The Drip, Drip, Drip of the Foley-Hastert Scandal

posted by David Corn on 10/09/2006 @ 2:21pm

I appeared on ABC News This Week yesterday, as a member of its roundtable. (You can get a podcast of the show here.) Prior to that segment, Representative Adam Putnam of Florida, who chairs the House Republican Policy Committee, debated Representative Rahm Emanuel, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, on the Foley-Hastert affair. Representative Tom Reynolds, the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, was originally scheduled to be in the GOP slot. Though Reynolds has been incriminated in the Mark Foley scandal and is now in danger of losing his seat in upstate New York, he had surprisingly accepted ABC News' invitation to appear on the show and be questioned by George Stephanopoulos. Common sense finally prevailed, and Reynolds pulled out. As Putnam recounted in the green room before the show, Putnam had been in Florida hunting doves when the call came from Reynolds' NRCC with an order for Putnam: you have to go on the Sunday talk show. Putnam saluted and flew back to Washington.

On the show, Putnam, naturally, defended House Speaker Denny Hastert. It was a hard case to argue, but he did the best he could in the face of Emanuel's assault. That's what you're expected to do when you're a junior (though ambitious) member of your party's leadership. But it may not be cost-free--and Putnam seems to know that. After he was done and about to leave the studio, I remarked to him, "You're betting nothing else is going to come out on this." He nodded but rolled his eyes, adding, "In Washington, that's a dangerous bet."

Indeed it is. The news the next day (via The Washington Post) was that Representative Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican who is openly gay, confronted Foley in 2000 after a former page complained to Kolbe that Foley had sent him sexually explicit Internet messages. The newspaper noted it was not clear whether Kolbe did anything beyond talk to Foley. But this development means that the Foley problem was known within GOP circles for six years. Hastert, though, has claimed he knew nothing about Foley's conduct until the day the story broke--even though statements from GOP legislators and staffers suggest his office was informed of the Foley problem years earlier.

Putnam's bet doesn't look so hot right now.

The Kolbe revelation might prompt Republicans to revive their criticism of the so-called Velvet Mafia: that small group of gay Republicans. As I've written about earlier (see here), at the start of the scandal, some within the House Republican caucus were griping that the party had been done in by GOP gays on Capitol Hill who had supposedly covered for Foley for years. (At the same time, social conservative allies of the party publicly blamed the gay rights agenda for somehow leading to Foley's page-pursuing troubles.)

Responding to the effort to scapegoat the GOP's Lavender Bund, gay Hill GOPers told reporters they had years ago warned Hastert's office about Foley. These gay Republicans were essentially declaring: we ratted out one of our own, so don't blame us for Hastert having not done anything. As this intra-Republican sniping between gays and heteros transpired, gay politicos outside Republican circles began circulating what they called The List--a roster of two dozen or so gay senior Republican staffers in the House and Senate. With a possible shoot-out about to ensue within the Republican caucus, these gay politicos--who have long been upset with gays who serve a Republican party that opposes gay rights and embraces outfits that demonize gays and lesbians--were hoping to pour gasoline on the fire. They passed the list to social conservative groups outside the Republican party with a message: maybe this is why your political agenda is not racing through this GOP-controlled Congress. Their goal is obvious--to set off a civil war within the Republican party.

The Kolbe news is all the more intriguing because of these behind-the-scenes scuffles. Will Republicans and social conservatives who were looking to blame gay Republicans for the Foley scandal now revive their efforts to dump the blame on Velvet mafioso within their midst? They can argue that Kolbe, one of them, did not do enough in 2000 after he learned of the Foley problem. But can Kolbe really be made the fall guy? Any GOPer who tries to adopt such a strategy will encounter problems. Kolbe is already retiring at the end of this year. That means he cannot resign in disgrace and provide the Republicans cover. Moreover, Hastert has yet to explain away the claims of congressional aides that his office was informed about Foley's sexual interest in pages several years ago. So even if Kolbe did not share the bad news with Hastert's office; others say they did. What's undeniable is that Hastert did not take the appropriate steps. (There is also an allegation that a drunken Foley tried to gain entrance to the page's residence in 2002 or 2003.)

Back to Representative Putnam, the NRCC's loyal foot solider. Drip, drip, drip. This story is hardly over. He may want to rethink that bet.

******

DON'T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR: Tom Brokaw says "Hubris, the new best-seller by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For more information on Hubris, click here.

Comments (339)

  1. "Their goal is obvious--to set off a civil war within the Republican party."

    Seems a few others might want that too, eh, Mr Corn?

    Conflating "gay" and "pedophile"...really the only way the GOP rides out this scandal and a lot of the liberal pundits are helping.

    (On a side-note...Not a single ref to "Hubris"!)

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2006 @ 2:31pm

  2. Maybe James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the rest of the right wing screechers think the Mark Foley incident was just a joke played out on the Internet but it is Dobson and the hypocritical Republicans who are the real joke.

    While James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson continue to promote their in-pew Republican registration they simultaneously condone the White House Page scandal and coverup by the Republican leadership.

    This issue is not about gays or salacious sexual behavior. It's about the entire corrupt, corrosive Republican Party trying to deflect this issue away from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans running for congressional seats this year.

    Even though this story was revealed by a Republican to ABC News network the Republicans continue to play out their lie that this is all the fault of Democrats who are magnifying the Page scandal in order to influence voters for the November election. Duh! So what? What goes around comes around.

    This is what it takes to put the brakes on an out-of-control Bush mob who refuses to admit mistakes and continue to sell their snake oil to the public that Bush's Iraq War is "just and noble."

    Several Bush-lovers and big supporters of the Iraq War like Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press several weeks ago that even knowing what the administration knows now, that no W.M.D. existed in Iraq nor was Iraq an immediate threat to American interests or national security he would do the same thing all over again. That same line was repeated this week by Jim Talent who is running to maintain his U.S. Senate seat in Missouri.

    Bush, Cheney, Talent and other Bush Bootlickers insist that they couldn't care less about the laws of our country nor the international laws that have been adhered to by all civilized countries up until G. W. Bush decided to make up his own laws and rules.

    What they have said clearly is that they would gladly put 3,000 U.S. military in body bags again, cheer the wounding of 20,000 more U.S. military, many of whom have been dismembered and disabled for life, applaud the senseless slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children by sending them to early graves, and spending upwards of $8 billion per month to gain a foothold in the center of the Middle East where Bush has vowed to wipe out terrorism and convert the entire Muslim word to democracy at the end of a gun barrel.

    An article appeared in the news recently that James Baker III, the chief arbitrator in pushing Bush's eventual ascendancy to the White House into the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 in Bush vs. Gore, is now trying to come up with a plan to get our troops out of Iraq.

    The New York Times reported, "His (Baker's) comments yesterday offered a first glimmer of what other members of his study group, in interviews during the past two weeks, have described as an effort to find a politically face-saving way for Bush to slowly extract the United States from the war."

    In light of the fact that Bush himself has stated repeatedly that he believes every decision he has made is the right decision, why would Baker be trying to help Bush "save face?"

    Could it be that, like Dobson, Perkins, Falwell, Robertson and Jim Talent who unanimously support Bush's genocide and slaughter in Iraq, will also get on board to help Bush save face or will they focus instead on covering the butts of the astonishing hypocrisy by putting on a false appearance of virtue and religious purity in the Republican Party?

    In that case the choices should be crystal clear to Americans going to the polls in November. The Republican Party has put loyalty to their party and G. W. Bush as their first and only priority while subsuming our country's honor and democracy at the bottom of the heap.

    G. W. Bush is an abomination and a disgrace to the United States. The voters will have another chance at restoring democracy in America and give the autocratic Bush plutocracy the loud and clear message that whether he likes it or accepts it, our leaders are still accountable to the people.

    Posted by richard38 at 10/09/2006 @ 2:44pm

  3. Neglected but fertile ground indeed-- the hsuB admin and GOP leadership find themselves unexpectedly growing an entire orchard baring one poisonous bitter fruit after another from their past inept and corrupt--(not deeply enough), buried secrets. No market for this ‘stay the course' fruit.

    Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 5-6, 2006. Nationwide.

    From what you've heard or read, do you think House Speaker Dennis Hastert was aware of Foley's inappropriate conduct and tried to cover it up, or not?" N=1,004 adults, MoE ± 3 (for all adults)

    ___Tried to Cover it Up__Didn't Try to Cover it Up__Unsure

    ALL adults_______52____________24____________24

    _Republicans____29_____________43____________28

    _Democrats_____69_____________12____________19

    _Independents___50_____________25____________25

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/09/2006 @ 3:00pm

  4. Fertile groud indeed:

    Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 5-6, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?"

    ________Satisfied_____Dissatisfied___Unsure

    10/5-6/06____25__________67________8

    8/24-25/06___28__________65________7

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/09/2006 @ 3:11pm

  5. Ground, er, manure...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/09/2006 @ 3:14pm

  6. I was trying to think of all the scandals from this administration. here are the a's ( so far)

    jack abramoff claude Allen Against All Enemies Al qaqa Munitions dump General Abizaid Armstrong Williams

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 10/09/2006 @ 3:25pm

  7. This scandal does serve the Administration's need for a distraction so that you fail to write about the pending NUCLEAR WAR:

    .

    FALSE FLAG NUCLEAR WAR:

    history...REPEATED?

    Are we about to witness "USS LIBERTY II" and "9/11 - PART DEUX" all in the same attack?

    Take 1 Israeli Submarine.

    Place it off the coast of Iran.

    Now position the USS Enterprise just outside the perimeter established by the Israeli sub.

    The sub launches a nuclear tipped cruise missile at the Aircraft Carrier, vaporizing it in an instant - killing all 5,000 sailors on board ("worse than 9/11" - that's the key).

    The Fleet Commander notifies the President that Iran has (apparently) just nuked the USS Enterprise.

    The President declares a (FALSE FLAG) strike against our carrier to be no different that an attack against our soil, and clears the Israeli sub to launch what will appear to be a retaliatory strike against Iran, with a dozen nuclear missiles (all of which are pre-targeted using the targeting codes stolen by Israeli Spy Ariel Weinmann).

    THINK IT CAN'T HAPPEN?

    If the definition of "terrorism" includes threatening to cause harm to the population - to achieve political gain, Karl Rove is the number one terrorist on earth. Put Susan Ralston under oath and ask her how many terror alerts have been intentional false alarms designed to change the subject or "bury the lead."

    When the recent London False Alarm caused every television in the US to feature the headline "TERROR IN THE SKIES," it was done with the specific intent to bury two other stories that broke hours later...that just happened to be about Israel: The AIPAC (Franklin) spy trial was NOT thrown out of court & US sailor, Ariel Weinmann, was arrested for transferring submarine secrets to Israel.

    Considering Israel's nuclear-capable sub is about to unload on Iran, radio silence was required. No one heard these two stories, because the media was screaming about a nonexistent threat.Have you seen this?

    Updated Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:04 PM EDT IRAN WAR PLAN EXPOSED! PREPARE FOR THE SINKING OF A U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER – The USS Enterprise - CVN-65! The existence of a hideous plan to sacrifice a U.S. Aircraft Carrier as a pretext for war with Iran is presently being uncovered!

    The Hal Turner Show has been told that within the next five (5) weeks, the United States will "suffer" a missile attack upon the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, presently on patrol near the Persian Gulf. This attack will appear to be from numerous "Silkworm" and/or "Sunburn" missiles which will sink the vessel and kill most of the 5,000 crew onboard.

    The "attack" will be blamed on Iran and thus provide the Bush Administration with an excuse to go to war with that nation. The Hal Turner Show has learned that the missiles used to attack the USS Enterprise will not be fired from or by Iran, but rather will be a "false flag operation" made to LOOK as though Iran carried out the attack! The USS Enterprise is the worlds first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. It was Commissioned in 1961 and is due to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015. The ship was selected to be the "victim" of this "attack" due to its age.

    THOSE PLANNING THE ATTACK ARE INSIDE THE U.S. AND ISRAELI GOVERNMENTS and view the loss of the Enterprise crew as a necessary sacrifice to induce Americans to support war against Iran. Put bluntly, the ship and crew are to be cannon fodder. I am being fed more information and expect to be able to name names as to who is behind this plan. Check back often. LIBERTY REDUX | Homepage | 10.01.06 - Found on Rawstory message board

    Here is the DRESS REHEARSAL for the sinking of the USS Enterprise: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-17-ship-reef_x.htm

    Aircraft carrier sunk in Gulf of Mexico to create artificial reef Updated 5/17/2006 4:38 PM ETIN THE GULF OF MEXICO (AP) -- As hundreds of veterans looked on solemnly, Navy divers blew holes in a retired aircraft carrier and sent the 888-foot USS Oriskany to the bottom of the sea Wednesday, forming the world's largest deliberately created artificial reef. Clouds of brown and gray smoke rose in the sky after more than 500 pounds of plastic explosives went off. The rusted hulk took about 45 minutes to slip beneath the waves, about four hours faster than predicted.

    VIDEO: Navy ship sunk to create reef: Korean and Vietnam War veterans aboard charter boats watched from beyond a one-mile safety perimeter as the "Mighty O" went down in 212 feet of water, about 24 miles off Pensacola Beach. Lloyd Quiter of North Collins, N.Y., who served four tours on the ship in Vietnam, wept. "I'm a little stunned. It's a little hard to take," he said.

    AND WHY DID THEY FEEL THE NEED FOR THE DRESS REHEARSAL? BECAUSE WHEN THEY TRIED IT A YEAR EARLIER, IT TOOK 25 DAYS TO SINK THE USS AMERICA WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES! http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050522a.html USS America 1048-ft aircraft carrier sunk off North Carolina powered by CYBER DIVER News Network. NORTH CAROLINA (22 May 2005) -- The retired aircraft carrier USS America is on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, sunk by the Navy in a series of explosive tests that upset some veterans.

    The 84,000-ton, 1,048-foot warship that served the Navy for 32 years rests about 60 miles off the coast and more than 6,000 feet down, according to Pat Dolan, a spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command.

    She did not give a location, but the Navy previously said the explosions would take place off North Carolina. With the country (intentionally?) distracted by a sex scandal, and Rove's REAL October Surprise imminent, it's time to shift the focus back to Iran. The ONLY thing that would justify the cancellation of elections and the declaration of Martial Law would be a "Nuclear Crisis." The only thing that will prevent Bush's entire cabinet from going to prison is the cancellation of elections.

    A FALSE FLAG attack on a US Naval vessel would be declared the equivalent of an attack on US soil. This would "justify" Israel attacking Iran with Sub-launched nukes. Keep in mind, both the sinking of the US vessel and the purported retaliatory strike could all come from one Israeli sub. As described above, it's tough to sink an aircraft carrier. Apparently the only way to ensure that there are no witnesses (see USS Liberty incident) is to vaporize it with a mini-nuke. Did we send any to Israel in the recent delivery?

    The "terrorists" are in the White House - and run the Propaganda machinery. What did Ralston and Abramoff know about false terror alerts, and when did they know it? How many other Republicans know that the terror threats are MANUFACTURED? How many others know that 9/11 was an inside job that Cheney ran through NORAD? How many know that GHW Bush is the ACTUAL President, and everything we are being put through is specifically designed to cover the trail of his own criminality?

    Assume that nearly every Congressman and Senator is being blackmailed. Once you see the ability of Israel (Comverse) to wiretap every phone, and realize that only men of low moral character are allowed to enter the political arena (through the AIPAC filter), it becomes crystal clear how the US Congress was effectively neutered.

    The truth is the only cure for blackmail.

    Expose it all...URGENTLY.

    It's time for the US Navy to step forward, and neutralize the Israeli sub and stop this madness.

    Posted by plunger at 10/09/2006 @ 3:46pm

  8. Posted by PLUNGER 10/09/2006 @ 3:46pm

    PLUGNER, there is NO WAY that they are going to be able to destroy the "Enterprise"....I saw that episode.

    As the "secret Israeli sub" prepares to fire, Captain Kirk broadcasts on a coded channel the Israelis have already broken that he is going to set off his Corbomite Device, which will take them out too....

    Then they back off and the "Enterprise" escapes to Starbase 35!

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2006 @ 3:59pm

  9. BTW, Mr Corn...looks like Novak isn't letting you get in the last punch-

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles

    Posted by Mask at 10/09/2006 @ 4:43pm

  10. More numbers showing the repubs are in deep shit and the worst of it hasn't even hit the fan yet:

    Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 5-6, 2006. Nationwide.

    "Please tell me which political party -- the Republicans or the Democrats -- you trust to do a better job handling each of the following. What about moral values? Which party do you trust to do a better job handling this issue?" N=1,004 adults, MoE ± 3

    __Republican__Democratic__Both__Neither___Unsure

    ______36________42_______4_____10________8

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Oct. 6-8, 2006. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Generally speaking, do you think most Republicans in Congress are ethical or unethical?"

    __Ethical____Unethical____Unsure

    ____47_________44_________10

    "Generally speaking, do you think most Democrats in Congress are ethical or unethical?"

    ____54_________34_________11

    "Thinking specifically about the speaker of the House Dennis Hastert: Do you think Hastert should resign as the speaker of the House or do you think he should remain as the speaker of the House?"

    ___Resign_____Remain____Unsure

    ____52_________31________17

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    Generic Congressional Vote

    Poll_________________Date____Republican__Democrat__Spread

    Newsweek_______10/05 - 10/06_____39%_____51%_____12%

    Time____________10/03 - 10/04_____39%_____54%_____15%

    AP-Ipsos_________10/02 - 10/04_____41%_____51%_____10%

    Democracy Corps__10/01 - 10/03_____41%_____51%_____10%

    NBC/WSJ_________09/30 - 10/02_____39%_____48%_____9%

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    AS ALWAYS, WORST FOR THE REPUBS TO COME TOMORROW, STAY TUNED.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/09/2006 @ 4:53pm

  11. Mr Corn is, of course, correct that the Republicans are hoping against hope that nothing more comes out, that they have fixed the leaky roof and the House is saved. He's also probably right that this is at best a long shot and almost certainly won't save them in any case. That's all well and good for Democrats but there's still that nagging feeling that there's an "October surprise" lurking in the wings. That moment may be upon us, but not exactly as Rove would like.

    The problem for the Democrats is that now the Foley-House leadership scandal has been eclipsed and will fall out of the news cycle (at least in the MSM) faster than they would have hoped. That would be on account of the small matter of a North Korean nuclear (that's "nuculer" to you Bushites) test explosion. That they have actually done it now seems virtually certain (the Russians are already in no doubt and given the Chinese reaction I don't think they are either.) This raises two questions (well, three really, but I can let Mask ask why The Nation has nothing in its blogs about this yet): 1) what will BushCo do beyond rhetoric in reaction to this, and 2) will it save the Republicans from political disaster? I'm betting the answer to both will be unfavorable to the Republicans.

    First, it seems likely that BushCo will do nothing of any substance by the lights of their base. They'll get a chapter 7 resolution out of the Security Council and a heavy sanctions regime (given that China goes along, and judging from their reaction to the test they probably will as they seem to see a nuclear DPRK as even more of a threat than a collapsed DPRK) but there will be no military or other action that will satisfy the Republican base. They won't act for the simple reason that they can't, the U.S. military simply does not have the capability at this point to attack the DPRK and anything short of a full invasion or nuking the probable DPRK nuclear facilities won't work. The perceived threat of attack is almost certainly what drove the DPRK on in this case anyway (but I'll get back to that idea later when there's a proper thread for it.) Anything short of complete and total victory in a matter of hours or at most a couple of days would invite the very thing it purports to prevent; a DPRK nuclear attack (on whoever they see as the U.S.'s friend, be it South Korea, Japan, a close U.S. territory...) BushCo is hamstrung regardless of what they might want to do with conventional force, and the use of nukes is still out given that China would regard their use on the DPRK as a direct threat. So there will e a significant lack of action as the BushCo team has always defined it.

    This leads directly to the second question about how this will affect the Republican's chances in the mid-terms. The results are already starting to be felt, with the radical-right noise machine trying to blame Clinton for allowing this to happen. But this is an unpromising tactic for the party, since they've esentially already been called on it (Clinton's "Chris Matthews" appearance having done the deed over Osama, but by extension to all other uses of this tactic.) Indeed, the MSM is already noting the differences in Clinton and BushCo DPRK policy and the comparison is not good for the Republicans. Without some forceful action by BushCo to point to, they have (quite literally) nothing to hold up in opposition to the Agreed Framework to prove that they've done anything that has succeeded. They'll try to point to the 6-Party Talks agreement that they signed back in September 2005, but that's hardly going to save them given that the MSM has already noted how BushCo's own actions shot the thing down less than a week later. Given the mood of the nation as revealed in last week's Newsweek poll [msnbc.msn.com] it seems likely that the voters will blame BushCo for the DPRK going nuclear and that is very bad news for Republicans. It looks like we're dealing with the kind of "October surprise" that Rove would rather have kept off the airwaves and out of the public view.

    By the way, Newsweek also just reported Friday [talk.newsweek.com] on its "The Gaggle" blog that Rove's right-hand girl, Susan Ralston, has resigned in disgrace over her Abramoff connections. Seems Karl is likely to be a bit too busy to worry about keeping the Republican ship afloat. And the drip, drip, drip continues...

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/09/2006 @ 5:24pm

  12. Other recent quotes from Rep. Putnam:

    "I fully support the Speaker and his call for the FBI and state law enforcement to fully investigate this matter, wherever it may lead."

    "the dirty laundry in our conference is gone"

    "Based on the information we have today, the speaker's office acted proactively, they acted aggressively, and within hours, within hours of the explicit e-mails coming to light, they demanded Foley's resignation."

    Trying to find out the referrent for "they". Could it be that Hastert has actually been crowned and has assumed the royal plural? Beyond that, while I commend Putnam for sparing a few more doves (always love the image of warmongers--even cute little ones like Putnam--literally killing the symbol of peace), he might want to watch what comes out of his mouth as points of record.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/09/2006 @ 6:08pm

  13. "within hours of the explicit e-mails coming to light, they demanded Foley's resignation"

    this is a total, 100% fabrication. foley received no such demand, and in fact had resigned BEFORE the story hit the airwaves (which is when hastert said he demanded foley to resign).

    this is perhaps the most significant fact to come to light since ABC aired the story.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/09/2006 @ 6:40pm

  14. GOP Rep Jack Kingston said the same thing last weekend on Fox:

    I think the speaker would do to them what basically he did to Mark Foley, which was, "Get out or be fired," because, you know, the threat to Mark Foley, if he stayed around, he would have been expelled.

    again, total fabrication. and it's being maliciously spread by several GOP figures.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/09/2006 @ 6:42pm

  15. Conflating "gay" and "pedophile"...really the only way the GOP rides out this scandal and a lot of the liberal pundits are helping.

    (On a side-note...Not a single ref to "Hubris"!)

    Posted by MASK 10/09/2006 @ 2:31pm

    If the GOP pushes Foley as a "gay" issue they'll be seen for the craven hypocrites that you and I know they are.

    What's the "Hubris" you're referring to- this?:

    Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff and David Corn

    I think I'll buy it- rated four and a half stars on Amazon.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 7:15pm

  16. Is the Pedophile Party, formerly referred to as the Republican Party, starting to feel like it's getting waterboarded? Talk about poetic justice. And on so many levels.

    Where are the Swift Boat Veterans For Pedophilia when the former Republican Party needs them?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 7:21pm

  17. MASK- are you for or against pedophilia? An unequivocable statement please rather than trying to ramp up endless discussions about the best way to protect the pedophiles who've already been caught. So far.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 7:23pm

  18. This is really very sad. Inappropriate electronic communications. At the heart of this pseudo-scandal there is nothing more than electrons forming naughty words. And the Republican's only mistake was to not bring the Dem leader of the page program in last spring.

    So after a full week of this, North Korea detonates a nuclear bomb...

    And David Corn tries to stretch the pseudo-scandal over inappropriate electronic communications to two weeks.

    Pathetic.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/09/2006 @ 6:33pm

    What if it was YOUR son being hit on electronically by a 52 year old man?

    I suppose that I shouldn't expect much, after all, you're the guy who implied that the rape of a 6 year old would be justified if it would save a billion lives.

