Does Dick Armey Believe the GOP Deserves To Lose?

Last week, I noted that when I was interviewing former House Republican majority leader Dick Armey for PajamasMedia.com, the retired congressman told me that his Republican pals in Congress might deserve to lose the coming elections for having made the wrong call on Iraq. I did not quote Armey directly on this point; I paraphrased our conversation. And Armey's office complained to Pajamas about my posting, saying that Armey had expressed no such sentiment. I have reviewed the audio of the entire interview--a video excerpt of which can be viewed here--and below is what he said. You can decide if my "might deserve to lose" formulation fits Armey's remarks.

Armey noted that "the war in Iraq is the 800-pound gorilla in the room." He remarked that the war was of "questionable necessity" and "questionable execution." He added, "As long as Democrats can keep the discussion on Iraq, our party loses ground. That's why you see Republicans, particularly in Senate campaigns, expressing some different points of view....The war in Iraq, is, I think, the big, big issue of the election." I reminded Armey that he is quoted in the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, saying he deeply regretted his vote to give President George W. Bush the authority to launch the war on Iraq. I asked:

Do you still regret that vote today and if so, if people like you, if Republicans voted the wrong way, is it not, according to the rules of the marketplace, a good thing to sort of pay a price now, at least in political terms. Should people hold your party to account for making the wrong vote?

Here's how Armey replied:

I think it was the wrong vote. I felt it at the time....And yes, if you make a bad vote, in the final analysis, you need to expect to live with it. And to some extent that is happening now--with current officeholders. You might say, "Well, Armey, he dodged the bullet because he made his bad vote and then retired by the time the country woke up to it." But right now I don't think very many people seeking office are going to be running around to very many constituents and saying, "You better reelect me because I voted to get us into Iraq."

Armey went on to say

I'm not clear why we got in here [in Iraq] in the first place. We're mired down here. It doesn't seem to me we're making any progress. I wonder if they're doing it right and how in the heck are we ever going to get out of it. And then you take a look at that and say, who's to blame? Well, there's only one guy to blame, and that's your commander in chief...I don't know how you get out of [Iraq]. Sooner or later, there's going to have to be a decision to get out, probably with some disregard for the consequences.

This is how I read Armey's remarks: (a) he believes invading Iraq was misguided and that Republican members of Congress should not have voted to hand Bush the authority to launch that war; (b) legislators sometimes have to pay for a "bad vote." Does that mean he wants the Republicans to be voted out of office? Clearly, not. He hopes that his party--despite this grave mistake--keeps its stranglehold on Congress. And he's certainly not calling for Bush to resign. But, at the same time, he recognizes that the Republican party's unabashed and across-the-board support of the Iraq war is indeed legitimate cause for voters to boot it out of power.

Armey's great passions in life are free-market economics and country and western music. He cannot deny the workings of the political marketplace: you screw up, you ought to be voted out of office. Does that mean he believes the Republicans "might deserve" to lose?

For Hubris, Armey recalled for us a moment in December 2002--two months after he had voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq. He was driving along a stretch of Texas highway when a country song came on about a fellow who looked in the mirror and saw a stranger. The line hit him hard. Against his better instincts, he had voted for the war, though he had serious doubts about the intelligence on Iraq's WMD that had been presented to him personally by Vice President Dick Cheney. Listening to this song, Armey thought that he had become that stranger. He had been untrue to himself. And he was thankful that he was about to retire from the House.

Now it seems that he will have no beef with those voters who on Election Day punish his Republican colleagues for having committed the same mistake he did. Armey might even be able to suggest an appropriate song for his party-mates that day: "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry."

******

FOR INFORMATION ON HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, click here. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "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 highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (83)

1. Lord help us if Mr.s Corn and Isikoff sell the movie rights to "Hubris"....I don't know if I could take six months of ("as noted in the new Universal Pictures film 'Hubris', coming out in May 2008").

   Of course, Armey sees the handwriting on the wall...everybody does.

   If the Dems DON'T atleast take the House, the "Diebold is rigged" guys may have an issue finally (When the Dems do win though, watch the "the elections are rigged" guys to disappear!).

   But the main ones who'll be disappointed in 2007, won't be Armey or the Republicans...but liberals who will think that "finally the Revolution has come!!!" and then watch as "Speaker" Nancy and "Majority Leader" Harry don't EXACTLY turn out to be "revolutionaries".

   Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 1:28pm

2. .but liberals who will think that "finally the Revolution has come!!!"

   don't be an ass. this exists only in your mind. give us ONE citation of this slogan.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 1:48pm

3. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/30/2006 @ 1:48pm

   I'll have a FEW (no doubt) come the morning of November 8th.

   Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 1:55pm

4. Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/30/2006 @ 1:57pm

   See?...and I don't think he's joking!

   Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 2:42pm

5. Lord help us if Mr.s Corn and Isikoff sell the movie rights to "Hubris"....I don't know if I could take six months of ("as noted in the new Universal Pictures film 'Hubris', coming out in May 2008").-MASK

   But you keep reading his columns, knowing that there will be a plug. And we know that you will make an issue out of it ad nauseum. Just like we know Barry will denounce the dems and all lefties for opposing his Dear Leader, leaving out Dick Armey (or even more amusing, calling him part of "The Left").

   So I got no sympathy. Plus I didn't think your jailers allowed you anything but The Nation?

   Posted by crabwalk at 10/30/2006 @ 2:43pm

6. Posted by CRABWALK 10/30/2006 @ 2:43pm

   And you keep defending Mr Corn and his huckster'esque hamhandedness when it comes to plugging his own book in 99% of his columns.....can't take a joke at his expense, CRAB?

   BTW...anything else in my post above you disagree with?

   Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 3:08pm

7. I never really actually read Corn anymore. I just scan his pieces for comedy. I like to see how far along he can get before he finally hikes up his dress to sell his pathetic ass like a cheap hooker. After all, isn't every word he writes these days simply padding around the inevitable drooling plug for his semi-new book?

   Posted by Bob Dobolina at 10/30/2006 @ 3:33pm

8. Mr. Corn: I have to agree with Armey. Your characterization of his remarks is a bit imprecise. He focused more on accepting responsibility and being held accountable, which is not quite "deserving to lose".

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 3:40pm

9. But the main ones who'll be disappointed in 2007, won't be Armey or the Republicans...but liberals who will think that "finally the Revolution has come!!!" and then watch as "Speaker" Nancy and "Majority Leader" Harry don't EXACTLY turn out to be "revolutionaries". Posted by MASK 10/30/2006 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person

   Is Zero on your ignore list? He has been warning of this possible eventuality for a very long time.

   Posted by seattlescribe at 10/30/2006 @ 3:54pm

10. I know of no one, Mask, who is expecting a "revolution" if the Dems retake congress. Personally, I will be happy for now with the restoration of checks and balances and accountability.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/30/2006 @ 3:57pm

11. Mask, try to lay off the psychadelic drugs...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:01pm

12. SEATTLESCRIBE:

    ZERO is a wacko.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:04pm

13. ZERO is a wacko. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person

    I disagree. Adherence to ideals is a virtue.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/30/2006 @ 4:09pm

14. Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 10/30/2006 @ 3:57pm

    other way around, I'm on ZERO's....though he and I agree about 33% of the time, not enough to warrent "saving" from the Dreaded ZERO Ignore List!!!!!

    Watch the posts on November 8th, SEATTLE. "The end of neo-conservatism is at hand!" "Dems will show America what progressivism is truly about!!" "Bush impeached by Summer 2007!!!" "We've won! Right Reign of Terror Ends After 25 years!!!!"

    (all exclamation points required by Federal law!)

    Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 4:11pm

15. Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 10/30/2006 @ 4:09pm

    Do you really believe adherence to ideals is a virtue? Or are you all for it as long as you share the ideals?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 4:11pm

16. SEATTLESCRIBE: I posted the following on The Notion thread:

    I quit reading ZERO when he said that Hezbollah rocket attacks against civilians were "almost self defense" and when he characterized me as an Isreali apologist for condemning the rocket attacks (and for condemning the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers). But he did "ignore" me first - I'll give him that!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:13pm

17. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 4:01pm

    Never touch the stuff...just re-read Hunter Thompson when needed!

    Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 4:13pm

18. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 4:13pm

    Doesn't that knock off FROMREDBIRD, too, ILP?

    Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 4:14pm

19. Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 10/30/2006 @ 4:09pm

    Do you really believe adherence to ideals is a virtue? Or are you all for it as long as you share the ideals?

    Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 4:11pm

    Good point! After all, George W is adhering to his ideals too.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:14pm

20. last summer israel tried to have a war with lebanon/ hezbollah that fizzled because of it's over reliace on air power and rsultant damage to civilians and not hezbollah. did israel "rally around" olmert? of course not. they told him what they thought of his plan, including people in the active military. he was lucky to hold on to his job. and this is ISRAEL we're talking about here. that's how it's SUPPOSED TO BE in a democracy. this notion that this is 1943 and we should "get behind" the war effort is PREPOSTEROUS. anyone who gets behind donald rumsfeld is an idiot. the GOP absolutely deserves to lose. ther is NO REASON for the "do you want us to win or not" bullshit and it is okay to knock people out who act like that

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 10/30/2006 @ 4:15pm

21. MASK - I ignored FROMREDBIRD when he decided I was a right-wing warmongering troll, evidently deciding that because I didn't agree with him on the nuclear Iran issue.

