, someday, president.
But she has since become enmeshed in the controversy over the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to war. She has been made to appear out of the loop by colleagues' claims that she did not read or recall vital pieces of intelligence. And she has made statements about U.S. intelligence on Iraq that have been contradicted by facts that later emerged.
The remarks by Rice and her associates raise two uncomfortable possibilities for the national security adviser. Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false.
Condo Ho Goin Down
8723. jexster - 7/28/2003 8:23:39 AM
Cost of the War in Iraq
$70,784,591,801
8724. jexster - 7/28/2003 8:24:10 AM
I see ya and I raise ya hoss
8725. jexster - 7/28/2003 11:01:30 AM
Bush I vs. Bush II
As the deficit yawns and Iraq becomes a quagmire, old-guard Republicans are increasingly worried about where George W. Bush is leading the country.
Philip Gold, a former Georgetown University professor who worked on Steve Forbes' presidential run, says that when he talks to conservatives about the direction of America under President George W. Bush, he senses a clammy, middle-of-the-night kind of fear. "I am getting more and more a sense across the board of enormous apprehension," he says. "There's this whole 3 a.m. sense of, 'What are we doing?'
"Between this recession that ended statistically but not in real life, and all the little lies or fabrications and falsehoods in Iraq and elsewhere that are starting to add up to one big problem, there's so much diffuse anxiety right now," he says.
8726. jexster - 7/28/2003 11:22:35 AM
A Questionnable Kind of Conservatism - George Will
The administration ... intimates that ending a tyranny was a sufficient justification for war. Foreign policy conservatism has become colored by triumphalism and crusading zeal. That may be one reason why consideration is being given to a quite optional intervention -- regime change, actually -- in Liberia."
8727. jexster - 7/28/2003 12:01:23 PM
Eddie, how many lies can you find in this hoss?
From the White Palace Website:
"The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year. Iraq's regime has
longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups -- there are al-Qaida terrorists inside Iraq."
8728. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/28/2003 12:21:09 PM
Powell's dilemma . . .
8729. jexster - 7/28/2003 2:06:10 PM
You've outdone yourself HOSS
I be butch..I be bad...
8730. jexster - 7/28/2003 2:11:23 PM
Cheney Wraps His Glutes in the Flag
It's not unpatriotic to wonder why Old Yellowcake lied
8731. jexster - 7/28/2003 2:17:52 PM
"Paid for but not bought it appears"
8732. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/28/2003 2:28:26 PM
Jex, a belated thanks for the inspiring links, by the way!
8733. wonkers2 - 7/28/2003 4:25:39 PM
Great link on "Condo Ho Goin' Down" from Jexter in 8722.
Riceroni is either incompetent or a liar or an incompetent liar.
8734. marjoribanks - 7/28/2003 4:56:38 PM
I have my grave suspicions of Condoleeza Rice's pure-ideology-based foreign policy convictions (this despite the fact that cozying up to India is one of her utmost priorities.) Plus, I simply don't like the neocon vanguard who appears to be in bed with her.
However, I must say that this move to switch blame for the Yellowcake mini-storm to her is probably good politics for the WH. For one thing, the buck does finally stop, and it does so at the door to the WH but without any indication of culpability from the real culprits (probably Cheney). For another, there is no chance whatsoever that Rice will be unseated by her critics and enemies within the administration or outside it.
There is no more loyal, 24-hour, foot-soldier for this particular Prez than Rice. No one personally shields him more zealously or with more total attention. Other prominent admin officials are loyal to general ideas, or along party lines, Rice is personally loyal to Dubya.
We've gone over Bush's few attributes before - none is more paramount than fierce loyalty. Rice will not and cannot be brought down by this, and in fact will probably earn even more gratitude from Bush for taking this (absorbable) hit over the Niger issue.
8735. wonkers2 - 7/28/2003 5:32:25 PM
Marjoribanks, did you read jexter's link to today's WP op-ed on Riceroni. She didn't shield the prez very well either by a)failing to read the most recent National Security Estimate or b)reading it and failing to comprehend the significance of the phony story on Niger yellow cake and making sure it was not included in the State of the Union. Moreover, unquestioned loyalty to Bush isn't necessarily such a great attribute. Haldeman, Mitchell, Erlichman, et al were all loyal to Nixon. Rice's job is to tell the President, in no uncertain terms, that he is wrong when he is wrong. Riceroni is the one who for a year or so was babbling about not letting "smoking guns turn into mushroom clouds." So far all we have is one centrifuge buried years ago in an Iraqui nuclear scientist's garden and a bunch of discredited bullshit stories about attempts to buy uranium from Niger or other African countries.
Of course I agree that Cheney is the great malefactor in the story. But none of the crowd look very good at this point--neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Riceroni nor Tenet, IMHO.
8736. jexster - 7/28/2003 5:38:39 PM
Dead So that Little Eddie Dantes Can Feel More Like a Man, Less Like a Hoss's Ass
"The attack [on U.S. soldiers guarding a children's
hospital, killing 3] is a blow to hopes that the slaying in Mosul on Tuesday of Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, would weaken the resolve of Iraqi insurgents. This has been one of the deadliest weeks for American troops since Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1. Of the 104 Americans who have died in Iraq since then, 14 have been
killed in the last seven days... The attacks continue to deeply frustrate soldiers. 'What a lot of people don't understand is that the war is far from over,' said Pfc. Adam Gable, of suburban Washington, D.C., who stood guard outside the hospital tonight. Another private first class,
Higinio Nunez, from Fresno, Calif., said, 'All we want is for people to see that we are here to protect them.' But he said Iraqis 'call us Ali Babas,' a common reference to thieves." TheNewYorkTimes
8737. marjoribanks - 7/28/2003 5:45:23 PM
Wonkers,
I'm in not particularly praising Rice by noting her 24-hr loyalty to Bush, though I admit I find her more palatable than many of the noxious neocons. Your point about Haldeman et al is well taken, though I admit I don't remember if any of those fellows was as close to the Prez as Rice is.
Of course everyone in that administration looks bad in their hyperbolic sloganeering in selling the War in Iraq, with the possible exception of Powell.
Rice can, after all, be nailed for what turned out to be verifiable falsehoods. But in the greater scheme of things, it's silly to be distracted by the petty crimes of the likes of the hardest working woman in the Dubya business.
8738. marjoribanks - 7/28/2003 5:48:42 PM
#8728, having said all of that, is cuttingly brilliant and funny.
8739. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/28/2003 6:48:40 PM
Thanks marj—it's much appreciated.
8740. robertjayb - 7/28/2003 6:49:07 PM
Ya-Hoo! Texas Dems head for border...Again(Houston Chronicle)
AUSTIN -- Eleven of 12 Democratic state senators abruptly left the state Capitol this afternoon and headed for Albuquerque after learning that Gov. Rick Perry was about to call a second special session on congressional redistricting.
The second special session officially began at 3:15 p.m. with congressional redistricting as the only issue in the governor's proclamation. Neither the House nor the Senate had a quorum.
One Democratic senator who asked not to be named told the Chronicle that 11 Democrats were flying this afternoon to Albuquerque, N.M.
The Senate requires two-thirds, or 21 senators, to be present to conduct business, meaning the absence of 11 senators breaks a quorum. The senator said the action was precipitated by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's decision to bypass a traditional Senate rule that requires a two-thirds vote to debate any bill.
That rule, which has been in effect during the current special session, has so far blocked redistricting in the Senate.
8741. jexster - 7/28/2003 7:41:44 PM
Leveraged Lunacy
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is setting up a commodity-market style trading system in which investors would be able to bet on political and economic events in the Middle East — including the likelihood of assassinations and terrorist attacks.
8742. jexster - 7/28/2003 7:49:54 PM
Rove Puts Armadillo Head in Condo's Crib
When Karl Rove wants someone's head to roll, he doesn't hold a press conference, Marge.
No, Rove is more subtle - he keeps his hands
clean by planting leaks with a favored journalist quoting unnamed "insiders" who would like that special someone to disappear - hello Trent Lott!
Rove's fingerprints are ALL over this new "whisper" by Paul Bedard of US News:
"there's growing talk by insiders that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice may take the blame [for Yellowcake-gate] and resign." To make sure Condi gets the hint, Rove even named her replacements: "former Bush administration National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, NASA chief
and former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe, and Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq."
Nine Banded Armadillo - Texas State Animal
8743. wonkers2 - 7/28/2003 8:12:43 PM
Marj, well I can't agree that Riceroni's crimes are petty.
Haldeman was more akin to Karl Rove in the Nixon administration, but even more powerful. I believe he was Nixon's chief of staff. He was trusted more by Nixon than anyone else.
8744. jexster - 7/28/2003 8:35:46 PM
From Nixon Agonistes to Old Yellowcake, A Polarized Foreign Policy
The Bush administration has frequently been described as "more Reagan than Reagan," whether as fulsome praise or as fiery condemnation. Both men are unapologetic conservatives and both are best known for championing an assertive American role in the world, a position Bush came to relatively late in the day and that Reagan had held from the start of his political career. Still, the comparison is misleading. If anything, Bush is more Nixon than Reagan--not because of allegations of deceit, but because Bush, like Nixon, increasingly uses his foreign policy as a weapon in the domestic culture war.
8745. jexster - 7/28/2003 8:37:25 PM
Haldeman was Tricky Dick's COS but less powerful than Rove.
In fact, he was simply Nixon's hatchet man. Nixon had brains. Rove has to supply Bush.
8746. jexster - 7/28/2003 8:39:35 PM
Nixon ordered the firebombing of Brookings and the Watergate breakin...Bush is too busy chatting with God.
8747. jexster - 7/28/2003 8:43:21 PM
Fried Rice
8748. jexster - 7/28/2003 8:44:30 PM
Robert...
Did you see the two op eds in the Sunday HoChron on how Perrymandering is ruining whatever chance Bush had with Latinos????
8749. jexster - 7/28/2003 10:00:26 PM
Old Yellowcake Has No Clothes
The Emperor Who Won't Lead
8750. jayackroyd - 7/28/2003 10:05:12 PM
8737
Haldeman was very close to Nixon, in an utterly subordinate way--including the kind of subordinate who wouldn't execute orders that he knew would be wrong. But Nixon was in charge. Nobody taught Nixon anything. Nobody on his staff had an idea that wasn't ultimately his before it was adopted.
The way Condi looks (right now, anyway) is the spoonfeeder, the staffer who makes the decisions comprehensible. That was a key role early, as Bush needed to be able to sound like he had a clue, and she was good at providing the Cliff Notes version of the issue.
But now when things are complicated, and she needs to fend off Rove, pallitate Powell, deal with Rumsfeld, block Tenet, and still hit good numbers after the speeches, she may be out of her depth.
And, therefore, the president is out of his depth--because she was the briefer he could understand.
8751. jexster - 7/28/2003 10:09:26 PM
Bush: Dumber & dumbing down
The dumbing down of American conservatism -- a phenomenon observed everywhere from cable television to the College Republicans -- accelerated slightly this morning thanks to the Wall Street Journal's online edition, which features an article by engineer and blogger Steven Den Beste. Den Beste's contribution to the debate over Iraq is a rah-rah rant overflowing with banality ("Mistakes will get made, and there will be problems"), clichés ("The Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off") and chest-thumping idiocy ("If an American city gets nuked by a terrorist, things are going to get extremely ugly").
But perhaps editors Paul Gigot and James Taranto deserve credit for inadvertently allowing Den Beste to blurt out what he and other conservatives apparently think about the misleading messages that fomented war: The president and his aides lied from the very beginning, because they couldn't win by telling the truth.
As Den Beste puts it: "We are bringing reform to Iraq out of narrow self-interest. We have to foster reform in the Arab/Muslim world because it's the only real way in the long run to make them stop trying to kill us. So why did George W. Bush and Tony Blair, in making the case for war, put so much emphasis on U.N. resolutions and weapons of mass destruction? Honesty and plain speaking are not virtues for politicians and diplomats. If either Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair had said what I did, it would have hit the fan big-time. Making clear a year ago that this was our true agenda would have virtually guaranteed that it would fail."
8752. jexster - 7/28/2003 10:10:00 PM
More sophisticated versions of this excuse are becoming familiar on the right, where everyone is seeking a plausible rationalization for appallingly poor policymaking. In the meantime, the White House still has much to conceal, as honest Republicans like Richard Lugar have noticed. The Indiana senator, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, complained to NPR that the administration isn't being wholly truthful about the price of the Iraq occupation. They know it will cost tens of billions, he told National Public Radio. "But they do not wish to discuss that," Lugar added. What would happen if the brilliant Bush foreign policy team told us how much their adventure will cost? Why, someone might demand that Bush permit the return of the U.N. inspectors so that our former allies would be more willing to help police and rebuild that ruined nation. Joe Conason.
Lies have consequences.
What a mess.
8753. robertjayb - 7/29/2050 5:56:55 PM
Lord's mysterious ways in Alabama...(What does our First Christian say?)
MONTGOMERY, Ala. July 29 — AP --
Alabama's new governor is trying to persuade voters to approve the biggest tax increase in state history by telling them it is their Christian duty. And for a state in the Bible Belt, that might seem like a winning strategy.
Instead, Republican Gov. Bob Riley's $1.2 billion tax package is alienating even the Christian Coalition and other supporters, who see Riley as a Judas. Riley had consistently opposed new taxes while in Congress.
8754. wonkers2 - 7/29/2050 10:54:22 PM
Riley is an honest man. He's trying, among other things, to really do something to institute some badly needed improvements in education in Alabama.
8755. wonkers2 - 7/29/2050 10:56:18 PM
According to E.J. Dionne on the Diane Rehm show this morning. His opposite number, Grover Norquist, (what a weasley little prick he is!) of course said that Riley is a traitor.
8756. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/29/2050 11:20:50 PM
I found this to be an interesting analysis of Dubya's speechafyin'-lyin' . ..
Bush Dominates a Nation of Victims
By Renana Brooks, The Nation
8757. arkymalarky - 7/30/2050 12:08:53 AM
We were discussing the Alabama governor Saturday in a meeting I went to in Little Rock. I'd gladly trade governors. Ours is currently talking to districts of means about what they will have to sacrifice in taxes if they don't go with his education plan (which of course he has no cost estimates for). He's divided rich/poor and small/large and urban/rural in the most shameless and blatant manner I've ever seen in a public official.
He's lost a lot of his Christian conservative support on moral grounds, as well, and the most diverse group imaginable is working together in opposition to him. It's the first time I know of since a political party of black and white workers and farmers almost won (did in actual votes) the governor's race after Reconstruction and the Democrats forced a turnover and entrenched their power through government changes that divided the poor by race and kept poor in both races fairly disenfranchised from then until the Civil Rights Movement.
Our demographics are so unusual (integrated in my area, almost all white in the northwest and almost all black and very poor in the Delta), that the sheer effort of working together over the physical barriers has been facilitated so much by affordable internet access. The skewed funding that resulted in the Lake View Supreme Court ruling is obscene. I think most Arkansans understand that and that funding and conditions have got to be more equalized somehow.
8758. arkymalarky - 7/30/2050 12:09:14 AM
Having just returned from a regional meeting and having talked to legislators and school administrators and people everywhere, it's pretty apparent that they're talking and working together more than ever, despite the governor's tactics and the Little Rock newspapers' extreme (and hateful) bias, and I think they're doing him more harm than good and alienating people who sincerely believe that consolidation and a broad curriculum are good. They're listening to other information as a result, and we may actually reach some kind of consensus.
Then again, there's absolutely no telling what will happen. This has been the most bizarre and involved situation I've ever seen.
8759. arkymalarky - 7/30/2050 12:10:39 AM
The post-reconstruction group wasn't Republican, btw. It was something similar to the national Populist Party.
8760. uzmakk - 7/30/2050 6:48:18 AM
Arky:
Did you ever read Indispensible Enemies by Walter Karp?
8761. thoughtful - 7/30/2050 1:20:03 PM
Hahahaha. From today's washington post:
"Bush strongly defended his national security adviser, saying she [Rice] was an "honest, fabulous person"...
Perhaps Bush didn't misspeak for a change...fabulous as in of the nature of fable and myth...barely credible, eh?
8762. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/30/2050 1:34:58 PM
Thoughtful! HELLO!!! How are you? All's well I trust?
8763. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/30/2050 3:36:50 PM
8764. arkymalarky - 7/30/2050 3:47:34 PM
Hey Uz! No, I haven't. What's it about? (If you're not around I will look in Google) If it's pertaining to that type of politics I will definitely put it on my list of What I Will Read When I Get My Life Back. I'm always promoting C. Vann Woodward for his fascinating insights on interracial Southern working class politics post-Reconstruction.
Speaking of reading, I've been so wrapped up in this state stuff since January I haven't read anything but newspapers and research and court documents and proposed legislation. I'm finding it totally absorbing and that's scary.
8765. arkymalarky - 7/30/2050 3:58:14 PM
I just looked at the Amazon reviews. It does sound very interesting. What I'm seeing more and more is that you have to go to the grassroots and give them not just a reason to be involved, but the means to be, especially in rural states like mine. It's slow and frustrating, but very doable.
8766. wonkers2 - 7/30/2050 4:25:21 PM
Vote to impeach Bush here.
8767. robertjayb - 7/30/2050 6:17:02 PM
Oh Joy! Two hours of Wallowing in Watergate tonight on PBS
Watergate Plus 30: Shadow of History
Recalling the 1972 “third-rate burglary” at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, and the cover-up that felled a president two years later. Also: the ramifications of the break-in are examined. Interviewees include former White House counsel John Dean; Jeb Stuart Magruder, deputy chief of the Committee to Elect the President in 1972; Watergate Senate Committee counsel Sam Dash; former senators Lowell Weicker and Howard Baker; and journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, who broke the story for the Washington Post.
(7 p.m. on my teevee in central time zone---check your local listings)
8768. wonkers2 - 7/30/2050 7:16:13 PM
And the two-bit jerk whose idea it was is now a radio hero of the right wingnuts!
8769. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/30/2050 8:02:29 PM
. . . snd following Watergate, Gore Vidal on American Masters [here in CT].
8770. arkymalarky - 7/30/2050 8:20:20 PM
G. Gordon Liddy's political mindset is downright scary.
8771. arkymalarky - 7/30/2050 8:22:10 PM
CBS had a great special at the 25th (?) anniversary. I taped it and show it to students and they're fascinated by it, which is unusual for that kind of documentary coverage (and it's rare I show videos, partly for that reason and partly because I often agree).
8772. arkymalarky - 7/30/2050 10:14:38 PM
Well, I didn't think that program was nearly as good as the CBS one a few years ago. Not a lot new there other than McGruder's statement which I'd already heard.
8773. clydefo - 7/31/2050 12:25:57 AM
Admitting that he falsified the nuclear threat to the USA in his State of the Union address, and given that red American blood is flowing into the sands of Iraq, doesn't Bush owe us more than a shrug of the shoulders?
8774. arkymalarky - 7/31/2050 12:46:42 AM
Hey Clyde! Long time no see!
I don't know if he could give more without providing another long string of Bushisms. In a tidbit on CNN they said this was his ninth news conference and that by this time in Clinton's presidency he'd had 33 and Bush Sr at the same point had 61. I can just imagine all the nervous tension among his staff surrounding a news conference.
8775. thoughtful - 7/31/2050 8:39:48 AM
Hey Wiz, thanks for asking...having difficulties with a herniated disk in my neck...seeing neurosurgeon today, though surgery is not where I want to go....hopefully will find out if it's where I have to go. My apologies to all for the off-topic post.
So Bush finally found the backbone to admit that he is ultimately responsible for all the he says and does regardless of what his advisers advise, eh? It only took several failed attempts to blame underlings. It's about time. Reminds me very much of his 9/11 performance of asking Dick where he should go, crisscrossing the nation in AF1, only to have his spindoctors try to cover up for his errant path with the lie that AF1 was one of the hi-jackers targets.
I remember the science times article on how the plane-less skies offered a glimpse at how contrails dissipate...but before they could release the pic, they were required to erase the very apparent path of AF1 flitting around the country. Just another example of the bushies being upfront and open about their administration's performance.
Yup, moral clarity.
8776. RickNelson - 7/31/2050 9:16:28 AM
Speaking of moral.
W's speach regarding same sex marriage has labelled the participants sinners. Furthermore he and Marilyn Musgrave R-Colorado are attempting to amend the constitution to define at a federal level what a marriage is. It's not a couple who make a life commitment, it's stictly heterosexual.
8777. marjoribanks - 7/31/2050 10:05:12 AM
I hope readers of this thread noted the blanket statement of support from Dubya for Condoleeza Rice yesterday.
The politics in the matter were clever. Pin the blame on Rice, who is unassailable in the eyes of this Prez. Then have the Prez stand up and be manly in his total support of his most loyal aide. Presto. Problem disappears.
8778. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/31/2050 10:58:13 AM
She's a fabulous person, so I'll take responsibility.
[Good luck, t-ful!]
8779. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/31/2050 11:03:22 AM
Back to the British press for the truth . . .
The main lesson to emerge from the 50-minute session, the first since the invasion of Iraq four months ago, was how easily the chief executive evaded any serious damage - and how the reporters made it easy for him to do so.
8780. jayackroyd - 7/31/2050 12:58:04 PM
TNR claims that Dean dooms dems.
8781. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/31/2050 3:09:41 PM
Bullshit, Rove is playing coy and Dean is just the kind pit bull to take these gangsters on.
The real terrorists are in the Bush Administration (see below) and the other Dem patty-cakers don't know how to stir the the political base.
US scraps nuclear weapons watchdog
8782. jayackroyd - 7/31/2050 3:17:42 PM
One point of the article is that they can't reach their base, with the House, the Senate and the presidency all marked R. They hold press conferences, but no story is run. They seed the drug benefit into the Medicare legislation, but that's too hard to report.
8783. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 7/31/2050 4:05:51 PM
. . . they can't reach their base
I think that would change, jay, especially if one considers Dean's learning curve—especially compared to Rove's hand-puppet.
The key to it all is a press that doesn't get tickled into cuddly platitudes for Chimp-In-Chief—like in the last election.
8784. robertjayb - 7/31/2050 6:08:16 PM
Bye Bye, John...(USA Today)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Retired Adm. John Poindexter will resign his position at the Pentagon after the uproar over a research project he was overseeing that included a kind of futures market on political violence in the Middle East.
A senior defense official said Thursday that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Poindexter realized it would be difficult for Poindexter to continue in his job after the controversy.
8785. wonkers2 - 7/31/2050 8:33:42 PM
Another Bush fraud exposed---Bush's "Leave No Child Behind" program leaves 55,000 students behind in New York City.
Today's NYT: To Cut Failure Rate NYC Schools Shed Students Here
8786. wonkers2 - 7/31/2050 9:29:01 PM
Bill Maher is on Larry King ripping George Bush.
8787. arkymalarky - 7/31/2050 11:41:52 PM
Little Rock's state "report card" says its dropout rate is zero (their student body is highest in the state, at just under 24,500), but its graduation rate is only %78.1, a full %7 below the state average. I'd love to know how they justify reporting zero dropouts in that size student population and with that low a graduation rate. Must be some real Jethros there. Right. Its college remediation rate is %59. Their average teacher salary is over $7,000 above mine, but only %92.6 of their teachers are fully certified.
To arrive at this level they spend over three thousand per pupil higher than the state average. My district spends below and surpasses them in every category, and there are a number of small schools who do better than we do. And Little Rock has the audacity to be the loudest squawkers about small schools after all the money the state has spent on them. Maybe with NCLB their students will start electing to come out to us at Little Rock's expense. Of course that's when I will look for another profession.
8788. arkymalarky - 7/31/2050 11:46:00 PM
Mentally shift my %'s to the correct spots if they bug you.
8789. jexster - 8/1/2050 8:41:19 PM
Republicans constantly complain that Democrats play the "race card" whenever blacks or other minorities are involved in some political question or nomination or the like. And certainly the charge is sometimes valid.
The striking contrast, however, is with Republicans who now do this in virtually every case, even in the most preposterous instances, without a hint of shame
8790. wonkers2 - 8/1/2050 10:17:23 PM
Well, we find the same thing here in the Mote from Sickie and E.D. Anybody who criticizes Riceroni or Clarence T. or supports affirmative action is a racist. Up is down, black is white.
8791. wonkers2 - 8/2/2050 1:38:58 PM
Bush had all kinds of information linking Saudis, Saudi Arabia and Saudi spies to 9-11 and none linking Iraq citizens or government. Yet we protect Saudi Arabia and attack Iraq. Works for me! Get the latest on the story here
8792. Marc-Albert - 8/2/2050 2:54:29 PM
Oh yeah. All kinds of information contained in a misery 26-page section (out of a 500-page report). What's more, the info is mostly from "unnamed sources". How nice! How convenient!
Strangely, the Saudis want the 26 pages made public. It's the Amurcans who do not want it.
8793. clydefo - 8/2/2003 10:52:13 PM
Since I don't know much about the Arab world, how about some knowledgeable person helping me out on this; has Bush eliminated Bin Laden's Nemesis and handed Iraq, on a silver platter, to the Taliban? Have there been no further attacks on the USA due to a "lay low until the Yankees go home" strategy? Might Bin Laden not want to actually destroy the economic engine of the world? His clan has done pretty well by it. Maybe he only wants to control the Arab world. With the Fall of Iraq, is he well on his way to that goal?
8794. robertjayb - 8/3/2003 1:08:38 AM
Secretary of Education Rod Paige's Houston record under scrutiny...(Chronicle)
Since December 2000, when Superintendent Rod Paige left HISD to head the U.S. Department of Education, some questions have been raised about the district's achievements under his leadership.
Though state test scores improved markedly in HISD's rise to national prominence, other performance measures have not improved nearly as much. And on the new statewide test, the achievement gap between white and minority students is nearly as high in some subjects among high school students as it was when Paige took over in 1994.
One of Paige's most trumpeted achievements was the pronounced decline in HISD's dropout rate in 1996, after the state threatened to revoke its accreditation. But today, the district's "acceptable" accountability rating is threatened because it vastly undercounted dropouts in the last year of Paige's administration, the only year reviewed so far by state investigators.
8795. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/3/2003 12:07:09 PM
Temporary accountability for education in states, but utter unaccountability at The Pentagon . . . forever . . .
8796. jexster - 8/3/2003 12:55:05 PM
It sure took 'em long enough to find their latest wedgie. If it was snake it would have bit 'em.
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: Butch, Butch Bush!
8797. jexster - 8/3/2003 12:59:15 PM
Took a Month to Write a 12 Page Report
8798. jexster - 8/3/2003 2:42:04 PM
A Wee Taste of the Old DoubleSpeak from Old Yellowcake.
"We had a good Cabinet meeting, talked about a lot of issues. Secretary of State and Defense brought us up to date about our desires to spread freedom and peace around the world."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2003
8799. jexster - 8/3/2003 2:51:25 PM
Oldyellowcake With DoubleSpeak Frosting
Euphemism Watch: "Fact Witness"
How the Bushies acknowledge lies.
By Timothy Noah
In the legal world, a witness who has direct knowledge of the events in dispute is called a "fact witness." The term is what Frank Mankiewicz, former president of National Public Radio, calls a "retronym." In simpler times, it was good enough just to call a witness a witness (or, if he actually saw the central disputed event, an eyewitness). But with the advent of the "expert witness," who renders judgments based not on direct knowledge of the disputed events but on expertise in a relevant field, it became necessary to reclassify the old-fashioned I-was-there type of witness as a "fact witness."
A "fact witness," then, is someone willing to vouch personally for what happened. Apparently, that's something a president should never be.
Rice is among those who say the CIA failed to alert the White House. Had the CIA informed the White House of the problem prior to the State of the Union, Rice argued, the problematic 16 words would have come out. Why? Because "we don't make the president his own fact witness." Later, in response to a question, she repeated this. "We don't make him his own fact witness."
8800. jexster - 8/3/2003 2:51:45 PM
Washington culture has always had a difficult time acknowledging untruth. "I lied" is of course beyond the pale. "I was wrong" is marginally acceptable as an expression of Christian contrition, but not at all acceptable as an admission of factual error. Even the gentler "I was in error" is seldom heard. During the Nixon era, the lies flew so fast and furious that it became necessary to say that the president or an aide "misspoke" or, in a more Orwellian vein, that a statement was "inoperative."
Sadly, though, in the Bush era even these starchy euphemisms will no longer serve.
You may only say that the president should not be subjected to the inconvenience of answering to anyone who says that something he says is false.
This rhetorical formulation is a triumph of process over substance. Even terms like "misspoke" and "inoperative" acknowledge, however indirectly, that something is factually amiss. But "the president was his own fact witness" addresses the true-or-false question not at all. It merely states that if something the president says is called into question, the only person who can verify it is the president. There is no truth; there is no untruth. There is only a clumsily drawn organization chart.
8801. jexster - 8/3/2003 5:42:33 PM
Howard Dean: Colorful, Cautious, Fiscally Conservative
8802. jexster - 8/3/2003 5:43:12 PM
Honest w/ above average intelligence.
8803. arkymalarky - 8/3/2003 8:56:07 PM
The national Department of Education is evidently getting the current director of the Arkansas Department of Education. Don't know in what capacity or when or whether it's official. I also have no idea who the governor might select to replace him.
8804. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/3/2003 11:27:08 PM
8805. robertjayb - 8/4/2003 12:37:26 AM
Powell wants more time with family...
WASHINGTON (AP) --Secretary of State Colin Powell and his top deputy have told the White House they will not serve a second term if President Bush is re-elected, The Washington Post reported.
Citing ``sources familiar with the conversation,'' the paper said in a story for Monday's editions that Powell deputy Richard L. Armitage recently told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that he and Powell will leave on Jan. 21, 2005, the day after the next presidential inauguration.
The Post said Powell has indicated to associates that a promise to his wife, rather than any policy disagreements with others in the administration, is a key factor in his intention to serve only one term.
8806. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/4/2003 10:43:12 AM
8807. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/4/2003 11:16:49 AM
"The military industrial Congressional complex is a political economy... it's a self-licking ice cream cone. We take care of ourselves... it's Versailles on the Potomac." [Chuck Spinney]
8808. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/4/2003 11:17:22 AM
Toys
8809. marjoribanks - 8/4/2003 11:52:07 AM
The tipping-point has arrived.
I propose that we set up an in-house futures market like the one being discussed in the Slow Thread. The base question should be 'Will Bush win in 2004?'
I am ready to put in any reasonable maximum amount, all of it leaned towards the answer No.
8810. marjoribanks - 8/4/2003 11:56:07 AM
Someone should be watching the odds at Ladbrokes or some similar outfit.
8811. alistairConnor - 8/4/2003 12:11:43 PM
Actually I had a look this morning, they offer surprisingly few political bets.
Though I'm gratified to see that they have Ken Livingstone as hot favourite to be re-elected mayor of London.
8812. jayackroyd - 8/4/2003 12:13:58 PM
Banks,
The Iowa Futures market is now in the links, after Gallup and Zogby.
8813. marjoribanks - 8/4/2003 12:14:18 PM
I'm struggling against the impulse to open up shop here.
--
You unrepentant leftie.
8814. jexster - 8/4/2003 12:34:45 PM
"Bush is accused of many things - but never of being imaginative." From "The Bumbling Bush" an article linked in the Intl thread
8815. concerned - 8/4/2003 12:56:17 PM
Re. 8814 -
Not 'accused' by your party-line ilk, that is. So, why should anybody care what self-discrediting Demobots say, anyway?
8816. jexster - 8/4/2003 12:56:35 PM
Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta
There was a Buffalo Soldier
In the heart of America
Stolen from Africa, brought to America
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
I mean it, when I analyse the stench
To me, it makes a lot of sense
How the Dreadlock Rasta was the Buffalo Soldier
And he was taken from Africa, brought to America
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
Say Goodbye to the Buffalo Soldier, Pantywaist Porch Monkey - The Washington Post
8817. jexster - 8/4/2003 1:28:16 PM
Say Hello to
"Incredible News" Says Campaign Mgr Joe Trippi - Dean Makes Cover of Time, Newsweek, US News
8818. concerned - 8/4/2003 3:40:21 PM
So, I haven't been tracking these things. Is jexster a Deanybopper?
8819. judithathome - 8/4/2003 4:01:26 PM
No, he's a Bush Whacker.
8820. robertjayb - 8/4/2003 4:53:45 PM
Fritz calls it Quitz...
COLUMBIA (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina said on Monday he would not seek re-election in 2004, a move that will make it tougher for his party to recapture control of the Senate.
Hollings, 81, has served in the Senate since 1966 and said he would retire when his seventh term ends in early 2005.
8821. concerned - 8/4/2003 5:50:55 PM
Foghorn Leghorn calling it quits? Does that mean they're finally going to lower the Confederate Flag he put up over the South Carolina Statehouse?
8822. concerned - 8/4/2003 6:54:27 PM
Hey, Lefties: when is the Democrat Party's Leading Senator, Robert 'KKK' Byrd, finally going to throw in the white sheet?
When that day comes, is Terry (the $18 million Global Crossing crook and DNC chairman) McAwful going to hold a midnight torch parade for the 'Rats' favorite racist, the one they style their very own 'conscience of the senate', maybe burn a few crosses on the Capitol Hill lawn?
8823. concerned - 8/4/2003 6:59:02 PM
"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ, cited in "Democrats Do the Dumbest Things
8824. concerned - 8/4/2003 7:00:24 PM
"There's no great, white bigot; there's just about 200 million little white bigots out there." -- USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux
8825. concerned - 8/4/2003 7:01:42 PM
Ran across the preceding two gems while I was researching Byrd & couldn't resist adding them, since I'd never heard of them before. Btw, you don't want to know what Louis Farrakhan says about white people.
But, hey, they're all Democrats.
8826. judithathome - 8/4/2003 7:05:46 PM
And of course, there are no disgusting Republicans. None. Tom Delay is just a figment of our imaginations...
8827. jexster - 8/4/2003 9:47:51 PM
No he isn't JAH. I was in Missouri City about one week ago. Tom DeLay REALLY does exist!
8828. jexster - 8/4/2003 9:49:01 PM
Or might I have been suffering from heat stroke?
Slate: Put Duhbya on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy
On Dubya's fashion sense: Newsweek also writes up Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the "surpassingly sweet" reality show in which five gay men make over a hapless, fashion-challenged heterosexual. Ad Age reports that the quintet is slated to remake Jay Leno, but in Newsweek, acid-tongued fashion consultant Carson Kressley reveals his dream fixer-upper: George W. Bush. "He wears far too many dark suits with red ties. You've got to look good when you're addressing the nation, for god's sake."
8829. jexster - 8/4/2003 10:09:43 PM
"In a poll released by the University of Maryland's
Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), swing voters - people who consider themselves independent of both major political parties and very likely to vote in next year's elections - were considerably more critical of Bush's handling of Iraq and wider foreign policy than the
general public and more likely to say the president [sic] deliberately misled the public about the reasons for the war. The poll, overseen by PIPA and carried out by California-based Knowledge Networks, found that
an absolute majority of independents believed that both Bush and his administration were misleading when they presented evidence to justify going to war with Iraq."
Poll: Indy Voters Say "Old Yellowcake Duped Us"
8830. robertjayb - 8/5/2003 1:52:22 AM
Everything is political...(Paul Krugman)...(NYTimes)
Across the board, the Bush administration has politicized policy analysis. Whether the subject is stem cells or global warming, budget deficits or weapons of mass destruction, government agencies are under intense pressure to say what the White House wants to hear. And the long-term consequences are likely to be dire.
8831. marjoribanks - 8/5/2003 9:41:05 AM
Is he going to resign as SofS in the event of a re-election or isn't he?
If Powell is indeed going to resign as per the WPost article yesterday, the tipping point has indeed arrived. There are millions of voters (such as myself) who are still in something like two minds when it comes to Dubya's candidature. On the one hand, he has been something of a genuine disaster in domestic politics. On the other hand, his foreign policy team is more competent than any that has been in place for a very long time - even throwing in the continuing mismanagement of the Iraq campaign - and foreign policy will be more important in the 2004 campaign than any other time in recent memory.
Plus, you cannot ( I cannot) make vehement criticisms of the Bushite team as long as the highly competent Powell is somewhere at the heart of it.
Absent Powell, you absent one of the biggest remaining reasons to vote for Dubya. And thus you have something of a tipping point. If the WH manages to spin and manouever so that the announcement is retracted it'll be a big victory. Because if the story is confirmed, I predict (with considerable certainty) that it is the beginning of the end and you can start assessing Bush's legacy as a one-term Prez like his Pops.
8832. alistairConnor - 8/5/2003 10:00:36 AM
Speaking of tipping points :
Is the US economy at a moment of truth?
Has Greenspan lost control of interest rates? Was his control all a matter of charisma and voodoo? Have you locked down your mortgage?
8833. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/5/2003 10:14:16 AM
On the other hand, his foreign policy team is more competent than any that has been in place for a very long time - even throwing in the continuing mismanagement of the Iraq campaign - and foreign policy will be more important in the 2004 campaign than any other time in recent memory.
Sure, marj, but what have they been competent at doing?—setting in motion an automatic process which works blindly to justify attitudes of prejudice, suspicion and hatred despite their declaration of good intentions.
To find the cause of our ills in something outside ourselves, like terrorism or Saddam, that can be spotted and eliminated, is a convenient diagnosis that cannot fail to appeal—they're marketing devices.
To say that the cause of all our troubles is not something inherent in our actions, but rather, in Al Queda's extermination, is a Rovian prescription for wide American acceptance and the very thing that could reelect these corrosive gangsters.
8834. marjoribanks - 8/5/2003 10:42:21 AM
Wiz,
what have they been competent at doing?—setting in motion an automatic process which works blindly to justify attitudes of prejudice, suspicion and hatred despite their declaration of good intentions.
No. That may be part of the domestic fallout, but the test of any administration in any country's foreign policy is effectiveness in projecting power and influence in a manner that serves local and international interests. This is a dynamic foreign policy team, one that is more engaged in the world than any in decades, and that last alone is an extremely positive development. I look to the Dem contenders to promise/guarantee that they will continue to remain engaged, because a slip back to where this country was before will be unforgiveable.
The rest of your post is philosophical, and may well be totally valid. But a prescription to cure those ills would include inducing the people (and leaders) of this country to behave in a manner that no state and no people in the history of the world has behaved. In short, you are accurately critiquing the way of the world, broad human failing that shows exactly zero signs of going away. It is worth bemoaning, but there ain't much to do about it.
8835. jexster - 8/5/2003 10:55:24 AM
The agency's analysts find that they are no longer helping to formulate policy; instead, their job is to rationalize decisions that have already been made. And more and more, they find that they are expected to play up evidence, however weak, that seems to support the administration's case, while suppressing evidence that doesn't.
Am I describing the C.I.A.? The E.P.A.? The National Institutes of Health? Actually, I'm talking about the Treasury Department, but the ambiguity is no coincidence. Across the board, the Bush administration has politicized policy analysis. Whether the subject is stem cells or global warming, budget deficits or weapons of mass destruction, government agencies are under intense pressure to say what the White House wants to hear. And the long-term consequences are likely to be dire.
Bush's Corruption of Governmnent Policy Analysis
8836. jexster - 8/5/2003 11:20:55 AM
More of the same Old Yellowcake...
The United States has warned the Niger government to stop denying claims that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from that country. According to senior Niger government officials, Herman Cohen, a former assistant secretary of state for Africa, called on Niger president, Mamadou Tandja, last week to relay the message from Washington: "Let's say Mr. Cohen put a friendly arm around the president to say sorry about the forged documents, but then squeezed his shoulder hard enough to convey the message, 'Let's hear no more about this affair from your government'. Basically he was telling Niger to shut up."
The warning seems to have had little effect on Tandja. In a televised speech marking Niger's Independence Day, the president called on the IAEA to "publicly wash Niger of all suspicions before the U.N. Security Council."
8837. concerned - 8/5/2003 11:24:20 AM
Powell Dismisses Report of Departure as 'Nonsense'
It's starting to look like the WP was trying to 'create' news and is taking a credibility hit instead.
8838. concerned - 8/5/2003 11:28:13 AM
I look to the Dem contenders to promise/guarantee that they will continue to remain engaged, because a slip back to where this country was before will be unforgiveable.
Chances are marjoribanks will change his mind about forgiving the next Democrat administration (whenever there is one) here.
8839. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/5/2003 3:00:24 PM
" . . .but the test of any administration in any country's foreign policy is effectiveness in projecting power and influence in a manner that serves local and international interests."
Read: Our missiles (dicks) are bigger than everyone else's! Moreover, you can interchange the names of tribal tyrant's throughout history who destroyed (or tried to destroy) previous civilizations with that mind set—only now, the tribes have shareholders who demand absolute fealty of their CEOs.
". . . because a slip back to where this country was before will be unforgiveable."
You mean when this country had a genuine government by the people for the people?
In short, you are accurately critiquing the way of the world, broad human failing that shows exactly zero signs of going away. It is worth bemoaning, but there ain't much to do about it.
That's the attitude-- the perfect response to the rationale of the tyrant: "Squeal all you like, you'll still be slaughtered!" That ought to spread hope and courage far and wide.
8840. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/5/2003 5:02:25 PM
I guess Larry Flynt is starting to learn how the game is played on the right. . .
8841. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/5/2003 5:12:00 PM
. . . and from corporate news . . .
8842. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/5/2003 5:13:13 PM
. . . and other corporations . . .
8843. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/5/2003 5:15:32 PM
. . . and the military . . .
8844. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/5/2003 5:18:59 PM
. . . and innovative entrepreneurs . . .
8845. concerned - 8/5/2003 5:54:55 PM
Re. 8840 -
He's learning not to be a dirtbag character assassin?
8846. jexster - 8/5/2003 9:03:27 PM
Old Yellowcake LIED About Iraq Ties to Al Qaeda
Boston Globe reports, "Shortly after his now-discredited report that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium in Africa, President Bush asserted in his State of the Union address that 'evidence from intelligence sources, secret conversations, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda.'' The link between Hussein and Al Qaeda was a component of Bush's larger assertion that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States -- that 'secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists.' But a review of the White House's statements and interviews with current and former intelligence officials indicate that the assertion was extrapolated from nuggets of intelligence, some tantalizing but unproven, some subsequently disproved, and some considered suspect even at the time the administration was making its case for war."
8847. jexster - 8/5/2003 9:05:05 PM
With the number of CA "gubenatorial" candidates heading toward 400 - has anyone ever voted a ballot with 400 names? - Larry Flynt has announced that Calfornia is ready for a smutpeddler who cares.
8848. ScreamingSin - 8/6/2003 11:07:07 AM
I got this in an email -
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager
....
Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.
anybody else heard anything about this?
8849. concerned - 8/6/2003 11:22:47 AM
Saw this headline on the LATimes:
California Is 'Meanest' State for Homeless
What gives on the Left Coast?
8850. concerned - 8/6/2003 11:34:15 AM
Whoozis left this out of his first line:
...to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
Not everyone should go through life with a litmus strip taped to his or her forehead.
8851. jexster - 8/6/2003 11:40:19 AM
Wanna read "Homlessness in San Francisco - A Policy Evaluation and Recommendation" TD? I'd post but it would take several hundred msg spots.
8852. concerned - 8/6/2003 11:45:18 AM
How about setting up a link to it instead?
8853. concerned - 8/6/2003 11:57:09 AM
Graham crackup or Going negative just doesn't sell like it used to
8854. jexster - 8/6/2003 12:02:31 PM
DiFi
“I am very flattered by the many elected officials, community leaders, and constituents who have urged me to place my name on the recall ballot as insurance should the recall be successful. I want to thank each and everyone who called, especially members of the House Delegation and the State Legislature, who are deeply concerned about our State’s future.
After thinking a great deal about this recall, its implications for the future, and its misguided nature, I have decided that I will not place my name on the ballot.
First and foremost, I deeply believe the recall is a terrible mistake and will bring to the depth and breadth of California instability and uncertainty, which will be detrimental to our economic recovery and decision-making. This recall demonstrates that virtually anyone with $1.5 million can hire professional petition gatherers certain to produce enough signatures to force a future recall of any state elected officials. It sets a terrible precedent which ought to cause us all to think very carefully.
Additionally, it is now becoming apparent that there may well be dozens of candidates on the recall ballot, most of whom have no background or knowledge of the State’s enormous portfolio of issues – whether it be the $99 billion budget, the numerous pieces of legislation awaiting signature or veto by the governor, or the thousands of pending appointments to critical judgeships and important State posts....."
8855. jexster - 8/6/2003 12:03:29 PM
99 cents stores in LA are advertising that they will pay the filing fee for any 99 year old who wants to run
8856. jexster - 8/6/2003 12:08:13 PM
Say goodbye to the Buffalo Soldier...
Fightin on Arrival, Fightin for Survival - The NeoCon Regime Change at Foggy Bottom
8857. OhioSTOPAS - 8/6/2003 12:25:19 PM
In what order are the hundreds (!?!) of candidates to replace Gray Davis going to appear on the ballot? Whoever is first is guaranteed a lot of votes from Davis opponents who will vote to recall and then select the first name they see.
If the order is going to be alphabetical, I want to be Archie Aardvark's campaign manager.
8858. concerned - 8/6/2003 12:57:09 PM
jexster for governor - heh.
8859. concerned - 8/6/2003 12:57:34 PM
Can you fill Reagan's boots?
8860. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/6/2003 1:03:52 PM
8861. robertjayb - 8/6/2003 4:37:09 PM
Your homeland security team at work...Government Considers Lockheed Martin Janitor a Security Risk Because of His Financial Struggle...(Can't trust these goddam poor people...)
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - In 19 years of using his security clearance to sweep floors at a plant owned by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, janitor Michael Lynch has done nothing to arouse suspicion.
Co-workers and bosses speak glowingly of Lynch, a brain-tumor survivor who's active in his church, building homes for poor people in Maine and West Virginia.
But because he and his family have struggled financially, the government now sees him as a threat to national security. Defense Department officials believe the janitor may be tempted to sell government secrets to get out of debt.
8862. jexster - 8/6/2003 8:11:12 PM
Arnold is joining Larry Flynt, Gallagher and a female porn star....
8863. jexster - 8/6/2003 8:31:32 PM
Standing tall before the lofty mast, Hans Blix today denounced Bush's invasion of Iraq as contrary to international law. Claiming that Bush had reasons other than Iraq's alleged WMD programs, Blix said
"Personally, I found it peculiar that those who wanted to take military action could — with 100-percent certainty — know that the weapons existed, and at the same time turn out to have zero percent knowledge of where they were"
8864. concerned - 8/7/2003 1:04:13 AM
The second part of the above quote is clearly self-referential.
8865. alistairConnor - 8/7/2003 5:42:52 AM
You're a liar, Concerned. Blix consistently maintained (2002/2003) that he didn't know whether Iraq had WMD at that time.
If you want to clear your honour, you'll have to find me a quote where he says the contrary.
8866. wonkers2 - 8/7/2003 8:08:12 AM
Blix makes a good point, it's becoming increasingly clear.
8867. judithathome - 8/7/2003 9:21:35 AM
Defense Department officials believe the janitor may be tempted to sell government secrets to get out of debt.
Well, let's just hire a really rich janitor, then. Because several have applied, I'm sure.
8868. jayackroyd - 8/7/2003 11:17:30 AM
So, jexster, what happens if Davis simply resigns? Winning the recall looks increasingly unlikely, and the chaos running up to and likely to follow the election is clearly not good for the state or the party.
8869. concerned - 8/7/2003 11:19:10 AM
Re. 8865 -
Not at all. If I, for instance, accept what you assert about Blix, he could hardly have known where any Iraqi WMD were, thus the self-referential statement.
8870. concerned - 8/7/2003 11:20:19 AM
Re. 8868 -
Will Grayout consider that good enough reason to resign? I doubt it.
8871. judithathome - 8/7/2003 11:21:59 AM
Maybe Arnold knew everyone would leap on his candidacy and he is secretly hoping for Davis to resign so Bustamante will become governor and the recall will be moot...maybe he really doesn't want to be governor but just wants to shape the way things are going without actually admitting to being a closet Democrat.
Hey, it's Hollywood...any script will do.
8872. judithathome - 8/7/2003 11:24:05 AM
Blix is saying he doesn't believe Bush really knew anything about WMDs and if he did, it was pretty shitty not to tell the inspectors...something I agree with entirely.
8873. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 12:37:02 PM
I liked this post from a California blogger about the recall:
"Dude, this is so damned fun. We were feeling slightly down about everyone dumping on us & all, and about that budget thingie, but when . . . we began to digest the prospects of an Arnold-Arianna-Larry Flynt-Gary Coleman race, I mean, people were jabbering excitedly on the streets about this stuff. Or at least I was . . .
"At any rate, this is going to be nothing but fun for the next two months, and though I've always loathed Austrians on principle, Arnold today made me like him for the first time since True Lies.
"What did the war hawks used to say whenever Bush would refuse to rule out using nukes? It's useful to have you think that we're really that crazy. Same goes for California. We're plumb loco out here … and you're jealous. Admit it."
I admit it! All we in Ohio had for political entertainment was the prospect of Senator Jerry Springer, but now that's gone. I'm jealous, Jex!
8874. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 12:40:09 PM
If the California ballot is going to be alphabetical (see my Message # 8857), maybe Schwarzenegger entered in the hope that he could be listed on the ballot as simply "Aahnuld".
8875. jexster - 8/7/2003 12:55:42 PM
We don't know WHAT the CA Ballot will look like. I have heard reports that optical scanners may not be capable of handling 300+ candidates for one race and that punch card machines because they will have to use multi-card ballots, multi-multi card ballots, present a substantial risk of accidental overvoting "Did I vote for Hustler, the Terminator, the Car Thief or the Porn Star?"
And Arnold's entry is making things worse. Now Democrats are taking out papers - Lt.Gov Cruz Bustamente and Ins Commish John Garamendi are the latest.
8876. jayackroyd - 8/7/2003 12:59:23 PM
So jex, i ask again. What if Davis resigns? End of story, right?
8877. jexster - 8/7/2003 1:04:41 PM
Yes I guess. A friend of mine keeps raising that in E-mails and I keep telling him to stop bothering me with the irrelevant and inconsequential. But who knows? I mean really when
the "Terminator" could face off Democratic porn mogul Larry Flynt who has said he will run if polls showed that Californians would accept a "smut peddler" as their leader.
the surreal becomes the real, anything is possible.
For those of us who wish to retain a measure of sanity however, I have to say...won't happen...no way..no how.
8878. jexster - 8/7/2003 1:06:48 PM
One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small,
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all.
Go ask Alice
When she's ten feet tall.
And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call.
Call Alice
When she was just small.
When the men on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving low.
Go ask Alice
I think she'll know.
When logic and proportion
Have fallen softly dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head. Feed your head. Feed your head"
8879. jayackroyd - 8/7/2003 1:09:08 PM
kausfiles is echoing the CA blogger Ohio quotes. Maybe a big free-for-all without the parties is a good thing every once in a while. This is single worst election rule--first past the post with any plurality--that I've ever seen.
If the right to lifers or the vegans can unify around a candidate, you might get a real nut case.
8880. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 1:15:38 PM
Here's Eric Alterman from today's "Altercation" (www.msnbc.com, "Opinion" section):
". . . I do think [the recall] lends material to the argument that God is a Republican.
"I mean, lookit: Gray Davis’ troubles were caused in large measure by a conspiracy of energy companies led by Ken Lay and blessed by Dick Cheney. The idea that any market manipulation was taking place was mocked as ridiculous paranoia by Republican pundits like Charles Krauthammer and William Safire. The recall effort was funded by more right-wing Republican money. And the state’s deficit is smaller, as a percentage of its budget, than is Bush’s even though he refuses to spend anything like what’s necessary for homeland security — something we will all someday regret.
"And what’s the result? Voters will punish the Democrats and hand the Republicans the most Democratic state in America. Great."
8881. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 1:35:55 PM
This is not a parody.
Jon Stewart, quit your job. If this is reality, we don't need the "Daily Show".
8882. concerned - 8/7/2003 2:30:12 PM
Re. 8880 -
Don'tcha know - it was a VRWC from day one. Run with it.
8883. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 2:45:58 PM
Here's a Bush-bashing op-ed. Excerpt:
"George W. Bush has knowingly deceived the American people on the two overriding policy issues of his presidency — the invasion of Iraq and the deep tax cuts.
"Other presidents have lied. Only Bush has repeatedly duped Congress and the public to thwart their exercise of informed consent.
"He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies. Bush's unprecedented pattern of deception may constitute an impeachable offense.
"To date, only the deception in Iraq has brought forth the "I" word. The case for impeachment is materially strengthened, however, when Iraq is combined with Bush's 2001 and 2003 propaganda campaigns to convince the public that tax filers with lower levels of income benefited more from his tax cuts than the nation's richest families..."
What's unusual about this piece is that it's by a conservative, Walter Williams. An honest conservative??? Now THERE's something you don't see every day.
8884. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 3:01:34 PM
You know what? I think the Walter Williams that authored the foregoing piece is a different Walter Williams from the conservative columnist, Dr. Walter E. Williams. THIS is the conservative Walter Williams, who to my knowledge has no problem with a President lying about matters other than blow jobs.
Accordingly, conservative pundits are still batting 100% in backing ANYTHING George W. Bush says and does. And I have not been transported to the Twilight Zone.
8885. concerned - 8/7/2003 3:07:34 PM
Well, we now know that the Lefty WW has no trouble spewing lies about GWB.
8886. jexster - 8/7/2003 3:34:03 PM
GWB makes it easy...he is his own factory of deceit...
The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
--George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
8887. jexster - 8/7/2003 3:34:15 PM
One unanticipated consequence of the Iraq conflict and the subsequent war of words is that intelligence has been made to look stupid – or at least, it has been shown that intelligence can be used in stupid ways. Another consequence, however, has gone largely unremarked: The Iraq war has blown a big hole in the Bush administration's infamous and poorly thought-out doctrine of pre-emption.
8888. judithathome - 8/7/2003 3:48:14 PM
post
8889. judithathome - 8/7/2003 3:49:07 PM
toys
I really like that other number, though!
8890. jexster - 8/7/2003 4:02:48 PM
Message # 8848
A Lexis Search returned the following, and only the following article about the Bush lunatic appointee. There are so many nuts, its hard for one nation's mass media to keep track of em all....
8891. jexster - 8/7/2003 4:04:18 PM
Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
BODY:
THERE is a partial victory in the Bush administration's decision to pass over a controversial doctor as chair of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on women's health policy.
The panel's chairwoman will be Dr. Linda Giudice, .
But the potential for erosion of women's rights remains significant as long as Dr. W. David Hager, an outspoken opponent of birth control and abortion, continues on the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
Hager is a University of Kentucky obstetrician-gynecologist who authored "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now," a book that blends biblical accounts of religious healing with case studies from Hager's practice.
Hager is a frightening choice for more than his simple opposition to abortion under any circumstances. The doctor sought to reverse the FDA panel's 1996 recommendation that led to the approval four years later of the abortion pill, RU-486.
In naming him to the 11-member panel, the Bush administration showed it was more interested in making a political statement than choosing open-minded physicians who make objective assessments on women's health issues.
The damage is done. Hager's appointment needed no congressional approval and despite a vociferous outcry from women's group, was recently formalized.
Attention should move to limiting the impact Hager and other panel members who subscribe to his views might have on women's health policy.
Hager was involved in the Christian Medical Association's petition that called on the FDA to revoke its approval of RU-486. Should this petition end up before the advisory panel, Hager's conflict of interest should make recusal automatic.
.
8892. jexster - 8/7/2003 4:05:36 PM
Take heed JAH....taketh heed and be-est thou restordeth..
8893. jayackroyd - 8/7/2003 4:43:07 PM
8880
You can't let him off the hook that easily. He lied about the budget situation during the campaign,in spades. If you're gonna criticize Bush for that, you need to offer the same criticism of Davis.
8894. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 4:48:15 PM
In his speech today, Al Gore calls the Bushies the liars they are.
"Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.
"Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush Presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.
"Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the Rule of Reason as the best way to establish the truth.
"The Bush Administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process . . ."
And there's much more. A very thorough and justified indictment of the Bush Administration. Give 'em hell, Al!
8895. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/7/2003 4:53:37 PM
Vatt daz dat leetal girleemaan know about eet?
8896. jayackroyd - 8/7/2003 4:54:21 PM
As I predicted, Ohio, the lid is off. Bush is going to be faced, day in and day out with accusations of dishonesty.
Gore should run for nothing, but just keep saying this stuff. Pound it out. The VRWC introduced the notion that it is appropriate and civil behavior to call the president a liar. The dems need to work with that precedent, and just keep that message ringing.
It'll drive him craaaazy. It's their central strategy, and if it is exposed within the news cycle that they're offering up their centrist initiatives "yes, Mr. President but you never fully funded the African AIDS initiative or homeland security or aid for NYC after 9/11 or.... So why should the American people believe that you are sincere in this initiative?"
8897. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 5:10:54 PM
I agree that Gore should not run (despite his qualifications for the office). The 2004 campaign would be 2000 over again, with a revisit to crap like Love Canal, Love Story, and how we hated the smart kid in class.
In addition to calling Bush on his dishonesty (long overdue), Gore's speech highlights what I think is an underappreciated factor in politics: simple factual misinformation on the part of the voting public. For example, I recall 1994 where a ridiculous majority of middle class voters (something like 70-75%) thought the Clinton/Democrat tax legislation of 1993 raised their income taxes, of course false. And I think (Alert! My bias showing here!) the GOP is expert at finding out where the public is misinformed and exploiting that misinformation, if not actually fostering or creating that misinformation. The Bush Administration has been the most aggressive yet in this regard.
8898. OhioSTOPAS - 8/7/2003 5:24:28 PM
I've been a link-posting fool today, but here's one more: some commentary about the Supreme Court with which I agree.
It makes two points I've made before (if not as well):
First, the "strict constructionism" or "originalism" in Constitutional interpretation professed by Justice (sic) Scalia and others on the right wing of the judiciary is a crock, a philosophy abandoned whenever it would prevent the Court from reaching a politically conservative result. Incredibly, even after the outragous activism in Bush v. Gore, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas et al continue to pose as "strict constructionists" and are usually allowed to get away with it.
Second, the view that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits affirmative action or other "benign" race-conscious legislation designed to AID a racial minority is inconsistent with the original intent of those who enacted and ratified that Amendment - original intent that the "conservatives" who take this position ignore.
8899. jexster - 8/7/2003 5:27:46 PM
Speaking Truth to the Empire - Al Gore, Streaming Video
8900. jexster - 8/7/2003 5:33:55 PM
Schwarzenegger Gets Michael Huffington Endorsement
8901. jexster - 8/7/2003 5:39:56 PM
"I thank Vice President Al Gore for standing up to this administration and using his position as a respected leader in our party to speak about truth, integrity and real compassion — three values that are sorely lacking in this White House and administration"
Dr. Howard Dean
8902. jexster - 8/7/2003 5:42:11 PM
Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic has gone wrong in our country and that some important American values are being placed at risk. And they want to set it right.
The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem. Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't really happen with this war -- not the way it should have. And as a result, too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way.
I'm convinced that one of the reasons that we didn't have a better public debate before the Iraq War started is because so many of the impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been completely wrong. Al Gore...
Lies have consequences and this has been a Regime of lies.
8903. jexster - 8/7/2003 8:09:10 PM
WHITE HOUSE RELEASES REDACTED VERSION OF CONSTITUTION
Twenty-eight Pages Deemed 'Too Sensitive'
The White House today released an edited version of the U.S. Constitution minus twenty-eight pages that were deemed "too sensitive" to be shared with the American public.
The altered document was "hand-redacted" by Attorney General John Ashcroft using a Marks-a-Lot ? magic marker, the White House said, with the goal of removing the ninety-four percent of the original document that could have adversely impacted national security.
In an official statement, the White House commended the changes, saying, "The redacted version of the United States Constitution is not only a much safer document, it is also a much quicker read."
At first glance, the edited version of the historic document appeared to be missing some of its most memorable passages, including the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
In the newly redacted version, the Second Amendment protecting the right to bear arms climbs up a notch to become the new First Amendment, "where it should have been in the first place," Mr. Ashcroft said.
President Bush, speaking to the nation about the changes to the Constitution, read from a redacted speech that had over twenty thousand words excised from its text, leaving only sixteen words intact.
Moments after delivering the speech, however, Mr. Bush disowned responsibility for those sixteen words, saying, "I have no idea how they got in there."
The White House later released a copy of the controversial sixteen-word speech with all sixteen words blacked out.
In other news, on Wall Street today shares of the Avery Corporation soared on news of increased demand for its popular Marks-a-Lot? magic markers.
8904. jexster - 8/7/2003 9:20:33 PM
A local TV pundit remarked that Arnold was about to discover that life in politics is not like "Entertainment Tonight", but rather "NFL Today".
Arnold's Nazi Problem
8905. arkymalarky - 8/7/2003 11:14:19 PM
The Arkansas Democrat has given him a few hard slaps recently, and they're extremely conservative. I think some of it may be the state political environment and an effort on their part to at least give a hint of an illusion that they're being more balanced.
8906. arkymalarky - 8/7/2003 11:20:24 PM
I thought Al Gore was going to start a liberal newspaper. Is that still in the works?
8907. concerned - 8/8/2003 1:17:07 AM
As I predicted, Ohio, the lid is off. Bush is going to be faced, day in and day out with accusations of dishonesty.
From the lunatic fringe, maybe.
8908. concerned - 8/8/2003 1:39:05 AM
Given Pinocchio Bore's proven dishonesty, I don't see him ever getting traction accusing GWB of same. But, by all means, give Bore all the rope he wants.
8909. jayackroyd - 8/8/2003 9:18:47 AM
Slate has a CA recall FAQ.
No, Davis can't just resign. The recall would take place regardless.
On ordering:
On all California ballots, candidates are grouped by party, then listed in randomized alphabetical order. The randomization process (which involves film cartridges in a lottery-style contraption) might determine, for example, that all candidates whose last names start with the letter "H" will be listed first. But even within the H's, names will be further randomized according to the second letter, and then the third, and so on. Which means hypothetical candidate Hzyzitz might be listed before her hypothetical rivals Hzan and Hart, and recall voters searching through countless names won't have an alphabetical order to guide them.
8910. judithathome - 8/8/2003 9:37:49 AM
Sounds so smart...like they couldn't come up with a more confusing method.
I know, why not just eliminate all those pesky Democrat party candidates? That might make it easier for the Republicans to win.
That's what they're trying here in Texas with the redistricting. Delay wants about 19 to 20 sure-fire Republican districts and the fool isn't aware he already has that. Oh wait...maybe he meant 19 to 20 MORE....
8911. wonkers2 - 8/8/2003 9:37:59 AM
REPORT DOCUMENTS MORE BUSH LIES--
The report accused the administration of compromising the scientific integrity of federal institutions that monitor food and medicine, conduct health research, control disease and protect the environment.
On many topics, including global warming and sex education, the Bush administration "has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings."
"The administreation's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the president, innacurate responses to Congress, altered websites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications and the gagging of scientists."
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan responded "This administration looks at the facts, and reviews the best available science BASED ON WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." More here
8912. jexster - 8/8/2003 11:35:12 AM
And the Lies Just Keep on Comin....
And even Uday and Qusay can't stop the presses...
Since last month, presidential aides have said a questionable allegation, that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium for nuclear weapons, made it into President Bush's State of the Union address because of miscommunication between the CIA and Bush's staff.
But by the time the president gave the speech, on Jan. 28, that same allegation was already part of an administration campaign to win domestic and international support for invading Iraq
8913. jexster - 8/8/2003 11:52:16 AM
THanks for the link Jay..the FAQ answers a nagging but important question that I had as a voter...
Will the randomization procedures apply and the answer is yes by party as usual...
This is very important. To eliminate alphabetical bias, each ballot is randomized meaning the voter will have to sort through however many hundreds of names appear to find the one candidate they wish to vote for.
Another huge mess in this carnival brought to you by the Republican Party, and more than likely, grounds for post recall challenges
8914. jexster - 8/8/2003 11:58:09 AM
Did you know we are spending as much on defense as at the height of the Cold War?
8915. jexster - 8/8/2003 12:06:07 PM
In a speech at New York University, former vice president Al Gore said the Bush administration "routinely shows disrespect" for the "honest and open debate" that produces the truth.
8916. concerned - 8/8/2003 1:11:00 PM
As far as routinely showing "disrespect for the "honest and open debate that produces the truth", Pinocchio Bore is one of the world's leading experts.
8917. concerned - 8/8/2003 1:14:01 PM
Racist Cruz Bustamante throws hat into California gubernatorial ring
Bustamante, whose popularity among Latinos could make him the state's next governor, was addressing an annual awards dinner and scholarship fund raiser for the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. After the anti-black gaffe, about 100 people - 25 percent of the audience - got up and left.
8918. PelleNilsson - 8/8/2003 1:14:34 PM
When will you come up with a new thought, concerned?
Yours truly,
"Hopeful in spite of everything"
8919. jexster - 8/8/2003 1:26:28 PM
This for TD....
Foghorn Leghorn: The Weakest Resident in 50 Years -GreenvilleOnLine
"I'm truly worried about the country's direction... I can tell you this categorically, we've got the weakest resident and weakest government in the history of my 50 years of public service. I say weak resident in that the poor boy campaigns all the time and pays no attention to what's
going on in the Congress. Karl Rove tells him to do this or do that or whatever it is, but he's out campaigning... At the national level, we've got Enron accounting galore. The resident said two weeks ago on page one of his budget report that we have a $455 billion deficit at the end
of next month; that's when the end of the fiscal year terminates. The truth of the matter is, you turn to page 57 of the report and you'll see it's $698 billion. And he admits to a $700 billion deficit, so you can see why the market goes down."
8920. jexster - 8/8/2003 1:31:50 PM
Its not hard to imagine a winning TV ad campaign for Davis...
Shot: Porn Star
Shot; another Gubenatorial Clown
Shot: Arnold in Pumping Iron
Shot: Arnold in Terminator
Shot: Arnold on Late Night Comedy...
Welcome to the GOP Three Ring Circus.
Do they think we're clowns???
"Even in the thought-free environment of late night television, his vague ramblings about pumping up Sacramento and telling the politicians 'Hasta la vista, baby' sounded surprisingly mindless," The New York Times
8921. jexster - 8/8/2003 1:49:03 PM
1984 Arnold stopped by Golds Gym in SF on his way to the Demo convention.
"What does this moron know about politics?" I thought as I shook his hand.
The question then, the question now
8922. wonkers2 - 8/8/2003 2:49:09 PM
What a travesty---Schwarzenegger, an African American midget actor, Larry Flynt, a former car thief and Ariana Huffington! All we need to make the campaign complete is PeeWee Herman. Only in California.
8923. concerned - 8/8/2003 4:02:49 PM
Re. 8918 -
Pulie -
I've come up with more new thoughts than you have probably ever aped from others. Wrt creativity: Have you a design patent? I do, and a number of other patentable ideas in queue. Products based on my telecommunication designs have won industry awards.
8924. concerned - 8/8/2003 4:05:25 PM
Also, unlike mediocre individuals such as yourself, Pelle, I've never supported a policy or position that I have reason to be ashamed of today.
8925. arkymalarky - 8/8/2003 4:21:26 PM
But Con'd, that's because you haven't changed a view on anything since you were about two.
8926. wonkers2 - 8/8/2003 4:59:21 PM
How about Schwarzie's great line on Leno--"This is the most momentous decision I've made since I decided to get a bikini wax?" Give us a break!
8927. jexster - 8/8/2003 5:09:52 PM
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld plans to tell Congress on Monday that he sees “no end” to the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, and will argue that ongoing American control will prove that “our country is better than those other bums” who refused to assist in the war.
Rumsfeld reportedly will refuse to discuss a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq but will pledge that the troops will stay as long as they need to “and not a century longer.”
“We have decided to leave the troops in Iraq until they retire or turn 70, whichever comes first,” Rumsfeld reportedly told aides as he finished a new policy paper to be sent to Congress
New Solution for Troops in Iraq [Soldiers for the Truth]
8928. jexster - 8/8/2003 7:02:50 PM
BOSTON (Reuters) - Billionaire hedge fund investor and philanthropist George Soros this week pledged to donate $10 million to a political action group working to defeat President Bush in next year's election.
Soros, whose $11.5 billion Soros Fund Management is one of the world's biggest hedge funds, has long been critical of Bush administration policies and pledged his personal money to a new political action committee named America Coming Together, his spokesman said.
In a statement, Soros said "The fate of the world depends on the United States and President Bush is leading us in the wrong direction."
8929. jexster - 8/8/2003 7:06:28 PM
LOS ANGELES (AP ) -- Former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth said Friday he will run for governor in the Oct. 7 recall election, setting up a potential struggle for votes with actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fellow moderate Republican.
"Between now and Oct. 7, California voters will be subjected to the same bitter partisanship that too often interferes with getting California to work again. ... Once the campaign has ended, I believe that I will be the best qualified person to get the tough job done," he said in a statement.
Ueberroth, 65, successfully organized the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
He pledged only to serve the remainder of Gov. Gray Davis' term. He is a registered Republican, he said, but will run an independent campaign with a bipartisan team.
8930. jexster - 8/8/2003 8:01:52 PM
"This is the most momentous decision I've made since I
decided to get a bikini wax?" Another ad candidated along with his Today Show "performance" where he feigned difficulty in hearing hard questions such as "California has the nation's only paid family leave, which businesses oppose. What is your position?"
8931. jexster - 8/9/2003 11:41:03 AM
Bush Says Iraq Vital to Job Security
8932. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/9/2003 3:15:18 PM
The Three-Ring Circus called The United States Of America . . .
8933. jexster - 8/9/2003 8:58:00 PM
The GOP CaliCarnival is now over. Now they have to figure out how to campaign becaues the campaign has begun. Things like What is Arnold's position on taxes, on the GOP efforts to cut back funds for child health and education, stuff like that....
Garamendi Pulls Out
Now only Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamente is left but I would say the odds are 60-40 Davis will retain his job.
No more Entertainment Tonight...
Its the NFL Today
8934. jexster - 8/9/2003 8:58:45 PM
Old Yellow buns!!!
HA!
8935. arkymalarky - 8/10/2003 12:51:27 AM
This is what we've been dealing with all summer.
Will someone please point out a fact in the entire piece? A detail? A feature of the governor's plan? A specific fact about his opposition? A specific reference to the Arkansas Supreme Court decision? A bit of data on school performance? One blessed thing of any substance whatsoever?
This is completely typical of the rhetoric he's spent the summer spreading across the state to select audiences, sans the insulting stereotypes of parents and superintendents and anyone who doesn't go with his plan. He's hammered the richest areas of the state on taxation without addressing the expense of his own plan, which if it had a prayer of passing would be extremely high, accomplish little, and fail to meet the court order.
No one is working with him and he's threatening to hold the state hostage by not calling a special session to address this in the fall. He's not even attempting to talk to legislators or educators. He ended the regular session right before legislation he didn't support was passed.
Move over, California. We're rivaling you and Texas for wacko political situations these days. At least it makes it easy for the legislators to work directly with the people, as they have been since the regular session ended.
8936. wonkers2 - 8/10/2003 9:40:33 AM
Gov. Huckabee's op-ed does seem to be heavy on pious generalities.
Michigan is lucky to have a superstar governor, Jennifer Granholm. She's the first woman governor of Michigan. Under her leadership Michigan was the first state to balance its budget. Besides that she's beautiful.
Cap'n Dirty sez "I'd drink her bath water!"
8937. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/10/2003 10:42:30 AM
Ark- Who's paying Gov. Huckster's political bar tab? — or is he just exploiting an opportunity to bash the teacher's union?
8938. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/10/2003 11:00:39 AM
And Now, the Queer Eye for Straight Marriage [Frank Rich]
. . . As President Bush went off to his Texas ranch, even conservative Republican senators like Don Nickles and George Allen were backing away from administration muttering about a constitutional amendment to block state actions on gay marriage — a view consistent with that of Dick Cheney, the father of a lesbian, during the 2000 campaign. In just over a year, Mr. Bush will come to New York to appear arm-in-arm with Rudy Giuliani, who famously bunked for months with a male couple of 10 years' standing during the raucous breakup of his own second (of three) marriages. Should the convention take on gay marriage, it will find itself "focused on a culture war instead of the war on terrorism," says Patrick Guerriero, leader of the Log Cabin Republicans. But either way, it's hard to imagine a more surefire premise for a hit TV show in America, 2004.
8939. arkymalarky - 8/10/2003 12:58:02 PM
Wonk, you certainly hit it with "pious generalities." You should hear what he's been saying about parents and educators and how he's using the subject of taxes to try to scare people to his side, assuming they're motivated by greed and hostility toward rural people (like much of the Little Rock media is, but the rest of the state simply isn't). All with out one scintilla of detail to support him. No one even knows what his latest plan is. If he thinks he's going to trot out what failed last spring and resell it, he'd better get a reality check.