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/09/2006 @ 7:25pm

  19. This is really very sad. Inappropriate electronic communications. At the heart of this pseudo-scandal there is nothing more than electrons forming naughty words. And the Republican's only mistake was to not bring the Dem leader of the page program in last spring.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/09/2006 @ 6:33pm

    What if it was YOUR son being hit on electronically by a 52 year old man?

    I suppose that I shouldn't expect much, after all, you're the guy who implied that the rape of a 6 year old would be justified if it would save a billion lives.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 10/09/2006 @ 7:25pm

    I commented that his hypothetical made me think that he might be willing to engage in the rape of a 6-yr-old for purely personal reasons.

    I guess it's now confirmed, isn't it? The former Republican Party has a very strange constituency. How did some in America ever make the mistake of voting for people like this and entrusting them with our government?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 7:32pm

  20. And this is really very funny. Off-topic from Foley. On-topic of GOP campaign problems with a twist of Florida sunshine:

    Kat Harris is back! [tinyurl.com]

    Kat is so desperate, she is trumpeting results of a poll showing her soundly beating Bill Nelson. Problem? It was a straw poll...in a conservative district...at a chamber of commerce event...where people had to pay $25 to vote...and as the picture shows, Kat offered her help to minors just as Foley did (well not exactly like his help, but...)

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/09/2006 @ 8:37pm

  21. "..At the heart of this pseudo-scandal there is nothing more than electrons forming naughty words."

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/09/2006 @ 6:33pm

    Wow, that's not as bad as little bits of pigment on flattened old wood fiber. Or as bad as minute pressure perturbations emminating from a flap of tissue.

    That really is one of the stupidest things I've ever read here. (Including my occasional attempts at humor). How do you come up with this shit?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/09/2006 @ 8:40pm

  22. From David Corn's post:

    Responding to the effort to scapegoat the GOP's Lavender Bund, gay Hill GOPers told reporters they had years ago warned Hastert's office about Foley. These gay Republicans were essentially declaring: we ratted out one of our own, so don't blame us for Hastert having not done anything. As this intra-Republican sniping between gays and heteros transpired, gay politicos outside Republican circles began circulating what they called The List--a roster of two dozen or so gay senior Republican staffers in the House and Senate. With a possible shoot-out about to ensue within the Republican caucus, these gay politicos--who have long been upset with gays who serve a Republican party that opposes gay rights and embraces outfits that demonize gays and lesbians--were hoping to pour gasoline on the fire. They passed the list to social conservative groups outside the Republican party with a message: maybe this is why your political agenda is not racing through this GOP-controlled Congress. Their goal is obvious--to set off a civil war within the Republican party.

    That blows to hell NIKOLO's hyperventilating accusations on another thread that homophobia was being whipped up by the Democratic Party.

    The American people know this isn't about gays. It's about child sexual predators and a Republican Party that is willing to enable them if it means clinging to their lucrative, nation-destroying hold on power.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 8:59pm

  23. (On a side-note...Not a single ref to "Hubris"!)

    Posted by MASK 10/09/2006 @ 2:31pm

    Someone was thoughtful enough to add it for you, MASK, since you brought it up.

    By the way, when is your book coming out? The one about how "Leftists" are "always" advocating fair trade coffee but Democratic representative Bobby Joe Scarborough from Textile, N.C. stops by Dunkin' Donuts for coffeee on his way to work each morning?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 9:04pm

  24. Kat is so desperate, she is trumpeting results of a poll showing her soundly beating Bill Nelson. Problem? It was a straw poll...in a conservative district...at a chamber of commerce event...where people had to pay $25 to vote...and as the picture shows, Kat offered her help to minors just as Foley did (well not exactly like his help, but...)

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/09/2006 @ 8:37pm

    God only knows what could happen with the Supreme Court we have today.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 9:07pm

  25. The Pedophile Party (formerly referred to as the Republican Party) doesn't need damage control. They've already crashed and burned. What they need now, first of all, is evasive action to escape capture and then search and rescue to save them from starving in the wilderness.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 9:11pm

  26. In case anyone wanted to.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/09/2006 @ 9:11pm

  27. i see the nambla republicans are still trying to minimize the Foley debacle. heh.

    Posted by pretzel at 10/09/2006 @ 9:26pm

  28. marybretbradsibyl is lol funny as it desperately twists and turns to defend the nambla wing of the republican party.

    Posted by pretzel at 10/09/2006 @ 9:28pm

  29. maybe mary is the one that defends treason, and bret is the personality that defends torture, leaving it to brad to excuse pedophilia. kinda like schizo specialists.

    Posted by pretzel at 10/09/2006 @ 9:29pm

  30. Marybretbrad - all you know of Korea and a nuclear bomb is what you read in newspapers, magazines, or other print media, what you read on the internet, or what you you see on TV.

    So you shouldn't be worried, because the situation is really just ink and paper or electrons - hardly anything to be concerned about.

    You truly are sad and desperate when yopu imply that something is being made out of virtually nothing.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/09/2006 @ 10:26pm

  31. Poll Shows Foley Case Is Hurting Congress's Image

    Americans say that Republican Congressional leaders put their political interests ahead of protecting the safety of teenage pages, and that House leaders knew of Mark Foley's sexually charged messages to pages well before he was forced to quit Congress, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

    The public's view of Iraq is as dark as it has been since the war began in 2003, with two-thirds saying it is going somewhat or very badly, while only 3 percent are saying the war is going very well. Two-thirds said they disapproved of how Mr. Bush was handling Iraq.

    Mr. Bush's job approval rating has slipped to 34 percent, from 37 percent in September. That is one of the lowest levels of his presidency and poses a complication for the White House as it seeks to send him out on the road to rally base voters. Mr. Bush's job approval rating has even slipped with his base: 75 percent of conservative Republicans approve of the way he has handled his job, compared with 96 percent in November 2004.

    The president clearly faces constraints as he seeks to address the public concerns about Iraq that have shrouded this midterm election: 83 percent of respondents thought that Mr. Bush was either hiding something or mostly lying when he discussed how the war in Iraq was going. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said Mr. Bush was personally aware of intelligence reports before Sept. 11 that warned of possible domestic terrorist attacks using airplanes. When the same question was asked in May 2002, 41 percent said they believed Mr. Bush was aware.

    And in a month in which Republicans have sought to discredit Democratic challengers as advocates of big spending and high taxes, 52 percent of respondents said that Democrats would make the right decisions on how to spend taxpayers' money, while 29 percent said Republicans would.

    Americans said that Democrats would do a better job than Republicans in making decisions on the war, on the economy and on taxes. Democrats are viewed more positively, or less negatively, than Republicans, with 39 percent saying they held a favorable view of Republicans, compared with 54 percent who said they held an unfavorable view. By contrast, 52 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 40 percent who had an unfavorable view.

    The problems for Congress have clearly been exacerbated by the Foley scandal. Eighty percent of Americans said they considered the Foley revelations either very serious or somewhat serious. Two-thirds said that House Republicans did not initially take the warnings seriously enough, and 62 percent said they believed House Republican leaders knew before last week that Mr. Foley had sent sexually explicit messages to teenagers.

    The poll found that 47 percent of respondents believed that Democrats came closer to sharing their moral values, compared with 38 percent who said Republicans did. The Democratic standing in this area included some unlikely groups: 26 percent of conservatives and 43 percent of people who live in the South named Democrats as the party that came closer to sharing their values.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/us/politics/10poll.html?_r=1&hp&ex=116 0452800&en=f142eb5c1016cd81&ei= 5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/10/2006 @ 01:05am

  32. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/10/2006 @ 01:05am

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 03:50am

  33. Here lies

    The Republican Revolution

    Age 6

    The Good

    Die Young.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 03:55am

  34. This is really very sad. Inappropriate electronic communications. At the heart of this pseudo-scandal there is nothing more than electrons forming naughty words. And the Republican's only mistake was to not bring the Dem leader of the page program in last spring.

    Pathetic.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/09/2006 @ 6:33pm

    Here are some entries in MBB's Reactionary Republican dictionary:

    Cyber-stalking adolescents = Inappropriate electronic communications

    6 years of covering up and enabling cyber-stalker in order to maintain a Republican seat in House, and then lying about it = the Republican's only mistake was to not bring the Dem leader of the page program in last spring

    The country actually caring about the cyber-criminal coverup by the third most powerful person in Washington and the party controlling all three branches of government = pathetic.

    There's only one thing pathetic about this whole situation - the way the reactionary Republicans are scrambling to spin this in any way other than what it is - a total exposure of all that is wrong with their political policies and agenda.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/10/2006 @ 08:28am

  35. Rio -

    I am such a "fool", how come you cannot tell me why, in 2002, Bush authorized $95M to North Korea pursuant to the 1994 agreement.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/10/2006 @ 09:15am

  36. Rio -

    I am such a "fool", how come you cannot tell me why, in 2002, Bush authorized $95M to North Korea pursuant to the 1994 agreement.

    Posted by HMAN23 10/10/2006 @ 09:15am

    HMan -

    Correct me if I am wrong, but this was AFTER Chimpy designated No Ko as a member of the Axis of Evil, was it not?

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/10/2006 @ 10:07am

  37. Not that the above has anything to do with scum bags hitting on teens WITH THE TAXPAYERS MONEY (whether directely or indirectly)

    or the pukes who covered it up.

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/10/2006 @ 10:08am

  38. I issue a challenge to RIO NAMBLA [Re-posted from antoher thread]:

    Can you say, "Republican Congressman Mark Foley's acts of hitting on teenage pages made him clearly unfit for office -- and while, I am at it, I also denounce the indicted pedophile Warren Jeffs".

    Can you say that, RIO, in those words?

    A clear YES or NO: Got man-boy (or man-child) love? Or not?

    You tell us ...

    . . .

    (NOTE: Now, in response, watch for RIO NAMBLA's next wild, half-assed, gramatically tortured and false "drunk with a gun" screed against ... take your pick ... The Clintons, Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter, LBJ, JFK, RFK, MLK ... )

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/10/2006 @ 10:28am

  39. Republicans are terrified and they should be, because they know how stupid their prejudiced people are. With ignorance and prejudice come stupidity. Republicans are now TERRIFIED - of Republicans.

    Posted by conshame at 10/10/2006 @ 10:31am

  40. Posted by GLENN LEMON 10/10/2006 @ 10:28am

    Rio's other policy is to avoid responding to logical statements, wait until there is a break in the action, and then attack someone else with hyperbolic rhetoric. Talk about cutting and running!

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/10/2006 @ 10:34am

  41. Terrorized - by the way Conservatives, Ken Mehlman the Chairman of the Republican National Committee - RNC -

    Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman: is a homosexual.

    Yes,

    Posted by conshame at 10/10/2006 @ 10:36am

  42. According to various timelines of CIA estimates....North Korea had enough weapons grade Plutonium by 1992. Developed under Daddies watch. In 1994 a framework agreement was developed that effectively halted further processing. Subsequently, it was estimated that North Korea still had enough weapons grade plutonium by 2000 for 1-2 warheads.

    Today the estimates put North Korea's stash at enough for 9-13 warheads.

    Message to Iran.....develop nuclear weapons and you'll be safe like North Korea....don't develop nuclear weapons and we'll have Condi rice babble on about mushroom clouds and we'll invade like we did to Iraq.

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/10/2006 @ 10:36am

  43. Posted by SKELETONMAN 10/10/2006 @ 10:07am

    Yes it was.

    But of course for people like Rio - it is ALWAYS the fault of Clinton (of Carter). It's like a game of "six degrees" - all of the problems in the world can be traced to those folks.

    I was under the impression that responsibility and accountability came with the job, but with folks like Rio, it depends what you are talking about. Something good - praise Bush; something bad - blame Clinton.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/10/2006 @ 10:37am

  44. Rahm Emmanuel was the finest spokesperson the dems have put out since Obama. Why has he bee off screen? Give Dean the boot and put Emmanuel out front. It would ive the dems a 5% boost. The guy did not scream, interrupt or appear incoherent. He was precise and had a firm grasp of the facts of the case. Almost unheard of from a Talking Head.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 10:38am

  45. crabwalk:'The guy did not scream, interrupt or appear incoherent.

    this is a most unfair characterization of Dean.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 10:41am

  46. Posted by HMAN23 10/10/2006 @ 10:37am

    Pretty much somes it up. Clinton has been gone for 6 years, what has chimpy done? Rio, go back and look at the timeline. When did N. Korea kick out inspectors and pull off the UN locks? I think you will find it was right after chimpy invaded a soveriegn nation that did not have nukes. When Clinton left Kims program was suspended and under watch.

    Again, I am reminded of Team America, the scene where Hans Blicks (Ahh, HAns Bricks) tells Kim that if he does not stop the UN will be very angry and will write a letter telling him how angry they are. There is not much that can be done to stop them from doing whatever the hell they want. How do you sanction the most isolated country in the world?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 10:46am

  47. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 10:41am

    it was a general characterization of most politicians that show up on talk shows, they come off as spoiled children, unwilling to give honest, straightforward answers. Dean has been know to do those things too.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 10:48am

  48. In case ya'll missed it last time I posted it, I am still waiting to here from the resident Neo-cons. What happened to the Contract with America?

    On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

    FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress; SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse; THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs; FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public; SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

    1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

    3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

    6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world

    Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 10:51am

  49. a small communist country has tested an atomic bomb. so what? North Korea has NOT attacked anyone, it has NOT threatened anyone.an unstable leader? we got one. a failed state? the US could be so described. the US has 10,000 nukes. north Korea passing nuclear know how on to other countries? our dear ally Pakistan has done that in spades. without any sanctions.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 10:54am

  50. Give Dean the boot and put Emmanuel out front. It would ive the dems a 5% boost.

    Posted by CRABWALK 10/10/2006 @ 10:38am

    Brace yourself, CRAB.....I agree!

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 10:58am

  51. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 10:54am

    JOHANN, North Korea needs and LIKES cold hard cash.

    Now, what if Al Queda saves up their pennies....and buys a nuke from Kim "Herro Hans Brix" Jong-il?

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 10:59am

  52. RIO NAMBLA:

    Some of us proudly call ourselves JEFFERSONIANS -- for Founding Father Thomas.

    Now, answer: Are you a JEFFSONIAN -- for Pedophile Father Warren?

    Don't hesitate to answer. The question is answerable "yes" ... or "no". No other words need apply ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/10/2006 @ 11:01am

  53. Brace yourself MASK, I agree. N. Korea is at the brink of collapse. They are a far more serious threat than Iran or Iraq (which was no threat). I doubt they would drop a nuke, they can't make a missile go far, yet. But they could very well sell a small one to somebody with a very large bag of cash.

    More realistically though, I think Kim will use his newfound power for leverage rather than set one off.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 11:04am

  54. Or Rio, Luvvy, Mary and Barry could form the nexus of the N. Korea invasion force. They would be greeted as liberators, with dancing in the streest, flowers and the whole deal. I bet N. Koreas oil would pay for the whole thing, not more than 2 billion, tops.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 11:07am

  55. Mask, what if? what if the soviets who have thousands of nukes sell one to my grandmother? what will al qaeda, who are not in any way connected to N. Korea, do with that nuke? do they have ICBMs? do they have any kind of targeting system? what if the islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan get a bomb? much more likely than Kim selling it to al qaeda, as Pakistan is largely allied with al qaeda.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 11:08am

  56. Crab,

    As many have said here many times,, the contract with America was a great thing and as it was implimeneted it worked well. Now we have a cingress run by rinos and there are no conservatives in DC any more. If we had them then the dems would lose another 30 seats...in stead we have libs thinking there is a ground swell for them....while in reality there is a vote against the repubs for not being conservative...the fsact you keep blasting neocons where they don't even exist anymore is one example for you of how you fulfill the prophecy...you are the "middle majority", when you se neo cons everywhere....missing the fact that the conservatives are up set that th congress has NOT been conservative.

    In other words..no one is running left..rather they are pissed no is on the right any more as repubs spend like libs.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/10/2006 @ 11:08am

  57. Crabwalk, They are a far more serious threat

    why? has north korea threatened anyone? have they attacked anyone? why are they a threat? the soviets have thousands of nukes. Pakistan, a very unstable dictatorship in a sea of islamic radicals would seem to be a far greater threat.

    I thought you were characterizing Dean with the scream thing. if you were not, my apologies.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 11:10am

  58. it was implemented..,? when was it implemented?

    Rhino, neo-con, same thing.

    Your argument holds true for the 92 election also, I don't think people were running right as much as sick of the dems. Although there was the whole right-wing radio screamfest scaring folks into vearing right.

    Hey, Hollows Eve approaches, isn't it time to hear about the "attack on Christmas"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 11:30am

  59. fsact you keep blasting neocons where they don't even exist anymore is one example for you of how you fulfill the prophecy...you are the "middle majority", when you se neo cons everywhere....missing the fact

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/10/2006 @ 11:08am

    Blah blah blah ...

    I have actually made some effort to sift through this Rosetta Stone-like amorhpous blob of drivel that JOHN MAASCH self-importantly regards as his "ideas". There is not much in his army of words in search of coherance, just vintage intellectual flabbiness from our bosom buddy MAASCH.

    But, out of this garbage dump of hieroglyphics, one can re-assemble one unchallenged truism that MAASCH is too lazy/inept to state clearly. Namely, when the "Clinton did it!" puppyshit fails, one can try reaching for the, red-faced idignant oldie: "But the failures of this avowedly rightwing government (congress, legislature, courts) is not the work of r-e-a-l conservatives!".

    It is a fundementalist move that fundementalists gravitate toward. "THEY have betrayed the faith (while acting in its name)!", the fundementalist snorts indignantly. "THEY have failed to be conservative enough (as other-worldly doctrinal purity demands)!" "If only REAL conservatism had been attempted (by the conservatives), then it would all be different from the shitmess of failure that we see before us!" ... and so on, since the fundemantalist can never see that his or her god has failed, again and again.

    These are straight-up anti-reality doctrines put forth by fundementalists freaks who are alien to reality, to evidence, to reason, and who wildly vibrate with rage at the world ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/10/2006 @ 11:31am

  60. JR, a far more serious threat than Iran or Iraq. I see the threat from Russia being from the loose material floating around, the stuff the Nunn/Lugar (?) plan was supposed to pick up. Till Chimpy chimped out on the funding.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 11:33am

  61. wildly vibrate with rage at the world ...

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 10/10/2006 @ 11:31am | ignore this person

    That is their little hamster feet flailing in anguish as their plans are proven to be ideology, not real world solutions.

    I am going to go drink beer now, good MI brews, and laugh with my socialist friends about the collapse of the repube moral empire. Truly a sight to behold. Have a great day all, and keep those kids away from repube fund raisers!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 11:37am

  62. Chimpy chimped out on the funding. Posted by CRABWALK 10/10/2006 @ 11:33am

    Say more about this "staunch" "defender" of "national security", CRABWALK, and the policies pursued in this case.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/10/2006 @ 11:37am

  63. That is their little hamster feet flailing in anguish as their plans are proven to be ideology, not real world solutions. Posted by CRABWALK 10/10/2006 @ 11:37am

    CRAB, I was envisioning MAASCH's unrestrained, tremulous and pendulous ManBoobs when I hatched that line.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/10/2006 @ 11:39am

  64. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/10/2006 @ 12:29am

    What is what it is pathetic! Now the investigations trying to pin the tail on Rep. and Dem.s will distract all from another obvious truth already in play!

    And what do we say, Rio, about your distractions from reality? Once again you have proven that you have no idea what you're nattering on about. This is a fairly classic distraction ploy for BushCo and the right-radical noise machine; "blame Clinton and throw in Carter just to make it clear that it really must be the Democrats who screwed it all up despite the fact that it happened on our watch." And it's no more valid than the "Clinton made 9/11 happen because he didn't get bin Laden" version of the same ploy. It won't fly beyond your rather limited circle of right-wing true believers for the simple reason that it doesn't coencide with the facts.

    When I posted this some fool asked why Bush has not done anything, like reposess I guess the equipment and technology slick willie and jimmeny peanut gave the N. Koreans! What a bunch of dufuses! Although the equipment used by North Korea to affect Monday's nuclear test was actually delivered to it by then President Clinton, with that administration's Light Water Nuclear Reactors' program, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed President Bush. On Monday, Sen. Clinton said that North Korea's nuclear test was due to "the failed Bush Administration's policy".

    I'll give you this, you were right to correct someone who thought BushCo had done nothing about the DPRK's nuclear program, but not in the way you think. They did quite a bit, though most of it was either too little or counterproductive and some of it was downright dangerous and provocative. You try to shift the blame to the Clinton administration and the Agreed Framework of 1994 [armscontrol.org], but it won't work. You show obvious misunderstandings of what the Agreed Framework did and what was provided to the DPRK, and take off from there to complete you fanatsy. Let's look at the actual facts of the matter.

    First, there is the matter of technology transfer. What you imply is that the Agreed Framework gave the DPRK technology that could be used in thier weapons programs, which is demonstrably false. The only technology set to be transfered by the Agreed Framework was for two light water reactors to replace the graphite reactors that the DPRK already had. This was an anti-proliferation clause specifically designed to make it harder for the DPRK to divert material to a weapons program (since light water reactors produce much less plutonium 239 and what they do produce is more difficult to extract from the spent fuel; see this article [en.wikipedia.org] on light water reactors for a full discussion.) No other technology was transfered nor were even the critical components of the LWR's sent to the DPRK as they never lived up to the more rigorous parts of the Agreed Framework (especially the compliance with the full IAEA inspections and safeguard regime that was a precondition for such transfer.) It is also well to remember that the LWR's involved were of South Korean design (i.e., already out in the civilian world outside of the U.S.) and were well know to be one of the best designs to prevent divesion of plutonium. See this article [en.wikipedia.org] and this article [fas.org] on the Agreed Framework for a full discussion of this and the other non-proliferation provisions in the Agreed Framework. What all this amounts to is this; the Clinton administration used the best tools available (both diplomacy and UN sanctions) to try and curb the DPRK's nuclear ambitions. They secured an agreement that not only did not transfer any dangerous technology to the DPRK but secured the dismantling of their dangerous graphite reactors, know reprocessing capabilities and IAEA oversite of their stocks of spent fuel. The technology of LWR's has nothing to do with other phases nuclear weapons production (i.e., the problems of actually making something that will explode) and specifically impedes the use of its fuel for weapons grade material. So your contention that the Agreed Framework somehow provided the DPRK with what it needed to produce a nuclear weapon is complete fantasy.

    We do know quite well where the technology the DPRK is now using has come from; Pakistan, specifically the A.Q. Khan network. That involves an entirely different route to producing weapons grade material, by using highly enriched uranium (they have fairly large natural deposits to work from.) This is the technology that Khan exported to at least three countries that we know of (including the DPRK) and that has apparently worked (it certainly worked for Pakistan.) That is not to say that the DPRK hasn't used plutonium (since the IAEA learned that they had probably extracted between 10 and 24 kilos of plutonium in 1990 and 1991 after beginning the nuclear waste inspections authorized by the Agreed Framework) but the weapons technology itself is almost certainly a product of the Khan network. It is also well worth noting that Khan's network had significant support from China (they hoped a nuclear Pakistan would be a counter to their rival India.) In other words, the idea that the Agreed Framework made possible nuclear weapons production rather than at least slowing it down is also an unsupportable conclusion.

    The agreement with North Korea was made by the Clinton Administration in 1994 and was assisted by former President Jimmy Carter. Predictably, North Korea's Kim Jong Il deceived the US and did not live up to the agreement. Clinton then offered even more nuclear reactors to the rogue country.