    Anyone who thinks I am a right-wing warmonger obviously either isn't rational or is not bothering to understand my posts. Either way, it is pointless to try to engage such a person in a discussion, so why bother having their posts cluttering up my screen?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:19pm

22. sorry for the grammatical error in the last sentence

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:19pm

23. I love these threads.............now it's morphed from Zero threatening to place you on ignore, to everybody talking about who he has and hasn't ignored. Zero attempts to keep topics on thread, and beat up on Mask, and all he accomplishes is creating dialogue about who's on HIS ignore list.........classic.

    Guess he wont see this though, he told me I was ignored last time I responded to Mask. LOL

    Posted by jpolston at 10/30/2006 @ 4:24pm

24. LESTER1/2JR Good point.

    But the way they (Republicans) present the argument is "We can either fight the terrorists in Iraq or we can fight them on the streets of America".

    Which begs the question, if we leave Iraq, why will we have to fight the terrorists on the streets here? Are the Republicans going to issue them entry visas to the US?

    Is that why the new embassy in Iraq is the largest in the world? To accomadate long lines of terrorists waiting for their entry visas? And will they be work visas or education visas?

    Or maybe this is just an admission that the current administration's border policy is a failure.......

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:25pm

25. Since this is old news maybe this thread should be devoted to everyone asking each other is they are on Zero's ignore list.

    Posted by jpolston at 10/30/2006 @ 4:26pm

26. JPOLSTON: Makes me wonder whose posts ZERO sees... Maybe just his own! Maybe he only likes to read his posts, and gets ours of enjoyment from looking at them, without the clutter of other opinions to get in the wa.....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:27pm

27. Or maybe this is just an admission that the current administration's border policy is a failure.......

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person

    A failure? How is building a 700 mile fence along a 2000 mile border a failure...........you know it will work. (warning: sarcasm alert)

    Posted by jpolston at 10/30/2006 @ 4:27pm

28. oops, I meant "hours" and not "ours". And "wa" should be "way"

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:28pm

29. But we will have to fight them over here if we leave! Dont you know that the Iraqi insurgency plans to follow us home if we pull out. I hear they have private charters waiting to drop them off at JFK the minute we abandon the ever popular "stay the course" strategery.

    Posted by jpolston at 10/30/2006 @ 4:30pm

30. Either that or the insurgents could just use "the google" on the "internets" and book themselves flights and hotels on orbitz.

    Posted by jpolston at 10/30/2006 @ 4:32pm

31. Do you really believe adherence to ideals is a virtue? Or are you all for it as long as you share the ideals? Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person

    Of course, it is a virtue. It does not mean universal agreement, but one who conducts his life along a path of prescribed moral excellence (secular or clerical) is someone worthy of respect. Must go, but am happy to pursue this later.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/30/2006 @ 4:33pm

32. ILP ...FROMRED considers anybody who doesn't approve of wiping Israel off the map...a Zionist stooge who wants to see Palestinians run over by tanks!

    As for ZERO....he almost lost his only disciple, DARLA, last week. Imagine that, both the Ignorers taking EACH OTHER out!

    Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 4:49pm

33. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/30/2006 @ 3:31pm

    For the record, for me personally, politically, WHOgo Chavez? I couldn't care less about him, and I am a fiscally-conservative, socially left-leaning American. Didja get that, Rio? - I am left and no fan of Chavez. God, but that must just pimp-slap the crap out your narrow world-view about the left. I hope it leaves a mark.

    Now, Rio, following is an off-topic, non-partisan rant. You may skip it if you'd like, or (more likely) you may skim it and label it something that it isn't. Truth be told, I really only hope that you actually read it.

    Your post, Rio, was a most excellent post to springboard a discussion why election reform is important in America. Also why electronic voting machines with no verifiable paper trial are a bad idea in any political climate. You actually raised some good questions. Have you pondered the following?

    How long, for instance, if another American election is yet again immeasurably weighed down by the albatross of shoddy vote-recording and tallying practices on all sides, will it take for Americans to start wondering if our election process is falling to the levels of lesser countries? (Hint - many already do, on all sides)

    What happened to being the pinnacle that all others look up to?

    And what is up with voter turnout? I know everyone who blogs will be voting (the ones who say they won't are probably fibbing - but just a little bit), but what's up with the rest of our citizens? I'd damned sure like to see the votes of those who actually get up, get out, and vote (something I've come to believe is a civic duty), be accurately and verifiably counted. Who wouldn't? What reason could anyone have to stand in the way of voting reform? (THINK about that - the answers to that one are not pretty)

    Rio, I highly recommend that you send that post to every elected official you can take the time to contact, and that you recommend to them that they immediately take steps to reform the process and restore trust in the system.

    And you may, right now, stuff any building cries of "hypocarte" (or however you're spelling it these days) directly back down, please. I did not ignore what you posted in favor of my own rant.

    ---------------------

    I'm undecided on Jimmy Carter's endorsement of the results in Chavez' election. Perhaps Carter honestly believed what he wrote when he said that his monitoring center "observed the entire voting process without limitation or restraint."