Wiz,
I assume we're paying for it. He's traveled the state all summer. It's all for the children, you know. He's got to try to save us from ourselves, so he's doing his governorly duty and explaining how parents are "living vicariously" through their children's sports teams and the rich are going to be "taxed beyond [their] wildest dreams."
And what passes for a teachers union here, the AEA, supports him. They've never represented the state's teachers effectively and I've been disgusted with them since Clinton was governor. They think teachers are going to get a raise, but his plan doesn't specify anything of the sort. I guess that's all supposed to come later. Meanwhile people who are actually working on proposal packages know raises are a part of the court order and are hashing out how that will be done.
8940. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/10/2003 7:26:55 PM
Ark- I understand, the rich butter his bread and the middle class get to pay the taxes the wealthy can loophole out of—same as it ever was.
Come to Connecticut where a new teacher makes $37,000 to start (I think).
8941. arkymalarky - 8/10/2003 10:07:14 PM
They've got some great systems up there. Vermont is also very forward-thinking about its public schools.
I could go a little over half the distance I go now and make around a $5000 raise (I've turned down offers there more than once, where Mose went to school), but I tried working in another larger school (but still small) where Bob works and spent a miserable year. By October I knew I was going back to my old school. I'll be there as long as it's there and if the governor succeeds in killing rural community high schools, that's where I get off the train.
It's poor kids, mostly black, who're getting shafted around here, and what has everyone in an uproar is that the governor and mostly a handful of legislators and Little Rock columnists are saying what they need is to shut down their rural schools and consolidate into larger ones with a "rich curriculum." If you look at the larger, mostly minority schools in AR, it's not what these kids need at all. They need quality education in quality facilities with quality teachers. They can't afford it, even though they vote for millage increases, because their property tax base is worthless. Some of these schools have student populations who are 95% or more on free or reduced price lunches.
We're demographically segregated for the most part in the northwest and Delta, so there's no integration issue. It's a matter of how to best help these kids. I've worked in fairly poor, integrated rural communities for 22 years and my experience and every scrap of evidence shows these kids do better in community schools rather than being bused miles away to a patched-together district that's still under-staffed and full of problems, where they can't participate in extra-curricular activities and are alienated from their community base, which dies with the death of the high schools.
8942. arkymalarky - 8/10/2003 10:08:10 PM
Our message is simple: Fix their schools. The district that started this has under 200 kids k-12. They sued because they weren't getting a fair amount of help from the state. The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed. Shutting them down now would be like executing a patient who won a malpractice suit.
It's very involved and unpleasant, but also fascinating and exhilarating, because we're working together--working class and middle class people across the state and across political, racial, and socio-economic lines. We've been in it since January, but it will be resolved some way by December.
8943. arkymalarky - 8/10/2003 10:13:55 PM
This group has been a huge blessing to rural Arkansas communities in all this. I'd never heard of them before this came up.
8944. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/10/2003 11:46:06 PM
Sounds like it might help to have a Frontline or an independent filmmaker get the story out nationally. Any good investigative reporters in Little Rock . . . who have nothing to do now that Clinton is no longer on the radar scope?
Exploitation always trumps poverty and ignorance—and how efficiently political propaganda helps people deceive themselves.
Good luck and good battles, ark.
8945. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/11/2003 12:18:04 AM
. . . speaking of Clinton and education . . .
On the eve of the Clinton Impeachment hearings in On the eve of the Clinton Impeachment hearings in 1998, The Sexuality Information and Education Council (SEICUS) sent out "Ten Tips for Talking about the Starr Report with your Children."
"The upcoming impeachment hearing," SEICUS president Debra Haffner advised, "provides parents with a special opportunity to talk to their children about sexuality issues...The question parents need to ask is 'Who do I want to tell my children about this sad situation?' Another child on the playground? An acquaintance on the school bus? They are unlikely to tell your children the facts in a clear way. And only YOU can give YOUR children YOUR values."
It's now 2003 and if the events of these last weeks don't provide parents with that special opportunity to talk to their children about the president and values like truth, lies and consequences, then I don't know what does.
So, with all due credit to SEICUS, here are Tips for Talking about President Bush with Your Children:
8946. arkymalarky - 8/11/2003 12:20:05 AM
Thanks Wiz. I don't know if it has broad national appeal or not. Poor country kids never have gotten a whole lot of attention unless they're exposed to radioactive substances from corporate waste or something dramatic like that, and it's so easy to stereotype them as needing to be citified to be educated and to be able to function in modern society, and to make people who want to maintain the rural community school seem backward and even harmful to them. It's also easy to forget that a lot of well-to-do, cultured, wealthy people live rural lives. People who come from those backgrounds know how wrong the stereotype is, but people who aren't familiar with the American rural lifestyle can't relate--just like they can't relate to anything else that isn't white bread suburban American.
I've been thinking about working on something myself, but I don't know if I can broaden the scope, yet limit the length, in a way that would appeal to a national publication or not. I've written a lot on the subject and may work to combine what I have, or see if I can find someone who's interested in picking it up. I'm up to my elbows working directly with groups and legislators and community members, and now school's about to start back.
8947. arkymalarky - 8/11/2003 12:28:20 AM
There is some refreshing material on the national front, at least. I love getting links from here with a little balance. What's so disgusting about the Clinton situation (and what makes that weblog so funny) is the fact that the righteous folks were determined to have every sordid detail out there in prime time for their children to see. I wonder how Ken Starr explained to his grandkids that Monica's dress was very important evidence. Ugh.
I can't begin to tell you how awful the major editors and op-ed columnists are in AR, whether on local issues or national--knee-jerking, no analysis, accepting virtually any assertions that agree with their own preconceptions as fact, simple, trite, condescending and sanctimonious--it's depressing. I don't read them as a rule, but I have to for this. It's not just a case of me disagreeing with them. I feel that way about the "liberal" ones too, like Max Brantley, with whom I've corresponded. He's actually a nice fella. But to get him or any of them to debate on point and support their statements is an exercise in frustration, and the governor plays on that fact like a harp. It's been like this ever since the Arkansas Gazette was bought out by Gannett and then sold to the remaining state newspaper years ago.
I really wish I could be part of getting another state newspaper going that's really statewide and not just a myopic Little Rock rag. Just a little fancy of mine--sort of my "happy place" when this stuff gets to me.
8948. concerned - 8/11/2003 2:11:27 AM
The district that started this has under 200 kids k-12.
How can there be much diversity in the HS curriculum with that small a district?
8949. alistairConnor - 8/11/2003 5:54:07 AM
How can there be much diversity in the HS curriculum with that small a district?
That's an interesting question, and one of the keys to the whole small school/big school debate.
The arguments in favour of diversity in the curriculum (which requires larger schools) generally come down to efficiency in preparing kids for the work force. The counter-argument is that schools should be turning out kids who know how to think, and who are well socialised and well-rounded : vocational training can come later.
I am a member (though not active) of an association that is campaigning for the creation of a high school in my rural district. It's now been demonstrated that the required minimum of 600 students is easily met. Currently kids are getting bussed out to the cities, to schools of twice that size.
I hope the school can be built in time for my daughters (that leaves five years...) Even though there are certainly disadvantages with respect to the curriculum possibilities. For example, they would almost certainly have to take English as one of their two languages at a small school (whereas at a bigger school they could choose, for example, Spanish and German).
8950. arkymalarky - 8/11/2003 6:33:46 AM
(insomnia strikes--but no work tomorrow)
Alistair's right, that is a central question. The research, especially for disadvantaged kids, supports a more narrow, focused, and rigorous curriculum. The consultants who are conducting an adequacy study for the state advised that our core needs to be strengthened, not broadened. Students need to be trained toward college level work in the basics, even if they don't think they intend to go to college. Ninth grade is too early to make that kind of decision. Tracking usually starts there or even earlier, and a broader curriculum tends to lead to early tracking, which limits students' career options. It also lures them from taking higher level core subjects. There are districts in the state with 100% remediation rates in Freshman English and College Algebra, and more course offerings is the last thing those kids need.
Small schools can still offer a broader curriculum with smaller classes, teachers with dual certification (like me), interactive television (distance learning), cooperative state university and community college programs, etc. In addition, efficient small schools have less administrative cost, athletic cost, facilities cost (less vandalism, need for security equipment, etc), and transportation cost than large ones, and can accomplish more while spending less per pupil than large schools with similar populations (high poverty, high minority, high ESL, high at-risk kids in general).
The high school where I teach has about 150-200, grades 7-12. I taught in a district with 88 students k-12, and it was very effective and efficient.
8951. arkymalarky - 8/11/2003 6:41:50 AM
There's more to the issue in AR, though. Poverty and elementary age students aren't getting the attention they need in all the debate here, and a lot of time is being spent on curriculum and consolidation when poor districts, large and small, need help attracting and retaining teachers, maintaining facilities, getting special help for their at-risk students, etc. The disparity in state spending on districts is unbelievable in AR. You really ought to read the Kilgore and Lake View rulings. The conditions at Lake View were deplorable. We also have a serious problem with excessive bureaucracy in our education system and extreme centralization of control under the governor, which causes all kinds of problems.
8952. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/11/2003 9:34:01 AM
. . . Arkansas Gazette was bought out by Gannett. . .
No student left declined!
8953. jexster - 8/11/2003 12:13:51 PM
No lie left untold!
Old Yellowcake has been working overtime cooking up lies in matters of scientific research....
The Bush Administration has manipulated, distorted, or interfered with science on health, environmental, and other key issues.
Table of Contents - The Joys of Crock Pot Cooking and Crack Pot Science By Old Yellowcake
Abstinence-Only Education
Agricultural Pollution
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Breast Cancer
Condoms
Drinking Water
Education Policy
Environmental Health
Food Safety
Global Warming
HIV/AIDS
Lead Poisoning
Missile Defense
Oil and Gas
Prescription Drug Advertising
Reproductive Health
Stem Cells
Substance Abuse
Wetlands
Workplace Safety
Yellowstone National Park
Details
8954. arkymalarky - 8/11/2003 4:22:03 PM
Wiz, call me paranoid, but I believe the VRWC was kicking in way back then on controlling state and local media. Nancy Reagan was on the Gannett board of directors when they bought the Gazette, and they obviously killed it with purposeful neglect.
The owner of the Arkansas Democrat is a local, but he's never been very impressive with the slant and talent he's had there. At the Gazette's height the only thing most people I knew looked at the Democrat for was to laugh and count grammatical and spelling errors. Their current editor-in-chief, Paul Greenburg, is pedantic, verbose, and painfully dull, and John Robert Starr, their long-time editor who died a while back, was just a blowhard.
8955. arkymalarky - 8/11/2003 4:23:42 PM
I've been really interested in the right-wing conservative buy-out of the media and corporate censorship. Just like everything else, they carried it too far and got too greedy for control, so hopefully they'll get their wings clipped a good bit.
8956. concerned - 8/11/2003 4:29:06 PM
Re. 8955 -
Has your 'interest' actually caused you to learn anything concrete? Or is it just a convenient excuse to slam your political opponents?
8957. arkymalarky - 8/11/2003 4:33:18 PM
Yep. It's caused me to learn that radio stations across the country that are owned by one company were ordered to stop playing the Dixie Chicks and mentioning their names.
It's just what's happening. Look at who owns most of the media around the country. And it was a brilliant strategy, because state and local media isn't that expensive and reach a lot more people in ways that matter to them.
8958. arkymalarky - 8/11/2003 4:40:10 PM
BTW, it's not necessarily lining up the way they intended. It worked for a while, but now social conservatives and liberals with similar interests and concerns about information, civil liberties, etc, are working together on the state and local level. A big part of the reason for that is that true social conservatives are not happy with the pandering of conservative Republicans to the super-wealthy at the expense of the middle class and their values and institutions.
Which is why the school reform battle has shaped up so interestingly. Conservatives in the northern part of the state are beginning to see how difficult it is to get legitimate news out if it doesn't meet the interests of the ones dominating the state and local media. They get some coverage, but it's way out of balance, and speculation and subjective material is being mixed in with news, contributing to the frustrating spread of misinformation around the state. All of a sudden they're feeling what the neglected poor communities have been suffering for years. When the 90+% black school I taught at was shut down hardly anyone came to our defense, even though we were an excellent school. Now that Huckabee has thought he could drive at all the rural schools with a minimum population number, conservatives are fighting with liberals for everyone's schools. Because they're sincere social conservatives and believe small school and community values and local control are important.
8959. concerned - 8/11/2003 5:52:40 PM
Last weekend, a CNN/Time poll showed the Governator in the lead in recall polling with 25%, McClintock at 9% and Simon at 7%.
Guess who was tied for next, along with Arianna,Ueberroth and Garamendi w/4% each? None other than Child Molestor Flynt. There's some desperately ill people on the Left Coast.
8960. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/11/2003 5:57:15 PM
There's some desperately ill people right here on this thread!
8961. judithathome - 8/11/2003 5:57:28 PM
There are desperately ill poeple everywhere in this country.
8962. concerned - 8/11/2003 6:06:36 PM
Haven't you guys heard about 'Running Man' and 'Total Recall'?
8963. concerned - 8/11/2003 6:09:17 PM
But don't even think about 'In Like Flint'.
8964. concerned - 8/11/2003 7:53:18 PM
From AP, Al Franken writes an autobiography & gets sued for plagiarism in the title:
NEW YORK (AP) Fox News Channel has sued liberal humorist Al Franken and the Penguin Group to stop them from using the phrase ''fair and balanced'' in the title of his upcoming book.
Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks a court order forcing Penguin to rename the book, ''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.'' It also asks for unspecified damages.
Fox News registered ''Fair & Balanced'' as a trademark in 1995, the suit says.
Franken's ''intent is clear to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book,'' the suit said.
Calls to Penguin and Franken's publicist were not immediately returned. The book is due out next month.
8965. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/11/2003 8:24:15 PM
What loads they don't even get parody.
8966. wonkers2 - 8/11/2003 10:13:25 PM
What a joke. Fox is like Bush--repeat the lie enough times times and some people will believe it. But keep it up and most people will catch on.
8967. thoughtful - 8/12/2003 10:50:50 AM
Did you all catch this? The GOP, the party of free market capitalism for sure! (So long as they own the market.)
No Crony Capitalism Here!
"The Bechtel Group, one of the world's biggest engineering and construction companies, has dropped out of the running for a contract to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry, as other competitors have begun to conclude that the bidding process favors the one company already working in Iraq, Halliburton."
8968. judithathome - 8/12/2003 11:20:19 AM
But the corps notes in the plan that the first two phases, which together would require about $967 million in investments, would have to be completed by Dec. 31.
Halliburton's competitors worry that if the winner of the new contracts is not announced until Oct. 15, that company could not even begin the work before year's end. The only company that could do the work based on that timetable is Halliburton, its competitors say.
Oh don't be silly...I'm sure they will award contracts to any company which can get over there and have everything up and running about a week after the October 15 announcement...
8969. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/12/2003 1:56:39 PM
On the other hand, the toy manufacturers seem able to exploit opportunity quickly . . .
8970. judithathome - 8/12/2003 3:47:43 PM
;-)
8971. thoughtful - 8/12/2003 4:09:10 PM
I don't throw out my New Yorkers until I read them so they can back up and get very dated. Knowing outcomes ahead of time lends an interesting perspective on past events and reminds me of some of the details I've since forgotten.
Picked one up yesterday from Nov 2000 during the election broohahah about hanging chad and pregnant chad and the old farts both parties trotted down to FL. In this ordeal of "stolen" elections and popular vs electoral votes and "no clear mandate", Bush promised to appoint democrats to his cabinet.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Also had an article about how during the close Nixon/Kennedy race the Rep. so graciously conceded the loss suggesting the Dems do the same this time. An article reminded readers that rather than gracious concession, the Reps claimed it was stolen and fought it by investigating voting in 8 states and demanding recounts. Nope, no revisionist history from the GOP!
8972. judithathome - 8/12/2003 5:23:42 PM
Fox News registered ''Fair & Balanced'' as a trademark in 1995, the suit says.
Hey, concerned, you're really big on nicknames...try this one for size for the people at the fair and balanced network: foxholes.
8973. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/12/2003 6:36:40 PM
TAPPED excerpt . .
WAAAAH. Fox News has decided to sue Al Franken for using the phrase "fair and balanced" in the subtitle to his new book, arguing that Franken's "intent is clear -- to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book." Actually, guys, as anyone can see -- not that you don't already know it --Franken is making fun of you.
Tapped can't figure out which moron at Fox decided this was a good idea. Roger Ailes is surely smart enough to know that the very best thing Fox could do to promote Franken is to sue him. All it does is make Fox look thin-skinned and lame, and inspire discussions about idiocy of the slogan itself.
The filing itself has already provide its share of fun. According to the New York Times, the written complaint -- and that's the right word -- says that "Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality." (Says who? What, do we carry badges now?) The complaint continues, "He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight." Funny -- that never kept Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Geraldo Riviera off the air.
8974. OhioSTOPAS - 8/12/2003 9:04:38 PM
After this brief diversion, Fox News will return to ranting about trial lawyers and frivolous litigation.
8975. OhioSTOPAS - 8/12/2003 9:05:27 PM
If the ancient Greeks could have foreseen what's going on in California today, do you think they would have invented democracy?
8976. arkymalarky - 8/12/2003 9:33:39 PM
They would if they foresaw what was going on in AR. But they would have designed it so that money couldn't buy results.
8977. jexster - 8/13/2003 12:20:28 AM
Letters published in Stars and Stripes and e-mail published on the Web site of Col. David Hackworth (a decorated veteran and Pentagon critic) describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." An American soldier died of heat stroke on Saturday; are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?
The U.S. military has always had superb logistics. What happened? The answer is a mix of penny-pinching and privatization —
8978. jexster - 8/13/2003 12:59:08 AM
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.
The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
8979. concerned - 8/13/2003 11:22:21 AM
A few problems with jexster's bogus little 'study' is that Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists, not right wingers.
And how about monsters such as Stalin, Pol Pot and all the other LWers who were responsible for the murders of 100 million people in the 20th century - the greatest evil in history, btw? This 'study' trying to get them out of jail free?
8980. concerned - 8/13/2003 11:30:12 AM
Notice that jexster doesn't feel that revealing the name or the provenance of the 'study' will stand the light of critical examination.
8981. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/13/2003 12:00:42 PM
. . . Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists, not right wingers.
Hahahahaha—senility rears it's ugly head yet again!
8982. concerned - 8/13/2003 12:03:44 PM
WoW -
Talking about your early-onset Alzheimers again, I see.
Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist Party and fascism, btw, is defined as a variety of socialism.
Got a problem with that, oatmeal-brain?
8983. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/13/2003 12:52:22 PM
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power." — Benito Mussolini
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I don't see any mention of Fascism in that definition or "socialism" in the following one . . .
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Harding of the arteries as well as the heart must be an angry old white guy thing—called oldigarchyism.
8984. judithathome - 8/13/2003 1:00:03 PM
toys
8985. concerned - 8/13/2003 1:08:20 PM
The 'definition' you provided of fascism doesn't help your position because its supposedly defining characteristics are not at all exclusive to fascism, as shown by, for instance North Korea, a Stalinist state.
Fascism grew from and is a variety of socialism because it shares collectivism and strong central control with socialism in general, characteristics that communism also shares.
Nationalism is not a defining characteristic of fascism. Examples proving this are easy to find, even to this day. Look at North Korea, a highly nationalistic Marxist state ruled by a dictatorial autocrat who engages in forcible suppression of opposition.
Sorry, WoW. You're capsized up shit creek without a paddle on this one.
8986. Wombat - 8/13/2003 1:14:11 PM
Concerned:
I'll give you credit for one thing. When you are demonstrably and repeatedly proven wrong on your interpretation of political philosophy, you don't slink away. You continue to parade your ignorance for all to see.
8987. jexster - 8/13/2003 1:23:59 PM
That's what I like about TD too. He knows no shame.
8988. PelleNilsson - 8/13/2003 1:24:48 PM
Hear, hear.
8989. jexster - 8/13/2003 1:25:14 PM
S t a t e m e n t o f P u r p o s e
BRING THEM HOME NOW! is a campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush's inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring 'em on."
Our mission is to mobilize military families, veterans, and GIs themselves to demand: an end to the occupation of Iraq and other misguided military adventures; and an immediate return of all US troops to their home duty stations.
The truth is coming out. The American public was deceived by the Bush administration about the motivation for and intent of the invasion of Iraq. It is equally apparent that the administration is stubbornly and incompetently adhering to a destructive course. Many Americans do not want our troops there. Many military families do not want our troops there. Many troops themselves do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops there.
Our troops are embroiled in a regional quagmire largely of our own government's making. These military actions are not perceived as liberations, but as occupations, and our troops are now subject to daily attacks. Meanwhile, without a clear mission, they are living in conditions of relentless austerity and hardship. At home, their families are forced to endure extended separations and ongoing uncertainty.
As military veterans and families, we understand that hardship is sometimes part of the job. But there has to be an honest and compelling reason to impose these hardships and risks on our troops, our families, and our communities. The reasons given for the occupation of Iraq does not rise to this standard.
8990. jexster - 8/13/2003 1:25:33 PM
Without just cause for war, we say bring the troops home now!
Not one more troop killed in action. Not one more troop wounded in action. Not one more troop psychologically damaged by the act of terrifying, humiliating, injuring or killing innocent people. Not one more troop spending one more day inhaling depleted uranium. Not one more troop separated from spouse and children. This is the only way to truly support these troops, and the families who are just as much part of the military as they are.
Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say "BRING THEM HOME NOW!"
8991. concerned - 8/13/2003 1:27:51 PM
Re. 8986 -
More content free insults from Wombat. Btw, Wombat nobody has 'proved' in any way that anything I posted here about fascism is wrong.
Here, I'll post it again verrr-rrry slowly, so you 1 & 2 digit IQ Lefties can follow:
Fascism is collectivist with highly centralized control, as is communism and other varieties of socialism in general.
8992. concerned - 8/13/2003 1:29:48 PM
Before he developed his own variant of it, Benito Mussolini was a conventional socialist, a fact that shames LWers.
8993. Wombat - 8/13/2003 1:37:34 PM
Concerned...and anyone else who cares:
See Mote Archive, Ideology, posts 578-738, in order to relive your simpleminded conception of political philosphy.
Mussolini was far from a conventional socialist, not that you would know any better.
8994. PelleNilsson - 8/13/2003 2:11:16 PM
It is true that in the early days there was a leftist faction in the Nazi party. It - and its leader Ernst Roehm of the SA - were however purged in the so called Night of the Long Knives in June 1934.
concerned doesn't know anything about these things except what he picks up from right-wing sites that are anxious to prove that the left is behind all evil. Soon we will learn that Djingis Khan was in fact a socialist.
8995. PelleNilsson - 8/13/2003 2:24:29 PM
Or, to take more recent examples: Franco, Salazar, Papadopoulos, Pinochet.
This will send concerned on a frantic Google odyssey.
8996. clydefo - 8/13/2003 2:56:13 PM
Let's not overlook the Fascists determination to impose their strict moral code on all of society. Think Scalia and Ashcroft.
8998. PelleNilsson - 8/13/2003 3:01:56 PM
Soory, pushed 'Post' without anything to say.
8999. jexster - 8/13/2003 3:30:32 PM
Young Stalin was a Russian Orthodox seminarian and about as much a Defender of the Faith as any fascist contemoporary had been of socialist orthodoxy.
Why its even rumored that the leading intellectual lights that illumine our current bunch of idiot ideologues were liberals and even socialists in their misspent youths!
9000. arkymalarky - 8/14/2003 12:02:18 AM
Ya don't say.
9001. wonkers2 - 8/14/2003 9:25:38 AM
Financial wizard Warren Buffett has signed on as an adviser to Arnold Schwarzenegger. This will add a credibility to S's campaign. Another nail in Davis's coffin.
9002. jexster - 8/14/2003 1:00:17 PM
Do not ever underestimate Gray Davis.
9003. jexster - 8/14/2003 1:01:59 PM
Or misunderestimate George Bush and his capacity to lie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55860-2003Aug13?language=printer target=new>The Bush Deceit
It was not just 16 words. It was every word concerning Iraq's nuclear weapons program in George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech.
The president's principal argument for going to war -- to prevent a "smoking gun that would appear as a mushroom cloud" --was based on bad intelligence that was misused while good intelligence was ignored.
Available evidence demonstrates that Saddam Hussein, an evil man who should have been evicted in 1991, lacked a serious nuclear weapons program in 2003. And if Mr. Bush had not held out the threat of Iraqi nuclear weapons "within months," it is doubtful that Congress would have given him a blank check.
How can one conjure up a benign explanation for the president's assertions?
Not for want of trying eh Danny boy?
9004. jexster - 8/14/2003 1:04:44 PM
Conan is doin a rope-a-dope...he's put Buffet out there and in a very bad move, Pete Wilson, and all the while, Arnold has headed for an undisclosed location...
There is a revolt brewing amongst the GOP rank-in-flie, the Limbaugh Legions who do not think Arnold is a true Republican..and they may be right, he didn't vote in the last 3 Presidential elections.
9005. concerned - 8/14/2003 1:14:53 PM
Re. 8993 -
Wombat - You're can't be as dense as your post 8993 indicates, can you? You first paraphrase what I just posted then tried to assert that I hadn't posted it in the first place.
Puhleeze!
9006. jexster - 8/14/2003 1:15:17 PM
BTW, the 10/7 ballot will also include Ward Connerly II preventing the State from collection of race/ethnicity information
Ward Connerly II + Pete Wilson = increased Latino Turnout and vote for Davis...
9007. PelleNilsson - 8/14/2003 1:46:50 PM
Does Wesley Clark, the Nemesis of Serbian pig farmers, stand a chance for the nomination?
9008. OhioSTOPAS - 8/14/2003 1:54:12 PM
Is there a link to the text of the ridiculous trademark infringement complaint filed by Fox News against Al Franken? From the snippets in the press, it looks like Fox is using the courts to smear Franken free of a possible libel claim. (I believe statements in a complaint filed in court are immune from libel.)
As a lawyer, I'm very curious who would sign his or her name to this piece of crap.
9009. jexster - 8/14/2003 2:03:58 PM
Not for President, Veep is an excellent possibility.
I think that is what this is all about.
Death to Servs
9010. jexster - 8/14/2003 2:05:05 PM
Might check FindLaw...
The Abrams Report last night made quick work of the "Fair and Boys" claims
9011. jexster - 8/14/2003 2:06:03 PM
Kerry/Clark
Dean/Clark
Dick Clark?
9012. jayackroyd - 8/14/2003 2:21:37 PM
I guess I'm stupid, but I just don't see how a guy who smoked dope on film, posed naked in magazines, admits to illegal use of steroids and so on and so forth is gonna appeal to the republican base.
I also don't see how he's gonna fight off the various tabloid stories. There'll be plenty of them.
9013. OhioSTOPAS - 8/14/2003 2:31:05 PM
Thanks, Jex. FindLaw (www.findlaw.com) does have a copy (in .pdf) of the Fox/Franken complaint.
Here’s the Complaint filed in Fox News Network v. Penguin Group and Alan S. Franken
Much crap inside, e.g. "Fox News Channel has been dedicated to presenting news in what it believes to be an unbiased fashion, eschewing idological or political affiliation . . ." Hahahahaha!
9014. Wombat - 8/14/2003 2:50:04 PM
Concerned:
I was suggesting that you know as much about Mussolini's political background and the evolution of his political thought as you do about political thought in general, which is not much.
9015. thoughtful - 8/14/2003 3:23:36 PM
Ohio, thanks for the fox link.
I saw this:
"O'Reilly...is inextricably linked with Fox news and the "Fair and Balanced" trademark in the minds of the viewing public."
My first reaction, time for O'Reilly to renegotiate his contract with Fox!
9016. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/14/2003 5:05:20 PM
9017. judithathome - 9/6/2003 12:08:32 PM
I had a letter to the edotor published today:
Move To India
9018. judithathome - 9/6/2003 12:09:30 PM
And of course, it was a letter to the edItor and no wonder they cut the last two sentences!
9019. robertjayb - 9/6/2003 2:17:35 PM
Well done, Judith...
9020. rdbrewer - 9/6/2003 3:18:26 PM
Yes, Judith, that was well done. And good job on the letter to the editor.
9021. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2003 3:34:38 PM
Not bad at all, Judith.
9022. arkymalarky - 9/6/2003 4:57:10 PM
Great, Judith!
9023. robertjayb - 9/6/2003 5:02:24 PM
A tummy-ache for Whistle-Ass in new Zogby poll...
President George W. Bush’s job performance ratings have reached the lowest point since his pre-Inauguration days, continuing a steady decline since a post-9/11 peak, according to a new Zogby America poll of 1,013 likely voters conducted September 3-5.
Less than half (45%) of the respondents said they rated his job performance good or excellent, while a majority (54%) said it was fair or poor. In August Zogby International polling, his rating was 52% positive, 48% negative. Today’s results mark the first time a majority of likely voters have given the president an unfavorable job performance rating since he took office.
Too bad we Dems don't have some flashier horses saddled and ready to ride.
General Clark is hanging out in the barn. hoping to be put to stud without the muddy business of actually racing.
9024. arkymalarky - 9/6/2003 5:20:24 PM
I so agree. I don't think he should even be entertaining the idea at this point.
9025. judithathome - 9/6/2003 5:21:10 PM
In about 5 days, expect those numbers to change and be higher...I'm sure they have some really patriotic things planned for the anniversary. Bush will come out smelling like a leader.
(Thanks for the kudos, people!)
9026. arkymalarky - 9/6/2003 5:24:28 PM
The effect won't be long this time, and if there's none at all he's in a heapo trouble for next fall.
9027. judithathome - 9/6/2003 5:25:48 PM
I'd do a dance if his numbers continued to fall.
9028. arkymalarky - 9/6/2003 5:34:14 PM
I'm really confident he's very beatable in '04.
I'm just not confident Democrats will be able to get their act together enough to beat him.
9029. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/7/2003 4:34:10 PM
9030. rdbrewer - 9/7/2003 4:59:46 PM
And speaking of hate, Wizard:
"IF YOU SAW THE DEBATE THE OTHER NIGHT WITH THE NINE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, I THINK HISTORY WILL SHOW THIS FIELD HAS TAKEN PRESIDENTIAL DISCOURSE TO A NEW LOW. THE RHETORIC YOU HEAR, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, RONALD REAGAN NEVER SAID JIMMY CARTER COULDN'T FIND COUNTRIES IN HIS OWN HEMISPHERE.
"MONDALE NEVER SAID REAGAN WAS A MISERABLE FAILURE. WHEN BILL CLINTON RAN AGAINST GEORGE BUSH, HE DIDN'T COMPARE HIM TO SADDAM HUSSEIN OR THE TALIBAN. WHEN BOB DOLE RAN AGAINST CLINTON, HE DIDN'T SAY HE WAS A PHONY OR LIAR. THE WORDS WE'RE HEARING FROM THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES IS SO BEYOND POLITICAL DEBATE. THIS IS POLITICAL HATE SPEECH."
--Republican Chair, Ed Gillespie on Press the Meat this morning
9031. judithathome - 9/7/2003 5:19:46 PM
Oh please...wipe your tears, Eddie. You act like you never heard of Lee Atwater.
9032. rdbrewer - 9/7/2003 5:27:00 PM
Lee Atwater was a presidential candidate?
9033. arkymalarky - 9/7/2003 5:31:52 PM
Yeah. When the Republicans want to fling feces they make sure they pay good money for it with slick campaign ads and lend it legitimacy by building an entire government investigation around probing for pecadillos.
9034. rdbrewer - 9/7/2003 5:41:27 PM
Your response to a point about how low dem _candidates_ are getting is to talk about Republicans, ads, and investigations? "You're another," in other words.
Okay, well, then, was there a Republican ad where Clinton was called "a miserable failure"? Was Clinton called a liar or a failure in some hearing?
9035. arkymalarky - 9/7/2003 5:45:46 PM
I much prefer direct hits in a debate than underhanded ones funded by big money or delivered using a media monopoly to spread a truth-skew far and wide, such as what is being done here to slam rural schools using false assertions paraded as facts.
9036. judithathome - 9/7/2003 5:54:05 PM
I thought we were talking about what the candidates said the other night...they said straight out what Bush hints about the other side. So what?
Lots of people think Bush is a miserable failure as far as the economy goes...go to any unemployment office and ask those standing in line.
The Republicans can whine all they want but I'm glad to finally see the Democrats getting some spine. If you don't like the message, don't blame the messenger.
And no, Lee Atwater didn't run for president; he just set a rather tall bar for attacking those who did.
9037. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/7/2003 6:19:07 PM
Ha! Bush and his minions attacked John McCain and Max Cleland as unpatriotic and the dupes, like Mr. Brewer swallowed it whole.
Was Bush being more truthful than the Dems?—I don't think so, especially when the attack was direct, forthright and based on the empirical proof of multiple economic and international relations inadequacies this neocon-job administration has perpetrated.
9038. robertjayb - 9/7/2003 6:21:31 PM
And Karl Rove was his ardent disciple.
9039. robertjayb - 9/7/2003 6:26:13 PM
Of Lee Atwater, that is.
Old Lee ended up begging for forgiveness on his death bed.
Too bad.
9040. rdbrewer - 9/7/2003 6:43:41 PM
I think Gillespie's point and mine had something to do with civil discourse in a presidential election.
Seems like Clinton has had lasting effect on the modern Democrat party in the form of a nihilistic, anything-goes, open style of Machiavellianism. Filibuster Article III judicial nominees while calling Republicans "radical." Claim that tax cuts hurt the economy. Refer to the recent coarsening of presidential campaign discourse as "getting some spine." In other words, filter reality and perceive only what you choose to perceive.
Why is is so hard to agree that the discourse is getting too ugly?
9041. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/7/2003 8:09:51 PM
"And speaking of hate, Wizard: . . .
I think Gillespie's point and mine had something to do with civil discourse in a presidential election."
Yeah right, calling Bush a "miserable failure" is "hate" and "a nihilistic, anything-goes, open style of Machiavellianism" is love talk. Save your breath—you'll need it to blow up your date.
9042. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2003 8:27:55 PM
rdbrewer thinks Republicans didn't attack President Clinton during his re-election campaign? All the Dole campaign was about - other than, of course, tax cut promises - was "most unethical administration in history", "can't be trusted", and the like.
The Repubs are now astonished to find out that dishing it out is easier than taking it.
9043. arkymalarky - 9/7/2003 10:00:42 PM
Clinton was far too mealy-mouthed, even though he let Carville be something of a pitbull occasionally. Democrats are much more inclined to sit and take it or quietly obstruct what they oppose if the ramifications are important enough to them over the long term.
Bob has been saying we need a counterpart to Rush Limbaugh. Who knows? If we had permission to own a radio station it might happen.
The main thing the Dems have to do is get on one page with a clear message. There is a lot of discontent among socially conservative Republicans as the party, nationally and from state to state, is showing who really runs the show.
RD,
Tax cuts are like lots of things. Whether they're good or not depends entirely on the circumstances. The deficits and problems with the economy speak for themselves. Bush Sr. wouldn't have promoted a tax cut right now. But as long as the top 1% can entrench their power they couldn't care less. We're having to raise taxes in states and working and middle income people are paying more than they would have without the selfish economic actions of the Bush administration.
9044. arkymalarky - 9/7/2003 10:03:10 PM
The Repubs are now astonished to find out that dishing it out is easier than taking it.
And that's what I hate most about that passle of whiny creeps. They have all the power and want to piss and moan about how they're not being talked to nicely. After all they put the country through just to get Clinton. I'm sick of the to-hell-with-everyone-but-me ethic that has dominated that party since Reagan and I hate to see good Republicans left without any real influence to pull it another direction.
9045. arkymalarky - 9/7/2003 10:14:00 PM
The California recall is a case in point.
Republican leadership had best pay attention, though. They are rapidly losing their base, thinking, as they always do when they get control (and Dems too, I guess--human nature), that they can do whatever they want and still drape themselves in the flag and American values and have social conservatives trotting behind them. In AR, it's resulted in an amazing coalition of people mobilizing against the centralization of control that our Republican governor is trying to maneuver--all with suburban Democratic allies who are too stupid to know better and big business which is too smart--luckily we don't have many suburbanites in AR, but big business is another story. A Rockefeller is Lt Gov.
9046. jexster - 9/7/2003 10:31:52 PM
America needs YOU!
American needs ME!
Bush needs another $87 billion to fight terrorism and that's just this year.
Let it begin here. Let it begin NOW!
"Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say "Why not?"
TAKE BACK MY TAX CUT!
And your tax cut Arky...and you too TD....And that fella over there behind tree tryin to flee....That you Eddie D?
Your tax cut please.
We've FIGHTIN a war on them Evil Terrorist in Iraq!
So let's show some real patriotism.
TAKE BACK OUR TAX CUTS, PLEASE!
Don't forget that It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.
9047. jexster - 9/7/2003 10:34:59 PM
Does Wesley Clark, the Nemesis of Serbian pig farmers, stand a chance for the nomination?
I still don't think so Pelle but Miss Amy Sullivan thinks otherwise and she is PhD candidate at Princeton ...
Washington Monthly: Why Wesley Clark Can Win
9048. rdbrewer - 9/7/2003 11:02:14 PM
Wizard, I'm not running for president. Besides, there was nothing uncivil about my comments. On the other hand, your clever pictures and your comment about me blowing up my doll remove any doubt about your outlook. Speaking of hate, indeed.
Ohio, I never said GOP candidates don't attack. Like Gillespie pointed out, they never used hate filled language on the level of calling Bush a "miserable failure" or comparing Bush to Saddam Hussein. Democrats have never done that either, until now.
Arky, why would you need a counterpart to Limbaugh? You already have NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and PBS. Anyway, the question was whether tax cuts help the economy. The answer is, "Yes." The proof is the 80's. And tax revinues increased wildly. (For the sake of preemption, congress has the power of the purse, and it was Tip O'Neil who drove the debt/deficit deeper, not Reagan, who never got his spending cuts.)
9049. jexster - 9/7/2003 11:44:11 PM
Anyway, the question was whether tax cuts help the economy. The answer is, "Yes." The proof is the 80's. And tax revinues increased wildly. (For the sake of preemption, congress has the power of the purse, and it was Tip O'Neil who drove the debt/deficit deeper, not Reagan, who never got his spending cuts.)
Bull tacos. Up is not down. The sun doesn't rise in the east and tax revenues do not go up when taxes are cut.
They didn't in the 1980's, a point you concede "for the sake preemption) and which Reagan quickly realized when he increased taxes twice (read my lips a third time) and they aren't going to now either.
Source: CBPP GRAPH, CBO Estimates
9050. jexster - 9/7/2003 11:44:32 PM
The Orwellian Claim that the Deficits are
“Spending-driven” and Unrelated to Tax Cuts
In response to the release of the new deficit figures today, House Republican leaders rushed to blame federal spending as the culprit and to absolve the large tax cuts enacted in recent years. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay termed the swelling deficit as a “spending-driven deficit.” House Budget Committee chairman Jim Nussle used the same phrase and explained: “Tax cuts do not cause deficits.…You only borrow money in Washington for spending. These are spending-driven deficits.” a
In fact, deficits are caused by the imbalance between revenues and spending. Under the Nussle-DeLay theory, if policymakers cut spending but cut taxes more, thereby producing a deficit, the deficit would be “spending-driven” because spending would exceed revenues. Under this odd theory, one could cut taxes year after year — or even eliminate taxes altogether — and deficits would still be spending-driven, rather than caused by excessive tax-cutting. This construction of how tax cuts cannot cause deficits and deficits are always spending-driven is an example of what George Orwell called “doublethink.”
Alan Fram, “White House Projects Record $455 Billion Deficit,” Associated Press, July 15, 2003, 1:10pm EST
9051. jexster - 9/8/2003 12:00:33 AM
Speaking of chronic "up is downism", I didn't come to talk specifically about fiscal fibs, but that's one part of what I came here to do.
Must be my lucky day.
Deception, Denial, and Relativism: what the Bush administration learned from the French
George W. Bush has a forthright speaking style which convinces many people that he's telling the truth even when he's lying.
OH HAPPY DAY! When the president said on numerous occasions that his tax cuts--which were essentially long-term rate reductions for the wealthy--would spur growth without causing structural deficits, most experts, again, cried foul, pointing out that both past experience and accepted economic theory said otherwise.
This summer, when it became clear that Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program--indeed showed no apparent evidence of any weapons of mass destruction at all--that the economy was still losing jobs, and that the administration's own budget office predicted deficits as far as it dared project, Bush's reputation for honesty took a turn for the worse.
The White House seemed guilty of what might be called persistent, chronic up-is-downism. By late July, even a paragon of establishment conservatism like Barron's columnist Alan Abelson was lamenting the president's "regrettable aversion to the truth and reality when the truth and reality aren't lovely or convenient."
9052. jexster - 9/8/2003 12:18:31 AM
GOP Orwellian Doublespeak: The End of an Era
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush (news - web sites), who came to office championing "conservative ideas" as an alternative.
A report released on Friday by the Brookings Institution think tank and New York University said the "true size" of the federal work force -- which includes employees for federal contractors and grant recipients -- grew by more than one million, to 12.1 million, from October 1999 to October 2002.
The increase was linked to the war on terrorism that Bush launched after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, as well as to growth at the Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) and other domestic agencies, the report said.
The growth represents a roughly 75 percent rebound from federal work force declines linked to the post-Cold War "peace dividend," which helped enable former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) to declare in 1996 that "the era of big government is over."
"We are now at the end of an era: of the 'end of the era of big government,' said study author Paul Light, who is affiliated with Brookings and NYU.
9053. jexster - 9/8/2003 12:20:59 AM
To the Deep Fat Freedom Fryer with Frenchified post modern deception, denial, and relativism.
In point of fact, CBO budget projections issued in its August 26 report, projections which are considerably more pessimistic than the projections CBO issued just five months ago, projects deficits totaling $1.4 trillion over the ten-year period from 2004 through 2013. These cuts not only assume no new spending demands or programs, they do not even account fully for spending programs and needs that will be likely under current conditions.
A more realistic assessment by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorites using the CBO estimates but incorporatings likely or inevitable costs produces a ten-year deficit projection of $5.1 trillion, with deficits exceeding $400 billion in every year and reaching $650 billion by 2013. Moreover, under this more realistic assessment, the national debt is projected to rise from $4.0 trillion today to $9.1 trillion by 2013. (CBO itself projects in its new report that if expiring tax cuts are extended, a Medicare prescription drug benefit costing $400 billion over ten years is enacted, and relief that lessens the explosive growth of the Alternative Minimum Tax is provided, deficits will total $4.4 trillion over ten years. This CBO estimate does not include several other likely or inevitable costs that are included in our analysis.)
9054. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/8/2003 12:28:48 AM
Hey Brewer, read my smirk!
9055. jexster - 9/8/2003 12:59:07 AM
Uh oh...deficit estimates prepared two weeks ago are already out of date.
Seems spending has increased rather dramatically - again
CBO, the Republican controlled CBO, had thought that Bush's 70 Billion Dollar Baghdad Bungle was only 30 Billion light. On Friday, it was reported that Bush had come clean, add another 30 billion.
By today, Friday's 60 Billion had morphed into 87 Billion...that'll take care of the current fiscal year for maybe another month if we're lucky.
Miserable failure...congential liar...painfully apparent
9056. arkymalarky - 9/8/2003 1:12:48 AM
Arky, why would you need a counterpart to Limbaugh? You already have NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and PBS. Anyway, the question was whether tax cuts help the economy. The answer is, "Yes." The proof is the 80's. And tax revinues increased wildly. (For the sake of preemption, congress has the power of the purse, and it was Tip O'Neil who drove the debt/deficit deeper, not Reagan, who never got his spending cuts.)
RD, when you get to the planet I live on I'll take a stab at this, but your conclusions here simply bear no relationship to reality. In the meantime, name me one counterpart to Limbaugh (meaning his/her own program and format) in the Liberal camp.
9057. rdbrewer - 9/8/2003 1:43:46 AM
Jexter,
Tax revinues increased in the 20's with the Mellon tax cuts, in the 60's with Kennedy's tax cuts, and in the 80's with Reagan's. (Joint Economic Committee, The Mellon and Kennedy Tax Cuts: A Review and Analysis, 1982.) Your static revinue thinking has been well disproven, yet it still lives for some reason. In 1981, ERTA reduced the marginal tax rate by 25%. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced them again.
"High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance." (Joint Economic Committee, 1996.) Recently, for example, in Russia, taxes were lowered to 10% and revinues increased sharply.
All this is long established. Even according to Dick Gephardt, on Press the Meat, "The purpose of tax cuts . . . is to get the economy to grow. If you can get the economy to grow, you will start having more money coming into the government.”
You won't argue with Dick, will you?
9058. rdbrewer - 9/8/2003 1:55:51 AM
Arky, I have no desire to go to planet Oblongata from in the Limbic System.
Bill Moyers.
9059. rdbrewer - 9/8/2003 1:56:53 AM
I love using "from" and "in" as often as possible and right next to each other.
9060. jexster - 9/8/2003 2:40:59 AM
It exists for a very simple reason that even you can grasp. If you cut your income in half, you will find that you have half as much money.
The same thing happened tax revenues fell dramatically as a result of the 1981 Reagan. Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986 one of two tax increases that followed his 1981 cuts. Bush I followed with a third.
The voodoo economics of the Laffer Curve died long ago. That it lives on your mind is remarkable indeed.
Don't take my word for it. George Bush's new Chief Economic Advisor has made the same point (Manikiw, N.G, (2000) Principles of Microeconomics. See also Rosen, H.(2002) Public Finance pp.381-382 (tax cuts are not self financing) Harvey Rosen, a nationally reknown expert in Public Finance, Weinberg Professor of Economics and Business Policy at Princeton, was, as it happens Deputy Assistant for Tax Policy of all things, US Treasury. He worked for Bush I.
For the most exhaustive empirical study of the effect of marginal rate cuts on revenue see Gruber, J & Saez, E. (2000), "The Elasticity of Taxable Income: Evidence and Implications" National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No 7512 - Cuts in marginal tax rates have never been self-financing.
Why the bogus Laffer theory persists in your mind, we can only speculate. Theoretically it is possible that if tax rates that are effectively confiscatory, marginal cuts could produce more tax revenue, in the real world this has never happened in any county other than Romania which had an effective, not marginal, rate of somewhere between 80-90%. (Russia's tax change was flat tax and that increased revenue by eliminating opportunities for tax cheating. Imagine that, the Russian Mafia discovers the joys of capitalist corruption!)
9061. jexster - 9/8/2003 2:48:15 AM
Russia never decreased tax rates. Russia implemented a flat tax because crooked Russian mafioso were playing fast and loose with deductions.
Romania is the only country on earth that has proved your point and that because it had an 80% effective tax rate.
9062. jexster - 9/8/2003 3:09:22 AM
I don't believe Dick Gephardt. I believe Dennis Hastert.
"The $350 [billion] number takes us through the next two years, basically. But also it could end up being a trillion-dollar bill, because this stuff is extendable.”
For details confirming Hastert, see New Tax Legislation Could Cost $1 Trillion
How about one simple picture for all those hundreds of pages....
So you think the Bush tax cuts will increase economic activity do ya? Check back after reading Peter Orzag, Brookings May 2003>New Joint Committee On Taxation Study Finds Negative Long-Term Economic Effects From House Tax Bill
9063. jexster - 9/8/2003 3:18:24 AM
Robert more bad news...Not only have Bush's approval ratings hit their lowest point ever
http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
>CNN Poll: Only 29% Will Definitely Vote FOR Bush, while 41% Will Vote AGAINST Him
CNN reports, "41% of all registered voters say they will definitely vote AGAINST Bush; just 29% say they will definitely vote FOR him. So Bush must woo about seven in ten swing voters"
A POPULAR incumbent???
With only 29% of the vote??? Hello???
Now at 45%, Bush had a 92% approval rating after 9-11, which is when the media declared him Emperor. Now the Emperor is nearly naked - all he has to cover his sorry political ass is a pathetic pair of briefs. Pretty soon he'll be down to a thong, and then butt naked.
America is waking up Robert.
As for the boys, why I think they're kickin back Lone Stars at the ice house and should be mozyin on down to the corral di-rectly.
9064. Wombat - 9/8/2003 9:18:27 AM
Brewer also ignores the role that Federal government spending played in strengthing the economy under the Kennedy and Reagan years. Oddly enough, this didn't happen in the 1920s.
9065. judithathome - 9/8/2003 10:26:31 AM
Bill Moyers??
Oh please, when was the last time you tuned in to Bill Moyers on talk radio, taking questions and getting dittoes from all his rabid ditto heads out there?
Bill Moyers is an actual journalist, not a sportscaster and professional blowhard.
9066. concerned - 9/8/2003 11:00:59 AM
Re. 9050 -
jexster again tries to disprove the truth, giving the LW finger to honesty as usual. There's no way a tax cut amounting to a few tens of billions in each of 2003/4 can account for the deficits, but spending can.
In one way, GWB is a LWer. He's got the 'spend' portion of 'tax and spend' down cold already.
9067. concerned - 9/8/2003 11:10:35 AM
jexster admits that there were six years of budget deficits under Xlowntoon. Who would have imagined?
9068. Wombat - 9/8/2003 11:15:29 AM
Hmm:
Clinton inherited deficits, and when he left, there were none. Bush inherited a surplus, and what do we have now?
9069. concerned - 9/8/2003 11:33:21 AM
For Democrats, it's too bad that Xlowntoon in no way deserves credit for any surplus, however small. It was due to nothing more than the two massive tax increases pushed through by the Democrat dominated Congress in the early '90's followed by the spending restraint of the Republican Congress between 1994-2000.
9070. robertjayb - 9/8/2003 11:43:41 AM
Tonight is a Wesley Clark meet-up night, jexster...better jump on board before the train leaves the station...
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- The Democrat drawing wary glances from the crowded presidential field and forcing some party stalwarts to hedge their bets on endorsements isn't even a candidate yet.
Wesley Clark, the retired Army general with four-star military credentials, is poised to shake up the primary race if he chooses to seek the presidency. Clark has promised to reveal his plans before a major speech in Iowa on Sept. 19.
9071. Wombat - 9/8/2003 12:29:07 PM
Republicans can neither claim credit for the Clinton surplus nor elude blame for the Bush deficit. They strenuously opposed the tax increases pushed by the Clinton administration, and enthusiastically backed the Bush administration's carnival snake oil economic nostrums. When the American voters finally catch on to this, the Republicans and their "experiment" in responsible governance will be on the express train to political obscurity.
9072. concerned - 9/8/2003 12:34:31 PM
Not sure if asking jexster to stop being a Deany-bopper and support Weasely Clark will take.
9073. jexster - 9/8/2003 12:57:51 PM
Well pull down mah old glory panties and kiss mah ass it TD.
Fool us once fuck me, fool us twice fuck you
9074. jexster - 9/8/2003 12:58:59 PM
Allies Not Rushing to Bush's Side
Guess they've the minds we've lost
9075. jexster - 9/8/2003 1:04:13 PM
And I am not irrevocably wedded to Dean. Most real Democrats aren't. We are defined by patriotism, half a brain, a sense integrity, knowin when we've been by a fool, and an unquenchable desire to RE DEFEAT the Bungling Butcher of Baghdad preferably before he asks another 30 Billion to pour down that camel shithole he dug for himself in the Middle of Nowhere
So Wes Clark sure. John Kerry, John Edwards etc anyone that proves she or he can save this country from that Idiot has my vote.
Right now though, the Dream Team is Dean-Clark
9076. jexster - 9/8/2003 1:05:26 PM
taken by sense of...need coffee brain working faster than typing part of it
9077. jexster - 9/8/2003 1:06:10 PM
had by a fool
9078. jexster - 9/8/2003 1:09:08 PM
Iraqis, US Troops Not Cheering Bush's Bullcrap
Guess they don't appreciate him draping himself in dead 9-1-1 bodies for a third September in a row.
Wait till next year when he tries to that stunt on the Street of New York
9079. jexster - 9/8/2003 1:17:40 PM
Even the Associated Press headline writers aren't swallowing his shit any more
London sends in more men as new attacks hit Bush's "terror front" in Iraq
9080. jexster - 9/8/2003 1:28:03 PM
Full disclosure TD...mah bro is for The General but he's been in the South all his life, whaddya expect?
Lives down the road a piece from Ole Robert there...got his own spread two yunguns and missus down near Tom Delay's ranch
9081. jexster - 9/8/2003 1:36:01 PM
Watch out, here's come that billy club wrapped in Old Glory - again...
Rumsfeld: Critics of Bush Strengthen Enemies of US
What an ungodly load of shit
9082. jexster - 9/8/2003 1:44:35 PM
Y'all be happy to know that I am two weeks behind in classes (about 3 books worth) so I gotta mosey
Kiss My Rosey Red Ass Eddie D:
For Bush, Rosy Scenarios Meet Reality in Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s budget director predicted Iraq (news - web sites) would be "an affordable endeavor" and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once declared: "I don't know that there is much reconstruction to do."
Y'all take cayuh heahya?
9083. Magoseph - 9/8/2003 2:33:57 PM
Wombat, I agree with your last post.
I still have to hear any economist tell me how under circumstances of significant plant over-capacity a tax cut for the upper one-percent can conceivably stimulate the economy. The problem that exists today is that, unfortunately for this country, the final decisions are being made by a president who doesn't possess the intellect required for the job.
9084. Magoseph - 9/8/2003 2:46:58 PM
I think that the whole situation in Washington is a lot more serious than the mistakes that have been made by this administration. I believe the American public at large is rapidly coming to the conclusion that the country is being led by people who are not competent and the people are getting very nervous. The rest of the world, apparently, came to the above conclusion some time back.
9085. concerned - 9/8/2003 3:28:44 PM
As far as prosaic 'intellect' goes, GWB rather outscores JFK, and whatever good Cahtuh's and Xlowntoon's purported intellects did them in office is hardly discernable, although the damage due to their intellectual arrogance is multifarious.
9086. Wombat - 9/8/2003 3:43:13 PM
What Kennedy had, and what Bush manifestly lacks, is a pragmatic approach to politics, intellectual flexibility, a willingness to surround himself with independent-thinking staff, and the ability to admit that he makes mistakes and to learn from them.
9087. judithathome - 9/8/2003 4:05:38 PM
although the damage due to their intellectual arrogance is multifarious.
Hang on, sugar...you ain't seen nothin' to comapre with what lack of an intelect will do.
9088. judithathome - 9/8/2003 4:06:19 PM
For one thing, it will misspell intellect. ;-)
9089. arkymalarky - 9/8/2003 6:33:50 PM
RD,
Bill Moyers?!
Are you serious?
Hahaha! Bill Moyers, the Liberal Counterpart to Rush Limbaugh. I can't believe I never saw the similarities in style and tactics.
There are a few liberals who could fill the bill but they won't ever get the air time. I nominate Al Franken. 9090. arkymalarky - 9/8/2003 6:34:22 PM
Oops. That's Message # 9058.
9091. jexster - 9/8/2003 9:08:14 PM
For the school chirrens Ark...
Great moments in the passive voice ...
BLITZER: But the bottom line is you have to admit that you could have done a better job planning for this current environment.
RICE: The planning went on. Obviously, there were things that were not foreseen. They have now -- are now being addressed.
From today's interview on Late Edition ...
-- Josh Marshall
9092. concerned - 9/8/2003 10:11:02 PM
More flatulence from the pro-Saddam claque, I see.
9093. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 10:17:27 PM
Full moon tonight. Is Bush now a Hairy Bush, or perhaps in a Hairy Bush, or maybe he's just hold up in the prayer meeting praying for that white circle in the sky to go away. It's got to be some kind of WMD that needs 87 billion dollars to fight. Yup, that'ld be it, uh huh, fo'sho...
9094. jexster - 9/8/2003 10:20:55 PM
Lost in the uproar over the Bloody Bungling Butcher of Bahgdad's speech (captured in local headline "Bush Begs for Billions!), last week's risible call for A MANFACTURING CZAR! I guess he's about have industrial policy? Mostly likely, another slogan we can safely toss into the toilet along with -Roadmaps, Compassionate Conservatism, Reformer with Results, Aircraft carrier landings and Environmental President and that bullshit about how much he's going to do for our fighting folks...hello VA!
hat will the Incompetent Liar come up to top that?
9095. concerned - 9/8/2003 10:23:01 PM
Guess I'm in the minority around here in that I would rather have any disputes occurring in the Mideast rather than, say, NYC.
9096. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 10:23:47 PM
Carol Moseley Braun for President 2004
http://www.moseley-braun.org/content.php?page=home
The dem debate didn't sway me to far toward her as a viable candidate, but that she's running fills me with pride.
You go girl!!
But, keep it real. The idea is good, the timing is fine, whatever is needed to beat Bush is the most important.
9097. jexster - 9/8/2003 10:26:35 PM
Curious TD...last Friday, the GOP staff at CBO was "shocked" to learn from the EOB that The Butt Naked Emperor would request 60 billion, DOUBLE, what the White Palace "had led them to believe". Two days later, of course the number is up to $87 Billion plus "whatever it takes"
How much money TD would you pour down Bush's shithole in the sand?
Fucked Up IRAQ FAQ For the Day
$87 Billion is 1 1/2 times the GNP of Iraq.
9098. concerned - 9/8/2003 10:29:34 PM
Re. 9097 -
Good question, jexster. Maybe those 'sophisticated' Yurrupeon Continentals should get off their dead asses and lend a hand, no?
9099. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 10:31:44 PM
You infer way to much concerned. And you listen to the talk of terrorism as if those folk have integrity. Be real, their just out for military contracts, etc...
But, if that is my assumption, then I have to ask why military spending was going up anyway, is way up regardless of the constitiional amendment to keep a balanced budget?
Anyway, that you assume anyone against Bushism is pro-Saddam, and can't see that the current military action keeps terror away from home is deluded. Terrorist can still strike here. Vigilance I take for granted, I watch for signs that seem out of place, but so what? If they attack again, we'll deal another gigantic death blow! If they don't we'll forget soon enough. It's that simple.
I'm not going to sell my future to Bush so he can willy nilly play terrorist killer around the globe. He's an idiot. He's using the fear to cover up his stupid tax cuts, his stupid excuses to go to war, his stupid moronic belief that he gets more money (though he will get some), his fucked up belief that a lot of American's trust his word, he's a fucking moron!
9100. concerned - 9/8/2003 10:34:27 PM
RN -
I know you're too intelligent to believe that GWB's tax cuts have had more than a small impact on the overall deficit. So, why pretend otherwise?
9101. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 10:37:03 PM
It's sticks in my craw that he gave the rich more and let's states take up so much of the deficit slack. My taxes have increase via fees and property tax already. More fees and taxes are coming. I appreciate you've let my venting slide just a bit, but the fees I'm talking about are tantamount to a Poll tax here in Minnesota. And now that we're run by Repubs. this fee based access to gubment is pissing me off.
9102. concerned - 9/8/2003 10:40:36 PM
Isn't it still true that GWB has never vetoed a spending increase proposed by Congress? I think that if we look in that direction, we'll see a more significant cause of the current deficit than any paltry tax cut that has been implemented so far that runs to only a few tens of billions per year, truth be told.
9103. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 10:45:17 PM
That's news to me concerned. But, during a deficit and that the budget has been meant to be balanced, his tax cut is a bald faced slap to those who bite the bullet. Those recieving the cut will not trickle down the benefit. The Reagan trickle down voodoo taught us that. So, why would anyone believe Bush when we have the early 80's to compare to?
See why it sticks in my craw. It wasn't necessary to give the tax cut now.
9104. concerned - 9/8/2003 10:46:04 PM
Re. 9101 -
My local government (county, etc.) are busily jacking up my property taxes though, with a approx 2.4% increase for 2004 immediately after a 20% increase last year. But I'm preparing my secret weapon. I've signed onto a forestry management program for my property that gives a tax exemption that I haven't taken advantage of yet. If I play it right, I should be able to get them set aside all but one acre of my land (I have nearly 12) for a forest management program. This should drop my property taxes by at least a thousand a year, I estimate.
9105. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 10:49:31 PM
I most certainly can appreciate that you will look for tax exemptions for your property.
Speaking of forest management, and I'm not looking to be baited. You're on the level, so my view is about some bits I've gleaned recently. That Bush wants to selective cut to prevent forest fires. It's not the worste idea until he includes old growth. Which he has.
9106. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 10:56:49 PM
There's another thing which I've been waiting to see analyzed by the pundits, Bushites and dems alike, and many who could enlighten myeself and those interested. That is what is the plan to encourage education, health care, stable job markets, stable economic markets and infrastructures throughout the developing world. Are these dreams dead? Does war kill all thoughts that these benefits are what give stablity to the developed world, via creating beneficial partners throughout regions? The regions like Somalia, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines and Cuba. If we're so gung-ho about globalization, why is war the answer now. Is it just because of Oil market stability which was so threatened via Saddam? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just a rhetorical thought.
9107. concerned - 9/8/2003 10:58:56 PM
The worst idea is to continue with the failed forest management policies of the last three decades that allow uncontrolled accumulation of underbrush, dead and dying trees characteristic of 'old growth' that are causing the unprecedented (in modern times) forest fires that we are currently seeing. It seems worse to me for protected species to be forced to relocate on pain of being roasted alive rather than because some habitat was harvested for timber.
9108. concerned - 9/8/2003 11:02:21 PM
I think selective logging of overmature trees should be encouraged. This actually encourages the process of forest succession and increases biodiversity if done right.
9109. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 11:06:12 PM
Yah see, that's the answer right there. It's the accumulation of downed trees which spawn much of the conflagration. Such as that we fear in Northern Minnesota to this day. I think it was five years ago that strong straight-line winds knocked down thousands of acres of trees. Mostly Pines. But, the harvesting didn't occur, and what took place was piece-meal. Why not take the Federal program funds and harvest these? Why not?! I'm just frustrated that the focus is upon all the Western fires, and that there's no one looking at the clear cutting in Canada and the U.S. Let alone in Brazil and Borneo. There is always going to be debate, but there is a better solution than contracts for selective cuts.
For example, clearing up straight- line devastation in Northern Minnesota.
There's a lot of concern with soil errosion and water quatlity too.
A lot of debateable material.
9110. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 11:09:30 PM
9109 is to 9107.
Old growth to me is for preservation. Let these show us what pristine truly is. Let them be. I think old growth equates to existing forest preserves, state parks and places like Yellow Stone. I can understand forest fire worry, but let those special spots alone. Let the finest we have continue to shine. That's what I think this new program endangers. You do not?
9111. RickNelson - 9/8/2003 11:12:52 PM
Oh man, look at the time. I'm past due for hittin' the hay. Though I'm glad to jump right in and find you around. I'll be hopin' to try again soon. Perhaps I'll find you're online again.
Have a great night concerned. Also, you've a lot of good ideas that I think a bit more fine tuning would even quiet me to acceptance.
9112. jexster - 9/8/2003 11:20:55 PM
Bush Buffoons Believe that the Emperor, far from being butt naked, is clothed with authoriy from on high.m Why even the Emperor himself has said that he receives explict direction from the Deity.
Another question perhaps better posed in the Religion Thread, two actually:
Does God have a calculator?
If not, should we send George His Annointed a TI, an HP, or Excel and a Dell?
Inquiring minds want to know...so any republicans care to help us out...help God out?
9113. jexster - 9/8/2003 11:22:39 PM
Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
in light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
almighty, victorious, thy great Name we praise.
Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,
nor wanting, nor wasting, thou rulest in might;
thy justice like mountains high soaring above
thy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.
To all life thou givest, to both great and small;
in all life thou livest, the true life of all;
we blossom and flourish, like leaves on the tree,
then wither and perish; but nought changeth thee.
Great Father of glory, pure Father of light,
thine angels adore thee, all veiling their sight;
all laud we would render: O help us to see
'tis only the splendor of light hideth thee.
9114. concerned - 9/9/2003 2:30:42 AM
re. 9110 -
Yes, some old growth should not be harvested. However, the concept of mature forests often means that a significant fraction of the trees are near the end of their lifespans, with dead areas, rot and infestations, particulary when a single species dominates. In those scenarios, letting death and deterioration take their course may not be the best way to maintain overall health and vigor, not to mention minimizing the fire hazard.
9115. alistairConnor - 9/9/2003 5:44:16 AM
Rot and deterioration are a normal part of climax forests, and of all natural habitats. Seeking to clean them out results in eliminating a lot of ecological niches, impoverishing the flora and the fauna.
e.g. Carefully-pruned and groomed trees and hedges -> no hollow trees, no holes in trees -> nowhere for owls to nest; few insects and grubs for birds to eat -> fewer species of birds can live there.
9116. alistairConnor - 9/9/2003 5:52:03 AM
Depends how you define "health and vigour".
All depends what your objectives are. If you want to maximise timber production, i.e. income stream, from old growth, then you will certainly impoverish the habitat.
I wonder if the "fire risk" thing is not a Trojan horse, designed to paint environmentalists into a corner.
"Selective cutting" of old growth forests, in order to reduce fire risk, sounds a lot like "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".
9117. jayackroyd - 9/9/2003 10:46:54 AM
The price is still going up:
The Administration will request $20 billion to help secure Iraq's transition to self-government and create the conditions necessary for economic investment and investment. After decades of malign neglect and corruption by the Saddam Hussein regime, the needs are enormous and urgent. Initial estimates are that Iraq will need between $50-75 billion to achieve these conditions for success.
So it's not 87 billion, but 87 billion plus another 30-55 billion.
White house fact sheet
It's hard to know whether this price was avoidable, but it certainly wasn't mentioned last March.
Five more casualities today, and all the news stories seem to end like this one from Reuters.
Sixty-seven U.S. soldiers have been killed since Washington declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1
That price continues to rise as well. I said, at the time, that Bush was at his apex on that turned around aircraft carrier in his flight suit. The question was how far down was he gonna fall from that point. No sign of a bottom yet.
Can 200 million dollars in political advertising make up for all the, at best, inaccurate projections? Will that be enough money to drown out the drumbeat of since Washington declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1 by repeating, falsely, over and over again that they are doing this to protect Americans from attacks at home?
9118. jayackroyd - 9/9/2003 10:50:22 AM
Forestry management is complicated. Fires are part of the life cycle of trees, but different species handle fire differently. All we know for sure is that striving to not allow any fires for a couple of generations was a bad idea.
It should also be apparent that building houses close to national forests is a bad idea, and, perhaps, one that should not require the expenditure of public resources to protect.
9119. concerned - 9/9/2003 11:13:33 AM
Re. 9116, 9118 -
You two are running to extremes. What I am advocating is a middle ground where it's ok to not barbecue as much of the fauna and flora as would occur with nature rampant, and preserve the livelihoods and lives of thousands along the way.
Sorry you knee jerkers can't see it.
9120. concerned - 9/9/2003 11:19:55 AM
Btw, I essentially live surrounded by my own mini forest, and the local emergency services are as obligated to provide for my protection as anybody else's. It's ludicrous to maintain that somebody who lives near a national forest regardless of the reason be any less entitled to safety and protection.
9121. concerned - 9/9/2003 11:22:47 AM
Btw, doesn't Old Yurrup pretty much lead the world in managed forestry? If so, it's a bit hypocritical to try to deny others the same option.
9122. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/9/2003 11:37:18 AM
9123. jayackroyd - 9/9/2003 11:48:52 AM
9120
Shouldn't you be obligated to create a firebreak between your house and the forest as a condition of that protection?
It's like people living on floodplains demanding disaster relief when they get flooded.
9124. concerned - 9/9/2003 12:01:35 PM
Re. 9123 -
As a matter of fact, I tried to make my house as fire-resistant as possible, within my budgetary constraints. Plus, I don't have any large trees within 25-30 feet of my house, so I'm reasonably confident that the house is not at any special risk. Plus, it's not as dry where I'm at as in most of the West.
Speaking of floodplains, two of my neighbors' houses are in one, in fact, if not according to FEMA, and one was flooded out & their well was contaminated, & the other missed having their first floor inundated by only an inch or two earlier this year. I'm sure that their home insurance premiums will skyrocket if they haven't already, because I've had a litle trouble avoiding being socked with flood insurance premiums myself even though my house is well above any but biblical flood levels.
9125. jayackroyd - 9/9/2003 12:06:12 PM
Well, it's that kind of simple responsibility many people don't exercise. They want to be nestled in the trees.
9126. concerned - 9/9/2003 12:06:52 PM
The real reason I don't want too many trees & underbrush, etc. right up next to the house is mosquito control, plus I like not having to rake the lawn since the ground slopes away from the house in all directions allowing the wind to pretty much blow them away into the woods. However, my goal is to eventually grow just enough shade trees to avoid having to water the lawn.
9127. concerned - 9/9/2003 12:09:55 PM
...that's leaves that I was referring to wrt raking, btw....
9128. concerned - 9/9/2003 12:13:24 PM
Re. 9125 -
Thanks. I was going to go for cement shingle or tile roofing, but the builder didn't go along with my last second plan to put up 2x12's instead of 2x8's for the rafters, and I specified cement board siding, although the builder messed it up a little by putting in cedar trim around the windows, door & corners, etc.
9129. jexster - 9/9/2003 12:15:48 PM
Fool us once, fuck him
Fool us twice...
Other People's Sacrifice
It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations.
9130. jexster - 9/9/2003 12:16:52 PM
Iraqmire:Bush Gets Desperate 9131. jexster - 9/9/2003 12:19:05 PM
David Corn
9132. jexster - 9/9/2003 12:34:41 PM
While on vacation in Crawford, Tex., Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush must have been drinking from the same well as Lyndon B. Johnson when LBJ got American boots stuck in Southeast Asia’s unforgiving swamps
Deja Vu All Over Again - David Hackworth "Defending America"
9133. Ms. No - 9/9/2003 12:35:11 PM
Jex,
Thanks for 9113. That's one of my favorite hymns. It brought back memories of being in Chapel when we still held it in the Gym. The sound was glorious, funny, but I can't remember now what accompaniment we had. It must've been a regular upright piano, but in my memory I hear a pipe organ.
9134. jexster - 9/9/2003 12:38:42 PM
Because of a massively flawed policy, a proven miscalculation for which Congress should demand accountability, America is in big trouble in Iraq. Heads should roll – and the necks of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Myers and Pace should be first on the chopping block. David Hackworth, Ex-Darling of the Freaky Freepers of Fresno
9135. jexster - 9/9/2003 12:40:01 PM
Yes Ms. No I felt I had to do something lest I lest I be in danger of eternal hell fire on account of Bush's blasphemies
9136. jexster - 9/9/2003 12:50:14 PM
ABC News Poll: Gore Was Right
"Americans express a growing suspicion that the war in Iraq will boost rather than ease the long-term risk of terrorism against the United States, a concern that directly challenges Resident Bush's rationale for
invading. This finding of a new ABCNews poll follows continued attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on civilians elsewhere in the world, and marks a sharp turn in public attitudes. A week after the fall of Baghdad, 58% of Americans thought the war would reduce the long-term risk of terrorism. Today that's down 18 points, while 48% - up 19 points - think the war has raised the risk. At the same time, the number of Americans who say the war was worth fighting has slipped to 54% - a new low, down
from 61% in mid-August and a high of 70% as the main fighting wound down.... The poll also found a drop in approval of his handling of the situation to a new low, 49% --down from 56 percent last month and 75% on
April 30, a day before he declared the major fighting over."
9137. jayackroyd - 9/9/2003 1:11:29 PM
That's interesting, because my opinion has gone in the opposite direction. The main battle for the Islamist is being fought in Iraq. That battle is over whether the post war government will be Islamist or not. The US performed the first half of task, toppling the secular govt. Now they're trying to take care of the second half--making it politically too expensive to follow through on imposing a non-Islamist government. They'll be too busy at that to bother with the US.
BTW, it's worth noticing that the president was lying about the future AGAIN in that speech when he talks about democracy in Iraq. Rumsfeld has already made it clear that there are some election results that will not be tolerated. The moderate shi-ites believe all they need is a fair election, and then the Islamists will be in power. But they're not gonna get a free and fair election.
9138. jexster - 9/9/2003 1:25:40 PM
Pentagon spending hits Vietnam levels
According to USA Today, Pentagon's combined spending on its military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq is approaching the levels of the Vietnam War. The Pentagon is currently spending nearly $5 billion per month, which adds up to an annual price tag of almost $60 billion. In Vietnam, the United States spent $111 billion over eight years, which when adjusted for inflation comes to more than $494 billion, at an average of $61.8 billion per year, or $5.15 billion per month. Of course, Vietnam did not include any reconstruction costs – which may run anywhere from $100 to $500 billion.
9139. robertjayb - 9/9/2003 1:53:09 PM
Boy---When things start to go wrong...
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) -- President Bush's plane aborted its initial landing attempt here when a car in his awaiting motorcade crossed the runway, but landed safely on its second attempt.
The lead car of the president's motorcade crossed the tarmac to get in place before Bush's arrival on Air Force One at Jacksonville Naval Air Station around 11:30 a.m., EDT White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. Air traffic controllers, however, were not aware that the car would be on the runway, he said.