    This is a mix of hyperbole with no real insight and incorrect information. There were never any "second offers" from the Agreed Framework (only the two original LWR's were ever proposed and those were never actually built, though ground was broken for the first.) Nor were the DPRK the only ones to fail to live up to the Agreed Framework. The U.S. had promised to ship some 500,000 tons of heavy oil to them to make up for the lost generating capacity of the shuttered graphite reactors (which were actually shut down and placed under IAEA inspections) until the LWR's were online. But we often failed to deliver this fuel in a timely (or even complete) manner. This does not excuse the DPRK from keeping its clandestine weapons program alive, but it hardly makes us blameless either (and the problems were largely from Congress, who were reluctant to produce the required funds.) The problem is that we might have been able to extend the Agreed Framework to further inspections and much better control of the DPRK's ambitions except that their perceived threat level from the U.S. went right back through the roof in 2002. Why? Their inclusion in the "Axis of Evil". In a totalitarian-ideological state like the DPRK, such rhetoric is seen as overlaying more direct threats, since that is the nature of how they themselves operate. BushCo practically guarenteed that they would up the ante and accelerate their weapons program while at the same time trying to use it as a counter-threat to the U.S. (and thus their revealing to the U.S. in 2002 that they had been pursuing uranium enrichment.) The result was not only a final withdrawal from the NNPT but also the ejection of the IAEA inspectors who had been keeping tabs on the DPRK's reactors and spent fuel, thus producing a situation where they could (for the first time since 1994) reprocess that fuel for plutonium. Nothing since has been handled any better, especially the fiasco over the Six-party Agreement [nti.org]. The actions of BushCo in making an agreement and then imposing additional sanctions only a month later (while, by the way, having essentially returned to the provisions of the Agreed Framework in the Six-party Agreement) show just how incompetent they have been in this regard. The current test, along with the previous missile tests, are almost certainly a product of this new (to DPRK perceptions threatening) attitude from BushCo. If you really want to find the core of why we are at the crisis point now, look no further than your boy Georgie.

    The Clinton Administration also supplied China, North Korea's biggest ally, with ballistic missile navigational technology.

    Once again, you have facts mixed up with your fanatsies. The Clinton administration did not authorize the transfer of guidence technology to China, though that transfer did take place. It was conducted by Loral corp. and did not have the approval of the government (indeed, by the time of the 1998 scandal you're no doubt referring to, Loral was under FBI investigation for this transfer, charges they later pled "no contest" to.) The Clinton administration did authorise a "national interest" waiver in 1998 for Loral and Hughes to use a Chinese launch facility to send up the ChinaSat8, but this was later overturned by the State Department. So once again, you have strayed into territory where the facts do not support your conclusions.

    I'd think you'd learn to fact check the ideas you get from the right-wing noise machine Rio. They get you into trouble here so often one might suspect that you simply don't care if they're factual or not as long as they support your preconceived ideas.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/10/2006 @ 11:42am

  65. The nookyular hysteria over Iran is bullshit.

    Most intelligence estimates put them 10 years away from weapons-grade plutonium, but we're once again going to cherry-pick the intelligence and gin up another illegitimate war in order to further our hegemonic agenda in the oil-soaked sandpit.

    North Korea has enough weapons-grade fissible material for over a dozen warheads, and if they starve a few hundred thousand more of their citizens, they'll be able to refine their admittedly shaky delivery platforms into at least a regional threat. Additionally, they're desperately poor, fuck-all crazy, and could sell weapons to any of the other crazy, but oil-rich assholes who hate us.

    But, hey, we'll go to the UN over that bunch...

    Posted by drhammer at 10/10/2006 @ 11:43am

  66. LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL!!! hhahaha, oh man, I have to wipe.

    I had to log back on and pass along a Robin williams quote a friend just told me " It's time to bring our boys home"

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 11:43am

  67. From Congress!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 11:44am

  68. So the "fear" is that cash strapped North Korea will sell AlQueda nuclear material?

    Ummm.....that's pretty easy to combat. What you should do is cut off AQ's source of funding. To cut off the (current source of)funding is pretty simple....you eradicate the poppy crops of Afghanistan.

    Since the ouster of the Taliban, opium production is way up.....AQ funding is therefore way up.

    While we literally dick around in Iraq the fight against terrorism is being lost.

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/10/2006 @ 11:47am

  69. Glen, you da LOL man, Can you envision a tiny lil hamster with giant man-boobs? Better not get in front of Foley!!

    sorry John, I know it is in bad taste and should be beneath us, but gawd was that funny.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/10/2006 @ 11:47am

  70. Posted by STWRILEY 10/10/2006 @ 11:42am

    Firstly, you must know by now that the wingnuts could give a rodent's rectum about being steered in the direction of fact.

    Secondly, I think most of the rest of us do.

    Thanks.

    Posted by drhammer at 10/10/2006 @ 11:53am

  71. From Congress!!! Posted by CRABWALK 10/10/2006 @ 11:44am

    At least keep them away from the legislators of persuasion GOP (Grand Old Pedophiles), around whom the streets are not safe to walk.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/10/2006 @ 11:54am

  72. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 11:08am

    JOHANN, why is the idea of North Korea selling a nuke to Al Queda SO OUTLANDISH, but Pakistan giving one to Al Queda free-of-charge nearly a given with you?

    Musharaff somehow nuttier in your mind than Kim?

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 12:09pm

  73. Mask, your reading comprehension is zilch. Pakistan is a powderkeg of islamic radicalism, north korea isn't. Pakistan is hiding Osama, perhaps. north Korea isn't. from the north korean point of view, and probably Iran's too, a nuke is an insurance policy against US military adventurism. look what happened to hapless Saddam. if Iraq had had a nuke, there would have been no invasion and no regime change. would the world and the US most of all, have been better off in that scenario? I submit yes.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 12:23pm

  74. Mask, the demonizing of foreign leaders, whom we disagree with, is stupid and diplomatically a dead end. the US has had no trouble to cuddle with the world's worst, when it was convenient to do so. these nations and their leaders are best not attacked head on. a better approach is to make nice with their enemies.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 12:47pm

  75. Pakistan is a powderkeg of islamic radicalism, north korea isn't. Pakistan is hiding Osama, perhaps. north Korea isn't.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 12:23am

    Gee, JOHANN...I had NO IDEA that North Korea wasn't a "powderkeg of islamic fundamentalism" or "hiding bin Laden". I thought the place was just eat up with Islamist radicals.

    I guess we're lucky it's an economic basket-case, which has shown no compunction about selling weapons and other technology for hard currency in the past....and of course trust Kim Jong-il's reasonableness and sensibility and international cooperative nature.

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 12:48pm

  76. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 12:47am

    LOL!.....yet YOU go off on Mushareff, while letting Kim off the hook!

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 12:48pm

  77. 60 bodies found in baghdad over the last 24 hours

    Posted by darladoon at 10/10/2006 @ 12:59pm

  78. johannes, and not only that, but think about this way:

    there are essentially 3 options in dealing with enemies

    1. bomb them

    2. negotiate with them

    3. do nothing

    bush eliminated #2, which leaves war or nothing. is that smart?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/10/2006 @ 1:00pm

  79. Mask, we KNOW that Pakistan has sold nuclear secrets. I do not let Kim off any hook, that's you putting words in my mouth, back to your old tricks. if you don't stop that nonsense you will be ignored.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 1:06pm

  80. Darla, you are correct. after five years of Bush regime, no one but Baker has thought of actually talking to our adversaries. note I did not use the word enemies.

    Darla, when you announced your impending move to Vancouver, you raised my envy temperature. I recently found out that a college chum of mine is not only a millionaire bit also lives in Victoria, BC. damn.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 1:09pm

  81. which has shown no compunction about selling weapons and other technology for hard currency in the past.

    the US is by far the leading arms merchant of the world. Israel is also one of the biggest. what else does north Korea have to sell?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 1:12pm

  82. Stwriley,

    Your 11:42AM posting was utterly stupendous. I always read your posts as they make for excellently researched point / counterpoint reading.

    Thanks.

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/10/2006 @ 1:14pm

  83. one of our biggest complaints about N Korea is that they are isolated. and what are we to do now? isolate them, perpetrate acts of war on them, such as embargoes etc. schmaart

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 1:15pm

  84. Freedom, you are correct, a very fine post from Riley.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 1:17pm

  85. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

    Foley is gone, but not forgotten.

    Hastert has "forgotten" but is not gone (yet).

    Republicans wish Foley was gone and forgotten.

    Republicans should be gone in November, and their exploits should never be forgotten.

    Bush is not gone (yet) and will probably never be forgotten (Richard M. who?).

    Clinton is gone, and can't be possibly be forgotten (since the reactionaries act like he's the boogeyman - responsible for all that's wrong with the world).

    Did I forget anybody

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/10/2006 @ 1:32pm

  86. Yes, Turk,

    Consistency in defining and fighting for what it stands for among the Democratic Party is gone AND forgotten.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/10/2006 @ 1:44pm

  87. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 1:06pm |

    JOHANN... in THAT, that post (above), right there...you do it again. You mention Pakistan selling nuclear secrets...but not North Korea!

    What is it about Kim Jong-il that deserves such "diplomacy"?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 1:58pm

  88. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/10/2006 @ 1:44pm

    Oh come on, TJ....starting to sound like ZERO.

    Dems keep away from "purity" and thinking that most Americans, who DO believe Bush is a failure, have now (after 35 years) become raging liberals who want a Dennis Kucinich agenda put in place....can represent the will of the people.

    But that means keeping the "Kuciniches" AS WELL as the "Obamas", "Bidens", and dare I say ("Dare, dare!"--Bart "Blazing Saddles")..."Liebermans"?

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 2:01pm

  89. Musharaff somehow nuttier in your mind than Kim? Posted by MASK 10/10/2006 @ 12:09am

    Musharaff actually has his hands tightly around the reins -- or no?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/10/2006 @ 2:02pm

  90. when has N Korea sold nuclear secrets?

    diplomacy is not some sweet we use to reward our friends. diplomacy is what you use to come to agreements with your adversaries. what is so difficult to understand about that? see James Baker.

    we were discussing arms sales, which are a very different matter from selling nuclear secrets. having a discussion with you is like having one with an alzheimers patient. everything has to be repeated at least twice.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 2:03pm

  91. Posted by STWRILEY 10/10/2006 @ 11:42am

    All of this is basically correct but it doesn't adequately reveal the extent to which the Republican control of Congress was responsible for the failure of the Agreed Framework. The claim that North Korea had been cheating on the Agreed Framework the entire time lacks any proof, I think. Someone point it out if there is.

    In the late 80's and early 90's it was concluded that North Korea was not fully adhering to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which they were a party. This led to the Agreed Framework in 1994 between the US and North Korea which shut down their graphite reactors. Their main motivation to agree to this was most likely the promise of the normalization of relations and security assurances that the US would not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against North Korea.

    The Republicans gained control of Congress after the signing of the Agreed Framework in 1994 at which point they did everything they could to sabotage it in Congress while issuing a stream of bellicose statements. Five years later, in 1999, there had still been almost no movement toward full normalization of political and economic relations, as specified in the Agreed Framework. It was at this time that North Korea warned they would resume nuclear research unless the U.S. kept up its end of the bargain. It's likely to have been at this time that they began their gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program which is not related to the Agreed Framework but is a violation of the NPT (because not monitored). The uranium enrichment program was discovered in December 2002. Three months later they restarted their graphite reactors, which had been shut down up to that point, so nothing violating the Agreed Framework could have been taking place there.

    Absent the years during which the Ageed Framework had been adhered to it has been estimated that North Korea would now be capable of over 100 nuclear weapons rather than the current estimates of as high as a dozen.

    Also, any discussion of nuclear weapon proliferation should not ignore the following:

    "A rule-based system cannot be sustained globally without the vast majority of states believing that voluntary adherence to international rules and obligations is mutually beneficial and that rules will be fairly enforced.

    This leads back to the disarmament bargain on which the nonproliferation regime was founded in the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. The states that did not then possess nuclear weapons agreed not to acquire such weapons, while the five that did--Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union and the United States--agreed in return to get rid of their nuclear arsenals at some undetermined time. The five pre-1967 nuclear weapons states plus Israel, India and Pakistan (which never signed the treaty) no longer fool anyone that they take disarmament seriously. The United States leads the pack in still refusing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is the most basic benchmark of fidelity to the goal of nuclear abolition.

    Instead of keeping bargains premised on international equity and universal standards, Washington prefers to eliminate bad governments and bend the rules for friendly ones." -- Gone Nuclear: How the World Lost Its Way

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061023/forum

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 2:06pm

  92. Clinton is gone, and can't be possibly be forgotten ...

    Posted by TURK33 10/10/2006 @ 1:32pm

    That's right, TURK. Because Clinton's stream of semen caused 9/11. You bet. It went through the blue dress and then into a time warp and emerged, oh, 5 years later in the form of jets over the east coast. Clinton's semen. Yes, that was Clinton's evil seed, his semen, his evil.

    Just ask some of the theologians here like AYATOLLAH AL-LIBERTI or RIO NAMBLA to explain the details -- that is, after they are finished finished with their knee-time (facing Mecca?) and chants for SCOTUS justices to die (among other elevated causes) as their masters have instructed them to pray.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/10/2006 @ 2:09pm

  93. MASK,

    Didn't refer to my own beliefs about what the Dems should be (which, of course, are socialists!). Referred only to a general sense of what they stand for. Do most people still remember? Do the Dems themselves know what this is, besides "not those guys"?

    But you're right. On the topics of the Democrats, I agree with much if not all of what Zero has written.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/10/2006 @ 2:09pm

  94. the US is by far the leading arms merchant of the world. Israel is also one of the biggest. what else does north Korea have to sell?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 1:12pm

    Gee, if I had said that he would have accused me of anti-semitism.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 2:12pm

  95. "Did I forget anybody"

    Teah, you did,..Gore..always forgotten and always gone, but never goes anywhere.

    If the repubs are so bad, and I think they are right now since they are not conservative at all, which is why they were voted in , then then there should be no reason the dems don't take the House and Senate..correct? If they fail in either or both, does that mean they are worse than the repubs? In other words, this should be a huge opportunity for them and should sweep, if history is a barometer,..what does it say if they don't?

    Will they break up into greens and conservative dems?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/10/2006 @ 2:16pm

  96. Bird you are a schmuck, accusing me of something I have not done in the past or now. shameful.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 2:21pm

  97. maasch, you can't seem to make up your mind. one minute they dems will sweep, the next minute the repubs will hold. I know it's confusing, but a bit of thought before you post should help.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 2:23pm

  98. WOW, 3-4 months of hsuB lying as much as he could-- 'poof' in 2 1/2 weeks. A 15 point drop that quick can only indicate a light bulb just now being turned-on in the US citizenry consciousness and all the BS and spin the hsuB admin did before won't work again as the GOP/hsuB admin are seen untrustworthy and incompetent. So everything that they do now rings more than a bit hollow and feeling mostly dishonest sounding. All hsuB and his GOP conspirators can do now is wallow in it and see as the rest of the bottom drops out.

    PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls

    ______Date__Approve_Disapprove_Unsure___minus

    USA Today/Gallup

    ___10/6-8/06___37______59_______4_______-22

    ___9/15-17/06___44______51_______5________-7

    ___8/18-20/06___42______54_______4_______-12

    ___7/28-30/06___40______56_______4_______-16

    ___6/23-25/06___37______60_______3_______-23

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/10/2006 @ 2:38pm

  99. JR,

    MY FEELING IS REPUBS WILL HOLD, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK THEY DESERVE IT...HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE OUT PARTY SHOULD WIN AND GIVEN THE MOOD TOWARDS BUSH, THEN THE DEMS SHOULD SWEEP...BUT IF THEY DON'T WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF THEY DON'T ?

    THIS IS MY ONLY POINT..SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/10/2006 @ 2:42pm

  100. Back to drip, drip, drip. It's surprising that the Republicans haven't found a dallying Democratic Foley. It's beyond naive to think they haven't been looking for one, or more. Either there are none or the Dems are better at cover-up than the Repubs.

    That said, an hour ago Rove declared that Republicans will keep control of the House and the Senate in November. North Korea and its maybe-bomb pales compared to that news from Rove, who is not given to idle remarks. WWIII, Diebold, take your pick...Rove has no intention of seeing his years of hard work go up in flames - of course the world may, but as long as the Thugs still run the show, who cares.

    Posted by felicity at 10/10/2006 @ 2:46pm

  101. Bird you are a schmuck, accusing me of something I have not done in the past or now. shameful.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 2:21pm

    Is it irony that Johannesrolf used a Yiddish expletive in a response to an accusation of anti-Semiticism?

    And John Maasch, I agree that the Republicans aren't conservative/Libertarian any more, but the fact is they run on those party platforms. What the Republican party has become, even more than ever, is reactionary. They don't want to preserve some status quo (conservative) but instead want to use Dr. Peabody's Way Back Machine to go to a time when the rich could do whatever they want and the poor don't count (didn't Teddy and Co. pass some antitrust legislation because of the ill effects monopolies have on the general welfare?); when a government had all the power it wanted, and changes the legal code (US Constitution in this case) to make the authority "legal;" when all you needed to wage war was an ignorant population (have that) and yellow journalists to fire up said ignorant population (Can you say Unfair and Imbalanced?), and a completely pathetic opposition party (uh oh - where's Dr. Peabody when you need him?).

    The point is that whatever label you give them, the Republicans are generally traitorous, lying douchebags, and even if the Democrats aren't as pure as the driven snow, I have to believe that things would be a whole lot better for Americans (and almost everybody else on this planet) if the reactionary Republicans were soundly thrashed in November.

    Problem is, it's the rich who are still in charge voting machines (Diebold comes to mind), and as Stalin once said (and didn't he know a thing or two about reactionary politics and consolidating power) - "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/10/2006 @ 2:48pm

  102. Either there are none or the Dems are better at cover-up than the Repubs.

    Posted by FELICITY 10/10/2006 @ 2:46pm

    Or it may take a little time to find them....say January 2007, as the new Dem Congress is sworn in. Knocking them off their agenda and forcing them to address an issue they won on (in Nov. 2006), but really didn't care about.

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 3:00pm

  103. It just keeps getting worse every day for the repubs. By the end of the month hsuB and congressional repubs will be lucky to be hitting the 20's in approval polls. (Apart from the Nixon impeachment numbers I don't recall them being this low for one party just before an election.) Best for the repubs not to even try rigging the election-- not a big enough number trusts them at all not even a fair portion of repubs. Way too risky for pulling that now. There wouldn't a problem pushing an investigation when the polls are so different.

    Generic Congressional Vote

    Poll_________________Date____Republican__Democrat__Spread

    CNN______________10/06 - 10/08____37%_____58%_____21%

    USA Today/Gallup___10/06 - 10/08____36%_____59%_____23%

    Newsweek_________10/05 - 10/06_____39%_____51%_____12%

    Time______________10/03 - 10/04_____39%_____54%_____15%

    AP-Ipsos___________10/02 - 10/04_____41%_____51%_____10%

    Democracy Corps____10/01 - 10/03_____41%_____51%_____10%

    NBC/WSJ___________09/30 - 10/02_____39%_____48%_____9%

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/10/2006 @ 3:36pm

  104. Is it irony that Johannesrolf used a Yiddish expletive in a response to an accusation of anti-Semiticism?

    it was purposeful, and it was an accusation of accusation of antisemitism. when they accuse you of stuff you haven't said, it's evidence of braindeathism.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 3:58pm

  105. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 3:58pm

    Don't fret it, JOHANN.....FROMREDBIRD thought it was "cute" to accuse me of anti-Semitism...((for supporting Israel, I suppose!...hehe))

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2006 @ 4:34pm

  106. this entire Korea thing shows that China is the dominant super power in the region. if they go along with "punishing" Il Jong, he will be punished, if they don't, he won't.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 4:35pm

  107. Posted by STWRILEY 10/10/2006 @ 11:42am

    As I always expect from you, Riley, once again, outstanding work.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/10/2006 @ 4:49pm

  108. Hey Mask-- do you want the response from John's 'Problem With...' you posted 14 1/2 hours after mine, here or there? You're making shit up again or just illiterate?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/10/2006 @ 5:06pm

  109. the US is by far the leading arms merchant of the world. Israel is also one of the biggest. what else does north Korea have to sell?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 1:12pm

    Gee, if I had said that he would have accused me of anti-semitism.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/10/2006 @ 2:12pm

    Bird you are a schmuck, accusing me of something I have not done in the past or now. shameful.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 2:21pm

    Yeah, right, J. I'm the schmuck, not you. As we can see below.

    That's exactly why there should be elections in all of historic Palestine- so they can democratically decide whether everyone wants things like . . oh, restricting immigration to "Jews-only", for example, or whether they want a thirty foot high concrete wall cutting through the middle of Palestinian towns and villages.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/27/2006 @ 7:21pm

    Oh come on FRB, admit it--this is all about you wanting the Jews driven into the sea . .

    Posted by BRUNOWE 09/28/2006 @ 10:11am

    Bruno, you are correct in calling the Commissar on his anti Israeli rants.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2006 @ 10:37am

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 5:13pm

  110. Don't fret it, JOHANN.....FROMREDBIRD thought it was "cute" to accuse me of anti-Semitism...

    Posted by MASK 10/10/2006 @ 4:34pm

    There's nothing cute about your anti-semitism, MASK, or JOHANNESROLF's desire to drive the jews into the sea.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 5:16pm

  111. Bird, where above do I accuse you of antisemitism, you putz? I accused you of anti Israeli-ism, that's a big difference. are you really this stupid?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 5:16pm

  112. JOHANNESROLF's desire to drive the jews into the sea.

    you've really lost your mind now bird

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 5:17pm

  113. I think every time possible voter fraud comes now it'll be in the news:

    http://www.bradblog.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/10/2006 @ 6:50pm

  114. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/10/2006 @ 2:06pm

    Redbird,

    Well said. I did indeed mention the tight-wad Congress without quite specifying the party in control of it. But it was indeed the Republican Revolution in 1994 and the Newt was in charge. Since the cash come from the House...

    Also an excellent piece on non-proliferation. It's long past time we started to live by our obligations under the NNPT and begin to seriously reduce our own stockpiles. Certainly not yet, since BushCo has pushing new weapons development and deployment when we should be at least reducing by attrition instead. It's a dark day for humanity when we can't even agree to get rid of the things that can destroy our entire species.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/10/2006 @ 7:02pm

  115. Bird, where above do I accuse you of antisemitism, you putz? I accused you of anti Israeli-ism, that's a big difference. are you really this stupid?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 5:16pm

    JOHANNESROLF's desire to drive the jews into the sea.

    you've really lost your mind now bird

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 5:17pm

    You wholeheartedly agreed with BRUNOWE. I don't see the word "anti-israelism" in there. Anywhere.

    Oh come on FRB, admit it--this is all about you wanting the Jews driven into the sea . .

    Posted by BRUNOWE 09/28/2006 @ 10:11am

    Bruno, you are correct in calling the Commissar on his anti Israeli rants.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2006 @ 10:37am

    You agreed wholeheartedly with BRUNOWE's comment that I wanted to "drive Jews into the sea" (because I had the temerity to suggest elections in "the Holy Land" that included Palestinians). So, are you defining someone who wants to "drive Jews into the sea" as NOT "anti-semitic"?

    You have a problem don't you JOHANNESROLF? You were caught lying. Again.

    And, if you can say slanderous things like that about me that are completely lacking in any justification then you can get the same thing back. You anti-semite. The naziism dies hard, doesn't it?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 7:14pm

  116. you fucking liar. where did I accuse you of antisemitism? and that Nazi thing, it's not hereditary.

    everyone, that thing about being more civil? forget it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 7:29pm

  117. Bruno, you are correct in calling the Commissar on his anti Israeli rants.

    anti Israeli NOT anti-semitic, you putz.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 7:30pm

  118. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/10/2006 @ 2:06pm

    Redbird,

    Well said. I did indeed mention the tight-wad Congress without quite specifying the party in control of it. But it was indeed the Republican Revolution in 1994 and the Newt was in charge. Since the cash come from the House...

    Also an excellent piece on non-proliferation. It's long past time we started to live by our obligations under the NNPT and begin to seriously reduce our own stockpiles. Certainly not yet, since BushCo has pushing new weapons development and deployment when we should be at least reducing by attrition instead. It's a dark day for humanity when we can't even agree to get rid of the things that can destroy our entire species.

    Posted by STWRILEY 10/10/2006 @ 7:02pm

    The Bush administration has sweepingly destoyed decades of hard work by previous administrations of both parties. The monkeys are loose in the China shop (pun not intended). They have no policies. All they bring to the table is unwillingness to relate to anyone in any manner other than that of emperors receiving tribute from vassals. It's just plain counterproductive and I think more Americans are beginning to see the irresponsibility on their own part if they continue to allow these ideological fools to make our decisions for us.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 7:31pm

  119. I never used the expression drive the jews into the sea. but you are not interested in any kind of discussion, not that I would bother discussing with you, your grasp of facts is non existent. verreck!