    I do wonder, however, if voters in Venezuala actually did vote for Chavez (meaning the tallies were correct), but that they did so more out of fear than actual support (this couldn't possibly sound familiar in America, could it?).

    I will forgive Carter for this poor judgment (if the election was actually stolen by bad vote counts) no more than I do George W. Bush for any of the dozens of statements he has made that were later found to be "untrue" (by the kindest definition of the word - I happen to have posted a long list of them on a recent thread, by the way, and you didn't have one word to say about them - ANY of them).

    I also have to comment on how funny it is to me that you personally would crow about the importance of accurate vote counts (or God forbid, recounts - nudge-nudge-wink-wink - how'd you feel about the Florida recounts, Rio?).

    All that said, let me say this:

    Your posts do indeed make many people here think, Rio, me being one of them.

    In the end, however, they usually only serve to make me feel even better that I am nothing like you. I'll take informed and thoughtful any day, try to keep my political leanings grounded in reality, and remember that boogeymen are for small children. You... keep doing what you do, I guess. But remember...

    There are real men in power these days, here and elsewhere, scary enough for a thousand nightmares, Rio. They are not the truly wacko left that you fear so much - those folks are really pretty much harmless, because they are really pretty much powerless. Pelosi as Speaker will not change that.

    And when you continue to try to red-scare people here by aligning all of the left with the likes of terrorists and Chavez, most here are too smart to fall for your false parallels. I know that I for damned sure am.

    By all means, however, keep flinging your dung - you're always fun to watch and easy to deconstruct.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/30/2006 @ 5:02pm

34. Do you really believe adherence to ideals is a virtue? Or are you all for it as long as you share the ideals? Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person

    Of course, it is a virtue. It does not mean universal agreement, but one who conducts his life along a path of prescribed moral excellence (secular or clerical) is someone worthy of respect. Must go, but am happy to pursue this later.

    Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 10/30/2006 @ 4:33pm

    Ok, so you didn't come right out and say it, but my point is valid that you're all for adherence to ideals as long as those ideals are valid in your eyes.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 5:02pm

35. Do you really believe adherence to ideals is a virtue? Or are you all for it as long as you share the ideals?

    Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 4:11pm

    Good point! After all, George W is adhering to his ideals too.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 4:14pm

    I was hoping you were going to catch up with that one, ILP! :) I knew you would.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/30/2006 @ 5:03pm

36. Posted by JPOLSTON 10/30/2006 @ 4:24pm

    Classic indeed!

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/30/2006 @ 5:04pm

37. ilovephysics- yes I agree. when we come home from iraq, the terrorists will follow us and they'll be trained. or, they'll stay, proving they just wanted us to leave the whole time and didn't care about our "way of life". it's beyond stupid.

    I just feel we need to take it up a notch against this administration. we've said all there is to say in these books, including HUBRIS availabe from blah bl;ah whatever! that's HUBRIS, the point has been made and refined and remade.

    not to be a dramtic, but it's time to start swinging for the fences. this is our country here. are we americans or what?

    CAN YOU DIG IT!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 10/30/2006 @ 5:13pm

38. By all means, however, keep flinging your dung - you're always fun to watch and easy to deconstruct.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/30/2006 @ 5:02pm

    Fun to watch?!?! Ah, thanks ND. You've explained it to me - I always thought RIO wanted to be taken seriously. Thus, I put him on ignore because he is mostly irrational.

    But now I find out that he is comic relief (fun to watch). It explains everything now!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 5:16pm

39. Posted by BOB DOBOLINA 10/30/2006 @ 3:33pm

    whew...harsh!

    no disrespect intended to mr. corn, but...

    i believe armey probably wishes he had not voted for the war and said as much to corn...

    then corn slapped it on the blogosphere...

    then armey found out, got ragged by his pub friends, rebutted...

    then corn just commented on armey's rebuttal...

    ok, looks like we straightened this whole mess out. i think they should both get lunch detention.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/30/2006 @ 5:18pm

40. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 5:16pm |

    u got Rio on ignore? he's one of my all time favorite con-trolls under the bridge!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/30/2006 @ 5:21pm

41. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/30/2006 @ 5:02pm |

    i admire the man (chavez).

    he is accused of being a dictator, of rigging elections...by the neocons...

    he is accused of being a ideologue and propagandistic demogogue...by the neocons...

    he is accused of being dangerous...by those who assisted those who attempted a coup against him - the neocons...

    if he were to the right of center and kissed our asses he would be their hero...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/30/2006 @ 5:28pm

42. Enough about Chavez and and other neo-con distractions.

    The most dangerous men on the planet are running our government. Have you noticed how, as far as the bushivicks are concerned, everyone else is the enemy?

    First and formost their enemy are liberals, then democrats, then the french, then the germans, then the russians, the 'axis of evil.'