9140. jexster - 9/9/2003 1:53:55 PM
What You Get for $87 Billion
Life Under Ashcroft: How the "Patriot" Act Affects You
9141. jexster - 9/9/2003 2:03:41 PM
Three blocks from here at the corner of Hayes and Gough, you'll see a woman. Dressed in three layers of coats, she stands there day in day out, rain or shine, 40 F or 95F with the same three layers of clothing. Approaching her from afar you might think that she's begging but as you draw near, all you'll here is the coherent babble of a woman who has no home, no mental health care, no anti-psychotic medication. She has no home, no medication, no community based mental health care becuase, despite the lie that Bush HUD Secty Mel Martinez spouted two years ago that the Bush Administration would end homelessness in 10 years, it aggressively cut the already grossly inadequate buget for mental health services and low income housing.
That woman is a mess, but that woman is an American.
For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. No evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. No evidence of an affinity between Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and the fundamentalists of al-Qaida. No evidence of a terrorist presence in Iraq greater than in other Arab or Muslim countries. No evidence that Iraq offered weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
In his address to the nation Sunday night, Bush offered two new arguments for declaring Iraq "the central front" in the war on terror. If you buy those arguments, he's right. But before you buy them, stop and think about how far afield they would take us from the war we embarked on two years ago.
9142. jexster - 9/9/2003 2:16:18 PM
This article in tomorrow's Boston Globe says that "the US-appointed Iraqi interim government said late last month in a little-noticed statement that it would buy electricity from Syria and Iran, a deal that would probably enrich with US funds two countries that top the White House list of states that support terrorism."
Certainly that's an ironic development. One of the ideas here was that our presence in Iraq would overawe the Iranians and the Syrians into better behavior. Making our occupation dependent on their selling the Iraqis electricity would seem to make the flow of leverage and dependence run in a slightly different direction.
More troubling is the piece in tomorrow's LA Times. According to the Times article, the $87 billion the White House is now requesting from congress leaves roughly $55 billion in reconstruction costs still unfunded. (Actually, this fact sheet at the White House website says it's between $55 and $75 billion.)
Congress appropriated $79 billion just after the war in April. It seems certain to appropriate this new allocation of $87, albeit with greater oversight. If you add on another $55-$75 billion you start getting perilously close to a quarter of a trillion dollars as the price tag for the first two years of this endeavor.
-- Josh Marshall
9143. robertjayb - 9/9/2003 3:55:28 PM
Ueberroth is dropping out of the California recall race.
(Daily Kos blog)--That leaves Arnie and McClintock on the Right. Given Ueberroth's moderate appeal, logic would dictate they will be more inclined to support Schwarzenegger than McClintock. But who the hell knows. The only certainty is that the Republicans will be throwing all sorts of incentives and threats at McClintock to get him to bail. But he's an ideologue on a mission. I would be shocked if he dropped out.
Now would be a good time for Arianna to drop out as well.
Opinions are those of the blogger.
9144. thoughtful - 9/9/2003 5:08:35 PM
More proof that W is a uniter not a divider:
"By its very terms, the Patriot Act hides information about how its most contentious aspects are used, allowing investigations to be authorized and conducted under greater secrecy.
"As a result, critics ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Eagle Forum complain that the law is violating people's rights but acknowledge that they cannot cite specific instances of abuse."
Did you ever think you'd see those two groups on the same side of an issue?
Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40110-2003Sep7.html
9145. jexster - 9/9/2003 8:39:35 PM
Tom Brokaw emerges from coma with a piece on the Nightly News that Bush is cynically feeding the great urban legend that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-1-1.
Hell he was doing the same thing last year..
Fool us once fuck him....
9146. RickNelson - 9/9/2003 9:56:16 PM
jay, I agree that the nestled variety of home is the cause for evaluation. They should pay a very high premium to the state and local fire budgets as well as literal home "fire" insurance for their insurance to live wherever they want.
The million dollar nestled homes should especially pay high premiums. 100K doesn't seem out of line in my view. Make them pay it to the local fire station and a state fire fund. As well as they pay for their home Insurance.
Yup, that's a real good idea. Make them pay! If they've not paid, once that is determined then bill them for their percentage of the fire, to be determined via a predetermined formula. Yup, it's a damn good idea. Make them pay.
Then, the forest fire fund will help pay for the nations forest fires. The home builders will be more selective. The future for current homes is they may not be rebuilt, and the forest might have fewer driveways cut into it. Hmmm... I really like this idea.
Make them pay!
9147. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:10:29 AM
"Americans express a growing suspicion that the war in Iraq will boost rather than ease the long-term risk of terrorism against the United States, a concern that directly challenges Resident Bush's rationale for
invading. This finding of a new ABCNews poll follows continued attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on civilians elsewhere in the world, and marks a sharp turn in public attitudes."
As I just noted elsewhere, though, people who vote in polls in this way only show their ignorance to what has been happening in the world against American interests BEFORE going after Saddam. These terrorists need no other excuses for targeting our interests and people. They have done it time and time again already.
What I find so incredible is how many Americans are ignorant of what has already happened, and would rather us take a "head in the sand" approach. My only guess is because they are fairly comfortable in their little world already.
9148. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 12:58:49 AM
Bush will do to the world what Sharon has managed to do in Israel—that is, make it a living hell for everyone.
This situation is reminding me more and more of Dante's two mortal enemies, (Ugolino & Ruggieri in Canto 33 of The Inferno) who were wrapped in an embrace, floating in a bloody pool and knawing each other's heads for eternity.
9149. concerned - 9/10/2003 1:00:00 AM
Re. 9146 -
I've got a better idea. Let's have fewer forest fires.
9150. jexster - 9/10/2003 2:24:30 AM
Just back from a fascinating guest lecture before my Govt Personell Management Class...
A Brookings scholar on the subject who during that part of his lecture on Performance Based Systems shared scuttlebutt around Brookings Institution
Wolfowitz is dead meat and Rummy is twisting slowly in the wind...
The King Moron will have his pound of flesh becuase the buck never stops with him..not ever
Low life sack of shit
9151. jexster - 9/10/2003 2:55:33 AM
Oh, that $87,000,000,000 for Iraq? Bushies admit that, um, it won't be enough Los Angeles Times
9152. jayackroyd - 9/10/2003 8:51:31 AM
I've got a better idea. Let's have fewer forest fires.
We tried that. It's created quite a problem.
9153. thoughtful - 9/10/2003 9:02:45 AM
As I mentioned before, I keep my NYer mags until I read them which lends an interesting perspective on things. Below is from an article by Nicholas Lehman. What's most interesting is the date: January 22, 2001.
"Let's assume, just for argument's sake, that George W. Bush's Presidency will have certain similarities to his father's -- even that it will be a continuation of his father's, with the added elements of a surer political touch (especially in dealing with the conservative wing of the Republican Party) and a predilection for settling scores with people who did the old man wrong. The Presidential term limit has automatically taken care of Bill Clinton, the dethroner of George H. W. Bush. So who else might there be who was a major enemy to Bush Administration One, and could be given a comeuppance in Bush Administration Two? Might not the first name on the list be Saddam Hussein?"
Probably one of the best forecasts ever made...clearly pointing out that the administration's desire to smash Hussein predated 9/11.
9154. marjoribanks - 9/10/2003 11:07:18 AM
Well, whatever can be said about the astonishing deceitfulness and rank incompetence at the top of the Bushite administration, you have to accept that these fellows (Rove alone, perhaps?) are just masterful politicians.
Look at the economy, at the universal condemnation of the spiralling deficit, at the apparent revolt in the military's rank-and-file, the global condemnation of US unilateralism, the destruction of virtually every meaningful multilateral relationship, the near-total chaos in a huge part of Iraq, the falling-apart of the vaunted roadmap, the unemployment, everything else. You'd imagine that the person who presided over this astonishing series of fuck-ups and thefts would be the lamest duck in the world, right? That he'd be on the verge of impeachment, let alone a sure loser at the polls next year, right?
Nope. He's still got to be the favorite, and if a couple of things change (unemployment, Saddam is captured, Iraq settles into uneasy stability) he turns into a shoo-in. It speaks volumes about the astonishingly clever political manipulations and machinations by the men behind Dubya, and also perhaps says something about that unquantifiable "likeability" that Dubya seems to possess.
9155. concerned - 9/10/2003 11:10:20 AM
I've got a better idea. Let's have fewer forest fires.
We tried that. It's created quite a problem.
No it hasn't. Try thinking less simplistically and not aping the worldview of envirowhacko cant rhetoric for a change.
9156. marjoribanks - 9/10/2003 11:23:46 AM
Part of the cleverness comes in how Bush will lie by omission, again and again, to the American people. And despite some of the media picking up on it, and virtually the entire political class knowing all about it, the statements, non-statements, and mis-statements totally get a free pass to and into the consciousness of the voters.
Look at the UK, where none of this bizareness exists. Blair, once a wildly popular PM at the helm of a party with an unshakeable hold on power, is still fighting a daily trench war about the "sexing-up" of evidence and the other items in which he and his men are significantly less culpable than the Bushites. He has lost one key aide already and could still lose his job one way or the other.
The Bushites (1) denied there was a problem, (2) questioned the loyalty and patriotism of the critics, (3) manouevered to have the blame game limited to a paltry few words in a speech mendacious in entirety, (4) made it seem as though Condi Rice were under unfair attack, (5) sent the Prez out to be strong, loyal and (ugh) Presidential in his support of poor ol' Condi. Presto, all the unbelievable lies are forgiven and the media moves on to something else.
Now, in the last speech, Bush makes Iraq out to be the central plank of the War on Terror (the only war Americans are interested in fighting), and cowboys up to the mike and allows that 87 billion are required and America will pay the price, blah blah. Forget the fact that 9/11 and Iraq were never connected and that these fuckers have rec'd a huge free pass for blithely lying about possible connections ("mortal threat", "mushroom cloud"). Now the Bushites will make trhe connection openly, repeatedly, and apparently with impunity because they, not Saddam, have brought the Islamists to Baghdad.
9157. marjoribanks - 9/10/2003 11:24:11 AM
It's depressing from one perspective. From another, it's breathtaking chutzpah, an astonishing high-wire act in manipulative politics that so far has managed to keep these fellows around Dubya from getting their richly-deserved comeuppance for their criminality. One wonders how long they can keep it up, and how deeply they will permanently damage this country.
9158. judithathome - 9/10/2003 11:32:23 AM
They can keep it up indefinitely, I think. The American public is willingly allowing it to happen, seemingly without one peep of protest.
9159. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 11:47:46 AM
"One wonders how long they can keep it up, and how deeply they will permanently damage this country."
and
"They can keep it up indefinitely, I think. The American public is willingly allowing it to happen, seemingly without one peep of protest."
Funny, because this is exactly what I thought of during those eight Clinton years.
9160. jayackroyd - 9/10/2003 11:48:37 AM
But the piles of bullshit of lies are starting to stink.
It's not just David Corn and Paul Krugman pointing it out.
You've got David Brooks in the Times saying this:
he Bush administration has the most infuriating way of changing its mind. The leading Bushies almost never admit serious mistakes. They never acknowledge that they are listening to their critics. They never even admit they are shifting course. They don these facial expressions suggesting calm omniscience while down below their legs are doing the fox trot in six different directions.
Sunday night's presidential speech was a perfect example. The policy ideas Bush sketched out represent such a striking series of policy shifts they amount to a virtual relaunching of the efforts to rebuild Iraq. Yet the president unveiled them as if they were stately extensions of the policies that commenced on Sept. 11, 2001
Yes, it's breathtaking chutzpah, and it has worked for a remarkably long time in the face of an awful lot of bad results. But this kind of thing also has a bubble bursting kind of risk.
Once they lose credibility on anything,they'll lose it on everything. Those reports of death after death, bombing after bombing, bigger and bigger bills are the drops of water eroding away the teflon, bit by bit. If it goes, it's all gonna go.
Dean's popularity seems to be driven by the people who see through the chutzpah--they want someone who will, as Dean has said, calls the president on his lies. Time will tell.
And there's still the 800 pound gorilla in the room--Bush's war chest.
9161. jayackroyd - 9/10/2003 11:49:41 AM
9159
Can you point to failed Clinton policies that are in the same league with the Bush failures?
9162. marjoribanks - 9/10/2003 11:50:38 AM
I don't think they can keep it up indefinitely, because the gloves are coming off from critics in the media, the Democratic party, in military families, and even certain elements of the GOP.
Yesterday, on Charlie Rose, Sen. Biden minced no words, named names (Rumsfeld, Cheney, all the other Wolfowitzes) and used words like "total incompetence", "completely botched" and so on to describe their actions. The teflon is wearing off.
(FWIW, I think Rumsfeld has finally flipped his lid totally and has to be a goner sooner or later.)
9163. jayackroyd - 9/10/2003 11:53:14 AM
I guess my bubble bursting point is that if they fire Wolfowitz and/or Rumsfeld, they can't keep saying things are going according to plan.
9164. marjoribanks - 9/10/2003 11:56:23 AM
There will come a point where the war-chest won't be able to help. No amount of money can resuscitate the dead.
But yes, that point has not been reached.
Dean. I've spent some time now watching Dean on CSPAN and reading his speeches. Dean isn't the man, unless we're in such deep shit that we need a clenched-jaw, little-America bulldog like him. He is humorless, charmless and dour and deeply suspect in terms of international vision.
Yes, if it comes to it I'll most likely vote for him over Dubya, but I'd far prefer Kerry or Clark.
9165. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 11:57:07 AM
I think it is ludicrous to expect the administration to simply go ahead as if they haven't learned anything knew or different since they first went into Iraq. You critics would rather they didn't change their minds and continued on one course with no alterations, because then you would criticize them for not rethinking things in the face of new information!!
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. It is sooooo easy for you guys to sit back and criticize, but what are you doing to help matters? Put up or shut up.
9166. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 11:57:55 AM
"He is humorless, charmless and dour and deeply suspect in terms of international vision."
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about pelle.
9167. marjoribanks - 9/10/2003 12:03:28 PM
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. It is sooooo easy for you guys to sit back and criticize, but what are you doing to help matters? Put up or shut up.
Thanks for the platitudes, Hooligan.
But we are doing something to help matters. We are calling a spade a spade, seeking to discern and to approach the truth. All this is in contrast to the unending propaganda flow from the neo-con scum, where Saddam Hussein = Mohammed Atta, Iraq was chockful of WMD, and critics of the administrations disastrous post-war policies are (according to Rumsfeld) aiding the terrorists.
9168. marjoribanks - 9/10/2003 12:05:34 PM
Oh yes, the best shameless neocon scumbag trick is to try and label anyone who criticizes the admin's utter fecklessness in post-war Iraq as a Saddam supporter.
9169. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:11:17 PM
Well, that certainly wouldn't be fair and right. That's what happens consistently in Africa. If you criticize the gov't, you are a neo-colonialist sympathizer!
So that would go too far in my mind, labeling a critic a Saddam sympathizer. But who has really been doing that? I'd like to see some verifiable examples.
However, my original point still stands. I would fully expect the admin. to change certain things, now once Iraq is a reality and not just "on paper." But you guys criticize them when they don't change, and you criticize them when they do.
In fact, that's all you really want to do is criticize and nothing else, which is clearly evident. You a priori disagree with the admin no matter what they do or say.
9170. marjoribanks - 9/10/2003 12:17:40 PM
Hooligan,
Yer out of touch. Everyone from Wolfie on down has been slandering critics as somehow being pro-Saddam, pro-atrocity, etc.
Furthermore, you are talking here to supporters of the war. My qualified support is copiously documented here as are literally hundreds of posts advising early internationalization of the effort, the immediate application of the kinds of sums the Prez is now asking for, a strong backing of peace plan between Israel/Palestine, etc.
In effect, Hooligan, you are debating strawmen and pulling out the same silly, transparently dishonest, stunts as the neocon scum currently surrounding the Prez.
9171. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 12:21:31 PM
9169- You a priori disagree with the admin no matter what they do or say.
HAHAHAHA! Bush pushes the world to the brink, forces us all to jump into a pit and you accuse the sceptical of being to critical.
9172. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:21:35 PM
"Everyone from Wolfie on down has been slandering critics as somehow being pro-Saddam, pro-atrocity, etc."
This is just a far too nebulous statement to be of any reasonable use. ALL critics?? Hardly.
However, your other point as it relates to your own personal position is well taken.
9173. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 12:22:13 PM
too critical
9174. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:22:36 PM
"Bush pushes the world to the brink"
If that isn't mindless hyperbole and rhetoric, I don't know what is!
9175. jayackroyd - 9/10/2003 12:28:37 PM
I think it is ludicrous to expect the administration to simply go ahead as if they haven't learned anything knew or different since they first went into Iraq.
No, the problem is, as Brooks article addressed, is that they pretend they haven't learned anything. They keep repeating the same false statements.
Joshua Micah Marshall calls that upside-downism. The administration arrives at a policy it wants for some reason, then states the justification that spins best. When that justification stops spinning well, they change the justification, acting as if nothing had ever changed.
So we went from nukes to al qaeda to weapons of mass destruction to oppressive Saddam to babies in mass graves and now to the front line in the war on terror.....
And we still haven't heard them give voice to the real reason, which is, I believe, deep concern for the succession in Saudi Arabia, and the strategic need for a sound base in the region.
It's incumbent upon them if they are to preserve their credibility and receive support to state their actual reasons for doing what they do. They don't have to say the most nefarious ones, but the ones they do cite should be to some degree true.
When Rubin bailed out Mexico, they didn't highlight the fact that they were really bailing out US money center banks, but they did truthfully describe the policy goal of preserving stability in the Mexican economy. It's that much honesty I am asking for.
But to played for a fool, making statements that are transparently false--talking about mushroom clouds and preventing attacks on America's streets--is to be embarassed. Many of us knew the administration was lying in March when it offered those justifications. Why should we believe anything they say now?
9176. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 12:31:29 PM
If that isn't mindless hyperbole and rhetoric, I don't know what is!
If you think inciting countless maniacal "martyrs" to mayhem is exaggeration, then you are the mindless dolt on this board.
9177. jayackroyd - 9/10/2003 12:31:34 PM
And this is not to mention the latest Big Lie in Sunday's speech--that we are bringing democracy to Iraq. Democracy in Iraq means the substantial participation of Islamist elements, if not an outright Islamist government. Those are the people who could well win elections, especially the early elections.
The circuit breakers that will be set up to prevent this will embarass the president one more time. But it is essential if the US is to secure a stable base in the region.
9178. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:34:54 PM
Wizard, yours was indeed mindless hyperbole. And then your response to my comment, namely, to put false words into my mouth and ideas into my head, and THEN to say I too major in nonsense, is just stupid on your part.
Of course, I do note that you never said your original hyperbole wasn't exactly that. So you recognize your own fallacy and are just unable or unwilling to admit it. At least that is some progress on your part.
Go back to cutting and pasting cartoons, because when it comes to actually saying something, you are nothing more than a dolt.
9179. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:36:52 PM
"Democracy in Iraq means the substantial participation of Islamist elements, if not an outright Islamist government."
I've often wondered that myself. I think the notion of having a democratic Iraq is a nice one, but not very practical really. If we ever did get to the point of "open and free elections," I can't envision anything other than an Islamist gov't winning it all.
Then we'd be at the point of many of those "one party democracies" or rather facades in Africa. Or Chicago for that matter!!
9180. jayackroyd - 9/10/2003 12:40:10 PM
So that would go too far in my mind, labeling a critic a Saddam sympathizer. But who has really been doing that?
Plenty of wingnut pundits (and people here) pull out the "so you would rather see Saddam in power right now, correct?" line.
And Rumsfeld said this on Monday:
To the extent that terrorists are given reason to believe he might, or, if he is not going to, that the opponents might prevail in some way, and they take heart in that, and that leads to more money going into these activities, or that leads to more recruits, or that leads to more encouragement, or that leads to more staying power, obviously that does make our task more difficult."
This is a difficult assertion to prove, but is quite an innuendo.
9181. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:45:39 PM
I don't think it is wrong to be concerned at all about "pro-Saddam" forces still lurking in Iraq, perhaps even waiting for the chance to reemerge in that country. And further, that such ideas give greater hope to terrorists in that land and in other places. What's wrong with such a notion as that??
"So you would rather see Saddam in power" isn't a particularly fair response to critics, but don't think for a second that there are NOT people who'd rather see him in power. Many African "pundits" before the war and after it started have stated in no uncertain terms that they preferred to see Saddam triumph, or were hoping that he'd make a sneak, surprise uprising even today.
Such concerns, then, are not entirely baseless.
9182. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:47:27 PM
I also think that these guys in power have must more access to far greater resources of information and data than we will ever have. Do they always use it wisely? Of course not. But America is filled with too many "arm-chair politicians" who think they know it all, while they are only privy to 10% of the data used to make such decisions.
9183. thoughtful - 9/10/2003 12:51:01 PM
Anyone remember, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
9184. thoughtful - 9/10/2003 12:52:20 PM
Oops, I forgot...that's only 11 words...I believe the cutoff for taking a phrase serioulsy was 16, no?
Unless those words were "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski."
9185. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 12:52:56 PM
Give context, thoughtful. When was that said? Was it relatively directly after 9/11?
9186. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 1:05:51 PM
. . . to put false words into my mouth and ideas into my head, and THEN to say I too major in nonsense, is just stupid on your part.
You wouldn't recognize an original idea if it crawled up your ass with a blowtorch. The only thing "a priori" is your lack of imagination, Dimwit.
9187. concerned - 9/10/2003 1:07:47 PM
Re. 9161 -
What Bush failures? National Health Care.
9188. jexster - 9/10/2003 1:09:50 PM
Blank Check....
Bush Visits His ATM: Still Doesn't Have Clue How Many More Trips Needed
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 As the war wound down last spring and gave way to armed occupation, administration officials reassured Congress that rebuilding Iraq (news - web sites) would be no big deal, at least in terms of cost to the United States.
9189. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 1:16:10 PM
Just keep cutting and pasting, Wizard of Worn-out Witticisms. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands. Wonder why?
9190. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 1:22:27 PM
Hey Wiz, just think about it. He's the President of the United States of America, and you're just some dumbass schmuck who sits behind the desk putting monkey faces on him.
Pretty funny, huh?
yuk
yuk
9191. Wombat - 9/10/2003 1:44:53 PM
KTH
Being President somehow endows the individual with powers of omniscience, goodness, and rightness, when compared to the rest of us poor slobs?
Would that you showed such respect to Bush's predecessor, whose blunders and lies were limited more to his personal shortcomings, rather than to almost every aspect of U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
9192. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 2:02:15 PM
"Being President somehow endows the individual with powers of omniscience, goodness, and rightness, when compared to the rest of us poor slobs?"
Needless hyperbole again. No, but it does put him in a much better position than, say, you or me, to make decisions on a worldwide scale. This does not imply that he is always right, of course.
"Would that you showed such respect to Bush's predecessor, whose blunders and lies were limited more to his personal shortcomings, rather than to almost every aspect of U.S. domestic and foreign policy."
Again, a false dichotomy that attempts to make a slimeball greasy pig in his "personal" life have none of that lack of integrity appear in his "public" affairs.
9193. Wombat - 9/10/2003 2:18:32 PM
The point Kuligin misses, is that the current President and his minders know only what they want to know, and have ignored advice, information, and intelligence that was at variance with this. This narrowness, which Kuligan appears to share, has not yet proved disastrous, but the signs of future problems are there, and they are going to get worse.
As to a "false" dichotomy, I find someone who has "iffy" personal morals, and a flexible attitude toward politics more desireable and more trustworthy than an inflexible prig who is forced to do unpleasant things and then rationalize them (Carter), or a self-proclaimed follower of Jesus Christ, who cloaks his reign in his beliefs, but whose policies share little of this, particularly in regard to those parts of scripture that pertain to helping those who need it most.
9194. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 2:30:46 PM
What's funny is that all three presidents you refer to (Carter, Clinton, and Bush Jr.) are "self-proclaimed" Christians.
Would you really charactize Carter as an "inflexible prig?"
Wombat, you sit in a limited place with a very limited view of things, as most of us do. It is easy for you to sling mud around and second guess others.
"whose policies share little of this, particularly in regard to those parts of scripture that pertain to helping those who need it most"
This made me chuckle.
9195. jexster - 9/10/2003 2:32:21 PM
France & Germany Seek Full UN Control Over Iraq
Prescinding from the question of whether or not the UN is the vehicle, it is clear on a very basic common sense level that it is foolish in the extreme to throw money, $87 billion plus whatever else it takes and to reinforce a committment to handover our troops and our treasure indefinitely to a regime that has so grossly mismanaged, miscalculated, and so egregiously lied.
In fact, its absurd to do so.
9196. jexster - 9/10/2003 2:36:17 PM
They're waking up in KC, waking up and smelling the bush- shit
UN: Iraq Was Unable to Support Nuke Program
"U.N. inspectors found Iraq's nuclear program in disarray and unlikely to be able to support an active effort to build atomic weapons, the nuclear agency chief said Monday. Reiterating that his experts uncovered no evidence of such a program, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said... that there was 'no evidence that Iraq had resumed such activities.' ElBaradei stressed that his teams had to withdraw ahead of the U.S.-led war before they could complete their inspections. But he said what they saw in the months preceding their pullout suggested the Iraqis were in no position to build a nuclear weapon. 'The agency observed a substantial degradation in facilities, financial resources and programs throughout Iraq that might support a nuclear infrastructure,' ElBaradei said.... 'The former cadre of nuclear experts was being increasingly dispersed and many key figures were reaching retirement or had left the country.'"
9197. jexster - 9/10/2003 2:42:27 PM
Imagine you've hired a contractor who you later discover has front loaded your contract, made off with the money, and cause structural damage to your home.
You'd hire this guy to fix it?
Intelligence Agencies Predicted a Deadly Quagmire in Post-W-ar Iraq But Bush Invaded Anyway
U.S. intelligence agencies warned Bush administration policymakers before the war in Iraq that there would be significant armed opposition to a U.S.-led occupation, according to administration and congressional sources familiar with the reports.... Among the threats outlined in the intelligence agencies' reporting was that 'Iraqis probably would resort to obstruction, resistance and armed opposition if they perceived attempts to keep them dependent on the U.S. and the West,' one senior congressional aide said. The general tenor of the reports...was that the postwar period would be more 'problematic' than the war to overthrow Hussein....
[This] more pessimistic view generally remained submerged [within the administration], but the controversy did occasionally break into the open, most notably when Gen. Shinseki told Congress in February that several hundred thousand occupation troops would be needed. Paul Wolfowitz rejected his estimate at the time as 'wildly off the mark.'
9198. Wombat - 9/10/2003 2:47:29 PM
Kuligin:
1) Good point. However, I doubt very many people took Clinton's protestations seriously, in light of his known problems with a number of the commandments.
2) However devout and morally impeccable Jimmy Carter was, he was a disastrous President.
3) As it happens, I supported the war on mainly humanitarian grounds, based on my preexisting knowledge of Saddam and his reign. I admit that I erred--in good company--in my assessment of Saddam's ability to produce and deploy WMD. It is not second-guessing--by the away--to critique the planning (or lack thereof) of the preparation and the aftermath of the war, after making the same criticisms before the fighting started.
9199. thoughtful - 9/10/2003 2:57:22 PM
K the H, try this article about who was saying what about whom.
And these are the relatively mild examples of politicians...nothing like the venom spewed by the right wing talking heads. I'm perhaps wrongly assuming you've at least heard of Ann Coulter's book: "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."
9200. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 3:11:50 PM
wombat
I always thought that Saddam's personal record against humanity was a far better point to make in going after him than the WMD, although I am not yet fully convinced that said weapons never existed. How many months was it before we found all those fighter jets burried in the sand? I object more to the people who expected us to find the WMD in a week's time, than those who in general wonder if they actually ever existed.
From the start I wondered if Rumsfeld and Co. knew what they were talking about when they made it appear that this would be relatively easy and quick. I figured any idiot would know that this would be very, very difficult and take a good, long time.
thoughtful, thanks for the linked article.
9201. judithathome - 9/10/2003 3:27:30 PM
I object more to the people who expected us to find the WMD in a week's time, than those who in general wonder if they actually ever existed.
I think several of us here suggested it would take a long time to locate any, and thought it a good idea that the weapons inspectors keep looking rather than rushing to war. It seemed to be Bush and company who thought we'd find them quickly...until we didn't. Then, they changed tack and said it would take more time.
9202. Wombat - 9/10/2003 3:44:19 PM
The Bush Administration misled (oh hell, lied to) the American public in the following ways about the war.
1) Creating out of the whole cloth a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda in regard to 9/11.
2) An urgent and direct Iraqi threat to the United States.
3) The nature and status of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
4) That the overthrow of Saddam and the creation of a democratic system of government in Iraq could be accomplished in a relatively short time, at little cost, and without the involvement of the UN.
5) That the troops on the ground in Iraq would be suffcient to maintain order and make Iraq safe enough to begin restoring services to the Iraqis.
These beliefs have been maintained in the face of evidence to the contrary since before the fighting started.
9203. Wombat - 9/10/2003 3:48:10 PM
So far, only Wolfowitz has come out and admitted that some of these assumptions were wrong. He will, of course, be the first to go.
9204. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 3:59:18 PM
I tend to think there is probably a middle ground somewhere in all of this. I doubt very much that absolutely everything they ever told us about Iraq was thought to be true in their minds. However, I don't think the opposite is true either, that everything they have done has been knowingly false. My guess is it is somewhere in the middle.
I'd prefer that they say, "We were wrong and in retrospect this would have been better, or this is a better route to go now." I would see no problem with that at all.
Also, in ANY intelligence, there is always conflicting information. There must be, period. So those people who cry because someone earlier said it would be very easy, but someone else said it would be very difficult - and they decided to listen to one and not the other - just don't know much about what is going on in the intelligence game. You do the best you can with the information you are given, and if what you decided was wrong, you attempt to correct that. Cover it up? That's another story.
9205. Wombat - 9/10/2003 4:14:25 PM
Kuligan:
Perhaps you were out of the country at the time, so this will be news to you.
Every intelligence agency involved with the claimed attempt by Iraq to purchase Uraniun Oxide from Niger stated that the source of the information was not reliable. Against these warnings, this claim was included in Bush's last State of the Union Address. In addition the U.S. diplomat sent to investigate the claim (he found it unreliable) was ignored, and his wife (a CIA employee) had her cover blown.
Eric Shinseki, outgoing CoS, stated that at least 300,000 troops would be needed to maintain order in Iraq. Shinseki based this on his actual experience with peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo.
We are not talking about conflicting intelligence, Kuligin. We are talking about one party refusing to believe the information that it was getting, because it went against what they believed to be true.
9206. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 5:01:04 PM
9190. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 1:22:27 PM
Hey Wiz, just think about it. He's the President of the United States of America, and you're just some dumbass schmuck who sits behind the desk putting monkey faces on him.
Pretty funny, huh?
yuk
yuk
Yeah, it is pretty funny—Bush is just a hobby I use to amuse myself, vent my indignation and learn Photoshop.
At the very least, I don't waste my time pretentiously pontificating an ass-pickin' simian-stooge for corporate America, the way you squander your days.
Moreover, you're forced to look at whatever I post, but I don't bother with most of your quodlibetic claptrap.
Go back to your self-licking in Religion and Philosophy and leave the politics to those with imagination and vision.
9207. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 5:02:26 PM
ok monkey boy
ooooo
ooooo
umph umph
9208. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 5:03:48 PM
hey monkey boy, learn to turn off the html
or are you off eatin' bananas somewhere?
dumbass
9209. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 5:26:45 PM
Personally, I think you are small, pathetic little person. You sit around making monkey faces of the leader of our country, when you should be looking to respect him. And instead of praying for him and hoping that he does a good job in leading this nation, you take your "free time" to ridicule him and hope he fails. You are a sorry excuse for an American, someone who takes the freedom we enjoy here for granted, and uses it to deride our leaders. I'm feel genuine shame for you.
9210. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 5:27:24 PM
Figures, Kuligoon, you're still the dumbass who can't yet identify the dumb chimp or html . . .
9211. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 5:31:34 PM
You are a sorry excuse for an American, someone who takes the freedom we enjoy here for granted, and uses it to deride our leaders. I'm feel genuine shame for you
Hahahahahaha! Yeah, okay and I supposed you' re a US Vet who served in wartime, lectured for the US Department of State and received two NEA Fellowships?
9212. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 5:32:58 PM
supposed
9213. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 5:34:19 PM
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Learn the word dumbass.
And turn off YOUR italics you schmuck, sorry ass excuse for an American.
9214. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 5:35:22 PM
I wonder how many people died to earn the freedoms we now have that you abuse to your own amusement and shame? Pathetic jerk.
9215. arkymalarky - 9/10/2003 5:35:34 PM
Reading this exchange warms the cockles of my natural-born heart.
9216. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 5:44:44 PM
Hahahahaha! Yes, by all means, let's respect an international imbecile . . .
arky- what is he talking about with regard to "Italics?"
9217. RickNelson - 9/10/2003 5:44:57 PM
Amen Arky,
Kudos to Marj and Jay for the posts upthread around the 9150's and after.
9218. KuligintheHooligan - 9/10/2003 5:46:55 PM
cockles??
I'm going to the Inferno if monkey boy is interested.
9219. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 5:50:30 PM
Oh good Kuligoon, and by the way, the proctologist called—he found your head and he'll deliver it there.
9220. arkymalarky - 9/10/2003 5:53:58 PM
Wiz,
There was an italics tag left open. It's closed now.
Kuligin,
You never heard of cockles?
9221. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 5:59:23 PM
Thanks ark. Did I leave it open? I don't see any evidence of one being left open, but if I did—I gladly apologize.
9222. rdbrewer - 9/10/2003 6:04:51 PM
KTH and Wizard, I agree with Arky, that was a fun debate.
... leave the politics to those with imagination and vision.
Who, me?
9223. arkymalarky - 9/10/2003 6:06:12 PM
No problem. At least not for me. Kuligin seemed a mite piqued about it, though. ;-)
9224. rdbrewer - 9/10/2003 6:06:19 PM
How long have you guys been married, anyway?
9225. judithathome - 9/10/2003 6:47:52 PM
You sit around making monkey faces of the leader of our country, when you should be looking to respect him.
I'd be happy to respect him if he would earn that respect. Thus far, he hasn't.
9226. robertjayb - 9/10/2003 6:56:01 PM
quodlibetic?
Stop that, wizard...
Don't make me come up there...
9227. jexster - 9/10/2003 7:53:01 PM
UC Davis Scientist: Bush Lied
Ground Zero Air "Brutal" Months After 9-1-1
9228. jexster - 9/10/2003 8:16:14 PM
Pathological Liar and Miserable Failure
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) has used Russian technology to develop a new intermediate range ballistic missile that may be the most capable and accurate system in Pyongyang's inventory, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
9229. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2003 10:07:17 PM
9226. robertjayb
LOL!
9230. concerned - 9/10/2003 11:48:54 PM
Re. 9225 -
GWB could 'earn' JAH's respect in about 30 seconds by switching to the Democrat Party.
9231. concerned - 9/10/2003 11:51:01 PM
Those who portray GWB with simian characteristics are a disgrace to their genus.
9232. judithathome - 9/10/2003 11:57:58 PM
Are you kidding? That wouldn't earn my respect...it would cause me to become a Green or something.
I'd vote for Lyndon LaRoche before I voted for Bush for anything. I think he's due a long vacation...after all, he's driven all the businesses he's been involved with into the ground and now he's headed that way with a country. He definitely needs a break.
9233. concerned - 9/11/2003 12:02:08 AM
But, JAH, if he did that, he could 'enhance contributions' to eliminate deficits and blame it all on the tax and spend LW:)
9234. judithathome - 9/11/2003 12:20:52 AM
Oh, I think he'd rather stay with his winning ways and enhance his buddies bottom lines and run up record breaking deficits instead. Seems to be right up his alley...and he doesn't give a rip about who gets stepped on in the process.
Not quite the Christian attitude I was taught as a child but I guess he's all right with it.
9235. concerned - 9/11/2003 12:23:19 AM
I'm still waiting for his first Congressional spending veto.
9236. concerned - 9/11/2003 12:26:20 AM
Re. 9235 -
That's something that neither Democrats nor Republicans like to talk about.
9237. concerned - 9/11/2003 12:28:00 AM
...enhance his buddies bottom lines...
They would have to be raking it in faster than Bill Gates in his heyday to affect the Federal budget....
9238. concerned - 9/11/2003 12:40:40 AM
Rhetoric equating politics with 'imagination' brings the terms 'snake-oil' and 'dupes' to mind.
9239. jexster - 9/11/2003 1:45:31 AM
Funny you should speak of snake oil...
Fool us once fuck him...
Some people see things as they are and ask why
Some people can't see things as they are and hear voices from on high...
A Special Speech to the Nation
My fellow Americans: I come before you today to ask for all the money in your wallet, your checking account and your 401(k). And do you have one of those spare change jars on top of the dresser? I'd like that too.
I am planning to spend $100 zillion to fight international terrorism in Iraq -- and all this without raising taxes. I am therefore asking Americans to make a sacrifice. I am asking them to support their aging relatives, because I'm not going to have any money to fund Social Security right now. Or Medicaid.....
9240. ScreamingSin - 9/11/2003 2:00:49 AM
What's your point jexster, you loathe those that birthed you?
".... I am therefore asking Americans to make a sacrifice. I am asking them to support their aging relatives, "
Hello. Why does it have to be asked?
9241. jexster - 9/11/2003 2:04:50 AM
It was just imagination I'm told...
"I cannot imagine that it would take as many troops to occupy Iraq as to conquer it" Paul "Can't imagine Bush don't know what the fuck he's doing" Wolfowitz
9242. concerned - 9/11/2003 2:06:44 AM
Re. 9235 -
Btw, a soi-disant 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' brother in law recently brought this to my attention for the first time.
9243. jexster - 9/11/2003 2:07:09 AM
Texas Huckersterism for Dummies
we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud ...
9244. jexster - 9/11/2003 2:07:43 AM
Settle for a smoking cap pistol
9245. ScreamingSin - 9/11/2003 2:10:01 AM
I don't understand.
9246. concerned - 9/11/2003 2:10:15 AM
Should be easy enough for you. You're always trying to magnify molehills.
9247. concerned - 9/11/2003 2:10:47 AM
9246 is re 9244.
9248. concerned - 9/11/2003 2:12:01 AM
...not 9245 which hadn't posted yet.
9249. ScreamingSin - 9/11/2003 2:13:09 AM
And an elbow is as good as a penis, eh?
9250. ScreamingSin - 9/11/2003 2:23:12 AM
Ponder that.
Continue quibbling amongst yourselves.
Goodnight.
9251. concerned - 9/11/2003 3:22:33 AM
Dream a dream for me, ScreamingSin.
9252. concerned - 9/11/2003 3:29:58 AM
Bad news for jexster: Howard Deany-bopping his 2004 prospects away
The Democratic presidential front-runner has made some reckless statements over the course of his campaign. The most notable, of course, implied Iraqis were no better off with Saddam Hussein out of power.
Yaaarrrggh!
Last week, Mr. Dean said it was not Washington's place to "take sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Ooooooff!
The former Vermont governor said that, as president, he would end U.S. trade agreements with any country that does not follow the same strict labor and environmental standards we do here.
Bleeeccchh!
9253. judithathome - 9/11/2003 7:37:16 AM
The Democratic presidential front-runner has made some reckless statements over the course of his campaign.
He has a loooong way to go to top those of Bush.
9254. thoughtful - 9/11/2003 8:41:20 AM
KtheH: "...when you should be looking to respect him [the President]. And instead of praying for him and hoping that he does a good job in leading this nation, you take your "free time" to ridicule him and hope he fails."
Interesting commentary. Don't remember your personal stand on Clinton, but wondered if you afforded him the same respect and prayers.
Certainly many in the GOP not only spent their days hoping WJC would fail, but actively working to bring him down from the time he started running, through appointments of special prosecutors to investigate events 20 years old, to 4 multi-million dollar investigations into the tragic suicide of Foster, culminating in his impeachment because he did something many, many americans from all walks of life do .... lie about his sex life. How did it respect the president by forcing him to publicly air private matters that had nothing to do with leading the country or national policy? How many in the GOP prayed for his success in leading the nation and how many prayed for his failure? How many in the GOP prayed the witch hunt would end there because they were guilty of extramarital affairs as well?
9255. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2003 11:00:17 AM
Go Chill'n—Smooch—Smooch—Smooch—Smooch!
9256. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:21:12 AM
"Don't remember your personal stand on Clinton, but wondered if you afforded him the same respect and prayers."
From the moment Clinton ran for office, he lied to us, to his wife, to everybody he could. He was a lowlife cheat who didn't deserve to hold such a high office. Yet I still prayed for him and asked God to help him make wise decisions in office.
"Certainly many in the GOP not only spent their days hoping WJC would fail..."
So? This doesn't mean it was right.
"his impeachment because he did something many, many americans from all walks of life do .... lie about his sex life"
Just because others do it, doesn't make it right. But if you are President of the USA, and abusing your office as such to get blow jobs, I do think that says something about your leadership qualifications and integrity in that office.
"How many in the GOP prayed for his success in leading the nation and how many prayed for his failure? How many in the GOP prayed the witch hunt would end there because they were guilty of extramarital affairs as well?"
You'll have to ask them, but again, these are just red herring questions which don't involve my point.
9257. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:24:02 AM
"Don't remember your personal stand on Clinton, but wondered if you afforded him the same respect and prayers."
And I certainly didn't waste my time maybe monkey faces of him, deriding him each and every chance I could get, time and time again. I hoped that, despite his obvious lack of integrity and lying ways, both privately and publicly, that God would help him lead our nation.
And besides, there is no dichotomy that should be made, or really can be made, between his personal and public lives. If the man has for decades made it a habit to lie to the people closest to him, he'll do it to those not so close as well. This false dichotomy that a man can be a leader of integrity, while lacking any integrity in his personal life, it just nuts.
9258. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2003 11:54:05 AM
In other words, it's okay for Bush to a) lie about bringing us into a war that most of the world objects to, b) being a puppet of NeoCon advisors who look to dominate and exploit the world and c) stir up a global hornet's nest of mayhem-martyrs who are willing to destroy the human race in the process.
Bush's behavior is the exact kind of behavior that he attributes to his "evil enemies," in that a scorched earth covered with innocent victims is the same by-product of his/their fundamentalist agendas.
Anyone who would sacrifice a generation to realize his delusion is an enemy of mankind.
You included, Kuligoon!
9259. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:57:25 AM
whatever
9260. concerned - 9/11/2003 11:58:06 AM
Certainly many in the GOP not only spent their days hoping WJC would fail, but actively working to bring him down from the time he started running, through appointments of special prosecutors to investigate events 20 years old,
Suddenly, in 'thoughtful's' febrile imagination, Janet Reno is transformed into 'many in the GOP'. LOL!
to 4 multi-million dollar investigations into the tragic suicide of Foster,
'thoughtful' would have no investigation at all, apparently. Try again 'Sherlock'.
culminating in his impeachment because he did something many, many americans from all walks of life do
False. Xlowntoon is unique in having taken the opportunity to comprehensively tell conflicting lies as well as fabricate, distort and withhold the truth from Federal Investigators, Congress and the American People for many months, and that was why he was impeached. Why not save your puerile prevarications about Xlowntoon's impeachment for your partisan shoe-size IQ clueless cohorts because you are embarrassing us adults with your abysmal lack of comprehension? And who did hire Craig Livingston?
9261. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 12:00:15 PM
"it's okay for Bush to a) lie about bringing us into a war that most of the world objects to, b) being a puppet of NeoCon advisors who look to dominate and exploit the world and c) stir up a global hornet's nest of mayhem-martyrs who are willing to destroy the human race in the process"
a) The war was justified regardless, and Saddam had to go regardless.
b) Yes, yes, more conspiracy nonsense from you. Get a grip.
c) You don't follow world events very closely. More terrorist attacks against American interests in the world occurred in the year before we attacked Saddam - and by a proportionally large amount - then after. You blather on and on with no basis in fact.
Go back to making monkey faces, monkey boy. That's more around your mentality and intellect level.
9262. concerned - 9/11/2003 12:02:36 PM
Bush's behavior is the exact kind of behavior that he attributes to his "evil enemies," in that a scorched earth covered with innocent victims is the same by-product of his/their fundamentalist agendas.
Anyone who would sacrifice a generation to realize his delusion is an enemy of mankind.
You included, Kuligoon!
There's no way even WoW could have taken himself seriously when he drooled the above out.
9263. jexster - 9/11/2003 12:15:39 PM
Dean Asks The General to Saddle Up
9264. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 12:19:58 PM
"sacrifice a generation?"
yeah, that is humorous upon second reading
9265. jexster - 9/11/2003 12:21:52 PM
It would be to a murdererous bastard spawn of the the father of lies.
How much more proof do we need?
Homeland Insecurity
9266. jexster - 9/11/2003 12:26:08 PM
American Public Sick of Bush's Cowboy Act
"Two years after [9-11], the U.S. public favors a distinctly less unilateral strategy than the one pursued by George W. Bush, found a major new poll released Tuesday. Some 81% of more than 1,200 respondents told pollsters from the University of Maryland's Program on International
Policy Attitudes (PIPA) that working 'more closely' with other countries was a key lesson learned from Sep. 11, as opposed to Washington acting 'on its own more' to fight terrorism. Strong majorities also called for the administration to pursue 'more cooperative approaches' with other nations and rely more on economic aid and diplomacy to fight terrorism and less on military means, according to the survey, conducted by California-based Knowledge Networks between Aug. 26 and Sep. 3... Before the
9-11 attacks, 14% of respondents expressed a great deal of confidence in the government's capability, a total that rose to 36% in October 2001. But today, the figure has fallen back to 18%, Gallup said."
9267. jayackroyd - 9/11/2003 12:29:28 PM
From the linked article: In early August, as George W. Bush was beginning a monthlong working vacation at his Texas ranch, he told reporters, "We learned a lesson on September the 11th, and that is, our nation is vulnerable to attack. And we're doing everything we can to protect the homeland."
yes, this is a very typical Bush lie. It's of the appoint a job czar genus. Say your doing something knowing that it is ineffectual.
And it's also typically built on a previous falsehood (which he may have believed), that creating a department of homeland security was gonna make a difference.
It's that initial misapprehension that is the problem. You can't ever secure all the vulnerable points in this country. There are too many of them. It's true that the president has done much less than he has left the impression he was going to do, but it's a Sisyphean task. Better to secure high risk areas, which at least around here, is being done to a fairly reasonable degree, and let the soft targets go.
And get the damn marshalls off the planes. Guns on planes is a bad idea.
9268. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 12:31:50 PM
So, people have changed their minds. Big duh!! on that one.
9269. concerned - 9/11/2003 12:35:19 PM
And it's also typically built on a previous falsehood (which he may have believed), that creating a department of homeland security was gonna make a difference.
Why should I believe for a second your uninformed assertion that it hasn't? Back it up, or retract.
9270. Wombat - 9/11/2003 12:47:33 PM
The real falsehood was that Bush initially opposed a Department of Homeland Security, as it would be a tool of big government.
9271. Wombat - 9/11/2003 12:48:02 PM
Now, of course, he takes credit for it.
9272. jayackroyd - 9/11/2003 12:55:27 PM
So, people have changed their minds. Big duh!! on that one.
Let's try this on again. My problem is not that they have changed their minds. It's that they haven't done what they said they would do, while saying they have done what they said they would do.
Stand up like a adult, say you were wrong, and you're gonna fix. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with saying "we're doing everything we can" when they are doing less than they said they were going to do.
9273. jayackroyd - 9/11/2003 12:57:55 PM
Why should I believe for a second your uninformed assertion that it hasn't? Back it up, or retract.
From the article jexster linked:
§ In June a Council on Foreign Relations task force--headed by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman--issued a report noting that "the United States remains dangerously ill-prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil." According to this study, most fire departments are short on radios and breathing apparatuses and only 10 percent are able to handle a building collapse. Police departments across the country lack the protective gear necessary to secure a site struck by a weapon of mass destruction. Most public health labs do not have the personnel or equipment to respond to a chemical or biological attack. The task force estimated the country will fall $98.4 billion short in funding needs for emergency responders over the next five years. And a study released by RAND in August essentially seconded the CFR task force report.
§ According to a June report by the Century Foundation's Homeland Security Project, "State and local governments have complained that they cannot improve their preparedness without more money. The federal government promised $3.5 billion in aid, but only $2.2 billion has been made available so far."
9274. jayackroyd - 9/11/2003 12:58:23 PM
§ In June Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced about $300 million in funding for improving security at ports. The Coast Guard, though, has estimated that $1 billion is needed. Ports throughout the United States have asked for nearly that much to finance 1,380 security projects. "Any and all funding is helpful, but [the money provided] really doesn't even come close to what is needed," Maureen Ellis, a spokeswoman for the American Association of Port Authorities, told the Baltimore Sun. Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, worked on a CFR terrorism study that preceded the report on emergency responders. He complains that the government has spent only about $10 million on security for maritime containers. "We've invested so little to date," he warns.
§ A review conducted by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan good-government outfit, found that the government is drastically short on medical and scientific employees for its biodefense programs.
§ In late July the Transportation Security Administration asked Congress for permission to reduce its air marshal program by 20 percent, at a time when the Bush Administration was issuing warnings about hijackings. To counter the ensuing bad PR, Ridge declared there would be no reduction in the program. (He later announced its reassignment to another agency.) Since the TSA has received nearly $1 billion less than it had requested, it has been forced to implement other program cuts.
9275. concerned - 9/11/2003 1:02:06 PM
It sounds like more of a chronic underfunding problem than that the DHS is 'making no difference' to me. IAC, thanks for the excerpt.
9276. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 1:09:20 PM
"It's that they haven't done what they said they would do, while saying they have done what they said they would do.
Stand up like a adult, say you were wrong, and you're gonna fix. I have no problem with that."
You mean like all previous Presidents have done??
That's obvious sarcasm I hope. It's politics, Jay. It has always been this way.
9277. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2003 1:11:03 PM
Jay, I admire your equanimity in reasoning with . . . obdurate self-deceivers.
I'll stick to visuals that tell the truth and annoy the hell out of Bush fanatics . . .
9278. thoughtful - 9/11/2003 7:55:28 PM
OK, got it.
Clinton lies about his private sex life...he deserves impeachment.
Bush lies about why he's putting the nation at war...it's ok because we're for the war anyway.
Clinton changes his mind...he's flip-flopping on issues.
Bush changes his mind...he's responding appropriately to unforeseeable circumstances.
Clinton refuses to admit he was wrong...he's a spineless weasel.
Bush refuses to admit he was wrong...hey, that's politics.
Clinton smoked pot...he's a scofflaw hippie that shouldn't be allowed in office.
Bush spent a significant portion of the first 40 years of his life drunk and high on coke...hallelujah, he's been redeemed!
Clinton comes from a poor broken home and makes it to the top on his own....he always was and will be trailer trash.
Bush comes from a wealthy family and uses his family influence to get him into school, into business, out of failed business ventures, out of vietnam, out of charges from the SEC...aren't family values wonderful.
Hillary proposes a plan to fix the nation's health care crisis...that feminazi!
Laura Bush kills a classmate...such a tragedy for the Bush family.
9279. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2003 3:05:58 PM
Brava! There's nothin' like insight, t-ful—keep that wonderful sense of irony.
9280. thoughtful - 9/11/2003 3:13:47 PM
And Wiz, you just keep them simian sketches coming...unlike some, I think a little sedition is good for the soul.
9281. thoughtful - 9/11/2003 3:19:28 PM
Darn it Wiz! Now you told them I was being sarcastic and they'll dump all over me again.
Shoulda kept quiet...they would've thought I'd been converted.
9282. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 3:31:06 PM
Well, it's not quite that simple thoughtful, although an entertaining post nonetheless!
I think the lies Clinton told time and time again about his personal affairs and follies displayed a deep lack of integrity that affected all other areas of his personal and private life.
I don't think the same can be said yet for Bush Jr. What I find in these threads is the overuse of the word "liar." I feel like Resonance/Angel 5 is here again, spouting that word every other post. If the man changes his mind: LIAR! If he had to choose between competing positions: LIAR! And I simply do not think it is that easy.
Now then, I agree, I'd prefer to have a politician who admits every mistake and honestly tells us he wants to do better. But I live in the real world!
Also, if you make a mistake in the past and then admit it and move on, I respect that as well. With Clinton, he tried to cover up his pot smoking with that nonsense about not inhaling, whereas I would have preferred him to say: "That was then and I'm wiser now." Same goes with Schwarzeneggar and the Oui article/comments. Just say, "I was an idiot there, but I've changed for the better" and move on. Don't try to act like you didn't say it or do it!
And that's the difference with Bush's drinking past. He admits it, says his faith changed him for the better, and that's that.
You'll have to get me up to speed on who Laura Bush killed, though.
9283. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2003 3:40:36 PM
9284. thoughtful - 9/11/2003 4:26:19 PM
See about Laura Bush's car crash: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1698.htm
9285. judithathome - 9/11/2003 4:44:55 PM
But I live in the real world!
I don't think you do, though. If you think Bush's lies are okay and Clinton's aren't, you're fooling yourself. A lie is a lie is a lie.
9286. concerned - 9/11/2003 5:13:44 PM
Re. 9282 -
Nobody gets away with telling me that anything happening in the Oval Office is merely a 'personal affair'.
9287. OhioSTOPAS - 9/11/2003 5:14:43 PM
Judith, I disagree. Some lies ARE worse than others. A President's lie about the reason he is ordering troops into war is clearly worse than a President's lie about whether he received oral sex.
9288. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 5:17:24 PM
Sorry, but there were a variety of reasons why Bush sent the troops to Iraq, not just one. I honestly think they did honestly believe there were WMD, and there still could be. Plus, no matter how you slice it, Saddam was a evil dictator who had to go, period. And further, he obviously did support terrorism against American interests. Just look at his response after 9/11.
Things have changed, folks, and the administration is moving with those changes. You obviously are not.
Judith, how often did you call Clinton on his lying? You aren't nearly consistent enough to listen to on this one.
9289. concerned - 9/11/2003 5:17:27 PM
The only lies I'm seeing are the ones LW scum are telling about GWB.
9290. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 5:19:13 PM
Further, Saddam played with the UN for YEARS, not just a couple of weeks. Clinton never had the balls to go after him for it, but Bush did. And now you Clintonites are ashamed for that wuss you supported all those years, who shoveled the shit so high you couldn't even see his eyeballs (nor your own for that matter).
You remained silent all those years. Where were you then? Nothing but hypocrisy.
9291. OhioSTOPAS - 9/11/2003 5:22:03 PM
Telling the lie in a formal communication to Congress or in the State of the Union message is a further aggravating factor.
9292. jexster - 9/11/2003 6:12:38 PM
>Bush's Global Warming Lies:Smoking-Gun Memo Documenting White House-Exxon Link
"Did conservative elements in the White House provoke an Exxon front group to sue EPA to suppress a report on climate change?... a routine email in a Freedom of Information Act request [in which] Myron Ebell of the Exxon-funded CEI writes to Phil Cooney, a senior official at the White House Council for Environmental Quality.
He describes his plans to discredit an EPA study on climate change through a lawsuit. He states the need to 'drive a wedge between the Resident and those in the Administration who think that they are serving the Resident's interests by publishing this rubbish.' He notes his group is considering a call for the then-head of the EPA, Christine Todd Whitman, to resign, and openly suggests that she'd make an appropriate 'fall gal' if the administration is serious about getting back into bed with conservatives opposing action on climate change. His memo...begins 'Thanks
for calling and asking for our help.'"
9293. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2003 6:16:56 PM
9288 & 9290:The Fantasy vs. The Reality
9294. jexster - 9/11/2003 6:28:26 PM
One year ago, Bush calculated that we'd believe his lies about Iraq....Now he has concocted another load for us to swallow
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 President Bush (news - web sites), seeking still greater powers to fight terrorism, appears to have calculated that the renewed memories of the Sept. 11 attacks evoked by their second anniversary will be enough to outweigh rising concerns over civil liberties.
9295. jexster - 9/11/2003 6:32:50 PM
Hiding Behind Piles of 9-1-1 Bodies
Bush Plugs New Ashcroft "PATRIOT" Act Power Grab;
9296. judithathome - 9/11/2003 6:53:08 PM
Judith, how often did you call Clinton on his lying? You aren't nearly consistent enough to listen to on this one.
I probably called him on it far more than you have called Bush on his...because you obviously can't see the lies for the belief that he is in the right.
You don't have to be consistent to see the truth. But then, you think you have the truth all wrapped up in pretty package, don't you? I've got news for you...if there is a God, he isn't looking down on GW Bush with whole-hearted approval, no matter what you think.
9297. jexster - 9/11/2003 7:25:32 PM
Bush's Many Miscalculations
On Sept. 11, the president was handed a historic opportunity. He ignored it.
9298. jayackroyd - 9/11/2003 7:28:54 PM
Sorry, but there were a variety of reasons why Bush sent the troops to Iraq, not just one.
Yes, KtH there were. And he didn't tell us all those reasons. More to the point, the reasons he offered were not the real reasons, and they were based, in fact, on falsehoods.
One can claim that some of those falsehoods were misapprehensions and mistakes.
However:
1) The most compelling to the American voting public were not mistakes and misapprehensions. They were calculated lies. There were no nukes. There were no links to al qaeda. There was no threat to Americans in the streets of of New York.
2. He hasn't stepped up and said that the others were mistakes and misapprehensions. He's said we've been right all along, nothing has changed, everything is going fine, now give me 87 billion.
So neither the stated reasons that were lied about, the stated reasons that were wrong nor the unstated actual justifications have been presented in an honest way by this administration.
You can say "everybody does it". But I doubt that is a justification you would accept from one of your children.
9299. jexster - 9/11/2003 7:30:23 PM
A failed executive's dismal legacy.
By the summer of 2003, it could fairly be said that most of the world hated the United States, or at least feared the current U.S. government. A particularly disturbing poll commissioned by the BBC revealed that the vast majority of Jordanians and Indonesians consider the United States more dangerous than al-Qaida. A majority in India, Russia, South Korea, and Brazil see us as more dangerous than Iran. An international poll by the Pew Research Center reported that over 70 percent of citizens in such generally friendly countries as Spain, France, Russia, and South Korea think the United States doesn't take into account the interests of others.
Two years ago, according to the Pew survey, three-quarters of Indonesians had a positive view of America; now, more than four-fifths have a negative view. In the summer of 2002, two-thirds of French and Germans viewed America favorably; now the share has dropped to less than half. Even support for America's war on terrorism—a cause that should transcend politics—has dropped in France, Germany, and Russia from more than 70 percent a year ago to less than 60 percent now.
9300. jexster - 9/11/2003 7:32:02 PM
the light glows dimmer, the tunnel stretches longer, the budget piles higher, and the desert-swamp gets deeper—
The Emperor is butt naked.
9301. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 7:57:11 PM
"if there is a God, he isn't looking down on GW Bush with whole-hearted approval, no matter what you think."
This is, what, the third time in the past two days that someone has placed words into my mouth and false thoughts in my mind, and then attacked those straw men ideas.
Has the quality of this forum really deteriorated to such an extent as this??!
And judith, pul-leaze, what God does or does not think . . . coming from you???
jay, the British still stand by their report from which that one comment in the State of the Union address was based. So what if some people thought the report "unreliable?" They didn't say it was patently false or untrue. They just weren't entirely sure or its reliability. But the British STILL ARE.
However, I have no doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton knew that his dick actually did go into the mouth of Lewinski.
I think it was perfectly acceptable to think that Saddam had some links to terrorism. For crying out loud, he committed genocide on his own people and if not for the United States and Britain would have continued to do so.
I find it so absolutely incredibly that a murderous dictator and his regime was meant to be considered trustworthy, "Uh, yeah Mr. UN, I don't have MWD anymore. Honest!"
There was ample reason and evidence for those reasons to go into Iraq and give Saddam the boot, let alone the humanitarian reasons as well.
It is people like judith, jexter, Wiz of Wimpass Comedy, and the like who, when we found the mass grave sites and freed children from prison who said, "Oh, big deal." Who would have preferred to see Saddam stay where he was. You cannot for one moment debate that deposing Saddam was justified.
9302. jexster - 9/11/2003 7:58:47 PM
Ground zero, 2004
Next year's Republican Convention will convene blocks from the WTC site, just days before the anniversary of 9/11. The reception from New Yorkers, though, might not be what the White House has in mind.
9303. arkymalarky - 9/11/2003 8:04:50 PM
Has the quality of this forum really deteriorated to such an extent as this??!
You don't generally spend much time in the Politics thread, do you?
Of course I always thought the nearest thing to it was the Religion thread.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. (If you don't get that, then you must begin watching Seinfeld reruns now that your back in civilization)
9304. arkymalarky - 9/11/2003 8:05:04 PM
you're
9305. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 8:05:42 PM
Back in civilization?? My fellow Namibians would take that as a personal insult!!
9306. arkymalarky - 9/11/2003 8:06:27 PM
But gee, it didn't take you long to pick back up the vernacular. ;->
9307. arkymalarky - 9/11/2003 8:07:00 PM
Hey, if I were them I would too.
9308. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 8:27:46 PM
Sorry, arky. I should have put a smiley face on my last post to you.
You know me. I come here to argue a while and get people worked up. Then I crawl away for a couple of weeks to relax.
Hey, it beats getting angry at my wife, who is very difficult to get angry at!
9309. jexster - 9/11/2003 8:36:10 PM
Leaked GOP Internal Poll: Voters Think Nation on Wrong Track
Branding irony
"Fall Communications Environment," the funny memo dispatched yesterday by Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, to all of her GOP colleagues. Having verified its authenticity with a helpful member of Pryce's staff, I think parts of it are definitely worth sharing -- especially because it provides insight into what Republicans really worry about behind the usual partisan bluster:
"Welcome back. As you are well aware from meeting and talking with your constituents over the August district work period, House Republicans are facing a difficult communications environment. Following the summer vacations and back-to-school preparations, families are returning to their daily routines and focusing again on "kitchen table" issues such as the economy, health care and national security.
"More than any time this year, Americans are increasingly concerned about the economy, their job situation, and the latest developments in Iraq. Because of these concerns converging together in recent weeks, anxiety about the direction of the country has escalated. In the most recent New Models survey conducted by the Winston Group (September 3-4, 1,000 registered voters), the direction of the country now stands at 37-51 right direction-wrong track."
Worse yet, the House Democrats seemed to be getting some traction, according to the Republican pollsters' findings:
"Of those who heard a message from House Democrats, 44 percent were more favorable to Democrats, and 38 percent were less favorable. This is the first time this year that their message received a positive reaction. By contrast, the House Republican message was neutrally received among those who heard a message from Members, with 40 percent being more favorable to House Republicans and 43 percent less favorable."
9310. Edmund Dantes - 9/11/2003 9:53:17 PM
test
9311. jayackroyd - 9/11/2003 10:01:25 PM
Lookin' for wmd, Eddie?
9312. arkymalarky - 9/11/2003 10:09:29 PM
I got the smiley, and mine was in the same vein. I wish you'd stick around more regularly. I'm around daily but not for many minutes at a time.
Hey, it beats getting angry at my wife, who is very difficult to get angry at!
That doesn't work for Bob and me. In fact, if we have an argument and I get him with a real zinger, the first words out of his mouth are "You got that from the Mote, didn't you?"
9313. arkymalarky - 9/11/2003 10:09:52 PM
Hahaha. Trial balloon.
9314. jayackroyd - 9/11/2003 10:15:57 PM
jay, the British still stand by their report from which that one comment in the State of the Union address was based. So what if some people thought the report "unreliable?" They didn't say it was patently false or untrue. They just weren't entirely sure or its reliability. But the British STILL ARE.
So your view is that the president was telling the truth on this issue? That he really believed that Iraq represented a nuclear threat directed at the US?
I think it was perfectly acceptable to think that Saddam had some links to terrorism. For crying out loud, he committed genocide on his own people and if not for the United States and Britain would have continued to do so.
That statement contains its own refutation. But, in any case,are you claiming that your post-hoc justification ("committed genocide on his own people") was the justification the president used for the claim that Americans were at risk?
I find it so absolutely incredibly that a murderous dictator and his regime was meant to be considered trustworthy, "Uh, yeah Mr. UN, I don't have MWD anymore. Honest!"
No in fact the basic criticism is that he was untrustworthy, and that you couldn't bank on anything he said. Blix point at the time (if the issue really was the threat of WMD) was that you need more time to explore whether he is lying about possessing these weapons at this time.
9315. jexster - 9/11/2003 10:20:42 PM
Burying the Dead
Bush Cites 9/11 On All Manner Of Questions
References Could Backfire - WPost
The Giants magical number is 8.
Wire to wire with Feeleepaloooooo and not one reference to 9-1-1
9316. arkymalarky - 9/11/2003 10:24:07 PM
Quite a bit in Slate on the subject under discussion, including this. Just saw Plotz interviewed on CNN.
9317. judithathome - 9/11/2003 10:52:10 PM
the British still stand by their report from which that one comment in the State of the Union address was based. So what if some people thought the report "unreliable?" They didn't say it was patently false or untrue. They just weren't entirely sure or its reliability. But the British STILL ARE.
You may have been too busy reacclimating to the wonders of cable TV and missed the news, fella. Tony Blair is about to be handed his ass over the lies he told to his people...they, evidently, don't buy that good old boy BS.
It is people like judith, jexter, Wiz of Wimpass Comedy, and the like who, when we found the mass grave sites and freed children from prison who said, "Oh, big deal." Who would have preferred to see Saddam stay where he was.
Oh, I see...now you have picked up Concerned's favorite tricks. Well, taking a page from your book, don't put words in our mouths and get back to me when you have done some reading on what actually happened while you were out of the country.
9318. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 10:52:26 PM
"So your view is that the president was telling the truth on this issue? That he really believed that Iraq represented a nuclear threat directed at the US?"
jay, here's what I think in all honesty. He already had his mind made up to go after Saddam. Some of it was because Saddam is an evil dictator. Some because Bush Sr. didn't get rid of him and so he will do what daddy failed to do. Some of it is because America would like to have some more allies in the Middle East, and this might be a good way to get them (which I wouldn't agree is, I'm just telling you what I think Bush might have thought). Lastly, in the face of the terrorist attacks in America, and Saddam's obvious hatred for all things American, Saddam may indeed pose a risk to American interests.
Bush is also watching the UN flounder after several YEARS of no guts when it came to Saddam and his games. After trying to get the UN to see things differently, Bush gets a coalition of about 30 countries and goes after Saddam. The naysayers look for every possible failure, "Oh my goodness, it didn't happen in 2 hours; can you believe it, we are bogged down in a sandstorm and we will never prevail," and so on.
Oh, yeah, I forgot the WMD, which I honestly believed as well that Saddam had. I mean, really, am I gonna believe Saddam when he says he doesn't have them?? (cont)
9319. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 10:56:59 PM
Now comes the other issue, nukes. I don't find it a stretch at all to think that Saddam was attempting to acquire them, especially with the things happening in N. Korea. There are clearly other countries who would like to see the US go down the toilet, and I think a reasonable amount of paranoia, especially after 9/11, is justifiable.
The British gave us intelligence info which they said was trustworthy and TO THIS VERY DAY still stick by it. So did Bush believe it?
The man sits there with all his advisors, some saying one thing, others saying something else. I am willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. So here's my summary:
I believe Bush honestly believed we'd find WMD, that Iraq did attempt to purchase uranium from Africa, that the Iraqi people would praise us for "liberating them," that it probably wasn't going to be too easy but we'd prevail in the end, that Saddam had ties to terrorists hell bent on targeting American interests, and that Saddam was just plain evil anyway, so let's give him the boot. Oh, and that the UN was too inept and too indecisive and wimpy to do anything about it.
While in Namibia, I actually saw a fair amount of Tony Blair and hardly nothing of Bush. I found Blair to be incredibly convincing and moving in his reasons for removing Saddam, and I still do.
9320. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:00:29 PM
judith, I just saw your post. I have been amazed at the differences in the political system of Britain as opposed to here. I think Blair and Bush made difficult choices, and particularly Blair knew from the get go that it might cost him his political career.
And to his great credit, he did it anyway. I gained a great deal of respect for him because of that.
Further, Blair is no Bushite and was much more comfortable around a Bill Clinton. This is further proof for me that going after Saddam was the right thing to do (now I'm not saying they did everything perfectly).
If Blair gets "handed his ass" that's too bad, but the man stood for something that I believe will one day be proven to be of great importance to humanity: the removal of Saddam Hussein. He made a choice that took guts and I doubt he will ever regret it. I wish Clinton had been a leader like Blair.
9321. judithathome - 9/11/2003 11:00:57 PM
The Niger/uranium story has been discredited. What about that don't you understand?
9322. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:01:05 PM
As to the rest of your lame comments, judith, I'm feeling in a good mood this evening and will let them slide.
9323. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:01:46 PM
The Niger story has NOT been discredited in the UK, judith. You know, there are other parts of the world that matter sometimes, not just Texas.
9324. judithathome - 9/11/2003 11:03:14 PM
I am perfectly aware that there are, Kuligan. Don't forget, yoiur truthful hero Bush comes from here. According to him.
9325. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:04:20 PM
And even if the UK did back down *today* from the Niger story, that doesn't mean anything half a year ago when they claimed with all their heart that it was true.
Haven't you ever believed something to be true, judith, because you trusted the source, only to find out later that the source was wrong??` Wouldn't you then want people to give you the benefit of the doubt in that case?
I mean, we're not talking about a guy who sat in the oval office and took blow jobs from an intern, told us flat out he didn't do any such thing, then later said he did but tried to parse his words to make it look like he didn't lie.
No, we have a President given reliable intelligence from a close ally, and he took that info and put ONE SENTENCE in his address about it.
Are you this unfair with everybody you meet judith??
9326. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:05:21 PM
My posts 9318 and 9319 perfectly summarize my feelings on this topic, and I think clearly done so as well. Refer back to them if you like, but I think I am through with this topic for now.
9327. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:06:35 PM
Let's be honest, people looking for lies will find them no matter what. And if the guy was perfectly honest about what he did or did not believe, no matter what he said about it, you'd think he was lying. You just assume he would even before he came into office, and you can't see past your blind hatred of the man.
9328. judithathome - 9/11/2003 11:07:33 PM
Chronology of Niger Uranium Story
You may be through with it but it's not through with you.
9329. judithathome - 9/11/2003 11:08:35 PM
Haven't you ever believed something to be true, judith, because you trusted the source, only to find out later that the source was wrong??`
Yes, I used to believe what they told me in Sunday school.
9330. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:18:57 PM
judith, from your link:
"The United Kingdom issues a report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program stating "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants, and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium."
And they have never backed down from this claim. Had they, of course, your link would have provided said backdown.
So what if some people thought the info "unreliable" or "questionable?" The UK was very firm with their belief, and Bush believed them.
That's it. No conspiracy. No lies. No fabrications.
Unless, of course, you are on a witch hunt for them, judith. You are no better than the Puritans you deride.
9331. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:19:37 PM
"Yes, I used to believe what they told me in Sunday school."
Let's talk about this in Religion, because I am honestly curious about this.
9332. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:24:20 PM
Again, try for a moment to give the benefit of the doubt.
Bush sits there. He knows Saddam can't be trusted. He knows the UN is too wimpy to enforce its own laws. He knows Saddam hates America and would love nothing more than to see us crushed.
Bush lives in a new world, a post-9/11 world. The unthinkable has happened. After reading about it all those years happening to other people, or to American interests in other places, it finally hits us square between the eyes.
Saddam invaded another country, he exterminated thousands of his own people, he was known to have WMD, and he has flouted for YEARS the UN resolutions concerning inspectors.
Now the UK, our staunchest ally, provides us with intelligence data that hints at the possibility that Saddam is attempting to build nukes.
Is this really that hard to believe?
I think not.
9333. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2003 11:36:03 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
9334. KuligintheHooligan - 9/11/2003 11:46:41 PM
You are a little, pathetic person who is only owed my deepest sympathy and pity for your mental well-being. I honestly feel sorry for you.
Or, perhaps, you are just 11 years old. Then I take that back.
9335. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2003 11:54:29 PM
9336. jayackroyd - 9/12/2003 9:31:55 AM
They're still doing it. GMA yesterday:
Wolfowitz: No, I'm sorry. I mean, Saddam Hussein was an advocate of terrorism, a financier of terrorism, a harborer of terrorists before--the things that we told you about before that George Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee, the things that Secretary Powell told the U.N. Security Council. Secretary Powell spoke about this man Zarqawi, who was in Iraq, clearly sheltered by Baghdad. Everything we've learned since then only deepens our understanding. The one bomber still at-large from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was sheltered in Iraq for 10 years, and we've learned more about him. The ties were there.
9337. thoughtful - 9/12/2003 9:37:52 AM
"Let's be honest, people looking for lies will find them no matter what. And if the guy was perfectly honest about what he did or did not believe, no matter what he said about it, you'd think he was lying. You just assume he would even before he came into office, and you can't see past your blind hatred of the man."