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 7:32pm

  120. "Bruno, you are correct in calling the Commissar on his anti Israeli rants."

    anti Israeli NOT anti-semitic, you putz.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 7:30pm

    By accusing him of wanting to "drive the Jews into the sea", BRUNOWE. Putz, indeed. You and BRUNOWE have made every effort to shut down criticism of israel by assiduously implying and outright stating that I am anti-semitic. You just don't have the character to admit it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 7:35pm

  121. you fucking liar. where did I accuse you of antisemitism? and that Nazi thing, it's not hereditary.

    everyone, that thing about being more civil? forget it.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 7:29pm

    I didn't say it was hereditary, J. In fact, calling names doesn't even require any basis in fact as proven by you agreeing wholeheartedly with BRUNOWE's characterization of me as wanting to "drive the Jews into the sea" because I had the temerity to suggest elections in the "Holy Land" that included displaced Palestinians.

    Enjoy your dinner. You're the one who set the table.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 7:39pm

  122. I never used the expression drive the jews into the sea. but you are not interested in any kind of discussion, not that I would bother discussing with you, your grasp of facts is non existent. verreck!

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 7:32pm

    "I'm innocent little JOHANNESROLF, I didn't say you wanted to drive the Jews into the sea, I only agreed wholeheartedly with someone else who did. Because I wanted to maintain a civil conversation. And use one obscenity after another while I did it."

    Well, J., whats good for the goose is good for the gander. On second thought, you prefer to be referred to as a swan, don't you?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 7:47pm

  123. It's not the sexuality, Stupid. (Genericly addressed) It's the stupid predation and the stupid denial and the stupid long time cover up.

    Lantern Bearer

    Posted by LanternBearer at 10/10/2006 @ 8:01pm

  124. OK Bird, I can settle this once and for all. you are an anti-semitic swine, your understanding of middle east history comes straight from Arafat. happy? I will not make the mistake of answering you again, you will rest safely in the ignore bin.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/10/2006 @ 8:33pm

  125. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 8:33pm

    Which you'll deny saying next week.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/10/2006 @ 9:51pm

  126. "Enjoy your dinner. You're the one who set the table."

    And he is eating fowl, your cooked goose, Rotenvogel, you are a kook..

    JOHANNES maybe many things, but anti semite,nazi, liar or putz are not adjectives that fit him..but... you,..are disturbed...deeply...you are a poster child for the kook section..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/11/2006 @ 12:23am

  127. I said this on 10/09/2006 @ 6:38pm at John Nichol's 'The problem with the Mark Foley problem' :

    I wouldn't want to argue the practical aspect of either of those as I'm just as apposed, but I can argue that the country was less in fear then or perhaps people back then were just naturally braver you might argue... and as to the FDR admin pushing the country in the other direction away from fear as much as possible, that 'was' the point-- "the only thing you have to fear is fear itself" one can easily argue is an anti-hsuB stance as much as:

    "Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live."

    But as for EO 9066, it was also true that the pressure from business owners on FDR to intern Japanese Americans seemed more motivated by profit than fear, as it got rid of some of their competition. Won't mention similarities of the media's role then, but similar to the recent circumstances with intelligence gathering, FDR did disregard FBI reports stating that there wasn't a threat in the US from Japanese immigrants. Some of the history did indeed repeat itself.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/09/2006 @ 6:38pm

    Mask writes 14 1/2 hours later:

    Excusing Roosevelt is a blatent partisan move. "Pressure" from "business groups" or the FBI doesn't cut it...for if FDR was such a ball of putty that could be manipulated by "evil conservative forces"....how did he get the New Deal passed?

    (Mask-- are you truly illiterate or just as much an asshole debater as most have previously stated? I said nothing of the sort. I said what I said and nothing more; nothing less. FDR didn't willienillie make dicisions, I'm sure there were lots of factors for the decisions he made and I noted one that was documented-- I never said it was the only one. And if you botherred to read my reference to the FBI, it was to fault FDR; not the FBI.)

    So it can't be BOTH....both that he was "a strong leader during a time of national crises" AND he as easily manipulated by sinister forces to intern the Japanese-Americans.

    Posted by MASK 10/10/2006 @ 09:02am

    Never said he, FDR, was easily manipulated. Your words not mine. I said that the business people trying to get rid of their competition were-- manipulative. That he made the decision that he did may have been in spite of the business' advantage by him doing so.

    Note I did not wait 14 1/2 hours to pop a responce to you and then also put words in your mouth.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/10/2006 @ 4:35pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 01:11am

  128. Study: 655,000 Iraqis Died Due to War

    Oct 10 11:43 PM US/Eastern

    By MALCOLM RITTER AP Science Writer NEW YORK

    A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

    VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

    In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

    "Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

    The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal.

    An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

    VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

    A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."

    For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

    The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces.

    VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

    he major funder of the new study was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/10/D8KM6GL80.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 01:28am

  129. OUCH!

    http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 01:41am

  130. Maasch, danke

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 08:58am

  131. I said that the business people trying to get rid of their competition were-- manipulative. That he made the decision that he did may have been in spite of the business' advantage by him doing so.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/10/2006 @ 4:35pm

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/11/2006 @ 01:11am

    Okay...so....the business people were manipulative....but had NO effect on Roosevelt....who did what they wanted regardless of their influence.....okaaaaay.

    Let's apply that logic to ANOTHER President and see if you'd stick with it.

    Big Oil wanted us to invade Iraq....but Bush did it DESPITE their "influence", he just wanted to bring democracy to Iraq and he did it "in spite of the business' advantage by him doing so."

    ???

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 09:12am

  132. Big Oil wanted us to invade Iraq....but Bush did it DESPITE their "influence", he just wanted to bring democracy to Iraq and he did it "in spite of the business' advantage by him doing so."

    ???

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 09:12am

    maybe they had no effect on Roosevelt because they weren't in the room drawing up the policy for him.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/11/2006 @ 09:52am

  133. Posted by WILL C. 10/11/2006 @ 09:52am

    Yeah....that's it. Another WILL snappy retort!

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 09:57am

  134. Yeah....that's it. Another WILL snappy retort!

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 09:57am

    cool... another mask admission of failure

    Posted by Will C. at 10/11/2006 @ 09:58am

  135. I said that the business people trying to get rid of their competition were-- manipulative. That he made the decision that he did may have been in spite of the business' advantage by him doing so.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/10/2006 @ 4:35pm

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/11/2006 @ 01:11am

    Okay...so....the business people were manipulative....but had NO effect on Roosevelt....who did what they wanted regardless of their influence.....okaaaaay.

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 09:12am

    Once again you say what I didn't say and argue with that point, which is basically arguing (or is that playing) with yourself. Now if you're asking the question-- do I think the business people influenced FDR in any way, even a little? I haven't a clue. There were a lot of competing arguments pro/con at the time. That he he didn't follow his FBI intel... I threw the two facts out there as documented occurrances and a similarity to history repeating itself. Nothing more.

    However, because FDR and hsuB are so obviously different, a better researcher with more time and talent than I, may be able to make the monitary connections between hsuB and the house of Saudi-- since they do seem to hang out, give each other advise, were/are in the same business, hold hands, and kiss a lot. I'd say there may be clues there.... (heheheh)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 11:02am

  136. BAM. So when all the polls hit 20% approval for just about everything hsuB does or rather doesn't have a clue how to do and that translates to repub congressional seat having voted 97-99% for whatever hsuB asked for with only one veto.... Seems like lying a lot just won't do it.

    Yep, inch by inch, step by step, slooowwlllyyy Iii Tttuuurn.

    USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 6-8, 2006. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

    ___________Approve__Disapprove____Unsure

    10/6-8/06_____30________66__________4

    8/18-20/06____36________61__________2

    7/21-23/06____35________62__________3

    6/9-11/06_____36________60__________4

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 11:12am

  137. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/11/2006 @ 11:02am

    HSUB, you MUST think the "business people" had SOME influence on FDR's decision...or else why even bring it up?

    Again, would you dismiss "Big Oil's" influence on Dubya and Iraq so easily?

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 11:48am

  138. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/11/2006 @ 12:23am

    Really reputable allies, JOHANNESROLF. Why didn't LVLIBERTY1 pop in yet to back you up? Must be giving one of his twisted-religion bible classes to a local group of neo-fascists.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/11/2006 @ 12:12pm

  139. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/11/2006 @ 11:02am

    HSUB, you MUST think the "business people" had SOME influence on FDR's decision...or else why even bring it up?

    Again, would you dismiss "Big Oil's" influence on Dubya and Iraq so easily?

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 11:48am

    Mask you continually miss the biggest and most obvious point-- that being that hsuB is no FDR, some similar influences or pressures-- compare and contrast: the fear factor, mistakes with constitutionality, opinions concerning wealth, war, domestic welfare...

    hsuB would never say much less believe:

    "Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live."

    Yet, FDR did the detentions, a mistake-- per not utilizing the FBI intel. Why? Bad childhood experience, racism, better safe than sorry, business influence, he had a dream, talks to God, something he read concerning war strategy, Tzu Sun, Generals' advice,...

    Sometimes even with great intelligence and moral rectitude-- one can make a wrong choice, but surely lacking morals or even the intelligence and relying mostly on marketing ploys, the luck factor just runs out. And here we are.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 12:16pm

  140. What Americans Have Sacrificed In Bush's "War On Terror"

    by tristero

    After racking my brain, I can come up with only one reason why Padilla was held for 3 1/2 years without charges and tortured. It was not because Padilla had 3 1/2 years of information that needed to be elicited it from him. It was not because what he may have known was a state secret. Padilla was imprisoned and suffered simply because Bush wanted to prove he had the power to do so. To anyone, even Americans.

    Why? Why would Bush want to do that? What does he - more importantly, what does the country - gain from this kind of totalitarian behavior? Well, once again, Bush is making a point, that the president has the power to do whatever the president wants, without having to provide reasons to anyone. Especially during "wartime."

    And Bush thinks, and the Bush administration thinks, and Republicans think, that it is a Good Thing. They must destroy America in order to save it. Shrink the American government down to nothing, so it drowns, as Norquist once said. What no one ever asked Norquist was what Republicans would replace the American government with.

    Well, now we know.

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_digbysblog_archive.html #116057557725153907

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 12:20pm

  141. fine posts, Fools

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 12:24pm

  142. Thanks JR.

    And here's one that doesn't show the major drop of October yet, but does do a nice job visually of the last 5 years:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 12:32pm

  143. David Corn,

    Please open comments on www.DavidCorn.com

    SpamCatcher technology works. It can be the setup as always the first thread on your page and it catches the crap automated spam software posts. Manual spam posts can be cleaned-up by the bit manager.

    Please, PLEASE, pLeAsE, PlEaE, Please, PLEASE, pLeAsE, PlEaE, Please, PLEASE, pLeAsE,

    Thank you.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 10/11/2006 @ 1:02pm

  144. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/11/2006 @ 12:20am

    What have Bush and the Repubs done to actually "shrink the size of government"?

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 1:06pm

  145. they shrank the surplus.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 1:29pm

  146. You and BRUNOWE have made every effort to shut down criticism of israel by assiduously implying and outright stating that I am anti-semitic. You just don't have the character to admit it.

    Half-truths again FRB? Actually I've never tried to shut down criticism of Israel. I've also pointed out that your position is more than just a one-state solution--it is also a constant restatement of your belief in the illegitimacy of Jewish settlement there in the first place. Combine that with a desire to place the Jews at the mercy of an Arab majority and your desires here are obvious. You just don't have the character to admit it.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/11/2006 @ 1:31pm

  147. Bruno, I just finished reading Charles D Smiths book, "Palestine and the Israeli arab conflict". very fine.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 1:39pm

  148. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/11/2006 @ 12:20am

    What have Bush and the Repubs done to actually "shrink the size of government"?

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person

    they shrank the surplus.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/11/2006 @ 1:29pm |

    That's a good one.

    What abou:t the average IQ, respect, admiration for the office of the president at home and abroad, qualified appointments, average income for middle income and poor, number of children not in porverty, number of people that think the hsuB admin are capable of doing the job, troops alive,...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 2:20pm

  149. Iraqis alive.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 2:21pm

  150. they shrank the surplus.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/11/2006 @ 1:29pm

    Yeah, but what of Norquist's dream has happened?

    Odd attack on Bush and the GOP that "They must destroy America in order to save it. Shrink the American government down to nothing, so it drowns, as Norquist once said."

    when they've done NOTHING to actually do that.

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 2:30pm

  151. Yeah, but what of Norquist's dream has happened?

    Odd attack on Bush and the GOP that "They must destroy America in order to save it. Shrink the American government down to nothing, so it drowns, as Norquist once said."

    when they've done NOTHING to actually do that.

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 2:30pm

    As evidenced by their actions, Chimpy and his posse couldn't even manage to get that right.

    In a way, they remind me of that movie a bunch of years ago called "Major League," the central theme of which is to make a team (the Cleveland Indians) so bad that no one will come to their games, thus allowing the trashy-'ho heiress owner to move the franchise to warmer climes.

    All that I can think of is the two Asian groundskeepers commenting in their own language on the team, the subtitles to which read "they're shitty," and later, "they're still shitty."

    Of course, the Indians screw up the owner's plans by getting it together and winning. These chumps (ChimpCo) are so pathetic that they haven't a prayer of tying their own shoes on two consecutive days, let alone purposefully running our government into the ground.

    As for building a functioning bureaucracy, just look at what they've done in Iraq ...

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/11/2006 @ 3:21pm

  152. Seems like all the dems have to do now is just keep telling the truth about the repubs' failed policies one after the other and say we can do better and will change the failed policies with better more intelligent debate.

    USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 6-8, 2006. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Do you think the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress would do a better job of dealing with each of the following issues and problems? How about [see below]?"

    ___________Repubs___Dems___DEM Advantage

    Health care____25______62_______37

    Gas prices_____28______54_______26

    Corruption_____28______49_______21

    Economy______36______54_______18

    Iraq__________35______52_______17

    Immigration____34______47______13

    Morals_________37______44_______7

    Terrorism______41______46_______5

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 3:32pm

  153. Posted by SKELETONMAN 10/11/2006 @ 3:21pm

    Yeah, I've thought that too. Read somewhere a ways back explaining that's the real reasons behind hsuB purposefully making bad choices-- to illustrate how bad the gov is per the neosans belief that gov is evil and corporations should be in charge, thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy and a self-loathing conundrum. Perhaps the reason hsuB swings from easy self-deprecation to the need for more power-- to make up for his feelings of inadequacy as being that which he finds lacking but doesn't want to fix or his belief is wrong. He's probably trying to figure out how to give himself a medal.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 4:08pm

  154. Posted by SKELETONMAN 10/11/2006 @ 3:21pm

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/11/2006 @ 4:08pm

    I'm afraid you guys miss the CORRESPONDING point.

    Criticism of the "out of control spending" of the GOP Congress, is coming from guys who aren't promising any LESS spending, and CAN'T increase taxes enough to pay for it all, without losing Congress again in 2008.

    "Bridges to nowhere" aren't defensible...but neither is going to be the firs case of somebody on "universal health care" who gets a nose-job on the taxpayer's dime.

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2006 @ 4:17pm

  155. Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 4:17pm

    Mask, you do as you usually do, pose the question with blinders on such that it leads to a dead end without looking at any or all the possibilities.

    I don't think most people mind spending on something that's supports its intrinsic value to our culture or way of life especially if it makes it better or as an investment that increases in time. Dems need to shake free of the hsuB culture. Hahahah get it-- the hsuB culture... It's proven itself to devalue our way of life and show what can happen by not investing in quality, but in buying fools-gold, a marketed fake, a hsuB admin by any other name.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 4:42pm

  156. FRB: You and BRUNOWE have made every effort to shut down criticism of israel by assiduously implying and outright stating that I am anti-semitic. You just don't have the character to admit it.

    Half-truths again FRB? Actually I've never tried to shut down criticism of Israel. I've also pointed out that your position is more than just a one-state solution--it is also a constant restatement of your belief in the illegitimacy of Jewish settlement there in the first place. Combine that with a desire to place the Jews at the mercy of an Arab majority and your desires here are obvious. You just don't have the character to admit it.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/11/2006 @ 1:31pm

    "Half-truths", BRUNOWE? You haven't tried to shut down criticism of israel by implying or outright screaming, "anti-semitic"?

    When I, at another time, stated, "the nazis slaughtered Eastern European peoples, many of them Jews" you described that as "downplaying the holocaust".

    When I posted the fact that the Mossad had engaged in a terrorist bombing campaign in Lebanon for years which was substantiated by confessions of their agents made to the Lebanese government you attempted to characterize me as someone susceptible to "conspiracy theories":

    Your source re Hariri also says this: "The other aspect to this, which may have September 11 implications, is how easily the Mossad operates in the world of what appears to be radical Islamist terrorist groups. " Are you going to start pushing the Mossad agents present at 9/11 theory as well?

    Posted by BRUNOWE 07/23/2006 @ 7:46pm

    When I provided an article from the Australian Sunday Herald which indicated there were Mossad agents present at 9/11 [ww1.sundayherald.com] you decided it was time to come out with the most reliable "anti-semitic" slander of all, the last hope to shut down criticism of israel:

    So tell me FRB, do you at least acknowledge that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were forgeries--or do you have a conspiracy fantasy about that as well.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 07/23/2006 @ 9:29pm

    Despite the fact that I had never mentioned the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on any thread here and have elsewhere ridiculed it as a stupid forgery in verbal attacks against actual anti-semites.

    Just out of curiosity, BRUNOWE, do you think that placing white South Africans at "the mercy" of the black majority in free elections was a terrible thing?

    Please also explain how advocating elections in the "Holy Land" that include all Palestinians would necessarily require "driving the Jews into the sea", as you love to reiterate. It seems to me that it would most likely result in Likud-types and Hamas-types being excluded based on polling data that indicate the majority of israeli Jews and Palestinians think that they can live peacefully side by side. It doesn't seem likely that most israeli Jews would vote for Hamas or that most Palestinains would vote for the more intransigent israeli Jews.

    Or, you can just stick with the continued ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Palestine and fall back on your "anti-semitism" crutch.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/11/2006 @ 4:44pm

  157. "Bridges to nowhere" aren't defensible...but neither is going to be the firs case of somebody on "universal health care" who gets a nose-job on the taxpayer's dime.

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 4:17pm

    This is the sort of idiotic hyperbole that the contrarians like to peddle to the schmuck in the street. It's a classic tactic of this administration, appealing to the lowest common denominator of intelligence.

    What goes without saying is that that poor schmuck in the street quite likely lacks adequate health care insurance (if s/he has any at all), and is one catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy (which, of course, is extraordinarily difficult for an average person to declare, thanks to the Repugnican congress and white house) and financial ruin.

    Way to go, Mask. Your gift for unsubstantiated, unsustainable conjecture remains undiminished.

    Incidentally, cosmetic surgery isn't covered by insurance now, but that's never stood in the way of a good contrarian sound bite, has it?

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/11/2006 @ 5:10pm

  158. Army: Troops to stay in Iraq until 2010

    By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 46 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army has plans to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010, the top Army officer said Wednesday, a later date than Bush administration or Pentagon officials have mentioned thus far.

    The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying troops levels could be adjusted to actual conditions in Iraq. He said it is easier to hold back forces scheduled to go there than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.

    VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

    Schoomaker spoke as the U.S. military death toll in Iraq rose to at least 2,750 since the war's start in March 2003. On Wednesday, the U.S. command said three U.S. Marines and two soldiers were killed in fighting there.

    In another indication of the burden the Army expects to bear, Schoomaker said he believes the Army will need $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $40 billion more than its planned expenditures for the 2007 budget year, which began Oct. 1. Schoomaker's proposed figure is nearly $25 billion more than the initial amount discussed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

    Schoomaker said the Army needs the money to modernize the force, continue needed research and development programs, and keep enough combat brigades in the field, while allowing adequate time for training and restoring equipment between deployments.

    The Bush administration is likely to release its 2008 budget in February.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ us_iraq;_ylt=AmoKS_6Bts524Tuueet_U_us0NUE;_ylu= X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 5:13pm

  159. I saved this from a while back. I was hoping my calculations were off, but with the new estimates that 400,000 Iraqi civilians have already been killed, if we don't get a new congress-- the writing is surely on the wall, my numbers may even turn out to be low.

    Year ___Vietnam US dead _________Year __Iraq US dead

    1961-65____1864_______________2003-06____2965

    1966_______6053________________2007____14,829

    1967______11,058________________2008____27,731

    1968______16,511________________2009____42,983

    1969______11,527________________2010____30,088

    1970________6065________________2011____15,645

    1971________2348________________2012_____5476

    1972_________561________________2013_____1314

    TOTALS

    KIA_____58,191_______________________141,031

    WIA___153,303_______________________375,142

    MIA_____2338__________________________5641

    South Vietnamese ______________________Iraqis

    KIA___230,000_______________________611,800

    WIA__300,000________________________798,000

    North Vietnamese __________________ Insurgency

    KIA__1,100,000______________________2.926,000

    WIA__600,000_______________________1,596,000

    Total Civilians Killed

    2-4,000,000_______________________5-10,000,000

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 5:22pm

  160. er, 600,000, sad...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 5:43pm

  161. worse, 655,000.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 5:51pm

  162. how can we bash foley after we defended clinton with monica

    Posted by latin at 10/11/2006 @ 5:57pm

  163. Latin, adult male in serial pursuit and harrassment of minor boys= consensual sex between two adults? I think not.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/11/2006 @ 6:11pm

  164. how can we bash foley after we defended clinton with monica

    Posted by LATIN 10/11/2006 @ 5:57pm

    Er, you don't see the difference 22 vs 16? 6 years is a big dif. I do believe Monica even pursued Bill some too-- still, he made a bad choice, but he wasn't grooming minors. And his admin didn't cover it up for him-- he did the lying, came clean and asked to be forgiven and the citizenry did. The Foley scandal is so incredibly different it's sad you can't see it.

    Another thing that isn't happening:

    Lewinsky said that Starr's office was sick for asking so many detailed questions about her sexual encounters with the president and said when Starr's impeachment report came out on Capitol Hill, I really felt raped and physically ill with myself. ... I just felt that the world looked at me as a whore, she said. I was just a pawn used to get the president, she added.

    In the book, she also accused Starr of engaging in dubious tactics by trying to coerce her cooperation during a first confrontation in January 1998.

    She said that first meeting made her so distraught that she considered hurling herself from the 10th floor window of the hotel room where prosecutors interviewed her, and later weighed fleeing the country with her mother.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 6:37pm

  165. Ooops:

    http://www.samsloan.com/lewi-int.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/11/2006 @ 6:39pm

  166. "Bridges to nowhere" aren't defensible...but neither is going to be the firs case of somebody on "universal health care" who gets a nose-job on the taxpayer's dime.

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 4:17pm

    MASK, can you give ONE example of someone getting a nosejob on "universal healthcare"?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/11/2006 @ 7:21pm

  167. Clinton got bad advice. he should have gone on Larry King, with his wife and Billy Graham, cried some crocodile tears, owned up, and thrown himself on the mercy of the american people. He was, and is so well liked, that would have been the end of it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 12:15am

  168. BAM:

    A veteran of the religious right and former special assistant to President George Bush tells all, and reveals how the Bush administration has manipulated people of faith.

    Before the 2000 presidential campaign,David Kuo had written speeches for William Bennett, Ralph Reed, Bob Dole,and John Ashcroft, for whom he also served as a policy advisor. A lifelong evangelical Christian, he thought he had achieved a dream when he was invited to join the Bush Administration as a Special Assistant to the President, and eventually as Deputy Director of the Faith-Based Initiative, which George Bush had hailed as one of his "most important initiatives." For nearly three years, he had a seat at the central nexus of political power and the Religious Right in America. What he saw made him realize that his Christian values--and those of millions of Americans-- were in danger of being corrupted by politics. Religious organizations were being manipulated cynically, for political purposes, and rewarded through financial shenanigans. Certain religious leaders were so hooked on politics that they were routinely canvassed by the White House to vet judicial appointments and horse-trade on policy positions, regardless of moral content. Tempting Faith is both a headline-making exposé and a heartfelt plea for religious leaders to take a hiatus from politics.