    Meanwhile, they trade your representation in Washington for campaign contributions and earmarks, they have their industry friends draft legislataion, they demonize democrats and attack their character and morals. All the while, they take bribes, get indicted, disclose classified information and start agressive wars in the middle east because... "they attacked us first." Not exactly, OBL attacked us not Saddam. Their bullshit stinks and everybody knows it.

    WHERE have all the www.DavidCorn.com bloggers gone? . . .

    Posted by NeilSagan at 10/30/2006 @ 5:51pm

43. And while one Dick is shredding the hsuB admin, the other Dick is shredding evidence..., what Dicks! Ha.

    http://www.wonkette.com/politics/dick-cheney/shreddin- with-dick-211028.php

    After all they are the worst pres admin in history:

    http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_ packages/galloway/15855717.htm

    Even some repubs think so:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/us/politics/30voices.html? _r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/30/2006 @ 5:51pm

44. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/30/2006 @ 6:05pm

    And you're speaking of not only the dry seasons when there's no rain for months and you can wade across getting as much as maybe your ankles to a little of your knees wet? Of course I suppose you could dredge the river deeper, import aligators and parranahs, add landmines, artilery bunkers, drones at 20-30 sorties a day with live ammo not to mention dredging underneath the wall and filling it with concrete so the drug cartel can't build more underground tunnels, also electrify the fence, and add lights and senser cameras, ratate 25k troops, etc., @ 1-2 trillion/yr, maybe more. But then we could add that money to science and tech, grow central and south american economies with new industry and very few would need to illegally cross the border. Oops, hsuB admin are anti-science, all our money is going to the MIC and oil and keep forgetting hsuB is limited to using one tool for everything. So we can wage war with central and south america to solve the problem-- why build a wall. Shit I forgot, hsuB's loses wars too. So the wall it is...not. It just goes to show you, when you have the worst admin in the history of the US, the hsuB admin, all the options they have are the worst too.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/30/2006 @ 7:01pm

45. Fun to watch?!?! Ah, thanks ND. You've explained it to me - I always thought RIO wanted to be taken seriously. Thus, I put him on ignore because he is mostly irrational.

    But now I find out that he is comic relief (fun to watch). It explains everything now!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 5:16pm

    I try to do my little part. ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/30/2006 @ 7:02pm

46. er, rotate

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/30/2006 @ 7:02pm

47. "he is accused of being a ideologue and propagandistic demogogue... by the neocons"

    if he were to the right of center and kissed our asses he would be their hero...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/30/2006 @ 5:28pm

    I agree wholeheartedly with Part 2 above, but "The devil was just here", and "I can still smell the sulfur"?

    I'm an unpublished novelist, Ibb, and that speech made for cracklingly interesting and provocative dialogue. I mean, that was an inspired metaphor for the perceived "real" villain to speak.

    In real life, one might even call it "propagandistic". I certainly think it is. You really don't?

    I humbly bow and await your retort.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/30/2006 @ 7:09pm

48. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/30/2006 @ 5:02pm

    Rio-crickets.

    Rio-crickets.

    Rio-crickets.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/30/2006 @ 8:02pm

49. can't take a joke at his expense, CRAB?

    Posted by MASK 10/30/2006 @ 3:08pm

    there was a joke?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/30/2006 @ 8:22pm

50. From NRO

    So why are we seeing the emergence of liberal millionaires and billionaires?

    Part of the answer may lie in the way much of this wealth was accumulated. Some of these individuals (Kerry, Dayton, Rockefeller, etc.) inherited their wealth and are thus less familiar with the rigors of the marketplace. Sure they have stock investments, but they haven't spent time building a business or even holding down a demanding job in corporate America. Others, particularly in the high-tech sector and Hollywood, amassed their wealth quickly and faced fewer challenges in dealing with invasive government and regulations. They see wealth as something that happens quickly, not something that is build up over time. The Silicon Valley 30-year-old worth $200 million on a stock IPO after six years in the business is likely to have a different view of wealth accumulation than the industrialist who amassed a similar fortune over the course of a lifetime. A life of wealth seems more like a lottery, and less like the end result of hard work."--By Cesar V. Conda

    ...so it's how you get rich that matters. If you don't do it right, you can't play. But that still doesn't explain the hatred of Soros. He made his money the "honest" way. buying money.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/30/2006 @ 8:36pm

51. And if you are The The Googler you can play. Even if you inherit your trust fund.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/30/2006 @ 8:37pm

52. Apparently you don't know the rio grande section or the American desert!

    If you cross the river anywhere there, SW of there, or the border West of El Paso good luck on living through the experience!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/30/2006 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person

    Actually Rio I do know that particular part of the country fairly well. In fact, I have driven my 76' Bronco right across the headwaters of the Rio G. several times. The river originates just to the South of Silverton, Colorado..........an old mining town I used to live in.