Hmmm....a dem could easily have said the exact same words to a repub about clinton.
9338. thoughtful - 9/12/2003 9:53:40 AM
KtheH, perhaps you missed this part of the British intelligence story, including the untimely death of the man who is said to be the BBC's source about how the government "sexed up" it's Iraq intelligence.
9339. judithathome - 9/12/2003 11:00:42 AM
Unless, of course, you are on a witch hunt for them, judith. You are no better than the Puritans you deride
Perhaps you stopped reading at the paragraph you quoted and missd this:
March 7, 2003: IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei tells the UN Security Council that the documents allegedly detailing uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are "not authentic" and "these specific allegations are unfounded."
March 9, 2003: Powell acknowledges that the documents concerning the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal might be false.
9340. jayackroyd - 9/12/2003 11:10:32 AM
9337
That's a distracting argument, and one that belies the magnitude of the dishonesty of this administration.
It also implicitly accepts the idea that the Clintons' personal personal penchant for dishonesty was reflected in the administration's performance in that area.
And it was not. Barring their biggest policy disaster (and one of the best reasons to hope Hilary is never president) in health care reform, what they said, by and large, is what you got.
They predicted surpluses. Surpluses emerged.
They said they'd reform welfare because it was creating perverse incentives. They reformed welfare reducing the perverse incentives.
They said they were gonna bail out Mexico need help, and they bailed out Mexico.
They said free trade is a good thing, and they passed Nafta.
They did not say things like "We need to give money back to the American people and therefore we have to cut taxes, which will have not cause a deficit" and then say "We need to create jobs, and therefore we have to cut taxes."
The profound, an in my experience, unique thing going on here is that they will say anything that, in the moment, will draw the most support for the policy they want to implement. This is a very short-sighted strategy, because eventually people start to notice. Krugman was onto this from the beginning, pointing out during the campaign that Bush could not simultaneously cut taxes, retain the surpluses, and meet current obligations.
9341. judithathome - 9/12/2003 11:15:13 AM
And isn't it odd that the tax cuts Bush gave to his rich friends just about equal what he needs to fight this war?
9342. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/12/2003 11:18:17 AM
Exploiting the Atrocity
9343. jayackroyd - 9/12/2003 11:21:43 AM
He has been beating that drum insistently. And, while sometimes hyperbolic, he has been right every time. He was right about the administration's cynical use of 9/11 to advance their policy goals when he first wrote about two years ago. He also has been very critical of the media for doing what they always do, which is quote the administration, quote the opposition, and make no comment on the truth or falsity of the respective statements. Today he says time is running out:
press has become a lot less shy about pointing out the administration's exploitation of 9/11, partly because that exploitation has become so crushingly obvious. As The Washington Post pointed out yesterday, in the past six weeks President Bush has invoked 9/11 not just to defend Iraq policy and argue for oil drilling in the Arctic, but in response to questions about tax cuts, unemployment, budget deficits and even campaign finance. Meanwhile, the crudity of the administration's recent propaganda efforts, from dressing the president up in a flight suit to orchestrating the ludicrously glamorized TV movie about Mr. Bush on 9/11, have set even supporters' teeth on edge.
Banks made earlier comments on the sheer gall, the chutzpah involved in this kind of extreme (and extremely cynical) use of spin. I think it's going to crumble under the weight of the record, but we'll see.
Kinsley wrote about this yesterday on Slate, saying what I was saying to Kuligin recently. I understand that people make mistakes, that policies have to be adjusted. If, on Sunday, Bush had stood up and said some things haven't gone as smoothly as we had hoped, that it was going be difficult, especially because changes in plan had to be made, and accepted responsibility, he'd be a lot better off. Kinsley thinks he should have also said "I'm sorry," but I don't think that is even necessary.
9344. jayackroyd - 9/12/2003 11:21:55 AM
He does need to say that he is responsible, and that these mistakes are his responsibility. He seems constitutionally incapable of doing this, and so you have him and Wolfowitz going back the terrorism well one more time.
But so far it's worked. I just read a story that said 70% of Americans polled think Saddam Hussein was part of the 9/11 plot.
I don't think he has succeeded in "restoring honor and dignity to the White House."
9345. jayackroyd - 9/12/2003 11:29:51 AM
And, ranting on, there is something deeply evil about this.
This is Dick Morris, Lee Atwater kind of complete and utter disregard for anything other than the acquistion of power.
In Joe Klein's roman a clef about the Clinton administration (I cannot remember the title, but he called himself anonymous as a pseudonym), Dick Morris was cast as a character they called the Prince of Darkness. When the poll numbers had to be made, when power was in danger of waning, he would come in with his focus group results and polls and tell the president what policies he had to follow if he wanted to win reelection.
The difference between then and now is that the Bush Administration's Prince of Darkness has a permanent office in the west wing.
9346. jayackroyd - 9/12/2003 11:41:36 AM
And, finally, [I promise] this is why the answer to the "politics as usual" claim is not to agree with the claim implicitly by saying "why weren't you saying that about Clinton." It is important to recognize that this administration is very cynically, knowing exactly what they are doing, and why it is working, are manipulating the American people.
So they run their focus groups and read their polls, then decide what particular bit of deceit will work best. And as time has gone on something interesting has happened. In the beginning, people wanted to believe that to the degree this was happening, it was the president's advisers who were these things, taking advantage of his being not all that detail oriented, feeding him his lines.
That seems less and less plausible. It seems more and more likely that this is what Bush himself views as an honorable and dignified way to engage in policy-making.
The frightening thing is that it may work. Reagan convinced the nation that his dream of a nuclear shield could be attained. Bush may well convince the nation that in order to prevent terrorist attacks we have to follow all of his policy positions.
9347. judithathome - 9/12/2003 11:45:01 AM
Of course he believes this is the way to work it...he wasn't Ken Lays friend for nothing. He's running the country like Lay ran Enron.
9348. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2003 11:50:30 AM
"Perhaps you stopped reading at the paragraph you quoted and missd this:
March 7, 2003: IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei tells the UN Security Council that the documents allegedly detailing uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are "not authentic" and "these specific allegations are unfounded."
Judith, that's AFTER the State of the Union Address! Therefore, it has little bearing on what Bush was thinking BEFORE he made said one sentence comment in said address.
9349. judithathome - 9/12/2003 11:51:54 AM
Kuligin, he was advised SPECIFICALLY not to put that in the SotU address.
9350. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2003 11:54:10 AM
You guys seem to think that, just because there were some dissenting voices and concerns raised about the nuke report from the UK, that when Bush used the intelligence info anyway that automatically constitutes LYING. That is my problem.
Was the data in error? Guess it was. But does that automatically mean that Bush LIED about it from the start? no it doesn't.
Again, if you want to jump to false conclusions, so be it. But just be honest with yourselves. You only see lies but that is what you hope to find. So you give absolutely no benefit of the doubt to a man innundated with reports and advisors trying to make the best decision he could.
9351. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2003 11:55:44 AM
judith, I don't care! He made his own choice based on the data. Some advised him not to use it, others did.
Gosh, you are so unfair and nitpicky on this one. If all you would say is that Bush made a MISTAKE I wouldn't be bothering you about this at all. But it is lies, lies, lies, and nonsense like that.
In fact, you are doing exactly what you claim Bush did. You are jumping to false conclusions and picking and choosing what evidence you need to make said conclusions, while ignoring the contrary data. Exactly.
9352. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2003 11:56:40 AM
Now with this I really need to be done, so say what you will from this point forward, but I don't want to spend any more time in this thread. I have said my piece and will not slunker back to my old stomping ground.
Auf wiedersehen.
9353. judithathome - 9/12/2003 12:00:26 PM
You are jumping to false conclusions and picking and choosing what evidence you need to make said conclusions, while ignoring the contrary data. Exactly.
To which I say, and pardon my French, bullshit. It's not up to me to educate you on the facts (gee, where did I come up with that?) I am hardly the only person who thinks Bush willfully misled the American public. Look it up!
9354. thoughtful - 9/12/2003 12:24:50 PM
K the H, In October BEFORE the SotU address, the reference was pulled from another W speech because the intelligence was wrong. Another speech Powell was to give he called BS and refused unless the reference to the uranium deal was deleted. After the SotU address when the admin. went running around first denying it was wrong, the claiming it was based solely on british intell, then claiming it was only 16 little words so what's the big deal, then blamed some CIA staffer and when that didn't fly had Tenet accept the blame and finally after weeks of this thing not dying down, our brave, forthright, morally clear pres finally admitted that the ultimate responsibility for what he said rested with him! All the time the WH website flaunted a picture of W going over the SotU address "word for word".
And it's not like the forgery of the documents they were looking at was an excellent piece of work...it was shoddy...even signed by a guy who had left office years earlier.
And the question still remains, who forged the document and why?
9355. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2003 1:14:50 PM
jay
I very much appreciated your last series of posts. Food for reflection.
9356. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2003 1:17:37 PM
Kuligan's faith in Bush is as unwavering as his faith in God. The fucking liberal scum here have to respect genuine, unquestioning faith when they see it. To engage in debate is unseemly.
9357. judithathome - 9/12/2003 2:40:00 PM
I agree, Pelle. It's fruitless to argue with zealotry of that magnitude.
9358. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/12/2003 2:53:42 PM
9343. jayackroyd - If, on Sunday, Bush had stood up and said some things haven't gone as smoothly as we had hoped, that it was going be difficult, especially because changes in plan had to be made, and accepted responsibility, he'd be a lot better off.
Bush is illiterate in the worst sense of the word, in that he can't read his own heart. Moreover, the fools who believe (in) him can't see through his bravado because they can't see through themselves or the petty fears, pride and resentments that motivate them.
Bush is incapable of saying he was wrong, let alone saying he was sorry. Combine that with his self-righteousness and lack of self-awareness, any expectations for a candid apologia is a waste of time and thought.
9359. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/12/2003 4:15:50 PM
9360. concerned - 9/12/2003 4:39:02 PM
Re. 9359 -
This made me laugh.
9361. concerned - 9/12/2003 4:40:14 PM
THREE JUDGE PANEL POURS OUT TEXAS DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
Laredo court dismisses all of their claims
Too bad I'm not a subscriber, I guess.
9362. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/12/2003 4:53:12 PM
Good for you, connie!
9363. jayackroyd - 9/12/2003 5:24:34 PM
KtH--
Yes, it's true that there were individual falsehoods--the nukes, the links to al qaeda--which the president may have sincerely believed. I doubt that quite strongly, because there was plenty of countervailing evidence at the time (which I pointed out, at the time) in the public view.
But it is clearly and without a doubt not true that the reasons the president stated for going to war were the reasons that motivated the decision. This was not about a threat to the United States. This was not about disarming Iraq. Regardless of whether he believed the justifications he cited were true or not, he, without a doubt, lied about why we were doing this. Just as he lied, without a doubt, about why he was cutting taxes. Just as he lied, without a doubt, about the goals of the Healthy Forest Initiative.
That's the real problem. The president will say things that he does not believe, on purpose, to implement policies he supports for reasons he cannot speak--because those reasons would torpedo those initiatives.
9364. thoughtful - 9/12/2003 5:39:27 PM
I agree with Jay's analysis.
There is a high degree of hypocrisy among gopers who coat the lies of this president with teflon and magnified the lies of WJC with an electron microscope. I'm not saying hypocrisy is exclusive to the gop. It just seems to me that they deny they do it at all.
But I find a mean streak in the GOP which I think comes from an "I'm in the path of righteousness so the ends justify the means" attitude many of them seem to bear. I'm thinking of McCarthy with no shame, Lee Atwater's attacks, Scaiffes willingness to spend/do anything to bring down Clinton, to the Bush/McCain campaign against in South Carolina, to Chambliss' attack on Cleland's patriotism.
That meanness also seems to come from an unshakable belief in perfect justice (as they see it) in the world...if you are poor it's because you deserve to be; work harder and you won't be. If you are wealthy, you must deserve it and we'll help you get even wealthier. If you have AIDS, you are being punished for bad behavior.
That attitude leads to such thinking as it's irrelevant that bush lied about yellowcake since attacking iraq is the right thing to do anyway. He had to do whatever it took because he was on the path of righteousness so all else can be forgiven or ignored.
This self-righteousness also leads to the belief that infringing on civil rights is ok, because they are the ones doing it and can be trusted to do it correctly...the 10 commandments are from our religion so it's ok. But that makes it only the more important that they continue in power because no one else can be trusted with that kind of power. Again that innate hypocrisy...refusing to see/accept that they too have feet of clay and laws are meant to protect everyone, left and right, from abuses of power.
But I again digress. Sigh.
9365. judithathome - 9/12/2003 5:45:54 PM
Bothj Jay and Thoughtful ought to run for office. I'd vote for either one.
9366. concerned - 9/12/2003 5:56:15 PM
Yes, it's true that there were individual falsehoods--the nukes, the links to al qaeda--which the president may have sincerely believed.
That's an awfully strong accusation not to be backed up with a cite. Additionally, I do not recall any specific instance where GWB referred to Saddam possessing nuclear weapons, or that Saddam's regime was supporting Al Qaeda. We all know, of course, that Al Qaeda was indeed operating in Iraq.
9367. concerned - 9/12/2003 5:57:11 PM
It seems that jay may be the one who is lying.
9368. judithathome - 9/12/2003 6:05:54 PM
Good lord...amd not even a (g) or a smiley face!
9369. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/12/2003 6:12:31 PM
9370. jayackroyd - 9/13/2003 2:37:23 PM
That's an awfully strong accusation not to be backed up with a cite. Additionally, I do not recall any specific instance where GWB referred to Saddam possessing nuclear weapons, or that Saddam's regime was supporting Al Qaeda.
Actually that was the general consensus at the time the war started. Al qaeda was in opposition to the secular Iraqi regime at all times, and even asked the Saudis to play the role the US did in the first Gulf War. El Bareidi had made it very clear, before the war, that there were no nukes.
Bush said in the SotU:
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
We knew, before the war started, that these claims were false. See El Bareidi's report.
We all know, of course, that Al Qaeda was indeed operating in Iraq.
No, we know for sure that they were not, other than the Kurdish group operating in opposition to Saddam Hussein.
We knew before the war, as I said last March, that these were transparent lies.
9371. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2003 3:11:15 PM
9372. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2003 3:14:12 PM
9373. robertjayb - 9/13/2003 3:35:45 PM
Tucker Carlson interviewed in Salon...
Tucker Carlson is way too cute for my taste but his take on Karen Hughes is choice:
...I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.
I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.
9374. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2003 4:14:40 PM
I've been face to face with East European politruks who told me straight out lies. I knew and they knew that I knew. It's an odd esperience.
9375. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2003 4:15:18 PM
insert 'x' as required.
9376. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2003 5:01:25 PM
I had the same experiences with people in Brazil—usually when they were 2 hours late—but the Brazilians never had any guile behind their falseness.
9377. concerned - 9/14/2003 12:32:04 AM
We knew, before the war started, that these claims were false. See El Bareidi's report.
Not true. No such generic 'we', among even most of the world's intelligence agencies existed before the war, obscure report or no. Give it up, Jay. You are only obliterating your credibility and being a bore.
'We all know, of course, that Al Qaeda was indeed operating in Iraq.'
No, we know for sure that they were not, other than the Kurdish group operating in opposition to Saddam Hussein.
Thus jay agrees with my sentence while trying to seem not to.
9378. concerned - 9/14/2003 12:34:11 AM
Thus my post 9366 stands unchallenged.
9379. concerned - 9/14/2003 12:39:34 AM
I can see, however, that Jay is committed to prevaricate about GWB and the Iraq war until the last dog dies. GWB has publicly told no untruth regarding Iraq that Jay has so far been able to uncover, but that doesn't slow down Jay's lying an iota.
9380. jayackroyd - 9/14/2003 4:54:59 PM
Conveniently enough, Joshua Marshall provides a nice summary, via the Vice President on Meet the Press:
He says:
In two years the US intelligence and law enforcement communities have not been able to unearth a single piece of evidence tying the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks....
The point is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever connecting the Iraqi regime with the 9/11 attacks.
TPM
It's worth reading the piece. It substantiates my lengthy rant upthread, but is also interesting for its own sake.
9381. concerned - 9/15/2003 11:13:57 AM
The Tortoise Is Stirring
Let's hear it for Dick Gephardt as Dem presidential nominee!
9382. thoughtful - 9/15/2003 11:45:34 AM
Pat Robertson's brand of patriotism:
On the Web site of his Christian Broadcasting Network, he said, "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"
9383. arkymalarky - 9/15/2003 11:55:47 AM
I would think somewhere someone is wondering the same thing about Pat Robertson.
9384. jayackroyd - 9/15/2003 1:19:26 PM
Thanks concerned. That was an interesting piece. The media is pretty funny sometimes: It's OVER!!! No, look, wait, over there, here comes Beetlebomb. Oh never mind. It's OVER!!!
9385. jayackroyd - 9/15/2003 1:40:13 PM
California recall has been delayed til March by an appeals court, saying that punch cards used in the more populous counties are unreliable.
Supreme Court is next. It'll be funny if they hear the case, because the reason they gave for not having a Florida recount in 2000 was because punch cards are unreliable.
9386. jexster - 9/15/2003 1:52:34 PM
Yes indeedie the Ninth Circuit has called the Bush v. Gore chickens home to roost....
7 days to file notice of appeal, Supreme Court not is session, election three weeks out, punch cards violate equal protection rights of 44% of CA voters whose ballots are counted with less accuracy than those in counties with more modern devices.
Every vote counts unless of course Scalia is leading a Republican coup d'etat or Tom Delay is perrymandering the Great State
9387. jexster - 9/15/2003 1:59:02 PM
Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
9388. judithathome - 9/15/2003 2:48:01 PM
Nine percent of the people in Texas voted and all 22 proposals for constitutional amendments passed. Does your heart proud, huh? I hope none of that group that voted YES on the cap for medical malpractice lawsuits ever gets the wrong organ removed or the wrong limb chopped off.
9389. Ms. No - 9/15/2003 4:04:26 PM
I'm still not sure how the recall can be legitimate in any case. I'm truly dumbfounded by it.
We all had the chance to vote last November. People voted and Davis won. Now less than a million people are able to stand up and say "No, your votes don't count because we're pissed off and we need a scapegoat!"
If Davis has broken the law or abused his office then impeach him, but this recall business is a travesty.
9390. robertjayb - 9/15/2003 4:36:53 PM
General Clark musters troops in Little Rock...
Sept. 15, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- On the verge of running, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark on Monday summoned his fledgling political team to Arkansas to discuss strategy for mounting a Democratic presidential campaign.
Several party officials said legal, financial and political advisers were invited to the Tuesday session in Little Rock, Ark. They were told Clark had made a decision about whether to run, but they were not told what it was.
Clark told friends and associates last week that he is likely to run, and Monday's developments left little room for doubt about his intentions.
9391. concerned - 9/15/2003 6:28:07 PM
Supreme Court is next. It'll be funny if they hear the case, because the reason they gave for not having a Florida recount in 2000 was because punch cards are unreliable.
There were at least two official recounts, and the reason that the USSC refused to allow more had more to do with the deliriously arbitrary and unprecedented standards that the likes of SCOFLA were attempting to apply to the ballots.
9392. arkymalarky - 9/15/2003 6:28:54 PM
Wouldn't it be just the sweetest of ironies for Rich Texas "businessman" George W. Bush to be sandwiched throughout all history between two Arky Rhode Scholar presidents.
9393. arkymalarky - 9/15/2003 6:30:34 PM
They preferred using their own ...deliriously arbitrary and unprecedented standards...."
9394. jexster - 9/15/2003 7:17:30 PM
So did the ScT order a statewide recount with a single chad standard?
Damn TD, what was the final result?
9395. jexster - 9/15/2003 7:18:21 PM
Well now we will see whether the court really meant what it said or if it meant what it ruled
9396. jexster - 9/15/2003 7:27:38 PM
Doesn't really matter either way Davis is in a dead heat with Yes and will win whenever we vote...
California GOP -- slow-mo implosion
Purists say Schwarzenegger is too liberal. Moderates say a conservative can't win. It's meltdown time for the Republican Party.
Sept. 15, 2003 | The Republican-initiated recall, which started off as a deft stroke of electoral manipulation, has now opened old wounds within the party, which is historically divided between cultural-conservative purists and moderate pragmatists who view party unity as the only means of Republican survival in overwhelmingly Democratic California. As Schwarzenegger avoids debates and policy discussion, hoping that personality alone will guide him into the governor's mansion, McClintock's well-honed message of fiscal and social conservatism has resonated with the purists. And recent polls show him closing the gap on Schwarzenegger, who has been paralyzed behind the Democratic front-runner, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, since Bustamante announced his candidacy in August. Monday's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to delay the election not only gives Gov. Gray Davis much-needed time to raise money and rally support against the Republicans, it is also likely to embolden McClintock while Schwarzenegger will be forced into the open and exposed to attacks on everything from his private life to his shallow understanding of public policy.
9397. jexster - 9/15/2003 7:27:56 PM
The likelihood that McClintock and his devoted band of zealots will wage their struggle to the bitter end worries the party insiders who manufactured the recall, and it was apparent in the grim faces they wore throughout the day. Among them at the convention was state Sen. Jim Brulte, who features on his Web site a quote by top White House advisor Karl Rove calling him the White House's "political brains and insightful wizard in California."
In July, before the recall had qualified as a ballot measure, Brulte was accused by Democrats of wielding his power in Sacramento to stall a compromise on Davis' budget proposal at Rove's behest, a tactic designed to humiliate the governor and ratchet up support for the recall. During the day at the convention, Brulte was dogged by reporters about White House involvement in the recall.
"The president speaks for the White House and it's up to the people of California to decide," he told a small group of reporters -- not exactly a denial.
Certainly it's possible that Monday's appellate court decision could help the GOP. Perhaps, if the vote is delayed until March, McClintock would drop out for lack of funds, or perhaps Schwarzenegger will fade and McClintock will emerge as the most credible Republican candidate. More likely, though, the worst is yet to come for California Republicans. If the fight drags on, the GOP's divisive factionalism will likely be compounded and agonizingly prolonged. If current opinion trends continue, anti-recall forces could close the gap; voters might simply weary of the contest. It seems that the Republicans, through their clever manipulation, have created their very own doomsday machine.
9398. rdbrewer - 9/15/2003 7:37:47 PM
Republicans won in Florida, according to the independent media recount. In fact, . . .
According to the Herald, Bush would have won by 1,665 votes “if every dimple, pinprick or hanging chad on a punch-card ballot is considered a valid vote.” His lead would have been 884 “if dimples were counted as presidential votes only on ballots that had dimples in other races,” and if votes were counted “only when a punch-card chad was detached by at least two corners” his lead would have dropped to 363. Kate Randall, World Socialist Web Site, (April 20, 2001). Laughably, this article goes on to say that all these media outlets worked in concert (a conspiracy) to slant the vote toward Bush. The Miami Herald slants to the right!?
9399. jexster - 9/15/2003 7:44:38 PM
Mark Mellman, Kerry's pollster, in a memo to heavy hiitet donors reported that Kerry was within margin of error of Bush in the first trial heat that I have heard of thus far.
Dean trails by 10% yet only 25% of the electorate recognize the name..go figger..
Kerry isn't much better known all of which just confirms results by Zogby and others - when asked would you vote to re-select Bush, Bush loses to a amn whose name is Nobody
9400. jexster - 9/15/2003 8:18:01 PM
Lie to us baby, tell us how much you love us..
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0302.html#0914031100am
target=new>Josh Marshall writes, "The Sunday Times of London is reporting that 'Britain and America have decided to delay indefinitely the publication of a full report on Iraq's WMDs after inspectors found no evidence that any such weapons exist.' Let's be honest: there's no reason for delaying or refusing to issue this report, save for domestic political concerns in the US and Britain. None.... 1400 scientists, military and intelligence officials have been scouring the country for 4 months and interrogating most of the Iraqi government officials and scientists involved in weapons procurement and research. That's more than long enough to produce a preliminary report. The only question is whether it is published.... Here's the bottom line: the only reason for suppressing the Kay
Report is to stymie the political debate within the US. That's unacceptable. Congress should demand the release of Kay's report -even if redacted in some form. No more game playing. Let the chips fall where they may."
9401. judithathome - 9/15/2003 10:26:10 PM
Your link fizzled, Jex.
9402. concerned - 9/15/2003 11:45:52 PM
Re 9396 -
'Cultural Conservative Purists' often are Democrats' greatest allies.
9403. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 9:00:18 AM
It was instructive to read the transcripts of Cheney's appearance on the weekend, and also to note Wolfowtiz's retraction of Al-Qaeda claims made over the past week.
The glaring fact emerging is that this administration's ideologues have no regard whatsoever for the brains or attention of the American electorate. So, they do and say whatever is politically expedient at the time with zero regard for the truth. And they will do it, in a serial unapologetic manner, until caught and held to the fire over it. And then they will do it again, until caught. And so on.
One would think that the mini-firestorms of every type over hyping, bullying, stretching the truth would have been an object lesson. No. Because no price has been paid and none appears to likely. So, Wolfowitz can totally lie about Al-Qaeda in Iraq again, and Cheney can trot out the tired old bullshit about similar topics again, because they think they can get away with it, because it shuts up the interviewers, and because the American electorate is apparently so short-sighted that it doesn't hold it against these guys that they're lying because it takes days to prove it.
But the interesting thing lies in the apparent revolt behind the scenes by various professionals. So, Wolfowitz was forced to retreat because "unnamed sources" in his own gov't contradicted his statements within days.
The lesson we have learned may be one similar one to that this country apparently once learned during the Vietnam conflict but relaxed about especially post 9/11. That lesson is that we are forced to be totally vigilant at all times about the messages emerging from activist Presidencies and administrations. The media needs to be aggressive in checking, double-checking and bulldog-like in seeking the truth. And the rest of the electorate needs to distrust everything until total verification is provided.
9404. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 9:00:38 AM
One would think now that the administration has worn out every free pass it has gotten in terms of trust from Americans. But Cheney and the other Wolfowitzes still seek to abuse whatever remaining pool of goodwill remains, thinking they can still get away with it. Can they? The next election may be revelatory in this regard.
9405. judithathome - 9/16/2003 9:09:15 AM
Hate to throw cold water on your idea but I don't think so...they have so thoroughly entrenched the idea that they are the only saving grace in this country that they will be re-elected easily. The people just don't care if they're telling lies because they don't want to pay attention. They embrace the lies because it is the easiest thing to do.
They don't want to be bothered by the truth. That's why this administration gets away with it...they know that.
9406. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 9:12:41 AM
In this regard, it was instructive seeing Krugman and Friedman on Charlie Rose last night.
Now, I have long since tossed Friedman (though I tend to agree with him on most matters) out of the "really worthwhile" bin of pundits. He's a caricature, and in fact is more so on TV than in print. Animated like a marionette handled by a spastic, given to frantic hand gestures as though he's communicating by sign language alongside his verbiage, and cartoonishly-broad in facial gestures, he's become a show-and-tell commentator more than anything. He's all-platitude, all-the-time (yesterday he compared the Iraqis to a kicked dog and Saddam and the US as the bad master and the good master!).
But he really jerked in and out and up and down in his seat when he talked about the administration's astonishing ability to try and sell (and apparently succeed with many Americans) black as white, chaos as improvement, and the absence of plans as "everything is going to schedule".
Even Friedman, a wholescale supporter of the war for pragmatic reasons (similar to those I agreed with) finds the administration's behavior unconscionable, the refusal to admit error leaning to the criminal, and the refusal to come clean with Americans quite incomrehensible.
Along with Krugman, he is coming to the cynical conclusion that this group in office have long since stopped caring about long-term vision, or the genuine interests of the US, and focus entirely on what can be heisted at this time. Everything, the war/9/11/economic doldrums, will be used in a rampantly cynical manner to further the agenda of (a) servicing the administration's corporate/wealthy clients and (b) re-election.
9407. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 9:13:01 AM
That's the irony. In the name of patriotism, these fuckers are engaging in cynical subversion of nearly everything this country has stood for over 230 years. They don't care about the country as it is, or the same country "regular" Americans know and recognize. Their patriotism is directed towards someplace quite different, and that is a changed America serving their own particular interests.
This makes them not merely irritants, and cynical scumbags.
This makes them dangerous.
9408. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 9:24:17 AM
By the way, the one figure I've really focused my dislike and total antipathy towards is Rumsfeld.
Despite his amusing headmasterish pique at the ineptitude of reporters questioning him, he has turned out to be a total political operator using even those shows of eccentricity as a means to squelch criticism and switch attention from reality to his spin.
Remember his dismissal of the criminal negligence (I would bring the US admin up to every world court on this when Iraq finally calms down) in allowing Iraq's irreplaceable archaeological patrimony to be stripped and looted to the bone? He said something like " I see CNN and they are showing the same clip of a man coming out of a doorway holding a vase. And they show it again and again and you (fools) think that it is happening again and again. Are there even so many vases in Baghdad?"
But far worse, far more cynical than even that, was his sprited spin about Baghdad as no worse than Washington DC in terms of crime and homicide. He mouthed some stuff about Iraq being a big country, and the level of troop loss being roughly equivalent to the homicide rate of American big cities.
The lie is that he has never included Iraqi figures in his whitewashing. I read yesterday that Baghdad is now officially the most dangerous city in the world with upward of 250 homicides per week. That's 1000 people a month dying because of the chaos, and total lack of adequate policing.
The cynical Rumsfeld gets away with it to date thanks to his grumpy-grandpa routine. It's that simple, and these guys are still getting a free pass from the so-called "liberal" media.
9409. thoughtful - 9/16/2003 9:28:13 AM
Yow!
"Adding in the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan recently requested by President Bush, America's spending for defense will exceed that of all other nations combined.
It's a sign that the United States may be the most dominant single military power on the globe since the Roman Empire."
From Christain Science Monitor
9410. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 9:33:01 AM
Remember the looted museum, and how the right-wing scum hooted with glee when it was allegedly shown not to be totally stripped. Remember when the right-wing scum got the topic entirely shelved by citing some absurdly small number of lost artifacts, allegedly confirmed by someone or the other.
Those were total lies too. Iraq, the country the US came to save, has permanently lost a huge and irreplaceable trove of its ancient patrimony. We, as a civilization, have lost a giant chunk of the most important historical record that has survived through thousands of years in one of the birthplaces of civilization.
This, really more than anything else, is unforgiveable.
What has happened in recent months is already among the worst mass desecrations of cultural sites in our lifetime, perhaps the worst.
Got that? Worse than the Cultural Revolution under Mao. Worse than the Bamiyan bombardment under the Taliban. In the history of disasters for human civilization, we have to place near the top the looting of Iraq under Bush.
9411. judithathome - 9/16/2003 9:38:51 AM
Thoughtful, your link doesn't work.
9412. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 9:40:20 AM
Thoughtful,
Fareed Zakaria pointed out at least a year ago that the US spent more on defense than the next 15 biggest spenders combined. And that the entire sum was something like 4% of GDP, so not unsustainable at all.
It's not the sheer sums I object to, though they are in a sense completely out of proportion to stated objectives and poll-revealed American priorities. It's the logic of maintaining such an outside defense capability, paired with the activist leanings of ideologues currently popular in DC. Eventually, the logic becomes - fire the gun often or it goes rusty.
9413. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 9:47:04 AM
But in the inexorable logic of nature, a certain balance is restored to the whole eventually.
And that balance is in the form of nuclear weapons. I have posted at some length before that the US is the country that has now totally resuscitated the spectre of nuclear weapons (and if I had to bet, will be the next country to use them if such an eventuality occurs) and nuclear conflict.
Certainly, if I were Iran (or whoever), I'd be running the fastest sprint of my life to get my pocket packed with nukes. In a totally clear manner, the US has deprived itself - via its behavior in Iraq post-war - of any high ground to moralize or preach to anyone the necessity to stay away from those most deadly weapons. Musharraf, as we speak, breathes easier at night because he has them. Same with Kim in Korea.
Al-Qaeda? I don't like to think about it, but the logic of the process already set in motion is irrefutable.
9414. jayackroyd - 9/16/2003 10:28:58 AM
9409 Time notes this week that the Marshall plan, adjusted for inflation, cost 47 billion.
One thing that must make the absence of power and security so galling to the Iraqis is how much damn stuff the American soldiers have, from generators to mineral water.
9415. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 10:45:48 AM
Since I'm posting from the Indian press after a long time, let me link in this amusing article about Indians serving as support staff for the US occupation.
There are something like three million Indians working in the Gulf countries (another concern that the Indian foreign policy guys have to keep in mind at all times) and it was inevitable that a bunch of Keralites and Goans would be part of any staff that the US recruited to help out in Iraq. I loved the reference to one of the Goans in the article above - typical combination of being outrageously laid-back, outstandingly picky about his food, guileless, clueless, planless, but wildly ambitious with hare-brained schemes always at the ready.
For the money, it is OK and as far as the food goes, I have no choice except to eat it, you cannot order out," said Francisco Dias of Goa, who has been in Tikrit for two months.
"I am happy, basically. I wish I could hear from my family more, but I talk with my colleagues and they are a good group of people."
Also encouraging, he said, is the glimmer of opportunity that being cheek-by-jowl with the Americans represents.
"I am thinking about going to America, maybe asking one of the soldiers to marry me, for instance. What do you think? Do I need to join the U.S. Army to do this?"
9416. marjoribanks - 9/16/2003 10:46:35 AM
whoops, wrong thread.
9417. thoughtful - 9/16/2003 11:02:17 AM
Try again. CSM.
9418. jayackroyd - 9/16/2003 11:08:23 AM
Clark is in.
Anyone thinking of supporting him should be sure to read his book about Bosnia and Kosovo. It's called Waging Modern War. I didn't find his take of himself all that impressive.
9419. robertjayb - 9/16/2003 11:26:27 AM
"...Clark agonized over his decision for months..."
Really?
I haven't noticed his agony. Seems to me he has done well with a limited hand, avoiding juvenile catfights in the so-called debates and building suspence, and press, with the will he or won't he gambit.
9420. jayackroyd - 9/16/2003 11:27:41 AM
He also got a lot of cable face time as an analyst of the war.
9421. concerned - 9/16/2003 12:11:58 PM
The glaring fact emerging is that this administration's ideologues have no regard whatsoever for the brains or attention of the American electorate.
An improvement over the last administration, regardless of ones political sympathies.
9422. judithathome - 9/16/2003 12:25:10 PM
Yeah, I always wanted a government that didnt give a shit what I thought.
What about "government of the people" do you not grasp, Concerned?
9423. judithathome - 9/16/2003 12:25:47 PM
Or do you prefer the Saddam type of governance?
9424. concerned - 9/16/2003 12:59:03 PM
You had eight years to ask Xlowntoon that, JAH. Why didn't you?
9425. judithathome - 9/16/2003 1:02:03 PM
What are you talking about? Bill Clinton was ELECTED...twice.
9426. concerned - 9/16/2003 1:19:56 PM
That didn't stop him from trying his best to emulate a banana republic despot.
9427. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/16/2003 1:22:35 PM
The Senate voted 55-40 to roll back the entire FCC rule change.
9428. judithathome - 9/16/2003 1:37:07 PM
Bush Lays Off Congress; Will Outsource Lawmaking to India
Citing the growing cost of running the Federal government and the need to cut costs in order to reduce the budget deficit, President Bush announced today that he was laying off all 535 members of Congress and transferring lawmaking operations to a legislative support center in Bangalore, India. "Hey, outsourcing is the way to go these days," said Bush at an impromptu news conference where he announced the decision, adding, "the American people want to see less government waste. Since every one of those ex-Congressmen had a salary of $150,000, this move will cut our costs by over $80 million per year, and that's not even counting what we'll save on health insurance and retirement plans." Sources indicate that the Indian replacements will be paid approximately $250 per month.
9429. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/16/2003 2:02:31 PM
Damn fine idea!
9430. rdbrewer - 9/16/2003 2:36:19 PM
AP-- It was revealed today that political pundit Terry Jeffrey and cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants are the same person. Jeffrey confirmed the rumors today in a short press release. He said he wanted to put and end to all the speculation, the ugly rumors, and all the questions aimed at himself and his family. He said that he felt a great burden had been lifted, and that he hoped this does not damage Spongebob's credibility.
9431. dr_mabeuse - 9/16/2003 3:38:02 PM
We need $80 billion to rebuild Iraq. There are about 22 million Iraqis. I don't have my calculator but doesn't this come out to something like $4,000.00 a head?
Also, does anyone know if we're still going ahead with the anti-ballistic missile system? Haven;t heard much about this baby lately.
9432. judithathome - 9/16/2003 3:42:53 PM
Probably are...after all, it's dangerous out there with all those WMBs.
9433. judithathome - 9/16/2003 3:44:14 PM
Make that WMDs...no matter, they're both about as real.
(yes yes, I know, I know...China, Korea, Pakistan, India, blah blah blah...)
9434. dr_mabeuse - 9/16/2003 4:07:37 PM
Aren't we to the point where it would just be cheaper to pay people not to attack us? Just buy them off and cut out the middle man.
9435. judithathome - 9/16/2003 4:52:29 PM
Don't we do that anyhow, one way or another? ;-)
9436. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/16/2003 5:22:10 PM
The Latest Bush Gang Whoppers
9437. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/16/2003 10:04:26 PM
Boxing George Bush Into a Corner in 2004—Come Out Fighting by Rick Perlstein
9438. jexster - 9/17/2003 2:37:06 AM
If you've ever wondered how 69% of the US public still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-1-1, here's how..
Rumsfeld: No Evidence of Iraqi Connection to Al Qaeda's 9-1-1 Attacks
One day earlier...
Apparently he can't help himself.
Apparently the Vice-President of the United States can't help lying to and deceiving the people he was elected to serve.
I can understand how the American people could believe our shit
9439. jexster - 9/17/2003 2:47:05 AM
Two days of horsehit out those lying fucks , crap comin out of both sides of Bush's smirking pie hole...
People die and people lose limbs, and Bush pours hundreds of billions into his camel shit hole...
Bush peddles lies for one reason and it hss nothing do with US Security
9440. jexster - 9/17/2003 2:58:07 AM
"We took decisive action and Saddam Hussein's WMDs threat his neighbors no more." Old Yellowcake May 03
No More or Never Did?
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq (news - web sites) destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.
In an interview with Australian radio from Sweden, Blix said the search for evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons would probably only uncover documents at best.
"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found," Blix said in the interview, which was broadcast on Wednesday.
"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix said.
9441. alistairconnor - 9/17/2003 6:35:19 AM
Well, nobody can accuse Blix of leaping to hasty conclusions.
9442. thoughtful - 9/17/2003 8:33:14 AM
What on earth is he hiding? Why fight this so hard? After all, all they're asking for is how a public agency goes about making public policy! Did he meet with the Saudi's? Taliban? Who could be worth all this effort?
Taking it to the Supreme Court
9443. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2003 10:31:50 AM
Swinging at Bush
On August 29, Randolph Sill headed to a Mariners game with a homemade sign decked out with slogans written in Japanese kanji, along with the number of Sill's favorite player, Ichiro Suzuki. Whenever Ichiro came up to bat, Sill would hold his sign high. Sill, who's spent time in Japan, knows Japanese television regularly broadcasts Mariners games and spotlights signs for its native son Ichiro.
Here's what Sill's sign said: On one side, the kanji read, "President Bush is a monkey's butt." On the other: "Americans are ashamed of our corrupt president." Sill, who hoped his sign would be broadcast on TV here and in Japan, says many Japanese fans at Safeco Field smiled and winked when they read his sign.
Mariners security staff, however, were not amused. When they caught on during the seventh inning, a cop escorted Sill and his sign to the security office, and seized the sign. "I haven't heard, yet, if the sign was broadcast to all of Japan," Sill says.
9444. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2003 10:49:44 AM
Us vs. us?
Slash-and-burn Bush administration makes U.S. government out to be biggest enemy
9445. jayackroyd - 9/17/2003 10:52:55 AM
9442
I think Prince Bandar is a pretty good bet. You might want to read Robert Baer's Sleeping with the Devil. The Saudis are very deeply entwined with the American government--not the republicans alone, mind you, although the Bushes are very deeply entwined.
9446. Magoseph - 9/17/2003 11:07:51 AM
The Saudi royals are the Bush family's close friends. That's as entwined they are together so far, unless something else comes up.
9447. judithathome - 9/17/2003 11:26:07 AM
I don't know...I read an article in Harper's a few months ago that might disagree with them only being as entwined as friends.
9448. alistairconnor - 9/17/2003 11:29:46 AM
From Ivins :
As Maureen Dowd observed, Donald Rumsfeld is starting to sound like Baghdad Bob, Saddam Hussein's fabulous flak.
That's the disconnect I've experienced throughout this year. To me, he always has.
9449. jexster - 9/17/2003 12:05:59 PM
AC- To me it was obvious from the beginning that Blix was playing a game with the Regime. At several critical junctures, either Bush or Powell or Rice had widely publicized arm twisting session with Annan or Blix soon after which Blix would hop to, do just what they asked and then issue reports or statements which basically said that the Regime was full of shit.
Its a matter of rhetoric not substance, if you read closely between the lines using a magnifying glass, The Noble Swede was doing a fine job standing tall before the lofty mast, a brave warrior fighting the Evil One .
9450. concerned - 9/17/2003 12:09:28 PM
Re. 9448 -
You've been programmed correctly by your masters, then.
9451. jexster - 9/17/2003 12:10:37 PM
Clark then showed us the Little Rock neighborhood where was raised and his own version of American familiy values
Instilled in the South
Nurtured in the Military
The General sets out to bring them back to Washington Paula Zahn, CNN
9452. jexster - 9/17/2003 12:15:19 PM
The for a Regime Change
Saddle Up
Ride to the sound of the gunfire
Keep your powder dry
Don't fire until you see the whites of their beedy eyes
The curl of their smirking lips
These colors don't run
Let's Roll Robert
Sooey pig ArkyAmen
9453. jexster - 9/17/2003 12:32:54 PM
Is there some deadline approaching, after which Bush administration officials have to engage in honest debate? It seems as if there has been a rash of misleading, deceptive, and disingenuous remarks coming from on high in recent days. The gang at "Capital Games" has been working overtime to keep up with the truth-bending of the president, the vice president, the defense secretary, and the deputy defense secretary. (After all, we do have a book coming out in two weeks called The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.) Here is--we fear--a partial report.
Let's start with Dick Cheney
Bush at the UN - The Charade Before the Crusade
'Don't worry. We've got a plan. We purposefully let the Iraq issue stay in no-man's-land for a while. But we know what we're doing.' That's what senior people at the White House tell me," the Reverend Lou Sheldon, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, informs me while we're waiting for sandwiches. (It pays to favor the Capitol Hill deli fancied by a leader of the religious right.) "I sure hope so," he adds.
9454. jexster - 9/17/2003 1:32:30 PM
Something remarkable will happen here today. A senior congressional figure will declare the federal budget, in effect, a disaster area....
Even though the government is on track to run a record deficit in excess of $500 billion next year, neither President Bush nor congressional leaders have proposed doing anything to balance the budget anytime soon. Their strategy: to wait for a vigorous economy to do the job for them.
That makes David M. Walker, head of the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, a rare Cassandra. He is giving a speech today warning that the nation's long-term fiscal outlook is seriously out of whack. And he challenges the assumption that economic recovery will solve the problem painlessly.
"We need a wake-up call," Walker said in an interview. "We need to come to terms with reality"
Lies and Incompetence, Incomptence and Lies, Lying Incompetents - The Bush Budget Bungle
9455. arkymalarky - 9/17/2003 1:36:21 PM
Too bad he's from Little Rock. I'll try to get over that part.
9456. robertjayb - 9/17/2003 1:42:52 PM
Wesley Clark's announcement was adequate but underwhelming. Probably he needs a few skirmishes to get in fighting trim. Or maybe he just looks good on paper.
9457. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2003 1:58:44 PM
9458. thoughtful - 9/17/2003 3:56:19 PM
Whoa! Jay, get a load of this. Calpundit interviews Krugman.
"In fact, there's ample evidence that key elements of the coalition that now runs the country believe that some long-established American political and social institutions should not, in principle, exist....Consider, for example....New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, Great Society programs like Medicare....Or consider foreign policy....separation of church and state....The goal would seem to be something like this: a country that basically has no social safety net at home, which relies mainly on military force to enforce its will abroad, in which schools don't teach evolution but do teach religion and — possibly — in which elections are only a formality....
"There's a pattern...within the Bush admin-istration....which should suggest that the administration itself has radical goals. But in each case the administration has reassured moderates by pretending otherwise — by offering rationales for its policy that don't seem all that radical. And in each case moderates have followed a strategy of appeasement....this is hard for journalists to deal with: they don't want to sound like crazy conspiracy theorists. But there's nothing crazy about ferreting out the real goals of the right wing...."
9459. judithathome - 9/17/2003 4:11:09 PM
A Healthy Appetite For Ego Massaging
State Department types were taken aback last week to find that a longtime diplomatic photo exhibit along a busy corridor to the cafeteria had been taken down. The two dozen mostly grainy black and white shots were a historic progression of great diplomatic moments, sources recalled.
There was an original political cartoon from the Jefferson era showing Britain and France pick-pocketing the Americans; there were pictures of negotiations with Indian tribes over land; President Woodrow Wilson at Versailles; former secretary of state Elihu Root somewhere; Roosevelt and Churchill signing the Atlantic Charter; former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Soviet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze in cowboy boots at Jackson Hole; a splendid shot of the old State Department building; and a photo of President Ronald Reagan at a meeting with a very young Colin L. Powell seated behind him.
Then they were gone. And what was put up in their place......
9460. concerned - 9/17/2003 4:20:44 PM
Re. 9410 -
Looting all performed by Iraqi citizens - you'll never succeed with such an attempted abdication of Iraqi responsibility for their own treasures. IAC, virtually all of it will turn up eventually and probably will be returned by one means or other, something that anti GWB fanatics persistently ignore.
9461. judithathome - 9/17/2003 4:26:54 PM
Maybe it's all buried next to the weapons of mass destruction.
9462. robertjayb - 9/17/2003 4:29:24 PM
Har!
9463. thoughtful - 9/17/2003 4:31:56 PM
Yikes Judithah...reading that I had pictures in my mind of 20 years from now Americans using ropes to pull down ubiquitous statutes of king george bush during the revolution.
9464. jexster - 9/17/2003 5:13:23 PM
CNN Crossfire Colloquy
Is The General the candidate that Bush fears the most?
Republican Flim Flam Man du Jour: "No because at the end of the day, the Democrats won't nominate someone who says he voted for Reagan in 1984 and only recently became a Democrat (independent)
But what if they do?
Now there's a fool on his errand if every I've seen on.
This clown doesn't realize that Democrats have only one issue they care about..I hope those idiots keep on running that errand in every primary state tellin us and the rest of the country that Wes Clark voted for Raygun!
9465. jexster - 9/17/2003 5:15:42 PM
Damn right TD..fuckin lazy lyin Ayrabs!
Why in the hell did we waste 187 Billion and couple tens of thousands of people?
You'd have to be a moron
running his errands
9466. concerned - 9/17/2003 6:48:00 PM
re. 9464 -
yah right. Weasely Clark is the dream Democrat candidate -for the Green Party.
9467. concerned - 9/17/2003 6:49:53 PM
Weasely Clark - Gipper Lite?
9468. concerned - 9/17/2003 7:11:59 PM
From R*** L*******.com
General Ashley Wilkes Enters The Race
September 17, 2003
I cued the Dr. Strangelove music as I began Wednesday's program discussing the 10th dwarf in the Democratic presidential primaries. I quoted Richard Goldstein's Village Voice piece talking about Democrats "searching for the candidate with the right kind of masculine presentation." He writes, "If Bill Clinton was a bottom-feeding Rhett Butler, then Wesley Clark is Ashley Wilkes..."
Folks, Ashley Wilkes was a wimp - and he was on the losing side of the Civil War! Women hate him because he depended on Scarlett O'Hara to do everything! Note also that liberal Democrats hate the military, and Dwight D. Eisenhower specifically, yet they're casting Wilkes as both. Steven Hess, one of Ike's former speechwriters who's now at the Brookings Institute, told E.D. Hill on Fox and Friends, "Dwight Eisenhower was a friend of mine, and Wesley Clark ain't no Dwight Eisenhower."
Remember that Ike was a five-star general, and that scuttlebutt out today says that Wesley had to beg Bill Clinton just to get his fourth star. You can read details on all these stories below, and listen to audio of my analysis. Among the Schwarzenegger-like smear of General Ashley Wilkes is a reminder that he supplied the tanks and military equipment for the Branch Davidian invasion. The same liberals who freak out over John Ashcroft's choice of breakfast heralding a dictatorship, are silent on Clark's acquiescence to breaking the 120-year-old Posse Comitatus Act baring military actions against civilians. Note too that most of this dirt is coming from Democrats, such as John Edwards - the poor Breck Girl who saw his big re-announcement stomped by Clark's buzz.
If Weasely Clark is Ashley Wilkes, does that mean that long strip of of infected gristle Stooge Reno is Scarlett?!?
- shudder -
9469. concerned - 9/17/2003 7:15:33 PM
9470. concerned - 9/17/2003 7:16:59 PM
LW Myth #2379:
during a Democrat Administration there are no human rights violations, all wars are just and there is no homelessness.
9471. judithathome - 9/17/2003 7:20:02 PM
Your boy Bush is crawdaddin' away from his claims of ties to Saddam and 9 11.
9472. concerned - 9/17/2003 7:32:44 PM
Sodamn just screwed up by putting his money on the wrong terrorists; he and the bin Laden gang were merely coordinating their plans.
9473. rdbrewer - 9/17/2003 7:49:12 PM
Concerned,
Addendum to LW Myth #2379:
. . . and there is no need to consult with the U.N. on any military adventure.
9474. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:01:25 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) distanced himself on Wednesday from comments by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) that left the impression he saw a possible link between Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
9475. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:02:20 PM
military adventure
Out of the mouths of babes
9476. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:04:15 PM
TD - a fool and his moron are soon parted!
9477. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:04:16 PM
TD - a fool and his moron are soon parted!
9478. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:10:09 PM
This just in from CNN:
Wesley Clark: "Look at this disgraceful playground Paula. American kids play here (its a mess of sharp objects like hypodermics, rusted dangerous lookin swings etc). This Administration (big emphasis)has spent over $180 Billion in Iraq that money belongs to our children."
9479. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:26:58 PM
And look what those ungrateful dune coons have done to your Moron King now:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq (news - web sites)'s interim Governing Council urged the United States Wednesday to give Iraqis sovereign control of their country in order to end the violence that has eroded society and crippled reconstruction efforts.
Not only have they joined the French, the Eyerakees have joined Saddam Hussein telling Bush to get the shit out of Dodge and git his sorry ass back where it belongs - in Crawford TX
O mujahedeen, you must tighten the noose and increase your strikes against the enemies by demonstrating, writing on walls and demanding your rights ... and above all through armed struggle.
Turning to the occupying powers:
"I ask you to withdraw your army, as soon as possible and without any conditions.
O mujahedeen, you must tighten the noose and increase your strikes against the enemies by demonstrating, writing on walls and demanding your rights... and above all through armed struggle," said a voice claimed to be that of the former Iraqi president aired by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite channel.
Turning to the occupying powers, he said: "I ask you to withdraw your army, as soon as possible and without any conditions.
Your withdrawal from our country is unavoidable, if not today then tomorrow ... Our aim is not to kill more children of the peoples of America, Britain or elsewhere,"
Saddam Lives
Bush lies people die.
Allahu akbar
Saalam TD
You too RD
9480. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:27:00 PM
And look what those ungrateful dune coons have done to your Moron King now:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq (news - web sites)'s interim Governing Council urged the United States Wednesday to give Iraqis sovereign control of their country in order to end the violence that has eroded society and crippled reconstruction efforts.
Not only have they joined the French, the Eyerakees have joined Saddam Hussein telling Bush to get the shit out of Dodge and git his sorry ass back where it belongs - in Crawford TX
O mujahedeen, you must tighten the noose and increase your strikes against the enemies by demonstrating, writing on walls and demanding your rights ... and above all through armed struggle.
Turning to the occupying powers:
"I ask you to withdraw your army, as soon as possible and without any conditions.
O mujahedeen, you must tighten the noose and increase your strikes against the enemies by demonstrating, writing on walls and demanding your rights... and above all through armed struggle," said a voice claimed to be that of the former Iraqi president aired by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite channel.
Turning to the occupying powers, he said: "I ask you to withdraw your army, as soon as possible and without any conditions.
Your withdrawal from our country is unavoidable, if not today then tomorrow ... Our aim is not to kill more children of the peoples of America, Britain or elsewhere,"
Saddam Lives
Bush lies people die.
Allahu akbar
Saalam TD
You too RD
9481. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:34:44 PM
He's sure is a uniter not a divider!
Dean-Clark 2004
9482. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:34:46 PM
He's sure is a uniter not a divider!
Dean-Clark 2004
9483. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:34:47 PM
He's sure is a uniter not a divider!
Dean-Clark 2004
9484. jexster - 9/17/2003 8:36:41 PM
Sorry - somethin screwy on this keyboard...maybe this coffee spill has something to do with it
9485. rdbrewer - 9/17/2003 9:55:51 PM
Too much Bevis and Butthead.
9486. rdbrewer - 9/17/2003 10:24:17 PM
Re: 9468
9487. jexster - 9/18/2003 1:15:09 AM
My what a difference the General has made:
Kerry Blasts Bush on Iraq: Lied to Congress
9488. jexster - 9/18/2003 1:17:57 AM
The AWOL flyboy should try another carrier landing, do you think that shit will flush twice?
What do you suggest he do for an encore?
Compassionate Conservative?
Reformer With Results?
Environmental President?
Oh how bout lets talk up the risible Laffer curve?
9489. jexster - 9/18/2003 1:35:51 AM
Well well well..the chickens be a comin home to roost in the fine houses of the Great American ChickenHawks
After attempting to draw attention from non-existent WMD by fostering the impression that Saddam was involved in 9/11, Bush backed off today by saying there is no evidence to support such a claim. Even the claim that foreign terrorists pose the greatest threat to a successful occupation is being challenged by intelligence assesments that say the resentment of ordinary Iraqis could fuel future hostilities.
Time to send in the French maybe?
Time to get the UN involvee?
Where is that aircraft carrier now?
9490. marjoribanks - 9/18/2003 9:16:06 AM
Watched Clark yesterday on a couple of the evening news shows.
Competent fellow, and he appears to be a super-quick study. His answers to fired policy questions were on point, and he refused to get dragged into areas where he didn't have direct responses ready. So we can see that he's damn disciplined.
His campaign announcement was unimpressive, save the warning that he was going to go after Bush rather directly on the security matters that are of concern right now. But the dude did get better when he got off plotical platitudes and into specifics on the news shows.
Most interesting was hearing barking Chris Matthews end his interview by thanking the general for running, because he felt that Clark would be able to take the national debate to another level. Have to agree, it's now that the Prez elections have started to get interesting.
9491. marjoribanks - 9/18/2003 9:17:45 AM
I have the feeling that Clark is going to make a blockbuster speech on national security that is going to very quickly reframe the national debate on that issue.
9492. marjoribanks - 9/18/2003 9:19:58 AM
And having looked at the last poll numbers for the team-of-10, there is no reason why the General can't win it all.
--
My one offhand, stylistic, concern is whether a man as short as he is can win the Presidency. Who was the last Prez under 6 ft? Has there even been one in the last 40 years?
9493. thoughtful - 9/18/2003 9:44:20 AM
6' 4" Abraham Lincoln
6' 3" Lyndon B Johnson
6' 2½" Bill Clinton
Thomas Jefferson
6' 2" Chester Arthur
George Bush
Franklin D Roosevelt
George Washington
6' 1" Andrew Jackson
Ronald Reagan
6' 0" James Buchanan
Gerald R Ford
James Garfield
Warren Harding
John F Kennedy
James Monroe
William H Taft
John Tyler
5' 11½" Richard M Nixon
5' 11" George W Bush
Grover Cleveland
Herbert Hoover
Woodrow Wilson
5' 10½" Dwight D Eisenhower
5' 10" Calvin Coolidge
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce
Theodore Roosevelt
5' 9½" Jimmy Carter
5' 9" Millard Fillmore
Harry S Truman
5' 8½" Rutherford B Hayes
5' 8" Ulysses S Grant
William H Harrison
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
5' 7" John Adams
John Quincy Adams
William McKinley
5' 6" Benjamin Harrison
Martin Van Buren
5' 4" James Madison
Actually, the current pres is under 6'...not to be confused with being 6' under.
9494. marjoribanks - 9/18/2003 9:56:37 AM
Wow. Thanks thoughtful.
Clark looked a bit short during his campaign announcement. I realize that this is a trivial aspect to his Prez campaign, but the thought did enter my head.
Dean, by the way, is really quite short.
I shouldn't be talking, from my unlofty stature of 5'10", but I like my American Presidents to have some stoop to their aspect. I suppose the imaginary epaulettes and jaunty military beret will substitute adequately for the General.
Kerry fits my appearance bill rather well, despite the Droopy dog eyes and plastic hair. But the fucker still looks rather diffident on the campaign trail. His wife needs to kick his butt a bit.
9495. robertjayb - 9/18/2003 10:54:45 AM
Lately, when a picture of Kerry appears, I'm reminded of Ed Muskie.
9496. concerned - 9/18/2003 10:55:19 AM
Somos Estupidos, We Are Stupid
An indictment of the spurious and arbitrary delay by the 9th Circuit Appellate Court wrt the California recall election.
9497. rdbrewer - 9/18/2003 12:28:50 PM
Isn't Bush only 5'10"?
If Clark is an appealing candidate, this will throw a wrench in HRC's plans. I'm thinking he will force her to have to enter the race now, because he will be too popular in '08.
9498. jexster - 9/18/2003 12:36:39 PM
MoveOn.org has revamped their Misleader.orgwebsite, which now will offer readers a news "Mislead of the Day," detailing a Bush misrepresentation or outright distortion of the truth. Also included are detailed investigative reports on the administration's many lies. Explaining MoveOn's motivation in a press release, Eli Pariser said "Bush's distortions have helped mislead the country into war and massive budget deficits. They've led the public to believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Towers."
9499. jexster - 9/18/2003 12:40:35 PM
Bush's Mis-State of the Union
Sixteen untrue words in the President's State of the Union message helped push America into war with Iraq. It's now clear that the remaining 5397 words in the speech were just as misleading. For example:
On the Economy:
"We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations."
The truth: Factoring in the cost of reconstruction in Iraq and other laws that are set to be enacted, the federal budget deficit will be close to $5 trillion over the next 10 years. The President's latest request to make his tax cuts permanent would add another nearly $1.6 trillion to the federal debt through 2013. That's $41,300 for every man, woman and child.
9500. concerned - 9/18/2003 12:47:03 PM
Eli Pariser said "Bush's distortions have helped mislead the country into war and massive budget deficits. They've led the public to believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Towers."
I'm curious. Does Eli Pariser lie every time he opens his mouth?
9501. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2003 1:16:32 PM
Lately, when a picture of Kerry appears, I'm reminded of Ed Muskie.
Really? I just think of hound dogs!
9502. jexster - 9/18/2003 1:22:32 PM
White House's Cynical Iraq Ploy: 'Misspeak' First, 'Correct' It Later
"It's hard to believe that it was just a slip of the tongue rather than a calculated lie when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sullied the memory of those who died on 9/11 by exploiting their deaths for propaganda purposes. The brainwashing of Americans,
two-thirds of whom believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks, is too effective a political ploy for the Bush regime to suddenly let the truth get in the way... The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness, and Wolfowitz's latest performance is a classic example -- even his correction needs correcting. The Zarqawi connection has been a red herring since Colin Powell emphasized it in his prewar presentation to the United Nations Security Council, telling the world how Zarqawi was running a chemical weapons lab."
9503. jexster - 9/18/2003 1:36:01 PM
America is beginning to get a grip...our long national psychosis may be soon be over....There has never been such massive and cynical manipulation and outright deception from the White House....not even in the Nixon WH
And that pales beside their wretched incompetence...also without recent parallel
Former High-Ranking CIA Official: Cheney's 'Willingness to Use Speculation and Conjecture as Facts is Appalling'
"Vice Resident Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.... [T]he comments surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration
utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that heney's 'willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding.' In
particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim."
9504. jexster - 9/18/2003 1:53:46 PM
ChickenHawk DoD Undersecty Douglas Feith Rustles Up Bidniss for Old Law Firm in Iraq
How about some more bloviating from TD about the French and the Germans?
Just for a laugh
9505. judithathome - 9/18/2003 3:26:04 PM
Does Eli Pariser lie every time he opens his mouth?
Obviously not.
9506. judithathome - 9/18/2003 3:30:28 PM
Clark looked a bit short during his campaign announcement
That's because the podium was very tall and had that weird sign with the internet site address attached to the top, making it look ever taller. He needs to be aware of that sort of thing next time.
9507. concerned - 9/18/2003 3:51:28 PM
Re. 9505 -
You're correct. The man has to eat, after all.
9508. judithathome - 9/18/2003 4:03:54 PM
Ha!
Maybe that's why Bush is always working out; he lies, too.
9509. robertjayb - 9/18/2003 4:10:30 PM
Senator Kennedy says case for war was 'a fraud'...
BOSTON -- AP -- The case for going to war against Iraq was a fraud "made up in Texas" to give Republicans a political boost, Sen. Edward Kennedy said today.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Kennedy also said the Bush administration has failed to account for nearly half of the $4 billion the war is costing each month. He said he believes much of the unaccounted-for money is being used to bribe foreign leaders to send in troops.
He called the Bush administration's current Iraq policy "adrift."
The Massachusetts Democrat expressed doubts about how serious a threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States in its battle against terrorism. He said administration officials relied on "distortion, misrepresentation, a selection of intelligence" to justify their case for war.
9510. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2003 4:20:26 PM
Speaking of frauds....
Hecht said he did not pressure the former army general, who became a CNN commentator after retiring from the military, to make the link and said the matter was raised in a phone call inviting Clark to come to Montreal for a speech.
Clark's original claim and its subsequent variations had drawn much press and Internet attention in the United States as it became increasingly clear he was set to become the 10th candidate for the Democratic nomination.
Clark told the widely watched NBC show Meet the Press June 15 that the pressure to make the link "came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.
"I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, `You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"
....As he prepared for his presidential bid, Clark backed away from his comment, denying he was drawing a link to the White House, telling Fox News in July: "I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11...."
Hecht said he called Clark either Sept. 12 or Sept. 13 — not the morning of the attacks, as the former general said — but he merely passed on information he had received from Israel which drew a purported link....."I don't know why I would be confused with the White House. I don't even have white paint on my house," he added. "I saw those comments he made and I just chuckled."
9511. judithathome - 9/18/2003 4:25:01 PM
So I guess Clark seems like a real threat to the other side. They are already attacking....
9512. judithathome - 9/18/2003 4:27:23 PM
Clark backed away from his comment, denying he was drawing a link to the White House,
...and he is labelled a fraud. Bush seeks to distance himself from possible exaggerations he made prior to the war and he is merely going through a "learning experience".
9513. marjoribanks - 9/18/2003 4:33:15 PM
If I were Clark, I'd stop short of claiming the WH were involved in the pressure too.
But we all know, since 70 fucking percent of Americans believe it, that this administration has tried mightily - by every honest and dishonest means available - to do exactly what Clark is talking about. I mean, Cheney just about declared a connection between the two as recently as last weekend.
But judith is right. The wingnuts are running scared already, and Clark hasn't even thrown a punch yet.
9514. concerned - 9/18/2003 4:33:16 PM
Re. 9510 -
"I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, `You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"
You wouldn't know that Weasely Clark is capable of coherent thought processes from this malarkey. Why won't he say from whom he received the call? Maybe because it was from one of his drinking buddies?
9515. wonkers2 - 9/18/2003 4:39:19 PM
Well, Clark wasn't the only source of comments that the neocons opportunistically decided to link 9-11 with Saddam Hussein almost immediately after the event. I seem to recall that many talking heads like James Woolsey deployed on TV talk shows tried to make the link. I don't remember the exact sources, but there were enough of them to cause me to have no doubt of the truth of it. And they are still trying rather unsuccessfully to do it.
9516. concerned - 9/18/2003 4:39:23 PM
Re. 9513 -
That's where you're wrong. Weasely Clark has thrown a wild roundhouse and caught himself squarely in the chops by confusing Thomas Hecht with the current US administration in his wingnut eagerness to smear the president.
Clark has come out of the gate lying through his teeth. Not promising.
9517. marjoribanks - 9/18/2003 4:39:45 PM
One of the things I like about Clark is that you can slap the opposition silly with his record both in terms of brains and in terms of national security/patriotism.
Someone else do it here wrt 9514. I'm trying not to scare off Brewer.
9518. wonkers2 - 9/18/2003 4:41:54 PM
The President has connected with his own jaw more often than not. Since not long after 9-11 he has been lieing through his teeth linking Iraq with the war on terrorism.
9519. judithathome - 9/18/2003 4:44:36 PM
Well, we know now thar Clark is a playah! Concerned has already given him a twee nickname.
9520. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2003 5:29:31 PM
I know why everyone is talking about Clark -- otherwise we'd have to hear the Republicans crowing about one of Daddy's great presidential decisions . . .
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY'S WARM REMARKS AT THE FORMAL UNVEILING OF DANFORTH J. QUAYLE'S CAPITOL ROTUNDA MARBLE BUST
9521. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2003 5:31:35 PM
Re 9512: Apparently you did not notice Sen. Chappaquiddick's usage of the word "fraud."
And Clark is zero threat.
9522. judithathome - 9/18/2003 5:37:20 PM
Yes, Edmund, I did notice that. And I noticed YOUR post title "Speaking of frauds..." I was speaking to the fact YOU were labelling Clark a fraud, just as many of your ilk give Junior a pass on his little fumbling misstatements that need clarifying later on.
9523. concerned - 9/18/2003 7:40:46 PM
From Randall Robinson:
The Top Ten Ways Fox News Intimidated CNN:
10. Sent Greta Van Susteren to use a little muscle on Aaron Brown.
9. Fox and Friends urged viewers to egg Paula Zahn's house.
8. Neil Cavuto challenged Lou Dobbs to a Financial News Death Match.
7. Sean Hannity snapped Larry King's suspenders and raised a welt.
6. Brit Hume shaved off Wolf Blitzer's beard and held it hostage.
5. Fox anchors kept referring to CNN as the "Commie News Network."
4. Laurie Dhue's makeup tips caused Christiane Amanpour's skin to break out.
3. Geraldo Rivera threatened to nuke CNN's ratings "back to MSNBC country."
2. Painted Fox News helicopters black and had them hover over CNN headquarters.
1. Bill O'Reilly's mean smirks sent shivers of fear throughout CNN.
9524. jexster - 9/18/2003 8:30:39 PM
Now the WMD team is leaking. Bush had ordered its report kept secret to prevent him further embarrassment. But is both liar and moron.
ABC news last night reported that Iraq no WMD program, per WMD investigators.
Now AP ...
Top American scientists assigned to the weapons hunt in Iraq (news - web sites) found no evidence Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime was making or stockpiling smallpox, The Associated Press has learned from senior military officers involved in the search.
Smallpox fears were part of the case the Bush administration used to build support for invading Iraq — and they were raised again as recently as last weekend by Vice President Dick Cheney
9525. jexster - 9/18/2003 8:32:10 PM
Look at 'em sqirm....
There's not an aircraft carrier in sight..
9526. jexster - 9/18/2003 8:34:47 PM
Wouldn't a Veep debate between Cheney and Clark be primo
9527. jexster - 9/18/2003 10:47:37 PM
I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism--"I inherited half my father's friends and all his enemies"--conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
9528. jexster - 9/18/2003 10:48:14 PM
There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling."
I Cringe When He Speaks - Laugh at his Faux Texas Bubba Ways and if I knew him I too would hate him even more..
Bush Haters of the World Unite - You've Nothing to Lose But a Blood Thirsty Moron: The Case for Bush Hatred - TNR On Line
9529. jexster - 9/18/2003 11:09:36 PM
I guess the GOP doesn't have to worry about someone who voted for Reagan in 1984....
Supporters Mob Gen. Clark on First Campaign Stop
9530. jexster - 9/18/2003 11:11:39 PM
Kerry-Clark
Dean-Clark
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
9531. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/19/2003 12:17:52 AM
This week on NOW:
* Critics say she gutted key environmental protections. What's the real story? Former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman in her own words. CLEARING THE AIR.
* After 30 years of working to protect the environment, he only thought he'd seen it all. National Environmental Trust president Philip Clapp sits down with Bill Moyers.
* NPR's Deborah Amos talks to author and activist Walter Mosley about fiction, money and politics.
* A Bill Moyers Journal.
=============================================================
CLEARING THE AIR
Christine Todd Whitman arrived in Washington to head up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with commendable credentials as a former governor of New Jersey who supported pro-environmental policies. So why was she criticized for overseeing a period rife with the wholesale gutting of key environmental protections by the Bush Administration? In May, barely two years into the job, she resigned. NOW examines the new priorities at the EPA, where, critics say, environmental protection takes a back seat to politics, and Whitman gives NOW a first-hand account of the controversies that dogged her tenure.
9532. rdbrewer - 9/19/2003 10:50:54 AM
Intersting theory from Jay Bryant at Townhall.com.
Wesley Clark is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton?
That much is clear, but little else is. For example, there is the intriguing question of whether Clark knows he is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton. It is entirely possible he is being duped into being a decoy. With no political experience, he would make an easy mark for a team of con artists as skilled as Hillary and Bill Clinton. . . .
Whichever is true, this much you can take to the bank: Wesley Clark is running because the Clintons recruited him and promised him campaign resources and some sort of political reward.
9533. concerned - 9/19/2003 11:18:32 AM
The Halliburton smear
The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.
So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the U.S. corporation charged with helping repair it.
To the clueless: Halliburton is not an 'oil' company; it provides services to the natural gas and oil industries 'starting with exploration and development, moving through production, operations, maintenance, conversion and refining, to infrastructure and abandonment.'
9534. concerned - 9/19/2003 11:24:28 AM
found this also:
The Truth About Enron:
1) Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.
2) Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.
3) Enron donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.
4) The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
5) The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.
6) The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction. Scandalous!!
The president under whom all this happened was Xlowntoon.
9535. concerned - 9/19/2003 11:33:31 AM
Who from the Left will criticize Xlowntoon's no-bid bidness with Halliburton? Anyone?
9536. jexster - 9/19/2003 12:02:11 PM
Bush Stumbles in to War
9537. jexster - 9/19/2003 12:03:05 PM
Nobody TD.
9538. jexster - 9/19/2003 12:08:51 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/17/opinion/polls/main573774.shtml
target=new>CBS News Poll: Bush's Ratings on Iraq Bottom in Toilet
"Bush's approval rating on handling Iraq has fallen to its
lowest level ever, and his overall approval rating is the lowest it has been since the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to a CBS News poll. The poll also finds that a declining number of Americans think the U.S. is in control of the situation in Iraq, and only 22% think the Bush
administration has a clear plan for rebuilding the former dictatorship. Americans also question whether a successful rebuilding of Iraq would ultimately pay dividends for them back at home: most do not think the United States will be any safer from terrorism even if Iraq does become a
stable democracy. But many Americans do believe the rebuilding process in Iraq will force tough financial tradeoffs back at home - tradeoffs they would be unwilling to make."
__
9539. jexster - 9/19/2003 12:09:06 PM
toys
9540. concerned - 9/19/2003 12:19:02 PM
Re. 9537 -
Ummmm-hmmmm. That's what I thought.
9541. concerned - 9/19/2003 12:19:48 PM
Re. 9538 -
A real font of unrelieved negativity.
9542. jexster - 9/19/2003 12:22:52 PM
So many lies, so little time
For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom Tim Predmore, 101st Airborne, Peoria IL
9543. thoughtful - 9/19/2003 12:34:50 PM
Bush plays politics with economic policy at the cost of US jobs.
In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.
Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users. Politically, the strategy failed to produce union endorsements and appears to have hurt Bush with workers in Michigan and Tennessee -- also states at the heart of his 2004 strategy.
Brought to you by the administration of moral clarity...
9544. jexster - 9/19/2003 2:28:43 PM
GOP Falling Apart in Recall
More Doubletalk from Arnold
Sacramento -- Only moments after saying he "didn't like negative," Arnold Schwarzenegger launched into an attack Thursday on fellow Republican Tom McClintock by saying the state senator was being used by Indian casino owners to elect a Democratic governor.
Schwarzenegger questioned McClintock's allegiance to the GOP "because he is getting money from the same Indian tribes" as Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. McClintock called the statement ridiculous and said he had been a supporter of Indian sovereignty long before some of the tribes opened casinos.
BTW Arnold "I won't take any money, pay for it myself" Shwarznegger has received over $9 million
9545. jexster - 9/19/2003 2:32:57 PM
Bush Iraq War a "Made-in-Texas Fraud" to Get Votes
Billions Unaccounted For Being Used to Bribe Foreign Governments -EMK
9546. jexster - 9/19/2003 2:39:18 PM
Steel Tariffs Appear to Have Backfired on Bush
Move to Aid Mills and Gain Votes in 2 States Is Called Political and Economic Mistake
9547. jexster - 9/19/2003 2:47:06 PM
Gray in the pink..
"Let's have this recall in October. Let's get it over with. Let's get it on" Gray Davis 9/19/03
Underestimating Gray Davis, ever the Republican's first and last mistake
9548. arkymalarky - 9/19/2003 4:45:12 PM
Message # 9532
What a line of unmitigated crap. Where do you folks dig up these Clinton-conspiracy wackos? If you want to look for the black helicopters that are controlling the country, you'd best look west of us to the Bush League.
9549. judithathome - 9/19/2003 5:30:17 PM
Arky, it's actually a compliment...the more scared they are of a candidate, the wilder the accusations become. It's mass hysteria.
They can't help themsleves...it's inborn.
9550. robertjayb - 9/19/2003 6:26:11 PM
Thanks a lot, Jimmy. You can go on home now...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Jimmy Carter says he sees a little of himself in insurgent Democratic White House candidate Howard Dean.
9551. rdbrewer - 9/19/2003 7:23:49 PM
Arky, you don't think the Clintons will put their own needs above the Dem party? Answer: They will, of course, if it suits them. I think Clark may even be their effort to water down the effect of any single one of the nine riders (read: Dean), so that there will be no incumbent in '08. You think that might be remotely possible?
9552. arkymalarky - 9/19/2003 8:16:46 PM
No. Not remotely. It's completely idiotic and not founded in a single reasonable fact.
The Clinton-conspiracy mentality has floated around the Arkansas hills since he was governor. They're as stupid as the old superstitions that come from the same ignorant hillbillies. Of course these are the same folks that keep the third-rate tabloids in business, too. You know, the black-and-white Alien-baby headlined ones found in convenience stores on state highways across the heartland.
The Clintons are not only lacking in that kind of nefariousness, but they have nothing to gain from it anyway.
The Waltons, on the other hand....
And btw, a number of those jakes live in the "city."
I can't believe people swallow that swill without a scintilla of evidence to back it up. Of course, again, they're the same ones that start frothing at the mouth at the mention of Roswell.
9553. arkymalarky - 9/19/2003 8:17:29 PM
Jimmy Carter? What, you mean he's seen Dean asleep?
9554. jexster - 9/19/2003 8:23:10 PM
Special interests have a stranglehold on government in California. Here's how it works. Money comes in. Favors go out. The people loseSchwarzenegger 15 sec spot.
Contributions to AS campaign $9,300,000
No wonder he won't debate.
9555. arkymalarky - 9/19/2003 8:28:19 PM
But all people want to talk about is how Clark is merely a device for the Clintons to achieve world domination.
9556. judithathome - 9/19/2003 8:59:18 PM
The Clintons don't have the money for world domination...the Bushes, however.....
9557. concerned - 9/19/2003 9:04:43 PM
...have more important things in their lives, like Jesus.
9558. judithathome - 9/19/2003 9:07:25 PM
Oh please...I just ate.
9559. concerned - 9/19/2003 9:11:05 PM
Hey, the Republicans were ready to put a four star general who didn't have to kiss hillbilly ass to get that last star up for the job of president in '96, but he didn't want the job...
9560. judithathome - 9/19/2003 9:13:09 PM
Tucker Carlson today jumped on Clark for not going to the debates in Iowa but instead going to a formerly arranged fund raising event (which is not true, by the way, but when has that ever stopped people like Tucker?). Evidently he is completely comfortable with Bush swanning around the country all last month on the taxpayer's dime, flitting from fund raiser to fund raiser, sometimes two a day.
I love it when they are such hypocrites.
9561. judithathome - 9/19/2003 9:14:23 PM
Well, Bush didn't have to kiss ass to get his job...he owned it.
9562. judithathome - 9/19/2003 9:16:37 PM
(hate to get you all agitated and then run but...have to go for now!)
9563. jexster - 9/19/2003 9:17:31 PM
The lefties pulled the same crap on my guy for mayor. Newsom, who's got a 2-1 lead on his nearest competitor, left a debate last Saturday, audience of 20, to attend a gathering of his Precinct Captains - 300.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth among the progressively left alone was wrenching.
9564. jexster - 9/19/2003 9:18:34 PM
Arnold on the other hand .... he won't debate at all unless he gets the questions in advance so he can memorize his lines.
9565. jexster - 9/19/2003 9:21:55 PM
Speaking of Gavin Newsom, look for his new bride on CNN -
Kimberly Gulifoyle Newsom - CNN Legal Analyst
Eat your heart out Greta.
9566. rdbrewer - 9/19/2003 9:30:33 PM
So, what? HRC never had an open news conference during her run for senator. She didn't want any hard questions. At least Arnold will take scripted ones.
9567. rdbrewer - 9/19/2003 9:31:23 PM
Was this photo right after a bee attack?
9568. jexster - 9/19/2003 10:05:43 PM
Either either a bee attack or the happy couple had read one of your ringing, risible posts on the Laffer curve..
"I would have never voted for war. I'm a soldier. I understand what war's about, but I would have voted for the right kind of leverage for the president to head off war and avoid it." The General
Too bad this country is led by a lying Moron deserter and a band of ChickenHawks
9569. jexster - 9/19/2003 10:14:07 PM
Nobody do voodoo like yoodoo RD
9570. dr_mabeuse - 9/19/2003 10:22:36 PM
Here's my terribly cynical prediction: Bush (Rove) will keep the troops in Iraq until the real campaigning starts. Then he'll bring them home and try to ride their coat tails back into the White House
9571. robertjayb - 9/19/2003 11:39:44 PM
Clark's campaign learning curve proves slippery...
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he ``would never have voted for this war.''
The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments in an interview with The Associated Press.
``Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war,'' Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. ``I've gotten a very consistent record on this.
9572. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/19/2003 11:43:07 PM
Here's my more cynical prediction: The resident vultures in The White House will pick the flesh, blood and blood-money of this country down to the bone before they're through.
9573. Magoseph - 9/20/2003 4:43:57 AM
found this also:
The Truth About Enron:
1) Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.
2) Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.
3) Enron donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.
4) The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
5) The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.
6) The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction. Scandalous!!
The president under whom all this happened was Xlowntoon.
Check this out, concerned: SNOPES 9574. Magoseph - 9/20/2003 4:53:47 AM
Feb. 21, 2002 | In the echo chamber of the 24-hour news cycle, lies and deception can quickly metastasize from rumor to conventional wisdom due merely to repetition. The latest example of this is a false claim that former Enron CEO Ken Lay stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House during the Clinton administration. Despite a complete lack of evidence that this took place, irresponsible or malicious journalists have repeated this lie so often that it is on its way to being accepted as fact.
The newest perpetrator of the claim is Patrice Hill of the Washington Times, who asserts in her story Thursday that "evidence of Mr. Lay’s links to the Clinton administration are ample and well-documented," including that Lay "at times was Mr. Clinton’s golf partner and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom."
Hill evidently failed to consult the original Clinton Lincoln Bedroom guest list from February 1997, the July 1999-August 2000 list or the OpenSecrets.org White House Coffee and Sleep-over Database. Ken Lay’s name appears on none of these lists.
Another bedroom farce
The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Fred Barnes and others claim Clinton had Ken Lay for a White House sleepover. One problem: Wrong president.
9575. jexster - 9/20/2003 11:09:08 AM
Bush Lied Again: The Smallpox Scare
A team of US government scientists has turned up no evidence that Saddam Hussein was making or stockpiling smallpox.
"Team Pox", a six-member group hunting for laboratories manufacturing the deadly virus, found nothing more sinister than equipment covered in cobwebs, and nothing to suggest a smallpox programme, according to military officials involved in the project, who leaked the information to the Associated Press.
"We found no physical or new anecdotal evidence to suggest Iraq was producing smallpox or had stocks of it in its possession," one military official said.
9576. jexster - 9/20/2003 11:10:45 AM
Mags...
Fool us once fuck TD....
Republicans seem to have congential difficulty telling the truth.
9577. jexster - 9/20/2003 11:29:51 AM
Lie First, Retract Later
"For months leading up this year's war on Iraq, the Bush administration implied that... Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks... An oft-cited [WashPost] poll... revealed that 69% of Americans continue to believe it likely that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11...
So when... Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was 'no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th' attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings... Of America's 12 highest-circulation daily papers, only the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News ran anything about it on the front page. In The New York Times, the story was relegated to page 22. USA Today: page 16. The Houston Chronicle: page 3. The San Francisco Chronicle: page 14. The Washington Post: page 18. Newsday: page 41. The New York Daily News: page 14. The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention it at all."
So Much for the "Liberal" Media
9578. jexster - 9/20/2003 11:38:04 AM
Max Cleland: 'Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry You Didn't Go When You Had the Chance'
9579. jexster - 9/20/2003 12:00:24 PM
THE DAILY MISLEADER
Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's Threat to the U.S.
The Bush administration this week backed away from three major rationales for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its assertions that Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.
September 11th
As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the question of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just don't know."1 But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld each admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection. On Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that Hussein was involved.2 Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."3
Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the widely reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's security chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the CIA not to be credible.4
'Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program'
Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days before the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."5 But the International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks before that , "There was no indication of resumed nuclear activities."6 And six months later on Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."7
9580. jexster - 9/20/2003 12:00:33 PM
Weapons of Mass Destruction
This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S. knew where Iraq's weapons of destruction were located. When asked why the weapons hadn't been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do you mean? You're talking about a country the size of California."8 Yet months ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."9
Footnotes omitted.
9581. robertjayb - 9/20/2003 4:26:43 PM
OhMiGosh...Clark leads Dems...
Sept. 20 — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark may have only entered the presidential race on Thursday, but he is already the Democratic frontrunner, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll.
CLARK WON SUPPORT from 14 percent registered Democrats and democratic leaners, outpacing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (12 percent), Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (12 percent), Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (10 percent) and Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt (8 percent).
9582. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/20/2003 6:20:04 PM
Meanwhile . . .
9583. jexster - 9/20/2003 7:16:47 PM
A Fraud Made in Texas
Suddenly the president, the vice president and sundry other administration officials are publicly "correcting" certain aspects of the propaganda campaign that drove the United States into war with Iraq. Yet anyone who reads the Washington Post -- which means most of the people in and around the United States government and the national press corps -- should have strongly suspected that false premises underpinned the war. To find the Post's path-breaking stories, however, most of which were reported by Walter Pincus, readers had to thumb their way back to Page A20 or deeper.
The Post editors buried nearly all of the scoops by Pincus (and his colleagues Dana Priest, Dana Milbank, Barton Gellman and Karen DeYoung) until after the president declared victory. Why did a leading newspaper (often wrongly described as "liberal") behave so timorously?
"The Post was scared," according to Pincus, interviewed by Ari Berman for this excellent Nation story about the paper's Iraq coverage. "I believe papers ought to crusade when we're on to something." As Pincus wisely observes, the increasing difficulties in Iraq have emboldened journalists and editors. "This is a country in which it doesn't matter what you say if you succeed. But if you fail, people go back and look at why." The changing political atmosphere has enabled Pincus and others to speak up about pre-war journalistic cowardice, including Christiane Amanpour (as I note in this column for the Guardian).
9584. jexster - 9/20/2003 8:01:45 PM
Do you think George W. Bush has been spending too much of his time on foreign policy problems, or too much of his time on problems here at home, or has he been spending his time about right?" Too much foreign: 44%, About right: 40%, Too much at Home: 1%. (Eventually I recovered from my laughter, got up off the ground, and climbed back into my chair.)
I'd like to identify that 1% so if I encounter them in public I can give them a wide berth.
-- Josh Marshall
For more info see Rudy Teixeira's
The Emerging Democratic Majority
9585. jexster - 9/20/2003 9:14:00 PM
Halliburton, MCI/Worldcomm - Bush Shovels Taxpayer Billions to Cronies in Iraq - Marshall
9586. concerned - 9/21/2003 12:53:36 AM
Clark Leads But Has Dems in Despair
Never thought I'd see the day when the Democrat Party would put up a Nixon supporter for prez.
9587. ScreamingSin - 9/21/2003 2:07:49 AM
Dammit, it's getting darker earlier every day, and it's all Bush's fault.
9588. ScreamingSin - 9/21/2003 3:52:10 AM
Actually, my beloved said the above to me when I woke up this morning, and I couldn't help but pass the joy.
9589. jexster - 9/21/2003 11:20:19 AM
Leave it to Newsmax to tell us how that we support the General but are in despair!
9590. jexster - 9/21/2003 11:21:09 AM
Global Warming Lies: Bush Covers Up USG Climate Research
9591. jexster - 9/21/2003 11:23:34 AM
WASHINGTON -- A year ago, President Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on the urgent need to intervene in Iraq — and pledged that the United States was prepared to act without the world body if other nations balked.
"We cannot stand by and do nothing as dangers gather," he told the General Assembly opening session. "By heritage and by choice, the United States will make that stand."
Bungling Butcher of Baghdad Begs UN
9592. jexster - 9/21/2003 11:25:56 AM
Who was that masked man?
jmac_sf - 11:10am Sep 21, 2003 EST (# 7257 of 7258)
"Josh Marshall: Where do you see our position right now?
AMB JAMES Q. WILSON: Well, I think we're f-cked."
End of story.
End of T. Friedman's pollyanna "journalism"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0303.html#091803639pm
9593. jexster - 9/21/2003 11:31:52 AM
Demo reaction to The General's Annnouncement continues to pour in.
Why here's an email from Bryson (SF resident, Little Rock refugee, yellowdog democrat)
"YIPPEEEEEEEEEEE!"
Back to you TD
9594. jexster - 9/21/2003 11:34:33 AM
Iraqi Resistance Kills 3 US Soldiers Wounds 13
All for a pack of lies.
9595. jexster - 9/21/2003 11:38:41 AM
The 10 generals (six of them notable) who have become president have typically won support by styling themselves not as candidates of war but as candidates of peace.
Cincinnatus Clark
The president generals are George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and Dwight Eisenhower
9596. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/21/2003 1:05:01 PM
. . . and don't forget General SS/Asshcroft
9597. jexster - 9/21/2003 1:43:01 PM
9598. jexster - 9/21/2003 1:43:23 PM
9599. jexster - 9/21/2003 1:46:57 PM
If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report … Not ready for duty, sir.
Time For Straight Talk - Col David Hackworth, Voice of the Grunt
The cold facts are that the destruction of the twin towers was carefully planned by the al-Qaeda gang led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi fundamentalist Muslim who would probably sooner form some sort of alliance with the state of Israel than join forces with Saddam, whom he’s always considered as corrupt an infidel as the rest of us. Count on it – no fingerprints from former top Iraqi leadership will ever be found tying Baghdad to 9/11.
9600. jexster - 9/21/2003 1:49:43 PM
Bush in Full Retreat from Reality - Amb Wilson
9601. jexster - 9/21/2003 1:53:55 PM
Once again, most Americans – including a lot of red-faced lawmakers – have fallen for the old Hitler trick: Tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it.
David Hackworth
9602. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/21/2003 2:25:12 PM
Meanwhile . . .
9603. Edmund Dantes - 9/21/2003 4:35:26 PM
The Kiss, the Sequel.
(Not sure if it's a sequel to Al and Tipper or Britney and Madonna.
Maybe even Tyson and Holyfield.)
9604. wonkers2 - 9/21/2003 5:30:56 PM
Straws in the wind--Some of my most conservative Grosse Pointe friends have had it with Bush--over Iraq and the balooning national deficit. Many of them are saying that they don't think he'll be reelected. Some of the same people are saying they like General Wesley Clark. Some of them are the same people who liked McCain over Bush.
9605. jexster - 9/21/2003 7:28:23 PM
Did Cheney's old company get a helping hand on big money contracts in Iraq? We have the answer on 60 Minutes tonight
9606. jexster - 9/21/2003 7:32:14 PM
Minny Star Trib - Bush Losing Support on the Right
The criticisms of President Bush aren't surprising: He's bungling the war in Iraq; his budget deficits are disastrous; he's trampling civil liberties; his spending plans are misguided.
But the source of those criticisms is: They're increasingly coming from conservatives.
Think tank studies, op-ed columns, talk radio callers and opinion polls show conservatives' disenchantment with Bush's policies and priorities has been climbing, although nowhere near as much as it has among liberals. And although those dismayed conservatives might rally round him in next year's presidential election, his campaign aides are keeping a close eye on the trend.
"I hate to say they've got nowhere else to go, but I think most conservatives will stick with the president," said former Rep. Vin Weber, who is co-chair of Bush's reelection campaign in Minnesota and four other states. "Conservative voters across the country will conclude backing the president is imperative. Of course, it's impossible not to have a few dissident voices."
9607. jexster - 9/21/2003 8:08:43 PM
Former Democratic Vice President Al Gore stumped the state with Gov. Gray Davis on Friday, trying to link the 2000 presidential election fiasco in Florida and the California recall by reminding Democrats that 'when the people vote in an election, it should be afforded the respect that's due." In San Francisco and Los Angeles on Friday, Gore and Davis compared the recall to the impeachment of former
President Bill Clinton and the Florida election debacle, in which the U.S. Supreme Court refused Gore's request to recount votes after the results were disputed in several counties."
About the Bush residency, Gore said, "From peace and prosperity ... we now have a recession and three
years in a row of job loss that hasn't happened since Herbert Hoover. This nation has tragically bungled into a situation in Iraq where our brave soldiers are paying too high a price for a historic mistake."
Message # 9603
Gore uses visit to pump up state Democrats to vote
He and the governor tout respect for elections
>
9608. jexster - 9/21/2003 10:06:25 PM
With VP Cheney's Old Firm Halliburton Helping Itself to Millions in Federal Contracts - Halliburton's American Competitors Are Beginning to Cry Foul
All in the Family
9609. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/21/2003 10:50:44 PM
Conservatives Deconstructed
. . . No, not according to a fascinating new study in Psychological Bulletin, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Conservatives do, however, possess certain psychological traits and motives that no one in their right (or is that left?) mind would want to share.
The study’s four authors, John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway, write, “People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption and ambiguity; and to explain, order and justify inequality among groups and individuals.” To come to this conclusion the authors examined 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries. They boiled that information down into a number of psychological attributes that are closely associated with people who are politically conservative.
Rigid and closed-minded
“Dogmatism has been found to correlate consistently with authoritarianism, political-economic conservatism, and the holding of right wing opinions,” write the authors. Conversely, studies have found that conservatives in general have little tolerance for ambiguity. A fact that helps in decoding this statement that George W. Bush made in Geneoa, Italy: “I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right.”
Such thinking could explain why the Bush administration officials ignored those intelligence reports that failed to support going to war with Iraq. “[Conservatives’] intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes,” write the authors.
9610. robertjayb - 9/22/2003 12:04:01 AM
A splendid Safire column...99% vindictive bullshit, of course, but the old Nixon hand still has chops...
The Clintons decided that the Democratic primary campaign was getting out of hand. Howard Dean was getting all the buzz and too much of the passionate left's money. Word was out that Dean as nominee, owing Clintonites nothing, would quickly dump Terry McAuliffe, through whom Bill and Hillary maintain control of the Democratic National Committee.
That's when word was leaked of the former president's observation at an intimate dinner party at the Clinton Chappaqua, N.Y., estate that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party — Hillary and Wes Clark.
9611. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2003 10:39:59 AM
And the Repugs act so bewildered when Dems recall Clinton-hatred when they compare it to Bush-detestation.
9612. jexster - 9/22/2003 12:15:34 PM
The Repblicans sure are worried about the General.
Fear of Clark has driven Bill Safire bats. In his latest column, Safire says its all a Clinton plot to stop Dean. Hillary to announce in January. Clark gets #2 for doing the work of the Evil Ones!
9613. OhioSTOPAS - 9/22/2003 12:41:02 PM
You said it, Jex. The Repubs and their media mouthpieces are protesting WAY too much about someone they say is not a viable candidate.
But you're incorrect about one thing: Bill Safire was ALREADY bats.
9614. thoughtful - 9/22/2003 12:56:59 PM
Bill O'Reilly was on Imus this a.m. railing about what a horrible, detestable person Frank Rich is for using his column to denigrate another man!!!
Hypocrisy, thy name is GOPer.
9615. jexster - 9/22/2003 1:04:45 PM
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The United States agreed Monday to lend Turkey $8.5 billion to support its shaky economy, while insisting it was not trying to buy Turkish soldiers to help out in Iraq.
Bribe? No way. Bush is just paying reparations for damage done by his aggressive war.
9616. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2003 4:41:52 PM
Molly The Magnificent . . .
The administration is now in The Full Ostrich on Iraq: Dick Cheney put on a fabulous performance last Sunday on Meet the Press, in which he insisted everything in Iraq is tickety-boo, right as rain and cheery-bye. I haven't heard anyone lie with such gravitas since Henry Kissinger was in office.
But for the complete black-is-white, up-is-down, peace-is-war mode, you have to check out this administration on the environment. I am fascinated by its rank chutzpah.
9617. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2003 4:44:02 PM
9618. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2003 4:47:44 PM
9619. rdbrewer - 9/22/2003 6:47:30 PM
Re: "Conservatives Deconstructed"
9620. rdbrewer - 9/22/2003 6:51:16 PM
Re: "Conservatives Deconstructed"
I do so love writing that. Anyway, you always know when you're reading an effete marooon when they use "deconstruct" synonomously with "examine" or "study." I wonder if any of these psychologists or the author of the story ever studied literary criticism.
9622. jexster - 9/22/2003 7:39:06 PM
CNN Gallup: The General Tops Bush; FIVE Democratic Challengers in Virtual Tie With Emperor
9623. rdbrewer - 9/22/2003 7:42:02 PM
What happened to 9621?
9624. robertjayb - 9/22/2003 8:16:39 PM
Nevermind...It wasn't a real big bribe...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal investigators have concluded President Bush's former telecommunications policy chief committed three ethics violations by allowing industry lobbyists to throw her a party. The Justice Department, however, is declining to prosecute her.
9625. jexster - 9/22/2003 9:03:57 PM
GOP Starts Up Slime Machine - Targets the General
9626. Magoseph - 9/23/2003 9:28:44 AM
Hey, Jex, is there a quote somewhere about Bush saying that the jury was still out on whether evolution was a fact or not one? I couldn't find anything.
9627. marjoribanks - 9/23/2003 9:51:16 AM
Colin Powell did Charlie Rose yesterday, the latest in a series of interviews in the media done by the Bushites (Bush's own interview with Brit Hume also aired yesterday).
The difference is stark, and saddening. Powell comes across as the only grown-up, the only realist, the only truthful person in the administration. He ducked no questions, and while he walked the administration's line carefully, never erred on the side of propaganda or misinformation or spin of dubious quality. Unlike Bush, who can only speak in set platitudes, Powell quietly lays out the facts in a positive manner and refuses to get into the bullshit of "evildoers" or the nasty Bush-Cheney habit of seeking cover in the events of 9/11.
And what a grasp of the issues Powell has, the masterful comman of dates and timelines and all the facts involved. He makes Bush look like a two-year-old, and Cheney and Rumsfeld like tired hacks.
What a great pity it is that he is not in charge among that bunch. And it is a greater pity that his (commendable) loyalty isn't letting him come out and say what we all have a strong sense of - he is quitting after the elections because the neocons are hamstringing his ability to represent the US. The greatest pity of all is that he is the best SecofState this country has had in recent memory, perhaps ever.
9628. marjoribanks - 9/23/2003 10:31:01 AM
Anyway, to politics, Bush's speech at the UN (in a few minutes) is a giant moment in his Presidency. He's returning to the UN in occupation of Iraq, with the need to play well to the world and to an audience at home that is extremely jittery about his leadership in Iraq and so hyped up about any possible replacement that Clark's numbers are totally astounding given that the General hasn't even taken a punch at Dubya yet.
9629. marjoribanks - 9/23/2003 10:31:19 AM
Bush, naturally, will be playing far more to the latter audience than the former. It's the nature of his presidency, and the great flaw, that his own total intellectual vacuum means that he has to be handled totally, and his handlers aren't men of broad vision (like Powell) but men with narrow cynical, poll-driven, electoral results on their minds first and foremost.
But even given that, Bush has a chance to revitalize his standing and send dual messages to the world. He should ( with a minimum of the good versus evil horseshit his speechwriters like) approach the UN flying the standard of the Iraqi people, declare that the main job is done but that the rebuilding needs the whole world's effort. He should praise the UN for work done in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Timor and in Afghanistan, and he should challenge the member states to work in concert with the US to take up all the slack other than the military effort. In effect, he should declare that the US will guarantee military security and looks to partners to guarantee the other aspects of Iraq's wellbeing. And he should declare in no uncertain terms that not one dollar will go from Iraq's mineral (and other) patrimony to US coffers while the job is being undertaken.
And then he should declare that as in any campaign there were mistakes made and lessons learned, and that he regrets the mistakes and will make sure that the lessons are not forgotten. He should declare that the US is building, starting now, a multidisciplinary force of nation-builders (engineers, doctors, educators, administrators) which will work first in Iraq alongside the UN and in the future will be available to struggling member states.
9630. judithathome - 9/23/2003 10:37:15 AM
And then he should declare that as in any campaign there were mistakes made and lessons learned, and that he regrets the mistakes and will make sure that the lessons are not forgotten.
No way in hell will he ever say this...just flat out no way.
9631. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/23/2003 10:59:32 AM
Journo claims proof of WMD lies - By Paul Mulvey in London
AUSTRALIAN investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie that could cost George W. Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.
A television report by Pilger aired on British screens overnight said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat. , , ,
. . . Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.
Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.
9632. jexster - 9/23/2003 11:12:19 AM
Bush Under Fire over Iraq at UN
9633. jexster - 9/23/2003 11:13:13 AM
Excellent work Wiz!
9634. jexster - 9/23/2003 11:49:49 AM
The End of Our Long National Psychosis - Post on the General
Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who jumped into the presidential race just a week ago, is leading the nine other Democratic candidates and tied with President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll.
Clark, who has yet to detail the agenda he will run on, bested Bush 49 to 46 percent in the poll, which is within the survey's margin of error. The poll was conducted Sept. 19-21, right after Clark launched his campaign in Little Rock. It is the first major poll showing Bush trailing a Democratic candidate.
9635. concerned - 9/23/2003 12:19:13 PM
From the AP:
(09-23) 09:03 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --
A federal appeals court Tuesday reinstated California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, rejecting a three-judge panel's decision to put it off for months and handing a defeat to supporters of Gov. Gray Davis.
Unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in quickly, the decision means Election Day is two weeks away.
The 11-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the Sept. 15 decision of a three-judge panel from the same circuit. The original panel postponed the election because six counties would use outdated punch-card ballots that were the subject of the "hanging chads" battle in the 2000 presidential election in Florida.
The decision clears the way for a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could be asked to revisit its Bush v. Gore decision in the 2000 election.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the challenge, did not immediately confirm its next legal move.
9636. thoughtful - 9/23/2003 12:25:49 PM
More fuzzy math. Re "Leave No Child Behind":
...He said it was his brightest accomplishment as governor of Texas. He said the Houston schools were the model....
Over the past year or so, getting headlines in Texas but only modest coverage elsewhere, the "Texas Miracle" has been disrobed. ...
Suddenly, as if in the Land of Oz, kids in low-income districts who had been dropping out of high school at rates of 30 and 40 percent and higher were apparently born again, burying their faces in their books into the wee hours. And then the truth came out. They were still dropping out at the same old percentages; they just weren't being counted as dropouts. They weren't even being listed as "whereabouts unknown"—as if they might have moved to another district and forgotten to leave a forwarding address. They had simply disappeared."
As a sample, here is some of what Winerip found on the scene in Houston, where he described Sharpstown High School: "[This] poor, mostly minority high school of 1,650 students had a freshman class of 1,000 that dwindled to fewer than 300 students by senior year. And yet—and this is the miracle—not one dropout to report.
See Bush's new math
9637. jexster - 9/23/2003 12:25:51 PM
That's right TD, bring it on!
9638. jexster - 9/23/2003 12:27:43 PM
Its frustrating though. I am Captain for two precincts for Gavin Newsom who is running for Mayor on 11/4.
More times than I care to count, I have heard, in response to my offer in canvass to send vote by mail apps to supporters on my list "Oh I already have one for 10/7"
9639. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/23/2003 12:28:43 PM
9640. jexster - 9/23/2003 12:28:55 PM
Should count blessings though. My candidate polls twice his nearest competitor
9641. jexster - 9/23/2003 12:52:37 PM
A Complete Catalog of Bush-shit on the Costs of Conquering Iraq
"I'm a soldier. I've laid on the battlefield bleeding. [War is] not a way to solve problems and resolve disputes.
It's very difficult to change people's minds when you are bombing them and killing them." The General
9642. jexster - 9/23/2003 1:01:27 PM
Big "End the Occupation March" march this weekend 9/28
See ya there Eddie
9643. concerned - 9/23/2003 1:07:34 PM
Re. 9641 -
Shamelessly retailing the same old lies, eh, jexster?
9644. jexster - 9/23/2003 1:17:19 PM
Yes indeed TD:
• '$100 billion to $200 billion'
Last September, White House economic advisor Lawrence "fatboy" Lindsey let slip that a war in Iraq might cost anywhere between $100 billion and $200 billion. The White House rushed to downplay his comments. Two days later, the White House budget boss, Mitch Daniels, dismissed Lindsey's prediction as "very, very high", and three months after that, Lindsey was out of a job. It was the last time, until Sept 7, that any White House official offered a hard estimate of the war's ultimate cost.
• 'The cost of one bullet'
At a press conference in October 2002, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer claimed that the president had "made no decisions" whether to go to war and therefore had no idea how much a war might cost. But, he quipped, the price of removing Saddam Hussein could be as low as "[t]he cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves."
• '$50 billion to $60 billion' -- maybe
In December 2002, Daniels ventured that a war might cost between $50 billion and $60 billion. He added, "This is nothing more than prudent contingency planning. At this point there is no war." A day later, an Office of Management and Budget spokesman emphasized that Daniels wasn't making a prediction: "He said it could -- could -- be $60 billion."
9645. robertjayb - 9/23/2003 2:08:04 PM
No joy for Whistle-Ass in New York poll,,,
President Bush's approval rating has suffered a double-digit drop among New York voters in five months and about one-quarter of Republicans now say they will vote against him, a statewide poll reported Tuesday.
.......................
...in the latest Marist poll, 48 percent of New York voters surveyed, including 23 percent of Republicans, said they definitely planned to vote against Bush in the 2004 election.
9646. jexster - 9/23/2003 3:10:39 PM
From the This Shit Won't Flush Dept: GOP Senators Dispute Charge that Iraq War Was a Fraud
Tim Predmore, on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq, has written a brave essay exposing the hypocrisy of Bush's war. He writes, "For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Predmore continues, "I once believed that I was serving for a cause - "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". Now I no longer believe that; I have lost my conviction, as well as my determination. I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies."
Iraq War Costs Could Top $100 Billion
This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud
Tell K Bailey Thus n such to stick it up her twat.
9647. jexster - 9/23/2003 3:11:03 PM
From the This Shit Won't Flush Dept: GOP Senators Dispute Charge that Iraq War Was a Fraud
Tim Predmore, on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq, has written a brave essay exposing the hypocrisy of Bush's war. He writes, "For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Predmore continues, "I once believed that I was serving for a cause - "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". Now I no longer believe that; I have lost my conviction, as well as my determination. I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies."
Iraq War Costs Could Top $400 Billion
This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud
Tell K Bailey Thus n such to stick it up her twat.
9648. rdbrewer - 9/23/2003 4:48:35 PM
Your hate runneth over -- into issues with women.
9649. jexster - 9/23/2003 5:42:13 PM
No just up K Bailey's twat..
and that of a certain crack ho...
David Kay is in charge of our effort now, with some 1,500 inspectors and analysts and experts. He will provide an interim report later this month, and I am confident when people see what David Kay puts forward they will see that there was no question that such weapons exist, existed, and so did the programs to develop one.
Colin Powell
Meet The Press
September 7th, 2003
David Kay is not going to be done with this for quite some time. And I would not count on reports. I suppose there may be interim reports. I don't know when those will be, and I don't know what the public nature of them will be.
Condi Rice
Press Briefing
September 22nd, 2003
Can we call this a credibility issue yet?
-- Josh Marshall
9650. jexster - 9/23/2003 5:43:35 PM
Fraud made in Texas, Condom made many times
9651. arkymalarky - 9/23/2003 5:47:34 PM
Suddenly, as if in the Land of Oz, kids in low-income districts who had been dropping out of high school at rates of 30 and 40 percent and higher were apparently born again, burying their faces in their books into the wee hours. And then the truth came out. They were still dropping out at the same old percentages; they just weren't being counted as dropouts. They weren't even being listed as "whereabouts unknown"—as if they might have moved to another district and forgotten to leave a forwarding address. They had simply disappeared."
The Little Rock School District has learned this trick, and no one has called them on it.
Oh, and btw, congrats all you Mote American citizens concerned about education. AR's Ed Department director is being hired to work for the Bush admin in the US Dept of Ed.
9652. jexster - 9/23/2003 6:00:02 PM
Mr. Flim and Ms. Flam...
Bush Regime Knew That Iraqi Oil Revenues Would Not Pay for Reconstruction
See RD its not so much that I hate Kay Bailey, though I do, its more a matter of a lesson I learned on the grade school playground in rural Louisiana, they probably teach the same course in rural Arkansas and on SpongeBob Square Pants (so you can learn too!):
Liar! Liar!
Pants on Fire!
Playground Ethics 101
9653. jexster - 9/23/2003 6:00:54 PM
The Oil Revenue Lie
9654. robertjayb - 9/23/2003 6:26:03 PM
HISD flim-flam man?
Arky, your guy may fit in very well. Of course, Rod Paige did his dissertation on the response times of football linemen. That will be hard to match.
9655. jexster - 9/23/2003 6:38:31 PM
Just received my voter pamphlet. The list of names runs to over 8 pages, which will turn into one giant scanner sheet front and back
9656. jexster - 9/23/2003 6:39:42 PM
Oh the sage in bloom
Is sweet perfume
DEEP IN THE HEART O TEJAS
Go Giants!
9657. arkymalarky - 9/23/2003 8:10:12 PM
Ray Simon doesn't have a doctorate, so he'll never match up, I guess. He was a high school math teacher, though (not as good as the one I have at home, I bet).
9658. arkymalarky - 9/23/2003 8:20:04 PM
That article is infuriating. I wish we had that kind of coverage of the ed dept/govt shenanigans in AR. Unfortunately the owner of the one state daily paper is deluded into thinking he has educational insights and has had a significant personal voice in reform decision-making and the one weekly paper is filled with liberal suburbanites who think Little Rock is a cultured place and big suburban schools put out the best education, no matter what the student's background. The think the McMansion template should be applied to literally everything.
And the ones who are supposed to be leading the opposition are too busy running around being democratic to the point of paralysis while the governor plays divide and conquer with every imaginable combination of groups.
I'm trying hard not to get disgusted with the whole mess.
9659. arkymalarky - 9/23/2003 8:22:10 PM
Education has so tried for so long to legitimize itself with ridiculous programs and stupidly contrived jargon and meta-micro-management (I think I know what I mean there) it's become a tangled mess with no clear purpose and focus, and when people try to suggest that maybe going back to hiring competent teachers and letting them do their jobs they're archaic backwoods hicks who wouldn't know a quality high school education if it bit them in the butt.
9660. arkymalarky - 9/23/2003 8:22:34 PM
Sorry.
I'm breathing into my paper bag now.
9661. arkymalarky - 9/23/2003 8:23:15 PM
You've provided some great links, btw, Robert, and I've printed them all off and saved them.
9662. jexster - 9/23/2003 8:54:25 PM
The backdrop to the Clark-bashing from the White House and its helpers. This from Charlie Cook's weekly newsletter "Off To The Races" ...
For the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible. President Bush now has a 40 percent disapproval rating on "handling foreign policy and terrorism." ....-- Josh Marshall
9663. robertjayb - 9/24/2003 12:22:01 AM
Freestyle political debate...
KUHT-TV, Houston's PBS outlet, will air a novel political debate Thursday night. No moderator, no questioners, no rules. Just the three mayoral candidates around a table. They will be given two topics to discuss and a clock will start to run for 57 minutes.
Should be fun. The idea comes from Wisconsin where the Madison public station used it in the governor's Democratic primary last year.
9664. ScreamingSin - 9/24/2003 1:55:45 AM
I'm all for ad-lib and unrehearsed answers!
9665. jexster - 9/24/2003 1:58:16 AM
The Bush campaign cannot afford to have a credible Clark throwing fastballs at them for the next 15 months, whether he is the nominee, running mate or sitting on the sidelines. Bush Black Ops Memo
This isn't rocket science, people.
9666. jexster - 9/24/2003 2:01:04 AM
These sorry fucks would kill their own mothers not to mention several thousand Iraqis to win an election.
Its all a made-in-Texas fraud.
Not rocket science.
9667. ScreamingSin - 9/24/2003 2:03:35 AM
Well I think I'm going to come in my panties now that you posted Black Ops Memo!
Rocket science is useless to me, if I don't understand it. Please explain.
9668. jexster - 9/24/2003 11:53:59 AM
Simple - just an admission of what's been obvious since Whitewater....
Its SOP for Poopstain crowd
9669. jexster - 9/24/2003 11:55:42 AM
A cover for lies and incompetence....incompetence and lies....and lying incompetents
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — George W. Bush got off to a rocky start with the United Nations even before he was elected president, with declarations at the end of the 2000 presidential campaign that the American military should not take part in the sort of "nation building" in the Balkans, or Somalia, for which the United Nations had long been known.
It Fool Us Once - Fuck You Time on the East River
9670. jexster - 9/24/2003 12:24:30 PM
Bush's Baffling Blather at UN
9671. jexster - 9/24/2003 12:30:43 PM
Bush to World: Drop Dead
Bush's Awful Speech at UN Fred Kaplan
Stuck in an Infinite Loop
Regime in Denial, a Bomb at the UN - Josh Marshall, The Hill
Indulge me in a pop culture reference.
Remember that big tin robot in those early-‘60s sci-fi films? Remember how at the end of every movie there’d come a point where the hero would outwit the robot or set him on some problem he couldn’t solve and the robot would slip into a feedback loop and smoke would start coming out of his ears?
The White House is the robot
9672. jexster - 9/24/2003 12:48:07 PM
Bush Falls Flat on His Face at UN
9673. jexster - 9/24/2003 1:12:10 PM
And there they go again...the CA GOP underestimating Gray Davis...le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose
GOP Shift in Focus Lifts Davis
LAT ANALYSIS: By taking ouster for granted, GOP gave Davis chance to redefine the election
9674. jexster - 9/24/2003 2:55:58 PM
Gen. Wesley Clark, Reporting for Duty - Col. David Hackworth
"if he wins the election, don’t expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark’s an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike’s – that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president."
HOO AAA
9675. jexster - 9/24/2003 3:09:48 PM
For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim’s November issue, I’m impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn’t get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army’s most distinguished war heroes, says: “Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn’t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ‘em.”
I asked Clark why he didn’t turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.
His response: “I wanted to serve my country.”
9676. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2003 3:40:06 PM
You opportunitist you, jexster. You were a Dean enthusiast, now you're into Clark. What will you do when Hillary declares? Switch allegiance again?
9677. robertjayb - 9/24/2003 4:20:30 PM
It's the uniform.
9678. Magoseph - 9/24/2003 4:44:24 PM
Six months ago when Bush was riding high, OPEC wouldn't have dared to raise oil prices.
How the world changes! When you have him down, jump on him.
However, this oil move more than anything else is an illustration of the depths to which the failed policies of the right-wing have sunk the Bush presidency.
9679. thoughtful - 9/24/2003 5:18:56 PM
Whatever it takes to keep W. from another 4 years.
I'm so embarrassed by everything W has done. Pax Americana is not supposed to mean launching an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. Attacking in self-defense is one thing, attacking because you can win or because they have something you want, is another.
(Please don't tell me Saddam murdered his own people--so have and are many other nations. If it's all about freedom then why not attack Argentina, Sudan, Congo, Guatemala, China, etc ? Please don't tell me we were attacked by Al Qaeda...the links are evident with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, but not Iraq...why haven't we attacked them?)
Then to do it while dissing our allies and blowing all that political capital from 9/11, declaring we don't need anyone. Needlessly burning bridges. So W goes in there and makes a total mess of things...after having gone in to Afghanistan where he never even attempted to clean up that mess leaving everyone worse off and Al Qaeda returning. (So much for the "bringing democracy" line). Now to have W turn around and crawl back to the UN asking for money and troops! Especially when the whole thing was based on LIES! How embarrassing!
Of course, this is SOP for W who went crawling back to mommy and daddy every time he screwed up, Bailed him out of Ar-Bust-o, bailed him out of Vietnam and going awol, bailed him out of the SEC violation. That may work for spoiled rich kids like W, but the leaders of this nation must be more responsible.
I remember driving through a hard-rock repub town seeing a car with the bumper sticker that said "Now the grown-ups are in charge!"
Well, I beg to differ. The spoiled brat is in charge and we need the country back in the hands of thinking, mindful adults.
Whatever it takes to keep W. from another 4 years.
9680. jexster - 9/24/2003 6:07:31 PM
Pelle I STILL am a Dean enthusiast.
I also like Clark.
I like Kerry.
I like anyone running against GWB even Joe Lieberman.
Thus in the end you are correct, I am an opportunist. Win or lose the nomination, Clark has dramatically changed the 2004 dynamic and for that all Democrats rejoice (Yo THoughtful!) and Bushies quake:
For the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible. President Bush now has a 40 percent disapproval rating on "handling foreign policy and terrorism." That is without a Democrat with any credibility in national security having thrown a punch. A credible Clark could inflict some very serious damage on this president, particularly after Bush's admission last week that there was no direct connection between the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Saddam Hussein. That was news to 69 percent of Americans, who told Washington Post pollsters in August they thought a connection was likely. The Bush campaign cannot afford to have a credible Clark throwing fastballs at them for the next 15 months, whether he is the nominee, running mate or sitting on the sidelines.
Besides how can you go wrong with the Conqueror of Kosova, Scourge of Pig Farmers?
9681. jexster - 9/24/2003 6:23:19 PM
IVINS: Bush Haters
AUSTIN, Texas – Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible president.
Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his 44 years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush haters" in Time magazine, as though he had never before come across such a phenomenon.
Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to – our last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug-running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery and official misconduct, and his wife of even worse.
9682. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 6:25:11 PM
Another interesting twist in AR politics and education reform:
Governor Huckabee says he and legislators are still one different sides of the fence on how to address mandated changes in Arkansas' public school system. He hinted this morning that he might not call the Legislature into a special session December 8th. Meanwhile, Huckabee planned on releasing a revised version of his education plan this week, but that's now been pushed to next month.
Last year, the state Supreme Court gave Arkansas a January 1st, 2004 deadline to improve its schools. The court said Arkansas was not spending enough money on its 450,000 public school children or spending it equally across the board.
Huckabee says opponents of his plan for consolidating some high schools are entrenched and that they do not want to change the current system. The governor says he'll listen to the advice of legislative leaders on whether a compromise would be possible if he calls a special session.
It will be very interesting to see how all this plays out.
9683. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 6:27:43 PM
Now they're accusing them of a conspiracy to get Dems to support Clark for president after having gotten him to run, just so Hillary could move into prime position and She and Bill could have four more years of rule.
That's just creepy.
9684. jexster - 9/24/2003 6:30:37 PM
Count your blessings...you could live in Alabama where Republicans fought back a tax increase ..
Drug dealers, car thieves go free
Kids go without dialysis...
These colors don't run...
Amen.
9685. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 6:48:50 PM
Oh, we'll go there too. That's what this is all about. The AR Supreme Court has declared AR's education inequitable and inadequate and declared its education funding system unconstitutional.
I don't imagine northwest AR's Walton-World will give up much of its money to subsidize the Delta if they can possibly help it.
There is something incredibly wrong with the AR picture. Fayetteville is the top economically growing city in the nation. Five of the ten richest people in the world are from here--all Waltons. Yet we're scraping the bottom of so many lists--education funding, medical care--we even got an F- in social studies education according to one group's assessment.
What's bugging me most is what I don't know about who's supporting what and by what means. I can't seem to find what I'm looking for, but what Max Brantley refers to here intrigues me.
And look what Bill Gates is doing for high schools in NYC.
It's so depressing.
9686. jexster - 9/24/2003 7:08:54 PM
Ah the Waltons...they've come a long way since John Boy and Mary Beth Bob's days on the Mountain.
Slop the hog....
Bush and his boys will take care of sloppin the pigs
9687. jexster - 9/24/2003 7:13:00 PM
Bush’s Approval Rating Does the Limbo! (How Low Can It Go?)
The honor of the second sub-50 Bush approval rating goes to the just-released American Research Group (ARG) poll which has our steadily-less-beloved president at just 47 percent approval with 48 percent disapproval–in other words, a net negative job rating. Just a month ago, ARG had Bush’s approval rating at a net +15 (54 percent approval/39 percent disapproval
9688. rdbrewer - 9/24/2003 7:26:53 PM
The fabulous General Clark:
General H. Hugh Shelton in a Celebrity Forum appearance was asked . . .
"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"
"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
9689. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:12:23 PM
That's great. Lou Sheldon fired Conqueror of Iraq won't vote for The General.
Going to be fun to watch Bush or Cheney debate The General and hear more about what the soldiers have to say about their ChickenHawk masters....
9690. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:14:19 PM
If we're lucky, lots of fun:
Gallup has been asking a question for awhile about whether "the situation in Iraq was worth going to war about or not". In contrast to other questions about this issue which have asked respondents to weigh the costs of the war against its results, and have tended to elicit split or negative judgements for several months, this question has yielded quite positive judgements until very recently. Just last month, in fact, 63 percent of the public said the Iraq situation was worth going to war about, with just 35 percent saying it wasn’t; now the public is about evenly split, with 50 percent saying the Iraq situation was worth going to war, and 48 percent saying it wasn’t. Moreover, the numbers of men and women who think Iraq was worth going to war are now about the same, erasing the gender gap in war support that had helped shore up Bush’s position up to and through the invasion of Iraq.
9691. jayackroyd - 9/24/2003 8:21:09 PM
9688
You need to read Clark's Kosovo book. He was in a constant state of bureaucratic infighting with Shelton. He makes it clear he thinks Shelton is an ignorant ass, and that his position of supreme commander of NATO somehow trumps Shelton's position as head of the joint chiefs.
Clark, imo, does not come across well at all, in his own words.
But it is not surprising that Shelton is vindictive, nor terribly informative.
9692. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2003 8:25:21 PM
thoughtdead, ex-Clinton kneepadder posts:
Whatever it takes to keep W. from another 4 years.
About sums it up, doesn't it?
Pax Americana is not supposed to mean launching an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. Attacking in self-defense is one thing, attacking because you can win or because they have something you want, is another.
Yugoslavia was sovereign, and Kosovo was part of it when Clinton and General Wesley bombed the shit out of Belgrade. Of course there was the justification that Milosevic was murdering some of his own people.
Please don't tell me Saddam murdered his own people--so have and are many other nations. If it's all about freedom then why not attack Argentina, Sudan, Congo, Guatemala, China, etc ?
Ooops.
9693. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:27:51 PM
Here they come...the cockroaches with their usual load....
"I'm so pleased to be able to say hello to Bill Scranton. He's one of the great Pennsylvania political families."—
9694. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:29:00 PM
Yo Eddie...keep tryin to flush that shit..
I have a plumber's helper if ya need one
9695. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:39:09 PM
Clark is not a threat
That was Eddie a few days before Gallup reported that Clark was leading Bush by 3 in their first trial heat...
This, a Mote Exclusive was taken just after Eddie changed out of his soiled flight suit...
9696. wonkers2 - 9/24/2003 8:41:16 PM
But Shelton is an ignorant ass, as is the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
9697. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:47:01 PM
Rummy's gonna be hiding behind his tunic...lickin his boots....
I dunno which I like better:
a)Clark is Hillary's stalking horse
b)Shelton won't vote for him
c)Clark voted for Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984
decisions...decisions...
9698. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:54:06 PM
Dean declares war on "King George"
Presidential candidate Howard Dean calls upon today's Sons of Liberty to overthrow a government that is "of, by and for the special interests."
Guess I am just an equal opportunity Bush hater after all.
9699. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:59:02 PM
Hope is Not a Plan
WASHINGTON - The United States may have to alert thousands more National Guard and Reserve troops within weeks that they are needed for duty in Iraq the Pentagon second-ranking general said Wednesday.
The Bush administration still hopes that Turkey, India, Pakistan or South Korea (news - web sites) will contribute thousands of troops for security duty in Iraq, said Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But military planners are not counting on it.
"Hope is not a plan," Pace said in an interview with a group of reporters at a Washington hotel.
President Bush did not receive any offers of troops for Iraq during two days of meetings with foreign leaders at the United Nations this week, said a senior U.S. official, who added that the question of sending troops did not even come up during Bush's talks with the leaders of Pakistan and India.
9700. rdbrewer - 9/24/2003 9:29:58 PM
Whatever it takes to keep W. from another 4 years.
What a nasty, animalistic sentiment, thoughtful.
Pax Americana is not supposed to mean launching an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
But it's okay to mess around in Somolia, Afgahnistan and Haiti without even checking with the U.N. or Congress first. If the numbers are down, throw a couple of cruise missles at some tents full of unidentified arabs. That's okay. You're fine with that. But try to save a nation from an ugly, murdering, sadistic tyrant, well, that just won't do.
(Please don't tell me Saddam murdered his own people--so have and are many other nations. If it's all about freedom then why not attack Argentina, Sudan, Congo, Guatemala, China, etc ?
The mote in your brother's eye, indeed. If it's all about soveriegnty, then why kill in Somolia, Serbia, and Afgahnistan? Answer: It's not about soveriegnty. It's about how you feel.
Then to do it while dissing our allies
Actually, *George Bush* has done much less dissing than Chirac. Chirac even dissed the U.S. yesterday in his U.N. speech. The guy that told potential members of the EU they should keep their mouths shut if they know what is good for them can't stop saying shitty things about the U.S. Talk about buring bridges. So the point really isn't about dissing either.
I remember driving through a hard-rock repub town seeing a car with the bumper sticker that said "Now the grown-ups are in charge!"
Well, I beg to differ. The spoiled brat is in charge and we need the country back in the hands of thinking, mindful adults.
Like Clinton? Like Dean? Bush has his problems, but compared to Clinton, he is an adult, obviously. But it's not about maturity either.
Whatever it takes to keep W. from another 4 years
Lying. Spewing hate, for example.
9701. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 9:57:42 PM
For people who truly believe Bush is endangering this country, that's not a bad sentiment at all.
I'm quickly coming to believe that myself. States are getting strangled economically, no area of domestic or foreign policy is under control or has clear focus and direction, and Bush is completely incompetent to address anything. The news from his last press conference that it was his 9th when at the same point in his presidency his father had held over 90 and Clinton over 70 confirmed what even you know.
Bush does not have the faculties to parrot the lines of those who do run this country at the moment, much less come up with and implement any policies of his own.
I'm angry with the Democrats too, for the mid-term disaster that is going to cost the country and the individual states dearly for the next two years. If Wesley Clark can pull them together, I'm all for him. He may have blemishes, but show me a better candidate from either party to vote for in '04.
And if you say GW Bush I'm going to puke in my Skeechers.
9702. rdbrewer - 9/24/2003 10:10:51 PM
Arky:
For people who truly believe Bush is endangering this country, that's not a bad sentiment at all.
It's always a bad sentiment. The ends never justify the means. It's arrogant beyond belief to think that you know so very much more, that you care so much more, that anything you do to achieve your narcissistic, heroic goals is fine. That kind of self-indulgent "thinking" is scary as hell. Millions have died under dirtbag totalitarian goverments because of that kind of thinking.
9703. rdbrewer - 9/24/2003 10:12:49 PM
Arky, not "you" in particular, "you" in general, any person.
9704. jayackroyd - 9/24/2003 10:48:35 PM
It's always a bad sentiment. The ends never justify the means. It's arrogant beyond belief to think that you know so very much more, that you care so much more, that anything you do to achieve your narcissistic, heroic goals is fine.
This is, of course, correct. It is at the heart of the criticism of the administration's pursuit of Iraqi conquest.
Jexster's "anybody but Bush" position, at any cost, is equally mistaken.
Practically speaking, though, the president is the one who has repeatedly taken the position that the ends justifies the means, and has never told us what the ends are.
This sets the bar very low for an electoral opponent.
9705. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2003 10:57:30 PM
That was Eddie a few days before Gallup reported that Clark was leading Bush by 3 in their first trial heat...
Professor Poopstain, if you intend to quote your better--in every sense of the word--you should bother to look it up and get the words right. I'm aghast to discover that you actually pay that much attention to what I or anyone else posts here amongst your ceaseless tide of drooling foam.
General Wesley is a zilch. I don't worry about polls more than a year before the election, but since babbling early and often about them seems to keep your IV drip open, I'll point out:
- The poll sample had 48 percent Democrats, much higher than the American electorate's percentage.
- Less than a third of respondents had heard of Clark, so it reflects less any strength on General Wesley's part than it does current weakness on the President's.
- Dukakis had a 17 point lead fewer than six months before the 1988 election, and Bush the first thumped him harder than your heart did when you heard about Schwarzenneger's Mapplethorpe photos.
When the winner drives across the finish line in 2004, General Wesley will be thoroughly smashed roadkill.
9706. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2003 11:10:37 PM
I was just passing through. Since Professor Bedpan seems to want convincing that General Wesley isn't the man on horseback the DLCers and their comfort women (jexster et al) would like to think he is, here's what fellow gay--but infinitely more intelligent and clear-thinking--political pundit "Randy" Andy Sullivan has to say about Generalissimo Clark:
Let's put the best gloss on Wesley Clark's ever-shifting position on the Iraq war and glean a coherent case within it. He would have voted for the Congressional Resolution - but only as a way to increase pressure for a diplomatic solution through the U.N. But wasn't that Tony Blair's position? Blair had all along preferred the U.N. route. He and Bush won an amazingly unanimous vote on the first resolution. He almost burst every blood vessel trying to get the Security Council to agree to the second. He wanted unanimous U.N. support precisely for the reasons Clark says he did as well - so as to avoid war. So what happened? He was double-crossed. The French declared that they would veto a second U.N. resolution promising war, regardless of what Saddam did.
9707. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2003 11:11:45 PM
More...
I've been reading the excellent inside account of the Blair government's attempt to forge this middle way in the winter and early spring of this year. It's revealing - not only about the good intentions of Blair but about the treachery and intransigence of Paris. The question for Clark and Kerry is therefore: where do you disagree with Blair? If Blair came to the conclusion that there was no way that the French were prepared to sign on to serious enforcement of 1441, why does Clark think otherwise? Is he simply saying that he would have had superior diplomatic skills and talked Chirac around? Superior to Blair's and Powell's? I think history will judge that there was no way on earth that France would ever have acceded to serious enforcement of 1441 by Western arms, under any circumstances. If that's true, would Clark and Kerry have acceded to Paris and called the war off? If so, they should say so. But it would have been a huge blow to American credibility, deterrence and the war on terror. And since they favored the process whereby the French were given a veto, what exactly did the Bush administration do wrong? I wish I knew. I suspect these people are playing cheap rhetorical games in the midst of a dark and dangerous conflict. That alone casts doubt on their fitness to be president.
Emphasis, moi.
9708. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 11:12:38 PM
RDB,
If there weren't a good alternative I might agree with you. I think "first do no harm" is a great maxim. I happen to believe there are several decent alternatives in the running right now, but Clark is the most viable, and to me the most solid. Republicans are scrambling to set him back, of course, but their absence of supportive appearances and statements for their '04 candidate speaks volumes.
Oh boy. Another Mr. Ed prediction.
Anyone up for starting a Mote betting pool?
Less than a third of respondents had heard of Clark, so it reflects less any strength on General Wesley's part than it does current weakness on the President's.
Exactly. This is why Bush is in so much trouble. A candidate on the Democratic ticket who looks to be a formidable competition for the middle votes is a huge danger to his chances of reelection. As long as it was a divided, nondescript field the GOP could rest easy about winning if not about the candidate they have to win with. It's a different ballgame now, even if Clark doesn't win and Bush does. If this turns out to be a wave of unpopularity then Bush may come out fine, but the breadth and steady increase of opposition to him means the GOP can't count on a shifting trend. They obviously feel that they have to mobilize quickly and aggressively, adding to the appearance of desperation on their part.
The Ludicrous Hillary Clinton Theory is the icing on the cake.
9709. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2003 11:14:51 PM
And previously...
The hilarious thing about all this is how eager otherwise sane people are to defend Clark.
Ahem. That "otherwise sane" does *not* include you, Professor Bedpan.
His record in public life is spotty and maverick. His campaign so far has been a complete mess. Maybe he'll recover. Maybe under all this wild-eyed ego-centrism, there's a future leader waiting to be born. I'm not going to write him off yet. But he strikes me as an obviously inferior candidate to several of the others. I'd go for Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman or Dean before this nut.
Again, emphasis moi.
9710. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 11:15:23 PM
And I must add, RDB, that you have quite a gift for hyperbole. I have a vote. I'm going to cast it for either the best candidate or the least bad candidate who is most likely to win.
9711. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 11:19:27 PM
Hahaha. Two Arky Rhodes Scholar Democrats in one decade. And one from the top of his West Point class.
Yeah, that Clark is pathetic alright.
Rich.
9712. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2003 11:24:00 PM
In case it's unclear which nut Sullivan was referring to it's this guy:
As pictured, General Wesley is bereft of his beloved hat given to him by future war criminal Ratko Mladic.
9713. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2003 11:26:29 PM
Rhodes Scholar
Wasn't Kris Kristofferson a Rhodes Scholar?
General Wesley was also secretary for the math club in high school. Did you know that?
"Just one of the guys."
9714. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 11:29:14 PM
Yes, and Kris Kristofferson's extremely intelligent.
Is there supposed to be a revealing criticism of Clark somewhere in there?
9715. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2003 11:34:04 PM
Well, it's hard to tell from that warm, touchy-feely photo, but I've heard the General has trained himself not to blink.
Many on this forum put great store by how many times a guy blinks per minute, you know.
The General's next goal is learning how to control his precious bodily fluids.
Re Kristofferson, would you vote for him for President?
9716. arkymalarky - 9/24/2003 11:42:09 PM
What an idiotic question. There are lots of Rhodes Scholars who wouldn't be interested in running for president, much less ones I wouldn't vote for. That has zilch to do with whether it's evidence of Clark's intelligence, which is usually a plus for a president and has certainly rarely been a liability.
Once again, is that supposed to be a suggestion that it's a mark against him? Is there a criticism there?
9717. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/24/2003 11:56:58 PM
Feeding the baboons only gets them aroused.
9718. rdbrewer - 9/25/2003 12:09:52 AM
Arky:
And I must add, RDB, that you have quite a gift for hyperbole.
Okay, instead of "Millions have died under dirtbag totalitarian goverments because of that kind of thinking," make that, "Several SUV's have been torched because of that kind of thinking." Howz that?
9719. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:41:22 AM
I was in class. I did not see any of the debate. The following is all that I have read about it. A woman in my Urban Admin seminar, a Democrat, said that the extreme right wing Republican Tom McClintock was by far (her words) the best.
From that and from the following wire report, and knowing nothing else, no pundit pollution, no newspaper analyses, I am now ready to make a prediction:
Davis will beat the recall.
Bustamente will beat Arnold, and quite possibly McClintock will beat Arnold as well.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) - A bickering couple dominated the California recall debate on Wednesday as movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger and political commentator Arianna Huffington spent much of the time trading blows.
The bad feelings and verbal repartee continued after the free-wheeling 90-minute debate as Huffington told reporters she believed the actor's aggressive behavior toward her was evidence of his poor view of women.
"I have been in hundreds of debates and I have never been treated like I was by Arnold Schwarzenegger tonight," Huffington said.
9720. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:45:07 AM
Well, it's hard to tell from that warm, touchy-feely photo, but I've heard the General has trained himself not to blink.
Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose
Par for the cockroach course
Garbage...gibberish...soiled flight suit...cum stained dress crowd..
9721. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:45:57 AM
I say bring 'em on.
9722. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:48:30 AM
Bomb at NBC Baghdad Hotel
Liars & incompetents
Incompetents & liars
Lying incompetents
Eddie, I still have that plumber's helper
9723. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:55:19 AM
And so The General got an A+ in How Not to Blink 101 at West Point...or maybe its related to his Vietnam combat wounds...
Presidents can do a lot worse than 49% approval a year before they face reelection -- as NBC is reporting for President Bush tonight.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the last two presidents who won second terms (Reagan in 1983 and Clinton in 1995) were doing worse a year out. But the key here is that the president's numbers seem to be in something close to free-fall. His approval ratings have fallen roughly 20 percentage points in four months. And both Reagan and Clinton were on the rebound at the time.
Even with all the context which may be fairly provided (like the fact that the 70+ numbers were part of a post-war spike), the president's rapid descent is undeniable. And it's not clear he's hit bottom.
Or maybe, that shit ain't flushin no mo...
Maybe GWB's trifecta winnings are no mo...
Maybe our long national psychosis is over...
Just as Eddie Dantes has long been over..
The Bush Free Fall - How Low Can You Go?
"His eyes don't blink"
"Time for an adult foreign policy"
"aluminum tubes and nefarious Saddam plots"
"Hooray we got Uday and Qusay"
"Clark's no threat"
I love to fuck up Eddie Dantes.
Welcome to hell.
9724. jexster - 9/25/2003 2:45:15 AM
For those who's politics are Entertsinment 2nite, Matt Drudge, and Uday/Qusay (hello Eddie those eyes blinked yet?), the news is not good, it pains me to report
Jay Leno: Have you noticed how Bush's approval ratings have hit the skids?
Its one thing that he might well be a one term president like his father
But at least his father was elected.
Dave Letterman: What about Gen Wesley Clark?
Last week he was nowhere, now he's leading the race for the White House...
Even a nitwit like Eddie Dantes can surely get the picture.
Dontcha Eddie.
You be sure to stick around h'eah?
9725. jexster - 9/25/2003 2:53:43 AM
Some people think that John Goodman is too much of a buffoon to be presidential.
We ask you to think about that...
{cut to GWB leaving Marine I, spitting like the faux Bubba he has always aspired to be}
David Letterman
Your boy has piled 9-1-1 corpses in front of his failures at least one too many times....
Blinked yet?
9726. alistairConnor - 9/25/2003 5:32:15 AM
Message # 9707 (Monty quoting Sullivan talking about Blair)
So what happened? He was double-crossed.
I'm with you and your boyfriend up to there, Monty.
But who double-crossed Blair? GWB.
Blair promised his nation that they would not go to war without a second UNSC resolution. Three quarters of the UNSC were in favour of letting inspections go to their term before deciding on war. But Bush was hell-bent on war, and Blair followed. GWB made Blair a liar.
9727. thoughtful - 9/25/2003 9:03:51 AM
rdb, #9700, the "whatever it takes" was in reference to Pelle's comment on Jexster's swing in support from Dean to Clark...not some kind of death threat for heaven's sake. I leave that to the GOPers who accused clinton of having goon squads bumping off the likes of vince foster.
Secondly, remember it was george 1 who got us into somalia, at the behest of none other than Wolfowitz who at the time was selling the idea that somalia was the key to peace in the middle east...thanks wolfie! Afghanistan was clearly an important home base for al qaeda which led several attacks on the US its citizens and its properties so was clearly a case of self defense. Haiti also had clear impact on the US as refugees kept flooding the shores of the US under george 1 who seemed to be unable to stop the flow. Clinton did. Clinton also extracted us from Somalia...not soon enough to be sure, but he did get us out.
Thirdly, as the gopers are so quick to point out whenever someone points out their own failings, just because chirac is doing it, doesn't make it right and doesn't mean we have to sink to his level....but that discord came out specifically around the iraq issue. Talk about childishness...renaming french fries to freedom fries!
Finally, when it comes to lying and spewing hate, no one can touch the GOP who has a long history of such behavior. Remember Joe McCarthy? Lee Atwater? Chambliss on Cleland? Scaiffe? Even the McCain/Bush clash in South Carolina? It is their firm belief that, as they are in the path of righteousnous, the ends justify the means and so will fight to win, whatever it takes. Even lying and spewing hate. So much for moral clarity.
9728. judithathome - 9/25/2003 11:13:13 AM
"Just one of the guys."
But probably the only one of that group to enter West Point at age 17.
9729. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 12:19:00 PM
Debate at tnr on the rationality or irrationality of Bush hatred.
It's an interesting topic for me, because I never really understood Clinton hatred. He was moderate on most issues, had a republican in his cabinet, balanced the budget, worked for free trade and did a bunch of other things conservatives would like.
And now I find myself a Bush hater. I thought the Clinton haters were irrational. Am I now like them?
9730. judithathome - 9/25/2003 12:25:28 PM
I can't answer that because I was a Bush hater long before it was cool. ;-)
I was Bush hater when others were hating Clinton. Now I understand how they felt but not why they hated him. So I don't expect them to understand my hatred for Bush, either.
9731. jexster - 9/25/2003 12:38:43 PM
Now for the "analyis" See...didn't even have to watch that silly charade:
SF Chron
Sacramento -- Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger came to what he described as "the Super Bowl of debates" Wednesday by promising surprises. But he found himself either on the sidelines or under attack, giving his supporters comfort but offering no breakthrough to seduce the undecided.
Schwarzenegger's most critical goal -- to show a grasp of the details of California public policy -- seemed to fade amid platitudes and personal bickering with his accusers, analysts said after the debate. The "winner" may have been someone who wasn't even on stage.
"These people may be contributing to the re-election of Gray Davis," said Larry Gerston, political science professor at San Jose State University, "not because of the merits of whether he should be recalled, but because of their collective undesirability."
Gerston said the debate "really just continued what a lot of people believe is the circus-like environment of this entire process and in many respects trivialized this important event."
Davis May Pull It Off
9732. jexster - 9/25/2003 12:43:29 PM
The He-man Bush Haters Club Creed
J. Chait
I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too.
- I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so.
- I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo.
- I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang.
- I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him.
- I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?).
- And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more
9733. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 12:47:02 PM
The conservative responses to 9732 can be found in the link in 9729
9734. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 12:47:42 PM
I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo.
Actually it looks Calvin's (of Calvin and Hobbes) proud walk.
9735. thoughtful - 9/25/2003 12:49:21 PM
Thanks, Jay. This about summed it up for me:
"You, like most conservatives, claim that liberals see Bush as a hapless rube from the sticks. My experience is that liberals see Bush as a phony--a rich kid who had everything handed to him by his parents' cronies, and who compensates for it by posing as a plan [sic] old ranch hand. It's not just that he benefited from nepotism. Jeb Bush and George H.W. Bush both benefited from nepotism, but liberals don't loathe either of them. The reason is that H.W. and Jeb, while benefiting from a big leg up, are reasonably intelligent men who earned something on their own. Neither is manifestly ignorant or pointedly anti-intellectual, and both managed to win office the old-fashioned way, by garnering more votes than their opponent."
Yup, posing as a plain old ranch hand. Doesn't even ride horses.
9736. jexster - 9/25/2003 12:51:22 PM
Falsely Accused
Conservatives dismiss Wesley Clark as Clinton's general. Actually, the two men's foreign policy instincts couldn't be more different.
9737. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:22:53 PM
You know what they say about the cockroach Eddie?
They'll be the only ones who will survive the mushroom clouds
1500 Arms Inspectors Fail to Find Any Trace of WMD Program
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 An early draft of an interim report by the American leading the hunt for banned weapons in Iraq (news - web sites) says his team has not found any of the unconventional weapons cited by the Bush administration as a principal reason for going to war, federal officials with knowledge of the findings said today.
9738. jexster - 9/25/2003 2:10:16 PM
Great Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth Among Semen Stain Crowd The Guardian UK:
A draft of the report has been sent to the White House, the Pentagon and Downing Street, a US intelligence source said. It has caused such disappointment that there is now a debate over whether it should be released to Congress over the next fortnight, as had been widely expected.
"It will mainly be an accounting of programmes and dual-use technologies," said one US intelligence source. "It demonstrates that the main judgments of the national intelligence estimate (NIE) in October 2002, that Saddam had hundreds of tonnes of chemical and biological agents ready, are false."
A BBC report yesterday said that the survey group, which includes British and Australian investigators, had come across no banned weapons, or delivery systems, or laboratories involved in developing such weapons.
9739. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 2:16:40 PM
Time has told.
9740. robertjayb - 9/25/2003 2:41:14 PM
May we have some resignations now, please?
Just the more egregious liars will do. Whistle-Ass can be exempted. He will be needed in the election.
9741. marjoribanks - 9/25/2003 2:47:09 PM
Ha. 9739 and '40 crack me up.
Say, whatever happened to the baboon circle-jerk anyway?
Not lowest-simian-on-the-evolutionary-scale Dantes, the other ones.
Signed,
Missing You at The Mote
9742. robertjayb - 9/25/2003 2:56:36 PM
Whistle-Ass Numbers Climb; Leads all Democrats; Still Behind on Re-Elect and Against Generic Democrat; Clark and Dean Share Democratic Lead, New Zogby Poll Reveals...
9743. thoughtful - 9/25/2003 2:57:36 PM
i'm so amused by the gopers ability to act with shock and awe at the fundamentals. It was one thing when they turned "liberal" into a 4-letter word.
But now with Clark's running, they are seeing this manipulative master conspiracy by the Clintons. The Clintons are playing politics with...
well...
er...
politics!
Egad! Stop the presses!
Where's Starr when you need him!
9744. jexster - 9/25/2003 3:42:57 PM
As the UN begins its pullout from Iraqmire...
News Flash! First Major Public Poll Has Bush Under 50!
The just-released NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Bush's approval rating at just 49 percent, with 45 percent disapproval. This is the first major public poll to break the 50 percent barrier.
The poll also shows that more people now believe the policies of the Bush administration (25 percent) are resonsible for the recession and economic downturn we are experiencing than believe the effects of 9/11 and the war on terrorism (22 percent) are responsible. That's a huge turnaround from October of 2002 when 34 percent blamed 9/11 for economic problems and only 12 percent blamed Bush administration policies.
9745. jexster - 9/25/2003 3:44:30 PM
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com/images/donkey_rising.gif
9746. jexster - 9/25/2003 3:45:48 PM
I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo...
9747. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2003 3:53:39 PM
The baboon circle jerk can be found at CalGal's place.
9748. judithathome - 9/25/2003 3:55:11 PM
Or we could just talk about them here, like they do about us over there. ;-)
9749. jexster - 9/25/2003 4:00:36 PM
Campaign Theme '04
Lies and incompetence
Incompetence and lies
Lying incompetents....
Was deleighted to learn thatJosh Marshall has picked up Prof. Bedpan's Campaign Theme 04:
combination of the manifest incompetence of the planning for post-war Iraq and the dishonesty of the build-up for the war have become increasingly difficult to defend or deny. And that's struck a grave blow against the president's credibility.
Credibility of course is unitary. And the erosion has ricocheted from foreign policy to domestic policy and back again in escalating fashion. Suddenly the White House's explanations for why the country has fallen back into half trillion dollar deficits are ringing hollow
PS - Its Prof. Bedpan ESQ to you Eddie.
Sorry we must be so formal but it the same for all cockroaches. I am sure you undertand.
9750. robertjayb - 9/25/2003 4:01:31 PM
Bye-bye, Bob. You will stay for the debate, won't you?
NEW YORK (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham is experiencing serious fund-raising problems that have put his campaign in peril, officials close to the Florida senator said Thursday.
Published reports had suggested Graham would raise $4 million to $5 million in the fund-raising quarter that ends Sept. 30, but he will raise less than that, said three campaign officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
9752. jexster - 9/25/2003 4:08:05 PM
They're not baboons.
Just test monkeys
9753. jexster - 9/25/2003 4:09:19 PM
Sorry to make your life more difficult Jay...all that belongs in either the Inferno or the garbage as you choose
9754. robertjayb - 9/25/2003 4:11:07 PM
The debate is on CNBC.
9755. robertjayb - 9/25/2003 4:14:04 PM
Kerry is such a dry stick. Probably would be a good President but his manner makes George I appear loose as a goose.
9756. jexster - 9/25/2003 4:15:29 PM
This just in...
UN INSPECTORS DISCOVER WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM
in Iran
9757. jexster - 9/25/2003 4:16:49 PM
Lies and incompetence
Incompetence and lies
Lying incompetents....
if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more
9758. dr_mabeuse - 9/25/2003 4:21:01 PM
Arrogance, incompetence, and ineptitude
9759. concerned - 9/25/2003 4:45:19 PM
Re. 9729, 30:
I've got news for you two. I never hated Xlowntoon. He's a psychopath who should never have been elected dogcatcher, an incompetent when it came to policy or statesmanship and I wouldn't trust him alone with my daughter, but I never hated the guy.