    Must-See Video: Olbermann on "Tempting Faith"

    Keith Olbermann obtained an advance copy of the book and is doing a two-part analysis of its contents. The first was aired this evening.

    Kuo writes, ""White House staff didn't want to have anything to do with the Faith-Based Initiative because they didn't understand it any more than did congressional Republicans. They didn't lie awake at night trying to kill it. They simply didn't care."

    Instead the White House used the office for political purposes, sponsoring campaign events under its aegis. The Machiavellian uses of the faith-based initiative, once described by Kuo as the "cross around the White House's neck," appear to be amply documented in the new book.

    This is a video everyone should definitely watch. Even more than the Foley affair, Kuo's explosive book promises to drive a deep wedge between Republicans and their religious base, by exposing the cyncism and contempt with which Republicans treat that base. (Urgent criticism of Olbermann: Stop comparing the Southern Baptist Convention to Islamic extremists. That's not Kuo's point and it's not helping.)

    http://politicalvideos.blogspot.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 01:41am

  169. .

    There exists within the government a parallel military / intelligence service - an entire parallel secret structure which is extra-constitutional - designed specifically to change the structure of government from a Representative Republic to a Fascist Dictatorship.

    The model for this structure was known as "Gladio" in the late 1940s - having fallen under the control of the CIA in 1966.

    The premise is to use a few inside operatives to stage massive terror events for the purpose of instilling enough fear in the populace that they willingly trade freedom for security.

    THOSE WHO FAIL TO STUDY THE LESSONS OF HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT THEM.

    Michael Ledeen has studied the lessons of history - and has applied them to his own agenda.

    High Treason

    From Wikipedia

    "High treason, broadly defined, is an action which is grossly disloyal to one's country or sovereign.

    Participating in a war against one's country, attempting to overthrow its government, and attempting to kill its head of state are perhaps the best known examples of high treason."

    Two out of three ought to do it.

    The Bush Administration attacked America on 9/11 for the express purpose of overthrowing the then-existing form of government. While the Administration dubbed their atttack on US soil "The War ON Terror," it is more aptly named "The War OF Terror," a "war" of their own creation.

    H I G H T R E A S O N

    Timewatch: Operation Gladio - Behind False Flag Terrorism & 9/11 Watch the "Gladio" video here: (part1)

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4900756773650110959

    WATCH ALL THREE PARTS - ALL TERROR IS STATE SPONSORED – ALL OF IT.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 10/12/2006 @ 08:14am

  170. Posted by SKELETONMAN 10/11/2006 @ 5:10pm

    Wait. All I'm saying.

    Oh, I have always said we are DOOMED to a Federal universal health care system (single payer obviously). There's no way it's not going to happen. Health care so screwed up from HMOs (an idea LAUDED by liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy 20 years ago) that there's no going back.

    We're going to get UHC....and the Fed will run it (think they're just going to "hand out checks" to doctors and hospitals...without a MOUNTAIN of paperwork and investigators to see where the money goes....i.e. auditors on a scale that makes the IRS look like pikers!).

    And as we get it, liberal Dems will demand more and more and more and more and more services to be provided....until....

    the day when some liberal think-tank determines that "people who suffer from low self-esteem, from body 'abnormalities', need to have cosmetic surgery...and the UHC should pay for it".

    Oh, first, it will be some poor kid with cleft palatte...then some girl with a deformed lip or nostril....and then...

    some doc in California will claim that "Stephanie was severely depressed about the large size of her nose. The only way I saw to relieve that depression and low self-esteem...was to snub it up!"

    And everybody feeling so bad for poor Steph and her monstrous schnozz and how the kids at school made fun of her....will poney up!

    Just as I'm sure the "universal health care" advocates will ultimately win.....I'm just as sure of the eventual rise of a LOT of "poor Stephanies" (and "Stevens").

    Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 08:54am

  171. mask, what rubbish. someday this or that will happen, sheer nonsense. wise up.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 09:37am

  172. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/12/2006 @ 09:37am

    Any SPECIFIC objections to that scenario, JOHANN?

    You think a government program can't be abused? or that there aren't enough "soft-hearted" (as well as soft-headed) types out there that will want EVERYTHING covered by "free" health care?

    Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 09:40am

  173. mask you are tedious in the extreme. tata

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 10:02am

  174. Mask, by all means continue, aber ohne mich

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 10:04am

  175. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/12/2006 @ 10:04am

    Again, your faith in things that deserve no faith astounds me.

    Surely you'd imagine some DEFENSE or military program that was wasteful and abused, no?

    Why is the possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse in a Federally-run universal health care system so impossible to imagine happening?

    Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 10:17am

  176. Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 08:54am

    Damn! That was a hell of a long ONE example, MASK. Do examples always get longer the more IMAGINATIVE they are?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 10:59am

  177. People seem to be forming their opinions about this waste of a hsuB admin across the board and gathering mo fast.

    Donald Rumsfeld

    CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Oct. 6-8, 2006. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

    "Do you think President Bush should or should not fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.5

    Date______Should___Should Not___Unsure

    10/6-8/06____52________33________15

    4/21-23/06___39________35________26

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 11:08am

  178. Of course it goes to the top just like Plame's outing this is Foley's inning...:

    10.12.06

    HOW ROVE TWISTED FOLEY'S ARM:

    It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.

    But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'"

    But when Foley's friend saw the Congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened.

    According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.

    "He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of Congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'"

    The White House declined a request for comment on the matter, but obviously the plan hasn't worked out quite as Rove hoped it would.

    --Ryan Lizza

    posted 08:35 a.m.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 11:31am

  179. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/12/2006 @ 10:59am'

    Once again....I feel comforted in the solidity of my argument in the fact that you can't offer any specific criticism of it.

    Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 12:35pm

  180. Mask you're a genius in your own mind. Continue honoring yourself, hsuB will give you a medal too... I'm sure. Heheheh.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 12:42pm

  181. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/12/2006 @ 12:42am |

    HSUB...happy to hear you take a stab at finding out where that scenario would fall apart? Ref: (Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 08:54am)

    Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 12:53pm

  182. I just had a thought as to why a lot of hubbaloo concerning the Foley sex scandal is hitting the public harder than the other various hsuB admin scandals and failures. I think it's the same for the lowering of the gas prices normally upping the population's feel good mood. Gasoline has a direct relation to our sense of personal freedom-- just as sexual abuse, apart in the Foley case from its direct protective instinct trigger in most parents , has a direct link to our survival instinct and all the necessary rules we archetypally hold dear; even if usually also unconscious.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 12:54pm

  183. Mask, three areas that can cut costs when intelligently applied -- preventative care, e-automation for tracking and billing, and competitive pricing. Funny thing happens when you get rid of the incompetence and corruption, which is a completely other possibilty you rarely consider. I will keep repeating-- disingage from the hsuB culture, it's messing with your mind man- big time.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 1:06pm

  184. October 12, 2006

    Quote of the Day

    "I don't want to get to the end of my life and find that I have just lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as well." – Diane Ackerman

    And then, also the depth.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 1:11pm

  185. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/12/2006 @ 1:06pm

    HSUB, first....how is saying "universal health care" can be abused and defrauded "engaged in the Hsub culture"....DEMOCRATS didn't pass it in 1993!

    Second...how do you have "competitive pricing"...if the Government runs it?!?!?

    Theird..."automation for tracking and billing"?....you mean like Rumsfeld's "Total Information Awareness" computer?

    Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 1:32pm

  186. When I, at another time, stated, "the nazis slaughtered Eastern European peoples, many of them Jews" you described that as "downplaying the holocaust".

    That WAS downplaying the Holocaust. As I said before, the Jews and the Roma were the only peoples explicitly target for extermination.

    Just out of curiosity, BRUNOWE, do you think that placing white South Africans at "the mercy" of the black majority in free elections was a terrible thing?

    Please also explain how advocating elections in the "Holy Land" that include all Palestinians would necessarily require "driving the Jews into the sea", as you love to reiterate. It seems to me that it would most likely result in Likud-types and Hamas-types being excluded based on polling data that indicate the majority of israeli Jews and Palestinians think that they can live peacefully side by side. It doesn't seem likely that most israeli Jews would vote for Hamas or that most Palestinains would vote for the more intransigent israeli Jews.

    No, but Israel isn't an apartheid regime and the White South Africans were a very tiny minority. Further, your idea of a single state clearly does entail Jews being driven into the sea. Time and time again you have stated that the Jewish settlement into Palestine was illegitimate. Further, the idea that Hamas would be sidelined is a pure fantasy given their electoral support.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/12/2006 @ 3:12pm

  187. Posted by BRUNOWE 10/12/2006 @ 3:12pm

    Gee, BRUNO...you made no reference to who this post was directed at....yet I KNOW it was FROMREDBIRD.

    For fun, ask him two questions....1. What IS "historic Palestine" that he wants voting on the future of the state of Israel?

    2. What if the Israelis decide NOT to abide by the vote for their nation's extinction?

    Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 3:18pm

  188. HSUB, first....how is saying "universal health care" can be abused and defrauded "engaged in the Hsub culture"....DEMOCRATS didn't pass it in 1993!

    Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 1:32pm

    I could just say disengage from the hsuB culture yourself first and you'll be able to see all the possibilities without having to ask. However knowing you won't or can't, I will say additionally that a program can also be run without fraud and abuse via competent-- proper safe-guards and something else the repubs have a major prob with-- oversight.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 4:24pm

  189. Second...how do you have "competitive pricing"...if the Government runs it?!?!?

    Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 1:32pm

    Does the gov make the drugs and change the bedpans too?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 4:24pm

  190. Theird..."automation for tracking and billing"?....you mean like Rumsfeld's "Total Information Awareness" computer?

    Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 1:32pm

    No, he's not doing what he says he'd like to do because he only brought with him what he has and not what we'd like for him to have in order to do the job he needs to do,...competence.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2006 @ 4:29pm

  191. Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 10:17am

    OK. Fine, Mask, I'll agree with you, if you just LET IT GO.

    Welcome to Masks world of, "That would be a good idea, but it could be bad too, so let's just forget it".

    Please explain how billions to Exxon/Mobil, when they are so profitable to begin with, is just the way it is. But, a few hundred million for cosmetic surgery would bankrupt the country.

    Get a clue. (And learn how to let an non-idea go, every once in a while).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/12/2006 @ 6:14pm

  192. FWIW, my personal experience trying to help my indigent nieghbors with their healthcare, has led me to believe that a little fraud, is WAY better than the alternative.

    Get a heart too.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/12/2006 @ 6:15pm

  193. "Bridges to nowhere" aren't defensible...but neither is going to be the firs case of somebody on "universal health care" who gets a nose-job on the taxpayer's dime.

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2006 @ 4:17pm

    MASK, can you give ONE example of someone getting a nosejob on "universal healthcare"?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/11/2006 @ 7:21pm

    Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 08:54am [Too long and aimless to bother reproducing.]

    Damn! That was a hell of a long ONE example, MASK. Do examples always get longer the more IMAGINATIVE they are?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/12/2006 @ 10:59am

    Once again....I feel comforted in the solidity of my argument in the fact that you can't offer any specific criticism of it.

    Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 12:35am

    You think that's required when you state something as fact which is nothing more than fabrication?

    Your "comfort in the solidity of your argument" should give everyone a pretty good idea of the consistent quality of your output.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 6:24pm

  194. FRB: When I, at another time, stated, "the nazis slaughtered Eastern European peoples, many of them Jews" you described that as "downplaying the holocaust".

    That WAS downplaying the Holocaust. As I said before, the Jews and the Roma were the only peoples explicitly target for extermination.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/12/2006 @ 3:12pm

    So anyone mentioning the nazi slaughter in Eastern Europe, or elsewhere, is "downplaying the holocaust" if they don't tack on "and the Jews and the Roma were the only peoples explicitly target (sic) for extermination", even if they say that many of them were Jews?

    Your fulminations are stupid.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 6:32pm

  195. HSUB...happy to hear you take a stab at finding out where that scenario would fall apart? Ref: (Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 08:54am)

    Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 12:53am

    I'm ready to jump on this challenge as soon as I finish with my treatise that explains where the Alice In Wonderland scenario would fall apart.

    Jesus!

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 6:35pm

  196. Just out of curiosity, BRUNOWE, do you think that placing white South Africans at "the mercy" of the black majority in free elections was a terrible thing?

    Please also explain how advocating elections in the "Holy Land" that include all Palestinians would necessarily require "driving the Jews into the sea", as you love to reiterate. It seems to me that it would most likely result in Likud-types and Hamas-types being excluded based on polling data that indicate the majority of israeli Jews and Palestinians think that they can live peacefully side by side. It doesn't seem likely that most israeli Jews would vote for Hamas or that most Palestinains would vote for the more intransigent israeli Jews.

    No, but Israel isn't an apartheid regime and the White South Africans were a very tiny minority. Further, your idea of a single state clearly does entail Jews being driven into the sea. Time and time again you have stated that the Jewish settlement into Palestine was illegitimate. Further, the idea that Hamas would be sidelined is a pure fantasy given their electoral support.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/12/2006 @ 3:12pm

    Hey, you know what, BRUNOWE, I can't see in my comments where I used the word "apartheid". Is this another one of those "and the Jews and the Roma were the only peoples explicitly target (sic) for extermination" things?

    There ARE differences between the israelis and the white South Africans prior to free elections. For example, the apartheid regime wasn't dropping 1,000 lbs. on black residential districts on a daily basis. The apartheid regime wasn't implementing a drastic increase in child malnutrition among blacks by appropriating black financial revenues, invading and robbing their banks, blocking inflows of capital, and blocking food and health aid from world donors. The apartheid regime wasn't forcing blacks to give birth at military checkpoints. The apartheid regime wasn't forcing blacks to take a ten mile route to get to a place that was five blocks down the street. The apartheid regime wasn't using blacks to test experimental military weapons.

    None of this is intended to paint the South African apartheid regime as anything but inhuman. It's just to highlight that I am aware of the differences.

    Since white South Africans were a tiny minority in South Africa and Jews make up about half of the residents of the "Holy Land" why are elections in which all Jews and Palestinians take part less workable in the "Holy Land". Is that comment intended to support your point? It seems to me to argue for my point.

    For Hamas to maintain it's level of support in an election in which all israeli Jews took part there would have to be a hell of a lot of israeli Jews voting for Hamas. You make less sense the more you type. Your thoughts also seem to be devoid of any concept that reconciliation can change the thinking and attitudes of human beings.

    I, "time and time again have stated that the Jewish settlement into Palestine was illegitimate"? I'm willing to say that the sky appears to be blue, also. And?

    Thanks for summing up all your erudite comments with, "your idea of a single state clearly does entail Jews being driven into the sea". Clear to madmen, maybe.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 7:02pm

  197. For fun, ask him two questions....1. What IS "historic Palestine" that he wants voting on the future of the state of Israel?

    2. What if the Israelis decide NOT to abide by the vote for their nation's extinction?

    Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 3:18pm

    MASK, just a suggestion, but try coming up with some questions that rise above the level of your typically fifth-grade mentality. You might get off some of the ignore lists.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 7:08pm

  198. Wait. All I'm saying.

    Oh, I have always said we are DOOMED to a Federal universal health care system (single payer obviously). There's no way it's not going to happen. Health care so screwed up from HMOs (an idea LAUDED by liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy 20 years ago) that there's no going back.

    We're going to get UHC....and the Fed will run it (think they're just going to "hand out checks" to doctors and hospitals...without a MOUNTAIN of paperwork and investigators to see where the money goes....i.e. auditors on a scale that makes the IRS look like pikers!).

    And as we get it, liberal Dems will demand more and more and more and more and more services to be provided....until....

    the day when some liberal think-tank determines that "people who suffer from low self-esteem, from body 'abnormalities', need to have cosmetic surgery...and the UHC should pay for it".

    Oh, first, it will be some poor kid with cleft palatte...then some girl with a deformed lip or nostril....and then...

    some doc in California will claim that "Stephanie was severely depressed about the large size of her nose. The only way I saw to relieve that depression and low self-esteem...was to snub it up!"

    And everybody feeling so bad for poor Steph and her monstrous schnozz and how the kids at school made fun of her....will poney up!

    Just as I'm sure the "universal health care" advocates will ultimately win.....I'm just as sure of the eventual rise of a LOT of "poor Stephanies" (and "Stevens").

    Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 08:54am

    Mask

    As a doctor working at the very threshold of the health care system (I am an emergency medicine physician), I have to say that you know absolutely nothing of just how bad our current system is.

    That you think that nose jobs are going to be handed out like hand jobs on prom night further defines your ignorance.

    Will there be abuse of the system? Without question, but at least people will have someone to turn to other than waiting for umpteen hours in their local ER waiting room for a minutes long visit with a harassed doctor. At least your grammie will have someone to go to when her blood sugar is out of control and she's at risk for half a dozen complications because she can't afford the meds that would control her sugar. At least the guy who shot himself with a nailgun this morning working on his house won't have to worry about losing his house if he has catrastrophic complications.

    Think, man, for a change. Do you REALLY think that anyone is going to pay for a nose job under universal health care? Or are you that much of a contrarian that common sense has forever forsaken your thought processes?

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/12/2006 @ 8:40pm

  199. hi everbody.

    has anyone noticed lately, that the house republcian leadership covered up the actions of a sleazy, slimey, kid groping perv?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/12/2006 @ 11:50pm

  200. it's dreadful isn't it?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/12/2006 @ 11:50pm

  201. I'll bet you the evangelic conservative republican perv tom foley wanted to give those 16 year old house pages a nose job.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/12/2006 @ 11:52pm

  202. but he had something other than surgical instruments in mind

    Posted by Will C. at 10/12/2006 @ 11:53pm

  203. Oh my GOD... are we still on this subject??? Can we not talk about something that actually has some relevance to our REAL LIVES???

    OK, YES...the House Republican leadership covered up the actions of an individual who sent unethical, disturbing, and possibly illegal emails to 16-year-old Congressional pages.

    They also lied us into an unnecessary war on which we've spent billions, and counting!

    They've also pushed through educational legislation, under the guise of "leaving no child behind," that threatens to destroy the progress our public education system has made over the past 40 years...without funding it!!!

    They've also passed policies based on fabricated science that seriously harm our public health and our environment...our air, our water, our forests, our health care system.

    They've also cut the taxes of the most rich (during a time of "war" I might add), while doing absolutely NOTHING to improve the economic standing of 90% of our nation's citizens.

    Need I go on?

    Posted by liveeasy at 10/13/2006 @ 12:01am

  204. Need I go on?

    Posted by LIVEEASY 10/13/2006 @ 12:01am

    you really didn't need to go any further than how the republican house leadership covered up the actions of a sleazy, slimy, kid groping perv.

    it really says it all

    Posted by Will C. at 10/13/2006 @ 12:48am

  205. Hey, you know what, BRUNOWE, I can't see in my comments where I used the word "apartheid".

    Typical dishonesty on your part. You mention South Africa as a comparison case to Israel and then pretend you're not implying that Israel is an apartheid state despite that being the standard cant.

    Since white South Africans were a tiny minority in South Africa and Jews make up about half of the residents of the "Holy Land" why are elections in which all Jews and Palestinians take part less workable in the "Holy Land". Is that comment intended to support your point? It seems to me to argue for my point.

    Not at all, first I doubt you wish to exclude the Palestinians who live outside Israel, which would give them a numerical advantage, essentially placing Israeli Jews at the mercy of the Palestinians, which is what you want. All Hamas would need is the percentage of support from the Arab population that they are getting now.

    So anyone mentioning the nazi slaughter in Eastern Europe, or elsewhere, is "downplaying the holocaust" if they don't tack on "and the Jews and the Roma were the only peoples explicitly target (sic) for extermination", even if they say that many of them were Jews?

    They are downplaying that is they soft-peddle the fact that the Jews were targeted for elimination, the elaborate bureaucratic procedures were set up specifically for that purpose and the fact that they comprised the majority of the victims (followed up at a distance by the Poles and the Serbs).

    Oh, I don't deny the possibility of reconciliation--I just don't buy that's what you actually want.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/13/2006 @ 01:35am

  206. FRB: So anyone mentioning the nazi slaughter in Eastern Europe, or elsewhere, is "downplaying the holocaust" if they don't tack on "and the Jews and the Roma were the only peoples explicitly target (sic) for extermination", even if they say that many of them were Jews?

    They are downplaying that is they soft-peddle the fact that the Jews were targeted for elimination, the elaborate bureaucratic procedures were set up specifically for that purpose and the fact that they comprised the majority of the victims (followed up at a distance by the Poles and the Serbs).

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/13/2006 @ 01:35am

    You're stretching really hard. You should try making some exercise videos to compete with Richard Simmons.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 03:08am

  207. Typical dishonesty on your part. You mention South Africa as a comparison case to Israel and then pretend you're not implying that Israel is an apartheid state despite that being the standard cant.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/13/2006 @ 01:35am

    If you weren't so thoroughly wrapped up in your exonerate-israelism you could grasp that we are talking about everyone voting for one representative government, unlike past practice, and the one significant place that has occurred is South Africa.

    So, the cant was introduced by you when you brought up your apartheid comments that very inaccurately implied that israeli governments have been better than the apartheid South African government. I thought I made it fairly clear that israel is worse.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 03:16am

  208. Since white South Africans were a tiny minority in South Africa and Jews make up about half of the residents of the "Holy Land" why are elections in which all Jews and Palestinians take part less workable in the "Holy Land". Is that comment intended to support your point? It seems to me to argue for my point.

    Not at all, first I doubt you wish to exclude the Palestinians who live outside Israel, which would give them a numerical advantage, essentially placing Israeli Jews at the mercy of the Palestinians, which is what you want. All Hamas would need is the percentage of support from the Arab population that they are getting now.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/13/2006 @ 01:35am

    There are 5,390,000 Jews in israel and 5,305,120 Palestinians in all locations, including israel proper. Then there are, of course, the dual citizen Jews who are resident outside israel.

    More of your gross exaggerations in the service of the israeli conquest of Palestine.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 03:42am

  209. Oh, I don't deny the possibility of reconciliation--I just don't buy that's what you actually want.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/13/2006 @ 01:35am

    Based on your biased exaggerations some may judge that to be a more accurate description of yourself.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 03:44am

  210. Posted by SKELETONMAN 10/12/2006 @ 8:40pm

    Dr. SKELETONMAN....what did I say you actually disagree with?

    I said Federally-run universal health care was inevitable....you agreed it was necessary and you desire it.

    I said the system will be abused....and you agreed.

    Now....when I mentioned a SPECIFIC incidence of HOW the system could be abused ("free nosejobs"), you balked and said "No way, never happen!"

    Okay...so if the system CAN be abused (as you admit), why can it NOT be abused that particular way?

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2006 @ 09:03am

  211. And the big lie strategy continues to make money for repubs, are contributors suckers or just worried about losing their tax cuts?:

    Bush: I am proud to be standing with Hastert

    October 13, 2006 BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter

    Bush was the headline draw for the million-dollar fund-raiser to benefit Republicans Peter Roskam and David McSweeney, with the outcome possibly determining which party controls the House.

    VVVVV

    Neither Roskam, of Wheaton, nor McSweeney, of Barrington Hills, shied away from appearing on stage with Bush or Hastert. McSweeney, battling Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth in the 6th District, sat next to Hastert while Bush spoke, though Roskam left after the introductions to attend a debate with Duckworth at the College of DuPage.

    VVVVVVVVVVV

    Across the street from the hotel where Bush appeared, about 150 protesters gathered in Grant Park. "Clean the House, Dump Hastert,'' read one banner. Although most were there in opposition to the war in Iraq, Helen Boothe, 76, of Dune Acres, Ind., said the Republicans will "probably be kicked out of office because of Foley's indiscretions.''

    Panel to hear Shimkus today

    Kirk Fordham, Foley's onetime aide, testified for five hours before the House ethics committee Thursday. He didn't waver from his contention that he told Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, about Foley's approaching male pages at least three years ago, Fordham's lawyer said. Palmer has challenged Fordham's description of events.

    Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the head of the page board, will meet today with the ethics committee to discuss his confrontation with Foley last November, after the parents of a former page expressed concerns about messages Foley sent their son. Shimkus has said he believed Foley would change his behavior.