    Alas.........because I'm a liberal you must have just assumed I knew nothing of the Rio Grande.........I must be stupid If I think this fence isn't going to do anything about immigration. Shit, I mean if you look at history, hasn't every fence intended for these purposes always worked (NO). In fact, history would tell you they never work. You cant build a fence that keeps poor folks from economic prosperity.........it never works.

    Posted by jpolston at 10/30/2006 @ 10:28pm

53. Is Dick Armey trying to get into heaven now? Memo to Mr. Armey: you're efforts in congress helped faciliate a reign of indecency. You sir also supported the Iraw war and didn't strongly raise objections. A Republican leader standing up in late '02 and early '03 might have given spineless Dems some cover and lives could've been saved. You put your party ahead of what was right. Mr. Armey you have blood on your hands.

    Intrepid Liberal Journal

    Posted by trebor007 at 10/30/2006 @ 11:00pm

54. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/30/2006 @ 7:52bm

    So you have no disagreement with the facts that the river rises and sinks according to the weather just that I must be crazy because I know the facts? Or is it that your perception has gone mad of anyone that can read the facts that you're attempting to distort? Yes, of course that's it. Thus no argument from you as to the facts as well that the hsuB admin is the worst in US history. Ah, hsuB blindness is bliss, aye RIOB.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/31/2006 @ 01:12am

55. Ok, so you didn't come right out and say it, but my point is valid that you're all for adherence to ideals as long as those ideals are valid in your eyes. Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person

    As I pointed out, ideals are not universally accepted. We debate them. You use the term valid. We may not agree on an acceptable ideal, but valid suggests legal correctness. Ideals rise above codification.

    I stated it is virtuous to adhere to ideals. Ideals show us what is possible. They represent standards of excellence we can only hope to achieve. However, one respects those who try living their lives in accordance with their ideals, secular or religious. Generally, they are people who do the right thing whether or not anyone is watching. Politically, they do not take polls or count votes to validate their beliefs.

    That was my original point about Zero. I think he is an idealist. Sure, he does not countenance antithetical rants. However, if one bothers reading his posts, they demonstrate a view of America consistent with our historic, and even mythological, ideals of freedom and justice.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/31/2006 @ 01:44am

56. hsuB gained 2 1/2 years of political passes gratis via 9/11-- 2 1/2 years later after 9/11 his poll numbers hit where they slipping to before 9/11 happened and where they are 'now' are where they would have been going into the 2004 election. Without 9/11, hsuB would've been a failed one-term pres and perhaps not the worst, but now he's crossed the line to being twice as bad the second time around, like rotted food in the belly of our nation. Get ready for 2 more years of one hsuB poisonous catastrophe after another. Dems winning back our congress will be like a transfusion to a poison victim, a bone marrow transplant, stem cell therapy, brain surgery to remove a malignant tumor... Yes, the GOP must lose so our nation may live, whether or not Armey believes this or not.

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

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/31/2006 @ 01:48am

57. Finally, a portrait of virtue in abstention emerges in one Dick Armey with this: "I think it was the wrong vote. I felt it at the time...." Such callous and complacent behavior regarding matters of life and death is fueling voter rage. He knew it was wrong at the time!

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/31/2006 @ 02:57am

58. When only 3 polls out of the 27 taken this month show hsuB's job approval just barely above the 30's, it's not surprising that repub's are contorting their voting contortions and cutting the hsuB loose and running away from their own GOP/MIC corporate neosans repub connections; which in itself is another strained contortion. Yep, these guys have got to g and they know it.

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

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/31/2006 @ 08:26am

59. go

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/31/2006 @ 08:27am

60. According to the polls the only people that are voting repub are those willing to see more of our troops die in Iraq and apparently still tying it to the repub lie that it's part of the war on terror via 9/11 even as all the of the reasons for going into Iraq have proven false that's it including that one. If all the people were to vote there's no way a repub would win, thus the only way for repubs to win will be for them to obstruct dems from voting in any way possible; just like their god on earth, hsuB obstructs the Constitution of the USA at every turn-- they're just following the decider over the cliff. It's really sad, they can't believe their own lying eyes as they fall...

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

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/31/2006 @ 08:45am

61. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/30/2006 @ 6:31pm

    u da man, rio! i'm not sure i understand what you said, but i will read it later with less distractions.

    show me a latin american politician worth his weight in salt and i'll show you a flamboyant personality. on the one had i think chavez's tirade went too far, but he is known for going too far and coming out smelling like roses. no such thing as bad publicity?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/31/2006 @ 1:42pm

62. that last was a response to NEW DAWN.

    gotta get back to work....

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/31/2006 @ 1:43pm

63. Adherence to ideals means nothing if those ideals are harmful to others. The 9/11 hijackers were no doubt adhering to their ideals. GWB is no doubt adhering to his ideals in attacking and staying in Iraq. Indeed- can you find me a politician who says he's not adhering to his ideals.