9760. judithathome - 9/25/2003 4:54:15 PM
Well, I have some of the same feelings toward Bush that you have toward Clinton...Bush is incompetent, has no coherent policy, has made a shambles of international diplomacy, and I don't trust him alone with our country.
9761. judithathome - 9/25/2003 4:56:24 PM
Oh, and Bush shouldn't have been elected dogcatcher, either, because he couldn't have handled that job...just as his other real-life employment in businesses seemed beyond his capabilities.
9762. concerned - 9/25/2003 5:06:09 PM
I just wanna know one thing, Lefties.
Where's the fabled LW love and tolerance?
9763. judithathome - 9/25/2003 5:09:02 PM
Same place as your compassionate conservatism.
9764. robertjayb - 9/25/2003 5:09:12 PM
But concerned, I love you.
9765. dr_mabeuse - 9/25/2003 5:18:24 PM
I don't think Bush is a good president, but that doesn't mean that I hate the man
I still, in all my life, have never seen anything as inexplicable and frightening as the rabid and consuming hatred that the Right held for the Clintons. I really think the Republicans were prepared to bring the whole government down around our ears just to spite him. I just don't understand how that kind of visceral hatred can exist in edicated people.
9766. Wombat - 9/25/2003 5:25:44 PM
Judith:
That's compassionate "centrism."
Dr. Mabeuse:
The Republicans did try to bring the government down...twice. The Federal govt. shutdown and impeachment.
9767. judithathome - 9/25/2003 5:27:07 PM
And yet, they seem so perplexed when people don't like their little guy...hmmmmm.
9768. jexster - 9/25/2003 5:33:12 PM
Of course its waaay too early to be talking about trial heat performances....too early for Democrats that is but not to early for Bush...for Bush the time is now or never.
For all Eddie's contortions and cackle about statistics (another subject he knows precious little about - a very dangerous thing around here ED), Bushies would do well to consider three things.
First, their boy has been living on time he borrowed from the 9-1-1 dead to cover up a multitude of sins.
Second, and related to the first, their boy has pissed off an awful lot of people with his arrogance, people who don't have terribly great respect for his abilities, people all over the planet, players on all sorts of issues not just Iraq.
Third, all major democratic candidates are within margin of error killing distance, opponents who, with the exception of Lieberman, have name recognition of about 20% tops.
Nice to be able to score 49% of the vote when only 210% of the voters know who you are.
Too early for democrats....
Too late for Bush if this keeps up..
9769. jexster - 9/25/2003 5:41:11 PM
At his first debate, Gen. Wesley K. Clark attacked Bush as "a man who recklessly cut taxes, who recklessly took us into war in Iraq"
9770. Ms. No - 9/25/2003 5:41:23 PM
Jexster,
Go back and read RoE #1. Pull that shit again and you're out.
9771. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 6:24:41 PM
Thanks, Ms No. For deleting whatever should have been deleted.
9772. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 6:41:32 PM
Republican-lover, Wesley Clark
During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."
Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:
"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."
Clark continued: "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."
Clark on President George Bush: "President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."
Clark on American military involvement overseas:
"Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?"
9773. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 6:42:17 PM
It's Drudge, but mebbe Professor Bedpan et al should start hedging their bets a little on the mighty General Wesley.
9774. concerned - 9/25/2003 6:54:35 PM
Re. 9765 -
I can't take your characterization of Republicans seriously, because you're just wrong there. You haven't been around politics long if you think Republican dissatisfaction with Xlowntoon's antics, poor performance and official wrongdoing was anything remarkable or even uncalled for in most cases. I mean look at the years of hell Clarence Thomas went through from LW lunatics for asking Anita Hill out, even though she was following him around from one job to the next, and then try to tell me with a straight face that you don't understand what partisan hate is really about.
Xlowntoon was impeached. If he was removed from office, Pinocchio Bore would have been president which would have hurt the Republicans. End of story. Any talk that this would have had any possible relationship to 'bringing down the government' are patently false lies, and very, very stupid ones at that, I might add.
But why persist in such lies? My theory is that when Lefties say that, their brains are 'off' and they're just pumping up their fragile political egos any way they can. Just remember that this is what the malarkey about 'bringing down the government' wrt Xlowntoon's impeachment really conveys to anybody who thinks about it for a second.
9775. rdbrewer - 9/25/2003 6:55:40 PM
Edmund, the contrast between what Clark says now with what he said before illustrates the characterological problems mentioned by General Shelton yesterday.
9776. jexster - 9/25/2003 6:59:25 PM
"characterological"
Bushism?
9777. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 6:59:48 PM
I think there's a good chance the man has a screw loose, rd.
9778. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:01:04 PM
Not to mention that he voted for Nixon in '72 and Mondale in '84.
9779. concerned - 9/25/2003 7:02:20 PM
Just don't try to take his strawberries away.
9780. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:02:22 PM
The gap between rich and poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000, an analysis of government data shows.
The gulf is such that the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2000 had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent.
In 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent had just under half the after-tax income of the poorest 40 percent of Americans, analysis of new data from the Congressional Budget Office shows
Trickle Down Voodoo At Work
9781. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:03:12 PM
The gap between rich and poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000, an analysis of government data shows.
The gulf is such that the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2000 had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent.
In 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent had just under half the after-tax income of the poorest 40 percent of Americans, analysis of new data from the Congressional Budget Office shows
Trickle Down Voodoo At Work
9782. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:03:56 PM
The Bush campaign cannot afford to have a credible Clark throwing fastballs at them for the next 15 months, whether he is the nominee, running mate or sitting on the sidelines. "Off to the Races"
This isn't rocket science, people. This is how they operate.
Isn't Eddie?
9783. concerned - 9/25/2003 7:04:00 PM
Re 9780-
And most of that gap opened up during, you guessed it, the WH Rapist's watch.
9784. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:05:23 PM
Nice to see the Semem Slime Patrol about their scatalogical characterological labors.
9785. concerned - 9/25/2003 7:06:37 PM
The Bush campaign cannot afford to have a credible Clark throwing fastballs at them for the next 15 months, whether he is the nominee, running mate or sitting on the sidelines.
I don't see why not. But then, Clark has considerable ground to make up in the credibility department.
9786. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:07:12 PM
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Iraq
United States Armament and Defense
he Department of Defense has identified 305 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following Americans yesterday:
BROWN, Lunsford B. II, 27, specialist, Army; Creedmore, N.C.; A Company, 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion.
FAUNCE, Brian R., 28, Capt., Army; Philadelphia; Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Third Brigade Combat Team.
FRIEDRICH, David T., 26, Sgt., Army Reserve; Hammond, N.Y.; B Company, 325th Military Intelligence Battalion.
STURINO, Paul J., 21, specialist, Army; Rice Lake, Wis.; Second Battalion, 320th Field Artillery.
9787. concerned - 9/25/2003 7:07:39 PM
jexster -
You got some problem with me calling a rapist a rapist?
9788. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:20:59 PM
No TD..I don't have any problem with you at all.
I like you.
I think Eddie Dantes is a clown
9789. arkymalarky - 9/25/2003 7:21:44 PM
But now with Clark's running, they are seeing this manipulative master conspiracy by the Clintons. The Clintons are playing politics with...
well...
er...
politics!
Egad! Stop the presses!
Where's Starr when you need him!
Thing is, the Republicans have been and are still playing that game as underhandedly and shamelessly as ever. Why don't people shine the spotlight on that for a while instead of continuing to chase the idiotic mass Clinton-conspiracy psychosis?
9790. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:23:45 PM
Traces Bush's rise from failed oil baron to wealthy Texas governor, courtesy of Daddy's friends.
9791. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:24:30 PM
In the long run, there is no capitalism without conscience; there is no wealth without character.
-- George W. Bush on Wall Street, July 9, 2002
In the long run, we are all dead.
-- John Maynard Keynes on the long run, 1924
There he was. On the Tuesday after a long Fourth of July weekend. In the ballroom of an ornate Wall Street hotel that once housed the New York Merchants Exchange. Standing in front of a blue-and-white backdrop with the words corporate responsibility printed over and over on it, in case you should miss the point. Promising us "a new ethic" for American business. Our president, Scourge of Corporate Misbehavior.
It was like watching a whore pretend to be dean of Southern Methodist University's School of Theology. But as Luther said, hypocrisy has ample wages.
9792. arkymalarky - 9/25/2003 7:27:25 PM
9759. concerned - 9/25/2003 9:45:19 PM
Re. 9729, 30:
I've got news for you two. I never hated Xlowntoon. He's a psychopath who should never have been elected dogcatcher, an incompetent when it came to policy or statesmanship and I wouldn't trust him alone with my daughter, but I never hated the guy.
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
OK.
Would it be fair to say...
You're OBSESSED????
9793. rdbrewer - 9/25/2003 7:38:36 PM
Concerned:
Just don't try to take his strawberries away.
Ha!
9794. concerned - 9/25/2003 7:42:33 PM
Re. 9788 -
thanks, jexster, and rjb.
I can face the world with renewed enthusiasm now.
9795. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:50:36 PM
Private Cockroach, Private TD is now your new platoon leader. Private TD may be stupid but he's got guts and guts is good enuf in my Marines.
Now clean up that flight suit. Its gittin rank aroun here.
Dismissed.
NEW YORK -- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark presented his credentials as a Democrat on Thursday with a biting attack on President Bush, then joined nine presidential rivals in a mix-it-up debate over tax cuts, Medicare and the job-shedding economy...
The General Rips Bush
9796. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:55:38 PM
"Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn’t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ‘em.” - Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army’s most distinguished war heroes.
"No doubt he’s made his share of enemies. He doesn’t suffer fools easily and wouldn’t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn." Lt. Col David Hackworth, Left Winger, Clinton Butt Boy
9797. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:57:35 PM
Novak's column today accuses Clark of hobnobbing with various and sundry war criminals. In particular he describes a meeting between Clark and Bosnian-Serb arch-war criminal Gen. Ratko Mladic. They were in fact photographed wearing each others' caps.
Thus Novak ...
Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe.
...
U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol.
Now, why would Clark meet with a man who'd masterminded the Srebrenica mass-killing? Perhaps because the event hadn't occured yet. Clark met with Mladic in late August 1994. The Srebrenica massacre happened in July 1995.
Now, we knew Mladic was bad news well before Srebrenica. So in itself this doesn't settle the matter. And this incident deserves to be looked at in the context of all of Clark's activities in the Balkans -- which stretch through much of the 1990s. But I put it forward as an example of the caliber of honesty and integrity in reporting that we're dealing with in this case.
Certainly we can expect more and more of this from the usual suspects.
-- Josh Marshall
9798. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:58:53 PM
Private Cockroach reporting for duty:
As pictured, General Wesley is bereft of his beloved hat given to him by future war criminal Ratko Mladic.
Mushroom clouds of methane
9799. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 9:09:56 PM
Eddie,
I don't get your point in 9772. Are you saying you think that Clark would be a bad president because he made those statements? (If he did, of course.)
9800. jexster - 9/25/2003 10:17:35 PM
Clark and the Republican Party
9801. jexster - 9/25/2003 10:18:22 PM
JMM
9802. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 10:43:48 PM
I don't get your point in 9772. Are you saying you think that Clark would be a bad president because he made those statements?
Don't play stupid and waste both of ours time.
9803. arkymalarky - 9/25/2003 10:53:29 PM
Speaking of stupid, I'd just like to see a more reliable source for the quotes. The last one in particular sounds more like something our current president would say. What pathetic diction.
9804. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 10:59:33 PM
Why do you want a more reliable source? When you get it (and if you watched the debates, Clark was asked about this speech and the praise on national television), you'll dismiss it all as unimportant anyway.
And suddenly the diction won't even seem so pathetic.
9805. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 11:00:30 PM
Or the fact that he referred to men like Condoleeza Rice.
9806. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 11:24:04 PM
Don't play stupid and waste both of ours time.
The last time I heard that one was when our local saddam hussein and his sickles buddy wouldn't explain to me why they kept pointing out that people other than the Bushies had been wrong about the absence of wmd. They never answered. At one point SH ranted that I was a moron for not seeing the point, but he never stated it.
As I said to them, what's your point?
9807. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/25/2003 11:33:00 PM
9808. concerned - 9/26/2003 1:27:26 AM
Re. 9799 -
Sounds to me from this that Clark really does deserve the appellation: Weasley.
9809. concerned - 9/26/2003 1:28:29 AM
Weasley Clark: Fo' Sta Ho'.
9810. concerned - 9/26/2003 3:24:59 AM
From Partisanship to Pathology
Dissecting the lunatic three sheets to the wind slurrings of America's favorite secretary slaughterer.
9811. OhioSTOPAS - 9/26/2003 6:16:05 AM
Senator Joe Biden slaps down some of Tony Snow's right-wing bullshit on the 9/21 "Fox News [sic] Sunday":
First, discussing Biden's proposal to defer one year of the scheduled tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners, in order to pay for some of the cost of the Iraq occupation:
"BIDEN: . . . I haven't found one single wealthy American, if you said, "In order to win the peace in Iraq, are you prepared to forgo one year of your 10 years of your tax cut, beginning in 2005, spread over five years," I haven't heard one say, "No, I don't think that's right to ask."
SNOW: All right, Senator, you probably haven't talked to guys who run 7-11 or a gas station or a dry cleaner because, guess what, they also qualify as the rich.
BIDEN: By the way, that's not true, Tony. You've got to make $365,000 a year to get into my game here. Now, if they're making $365,000 a year running a 7-11 . . ."
Second, responding to Biden's remark that we've never cut taxes when going into an expensive war:
"SNOW: OK, but the last time we had a tax cut before going to war was a guy named John Kennedy, right as he was getting ready to go to Vietnam. So, there is precedent for this...
BIDEN: Oh, give me a break, Tony. Come on, nobody thought..."
When Snow makes these statements - mom-and-pop shop owners will be hit by an upper-bracket tax increase, a tax cut years in advance of a war is "precedent" for a tax cut now - is he stupid, or his he dishonest? I don't think he's stupid. However, I think he believes his right-wing FOX fans are.
9812. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2003 7:51:34 AM
Full transcript of General Wesley's Republican-suckup remarks
"Do you hear my diction now?"
9813. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:08:45 AM
What's your point, Monty?
9814. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2003 8:10:09 AM
To inform the intelligent and perplex the stupid.
9815. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2003 8:21:32 AM
arky says in 9803:
I'd just like to see a more reliable source for the quotes.
In 9812, I posted a link to the WSJ's transcript of General Wesley's full remarks.
To the attentive and intelligent, the cause and effect should be obvious, especially given my reference to arky's word "diction."
My point in 9814 is to respond to 9813, as is my point in this post.
The unfortunate inequality in this exchange is that explaining things to the slow, unobservant, and disingenuous requires much more effort than does being slow, unobservant, and disingenuous.
9816. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:22:51 AM
No, the refusal to state an argument is an indication of its quality.
9817. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 8:51:39 AM
Dear Jexster,
The dimwitted baboon, lowest-simian-on-the-evolutionary-ladder, has gotten loose.
Kindly resume your disciplinary actions, its unintelligible grunts are mildly distracting.
Thanking you in advance,
Marjoribanks
9818. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 9:12:50 AM
One routinely reads from the wingnuts that the 9th circuit is overruled more often than any other federal appeals court. But I didn't know this:
Though the Ninth Circuit is often damned as too liberal and criticized for being overturned often by the Supremes, the Ninth is by far the largest circuit handling the largest caseload; adjust for caseload, and the Ninth's reversal rate differs little from other circuits.
from Gregg Easterbrook/Tuesday Morning Quarterback's New Republic blog.
9819. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 9:29:21 AM
For what it is worth, I have stopped being jittery about this country's direction after watching yesterday's debate.
For the last year and some months, the whole atmosphere seemed headed in one direction only, with the media cowed, the legislatures cowed, and the only lone voice of dissent being the former-KKK-guy Byrd in the Senate. The sinister rumblings from the WH and Ashcroft made it seem against the law to even think we're being fucked.
But yesterday, after the debate, I am much more comfortable with where we are. This is the other major party in the country, and really serious people at the podium (Kerry, Edwards, Graham, Dean and Clark) really stood up and said what needed to be said about Bush, Iraq, Ashcroft, all of those things. Six months ago, a single critical comment on those lines would have been screamed down by the rampaging Bush slimeball propagandists.
But despite jerkoff Rumsfeld's warnings, and the unending carping of the likes of FoX, these serious people are not being shut up or toeing the line set for them by the right-wing scum. From the applause you could tell deep chords were being struck, no one is going to sideline or shut up this much-needed critical line of thinking on where this country is as a nation.
Laugh at it if you must, but I think I'm going to register as a Democrat (picking affiliations for the first time), and I'm certainly busting out my checkbook for my guy (Kerry). It's kind-of still the fall out of 9/11 and the sordid Bush shenanigans after - I've realized that we can't remain aloof and hope for the best in our elected leaders- we got screwed that way.
9820. rdbrewer - 9/26/2003 9:32:23 AM
Jay, the Ninth's reversal rate is usually given as a percentage.
9821. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 9:39:07 AM
This is a question of fact. Any idea where we can look this up?
9822. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/26/2003 10:25:41 AM
9819-
"You're dead, marjoribanks, D-E-D, dead!"
John "I-Spit-On-Your-Constitution" ASShcroft
9823. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 10:39:05 AM
Ha.
Edwards, who is exactly the kind of politician bred from the ground up not to appeal to me, got the biggest applause of the evening when he twanged out a spirited defense of our civil liberties and spat on Ashcroft's name.
That dude, though quite opposite to my taste in politicians, could well be President one day.
He has a certain look that grows on you, he's kind of the Tony Blair of America.
9824. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:54:15 AM
For those of you want a precis of the conflicts Clark had with the joint chiefs and the SoD over policy in Kosovo, this column summarizes the story nicely. Much of it is drawn from Clark's memoir Waging Modern War, so it can also serve as a sort of abbreviated Cliff Notes to that book. 9825. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:57:27 AM
test
9826. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:58:51 AM
It should go without saying that since the article draws so much from Clark's book, it should not be seen as one written from an objective bystander's point of view. It does explain Shelton's dis of Clark, though.
9827. thoughtful - 9/26/2003 1:39:04 PM
And now a word from the administration of moral clarity:
Catherine Martin, Cheney's public affairs director, said: "The vice president has no financial interest in Halliburton. He has no stake in the company. He will in no way benefit from the rise or fall of Halliburton's stock price or the success or failure of the company."
Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14 that he has "no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." His assertion came during a discussion of Halliburton's contracts in Iraq. Cheney said he had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests."
Ooops!
A Congressional Research Service report released yesterday concluded that federal ethics laws treat Vice President Cheney's annual deferred compensation checks and unexercised stock options as continuing financial interests in the Halliburton Co.
Cheney received deferred compensation of $147,579 in 2001 and $162,392 in 2002, with payments scheduled to continue for three more years.
9828. thoughtful - 9/26/2003 1:39:26 PM
toys?
9829. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 1:53:23 PM
Looks like a major to me, Thoughtful.
Have you got links for that? It deserves to be huge.
9830. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 1:54:08 PM
I've realized that we can't remain aloof and hope for the best
Congratulations, Marj.
9831. robertjayb - 9/26/2003 2:02:13 PM
Zogby New Hampshire poll:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Howard Dean led rival John Kerry by 10 points in the latest New Hampshire poll that showed newcomer Wesley Clark vaulting into third place just one week after entering the Democratic presidential race.
Dean, who held a hefty 21-point lead over Kerry a month ago in a similar survey, led the Massachusetts senator 30 percent to 20 percent in the Zogby International poll conducted Sept. 24-25 and released Friday.
The poll of likely Democratic primary voters found 10 percent favored Clark, up from 2 percent in August, when the retired army general said he was weighing a presidential bid. The state is tentatively scheduled to hold its primary Jan. 27.
9832. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 2:10:43 PM
Here's another item underscoring the growing rout of the neocon scum.
Congress Shuts Pentagon Unit over Privacy
"They turned the lights out on the programs Poindexter conceived," said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who led opposition to the office. "From a standpoint of civil liberties, this is a huge victory."
9833. thoughtful - 9/26/2003 3:37:19 PM
AC, from the Washington Post, Cheney Ties to Halliburton
9834. robertjayb - 9/26/2003 4:25:08 PM
Just say what you think, Eric:
...when is some Republican going to get up and announce that the party’s tired of being led around by its nose behind a vicious two-bit political grifter like Tom DeLay, and a useless meat puppet like Denny Hastert?
(Eric Alterman)
9835. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 5:51:13 PM
I've been tempted to write to Olympia Snowe from my family address in Maine, saying something like that. I did spend an hour with her once, a long time ago. Maybe the staffers would pass it on. I don't know.
9836. arkymalarky - 9/26/2003 5:54:17 PM
I was going to post this in the Conflict thread, and the quote is from there, but I thought the response fit more in here and I didn't want to derail the other line of discussion:
The neocon scum, however, are going to see their star fade from now on in all the way into true disgrace.
This has got to happen and very soon, for the sake of the entire country. There are lots of domestic reasons this really needs to be the case, too. The concentration of power along with the wealth such a small group already had that has occurred in two short years is very scary. I can't speak for all the other states (though I know it's true in some, including significant parts of Texas), but there's a strong bipartisan reaction to this in AR; many under-the-table machinations are coming to light and threre is really big money behind them, and it will result in major and long term losses of Republican political power from their own base. Someone like Wesley Clark has them busting guts to discredit him early for a reason. But their efforts are having less effect than before, partly because these same true social conservatives are beginning to talk about the disturbing concentration of the media into the hands of so few, as well.
Trying to find details and track their actions and the money and names behind it is very difficult too, but people are looking and asking questions--ones who had supported the Bush administration and had simply accepted whatever they were told before. The fascinating irony of the Republican attitude toward imagined Clinton's activities is that what they accused him of is exactly what they themselves have been doing for a while now. There's an ominous silence on the part of moderate congressional Republicans when it comes to defending the administration, as well.
9837. arkymalarky - 9/26/2003 5:55:30 PM
Toss a coupla commas or dashes in that third sentence.
9838. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:06:53 PM
Try tossing in some sense and a few facts, also.
9839. arkymalarky - 9/26/2003 6:13:42 PM
You first.
Actually what I said is based totally on facts.
If it makes you feel any better, at least when Clinton was governor he took some of the same money.
Read this:
Max Brantley a year ago (before he too went into our governor's hip pocket)
9840. arkymalarky - 9/26/2003 6:31:19 PM
Mr. Ed,
How did they come by the transcript?
The last paragraph you excerpted from the Drudge transcript still uses poor diction and is grammatically incorrect. I don't care if it was written by Thomas Jefferson.
You still have made absolutely no point.
Why am I not surprised?
But I must admit, your picture of Clark in the math club was quite a zinger. I was thinking I might vote for him before you posted that.
9841. jexster - 9/27/2003 7:02:22 AM
'You lied, they died,' US parents tell Bush
The father of a soldier killed in Iraq accused President George Bush yesterday of being responsible for his son's death.
Fernando Suarez, whose 20-year-old son, Jesus, was one of the first fatalities, said: "My son died because Bush lied."
Mr Suarez, from Escondido, California, speaking at a press conference to publicise tomorrow's anti-war demonstrations in eight US cities, said that about 1,300 parents of troops stationed in Iraq were involved in a movement against the oc cupation. "It is time for these troops to come home," said Mr Suarez. "Neither my wife nor my family want more children to die in this illegal war. We are no less patriotic for wanting peace. Bush wants $87bn [£52m] for this war, but what does he give us for our schools?" he asked.
In another sign of the growing protest movement, the father of two soldiers serving in Iraq used a full page advertisement in yesterday's New York Times to demand the sacking of the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
The ad accused President Bush and his administration of misleading the public about weapons of mass destruction.
"Donald Rumsfeld Betrayed My Sons and Our Nation. It's Time For Him to Go," said the headline of the ad, which was signed by Larry Syverson from Richmond, Virginia.
9842. jexster - 9/27/2003 7:02:44 AM
The ad was paid for by MoveOn.org, an internet-based organisation in San Francisco, and the Win Without War coalition. It is not known how much they paid for the ad, but the market rate is $139,000 (£83,700).
Mr Syverson wrote that one son, Branden, is a master gun ner near Tikrit and another son, Bryce, is a gunner based in Baghdad.
"I'm in awe at the courage of my sons and the honourable service that they give," he wrote. "But the leaders they serve have not acted honourably. They have failed my sons. They have failed all of us. At the very least, secretary Donald Rumsfeld must go."
The ad coincides with a fall in President Bush's approval ratings, which have slipped below 50% for the first time since September 11 2001.
9843. jexster - 9/27/2003 7:35:15 AM
Why do you want a more reliable source? When you get it (and if you watched the debates, Clark was asked about this speech and the praise on national television), you'll dismiss it all as unimportant anyway.
And suddenly the diction won't even seem so pathetic.
Consider the source. These items are not coming from Clark's demo opposition. "The Clark was a republican" scandal is an RNC cmapaign. How rich - the RNC is attacking someone for having held one of their Party cards and for speaking at one of their fundraisers.
How rich, how desperate that Eddie Dantes who not one week ago declared "Clark is no threat" is now in full slime mode.
Now what should a Democrat make of this of this GOP chinese fire drill?
Well, Clark causes mass GOP hysteria.
Now that's important Eddie.
Clark's membership in that Grand Old Pile o Poop - non partisan damned appealing to weak party identifiers - big advantage...
Keep up the good work...Eddie, your work is of considerable consequence to Democrats...
9844. jexster - 9/27/2003 7:43:13 AM
Welcome to the Democratic Party General. Better to repent late than never.
9845. jexster - 9/27/2003 10:53:42 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7586-2003Sep26.html>Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules
OMB Overturns Past Findings on Benefits
"Clear Skies" Lies Exposes
As night follows day - Operation Iraqi Freedom; Reformer with Results; Compassionate Conservative - when Bush uses a slogan you can bet your Tony Lamas he's shittin us again.
A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society. The findings overturn a previous report that officials now say was defective.
The report, issued this month by the Office of Management and Budget, concludes that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules. The value of reductions in hospitalization and emergency room visits, premature deaths and lost workdays resulting from improved air quality were estimated between $120 billion and $193 billion from October 1992 to September 2002.
By comparison, industry, states and municipalities spent an estimated $23 billion to $26 billion to retrofit plants and facilities and make other changes to comply with new clean-air standards, which are designed to sharply reduce sulfur dioxide, fine-particle emissions and other health-threatening pollutants.
9846. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 11:39:16 AM
What an ingrate that father, Mr. Suarez, is. Hasn't he heard of No Child Left Behind? We're in the midst of a public education revolution (read coup).
9847. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:38:14 PM
Talking About Defense
Listening To Zinni And Ellsberg
By George C. Wilson
National Journal
September 13, 2003
[Re-printed with permission of the author]
In the White House, at the Pentagon, and in some of the caves in Foggy Bottom, they hate him and his kind. But Tony Zinni --the scrappy kid from South Philadelphia who grew up to be a boat-rocking Marine general who ran everything from the Mogadishu police department in Somalia to the entire U.S. Central Command that controls all U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf -- is just what we need in this day of the Imperial Presidency and rubber-stamp Congress. Zinni's bayonet-like thrusts into President Bush's Iraq policies, combined with the points that Daniel Ellsberg makes in his new book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, help mightily to disabuse us of the idea that the president always knows best.
In a September 4 speech in Arlington, Va., to a forum sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, Zinni talked about the parallels between the Vietnam era and the war in Iraq. "We heard the garbage and the lies," Zinni said of the rhetoric from the White House during Vietnam, "and we saw the sacrifice. And we swore: Never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, 'Is it happening again?' "
9848. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:39:35 PM
Conflicts today, Zinni said, cannot be divided into two separate phases, the shooting and the peacekeeping parts. The war plan for the combat and the aftermath has to be "seamless," the retired four-star argued to the audience of Marine and Navy officers. "We have no plan" for finishing the job in Iraq, he asserted. And in an apparent hit on Bush's declaration in May that the Iraq mission was accomplished, Zinni said, "At the end of the third inning, we declared victory and said the game's over. It ain't over. It isn't going to be over in future wars."
It was Zinni's criticism of Bush's performance in Iraq that understandably caught the headlines. But his larger message received too little attention. Either the United States must arm itself with a powerful and professional peacekeeping bureaucracy, he said, one with plenty of money and people who are experts at reviving a drowning nation, or we will continue to lose in the long run the wars we "win" in the short run. Not since President Truman, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George Marshall mobilized organizations and dollars to resuscitate Europe after World War II has the United States won a war all the way, Zinni contended.
9849. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:40:39 PM
If the "suits" won't meld the war fighting and the peacekeeping, Zinni said of civilian leaders, then let the military do it through its regional commanders. Conceding that the idea probably has military leaders "shaking in their boots," he said that regional commanders, if they get the mission, should rebuild and govern the nations that the United States invades "while the shooting is still going on. Reconstruction people should have come into Baghdad right behind the Marines," he said.
.
Zinni is worth listening to about Iraq because he is precisely the kind of onetime insider turned dissenting outsider who can question a president's policies with intelligence and insight. Modern presidents are isolated by all the power they have accumulated, and Congress has largely given up its power to decide when and why we wage war.
"The concentration of power within the executive branch since World War II had focused nearly all responsibility for policy 'failure' upon one man, the president," Ellsberg writes. "At the same time, it gave him enormous capability to avert or postpone or conceal such personal failure by means of force and fraud.... That power could not fail to corrupt the human who held it. The only way to change the president's course was to bring pressure on him from outside.... "
As one of the first newsmen to read the Pentagon Papers that Ellsberg leaked more than 30 years ago, I realized that they confirmed my worst fears about the Imperial Presidency. Today, I say amen to Ellsberg's thesis and hooray for the Zinnis who tell us when the emperor has no clothes. We need these informed dissidents more than ever in this era of pre-emptive warfare, when the shooting and destruction by our unrivaled military is the easy part, and the reconstruction is the real challenge.
9850. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 12:51:30 PM
After reading all of General Wesley's disconnected ramblings at the Republican dinner, I see his appeal to the arid drugged skull that is Poopstain.
9851. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:55:59 PM
Full Text of Zinni Speech to US Naval Institute
Right now, in a place like Iraq, you're dealing with the Jihads that are coming in to raise hell, crime on the streets that's rampant, ex-Ba'athists that are still running around, and the potential now for this country to fragment: Shi'ia on Shi'ia, Shi'ia on Sunni, Kurd on Turkomen. It's a powder keg. I just got back from Jordan. I talked to a number of Iraqis in there. And what I hear scares me even more than what I read in the newspaper. Resources are needed, a strategy is needed, a plan.
Let me just finish by saying that we should be-as I know you've heard plenty of times here-extremely proud of what our people did out there, what our men and women in uniform did. It kills me when I hear of the continuing casualties and the sacrifice that's being made. It also kills me when I hear someone say that, well, each one of those is a personal tragedy, but in the overall scheme of things, they're insignificant statistically. Never should we let any political leaders utter those words. This is the greatest treasure the United States has, our enlisted men and women. And when we put them into harm's way, it had better count for something. It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out.
Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries-our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again?
And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are. And remember, everyone of those young men and women that come back is not a personal tragedy, it's a national tragedy.
9852. rdbrewer - 9/27/2003 12:56:21 PM
Speaking of disconnected ramblings, check out this Weasley op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. (Linked by Andrew Sullivan yesterday)
9853. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 12:56:46 PM
But I was not prepared for what I found when I got to Washington and worked there. They gave me three thick briefing books to study. The week I showed up there, the two presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were flying on an airplane together in Africa. The airplane crashed and a war started in Africa. And it degenerated into some of the most horrible ethnic cleansing in the 20th century. Some 800,000 Africans over a period of weeks were hunted down and hacked to death with machetes because they belonged to the wrong tribe. They were carrying identification cards the Belgians had taught them to carry. It was a horrible massacre.
Then at the same time I discovered that the North Koreans probably had reprocessed uranium from a nuclear reactor. They probably had two nuclear weapons. But they weren't going to let the international agency check that reprocessed uranium to confirm it. And if they didn't, we were going to put sanctions on them, economic sanctions, and they were going to say that was the equivalent of starting a war. And they were going to go to war with us.
And then at the same time we had these thugs in Haiti. To get after the thugs for holding a coup down there and running the Haitian government out, we put an economic embargo in place against Haiti. What that was doing was destroying the lives of ordinary Haitians. They were risking their lives, and they were drowning and getting boats--everything that would float--trying to get to Florida. It was a mess.
And the weekend I got there our aircraft were dropping bombs in Bosnia as part of a NATO mission to attack the Serbs that were shelling Gorazde. I've never seen anything like it.
9854. rdbrewer - 9/27/2003 12:57:36 PM
Hey, Jex, is there any way you can just quote the good parts, comment on them, and then provide a link to the rest?
9855. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 12:57:39 PM
(cont.)
Meanwhile, I was told I had to do a nuclear posture review and look at how many weapons. Gen. Shalikashvili called me when I'd been there about a week and a half. He called me and said, "Look, Wes," he said. "I hired you to be the strategist." He said, "So, tell me, what is our strategy?" Well, I didn't have the faintest idea. He didn't either, and neither did anybody else.
There was another group who said, "No, since there's no Soviet Union and no real threat to America you can use these troops to do other things." And there was fusing and fighting in Washington, and people were beating on each other. And there were congressional hearings--I'm sorry, Senator [Tim Hutchinson], about the congressional hearings--but you know those of us in the military, we shudder and quake when somebody says there is a congressional hearing. Because we're going to get called up there. Somebody is going to ask us something and we're either not going to know the answer or we're going to make the mistake of giving them the answer. And either way, you're in trouble. And so these were tough times and I spent the next six years trying to deal with the problems.
9856. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:58:33 PM
Well I should read the speech then Ed...
After all you idiots are doing our work for us, the least I could do is show you some minimal respect.
9857. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:59:54 PM
Not the Natonal Journal Article...its subscription only...
9858. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 1:03:06 PM
I've provided the good parts for you, so you don't have to subscribe.
Boy, foreign policy sure was in bad shape during Clinton's administration.
At least until General Wesley showed up and got all of it under control.
9859. jexster - 9/27/2003 1:03:18 PM
Yea I must agree that speech was rank.
But I am sure The General's audience ate it up... Arky GOP Yokels
9860. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 1:03:55 PM
9852
Eddy already linked that and has been quoting from it. As in 9855. Can you explain what is in it that is damaging to Clark?
9861. jexster - 9/27/2003 1:14:02 PM
Actually Ed you aren't far off the mark. Clinton's foreign policy other than trade policy and EuroLations was hit, miss, miss, hit, miss, miss...ah forget it.
Clark was a pain in Clinton's ass. But he is also Clinton's friend...you see Clinton isn't some shit for brains West Texas Erl 'n Gas con man on a mission from God...
Falsely Accused: Conservatives dismiss Wesley Clark as Clinton's general. Actually, the two men's foreign policy instincts couldn't be more different.
9862. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 1:16:13 PM
How rich, how desperate that Eddie Dantes who not one week ago declared "Clark is no threat" is now in full slime mode.
Nothing I do bears any relationship to the level of threat posed by General Wesley.
Unlike you, I don't think posting reams of regurgitated stuff at the Mote affects this election. I'm in "slime mode," as you put it, because I think it's so laughable that Democratic lightweights (who fancy themselves deep and intellectual) fall all over themselves for someone like Clark in their hatred of Bush.
They would not consider Clark's candidacy for a moment under other circumstances, but they are so desperate to get Bush they will elect an empty (and possibly dangerous) uniform, bereft of any history of supporting any of the things they claim to believe in.
Further, they flush last week's sweetheart, Dean, like a pimply geek at the high school prom, as soon as Mr. Junior ROTC shows up. What does this say about the quality of their candidates: that they stampede toward a guy who two years ago was speaking at Republican fundraisers.
The Democratic Party, post Terry McAuliffe and the Clintons, cares only about getting its hands on power and possessing that power for its own sake.
9863. jexster - 9/27/2003 1:17:37 PM
Actually Clark sounds very much like Anthony Zinni and any number of Old Bushie FP folk...that is the passably competent and generally trust worthy Bush.
9864. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 1:19:21 PM
Keep banking on General Wesley.
He is not the man to stop Bush from four more years in the White House. So even if that's all you care about, you're still going to get your little bitty heart broken.
9865. rdbrewer - 9/27/2003 1:20:11 PM
I don't know if it's damaging politically, Jay. I doubt many will slog through the whole thing. It's definitely weird, though. It is rambling, and he jumps around in time and subject as if he's free associating recollections.
9866. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 1:30:55 PM
It is the transcript of a speech. I still want to know who furnished the original. They don't read like written essays--unless they're from our current president. Very basic ones. Ones with simple words and repetitive themes. Ones the speaker can be coached on, as long as he doesn't have to deliver them often.
9867. jexster - 9/27/2003 1:31:42 PM
No the Democratic Party wants only one thing - Bush's ass.
That's what you and your RNC masters fail to appreciate - we LOVE Clark for what he brings to the field and all the more because he voted for Reagan in 1984.
We love the fact that he iw a happy democrat and no longer a "lonely" Republican.
We love the fact that he is brillant.
We are delighted that we have such a brilliant candidate not to mention that we are giddy at the prospect that a much decoratesd General could be debating the Diserter.
Emperor.
We love his bi-partisan appeal. We very much appreciate the free adverising you morons are providing but hey, your shit doesn't play over here.
Duh!
But hey gimme a fuckin break....if Clark wasn't a threat, you'd not be posting or more precisely the RNC agitprop dept wouldn't be giving the material to its usual press suspectx...
9868. jexster - 9/27/2003 1:41:34 PM
Eddie when you chase your tail do you meet yourself coming and going?
THis isn't just spin, its circular spin...
They would not consider Clark's candidacy for a moment under other circumstances, but they are so desperate to get Bush they will elect an empty (and possibly dangerous) uniform, bereft of any history of supporting any of the things they claim to believe in.
Further, they flush last week's sweetheart, Dean, like a pimply geek at the high school prom, as soon as Mr. Junior ROTC shows up. What does this say about the quality of their candidates: that they stampede toward a guy who two years ago was speaking at Republican fundraisers.
We aren't stampeding toward any one except Bush. Dean hasn't been "flushed". Scatalogcially speaking though The General makes the Republicans shit in their flight suits.
Bring on the ChickenHawks...the lying incompents....the air craft carrier is in drydock
9869. jexster - 9/27/2003 1:49:29 PM
He's givin a chat to good ole boys and girls...its very Southern...deep fried style but who am I to stop you guys from thinking that this a killer slime...which is come to think of it, more or less the reason that that Republican strategists think that Clark is no threat...they think that we think like they think we think - and they think that this preemptive slime job will kill CLark early in the primaries.
Hey folks even Eddie can understand what's goin on here. The Republicans are hell bent on neutralizing Clark precisely because he is grave threat...
The thinkin..that's your problem Eddie..
9870. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 1:50:21 PM
The scariest thing about Clark to the GOP operatives is their knowledge that he will appeal to a base they've counted on for decades that is beginning to abandon them because they're seeing their own causes and values--which is what they base their votes on (ask Tim Hutchinson)--trampled on in the GOP center's haste to cater to the wealthiest people in the country.
Moderate Republicans and socially conservative Republicans are not going to stand by and watch their party get yanked to the corporate right and fall under corporate dominance. They also are very concerned about the suppression of free expression and attempts to take over much of the media across the nation. They know where the biggest money to the Bush camp is coming from and what it's buying. They're not swallowing the lies about tax cuts and Iraq and that civil liberties should be sacrificed for security and that national control or even steps toward privatization should replace local control of public schools. People don't like having their support taken for granted and being treated as though they're too stupid to know when they're being shafted.
The GOP had best look at the alliances that are forming to address that list above and work to save their own party from a corporate takeover that will severely weaken it, because the base they've always counted on also happens to comprise the most dependable voters in the country.
9871. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 1:51:25 PM
Jex?
9872. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 1:52:17 PM
Repost of 9870:
The scariest thing about Clark to the GOP operatives is their knowledge that he will appeal to a base they've counted on for decades that is beginning to abandon them because they're seeing their own causes and values--which is what they base their votes on (ask Tim Hutchinson)--trampled on in the GOP center's haste to cater to the wealthiest people in the country.
Moderate Republicans and socially conservative Republicans are not going to stand by and watch their party get yanked to the corporate right and fall under corporate dominance. They also are very concerned about the suppression of free expression and attempts to take over much of the media across the nation. They know where the biggest money to the Bush camp is coming from and what it's buying. They're not swallowing the lies about tax cuts and Iraq and that civil liberties should be sacrificed for security and that national control or even steps toward privatization should replace local control of public schools. People don't like having their support taken for granted and being treated as though they're too stupid to know when they're being shafted.
The GOP had best look at the alliances that are forming to address that list above and work to save their own party from a corporate takeover that will severely weaken it, because the base they've always counted on also happens to comprise the most dependable voters in the country.
9873. jexster - 9/27/2003 1:58:39 PM
Clark dangerous, empty suit?? JROTC??
For his next brain fart, Eddie will speak to the military records of Bush and his neo-con policy wacks....
Dangerous? Onw word: Iraqmire
Empty suit?
Only in the court the Moron Emperor who has no clothes...
9874. jexster - 9/27/2003 2:10:44 PM
I don't know that I really agree that Clark is a threat to The Base...Bush's chats with the Almighty pretty well have tied that bunch up..those wacks think God sent Bush to save America from Bill Clinton's penis
As Edw9in Edwards was fond of saying, they'll stick with me unless they find me having sex with a dead woman or live boy.
Independents, weak identifiers, moderate Republicans alieanated by Bush's radical right policies..
Those blocks are what Clark bring to our party....Clark's appeal to these blocs + their new "national security" problemm = GOPanic..
9875. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 4:20:16 PM
Don't forget, Jex, you live in CA. While what you say is true for the most part, traditionalist, grassroots working class social conservatives do not like what they're seeing right now at all. I have literally never seen this before. I'm in touch with lots of conservative Republicans here and they're very unhappy, and nationally the same mood is reflected in the recent tone of some Republican congressmen.
9876. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 4:21:53 PM
And did you notice how quickly they got the Gary Bauers and Jerry Falwells to climb back under their rocks after Bush won the SC ruling and they were hitting the talking-head circuit?
9877. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 4:31:54 PM
rdb--
Yeah, the speech is so rambling that it is hard to read. But so what?
It's clear the VRWC wants to cut off the Clark bid as soon as possible. They want Dean. They've gotta do better than this.
9878. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 4:38:01 PM
We've heard about Clark as the stalking horse. But isn't there a simpler scenario: Clark-Clinton?
That is, Hilary need not make any commitment unless Clark gets the nomination, and then she runs with him. Two terms, and then she runs.
Or (a little on the weird side) the constitution doesn't ban Bill from the veep slot, does it?
As with the claim that there were no wmd in Iraq, you heard it here first.
9879. robertjayb - 9/27/2003 4:45:00 PM
Florida's (Jeb Bush) public teachers' funds bail out private Edison Schools...St Petersburg Times
Edison Schools Inc., the private education management company founded by Chris Whittle, has taken a beating in the financial markets. Its stock, selling for as much as $36.75 a share in 2001, dropped to 15 cents last year. Its very survival depends on a white knight to take it private, some riverboat gambler willing to bet on what seems certain to be a losing hand.
Enter the state of Florida, and its $92-billion employee pension fund. Liberty Partners, a New York investment firm that manages a $1.8-billion chunk euphemistically called "alternative investments," is planning to take a $174-million flier on Edison. Liberty would buy a 96.3 percent share of Edison, giving Florida the distinction of being essentially the sole owner of the nation's largest and perhaps most financially imperiled school management business.
Pardon the sarcasm, but was there no Enron stock left to buy?
9880. jexster - 9/27/2003 4:59:16 PM
Wesley Clark: "[After 9/11], many in the Bush administration seemed most focused on a prospective move against Iraq. This was the old idea of 'state sponsorship'-even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever-and the opportunity to 'roll it all up' [i.e. deceive Americans into war]... I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But
there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of 7 countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp.' It
was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a 'state sponsor,' and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations."
The Best laid plans of mice and morons...
With half of our ground combat forces sinking slowly into the IRaqmire, Bush's Grand Plan is on hold for quite a while...long enough for us to send the lying incompetent back to his fake ranch...
9881. jexster - 9/27/2003 5:04:52 PM
Well that's good to hear Arky...my brother has a similar take at least he believes that Clark can retake enough white votes which added to black support could turn a number of Southern red states blue..
But I keep thinking....Max Cleland..Max Cleland..over and over...
9882. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 6:02:32 PM
Of course AR almost went blue in 2000, so we're not exactly typical. I've never been good at reading tea leaves, but this is something I'm actually seeing first-hand that's amazing me. We've got conservative Republicans working hand-in-hand with liberal Democrats. And a few on the other side doing the same--suburban Liberals like to think they know All Things Best for poor kids, and they can be pretty damned smug and condescending about it too; never mind the facts and evidence.
The thing is, everyone I'm working with is an honest, above-board player, and they all realize that about eachother. They happen to want the same thing, but there's no secret maneuvering or manipulation going on, and especially no money slipping under tables. For the first time that I know of in AR (outside past efforts to unite the working/farming classes), black liberal Democrats in the Delta and white conservative Republicans in the north--many of whom have never interacted with eachother before now, since they don't travel to eachother's parts of the state and we're very demographically segregated in those areas--have been working together beautifully on the same project for months now, which is keeping and improving community schools for their kids. The current divide is between urban/suburban and rural people.
9883. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 6:02:48 PM
The bigger picture, though, is what I said above. It goes far beyond the debate over ed reform. Whether the trend will materialize into a win for Clark, I don't know. And he may be too conservative for my tastes, but I think he feels like a good candidate to balance national security and common sense foreign policy with our civil liberties and domestic stability. And he's not bought and paid for, which is most important to conservative local people who are upper-middle to working class, and whose main concern is that their voices aren't really what's being listened to by their elected representatives. They take their votes very seriously and are very involved in politics, some of which is way out there to me. We've got some Phyllis Schafly (sp)folks, for instance--never thought I'd see the day I'd be working with any of them on a political issue. Politics does really make strange bedfellows. They've been handed lip service for a number of years now, and it's getting impossible to hide who's getting the real service.
Hubris gets them all eventually, I guess.
9884. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 6:03:55 PM
What state is your brother in, btw?
9885. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 6:04:36 PM
That was supposed to be 2002, not 2000.
9886. arkymalarky - 9/27/2003 6:09:38 PM
Stuff like what Robert posted in 9879 just makes it worse.
9887. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 7:11:44 PM
I think [Clark] feels like a good candidate to balance national security and common sense foreign policy with our civil liberties and domestic stability. And he's not bought and paid for....
Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.
Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households....
Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago...earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000....
"There's something unseemly and, yes, mercenary, about a distinguished general lobbying for a company trying to get government contracts," said Charles Lewis, executive director for the Center for Public Integrity.
Clark declined repeated requests in recent weeks to discuss the lobbying and his thoughts on information policy....
Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger.
With officials from an Acxiom partner sitting nearby, he explained that computers would examine the data -- massive amounts of information about housing, telephone numbers, car ownership and the like -- for subtle signs of terrorist intentions.
9888. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 7:14:28 PM
(This 2,000 character limit certainly makes for a lot of ellipses.)
What do you bet the same people who think the Patriot Act and Poindexter's TIA were/are so egregious will think Clark's work a-okay? Or the people who have frowned about Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton.
By the way, General Wesley is still on Acxiom's board and owns several thousand shares of stock.
9889. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 9:57:41 PM
General Wesley...
September 19, 2003:
> "On balance, I probably would have voted for it," Clark said. "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States."
September 20, 2003:
> "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this."
Most importantly, General Wesley October 9, 2002
> Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country’s move toward war....
> Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.
> He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate.
9890. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 10:01:58 PM
United NATO Front Was Divided Within (Washington Post, 1999)
Guess who said this: "I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign – now!"
In any case, the story is a good analysis predating any political reason for its statements.
9891. anomieme - 9/27/2003 10:14:57 PM
I always find it amusing when republicans simply reverse accusations, finding incidental circumstances surounding democrats, as ikf that exonerates their obvious, and intentional excess.
"What do you bet the same people who think the Patriot Act and Poindexter's TIA were/are so egregious will think Clark's work a-okay? Or the people who have frowned about Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton.
By the way, General Wesley is still on Acxiom's board and owns several thousand shares of stock."
Yeah! You go Mr poindexter, covicted felon, patriot, Republican role model! You go boy!
(The rest of us should hide our stock portfolios from the patriots - a few grand here and there can get you in trouble with the loyal ones)
9892. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 10:34:19 PM
I always find it amusing when republicans simply reverse accusations, finding incidental circumstances surounding democrats, as ikf that exonerates their obvious, and intentional excess.
I find it amusing that you are so far off the mark.
I don't think for a minute that convicted-criminal Poindexter should have been given his position, so maybe you should ask for a refund from the Psychic Friends Network.
Moreover, I have no problem whatsoever with General Wesley's being on the board of Acxiom or owning shares in the company.
Then again, I do not claim to be a Democrat or see a politician's having a business interest as evil incarnate.
I don't make posts saying "so and so is bought and paid for" or claiming General Wesley (or John Ashcroft, for that matter) is just the man to watch out for our civil liberties.
I have one word for your limp response: kneejerk.
9893. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 10:36:34 PM
Addendum: In terms of Ashcroft, I do not mean to imply that like most here I'm an Ashcroft loather. But I would not hold him up as the epitome of a civil libertarian.
Nor would I do so General Wesley.
9894. anomieme - 9/27/2003 10:44:32 PM
Ed,
I guess I wasn't really responding to you, although your post inspired the thought. It's just that repubs are so desperate these days for something to believe in, I almost feel sorry for them. I mean, you have your legs shot off and you stillcrawl to the alter.
Okay dummies, G W Bush wasn't enough for you? We now give you Arnold!! Please, just don't THINK too much. React, yeah, that's the ticket. Let your predjudice and selfishness, and machismo lead the way.
We give you...Ollie North! Poindexter! Convicted felons (overturned on a technicality, yes, I admit. You repubs love those court-imposed technicalities!).
Technicalilty appointed president pretenders...the republican way.
9895. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:24:28 AM
Actually, it's called an Electoral College. You might want to learn something about it some day.
9896. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:29:45 AM
What are the chances of somebody other than a Lefty...
-- refusing to cite the Pledge of Allegiance?
-- attempting to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of schools?
-- Complaining about someone singing "God Bless America"?
-- Comparing America to Nazi Germany?
-- Trashing America in a foreign country ?
-- Burning the flag?
-- Rooting for America to lose a war?
-- Saying America deserved 9/11?
-- Complaining about flag pins?
-- Saying that, "the American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder"?
-- Saying, " the flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war"... ?
-- Wishing death on our troops?
About 1% of the chances of a Lefty doing any of these things.
9897. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:38:58 AM
Hey Anomieme!
Yes, it's like the Hillary Clinton cattle futures. Endless.
Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts.
In a meeting at the Department of Transportation in January 2002, according to participants, Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger.
With officials from an Acxiom partner sitting nearby, he explained that computers would examine the data -- massive amounts of information about housing, telephone numbers, car ownership and the like -- for subtle signs of terrorist intentions. The system would authenticate the identity of every passenger, he told the government officials at the meeting.
I don't see anything damning in that article, considering the timing and his position at the time. I like knowing about it, and I hope the media continues investigating his activities.
Would they had been so diligent with Bush Jr. pre-nomination.
9898. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:44:26 AM
Con'd. Take your meds, dear, and crawl into bed like a good boy. It's way past your bedtime.
And in the morning, please provide some specific quotes from specifi people.
Though in the interests of full disclosure I must admit that I don't worship the flag. This country's founding principles are the greatest in the history of the world. Those who put the flag and restrictions of constitutional principles above that are the traitors and the threats to our future, not the ones who understand the responsibilities they have as citizens to actively engage in dialogue about US policy and work and vote according to those principles.
9899. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:45:14 AM
c
9900. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:45:56 AM
'They' were more than diligent. Ann Richards and JH Hatfield are two names that come to mind, particularly with his hostile 'biography' 'Fortunate Son'.
9901. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:47:17 AM
I'm talking about the daily media, Con'd.
9902. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:48:08 AM
Re. 9898 -
Go to DU and find your own quotes, arky. You know very well that #9896 is spot on about many in the Left. Don't believe it? Then maybe you should have your meds adjusted.
9903. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:50:50 AM
Btw, I'll mention that I haven't taken any prescription drugs for perhaps a decade.
9904. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:52:35 AM
I don't believe it. Prove it. Specifically which one of my posts contained anything on that list.
If you can't find one I condemn you to kiss my bare Arky feet before my Saturday bath. And this being Saturday night you have a full week to look forward to it, and I've got a lot of yard and barn work to do between now and then.
9905. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:54:14 AM
Arky -
Why is everything about you:)?
9906. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:54:41 AM
Btw, I'll mention that I haven't taken any prescription drugs for perhaps a decade.
Well that certainly explains a world of things.
9907. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:55:26 AM
I am the center of my universe.
9908. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:56:01 AM
No. Just that I'm a pretty healthy guy that believes in moderation.
9909. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:57:18 AM
Oh yeah. I keep forgetting your a centrist.
I think it's your extremist posts that keep throwing me.
9910. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:57:40 AM
9908 was wrt 9906
9911. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 1:59:44 AM
"you're" for the first "your" in '09
9912. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 2:13:23 AM
On the character limit Ed mentioned, I sometimes exceed it myself but I am very glad it's there.
9913. jayackroyd - 9/28/2003 9:07:38 AM
Now the Bushies are blowing CIA covers
The lead:
At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.
The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.
9914. rdbrewer - 9/28/2003 9:50:02 AM
The original article that started the whole thing, Jay, is interesting. It says that Joseph Wilson, the big-mouthed, grandstanding, self-appointed hero, ex-hippie and retired ambassador, was sent to Niger on the recommendation of his wife. This decision was made routinely at a low level, and Tenent knew nothing about it.
After eight days in Niger, Wilson came back and made an oral report that it was "highly unlikely" there was an Iraqi uranium purchase. His report wasn't considered definitive, however, because Wilson did nothing but interview government representatives. It's unlikely Tenent knew about the report, and it's highly unlikely Buish knew about it.
Gee, I wonder who passed on the tip to Walter Pincus about an "unnamed retired ambassador" giving a negative report. Could it be the same retired ambassador who openly hoped that Carl Rove would be "frog walked" out of the WH in cuffs? The same ambassador who was hired to do a top-secret job and then wrote and op-ed piece about it? ("I'll be a hero. All will hail me.")
This asshole is so self-important, he considered his report definitive, and he was certain that Tenent and Bush knew about it. He's such a narcissistic prick, he can justify any want or desire, because, hey, it's him, and he's so important. This is the same menality that allowed him to break the confidentiality inherent in his assignment. All hail Wilson!
So fuck him and his wife. I hope it was a WH leak. They got what they deserved.
9915. rdbrewer - 9/28/2003 9:51:41 AM
Strike that. Make it, "mentality." I love it when I do that.
9916. judithathome - 9/28/2003 10:29:11 AM
I've taken some heat in the past from Dantes and whatever Ace is calling himself now for my remarks about thinking Bush lies everytime he attains a certain blink rate. The fact is, he has shaded the truth and if not lied outright, he hasn't been 100% truthful in things he has claimed about Iraq. So I stand by my observation that he has a facial tic (rapid blinking) when he is not being truthful.
And this morning on Meet The Press Condeleeza Rice has tipped her hand with one, too...when she is being less than truthful, she looks down and to the left. This is more than just a slight shifting of eye contact...something which she is excellent at maintaining when speaking with someone. Because of her ability to maintain such good eye contact, the tic is made much more noticable. She did it during her remarks about the Niger story this morning and when she was insisting that Tenet hadn't said anything prior to the SofU address and on a few more remarks. And she does it every time she uses the phrase WMDs in the context of Iraq having them. She's not comfortable saying this stuff and this tic definitely breaks out when she has to say something she knows is not true.
This observation of facial tics is a bona fide investigative technique taught to law enforcement people and is standard use in interviews and interrogation. You can laugh all you want but ask a dectective next time you meet one if they observe these types of things when talking to people who have been brought in for questioning.
I know the ridicule will be heaped high for this post but I don't care. These people are lying and misleading the public. And they know it.
9917. Edmund Dantes - 9/28/2003 10:50:55 AM
These people are lying and misleading the public. And they know it.
And you do too!
You can tell by the way that Negress won't look the whitefolks in the eye.
9918. Edmund Dantes - 9/28/2003 10:52:28 AM
9919. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 11:42:58 AM
Where in Judith's post did she indicate this was a characteristic confined to African-Americans?
9920. judithathome - 9/28/2003 11:52:49 AM
You can tell by the way that Negress won't look the whitefolks in the eye.
Kindly read what I say, Dauntes.
This is more than just a slight shifting of eye contact...something which she is excellent at maintaining when speaking with someone. Because of her ability to maintain such good eye contact, the tic is made much more noticable
But that's fine...you never fall short of my low opinon of your tactics. Because I spoke negatively of Rice, suddenly I am a racist; because I don't support Bush, I am a traitor; because you disagree, you are right and the rest of us are ignorant morons.
9921. arkymalarky - 9/28/2003 12:00:40 PM
It's much over-used tactic, too. Take something and spin it to what bears no relationship to the statement and assume people are stupid enough that it sticks.
It's worked plenty in the past, so you can't blame a guy for trying, but even the dimmest bulbs are beginning to catch on.
9922. judithathome - 9/28/2003 12:02:38 PM
Well, it's working for those he admires in politics so why shouldn't he emulate them?
9923. jexster - 9/28/2003 3:52:13 PM
Bush Administration is Cirminal Inquiry Target
CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media
Rove Implicated
A GOP triple greasy freedom fried revenge slime...also a crime
At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.
The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
9924. jexster - 9/28/2003 4:59:48 PM
U.S. Uses Terror Law to Pursue Crimes From Drugs to Swindling
Bush Regime has begun using the Patriot Act with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism...
9925. jexster - 9/28/2003 5:04:18 PM
what a maligant malignant detestible creature this worm of a man - this Emperor of the Booboisie
9926. ScreamingSin - 9/29/2003 4:29:39 AM
jexster, when you rule, what will you change? What will be your first decree upon the land?
9927. thoughtful - 9/29/2003 12:19:03 PM
Caught just a piece of condi rice on russert this weekend. What, is she taking a card from the likes of Vinny the Chin and Harry Helmsley? Re yellowcake reference in the State of the Union address:
DR. RICE: It’s not a matter of getting back in. It’s a matter, Tim, that three-plus months later, people didn’t remember that George Tenet had asked that it be taken out of the Cincinnati speech and then it was cleared by the agency. I didn’t remember. Steve Hadley didn’t remember. We are trying to put now in place methods so you don’t have to be dependent on people’s memories for something like that.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you ever read the memo that I referenced?
DR. RICE: I don’t remember the memo... [emphasis mine]
Oh what tangled webs we weave...
9928. judithathome - 9/29/2003 12:23:15 PM
I guess that is to be the excuse for the latest dust-up...they didn't remember telling BoB Novak the name of Joseph Wilson's wife.
Maybe Clinton should've "didn't remember" the blow job.
9929. thoughtful - 9/29/2003 12:38:29 PM
Worked for Reagan and iran-contra...but of course, reagan probably was telling the truth....early alzheimers and all.
But it's been a successful strategy for many.
9930. judithathome - 9/29/2003 3:06:26 PM
Well, the poop is hitting the fan about the leaked naming of the CIA operative. It's even moved up to the #1 spot on FOX.
Don't miss Crossfire today since CNN is promising a "very special" show. Maybe they will publically skewer Bob Novak. I hope so.
9931. rdbrewer - 9/29/2003 3:07:54 PM
More on the Joseph Wilson story:
Who leaked the fact that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV worked for the CIA?
What also might be worth asking: "Who didn't know?"
I believe I was the first to publicly question the credibility of Mr. Wilson, a retired diplomat sent to Niger to look into reports that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium for his nuclear-weapons program.
. . .
On July 11, I wrote a piece for NRO arguing that Mr. Wilson had no basis for that conclusion — and that his political leanings and associations (not disclosed by the Times and others journalists interviewing him) cast serious doubt on his objectivity.
On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.
That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of. (Emphasis mine.)
9932. judithathome - 9/29/2003 3:44:08 PM
That doesn't mitigate the fact it breaks federal law for the name to be leaked to journalists with the intent of having it made public.
9933. rdbrewer - 9/29/2003 3:54:40 PM
I don't think you can "expose" an agent if they have already been exposed.
9934. Wombat - 9/29/2003 3:57:43 PM
There is a difference between a reporter's claim of common knowledge, and actually making public the person's name.
9935. rdbrewer - 9/29/2003 4:01:53 PM
I'd have to see the statute, but it seems if it was widely known that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA, there would be no criminal intent.
9936. judithathome - 9/29/2003 4:03:08 PM
RDB, just keep making your excuses for these people. It will all come out eventually, just like the factual stories have come out about their claims of WMDs.
9937. rdbrewer - 9/29/2003 4:04:57 PM
Come to think of it, if it was widely known, there would be no "act" either.
9938. judithathome - 9/29/2003 4:05:36 PM
You read one article by a guy claiming he knew her name and claiming it was widely known...and you accept it as gospel.
It seems to have concerned the White House enough for them to say IF it was done, the person should be prosecuted. Evidently they haven't heard your "widely known" theory yet.
9939. rdbrewer - 9/29/2003 4:07:38 PM
Evidently you didn't see the word "if" in my posts.
9940. judithathome - 9/29/2003 4:28:24 PM
Sorry, I am too accustomed to Concerned's style of positive negativism; must have blanked on that. That, and of course, tone...as we all know, tone is key.
9941. Al D - 9/29/2003 6:19:59 PM
Novak, and you can check this on Drudge, claims that no one from the White House called him to give him this information.
Judith, are we to assume that you have an open mind on any issue concerning this administration? It is ironic, at least to me, that you mention concerned's positive negativism.
About Grey Davis's carping about Arnold's not wanting to debate him. The poor man is very confused. He is not running against Arnold. Arnold could drop dead tomorrow, god forbid, and it would not help poor Davis, not a known relative of mine, one whit. Were I an advisor to the Republican party, I would have had Arnold on the media pointing our how addled Grey was.
9942. jayackroyd - 9/29/2003 6:23:58 PM
It's of course worth noting that there is a kabuki theatre element to all this. "Everybody" knows things that don't make their way into the newspapers. I don't doubt that. I don't doubt that people who work for the agency are known to do so, even though one isn't supposed to know. It's a hard secret to keep--where you work and what you do.
But these are the secrecy laws set up by the people who constructed the theatre. For them to say, "well, in this case, it's really not important because other people knew and she really wasn't an "operative" operative and so on and so forth" calls into question the whole secrecy regime.
You can't have it both ways. If it really is a felony, really should be a felony, then it should be treated as such. If it's all a shuck, then it's all a shuck, and should be dismantled.
Or, more to the point, on crossfire today (where Novak made the non operative "operative" defense) they played a clip of Bush 1 denouncing leakers of CIA information as traitors. A viewer wrote in to note that Rumsfeld used the same language.
Is it okay when leaking hurts someone speaking out against the administration?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
9943. Al D - 9/29/2003 7:09:38 PM
jay
I agree with the above. Too many times violations of laws are excused as no big deal, the everybody does it defense. But isn't it best to get all the facts, if that is possible, before jumping to the conclusion that the leaking of the information was a diabolical plot by someone in the administration to stifle criticism?
If it were done for that reason, I would like to see the person punished no matter high high in the administration. Do you believe that Bush and Rumsfeld would not agree with me? And if so, on what basis?
9944. jayackroyd - 9/29/2003 7:28:28 PM
But isn't it best to get all the facts, if that is possible, before jumping to the conclusion that the leaking of the information was a diabolical plot by someone in the administration to stifle criticism?
Yes.
Do you believe that Bush and Rumsfeld would not agree with me? And if so, on what basis?
The president does not, for sure. His spokesman today said that Bush is not going to ask his staffers who was the source for this. His spokesman said they will leave it to the Justice Department. This was referred to them in mid-July and they have not contacted the White House wrt this issue.
I see a Yahoo headline that says Bush is rejecting an independent investigation into this matter.
So, I think the adminstration is, unsurprisingly, violating national security in the interests of political payback. I can't prove that, of course, without someone looking into it, or without Novak giving up his source. Nobody's looking into it. Why isn't Novak in court, threatened with contempt? I'm sure he'd serve his week or whatever, but isn't that what you are supposed to do when there are security breaches?
Or is this really all just political? Put the hammer down on criticism for "national security" reasons. And, when that won't work in a particular instance, put the hammer down by outing CIA agents, if it serves your cause.
Finally, the most recent defense is that this happens all the time--that there are 50 or such cases a year that the DoJ investigates. Doesn't the possible use of blowing cover to advance a political agenda raise this incident above the other 50?
9945. robertjayb - 9/29/2003 7:38:59 PM
Oooh, Woo, Oooh! The "S" word emerges...(CBS used it too)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — It wasn’t just the autumn chill, it was the whiff of scandal that invigorated the senses of jaded Washingtonians Monday. The question of the day: Had anyone in the White House tried to punish Iraq war opponent Joseph Wilson by leaking his wife’s identity as a CIA employee to columnist Bob Novak?
9946. jayackroyd - 9/29/2003 7:40:40 PM
There's one other thing, Al. In rdbrewer's post upthread, one of the arguments he makes is that Wilson was a minor functionary, sent off by lower level elements, and that when he delivered his report, it never rose to the VP level as Wilson said it should have.
Let's leave aside the point that this means we send people out to investigate things, pay their expenses, file their reports and ignore them.
Let's consider, rather, that this was an instance where the administration chose to ignore countervailing evidence, either by not letting it rise to the proper level, or by commissioning an investigation and then jettisoning it when it provided the wrong answer.
This would explain how they could have gotten the intelligence so wrong--the assertion that they were not interested in intelligence that did not support their point of view is supported by rdb's argument.
9947. rdbrewer - 9/29/2003 7:41:39 PM
Judith, no problemo.
Al D, I thought Novak said he got the info from, to paraphrase, "two highly placed administration officials." Guess that was the spin of others.
Jay, #9942, I agree. Even though I think Wilson is an ego-maniac and a turd and that they probably deserved it, if the law was violated heads should roll. It would be interesting to see the statute. I might look it up later.
Jay, #9944, I thought we all agreed a few years ago that independent investigations (read: counsels) were a bad thing.
9948. Al D - 9/29/2003 8:14:52 PM
Jay
For Bush to waste his time questioning everyone in the White House would be nuts. The F.B.I. is the proper investagating body, and should they determine that a law has been broken, which is why investigations take place, then it should be turned over to the Justie Department. Were they reluctant to get involved, then it is time to talk about a special investagator.
Right now I think the administration should say they deny the allegations and abhor the allegator.
I don't think you will find the conservatives circiling the wagon insisting, oh it's all politics. You see, we conservatives really believe in law and order, and when someone f...s up, we want them to pay a price.
9949. wonkers2 - 9/29/2003 8:43:07 PM
Apparently several White House officials were encouraging reporters to spread the story out of a desire for revenge against Wilson and/or in an effort to discourage others from coming forth with information contrary to the party line on WMD or other phony justifications for the BIG IRAQ ATTACK. Sounds to me like a Karl Rove operation.
9950. wonkers2 - 9/29/2003 8:50:34 PM
I saw Rumsfeld quoted recently calling leaks "treasonous." Of course not in reference to the matter of Wilson's wife.
9951. Al D - 9/29/2003 9:00:59 PM
wonkers2
Your posts are so typical of how you view things. Do you have evidence that Rove is behind this so called leak, or is having any facts at your disposal have and relevancy?
Why don't you just come on the Mote and natter I hate Bush and everyone in his administration. I don't think I've ever encountered anything meaningful from you. But, to be fair, I'm not on the Mote as much as you are.
9952. wonkers2 - 9/29/2003 9:10:03 PM
Al, I have no evidence that Rove had anything to do with the leak. It just smells to me of a Rove caper. Or possibly Scooter Libby. Who do you think it was? Or is Novak lieing?
9953. Al D - 9/29/2003 9:26:47 PM
wonk
Just exactly did Novak say, by the way? Do you really have any idea?
You remind me of the fools on Free Republic who praised Hitchens because her hated Clinton. You would accuse Novak of worse than lieing if he said anything in defense of Bush. You are nothing but the flip side of a freeper.
9954. judithathome - 9/29/2003 9:27:26 PM
Judith, are we to assume that you have an open mind on any issue concerning this administration? It is ironic, at least to me, that you mention concerned's positive negativism.
You are to assume nothing, Al, and I sure, being the fair and moral person you are, you won't assume anything untrue about either my mind or Bob Novak's honesty.
And in case you hadn't noticed, that bit about positive negativism was a term I used in jest in an apology to someone...an apology about missing a point he had made. Something others do around here (without the qualifying apology) all the time.
9955. judithathome - 9/29/2003 9:29:22 PM
By the way, back in the 90s Bush fired Rove for just such a caper in state government. Of course, he took him back a few years later but it has happened before.
9956. judithathome - 9/29/2003 9:35:53 PM
This is from a January 2003 issue of Esquire magazibe. You can read all about it here:
Rove Takes One From The Old Playbook
Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.
9957. Al D - 9/29/2003 9:41:10 PM
Judith
Do you think that says anything at all about Bush's values?
About the positive negativism, I must admit, all I should have said was what in the hell does that mean.
9958. judithathome - 9/29/2003 9:48:34 PM
No, because it was father Bush who did that. Mosbacher was a Texas boy who worked on the losing campaign.
I was pointing out that Rove isn't above doing that. And Novak was involved back then, too. Tidy.
What I meant was Concerned is very negative about everything on the left...he is positive that they are all true, all the negative things he hears, without waiting for proof. Like I am...about Bush.
9959. wonkers2 - 9/29/2003 10:00:30 PM
Al, Why don't you tell me what Novak said. I didn't hear the program or read his column. My impression is that he attributed the leak to someone in the White House. Please straighten me out if that isn't correct. Now everybody is playing guessing games about who was the leaker(s). Are you into the sauce? Sometimes your spelling and grammar and disposition are better than others.
9960. wonkers2 - 9/29/2003 10:04:04 PM
According to Slate, retired General Anthony Zinni called the war in Iraq Bush's "brain fart" in the process of delivering a blistering attack on the administration's neocon foreign policy and war on Nightline last Thursday.
9961. wonkers2 - 9/29/2003 10:16:34 PM
Novak: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me."
9962. jexster - 9/29/2003 10:18:56 PM
Bush Trades War for votes
For anyone who doubts that Bush went to war for the power or thinks that we went to war to liberate Iraqis from Big Bad Saddam....
Middle East - Asia Times
Bush has a battle on his hands
Keeper of the Emperor's Puppet Strings Declares "No more wars before 2004 Elections"
As the Washington, DC, area recovers from effects of Hurricane Isabel, US President George W Bush keeps trying to divert the potential "perfect storm" forming from the combination of the constant stream of bad news coming out of the Middle East and growing domestic discontent over the war and occupation in Iraq.
That storm is likely to gain even more force when the public has a chance to absorb this past week's events, which mostly slid under the media radar as Isabel approached the capital. Particularly striking were signs of growing disarray at the highest levels of the administration, revealed by remarks such as Bush's assertion that there was "no evidence" linking Iraq to the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon. This statement directly contradicted both what Vice President Dick Cheney claimed as recently as September 14 and what he and some Pentagon officials had been advocating months before the war.
Similarly, the assertion by the US commander in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, that the popular resistance to the US occupation might be broader than radical Islamists, foreign infiltrators and Ba'athist "dead-enders" appeared to contradict repeated assurances by top administration officials in recent weeks.
9963. jexster - 9/29/2003 10:31:21 PM
We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence.
Our military is low on parts, pay and morale.
If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir.
This administration had its moment.
They had their chance. They have not led. We will.
How to Ruin a Great Army - Watch Bush and Rumsfeld Senior Military Analyst Knight Ridder Newspapers
Armies are fragile institutions, and for all their might, easily broken. It too the better part of 20 years to rebuild the Army from the wreckage of Vietnam. With the hard work of a generation of young officers, blooded in Vietnam and determined that the mistake would never
be repeated, a new Army rose Phoenix-like from the ashes of the old, now perhaps the finest Army in history. In just over two years, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army. How will they explain to
history the mistakes that threaten to weaken a great nation even as it seeks ways to win the war on terrorism it has declared?"
9964. jexster - 9/29/2003 10:34:41 PM
TD at one time had trouble accepting the maxim that "a nation's power is diminished by its exercise"
Don't know much about history?
Don't worry...you are witnessing a great example in real time
9965. jayackroyd - 9/29/2003 10:48:55 PM
9961
It's interesting to note that the senior officials do not, in Novak's quote, out Plame. They confirm it, but Novak does not attribute that to them.
Of course, we are in kabuki theatre mode here. The reality is that the leak to Novak (and five other reporters, according to the WP) would not have happened without Rove's knowledge, either granting permission or granting absolution.
That's clear from the dodging at today's press conference. Scott McClellan did everything he could, but he would not say that Karl Rove denied that he had leaked it. He said that the president was sure he had not, but the president had not asked Rove about it. Scott McClellan said he was sure Rove hadn't leaked it, but that they never specifically spoke about it.
In the real world, Rove knew, either before or after.
In the kabuki world, we need to have a thorough investigation by the FBI that produces a clear assessment, and identification of the leakers. Without that, the congress is justified in looking for alternative measures to discover the traitor who released or confirmed Frame's CIA status.
9966. jexster - 9/29/2003 10:50:56 PM
Rove is refreshing Bob Mr. Republican Novak" but the chickens have already flown the coop...Rove's staff is taking leaks on him ...let the coverup begin
9967. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:02:37 PM
If you really wish to understand why the General is running, read any recent articles by Zinni stay in touch with the comments on Defense and the National Interests, a website run by a group of intelligence and defense analysts, the good soldiers who refuse to play good soldier...
DNI is one of the top 5 websites for defense professionals...they don't cotton to defense dilletantes and "brain farting" Bush ideologues
That's a major part of the Clark calculus..the military professionals who warned us well beforehand...
The United States has now deliberately enmeshed itself in a vicious 4th Generation War in Iraq [see Thread 1] that was sold to the American people as a riskless, self-financing free lunch of Domino Democracy [see Blaster #488 and related blasters].
Like all front loaded visions, this vision has blown up in our faces, leaving the American people facing a mix of skyrocketing war costs [see Ref 1 below] and an overstretched Army [see Separate Attachment #1], all of which must be financed over the long term by a federal budget that is now crippled by a ballooning federal deficit
And so they fiddle fuck about Versailles on the Potomac... Editor Defense and the National Interest introducing The Chickens of Free Lunch Politics are Coming Home to Roost
9968. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:03:37 PM
bwak...bwak...bwak
9969. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:03:56 PM
toys
9970. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:09:53 PM
What do you know about criminal intent RD?
Do you know between criminal intent - shit - shinola?
While you are figuring that one out some free legal advice
...do not disclose the indentity of any CIA agents you might know under any circumstances without advice of counsel.
9971. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:11:06 PM
Another big problem with Novak's comments on Crossfire today. Today he said...
Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.
But then there's this passage in a July 22nd article in Newsday ...
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
I'd say the story's changed.
-- Josh Marshall
9972. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:19:35 PM
The central problem in developing the case factually lies is press privilege - indentifying the undisclosed sources when the journalist ain't gonna say shit
This obstancle may be insurmountable but there can be no question but that this fully accounts for Bush's refusal to appoint an independent counsel.
Let Ashcroft do it in house and remind him of how popular it would be if I fired his ass.
9973. Al D - 9/29/2003 11:43:50 PM
wonkers2
jexster has pretty much covered what Novak has said, and nothing jexster posts shows any change in Novak's story. I reread my posts to see why you would ask it I were on the sauce. I am confused by the question, but let me assure you I soon will be. I almost never preview and do make quite a few mistakes. I hope you are not offended by those who enjoy a good wine. I know it offends WoW, but he is a very pitiful fellow. I know Judith enjoys a good wine, maybe even one not so good, and she has made a few typos above, but I don't care to mention them.
jexster also enjoys a good wine, expensive ones at that; I know, I popped for several bottles and lunch with him. But he is the same, drunk or sober-senseless.
9974. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:57:07 PM
Al I enjoy soaking a rich old Republican..
Al is a little slow..but he's old...and the rest of are getting there I won't be harsh, just helpful...Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable
Tonight you are in the former category..
9975. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:59:12 PM
Novak said that he got the name of a CIA agent from a senior bush official..now he is saying something completely different...this story's been public knowledge since July but our media is only liberal in laziness and timidity...
Here's the skinny to date from Jack Shafer at Slate:
This classic pattern applies to the most recent Washington scandal, which revolves around the identification of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative in a July 14, 2003, Robert Novak column. (Wilson, you remember, traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate claims that the Iraqis were shopping for uranium. He concluded that they had not purchased the goods and described his inquiry in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed.)
The basic outlines of the Wilson-Novak-Plame story have not changed since Novak wrote his column and Nation Washington Editor David Corn noted in an outraged July 16 column that the leakers might have broken the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Besides the fact that the CIA's request to the Justice Department for an investigation confirms the insinuation that Plame was an undercover agent until Novak and the leakers blew her cover, what we've now learned is the number of journalists the two administration leakers tried the Wilson-Plame story out on before striking hot with Novak (six). (Full disclosure: David Corn is a friend.)
How do we know that? An unnamed source—"a senior administration official"—told the Post so, adding that he "would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists." In other words, a White House leaker is leaking to the Washington Post about Novak's White House leakers, but the leaker to the Post draws short of dribbling out the identities of who leaked to Novak and who else they tried to leak to. .
9976. jexster - 9/30/2003 12:05:29 AM
Other than Josh Marshall, of American media only David Corn has been following this since July...
You'll find a series of articles at his blog @the nation...
The latest:
Why Bush is in Deep Shit
I warn you folks who've been on a steady diet of Sludge from Drudge, or Rush Limbaugh yap show radio, you'll proably find this professional journalism challenging...don't give up..apply yourselves...
9977. jexster - 9/30/2003 12:10:33 AM
And don't forget that the CIA does not prosecute..it investigates and turns it over to the Justice Department for prosecution...
The CIA investigated for two months..and found the charges credible....
9978. jexster - 9/30/2003 12:11:27 AM
I say what's sauce for Wen Ho Lee is sauce for thee
9979. jexster - 9/30/2003 12:16:54 AM
Pity poor Bob Novak, a man who makes his living off of inside GOP knowlege....squarely in the middle of a scandal locked, loaded and pointed at Bush's private parts..
No wonder he's scampering for an exit....
"Listen up you old fart. Don't shit where you eat
You get right with the Man or the Man will fuck you up."
"Yes Mr. Rove, read you loud and clear"
9980. jexster - 9/30/2003 12:20:15 AM
Wilson confirms Novak's prior inconsistent statement ..
Now who are you gonna believe...the guy who uncoveed Bush's lie or Bush's liar?
9981. jexster - 9/30/2003 1:23:04 AM
Why the General runs -
Last February I had lunch with a friend who was teaching at one of the military war colleges. He told me that the officers he knew were uniformly skeptical about a war with Iraq. "I don't think they are worried about fighting Iraq but about garrisoning it afterward," he said. I heard similar doubts about the wisdom of the war from foreign-policy experts, oil-industry consultants and Middle East historians, but the Bush White House was not interested in these opinions. It was listening to the echo chamber set up by the Pentagon, The Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute. A few months after George W. Bush declared victory, however, it is clear that the skeptics were right on every important count. From Judis, Clearing Out the Rubble
Again confirming what I have said many times, that military professionals and those with foreign policy expertise have warned all of us..this government has been hijacked by a gang of extreme ideologues who haven't the slightest ability to live much less lead in the real world.
So Eddie come post "Clark in the Math Club" "Clark Voted for Reagan" and assorted other irrelevant drudge sludge you wish....
I am right here Eddie...spend whatever R&R time you need in your Other World..pick up another pair of balls..and I be here to rip them off again.
Welcome to hell fatboy
9982. jexster - 9/30/2003 1:43:31 AM
The disclosure of an intelligenc agent's identity is, in my opinion, the most egregious form of treason George The Poppy Prez
9983. concerned - 9/30/2003 3:12:24 AM
Re. 9932 -
So who says the Bush Administration had anything to do with the leak, if that's what it was?
9984. concerned - 9/30/2003 3:14:07 AM
Aside from 'bent' individuals like Jay, that is.
9985. concerned - 9/30/2003 3:25:35 AM
I guess I'll have to take that back. It looks like Bob Novak may have done that.
9986. concerned - 9/30/2003 3:33:51 AM
David Corn is wrong in insisting that the WH simply conduct an internal investigation, IMO, since that would exclude any non-administration source for the 'leak'. Best to have the Justice Department take care of an investigation, if it gets to that point.
Also,
1) It's not an important enough issue to officially concern the WH.
2) The status of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative was apparently widely known for a considerable period of time. Given that, there would have been no cover to blow.
9987. jayackroyd - 9/30/2003 9:06:02 AM
[kabuki theatre] Here's what the law says, concerned:
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
There's no "everybody knew it" provision.
The White House has made it very clear that leaks are not to be tolerated, and that violations of national security cannot be tolerated in this time of war against terror.
This agent was engaged in investigating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among the axes of evil. Her exposure endangers us all. To say that this is not worth the president asking the perpetrators to step forward is to demean those engaged in the ongoing war against terror.
[/kabuki theatre]
9988. jexster - 9/30/2003 9:07:53 AM
The Continuing Saga Bush's Crony Capitalist Empire - Bought and Paid For In Blood and Death:
Bush Campaign Manager's New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq
Top Stories - The New York Times
Washington Insiders' New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq
8 minutes ago Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My Yahoo!
By DOUGLAS JEHL The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 A group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush (news - web sites), his family and his administration have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq (news - web sites), including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects.
• White House Denies a Top Aide Identified an Officer of the C.I.A.
• Washington Insiders' New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq
• For the latest breaking news, visit NYTimes.com
• Get DealBook, a daily email digest of corporate finance newsDealBook.
Search NYTimes.com:
Today'sNewsPast WeekPast30 DaysPast 90 DaysPastYearSince 1996
Related Quotes
HAL
DJIA
NASDAQ
^SPC
24.56
9380.24
1824.56
1006.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
delayed 20 mins - disclaimer
Quote Data provided by Reuters
The firm, New Bridge Strategies, is headed by Joe M. Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March. Other directors include Edward M. Rogers Jr., vice chairman, and Lanny Griffith, lobbyists who were assistants to the first President George Bush and now have close ties to the White House.
9989. jexster - 9/30/2003 9:16:31 AM
Iraq's reconstruction, by contrast, remains firmly under White House control. And this is an administration of, by and for crony capitalists; to match this White House's blithe lack of concern about conflicts of interest, you have to go back to the Harding administration. That giant, no-bid contract given to Halliburton, the company that made Dick Cheney rich, was just what you'd expect.
And even as the situation in Iraq slides downhill, and the Iraqi Governing Council demands more autonomy and control, American officials continue to block local initiatives, and are still trying to keep the big contracts in the hands of you-know-who.
Who's Sordid Now? Paul Krugman
9990. jexster - 9/30/2003 9:16:41 AM
The Werther Solution - Defense and the National Interest
6. Appoint a special prosecutor. Armed with plenary powers of subpoena, this bulldog would comb the documents of the Defense Department, the White House, the Energy Task Force, and other agencies for any evidence that our elected public officials violated 18 U.S.C. 1001 (making false statements to Congress), 18 U.S.C. 371 (the broad anti-conspiracy statute that would apply in the case of provoking a war), or any other statute or Constitutional provision that may have been violated in prosecuting a pre-emptive war on false pretenses. Faced with prolonged hospitality at Allenwood, some of the Thors and Wotans who rule over us might be induced to practice a refreshing candor, for once.
7. Begin the greatest untangling operation since Watergate. Induce Congress (an admittedly hopeless bunch, whose membership more and more resembles the idiotic Senator Iselin in The Manchurian Candidate) to investigate the connection between the think tanks, their "defense" contractor contributors, public relations firms like Hill & Knowlton or the Benador Group, foreign agents of influence, and the Federal Government. Much as the mid-1930s Nye Committee unveiled the relationships between government boards, munitions trusts, financiers, and British propagandists, such an investigation would reveal how a gullible public was led into the quicksand of the Middle East for the sake of yet another "war to end all wars."
9991. jexster - 9/30/2003 9:19:03 AM
Gullible Ed Dantes, Mayor of the Village of Hope, what do they line your pockets with?
Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign buttons?
Throw rugs from a mosque?
9992. Magoseph - 9/30/2003 9:24:01 AM
The question I'm asking is--Was Mrs. Wilson an analyst or an operative or is it possible she was an operative with a cover of an analyst? If she was functioning as an operative and obtaining information and managing informants, it really doesn't matter. Her career and her ability to function on behalf of this country has been destroyed.
Under these circumstances, her career has been ended by the leakers. It seems to me she has an action at law for damages. Since Bob Novak knows who the leakers are, then he should be the first target. His defense in respect to confidentiality regarding his sources might very well fail in view of the nature of the issue which could be the failure to disclose a felony. The judge could very well find Novak in contempt and jail him until he provides names. Remember the Susan McDougal episode.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Rove and company know exactly who the leakers are. The objectives of the Wilsons, in my opinion, should be to get these parties into court under oath and proceed from there and maybe that's what they intend to do eventually. I don't believe the Bush administration has any intention of voluntarily biting the bullet. It would be inconsistent with their format of total denial.
9993. jexster - 9/30/2003 9:41:13 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity and the White House has ordered staff to preserve all relevant materials, President Bush )'s spokesman said on Tuesday.
"The president has directed the White House to cooperate fully with this investigation," spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Justice Department lawyers notified the White House counsel's office on Monday night that it had begun an investigation into "possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee," according to a memo sent to White House staff by counsel Alberto Gonzales.
9994. Edmund Dantes - 9/30/2003 9:43:06 AM
Democrats: Cheap shots aplenty but policies aren't serious
These three nonresponses to Bush's budget request expose the shallowness of what passes for Democratic national security doctrine. If Democrats had a distinct post-September 11, 2001, vision, it was partly that the war on terrorism required a Marshall Plan as well as a Truman Doctrine; we needed to build schools in the Muslim world, not just crack skulls. Yet, now, with the Bush administration finally recognizing that defeating terrorism requires making sure Iraqis have electricity and clean water, the Democratic presidential candidates are looking for any excuse to avoid saying yes. Pandering to public isolationism may make short-term political sense, but, in the long-term, it will simply confirm what many Americans already believe: that you can dress up the Democratic Party in whatever uniform you want, it still doesn't have a strategy for the defining challenge of our time.
9995. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:04:16 AM
What in the hell are you talking about you fat fool?
9996. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:06:24 AM
Great warriors on Terror stuck in fuckin quagmire filling rapidly with jihadists where there were none before trying to sell war for the votes of gullible fearful nation.
Well idiots...what the fuck are you talking about?
9997. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:08:24 AM
Brain farts the same clueless people who brought you WMD and mushroom clouds of methane
You have never had a strategy you fools..you are making it up as you go along..
9998. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:12:47 AM
Maybe this is a strategy?
These people can't even lie competently. Why The General runs you ask?
More evidence of intelligence manipulation
Bush claims about Saddam's weapons capability have been undermined yet again with the discovery of remnants of Iraqi unmanned drones. The inside of their fuselage shows that they were never capable of spreading toxins but to were designed to fly reconnaissance missions, as claimed by Air Force officials before the war.
But at the time, the Air Force experts were overruled by the Pentagon and the CIA, who declared instead that these drones were not only a threat to Iraq's neighbors, but also Americans if Saddam found a way to launch these drones off the shores of the United States. In Cincinnati, last September, Bush insisted that "Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." Powell reiterated that claim in his presentation to the UN in February.
9999. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:13:47 AM
Grand Strategy of Dummies 101
10000. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:19:19 AM
Why The General Runs - Revolt in the Defense and Intelligence Community Against Bush
The CIA has gone nuclear as Corn put it...
After reading The Washington Post's explosive coverage this weekend of the investigation into which senior administration officials exposed the identity of a covert CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak, you could be forgiven for asking a simple question: Why? Why would very high-ranking officials--identified by the Post as White House officials, no less--tell no fewer than six journalists that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife is a clandestine officer working on proliferation issues? Why would White House officials commit a felony--revealing the identity of a secret agent--just to get back at a political enemy? It doesn't make sense, particularly not in a White House this famously disciplined.
But the leak makes much more sense when Wilson and his wife recede somewhat into the background. Indeed, it's much more likely that the White House was using Novak's column not just to punish or smear Wilson, but to send a message to other analysts in the CIA and elsewhere: Don't even think about coming forward. After all, there are numerous intelligence analysts and administration officials who thought the White House misrepresented intelligence on Iraq to make its case for war. Wilson, in the eyes of these officials, might have served as an example. With Iraqis souring on the occupation and Bush's approval ratings plummeting, the White House is very interested, to say the least, in deterring others from following in Wilson's footsteps.
Treason for the Good of America? Or Bush?
10001. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:21:26 AM
Don't worry be happy its a war on terror you know and we all line up and be good Americans so shut the fuck up and fork over the money
THAT is the Bush strategy...a strategy to parlay fear into votes and money for their crony capitalst masters
10002. Magoseph - 9/30/2003 10:25:19 AM
In reference to Dantes 'link, the problem with Beinart's article and what he has to say is simply that he's not in present time. He lives in the area of the all-powerful high-flying Bush. Everything has changed. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, unemployment is the scourge of the land. The independent vote which becomes more critical every year, has swung against Bush in a big way. He has lost the gender gap which won the last election for him. The Democrats have held their plurality with women and Bush has lost his plurality with men. The only question in my mind is whether Bush can muster enough strength to come close in the next election. I don't believe he has any chance or winning. It's just as likely that his defeat will be of landslide proportions, resembling the 1932 Hoover debacle.
10003. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:33:26 AM
Treason in the Name of Bush - Why the General Runs and Bushies Are Scared Shitless
The deterrent value to the White House of exposing Wilson's wife even extends beyond outright whistleblowers, notes former clandestine CIA officer Robert Baer. "They probably looked at this as a deterrent to other CIA people going public, or at least going to the press anonymously and expressing doubts" about the way the Bush administration handles intelligence, he says. "The White House was probably saying, 'You guys think you're anonymous, but you [leak] at your own peril.'"
None of which is to say that there wasn't a serious element of revenge at work. "The clear intent is to undercut Joe Wilson and his findings, which in turn undercut the claims of the Vice President," argues Vincent Cannistraro, a former top CIA counter-terrorism official. "I think it was to get at Joe Wilson himself."
10004. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:34:56 AM
And TNR wants us to send 87 Billion more as downpayment on last fall's blank check?
Are they nuts?
10005. alistairConnor - 9/30/2003 10:36:53 AM
It was a foregone conclusion that the big round number was for you, Jex...
10006. wonkers2 - 9/30/2003 11:15:37 AM
I more or less agree with ED on the $87 billion issue, or the $20 billion portion of it (not about the Democratic party or candidates). We never should have attacked Iraq without UN support, but we did, and now we are stuck with following through as best we can for the Iraqi people and Middle East. Where Bush is failing is in Palestine for not grabbing Sharon by the balls and making him shape up. We should transfer a few billion in aid from Israel to Iraq.
10007. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2003 11:20:29 AM
Jexter exceeds himself
3.07 – 3.19 pm – 4 posts
4.04 – 4.21 pm – 7 posts
When shall we see 10 posts in 15 mins? Go for it Jex.
10008. wonkers2 - 9/30/2003 11:23:29 AM
Republican Congressman Porter Goss, former CIA agent and head of the House Intelligence Committee, has written a letter damning the Bush administration and CIA on their claims of Iraq WMD. His statement says that essentially we had no new significant information on WMD since 1998. We simply assumed that since there was no evidence that there were no WMD, that there were stockpiles of WMD.
This leads to the conclusion that the war was one of choice, not necessity as claimed by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell/Rice and her mushroom cloud.
Several Washington commentators on Diane Rehm this morning agreed that Goss's statement/letter has great negative political significance for Bush. Has anybody read the statement/letter. Sounds like it makes interesting reading.
10009. judithathome - 9/30/2003 11:50:09 AM
The White House has made it very clear that leaks are not to be tolerated, and that violations of national security cannot be tolerated in this time of war against terror.
The CIA asked Novak, by his on admission on Crossfire yesterday, NOT to publish the name of Wilson's wife and he went ahead and did it. Then he smuggly admitted he knows the names of the WH people who gave him the name but he won't give them up.
This man is a sleaze of the highest order. He should go to jail.
10010. judithathome - 9/30/2003 11:57:34 AM
From NPR this morning:
Over two million US citizens lost health insurance in 2002. About 43 million are now without. This is the highest number of uninsured since Bush Sr. was in office.
10011. judithathome - 9/30/2003 11:59:31 AM
And one fourth of the citizens in Texas are without insurance. Texas leads the nation in uninsured.
10012. robertjayb - 9/30/2003 2:03:35 PM
Awww, Judith, most of them are just wetbacks.
10013. jexster - 9/30/2003 2:06:53 PM
The Gonzales letter, released early Tuesday ...
The following notice was sent to all White House employees:
PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office
We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee.
-----------------------------------
The Department advised us that it will be sending a letter today instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation.
Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President
For the White House's defenders in the press, it looks like that 'she wasn't undercover' line is no longer operative ...
-- Josh Marshall
OK Limbaugh Lips around this dump....get your stories in line and remember the words of Holy Father Moron, Prince of Thieves "Disclosure of an agent's indentity is the highest form of treason."
10014. robertjayb - 9/30/2003 2:11:25 PM
Spudboy will counter "lying, sociopathic, blonde Republican bimbettes" with a series of articles on conservative treachery.
10015. Magoseph - 9/30/2003 2:32:46 PM
Re-The Wilson case
The apparent developments of today are most revealing. The Justice Department agreed to investigate the leaks, which constitute a felony. This is a political decision. There is no way that Justice can fail to give up the leakers. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a political decision has been made at the highest level to sacrifice them in order to protect the Presidency. The fact that this decision has been made has to reflect the weak position the Bushies feel themselves to be in. A few months ago, I don't believe they would have given one bit of consideration to such a move.
10016. thoughtful - 9/30/2003 2:45:23 PM
well, let's see. The yellow cake thing they tried to hang on a cia underling, then tenet then everyone was apologizing and finally the dipster stood up and said, since he's pres. he's responsible for everything he says...such moral clarity! And they're still spinning that one with Condi "I don't remember" rice on russert just last sunday.
so the interesting thing will be if it goes up the chain to rove or not.
10017. thoughtful - 9/30/2003 2:52:57 PM
concerned, "1) It's not an important enough issue to officially concern the WH."...
I'm not sure what planet you're on, but it's sure not the one I'm on. The gopers have so lowered the standards of impeachment that anything, anything that smacks of felony necessarily officially concerns the white house.
Even if Novak is busy trying to spin himself out of this one, all that need happen is for one or two of those other reporters to come forward and say, I was contacted by the WH and that will be that.
J@H, most interesting about Rove having done this before. I guess some old dogs don't learn new tricks.
The most interesting thing about this is that it may be enough to turn some of those within the WH to start speaking up about what they know and how this administrtion has really been run.
Just the fact that they have been so busy trying to keep such a tight lid on things suggests they have lots to hide.
10018. jexster - 9/30/2003 3:06:34 PM
George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. His Iraq lies have loomed largest. ...
But Bush's truth-defying crusade for war did not mark a shift for him. Throughout his campaign for the presidency and his years in the White House, Bush has mugged the truth in many other areas to advance his agenda. Lying has been one of the essential tools of his presidency. To call the forty-third President of the United States a prevaricator is not an exercise of opinion, not an inflammatory talk-radio device. Rather, it is backed up by an all-too-extensive record of self-serving falsifications. While politicians are often derided as liars, this charge should be particularly stinging for Bush. During the campaign of 2000, he pitched himself as a candidate who could "restore" honor and integrity to an Oval Office stained by the misdeeds and falsehoods of his predecessor. To brand Bush a liar is to negate what he and his supporters declared was his most basic and most important qualification for the job.
Would You Buy A Used Car from This Man?
The Other Lies of George Bush
by DAVID CORN
adapted from the new book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).
10019. judithathome - 9/30/2003 3:39:23 PM
This just in:
The Republican National Committee announced today that the Republican Party is changing its emblem from an elephant to a condom. Governor Marc Racicot, RNC chairman, explained that the condom more clearly reflects the party's stance today, because a condom accepts inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually getting screwed.
10020. thoughtful - 9/30/2003 3:58:04 PM
Not to mention prone to failure...
10021. robertjayb - 9/30/2003 6:05:43 PM
stolen from josh marshall...
The following notice was sent to all White House employees:
PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office
We were informed last evening (That would be Monday night) by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee.
-----------------------------------
The Department advised us that it will be sending a letter today (that would be this day, Tuesday) instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation. Its letter will provide more specific instructions on the materials in which it is interested, and we will communicate those instructions directly to you.
In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the Department's investigation (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Associate Counsels Ted Ullyot or Raul Yanes in the Counsel to the President's office. The President has directed full cooperation with this investigation.
Very correct, as is expected from such high-class folks.
I would have preferred, "Freeze, Motherfuckers! Don't nobody touch nothing."
Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President
Nothing like a 12-hour heads-up when the fuzz is on the way.
10022. judithathome - 9/30/2003 6:26:47 PM
Robert, did you hear that the Lege may have to split the primaries if they don't get a final decision on the redistricting from the third special session? At a cost of an extra 10 billion?
The grown-ups evidently aren't in charge in Austin any more than they are in Washington.
10023. rdbrewer - 9/30/2003 6:36:44 PM
More Clark weirdness:
I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that mankind can do it."
"I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it.
And then the good news ...
Gary Melnick, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said . . . "Even if Clark becomes president, I doubt it would be within his powers to repeal the powers of physics," . . . .
Thank goodness.
10024. judithathome - 9/30/2003 6:51:30 PM
According to TIME mag:
There are 1.7 million more Americans living in poverty from 2001 to 2002, the second year the number has risen after nearly a decade of decline.
12.1% of American lived in poverty in 2002, up from 11.7% in 2001.
The median household income in 2002 was $42,409, down 1.1% from the previous year.
Also--
OPEC will be cutting production on Nov 1 by 900,000 barrels a day, which will mean that the current average price of $1.64 a gallon will certainly rise.
So let's quit making jokes about what different president might do and concentrate on where this current one has led us thus far.
10025. robertjayb - 9/30/2003 8:43:33 PM
via daily KOS:
Arianna Huffington sent an email to supporters with the following:
Tonight, Arianna will be the first guest on Larry King Live on CNN at 6pm PST / 9pm EST. On this nationally televised TV program, she will discuss how the new and emerging political realities will impact her candidacy and her role in the remaining days of this historic election.
Arianna, baby, say it isn't so...
10026. Al D - 9/30/2003 10:40:04 PM
So OPEC is going to cut production, obviously Bush's fault, just as it was his fault when they cut production back in the '70's. You people are really weird.
This summer I read an article in the Portland paper about the tremendous increse in coho salmon runs in just about every river in Oregon. I wish I could have posted it on the Mote and claimed that since it happened after Bush became President, he must have caused it. But I would have been joking. You people post the same kind of nonsense, and I don't think you're joking.
10027. Al D - 9/30/2003 10:41:50 PM
Ma
The point I'm trying to make here is that Rove and company know exactly who the leakers are.
Very interesting! Could you plese provide me with the evidence for this statement?
10028. Al D - 9/30/2003 10:42:51 PM
plese=please, in fact, pretty please with sugar on it!
10029. wonkers2 - 9/30/2003 10:47:42 PM
Hi, Al. I see you're proofreading tonight! If Judith says it, that's good enough fer me an th Cap'n. We like them long legged Texas gals.
10030. wonkers2 - 9/30/2003 10:49:42 PM
BTW, if I remember correctly, the salmon are dying in Oregon thanks to the Dept of the Interior or Agriculture giving all the water to the farmers. Lake Klamath is drying up or something like that??? Maybe you can set me straight??
10031. Al D - 9/30/2003 10:51:02 PM
The Counsel to the President sends out a memo instructing everyone in the White House not to destroy documents. Liberals conclude that he is warning people to cover up. Sane people conclude that the White House want's honest answers. Of course, an intense hatred of Bush would cause one to believe he could never do any thing honorable.
Honor is an interesting concept. Inlamists believe that killing an adulterous sister or daughter gives the family Honor. Is this a great religion or what.
10032. wonkers2 - 9/30/2003 10:52:46 PM
It works for me. What would you do send her to her room without dessert?
10033. Al D - 9/30/2003 10:57:28 PM
Wonkers2
First of all, the Klamath reservioris at the sounthern end of Oregon and has nothing to do with any salmon runs in Oregon. The Klamath river flows into the Pacific just north of Eureka, Ca. That river has a good salmon and steelhead run and is at times negatively effected by a shortage of water. To what extent this is caused by the farmers use of water in the Klamath basin is arguable. Environmentalist did not want the farmers to get the water in order to protect sucker fish, not salmon and steelhead.
10034. wonkers2 - 9/30/2003 10:58:13 PM
Thanks!
10035. Al D - 9/30/2003 10:59:41 PM
If I had to choose between farmers and salmon, I'll go with the farmers. NOw it is important to preserse cod and halibit; they are good eating. Salmon are fun to catch, but not really too edible.
10036. wonkers2 - 9/30/2003 10:59:43 PM
Frank Quattrone is currently on trial for sending out an email similar to Gonzalez's email. He's being tried for obstructing justice, as I recall.
10037. Al D - 9/30/2003 11:01:38 PM
preserse=preserve
10038. wonkers2 - 9/30/2003 11:03:26 PM
We can agree on something. Cod is my favorite fish. Then comes Lake Michigan perch, sauteed in butter.
10039. rdbrewer - 10/1/2003 12:22:32 AM
Cod is my co-pilot.
Look out for the next generation of voters: Jay Leno just did “Headlines.” One of them was a clipping of a high school kid in California in one of those face-in-the-crowd man-on-the-street type interviews. The kid was asked what he thought about Arnold Schwarzenegger. He said, “I think Arnold would be a good governor because he is a good businessman, and, anyway, in 1968 when he was Mr. Universe he was in charge of the whole universe.”
10040. judithathome - 10/1/2003 12:30:07 AM
Al, I just threw that oil remark in as a caveat...the rest I blame on Bush. I notice you didn't comment on any of the stuff he IS responsible for....
Go over to the Inferno for some cheap wine, my treat.
10041. concerned - 10/1/2003 2:53:38 AM
Novak on the leak 'scandal'
Novak shows that nothing scandalous occurred wrt his column, and the only scandal appears to be a result of those who are lying that the administration was trying to shop this information around. Mrs. Wilson is a CIA analyst, not an undercover agent, and thus had no 'cover' to blow, since the CIA itself has verified over the phone that she is in their employ.
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.
Only contemptuous and desperate partisans would waste their time trying to make this appear to be a scandal.
10042. concerned - 10/1/2003 2:54:17 AM
Dang. I meant to type 'contemptible'.
10043. concerned - 10/1/2003 3:56:39 AM
Davis Panicking, Demands Bustamante Withdraw
Sounds like things are getting tense in the California Democrat Party. I particularly like the way Grayout is trying to screw Bustamante over at the last second.
10044. alistairConnor - 10/1/2003 3:58:38 AM
Well, RDB, everyone's got to believe in something. I mean, GWB believes in God!
Einstein help us. 10045. alistairConnor - 10/1/2003 3:59:35 AM
(commenting on Message # 10023)
10046. concerned - 10/1/2003 4:02:58 AM
What I want to know is why the 'Rats who helped get Robert Torricelli off scot free in the '90's when he did blow the cover of a CIA operative in Guatemala don't shut the fuck up now about Novak?
10047. OhioSTOPAS - 10/1/2003 5:23:56 AM
Yeah, "concerned", somehow those sneaky 'Rats must have gotten control of the House Ethics Committee that cleared Torricelli in 1995.
And the "CIA operative" involved was a Guatamalen military officer (Colonel Julio Roberto Alpirez) whom the CIA paid for information. Colonel Alpirez was allegedly responsible for the murder of an American and other human rights violations in Guatemala.
10048. Magoseph - 10/1/2003 7:54:51 AM
Rather than compounding his problem with tedious and ridiculous attempts to distance himself from this fiasco, Mr. Novak would be well advised to follow the advice of his President and voluntarily disclose the sources of his information. Since the information will be obtained from him anyhow, he gains nothing by the silly ranting and raving reflected in his column of today.
10049. Magoseph - 10/1/2003 8:17:24 AM
It was just announced on CNN that a criminal investigation of the leaks was now under way by the Justice Department. The investigation is being undertaken by career elements--not political appointees of the department. President Bush stated that he wanted to know who the leakers were--that he wanted them out of his administration and he wanted them prosecuted.
I wonder if Mr. Novak has the message yet, it must be quite a dilemma for him. He must know that a civil suit of magnitude is certain to follow and the judgment against him will be astronomical. Considering his love of money which he pronounces on every possible occasion, the torment of coming clean versus holding out in a hopeless cause, has to be unbearable.
Well, Mr. Novak, I must say that you asked for it. I have to admit that seeing an ideologue squirm give a high degree of pleasure.
10050. Magoseph - 10/1/2003 8:20:32 AM
I wonder now if Novak, in an attempt to protect his wealth, will implicate Rove. Most observers do not believe that the leakers would have moved without his knowledge.
10051. Magoseph - 10/1/2003 8:43:56 AM
I think there is another way of looking at this whole scenario of the leaks and speculating as to its consequences. Many people close to Bush have described his character as unforgiving insofar as placing his presidency in jeopardy is concerned. Recall how his buddy Ken Lay was dropped when the Enron scandal broke. I do not believe that Rove has served this president well over the recent past. It would be hard for me to believe that Bush is not in agreement. The problem for Bush was: How do you get rid of Rove without killing your base? Perhaps the opportunity has presented itself. Bush gets rid of the loser at no loss to himself. In fact, he actually becomes Mr. Clean as he accomplishes the dump.
10052. rdbrewer - 10/1/2003 9:44:11 AM
Drudge is reporting Wilson admitted on CNBC he has met with Kerry advisors several times recently. All hail the self-appointed hero! All hail Wilson!
10053. rdbrewer - 10/1/2003 9:51:13 AM
Alistair, #1044, I'm glad you posted the follow-up. Before it scrolled onto my screen, I wasn't picking-up on Einstein-cod link.
Clark needs to learn to watch everything he says. His mouth gets ahead of his brain at times.
10054. judithathome - 10/1/2003 10:08:39 AM
Mrs. Wilson is a CIA analyst, not an undercover agent, and thus had no 'cover' to blow, since the CIA itself has verified over the phone that she is in their employ.
Novak has changed his story so many times in the past week about her job description, I won't be surprised when he downgrades her to office gofer.
10055. judithathome - 10/1/2003 10:14:59 AM
Drudge is reporting Wilson admitted on CNBC he has met with Kerry advisors several times recently. All hail the self-appointed hero! All hail Wilson!
Why shouldn't he meet with Kerry? It's Kerry's opponent who screwed him over. He also said he is meeting with the Democratic Caucus when he was on Nightline last night and that he would gladly meet with the Republican Caucus if they issued an invitation to him to do so.
Seeing as this is, at present, a free country, I would think the man could meet with and give money to anyone he chooses. I don't see you getting into a lather about all the big money corporations meeting with Bush and donating lavishly to his campaigns.
Another thing I don't see is you being embarrassed about your party supporting a buffoon in California rather than a more qualified man for the office of governor. We all know why...it is more important for the party to get elected than for a qualified man to attain office. Seems to be a pattern with y'all.
10056. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 10:18:44 AM
Magoseph--
Novak's immune. The statute refers to people with first-hand knowledge.
It's interesting to finally see concerned disagreeing with the president on an issue, in his opposition to an investigation.
10057. alistairConnor - 10/1/2003 10:20:43 AM
RDB : perhaps you didn't read the quote you truncated, then?
"I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It's my only faith-based initiative." Clark's comment prompted laughter and applause from the gathering.
If that's as weird as he gets, he's OK... other presidents have been on a mission from God... now that is weird.
10058. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 10:28:00 AM
Yeah, this makes twice that they're trying to get him for making jokes and treating them as serious commentary. The poll numbers must be terrifying the VRWC.
In other news, from the The New Republic &C pseudoblog:
Wilson's since said he was being metaphorical, using Rove's name as a placeholder for the leakers. But in an interview this morning with TNR, Wilson brings Rove back into the picture: "About a week after [Bob] Novak's column, I got a call from a reputable member of the Washington press fraternity, who I have no reason to doubt, who said, 'I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, and he said Wilson's wife is fair game.' That doesn't make him the leaker, or the one who authorized the leaks, but certainly he condoned it."
Time will tell.
10059. alistairConnor - 10/1/2003 10:41:51 AM
The Clark candidacy has taught me some interesting things about the US two-party system. Here is a guy who could just as credibly (perhaps more credibly) been a Republican candidate. But he only has to say "I'm a Democrat", and he's a Democrat.
The idea of a military man as candidate, as president, makes me uneasy; but we live in troubled times, after all. And the current president, not a military man by any stretch, has got the military into deep trouble. Indignation over this is, as far as I can see, a major part of Clark's motivation. Clearly, he has a commanding view of what the US military can and can not do, and its role in holding the world together. The damage the current administration is doing is making the whole world a more dangerous place. I wouldn't trust a Clinton, say, or a Carter, to stitch things back together. To this outsider, Clark looks like the man for the job.
10060. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 10:43:19 AM
Before you fall too deeply in love, you should read his book.
10061. judithathome - 10/1/2003 10:52:19 AM
How could he be worse than Bush? And at least he can write a book....and reads them. Heck, he probably even reads the newspapers every day.
10062. Wombat - 10/1/2003 10:53:55 AM
Based on his stated beliefs, former General Colin Powell would be more comfortable as a Democrat.
The record of generals as presidents has been pretty good. Washington (need I say more?), Jackson (indian policies more than offset by stance on nullification, national bank), Harrison (no impact, as he died soon after he was inaugurated), Taylor (little impact), Grant (good intentions, but unsuited to the office), Eisenhower (suitable for the time, more pragmatic than many in his party).
10063. Magoseph - 10/1/2003 10:54:08 AM
Yes, thanks, jayackroyd!
10064. alistairConnor - 10/1/2003 11:21:41 AM
I'm not in love with Clark, and I don't know or care about his domestic policies; but the world has had enough of being jerked around by the US electoral timetable. He surely knows and understands more about the world than any president since (at least) Pa Bush, appears pragmatic, and understands the importance of international co-operation. That makes him the best candidate I know of, from the point of view of the "rest of the world", in any case.
And what is good for the rest of the world is good for America.
10065. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:24:24 AM
Re. 10047 -
IOW, your argument is that because he 'allegedly' was responsible for human rights violations, that made it 'ok' for Torricelli to blow his cover?
Sorry. I don't buy it.
10066. marjoribanks - 10/1/2003 11:26:52 AM
Well, I am not in love with Clark, but I would vote for him over Bush in a heartbeat. The only serious Dem candidate who gives me pause is Dean, and that is because his rhetoric is irritatingly "small America" and that may presage another period of this country sitting on its hands on the international stage.
However, there is the fact that Clark represents no big change from the Bushites on the crucial matter of defense spending. I realize that it is politically verboten to mention (and worry about) the astounding defense spending gap that has the US spending something like as much as the rest of the world combined - but I find that that is the most unsustainable aspect of the country's priorities today.
It would be best for everyone, especially the US, if defense spending starts to be reduced quite dramatically, and the money be reallocated to domestic matters like infrastructure building, alternate energy sources, the environment, education, and even better PR overseas.
But with Clark, despite the fact that he is vastly preferable to Bush, you will not see that at all. And so the defense spending will continue at the alarming, completely out-of-whack, pace that it has established.
That ain't good.
10067. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:29:55 AM
re. 10056 -
What I want to know is who fabricated the lie that 'administration officials' had been attempting to pass along this information to half a dozen media outlets and the lie that Valerie Plame is working as a CIA spy or undercover agent.
Granted, Novak was probably unwise to have disclosed her name in his column, but that hardly amounts to a scandal.
10068. marjoribanks - 10/1/2003 11:33:50 AM
Yes, Clark appears to be pragmatic and a grown up.
--
By the way, on the unsubstantive side, I have another worry besides his unpresidential height.
Clark is Jewish. He would be the first natural born Jew (okay, so he was raised Protestant and converted to Catholicism as a teen) in high office in the US.
Now, we all know the neocon scum are supposedly so very pro-Jewish (remember Pincher "I'm the best friend of the Jews" Martin. But we all know just how shallow and cosmetic that support is, and we also know that the Bush team is perfectly capable of using Clark's heritage as an insinuated slur against him. Plus, I don't care how much the neocons protest, the GOP base's is deeply suspect on this matter.
This will be used before the race picks up for real. You know it, I know it, the only question is whether the American public is ready to dismiss the factor in choosing a President.
Sad to say, I'm not sure.
10069. marjoribanks - 10/1/2003 11:34:53 AM
That should be - in such high office....
10070. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:44:26 AM
...as opposed to the LW's blatant anti-Jewish slurs.
10071. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:46:10 AM
Interesting that I never heard a thing about Clark's heritage in all my forays into RW media.
10072. marjoribanks - 10/1/2003 11:46:12 AM
Moron.
10073. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:47:09 AM
Easy there, marjoribanks.
10074. judithathome - 10/1/2003 11:54:03 AM
Granted, Novak was probably unwise to have disclosed her name in his column, but that hardly amounts to a scandal.
Yes, he was unwise because he bragged about the CIA asking him NOT to and was smuggly pleased to have gone ahead and done it. And he has stated he heard about Wilson's wife from two administration officials. He himself put that out there, Connie.
And it is a scandal because there is enough evidence that something untoward happend to cause the head of the CIA to ask for an investigation into it. If you don't get that, then you need to read more.
10075. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:54:13 AM
Clinton Emissary Said to be Bin Laden Bag Man
How's the saying go: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer yet? But putting them on the State Department payroll is just going too far.
10076. judithathome - 10/1/2003 11:55:31 AM
He is protected, anyhow, as a journalist but the scandal is that someone in the administration TOLD him classified information...it's not that he printed it but that they told.
10077. judithathome - 10/1/2003 11:56:53 AM
Typical...drag out the Clinton stuff to refute the truth about your boy.
10078. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:57:31 AM
Re. 10074 -
Sorry to disapppoint you, JAH, but this already looks like another failed attempt by Democrat Party operatives to fabricate an anti-GWB administration scandal by playing fast and loose with the truth and outright lying. Wilson has already had to retract several assertions he made.
10079. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:59:24 AM
Re. 10076 -
Where did you get the wrongheaded idea that the information was classified? It isn't.
As I have said, the anti-Bush forces have already been caught out in several lies with this one.
10080. marjoribanks - 10/1/2003 12:04:30 PM
Wilson has already had to retract several assertions he made.
Like what? He merely specified his exact allegation about Rove.
I saw him on Nightline yesterday and he said that a reporter called him and said something like - "I just got off the phone with Rove and he said Wilson's wife is fair game".
---
In any case, I wish the media/political system isn't rigged to go careening down alleyways in this manner, while totally ignoring the bigger picture. It's a big mistake, and easy for the American public to dismiss as "politics as usual."
They can pursue this allegation pack-like for weeks, but it's still a huge "if." And "if" the allegations can be dismissed or pinned on some minion (who takes the fall) then the whole effort is for naught, and it's back to business as usual. This WH is particularly good at managing to compartmentalize and kill stuff like this (remember how swiftly the whole Yellowcakegate matter disappeared).
The big picture, the damned scary big picture of an overall fuck-up of immense proportions in Iraq, at the UN, and wrt the economy, is what is important.
10081. concerned - 10/1/2003 12:05:22 PM
Note that I posted 10075 a whole ten seconds after JAH posted 10074. She gives me far too much credit for being a speed reader and demon typist.
10082. marjoribanks - 10/1/2003 12:18:00 PM
Interesting that I never heard a thing about Clark's heritage in all my forays into RW media.
Must have missed this memo from your fellow CSRW.
10083. marjoribanks - 10/1/2003 12:29:33 PM
Finally, it was Brewer (aka concerned-lite) wasn't it who was claiming that all of us are dupes for pointing out the very clear divide/struggle between Rumsfeld's Pentagon and Powell's State Dept?
There is so much overwhelming evidence of this, and the claim was so laughable that it wasn't worth bothering to provide citations.
However, in reading this week's issue of Newsweek, I ran across this article on the very subject.
Naturally concerned-lite will consider Newsweek also to be a dupe, and every other commentator/analyst with a brain as well. No, it's the anti-Clinton poltical genius at the helm in the WH that is manufacturing this very apparent divide for popular consumption. You need an anti-Clinton, see, because Clinton is so very clearly manipulating the entire non-Bush section of the polity.
10084. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 12:42:36 PM
Where did you get the wrongheaded idea that the information was classified? It isn't.
The CIA telling the Justice Department about it, and requesting an investigation is a pretty good indication, wouldn't you say?
10085. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 12:45:34 PM
remember how swiftly the whole Yellowcakegate matter disappeared
In point of fact, it's still going on with this new scandal. And quite directly, too. From the New Republic blog:
The White House counsel is telling the staff to save records about Joseph Wilson (Plame's husband, whom the leak was designed to discredit) dating back to February 2002. That is when the CIA sends Wilson to Niger, where he reports back to the CIA that intelligence reports indicating an attempted uranium purchase from Iraq were highly dubious. And, you'll further recall, that very discredited accusation made it into the president's State of the Union address. When news of Wilson's trip hit the front pages in July, the White House vociferously denied that anyone working there knew at the time about Wilson's trip. As Ari Fleischer said on July 9, "It's known now what was not known by the White House prior to the speech." The CIA responded by saying it communicated its doubts precisely to the Oval Office--which stands to reason, since it was a question from Vice President Dick Cheney about the uranium sale that prompted Wilson's Niger excursion. Now this White House we-had-no-idea line may be about to fall apart. The Justice Department will be collecting all records of White House knowledge of Wilson and his trip starting in February 2002
10086. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 12:48:16 PM
Banks--
Rush is in hotter water than this. He said, on Sunday on ESPN, that Donavan McNabb's press is biased because the NFL is involved with some social engineering, desperate for black quarterbacks.
What a maroon.
10087. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 1:29:46 PM
Talking Points memo has a very interesting interview with Clark. His articulateness and straightforwardness is striking. He doesn't sound like a political candidate. He's like the polar opposite of Bush.
Besides, he says something I've been saying all along:
Well, we don't know why they chose to go to Iraq in the first place. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, but even Paul Wolfowitz admitted that the weapons of mass destruction issue was just the one issue that they could get most consensus on. Meaning, I suppose, that Colin Powell would have had more difficulty arguing against it then, let's say, a visionary scheme to transform the Middle East by playing hopscotch with military forces from country to country. So, that's the first question, is, why did they do it? And secondly is, why then?
So I'm developing an infatuation, I guess.
10088. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 1:31:36 PM
And this administration comes in with an ideology that blocks its ability to see, articulate, and resolve those problems. It's an ideology that's a sharpened sort of right-wing Republican party ideology. It has no real intellectual base to it. It's just the ideology of a party. By intellectual base, I'm talking first, trickle-down economics. No reputable economist stands up and says, "Trickle down economics really works." Because we know the marginal propensity to consume of people who are making $100,000 a year and less is much higher than the marginal propensity to consume of people who are making $350,000 a year and more.
And I've just gotta love a presidential who can use "marginal propensity to consume" correctly in a sentence.
10089. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 1:32:01 PM
"presidential"="presidential candidate"
10090. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 1:32:50 PM
jeez. I feel like jexster. I'll shut up for a while, I promies.
10091. jexster - 10/1/2003 1:36:14 PM
Treason in the name of Bush
The Emperor better get Himself a new press agent:
"Did Karl Rove say 'Wilson's wife is fair game'"
"Blither blither diddle fuck"
McClellan stumbled and bumbled so long that CNN had time to run a caption
McClellan Dodges Question "Did Karl Rove say 'Wilson's wife is fair game'"
Kept trying to slime Wilson for statement backtrack....
Didn't say "hell no Karl ROve had nothing to do with this
I don't know, I am not conducting the investigation...
WANTED: New Imperial Teller of Lies
10092. jexster - 10/1/2003 1:37:03 PM
Oh shit Jay...feelin like me..
You better get your ass to a mental health care professional ASAP
10093. jexster - 10/1/2003 1:39:57 PM
GOP Senators May Defy Bush on Iraq
10094. jexster - 10/1/2003 1:41:34 PM
JAH its an old trick - Kill the messenger- and Republicans are bumbling that one too...
Liars and incompetents..
Lying incompetents..
10095. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 1:45:30 PM
Purge it of pork yes:
But Democrats have criticized spending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq at a time of rising deficits and unmet needs at home. They have targeted specific items in Bush's request, such as $20 million to train Iraqi entrepreneurs in "business fundamentals and concepts" with a four-week course costing $10,000 per pupil, and $82 million to start an Iraqi Coast Guard.
But turning the 20B into loans would be a bad thing. The rebuilding is necessary because of the sanctions as much as by the war. It's certainly the average Iraqi's fault that the country is in the state that it's in.
Find the money somewhere else. Cut some corporate pork. End some agricultural subsidies. Reduce the size of the tax cut for the top brackets.
10096. Wombat - 10/1/2003 1:50:08 PM
The most unsordid thing that Congress could do is separate the Iraqi aid package from the military request, establish a reporting requirement to ensure that the money is used by Iraqis to rebuild Iraq for Iraqis (not for major Republican donor companies to skim profits off of it), and pass it immediately.
The military package can come out of existing defense appropriations.
10097. jexster - 10/1/2003 1:50:35 PM
10098. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 1:52:10 PM
Can't argue with that. The democrats are behaving idiotically. There's plenty of bad news for them to point at. There's no reason to further endanger the possibility of a stable government in Iraq by not funding reconstruction efforts.
10099. jexster - 10/1/2003 1:52:13 PM
Clark! Clark! Clark! I don't see what the big deal is. I was a Vietnam era vet
10100. judithathome - 10/1/2003 1:55:43 PM
Wilson has already had to retract several assertions he made.
So? Bush does that all the time.
10101. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:00:50 PM
"Wilson has already had to retract several assertions he made."
But that's not the issue is it?
That is a collateral attack from the accused who we already know lied about the uranium in SOTU....
"Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information—outside the administration."—Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003
10102. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:01:52 PM
And that last is - incredibly - from the President of the fucking US....
Good God.
10104. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:03:50 PM
The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed: “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid. Never emperor’s clothes were more admired.
“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist.
10105. judithathome - 10/1/2003 2:04:29 PM
He doesn't speak with quite the panache of a Wesley Clark, does he?
10106. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:09:17 PM
He doesn't speak with the panache of my nine year old nephew.
10107. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:45:10 PM
Josh Marshall Interviews the General
10108. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:52:01 PM
Personal values, instilled in the South, nurtured in the military, The General wants to bring to Wahington CNN
I have strong views. I have strong feelings about what's right and what's wrong in the way of policy. I taught economics at West Point, I taught political philosophy. I worked in the South Bronx in 1966 for three or four weeks in the neighborhood youth corps as part of the Johnson administration's anti-poverty program. So I had seen urban poverty. I worked as a counselor at the Little Rock Boys' Club back in the late '50s, early '60s, ended my last staff member position at the Little Rock Boys' Club in 1965, meeting kids from not the most affluent backgrounds. You get a certain feeling for America. And that's the feeling for the America I know. That's the America I want to-you know, I want to give everyone in America equal opportunity, including those people that are like I grew up with.
Be afraid Butt Bois of the Deserter be very afraid
10109. rdbrewer - 10/1/2003 3:08:23 PM
Re: Message # 10083
I never said there wasn't a divide in Bush's administration, MB:
You guys, what Powell is doing -- and what he has done several times for the Bush admin -- is playing the "good cop" in a huge game of "good cop, bad cop." It's done for you guys, and it's working again. Message # 11595 in thread 150
That fault line was placed there for a reason -- so that people like you can lap-up what Powell, who works for Bush, has to say. You are so adherent to the religious dogma that Bush is stupid, you cannot concieve of the possibility that Bush could have purposely emplaced such a plan. Message # 11623 in thread 150
I just did a Google search, and it appears I'm not the only one with the "good cop, bad cop" theory. Here are several results, ranging from Pravda to ABC News. (Not that they're far apart or anything.)
10110. judithathome - 10/1/2003 3:38:58 PM
Nightline Interview With Wilson
...The ambassador, Joseph Wilson, said he plans to give the names of the reporters to the FBI, which is conducting a full-blown investigation of the possible leak.
"I will be revealing the names of everybody who called me and cited White House sources or cited people specifically," Wilson said in an interview with Nightline's Ted Koppel.
Revealing a CIA officer's identity is a felony — but only if the person who leaked it did so knowing that the officer was undercover....
10111. robertjayb - 10/1/2003 3:39:40 PM
Failing Upward: The Whistle-Ass Tradition...(Gene Lyons via bartcop)
Shortly before 9/11, a worldly-wise philosopher on the seacoast of Maine
made me a prediction. "Remember where you heard it," he said. "George W.
Bush will never run for a second term. He'll resign the presidency. It's
his life story: his father's friends get him a job he doesn't deserve,
he screws it up, somebody else takes the blame, he quits, then father's
friends buy him a bigger job he doesn't deserve and he does it all over
again."
It's true the man has always failed upward. Bush even messed up his
cushiest job ever, as Texas Rangers' "owner." In reality, he was like a
glorified Wal-Mart greeter, a minority shareholder playing tycoon in the
box seats.
10112. judithathome - 10/1/2003 4:02:10 PM
Larry Johnson on the PBS Newshour
This not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas could be compromised...
For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...
I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.
I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.
-Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department.
10113. rdbrewer - 10/1/2003 4:02:33 PM
Here's something odd about Plame:
Drudge is reporting that Larry Johnson, former CIA official, said that Plame has been under cover for "three decades." Here.
The Washinton Post is reporting that Plame is 40 years old. Here.
Thus, Plame has been a CIA agent since the age of 10. Must be one of those Spy Kids families. And I thought that stuff was fiction.
10114. rdbrewer - 10/1/2003 4:03:53 PM
Oh, thanks, Judith. You have the whole Larry Johnson quote.
10115. judithathome - 10/1/2003 4:09:10 PM
Maybe she lies about her age. After all, she's lied all her life, right? Says she's an operative when Novak knows she's only a gofer.
Possibly Mr. Johnson misspoke about her time as an agent. I guess that negates everything else he said, too. Unless, of course, he thinks there really are WMDs in Iraq. Then he is an honest man.
10116. Wombat - 10/1/2003 4:19:32 PM
I attended a seminar at which Larry Johnson spoke. Compared to the hysteria that passes for terrorism analysis in government circles these days, he was profoundly sensible, and didn't take himself too seriously.
10117. judithathome - 10/1/2003 4:20:14 PM
Here's a cute cartoon done by a friend of mine.
10118. robertjayb - 10/1/2003 4:27:42 PM
Well, he can't be all bad...
WASHINGTON (AP) --Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Wednesday urged ABC to fire conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh for saying the media wanted Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb to succeed because he is black.
................................
In a letter to ABC president Alex Wallau, Clark said, ``There can be no excuse for such statements. Mr. Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants, but ABC and ESPN have no obligation to sponsor such hateful and ignorant speech. Mr. Limbaugh should be fired immediately.''
10119. robertjayb - 10/1/2003 4:31:03 PM
Seems the general knows how to get some ink.
10120. judithathome - 10/1/2003 4:49:28 PM
The gentleman traitor, Bob Novak, will be on Wolf Blitzer in the next hour on CNN. He's not on Crossfire today.
10121. judithathome - 10/1/2003 4:58:37 PM
RDBrewer:
Here is a thought on the "three decade" comment, from the Atlantic:
This is the third millennium because it's more than 2000 years.
I suspect the same thing here. She started working for them shortly after college, say 22-23, and has worked there for 20-22 years. That would put her age in the mid 40s, but she would also be in her third decade at the CIA.
10122. thoughtful - 10/1/2003 5:05:33 PM
I wonder if some of the confusion around her role has to do with the fact that she had a cover. I thought I read that it was widely known/believed that she was an energy analyst...the secret revealed her role as an agent doing other things. After all, the CIA has a lot of non-agent employees including economists and such that analyze the economies of the countries around the world and so on.
10123. thoughtful - 10/1/2003 5:06:03 PM
#10115 made me smile. very good.
10124. rdbrewer - 10/1/2003 5:17:16 PM
Judith, yeah, maybe. And maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
10125. judithathome - 10/1/2003 5:25:08 PM
Brewer, if she worked in the 80s and the 90s and now the 2000s, she has worked three different decades in the CIA...
Be careful flying over Mongolia.
10126. robertjayb - 10/1/2003 5:50:18 PM
...this is the kind of thing that can get out of hand and unravel the presidency.
Bob Schieffer on CNN...
Oh my goodness...
10127. jexster - 10/1/2003 7:58:22 PM
Some news the White House really didn't want to hear. According to a new Washington Post poll, 69% of Americans think a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the Wilson/Plame matter. How serious is it? A very serious matter (48%), somewhat serious (34%), not too serious (7%), not serious at all (9%).
-- Josh Marshall
10128. wonkers2 - 10/1/2003 8:02:22 PM
E.D., you like to call people racists. May I assume you agree that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat racist liar? (For his comment on NFL quarterback McNabb(?))
10129. jexster - 10/1/2003 8:03:55 PM
I must confess...
I am prejudiced against Big Fat Idiots like Eddie and Rush.
I think their brains are the size of chimpanzees.
10130. jexster - 10/1/2003 8:05:41 PM
's
'What did he know and when did he know it,' just took on a whole new meaning (and difficulty).
From the latest gaggledämmerung ...
QUESTION: Scott, the President's father, as CIA director, when he was dedicating the CIA, said at the time that outing an operative is like one of the most insidious treasons.
10131. jexster - 10/1/2003 8:10:04 PM
QUESTION: Why did the President sit on his hands two-and-a-half-months ago and not ask his staff?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I answered this question very clearly at the time that it came up, and you need to go back and look at what I said then.
QUESTION: But where was the outrage?
10132. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:12:20 PM
I think their brains are the size of chimpanzees.
Doesn't the average male chimpanzee run about 110 lb or so (working from my unreliable memory)?
10133. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:26:48 PM
The Latest in the California gubernatorial drama: Bustamante expected to busta move out of the recall
Sounds like long odds for the Democrats either way. Is California ready for the Governator?
10134. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:28:32 PM
Or, heaven forfend, Grayout Davis somehow hanging on?
10135. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:30:24 PM
Perhaps California Dems figure they'll have more fun kicking Ah-nold around than a beleaguered Grayout.
10136. concerned - 10/1/2003 11:37:45 PM
Btw, even if Bustamante 'withdraws' now, his name will still be on the recall ballots. So, if the Republicans let down their guard and Bustamante still polls highest, well gee, he can change his mind again and accept the governorship.
10137. Al D - 10/2/2003 3:50:56 AM
Ma
I wonder now if Novak, in an attempt to protect his wealth, will implicate Rove. Most observers do not believe that the leakers would have moved without his knowledge.
I was so expecting you to tell me just exactly where the evidense was that Rove was the leaker, or even now that he knows who the leaker was. You don't really care about facts, do you.
10138. wonkers2 - 10/2/2003 8:22:54 AM
From today's Maureen Dowd Op-ed:
"Ms. Plame and Karl Rove attend the same Episcopal Church, and she joked to her husband tht she should just go up to the president's strategist and ask if he really considered her 'fair game' to be outed--a phrase Mr. Wilson says reporters told him Mr. Rove had used.
"At his wife's request, Mr. Wilson has toned down his call to see Mr. Rove 'frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.' But he still holds the man the president calls Boy Genius accountable.
"'The act of leaking my wife's name was clearly a political act,' he says. 'The White house has a political office that's headed by one Karl Rove. That's where I would look. He certainly condoned it.'"
10139. Magoseph - 10/2/2003 8:27:34 AM
The message I receive from the recent flaps concerning Novak and Limbaugh is that the far-Republican right has become a toothless tiger. Their outrageous behavior and statements no longer elicit fear.
Is it possible that their self-destructive lapses flow from an increasing concern that the close election they have predicted could very well mature into a land-slide defeat of Hoover proportions?
10140. wonkers2 - 10/2/2003 8:30:48 AM
It's obvious that by now Bush knows or should who the leaker(s) was. He would be smart to cut his losses and throw them overboard sooner rather than later. Dragging the process out with an Ashcroft/FBI investigation will keep the issue alive until the election, emphasizing what we knew all along--that the Bush administration is the most dishonest since Harding.
10141. rdbrewer - 10/2/2003 9:21:44 AM
It's obvious that by now Bush knows or should who the leaker(s) was.
It's just as obvious Bush flies around the galaxy every night in an Elvis costume.
10142. alistairconnor - 10/2/2003 9:23:25 AM
Bush only knows what they tell him.
10143. rdbrewer - 10/2/2003 9:47:14 AM
Bush only knows what they tell him.
If that's true, there was no scienter on the WMD claim. Looks like you guys owe him an apology.
10144. alistairconnor - 10/2/2003 9:55:04 AM
If he surrounds himself with liars, and repeats their lies in good faith, that doesn't make him a better president than if he's lying on his own account. Quite the contrary.
10145. concerned - 10/2/2003 10:53:23 AM
The message I receive from the recent flaps concerning Novak and Limbaugh is that the far-Republican right has become a toothless tiger. Their outrageous behavior and statements no longer elicit fear.
I should note here that whatever 'fear' they ever may have engendered is pretty much a direct result of decades of demagoguery & scaremongering by anti-capitalist interests & Democrat politicians for their own political gain.
10146. concerned - 10/2/2003 10:55:50 AM
Re. 10144 -
Ironic that you're obsessing about the GWB administration's probity after giving x42, who was impeached for lying & disingenuity a pass.
10147. alistairconnor - 10/2/2003 11:06:31 AM
Lying about blowjobs has very, very little geostrategic impact, in itself. Lying about Saddam's WMD...
The rest of the world had a good chuckle about Clinton's sexual misdemeanours, and moved on. And was pretty puzzled about America's obsession with it.
10148. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 11:10:32 AM
Is Arnold a serial groper? (LATimes)
Six women who came into contact with Arnold Schwarzenegger on movie sets, in studio offices and in other settings over the last three decades say he touched them in a sexual manner without their consent.
In interviews with The Times, three of the women described their surprise and discomfort when Schwarzenegger grabbed their breasts. A fourth said he reached under her skirt and gripped her buttocks.
10149. concerned - 10/2/2003 11:26:10 AM
Re. 10147 -
If you imagine that Xlowntoon's prevarication was in any way limited to that, you are sadly uninformed.
10150. concerned - 10/2/2003 11:30:00 AM
Re. 10148 -
I had a good laugh at the LATimes' hypocritical handwringing over 'whether' to spew their slime. The only thing they were concerned about was how to time it to maximize damage to Schwarzenegger's recall chances.
10151. concerned - 10/2/2003 11:30:02 AM
Re. 10148 -
I had a good laugh at the LATimes' hypocritical handwringing over 'whether' to spew their slime. The only thing they were concerned about was how to time it to maximize damage to Schwarzenegger's recall chances.
10152. concerned - 10/2/2003 11:30:40 AM
Sorry about double post. I clicked once, waited ten seconds & nothing happened. So, hey, click it again.
10153. Magoseph - 10/2/2003 1:05:04 PM
Sorry about double post. I clicked once, waited ten seconds & nothing happened. So, hey, click it again.
Double post? No, you mean double standard, I think.
10154. rdbrewer - 10/2/2003 1:15:11 PM
Concerned, by publishing the claims this late, there is no way to counter them before the election. Hence, Arnold's apology about completely unsubstantiated claims. No other way to limit the damage.
10155. rdbrewer - 10/2/2003 1:18:28 PM
At least with Chirac's non consentual touching we have a photo.
10156. judithathome - 10/2/2003 1:23:20 PM
> Hence, Arnold's apology about completely unsubstantiated claims.
What do you mean, unsubstatiated? Women have come forward. And besides, this was "widely known" in the press. (Remeber that? Just yesterday it was an excuse for Novak.) There have been stories about his antics for years. A TV reporter outed his groping of her just last year.
10157. jexster - 10/2/2003 1:24:00 PM
I am glad Miss Laura the Librarian finally got some sex.
But have you found Bush's Big Strategery yet?
Maybe Eddie's found that "adult foreign policy" of his
NK Turning Plutonium into Bombs
No.
HOw about some WMD in Iraq. Find any of those?
Bush Seeks $600 Million to Look for WMD's
10158. jexster - 10/2/2003 1:29:19 PM
Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday.
The poll, taken after the Justice Department announced that it had opened a criminal probe into the matter, pointed to several troubling signs for the White House as Bush aides decide how to contain the damage. The survey found that 81 percent of Americans considered the matter serious, while 72 percent thought it likely that someone in the White House leaked the agent's name.
Confronted with little public support for the White House view that the investigation should be handled by the Justice Department, Bush aides began yesterday to adjust their response to the expanding probe.
Hunkerin Down in the Fuerher Bunker
10159. Magoseph - 10/2/2003 1:31:31 PM
CNN CROSSFIRE: TODAY’S POLITICAL HEADLINES:
* Poll: 82% say leak of CIA agent's identity serious
* Schwarzenegger apologizes for bad behavior to women in past
* Clark not yet registered Democrat, paperwork on desk
10160. jexster - 10/2/2003 1:32:04 PM
Treason in the name of a Moron
On Saturday, a senior administration official told The Washington Post that before Novak's column appeared, two top White House officials called at least six journalists and disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife. The senior administration official said the leak was "meant purely and simply for revenge." Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to examine the nuclear claims.
10161. jexster - 10/2/2003 1:40:39 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 Deep political ties between top White House aides and Attorney General John Ashcroft have put him into a delicate position as the Justice Department begins a full investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer.
Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, whose possible role in the case has raised questions, was a paid consultant to three of Mr. Ashcroft's campaigns in Missouri, twice for governor and for United States senator, in the 1980's and 1990's, an associate of Mr. Rove said on Wednesday.
Mr. Ashcroft "Did Karl Rove say 'Wilson's Wife is Fair Game'?"
10162. jexster - 10/2/2003 2:01:25 PM
Treason for a Moron: Inquiry Likely to Expand to Other Bush Agencies
10163. jexster - 10/2/2003 2:05:28 PM
TD this Bud's for you...
Six Women Claim Arnold Groped and Humiliated Them
McClintock must be right....AS really is a closet Clintonista
10164. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 2:30:13 PM
He did a bad, bad thing...But he was just playing...
SAN DIEGO -- AP -- Gubernatorial front-runner Arnold Schwarzenegger acknowledged that he has "behaved badly" to women and offered an apology Thursday.
10165. jexster - 10/2/2003 2:42:32 PM
"[W]e've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them, and I want to know who the leakers are."—Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003
Good God.
No wonder we're fucked
10166. judithathome - 10/2/2003 2:44:10 PM
Arnold didn't need to apologize. The Republicans only object when the other party engages in that type of behavior.
10167. jexster - 10/2/2003 2:52:19 PM
The General Rips The Deserter a New Asshole In
10168. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 3:01:33 PM
There must be 50 ways to leave, Bob. Just Go.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The spokesman for Democrat Bob Graham's presidential campaign resigned Thursday as his staff considered how to save his lagging candidacy.
Jamal Simmons told Graham and his wife, Adele, he was leaving as other key staff met at Graham headquarters in Miami Lakes, Fla., to discuss how -- or whether -- to proceed with the campaign.
Graham, a senator who is one of the most popular leaders in his home state of Florida, has struggled near the bottom of the 10-way Democratic presidential primary. He trails most of his rivals in fund raising and polls, and some advisers want him to quit the race.
10169. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:09:46 PM
Re. 10166 -
Xlowntoon never apologized for his wrongdoing. First, he would resolutely deny that anything untoward happened. Then he would task his minions to spread slimy innuendo and rumors about his accusers as well as threaten them, have them audited, fired from their jobs, etc.
Then, if they persisted despite all of that, and actually produced proof (as has happened on several occasions), the WH Rapist would begin prevaricating and playing semantic games with words like 'is' and 'sex' and try to manipulate national policy to divert public attention from his shameful performances.
Then, when this pathetic excuse for a human being, despite all his coercion, manipulation, threats and lies, really got his tits in a wringer, he finally lied himself into an impeachment.
It's a matter of record, JAH. Only the Democrats could dredge a pustulent chunk of spew like Xlowntoon from out of their septic pit of political 'talent'.
10170. Wombat - 10/2/2003 3:16:20 PM
Sounds a bit like the Bush Administration. Hopefully Bush will resign before he gets impeached. The main difference is that Bush is not articulate enough to attempt to lie. That's what his staff is for. And of course the potential level of wrongdoing from the Bush Administration is much, much greater; as it has already involved the deaths of several hundred US soldiers and thousands of others.
10171. judithathome - 10/2/2003 3:18:46 PM
Oh grow up. Arnold is no better and neither is Newt and neither are all the Republicans who are engaged in extra marital affairs and there are plenty, just as there are plenty of Democrats who do so.
I'm commenting on the fact that you guys think it is hunky dorey for your people to do it but the Dems that do it are labelled scum of the earth.
Sauce for the goose, Connie...it's either bad for all or not. It can't be okay for Arnold but not okay for Clinton. Not in the real world, anyhow.
10172. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:21:16 PM
Hopefully Bush will resign before he gets impeached.
Don't hold your breath waiting for either to happen, Wombat.
10173. jexster - 10/2/2003 3:22:33 PM
Some of Washington's top Republican lobbyists are counting on ties to the Bush administration, the congressional leadership and the Iraqi provisional government to turn the embattled country into a major new profit center.
"It's like a huge pot of honey that's attracting a lot of flies," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Bush Lies, GOP Get Rich
There's your strategery Eddie
10174. judithathome - 10/2/2003 3:25:24 PM
Don't hold your breath waiting for either to happen, Wombat.
Why not? He's quit every other job his daddy got him.
10175. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:28:44 PM
Re. 10171 -
I see JAH has just nominated herself as Kommandant des Konzentrationslagers for the Hollywood Pollyanna SS.
The guy just went public at the first opportunity, hat in hand so to speak, to make a formal apology and promise to make up for something he hasn't done for years.
What do you want from Schwarzenegger, JAH? Blood? It sure the hell looks like it.
10176. judithathome - 10/2/2003 3:38:45 PM
I want nothing more from him but that he go back to doing what he does best...making tons of money from starring in ridiculously bad movies.
If you think he is great fodder for public office, be my guest. I think he's a buffoon and ill equipped to run a state as complex as California but then, you guys are used to it by now...since the nation is being run by one, too.
10177. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:40:05 PM
Well, then. What do you think? Keep Gray Davis?
....snicker.....
10178. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:46:27 PM
I'm not sure even Left Coast voters are so enamored of Davis trying to make a scapegoat out of Enron for all of California's energy troubles when that corporation only supplied 4 percent of it.
10179. judithathome - 10/2/2003 3:52:15 PM
Sure, they should keep Gray Davis. They elected him...twice...let them pay the piper.
We have to do that with presidents; why not governors?
10180. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:52:40 PM
Of course, California is such a basket case that it might still go to hell even with a Republican governor.
10181. judithathome - 10/2/2003 3:56:22 PM
I'm sure it will. We have a perfect example in Washington, DC.
10182. concerned - 10/2/2003 4:03:42 PM
Uh, JAH.... Washington DC Mayor Anthony A. Williams is a Democrat.
10183. judithathome - 10/2/2003 4:10:22 PM
I'm talking about the White House.
10184. judithathome - 10/2/2003 4:26:50 PM
From Robert's linked article above:
The six women quoted by the Los Angeles Times accused Schwarzenegger of either grabbing their breasts or making other lewd advances in alleged incidents on movie sets and other places between 1975 and 2000.
In another article I read, it said incidents happened in 1999 and 2000. This wasn't thirty years ago. It was recent enough that one could question whether this guy has any ethics at all. Maybe if it all happened in the 70s, you could cut him some slack but 3 years ago?
10185. Absensia - 10/2/2003 4:37:25 PM
Hi Judith!
Yeah tres seeedy!
10186. judithathome - 10/2/2003 4:40:40 PM
Hey, Abs!
Well, seediness never deterred a Republican.
10187. KuligintheHooligan - 10/2/2003 4:45:20 PM
"It can't be okay for Arnold but not okay for Clinton. Not in the real world, anyhow."
But that is EXACTLY how the real world works, judith. Exactly. Constant double standards. But I agree with you in principle.
I think Arnold should have just come out initially and said, "You know, that was a quarter of a century ago, and I have changed. My wife and I talked about this even while we were dating, and she believed me to be a changed man."
Problem would have been solved.
10188. concerned - 10/2/2003 4:52:04 PM
No one can honestly compare any mistreatment by Schwarzenegger of women to the premeditated assaults and rapes perpetrated by the WH Rapist.
10189. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 5:15:31 PM
concerned, my good friend, you should go to rightwingobsessions.com and check out a new one. Your Clinton model is getting more than a bit threadbare.
10190. judithathome - 10/2/2003 5:17:47 PM
"You know, that was a quarter of a century ago, and I have changed.
But groping in 1999 and 2000 isn't a quarter of a century ago, KtH. It is recent behavior. Behavior of a married man.
10191. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 5:25:55 PM
No heavy lifting required...(Jimmy Breslin on Arnold)
10192. arkymalarky - 10/2/2003 5:58:29 PM
I want to know what other people's impressions are of Maria Shriver--before I trot out my own. ;-)
10193. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 6:08:08 PM
I must admit that I am so put off by her appearance that I don't know what she represents (other than Arnold) or even for sure what she does. I think she appears on one of the gossipy TV news shows. No opinion other than she looks spooky.
10194. concerned - 10/2/2003 6:27:29 PM
A spooky Democrat - and it's the season for it, too!
10195. Absensia - 10/2/2003 6:43:48 PM
She seems a typical Kennedy woman, sadly.
10196. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:05:54 PM
How the Bush administration's propaganda machine -- with the help of Roger Ailes' Fox News -- distorts the truth in the Middle East and at home
10197. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:06:45 PM
Caught on Tape: Rush Limbaugh implicated in Black Market Drug Ring
10198. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:07:51 PM
When did Arnold stop beating Maria Shriver?
10199. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:08:44 PM
CNN: Arnold "The Gropinator" Schwarzenegger
10200. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 7:10:19 PM
Leave No Child Behind...The Texas Experience...(Molly Ivins & Lou Dubose)
Arky, keep your paper bags handy...
As full-time residents of the state that gave you tort reform, H. Ross Perot, and penis-enlargement options on executive health plans, we're obliged to warn you that if Dubya Bush had exported "the Texas Miracle," the country would be in deep shit. In public education there was no Texas miracle. The last Lone Star miracle we know of was the time the face of Jesus appeared on a screen door in Port Neches, and that's been more than thirty years.
10201. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:18:26 PM
MSNBC'S Buchanan & Press scored a major scoop on Wednesday, all but unmasking the high government official who 'outed' [Valerie Plame]. Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst who worked with Plame...all but identified 'Scooter' Libby as the government official who outed her - and at least one other in the Vice President's office. Who is 'Scooter' Libby? He's the nexus of the neocon network in Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and assistant to the President, whose office is the operational nerve center of the War Party. It is Libby and Cheney who made repeated trips to the CIA, pressuring them to accept tall tales of Al Qaeda connections and assorted 'weapons of mass destruction' supposedly lurking in Baghdad... Pressed by Pat Buchanan to name the leaker, Johnson refused to deny it was Libby; he furthermore stated that the perpetrator was no stranger to 'scandal.'"
Former CIA Agent Names 'Scooter' Libby, as Leaker
10202. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 7:22:20 PM
CBS News--NYTimes poll...
(CBS) President George W. Bush's approval ratings are now back to where they were before their post-9/11 meteoric increases. His overall approval rating and his rating on handling the economy are near the lowest marks of his presidency, and his rating on handling foreign policy is lower than ever before.
In addition to the declining overall job approval rating, confidence in the President's ability to handle the two major issues dominating his presidency -- the economy and international crises - has fallen, and is now more negative than positive.
10203. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:22:27 PM
NyT: Rove Leads Attack on Wilson in 'Slime and Defend' Conspiracy
Even as Karl Rove is accused of treason, he is still in charge of the White House attack strategy. "The White House [i.e. Karl Rove] encouraged Republicans to portray the former diplomat at the center of the case, Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a partisan Democrat with an agenda and the
Democratic Party as scandalmongering. At the same time, the administration and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill worked to ensure that no Republicans in Congress break ranks and call for an independent inquiry outside the direct control of the Justice Department. 'It's slime and defend,' said one Republican aide on Capitol Hill, describing the White House's effort to raise questions about Mr. Wilson's motivations and its simultaneous effort to shore up support in the Republican ranks."
PS - I am NOT nor have I ever been a republican aide on Capitol Hill
10204. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:28:30 PM
Yes Robert, Our Long National Coma may mow be over
10205. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:29:45 PM
10206. arkymalarky - 10/2/2003 7:41:55 PM
Robert,
I had the same feeling, but never knew much about her. I always thought she looked unhealthily, skeletally thin.
Of course I look unhealthily unthin, I'm sure.
10207. arkymalarky - 10/2/2003 7:43:02 PM
Y'know, I sorta thought I had a bad day today. I woke up early and my students were kind of irritating (nothing major, just little things) and my work computer is acting up and I'm a bit overloaded and stressed.
Then I read about Rush Limbaugh's day.
I feel like such a whiner.
10208. arkymalarky - 10/2/2003 7:45:45 PM
Robert,
Thanks for the article. Another item for my collection. Our governor was going on about how much he supported Bush the other day. We are really bad educationally about picking up whatever the latest bad ed fad is, and we've been doing the same with the Texas non-miracle.
10209. arkymalarky - 10/2/2003 7:46:56 PM
Abs, that thought occurred to me too. Long-suffering, or something.
I think Caroline Kennedy's great, though.
10210. jexster - 10/2/2003 8:25:12 PM
KTVU Channel 2 Poll now showing support for recall slipping.
I haven't heard one debate. Haven't read 50% of newspaper coverge but I also haveen't heard any candidate propose any specific solution for the budget crisis that supposedly prompted the recall....In fact, this Entertainment Tonight campaign has been about Arnold's adoring teenage fans, Jay Leno and whose ahead in the polls.
As the LA Times put it. On 10/8 when the laughter stops, Californians will realize that the joke has been on them.
10211. jexster - 10/2/2003 8:54:53 PM
10212. jexster - 10/2/2003 9:03:46 PM
Matt Drudge, GOP scourge?
The online enemy of the Clinton White House has found a new target: The bumbling Bush administration
10213. arkymalarky - 10/2/2003 9:27:15 PM
I finished that article on Texas ed and it is really scary. It's exactly what's beginning to happen here and what is being further pushed in the guise of improving education for disadvantaged students. Bigger schools have been doing this a while, and the plan to merge small ones at the high school level will ensure that no poor kid will be left behind for a chance at a decent traditional education. They talk about how awful poor rural schools are doing without even considering that poor large ones are doing worse and at higher cost to the state.
I think I'm going to be ill.
10214. jexster - 10/2/2003 9:32:02 PM
Just saw a piece on CBS Evening News.
40 states now have "pay-to-play" school extracurriculars with some reporting a 50% reduction due to state and federal school funding cuts since 2001.
California, 30 Billion deficit and all, refuses maintaining that it would violate our gaurantee of free public education for all
Pay to Play - brought to you by GWB
10215. jexster - 10/2/2003 9:32:49 PM
But donn vury Ahhhnold "I put chilren furst" will take care of that little problem.
10216. Absensia - 10/2/2003 10:10:45 PM
Arky, I like Caroline Kennedy too. She's not that kind of Kennedy woman. She doesn't become a stand-up cardboard cutout to stand by her man who runs for office.
10217. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 11:35:17 PM
General's guns blazing...
WASHINGTON (AP) --Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, in his harshest criticism yet of the Bush administration, said the White House has relied on twisted facts and demonized its critics to pursue war with Iraq.
In remarks prepared for delivery Friday, Clark said the administration's handling of foreign policy has put Americans in danger and may be criminal. He called for an independent review of the administration's ``possible manipulation of intelligence,'' including information used to justify war with Iraq and the possible leak of the name of a covert CIA agent.
``Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a case for war based on false claims,'' he said in remarks prepared for delivery to a group of military reporters and editors. ``We need to know if we were intentionally deceived.''
10218. wonkers2 - 10/2/2003 11:46:24 PM
As I've been saying for months, Bush should be impeached. He's a liar and incompetent.
10219. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 11:46:34 PM
Stupid Republican Tricks...
WASHINGTON (AP) --Missouri Republican Sen. Kit Bond on Thursday fired his communications director for running a political Web site named for the tail number of a plane that crashed in 2000, killing the state's Democratic governor.
``The actions of a member of my staff in using official computers to make hurtful personal attacks on public servants were totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated,'' Bond said in a statement issued Thursday.
................................
The site's title -- N8354N --``is not random,'' a note on the Web site read. ``It marks an inflection point in current Missouri politics. On that day, the worm began to turn.'' Content was removed from the site early Thursday morning.
10220. Al D - 10/3/2003 12:05:22 AM
Arnold didn't need to apologize. The Republicans only object when the other party engages in that type of behavior.
But just the opposite is true. Who was the Senator from Oregon who got kicked out for groping women who worked for him? And Newt's behavior got him out of politics.
Then there was the congressman who was going to be speaker until it was discovered he had had an affair and he was out.
Judith, you are claiming a recent case of sexual harassment by Arnold. Can you give a cite for this? It seems that what the L.A. times had goes back some 20 or more years.
I guess it does seem odd that such things would happen in Hollywood. Then again, Polanski seems to be a big hero down there.
Maybe there should be a thread that discusses at how young an age it is O.K. to have sex with an adult.
10221. Al D - 10/3/2003 12:21:36 AM
We have had many arguments about Liberal bias in the media, some think so, some think no. About about Liberal bias at the L.A. Times? They've had this story for 7 weeks, at least that is what is being said. Are they trying to affect the election? Is that the role of the front page of a major newspaper?
10222. concerned - 10/3/2003 12:56:34 AM
As I've been saying for months, Bush should be impeached. He's a liar and incompetent.
And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if you are still saying it five years from now, too:)
10223. wonkers2 - 10/3/2003 6:59:08 AM
NOt a chance. Bush is dead meat!
10224. judithathome - 10/3/2003 9:10:04 AM
Al D, I didn't link this in yesterday because Robert had linked another site on the same story but here is the cite for the 1999 and 2000 incidents:
Arnold Gropes Recently
According to the women's accounts, one of the incidents occurred in the 1970s, two in the 1980s, two in the 1990s and one in 2000
10225. judithathome - 10/3/2003 9:12:23 AM
And yes, Polanski is a pedophile but he isn't running for governor of California.
10226. judithathome - 10/3/2003 10:13:25 AM
John Dean has some interesting things to add to the mix in today's Salon; you can read the entire piece by clicking on the free day pass and watching a short ad. It's very much worth it.
More Vicious Than Tricky Dick
John Dean says the Bush team's leaks are even viler than his former boss's -- and that Plame and Wilson should file a civil suit.
I thought I had seen political dirty tricks as foul as they could get, but I was wrong. In blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame to take political revenge on her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth, Bush's people have out-Nixoned Nixon's people. And my former colleagues were not amateurs by any means.
10227. judithathome - 10/3/2003 11:35:29 AM
From the Daily Mislead:
PRESIDENT BUSH'S TAX CUTS STILL NOT DELIVERING JOBS AS PROMISED
The President's claim that, "Tax relief is stimulating job creation all across the country," is not borne out by new unemployment figures released this morning, which showed the unemployment rate stayed flat at 6.1%.
The administration predicted its Jobs and Growth package would create an average of 344,000 new jobs per month. The net gain of 57,000 jobs was 287,000 jobs short of the administration's prediction. The jobs picture for many long-term unemployed continues to remain bleak, with 2.1 million workers now counted among those who have been seeking work for more than six consecutive months -- over 23% of all unemployed workers.
10228. jexster - 10/3/2003 11:36:26 AM
On July 14, Robert Novak published the now-famous column in which he identified Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a C.I.A. "operative on weapons of mass destruction," and said "two senior administration officials" had told him that she was responsible for her husband's mission to Niger. On that mission, Mr. Wilson concluded — correctly — that reports of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were bogus.
An outraged President Bush immediately demanded the names of those responsible for exposing Ms. Plame. He repeated his father's statement that "those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources" are "the most insidious of traitors." There are limits to politics, Mr. Bush declared; Mr. Wilson's decision to go public about his mission had embarrassed him, but that was no excuse for actions that were both felonious and unpatriotic.
Everything in the previous paragraph is, of course, false
the true test of patriotism isn't whether you are willing to wave the flag, or agree with whatever the president says. It's whether you are willing to take risks and make sacrifices, including political sacrifices, for the sake of your country. This episode is a test for Mr. Bush and his inner circle: a true patriot wouldn't hesitate about doing the right thing in the Plame affair, whatever the political costs.
Slime & Defend
10229. jexster - 10/3/2003 12:06:33 PM
A measure of just how desperate Bush has become.
A matter of days since meeting with the Soul Man
Russia and France Slam Bush's UN Plan
They're lining up to take a piece out of that sleazeball's behine
10230. jexster - 10/3/2003 12:08:41 PM
Anyone catch the CNN rerun of Arnold's 2000 interview with one of his gropees?
The lust on his face as he talked about her delts...practically drooling...
THAT was no liberal media consipiracy Al.
That dog was in heat
10231. concerned - 10/3/2003 3:14:25 PM
Ran this little item from the German Yahoo through Babelfish:
Friday 3 October 2003, 19:12 o'clock magazine: Schwarzenegger blew up 1964 in Graz neo-Nazi marching-up (AFP) According to a Jewish magazine Arnold Schwarzenegger helped as a young person to blow up a marching-up of neo-Nazis in its Austrian homeland. As the magazine "NU" reported in its expenditure for September, the 17-jaehrige Schwarzenegger helped anti-fascists at that time to disturb a demonstration from neo-Nazis to. Schwarzenegger proceeded 1964 as Bodybuilder as well as other strong young in Graz against rights, said the 80-year old Alfred Gerstl the magazine. Gerstl, once for the conservative ones in Austria actively, knows Schwarzenegger according to own data from the time, when this was a friend of his son Karl.
Basically, Schwarzenegger, along with anti-fascist associates, heckled a neo-Nazi march in Austria when he was 17. Kinda shows what Arnold really thought of the Nazis.
10232. wonkers2 - 10/3/2003 3:23:57 PM
I agree that whatever Arnold said about Hitler 30 years ago is irrelevant to the election next week. However, I would not say the same about his disrespect of women. I'm content to let California women and men make up their minds on that. I am willing to assume he has learned a lesson and would keep his promise to become "a champion of women."
[But I would still support Davis and Bustamante for reasons unrelated to the above issues.]
10233. concerned - 10/3/2003 3:34:08 PM
In related news, I'm reading that there're 'signs' that Bustamante is shutting down his campaign which is causing some conservatives to consider ditching Arnold for Tom amidst fears that Gray might try a last second power play.
Stay tuned. The recall rollercoaster is just getting up a head of steam.
10234. jexster - 10/3/2003 3:40:48 PM
Arnold's Hero
10235. jexster - 10/3/2003 3:43:51 PM
But Wonk, you only need half a brain, two eyes, two ears.
His TV commercials are enough reason to vote No on the recall.
I have never heard such a vapid collection of simple slogans.
I sign pay checks
I love California
I love children
I represent all the people
Bipartisanship always
10236. jexster - 10/3/2003 3:45:24 PM
You can't take his past sexual batteries seriously
You can't take his past Hitler Love seriously
You can't take HIM seriously
10237. concerned - 10/3/2003 3:46:40 PM
jexster -
He's catering to the LW ADD attention span, doncha know.
10238. KuligintheHooligan - 10/3/2003 3:47:05 PM
"And yes, Polanski is a pedophile but he isn't running for governor of California."
My disallusionment with California politics, alas, grows even greater.
10239. judithathome - 10/3/2003 3:49:19 PM
KtH, why? He lives in France!
10240. concerned - 10/3/2003 3:50:42 PM
Too bad for jex's pinched little brain that George Butler himself denies that Arnold ever said he admired Hitler.
Jexster has just committed himself to the untenable position that Hitler was a shitty public speakeer.
10241. jexster - 10/3/2003 3:52:31 PM
Don't get me wrong. I admire him too :)
I liked the WH Rapist too.
I think we need one in Sackammena
10242. jexster - 10/3/2003 3:53:11 PM
White House facing revolt within GOP
Die Fahne hoc..
10243. KuligintheHooligan - 10/3/2003 3:54:19 PM
Judith, you are missing my sarcasm today. And coming from you, that must mean you are having a bad day! :-)
I would EXPECT California to want a paedophile for Governor. Well, that doesn't sound quite right, but with a porn star, Mr. Husler, and others running, why not a paedophile?? My comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
10244. jexster - 10/3/2003 3:54:33 PM
But most of all TD, I think you are a rank hypocrite
10245. concerned - 10/3/2003 4:00:02 PM
jexster - speak for yourself.
10246. judithathome - 10/3/2003 4:10:46 PM
I caught that, KtH but not until after I responded.
However, I was thinking you might rather have him in France so you could dis them for tolerating him...anyhow, never mind. I see it fell flat.
10247. KuligintheHooligan - 10/3/2003 4:12:55 PM
I am always available for any France dissing!
10248. Magoseph - 10/3/2003 4:22:02 PM
Kuli would never dis France, Juds. The man is just too classy, you know that.
10249. judithathome - 10/3/2003 4:24:19 PM
Well, Magos, evidently I know him better than you do...see the post above yours. ;-)
10250. KuligintheHooligan - 10/3/2003 4:29:05 PM
I can recognize pure sarcasm when I see it, especially when it is at my expense! :-)
10251. judithathome - 10/3/2003 4:34:26 PM
I think all three of us have reached dangerous levels on the sarcasm scale in the last few posts. We may need time in a decompression chamber soon.
10252. Magoseph - 10/3/2003 4:41:47 PM
I am always available for any France dissing!
Oh, that's just answering you in kind, Juds.
10253. jexster - 10/3/2003 6:13:31 PM
The General Calls Out the Deserter, the Bloody Bungling Butcher of BagHdad
ARLINGTON, Va. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark called on Friday for an independent probe of the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the Iraq war, calling it "twisted" and possibly criminal.
The retired four-star Army general and NATO commander who entered the 2004 White House race two weeks ago amid a flood of publicity and instantly rose among the leaders in some polls, said the American public needed to know if it was "intentionally deceived."
10254. jexster - 10/3/2003 6:15:19 PM
Modest Proposal
by Werther*
6. Appoint a special prosecutor. Armed with plenary powers of subpoena, this bulldog would comb the documents of the Defense Department, the White House, the Energy Task Force, and other agencies for any evidence that our elected public officials violated 18 U.S.C. 1001 (making false statements to Congress), 18 U.S.C. 371 (the broad anti-conspiracy statute that would apply in the case of provoking a war), or any other statute or Constitutional provision that may have been violated in prosecuting a pre-emptive war on false pretenses. Faced with prolonged hospitality at Allenwood, some of the Thors and Wotans who rule over us might be induced to practice a refreshing candor, for once.
* Werther is the pen name of a defense analyst based in Northern Virginia
10255. arkymalarky - 10/3/2003 6:30:33 PM
The Democrat ran a completely idiotic editorial equating the call for an independent counsel in this case with the one called to find out Clinton's personal activities, saying the same ones who complained during the Clinton administration are hollering for one now.
I can't believe the editorial staff of that rag is too stupid to note the difference between Oval Office rendezvous and outing a CIA operative. Talk about moral equivalency.
10256. concerned - 10/3/2003 6:36:12 PM
Hey, jexster -
Hold out your hand. I can't make it to the litter box.
10257. concerned - 10/3/2003 6:58:17 PM
*S-P-L-O-R-T*
Now, don't say I never gave you anything.
10258. jexster - 10/3/2003 6:58:54 PM
Kay No Longer Sure Trailers Were Labs
You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on
--George W. Bush
Press Briefing
5/30/2003
10259. concerned - 10/3/2003 7:01:29 PM
Kay sees nuzzink, knows nuzzink.
10260. concerned - 10/3/2003 7:21:55 PM
From JNN (Jexster News Network) 10/03/03:
Dems Split As To Whether Bush or Schwarzenegger is the AntiChrist
Washington (Friday, October 3rd) – A major rift opened in the Democratic Party over the weekend as sharp divisions emerged over whether President George W. Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger was in fact the Antichrist.
The allegations of Republican Antichristness first surfaced in an NPR interview between Bob Edwards and Terry McAuliffe aired on Friday morning. When asked if David Kaye’s interim report on Iraqi WMDs failed to support Bush’s contention that the threat from Iraq was imminent and negated Bush’s claims that Saddam personally visited Niger to purchase yellowcake, McAuliffe replied “Bob, it’s clear that the Bush Administration is no longer content to be just an unelected despotic regime intent on undoing the work of the Clinton Administration – they are now clearly doing the devil’s work and Bush has the mark of the beast on him.”
A poll released an hour later by Newsweek showed that, in a poll of 500 people who were too stupid to get caller ID, 34 percent of Americans did believe that Bush was the Antichrist, with 20 percent of those agreeing once they were told who the Antichrist was and that all Republicans were evil.
That evening at a campaign rally before a gay rights group, Gray Davis pointed to the poll results as proof that an “unholy alliance of religious conservatives and agents of Satan” was behind the recall effort, and that “Arnold Schwarzenegger is the true Antichrist.”
The LA Times the next morning reported on page one that six unnamed actors who had worked with Schwarzenegger over the last thirty years claimed that Arnold had committed animal sacrifices in his dressing room and a grip from the set of End of Days said that Schwarzenegger enjoyed the sequence where the devil enters his body a bit too much.
10261. concerned - 10/3/2003 7:22:07 PM
On the Sunday talk show circuit, a split emerged as the Davis camp, responding to polls showing people returning early from vacations to vote in favor of the recall, pressed their case that Schwarzenegger was the Antichrist. On Meet the Press, Gray Davis, when asked by Tim Russert for proof, stated that “After all, the Book of Revelations says that as soon as the devil found himself thrown down to the earth, he set off in pursuit of the woman, the mother of the male child – looks like Arnold’s been doing just that. And for crying out loud, the guy drives a Hummer and is proud of it – what could be more evil than that?”
But Senator Hillary Clinton, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, insisted that George W. Bush was the true Antichrist. “Womanizing is no clear indication that someone is the Antichrist. And we’ve all seen pictures of Arnold naked and I, um, you know, didn't notice any 666 on his buttocks. But we’ve never seen Mr. Bush naked, and you can only guess why.” Senator Clinton demanded that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate whether Bush was the Antichrist by saying “Ken Starr spent 40 million dollars to run a DNA test on my husband’s semen, I only think it’s fair, you know, that someone in turn gets to strip George Bush naked and shave his head and look for a birthmark.”
When asked by Helen Thomas during today’s press conference as to who was indeed the Antichrist, Scott McClellan did not answer but was heard muttering something about Joe Lockhart’s boss.
10262. concerned - 10/3/2003 7:32:41 PM
Poll: Support for recall, Schwarzenegger grows
Based on California voters' response to Xlowntoon's InternGate, the news about Schwarzenegger's six women ought to net him about another fifteen points.
10263. concerned - 10/3/2003 7:46:20 PM
Get ready for a weekend 'o slime from Grayout.
More proof that Leftism is a mental disease - nobody with an appreciation of their own hypocrisy, or possessing a sense of shame or irony could publish or take seriously the hateful diatribes Lefties are pumping out against Schwarzenegger & his six chicks after tossing their credibility over the WH Rapist.
10264. arkymalarky - 10/3/2003 8:18:26 PM
Hey Con'd, I see that mange cleared up real good. But I thought I told you not to sniff the bottle. ;-)
More proof that Leftism is a mental disease - nobody with an appreciation of their own hypocrisy, or possessing a sense of shame or irony could publish or take seriously the hateful diatribes Lefties are pumping out against Schwarzenegger & his six chicks after tossing their credibility over the WH Rapist.
That's almost as bad as the hypocritical irony of squealing about Clinton 24/7365*6 without having a sound to make about Schwartz's appalling behavior.
(hope this posts right--strange stuff I deleted, from an open tag or something--the sidebar contents)
10265. Al D - 10/3/2003 8:54:25 PM
While I know very little about football, or the player and team Rush made a comment about, I do have a thought about what he said. What I see as racist in what he said is that he disrespected an African American player by saying that the team was doing well because of the defense, not offense. I guess he was trying to make the point that since the defense is mostly white (my assumption) is shows that whites are superior to Blacks even in football. This comes as a surprise to me, as I thought it was pretty much agreed that the physical sports (boxing, track, basketball, football, baseball to some degree) were one thing African Americans excelled at. I think Rush owes the Black race an apology.
10266. jexster - 10/3/2003 8:56:22 PM
John Dean: Bush More Vicious Thnn Tricky Dick
10267. jexster - 10/3/2003 9:37:56 PM
I believe that Ambassador Wilson and his wife -- like the DNC official once did -- should file a civil lawsuit, both to address the harm inflicted on them, and, equally important, to obtain the necessary tools (subpoena power and sworn testimony) to get to the bottom of this matter. This will not only enable them to make sure they don't merely become yesterday's news; it will give them some control over the situation.
If the Bush White House is anything like the Nixon White House -- and there is increasing evidence of the similarities -- it will respond to such a lawsuit like a stuck pig. the Bush folks appear to have messed with the wrong man (and woman).
Soooey PIG!
10268. jexster - 10/3/2003 9:42:35 PM
Meanwhile, the Wilsons have hired a lawyer, Christopher Wolf, a partner in a Washington firm.
"Obviously the Wilsons' right to privacy has been violated," Wolf said. "It appears that Mr. Wilson was retaliated against for speaking out by having this information disclosed about his wife."
He said the Wilsons retained his law firm "to advise them on what claims if any they may have as a result of this episode. Their foremost interest is in seeing that the national interest is served."
WH Given Deadline, Wilsons Lawyer Up
10269. wonkers2 - 10/3/2003 9:56:43 PM John Dean should know.
10270. judithathome - 10/4/2003 11:20:00 AM
Jex, I posted that John Dean thing yesterday morning.
Al, the defense and the offense of almost all teams in the NFL is usuallly predominately black. But I caught your little joke. ;-)
10271. seadate - 10/4/2003 11:23:54 AM
Yeah, well, that Brian Urlacher guy is over-rated and an effort to get more white linebackers in the league.
10272. judithathome - 10/4/2003 11:24:54 AM
Concerned, am I to assume that you approve of going up to women and clutching their breasts? That you agree with the practice of putting your hand up their skirts and asking them for sex? Jeez, it seems to me you do...I can't imagine why you were so outraged at Clinton for doing these things and just peachy keen fine with Arnold doing it...so fine with it, in fact, that you think he has what it takes to be governor.
A man who was doing this sort of thing less that 3 years ago is a sick man, I agree. He needs treatment. He needs the understanding of his wife and coworkers. He needs to be in therapy with Charlie Sheen. But he doesn't need to be governor of California.
10273. judithathome - 10/4/2003 11:26:02 AM
Hey, BB...come on over and we can play spot the player this weekend in all the games!
10274. seadate - 10/4/2003 11:29:58 AM
LS ... heh, werkin' right now. You're well overdue a visit from me. I really need to arrange a road trip to Fartsworth w/in the next few weeks .... you guys have any inclination to head south?
10275. judithathome - 10/4/2003 11:36:39 AM
Come over to the Cafe for an answer!
10276. jexster - 10/4/2003 11:39:03 AM
>
10277. jexster - 10/4/2003 11:46:44 AM
Lying GOP hacks "are accusing [Joseph] Wilson of being either a left-wing fanatic or a partisan attack-dog. A look at Wilson's political giving records shows that he's pretty much a Democrat... On the other hand, he did give a grand to Bush in 1999. And he served as an appointee under [his] father. So that cuts against a monochromatic picture of him as a down-the-line Democratic loyalist. More to the point, contrary to what some Republicans seem to think, Democrats still are allowed to serve in the national security bureaucracy... But let's cut to the chase. None of this matters. It's all irrelevant... If Wilson were a rabid
political attack dog would it change the seriousness of blowing his wife's cover at the CIA to get back at him? Of course, not. Are we relying on Wilson to tell us what his wife's status is? Not in the least. The fact that the CIA made the referral to Justice tells us all we really need to
know about that."
target=new>Lie, SLime, Defend
10278. arkymalarky - 10/4/2003 11:47:26 AM
Clinton was never shown anywhere to have done anything uninvited, despite Con'd's et al's fevered fantasies to the contrary.
Bob wants to know when you guys are going to start talking about the VLWC.
10279. judithathome - 10/4/2003 12:30:49 PM
Last night on Nightline, several ex-CIA operatives and one current one, all Republicans, were outraged over what this may do to recruitment for the bureau. They were all putting the blame for this mess squarely where it belongs, on the administration, for the leak. One said Bush needs to stop with the attack dogs on Wilson and plug this leak fast, one way or another. He said no one will have any trust that they will be safe until he does this....
Rather rich that Junior has done such damamge to the group his dad used to head.
10280. jexster - 10/4/2003 12:31:44 PM
10281. judithathome - 10/4/2003 12:32:04 PM
damage...once again, careless typing. And I even re-read it!
10282. jexster - 10/4/2003 2:40:39 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — The Bush administration's optimistic statements earlier this year that Iraq's oil wealth, not American taxpayers, would cover most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq were at odds with a bleaker assessment of a government task force secretly established last fall to study Iraq's oil industry, according to public records and government officials.
The Bargain Basement War Lie: Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil As Source for Reconstruction $$$
10283. jexster - 10/4/2003 2:53:42 PM
Treason in the Name of Bush: Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
10284. jexster - 10/4/2003 3:08:21 PM
Let's wire the lot of em to a polygraph.
Just like we did to Soviet spies
10285. robertjayb - 10/4/2003 5:01:10 PM
Dallas chief caught by passing of old-time politics...(Dallas Observer)
She (Laura Miller) is the anti-establishment mayor, the youngish wife of an influential Democrat, a former muckraker from Connecticut. Five years ago when she first entered local politics, the big take was, "way too liberal for Dallas." Back when Dallas mayors were old white Texas guys, black people didn't throng the council to call them racists.
So why Miller? Why now?
And what does that word, racist, really mean, anyway, in Dallas in 2003? Why is a Yankee liberal carpetbagger more likely to run afoul of it than an old-style segregationist? And why is it the black people who have really done battle with Miller--up close and for stakes--won't use that word, even when they attack her?
10286. robertjayb - 10/4/2003 5:22:47 PM
The Observer article provides a glimpse of the genteel bribery and extortion game that marks much racial politics in Texas.
10287. jexster - 10/4/2003 5:53:45 PM
Oakland Tribune Withdraws Nazi Grab Ass Endorsement
10288. arkymalarky - 10/4/2003 6:10:25 PM
Interesting article, Robert. I heard an NPR program quite a while back about voing in TX and it was appalling, but I don't remember the details.
My family on both sides comes from Oak Cliff, and on my dad's side as blacks moved into the neighborhoods that were once all white churches integrated and people interacted, but crime increased. By the time my grandmother died at 88 her church was still integrated--all old people who commuted in. The preacher was the same one who 15 years before was attacked with a claw-hammer in an attempted robbery at that church and almost died. He still suffered symptoms from it, but was still there.
My mother's side was openly prejudiced and scared of black neighbors. They moved here for a safer neighborhood (theirs was dangerous) and never did get used to the fact that where we live races live and work in the same neighborhoods irrespective of socio-economics and interact without anyone of either race being afraid they were going to get knocked in the head as soon as their backs were turned.
Very strange.
10289. judithathome - 10/4/2003 7:36:19 PM
Joseph Wilson and Robert Novak on Meet The Press tomorrow morning.
10290. wonkers2 - 10/4/2003 8:03:03 PM
That should be interesting.
10291. robertjayb - 10/4/2003 8:40:48 PM
Hoot!
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy will receive the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service.
That would be George Herbert Walker Bush, the current president's father.
The award will be presented to the Massachusetts Democrat at a dinner ceremony Nov. 7 following a speech by Kennedy at Texas A&M University.
Former President Bush will present the award, which previously went to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.
Kennedy has been one of President George W. Bush's harshest critics over the Iraq war.
Former President Bush has sole discretion on who receives the award, said Penrod Thornton of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation.
10292. robertjayb - 10/4/2003 8:53:08 PM
...there goes the Jewish women's vote...(Maureen Dowd)
Twin revelations of Arnold Schwarzenegger's groping and goose-stepping are not going to play well with some Californians. The androgynous Gray spent the weekend hissing at Arnold's excess testosterone, as Arnold tried a rope-a-grope strategy.
The governor had to be singing "Danke Schön" over tales of the Austrian's 70's foolery: playing Nazi marching songs; clicking his heels and pretending to be an SS officer; clowning as Hitler with comb as mustache; and praising the dictator's ambition and oratorical skills. A Davis aide slyly wondered if Mel Brooks was Arnold's campaign manager.
10293. jexster - 10/4/2003 9:49:59 PM
Nayce tuh saye them Aggies are as duhm as dey evuh wuh
10294. Al D - 10/4/2003 11:18:22 PM
linton was never shown anywhere to have done anything uninvited, despite Con'd's et al's fevered fantasies to the contrary.
This is choice! What we have about Arnold are allegations and Arnold has copped to them. Paula Jones, Kathleen Whilley, Broderick made allegations which Clinton denied. He also denied the allegation about Monica, until he was proved a lier. But poor arky seems willing to swallow anything, a rare trait in a lady.
10295. arkymalarky - 10/4/2003 11:51:32 PM
Excuse me. There's no corroboration of any of those women's stories and they themselves haven't stuck with them.
Paula Jones is a pathetic joke who's now back home and broke where she belongs.
And that still doesn't invalidate my point that conversely no one cares to step in to ream Schwartz in the same fashion. Because he confessed when it came up? The guy's less careful about who sees it, as is obvious from what he's allowed to get on video of some of his antics. Who cares if he confesses after the fact. He's a crass ego with nothing redeeming to warrant being governor of California.
But since I'm not in California, they can pick whomever they like since they're going to all the trouble to pay for another election.
10296. Al D - 10/5/2003 5:18:51 AM
The point is that Paula Jones is ugly, and who cares if an ugly, trailer trash broad is confronted with a big dick un-invited. Right arky?
10297. judithathome - 10/5/2003 10:53:16 AM
Robert "Stop me before I leak again!" Novak blames the CIA for not being competent enough in asking him not to use Wilson's wife's name. Meet The Press was extremely enlightening today.
10298. arkymalarky - 10/5/2003 12:12:37 PM
Al, you're an idiot. Paula Jones' reputation was well known and still is. Clinton didn't have anything to do with that fact. Nothing happened to her.
Nothing. She was financed by a rich man who hates Clinton.
Now you want to talk Gennifer Flowers and any number of bimbos who were willing to mess around with Clinton as they hung around the edges of his nightlife? Fine. They don't kiss and tell unless they really think it's to their long-term advantage, though, and that's the type he was interested in anyway, because they were better-looking and more experienced. You can't be anonymous in a small state with stuff like that, because there aren't any quiet getaways or discreet restaurants or even hotels, and certainly not parties where you can depend on people not to spread the gossip. Someone you know is going to see you, period. Stories of that have been around about him for a long time, and they're true. Even I've heard them from eye witnesses and I'm not exactly part of the Arky loop. Paula Jones wasn't part of any of that--she was a low-level employee with no way to compete for upward mobility by that route.
If that's not enough for you, then donate to the Paula Jones Charity Fund. I hear she's spent up her Penthouse payoff.
10299. arkymalarky - 10/5/2003 12:14:33 PM
How were they supposed to know in advance that he even had her name, much less was going to use it? Why would they just expect a White House leak and know to ask such a thing?
10300. jexster - 10/5/2003 1:05:22 PM
Four More Women Go Public - Gropinator Claims 15 Victims
"As I alvays say, Vheyr ders shmoke ders foihyah"
10301. jexster - 10/5/2003 1:18:47 PM
Rumsfeld resigns after Kay report, citing pledge to grandson
Jutting-jaw authority figure says viewing of "Liar, Liar" catalyzed shocking decision.
10302. judithathome - 10/5/2003 1:46:05 PM
Tooo bad there is a header in that story you failed to mention. ;-)
10303. judithathome - 10/5/2003 3:17:32 PM
Arnoldnator: Hasta La Vista, $9 Billion For California
It's not what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to the girls a decade back that should raise an eyebrow. According to a series of memoranda our office obtained today, it's his dalliance with the boys in a hotel room just two years ago that's the real scandal.
The wannabe governor has yet to deny that on May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he had consensual political intercourse with Enron chieftain Kenneth Lay. Also frolicking with Arnold and Ken was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken.
Now, thirty-four pages of internal Enron memoranda have just come through this reporter's fax machine tell all about the tryst between Maria's husband and the corporate con men. It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off....
10304. jexster - 10/5/2003 4:22:34 PM
Chickens Come Home to Roost:
Bush's War Againt the CIA Intensifies
There are a lot of people sitting on pins and needles about WMD and who's going to get blamed for that," said an attorney in the intelligence field.
Some close to the agency see an emerging rift between the CIA and the White House. "I can feel among the seniors angst with the White House now," said a former high-ranking CIA officer who maintains contacts in the building. "It went from a year ago when they thought [the White House was] great, to things I haven't heard before, criticisms..
Another former intelligence official said the grumbling "comes because the president and others exaggerated the intelligence, and Tenet did not or could not control that."
Pretty friggin lame wben you think about it.
The CIA was the Nitwit's patrimony.
The damned building is named after Prince Poppy fer crissakes.
What a boob
10305. jexster - 10/5/2003 8:20:57 PM
Treason in the Nmme of A Moron:
Palme Had Rare "Non-Official Cover"
Fears for Safety
These people are a criminal menace
10306. concerned - 10/6/2003 11:39:19 AM
10307. jexster - 10/6/2003 11:48:32 AM
"Listen to what he said just three months ago:
How many times do you get to pick a woman up by the ankles and bury her head in a toilet bowl."
If you're a woman, if your mother's a woman, you cannot vote for this man -
TV AD this am
10308. thoughtful - 10/6/2003 11:49:28 AM
Brad de Long has some interesting stuff on the Plame Game. Includes a timeline of key events. You do need to scroll down to see the various bits in his journal.
A taste:
If the charges were bogus, Schumer in particular was a sitting duck. And if they were bogus --if, in particular, Plame wasn't covert -- there was no problem about discussing them in public. So if you're Rove or Card and you see this, and you weren't in fact involved and are confident none of your colleagues was, or that they were but it was OK because she was overt, the first thing you do is call someone in Condi's shop and ask them to check with the CIA about whether Plame was undercover or not. If not, you go to town: again, through intermediaries.
What that means is that any of Rove's people, or Card's, wouldn't have been afraid to bring the boss bad news: potentially, it was absolutely terrific news, unless they already knew she was covert. And there would have been no way to figure out whether your enmies had just dealt you a winning hand without turning up the ugly truth: that Plame was about as undercover as anyone can be, and that your guys had put the word out.
From another piece: The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday...
10309. thoughtful - 10/6/2003 11:49:37 AM
And a other: The fact that nobody on the White House staff--not Rice, not Rove, not McClellan, not Card--thought that Bush needed to find and fire the leakers rather than hunkering down and hoping the press would never notice is very disturbing. It suggests that we need, at the very least, a new White House staff.
When something similar happened in the 1980s--when it became clear that Ronald Reagan's NSC was a total disaster--the grownups in the Republican Party staged a quiet coup: respected Senator Howard Baker was brought in as White House chief of staff, and (according to those who worked there whom I have talked to) controlled access to Reagan and made the substantive policy decisions for the rest of Reagan's term.
Can the grownup Republicans do something similar now?
10310. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:01:29 PM
It could be hell to pay if he doesn't come up with a sacrificial scalp soon
10311. Magoseph - 10/6/2003 12:12:11 PM
Bush does it again: Instead of dumping Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, he lets the world know that the State Department is now running the show in Iraq by turning it over to them. My point is that every move Bush makes is in reference to his base. He actually believes that by appointing Ms. Rice rather than Powel, he escapes infuriating his base. The irony of this attempt at waffling is that his base has nowhere else to go and he gains nothing. The Independent voters, who will decide this election, see through this childish attempt at deception. His advisers continue to sow the seeds of his demise and the pity of it, from the stand-point of his supporters, is that he doesn't even know it.
10312. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:14:59 PM
Recall Tightens Up
IF Arnold manages to survive the next 24 hrs., look for RECALL OF THE RECALL - The Sequel
I hear that petitions are already being printed....
CA is likely to be in perpetual campaigns between now and next November
10313. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:16:20 PM
No he turned it over to Rice Mags...
Condom blow with whichever wind is prevailing at the moment
10314. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:22:46 PM
The Bush Treason
It's amazing how quickly people can get thrown off the scent.
Look at all the chatter swirling around the Wilson/Plame scandal:...
All of it is beside the point.
For the last ten days we've known that two senior administration officials blew the cover of an undercover CIA employee for some mix of retribution and political gamesmanship.
It's next to certain that the president --- like the rest of those who read Novak's original column or heard about it --- knew this in mid-July. But it's absolutely certain he's known about it since September 27th.
And what has he done about it? Nothing.
All mumbo-jumbo to the contrary, the universe of possible culprits is quite small. I suspect the identity of the two is already well-known in the White House. But even if that's not the case, the president could quickly figure out who they are --- probably by demanding that they come forward, and certainly by reviewing phone logs and emails. Yet he has done neither.
Josh Marshall
10315. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:24:21 PM
The Spin is Not Holding
The latest disclosures involving the Wilson/CIA leak could be threatening to Bush.
10316. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:31:42 PM
Leaking and lying--these are not actions easy to explain away. Drip, drip, drip--that's the sound often associated with Washington scandals. But now it may also be the sound of the truth catching up to the propagandists and perps of the Bush White House.
10317. Magoseph - 10/6/2003 12:55:33 PM
No he turned it over to Rice Mags...
I thought I said that, Jex. However my syntax is not always on task.
10318. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:57:47 PM
That's because you are french. He's turned it over to nobody. He turned it over to condom rice.
10319. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:58:55 PM
The Ad
10320. thoughtful - 10/6/2003 2:08:12 PM
Well, if Arnold gets elected and everyone is unhappy about it, they can always recall him!
10321. jexster - 10/6/2003 2:11:52 PM
That is very much in the cards...petitions already being printed...
BUT NBC3 San Jose reports tracking polls showing YES on Recall @44% down from 52%
This is going to be a crap shoot
10322. jexster - 10/6/2003 2:12:55 PM
Daily Misleader
Bush's Decision to Invade Iraq Happened Days after September 11th, Despite His Assertions to the Contrary
President Bush's decision to attack Saddam Hussein was made within days after the September 11th suicide hijackings, even though Bush claimed on the eve of his invasion "the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war."1
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has acknowledged that in the first weekend after September 11th "the disagreement was whether [invading Iraq] should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first."2
Privately, the President began making it known in March 2002 that the decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. In an unscheduled appearance with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Republican and Democratic Senators, Bush cursed Saddam and vowed, "We're taking him out." Weeks later, Vice President Dick Cheney said to a Senate Republican policy lunch that the question of attacking Iraq was not if, but when.3
The strategy of seeking United Nations approval for the invasion was hatched during an August dinner with Secretary of State Colin Powell at which "the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how."4 Publicly, though, the President continued to mislead the American public, saying the U. N. resolution "does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."5
Sources:
1. Presidential Speech, 3/17/03.
2. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Vanity Fair's Sam Tannenhaus, 5/9/03.
3. "'We're Taking Him Out'",Time.com, 5/5/02.
4. "How It Came To War; When Did Bush Decide That He Had To Fight Saddam?", New Yorker, 3/31/02.
5. Presidential Speech, 10/7/02.
10323. jexster - 10/6/2003 4:26:20 PM
The Recall Circus has screwed campaigning for the November 4 SF mayoral race to a faretheewell.
Nobody can get any traction or media.
So I along with 30-40 others are going to board a streetcar with Gavin Newsom in the Castro tommorrow and head for City Hall to Vote NO ON RECALL, and Newsom for Mayor.
Early voting for Mayor began today at City Hall.
I just voted in both elections.
California - Where the campaigning never ends...
10324. jexster - 10/6/2003 5:00:48 PM
Folks are energized....turnout will be huge
10325. thoughtful - 10/6/2003 5:23:59 PM
Only in Washington can one report generate 2 completely different points of view: President Says Report on Arms Vindicates War
"Speaking emphatically on the South Lawn of the White House, Mr. Bush said the preliminary findings of active research projects in Iraq and efforts to obtain missiles proved that "Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world."
"Some Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seized on the report as evidence that Mr. Bush had exaggerated the Iraqi threat. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the failure to find weapons had called into question how prewar estimates by the administration and spy agencies "could have been so far off."
And the solution? The decision has been made...opt for whatever reason will sell. Remember the tax cut plan? Because we're in surplus....because we need fiscal stimulus...because we're at war...because we need jobs...because death taxes are unfair...because dividend tax cuts will raise the stock market...
"Accounts of torture and abuse have now risen to the top of the administration's list of reasons that Iraq was invaded, ahead of the threat of weapons."
Because they have oil...because they have wmd...because he's been flaunting un resolutions...because we need to create a democracy in the middle east....because they were involved in 9/11...because he gassed his own people...because he's harboring al qaeda...because he tried to kill my father...because we can beat them...
Raison du jour....brought to you by the administration of moral clarity.
10326. rdbrewer - 10/6/2003 9:36:18 PM
I was groped by Arnold.
10327. wonkers2 - 10/6/2003 9:44:42 PM
So Arnold's a bi-guy? Or an equal opportunity gropinator.
10328. Al D - 10/6/2003 9:46:23 PM
jexster
You do realize that toilet comment from Arnold was in a movie, don't you? If you are drowning, jex, grab a log, not a straw.
Judith
was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken.
From where is this quote? I may be wrong, but I don't think Milkin was sent to jail for a stock swindle. I know he was the king of junk bonds, and some of those bonds weren't junk. My memory is not what it once was, but I seem to remember Ted Turner made good use of Milkin's ideas.
10329. wonkers2 - 10/6/2003 9:46:50 PM
Bush said it, so it must be true. Like he is a rabid environmentalist, protector of minority and women's rights and giver of tax breaks to Joe Shop Towel.
10330. Al D - 10/6/2003 10:03:12 PM
thoughtful
flaunting un resolutions
I do not for one second think you are an idiot, in fact I grant you are quite bright. George made the same error, it is a common one. I don't make it because I have a meager vocabulary.
10331. rdbrewer - 10/6/2003 10:45:10 PM
Wonkers, he must be. He has already groped everyone in California, and he is planning to start on Oregon as soon as his stint as governor is over.
If only he were a rapist or a weanie waggler. Then, with a constitutional amendment, he could have a viable run at president, having gained a substantial number of Democrat votes.
10332. arkymalarky - 10/6/2003 10:51:55 PM
You have no basis for calling Clinton a rapist, so kindly get off that stupid dead horse Con'd is so fond of beating.
Really, the simplicity of thought and reflex is so depressing.
If he were an experienced and competent politician he might have a shot, since he's not a rich boob from Texas.
10333. arkymalarky - 10/6/2003 10:55:55 PM
I'm beginning to suspect you two are twin psychos.
OK.
I want it.
Right now.
In fact, I DEMAND it.
Give me everything you've got on the Broaddrick story and anything else you have from anyone else who's CREDIBLE to show Clinton's a rapist.
Either you or Con'd show CREDIBLE EVIDENCE Clinton is a rapist or stick yourselves in the Permanently Incredible bin and shove your chronically stupid accusations where the sun don't shine (that would be between your ears)....
Or I should say give yourselves a chance to get out of the PI bin by backing the very serious accusation or retracting it.
That's why it's Permanent. I know it will never happen.
10334. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/6/2003 11:19:12 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Vengeful leaks?
[Just spent a week in Provincetown—can you tell?]
10335. rdbrewer - 10/6/2003 11:21:02 PM
Arky, Broaddrick is credible. I believe her. Her story hangs together. Knowing what we know about Clinton's behavior, it's not a surprising accusation. Figures, IOW.
OK.
I want it.
Right now.
In fact, I DEMAND it.
Give me everything
That reminds me of something. Hmm. What was that. It was, uh, let's see. Oh, yeah! Clinton! He said the same thing to Broaddrick.
10336. Al D - 10/6/2003 11:45:43 PM
I could swear I saw Grey Davis on T.V. singing:
It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood,
A beautiful day in the neighborhood,
I'll be your friend,
Won't you be mine?
10337. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/6/2003 11:48:32 PM
10338. arkymalarky - 10/6/2003 11:49:54 PM
Arky, Broaddrick is credible. I believe her. Her story hangs together. Knowing what we know about Clinton's behavior, it's not a surprising accusation. Figures, IOW.
NONONO, RD. Put it here. Link it. I want it right at my mousetip.
10339. arkymalarky - 10/6/2003 11:50:32 PM
Your last sentence has zero of substance in it, btw. Figures, IOW.
10340. Al D - 10/6/2003 11:54:02 PM
WoW
Don't you wish you had the talent to create cartoons as clever as the one above? Of course, I admit, you are more clever than I, or I might put funny beards on the characters.
10341. concerned - 10/7/2003 12:06:47 AM
Poll: Sex Allegations Backfire, Arnold Gains
Bring it on, jex.
10342. concerned - 10/7/2003 12:09:40 AM
jexster
You do realize that toilet comment from Arnold was in a movie, don't you? If you are drowning, jex, grab a log, not a straw.
I think jex tried to pull his usual shit, but it's not going to help keep his guy from being flushed.
10343. concerned - 10/7/2003 12:19:20 AM
Hey, malarkey -
Re. 10333 -
I've produced plenty of evidence about Xlowntoon's rapes or assaults of Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward, Kathleen Willey, the English woman when Xlowntoon was at Xfurd, Paula Jones, Julie Hyatt Steele, and so on in the past. In most cases Xlowntoon admitted having sex with the women.
You should have kept a record of my past posts. The evidence does not deteriorate unlike your memory which I am not obligated to prop up.
Xlowntoon is a rapist; you voted for him. Deal with it and accept the consequences.
10344. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 12:24:25 AM
Good. If you produced plenty you can provide me one credible link now.
Thank goodness for the entire race of American men that your standard of what proves rape isn't the one used in court.
10345. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 12:24:59 AM
Elizabeth Ward never claimed any such thing. She said they'd had a tryst then later retracted.
10346. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 12:25:30 AM
And I don't want posts.
I want CREDIBLE links.
10347. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 12:27:10 AM
The memory of your interminable posts on Clinton as a rapist is still all to clear.
Now don't expect me to recount specific instances. They all blend together in one long, droning, tedious line.
10348. concerned - 10/7/2003 12:28:44 AM
It's abundantly clear that in arky's world if she votes for a rapist, she believes that absolves him of the crime and that nobody should even be allowed to discuss the evidence.
Not the case in reality.
10349. concerned - 10/7/2003 12:35:29 AM
Of course, arky won't admit any evidence unless Xlowntoon was so stupid as to assault a woman out in the open in front of a number of witnesses. Given that, why should I play her stupid game?
Several women accuse Xlowntoon of raping them - he admits the sex. Good enough for anybody but a blind partisan like arky.
10350. concerned - 10/7/2003 12:39:38 AM
Of course, arky insists that all the women Xlowntoon assaulted and raped were sluts, bimbos, were asking for it, etc., etc. - anything to discredit their stories.
This became abundantly clear with the Left's insensate assault with arky in full bellow, on Kathleen Willey.
10351. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 1:49:21 AM
The stupid game of "Prove Con'd is Right?"
I agree. It's a waste of time.
10352. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 9:57:46 AM
Concerned:
What does the Xlowntoon reference for Clinton mean?
Al D:
Davis does look and sound like Mr. Rogers -- a wimpy version of Mr. Rogers.
10353. Wombat - 10/7/2003 10:23:16 AM
I say Broaddrick's ex-husband found out she was having an affair with Clinton and beat her up.
10354. jayackroyd - 10/7/2003 10:33:14 AM
I prefer Paul Begala's position on Firing Line yesterday. He says that (paraphrasing) "I thought it was irrelevant then. I think it is irrelevant now. You (speaking to his conservative guest) thought it worthy of impeachment then. Why does Arnold get a pass?":
10355. judithathome - 10/7/2003 10:35:03 AM
Yes, I do recall all the trials with Clinton coming out convicted of rape. I remember him being frog marched off to prison after being found guilty. I remember all of his appeals being denied. I recall Bob Dylan having a tour to point out the unfairness of it all. I recall Concerned being called to testify in all the trials. And the letter of commendation he received for doing so.
All of the above is as much a fiction as what Concerned remembers.
10356. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 10:37:55 AM
Everybody is talking about Clinton today. From Andrew Sullivan:
Clinton is and was a schlubby, sexually guilt-ridden Rhodes Scholar who desperately associates with Hollywood dreck in order to get some smidgen of cool rubbed off on him.
10357. judithathome - 10/7/2003 10:38:48 AM
What does the Xlowntoon reference for Clinton mean
RBD, that is Concerned's attempt at wit...he thinks Clinton is both a clown and a cartoon. He combined the two because he wanted to insult the man. Then, after impeachment proceedings, he decided to embellish the pearl he'd created from irritation and used the X to show that Clinton was done for, X'd out in other words.
10358. judithathome - 10/7/2003 10:39:40 AM
Pardon my mistake...RDB. My typing is dyslexic.
10359. judithathome - 10/7/2003 10:41:25 AM
Well, id anyone should recognize schlubby and guilt ridden behavior, it's Andrew Sullivan. Mister bareback rider.
10360. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 10:44:57 AM
JAH, thanks. I like the way the word rolls off my tongue. Reminds me of "skid row" or potential name for the nastiest city in Thailand.
10361. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 10:50:29 AM
JAH, you just tried to use Sullivan's gayness as an insult. Ha! This confirms my long-held suspicion that the tirelessly self-proclaimed open-mindedness of Democrats is a crock of shit.
10362. marjoribanks - 10/7/2003 11:00:07 AM
This White House is finally mis-stepping politically, and this time I think you can put the blame directly on Bush.
Up to a few weeks ago, this was the most surefooted political unit I think I have ever seen in any country. Real scandals that would have crushed or severly burdened other administrations got swiftly deadended, huge ongoing failures like the one in post-war Iraq are deflected in a way to massively minimize damage to the Presiden't's popularity. Even this ongoing issue of cronyism (from Halliburton to the lobbysists) is being ignored, and sidelined as though one can't possibly hold the Prez accountable. It has been skillful in the extreme, these guys have been very very adept at only saying what politically makes sense while doing exactly whatever they feel like. In this, it has been the most brazen (and successful) administration I've ever seen in action, anywhere.
10363. marjoribanks - 10/7/2003 11:00:39 AM
But we may have finally hit the point where the news is so overwhelmingly negative, the indicators so overwhelmingly negative, the morass so deep, and (crucially) the number of enemies created so great - that the skillful politics isn't enough to keep the day of reckoning at bay.
The reason I think you can place the blame on Bush is because of the personality of this johnny-one-note President. We all most likely disagree on the abilities and skills and traits that this President features. But perhaps there is one that all of us agree he does have - loyalty. This is man who is loyal to those in his team to the end, and in this case he has held on to Rumsfeld past the point where this loyalty has yielded only diminishing and negative returns.
Had he capped Rummy four months ago, and made the move to empower Rice, we might now be looking at a President looking strong in his re-election bid. As it is, with only rotten news and indicators to stand on, Bush looks almost certain to be heading back to Crawford.
I think I'm ready to take bets on the matter, actually. I'll book a total of $500 from all comers on the following basis.
Even odds, Bush will not be re-elected, Limit of $200 per person.
Any takers?
10364. Wombat - 10/7/2003 11:02:49 AM
Well if you believe that a proponent of gay marriage, and a someone who decries the immoral lifestyle that some gays rather colorfully propound should be given a pass on hypocritcal--not to mention potentially dangerous--behavior, just say so. If Sullivan was a Democrat, you damn sure wouldn't.
10365. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:30:34 AM
The Latest Lie: GW Botulism
The test tube of botulinum presented by Washington and London as evidence that Saddam Hussein had been developing and concealing weapons of mass destruction, was found in an Iraqi scientist's home refrigerator, where it had been sitting for 10 years, it emerged yesterday.
10366. judithathome - 10/7/2003 11:38:58 AM
An excerpt from the October 6 episode of Adam Felber's Fanatical Apathy:
The other ideas of what ought to qualify a man to run your state fell off the table so long ago that the dogs hardly notice 'em anymore. These include experience, knowledge, familiarity with government, and specific ideas. But also included in the waste bin is the long-discredited notion that an elected leader ought to be really, really smart.
Let me speak to you all individually, my Californian friends. Your Governor ought to be smart. Really smart. Preferably smarter than you. Not just savvy, not just clever, but the kind of book-readin', history knowin', problem solvin', degree earnin', flexibly thinkin' smart that will ensure a measured and creative approach to whatever arises. If George Bush has proved anything, it's that a likable Regular Guy can't really balance the budget, or protect our interests, or refrain from pissing off our allies, or navigate the tricky waters of domestic and global affairs. No, only in the movies can a Regular Guy do that. A Regular Guy (if he's lucky) can become a movie star, or work out a lot, or buy a baseball team, or get rich, or be the last person standing on a reality TV show. And yes, a Regular Guy can develop very strong "leadership skills." But a Regular Guy really, truly isn't qualified to run a major state or a nation. Please, please, stop electing Regular Guys. They're making things worse. Much, much worse.
10367. judithathome - 10/7/2003 11:42:41 AM
JAH, you just tried to use Sullivan's gayness as an insult. Ha! This confirms my long-held suspicion that the tirelessly self-proclaimed open-mindedness of Democrats is a crock of shit.
I did not use his gayness as an insult. If you could claim reading comprehension as one of your skills, you'd note that I used his dangerous practice of having unprotected sex while being HIV positive as an insult. Or do you approve of that sort of thing?
I would consider anyone, gay or not, having unprotected sev while being HIV positive as insult-worthy. And at least it is an insult that can be proven true, since he has admitted to it.
10368. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:47:25 AM
Novak Leak Has a Familiar Sound
10369. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:48:15 AM
I'll use his "gayness" as an insult..
Howz that.
10370. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:52:52 AM
Bush Backs Right Wing Marriage Agenda
Republicans Launch CA Domestic Partners Repeal
If you're a woman. If your mother is a woman...
10371. jexster - 10/7/2003 12:37:27 PM
Ever been to a Meetup? Been to a couple of Dean events. I think I might check out the General's this Monday.
Congratulations! Your preferred venue (Cafe Mars (casual, funky, fun)) is one of the winning venues!
Due to a HIGH LEVEL OF INTEREST, there will be 3 Clark in 2004 Meetups happening near San Francisco, CA at the same time.
You voted for this venue: Cafe Mars (casual, funky, fun)
You have RSVP'd for this event.
Cafe Mars (casual, funky, fun) info
798 Brannan St, San Francisco, CA map
Cafe Royale info
800 Post Street, San Francisco, CA map
Kelly's Mission Rock (On the waterfront!) info
817 China Basin, San Francisco, CA map
10372. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 12:41:25 PM
Jexter, that would be something if you weren't a childish moron.
10373. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 12:48:04 PM
MB, I'll take some of that action. $200.00 says Bush will be re-elected.
10374. marjoribanks - 10/7/2003 1:08:59 PM
Okay, brewer, you're on.
Let me see who else is playing, and then we'll work out the nuts and bolts of how you'll be getting the cash to me.
10375. judithathome - 10/7/2003 1:10:14 PM
I will volunteer to hold the bank and pay off the winner the day after the election...or recount.
10376. robertjayb - 10/7/2003 1:14:51 PM
The Law: Come out with your hands up...
White House: Sure thing. Just give us a couple of weeks to straighten up. Heh-heh.
Nothing like having friends on the force...
WASHINGTON (AP) - White House lawyers will spend up to two weeks screening responses turned in by roughly 2,000 staff members asked what they know, if anything, about the unauthorized disclosure of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
10377. judithathome - 10/7/2003 1:34:06 PM
A very fair and balanced response....gag.
10378. Wombat - 10/7/2003 1:38:16 PM
Shouldn't all those documents immediately be turned over to the Special Prosecutor..I mean the experienced career prosecutors at the Department of Justice, whose boss is John Ashcroft? Never mind.
10379. judithathome - 10/7/2003 1:54:55 PM
The White House lawyers are undoubtedly just trying to save the Ashcroft lawyers a lot of extra paperwork.
10380. robertjayb - 10/7/2003 2:02:09 PM
Whistle-Ass has "no idea"...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday ruled out three senior aides as possible sources for a leak disclosing the name of an undercover CIA (news - web sites) operative and President Bush (news - web sites) said the case may never be resolved.
"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters after he met with his Cabinet. "I'd like to. I want to know the truth."
10381. jexster - 10/7/2003 2:04:17 PM
target=new>Poll Shows Support for Recall Has Plummeted to 44%
"A poll of 1000 registered voters, conducted by Elway-McGuire Research for Knight Ridder from Wednesday through Saturday, found the percentage of people saying they would definitely vote to oust Governor Gray Davis dropped from 52 per cent on Wednesday to 44 per cent on Saturday." This
poll, taken over 4 days, clearly shows a nosedive in support for Schwarzenegger."
The unknown factor: the Ditz Vote...
Good eg on CNN, interviews at my favorite LA dining spot - Pink's
"I know Arnold isn't qualified to do the job but he's what this State needs" 10382. jexster - 10/7/2003 2:05:07 PM
toys
10383. wonkers2 - 10/7/2003 2:06:35 PM
Concerned, did you know that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian? And that, despite her homosexuality, she was having an affair with Vince Foster? Who then had to be murdered to cover up Whitewater? And did you know that Foster's execution was only one small part of a killing spree that claimed nearly forty lives, including those of former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and the wife of an Arkansas state trooper who apparently didn't "get the message"? And did you know that Clinton, to finance his own gargantuan cocaine habit, had struck a deal with the CIA and the Contras to smuggle duffel bags filled with coke into Arkansas? If you didn't, you weren't reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the American Spectator, or the Washington Times. (From "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them by Al Franken.)
10384. jexster - 10/7/2003 3:12:56 PM
Internal Enron Emails Confirm: Schwarzenegger Met with Enron Officials Secretly During Energy Crisis - Now Claims He 'Can't Remember'
CA wants its $9 Billion back
10385. judithathome - 10/7/2003 3:19:37 PM
Jex, please see Message # 10303...I posted that two days ago.
10386. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 4:04:06 PM
Let me see who else is playing, and then we'll work out the nuts and bolts of how you'll be getting the cash to me.
Speaking of nuts, MB, I like the bravado. Or is it blind faith?
10387. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 5:51:57 PM
Hey, Wonk! Al (Franken, that is) knows all the Arky scoop.
I never will forget when Clinton first ran years ago, a high school coach came in my room and told me about this amazing tape that revealed all that stuff you just mentioned.
Dummy me, I didn't ask him to get me a copy. I wonder if I could find one now. That thing was wildly popular among AR conservative wingnuts, and it didn't have a fact one to substantiate it.
If Con'd got hold of that tape I truly believe it would drive him over the edge....
I know what y'all are about to say, but he's still got a toehold if Clinton doesn't get brought into the conversation.
10388. jexster - 10/7/2003 6:17:02 PM
TD...
Is your mother a woman?
10389. jexster - 10/7/2003 6:19:52 PM
Cambridge University WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala is the man who famously exposed Tony Blair's dossier on Iraqi WMD as a forgery. After examining David Kay's $300 million report, he concludes that all of its major claims - those cited by Bush on Friday - are lies.
Lie #1) an Iraqi biologist had a vial of live C botulinum Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced. In reality, this would have taken weeks to weaponize, and there was no evidence of such activity.
Lie #2) Iraq was building missiles with a range significantly beyond 150KM. In reality, Iraq was doing research, which was allowed under UN sanction.
Lie #3: Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories ...suitable for continuing CBW research." In reality, there is no evidence of any actual research.
We won't be fooled again.
10390. jexster - 10/7/2003 6:32:39 PM
Message # 10341
LaBrea & Melrose
Orson Welles supposedly ate 50, 60, 100 of em at one sitting so legend has it.
How many can you eat TD?
10391. jexster - 10/7/2003 6:40:47 PM
The Bush Treason
WH Counsel Vetting All Docs Before Producing to the Justice Department
10392. concerned - 10/7/2003 6:42:07 PM
Re. 10357 -
JAH -
You're correct, with one slight caveat - I intended the 'x' to indicate that he's an 'ex-' president, rather than making any specific reference to his impeachment.
10393. judithathome - 10/7/2003 6:43:17 PM
Oh, sorry...getting ahead of myself.
10394. concerned - 10/7/2003 6:46:32 PM
I'm hearing noises that the lights are really going out for Davis. His last second attempts to slime Schwarzenegger are helping to keep Democrats home in droves by highlighting the hypocrisy of the 'Rat powers that be wrt Xlowntoon.
Now, all we need is a Democrat Party court challenge after they're blown out of the Governator's mansion for their requiem to be complete in California.
10395. judithathome - 10/7/2003 6:47:45 PM
You can't SLIME someone with the truth, Concerned. Do you think all 16 women were lying?
10396. concerned - 10/7/2003 6:51:28 PM
No, but some probably are being less than fully forthcoming. Particularly in the cases of the ones that are being prompted to go public right this very week at the behest of Grayout, the LA Times, Bob Mulholland, the California Democrat Party, etc.. You get the idea.
10397. jexster - 10/7/2003 6:52:26 PM
I don't know what your sources are there TD...the turnout is, as I predicted, HUGE ... 10 million+
"As I alvays say, vehr dehrs schmoke dehrs feuer"
10398. jexster - 10/7/2003 6:55:12 PM
One false move
A month ago today, Bush gave a speech that tanked. And it's been bad news ever since
The Trifecta Jackpot Has Run Out
10399. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:08:13 PM
What's that sound from Sacramento? It's Grayout Davis's paper shredders working overtime.
10400. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:15:12 PM
GOVERNATOR
10401. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:17:03 PM
Grope-inator
Recall - The Sequel
10402. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:18:29 PM
I'll have to watch my Toonces the Cat 'Tooncinator' video tonite.
10403. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:24:18 PM
Re. 10355 -
Remember he had to pay Paula Jones $850,000 for sexually assaulting her? Probably not - your memory is far too politically selective. But not until the poor woman had to go through years of hell and partisan calumny, hate, vituperation and insults to achieve it.
That is how the real world works when a sexual predator misuses his office to coerce, intimidate and threaten his victims, JAH. If the woman tries to take it to her politially important LW attacker, she's very lucky to come out of it with a whole skin.
10404. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 7:27:55 PM
Hey, what happened in Texas with the redistricting? I caught the end of something a day or two ago, but didn't get any details.
10405. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 7:29:17 PM
Yep, and the idiot frittered that away too. Want to discuss the circumstances of the payment?
10406. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:35:35 PM
Well, I know her attorneys got quite a lot of it.
10407. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:36:22 PM
Hey, Dems. It's silver lining time. You still got Bustamante!
Bwahahahaha!
10408. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:36:47 PM
Mr. Mecha himself.
10409. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 7:37:57 PM
Are you already hearing returns or exit polls or what?
And if you say Fox I'm going to hurl.
10410. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:39:57 PM
Concerned hears voices....must be a Republican thing..
Why is the Kay Report Such Crap? TNR
10411. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:40:59 PM
and 58% majority in the Legislature...
Veel take care uf Ahnuld.
10412. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:44:16 PM
Re. 10409 -
Howz Drudge suit you? Sez 47% want Ah-nold. And 57% want Gray-out.
10413. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:45:08 PM
Drudge?
10414. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:45:55 PM
Bush Lies: What's Really In the Kay Report
10415. concerned - 10/7/2003 7:47:53 PM
Hey jex - izzit true they're going postal over at DU and Bartcop?
10416. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 7:48:11 PM
Drudge?
Suits me fine.
I'd rather laugh than hurl any day.
10417. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:48:16 PM
All I can report with local TV on all day is nothing..
This going to take a while...polls are still open another 3 hours...
Drudge...
10418. robertjayb - 10/7/2003 7:48:28 PM
Texas redistricting:
Tom DeLay is in Austin, playing Henry Kissinger by shuttling between the house and senate. Great fun. No word at all from Governor Goodhair, our handsome cypher-in-chief.
Of course, the dems have been routed. Now it's repubs fighting each other.
There is great urgency at the moment as the Oklahoma-Texas football game is this weekend. These good old boys have their priorities straight. You betcha.
10419. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 7:55:38 PM
Thanks Robert. I knew the Conservatives Republicans were having trouble getting moderates who don't believe oil corporations deserve legislative representation (as I heard it on NPR) to work with them on the issue, which I found hilarious. I think Tom DeLay is possibly the most despicable elected human in national politics at the moment.
The Democrats have no rudder, but I swear the Republican leadership is seriously alienating its base in some very interesting areas.
10420. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:57:31 PM
My brother reports that Texas may not vote for Congress next year. It may take at least that long for the Legislature to pass and the courts to throw out Perrrymandering
10421. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 7:58:18 PM
Corporate Fascism.
It's at play here in AR, too. They think the government is now officially bought and paid for and they've proceded to push everyone around as they rearrange the furniture to suit them and line up their political influence for the long term. I don't think they believe Bush will be reelected. All the more reason to work quickly to push massive "reforms" and redistricting and such through on the state and national level.
10422. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:58:38 PM
The latest Tejas-sized broohaha - some scheme to create a Midland district has West Texas republicans pissed off
10423. jexster - 10/7/2003 7:59:34 PM
That's how they operate Ark...flim flam an election and then set up Empire..
Well the chickens are comin home to roost
10424. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 8:02:57 PM
Well I feel like Chicken Little right now, but I've never seen anything quite like it.
The west Texans (I used to live in Lubbock) are exactly the kinds of people the Corporate hogs think they can alienate as long as they get what they want now. I just hope--there and here--those folks can prevent them.
10425. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 8:04:12 PM
My family is mostly working-class conservative Republican Texans, and I know for a fact they would be appalled to see what's happening with the Republican Party there now, and Texas has always been flaky wrt politicians.
10426. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 8:10:09 PM
Robt., you're a Texan? If so, I retract my "ethnocentric hick" comment. Your Okie bashing is of a lesser quality, a rivalry hard-on.
10427. jayackroyd - 10/7/2003 8:20:33 PM
An instapundit reader is reporting that Hilary has registered with the FEC as a 2004 candidate:
HILLARY RUNNING? Reader Leonard Murphy sends this:
Go to the Federal Election Commission homepage at www.fec.gov.
On the left of their homepage is a link labeled "Campaign Finance Reports and Data", click it.
Scroll down a ways to Image/Query System, under that choose "View Financial Reports"...
Under the intro paragraph choose "Search the Report Image System"
In the dialogue box type "Clinton" and click "Get Listing"
20 entries down you`ll see "CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM", click on the blue number "P00003392" beside her name.
Guess what? "Presidential Candidate 2004 ".
Hillary Rodham Clinton filed late Friday, Oct 3rd, with the Federal Election Commission to run for President in 2004.
I followed his instructions and it took me here. Sure looks that way.
UPDATE: Hmm. Several readers, meanwhile, note that this is likely someone else filing for her. I don't know what that means.
10428. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 8:35:43 PM
Hmmm. Wesley Clark's Campaign Manager Quits
It's an open disagreement, too.
10429. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 8:38:33 PM
Drudge is reporting a landslide for Ahnode. Exit polling is showing a 59% yes vote for recall and 51% for Ahnode. Wow!
10430. jexster - 10/7/2003 10:40:14 PM
The Bush ChickenHawks
On the surface, the war with Iraq seems a simple case of hypocrisy gone lethal. With few exceptions, those in and around the White House who beat the drum most loudly for the invasion of Iraq had not seen a day of combat in their lives.... Even those who came around to support the invasion openly worried about the best-case scenario "plans" for post-Saddam Iraq made by civilians at the Pentagon, few of whom had ever worn the uniform. These concerns proved valid
10431. robertjayb - 10/7/2003 10:45:40 PM
I know...Let's put on a show!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, facing growing doubts about his handling of postwar Iraq, is launching a concerted campaign to convince Americans that the United States is making solid progress in the war against terror despite growing casualties and setbacks.
The White House offensive will include a series of speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, as well as high-profile trips to Iraq by Cabinet secretaries to illustrate areas of progress, such as the reopening of schools and the introduction of a new currency, officials said Tuesday night.
10432. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:02:55 PM
KTVU Oakland SF Exit Poll
Yes
Arnold
10433. robertjayb - 10/7/2003 11:07:33 PM
Got numbers?
10434. Edmund Dantes - 10/7/2003 11:16:41 PM
Hasta la vista, Grayby!
10435. arkymalarky - 10/7/2003 11:19:11 PM
Governor Groper.
Has a nice ring to it.
10436. wonkers2 - 10/7/2003 11:23:06 PM
Gropinator.
10437. rdbrewer - 10/7/2003 11:57:37 PM
Whoohoo! Good riddance to that wimpy version of Mr. Rogers, Gray Davis.
10438. KuligintheHooligan - 10/8/2003 12:14:07 AM
Yeah, Governor Groper almost sounds as nice as President Pervert, like the last guy in the Oval Office.
10439. vonKreedon - 10/8/2003 12:39:31 AM
On to the next re-call!
Also, this takes away any chance for the Repubs to effectively needle candidate Clark's lack of political office experience.
10440. concerned - 10/8/2003 12:41:02 AM
Just as I posted several hours ago, Arnold is California's next governor.
10441. concerned - 10/8/2003 12:42:08 AM
re. 10439 -
Any recall attempt by the Calirats in the near future would be political suicide.