    VVVVVVVV

    Contributing: Lisa Donovan, Dan Rozek, AP

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 09:10am

  212. Okay...so if the system CAN be abused (as you admit), why can it NOT be abused that particular way?

    Posted by MASK 10/13/2006 @ 09:03am

    Why not just change the law like habeas corpus, torturing and spying on US citizens w/out a warrant? Then the abuse isn't really happening and the costs come down too per negotiated bulk price package... hah, see how easy it is to turn that hsuB culture on its head to do others advantage-- other than the rich that is.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 09:28am

  213. FRB

    Your intellectual dishonesty re your soft-peddling of the Holocaust and your desired disposition re the State of Israel as well as your monomania with needing to bring your sentiments re Israel up in every thread (whether they're relevant or not) make arguing with you pointless. You are on my Ignore list.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/13/2006 @ 11:50am

  214. nicely put. let the Commissar howl in the vast emptiness of the ignore bin.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2006 @ 12:23pm

  215. the holocaust? well, I admit some jews were inconvenienced, but....

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2006 @ 12:25pm

  216. FRB

    Your intellectual dishonesty re your soft-peddling of the Holocaust and your desired disposition re the State of Israel as well as your monomania with needing to bring your sentiments re Israel up in every thread (whether they're relevant or not) make arguing with you pointless. You are on my Ignore list.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/13/2006 @ 11:50am

    You spew hyperbole, lies, and exaggerations and then flee like a mosquito from bug repellet when facts about israel are presented.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 1:01pm

  217. the holocaust? well, I admit some jews were inconvenienced, but....

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/13/2006 @ 12:25am

    Describing the brutal murders of millions of Jews as an inconvenience reveals the depths of your anti-semitism. You apparently acquired some repugnant sympathies from your German background.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 1:04pm

  218. nicely put. let the Commissar howl in the vast emptiness of the ignore bin.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/13/2006 @ 12:23am

    Gee, what'll I do now? The two primary publishers of the fake history of israel won't read my posts anymore. How can I go on?

    Bwaha-ha-ha!

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 1:06pm

  219. FRB

    . . your monomania with needing to bring your sentiments re Israel up in every thread (whether they're relevant or not)

    Posted by BRUNOWE 10/13/2006 @ 11:50am

    the US is by far the leading arms merchant of the world. Israel is also one of the biggest.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 1:12pm

    Gee, if I had said that he would have accused me of anti-semitism.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/10/2006 @ 2:12pm

    Actually, it was your sidekick in the "Hellcats For israel" fan club who brought up israel, not me. But don't let that get in the way of your LITTLE RED BOOK OF BRUNOWE's FALSE ASSERTIONS .

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 1:15pm

  220. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/13/2006 @ 09:28am

    Boy, that sure proved THAT point about health care system abuses, didn't it!

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2006 @ 1:56pm

  221. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/13/2006 @ 1:15pm

    You all must forgive FROMRED....given his view of Israel is about the same as Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq....

    Howard Dean thinks he's an anti-Semite!

    or worse, Ari Berman of "The Nation" would referr to him as part of the "reflexively anti-Israel Left".

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2006 @ 1:57pm

  222. Posted by MASK 10/13/2006 @ 1:57pm

    MASK, is this a continuation of your imaginary "nose job paid for by universal healthcare" story?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 2:05pm

  223. Boy, that sure proved THAT point about health care system abuses, didn't it!

    Posted by MASK 10/13/2006 @ 1:56pm

    Must get old losing useless arguments all the time just to avoid the current GOP/hsub neosans repub scandal de jour. Not to worry, I'm sure there'll be a way for repub 'predators' to get counseling paid for even in prison.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 2:08pm

  224. By the way, BRUNOWE, it was really funny how you ran away in disgust when I posted the actual population figures for israeli Jews and all Palestinians. I'll take that as a loud and clear admission that your feverish claims were pure horse manure. You must have frustratedly spent a couple of hours this morning trying to find some figures that would buttress your lie.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 2:15pm

  225. Ouch too.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/ War%20on%20Terror_Monthly_Update.ht m

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 2:16pm

  226. It does appear the term 'predator' resonates across the repub line of scandals:

    US Republican Ney admits bribery

    A senior Republican congressman linked to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bribery charges in Washington.

    Bob Ney from Ohio admitted offering political favours for money and gifts from Abramoff and his clients.

    Mr Ney also pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements.

    Abramoff's shady business dealings continue to rock the Republican Party in the run-up to next month's mid-term polls, the BBC's Jonathan Beale says.

    Abramoff has admitted to conspiracy to bribe public officials.

    A congressional inquiry recently found that he had more extensive contacts with the White House than previously acknowledged.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 2:42pm

  227. republican (pr?d'?-t?r, -tôr') n.

    An organism that lives by preying on other organisms.

    One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 3:00pm

  228. Ooops: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6049274.stm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 3:04pm

  229. Ney, another one bites the dust, and another one bites the dust... Abramoff and Foley, Xmas came early this year, both gifts that keep on giving.

    Brunowe, I imagine you caught my irony above.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2006 @ 3:11pm

  230. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=291

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 3:14pm

  231. HSUB...maybe you forgot how this discussion of universal health care and the corruption of government programs got started. It began with a poster claiming the Repubs were "shrinking the American government" and I disagreed....

    "Shrink the American government down to nothing, so it drowns, as Norquist once said. What no one ever asked Norquist was what Republicans would replace the American government with."

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/11/2006 @ 12:20am

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2006 @ 3:34pm

  232. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/13/2006 @ 2:05pm

    FRB, every time I feel alone in my opinion of you....I think back on the comments of al-Maliki....and of Howard Dean ON al-Maliki!

    If "The Scream" thinks he is an anti-Semite...what WOULD the Good Doctor think of YOU?

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2006 @ 3:36pm

  233. ...What no one ever asked Norquist was what Republicans would replace the American government with."

    Posted by MASK 10/13/2006 @ 3:34pm

    And the original poster's response was, "Now we know." -- 'the current hsuB admin and do-nothing repub congress'.

    "Why? Why would Bush want to do that? What does he - more importantly, what does the country - gain from this kind of totalitarian behavior? Well, once again, Bush is making a point, that the president has the power to do whatever the president wants, without having to provide reasons to anyone. Especially during "wartime."

    Which would then lead one dealing with the current corruption in congress to make a link to perhaps the predatory nature inherant in its need for secrecy and hiding facts if only to hide its incompetency much less its victimization, plunderring, and/or destruction of our nation and the world which is being uncovered.

    And that of course was you're point, ...right.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 4:15pm

  234. Norquist?

    is he somehow cuaght up the house republican leadership of the actions of a sleazy, slimy, kid groping perv?

    does Grover want smaller governmnet to better carry out his kid groping perversions?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/13/2006 @ 4:43pm

  235. did I forget to say coverup?

    but then isn't that the nature of coverup

    shhhhhhhhhhh

    Posted by Will C. at 10/13/2006 @ 4:44pm

  236. The bigger deception for the smaller ones...Will it work again?:

    "A growing number of studies offer clues as to how terrorism and other deadly events affect people's voting decisions. The latest research shows that because such violent political acts are brutal reminders of death, they make conservatives, but not liberals, more hostile toward those perceived as different, and more supportive of extreme military policies, according to a study in April in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

    For 20 years, researchers have been exploring how people manage the fear engendered by intimations of mortality. Reminded of the inevitability of their own death (which happens to a lesser degree by merely walking past a funeral parlor), people try to quench or at least manage the resulting "existential terror" in several ways. They become more certain of their worldview or faith. They conform more closely to the norms of their society. They show greater reverence for symbols of their society, such as flags and crucifixes.

    All of these make people feel more secure and, crucially, a part of something larger -- something that will outlive them.

    Building up your own worldview requires disparaging (even unconsciously) that of others. If beliefs that contradict yours have any worth, then by definition they call into question the absolute validity of your own. The result is stronger feelings of hostility toward those with different values and beliefs.

    This "worldview defense," says psychology researcher Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College, "reduces the terror that reminders of your own death bring." These results have been replicated in some 300 lab experiments, including in cultures with very different ideas about an afterlife."

    http://online.wsj.com/public/article/ SB116068988757591182-3ET5PyJildgW7pI62fUVFsBf4_w_20071013. html?mod=blogs

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 5:02pm

  237. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/13/2006 @ 2:05pm

    FRB, every time I feel alone in my opinion of you....I think back on the comments of al-Maliki....and of Howard Dean ON al-Maliki!

    If "The Scream" thinks he is an anti-Semite...what WOULD the Good Doctor think of YOU?

    Posted by MASK 10/13/2006 @ 3:36pm

    Oh, please, please MASK, don't call me anti-semitic! If you stop I swear to your God, Bush, I'll never post another article like this [tinyurl.com].

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 5:05pm

  238. It kinda says a lot about the chicken hawks in the hsuB admin knowing best about being fearful and how to manipulate cowardly repub types. Will their fear of death (and tax refunds) supercede their disgust of their party covering up for their perv?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 5:08pm

  239. UUuuuhmmmm, that seems to correspond to when people were telling Hastert's office Foley was messing with the pages... Seems like the hsuB admin knew what was going on too. The cover-up most probably goes to the very top and Hastert has Rove and hsuB by the balls. No wonder hsuB is standing by Hastert so closely. And it's so ironic Jeb was hiding in the closet a few days ago...

    Foley's e-mail to governor voices fear White House snubbed him

    By Dara Kam Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau

    Thursday, October 12, 2006

    tallahassee -- E-mails from former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley to Gov. Jeb Bush reveal that Foley feared two years ago the White House was shunning him, and he called on the governor, President Bush's brother, to intercede.

    Foley wrote to Gov. Bush on Sept. 29, 2004: "Have I done something to offend the White House ... I am always getting the shaft ... they came to ft pierce a few weeks ago and said I was not allowed to attend ... yet joe negron is there ...

    "Tomorrow Potus is in Martin County and I am told I am not allowed to be there either. I can't quite figure what I have done but this is a continuing pattern of slights ... I have constantly put the President in the best possible light on everything from haiti to hurricanes ... sorry to trouble you ... and I wouldn't if this wasn't so frequent ..."

    POTUS is an acronym for president of the United States. Foley's message referred to President Bush's visits to Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Jeanne.

    Bush responded that day: "I will try to help. I know it is nothing you have done. Promise. I think it relates to debate prep time. Jeb."

    "I need your thoughts on something ... are you in south florida or somewhere we can meet up," Foley messaged Bush on Oct. 3, 2005.

    "I am up in Tallahassee. Will a call suffice?" Bush responded.

    Foley asked Bush to call him at his Fort Pierce office or on his cellphone.

    Bush and Foley have exchanged about 100 electronic messages since 1999, according to documents Bush's office released Wednesday evening. The bulk of the e-mails from Foley, who almost exclusively sent the messages from his Blackberry, concerned hurricanes, federal legislation and his recommendations for appointments.

    The governor's office did not return calls Wednesday night concerning the e-mails.

    The e-mails show a friendly relationship between Foley and Bush, in contrast to Bush's recent characterization of Foley's behavior as "despicable" and "disgusting."

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/nation/epaper/ 2006/10/12/m5a_FOLEY_EMAIL_1012.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2006 @ 10:22pm

  240. "Building up your own worldview requires disparaging (even unconsciously) that of others. If beliefs that contradict yours have any worth, then by definition they call into question the absolute validity of your own. The result is stronger feelings of hostility toward those with different values and beliefs.

    May not have occurred to you and others here but your whole campaign motivation is the mirror image of what you claim is the present administration's modus operandi.

    That sort of blindness is sometimes called lack of self awareness.

    The Bushites are frightened of what the terrorists and the hard left (which expressions they see as synonyms) will do to their America.

    And your mob is frightened of the havoc Bush and his supporters are doing to your America.

    Again it may not have occurred to you or all those here including the Journos that both sides are playing on the emotion of fear.

    "We the people..." in this context strikes me as a bit of impractical romantic bullshit. Perhaps you should be thinking along the lines of a bit of Iraqi federalism to accomodate "We the unreconcilable two peoples." (There is the possibility that the Bushites or your mob "out there" (collectively known as "we the people") are easily led fools and need re-indoctrination) Of course you're lucky to have a constitution and a bill of rights so you can use the law to mug "We the people". But if you have to force change by law,what the hell is "We the people" all about. Except of course the reality has always been, that it has never been "We the people" in any real sense.

    Observing a subset of "We the people" here that may not be such a bad thing.

    Roll on fearmongering.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2006 @ 10:56pm

  241. May not have occurred to you and others here but your whole campaign motivation is the mirror image of what you claim is the present administration's modus operandi.

    Posted by LRJONES4 10/13/2006 @ 10:56pm

    "The latest research shows that because such violent political acts are brutal reminders of death, they make conservatives, but not liberals, more hostile toward those perceived as different,.."

    So you equate intellect with emotion, courage with fear, good is the same as evil, simply because 'you' can't tell them apart. No my dear JRWatson, the flaw lies within you... that old immoral relativism is pitifully weak logic when you think about it.

    Plus, funny thing about what constitutes the majority, we the people:

    Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 5-6, 2006. Nationwide.

    From what you've heard or read, do you think House Speaker Dennis Hastert was aware of Foley's inappropriate conduct and tried to cover it up, or not?" N=1,004 adults, MoE ± 3 (for all adults)

    ___Tried to Cover it Up__Didn't Try to Cover it Up__Unsure

    ALL adults_______52____________24____________24

    _Republicans____29_____________43____________28

    _Democrats_____69_____________12____________19

    _Independents___50_____________25____________25

    Sometimes the truth just happens to seep into all sides and fear is overcome with intelligence.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 01:00am

  242. Yep, it sure doesn't look like a 50/50, he said she said:

    Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 5-6, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?"

    ________Satisfied_____Dissatisfied___Unsure

    10/5-6/06____25__________67________8

    8/24-25/06___28__________65________7

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 01:08am

  243. Can anyone keep track of all the repub incompetence and corruption anymore? The new GOP strategy must be shock and awe the public with so much corruption that we just throw up our arms in disgust and confussion and forget to vote...ha, no way.

    Posted on Fri, Oct. 13, 2006

    FBI investigates Rep. Curt Weldon

    By Greg Gordon

    McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating whether Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.

    http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15754123.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 01:30am

  244. Roll on fearmongering.

    Posted by QuagmireJONES4 10/13/2006 @ 10:56pm

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    What makes you think we're afraid quagmire? and a vast conspiricy of fearmongering journalists? (insert twilight zone theme... here)

    he he he he

    Stick to drinking beer dude

    at least you're good at that

    Posted by Will C. at 10/14/2006 @ 02:48am

  245. I've been laughing my ass off ever since the kid groping perv foley was found to be the focal point of a republican cover-up.

    and this idiot from Australia thinks we're afraid.

    Every hamster's trying to be a comedian

    Posted by Will C. at 10/14/2006 @ 02:51am

  246. And not so absurd, Shay may have just admitted to liking it rough-- hitting the submit button on this one just took on lots of other connotations:

    Shays defends comments on Abu Ghraib

    By Mark Ginocchio Staff Writer

    Published October 13 2006

    U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays was under fire yesterday after saying in a debate earlier this week that the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison was not torture but rather a "sex ring" involving National Guard troops.

    Amnesty International officials and Shays' challengers in the 4th District said it was absurd for the Republican incumbent to call the acts at the Iraqi prison anything but torture.

    http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-torture 2oct13,0,221460 0.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 10:02am

  247. "I saw probably 600 pictures of really gross, perverted stuff," Shays said. "The bottom line was it was sex. . . . It wasn't primarily about torture."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 10:06am

  248. I suppose we can now understand why the Foley scandal was an easy decision for the repub leadership to covered up, it was just sex and anything goes in that department with the repubs, young boys, Iraqis, what's the dif, (as long as you're not Bill Clinton getting a bj). And now even Shay, the one repub I thought was one of the good guys... well, for a repub. Those stress positions do add up I suppose, ay Shay. Resistance is futile-- you will be assimulated, so say the hsuB admin neosans. Sad, really sad. (oh geeze, the submit button again)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 10:25am

  249. er, to make to cover-up

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 10:28am

  250. Cover up?

    Speaking of cover ups... I heard recently that the republican house leadership covered up the actions of a sleazy, slimy, kid groping perv.

    And did you hear they (the republican party) had him running the committee on missing and exploited children while they were covering up his perverted exploitation of children

    Posted by Will C. at 10/14/2006 @ 2:09pm

  251. it's shocking

    Posted by Will C. at 10/14/2006 @ 2:09pm

  252. GOP is the party of the pervs-- all the pervs seemed to know what we're just now finding out:

    Sara Evans' Porn-Addicted Husband Tried To Run For Congress As Republican...See Campaign Website Here...

    | Posted October 14, 2006 09:42 AM

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/14/ sara-evans-pornaddicted_n_31685.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 3:15pm

  253. No plan to fight terrorist pre-9/11, no plan to win the peace in Iraq, no plan to help with Katrina disaster victims and rebuilding, no plan to keep repub pervs away from our kids, no plan if any of the multitude of repub cover-ups are uncovered-- the hsuB admin is now completely delusional:

    Bush Is Said to Have No Plan if GOP Loses

    By Kenneth T. Walsh

    Posted 10/13/06

    Some Republican strategists are increasingly upset with what they consider the overconfidence of President Bush and his senior advisers about the midterm elections November 7–a concern aggravated by the president's news conference this week.

    "They aren't even planning for if they lose," says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing. If Democrats win control of the House, as many analysts expect, Republicans predict that Bush's final two years in office will be marked by multiple congressional investigations and gridlock.

    "The Bush White House has had no relationship with Congress," said a Bush ally. "Beyond the Democrats, wait till they see how the Republicans–the ones that survive–treat them if they lose next month." GOP insiders are upset by Bush's seeming inability to come up with new ideas or fresh approaches. There is even a heightened sensitivity to the way Bush talks about advisers who served his father.

    At the president's news conference on Wednesday, allies of his father complained that the president seemed dismissive of former Secretary of State James Baker, who remains close to his dad and is cochairman of a bipartisan panel studying the war in Iraq.

    "I think it's good to have some of our elder statesmen–I hate to call Baker an elder statesman–but to go over there and take a look, and to come back and make recommendations," Bush said. Baker fans felt this made the former secretary seem part of a bygone era. There is also considerable criticism of Bush for making little or no news in his 63-minute encounter with the press.

    "He had nothing to say at the press conference," says a prominent GOP insider. "My question is, why call it?"

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 3:34pm

  254. http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/ Democracy_Corps_October_13_2006_Memo.pdf

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2006 @ 4:02pm

  255. When I first heard on the news that a congressman had resigned under allegations of sexual contact with pages, I didn't know who the congressman was, but I thought it must be a Republican. Lo and Behold!! People like Republicans who are so anti-gay are usually repressed and perverted. That's why I guessed that the congressman was GOP. They are the party of incredible hypocrisy.

    Posted by philbq at 10/15/2006 @ 01:02am

  256. "What makes you think we're afraid quagmire? And a vast conspiracy of fear mongering journalists? (insert twilight zone theme... here)"

    So Willie, you are not afraid that Chimpy and his minions have marginalised "The Great Liberal Centre"? Bullshit! That's the summation of your literary efforts on this fffffear mmmongering site. Whoops forgot the Es but they of course are part of the great unwashed aren't they?

    Wasn't suggesting you were scared or even sober Willie but merely making the observation that both sides were using fear mongering as a tactic. That means plenty of hyperbole is required, and certainly is not lacking from your side either, in an effort to get knees trembling out there in voter land. A great tactic that politicians use effectively so why plead lily white when it comes to your brand of fear mongering.

    Perhaps the more contemplative from the "great centre" will ponder why the "We the people" rather than being the bastion of political wisdom are pawns, that flip flop, in the game of manipulation that you, as one of "the vast" many, practice.

    The reality as I see it is that a functioning democracy really is about the electorate and "We the people" is the highest ideal of a democracy and one reason manipulation, as we observe it in other countries as well as yours, trivialises that bedrock of a real democracy. What is happening in Iraq is a powerful picture of when that consent is not present; ie. where there is democratically arrived at legislation in place but as yet a fully fledged "We the people" dynamic is missing.

    Fools your approach is to say that "we the people" is restricted to one brand of intellectual elites. Sort of shut up if your IQ is below a certain cut off point or if you read the wrong treatises of political philosophy. That is not to demean intellectual debate and rational understanding but that commodity is not the property of any one side.

    Your approach, I suggest, tends to run counter to the spirit of your constitution and also tramples on "We the people" as the true driver of (any) democracy. This necessary driver you replace with an "hereditary" nobility.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 10/15/2006 @ 08:20am

  257. Fools your approach is to say that "we the people" is restricted to one brand of intellectual elites. Sort of shut up if your IQ is below a certain cut off point .

    Your approach, I suggest, tends to run counter to the spirit of your constitution and also tramples on "We the people" as the true driver of (any) democracy. This necessary driver you replace with an "hereditary" nobility.

    Posted by LRJONES4 10/15/2006 @ 08:20am

    Well you do actually have to read what I write. I've never stated what you're written I stated. So your argument is full of shit, perhaps it is your IQ. You might want to back up your acusation or you're just a liar. And I hate liars even if they're down under and can't help being upside down.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/15/2006 @ 11:51am

  258. LRJ$,

    Perhaps you'd like the US populace to be uneducated mindless scared lemmings? Now that would be antidemocracy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/15/2006 @ 12:07pm

  259. These remarks by Frank Rich in todays NYTimes Week in Review are most pertinent:

    1. "The split between the Republican's outward homophobia and inner gayness isn't just hypocrisy; its pathology." He doesn't elaborate, but in Freudian terms that pathology would be: to exteralize what is inner in themselves, and punish it in a "id representative" (others needing punishment: liberals, Arab/Muslims, all children in Iraq, Iran and N. Korea and domestic "extremists"). In order words, the Re-pubes have 'dumped' into the electorate the fear of their own inner gayness (their sh!t)-- gaynxiety, one pundit called it.

    2. "...(G)ay people did not "infiltrate" the party apparatus -- they are the party apparatus."

    In other words, the "Gay Old Party" (Rich's barb) is an instrument for the American people as a group to cleanse themselves of felt sinfulness for raging homosesual desire, repressed, by projecting it into this borderline actual case (Foley and Hastert's wrongdoing) and PUNISHSING THEM LIKE HELL. The re-pubes, who got Bush elected and started the Iraq war are expected to lead the purge.

    Note: psychodynamically, wars are always unconsciously waged on the children (inner id-representatives of the old). Tokens of sexy youth and virile males (soldiers) must be beforever killing and dying, because in group-fantasy, they ...and of course all "liberals" -- are sinful animals in essence, and out of control. Wars are a guilt-purging ritual -- in America, this one, for the late Clinton years + '60's "excessive exuberance" blowout ... so much sin, so much blood needed to atone ... bodies of dead children are turning up alongside roads, in schools, University campuses .. in Iraq ...

    And here is the kicker Rich delivers: "We now learn from "The Architect", the recent book by the Texas journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater, that Mr. Rove's own (and beloved) adoptive father, Louis Rove, was openly gay in the years before his death in 2004. This will be a future case study for psychiatric clinicians as well as historians."

    Let help them along. I am a Freudian + Jungian psychohistorian.

    First, one notes that Rich relates this spasm of gaynxiety, architected by Rove's huge ambivalence toward how you show honor to father, to the Jewish question, in two places, both interesting. 1. He compares "the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia" to "the kind of blood libel that inanother era was spread about Jews." 2. "...(T)his attack was soon followed by another classic from the annals of anti-Semitism: the shadowy conspiracy. "The secret Capiton Hill homosexual network must be exposed and dismantled"" Rich quotes Cliff Kindaic of Accuracy in Media as saying.