    The adherence to ideals as a virtue seems to be meaningless - it lumps everyone into a morally relative correctness.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/31/2006 @ 5:51pm

64. Adherence to ideals means nothing if those ideals are harmful to others. The 9/11 hijackers were no doubt adhering to their ideals. GWB is no doubt adhering to his ideals in attacking and staying in Iraq. Indeed- can you find me a politician who says he's not adhering to his ideals. Posted by URMYGYRO 10/31/2006 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person

    Your point confuses individual acts of depravity with an ideal. An ideal is a concept of perfection or excellence. Your example of the 9/11 hijackers is the antithesis of an ideal. Is it your position that the 9/11 hijackers represent the excellence of Islam? Millions of people around the world identify themselves with Christianity. Did Torquemada and his 15th Century inquisitors who killed thousands of innocent people with the blessings of the Pope represent the Christian ideal subscribed to by present and past practicing Christians? Of course not. Such comparisons are insulting to those who attempt to comport their lives to a noble idea.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/31/2006 @ 7:46pm

65. I think the hijackers thought what they were doing was "excellent" in that it served their ideals, yes. I completely disagree with their views of life, but I'm not sure how you can deny that they were acting in accordance with their ideals.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/31/2006 @ 9:50pm

66. can't take a joke at his expense, CRAB?

    Posted by MASK 10/30/2006 @ 3:08pm

    there was a joke?

    Posted by CRABWALK 10/30/2006 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person

    Poor Mask. Once again, trying to 'explain' his humor. He never really seems to understand that, if you have to EXPLAIN that it was a joke...it wasn't funny.

    Posted by Lillian at 10/31/2006 @ 10:05pm

67. I think the hijackers thought what they were doing was "excellent" in that it served their ideals, yes. I completely disagree with their views of life, but I'm not sure how you can deny that they were acting in accordance with their ideals. Posted by URMYGYRO 10/31/2006 @ 9:50pm | ignore this person

    We will never know the actual thoughts or motivations of the hijackers, your speculation about them notwithstanding. It is error to suggest an abominable act such as mass murder is an expression of an ideal. What ideal is that? This is an illogical construct.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 11/01/2006 @ 12:54am

68. .

    GHW Bush:

    Active in the CIA during the Kennedy Assassination (in Dallas that day).

    The public record demonstrates that in 1963 JFK was embroiled in a bitter conflict with Israeli leader Ben-Gurion over Israel's drive to build the atomic bomb; that Ben-Gurion resigned in disgust, saying that because of JFK's policies, Israel's "existence [was] in danger." Upon JFK's assassination, U.S. policy toward Israel began a 180-degree turnaround.

    "transition from Kennedy to Johnson benefited the Israeli nuclear program."

    http://www.zeitenschrift.net/magazin/2-jfk.ihtml

    In July of 2005:

    The Jerusalem Post's article headline read, "Vanunu: Israel behind JFK assassination."

    Russia's Pravda article of July 27 began: "Israel may be implicated in the biggest crime of the past century, which took place in Dallas in 1963."

    Similar articles appeared in newspapers around the world, but in the United States this was only reported by wire services.

    GHW Bush started working for the CIA in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities." By the time of the Kennedy assassination, we have an official FBI document which refers to "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency"

    http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

    So the question must be asked, has George HW Bush actually been a double agent for the CIA and Israel's Mossad since the Sixties?

    We have direct evidence that Mossad was operationally involved in 9/11 – with Cheney at the helm.

    Is Bush 41's relationship to Mel Sembler directly related to both of their roles with Israel?

    Bush virtually OWNS the CIA and uses its fleet of Gulfstream jets as his own private Air Force – transporting he and his co-conspirators in high style - flying cash and drugs to and from Colombia (literally under the radar on approach to Florida).

    GW Bush's Cabinet = Agents Of Israel.

    Feith, Libby, Ledeen, Wurmser, Rhode, Zakheim, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Bolton, etc.

    Add it all up from the Kennedy assassination, to Watergate, Iran Contra, the attempted Reagan Assassination, all the way through 9/11 to today.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 11/01/2006 @ 08:03am

69. But we do know the motivation of the hsuB admin and repub GOP, which is to torture and pervert our constitution and our nation as well as our vote:

    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001906.php#more

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/01/2006 @ 08:04am

70. .

    PRESIDENT JOHNSON COVERS UP FOR ISRAEL:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1023-01.htm

    Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty

    "Why would our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.

    Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking.

    Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know, agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel's behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya, to potentially 9-11 itself, Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States.

    The official US investigation is discredited. And with it, every claim of innocence for Israel that relied on the official investigation as a source.

    The real question facing the American people is why the US Government seems more concerned with protecting Israel after they are caught playing these dirty tricks, rather than doing something to convince Israel not to kill any more Americans.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html

    "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html

    IS ISRAEL BLACKMAILING AMERICA?

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/blackmail.html

    I'M WITH THE AMERICANS

    HOW ABOUT YOU?

    .

    Posted by plunger at 11/01/2006 @ 08:04am

71. "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." -- Henry A. Kissinger, quoted by Monika Jensen-Stevenson, Kiss the Boys Goodbye, Dutton, 1990, Page 97, citing The Final Days, Woodward and Bernstein (Simon & Schuster, 1976)

    Posted by plunger at 11/01/2006 @ 08:27am

72. Posted by LILLIAN 10/31/2006 @ 10:05pm

    LIL...counting on YOU especially to prove this prediction true next week-

    "...but liberals who will think that "finally the Revolution has come!!!" and then watch as "Speaker" Nancy and "Majority Leader" Harry don't EXACTLY turn out to be "revolutionaries".

    Posted by MASK 10/30/2006 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person

    Posted by Mask at 11/01/2006 @ 09:29am

73. Hold on Seattle - are you saying there aren't extemist Mulsims who believe protecting their "holy land" by attacking America is an exercise in furtherance of an ideal?

    Have you not been paying attention the past 5 years?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 2:01pm

74. Seattlescribe - one individual's act of depravity is another's soldier dying on a field of battle.

    Don't you think many Muslims, including many in Iraq - view our troops as depraved - and not helping America reach its ideals?

    I think you're putting your head in the sand, and for some reason you want to defend a comment which is perfectly circular. If adherence to ideals is a virtue - who is defining the ideals? I think each culture, and even each individual, defines the ideals.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 2:13pm

75. ...but liberals who will think that "finally the Revolution has come!!!"

    Posted by MASK 11/01/2006 @ 09:29am | ignore this person

    I'm sorry Mask, but your 'point' would seem to rest soley on the 'fact' that some liberal, somewhere, said what you are quoting.

    So, just to establish that 'fact' Mask, who exactly are you quoting?

    I hate to tell you this Mask, but if you're quoting that 'liberal voice' in your head again...it's not a real 'fact', is it?

    hehe!

    Posted by Lillian at 11/01/2006 @ 3:33pm

76. Don't you think many Muslims, including many in Iraq - view our troops as depraved - and not helping America reach its ideals? I think you're putting your head in the sand, and for some reason you want to defend a comment which is perfectly circular. If adherence to ideals is a virtue - who is defining the ideals? I think each culture, and even each individual, defines the ideals. Posted by URMYGYRO 11/01/2006 @ 2:13pm | ignore this person

    You persist attempting to put a square peg in a round hole. Look, an ideal is perfection, it is moral excellence, it is likely unattainable but worthy of our effort. I believe all cultures understand this. Now you bring up cretins who committed mass murder – the 9/11 hijackers – and say they were following ideals. You are wrong. If one of the hijackers had miraculously survived his deed, and you became his defense attorney, you might argue for criminal insanity, but never that he was following an ideal. An ideal cannot be something it is not. A term characterizing moral excellence cannot also be a synonym for murder and treachery.

    If you must persist in mischaracterizing ideal, then I believe it is pointless to continue arguing here.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 11/02/2006 @ 12:33am

77. A Rodney Crowell song influencing Dick Armey? Imagine what could have happened if a Steve Earle tune had been on the radio at that fateful moment...

    Posted by nuoc_cham at 11/02/2006 @ 01:17am

78. So, just to establish that 'fact' Mask, who exactly are you quoting?

    Posted by LILLIAN 11/01/2006 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person

    Given the total lack of response, I guess another Mask 'point' goes...

    ...poof!

    Posted by Lillian at 11/02/2006 @ 10:53am

79. Seattlescribe - you're judging the "ideal" based on your ideas of excellence.

    Here, let's take a different route - what about the Islamic faith (and I'm no longer talking about extremists) and it's sexists views? It holds that women must cover up pretty much all of their bodies while in public. Is that practice towards an ideal? Would you share that ideal? If not, then how is their adherence to an ideal somehow bad?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/02/2006 @ 1:55pm

80. Seattlescribe - so you would agree that "ideals" are not attainable, they exist mostly in people's imagination. I submit each religion certainly has its ideals. I think most American, Christian women would very much not like to trade places with Muslim women. The American women wouldn't have the freedoms they have here. But the Muslim women are certainly adhering to an "ideal" --- the ideals of Islam.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/02/2006 @ 1:59pm

81. And the underlying point, which perhaps I haven't made clearly since my first post, is that if you're judging an "ideal" based on your viewpoint, then that necessarily means adherence to "ideals" is judged from a biased point of view, because that's the only way we can look at things.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/02/2006 @ 2:01pm

82. Well, the Folel and Haggard scandals show that the GOP leadership and Fundyvangelists do have something in common after all...they're coming out of the closet! (Along with numerous Catholic priests)

    The Log Cabin Republicans oughta see a real boost in membership this election cycle!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/03/2006 @ 11:29am

83. ooops...Foley (not Folel - which sounds like a relative of Superman or somehting!)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/03/2006 @ 11:30am