Hooray for Robert Gates?

Hooray for Robert Gates. Well, almost.

At first glance, the appropriate reaction to George W. Bush's decision to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with Gates might be, here's more of the same: another retread from the Bush I clan with a problematic past. Gates served as CIA director for the first President Bush in the early 1990s--and did so after contentious nomination hearings aired accusations that Gates had skewed intelligence analysis when he was a senior CIA manager. The allegations were quite serious. Several CIA analysts testified he had "politicized" intelligence reporting by making certain that estimates conformed to the conservative political viewpoints favored by the Reagan White House--most notably, that the Soviet Union was a more threatening adversary.

Gates' accusers, including former CIA division chief Mel Goodman, presented a strong case against him, detailing several instances when Gates pushed Soviet-related intelligence in an ideological direction. Larry Johnson, a onetime CIA analyst, recently recalled,

I remember talking to the South African analyst back in 1988, who told me about the time Bob Gates tried to change the lede on an intelligence piece, which argued that Nelson Mandela was NOT a communist. Gates wanted the lede to say that Mandela was a communist. The analyst kicked back hard and ultimately prevailed, but this behavior was consistent with his reputation as a political animal willing to curry favor with the political masters downtown and sacrifice sound analysis.

After the confirmation hearings, Senator Ernest Hollings, a Democrat, concluded that the "cancer of politicization" had spread in the CIA during the period when Gates was a top deputy to CIA chief William Casey.

Gates' nomination to be CIA head was imperiled by other controversies. He had directly engaged in secret intelligence sharing with Iraq in 1986 that critics claimed was illegal. Gates, who apparently possesses a photographic memory, testified that he could not recall key aspects of the Iran-contra affair. Senator Bill Bradley, a Democrat, accused Gates, a career Soviet analyst, of having ignored the changes under way in that country in the late 1980s. "Mr. Gates got it dead wrong," Bradley complained in 1991. Bradley also charged that when Gates was the deputy CIA chief he had neglected the important task of collecting intelligence on Iraq. Despite all this, the Democratic-controlled Senate approved the Gates nomination, and he served as CIA director for fourteen months. (In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Gates to be CIA chief, and then the White House pulled his nomination in the midst of the Iran-contra scandal.)

Considering that he launched a war justified by fraudulent intelligence misrepresented by the White House, the current President Bush might have thought twice before installing at the Pentagon a former intelligence official once accused of cooking intelligence for political reasons. Critics of the administration quickly denounced the Gates-for-Rumsfeld swap, resurrecting the old charges (which I covered extensively at the time). But allow me to offer a limited cheer for Gates.

First off, he's not Donald Rumsfeld. That's a good start. Rummy, the fellow once hailed as a matinee idol for older women who watch C-SPAN, bungled every major decision in the war: how many troops to send (not enough); whether or not to dissolve the Iraqi army (he did); whether or not to mount an extensive de-Baathification campaign (he did); how to respond to the looting and the incipient insurgency in the weeks and months after the invasion (not expeditiously). Of course, Rumsfeld was wrong on the WMD question, and he was wrong to declare before the invasion that the war would last less than six months. His Pentagon was a home to neoconservative war advocates who cherry-picked intelligence data and factoids to craft the false case that Saddam Hussein was in league with al Qaeda. In the years after the invasion, Rumsfeld routinely and falsely claimed the Pentagon was making significant progress in training Iraqi security forces. Looking at his management of the war, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that a local weatherman using a Magic Eight Ball could have done better.

Second, Gates is a conservative but a realist; he's no neocon. For instance, he's advocated trying to reach an accommodation with Iran. That impresses Gary Sick, who during the Jimmy Carter years worked on the National Security Council with Gates. Sick points to the fact that in 2004 Gates co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force that urged "a revised strategic approach to Iran" incorporating selective engagement with Tehran. This was a polite slam against the Axis-of-Evil approach of the Bush-Cheney administration. Sick, a critic of the administration and the Iraq war, views the Gates' nomination as a possible indicator that the Bush administration is turning from "neocon ideology to political realism."

Gates, currently the president of Texas A&M University, hasn't said much about the war in Iraq. In May 2005, he did remark, "For better or for worse, we have cast our lot and we need to stay there as long as necessary to get the job done." But he has also proposed a more narrow definition of success than Bush, noting that the United States could leave once there is "a government that can survive and that will be very different from what preceded it."

More important--and this is what's intriguing about the Gates nomination--Gates is a member of the Iraq Study Group, a panel chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former Representative Lee Hamilton, a Democrat. The bipartisan commission's mission is to assess the situation in Iraq and propose policy options. Baker has already said that he believes a strategic shift is needed in Iraq and that his commission will produce specific recommendations in this regard. (The commission is reportedly considering different versions of disengagement, among other ideas.) Baker picked Gates to be on the commission, presumably with knowledge of Gates' thinking on the subject. Thus, it's no stretch to see Gates as an envoy (or a sleeper agent?) of the commission assigned to (or planted within) the Bush administration. Given other possible choices for the Pentagon job (Joe Lieberman?), it's somewhat heartening that Bush has invited into his Cabinet a non-neocon who has been working with Baker to find a way out of Iraq.

Am I yielding to the bigotry of low expectations? You bet. With the mess in Iraq worsening, I am rooting for Baker--and any mole he manages to place within the administration. There's no telling whether Baker will come up with worthwhile and workable alternatives or whether Bush will actually consider a significant course correction (even one concocted by a stand-in for his father). Bush remains the decider-in-chief--and he has been a stubborn one until now.

Though Gates' past government career was marked by troubling episodes, he is now part of a group--essentially, the adults of the Bush I clan--trying to inject some reality into the stay-the-course mentality of the Bush-Cheney White House. That's something Rumsfeld never did. By Bush standards, this is monumental progress.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. 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 (128)

1. Sounds like overly wishful thinking to me but your book, HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR was good. I bought several copies for friends, too.

   Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 7:33pm

2. "I remember talking to the South African analyst back in 1988, who told me about the time Bob Gates tried to change the lede on an intelligence piece, which argued that Nelson Mandela was NOT a communist. Gates wanted the lede to say that Mandela was a communist."

   Mr Corn...look at this picture...and explain to me how Gates was wrong and the South African analyst was wrong?!?!?

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NelsonmandelaJOESlovo.jpg

   Posted by Mask at 11/09/2006 @ 7:52pm

3. Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/09/2006 @ 7:43pm

   Rio,

   Think Bush would be happier to see Lieberman and other likeminded Dems in the Senate before many of the present Republican seat warmers particularly wrt to his Iraq agenda. Noticed this bit in one of our local papers:

   "The Democrats had a solid win and took control of both houses. But their win was far short of a landslide and little over half the size of the Republican gains in 1994.

   And there is a wonderfully intriguing counterpoint to Rumsfeld's departure - and that is Joe Lieberman's stunning victory in Connecticut.

   Lieberman was the most pro-war and hawkish of all the Democrats - a virtual Democratic neo-conservative. He offended the activist base of his party and lost the Democratic primary.

   This was an assertion of the power of the Democratic Party's grassroots.

   But Lieberman went on to win the Connecticut Senate race as an independent, a huge result.

   What this suggests is that the US electorate was intent on punishing the Republicans for their mismanagement of Iraq. But the voters have not turned isolationist, pacifist or leftist. They have not even determined on a cut-and-run approach to Iraq. If any of those were dominant national dynamics, then Connecticut, of all places, would not have re-elected an out and out hawk such as Lieberman.

   All of which suggests that a quasi-independent, centrist, militarily and diplomatically engaged candidate could be strong for the presidency in 2008.

   Enter John McCain. "

   Posted by lrjones4 at 11/09/2006 @ 8:49pm

4. "I remember talking to the South African analyst back in 1988, who told me about the time Bob Gates tried to change the lede on an intelligence piece, which argued that Nelson Mandela was NOT a communist. Gates wanted the lede to say that Mandela was a communist."

   Mr Corn...look at this picture...and explain to me how Gates was wrong and the South African analyst was wrong?!?!?

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NelsonmandelaJOESlovo.jpg

   Posted by MASK 11/09/2006 @ 7:52pm

   Your grammar is a little incoherent, MASK, but you really have levelled some devastatingly unquestionable proof with your pic. Just as devastatingly unquestionable as the fact that the Iraq war is over. Like, duh everybody . . you can't remember Bush standing in front of a banner that said, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?

   Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 8:55pm

5. MASK's evidence:

   At a South African Communist Party rally with Joe Slovo.

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

   This image has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on the removal.

   N-i-i-i-c-e!

   Bwa-ha-ha! MASK, you got a million of 'em!

   Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 8:58pm

6. Geez, does the Bush administration not understand? Condi Rice was a Soviet expert, now he nominates Gates, who is also a Soviet expert. Is there not anyone out there who has some experience in dealing with Arabs and Muslims? Are we that Euro-centric that we have no decision-makers (of either liberal or conservative stripe) who have a background in Middle Eastern and/or Islamic affairs?

   Posted by publius at 11/09/2006 @ 8:58pm

7. Anyone who is interested and does a little research will find that Nelson Mandela's African National Congres was in an alliance in which the heads of some of the other parties were secretly members of the South African Communist Party. This does not equate to being a communist and the ANC never expressed a communist program. The ANC was, in fact, expressly non-violent up until the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960.

   David Corn is correct as was the CIA analyst whom Gates clashed with. MASK is not only wrong, he is a LOSER.

   Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 9:12pm

8. Is there not anyone out there who has some experience in dealing with Arabs and Muslims? Are we that Euro-centric that we have no decision-makers (of either liberal or conservative stripe) who have a background in Middle Eastern and/or Islamic affairs?

   Posted by PUBLIUS 11/09/2006 @ 8:58pm

   Their purge was demanded by the israel lobby and granted a long time ago. Now they're instituting their inquisition against the academics.

   Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 9:15pm

9. who knows WHAT redbird does for a living?

   I am announcing a contest. winner, most creative, will receive a virtual palm d'or.

   Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/09/2006 @ 5:31pm

   I'll start things off. he used to have a job emptying Arafat's bedpan. since that individual is dead, I imagine he performs the same service for his wife, who isn't.

   Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/09/2006 @ 5:41pm

   Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2006 @ 9:20pm

10. Posted by PUBLIUS 11/09/2006 @ 8:58pm "Is there not anyone out there who has some experience in dealing with Arabs and Muslims?"

    There should be quite a few in Iraq with peerless skills in dealing with just about every type of Arab and Muslim. You name it Iraq's got it. That wealth of experience is only as far away as a phone call. Depends if Gates wants to listen. Listening wasn't Rumsfeld's thing, we are told.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/09/2006 @ 9:21pm

11. "But the voters have not turned isolationist, pacifist or leftist."

    Aside from rightwing spin inventing this phenomenon, what evidence do any you on the right have to offer that anyone but you thinks this?

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/09/2006 @ 9:24pm

12. Are we that Euro-centric that we have no decision-makers (of either liberal or conservative stripe) who have a background in Middle Eastern and/or Islamic affairs?

    Posted by PUBLIUS 11/09/2006 @ 8:58pm

    Yes. Sad, but true.

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/09/2006 @ 9:27pm

13. Yes. Sad, but true.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 11/09/2006 @ 9:27pm |

    As always ignorance is bliss. Try this for size old sunset you can work out what his present job is:

    Between 1993 and 1999, Dr. Khalilzad was Director of the Strategy, Doctrine and Force Structure program for RAND's Project Air Force. While with RAND, he founded the Center for Middle Eastern Studies. Between 1991 and 1992, Dr. Khalilzad served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning. Secretary Cheney awarded Dr. Khalilzad the Department of Defense medal for outstanding public service. He also served as a senior political scientist at RAND and an associate professor at the University of California at San Diego in 1989 and 1991. From 1985 to 1989 at the Department of State, Dr. Khalilzad served as Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs working policy issues, advising on the Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet War in Afghanistan. From 1979 to 1986, Dr. Khalilzad was an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University.

    Dr. Khalilzad received his bachelor's and master's degree from the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. He went on to earn a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Dr. Khalilzad is the author of more than 200 books, articles, studies and reports. His work has been translated in many languages including Arabic, Chinese, German, Japanese and Turkish. He is married and has two sons.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/09/2006 @ 9:42pm

14. Dr. Zalmay M. Khalilzad (Arabic: زلمي خليزاد‎) (born 22 March 1951) is an American diplomat, and is currently the highest-ranking native Afghan and Muslim in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

    On September 24, 2003, President Bush named Khalilzad the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and he took his post in Kabul on November 27. He is currently the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Iraq, having been sworn in on June 21, 2005.

    He is a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signers of the January 26, 1998, PNAC Letter sent to President Bill Clinton.

    sigh...

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/09/2006 @ 9:52pm

15. It always amazes me when someone that has a resume like Khalilzad can still be an unbridled retard.

    but I hear conservatism does that to you

    Posted by Will C. at 11/09/2006 @ 10:00pm

16. Not exactly the kind of "background in Middle Eastern and/or Islamic affairs" I'm really looking for, bur I see where you were going with it, LRJones.

    Dr. Khalilzhad's work in Afghanistan (for which he was presented an award by the also-recently-punted SecDef), was admirable as far as I can tell.

    We could have an internet easter egg hunt together if you really want to go in depth discussing him.

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/09/2006 @ 10:00pm

17. and it doesn't matter where on the planet you are

    Posted by Will C. at 11/09/2006 @ 10:01pm

18. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/09/2006 @ 9:12pm

    Yep....pictures of somebody with a Communist flag behind them at a Communist rally holding hands-up with the leader of the SA Communist party...

    how could ANYBODY assume Mr Mandela was a Communist?!?!?!?!

    But, hey, on the bright side...he's not a wacko. He's acknowledged Israel's right to exist as President of South Africa!

    Posted by Mask at 11/09/2006 @ 10:20pm

19. BTW, before the rest of you jump on me for "attacking" Mr Mandela....

    there's nothing "wrong" with being a Communist. It's a political ideology and he was able to be for or against it.

    As so many liberal apologists for the old Soviet Union and Cuba have noted...the only "problem" is if you are DICTATORIAL Communist....which obviously Mr Mandela was and is not!

    Posted by Mask at 11/09/2006 @ 10:22pm

20. Posted by NEW DAWN 11/09/2006 @ 9:52pm

    N,

    I take it you are sighing because you get so many of your assertions and sycophantic plaudits wrong.

    You perhaps forgot what plubius, who was as ignorant as you, was looking for?

    That Khalilzad happens to have a different political orientation from you has nothing to do with whether or not he is an expert in Arab and Muslim affairs. But then perhaps you are a neo-McCarthyist.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/09/2006 @ 10:22pm

21. LRJones -

    Two posts, no insults to you, and now I'm "sycophantic", "ignorant", and a "neo-McCarthyist". You seem to have a tiny little hardon, bud. Do you have some problem with me, or are you just an asshole all the time?

    It's unfortunate to have to explain this to you, because you really do seem smarter than that, but I'll indulge you, since I'm in such a good mood today about so many bad "leaders" being drop-kicked out of office recently.

    LRJones, I excerpted a portion of a previous post (look up the big words at Merriam-Webster). I then addressed how I felt about that excerpt. Follow along, if you can keep up. Here's the excerpt:

    "Are we that Euro-centric that we have no decision-makers (of either liberal or conservative stripe) who have a background in Middle Eastern and/or Islamic affairs?"

    I did not take this as a literal question. I could see how someone might, though - if they were so profoundly ignorant of American affairs that they did not know that our current government has an entire Bureau (and more) devoted to Middle Eastern Affairs.

    Sure doesn't look to me like we have anyone with the required background doing much coherent or competent "decision-making" in Iraq, though. I will gladly read any evidence you provide of smart decision-making in Iraq from someone with a background in Middle Eastern affairs.

    Personally, I think you knew what I meant and are just being a smartass. I'm not sure why - again, you aren't even an American, are you?

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/09/2006 @ 10:43pm

22. Ken Mehlman will not be returning after January.

    Somebody pinch me - this dream just keeps getting better and better. When does the gorgeous woman carrying a glass of bourbon and wearing nothing but a smile come in?

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/09/2006 @ 10:46pm

23. And here we have another reason chimpy let Rumrunner go yesterday. The news cycles are now 1/3 about Rumsfeld and Gates, not 90% about how the right wing republicans have been called out on their complete inability to govern.

    If you don't believe in government it's hard to run one well.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2006 @ 10:51pm

24. Posted by NEW DAWN 11/09/2006 @ 10:46pm

    Ain't it Grand?!!?!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2006 @ 10:52pm

25. Lets hope stem cell research takes off. Someone is going to have to learn how to grow vertebrae for the dems though.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2006 @ 10:54pm

26. "Am I yielding to the bigotry of low expectations? You bet."

    Welcome to America, David. Confirmation will take place befor the dems take control, won't it? Too bad. Gates, Negroponte, Cheney, Poindexter. It's like bad Deja-Vu.

    --

    ND, the neo's seem awful, awful touchy, don't they?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2006 @ 11:05pm

27. Yep....pictures of somebody with a Communist flag behind them at a Communist rally holding hands-up with the leader of the SA Communist party...

    how could ANYBODY assume Mr Mandela was a Communist?!?!?!?!

    Posted by MASK 11/09/2006 @ 10:20pm | ignore this person

    Picture of Rumsfeld holding hands with Saddam...by Mask logic, that obviously makes Rummy a Baathist!!!!

    Absolutely brilliant!!!

    Hehe!

    Posted by Lillian at 11/09/2006 @ 11:06pm

28. Are there any pics of Poppy and Noriega?

    I know Chimp has met with some knarly characters. And not all of them named Abramoff or Dobson.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2006 @ 11:10pm

29. ND, the neo's seem awful, awful touchy, don't they?

    Posted by CRABWALK 11/09/2006 @ 11:05pm

    Poor little fellas - wonder what happened? You'd think someone called them incompetent, or implied that they follow failed leaders, or drop-kicked them the hell out of office when they least expected it...

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/09/2006 @ 11:12pm

30. Zero, I am shocked! Are you insinuating that these fine gentlemen you named were appeasers?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2006 @ 11:12pm

31. Posted by NEW DAWN 11/09/2006 @ 11:12pm

    Bring in the Hamster valium!! Back the truck right up here, gonna need another load at least.

    (beep beep beep)

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2006 @ 11:14pm

32. And no operating heavy machinery or cumbersome bureaucracies for at least ten years.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/09/2006 @ 11:19pm

33. wow rummy out, pombo out, mehlman going, it just gets better and better!

    Posted by pretzel at 11/10/2006 @ 03:02am

34. Mask- you're over-reaching makes you more and more irrelevant

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2006 @ 03:08am

35. Personally, I think you knew what I meant and are just being a smartass. I'm not sure why - again, you aren't even an American, are you?"

    Posted by NEW DAWN 11/09/2006 @ 10:43pm

    About 7pm Friday here so I'm obviously not in the US at present.

    "I did not take this as a literal question. I could see how someone might, though - if they were so profoundly ignorant of American affairs that they did not know that our current government has an entire Bureau (and more) devoted to Middle Eastern Affairs."

    Trying to decide whether you did a quick google and just found out about the "entire Bureau" yourself; anyway whatever, I'm pleased to have helped you get up to speed on the Arab/Muslim thing in your own administration if that is the case.

    While the US is the remaining super power we are all either lovers or haters of America. I'm in the former group generally and particularly so since you've had a President with balls. You were getting to be a pretty boring irrelevant lot before he arrived on the scene.

    From my perspective the Bush venture is still a work in progress that has a better than even chance of transforming not only Iraq but also the ME for the better. That is something that requires a generational commitment and one can be pretty certain that Americans don't have the heart for that sort of venture. Anyway it seems the Iraqis, through their government will have the final word on when the Coalition leaves and that regardless of what Bush and the new Congress decide to do. The Iraqis seem to think that you are pretty good at the war phase (for which they generally are thankful) but hopeless at nation building ,so they would like to handle that themselves, thank you very much and they may well be on the money there.

    Nice to see you are not a pacifist for like Willie you passed my adrenalin rush test with flying colours.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2006 @ 03:11am

36. yeah right it is gonna be a one generation cakewalk. or maybe it will take 100 years. or could be 200. jesus, why cant you guys just admit bush screwed up bigtime and now there is no good way out.

    Posted by pretzel at 11/10/2006 @ 03:32am

37. i remember some pics of nixon greeting top chinese communists during his visit to china in 1968. by mask's logic, this means nixon was a commie too.

    Posted by pretzel at 11/10/2006 @ 03:33am

38. "why cant you guys just admit bush screwed up bigtime and now there is no good way out."

    Posted by PRETZEL 11/10/2006 @ 03:32am

    Pretzel, the reason is because we don't think he did. The big thing has been done and in that context it doesn't matter if the Coalition goes home tomorrow (Al Qaeda in Iraq aside). Bush has removed Saddam and planted the possibility of a better and brighter future in the heart of the Iraqi Nation. It is that possibility that will be the driver if Iraq is to become a pluralistic, peaceful and economically viable nation.

    In the end ideas are what drive change and Iraq has been forcibly opened up to a whole new world of them.

    If Iraq can be detached from the international terrorist threat, what is the problem in getting out? The Iraqi Government should be able to handle the insurgency and bring the religious militant factions into line anyway isn't it your claim that the US presence is the sole(?) reason for the killing and mayhem occurring? So why are you concerned with a "good" way out?

    Hope you Dems are not getting a hankering after all that oil you were always talking about?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2006 @ 04:47am

39. .

    View EVERYTHING in the context of a decades-long COVERUP of the activities of GHW Bush, W's Father.

    See This:

    In November 2001, George W. Bush signed an executive order that upended the 1978 Presidential Records Act and permits the Bush Iran-Contra papers to be kept secret in perpetuity. The executive order also affects 60,000 pages of papers from the Reagan Presidential Library that include details of then-Vice President George H. W. Bush's role in Iran-Contra. Robert Gates has always been a trusted consigliore for the Bush family.

    At the Pentagon, he will undoubtedly use his two years to clean up for Dubya and suppress incriminating information on the Iraq debacle -- all in a continuing effort to protect the Bush family legacy."

    waynemadsenreport.com

    THIS IS CALLED "EVIDENCE."

    THIS IS CALLED "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE."

    GHW Bush is the biggest CRIMINAL in America.

    All that has transpired since the Kennedy Assassination - he has been a part of.

    His entire adult life has been about what he could get away with, and covering his tracks.

    No matter what the most significant events have been in the past four-plus decades, 41's fingers have been in it in some way.

    Investigate this for yourself:

    "GROUP 40" - What was 41's role?

    Bay Of Pigs - What was 41's role?

    Kennedy Assassination - What was 41's role?

    http://www.planetquo.com/The-George-H-W-Bush-JFK-Murder-Connection

    James Files, the confessed grassy knoll assassin - What was 41's role?

    http://www.planetquo.com/The-George-H-W-Bush-JFK-Murder-Connection

    Iran Contra - What was 41's role?

    Mena Drug Running - What was 41's role?

    Iraq's Invasion Of Kuwait - What was 41's role?

    New World Order - What was 41's role?

    Lewinski Sexpionage - What was 41's role?

    Osama Bin Laden - What was 41's role?

    Afghanistan Opium Production -What was 41's role?

    CIA / DEA Drug Running - What was 41's role?

    California Energy Crisis - What was 41's role?

    Carlyle Group - What was 41's role?

    9/11 - What was 41's role?

    Dictating US Policy Today - What IS 41's role?

    GHW BUSH IS STILL THE PRESIDENT.

    Look at his cabinet!

    Kissinger remains a frequent advisor!

    He's still fighting the last two wars!

    .

    Posted by plunger at 11/10/2006 @ 06:16am

40. yay! ideologue in intelligence! ideology is such an asset in interpreting reality.

    well nice. rummmy's gone and we are still stuck in the quagmire.

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

41. Posted by ZERO 11/09/2006 @ 11:13pm

    So ZERO...why didn't YOU shut up when Dems controlled NOTHING?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 07:09am

42. You guys, I realize I opened a can of worms by saying ANYTHING even remotely "bad" about Mandela. After all, the man is a secular saint, who apparently is above even a HINT of reproach.

    Heck, you can't even say he has "poor judgement in women" (ref: Winnie)....hehe.

    Point was...Gates wasn't "totally out in the thin air" by photos such as the one I linked (or actually didnt) that Mandela might have had "Communist ties"....while Mr Corn thinks it was made up from whole cloth.

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 07:12am

43. !!!! OK PEOPLE, ITS FRIDAY, AND AFTER A HARD WEEK OF BLOGGING, ITS TIME ONCE AGAIN FOR A SPOT OF HUMOR.!!!

    PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 3,427 IN YOUR FOUNDING FATHERS JOKEBOOK & NOTE THE DEFINITION OF "RODEO SCREW":

    A MAN BEGINS TO ENGAGE IN SEX WITH HIS WIFE, GIRLFRIEND, MISTRISS OR WHATEVER. AFTER SEVERAL MINUTES OF VIGOROUS ACTIVITY, IN THE DOGGIE STYLE, THE MAN LEANS OVER AND WHISPERS INTO HER EAR THAT HE HAS BEEN SCREWING HER SISTER FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS. THE OBJECTIVE FOR THE MAN THEN BECOMES TO SEE IF HE CAN STAY ON FOR ANOTHER 8 SECONDS!

    Have a good weekend!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/10/2006 @ 08:05am

44. LR, you think Iraq is in a fine place? It's doing well? Crazy talk.

    Todays news from Rueters:

    By Claudia Parsons BAGHDAD, Nov 10 (Reuters) - Three U.S. soldiers were killed and dozens of Iraqi civilians were victims of bombs, sectarian gunmen and mortars over the past 24 hours, underlining the challenge facing the new U.S. defense secretary.

    Stung by a "thumping" defeat at Tuesday's Congressional elections, U.S. President George W. Bush said he was open to any idea for a new approach and publicly reaffirmed a belief that "victory" was possible in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the architects of the invasion of Iraq, resigned after the rout, to be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates, a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group assessing alternative strategies.

    The big question for most Iraqis is whether the change of guard will mean a swifter withdrawal of U.S. troops, and opinions are sharply divided over whether that would be a good thing for a country riven by sectarian violence.

    On Thursday in Baghdad alone, six car bombs and four roadside bombs killed 18 people and wounded dozens more, and police found the bodies of 26 people shot dead, some of them tortured. Mortars killed another three and wounded 30. Baghdad was under a regular curfew on Friday to avoid violence on the Muslim day of prayer. The U.S. military said two soldiers from the Military Police were killed in Baghdad on Thursday when their vehicle was blasted by a roadside bomb. A third was wounded.

    A Marine also died of wounds on Thursday following combat in Anbar province, where Sunni rebels are fighting in the west. The deaths brought the total of U.S. troops killed in Iraq to 2,842. Twenty-four were killed in the first nine days of November. In October, 105 were killed, the deadliest month in nearly two years.

    IRAQI CASUALTY FIGURES MURKY The toll on Iraqi civilians and security forces is much higher. Health Minister Ali al-Shemari was quoted on Thursday as saying around 150,000 Iraqis had been killed since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, and as many as 500,000 wounded. Casualty figures have become increasingly controversial, notably since the United Nations put the monthly civilian toll at more than 3,000 this summer and a group of medical statisticians estimated more than 650,000 might have died since the U.S. invasion.

    ------- how many generations? Chimpies followers are consumed with the idea of a utopian society brought about by illegal war. Cute.

    Kumbaya, my friend, Kumbaya.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 08:23am

45. !! OK PEOPLE, ITS FRIDAY, AND AFTER A HARD WEEK OF BLOGGING, ITS TIME ONCE AGAIN FOR A SPOT OF HUMOR.!!!-Chip

    Sorry, Chip. I have all the laughs I need from the election. And Chimpies news conference.

    Buwahahahaha.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 08:24am

46. Current U.S. expenditures run at approximately $246 million each day, or more than $10 million an hour, with costs rising steadily each year. Although its figures do not include all expenditures, the Congressional Research Service listed direct costs at $77.3 billion in 2004, $87.3 billion in 2005, and $100.4 billion in fiscal year 2006. Even if troop withdrawals begin this year, total costs (including those in Afghanistan) are thought likely to rise by $371 billion during the withdrawal period. Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary of commerce, have estimated that staying in Iraq another four years will cost us at least $1 trillion.-Ray Mcgovern

    That is 1,000,000,000,000 thatwe are not spending on schools, healthcare and infrastructure in the US

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 08:29am

47. "Bush has removed Saddam and planted the possibility of a better and brighter future in the heart of the Iraqi Nation."

    more like a stake in the heart of Iraq. you are so outta touch it's pathetic. I can only conclude that you are a paid shill.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 09:06am

48. "Anyway it seems the Iraqis, through their government will have the final word on when the Coalition leaves and that regardless of what Bush and the new Congress decide to do."

    are you mad? the puppet controlling the one who holds the strings?

    back to the beach, Ozzie.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 09:09am

49. Picture of Rumsfeld holding hands with Saddam...by Mask logic, that obviously makes Rummy a Baathist!!!!

    the salient point here is that Rummy made that visit AFTER the atrocities Saddam was just convicted of. that's right, AFTER.

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

50. How many more Americans have to die in Iraq before we finally do leave there.

    sadly, many, many more.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 09:15am

51. "You perhaps forgot what plubius, who was as ignorant as you, was looking for?"

    Plubius?

    Shortly after the drafting of the US constitution, there was considerable difficulty in getting the requisite number of states to ratify it. A key hold-out state was New York. In an attempt to sway the voters of New York, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, published in the New Yorks newspapers a series of 85 essays, starting on 27 October 1787 and finishing on 16 August 1788. These essays were all authored by "Plubius", a psuedonym chosen by these men to "hide" their identities at that time. [The papers are, of course, the Federalist Papers, the most important work in political science that has ever been written, or likely to be written, in the USA. These papers have withstood the test of times, and are held in high esteem around the world. They are considered to be the most authoritative commentary on the Constitution (although our current SC doesn't give a damn about the Constitution...)]

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 09:19am

52. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/10/2006 @ 09:12am

    JR....always forget the "turn-around". Doesn't just work to the advantage YOU want....so...if Mandela had nothing to do with supporting Joe Slovo and the SA Communists....then Rumsfeld had nothing to do with supporting Hussein, did he?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 09:32am

53. what does mandela have to do with the fact that you're loser mask?

    Mandella actually won something?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/10/2006 @ 09:36am

54. Posted by WILL C. 11/10/2006 @ 09:36am

    WILL...why am I a "loser"?....Because the Repubs lost Congress?

    Okay...so YOU were a loser before when Dems kept losing Congress?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 09:38am

55. Okay...so YOU were a loser before when Dems kept losing Congress?

    Posted by MASK 11/10/2006 @ 09:38am

    yup, if your on the losing team (the one that loses) you're the loser.

    you didn't shun the playing fields of youth for dolls did you mask?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/10/2006 @ 09:48am

56. yup, if your on the losing team (the one that loses) you're the loser.

    Posted by WILL C. 11/10/2006 @ 09:48am |

    SO from 1994-2004 (or be generous 2001-2004)....YOU...were a loser....right?

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

57. Mandella actually won something?

    yes, the freedom of his people

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

58. Mandella actually won something?

    yes, the freedom of his people

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/10/2006 @ 10:08am | ignore this person

    a higher compliment cannot be given to a man, or a woman.

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

59. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/10/2006 @ 10:10am

    JR, WILL sometimes gets "ahead of himself" in his relentless obsession with "counter-attacking" me.

    I'm sure he DIDN'T mean to insult Mr Mandela.

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 10:26am

60. Posted by MASK 11/10/2006 @ 10:26am

    JR....sort of like this..."yup, if your on the losing team (the one that loses) you're the loser."

    Since he didn't "think ahead" that LOGICALLY that means that HE was a "loser" from atleast 2001 to 2004!

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 10:27am

61. Gates? another Iran/contra criminal? yech.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 10:32am

62. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/10/2006 @ 10:32am

    Joe Biden already sounding "favorable" to him....Jack Murtha said on HuffPost that he "looked forward to working with Gates" (seemingly accepting that he would be confirmed).

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

63. LRJones -

    You aren't anywhere near as clever as you like to think you are. Is that an Aussie thing, or again, just an asshole thing?

    "Trying to decide whether you did a quick google and just found out about the "entire Bureau" yourself; anyway whatever, I'm pleased to have helped you get up to speed on the Arab/Muslim thing in your own administration if that is the case."

    LOL Had to Google it? Yes, LRJones, in the last 36 years of my life, no media outlet in the world has ever discussed America's Bureau of Middle Eastern affairs. Are you really this stupid, dude, or are you still unsuccessfully trying to be a smartass instead of a dumbass?

    "While the US is the remaining super power we are all either lovers or haters of America. I'm in the former group generally and particularly so since you've had a President with balls. You were getting to be a pretty boring irrelevant lot before he arrived on the scene."

    I'm a fan of brains over balls, but hey, do your thing. And am I getting this right - an Australian thinks America is a "pretty boring, irrelevant lot"??

    BWAHAHAHAAhahHAHAahHAhaHAHhahaa

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/10/2006 @ 11:45am

64. the only good things coming from Australia are Peter Allen and the BeeGees.

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

65. What about Olivia Newton John? And Mel Gibson?

    Never mind.

    Oh, but there is the stunning Nicole Kidman to think of...

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/10/2006 @ 12:00pm

66. If the president of the USA is viewed positively overseas, it is of little consequence. I worked with an Italian painter in the mid 80's, and he told me that Carter was viewed with contempt and Reagan was respected, because Reagan conformed to their idea of manliness while Carter did not. Of course, these judgements were made on the basis of scripted televison appearances, of which Reagan was a master while Carter was famously out of his element.

    Now, if the US president, with all his power, is viewed negatively as Bush almost universally is, that is notable.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 11/10/2006 @ 12:01pm

67. And Gates supplied intel and equipment after the slaughter by Saddam.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 12:18pm

68. most amusing, Dawn

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 12:18pm

69. Olivia Newton can inspect my biological laboratory anytime. No UN resolution required.

    ""While the US is the remaining super power we are all either lovers or haters of America."-LR

    Come on, Jonsey. You are better than this.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 12:25pm

70. PARIS, Nov. 9 -- For Europe and much of the rest of the world, U.S. voters' repudiation of the Bush administration in midterm elections Tuesday and the dismissal of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday confirmed the widespread view that President Bush and his policies have done more to tarnish America's image abroad and strain its global relations than any other U.S. president in recent history.

    ....The seismic political shift in the United States was greeted in many places less with jubilation than with a sense of relief that Americans had at long last come to their senses.,,,

    WP-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR200 6110901780.html?nav=rss_print/asection

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

71. paradigm; I worked with an Italian painter in the mid 80's,

    pardon my curiosity, houses or canvasses?

    in the 80s we had three great Cs, Cucchi, Chia, and Clemente

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 12:34pm

72. most amusing, Dawn

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/10/2006 @ 12:18am

    Thanks, Jo.

    Been a pretty keen couple of days, ain't it?

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/10/2006 @ 12:40pm

73. Have ya'll noticed that even though the terrorists won, the sun came up in the right place and the only attacks on Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 12:43pm

74. And God did not hit the "Smite S. Dakota" button?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 12:45pm

75. Are we going to get the last phase of the iraq war inquiry soon now?

    Will Reid do that for us?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 12:53pm

76. Been a pretty keen couple of days, ain't it?

    Posted by NEW DAWN 11/10/2006 @ 12:40am | ignore this person

    yes it has, the America I emigrated to is alive and well. to see Bush humiliated, well, priceless. Rummy too. history will not be kind to those clowns.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 12:53pm

77. Not to mention Mehlman leaving, Bolton getting the boot...

    Schadenfreude city.

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/10/2006 @ 1:00pm

78. comeuppance city.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/10/2006 @ 1:03pm

79. Bush last week:

    "The Democrat plan is simple - the terrorists win, and America loses."

    Bush today:

    ""We're going to work together to address those challenges in a constructive way. We won't agree on every issue. But we do agree that we love America equally, that we're concerned about the future of this country."

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/10/2006 @ 1:05pm

80. Posted by NEW DAWN 11/10/2006 @ 12:00am

    Elle McPherson and Mirando Otto?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2006 @ 1:14pm

81. Crabwalk,

    You speak of Phase II. Delayed for multiple years by "safe seat" Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts R, Kansas.

    Now Senator Rockerfeller is Chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee. I've got to think that it's a major priority for JDR. Even more importantly, he now has subpoena power.

    Justice should be served.

    Posted by freedomplease at 11/10/2006 @ 1:20pm

82. Posted by NEW DAWN 11/10/2006 @ 1:00pm

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/10/2006 @ 1:03pm

    Plop, plop

    Fizz, fizz

    OH, what a relief it is!

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

83. Bush last week:

    "The Democrat plan is simple - the terrorists win, and America loses."

    Once again The Chimp in Chief has proven ineffective against terrorists.

    HIS Amerika lost.

    America won.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 1:41pm

84. Rockerfeller, Conyers, Waxman, Levin, Dingell.

    This could be good. Could.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2006 @ 1:42pm

85. JOHANNESROLF 11/10/2006 @ 12:34am

    I wish it was canvas. It was a commercial job, a comedy club. He was a good painter but his training was in art, and he drove our employer nuts because of his brushing style. But he was far too charming for anyone to complain.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 11/10/2006 @ 2:12pm

86. Gates has been credited, or discredited, with practically inventing polititization of intelligence, so unless he's changed his stripes, he'll just be another shill for the Repub party.

    Methinks there's probably a lot of intrigue bouncing off palace walls these days as King Georgie shuffles and/or fires his courtiers and courtesans. It's no secret that Condi hates Rummy and Georgie needs Condi - and Laura, Harriet and Karen - to stroke his iffy ego. It's not off the wall to think that Condi said to Georgie, either he goes or I go.

    Then of course King George I has always hated Rummy, which is why Georgie II appointed him SOD in the first place, and now that the Bush name is in danger of becoming mud, George I, not Condi, fired Rummy. (Rumor has that Babs, aka Ma Barker, has threatened to water-board the whole bunch if they don't get their acts together.) And the beat goes on.

    Posted by felicity at 11/10/2006 @ 4:22pm

87. I was just reading an anthologized 1990 article by Joe Slovo, which took a strong pro-Gorbachov, anti-Stalinist position. His trajectory was similar to Gorbachov and the Italian CP, evolving in a clearly pro-democracy direction.

    Back on topic, to Gates- in the early 1990s, before he was confirmed as CIA director, there was an article in The New Yorker asserting that Gates' diplomatic intervention had played an important role in heading off an impending nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan.

    (That was before Pakistan went public with its nuclear test in the mid-90s, but the AQ Khan gang had been in operation for quite a few years already.)

    That may well have influenced the Senate Dems to reverse course and confirm Gates despite his links to Iran-Contra.

    He seems to be a prag like Baker and Scowcroft rather than an ideologue. It is the case that a reality-based repugnican can do immense damage - cf Baker in Florida six years ago. But a prag is less likely than a zealot to green light an attack on Iran, the main issue before the DOD.

    Posted by Albanius at 11/11/2006 @ 03:20am

88. JR, WILL sometimes gets "ahead of himself" in his relentless obsession with "counter-attacking" me.

    I'm sure he DIDN'T mean to insult Mr Mandela.

    Posted by MASK 11/10/2006 @ 10:26am

    I was just mocking you mask. But you where too schtoopid to know that.

    (for an example of what I was mocking, refer to your 10:07 post)

    Posted by Will C. at 11/11/2006 @ 09:47am

89. you'll figure it out in a few years

    maybe

    Posted by Will C. at 11/11/2006 @ 09:47am

90. Posted by CRABWALK 11/10/2006 @ 12:43am

    Have ya'll noticed that even though the terrorists won, the sun came up in the right place and the only attacks on Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    You mean you're surprised that after only 3 days, no attacks have occurred?

    Have you been listening to Osama? He thinks he won the election. In a sense, of course, he did. The only people happier than the Democrats today are the terrorists, who are certainly energized and invigorated. Good job, Dems.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/11/2006 @ 10:27am

91. Al Qaida cheers Democratic victory, vows to blow up White House

    Al-Qaida in Iraq Claims It's Winning War Nov 10 1:17 PM US/Eastern

    By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN Associated Press Writer

    BAGHDAD, Iraq

    Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a new audio tape Friday to be winning the war faster than expected in Iraq and said it had mobilized 12,000 fighters who had "vowed to die for God's sake."

    The U.S. military, meanwhile, reported that three U.S. soldiers and a Marine were killed Thursday in Iraq, the U.S. military said, bringing the number of Americans who have died in the country so far this month to 25. At least 105 U.S. forces died in October, the fourth highest monthly toll of the war.

    On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House.

    "The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God's sake," a man who identified himself as Abu Hamza al- Muhajir said.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/11/2006 @ 11:02am

92. Ponti, you are just trumpeting the enemy propaganda, giving them an extra platform, you traitor. what are you Baghdad Rose?

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

93. The only people happier than the Democrats today are the american people, who are certainly energized and invigorated. Good job, Dems.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/11/2006 @ 11:12am

94. On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House.

    Boy, I knew the Dems were very concerned about being popular with the International Community, but this seems a little ridiculous.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/11/2006 @ 11:17am

95. The only question I have is, who wants the White House blown up more, JR, or Osama. Something to ponder.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/11/2006 @ 11:18am

96. sliming me will not help your case, just like Bush sliming the dems did not help his. dems the facts and you're just howling at the moon. I want the white house nice and clean for the democratic pres. it will need to be fumigated from the Bush stench first.

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

97. Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/11/2006 @ 12:10am

    The genius of the Demoncrats! As long as we don't know what the terrorist are planning there is NO NEED to worry about the continuing threats and validations of the enemy!!!!!!!!!11

    I believe the plan is a) take away the most effective tools used to fight the war on terror an b) when the terrorists are thereby enabled to mount another successful attack, blame the Bush Administration for incompetence. Hey, if it takes a few dead Americans to put the Dems back in power, the left argues, it's worth it. Brilliant.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/11/2006 @ 12:58pm

98. blame the Bush Administration for incompetence.

    works for me.

    ponti you got NOTHING.

    Cheney will not last these two years, bet on it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/11/2006 @ 1:06pm

99. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/11/2006 @ 1:06pm

    blame the Bush Administration for incompetence.

    works for me.

    ponti you got NOTHING.

    And you've got nothing but hate, JR. While the rest of us worry about how to keep the country safe, you and your type worry about how to use the threat of terrorism to attain your political goals and indulge your hatred. I truly pity you.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/11/2006 @ 1:55pm

100. what are you Baghdad Rose?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/11/2006 @ 11:11am

     JOHANN, you have just named the neo's. Just read them, all they care about is the Islamic websites. American joy? ignored. Europe? Ignored. Etc etc.

     They continue to misrepresent the case for the wiretaps. Are you guys really that stupid? Do you understand judicial oversight? Do you understand congress has a role of oversight? Remember, if the Admin has nothing to hide, why worry? Why do you have it out for the Constitution so bad? What is it you really hate the most about freedom and democracy? I think it is a toss up between freedom of press and trial by jury.

     I do believe if these theories of terrorists winng the election were true the bombing would have stopped this week in Iraq. But no, they continue to target Americans and Iraqis.

     WOW Baghdad Rose, more than half the country are terrorists!! Run, Run!! That guy standing next to you could be a terrorist, or worse, a democrat. I thought I had a low opinion of the Sheeple. Jeeze!

     Have you all been paying attention to the bloviators? Now Rush says he is happy he "won't have to carry the water" of the failed conservatives All of these clowns, the ones that claim commitment to principle is one of the cornerstones of conservatism and the reason they love Chimpy, were only backing the repubes because the dems were worse than Usama. They bent their principles for political expediency. That used to be the crime of "The Left".

     Rats fleeing the ship.

     Oh, Man! A beautiful sight to behold.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 2:00pm

101. Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/11/2006 @ 1:55pm

     Ok, I ask forgiveness From Steve Martin first.

     EXXXXCCCUUUUSE ME! That is rich, frothy irony there Ponti. Are you sure your not a liberal trying to portray a stupid neo-con at The Nation? No one else could make that 1:55 statement up. I'm on to you now.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 2:04pm

102. chuckle. That was funny Ponti. Gotta go wipe my eyes.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 2:06pm

103. you've got nothing but love, JR. the rest of us worry about how to steal the country blind

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/11/2006 @ 2:09pm

104. Cheney will not last these two years, bet on it.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/11/2006 @ 1:06pm

     How about if the President of the United States says something like "Dick Cheney has my confidence and will be here till I go."?

     He would not lie about something like that, would he? He has restored crediblilty, and civility.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 2:09pm

105. I don't need your pity, Ponti, or should it be Ponti pity? I have a democratic congress to keep me warm. whatta you got? the sour taste of electoral defeat. you have been a hatemeister for some time here. but you have been repudiated. BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, of which I am again proud to be one.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/11/2006 @ 2:14pm

106. You mean you're surprised that after only 3 days, no attacks have occurred?-PONTI

     The U.S. military, meanwhile, reported that three U.S. soldiers and a Marine were killed Thursday in Iraq, the U.S. military said, bringing the number of Americans who have died in the country so far this month to 25. -PONTI

     Crab- No attacks?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 2:17pm

107. here's what I would do if I were Bush. pressure Cheney to resign, for health reasons. then appoint someone like MCCain vice pres, in order to give him a leg up to the presidency. this will likely be the only way a repub will get elected next time. but shh, don't tell him. maybe he can figure it out for himself.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/11/2006 @ 2:18pm

108. I do believe the neo's love being back in the minority. It suits their victim mentality. Now they have even more people to blame.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 2:19pm

109. VP Lieberman.

     Joooooooeee-mentum!

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 2:20pm

110. actually al qaeda is fighting us over there, so they don't have to fight us over here. stands to reason, it's easier for them to get to Iraq. once there they disappear in a world of arabs all out to kill americans. they have the support of the population, and are easily supplied with weapons. the american troops there are sitting and driving around ducks, easy targets.

     as opposed to over here. here they have to sneak in the country, be careful not to be arrested, they have no support network here, and face the combined might of army, and police, and a very suspicious population. so, their fighting us over there so that they won't have to fight us over here.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/11/2006 @ 2:40pm

111. Lieberman owes his election to the repubs in Conn. not that it will do them any good, as he will be welcomed into the fold by dems. he needs the dems, and they need him.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/11/2006 @ 2:41pm

112. " how to use the threat of terrorism to attain their political goals"

     the right wing strategy in a nutshell since 9/11

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/11/2006 @ 3:14pm

113. Have you been listening to Osama? He thinks he won the election. In a sense, of course, he did. The only people happier than the Democrats today are the terrorists, who are certainly energized and invigorated. Good job, Dems.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/11/2006 @ 10:27am

     Your kind, Pontificus, has energized and invigorated the terrorists every one of the 2,834 times they shot an American soldier sent to Iraq by your kind... and for what, again? To accomplish what?

     Posted by New Dawn at 11/11/2006 @ 3:49pm

114. Every time your kind equated half of America as terrorist-supporters... How happy do you suppose your kind made the terrorists by telling them for years that they succeeded in dividing America in half - with Americans calling their fellow Americans "treasonous traitors"?

     Posted by New Dawn at 11/11/2006 @ 3:51pm

115. Hey, if it takes a few dead Americans to put the Dems back in power, the left argues, it's worth it. Brilliant.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/11/2006 @ 12:58am

     Hey, if it takes 2,834 dead Americans to keep the Repubs in power, the right argues, it's worth it. Brilliant.

     Wrong.

     Posted by New Dawn at 11/11/2006 @ 3:53pm

116. And you've got nothing but hate, JR. While the rest of us worry about how to keep the country safe, you and your type worry about how to use the threat of terrorism to attain your political goals and indulge your hatred. I truly pity you.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/11/2006 @ 1:55pm

     You've got nothing but hate, Pontificus, and loser hate at that.

     While we here have worried about keeping the country truly safe instead of creating more terrorists than we can keep up with, you faux cowboys have run roughshod over our own country and its beloved Constitution, every citizen in our country (including eating your own and lying to your own kind - have you read David Kuo's book, by the way?), and started a war that you now hope you can blame on Democrats, absolving yourself of both responsibility and guilt. I've seen more mature responses to problems in daycare centers.

     And this is just ludicrous: "you and your type worry about how to use the threat of terrorism to attain your political goals and indulge your hatred."

     You just described your leader's party platform for the last five years, and the recent drop-kicking of your kind out of office proves that the American people will no longer stand for that sort of thing - regardless of what the Dems do or don't do.

     You pity us? The losing team pities the victors? Okay, Ponti - whatever helps you sleep at night.

     Posted by New Dawn at 11/11/2006 @ 4:04pm

117. Johannes, Crab -

     Good afternoon, fellas - sorry you guys didn't have a more entertaining playmate to play with this fine Saturday.

     Ponti is a little short on, well, everything.

     Posted by New Dawn at 11/11/2006 @ 4:09pm

118. Like having a day old mouse to bat around. He was funny with that "hate and fear" comment though. hehehe. Still chuckling.

     Losers are taking it tough. blame everyone but themselves. Spread Al Qaida propaganda. Saying chimpy lost again against the terrorists, instead of thinking the American people had something to say.

     Sad.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 4:52pm

119. ROBERT PARRY: Well, when we were doing the Iran-Contra investigations, one of the mysteries was when it really started, and we were able to trace it back initially to 1984, when there were these contacts between some Iranians and some Israelis and some former CIA people, which sort of led to the scandal that we knew at the time. But as we went back, we learned that there the shipments of weapons did not begin in 1985, as we had first thought, but really back in 1981. So we had to look at some of these issues of these allegations that were sort of longstanding from some people who had sort of been in the intelligence world that there had been earlier contacts, that during the 1980 campaign, when 52 Americans were being held hostage in Iran and Jimmy Carter was trying desperately to get them out, that the Republicans went behind his back, first to get information, but also then to make contacts with the Iranians directly.

     And the evidence on this has built up over time. We now have a lot of documents. We have some records from that period. We have statements from former Iranian officials, including the former Iranian president, Banisadr, the former defense minister, the former foreign minister, all of whom saying that they had these dealings with the Republicans behind the scenes. So, as we went back through that, the evidence built up that there had been these earlier contacts and that Bob Gates was one of the people involved in them.

     much, much more here...http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444242

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 4:55pm

120. ROBERT PARRY: Yes, back in the -- starting about 1982, President Reagan became concerned that the Iranians, who were secretly getting help from the United States via Israel, had gained the upper hand in the war. And so, there was this effort, as the period went on, to give some more help to Saddam Hussein to keep that war sort of at a more even keel. And one of the guys involved, according to the Teicher affidavit and other witnesses, was Bob Gates. But he's always denied involvement there. So both the facts of the history are important, as well as his honesty. Did he lie to Congress when he denied being involved in these matters?

     -----Lie, cheat, lie about cheating. Supply arms to Saddam.

     We got a winner ladies and germs!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/11/2006 @ 4:57pm

121. Perhaps it falls to a lesser of two evils situation here. However, if Gates is an antiviral agent inoculating our government against neocon disease, then I will tolerate and cheer him on.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/12/2006 @ 12:23am

122. ...I will tolerate him and cheer him on.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/12/2006 @ 10:44am

123. An Open Letter to the Democratic Leadership

     What Would Senator McCain Do?

     Let's start with what Senator McCain did:

     On February 12, 1999, Senator John McCain, AZ, voted twice to convict President Bill Clinton--once on the count of perjury and again on obstruction of justice.

     After the House of Representatives voted 228-206 on the perjury charge and 221-212 on obstruction of justice (largely along party lines) to impeach, it was the duty of the United States Senate to determine Bill Clinton's guilt.

     And moderate John McCain went along with the Republican right-wing zealots to remove from office lame duck President Bill Clinton.

     Clinton's extramarital sexual behavior was no doubt shameful, but Congress's actions were much more shameful--using the serious Constitutional mechanism of impeachment (which is supposed to be reserved for dealing with bribery, acts of treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors) to remove a popular President solely because he tried to cover up an inappropriate sexual liaison.

     At no point was the U.S. government, its military personnel, its laws, its international treaties, or the safety of its people harmed or put in jeopardy by Clinton's lying about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. Neither the country nor the Constitution was undermined by his lying about inappropriate personal behavior. Yet, moderate Senator John McCain voted to remove Bill Clinton from the office of the Presidency.

     Now power has shifted away from the Republican Party, toward the Democratic Party in the House and Senate. Should the House impeach and then the Senate remove from office a lame duck President and Vice President?

     Many Democrats and Independents (and perhaps some Republicans too) have been outraged by the actions of Bush, Cheney, and other civil officials of the Executive--and are calling on Congress to protect the Constitution and the integrity of the United States government by impeaching Bush and Cheney.

     But aren't Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians being vindictive just as the Republicans had been by impeaching and trying Bill Clinton during late 1998 and early 1999?

     No. Clinton's alleged perjury and obstruction of justice did not harm America's national interests--and in the end, the Senate acquitted him because his crimes related to reprehensible private behavior--not appalling governance, widespread bribery, or the undermining of the Constitution. They were not high crimes and misdemeanors as understood by the framers of the Constitution.

     President Bush and Vice President Cheney (along with cabinet members and others) violated at least several international and federal laws, including Geneva Accords and the U.S. War Crimes Act. Against Iraq, they unnecessarily launched an aggressive war before exhausting reasonable alternatives, causing the deaths of civilians and U.S. troops. They illegally authorized wiretapping American citizens without obtaining warrants (even within the 72-hour FISA grace period), essentially bypassing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Detainees (declared "enemy combatants") were denied basic human rights, such as access to attorneys, courts, and the Red Cross. Those captured or abducted were often rendered to secret prisons and tortured without the opportunity to challenge their accusers or dispute the charges against them. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was done illegally and then signed into law by President Bush in the name of national security.

     Whether enumerated by John Conyers or John Dean or others, the various lists of impeachable crimes are both serious and extensive. The Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate cannot just ignore these charges in some "forgive and forget" gesture. Our future as a democratic republic depends on enforcing federal and international laws covering war crimes and human rights violations. Americans cannot just allow these horrific crimes, involving the deaths of American troops, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the torture of perhaps thousands of both innocent and guilty detainees, to go unpunished and unacknowledged.

     It is the duty of Congress to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of such serious crimes and violations.

     And it is John McCain's duty as a United States Senator to vote for conviction and removal from office of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney when extensive evidence (a good deal of it now public) almost certainly demonstrates their guilt.

     If the Democratic majority of the Congress will not enforce the Constitution and federal statues, such as the U.S. War Crimes Act, against a blatantly unchecked Executive, who will?

     --Vincent Miskell Pembroke Pines, FL

     Posted by vmiskell at 11/12/2006 @ 10:44am

124. If you read Novak's article you'll get the impression that Gates might not be qualified, and Bush may prefer it that way. It's quite obvious to me that Bush only wants someone who will push forward with his personal agenda... and Gates may just be the perfect guy for the job.

     Bob Gates [bobgates.net]

     Posted by dfliss at 11/12/2006 @ 5:03pm

125. The only question I have is, who wants the White House blown up more, JR, or Osama. Something to ponder.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/11/2006 @ 11:18am

     the answer is actually c: Chimpy, who let ossama go.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/12/2006 @ 9:40pm

126. It is official! The Demoncrat Iraq strategy Is "CUT AND RUN"! I do not understand why there was any doubt?

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/12/2006 @ 7:40pm

     you forgot the part about thwapping chimpy on the nose with the rolled up newspaper

     Posted by Will C. at 11/12/2006 @ 9:43pm

127. Possessing HUMOR is everything one could hope for after the political fray!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/13/2006 @ 01:40am |

     which is why we have no hope for you brave river

     Posted by Will C. at 11/13/2006 @ 09:42am

128. and what will you do when your sky doesn't fall?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/13/2006 @ 09:43am