    But let's stop the kidding around right there (just kidding around) Rich ses self-hating re-pube homophobic homosexuals in a way that's goog for tyhe Jews? His first comparison is bizarre. Accusing re-pubes of pathological twistedness is like accusubg Jews of drinking Christian children's blood? ...ugh ? maybe they did. As for the second comment, call it conspiracy or not, the butt-banging apparatchiks surely could tell Rove was basically one of them, his own father, for crissake! This is surely like the underground connection between Aspens in the Libby Lobby. There have been two raging conspsiracies: reverse gays and Jews. As for reverse Jews: consider the anti-Semitic slurs scrawled in the student dormitory at SUNY Binghamton, for which police have charged one of the residents, Justin Friedman, who was apparently doing a hate crime hoax, menacing the straight white Christian male kids. (The President issues a letter declaring it "An attack on the entire community" -- then prosecutes it as a misdemeanor.) This happened in September and is under adjudication. Jewish dirty tricks for Re-pube politics, aided and abetted by State Universty dip sticks

    So much for Rich's rambling. He sees the connection between queerness and Jewness as the most powerful unconscious components, but does not see their basic similarity in point of conscious reversal (sacrifici8ng their own kind for group solidarity). By linking them, he plays a positive role, conjoining what is "above" (conscious) with what is "below" (the punishable hate impulses).

    But by juxtaposing them,as he does, ignoring the ing the way Jews politicize victimhood also, he performs a serious disservice. He obfuscates the way re-pube-ism, in general, represents a homosexual-Jewish apocalyptic metaphysic foisting itself off as America's inner child; and how that, as a dominant force everyone panders to, is what has brought us down.

    Posted by jones at 10/15/2006 @ 2:36pm

  260. Posted by LRJONES4 10/15/2006 @ 08:20am

    Quagmire, why would I waste my time mired in fear. There's really nothing to be afraid of. You fellers may think you're scary, but you're way too adorable to inspire fear.

    For example... the house republican leadership cover-up of the actions of a sleazy, slimy, kid grouping perv, whom I believe they placed in charge of the commitee on missing and exploited children.

    it just warms my heart with laughter

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Posted by Will C. at 10/15/2006 @ 3:53pm

  261. Posted by QuagmireJONES4 10/15/2006 @ 08:20am

    Let us begin the unraveling

    So Willie, you are not afraid that Chimpy and his minions have marginalised "The Great Liberal Centre"? Bullshit!

    and only one paragraph later

    Wasn't suggesting you were scared or even sober Willie but merely making the observation that both sides were using fear mongering as a tactic.

    Quagmire, maybe you have left brain, right brain issues, but I think it's really clear that when you accuse me of being afraid, denying that you just did only one paragraph before... makes you look a bit mentally handicapped.

    (by the way... isn't it time for that next beer)

    Posted by Will C. at 10/15/2006 @ 4:01pm

  262. Posted by WILL C. 10/15/2006 @ 4:01pm

    "Quagmire, maybe you have left brain, right brain issues, but I think it's really clear that when you accuse me of being afraid, denying that you just did only one paragraph before... makes you look a bit mentally handicapped."

    Well I wasn't thinking of you particularly in the original post Willie but more about the fear your type was trying to engender in others, so when you stepped up to the plate, it did occur to me you had probably convinced yourself with your own rhetoric. Perhaps you need some deprogramming? Or you could take to wearing knee braces.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 10/15/2006 @ 7:16pm

  263. so when you stepped up to the plate, it did occur to me you had probably convinced yourself with your own rhetoric.

    Posted by QuagmireJONES4 10/15/2006 @ 7:16pm

    let the unraveling continue..

    quagmire, you say that I convinced myself with my own rhetoric but then you say this

    So Willie, you are not afraid that Chimpy and his minions have marginalised "The Great Liberal Centre"? Bullshit!

    Posted by QuagmireJONES4 10/15/2006 @ 08:20am

    yet this is the rhetoric that the above snippet responds to

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    What makes you think we're afraid quagmire? and a vast conspiricy of fearmongering journalists? (insert twilight zone theme... here)

    he he he he

    Posted by WILL C. 10/14/2006 @ 02:48am

    So which is it oh muddled one mired in contradictions. Am I not afraid because I am convinced by my own rhetoric or is the idea that I am not afraid bullshit?

    (have your left brain mull it over with your right brain and get back to me)

    Posted by Will C. at 10/15/2006 @ 7:33pm

  264. Posted by LRJONES4 10/15/2006 @ 7:16pm

    Willie also believes OJ is innocent, you should ask him about that.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2006 @ 7:54pm

  265. Interesting that David Corn sees Mark Foley's pederasty as a huge scandal, but somehow I doubt Mr. Corn's outrage was around when Dem. Gerry Studds was actually sleeping with pages. Note that Foley resigned because of improper emails, but Studds was reelected to 3 more terms, with the support of the Dem leadership, after actually sleeping with 17-year old pages. Hmmmm...a ladle full of hypocrisy, anyone?

    Well, at least we won't have to here about Plamegate again, now that David Corn has something else to talk about.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2006 @ 7:59pm

  266. And didn't someone write a book about Plamegate? Can't remember his name....

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2006 @ 8:01pm

  267. Memorable quotes:

    Wizard of Oz: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

    Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, refused to comment on specifics or similarities between the Studds and Foley scandals, but said Bradley's remarks reflect a national Republican strategy to deflect responsibility.

    "They're all saying this because none of the reps who are running for office right now want to hold their leaders accountable," LaVera said. "It's not about Studds, it about what this House leadership has done. They're more interested in the political implications in this than protecting the children who were victimized by Mark Foley."

    Some Republicans, for their part, have questioned whether the timing of the Foley scandal -- a month before congressional elections -- was orchestrated by Democrats.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/15/2006 @ 8:10pm

  268. Willie also believes OJ is innocent, you should ask him about that.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/15/2006 @ 7:54pm

    ok I confess. Americans are innocent until proven guilty.

    now back to Rome

    Posted by Will C. at 10/15/2006 @ 9:08pm

  269. Is my favorite roman abdicating the dogma of personal responsibility and blaming the democrats for the house republican leadership cover-up of the actions of a sleazy slimy kid groping perv?

    That's kinda what it sounds like.

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 10/15/2006 @ 9:13pm

  270. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/15/2006 @ 7:59pm

    Pontificus = ideologue: the same crap every post, and can't respond to any debate. I have tried to engage Ponti on at least three different threads with some simple (I thought) questions, but he keeps scurrying away only to pop up on another thread with the same reactionary nonsense.

    Again, although this is probably a waste of my time, nobody with any sense ever claimed on this board that there aren't scumbags on both sides of the aisle. It's just the reactionaries like Ponti who can't seem to grasp that it isn't necessarily the crime of Mark Foley that has political ramifications, since he "did the right thing" and resigned (that he ran for re-election in 2004, and was encouraged to do so by people who knew about his "problem" is another story), it's the morally bankrupt actions of the Republican leadership to cover up the crime. Last time I checked Studds was given due process, and no Democrats were ever claimed to be part of a cover-up. Is there a connection (other than the legal similarity) between a Democrat who was given due process and a Republican whose crime was covered up somewhere between 11 months and 5+ years? Can you please explain how the due process of a politician decades ago relates to the cover-up by the current adminstration?

    I know Ponti will either run away to post his BS another day, or he will claim some way or another that similar crimes handled completely differently (one in the open, and the other covered up for at least two election cycles) are in fact comparable. It's sad, but apparently it's all Ponti's got.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/16/2006 @ 08:17am

  271. "Quagmire, why would I waste my time mired in fear. There's really nothing to be afraid of. You fellers may think you're scary, but you're way too adorable to inspire fear."

    That's a good question Willie and it would be interesting to know why you have no fear when you constantly call on others to fear the direction in which Bush is taking America. What words come to your mind? Insincerity? Misleading? Party Hack? Or perhaps just plain old fearmonger?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 10/16/2006 @ 10:25am

  272. "let us begin the unraveling

    A. So Willie, you are not afraid that Chimpy and his minions have marginalised "The Great Liberal Centre"? Bullshit!

    and only one paragraph later

    B. Wasn't suggesting you were scared or even sober Willie but merely making the observation that both sides were using fear mongering as a tactic.

    Quagmire, maybe you have left brain, right brain issues, but I think it's really clear that when you accuse me of being afraid, denying that you just did only one paragraph before... makes you look a bit mentally handicapped."

    Well I can see how you came to that conclusion Willie. Most would have if they'd adopted your selective quoting.

    A was in response to your boasting that Willie was a big boy and frightened of "nuffin". Item B which seemed to bring out the bovver boy in you had nothing to do with the perpetrator's fear (yours) but rather the fear engendered in the victims (potential voters) by the partisans (you) scare tactics.

    I think the GOP should be pretty glad you are involved in the progressive cause.

    (Think I asked you this once before Willie but come on now, don't be afraid, the ridgy didge truth, cross me heart and hope to die, is English your first language?)

    Ps. why do you give me all the easy questions?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 10/16/2006 @ 11:11am

  273. This is interesting for those here wanting/needing to distract from the repub perv discussion for their own personal monetary reasons...:

    http://www.research2000.us/2006/10/16/why-demonizing-pelosi-wont-work/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2006 @ 2:20pm

  274. Posted by TURK33 10/16/2006 @ 08:17am

    Pontificus = ideologue: the same crap every post, and can't respond to any debate. I have tried to engage Ponti on at least three different threads with some simple (I thought) questions, but he keeps scurrying away only to pop up on another thread with the same reactionary nonsense.

    Well, the problem is I just haven't found any of your posts response-worthy.

    Again, although this is probably a waste of my time, nobody with any sense ever claimed on this board that there aren't scumbags on both sides of the aisle.

    Okay, so far so good.

    It's just the reactionaries like Ponti who can't seem to grasp that it isn't necessarily the crime of Mark Foley that has political ramifications, since he "did the right thing" and resigned (that he ran for re-election in 2004, and was encouraged to do so by people who knew about his "problem" is another story)

    Hmmm...let's see. Mark Foley 'did the right thing' and resigned because he wrote improper emails to pages, who may or may not have been underage. We're supposed to believe that there is something wrong with the actions of the Republican leadership, who may or may not have known about Foley's proclivities and actions.

    In contrast, Gerry Studds actually had sex with a 17-year old page, and he was not only encouraged by the Democratic leadership to run again, he was actually, in fact, re-elected to 3 terms.

    So please elucidate, again, why the Republicans are corrupt and the Democrats are not. And what crimes, exactly, did Foley commit that Studds did not commit in spades?

    it's the morally bankrupt actions of the Republican leadership to cover up the crime.

    Exactly what 'crime' is it that you're talking about? And again, if there was a crime committed, which I doubt, how could Mark Foley commit said crime and Studds did not?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2006 @ 2:56pm

  275. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/16/2006 @ 2:20pm

    This is interesting for those here wanting/needing to distract from the repub perv discussion for their own personal monetary reasons...:

    Do you consider homosexuality to be a perversion? Are you calling Barney Frank a pervert? Was Gerry Studds a pervert? Weren't they both Democrats, and are you implying that only Republicans can be perverts? Please explain, if you can.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2006 @ 2:58pm

  276. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/16/2006 @ 2:20pm

    This is interesting for those here wanting/needing to distract from the repub perv discussion for their own personal monetary reasons...:

    I always get a chuckle from the leftists who fault people for wanting to keep taxes low so they can keep more of what they earn. How dare those Republicans desire to keep what they make, the greedy bastards!

    Mo money mo money, gimme gimme gimme Gimmecrats....

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2006 @ 3:52pm

  277. Posted by PUNTIFICUS 10/16/2006 @ 2:5bm

    You are loony tunes incarnate. This is what the link I posted has on it:

    "Why Demonizing Pelosi Won't Work

    Posted by deanp under In the News

    In October 1994, the Democratic leadership began attacking Congressman Newt Gingrich with both ads and on Sunday morning talking head programs with a simple theme of, "You the voters may be angry at President Clinton and our failure to come up with national health care and our corruption in the House leadership among those involved with the Post Office Scandal, but can you imagine a Speaker Gingrich? In 2006, the Republican leadership has begun attacking Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi with both ads and on the Sunday morning talking head programs as well by telling voters that nothing could be worse than a Speaker Pelosi in spite of the Page Scandal, Iraq, etc.

    The GOP leadership may want to seriously consider dropping this strategy because of two reasons. First, Pelosi is no where near as polarizing as Gingrich was in 1994. In fact, even after Gingrich's unfavorable rating sky rocketed after he made his infamous claim that Susan Smith, the South Carolina mother who murdered her two children and then blamed an African American man for it was the fault of Democrats in power, the Democrats had their heads handed to them on election night. Number two, Pelosi does not have the name recognition or the high profile that Newt Gingrich had nationally. Our polling shows that at this same moment in time, Gingrich's name recognition nationally was 25 points higher than Nancy Pelosi's. In the end, voter disgust towards Democrats in 1994 superceded any feelings voters may have had about Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich's unfavorable rating was 12 points higher nationally than Pelosi's."

    Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

    http://www.research2000.us/2006/10/16/why-demonizing-pelosi-wont-work/

    So PUKIFILIUS-- where do you get off asking your asinine drivel from that? Sounds like the last stages of syphilus maximus in the PUKI-CRANIUS. With all this repub scandal and corruption and incompetence emerging no wonder you're a fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi...per abyssus abyssum invocat ad absurdum.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2006 @ 3:54pm

  278. You know, the really really rich people in this country don't pay much in taxes, they already are rich and there a millions of ways for the rich to avoid paying taxes. It is the most hard working segment of society that makes the most money and pays the most taxes. People like Kerry, Streisand, Pelosi, Kennedy, Gore, ad nauseum never worked for their money, they got it from someone else's labor, that's why they're leftists. They think wealth grows spontaneously in other people's bank accounts.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2006 @ 3:56pm

  279. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/16/2006 @ 3:54pm

    With all this repub scandal and corruption and incompetence emerging no wonder you're a fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi...per abyssus abyssum invocat ad absurdum.

    Well, I see you're speaking in tongues again, which is good because you actually seem to be making more sense. You still haven't responded to a single point I made, other than with a barrage of juvenile insults, but I guess that's the best you can manage under the circumstances.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2006 @ 4:01pm

  280. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/16/2006 @ 3:54pm

    The GOP leadership may want to seriously consider dropping this strategy because of two reasons. First, Pelosi is no where near as polarizing as Gingrich was in 1994. In fact, even after Gingrich's unfavorable rating sky rocketed after he made his infamous claim that Susan Smith, the South Carolina mother who murdered her two children and then blamed an African American man for it was the fault of Democrats in power, the Democrats had their heads handed to them on election night. Number two, Pelosi does not have the name recognition or the high profile that Newt Gingrich had nationally. Our polling shows that at this same moment in time, Gingrich's name recognition nationally was 25 points higher than Nancy Pelosi's. In the end, voter disgust towards Democrats in 1994 superceded any feelings voters may have had about Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich's unfavorable rating was 12 points higher nationally than Pelosi's."

    Well, I'm sure the Republicans greatly appreciate the concern, but I think educating the voters regarding what a potential Speaker Pelosi could mean is pretty much the right way to go. Most people in this country have very little appetite for whacked out San Francisco liberalism, so I would think that reminding them that every vote for a Democrat gets them closer to that reality is pretty much the right strategy.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2006 @ 4:08pm

  281. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/16/2006 @ 3:54pm

    ...a fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi...per abyssus abyssum invocat ad absurdum.

    Well, I see you're speaking in tongues again...

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/16/2006 @ 4:01pm

    BWahahahah, you don't even know your native tongue! All hail arcana imperii. Hhahaheheheh. You're just too funny.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2006 @ 4:53pm

  282. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/16/2006 @ 3:54pm

    "Why Demonizing Pelosi Won't Work

    Translation for the sane:

    "Why reading back direct quotes from Pelosi's past speeches will not be tolerated by the liberal media."

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2006 @ 5:25pm

  283. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

    Nancy Pelosi LIED!!! People DIED!!!

    yuk yuk yuk

    Posted by pontificus at 10/16/2006 @ 5:31pm

  284. "Why reading back direct quotes from Pelosi's past speeches will not be tolerated by the liberal media."

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/16/2006 @ 5:25pm

    Or Faux News! Or by hsuB for sure-- too many syllables. Plus, she does talk about the repub leadership cover-up of their perv! Don't want to repeat that over and over again.

    And translate this just for fun:

    Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2006 @ 5:37pm

  285. yuk yuk yuk

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/16/2006 @ 5:31bm

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2006 @ 5:41pm

  286. So far only 2 of the 15 polls taken this month for iracking hsuB's job approval rating have a nose at 40% all the others are in the 30's and dropping. And as everyone knows, as the hsuB goes-- so too goes the GOP/repub congress-- down, down, down. And I'm not just talking Foley and the repub cover-up.

    PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls

    Survey____Date___Approve_Disapprove_Unsure_minus

    CNN______10/13-15/06__36_____61_____3_____-25

    Gallup_____10/9-12/06___37_____57_____6_____-20

    FOX/Opinion Dynamics LV

    __________10/10-11/06___40____56_____4_____-16

    CNN_______10/6-8/06____39_____56_____5_____-17

    USA Today/Gallup

    ___________10/6-8/06____37_____59_____4_____-22

    ABC/Washington Post

    ___________10/5-8/06____39_____60_____1_____-21

    CBS/New York Times

    ___________10/5-8/06____34_____60_____6_____-26

    Cook/RT Strategies RV

    ___________10/5-8/06____41_____54_____5_____-13

    Newsweek___10/5-6/06____33_____59_____8_____-26

    Time_______10/3-4/06_____36_____57_____7_____-21

    AP-Ipsos____10/2-4/06_____38_____59_____3_____-21

    Pew_______9/21 - 10/4/06__37_____53____10_____-16

    NBC/Wall Street Journal RV

    _______9/30- 10/2/06_____39_____56_____5_____-17

    CNN___9/29 - 10/2/06_____39_____59_____2_____-20

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2006 @ 6:40pm

  287. er, tracking

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2006 @ 7:27pm

  288. BAM

    CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Oct. 13-15, 2006. N=1,012 adults nationwide.

    "Do you think the policies being proposed by the Republican leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.5

    Date________Right Direction___Wrong Direction___Unsure

    10/13-15/06_______36____________53____________12

    8/2-3/06__________43____________43____________15

    "Do you think the policies being proposed by the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.5

    Date________Right Direction___Wrong Direction___Unsure

    10/13-15/06_______53_____________35___________12

    8/2-3/06__________41_____________44___________15

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2006 @ 7:45pm

  289. Quagmire, maybe you have left brain, right brain issues, but I think it's really clear that when you accuse me of being afraid, denying that you just did only one paragraph before... makes you look a bit mentally handicapped.

    Posted by WILL C. 10/15/2006 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person

    Well I can see how you came to that conclusion Willie.

    Posted by LRJONES4 10/16/2006 @ 11:11am | ignore this person

    Hey Will, it looks like LoserJones is back to channeling the Black Knight in Montry Python's "The Holy Grail". Just so you know Will, when he gets like this, it doesn't matter how many limbs you hack off...he'll still just pretend like he's winning the battle. Even when you finally walk past his bleeding limbless torso shaking your head, he'll still be claiming victory and threatening to bite your ankle!

    Posted by Lillian at 10/16/2006 @ 8:29pm

  290. That's a good question Willie and it would be interesting to know why you have no fear when you constantly call on others to fear the direction in which Bush is taking America. What words come to your mind? Insincerity? Misleading? Party Hack? Or perhaps just plain old fearmonger?

    Posted by LRJONES4 10/16/2006 @ 10:2

    the unraveling.. day three

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Quagmire, do I even need to ask you to put that beer down and go find one of those constant calls to fear the the directon the Bush administration is taking America in, that you claim I make?

    or can we just agree right here and now that you ... are full of shit.

    (and save ourselves a few more days of your humiliation)

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 10/16/2006 @ 10:24pm

  291. Posted by LRJONES4 10/16/2006 @ 11:11a

    A was in response to your boasting that Willie was a big boy and frightened of "nuffin".

    the only individaul aosting the willie is a big boy and is afraid of nuffin is you quagmire. Which is why you hamsters inspire laughter and not fear

    Item B which seemed to bring out the bovver boy in you had nothing to do with the perpetrator's fear (yours) but rather the fear engendered in the victims (potential voters) by the partisans (you) scare tactics.

    that's right. you claim that I constantly call on others to fear the direction the chimps are taking America in. Except you don't seem to be able to produce any evidence to support that claim do you dummy?

    I think the GOP should be pretty glad you are involved in the progressive cause.

    I'm involved in the liberal cause. and boy you're stupid

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    (Think I asked you this once before Willie but come on now, don't be afraid, the ridgy didge truth, cross me heart and hope to die, is English your first language?)t

    yup, but I'm not sure how well yup translates into drunk australian.

    here, let me try this. Yupppppthhhllttttttt (burp)

    Ps. why do you give me all the easy questions?

    If I asked you the hard ones I'd never hear from you again quagmire. And then I'd only have maasch, luvvy, rio, my favorite roman, and mask to laugh at all the time.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/16/2006 @ 10:39pm

  292. Exactly what 'crime' is it that you're talking about? And again, if there was a crime committed, which I doubt, how could Mark Foley commit said crime and Studds did not?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/16/2006 @ 2:56pm

    Pontifideologue - thank you for proving my point. You are equating the illegal actions of Studds with Foley, and I already conceded the legal aspects of the cases. But you ignore (conveniently) the actual point of my post:

    Last time I checked Studds was given due process, and no Democrats were ever claimed to be part of a cover-up. Is there a connection (other than the legal similarity) between a Democrat who was given due process and a Republican whose crime was covered up somewhere between 11 months and 5+ years? Can you please explain how the due process of a politician decades ago relates to the cover-up by the current adminstration?

    Please respond to the political actions of the Republicans covering up the crime of Mark Foley and not allowing due process to take place. And if it makes you feel even better, I'll even concede that the Democrats did the exact same thing. So for the purposes of this discussion, we can say that the Republicans are no worse than the Dem's in the 1980's. Please now respond to the Republicans' actions of the past 5 years in answering the following questions:

    Is it wrong or right for the Republican leadership to have covered up the Foley scandal for between 2 and 5 years (depending on who you believe)?

    Is it wrong or right for the Republican leadership to have not only covered up his crime, but to have actually encouraged him to run, knowing that he had a serious problem, just to maintain another seat in the House?

    Is this situation more evidence or less evidence that the "family values" claim of the Republican party is complete and utter B.S.?

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/17/2006 @ 08:23am

  293. can anyone tell me, or us, what US troops are doing in Iraq? no really, not why they are there, but what they are doing? are they rebuilding Iraq? No. are they protecting Iraqis from violence? no. are they getting killed? yes. are they establishing a democracy there? no. It becomes clearer everyday that they are not helping the "security environment" as the violence is increasing day by day, week by week... what are they doing there? helping Bush save face until '08? impossible, Bush has very little face to save. what are they doing there?

    I got no reply on this so I'm reposting it on all threads, my apologies for any redundancy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 11:00am

  294. OK, the challenge has been set, I know you all can do better

    Larry Beinhart

    10.17.2006

    Foleyisms

    Trusting our nation's security to Republicans is like trusting your son to Mark Foley

    Giving the Republicans the keys to the treasury is like giving Mark Foley the keys to the boy's dorm.

    Trusting the budget to Republicans is like sending Mark Foley on vacation to Thailand.

    Letting Republicans make environmental regulations is like letting Mark Foley set the boy's dress code.

    Letting Republicans run a war is like having Mark Foley teach chastity.

    Republicans are as good at reconstructing countries (like Iraq) and cities (like New Orleans) as Mark Foley is at protecting our kids.

    Honesty from Republicans is like honesty from Mark Foley It doesn't happen even after they're caught.

    Republicans hang onto power, just like Mark Foley, even when they know they're screwing the wrong people.

    Republicans keep their real agendas in the closet. Just like Mark Foley

    Republicans claim they're in government to protect the country. But they're just there for booty. Just like Mark Foley.

    Please feel free to pass these on and add more.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/foleyisms_b_31872.html

    Or what about: All the books about repub corruption are outing the GOP, just like Mark Foley.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2006 @ 11:47am

  295. hsuB is much worse than Dennis Hastert, hsuB won't even let his abusive admin resign.

    Two for the price of one: help resign a Mark Foley enabler and a hsuB admin enabler, vote.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2006 @ 12:44pm

  296. what are they doing there?

    I got no reply on this so I'm reposting it on all threads, my apologies for any redundancy.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 11:00am

    Well, "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" so they must be bait. They are there with bullseyes on them so that the "terrorists" have a target "over there" rather than here.

    Nothing else can be rationalized. And yet the reactionary Republicans keep spinning fantasies, and their rabid ideologue followers keep believing the BS.

    How sad, for everyone.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/17/2006 @ 1:33pm

  297. so they must be bait.

    kind of like Jackass 2, right?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 2:38pm

  298. kind of like Jackass 2, right?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 2:38pm

    Jackass 2? Is that the secret service name for POTUS? It certainly fits!

    But seriously, when does this self-inflicted horror end? November 7? 2008? Never?

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/17/2006 @ 3:03pm

  299. what are they doing there?

    I got no reply on this so I'm reposting it on all threads, my apologies for any redundancy.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 11:00am

    http://www.thewarofthewords.net/part1.php

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2006 @ 3:05pm

  300. I think the entire country is holding its breath. until Nov.8th

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 3:06pm

  301. I think the entire country is holding its breath. until Nov.8th

    if Bush isn't worried, then we all should be, and be afraid, be very afraid.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 3:07pm

  302. Perhaps our troops are there waiting to see if Iraqis all leave or die:

    http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

    http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

    And then the hsuB admin's GOP/MIC energy buds can have all the oil, add another digit or two to the price of gasoline and tell their doomsday evenjackal friends not to worry about there ever being more Muslims than Christians...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2006 @ 3:35pm

  303. Posted by TURK33 10/17/2006 @ 08:23am

    My friend, you are clearly very confused. Perhaps this is why I have not found your posts worthy of reply until now, and if you don't pick up your game, in the future.

    You are equating the illegal actions of Studds with Foley, and I already conceded the legal aspects of the cases.

    I doubt if Gerry Studds actually did anything illegal; if so, he presumably would have been legislating from jail. As far as I know, he did not do any jail time.

    But you ignore (conveniently) the actual point of my post:

    Last time I checked Studds was given due process, and no Democrats were ever claimed to be part of a cover-up. Is there a connection (other than the legal similarity) between a Democrat who was given due process and a Republican whose crime was covered up somewhere between 11 months and 5+ years?

    What crime was committed, exactly, and who covered it up? In either case?

    Can you please explain how the due process of a politician decades ago relates to the cover-up by the current adminstration?

    Who covered up what? Not only has no crime even been alleged at this point, we don't even know who might have 'covered up' anything. Is this another Plamegate pseudo-scandal, where no crime was committed to cover up? I have no idea what you're talking about...

    Please respond to the political actions of the Republicans covering up the crime of Mark Foley and not allowing due process to take place.

    What due process? What crime?

    And if it makes you feel even better, I'll even concede that the Democrats did the exact same thing. So for the purposes of this discussion, we can say that the Republicans are no worse than the Dem's in the 1980's. Please now respond to the Republicans' actions of the past 5 years in answering the following questions:

    Is it wrong or right for the Republican leadership to have covered up the Foley scandal for between 2 and 5 years (depending on who you believe)?

    You mean for covering up the fact that he was gay? Or for writing emails to pages? We don't even know if they were underage...much less that anyone knew about it or covered anything up...

    Is it wrong or right for the Republican leadership to have not only covered up his crime,

    What crime?

    but to have actually encouraged him to run, knowing that he had a serious problem, just to maintain another seat in the House?

    I really don't get it. If Studds can have sex with 17 year old pages, and it's not a crime, how can it be a crime for Foley to write suggestive emails to pages whose age is undetermined at this point?

    Is this situation more evidence or less evidence that the "family values" claim of the Republican party is complete and utter B.S.?

    I think your argument is with the social conservatives in the Republican Party, not me. I'm a libertarian.

    I could put it this way:

    I wonder if all those on the left that are shouting so loudly about the horrors of the Republicans and how Foley should be frog marched off to jail (never mind a trial, the left has already determined he is guilty) remember Congressman Gerry Studds (no, it is not a play on words). Studds was elected from the Land of Liberalism that has given us Teddy (drown-em) Kennedy and John Fifth Column Kerry. Studds entered office in 1973 and it was immediately learned that he was having a hot and torrid affair with.............a 17 year old intern. Yep, an underaged intern. After a Congressional Ethics committee investigation, it was determined that Studds would be? Nope, not required to resign, but he would be "censured". When the House read the censure, Studds turned his back on the House and ignored them. Did he ever resign? Studds continued to serve in the Congress until 1996. So after having had s*ex with a minor who was a page, Democrats allowed him to remain in office, for another 23 years. And lets not forget Mel Reynolds who had s*ex with a minor subordinate and sentenced to a prison term for it, whose case was pleaded to the president by a minister who had s*ex with a subordinate and who was pardoned by a president who had s*ex with a subordinate. And while the left is screaming for the resignation of the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, over the Foley scandal, I wonder if the Republicans in 1973 were demanding that the then Democrat Speaker of the House resign. The left is saying that Hastert has not done enough about Foley. What the hell did the Democrats do about Studds in 1973?

    Nothing. They allowed him to serve another 23 years.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 4:39pm

  304. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 11:00am

    can anyone tell me, or us, what US troops are doing in Iraq? no really, not why they are there, but what they are doing? are they rebuilding Iraq? No. are they protecting Iraqis from violence? no. are they getting killed? yes. are they establishing a democracy there? no. It becomes clearer everyday that they are not helping the "security environment" as the violence is increasing day by day, week by week... what are they doing there? helping Bush save face until '08? impossible, Bush has very little face to save. what are they doing there?

    I got no reply on this so I'm reposting it on all threads, my apologies for any redundancy.

    JR, this has been explained to you and many others here many, many times. The usual sequence goes something like this: you ask the questions, they are answered; you, not liking the answers, argue with the rationale of the answers. Then, you go back to the beginning, and restate the questions all over again.

    JR, you don't have to agree with Bush's strategy, but some measure of progress for you would be recognizing that there is one, albeit that you disagree with it. As I have said previously, that's what elections are for.

    The fact that you are still asking the question, after having it patiently explained to you over and over, would indicate to any sane person that you are simply not listening.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 4:46pm

  305. that's what elections are for.

    you got that right. as the situation changes in Iraq, it's gotten far worse, the rationale too must change. you have answered nothing, small wonder. I'm still waiting.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 5:11pm

  306. the cosi fan tutti defense again, Ponti?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 5:12pm

  307. if sending salacious messages, and evidently worse, is wrong now, it was wrong two years ago, hence the cover up. what dems did ten years ago is not relevant in this case.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 5:14pm

  308. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 5:14pm

    if sending salacious messages, and evidently worse, is wrong now, it was wrong two years ago, hence the cover up.

    Thank God we've got people like you around to defend the public morals, JR!

    what dems did ten years ago is not relevant in this case.

    hahahahahahahahahahahha

    Spoken in the proudest traditions of moral hypocrisy, JR! Congrats!

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 6:11pm

  309. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 5:12pm

    Well, I considered the tutti frutti defense, but finally settled on the cosi fan tutti defense instead, yeah.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 6:18pm

  310. gosh you're... dumb

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 6:18pm

  311. how is this playing out for your people Ponti? Hastert still around? his days are numbered, he may even lose his seat. you are an amoral twit, bending this way and that, to rationalize, it won't help, you guys are toast.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 6:20pm

  312. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 6:18pm

    gosh you're... dumb

    Hey - at least I'm not telling people that just because I defended sexual predators in my own party yesterday doesn't mean I can't conduct a moral crusade against those in the other party today, JR. You're such a funny guy.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 6:22pm

  313. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 6:20pm

    how is this playing out for your people Ponti? Hastert still around? his days are numbered, he may even lose his seat. you are an amoral twit, bending this way and that, to rationalize, it won't help, you guys are toast.

    yeah, JR, your mother wears army boots too. Why don't you post something intelligent.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 6:23pm

  314. you're defending Foley? I guess that's no more a stretch for you than defending the atrocious war. how charming, you'll be able to tell your grandchildren what you did in the war.tell us again what a glorious page this war is in the annals of the country. oh and tell us more about the great progress being made every single day in Iraq, be sure to holler real loud, the died for nothings still don't hear you so good.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 6:24pm

  315. Why don't you post something intelligent.

    you first.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 6:25pm

  316. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 6:24pm

    you're defending Foley?

    Who said I was defending Foley? At least he had the decency to resign. When a Democrat got caught molesting the pages, they elected him to 3 more terms with the full support of the Dem leadership. The same leadership which, today, we're supposed to believe is morally outraged by Foley. Why kind of moron is oblivious to this sort of hypocrisy. Oh, sorry. Your kind of moron.

    I guess that's no more a stretch for you than defending the atrocious war. how charming, you'll be able to tell your grandchildren what you did in the war.tell us again what a glorious page this war is in the annals of the country. oh and tell us more about the great progress being made every single day in Iraq, be sure to holler real loud, the died for nothings still don't hear you so good.

    Gee, were we talking about the war, or Foley?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 6:27pm

  317. actually you posted opinions on both subjects. and you weren't defending Foley? c'mon.

    " At least he had the decency to resign"

    decency is not a word I would use to describe Foley, the more you speak, the more you become a laughing stock.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 6:43pm

  318. Who said I was defending Foley? At least he had the decency ...

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/17/2006 @ 6:27pm

    Posted by LiberalPride at 10/17/2006 @ 6:44pm

  319. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 6:43pm

    JR, your worldview is so harshly distorted by your partisanship I would be amazed if you could dress yourself in the morning.

    Since I'm feeling charitable today, I'll explain it to you a third time. Foley is a pedophile who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but at least he had the decency to resign, and he was certainly urged to do so by the Republican Party. In contrast, Gerry Studds was an even worse pedophile who was urged by the Democratic Party to run for three more terms in Congress.

    It's your moral absurdity that is laughable, JR.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 6:50pm

  320. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/17/2006 @ 6:43pm

    Well, JR et al, it's been fun talking to you and your fellow leftist retards today, I'll come back tomorrow when I need a few more chuckles.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/17/2006 @ 6:52pm

  321. decency? you evidently don't know the meaning of the word, but that can be remedied by looking it up, for the rest of you there is no remedy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2006 @ 6:56pm

  322. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/17/2006 @ 4:39pm

    Well, well, well, Pontificus old shoe, funny finding you here. Are you only chiming in on the end of threads now to avoid me? Ah well, no matter.

    Who covered up what? Not only has no crime even been alleged at this point, we don't even know who might have 'covered up' anything. Is this another Plamegate pseudo-scandal, where no crime was committed to cover up? I have no idea what you're talking about...

    This quote seems to sum up your argument so we'll work from it. This is a question long since asked and answered on other threads, especially by me. The long and the short of it is that Foley almost certainly did break the law, though not for simply sleeping with 16 year old pages. If he'd just done that, you'd be right. The age of consent in D.C. is 16 and whatever our feelings about the propriety of a 52 year old having sex with a 16 year old (no matter the genders of those involved) that alone would not be illegal. However, there is one small problem for Mr. Foley. He apparently solicited sex from a minor using the internet, as this story from ABC [blogs.abcnews.com] and the attached exerpts from Foley's IM messages seems to indicate. That is a Federal crime, since anyone under 18 is defined as a minor under Federal law and using the internet in any form to seduce them into sex is illegal. This is what the House leadership covered up and it is why they are now in hot water themselves. They may well be guilty of committing a Federal crime as well, obstruction of justice. That is also why the FBI is now investigating the whole affair. That makes this a very serious case indeed and the furthest thing from a pseudo-scandal that can be imagined. It also seperates this case from the Studds case in exactly the way that Turk was pointing out in his core argument about the cover-up. There was crime here, the likelyhood is that heads will roll for it sooner or later, and one of them will almost certainly be Hastert's.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/17/2006 @ 6:59pm

  323. What I respect most about Studds is that he stayed to face the music, not only in the house but then again with the voters.

    Now in the republican house leadership cover-up of a sleazy, slimy kid groping perv...

    the perv beat feat like the scampering little hamster that he is, the house leadership started all pointing fingers at each other and getting amnesia, and then they topped off all these cowardly acts with the most cowardly act of all, they sent out a flurry of mentally challenged hamsters, like my favorite roman, to blame the democrats for the perversion that was covered up by the house republican leadership

    republicans... if only they had balls

    (then they wouldn't spend all that time trying to get their hands on the balls of our youth)

    Posted by Will C. at 10/17/2006 @ 10:39pm

  324. Pontifideologue,

    In the Foley case, even after I boiled it down to three questions, you found it too difficult either to answer, or to answer truthfully. You are a pathetic Reactionary Republican android, who is so enthralled with your own B.S. that there is no room in your closed mind for any new or conflicting ideas.

    When I tried to get you to stick to the current situation, conceding for argument's sake that the legal aspects of Studds and Foley were identical, I got this mumbo jumbo:

    I doubt if Gerry Studds actually did anything illegal; if so, he presumably would have been legislating from jail. As far as I know, he did not do any jail time. Again, you argue a point I've already conceded - I equated the legal crimes and tried to get you to discuss the current political situation.

    ...and

    What crime was committed, exactly, and who covered it up? In either case? Avoid, avoid, avoid!

    and...

    Who covered up what? Not only has no crime even been alleged at this point, we don't even know who might have 'covered up' anything. Is this another Plamegate pseudo-scandal, where no crime was committed to cover up? I have no idea what you're talking about... You can't remember the crime this thread is about? And again, I conceded the legal aspects, and you're still avoiding real discussion!!!!!

    When I asked you:

    Is it wrong or right for the Republican leadership to have covered up the Foley scandal for between 2 and 5 years (depending on who you believe)?, you responded:

    You mean for covering up the fact that he was gay? Or for writing emails to pages? We don't even know if they were underage...much less that anyone knew about it or covered anything up... Non sequitor, simplification, fabrication, and obtuseness, and yet no real answer!

    When I asked you:

    Is it wrong or right for the Republican leadership to have not only covered up his crime,, you interrupted halfay through the question with:

    What crime? Lead has nothing on you in the density department!

    The rest of the question was:

    but to have actually encouraged him to run, knowing that he had a serious problem, just to maintain another seat in the House?, and the rest of your response was:

    I really don't get it. If Studds can have sex with 17 year old pages, and it's not a crime, how can it be a crime for Foley to write suggestive emails to pages whose age is undetermined at this point? Either you're a screaming moron, or deliberatley obtuse in order to admit you are wrong. Actually I bet it's a little of both.

    My final question was:

    Is this situation more evidence or less evidence that the "family values" claim of the Republican party is complete and utter B.S.?

    And your illuminating response:

    I think your argument is with the social conservatives in the Republican Party, not me. I'm a libertarian. Ah, the last resort of an ideologue - to claim it's the label, not the man. I don't think you can even say what a libertarian is, because you're words clearly paint the picture of a reactionary Republican.

    And then, irony of ironies, in another post, after asking you asked "what crime?" at least 3 times, you post this:

    Since I'm feeling charitable today, I'll explain it to you a third time. Foley is a pedophile (WHAT CRIME? you asked, and that's not the crime he is accused of anyway) who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but at least he had the decency to resign (only after it was exposed that his behavior had been occurring for years and with knowledge of a great deal of the Republican leadership), and he was certainly urged to do so by the Republican Party (the only thing he was urged to do prior to the case being broken by ABC was for him to run at least once and probably twice to save a Republican majority in the House). In contrast, Gerry Studds was an even worse pedophile (untrue - unethical certainly, but not a pedophile) who was urged by the Democratic Party to run for three more terms in Congress.(after having gone through due process when the leadership found out about the incident)

    It's your moral absurdity that is laughable, JR. Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/17/2006 @ 6:50pm

    (It is your moral and intellectual absurdity that is evident, Pontifideologue!)

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/18/2006 @ 08:31am

  325. Just woke up with a horrible thought, perhaps it was the alarm clock radio chiming on with N. Korea 2nd nuke testing and the ramifications, but the idea, the conspiracy of conspiracies, that being that somehow the 'axis of evil' includes the hsuB admin, that it's all by design, going into Iraq, legalizing torture, losing our rights to privacy and access to courts and egging on and being egged on by Iran and N. Korea in a 3-way dance to an idiotic tune that's getting louder and louder as we slowly get closer to Nov. 7th.

    I'll wait for the coffee before hitting the button, perhaps I'll laugh at what I just wrote once I'm fully awake.

    As I wake up the thought isn't getting funny but more obvious. Why is our government getting more and more like the gov's we appose. The crasness once associated with Saddam is now all over Iraq and worse, but he's in prison and the 'decider' is in charge. N. Korea has no reason to be pushing buttons at this time but yet it takes the news away from all the other repub scandals, corruption and incompetence and yet another loss of our freedoms occurs without revolt. Soon Iran will get into it with us as we see N. Korea using up all it's material on itself as not necessarily a bad thing.

    Every inch we get at removing the repub neosans from power, they're inching closer to manipulating their 'powers' so that it doesn't happen.

    But no matter what happens between now and Nov.7, the numbers of citizenry opposed to the hsuB regime, and their need for 'powers' over ' we the people', have to cast votes so overwhelming and overpowering, like an effective 'war' campaign, that they understand who it is in the USA that has the 'power'. We have to take back what's been lost.

    Otherwise, we are the enablers, the core, the gravity holding the 'axis of evil' together, not the ones attempting to dissipate it.

    And which is more evil, repubs covering up for their perv or covering for a gov that's turning out to be not all that dif from the ones it perports to oppose?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 09:27am

  326. er, purports

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2006 @ 09:31am

  327. hey... where's quagmire?

    Did I accidently ask him a hard question?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2006 @ 09:38am

  328. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/18/2006 @ 09:27am

    Hmmm, add this to the idea that Dubya isn't even thinking about "what if the Dems win" might lead the suspicious to believe that perhaps these fancy new electronic voting machines (you know, these ones without paper trails, designed by rampant Bush suporters who voewed to "give OH to GWB, that sometimes reported erroneous numbers, had mystery data cards inserted and uploaded, and are reprogrammable in 30 seconds by a high school kid) might already have the election results programmed inside?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/18/2006 @ 2:34pm

  329. Bush is outa touch on everything else, so I don't expect a realistic assessment of the GOP electoral prospects.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2006 @ 3:29pm

  330. Not even the one two punch of Diebold machines and Jesus will save the GOP this time.

    Intrepid Liberal Journal

    Posted by trebor007 at 10/18/2006 @ 11:56pm

  331. JOHANNESROLF Maybe this answers your previous question a little more:

    Iraq's Orwellian calamity

    By Abbas J. Ali

    Online Journal Contributing Writer

    Oct 19, 2006, 00:40

    Whether one views the recently reported Iraqi death count statistics (650,000 dead) as shocking or predictable, the fact remains that the unfolding events are indeed dark. For those who are intimately familiar with the neoconservatives' design for Iraq and the region, the scope of the Iraqi deaths and the depth of inflicted tragedies are just an early outcome of the initial implementation of a well-orchestrated plan. What might come, in latter stages, could be even more distressing.

    While William Kristol, the neoconservative strategist, asserts that the "mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there," his fellow neoconservative, Michael Ledeen, is more forthright in articulating a core objective which is no less than total surrender of the people in the Muddle East who are "either singing the praises of the United States of America, or pumping gasoline, for a dime a gallon, on an American military base near the Arctic Circle."

    In their Biblically inspired mega design for the Middle East, the neoconservatives focus on three primary goals: terminating Iraq national identity, deepening the chaos in Iraq, and the reconfiguration of the Middle East, to further enhance its instability and fragmentation. Consequently, the occurrence of suffering and deaths are an inescapable outcome for the advancement of their goals.

    Immediately, after the collapse of Baghdad in 2003, an ABC news reporter approached Iraqi children playing in one neighborhood. An innocent 10-year-old child looked in astonishment at him and asked, "Are you going to do to us what you did to Palestinians?" The reporter moved on and did not probe the depth of the question. After all, the reporter, along with many others, was living the euphoria of "liberation."

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    In particular, recent news reports indicated that Iraqis are left bewildered and defenseless as terrorists are left to freely kill or force Iraqis to leave their homes. For example, it was reported (nahrainnet.net, October 3, 2006) that during a heavy presence of American troops, residents of Sabe al-bor were attacked by terrorists for several days without interference from the occupation troops or Iraqi security.

    Similarly, it was reported (Sotaliraq.com, October 10, 2006) that villages North West of al-sowaira city were constantly attacked for 13 days with no protection provided by foreign troops nearby. Once the attack by terrorists was over, the foreign troops bombarded these villages. Previously, several media outlets reported that sectarian cleansing in areas west of Baghdad, Kirkuk, or Tal Afar was done with the knowledge or protection of the occupation troops.

    While it is difficult to independently verify these and other similar reports, it is clear that the Iraqis have lost faith in the "liberator" and the promise of liberty. Apparently, they have reached a point where it is impossible for them to differentiate between the "liberator" and "enemy." Indeed, Iraqis are reliving the final scene of George Orwell's Animal Farm: The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1332.shtml

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2006 @ 08:55am

  332. thanks Fools. is it any wonder that the occupation of Iraq has been a brutal one, when 80% of the soldiers falsely believe they are avenging the 9/11 attack?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2006 @ 12:39pm

  333. good thing foley came along now Corn won't have to answer for the B.S. he slung around about Val & Joe. Only a lib will insist he's telling the truth even when his own book proves him wrong.

    Posted by MJ Procko at 10/19/2006 @ 5:38pm

  334. Yeah yeah yeah, the repubs are doing such a lousy job across the board it's probably best wait on impeachment until after the election and hammer them where it hurts most frist:

    Iraq and the GOP Meltdown

    . . . Democrats now lead the named-congressional horserace by 13 points, a surge in support that takes the Democrats up to 54 percent of the vote and doubles their lead from two weeks ago. . . . Iraq is the main driver of the meltdown for the Republicans, underscoring Tom Friedman's commentary yesterday that we may be witnessing "the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive." The electoral crash has been accompanied by a surge in anger over Iraq, reaching epic proportions: only a quarter of likely voters now have positive feelings about the war.

    http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/ analyses/Democracy_Corps_October_19_2006_Memo.pdf

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2006 @ 6:48pm

  335. This is really very sad. Inappropriate electronic communications. At the heart of this pseudo-scandal there is nothing more than electrons forming naughty words...

    And David Corn tries to stretch the pseudo-scandal over inappropriate electronic communications to two weeks.

    Pathetic.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/09/2006 @ 6:33pm

    Really? Then why not put your money where your mouth is and pass your two sons' e-mail addresses along to Congressman Foley? I bet dollars to little green donuts you would never do that.

    It is only a psuedo-scandal until it is your children involved in pedophilia, isn't that right MBB???

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2006 @ 8:08pm

  336. Hey MBB, maybe you could volunteer on Foley's legal defense org? Come on, there is no scandal in your opinion! Help out the "innocent" republican!!!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2006 @ 8:11pm

  337. In other words..no one is running left..rather they are pissed no is on the right any more as repubs spend like libs.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/10/2006 @ 11:08am

    Perpetuating the myth again, John?? So sad...

    No, sorry, Republicans do NOT spend like Libs. Liberals spend wisely. The vast majority of the budget deficit is the responsibility of 3 men: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

    Stop blaming liberals for the failures of your heroes. That is one of the main failings of conservatives - when they fuck up the country, they try to blame "liberals" for their own fuck ups.

    The closest thing this country has had to a liberal since Carter is Clinton, and he gave us a budget surplus.

    Face the facts, John!!! Deficit spending is a Republican idea, not a liberal one. The fact that you think otherwise is merely a testament to excellent propaganda from the right-wing machine.

    But I will give you a chance to prove me wrong! Name ONE example of a liberal who gave us deficits like the deficits of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. That's right, just one example. YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2006 @ 10:19pm

  338. and the liberals almost had those WWII deficits payed down

    and then reagan got elected

    Posted by Will C. at 10/20/2006 @ 09:50am

  339. FDR, yeah right. what did he have on his plate compared to those above mentioned clowns? depression, a world war in numerous theatres, that's what.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2006 @ 2:53pm

David Corn David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
17 Comments
Posted at 1:28 PM ET

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
21 Comments

» The Beat

John Murtha: The Old Soldier Who Said "Bring the Troops Home" | His Iraq War debate with Dick Cheney highlighted the difference between the modern era's sunshine patriots and winter soldiers.
John Nichols
102 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
48 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Welcome to Palinland | Though Sarah Palin's National Tea Party Convention keynote garnered applause when she invoked Ronald Reagan, the real sage behind her speech was Barry Goldwater.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
260 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
49 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman