Karl Rove Should Stay

posted by David Corn on 08/13/2007 @ 12:01pm

Karl Rove should stay.

The White House confirmed on Monday morning that George W. Bush's master strategist will be leaving Bush's side at the end of August. "I just think it's time," Rove told The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot. His reason for bailing on Bush: "There's always something that can keep you here, as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." At a White House ceremony, Bush issued a brief farewell to Rove, saying little about the man who made Bush president and whom Bush reportedly nicknamed "Turd Blossom" (for Rove's ability to grow flowers in dung). Rove, visibly holding back tears, praised Bush for his "integrity, character and decency." He vowed to be a "fierce and committed advocate [for Bush] on the outside." Neither said anything explicitly about the Iraq war.

Certainly, a White House aide who has engaged in the sort of political and policy chicanery that Rove has perpetuated ought to lose the right to collect a paycheck from U.S. taxpayers. Take your pick: the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. attorney scandal, the Valerie Plame leak, inaction on global warming, injecting politics into federal agencies to a new degree, suppressing government science, the stem cell veto, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicizing the war on terror. But leaving is too good for Rove. He was Bush's partner in the Iraq war, yet he (like other Bush aides, including, most recently, Dan Bartlett) are abandoning ship before the fight is done. Rove has argued that the Iraq war is essential for the survival of the United States (that is, for all of our families). So how can he walk away with the war not won?

In June 2006, Rove gave a speech to New Hampshire Republicans and blasted Democrats for advocating "cutting and running" in Iraq. He said of the Democrats, "They may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going...to be with you for the tough battles." But isn't Rove now doing the same on a personal scale? He is departing the White House when the going in Iraq is as tough as it ever was.

In an earlier 2006 speech, Rove exclaimed, "America is at war....To retreat before victory has been won would be a reckless act." He was, of course, talking about a military retreat. But look at it this way: Rove helped Bush start a war, and now hundreds of thousands of American GIs (and millions of Iraqi civilians) have no choice but to live with the consequences of that decision. Why should Rove--and not they--be allowed to say, Sorry, now I have to bug out to spend more time with my family? How nice for the Roves that he can walk away from the war.

When Bush campaigned for president in 2000, he and Rove dubbed their campaign plane Accountability One. The point: we're the responsible ones. But a fundamental principle of accountability is that you clean up the messes you create. Rove is not doing that. He will cash in. Maybe with speeches. Perhaps with a book or some private sector spot. Instead, he ought to volunteer for service with one of the few functioning provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. Or perhaps he could conduct seminars on basic electoral skills for tribal leaders in southeastern Afghanistan. (Lesson No. 2: How To Demonize Your Enemy.) If overseas travel would place too much of a burden on his family, he could help clean up a neighborhood in New Orleans.

In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote of Tom and Daisy, "They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made." Rove is certainly more careful than Fitzgerald's characters--careful when it comes to politics and doing whatever is necessary to win. But with Bush, he recklessly steered this country into a debacle in Iraq that has caused the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and that has ruined the United States' reputation abroad. Bush, Rove, Dick Cheney and the rest did so with little understanding and with insufficient planning, and they sold the war to the public with bad information and blatant misrepresentations. (Rove was part of the White House Iraq Group that devised the prewar messaging.) Rove deserves not reward but punishment. A fitting sentence would be for Rove to stay to the bitter end so he can sweep up the turds he is now leaving behind.

******

JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." 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 (353)

  1. Nice rendition of Rove's history, Mr Corn....but what of his future?

    We know that he can still hold onto his executive privilege, even out of the White House. But will the Dems go after Rove, now that he's out? One would think so, but out of Washington wouldn't Rove lose his media spotlight, even be able to delay appearances to the Congress (much easier than he could "just down the street" at 1600 Penn.)?

    If Rove is as clever as the Mythos projects, surely this move has plans within plans within plans (to quote a little Frank Herbert)?

    After all the guy escaped "Fitz-mas".

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 12:10pm

  2. maybe he could become a ROVING reporter, telling things how they are on the front lines of afghanistan and iraq.

    or maybe he could go straight to hell. after all, they've already prepared a special room for him complete with yellow cake walls, running Katrina water in the tub and sink, bush's press conferences on the tele, IEDs under the floor boards, and of course central-heating!

    and you know he's already used to sharing his accommodations with bush and cheney..........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 12:15pm

  3. David,

    You are taking Rove's leaving a bit too hard! Did you plan on--after your vacation--doing some Rove-gating but some of the fireworks will now be duds with him out of the Inner Circle and Gov't altogether?

    Rove was probably never as powerful as the Dems feared but the man is, IMO, one smart dude! I'd look forward to reading his book someday!

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 12:15pm

  4. But will the Dems go after Rove, now that he's out?

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 12:10pm

    oh yeah, they'll go after him.

    they'll hire him to run clinton/edwards '08!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 12:18pm

  5. Just flush the turd and his stench.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 12:23pm

  6. Posted by HAPPY 08/13/2007 @ 12:15pm

    yeah, if we're lucky, maybe they'll all go as quietly before bolten's labour day deadline. just imagine--September 4th, 2007, a day that will live in "famy" (opposite of infamy)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 12:24pm

  7. "But with Bush, he recklessly steered this country into a debacle in Iraq that has caused the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and that has ruined the United States' reputation abroad."

    Yeah, effin genius, eh?

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 08/13/2007 @ 12:28pm

  8. I can't imagine that the republicans will not utilize an asset such as he for as long as the guy is still alive. Thus, it only makes sense that his hijinx will continue off the radar henceforth. The effects of Karl Rove will be felt for decades, only from here forward his fingerprints will be easier concealed.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 12:44pm

  9. BLOG | Posted 08/13/2007 @ 12:01pm Karl Rove Should Stay

    PERMALINK SEE ALL POSTS EMAIL THIS POST COMMENTS (9)

    Karl Rove should stay.

    The White House confirmed on Monday morning that George W. Bush's master strategist will be leaving Bush's side at the end of August. "I just think it's time," Rove told The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot. His reason for bailing on Bush: "There's always something that can keep you here, as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." At a White House ceremony, Bush issued a brief farewell to Rove, saying little about the man who made Bush president and whom Bush reportedly nicknamed "Turd Blossom" (for Rove's ability to grow flowers in dung). Rove, visibly holding back tears, praised Bush for his "integrity, character and decency." He vowed to be a "fierce and committed advocate [for Bush] on the outside." Neither said anything explicitly about the Iraq war.

    Certainly, a White House aide who has engaged in the sort of political and policy chicanery that Rove has perpetuated ought to lose the right to collect a paycheck from U.S. taxpayers. Take your pick: the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. attorney scandal, the Valerie Plame leak, inaction on global warming, injecting politics into federal agencies to a new degree, suppressing government science, the stem cell veto, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicizing the war on terror. But leaving is too good for Rove. He was Bush's partner in the Iraq war, yet he (like other Bush aides, including, most recently, Dan Bartlett) are abandoning ship before the fight is done. Rove has argued that the Iraq war is essential for the survival of the United States (that is, for all of our families). So how can he walk away with the war not won?

    In June 2006, Rove gave a speech to New Hampshire Republicans and blasted Democrats for advocating "cutting and running" in Iraq. He said of the Democrats, "They may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going...to be with you for the tough battles." But isn't Rove now doing the same on a personal scale? He is departing the White House when the going in Iraq is as tough as it ever was.

    In an earlier 2006 speech, Rove exclaimed, "America is at war....To retreat before victory has been won would be a reckless act." He was, of course, talking about a military retreat. But look at it this way: Rove helped Bush start a war, and now hundreds of thousands of American GIs (and millions of Iraqi civilians) have no choice but to live with the consequences of that decision. Why should Rove--and not they--be allowed to say, Sorry, now I have to bug out to spend more time with my family? How nice for the Roves that he can walk away from the war.

    When Bush campaigned for president in 2000, he and Rove dubbed their campaign plane Accountability One. The point: we're the responsible ones. But a fundamental principle of accountability is that you clean up the messes you create. Rove is not doing that. He will cash in. Maybe with speeches. Perhaps with a book or some private sector spot. Instead, he ought to volunteer for service with one of the few functioning provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. Or perhaps he could conduct seminars on basic electoral skills for tribal leaders in southeastern Afghanistan. (Lesson No. 2: How To Demonize Your Enemy.) If overseas travel would place too much of a burden on his family, he could help clean up a neighborhood in New Orleans.

    In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote of Tom and Daisy, "They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made." Rove is certainly more careful than Fitzgerald's characters--careful when it comes to politics and doing whatever is necessary to win. But with Bush, he recklessly steered this country into a debacle in Iraq that has caused the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and that has ruined the United States' reputation abroad. Bush, Rove, Dick Cheney and the rest did so with little understanding and with insufficient planning, and they sold the war to the public with bad information and blatant misrepresentations. (Rove was part of the White House Iraq Group that devised the prewar messaging.) Rove deserves not reward but punishment. A fitting sentence would be for Rove to stay to the bitter end so he can sweep up the turds he is now leaving behind.

    ******

    JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." 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.

    Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!

    COMMENTS

    Post a comment or reply.

    View your ignore list.

    Nice rendition of Rove's history, Mr Corn....but what of his future?

    We know that he can still hold onto his executive privilege, even out of the White House. But will the Dems go after Rove, now that he's out? One would think so, but out of Washington wouldn't Rove lose his media spotlight, even be able to delay appearances to the Congress (much easier than he could "just down the street" at 1600 Penn.)?

    If Rove is as clever as the Mythos projects, surely this move has plans within plans within plans (to quote a little Frank Herbert)?

    After all the guy escaped "Fitz-mas".

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person

    maybe he could become a ROVING reporter, telling things how they are on the front lines of afghanistan and iraq.

    or maybe he could go straight to hell. after all, they've already prepared a special room for him complete with yellow cake walls, running Katrina water in the tub and sink, bush's press conferences on the tele, IEDs under the floor boards, and of course central-heating!

    and you know he's already used to sharing his accommodations with bush and cheney..........

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/13/2007 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person

    David,

    You are taking Rove's leaving a bit too hard! Did you plan on--after your vacation--doing some Rove-gating but some of the fireworks will now be duds with him out of the Inner Circle and Gov't altogether?

    Rove was probably never as powerful as the Dems feared but the man is, IMO, one smart dude! I'd look forward to reading his book someday!

    Posted by HAPPY 08/13/2007 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person

    But will the Dems go after Rove, now that he's out?

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 12:10pm

    oh yeah, they'll go after him.

    they'll hire him to run clinton/edwards '08!!!!!

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/13/2007 @ 12:18pm | ignore this person

    Just flush the turd and his stench.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/13/2007 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person

    Posted by HAPPY 08/13/2007 @ 12:15pm

    yeah, if we're lucky, maybe they'll all go as quietly before bolten's labour day deadline. just imagine--September 4th, 2007, a day that will live in "famy" (opposite of infamy)

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/13/2007 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person

    "But with Bush, he recklessly steered this country into a debacle in Iraq that has caused the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and that has ruined the United States' reputation abroad."

    Yeah, effin genius, eh?

    Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 08/13/2007 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person

    Rove should stay? I get a mental image of Corn as the Black Knight screaming at Rove to return so he can bite his knee off.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/13/2007 @ 12:43pm

    Corn would have to wait in a long line in order to bite Rove's knee.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 12:46pm

  10. Damn, I'm looking like Reese after that comment. Sorry.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 12:47pm

  11. Yeah, he's a liar alright and the hypocritical insincerity is in the very marrow of his bones as he invokes the mafioso's sacrosanct shibboleth "family" to disguise his slimily Machiavellian disappearance from the horror-show he arranged for the benefit of his ilk. "Mission Accomplished," indeed!

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/13/2007 @ 12:51pm

  12. Are Republicans Cowards? Look at Karl Rove, running away from the big strong Democrats. Run, you scared little runt.

    Of course, Karl Rove would have liked to stay within the secrecy and executive privelege of the White House. This is wonderful. The Bush Administration is falling apart.

    Run, cowards Republicans - DESERT your Commander in Chief - in his time of challenge.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 12:59pm

  13. r0ve was the tick that gave hsuB lyme disease. Then hsuB gave it to the US before he could get treated. Now that r0ve has been detached, Texas is the right place for it to go as I've seen what they do to ticks there.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 1:02pm

  14. CORN forgot to give Rove credit for this "meltdown" of some of our citizens' Constitutional right to be foolhardy or conniving:

    Dems take on mortgage meltdown

    Clinton, Dodd, Obama and Edwards offer ways to avoid future mortgage meltdowns.

    By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer

    August 13 2007: 12:57 PM EDT

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In the wake of the subprime mess, Democratic presidential candidates are grabbing hold of the issue and offering their own solutions. And the problem, according to many of them, lies with the mortgage broker.......

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 1:02pm

  15. Having Rove leave is a smart move, politically. His absence will remove some of the wind from the sails of those who wish to take this administration down, as Rove is the main target of many. It will be difficult to garner support for investigations the main narrative of which involve someone who doesn't even work for the administration anymore.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/13/2007 @ 1:02pm

  16. Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 1:05pm

  17. This is a major victory. Some of you aren't gloating enough. You make it sound like Karl Rove is up to some evil scheme by resigning. His evil scheme is to flee. Out of cowardice, Karl Rove deserted his Commander in Chief, and RAN AWAY, .

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 1:09pm

  18. Damn, I'm looking like Reese after that comment. Sorry.

    Posted by MATTMAN 08/13/2007 @ 12:47pm

    too many of them cookies!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 1:10pm

  19. I say, good riddance!

    Sure, Rove has been a focal point of Democrats investigating the White House, and his leaving will eventually change this focus (which, I'm sure was the 'real' reason for him leaving), but he has done so much damage to American government while he has been in the White House, why on Earth would you want him to stay?

    Get out of dodge Karl, and take your corrupt defense contractor booster pal with you, Dick Cheney!

    We don't need your kind in Washington, and the sooner you leave, the sooner we can get on with doing the people's business.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2007 @ 1:19pm

  20. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In the wake of the subprime mess, Democratic presidential candidates are grabbing hold of the issue and offering their own solutions. And the problem, according to many of them, lies with the mortgage broker.......

    Posted by HAPPY

    They did issue the loans, right? And now the gov is bailing them out after they made extremely poor decisions.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 1:28pm

  21. I'm skeptical of any move he makes. Maybe it's really as it looks, but he's the type who will walk in one direction and show up in the opposite. Strategize is what he does, except of course in the case of Iraq. I'm leary of his chess manuevering.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 1:32pm

  22. He will still have to deal with the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. He is not off the hook.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/13/2007 @ 1:49pm

  23. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 1:53pm

    Me too! I thought Corn's reaction was a bit off! Unless he has some insider `scoop' he is holding back for the next book....but not likely....Rove is too big of a meal ticket for him!

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 1:58pm

  24. The fringe leftists here will mock my comments but that is only because of their ignorance of how American politics really works.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1

    Oh is that what it is? I always thought it's because you're a inbred, fundamentalist hick so blinded by ideology and ignorance you can't see anything as it truly is.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 2:08pm

  25. they'll hire him to run clinton/edwards '08!!!!!

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/13/2007 @ 12:18pm

    Depends. IS Rove the "genius" that's claimed for him or not? I've seen stuff that say "no". Seems unlikely, given he got Bush elected twice, but a lot of the breaks also went their way in 2000 and 2004.

    If he isn't, this could be the worst mistake of his life. If he IS the "diabolically clever Machiavellian" that has been claimed for him (mostly on the Left, not Right)....he's got a plan and it could be a pretty tough one to beat.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 2:08pm

  26. LVLIBERTY1: "While I understand that most of the far left bloggers have no understanding of US politics"

    Hey, the Left was RIGHT, about Bush, weren't we? Of course we were.

    Rove would have liked to do all those evil tasks while he was still in the White House. He is leaving because he is scared of the big, strong, Democrats - apparently. Just 2 weeks notice! Blair and Powell gave years worth of notice, compared to him.

    Rove had to leave, "to take off the focus", he ran.

    And Rove can't hide: First the Hague, then Hell!!!

    This is wonderful!!!

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 2:10pm

  27. Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 1:05pm

    Care to explain that in more detail?

    (What am I saying?!?!...Of CORUSE, you can't!...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 2:10pm

  28. BTW, LVLIB may be right on this one....

    notice the timing?

    Rove leaves.....just before Fred Thompson about to make his announcment?

    Coincidence?...hmmm

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 2:12pm

  29. "The fringe leftists here will mock my comments but that is only because of their ignorance of how American politics really works."

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 1:53pm

    Sorry.

    Your comments are frequently mocked because they're insane.

    By the way, who are the Dems who are expressing "grudging acknowledgement" that the surge is working?

    Posted by drhammer at 08/13/2007 @ 2:16pm

  30. Rove leaves.....just before Fred Thompson about to make his announcment?

    Coincidence?...hmmm

    Posted by MASK

    Yeah, you've got a real "Enquiring" mind.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 2:17pm

  31. Tax breaks for the rich, eh? Hmmmm. DAVID, I got tax breaks for two or three years in a row, and I'm not rich. I think you just believe the rich should'nt get anything just because their rich. Now, THAT doesn't seem fair.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/13/2007 @ 2:18pm

  32. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 1:53pm

    The surge is working? More troop deaths, more civilian deaths, more daily attacks by insurgents, even less access to basic water and electricity. By what criteria are you defining "working"?

    Improvement in so called "hot spots" - while ignoring that the violence simply shifted elsewhere? It makes good press, but it's a little bit different from "working".

    LVL, you really need to start trying to read beyond the right-wing media you are absorbing because it is negatively impacting your judgment. Stating something - doesn't make it true.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 2:21pm

  33. Mask, just feel good, this is wonderful. Karl Rove RAN AWAY. This is just ridiculous. The man DID NOT have a genius plan, to avoid being chased out of the White House. Ok, so he goes and works for a campaign. He could supervise a campaign and stay in the White House, BUT HE IS NOT.

    Mask, please get with the celebration. Have fun, this is wonderful. Karl Rove has DESERTED his Commander in Chief, even in his CiC's darkest hour. Romney should think about hiring someone who was completely wrong and ran away from the mess he told his idiot George Bush to create. America is furious with this idiot, and his minions, and of course the Republicans want to distance themselves from him. This is great. Karl Rove was outsmarted, ran away. RUN, REPUBLICAN COWARDS. DESERT YOUR PRESIDENT.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 2:22pm

  34. Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:12pm

    At first blush, this speculation sounds reasonable.

    But how could a potential candidate's association with the "Turd Blossom" be anything but a liability?

    Posted by drhammer at 08/13/2007 @ 2:23pm

  35. Posted by CONSHAME 08/13/2007 @ 2:22pm

    Congratulations on your newfound joy.

    (I'm still waiting for the other shoe...)

    Posted by drhammer at 08/13/2007 @ 2:27pm

  36. As for the far right bloggers, they don't have a clue. They are led purely by their combined emotional hatred of Liberalism, TRUE Christianity, and their false dream for some form of fascist new Amerika.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:16pm

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/13/2007 @ 2:27pm

  37. Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:12pm

    He's obviously right about Rove positioning himself for the next campaign. It doesn't take an special insight into politics. All it takes is an understanding that: the man is a scumbag; he has a gift for disinformation and dirty tricks that get people elected; and the Republican Party swings from his jock.

    What's next? Powerful insights into the wetness of water?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 2:29pm

  38. Posted by DRHAMMER 08/13/2007 @ 2:23pm

    If you don't think Rove is not going to be involved - whether above board or through his proteges, your deely mistaken.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 2:33pm

  39. Corn quarries Cut and Run KKKKarl Rove.

    There is a specific factor that compelled Rove and Bush to decide Bush was better served with Rove OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

    My take is that it has more to do with a criminal investigation that congressional oversight. The announcement was formulated to be an honarable sendoff, and the effective date of Aug 31 to imply there is no rush, no impending scandal.

    No one resigns from being head political advisor and policy wonk to the President of the United States because they want to spend time with their wife, visit their son in college, write a book and hunt doves.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 08/13/2007 @ 2:35pm

  40. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:16pm

    well some of us aren't democrats.

    nor do i hate any of the things you mentioned. however, i do find the use of these things in the name of greed, violence, and moral corruption abhorrent.

    oh, and "Amerika"--don't forget that the name comes from the dude who drew the map and that the letter "K" doesn't exist in italian

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 2:35pm

  41. Posted by DRHAMMER 08/13/2007 @ 2:23pm

    Easy, you associate him with Bush winning 2000 and 2004, and a couple of GOP Congresses (especially 2002, where he knocked off wounded veterans like Max Cleland with numbskulls like Saxby Chambliss). 2006?...screwed, but one loss does not a failure make in politics.

    Look at Bob Shrum, almost every campaign the guy was associated with LOST....and John Kerry picked him for his campaign manager.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/13/2007 @ 2:29pm

    Doesn't HAVE to be about the next campaign...just a theory. Could be some other motive for him separating himself from the White House...a legal reason maybe. Or just to throw the simple-minded (no CS names needed) on the Left into a sense of complacency after their "major victory in getting rid of Rove".

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 2:40pm

  42. No one resigns from being head political advisor and policy wonk to the President of the United States because they want to spend time with their wife, visit their son in college, write a book and hunt doves.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 08/13/2007 @ 2:41pm

  43. Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH.

    I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here, but even if what you say is true, it is not the conversations he has now that people care about (why "track" the conversations of someone who isn't even part of the administration?), but the ones he had as Bush's strategist. And it will be harder to generate the necessary public support for going after Rove if he isn't a player anymore.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/13/2007 @ 2:44pm

  44. DRHAMMER is right, that other shoe is coming. Look out Conservative Cowards, run while you can.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 2:50pm

  45. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:40pm

    Thanks for the link. I will devote some more time to these two.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/13/2007 @ 2:33pm

    I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think he would be involved, quite the opposite. In fact, I agree with NEILSAGAN that Rove is such a political animal, that he would be unable to walk away from the cause, for any reason. He probably had to be reminded that he even has a family.

    But the irony is that his slimy talents have real appeal for for a group that needs to convince the electorate that it's leaving the slime behind.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/13/2007 @ 2:54pm

  46. The Bush Administration is falling apart, and Republicans are trying to spin cowardice as courage.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

  47. (What am I saying?!?!...Of CORUSE, you can't!...heheh)

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:10pm

    Which only proves to yourself, Frita, that all you did, without any self-doubt on your part--- is make yet another straw dildo to play with, no wonder you're so happy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

  48. LVLIBERTY,

    Why do you equate "there is military progress" with "the surge is working"? From the very beginning of the war there have been any number of military successes, from the fall of Baghdad to the death of Saddam's sons to Saddam's capture to terrorist kills. The military aspect of the problem has for the most part not been the heart of the problem since March of 2001. What supporters of the surge don't seem to see is that the problem we face in Iraq is not one of military strategy. What the Dems in your post are saying is that the central pillars holding up the chaos in Iraq are political in nature and are not being addressed by the current administration. We can have all the military "progress" in the world (going into a town and clearing out insurgents and terrorists is not difficult for our military--we have been doing it there for several years) and not move one step closer to achieving our goals for Iraq.

    By the way, what are our goals for Iraq?

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/13/2007 @ 2:58pm

  49. "He demonstrates why some people should never be allowed to bear children."

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:53pm

    Is this kind of statement informed more by your understanding of democracy, or Christianity?

    Posted by drhammer at 08/13/2007 @ 2:59pm

  50. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

    Then PROVE that I'm wrong....and explain IN DETAIL why-

    "Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 1:05pm

    Or don't, and prove that once again, your pronouncements are a pile of Turd Blossoms.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 2:59pm

  51. "He demonstrates why some people should never be allowed to bear children."

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:53pm

    Yeah, DRHAMMER, little curious about this too. What ARE the LVLIBERTY qualifications needed for child-bearing?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 3:01pm

  52. Thank you Karl Rove for the stinking pile of shit you left behind. Being despised by every thinking American is NOT a badge of honor. I cringe at the thought of more of your vile contributions to the 2008 campaign. For the good of the country, may you drop dead.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:49pm

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/13/2007 @ 3:11pm

  53. One of the genuine pleasures of visiting this site is to read the purely mindless comments of LUVVY anbd his ilk. He demonstrates why some people should never be allowed to bear children.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:53pm

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/13/2007 @ 3:14pm

  54. Posted by DRHAMMER 08/13/2007 @ 2:59pm

    Eugenics

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/13/2007 @ 3:15pm

  55. The hard truth is Rove leaves the WH the same way he came in...un scathed by all the acid of the left. He shoved the dems candiates and their montras right up their own arses and made the republicans a dominant party for a long period of time..trouble is the republicans forgot who got them there and why, so there were justly fired...

    Rove leaves his office in fine shape...the committees screeching like women scorned..with no evidence of anything criminal or illegal, Not even Fitz...all his work and all he scored was a lowly level parking lot attendant...

    Rove had helped put Bush in the WH 2 times, something even Gore or Kerry couldn't do, and he has a resume' that should have Schrum committing suicide out of embarassment.

    Simplely put..Rove wins,after laughing at the supeneoas for him, Corn articles that no one probably even read, the loons in Congress, Gore, Kerry, and most likely, if Hillary....loses...and should a Republican, a CONSERVATIVE republican win the WH or retake Congress, then his legacy wins again...

    The dems are left with an election coming at them fast, Hillary in the saddle,a congress that can't run on any accomplishments..ah, oh, min wage increase, but that will be eaten up by tax increases on gas,...the dems are left with stains of a shitburger on their faces..once again.

    Good luck in 08...once again, the Repubs may be blessed by the nature and ideas of their enemies.

    This should be a fun election to watch no matter what happens.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/13/2007 @ 3:16pm

  56. (What am I saying?!?!...Of CORUSE, you can't!...heheh)

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:10pm

    Which only proves to yourself, Frita, that all you did, without any self-doubt on your part--- is make yet another straw dildo to play with, no wonder you're so happy.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

    Then PROVE that I'm wrong....and explain IN DETAIL why-

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:59pm

    Why should I prove that you, Frita, don't make straw dildos-- right after you just admitted that you did?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 3:25pm

  57. In fact that's what r0ve, the tick, does even better than Frita-- make straw dildos.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 3:28pm

  58. From the WSJ today:

    'The Mark of Rove'

    George W. Bush's alter ego on his decision to resign, his "myth," and the GOP's chances in 2008.

    BY PAUL A. GIGOT

    Monday, August 13, 2007 6:15 a.m. EDT

    WASHINGTON--These are the days of Republican doubt, with President Bush fighting an unpopular war,......

    Sitting in the book-lined living room of his townhome on Saturday afternoon, a relaxed, cheerful and typically rambunctious Mr. Rove....

    Looking ahead, he adds, "Iraq will be in a better place" as the surge continues. Come the autumn, too, "we'll see in the battle over FISA"--the wiretapping of foreign terrorists--"a fissure in the Democratic Party.".....

    As for the Democrats, "They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate" by the name of Hillary.....

    "I just think it's time," he says, adding that he first floated the idea of leaving to Mr. Bush a year ago. His friends confirm he had been talking about it with others even earlier......Finally, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told senior White House aides that if they stayed past a certain point, they were obliged to remain to Jan. 20, 2009.

    Mr. Rove doesn't say, though others do, that this timing also allows him to leave on his own terms......He won't even disclose his legal bills, except to quip that "every one has been paid" and that "it was worth every penny."

    What about those who say he's leaving to avoid Congressional scrutiny? "I know they'll say that," he says, "But I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob.".....

    "I'm a myth. There's the Mark of Rove," he says, with a bemused air. "I read about some of the things I'm supposed to have done, and I have to try not to laugh.".......

    Mr. Rove's political influence has been historic,.....In 2002, the president's party gained seats in both the House and Senate in a first midterm election for the first time since 1934.

    And in 2004, for only the second time in history, a president won re-election while helping his party gain seats in both houses of Congress; the other time was 1936......

    A big debate among Republicans these days is who bears more blame for 2006--Messrs. Bush and Rove, or the behavior of the GOP Congress. Mr. Rove has no doubt. "The sense of entitlement was there" among Republicans, he says, "and people smelled it." Yet even with a unified Democratic Party and the war, he argues, it was "a really close election." The GOP lost the Senate by its 3,562 vote margin of defeat in Montana, and in the House the combined margin in the 15 seats that cost control was 85,000 votes.......

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 3:32pm

  59. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 3:16pm

    What have you been drinking? r0vian flavored koolaid most probably.

    r0ve is much hated by more people than when he went in and still has a few subpoenas to deal with plus he'll need to seek another cone of silence before he transmits any kind nefarious instructions to another host for his tickiness to clamp onto to suck and spread his ly me disease.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 3:35pm

  60. Sorry but Karl Rove leaving after Bush's 2nd term is like curing cancer after your loved one has passed away.

    Posted by llim80 at 08/13/2007 @ 3:36pm

  61. I knew many House districts were close.....but in sum total, less than 90,000 votes led to a flip of control in both Houses of Congress! Sigh!

    Rove can't be an effective strategist for the GOP while drawing a paycheck as a WH Advisor...all the while leaving trails of `outside consulting' emails, can he?

    He's FREE! You can bank on his comings and goings will be much, much harder for you loonies to stalk! Hehheheh....

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 3:39pm

  62. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 3:25pm

    All I asked was for you to PROVE what you said, ol' boy. How is that a straw man or whatever you want?

    "Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 1:05pm

    And you can't, but...we're getting used to that.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 3:40pm

  63. I guess I will still see Nichols, Corn, KVH, and followers calling that .0000001% percent of the vote that put this "do nothing" "accomplish nothing" congress in limited power a mandate!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO

    Funny, all the right wingers acted as if Jr had a mandate when he won less votes than Gore.

    It's sad but true that there are a great many morons in the country; it is, however, nothing to celebrate.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 3:47pm

  64. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:40pm

    Amazing how you trumpet "hot spots" yet miss the big picture that constitutes success as normally defined. Concentrating troops to have the enemy attack elsewhere - more frequently and with more casualties - isn't success.

    You also fail to account for the obvious politics in this conversation. They are protecting themselves from any claim that they aren't supporting "the troops" since everybody in the Republican party uses "the troops" as a shield against criticism. It's pathetic.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 3:53pm

  65. With less popular votes than their opponents? Hell no! That's all we ever heard out of the right wings hacks such as yourself after the first Clinton election--whining on and on about how he failed to gain a "majority" of the votes, even though he drew more than Bush and Perot. Hypocrites.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 3:56pm

  66. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 3:16pm

    I find your comments rather odd. Whenever you get pinned down, you claim that Republicans are not "true conservatives". The rest of the time you are waving the Republican banner. Any explanation for this?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 3:56pm

  67. Rove is a Disgrace. Bush is a Disgrace. They both could have both been hippies, now they're headed for Guantanamo! Rove is going to have to spend the rest of his life naked in a cell!!

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 3:57pm

  68. Maybe Rove can get brain cancer like Atwater, lay on his death bed, anticipate his death, rue all of his sins (especially all the dirty, underhanded political tricks), fear for his "soul," and die with a cancerous, guilt ridden brain.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 4:00pm

  69. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 3:16pm

    I find your comments rather odd. Whenever you get pinned down, you claim that Republicans are not "true conservatives". The rest of the time you are waving the Republican banner. Any explanation for this?

    Posted by SRJENKINS

    Full of shit? Talking out of both sides of his neck?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 4:01pm

  70. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/13/2007 @ 3:39pm

    Oh sure that's what really happening. Not.

    More funner to see new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, construct sandcastles by the seashore and trying to sell them as concrete buildings on bedrock. Yet is it any wonder repubs fall for their own spinning-- they're so dizzy they haven't a clue what's true anymore.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 4:09pm

  71. in Spring in October....

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/13/2007 @ 3:48pm

    Spring, Texas? As in where HP (ex-Compaq) is? If yes, let's get together!

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 4:10pm

  72. Spring, Texas? As in where HP (ex-Compaq) is? If yes, let's get together!

    Posted by HAPPY 08/13/2007 @ 4:10pm

    You two will make a cute couple.

    Who's on top?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/13/2007 @ 4:13pm

  73. Funny how Rove's resignation, a disasterous war of choice in Iraq, and a Bush approval rating of about 1/3 adds up to "lefties twisting in the wind."

    Don't you mean the "Far left"? because everyone to the right of Karl Marx is united on this one: Bush is a failure.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 08/13/2007 @ 4:14pm

  74. Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 3:40pm

    Oh now you're asking after self admitting that all you were doing was spinning up another straw dildo.

    So now you're admitting you don't know shit and you are actually just asking for some information you don't already know-- is that what you're saying now. Kinda flip-flopping on your knowledge base there are you.

    Well let me think about it--- seeing as you're on your knees now, gotta come up with some penance for you first though.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 4:17pm

  75. George Bush, does not get to go home and be with his family.

    Alberto Gonzales, does not get to be with his family.

    Karl Rove, does. DOOM Stalks the doorstep of the Conservatives.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 4:20pm

  76. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 4:17pm

    No, I'm asking you to BACK UP one of your statements....

    or else keep dodging the question and show that it's bulls**t!

    Hmmmm?...wonder what you'll choose?!??!!?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 4:23pm

  77. (What am I saying?!?!...Of CORUSE, you can't!...heheh)

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:10pm

    So Frita, say you're taking back what you said before and I will-- otherwise you are full of shit, again.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 4:33pm

  78. Thank you Karl Rove for a job well done. Being despised by these leftists is a badge of honor. I look forward to your brilliant contributions to the 2008 campaign.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1

    Wasn't/isn't Hitler despised by the left?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 4:34pm

  79. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 4:33pm

    And he chooses.......DODGING.

    Big surprise.

    HSUB makes some b.s. comment, then can't back it up. Who could have seen THAT coming?

    Oh, yeah....me!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 4:46pm

  80. Oh by the way, Empty SPENCE?

    Still waiting over on Ms Pollitt's thread, for an answer to my "Capote" question, as well.

    (Or you could go the HSUB route)

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 4:47pm

  81. Karl Rove told the WSJ: "I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob." (after this time)

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

  82. Franktits, what are you ( and the rest of the lunatic left )going to do with yourselves when Bush is gone? Who are you going to hate? What will be the focus of your miserable lives? What will be the PURPOSE of your miserable lives? Will you even have a life if you have no one to hate? If the Dem's win in 08' will you stop hating everyone and everything about this country and go back to the bathhouse with the likes of Barney Frank? I say, all liberal losers should move to Canada where there are like minded people and you all can hate from afar! loser liberal scum.....JUST GO AWAY!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

  83. " In politics, nothing happens by MISTAKE. If it happens, you better bet it was well planned ( unless you're a liberal with a free pass)".-- Barry25

    Gavin Newsome MISTAKENLY put his penis in his campaign manager's wife, Slick Willy MISTAKENLY put his penis in the mouth of an intern, Patrick Kennedy MISTAKENLY got drunk and took pain killers and wound up in a wrecked car on capitol ground with a free ride home by the fuzz, and William Jefferson MISTAKENLY put 90 G in his freezer

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 5:01pm

  84. BARRY25, ha ha ha. TOUGH SHHHIT for REPUBLICANS. Whine for me Republicans, ha ha ha ha ha. Karl Rove has abandoned ship. The little scared cowardly little runt. The Deserter!

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 5:26pm

  85. Conshameful, you seem so giddy! Don't you realize this is the worst thing that could ever happen to miserable losers like yourself? It's one less great American patriot that you can attack and hate daily! What will you do with your miserable existence without good americans to hate? Maybe it's time to go jump off a bridge or something? It's the least you copuld do for your country, your MOTHER, me, America, and all of humanity( or at least the taxpayers )!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 5:35pm

  86. Franktits, I think you just need a hug!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 5:45pm

  87. In ten years my kids will be in high school. I have no doubt that their history teachers will regard this period (200-2008) as extremely important so that we may all learn from our mistakes. Apparently there are those who haven't learned from the error of electing these thugs and their clown into office.

    It is unfathomable that people regard Rove, Cheney, and Bush as some kind of heroes. Aside from disposing of Saddam, what good have they done for anyone who earns less than 200K annually?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 5:46pm

  88. HA HA HA, BARRY25. Conservatives are falling apart. HA HA HA. Cracking apart. Go ahead, BARRY25, I don't care. You want to freak out because Rove's a coward, go right ahead. Rove is a DISGRACE!

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 5:47pm

  89. By the way, who are the Dems who are expressing "grudging acknowledgement" that the surge is working?

    Posted by DRHAMMER 08/13/2007 @ 2:16pm

    Here are two, Senators Durbin and Casey

    .

    .

    .

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person

    I find it quite interesting where LeaveLiberty chooses to end his cut and paste from the transcript. Acutally, there was just one more question...it looked like this...

    ROBERTS: Senator Casey, you supported this bill to bring troops home. Have you seen anything to change your mind on that while you're there?

    CASEY: No. I supported it and I voted initially, way back in the beginning of the year, against the surge. I think they're the right votes and continue to be the right votes. we have to make sure that the diplomacy and the political work done in Washington, as well as in Baghdad, what we're seeing now is the Iraqi government officials have left, we're seeing Sunni representatives have walked out and are boycotting. So the political work in Baghdad and Washington has to match the courage and the dedication of our troops. We haven't seen that yet.

    ...so why didn't LeaveLiberty post that last question and answer in the transcript? Gee, could it be that Senator Casey's response makes it obvious that he clearly doesn't think the surge is working?

    Obviously, wingnuts like LeaveLiberty see and hear only what they want to see and hear. I'm sure later on, LeaveLiberty will cut out other parts of the transcript...or ignore it altogether, when he wants to pretend that these Democrats aren't 'supporting the troops'.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/13/2007 @ 5:50pm

  90. BARRY25 on Rove: "one less great American patriot"

    That's right. Rove is: One more cutter and runner.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 5:51pm

  91. Franktits, does your hatred come from failure in your personal life? Most liberals that I know have failed in most aspects of their lives and now attack the very people they wanted to be like, but failed. Did women ( or men ) find you unattractive? Did you sit the bench in little league? Did you get your ass kicked daily when you were a whiney little spoiled brat in grade school ( obviously you haven't matured much from those days )? Did your parents teach you to blame others for your own personal failures? I think that if you look deeper within yourself ( and also in the mirror ), you might find the true source of your hatred for people that are far better human beings than yourself, and i think you'll find that it's no one's fault but your own, and that you're a bonafide loser! Still need a hug?

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 5:53pm

  92. Rove will be the key Republican figure shaping the campaign of our next president who will be a Republican.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person

    BTW, LVLIB may be right on this one....

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person

    So Mask, you now agree with LeavLiberty that "our next president who will be a Republican"?

    So tell us, which Republican do you think Rove is going to get elected to the Presidency?

    Posted by Lillian at 08/13/2007 @ 5:54pm

  93. BARRY25, so you're gay, right?? No offense.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 5:56pm

  94. (What am I saying?!?!...Of CORUSE, you can't!...heheh)

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:10pm

    So Frita, say you're taking back what you said before and I will-- otherwise you are full of shit, again.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 4:33pm

    And he chooses.......DODGING.

    Big surprise.

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 4:46pm

    And so Frita chooses to make and play with another straw dildo. She does like her straw dildos after all.

    But now that you've proven that that's all you are, Frita, one big straw dildo making straw dildos in your own image...

    But except for you, most people already know this stuff. It's no secret. Here's just a little:

    http://tinyurl.com/59gfn

    http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/062000/0006006.html

    http://tinyurl.com/29lptg

    http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_06.php

    http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/crime/story/91460.html

    http://www.filesland.com/download/surveillance.html

    yada yada yada

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2007 @ 5:58pm

  95. Go to michaelmoore.com and check out Dick Cheney's comments on the youtube video. It was recorded in 1994. It's stunning.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/13/2007 @ 5:50pm |

    Just viewed it...WOW! I wonder what changed his mind?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 5:58pm

  96. BARRY25, please don't really answer that question again. The Nation was kind enough to delete your response to my question just now, where you just admitted you were gay, because of your fragile Conservative psychology. I was only teasing you. By the way BARRY25, I have nothing against you for being gay.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 6:00pm

  97. Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

    Frank is many things but "lunatic left" isn't one of them. He's no more "lunatic left" than Mask.

    Perhaps the only lunatic element I can detect is his ideas about how HRC is going to magically fix everything rather than be a continuation of the politics that have been in play since Reagan. Think the problems of the current Congress in the White House. But, I can't fault him for misplaced optimism.

    I would be someone you would more accurately call "lunatic left". You need to work on your ability to differentiate between Blue Dog, "Third Way" or whatever label they are going by these days - which support many of the Republican policies - and those that are actually left of that position. Based on issues, "lunatic left" is a large chunk of the American population - which I suppose is a rather "inconvenient truth" (if I can use that turn of phrase) for you.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 6:03pm

  98. Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 5:53pm

    Amazing! Your describing most conservatives I know! Perhaps you want to give a hug because you need one? Don't worry, no one remembers little league. And you really do look like a success when you mindlessly parrot Republican talking points. And when you claim other people hate America or are unpatriotic, it covers up the fact that you hate the fact that you could have been something and weren't and that you never did anything more patriotic than eat a hot dog on Memorial Day.

    I'll take that hug since you so desperately need to give one - projecting as you do.

    You see - we can all play this little game. See how stupid it sounds?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 6:10pm

  99. Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 5:53pm

    Although I'm a liberal, I've got good friends who are conservative republicans. Regardless of the zeitgeist, political orientation is almost rigidly +/- 50% left and right. My point is I guess I don't understand the personal attacks (as if we really know one another). Do they make your opinions or arguments stronger. Do you feel tougher, or more justified? More of a MAN?

    I know republicans and democrats born from privelage, and likewise I know folks from both camps born from poverty and near poverty. I even took a class on political psychology and still don't get it. People seem to have their opinions on the way things should be.

    In spite of all that, Rove is a major fuckhead.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 6:11pm

  100. According to Franktits, I'm a " Homophobe " and according to Conshameful I'm "Gay". So according to liberals on this blog, i must be a " Homophobic Fag "! See how easily judgmentally tolerant liberals get confused. here you have 2 liberal losers reading the exact same posts of mine, and one sees a fag and the other sees a fag hater! Pure comedy! Please keep posting, because this is more fun than watching Obama put his foot in his mouth!!!!!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 6:11pm

  101. The Republican Party is falling apart. Bush is a failure. Rove is a coward. Conservatism was an empty lie.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 6:14pm

  102. Barry, I don't judge you for it. Some people look at another man's ass and see it one way, others see it another way. If you're gay, so what.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 6:17pm

  103. In recent years, I've come to see liberal blogs as a source of comedy and not much else. I see very few, if any, Americans that think like, or believe in the shit you loser liberals spew. You're definitely not the threat that i once thought you were, except maybe in the pedophile category ( stay away from other people's kids )! This is proven by the fact that the Dem's immediately moved to the right once they fooled you twerps into electing them. They didn't keep their promises on troop withdrawal or impeachment because America wouldn't stand for it! Why else would the dem's move to the right? Why is the lunatic fringe angry with Hillary? Either way, you twerps are just little flies that i periodically like to swat for my own personal amusement in between surfing, golfing, and taking a shit! I sleep better at night knowing that you traitors are a mere nuisance and nothing more! Have a great day!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 6:19pm

  104. Hey Barry25, I know that, for a gay man, you would be more loyal and steadfast than Karl Rove the cut and runner.

    Barry25, you may like dudes' asses - and that's cool, but at least you are (probably) not as much of a coward as Karl Rove - and that's something.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 6:26pm

  105. Rove leaves.....just before Fred Thompson about to make his announcment?

    Coincidence?...hmmm

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:12pm

    This makes the most sense to me, Thompson Malleable, has a young wife and looks good in a suit.

    Posted by zhongman at 08/13/2007 @ 6:28pm

  106. Part of the reason why Karl Rove had to be chased out of the White House, is because he was part of creating the hateful environment where GAY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN MEN LIKE BARRY25, can't come out.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 6:32pm

  107. A big debate among Republicans these days is who bears more blame for 2006--Messrs. Bush and Rove, or the behavior of the GOP Congress. Mr. Rove has no doubt. "The sense of entitlement was there" among Republicans, he says, "and people smelled it." Yet even with a unified Democratic Party and the war, he argues, it was "a really close election."

    Karl Rove is clearly to blame and the '06 election cycle exposed Karl as merely a trickster that simply ran out of tricks.

    His central election strategy was dividing people on terms favorable to Republicans in particular races based on polling data. Patriotism was being "with us and not with the terrorists", morality was re-defined as being "against gay marriage", and finally with the war on Iraq, he just ran out of time as public opinion shifted against the war.

    Lee Atwater did the same thing as Rove, "divide and elect", and it this sort of politics that bears much of the blame for the polarized political environment we see today.

    The good news is that the Democrats are not buying into this divisive political strategy, and some Democrats, Obama especially, are promoting a new type of "unite and elect" politics.

    It remains to be seen how effective this will be in electing Democrats, but it sure is a lot healthier to focus on that which unites us rather on 'politically calculated' divisive issues that were first hatched in the minds of Atwater and Rove to win elections.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2007 @ 6:32pm

  108. Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 6:19pm

    You seem like such a tough guy Barry. Why aren't you kicking ass in Iraq? Isn't the surf any good over there?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 6:34pm

  109. Mary, I respect you and your positions. Sorry if i offend you, but i tried to give these twerps an education in reality for far too long, so now i'm just here to have fun. Put me on ignore, it won't hurt my feelings, but i have absolutely ZERO respect for these insane liberals, so i might as well use them for my own amusement! You make many valid points in your posts and I hope they get through to some of these sheep. It's comforting knowing that there are people out there likle you. Take care.

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 6:35pm

  110. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/13/2007 @ 6:05pm

    What Skinhead recruiting videos are you watching? Can you point to a specific one and tell me how it is similar to F9/11? Or perhaps your rhetoric got away from you?

    We can all agree that Michael Moore is a bit of an ass and has a tendency to play a little fast and loose with the facts. But what do you say to films like No End in Sight? What about the Downing Street memos? What about the legions of facts out there that basically support the central premise of the film?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 6:35pm

  111. Hey BARRY25 - I understand you want to defend the coward Karl Rove, but just a second. Be "straight" with me for a second. You have sucked a cock in your life, correct? (and it's perfectly cool that you have)

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 6:35pm

  112. That's such a tired argument, FATTMAN!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 6:36pm

  113. To judge Rove, you need only look at his tactics. Pragmatist don't make good leaders in a Democracy because democratic values are based on principles of equality.

    Posted by zhongman at 08/13/2007 @ 6:37pm

  114. What was the most number of swallows you ever got, from a single man's load?

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 6:37pm

  115. I read the Downing Street memo! It added up to nothing, zero, nada!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 6:38pm

  116. 5? You're a champ.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 6:38pm

  117. But hey, when you nut's ever DO actually get proof that Bush lied, please bring it forward because I'll be right there calling for Bush to be not only impeached, but EXECUTED! That would be the only justifyable punishment for a lie with such a high cost! Problem is, you ain't got no evidence, NONE!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 6:41pm

  118. Today Aug. 9, 2007, we have enough evidence that the Republicans are going to use immigration as their Security issue and economic issue and cultural issue combined. Last week's murder in Newark is the springboard. Bush's last gasp before his vacation about beefing up border security is the throw down challenge and Karl Rove leaving is now the transition to 2008.

    Posted by lenhoffcpa at 08/13/2007 @ 6:41pm

  119. Today Aug. 9, 2007, we have enough evidence that the Republicans are going to use immigration as their Security issue and economic issue and cultural issue combined. Last week's murder in Newark is the springboard. Bush's last gasp before his vacation about beefing up border security is the throw down challenge and Karl Rove leaving is now the transition to 2008.

    Posted by lenhoffcpa at 08/13/2007 @ 6:42pm

  120. Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 6:35pm

    I can recall one post of yours that was actually cogent. The rest of the time it is pretty much name calling. How, pray tell, does making an ass out of yourself teach anyone a lesson or swat the flies or rile the sheep or whatever your current metaphor is?

    You see, making an ass out of yourself is only making an ass out of yourself. The only education you provide is in your bad example. Personally, I'd like to see a few more cogent posts from you - but if you are going to be an ass, go crazy. Your rants do nothing but give normal folks that might otherwise agree with you prima facie evidence that there is something wrong with your position. So, knock yourself out.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 6:45pm

  121. Posted by CONSHAME 08/13/2007 @ 6:37pm

    I hope you are embarrassed. If not, you should be.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 6:49pm

  122. That's such a tired argument, FATTMAN!

    Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 6:36pm

    Is that your excuse for an answer? Tell me, what do you belive in, beyond your hatred for liberals? Do you even know? Or did you just adopt what your parents believed while you grew up to believe in your own superiority over everyone else? Shot in the dark here, but I'm guessing you're a spoiled rich kid. I'm right aren't I?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 6:49pm

  123. Leaving a mess. Just like his pal George W.

    Posted by proudlib at 08/13/2007 @ 6:51pm

  124. Posted by MADLIB 08/13/2007 @ 6:52pm

    Yes it's the arrogant sense of entitlement you often see in government leadership positions.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 6:54pm

  125. Darn, I hoped I'd hear more Limbaughesque posts from my buddy Barry "Cartman" 25. Well screw you guys, I'm goin home!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 6:57pm

  126. To be fair. If Rove is responsible for all these "failures".

    Then it is also fair to credit him for repulican wins in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

    Look up your history to figure out the last time that happened.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/13/2007 @ 6:58pm

  127. Posted by BARLEY25 08/13/2007 @ 6:41pm

    how can you believe these people have anyone's interests but their own in their plans? you've become just another tony snow, lying with such conviction that you actually come to believe your own falsehoods.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 7:01pm

  128. Posted by MADLIB 08/13/2007 @ 6:48pm

    The sad part is that Barry is representative of a type. The name calling. The absurd questions - Why do you hate America? The absurd statements - Show me a better country! The surge is working!

    You can have video evidence - such as embedded reporter showing weapon stockpiles were left and were later taken - and they do this magic trick. Oh that's not evidence. It's a liberal MSM conspiracy!

    I know people I otherwise respect with these opinions. Even when you get them to say, "Yeah, that's messed up." They still come back with some qualification about how the Democrats are worse or how it isn't such a big deal.

    Even if Bush were videotaped on the White House lawn skeet shooting citizens, ala History of the World, it would be reduced to some combination of: Why do you hate Bush/America? The MSM is spinning it! Leiberman was with him and he is a Democrat! Or some excuse or another.

    It defies explanation. It's like a mass stupidity to acknowledge basic facts and instead engage in wishful thinking.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 7:03pm

  129. Posted by USAPRIDE 08/13/2007 @ 6:58pm

    actually 2000 was "won" for them by jim baker et al.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 7:04pm

  130. Born middle class, poor and fatherless by 15, mother made minimum wage. Felt entitled and blamed everyone else for my fucked up situation. Went to college and learned that only the gov't could solve my problems. Went into my own business once I grew up and realized that nobody but myself could solve MY problems. It was tough, and i had to work much harder, with much more risk, than my fellow state dependant liberal friends! Now i'm happily married, make a low to middle class wage, and realize that it's liberals who actually keep everyone down. I realized that liberals are the one's who allow rapists, pedophiles and murderers to walk our streets and terrorize the good people of this nation. I realized this from my own personal experiences in an ultra liberal state, not from watching O'rielly. I learned this from watching liberals attack Christians and taxpayers, yet turn around and defend dictators, pedophiles, rapists, drug-dealers and murderers! Not mush more needed to despise liberals. and remember, i was on their side between the ages of about 17 to 22, and then i joined the REAL world!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 7:04pm

  131. Don't forget back to back wins in Texas.

    The list is historically short when you look at what others have "not" accomplished.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/13/2007 @ 7:12pm

  132. That'd make me one of you, A LIBERAL! And that's one thing I'm not! It's been fun, but it's about that time, gonna check the surf, losers! Keep on hatin' while i'm surfin'!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/13/2007 @ 7:12pm

  133. Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 7:04pm

    and then i joined the REAL world and became very grumpy

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 7:13pm

  134. Posted by USAPRIDE 08/13/2007 @ 7:12pm

    but what have these all "wins" accomplished (for the other 5,999,999,997 people who inhabit this orb)?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2007 @ 7:15pm

  135. This is a really lengthy article by a reporter for Spiegel (German), accompanied by many photos, of his (very recent) 4th trip to Iraq. While the title is `balanced'.... the story itself is rather clear as to the success of the current `Surge'. Militarily, there is simply no question our troops are winning the actual battles of the Surge! Those leery of reportings by Michael Yon or Iraq The Model, should pay some attention to this Spiegel fellow at:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html

    (Disclosure: I had only read about half, so far!)

    August 10, 2007

    Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq

    By Ullrich Fichtner in Iraq

    When describing Iraq, the word "peace" is seldom used. Truth be told, the Americans have restored order to many parts of the county. But Iraq remains fractured, and where new schools are built today, bombs could explode tomorrow.....

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 7:38pm

  136. After all the guy escaped "Fitz-mas".

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 12:10pm

    THIS IS WHAT REALLY PUZZLES ME ABOUT ROVE'S RESIGNATION...

    Seems to me that Rove will now be much more exposed to the legal repercussions of his role as Bush's attack dog than he was while IN that role. Where's the old "executive privilege" now? Can he still invoke this (or have Bush invoke it for him) after he leaves in September? Very strange. I'd love to see a believable analysis of Rove's real motivation for leaving. (Then again, maybe he just got tired of being called "Turd Blossom.")

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/13/2007 @ 7:40pm

  137. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/13/2007 @ 7:25pm

    Do you think evangelicas will refuse to support him?

    In a word, yes.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 7:40pm

  138. Rove is the kind of guy you love to hate, unless he's on your side that is.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/13/2007 @ 7:53pm

  139. Posted by HAPPY 08/13/2007 @ 7:38pm

    "Body counts and names of the dead tell only part of the story of Iraq today. Research for this story took me on a three-week journey throughout the country, my fourth trip to Iraq in as many years. Under the protection of the US military, it led us to the northern city of Mosul and its suburbs, to Ramadi and to Baghdad. The military did not choose our destinations, SPIEGEL did. Apart from a few technical and strategic details, nothing was censored."

    So this guy has been to Iraq once a year and is given a tour of three cities and then writes a puff piece about how great things are going? Color me a little skeptical.

    Now, if I were you, I might quote a source like The Christian Science Monitor:

    "But according to an analysis by Pentagon officials, fatalities are down in July in all four of the most violent provinces of Iraq: Baghdad, Anbar, Salahaddin, and Diyala....The four provinces represent about 37 percent of the Iraqi population but nearly 80 percent of the violence that occurs in Iraq....The toll from improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, has also decreased considerably in the last two months...Iraqis are also seeing a decrease in violence. The number of Iraqi security forces and civilian fatalities has declined since May as well, according to icasualties.org, a website that tracks such information."

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0801/p01s01-woiq.html?page=2

    The interesting thing for me is even the Christian Science Monitor is cooking the books. They are using statistics from July 24. If you take the total U.S. service members who died for the month (90), the only months that are lower this year are January (83) and March (86). The average since 2004 has been 900-950 a year (<75).

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/2007/

    Take a look at 2006. Only 2 months were above that figure. Is it a coincidence they match up to "Surge" talk? Hmmm, probably not.

    It also talks about O'Hanlon as being a critic of the war. Yet he was a advocate. Hmmm. Something strange there?

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=9133

    But, let's go with a little realism shall we? Notice you didn't mention this article for both anecdotes and facts:

    "It was extraordinary how little control the US forces and the Iraqi army exercised over the very centre of the capital. There was black smoke rising from Haifa Street, a two-mile-long Sunni corridor just north of the Green Zone, which US forces had repeatedly invaded but failed to secure. When a helicopter belonging to the security company Blackwater was shot down or crash-landed in the al-Fadhil district in the centre of Baghdad, the survivors were executed by insurgents before US forces could get to them."

    "The Iraqi government has sought to conceal civilian casualty figures by banning journalists from the scenes of bombings, and banned hospitals and the Health Ministry from giving information. In July, AP reported, 2,024 Iraqis died violently, a 23 per cent rise on June, which was the last month for which the government gave a figure...This is almost certainly an underestimate."

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2841425.ece

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 8:25pm

  140. Posted by USAPRIDE 08/13/2007 @ 7:53pm

    I don't want Rove on my side. He's a scumbag. And yo uknow what, the problem with going the low road is there is always someone who is willing to go a little lower than you are prepared to do.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2007 @ 8:28pm

  141. Any Corporation that pays Rove for a speach should have their products boycotted.

    Posted by J. Tewes at 08/13/2007 @ 8:33pm

  142. ....and then writes a puff piece about how great things are going? Color me a little skeptical.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/13/2007 @ 8:25pm

    I've finished reading the full 8 pages and he did NOT sugarcoat the difficulties...all in all, a fairly balanced and believable piece of reporting! The writer rarely revealed his own view, very refreshing considering our own media, perhaps this is due to his country NOT being embroiled in Iraq!

    He did question if America can give up on Iraq and live with itself....for the massive deaths to come....if we withdraw before Iraq works out their own internal struggles. Not nearly as gung ho as Michael Yon but also not as combat-oriented as Yon.....guess he was a `protected' guest and not allowed to be a true combat correspondent, as Yon is!

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 8:46pm

  143. my favorite rove moment....

    when he said during the run up to the last election that the republicans would hold the congress because he had "The" math

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 8:51pm

  144. that must be the same math maasch uses

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 8:51pm

  145. and it's ironic that the chimp called rove turd blossom because in the end all that flowered for the republican party with rove leading the charge... was shit

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 8:53pm

  146. I'm with you there, J.Tewes, the power of boycotting is little used, so far, but with "branding power" being so influential these days, I predict increased usage of such "public opinion" strategizing in the near future.

    Let's start with Georgia-Pacific Corporation as exposed in a recent expose in Jacksonville Florida's alternative press "Folio Weekly."

    Liars, they are! Down with liars!

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/13/2007 @ 8:55pm

  147. "Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 3:16pm

    I find your comments rather odd. Whenever you get pinned down, you claim that Republicans are not "true conservatives". The rest of the time you are waving the Republican banner. Any explanation for this?

    Posted by SRJENKINS

    Full of shit? Talking out of both sides of his neck?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/13/2007 @ 4:01pm

    I believe Rove is a conservative and I have no trouble with him....

    Posted by john maasch at 08/13/2007 @ 9:13pm

  148. "Maybe Rove can get brain cancer like Atwater, lay on his death bed, anticipate his death, rue all of his sins (especially all the dirty, underhanded political tricks), fear for his "soul," and die with a cancerous, guilt ridden brain.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/13/2007 @ 4:00pm"

    I was thinking you could use a does of the same thing.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/13/2007 @ 9:16pm

  149. Frank,

    "Karl Rove had no business being anywhere near the White House. He is the most derivise, devisive figure ever to enter the political arena. "

    Many feel the same about Hillary....and thats just in the democratic party....

    Posted by john maasch at 08/13/2007 @ 9:20pm

  150. Rove's record ---5-1---Won two Presidential elections and three Congressional elections---lost last Congressional election. Not bad---no wonder the democrats hate him so--he has kicked their butts so often his foot got tired and he had to rest :)

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/13/2007 @ 9:24pm

  151. I believe Rove is a conservative and I have no trouble with him....

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 9:13pm

    that would make the chimp a conservative, a point you seem to scamper from maasch

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:25pm

  152. Frank,

    "Karl Rove had no business being anywhere near the White House. He is the most derivise, devisive figure ever to enter the political arena. "

    Thats how many people feel about Hillary...and that is just is the Democratic Party so far..

    Come on, man, open her zipper...peak outside once in a while!!!!!!!

    Posted by john maasch at 08/13/2007 @ 9:26pm

  153. Not bad---no wonder the democrats hate him so--he has kicked their butts so often his foot got tired and he had to rest :)

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/13/2007 @ 9:24pm

    Hate him? He killed the republican party for us.

    go karl... go karl... go karl... go karl...

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:26pm

  154. Posted by LILLIAN 08/13/2007 @ 5:54pm

    LILLIAN, what did I SAY that I agreed with LVLIB about (Hint--SRJENKINS did as well)?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 9:28pm

  155. Come on, man, open her zipper...peak outside once in a while!!!!!!!

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 9:26pm

    Hey check it out! maasch wants to lat with Hillary's zipper!

    What a perv!

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:28pm

  156. ha Ha ha ha hah ah ah aH H

    correction... play

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:28pm

  157. LILLIAN, what did I SAY that I agreed with LVLIB about (Hint--SRJENKINS did as well)?

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 9:28pm

    oh no Lillian, SRJenkins did too.

    (You're such a girl cumbuckets)

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:31pm

  158. He killed the republican party for us.

    To quote Mark Twain---"the report of my death was an exaggeration"

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/13/2007 @ 9:42pm

  159. mark twain is dead

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:43pm

  160. keep feeding em to me len, you're doing great

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:43pm

  161. Rove is a conservative and Bush is not.

    Rove has in fact has kicked more Dem ass that Hillary....

    Will he get a seat on a talk show? I would be he could drive up the ratings at CBS and save themselves from...their dead end liberl slope.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

  162. "mark twain is dead

    Posted by WILL C. 08/13/2007 @ 9:43pm '

    So are you.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/13/2007 @ 9:46pm

  163. So are you.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 9:46pm

    au contraire perverted mantited one

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:51pm

  164. mark twain is dead

    apparently he was not when he said that---so I guess he was right----and just as many like yourself are saying the republican party is dead you will find out that it is not---our history shows that we go through phases where one political party has power and then the other---the republicans have gone through a long stretch of political power and now the democrats will get their turn---they will invariably go too far (probably egged on by the far left on this board which is so well represented) and alienate middle America and then the republicans will return.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/13/2007 @ 9:52pm

  165. Rove is a conservative and Bush is not.

    Rove has in fact has kicked more Dem ass that Hillary....

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

    poor maasch, the chimp did everything rove told him to do. And, since the republicans will be the mewling opposition for some time to come, one could say that in the end...

    ol turdblossom was working for us

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:54pm

  166. Rove is a conservative and Bush is not.

    Rove has in fact has kicked more Dem ass that Hillary....

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

    poor maasch, the chimp did everything rove told him to do. And, since the republicans will be the mewling opposition for some time to come, one could say that in the end...

    ol turdblossom was working for us

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:55pm

  167. mark twain is dead

    apparently he was not when he said that-

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/13/2007 @ 9:52pm

    apparently he was when you did... like a certain political party we all know

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:57pm

  168. Rove is a conservative and Bush is not.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

    Hey, MAASCH, agree on Bush but, Rove may not be much more of a Conservative! One of them talked the other into the MediCare prescription program that will cost trillions. The single biggest expenditure legacy of GWB! My mother benefits from this program a little bit....though like most seniors, she could do without it as it were.

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 10:28pm

  169. Posted by WILL C. 08/13/2007 @ 9:31pm

    WILL, try one last time....then no more.

    Why is your "secret method" of determining my gender...a secret?

    Seems a neat trick, but curious as to why you must keep it to yourself, instead of letting others here know what it is, so that they too can confirm the gender of various posters (CONSHAME I think is female, but not certain; MARYBRETBRAD says he's male but uses his wife's name).

    So...curious as to why your "outside knowledge" (and how it is obtained) must remain your own personal "knack"?

    You don't have to tell me what it is, unless you're feeling particularly generous, but maybe you could divulge why you have to keep it a secret?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 10:30pm

  170. ah hamsterland, the chimps ran as conservatives. Were defended for six years by conservatives... and for six years governed like conservatives.

    and showed us all how conservatives treat their own after they fuck themselves.

    I'm so glad I was alive to see this

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 10:32pm

  171. You don't have to tell me what it is, unless you're feeling particularly generous, but maybe you could divulge why you have to keep it a secret?

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 10:30pm

    cumbuckets, it something you wouldn't understand.

    I gave my word

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 10:33pm

  172. David's follow-up to our comments????? I mean, we are pundits, right? From his blog:

    August 13, 2007

    Give This Brain a Rest

    In all the immediate punditry about Karl Rove's sudden resignation from the White House, I've heard commentators speculate over whether Rove will soon be advising one of the GOP's 2008 presidential contenders. This prospect seems absurd. George W. Bush is in the low to mid 20s in the polls. The next Republican presidential nominee will probably have a serious dilemma: how to distance himself from Bush. Sure, Rove still plays well with Republican primary voters. But when it's general election time, will the GOP candidate--whomever it is--want to be closely associated with the man known as "Bush's Brain"? As of now, Rove is more liability than asset. This is one brain a Republican contender can do without.

    SMALL CHANGE. I just noticed that after Mitt Romney won the not-so-important Republican straw poll in Ames, Iowa, this past weekend, he said, "Today, the people of this great state sent a message to America, and that is that change begins in Iowa."

    A question for the former Massachusetts governor: what "change" are you talking about? We've had a Republican president for two terms, and he has gotten the country stuck in an unpopular war in Iraq. You are a Republican and you support the war, so what "change" do you represent?

    Posted by David Corn at 03:40 PM

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 10:35pm

  173. hey happy can cut and paste. luvvy must be giving him lesions on the sly

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 10:38pm

  174. that's even funier then lessons

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 10:38pm

  175. CORN: A question for the former Massachusetts governor: what "change" are you talking about? We've had a Republican president for two terms, and he has gotten the country stuck in an unpopular war in Iraq. You are a Republican and you support the war, so what "change" do you represent?

    IF David's make-or-break criteria for "change" is a POTUS that does NOT support the war, he will be deeply disappointed! Me thinks that unless Iraq shows no progress, military or political, by Jan. 2009, whoever is POTUS will make no difference......War as Usual!

    Maybe David's being on vacation kept him from fully keeping up with the Dems' backpedaling "we may need to stay for years" talk! David, check with the NYT this past weekend!

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 10:42pm

  176. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, happy is channeling corn

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 10:43pm

  177. LILLIAN, what did I SAY that I agreed with LVLIB about (Hint--SRJENKINS did as well)?

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 9:28pm | ignore this person

    Well let's see Mask...LeaveLiberty said this...

    Rove will be the key Republican figure shaping the campaign of our next president who will be a Republican.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person

    Then you said you agreed...like this...

    BTW, LVLIB may be right on this one....

    notice the timing?

    Rove leaves.....just before Fred Thompson about to make his announcment?

    Coincidence?...hmmm

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person

    So apparently you agree with LeaveLiberty and think Rove will help Fred Thompson become president.

    SRJ on the other hand, was smart enough to make sure that everyone understood that the only part he agreed with was that Rove was just "positioning himself for the next campaign." (And that it was pretty much stating the obvious.)

    He's obviously right about Rove positioning himself for the next campaign.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/13/2007 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person

    It's why everyone respects SRJ...

    ...and not you.

    (hehe)

    Posted by Lillian at 08/13/2007 @ 10:57pm

  178. My whole take on this story was the fact that this was a larger Rovian plot for 2008. Mr. Corn does bring up an excellent point.

    Why should Karl get to walk away from the mess he created? www.freeworldradionetwork.net

    Posted by briwo at 08/13/2007 @ 11:20pm

  179. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Rove is merely following the example set across the eons by very smart little rats (and other rodents) when the ship is taking on water. Great little swimmers, those feisty rats. The moral imperative implicit in David Corn's column--that somehow Rove should hang around and "fix" the serial catastrophes he has wrought, most especially the war and the continuing tragedy in New Orleans--is compelling to anyone with a mind, a heart and a soul, but about as realistic as the Big Lie and all the smaller but no less corrosive lies he strung together like rhetorical beads to convince enough of us that he and the President were righteous!

    Now that most of us know how profoundly wrong they were, about almost everything, they still have the cast iron cujones to stand in front of us and congratulate each other on "serving our country" with "integrity and decency", and Bill Kristol can still go on "The Daily Show" (same day) and say with a straight face that things are improving in Iraq, General Patraeus is "non-partisan" (a crock) and the President has been "steadfast".

    As historians analyzed the Third Reich in the context of the outcome of WWII, they often claimed that the German people "got the government they deserved." When we endure another day of the polarized, paralyzed mess in Congress and elsewhere throughout the country; the parade of liars, charlatans and scoundrels that have flowed out of this administration like puss from a lanced boil; the Orwellian parallel universe they have created and continue to pound into us, to this day--can't the same observation be made of us? Of ocurse it can, and it should. Rove just applied the famous axiom we learned in high school history about Ceasar 2000+ years ago: Veni, Vidi, Vici. As he now drives slowly away, without a discernable scratch, from the train wreck he helped perpetrate around the world, he is very careful in his carelessness. He's the Architect.

    Posted by stonecutter at 08/14/2007 @ 12:41am

  180. August 13, 2007

    Electorate Shifts Towards Democrats

    In a new strategy memo, Stan Greenberg looks at four months of polling data and sees "big changes that have an enduring quality" that will shape the 2008 presidential race.

    Key takeaways:

    The "opinion elite" in the country -- those with a college education and earning more than $75,000 -- support a Democratic presidential candidate by an 11 point margin.

    Independents have defected from Republican candidates and now support a Democrat for president by 19 points.

    Young voters are breaking to Democrats with landslide margins.

    Married women -- a key swing vote -- are breaking marginally for the Democrats this year after swinging strongly for the Republicans in 2004.

    Unmarried women -- a key bloc of "base" voters for Democrats -- pick the Democratic candidate by two to one margin.

    http://tinyurl.com/32toxs

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2007 @ 01:06am

  181. Yeah, r0ve helped the hsuB/cHeney admin unite the nation to focus on what was essential beyond just winning an election, (which he can no longer do), to be good managers, stewarts at the helm and examples of leadership. All qualities which prevented 9/11 to occur per setting their focus on priorities correctly at the highest ideals, hsuB vacation time and tax cuts for the wealthy. So much has changed...

    Report: Disputes Impede Terrorism Probes

    August 13, 2007 11:51 PM EST |

    WASHINGTON -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ignored or dropped leads and at times entire cases involving terrorist activities because of disputes with the FBI, says a report by federal officials released Monday.

    In examining 10 cases that began at ICE and were taken over by the FBI, the inspectors general of the Homeland Security and the Justice departments found that seven suffered from lack of cooperation until they were taken over by the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which the FBI controls.

    The report cited delays and refusals by the FBI involving investigative actions that needed court approval, which led ICE agents to avoid leads and cases that would have required FBI involvement.

    "We were ... extremely troubled that ICE agents would say that their agents declined to undertake a case of potential national security significance for such petty reasons," the inspectors general wrote.

    http://tinyurl.com/2x8zpy

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2007 @ 01:07am

  182. BTW Len, JoMa,

    The nazis won a lot of battles until they didn't...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2007 @ 01:08am

  183. Hey Mask

    Why would America elect Fred Thompson to be pres? Why would they elect Nixon's mole?

    Posted by chasbough at 08/14/2007 @ 01:28am

  184. Very good article Mr. Corn. I think you focused it precisely where many people need to look at: the divorce between what these people say and do. If something characterizes this administration, is the superb degree of cynicism. The divorce between what "others do, or should do", and what WE do, the disregard of every ethical consideration in politics. Some of them out of hundreds.

    Cheney when asked why he did not enlist in the military in his opportunity: "I had more important things to do at that time." Bush when asked some two or three days ago about Gonzo: "I can't fire the man, he has not done anything wrong." But Rove's dramatic talent - which definitely he has - is matched only by Goebbels the Nazi Minister of Press and Propaganda. I think that a parallel between these two is not at all out of the realms of reality. He distorted veracity to the most and appealed to the worst of the human being to get his objectives: picturing wolves surrounding us if Dems takeover, calling Mr. Kerry a liar in the swiftboat episode, the nuclear holocaust if we did not get into Iraq, advising Bush to turn back (on the people) and not land in New Orleans, tagging Dems as "cut and run" people, etc, etc. And now, he needs to retire to have peaceful time with his family. Hey dude, a war is going on, Americans are getting killed because of the "ideas" you put on the table. But - as you very well say- it was two phrases that he invented that got Bush elected in the first place: "compassionate conservatism", and "accountability". About accountability, I must say I admire President Bush and I mean it. He has demonstrated to be willing to take all the responsibility of everything that happened in his term. Everything that was suggested to him by Cheney, Rove and Gonzo and he decided to so poorly. Will he be the only one to face history while Rove gets into retirement? ( I doubt that of course). And about "compassionate", just ask the people of New Orleans, or the dramatic persona of Cindy Sheehan that embodies the grief of all American moms that have lost a child in this surrealistic war. Is not he cutting and running by not taking Ms. Sheehan face to face?

    The career of Mr. Rove will continue, no doubt about it. He is just taking some fresh air (out of Washington) to organize a spy network on the current Dem candidates, and on devising a "marketing plan" either for Giuliani or somebody else.

    Someone here said: " I have no problems with Rove, he is a true conservative." I cannot but agree, if the actions, lies and cynicism of Rove define what a conservative is... well I realize what every conservative is.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/14/2007 @ 02:30am

  185. While I understand that most of the far left bloggers have no understanding of US politics, I have always assumed David Corn to be a little more knowledgeable.

    Corn merely echoes the ignorance of the left in understanding Roves decision. Rove will be the key Republican figure shaping the campaign of our next president who will be a Republican. The "political tea leaves" show this to be far more likely than any time during the past 6 months to a year.

    With the Dem candidates doing a melt down last week on leaving Iraq (see NY Times article on Dems saying they will leave troops in Iraq for years to come), the divisions between the MoveOn/Daily Kos left and the Congress, and the grudging acknowledgement by some Dems that the surge is working, there is much for Republicans to find encouragement.

    The fringe leftists here will mock my comments but that is only because of their ignorance of how American politics really works.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 1:53pm

    Rove said he is not interested in more politics.

    So, he must be a liar!!!

    Shocking.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 08:48am

  186. They are led purely by their combined emotional hatred of conservativism, Christianity, and their false dream for some form of socialist/anarchist new Amerika.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:16pm

    And here I thought the cons had some Libertarian/utopian dream for Iraq, fed by hatred of all things liberal. Hatred manifest inn constitutional amendments banning loving couples from living together in peace, "free speech zones", etc.

    stick with the prophetic flying horseys.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 08:52am

  187. Thank you Karl Rove for a job well done. Being despised by these leftists is a badge of honor. I look forward to your brilliant contributions to the 2008 campaign.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/13/2007 @ 2:49pm

    Job well done? Iraq? Afghanistan? New Orleans? Loss of republican majorities in both houses? Republican candidates running from Chimpies legacy?

    Delusional.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 08:55am

  188. Posted by LILLIAN 08/13/2007 @ 10:57pm

    Oh, I see....I'm sorry, you're right. Should have been clearer.

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 08:59am

  189. No one who is willing to sacrifice our constitutional rights in the name of political expediency can rightly be called a political conservative.

    No one willing to waste our brave troops and our national treasury in pursuit of global hegemony can rightly be called a political conservative.

    No one willing to give tax cuts in a time of self-declared endless war can rightly be called a political conservative.

    No one who seeks to impose his or her morality on their fellow citizens, or conflate religious doctrine with political policy can rightly be called a political conservative.

    And certainly, no one who advocates 100 years of Republican rule can rightly be called a political conservative.

    Those who does such things are subverting conservatism, and are borderline fascist.

    A small dose of true conservatism could be a welcome tonic.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/14/2007 @ 09:02am

  190. But hey, when you nut's ever DO actually get proof that Bush lied, please bring it forward because I'll be right there calling for Bush to be not only impeached, but EXECUTED! That would be the only justifyable punishment for a lie with such a high cost! Problem is, you ain't got no evidence, NONE!

    Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 6:41pm |

    Get out your rope Cute Shorts. (Do make you horny, still?)

    Burying your head up your ass does not make for good electorate.

    there are at least 2 books on Bush's lies. If you want to have mommy read them to you, I would recommend it.

    1: Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."- a Lie.

    2:"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

    "As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.

    3: "You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

    4: We were never stay the course"

    5: Chimpy claimed the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used in centrifuges. WRONG! They were for rockets. (and you buy this shit?)

    6: Chimpy said he had never been arrested. A Lie.

    7: "I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons." ?Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

    "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." ?Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

    7: "No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," Rice told on NBC's "Meet the Press." --Sunday, June 8, 2003, AP

    "Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary...told ABC's This Week that banned weapons were not in areas controlled by allied forces. 'We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that,' he said." --Guardian, March 31, 2003

    8:"President Bush proclaimed that a report by leading economists concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if his tax cut proposals were adopted. No such report exists." Gordan Livingston, 06.03.03

    "There was only one problem with President George W. Bush's claim Thursday that the nation's top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn't exist.Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by "Blue-Chip economists" that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president's tax cut proposal becomes law. That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. "I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month. "I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. 'It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case.'" 2.24.03 www.bushwatch.com

    8:President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

    Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

    All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post

    9:Bush Lied About Harken Stock Sale Knowledge

    Asked later if his [Harken] stock sale had been related to the company's impending setback, {Board member] Bush replied, "I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known."

    In fact, SEC records show that Harken's president had warned board members two months before Bush's sell-off that the company had liquidity problems that would "drastically affect" operations. --SF Chronicle, 07.05.02

    and that is a short list BARRY25. GOT ROPE?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 09:09am

  191. "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

    State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

    Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world

    Not True

    Zero Aerial Vehicles Found Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

    ----- "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

    State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

    Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda

    And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11

    Not True

    Zero Al Qaeda Connection

    To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed. (besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)

    -------

    "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

    Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

    Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.

    Not True

    Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

    IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003 -------

    "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

    Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

    Iraq's Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq

    Not True

    UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

    GOT ROPE?

    oohh, chimpy never lied. I'm a scared sheep. I can't see the truth because I have shat myself so bad my eyes are plugged with it.

    fucking idiot sheep.

    right Pontificus?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 09:15am

  192. How about that MAASCH? Are YOU willing yet to admit that Bush is a proven LIAR?

    Or is your head stuck too?

    LUVVY? Lying is a sin.Right?

    RIO? Sin?

    MBB? Sin?

    anybody else still believe Chimpy is not a LIAR?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 09:17am

  193. our troops are winning the actual battles of the Surge!

    you are clueless, Hap. in an insurgency and in a civil war there are no battle set pieces. there are no front lines in Iraq. there are no objectives that require a battle, no fortresses, no large concentrations of troops. the violence floods and ebbs.

    so do the lies about Iraq and the propaganda. the lines in Iraq have hardened. neighborhoods and areas have been ethnicall cleansed. two million are internally displaced in Iraq, in addition to the two million who have fled Iraq. one fifth of the population.

    american soldiers are still dying at a rapid pace and they are still dying for nothing. driving down the street, blown up. now that's tactics in Iraq. the driving duck strategy. we blow them up with air attacks. collateral damage? no we never target civilians. if they get in the way? they're just Iraqis.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 09:19am

  194. Rove's record ---5-1---Won two Presidential elections and three Congressional elections---lost last Congressional election. Not bad---no wonder the democrats hate him so--he has kicked their butts so often his foot got tired and he had to rest :)

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/13/2007 @ 9:24pm | ignore this person

    you are a child. life is not an athletic contest, where we are putting points on the scoreboard.look around, the state of the country?the world? are you winning?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 09:23am

  195. I wonder if Rove has done THE Math yet?

    Rove claimed that the polls "add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House."

    "You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math," Rove said. "I'm entitled to 'the' math."

    Buwahahaha

    cluck cluck.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 09:46am

  196. No question, Rove is cutting and running.

    how about all of the soldiers that would love to spend time with THEIR families? Too Bad! Extend their tours to 15 months, in direct violation of the contracts signed by the volunteers (which does not include HAPPY, BARRY, MBB or their kids) . Of course the Roves have an out, the contracts are wide open on the guvt side if they want to change them.

    How about if some Lt wants to go work on a campaign with Rove in Alabama? Is that good enough to get out now?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 09:53am

  197. What this proves is greed makes you into a dumbfuck:

    CBS News Poll. Aug. 8-12, 2007. N=1,214 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

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

    _________________Approve __Disapprove__Unsure

    ALL adults___________26________69________5

    __Republicans _______62________34________4

    __Democrats_________ 7________90________3

    __Independents______21________70________9

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2007 @ 09:54am

  198. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

    Rove is a conservative and Bush is not.

    Fascinating. Given that Karl Rove himself talks about how George Bush epitomizes his ideas of conservativism (see link below) how is it that you make this distinction?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR200506 2400097.html

    My sense is that "true conservatism" is a handy tactic to distance yourself from obviously wrong conservative policies while at the same time enabling you to claim the mantle of "conservatism".

    But let's be real shall we? Bush and Rove represent the same variety of conservatism. It would be one thing if you were talking about limited government, but this brand of conservatism is idealistic (spreading liberty), reformist (ownership society), and purports to support values (meaning limited application of Judeo-Christian values such as the "culture of life" to abortions that apparently don't apply to Iraqis or to the U.S. military). It's a relatively new beast that means paying for expensive ideals that require even bigger government (such as the Iraq war) and it is quite different than "true conservatism".

    So, declare yourself. Are you in favor of this brand of conservatism - a brand articulated in the speech I link to above by Karl Rove - or not?

    And this question is for all of you, not just Maash. Happy, Rio, LVL, Barry, you all in support of this vision? Or are you in favor of "true conservatism" such as something advocated by Burke? Or something else? Or does it even matter - perhaps it is enough to believe you are on the "winning" team irrespective of what they say they stand for or what their policies indicate that they actually stand for.

    I, for one, have deep reservations about a "culture of life" that puts more value on a fetus than on human life in general.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/14/2007 @ 10:00am

  199. If any of the Dems cared to educate the public they should be singing your comments loud and clear. Rove Should Stay and "not cut and run". Rumsfeld, Bremmer, Perle and the likes get to go off and reinvent themselves, writing books or getting fat speaking checks with no accountability for what they created. That's what makes america Great.

    Posted by Eliot at 08/14/2007 @ 10:07am

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

    A loaded question.

    Is Chimpy "handling" anything?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 10:12am

  201. Dose anybody remember the "accountability " jet Chimpy used in his first presidential campaign?

    George W. Bush Accountability Scorecard Accepted Responsibility?

    9/11 No

    Iraq No

    Enron No

    Federal budget deficit No

    John Ashcroft No

    Everyone on the planet hates us now No

    Abu Ghraib No

    Guantanamo Bay No

    Osama Bin Laden still at large No

    No WMDs No

    Halliburton No

    PATRIOT Act No

    Valerie Plame No

    "Mission Accomplished" No

    Lying to the American people No

    Donald Rumsfeld No

    Diebold No

    Energy Task Force No

    No-bid contracts No

    "Bring it on" No

    Armstrong Williams No

    Chickenhawking No

    "16 words" No

    Downing Street Memo No

    Swift Boat Smear No

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 10:20am

  202. DrHammer! You say you're looking for a genuine "conservative." Trusting that's not a Diogenes-like quest, I'd like your opinion of Ron Paul who's supported by the filmmaker Russo whose documentary about the Federal Reserve and the injustice of the federal income tax is well-presented in "Freedom to Fascism."

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/14/2007 @ 10:21am

  203. "Accountability One".

    that was the name of it. Whatever happened to that?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 10:23am

  204. Andrew Sullivan:

    Remember that? It was the name of Bush's campaign jet in 2000. Try not to laugh too hard. David Corn sees the wider lesson of Bush twisting the law to protect his friend and apparatchik:

    Libby had become a symbol of the Bush White House's problem with the truth. After all, his lies had been designed to block FBI agents and federal prosecutors from learning the full truth of a White House effort to discredit a critic who had accused the Bush administration of twisting the prewar intelligence. And now the final act in the long-running CIA leak scandal--Bush's commutation--stands as another symbol of this grand theme: lying doesn't really bother this crowd. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush claimed he would bring responsibility to the White House and, as a PR stunt, he dubbed his campaign jet Accountability One. Yet with this commutation, he takes the position that in his administration an aide who purposefully misleads government officials investigating a possible national security crime need not be held fully accountable.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 10:25am

  205. I think the joke is on us.

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 08/14/2007 @ 10:31am

  206. "David's follow-up to our comments????? I mean, we are pundits, right? From his blog:"

    Um, happy is still suffering from grandiose delusions?

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 08/14/2007 @ 10:33am

  207. Posted by LEWWELGE 08/14/2007 @ 10:21am

    Well, it may be splitting hairs, but my point was not so much that I was in search of a true conservative, but that throwing a little bit of conservatism into the mix could be a good thing. What we have witnessed through these last 2 terms has not been conservatism.

    Ron Paul has some ideas that resonate with me. Fortunately (or unfortunately), he's being marginalized to the point that I won't have to worry about reconciling the things I like about him with my (admittedly knee-jerk) desire to purge the government of all things R.

    I am both fascinated with and unsettled by Aaron Russo.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/14/2007 @ 10:46am

  208. Here's a little off topic indication that we may be getting some of our spirit back.

    Friday night I watched the first Saints game in New Orleans, since, I believe, the Hurricane. Quite by accident, I heard that before the game sometime a "Funeral" was held: New Orleans style, complete with a casket in the middle, song and a six piece band. The Funeral was for the past: "Move on" to the future was the theme. I thought that was great. Eeyore types like Nichols and KVH have spent the past 2 years using that disaster, in which the reliance on a failed gov response instead of self reliance & help at a more local level caused more headache than anything else, to blast everything from American values to The Rich to Iraq policy to race Relations.

    Now that there's been an accident in Minnesota, I see NIchols has wasted no time equating a fallen bridge somehow with income inequality. Just once I'd like to hear something positive come out of these naysayers. Even Pollitt can do that!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/14/2007 @ 10:54am

  209. Bush Sept 15, 2005:

    "We have also witnessed the kind of desperation no citizen of this great and generous nation should ever have to know -- fellow Americans calling out for food and water, vulnerable people left at the mercy of criminals who had no mercy and the bodies of the dead lying uncovered and untended in the street.

    Across the Gulf Coast, among people who have lost much and suffered much and given to the limit of their power, we are seeing that same spirit: a core of strength that survives all hurt, a faith in God no storm can take away and a powerful American determination to clear the ruins and build better than before.

    Tonight so many victims of the hurricane and the flood are far from home and friends and familiar things. You need to know that our whole nation cares about you, and in the journey ahead you are not alone. To all who carry a burden of loss, I extend the deepest sympathy of our country.

    To every person who has served and sacrificed in this emergency, I offer the gratitude of our country. And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know: There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.

    So chip, was Chimpy lying again, or just clueless?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:06am

  210. I think the joke is on us.

    Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 08/14/2007 @ 10:31am

    Could you explain that in detail?

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 11:09am

  211. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/14/2007 @ 10:54am

    15 Saudi nationals attack the center of American wealth, the WTC. In the aftermath, billions of dollars are made available for "compensation" to the wealthiest of the wealthy. Some families received millions of tax payer dollars, even though they were worth millions already.

    A hurricane hits a US city. Now it is up to personal responsibility to rebuild dikes, roads, hospitals, police departments, water treatment systems etc.

    cute.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:13am

  212. what are you ( and the rest of the lunatic left )going to do with yourselves when Bush is gone? Who are you going to hate? What will be the focus of your miserable lives? What will be the PURPOSE of your miserable lives? Will you even have a life if you have no one to hate

    Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

    At 5:01 p.m., Barry posted something about Bill Clinton.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2007 @ 11:20am

  213. Like I said CW, it was a failed Gov effort. And if you think I was in favor of paying off (and thats what the Gov did) all those families so they wouldn't go lawsuit-happy in New York, you're wrong.

    And as for "Chimpy" as you irreveverently call him, well, only 16 months to go.

    And it was 15 Saudi savages.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/14/2007 @ 11:20am

  214. November 8, 2004

    RAND STUDY SHOWS COMPENSATION FOR 9/11 TERROR ATTACKS TOPS $38 BILLION; BUSINESSES RECEIVE BIGGEST SHARE

    Victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks -- both individuals killed or seriously injured and individuals and businesses impacted by the strikes -- have received at least $38.1 billion in compensation, with insurance companies and the federal government providing more than 90 percent of the payments, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.

    New York businesses have received 62 percent of the total compensation, reflecting the broad-ranging economic impacts of the attack in and near the World Trade Center. Among individuals killed or seriously injured, emergency responders and their families have received more than civilians and their families who suffered similar economic losses. On average, first responders have received about $1.1 million more per person than civilians with similar economic loss.

    ...Dixon and co-author Rachel Kaganoff Stern interviewed and gathered evidence from many sources to estimate the amount of compensation paid out by insurance companies, government agencies and charities following the attacks. Their findings include:

    -Government payments total nearly $15.8 billion (42 percent of the total). This includes payments from local, state and federal governments, plus payments from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 that was established by the federal government to compensate those killed or physically injured in the attacks. The total does not include payments to clean up the World Trade Center site or rebuild public infrastructure in New York City.

    Because of concerns that liability claims would clog the courts and create further economic harm, the federal government limited the liability of airlines, airports and certain government bodies. The government established the Victim Compensation Fund to make payments to families for the deaths and injuries of victims. In addition, the government funded a major economic revitalization program for New York City.

    RAND researchers found that businesses hurt by the attacks have received most of the compensation that the study was able to quantify. The families of civilians killed and the civilians who were injured received the second-highest payments. The study found that:

    Businesses in New York City, particularly in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center, have received $23.3 billion in compensation for property damage, disrupted operations, and economic incentives. More than $4.9 billion went to revitalize the economy of Lower Manhattan.

    Civilians killed or seriously injured received a total of $8.7 billion, averaging about $3.1 million per recipient. Most of this came from the Victim Compensation Fund, but payments also came from insurance companies, employers and charities.

    About $3.5 billion was paid to displaced residents, workers who lost their jobs, or others who suffered emotional trauma or were exposed to environmental hazards.

    Emergency responders killed or injured received a total of $1.9 billion, with most of that coming from the government. Payments averaged about $1.1 million more per person than for civilians with similar economic losses, with most of the higher amount due to payments from charities.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:23am

  215. And it was 15 Saudi savages.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/14/2007 @ 11:20am |

    15 Saudi nationals. The same country that Bandar Bush parties with.

    Chimpy McFlightsuit was in favor of paying out compensation to rich traders, why is he agin' the same for poor people from NO? Why isn't he following up to make sure the money is spent properly? Why isn't he holding the heads of FEMA and other agencies "accountable" for the money they receive?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:26am

  216. Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2007 @ 11:20am

    hehe. Barry is sooo cute when his boxers get twisted up.

    did ya'll know that "librools" were against de-segregation? It is "well documented" in BARRYWORLD. The same world in which Chimpy never lies.

    Cluck cluck.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:28am

  217. George Herbert Walker Bush King Chicken

    And his boy, Lil King Chicken, led by a leash by a blossoming pile of crap.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:31am

  218. Sorry, Chip. Should I have reverence for a man that lied his way into the WH, lied his way into a failed war, checked "unwilling to serve overseas", abused his parents while drunk, hides behind religion, uses the word "some" when he cannot think of a single individual that says what he would like us to believe they said, has more convicted felons working for him than any other president, has more employees convicted than any other president...

    And on and on and on...

    Homey don't play that!

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:35am

  219. Like I said CW, it was a failed Gov effort. And if you think I was in favor of paying off (and thats what the Gov did) all those families so they wouldn't go lawsuit-happy in New York, you're wrong.

    But Chimpy was, and you support Chimpy with your whole heart and soul. Except you won't go fight for him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:37am

  220. At 5:01 p.m., Barry posted something about Bill Clinton.----Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2007 @ 11:20am

    ROFL....pretty good one, HMAN. But it's always better with side-by-side comparisons--

    "what are you ( and the rest of the lunatic left )going to do with yourselves when Bush is gone? Who are you going to hate? What will be the focus of your miserable lives? What will be the PURPOSE of your miserable lives? Will you even have a life if you have no one to hate"----Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

    Nearly seven years later and....

    "Slick Willy MISTAKENLY put his penis in the mouth of an intern...."----Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 5:01pm

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 11:42am

  221. Did I mention that Chimpy never accomplished anything without using the family name and connections?

    Reverence?

    Pshaw!

    Ridicule, contempt, disdain.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:46am

  222. What will I do when Chimpy leaves office?

    Count the guilty.

    Time to take off my shoes and pants.

    Still can't count that high. Chip, can I use some of your fingers and toes? Barry, I will need yours too. If you haven't boiled them off in the fry machine.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 11:48am

  223. Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 11:42am

    You are quite right. The effect is better when you read the posts.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2007 @ 11:53am

  224. ho are you going to hate? What will be the focus of your miserable lives? What will be the PURPOSE of your miserable lives? Will you even have a life if you have no one to hate"----Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

    Maybe Rove will come back around and tell us which groups to hate/fear next. Gays/lesbians have served their purpose, so far. Immigrants are doing their part now. As are Muslims and godless atheists. Can't bash the commies anymore, they support our debt load (except for Castro of course, gotta keep that embargo going!)

    who will be next?

    single moms again?

    young Black men, usually a good foil.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 12:02pm

  225. Read and artivle on Druge this morning where sales tax revenues in New Orleans have returned to about 2/3 pre Katrina levels..

    ...population returns to 2/3 pre Katrina levels, although Hispanic, I guess they came for the jobs, I don't know why the blacks never returned. The economic growth levels have returned to near pre Katrina levels..

    I don't believe the housing grants have returned as of yet to pre katrina levels, but then neither have the people to rebuild their own houses..also, apparently, many of those houses cost more to rebuild than they were worth or insured for may be a problem..

    One thing is for sure,...there is no money shortage, but there is a shortage of people needed to work.

    The article stated that they had a funeral procession in the dome at the game burying the past and moving forward that had a huge positive reception.

    I find this envigorating thatpeople ARE rebuilding and that some are flocking there for opportunity and not waiting for govt to come and fix everything...these people who show up deserve to succeed.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 12:12pm

  226. Crab,

    PMS day or something? My world doesn't looks so bad as your view...maybe you need a hobby..

    or a paradigm shift...you sound depressed..

    the country is doing fine and will continue to do so if you partake...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 12:14pm

  227. "Onr really has to wonder what kind of people Barry25, LUvvy, Rio, Maasch and others are. Reams of lies are presented to them and they either say, "So what", or they run and hide.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/14/2007 @ 12:14pm"

    Frank,

    The reason you can't "find" us and think we are "running and hiding" is that you have us on ignore.

    Idiot.

    And no, I don't think BUSH lied and I don't care houw hysterical you become..

    You Hillary worship is going to bite you in the ass.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 12:16pm

  228. "Onr really has to wonder what kind of people Barry25, LUvvy, Rio, Maasch and others are. Reams of lies are presented to them and they either say, "So what", or they run and hide.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/14/2007 @ 12:14pm "

    We are doers..we go out everyday and make something happen and choose not to have some politician promise do it for us...and claim.."we were lied to!!" You are a lazy or and idiot.

    You, EMPTY, WILL, and many others deserve each other.

    This is the same organization you want to turn over our health and 1/6 of our economy?

    What kind of people are YOU is the real question.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 12:19pm

  229. Off to work.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 12:20pm

  230. "And no, I don't think BUSH lied and I don't care houw hysterical you become.."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/14/2007 @ 12:16pm

    Have you actually read, even this thread, John?

    "...BUSH lied and I don't care houw hysterical you become." *

    *edited to make you sound rational.

    Maybe you don't care. Maybe you think the ends justified the means. Whatever. The fact remains, he lied. Numerous times. On issues that have had a major impact on this country.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/14/2007 @ 1:08pm

  231. I think the joke is on us.

    Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 08/14/2007 @ 10:31am

    Could you explain that in detail?

    Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 11:09am

    Guess the joke was on, just you.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/14/2007 @ 1:10pm

  232. "Do you think Hillary Clinton believed it when she voted for the war? What about Kerry, who said he believed it but voted against the war anyway? Are they stupid, or deluded, or what?"

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/14/2007 @ 10:51am

    No. You are stupid and deluded.

    They are corrupt corporate lackeys and liars. Just like the ones who've deluded you.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/14/2007 @ 1:12pm

  233. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/14/2007 @ 1:10pm

    Okay, Eric....what did CAPTKIRK mean?

    or don't YOU know?

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 1:26pm

  234. Of course I know. I'm just waiting for you to tell me! ;o)

    I was just being obnoxious to ya, Mask. I assume he meant the larger political picture vs. the petty social and partisan bickering, that quite frequently only adds to the greater chaos.

    Either that, or I have no clue what he meant.

    You quite often comment on innanities, in others posts, (like this one), I was merely trying to emmulate you. You should be flattered.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/14/2007 @ 1:45pm

  235. Sorry, CRABWALK, but "savages" stands. Beneath all society, no matter what its particular rituals, beliefs or motivations, lies a basic foundation of human behavior, where no excuses for violating that behavior are acceptable. Those savages were devoid of any of these codes of behavior. They are (or fortunately were) lower than Grand Canyon snake shit. Even the Japanese Kamikazes confined their attacks to enemy soldiers. The sooner all of the "people" like Mohammad Atta and friends are dead the better off the world will be.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/14/2007 @ 2:50pm

  236. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/14/2007 @ 1:45pm

    Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Eric....but....I don't really see it.

    As for KIRK, he may be referring to the supposed "defeat" of Karl Rove and that he's got some more plans out there. Dicey, but possible. Likely as not, he'll be a "deep cover" consultant...as no Repub will want to publicly associate with him, but will privately use Rove.

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 3:40pm

  237. Even the Japanese Kamikazes confined their attacks to enemy soldiers.

    but we did not, saturation bombing civilian cities. savages? yes, the US and Britain.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 3:43pm

  238. remember folks, you heard it here first. Romney is the repubs' best bet.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 3:47pm

  239. Hard to fight your point JR, I must admit, and doing it as a response rather than initiating it probably would hold no water with you. I submit that the next time I'm in New York or you Baltimore, we drink a beer for each fence we sit on opposite sides of. We would both need to be happily carried out, I think.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/14/2007 @ 4:02pm

  240. Well, it may be splitting hairs, but my point was not so much that I was in search of a true conservative, but that throwing a little bit of conservatism into the mix could be a good thing.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 08/14/2007 @ 10:46am

    I agree, both sides need each other to work for the common good. The problem is that the principled people on both sides have been marginalized by the zealous pursuit of political power. Although I think more so on the right. Principles get in the way of advancing their corporate agenda.

    Posted by zhongman at 08/14/2007 @ 4:10pm

  241. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/14/2007 @ 3:43pm

    Prof. ROLF's "edited" history always seems to include US and British bombing, and gives a pass to the Axis for their treatment of civilians.

    Must be a "German thing"!

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 4:19pm

  242. what are you ( and the rest of the lunatic left )going to do with yourselves when Bush is gone? Who are you going to hate? What will be the focus of your miserable lives? What will be the PURPOSE of your miserable lives? Will you even have a life if you have no one to hate

    Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

    At 5:01 p.m., Barry posted something about Bill Clinton.

    Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2007 @ 11:20am |

    That's so funny in that it is my experience too. Say anything about Bushed failures and out comes the Clinton is to blame for everything tyrade. The hypocracy is outlandish.

    Posted by zhongman at 08/14/2007 @ 4:22pm

  243. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/14/2007 @ 4:18pm

    one says "lies" the other gives excusses. Both spell incompetence.

    Posted by zhongman at 08/14/2007 @ 4:33pm

  244. Really, Mask, don't know if that very last was called for.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/14/2007 @ 4:34pm

  245. a reconstituted nuclear weapon could be where one dimantled an old weapon and built a newer one. I don't think reconstituted inplys it was exploded first.

    Posted by zhongman at 08/14/2007 @ 4:40pm

  246. Karl Rove gone? That's like saying that a cockroach that moved from behind the stove to behind the refrigerator is gone!

    Posted by jaygirl at 08/14/2007 @ 4:58pm

  247. There is no such thing as a reconstituted nuclear weapon. That statement make no sense at all and everybody who heard it knew what he meant. ... The point is no sane person thought Cheney was implying Iraq had reconsituted nuclear weapons.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    Really??? How can you be so sure given the huge numbers of people that believed Hussein was somehow responsible for 9/11?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:51pm

  248. I think many people refer to the "lies" of this administation in the misrepresentations in the call for war with Iraq. The administration believed that they would find all the things they were "lying" about and would be vindicated. I really didn't turn out that way. The selective use of partial truths is dishonist in intent in that it is meant to manipulate opinion, the end justify's the means. They essentialy "cooked the books" and the facts made liars out of them.

    Posted by zhongman at 08/14/2007 @ 5:55pm

  249. So Mary, if they are not paying attention, many could have assumed Cheney meant Iraq had nuclear weapons.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2007 @ 6:09pm

  250. And people were not paying attention to 9/11??????

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2007 @ 6:10pm

  251. Yeah, later. Good luck getting yourself out of that box you just put yourself in.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2007 @ 6:11pm

  252. Another pov on Rove's contribution to the body politic:

    The man's legacy is a conservative movement largely discredited and disunited, a president with lower consistent approval ratings than any in modern history, a generational shift to the Democrats, a resurgent al Qaeda, an endless catastrophe in Iraq, a long hard struggle in Afghanistan, a fiscal legacy that means bankrupting America within a decade, and the poisoning of American religion with politics and vice-versa. For this, he got two terms of power - which the GOP used mainly to enrich themselves, their clients and to expand government's reach and and drain on the productive sector. In the re-election, the president with a relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60. In a time of grave danger and war, Rove picked party over country. Such a choice was and remains despicable.

    Rove is one of the worst political strategists in recent times...

    link [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by NeilSagan at 08/14/2007 @ 10:03pm

  253. Posted by NEILSAGAN 08/14/2007 @ 10:03pm

    your link didn't work

    Posted by zhongman at 08/14/2007 @ 10:08pm

  254. if Rove was such a success, he would still have his job.same with Rummy and the rest of the rats who have left the sinking ship that is Bush.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 10:45pm

  255. this just in:

    When the Vice President assumes the Presidency, it's not through an election, it's because of a death. The amendment doesn't say someone can't serve for more than two terms, just that they can't be elected to more than two terms. A Hillary-Bill ticket is just the ticket.

    "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...."

    http://www.ustl.org/Current_Info/22nd-Amendment-text.html

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 11:04pm

  256. From David Corn's `good friend', Paul Mirengoff, at Powerline:

    Rove derangement syndrome, Part Two

    In what seems certain to be the dumbest statement of the week, David Corn of The Nation said on National Public Radio that, by leaving the White House, Karl Rove was "cutting and running" on Iraq.

    Posted by Paul at 7:54 PM

    Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 11:35pm

  257. From David Corn's `good friend', Paul Mirengoff, at Powerline:

    Rove derangement syndrome, Part Two

    In what seems certain to be the dumbest statement of the week, David Corn of The Nation said on National Public Radio that, by leaving the White House, Karl Rove was "cutting and running" on Iraq.

    Posted by Paul at 7:54 PM

    Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 11:37pm

  258. "Certainly, a White House aide who has engaged in the sort of political and policy chicanery that Rove has perpetuated ought to lose the right to collect a paycheck from U.S. taxpayers. Take your pick: the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. attorney scandal, the Valerie Plame leak, inaction on global warming, injecting politics into federal agencies to a new degree, suppressing government science, the stem cell veto, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicizing the war on terror."

    Can I pick an item not on the list? Stealing elections, tainting elections, and intimidating minority voters. (This is part of the US Attorney scandal, too, but since the Long National Nightmare began with a stolen election, it' s important to remember it.)

    "(Rove was part of the White House Iraq Group that devised the prewar messaging.)"

    I did not know this. This is becoming like "Sympathy for the Devil" -- Rove seems to have been present at all the key moments of evil.

    "A fitting sentence would be for Rove to stay to the bitter end...."

    Yes. The NY Times said that Josh Bolten told senior staff, in effect, "Stay past Labor Day and you've gotta stay til the end." What does that mean? That if you go quietly now, we'll give you a farewell party, but if you stick around we're gonna start throwing people under the bus to save our skins? And does that mean that Bolten had this power all along and didn't use it?

    Oh, well, he's leaving. I'd like to see verifiable photos on Aug 31, though, to be sure it's really happening.

    Posted by RLawrence at 08/15/2007 @ 01:21am

  259. Posted by RLAWRENCE 08/15/2007 @ 01:21am

    Another propellar(a red one) spinning fast enough for levitation of the host.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/15/2007 @ 01:29am

  260. Karl Rove's legacy will not be what he wanted it to be.

    The political guru who made President Bush what he is today had hoped to leave behind a permanent Republican ruling majority. Instead, his tenure will stand as an example of how divisiveness and partisanship are not conducive to successful governance.

    After years of being lauded as a political genius, Rove nevertheless leaves his party in worse shape than he found it, with his boss profoundly discredited in the eyes of the American people.

    When historians look back at Bush's squandered opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after 9/11, part of the blame will go to Vice President Cheney and the decision to invade Iraq. But part will accrue to Rove for choosing to use national security as a wedge issue. - Froomkin, Wapo 8/13

    Posted by NeilSagan at 08/15/2007 @ 01:52am

  261. What seems certain to be the second dumbest statement of the week:

    "In 2006, victory was not possible, so Rove and company did not achieve it."

    - Paul Mirengoff

    Posted by NeilSagan at 08/15/2007 @ 02:13am

  262. And no, I don't think BUSH lied a-MAASCh

    It isn't a "think".

    It just is. I now you can read.

    MBB, you can make excuses all you want. They are lies. Just because Chimpy does not check his sources does not make it the truth. Many, many sources disagreed with Chimpy, he chose to ignore ALL of them in favor of fear mongering lies.

    You are an apologist, plain and simple.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 08:34am

  263. 2:"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times.

    Not a lie. Bush quoted a source that should have been reliable. It turns out it wasn't. That doesn't make Bush a liar. He didn't know the statement was untrue and it was not unreasonable to beleive it was true.

    Yes, it was an unreasonable accusation. It was a lie.

    Your room for error is larger than Texas. Chimpy is the GD president, he should fact check before he goes spouting. He is not a blogger!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 08:36am

  264. he should fact check before he goes spouting. He is not a blogger!!!

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/15/2007 @ 08:36am | ignore this person

    wouldn't hurt some of the bloggers here either.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 08:39am

  265. MAASCH, MBB and any other person that thinks George W. Bush is the first politician EVER to not lie, please just use "the google". Type in "bush lies", see how many hits you get. Go through them. Read the books on "Bush lies".

    70% of Americans believed falsehoods, Iraq had wmd's and was involved in 9/11. That did not happen by accident, and Rove was at the heart of it. It was not a case of "being mistaken". ALL of the evidence was there before the invasion, I knew Iraq had no wmd's, I knew they had nothing to do with 9/11.

    If I knew it, the GD president should have known it too. And ALL of you should have known it, but you believed Chimpy McFlightsuit over everyone that was talking sense.

    that is Karl Roves legacy, making sheep believe in "their reality", not reality itself. Millions of Iraqis are paying the price, as well as your kids and grandkids.

    Take your head out of the sand, you been took!!

    Just look at Maasch and his attempts to remove Chimpy from conservative status! hehe.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 08:47am

  266. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/15/2007 @ 08:39am |

    Agreed, from one who spouts often.

    Part of this operation is to float opinions, and have them shot down when proven wrong or obtuse. But, when the apologist have their head firmly lodged up the Rovian Sphincter.....

    come on guys, chimpy the first honest pol? I think not.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 08:49am

  267. David Corn, again. article | posted September 25, 2003 (October 13, 2003 issue) The Other Lies of George Bush

    He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed (and the IAEA had actually reported then that there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade material). Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff. And after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons labs. Other experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with this finding.

    But Bush's truth-defying crusade for war did not mark a shift for him. Throughout his campaign for the presidency and his years in the White House, Bush has mugged the truth in many other areas to advance his agenda. Lying has been one of the essential tools of his presidency. To call the forty-third President of the United States a prevaricator is not an exercise of opinion, not an inflammatory talk-radio device. Rather, it is backed up by an all-too-extensive record of self-serving falsifications. While politicians are often derided as liars, this charge should be particularly stinging for Bush. During the campaign of 2000, he pitched himself as a candidate who could "restore" honor and integrity to an Oval Office stained by the misdeeds and falsehoods of his predecessor. To brand Bush a liar is to negate what he and his supporters declared was his most basic and most important qualification for the job.

    ne of Bush's biggest tax-cut whoppers came when he stated, during the presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." That estimate was wildly at odds with analyses of where the money would really go. A report by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal outfit that specializes in distribution analysis, figured that 42.6 percent of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News and NBC News all reported that Bush's package produced the results CTJ calculated.

    To deal with the criticism that his plan was a boon for millionaires, Bush devised an imaginary friend--a mythical single waitress who was supporting two children on an income of $22,000, and he talked about her often. He said he wanted to remove the tax-code barriers that kept this waitress from reaching the middle class, and he insisted that if his tax cuts were passed, "she will pay no income taxes at all." But when Time asked the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche to analyze precisely how Bush's waitress-mom would be affected by his tax package, the firm reported that she would not see any benefit because she already had no income-tax liability.

    ...Bush's arsenic move appeared to have been based upon a political calculation--even though Bush, as a candidate, had said he would not decide key policy matters on the basis of politics. But in his book The Right Man, David Frum, a former Bush economic speechwriter, reported that Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, had "pressed for reversal" of the arsenic standard in an attempt to win votes in New Mexico, one of a few states that have high naturally occurring levels of arsenic and that would face higher costs in meeting the new standard.

    Several months after the EPA suspended the standard, a new NAS study concluded that the 10-ppb standard was indeed scientifically justified and possibly not tight enough. After that, the Administration decided that the original 10 ppb was exactly the right level for a workable rule, even though the latest in "best available science" now suggested that the 10-ppb level might not adequately safeguard water drinkers.

    ...September 11

    As many Americans and others yearned to make sense of the evil attacks of September 11, Bush elected to share with the public a deceptively simplistic explanation of this catastrophe. Repeatedly, he said that the United States had been struck because of its love of freedom. "America was targeted for attack," he maintained, "because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." This was shallow analysis, a comic-book interpretation of the event that covered up complexities and denied Americans information crucial for developing a full understanding of the attacks. In the view Bush furnished, Osama bin Laden was a would-be conqueror of the world, a man motivated solely by irrational evil, who killed for the purpose of destroying freedom.

    But as the State Department's own terrorism experts--as well as nongovernment experts--noted, bin Laden was motivated by a specific geostrategic and theological aim: to chase the United States out of the Middle East in order to ease the way for a fundamentalist takeover of the region. Peter Bergen, a former CNN producer and the first journalist to arrange a television interview with bin Laden, observes in his book Holy War, Inc., "What [bin Laden] condemns the United States for is simple: its policies in the Middle East." Rather than acknowledge the realities of bin Laden's war on America, Bush attempted to create and perpetuate a war-on-freedom myth.

    In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush was disingenuous on other fronts. Days after the attack, he asserted, "No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft--fly US aircraft--into buildings full of innocent people." His aides echoed this sentiment for months. They were wrong. Such a scenario had been imagined and feared by terrorism experts. And plots of this sort had previously been uncovered and thwarted by security services in other nations--in operations known to US officials. According to the 9/11 inquiry conducted by the House and Senate intelligence committees, the US intelligence establishment had received numerous reports that bin Laden and other terrorists were interested in mounting 9/11-like strikes against the United States.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 08:57am

  268. I think MBB is shaped like a fat cow, he plays with little boys for sexual gratification, he ingests pig knuckles by the quart, he smells of asphalt and old coyote urine.

    I don't know if this is not true, so they are not lies?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 09:03am

  269. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/14/2007 @ 2:50pm

    Those savages were devoid of any of these codes of behavior.

    Presumably, this standard applies to the U.S.? Or does the blessed nation get a free pass?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 09:17am

  270. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/14/2007 @ 5:16pm

    Cheney misspoke? Sure, we all do that. The frequency is the problem here.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 09:20am

  271. Or does the blessed nation get a free pass?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 09:17am | ignore this person

    always. it's known as american exceptionalism, the world over. that's what endears us to them so.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 10:11am

  272. Bush never lied?

    I guess the joke is only on a few specific knuckleheads!

    LOLOLOLOLOL

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 08/15/2007 @ 10:35am

  273. "I think MBB is shaped like a fat cow, he plays with little boys for sexual gratification, he ingests pig knuckles by the quart, he smells of asphalt and old coyote urine.

    I don't know if this is not true, so they are not lies?

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/15/2007 @ 09:03am

    I don't know if this is true, but if he is from Minnesota, then he probably smells a little like lutafisk(sp) Cod soaked in lye.

    This should be true but if not, is it a lie?

    You lefys are so hysterical and emotionaly involved that Bush and Cheney are Satan on earth only out for US destruction...that you are blinded to simple acts and see only conspiracy for money...

    All polticians lie, Clinton took it to an art form..on the same day 2 different audiences gave speeches in 180% directions.....and the media loved it...

    You need to settle down..just because one is not on the socialist left doesn't mean they are hate mongers...you need a chill pill.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/15/2007 @ 11:39am

  274. At 5:01 p.m., Barry posted something about Bill Clinton.----Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2007 @ 11:20am

    ROFL....pretty good one, HMAN. But it's always better with side-by-side comparisons--

    "what are you ( and the rest of the lunatic left )going to do with yourselves when Bush is gone? Who are you going to hate? What will be the focus of your miserable lives? What will be the PURPOSE of your miserable lives? Will you even have a life if you have no one to hate"----Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

    Nearly seven years later and....

    "Slick Willy MISTAKENLY put his penis in the mouth of an intern...."----Posted by BARRY25 08/13/2007 @ 5:01pm

    Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 11:42am

    All polticians lie, Clinton took it to an art form-Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/15/2007 @ 11:39am

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 11:51am

  275. You need to settle down..just because one is not on the socialist left doesn't mean they are hate mongers...you need a chill pill.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/15/2007 @ 11:39am

    another theory based on assumptive theories.

    And no, I don't think BUSH lied-JM

    All polticians lie,-JM

    Logic 101 here, Mr. "take en economics 101 course."

    I will continue to post Chimpies multitude of lies, obfuscations, misrepresentations of facts and bizzare statements as long as you apologists come around and say "Bush didn't lie".

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 11:57am

  276. MBB

    You want quotes?

    fine, though I bet you will find wiggle room somewhere.

    November 3, 2000: "Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He said, 'After 1968? No.'" This was a direct lie, as he was arrested for drunk driving in 1976.

    November 21, 1999: On 'Meet The Press', Tim Russert asks Bush about information about his past coming out; Bush replies, "If someone was willing to go public with information that was damaging, you'd have heard about it by now. You've had heard about it now." This was a direct lie, as his DUI arrest had not been reported publicly.

    December, 1966: Bush, after having "a few beers," stole a Christmas wreath from a hotel in New Haven Connecticut. Arrested for disorderly conduct.

    1967: Bush is arrested for disorderly conduct when he storms onto the Princeton University football field, climbs onto the field goal crossbar, and tries to break off a piece as a souvenir.

    November 8, 1967: Bush defends the use of a red-hot coat hanger to brand pledges in The New York Times, claiming it is defensible because the resulting wound is equivalent to "only a cigarette burn." Before branding pledges, Bush would show them a full-sized branding iron to frighten them. His fraternity is fined $1000.

    More cute history on Chimpy:

    Late 1960's: Bush admonishes a Yale schoolmate for admitting plan to avoid serving in Vietnam; calls him "irresponsible."

    December 1972: Did community service for Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled youths; this is completely out of character for Bush at the time. Reports suggest that he was arrested for drunk driving or cocaine use in Houston, and the community service was quietly arranged.

    April, 1986: Bush confronts Wall Street Journal editor Al Hunt in a Mexican diner in Dallas, in front of Hunt's wife and his four-year-old son, saying, "You fucking son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this." Bush was apparently both drunk and upset that Hunt had predicted that Jack Kemp would be the Republican Party nominee instead of his father.

    never heard about this? True?March 31, 1995: George and Laura Bush are given new driver's license numbers; Bush's is #000000005. Bush was born on July 6, 1946, and his license was not near expiration. The reason given for the change was "security," but there is no precedent for Texas governors doing this. The change destroyed the records of his previous license, which would have detailed any arrests.

    July 20, 1999: Bush named as defendant in case against funeral home operator SCI. After failing to appear for a deposition on July 1, Bush signs affidavit swearing he had no knowledge of a case involving SCI, which donated $45,000 to Bush, in order to avoid involvement in the case. He swore that he had had no conversations with its officials, but later (Aug. 99) admitted to a conversation with an SCI official, claiming that nothing substantive was discussed--a non-issue, as he did not swear to not having "substantive" conversations, but ANY conversations at all. Texas Funeral Service Commission chief testifies that he spoke with Bush on the matter, which Bush also swore in the affidavit that he did not do. Bush's chief of staff also testified that he spoke with Bush on the matter. Bush is shown to have lied under oath, a transgression that Republicans felt was worthy of impeachment.

    April 27, 2001: Jenna Bush arrested for possession of alcohol as a minor.

    May 31, 2001: Jenna and Barbara Bush arrested trying to purchase alcohol as minors. This is Jenna's 3rd arrest, but she avoids the three-strikes law her father signed 4 years earlier.

    Great guy, this Leader of the Free World. Stand up dude.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 12:07pm

  277. .you need a chill pill.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/15/2007 @ 11:39am

    DEA says I am unworthy of deciding what I need. That is left up to politicians.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 12:12pm

  278. Posted by CRABWALK 08/15/2007 @ 11:51am

    MAASCH is right, all politicians do lie. And I don't think he's been in the BARRY camp of saying "What will you guys whine about after Bush is gone"...if he has, he's a hypocrite too.

    But he's right, they all lie. For instance....John Conyers USED to say he supported impeachment, now doesn't. Same for Russ Feingold. (those examples are sometimes overlooked here, too!)

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 1:09pm

  279. Regarding the discussions back on P7, you guys don't consider response in kind differently then initiation of an act? I do. Can't think of a time where we ever initiated a Rotterdam, or Warsaw, or Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. Once having it done to us, however, I see nothing wrong with applying the same overwhelming, devastating force against our attackers. There IS a difference. Maybe its why it only happens to us every 50 years or so. Regarding "savagery, I guess I draw the line at using torture as a means to engage in conflict. Thats one of the reasons I can't wait till Bush is gone: Because we have always, OVERALL, tried to act with more restraint than our enemies, and Bush by his "Torture Act" has now made us no better than anyone else

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/15/2007 @ 1:43pm

  280. Bush by his "Torture Act" has now made us no better than anyone else

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/15/2007 @ 1:43pm

    Split of the Right on Aisle 14! Sorry, based on what has been describes/published as to `our' torture and `their' torture, I will take `our' version, in fact, I HAVE!

    Have I had panic attacks while learning to swim and just knew I was going to drown? You bet!

    Have I had people play `games' with my mind? Check!

    Have I stuffed myself eating or drinking where I felt (well, you know)......

    Have I shocked myself with electricity? So many times that I've used up my 9-lives reserved for electrical `happenings'!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 2:01pm

  281. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person

    what nonsense. and callous nonsense to boot.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 2:04pm

  282. Chip, Pearl Harbor was not an attack on a civilian population, and the casualties there are dwarfed by the attack on Tokyo for instance, the casualties being 3000 vs over 100 000.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 2:09pm

  283. There IS a difference.

    american exceptionalism.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 2:10pm

  284. Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 1:09pm

    You could have found better examples than those.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/15/2007 @ 2:19pm

  285. Happy -

    Wow! Who knew that waterboarding was just like open swim for beginners. Question - When you were learning the doggie paddle, were you locked in a cell, incommunicado?

    And when you stuffed your belly, did you have a toilet nearby or were you shackled naked and forced to shit on yourself? Besides, the stuffing I am aware of concerns suppositories up your ass. When did you have that done? Please tell us how much you enjoyed it.

    And don't forget to tell us about the naked pyramids you made during those crazy college years!!!

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/15/2007 @ 2:31pm

  286. The point is no sane person thought Cheney was implying Iraq had reconsituted nuclear weapons. He mispoke and meant to say program. And the very next time he was on MTP, Russert gave him the opportunity to clarify and he did.

    And the people who play gotcha, and say, "Technically, Cheney claimed Saddam had nukes" are the liars, not Bush.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/14/2007 @ 5:16pm

    Kind of like Kerry botching a joke. Except you fucks beat him over the head and shoulders with it for months.

    Hypocrites. Nothing but fucking hypocrites.

    "And the people who play gotcha, and say, "Technically, Kerry called soldiers stupid" are the liars, not Kerry.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/15/2007 @ 2:44pm

  287. It was even proven from his speech notes that he misspoke, and you pukes NEVER let it drop.

    So screw cheney, when you are threatening another country, YOU BETTER DAMNED WELL NOT MISPEAK, eh?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/15/2007 @ 2:52pm

  288. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/15/2007 @ 1:43pm

    Care to share what Iraq did to us? Here's the clue, we never were better than anyone else. It's high time we realized it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 3:10pm

  289. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 2:01pm

    So, when are you going to sign up for the tour and the two week vacation in one of the CIA's exclusive secret prisons? There is no better way to get a true taste of the relevant differences.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 3:13pm

  290. Surely he's moving out of the spotlight to better work his dirty tricks from the back room.

    Posted by mkraker at 08/15/2007 @ 3:17pm

  291. "Hypocrites. Nothing but fucking hypocrites."

    Now really - how do you feel? (HA!)

    Of course you are right and not overstated.

    Posted by CaptainKirk at 08/15/2007 @ 3:20pm

  292. Posted by HMAN23 08/15/2007 @ 2:19pm

    Pretty good, I think...for the folks around here like HSUB who (in a sense) are just as slavish in their devotion to Conyers and Feingold, as the neo-cons are to Bush...when both have been lied to by their leaders.

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 3:58pm

  293. BTW, HAPPY....

    are you nuts? Waterboarding and electric shock just "fraternity pranks" to you?

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 3:59pm

  294. HMAN, SRJ, MASK,

    Do you all really want me to dig out what `their' tortures are versus `our' fraternity pranks!

    This `debate' is rather similar to 1) the WWII bombings & 2) the CIA/Terror organization comparisons.....

    Does the fact there are Gitmo detainees that DON'T want to return to their `home' countries mean anything? Probably NOT to the hard-core Chomsky types but fortunately, to most flesh-and-blood folks, reality trumps! Libs will not win these arguments anytime soon........BTW, I pray you folks will make torture & spying huge campaign issues next fall!

    John McCain, as a stand-in for you, has gained or lost support on the torture issue? Are any of you prepared to back him on this one issue above all others, a la Cindy Sheehan's core supporters????

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 4:22pm

  295. Happy- when Rush made your point first that "some of these guys would rather stay here," I nearly drove off the road in a fit of laughter. The only reason why many of these men are more afraid of their "home" countries is because they fled said country in the first place. Syria, (one of the countries where we send men for extra nasty interrogation) doesn't look too kindly on men who flee for new lives in the unholy West. It's not like they're sending them back to their families in Brooklyn. I'm sure you didn't look at it that way because your talking points were written by a pill poppin' moron. "Gitmo" please.

    Posted by phillymark at 08/15/2007 @ 5:06pm

  296. But he's right, they all lie. For instance....John Conyers USED to say he supported impeachment, now doesn't. Same for Russ Feingold. (those examples are sometimes overlooked here, too!)

    Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 1:09pm

    The most you can say is that Conyers has conditions for why he'd move on impeachment or not, the conditions he's stated that he'd move on it haven't been met. Do you know what those conditions are? I've posted them before. Frita saves all my posts, wonder why she doesn't save the one's she doesn't like... OOh yeah, her theories don't go along with that liberal conspiracy called reality.. Then Frita would have obstacles in the way of creating all those straw dildos she loves so much, duh.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 5:25pm

  297. Oh yeah, and Frita, I remember you already admitted that Feingold never said that he was taking back what he said before-- that censure is the first step to impeachment, so what is he lying about? Wasn't he for censure last year and now again for it? Still wants to do that first step first. Not the second step first... So your point again?

    Yet I'm all for everyone putting pressure on dems and repubs to impeach hsuB/cHeney/Frito. Frito is first.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 5:40pm

  298. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 4:22pm

    See Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Section 1004(a).

    ...agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful.

    In a world where torture is defined as organ failure, this legislation has no meaning. It also gives previous tortures a free pass.

    What exactly do you imply about returning to "home" countries? Let me ask you this, were these people taken from their "home" countries? Does the U.S. have say in how these people are treating in their "home" countries - because perhaps someone will see that they recieve "special" treatment? And that's even giving you that people don't want to return to their home countries. I hear lots of conservatives parrot that point, I've yet to see any evidence for it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 5:58pm

  299. Happy listens to Limbaugh. That's where he got his fraternity pranks line from. Happy listens to Limbaugh and gives him credibility. That's the problem here.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/15/2007 @ 5:07pm

    Ah, if you know how to read, you'll find the "fraternity pranks" line came from your buddy MASK @ 3:59 pm....

    Funny, every regular here knows that you tune in to Rush everyday for full 3 hours of `monitoring' the enemy!

    Me, if I average 15 minutes per day, I'd be surprised. I only tune him in when I'm in my vehicle....when he comes on at 11 CDT, I already know all the news items he might cover. I `work' from home and lunch or errands don't take me far!

    Ironic, ain't it! You provide more of a ratings boost to him than I.......hehehehe!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 6:01pm

  300. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 4:22pm

    BTW, I pray you folks will make torture & spying huge campaign issues next fall!

    One would hope it would be important to everybody. But hey, maybe you're right. Maybe we just need to expand the program Happy. Let's use Houston, around your neighborhood, as a starting point. Sound like a good idea to you?

    Little 1984 in the home monitoring coupled with a little Room 101. I hear you really cannot feel your compassionate conservatism until all that love flows freely like blood over pliers and a blowtorch.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 6:05pm

  301. The only reason why many of these men are more afraid of their "home" countries is because they fled said country in the first place.....

    Posted by PHILLYMARK 08/15/2007 @ 5:06pm

    You want me to believe "many of these men", say Yemenis, Syrians, Moroccans, Saudis, etc...."fled" their countries and just by chance ended up in Afghanistan or Iraq in order to live peaceful lives of poppy-growing or Koran-studying and whereupon, our soldiers (or CIA) just swept them up in a dragnet to fulfill some `hunting' quotas?

    Seems to me, it takes some serious money and motivation to flee so far from `home'! Don't we wish our neighbors down in Mexico, will flee their troubles by heading to Iraq for job opportunities with big fat paychecks! LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 6:15pm

  302. Let's use Houston, around your neighborhood, as a starting point. Sound like a good idea to you?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 6:05pm

    This torture issue isn't a pleasant topic for anyone, except for Libs that publicly and raucously politicize it (don't mean you in a blog discussion here), but have I ever advocated shutting down Gitmo?

    I have no problem if Congress decides to shut it down, in which case, all member of Congress who vote so, ought to get their pro-rata share of Gitmo Detainees in their district's jails!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 6:23pm

  303. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 4:22pm

    HAPP, between you and John McCain ("guest" of the Hanoi Hilton for some years)...

    who do you think is more familiar with torture and why it's un-American and frankly anybody endorsing it is too?

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 7:24pm

  304. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 5:25pm

    HSUB, why do you continue (given your support of her running against Pelosi)....

    keep calling Cindy Sheehan and all her friends LIARS?

    "Our only recourse is elections"---John Conyers (D-MI)

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 7:25pm

  305. HAP, breaking news. Around 200 detainees have been returned to home countries. Many currently held did not come from a "battlefield", unless you define the whole world as the "battlefield.

    A bunch come from a country we give Most Favored Nation status, and I bet you love their business acumen, China.

    None have been charged in any recognized court.

    You assume guilt. Why?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2007 @ 9:08pm

  306. ....who do you think is more familiar with torture and why it's un-American and frankly anybody endorsing it is too?....

    Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 7:24pm

    For someone who WAS tortured, his views deserve far more respect....it's one `maverick' reason I like John despite other policy differences. His position on torture would NOT rule out my support for him.

    Quite a while ago at Corn's blog, I had essentially these same conversations....here, we buzzed around my liking the Jack Bauer (24) approach....which is the Realist in me.

    Rerun: IF I strongly believe some bad dudes have info critical to saving lives, I'll do a lot to extract that information....still would not come close to `their' level of torture! And if my own family is involved, God help them! I'm the UnDukakis!

    You claim it's "un-American", then, the fault must lie in that hotbed of liberalism, Hollywood! It has created so many despicable villains that the `heros' just HAD to torture to save the day! IF the Left will rise up and `reform' Hollywood, then I promise, I will stand w/McCain on his Hilton experience! Frankly, even if we do NOT resort to `fraternity pranks', I don't think the world (which devours our movies) will believe it! That being the case, we might as well do what we need to do to save American lives!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 10:55pm

  307. You assume guilt. Why?

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/15/2007 @ 9:08pm

    I'm tempted to post GWB's big post 9/11 speech that LIBERTY did somewhere on a current thread, maybe even this one....but I won't! I re-read his speech and he did prepare the country for the tough fight to come......but the country has forgotten!

    You and MASK takes "terror is a crime problem"....I don't! Not much more to discuss!

    Oh, on torture, did it ever occur to you, MASK, HMAN and SRJ, that those who suffer from our `fraternity pranks' almost always survive? Look at your own post......many even goes `home'! At the end, whenever it is, most will probably be set free somewhere! A few surely are totally innocent and become collateral damage....but alive!

    Now, do you recall how many hundreds of times we had read news account of bodies dumped all around Iraq showing signs of unspeakable torture. Did you ever wonder how many drill bits into the knees, arms, wherever....before a person dies? Bear in mind, we are not talking about a handful that may well have died w/our `fraternity prank' approach, just as it DOES happen on our very own college campuses, in Iraq and elsewhere, we are talking TENS OF THOUSANDS DEAD OF TORTURE and just a handful of survivors...as when our forces stumbled onto torture chambers with live captives!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 11:09pm

  308. Happy- As long as you're ok with American Soldiers being tortured to death or supreme humiliation, then I guess everything's ok here. The Geneva Convention was partly established out of the fear "the enemy would be even more ruthless than you"- Now that we know about our own tactics and our complete disregard for the Geneva Convention, I guess the US is saying "Bring it on".

    Posted by phillymark at 08/16/2007 @ 09:36am

  309. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 6:23pm

    Torturing is, among other things, a political issue. Don't whine about it being politicized. It was politicized the minute they decided to do it.

    This isn't directed at your specifically Happy, but what is up with all that conservative whinning and whimpering? Oh, it's the MSM! Oh, you hate George Bush/America/Your Mother! Christianity is being repressed in America.

    I don't believe any of that nonsense, but let's pretend for a moment I do. So what? Buck up, cowboy. No one said life is fair. Conservativism want to play hardball and then when they are on the recieving end want to complain that their nose got a bit bloodied. Tough.

    Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 11:09pm

    Could it be that those dying in our prisons don't have a foreign army available to liberate them? Could it be that having medical personnel available to make sure that the torture victim survives is more cruel? Could it be that these practice are in fact NOT saving any lives as people claim? If we want to take the utilitarian route, can we say the number of lives saved is more than the number of lives ruined by it - I'm including those that conduct it, their families and all the negative consequences that come from a policy of torture.

    It's not right. It's not effective. Why are we doing it?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 09:55am

  310. for a remedial lesson in torture, I suggest a visit to a concentration camp in Central Europe. there are several which will admit visitors. I had the opportunity to visit Mauthausen in Austria. I am still reeling from the shock of seeing the relics of man's inhumanity to man.

    this, incidentally is what you are peddling, Happy , this is what you are so shamelessly shilling for in these pages.

    the unspeakable, almost, cruelty in Mauthausen was mostly directed at russians by germans, and austrians. I was a young man, when I saw this and never in my forty years since would it have occurred to me that americans would morph into the torturers. never.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/16/2007 @ 10:07am

  311. hey USApride, still quite so proud?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/16/2007 @ 10:08am

  312. TO SR JENKINS:

    When we are no better, I probably will realize it. Hopefully I won't live to see it. In the meantime, if you can't see the benefits of what this nation has brought to the world compared to what went before, economically, socially, politically ,again OVERALL, then you need either a history book or therapy.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/16/2007 @ 10:15am

  313. Oh, on torture, did it ever occur to you, MASK, HMAN and SRJ, that those who suffer from our `fraternity pranks' almost always survive? ----Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 11:09pm

    You know, you always hear about moral relativism. But you never see a PRIME example of it like this too often.

    We are somehow "better" on torture than Saddam, because "our torture victims survive".

    Wow, HAPPY...what exactly about America, as an ideal, DO you believe in?

    Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 10:17am

  314. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/16/2007 @ 10:15am

    Synchronicity....CHIP, do you buy into HAPPY's idea that we are "better" on torture, because our torture victims survive, while "the Other Guys" kill theirs?

    Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 10:18am

  315. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/16/2007 @ 10:15am | ignore this person

    Chip this is boosterism, and it is getting tiresome.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/16/2007 @ 10:19am

  316. all the outrages committed upon our prisoners will one day be visited on our troops, when they are prisoners. this too, is what you are shilling for, torture freaks.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/16/2007 @ 10:21am

  317. I figured MASK's `fraternity pranks' vs. Islamic-branded torture comments would elicit some lively rubber bullets my way.....I've NOT been disappointed!

    I hear all your arguments and am sympathetic to them. SRJ, as usual, asked questions for which there are no answers....even if there were, he would do a damn good job to discredit the sources or methodology if he doesn't agree w/them.

    All I can say, and TRUST all of you will have some common sense to realize...Assume you are an ordinary `terrorist', would you really, really fear capture by Americans? Now, flip that around, if you are an Iraqi working w/America and its allies, would your fear capture by AQ? Also, as an Iraqi, would you fear AQ doing harm to your extended family? IF this tact doesn't work for you....

    Lets' round up all survivors of both `pranks' and Islamic tortures by posting say, $100,000 cash for showing up, for a survey, w/provable sufferings.........What would be the composition of the ones who show up? I know this is a bit ridiculous but seriously, to equate our pranks with theirs is really on the same level! Thanks, CHIP T!

    Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 10:57am

  318. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 5:25pm

    HSUB, why do you continue (given your support of her running against Pelosi)....

    keep calling Cindy Sheehan and all her friends LIARS?

    "Our only recourse is elections"---John Conyers (D-MI)

    Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 7:25pm

    Another Frita straw dildo. Conyers said he doesn't have the votes and has said anything to contradict that. If he doesn't get the votes to move on impeachment the only alternative is elections. I'm not calling anyone a liar except you, Frita, the straw dildo maker.

    Besides one doesn't throw out the baby with the bath water... well, unless it was you! Naw, not even.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 12:03pm

  319. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 12:03pm

    QUOTE John Conyers' words from his meeting with Cindy, HSUB.....

    and ALL his words, buddy, not just the ones you pretend don't exist.

    Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 12:19pm

  320. To me, this is a major Red Flag that Rove is leaving. Either the dems or some group have finally acquired some truly nasty evidence on this guy and they (whomever they are) gave him the option to leave the White House as a professional courtesy OR Mr. Rove has big plans for his future and must leave the relative spot light of the White House so he can proceed to some "Whole Nutha Level" of diabolical activity. Watch out!

    Posted by odysseus14 at 08/16/2007 @ 12:21pm

  321. Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 12:19pm

    Frita, why can't you?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 1:27pm

  322. Another Frita straw dildo...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 1:29pm

  323. The constant negativism regarding almost anything this country tries to do gets old too, JR.

    And MASK, no, I do not subscribe to the notion that "our torture is better than their torture" which is roughly what you asked. I guess. I'm not foolish enough to believe it never happens: But engaging in it is something that our people, officially, anyway, could always expect to have to pay a price for doing if caught. Its always been wrong. That,a basic refusal to acknowledge it as acceptable basic SOP and a general revulsion to it has made it dark, rare and exceptional for us, unlike, with few exceptions, the rest of the world. Call it "upbringing" if you wish, But George Bush, in his finite wisdom, has taken all that away. How much easier will it be to engage in it if "the boss says its ok"? or "because we're in a different kind of war"?

    It is not fashionable today, especially on sites like this, to say to much good about the country: Too much of such praise may lead to accusations of patriotism, which by extension is associated with shortsightedness or muddled thinking. There is a difference, however between recognizing what is, and being wrapped in the flag, and George Bush alone does not a bad country make. To some on here, nothing will ever be right with the US, as their state of mind will not allow it. There is where you find real prejudice & bias, as you will amoung "US right or wrong" types on Frontpagemag. Both groups, for the most part, do not come on these sites to learn. They come here seeking verification of what they already believe to be true. A polarizing shame. Sorry to be so long winded.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/16/2007 @ 2:23pm

  324. Frita, why can't you?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 1:27pm

    Sure, no problem...How about from Ray McGovern who was IN the meeting with Cindy Sheehan and John Conyers?---

    Ray McGovern---"I'll give this to President Bush. He makes no pretence when he disses. He would not meet with Sheehan to define for her the "noble cause" for which her son Casey died or tell her why he had said it was "worth it."

    Conyers, on the other hand, was dripping with pretence as he met with Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood and me Monday in his office in the Rayburn building. I have seldom been so disappointed with someone I had previously held in high esteem. And before leaving, I told him so.

    Throwing salt in our wounds, he had us, and some 50 others in his anteroom arrested and taken out of action as the Capitol Police "processed" us for the next six hours.

    As we began our discussion with Conyers, it was as though he thought we were "born yesterday," as Harry Truman would put it. With feigned enthusiasm he began, Let's hold a Town Hall meeting in Detroit so we can talk about impeachment. Get out my schedule; let's see, we need to hear from everyone about this.

    Been there, done that, I reminded the congressman.

    On May 29, 2007, Col. Ann Wright and I were among those who flew to Detroit for a highly advertised Town Hall meeting on impeachment, because we were assured that John Conyers would be there.

    That Town Hall/panel discussion was arranged by the Michigan chapter of the National Lawyers Guild less than two weeks after the Detroit City Council passed a resolution, cosponsored by Conyers' wife Monica Conyers--calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. We had hoped that Monica's clear vision and courage might be contagious.

    I had to remind the congressman that he did not show up for the Town Hall.

    Apparently, that incident was of such little consequence to the congressman that he had completely forgotten about it. Small wonder, then, that he has apparently forgotten the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Selective Alzheimers? I don't know. What was clear was that he had forgotten a whole lot.

    When I raised James Madison's role in crafting a Constitution that mentions impeachment no fewer than six times, he replied: Madison did not say Conyers has to impeach every one. Why, if I had to impeach everyone for high crimes and misdemeanors, that's all my committee would have time to do.

    I learned in Rhetoric 101 the name of that technique: reductio ad absurdam.

    How about just Bush and Cheney, we suggested.

    Conyers protested that he would need 218 votes in the House and complained that the votes are not there. His priorities showed through in his loud lament that if he fell short of the 218 votes, the Republicans and Fox News would have a field day.

    There was no getting through to Conyers, who seemed astonished at the direct questions we were posing.

    In reflecting on this later, the dictum of my father, also a lawyer, began to ring in my ears: "When you reach the age of ‘statutory senility,' you do everyone a favor if you retire."

    He followed his own example, when he retired as Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, long before senility--statutory, or otherwise--set in for him.

    Septuagenarian Conyers (and, for that matter, 80-year-old Senator John Warner, R-Virginia, who has also forgotten his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution) would do well to heed that advice.

    Toward the end of the meeting, Conyers showed uncommon chutzpah in referring to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That was too much for me.

    You're no Martin Luther King, I found myself wanting to say."

    if you'd like to read it again for yourself [consortiumnews.com]

    Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 2:55pm

  325. No one said life is fair.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 09:55am

    My theme in life! For just about everything the Libs `fight' the Conservatives over! Tough! (as You agreed!)

    Somewhere you asked me to source "Iran more of a threat than Iraq":

    During the First Presidential Debate on 30 September 2004, John Kerry said "Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous. Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet."

    Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Iran represented "more of a clear and present danger than Iraq last year."

    More of similar vein, but on N. Korea.....w/Quotes and commentary by Rich Lowry (2003):

    "This business of fighting war in Iraq," says West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, "is detracting our attention from that imminent [North Korean] threat." Democrats pooh-pooh the possibility of Saddam giving nukes to terrorists, but Delaware Sen. Joe Biden notes, ominously, that North Korea "exports things" and "all you need is two little pieces of that plutonium ... to produce a one-megaton bomb."

    Assuming they will oppose a war in North Korea (and why would it be any more appealing than war in Iraq?), Democrats will have to walk all of this back -- e.g., North Korea has never actually used any of its nukes, it might be an imminent threat but hasn't attacked us yet, and as for its policies of mass starvation, well, even America has a hunger problem.

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

    You're right! Research is work and for this kind, not profitable!

    Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 5:05pm

  326. Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 2:55pm

    Once again no quote from Conyers and all he's saying is what he's said before-- he needs the votes. Of course they don't like hearing that, I don't like hearing that. But that doesn't mean you stop pushing. I want pressure on Conyers, but more pressure needs to be on the repubs and conservative dems that are hesitant about supporting impeachment. Now that's where Conyers shoulda coulda steared the conversation and made allies, like telling them they needed to help him get this rolling by putting pressure on-- whip out a list of those congress people leaning and needing just a little more of a push. Reassure them that if they did their part helping, he'd do his.

    But telling them he doesn't have the votes isn't inconsistant with what he's been saying, nor with what I've been saying he's said. And continuing the pressure/petitioning/articulating the need/advocating for impeachment-- is a good thing.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 5:25pm

    HSUB, why do you continue (given your support of her running against Pelosi)....

    keep calling Cindy Sheehan and all her friends LIARS?

    "Our only recourse is elections"---John Conyers (D-MI)

    Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 7:25pm

    Another Frita straw dildo. Conyers said he doesn't have the votes and has said anything to contradict that. If he doesn't get the votes to move on impeachment the only alternative is elections. I'm not calling anyone a liar except you, Frita, the straw dildo maker.

    Besides one doesn't throw out the baby with the bath water... well, unless it was you! Naw, not even.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 12:03pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 7:28pm

  327. Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 7:30pm

  328. OOOoops, fat fingers/thumbs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 7:31pm

  329. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 7:28pm

    HSUB, explain something to me....

    How is it that YOU know what Conyers "really means" when he talked to Cindy Sheehan, and you've probably never seen the man in person....

    and Ray McGovern who was IN THE MEETING, looked into Conyers' eyes, and HEARD WHAT HE SAID....is under some "mistaken impression" that Conyers gave them the brush-off and has his mind set against impeachment?

    Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 8:06pm

  330. How is it that YOU know what Conyers "really means" when he talked to Cindy Sheehan, and you've probably never seen the man in person....

    (Straw dildo, Frita.)

    and Ray McGovern who was IN THE MEETING, looked into Conyers' eyes, and HEARD WHAT HE SAID....is under some "mistaken impression" that Conyers gave them the brush-off and has his mind set against impeachment?

    Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 8:06pm

    Frita,

    Motivation and intent. However, both men come from differring political work environmantal dynamic requiring differring methods for interaction. That neither sought a mutual crossroad to meet at, is a shame. Yet nothing Conyers said previously about not having enough votes contridicts what was written, only what steps could've been taken to move closer to their mutual goal, as I previously stated. And that Ray was upset about not forming a mutual method/plan to move impeachment foward, is understandable-- each has a different dynamic/work environment to contend with.

    Conyers needs help with getting the votes and that is what they both shoulda/coulda focussed on rather than limiting themselves to only addressing each's different dynamic/work environment.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 09:28am

  331. er, should read: ... come from differring political dynamic/work environmant, requiring differring methods for interaction.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 09:32am

  332. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/17/2007 @ 09:28am

    HSUB, do you really think overblown "V"-style rhetoric will cover the fact that Ray McGovern is JUST AS STRONGLY a pro-Impeacher as you....and what HE got out of the meeting was, that Conyers was treating them like kids ("thought we were "born yesterday," as Harry Truman would put it.") and basically treating them like crap ("Conyers, on the other hand, was dripping with pretence as he met with Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood and me Monday in his office in the Rayburn building.") and ultimately ...having them arrested--

    "Throwing salt in our wounds, he had us, and some 50 others in his anteroom arrested and taken out of action as the Capitol Police "processed" us for the next six hours."

    That's not "discussing their different dynamic/work environments"....that's a politician who was USING the pro-Impeachment guys (you too, in case you haven't seen my other post) to get Democrats elected in 2006.

    Don't you get it? I had hoped by now you would have and I wouldn't have to do the absolute MEANEST thing to get it through your head (hoping you'd figure it out for yourself...but you haven't)....

    Conyers USED you...and the rest of the Impeachment Crowd. To fire up the base for 2006 with lure and promise of "Once we Dems get back into power, we'll impeach and remove both Bush and Cheney...just give us your vote and we'll give it to you guys...Lookey here, I'm holding a 'basement hearing' in the Rayburn Building.....a Town Hall meeting in Detroit....my wife is sponsoring an impeachment resolution.....see, get us the majority and all this will be yours!"

    They FOOLED you, buddy. They wanted you energized and turning out to vote to get them the Congress last November. Then when they got the majorities in the House and Senate, it became "off the table", because they don't want to risk their political capital on it...or just waste the time, given no 18 Repubs in the Senate will vote to oust Bush or Cheney.

    Ray McGovern figured it out. Cindy Sheehan figured it out and that's why she's running against Pelosi.

    You may be one of the last ones left.

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 10:37am

  333. Posted by MASK 08/17/2007 @ 10:37am

    Frita is once again creating straw dildos and even using majorly faulty logic to do so.

    IF

    "given no 18 Repubs in the Senate will vote to oust Bush or Cheney."

    WHY

    "and what HE got out of the meeting was, that Conyers was treating them like kids "

    IF

    "not "discussing their different dynamic/work environments"....that's a politician who was USING the pro-Impeachment guys "

    WHY

    "Ray McGovern figured it out. Cindy Sheehan figured it out and that's why she's running against Pelosi."

    IF

    "given no 18 Repubs in the Senate will vote to oust Bush or Cheney"

    When working with the people that 'are' in congress, i.e. 'Conyers', 'Pelosi', to get the votes that aren't there currently, and that are needed to impeach, would work better than throwing what could be considered a temper tantrum if a kid were to have done it-- per not getting what they want NOW? Makes a lot more sense to say-- what can we do to help get the votes you need to impeach.

    It really doesn't sound like these two statements make logical sense considering one is working against the other to then link blame on Conyers if they don't want to help him get the vote for impeachment:

    "Ray McGovern figured it out. Cindy Sheehan figured it out and that's why she's running against Pelosi."

    _________________________VS________________________

    "given no 18 Repubs in the Senate will vote to oust Bush or Cheney."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 2:00pm

  334. Doesn't sound like they or you have figured it out.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 2:11pm

  335. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/16/2007 @ 2:23pm

    The constant negativism regarding almost anything this country tries to do gets old too, JR.

    There is a difference between negativism and believing you're special.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 3:50pm

  336. Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 5:05pm

    I hear all your arguments and am sympathetic to them. SRJ, as usual, asked questions for which there are no answers....even if there were, he would do a damn good job to discredit the sources or methodology if he doesn't agree w/them.

    Fantastic compliment. Thanks!

    Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 5:05pm

    So, Iran is more of a threat because John Kerry and Jane Harman say so? Should I believe this because it's John Kerry rather than George Bush? Can I say I don't believe John Kerry any more than Bush - even though I voted for him last time?

    If I were making the case that Iran was somehow dangerous, I'd look at their military, their weapons capabilities and so forth. Seeing how relatively unscary they are in comparison to the U.S. military, then I might move on to some kind of argument about their secondary dangerousness - the whole support of terrorist networks angle perhaps with a little bit of destablishing Iraq through support of militias.

    But making an argument that it is that way because X said so? That's an argument for LVL - not me. Sorry Happy.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 4:05pm

  337. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/17/2007 @ 2:00pm

    They bought your vote with a promise of impeachment, HSUB. Then reneged on the deal.

    You're like the guy who buys a lemon of a car, the salesman told you it was Ferrari and would do 150mph....you get it home and discover it's a Ferrari shell over a Mazda body and NO engine. You call (or in this case Cindy and Ray McGovern) go to the car dealer....he listens to them smiling, then says "Sorry, a deal's a deal" and scoots them out the door (or in this case CALLS THE COPS and makes them leave the showroom).

    Meanwhile you sit in your "Ferrari" dreaming of speeding down the highway ...holding "Honest John" Conyers' business card in your hand...and when I point out you've been ripped off, you cry "Straw Dildo! Look, right here on 'Honest John's' card...it says 'Satisfaction Guarenteed!' Any day now, he'll give me my Ferrari. In fact, he'll do it at Halloween...or maybe Christmas...and it's not impossible it could happen at the Democratic Convention in August 2008!"

    Oh and Russ Feingold said you still won't get your Ferrari at Daily Kos, but he will TRY to see if he can get you a new set of tires for it....then his boss Harry Reid said "Sorry, no tires. Next!"

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 4:08pm

  338. Frita makes a bigger better straw dildo with wheels on it even. Not sorry to say -- Frita, it'll only be you riding it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 4:28pm

  339. Wonder when they're going to do another one like this where it compares poll with Al in it versus when he's not. That way when he announces he's in the race we can go back and see what the dif is between declaring or not declaring as far as how the poll numbers adjust/people switch.

    The Field Poll. 3/26/2007 California

    Hillary Clinton _____41%

    Barack Obama ____28%

    John Edwards _____13%

    Bill Richardson______4%

    Joe Biden__________3%

    Dennis Kucinich_____2%

    Unsure____________9%

    __________-----------VS--------__________

    The Field Poll. 3/26/2007 California

    Hillary Clinton ______31%

    Al Gore ___________25%

    Barack Obama _____21%

    John Edwards _______8%

    Bill Richardson ______3%

    Joe Biden __________2%

    Dennis Kucinich _____1%

    Unsure ____________9%

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 4:43pm

  340. Can I say I don't believe John Kerry any more than Bush - even though I voted for him last time?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 08/17/2007 @ 4:05pm

    There you go! Discrediting your own chosen POTUS! I'm proud of you!

    Actually, when I was blogging at Corn's blog (most of 2006), I butted heads w/quite of few Cornuts who used that argument extensively....."we weren't dealing w/Iran who was/is far more threatening than Iraq".....When I actually did `Research', I was disappointed there weren't more hits!

    Side Note: The overall quality of bloggers here is easily a class or two above that at Corn.com!

    Posted by Happy at 08/17/2007 @ 4:44pm

  341. Ray McGovern figured it out. Cindy Sheehan figured it out and that's why she's running against Pelosi.

    You may be one of the last ones left.

    Posted by MASK 08/17/2007 @ 10:37am

    Kinda confused Mask. Either I missunderstand your positions or I misunderstood the intent of your post.

    (Feel free to correct any errors in my presumptions). You are against the war. Think bush should be impeached, just won't be. Feel, aside from SCOTUS and some social issues, that dems are as into ME occupation as reps. Americans (and Iraqis) die needlessly by the day. BUT...think any attempts to reform the dem party or establish a new party are pointless? I understand it would be hard. I understand that shit happens, and we could fail. But do you think an America that has an imperial presidency and is run (into the ground) by special interests, on foreign debt, is an America you'd want to leave to your kids?

    I often agree with your skepticism. And by itself, it would immensely add to the debate. But, often times, it lowers into defeatism (or even borderline obstructionism), in your opinions.

    Now, I realize, this is what sets people (like me) off on you. Pretty sure you realize it too. And that, that is why you do it. For fun. And it probably is. But, without any ideas or constructive criticisms on your part....well... you're just fucking annoying.

    Have fun with that. Try to bold your post, if you get an actual idea, not just a critcism of anothers idea and I'll try to actually read it.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/17/2007 @ 6:43pm

  342. HSUB,

    You know I hate to agree with mask. And I would be glad to personally remove the president, (if you could please distract the secret service for me).

    AND, I am still hopeful that, somehow, it can be done.

    But, frankly, from what I have read, Conyers is, not only useless, but also a total prick. If he had any respect, for the folks who came to speak with him, WTF did he have them arrested?!?!? This is a man who actually wants to help???

    Doesn't appear so. I appreciate your passion. But, mask is right. He fooled us all. Most of them dems did. I don't even want to get into it with Hillary with you. But, strongly believe that Conyers and Pelosi are useless, lying, oath defying scum, that need to be impeached as badly as the neo-cons they (apparently, secretly) worship.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/17/2007 @ 6:50pm

  343. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/17/2007 @ 6:43pm

    Here's the deal, Eric. "Our only recourse is elections". Conyers may have pulled the wool over the Impeachment Guys' eyes and got them to think if they voted Dem they'd get rid of Cheney, if not both him and Bush....but what he said to Sheehan, McGovern, et al was right. An impeachment will fail....either in the House (with the "Blue Dog" Dems, or at least with the Senate, since they WILL NOT get 18 Republcians (counting Lieberman as a "nay") to oust Cheney, much less Bush and give the Dems fodder for the next dozen election cycles.

    So why waste time dreaming of getting hoovered by Jessica Alba after winning the Power Ball...or the political equivalent...and just accept things as they are and will be?

    Hillary (or whichever Dem who WILL win the Presidency, 60-65% likely in my view) will end the war. She'll be forced to end the NSA spy program...oddly, by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Fox News as the Right "suddenly" realizes that they don't want a "President in war-time" to have those powers....when SHE is a DEMOCRAT. And Gitmo will close within the first 6 months of 2009.

    The trouble is...few have patience. They want it all fixed NOW.

    Well...it isn't going to be. But it WILL be.

    There, how's that for some optimism?

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 8:35pm

  344. Last Updated: Thursday, 16 August 2007, 15:44 GMT 16:44 UK

    No buyer for voting machine unit

    US cash dispenser and security company Diebold has admitted that it has failed to find a buyer for its troubled electronic voting machine business.

    Diebold and other manufacturers of such voting machines have been hit by criticism that they are unreliable and vulnerable to tampering.

    Growing unease about the machines in the US has led to a number of delayed orders from states.

    Diebold said that as a result, its 2007 revenues would fall $120m (£61m).

    It added that it would now allow the unit to operate more independently, with a separate board of directors and, possibly, a new management structure.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6950024.stm

    Yeah, sounds like a 'surge'/new general nonsolution to sell the same old vote manipulation. Not going to happen.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2007 @ 10:20am

  345. But, frankly, from what I have read, Conyers is, not only useless, but also a total prick. If he had any respect, for the folks who came to speak with him, WTF did he have them arrested?!?!? This is a man who actually wants to help???

    Posted by MALCONTENT 08/17/2007 @ 6:50pm

    "The notion that John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken, Nichols says. "The way Jefferson and Madison set it up, it's supposed to be an organic process–it comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up."

    Where did they say they wanted to help Conyers? Where did they write in their columns, bashing Conyers, did they state they asked Conyers how they could help by working to change the vote to move impeachment forward, which is what Conyers says he needs?

    "CINDY SHEEHAN: We took over a million signatures to John Conyers on petitions demanding impeachment, while we were there, he was getting one call every thirty seconds. And we know that the majority of the country wants Dick Cheney impeached, and almost a majority wants George Bush impeached, so I think we would stand behind them."

    "RAY McGOVERN: And so, what does the Constitution require? Well, this is not, as I say, subjunctive. It's indicative here. The Constitution requires impeachment for such crimes and misdemeanors, and it's Conyers's job to initiate those proceedings. Now, when I asked John about that -- I gently tried to remind him about that with as much humility as I could summon..."

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/144218

    Conyers isn't a little dictator, he needs votes to move impeachment forward. So which is it, work now for congressional impeachment votes or later for election votes. From what I read, it sounded more like they wanted impeachment now without the process of getting the votes needed in committee/congress for impeachment to move forward... What do you do with that? I've had people put/taken away too, for coming into my office demanding stuff if they don't really want my help to accomplish it or don't want to do their part and follow the rules/laws, don't want to listen, just make demands that won't work or aren't legal or functional. So what would you do if someone just wanted to harrass you and didn't want to help work towards a solution? I doubt they wanted to help Conyers by getting the congressional members to back Conyers otherwise Conyers would've been putty in their hands not irritate the shit out of him. That's what makes sense. Not to say the publicity wasn't good for the impeachment issue nor that Conyers can't also use the incident as fodder for pushing impeachment forward when he's close to the votes-- Hey! you all want these guys hassling you in your offices' too!?!?! (Think it was worked out to play like that ahead of time?)

    Still, others are already working their butts off to get this going to committee, through the house.

    Frito first though. Won't take as much time, sets up the rest of the impeachments and helps clean up DoJ for '08 elections.

    "The idea that taking up impeachment will keep us from acting on health care, gay rights, etc., is ahistoric," Nichols says. "The fact of the matter is that during the impeachment of Nixon back in the 70s, the reason Congress was so effective and got so much done was that Nixon was scared and, in a calculated move, started cooperating with Congress to avoid impeachment. So the right thing to do is move immediately--see what you can get out of Bush."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2007 @ 11:28am

  346. "So what would you do if someone just wanted to harrass you and didn't want to help work towards a solution? I doubt they wanted to help Conyers by getting the congressional members to back Conyers"----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/18/2007 @ 11:28am

    Now THIS is amazing. HSUB is BLAMING Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, and their group for wanting impeachment SO badly that.....

    they don't want to help John Conyers get it. They just want to "harass" poor ol' John.

    But it's somewhat logical, if you think about it. If HSUB accepts the Sheehan/McGovern version of events, that means Conyers is definitely NOT supporting impeachment and his quest is at an end.

    If he makes it out that Sheehan and McGovern are the "unreasonable ones" and the "behind the scenes" Conyers is working on impeachment and is "just waiting for the right time when 218 votes will appear" and THEN he'll push it forward....the dream is kept alive.

    So in the meantime, SOMEBODY has to take the fall for the meeting last month....therefore....it's Cindy and Ray as rabblerousers or something!

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2007 @ 1:21pm

  347. If HSUB accepts the Sheehan/McGovern version of events, that means Conyers is definitely NOT supporting impeachment and his quest is at an end.

    (Never said their version wasn't true from their point of view, also said it didn't contradict what Conyers has said before-- they just have conflicting methods.)

    If he makes it out that Sheehan and McGovern are the "unreasonable ones"

    (From the process congress has to go through it is.)

    Posted by MASK 08/18/2007 @ 1:21pm

    Frita ignores the 'facts' that Sheehan and McGovern were pushing their own agenda and method for impeachment, not Conyers' needs, and then pretends protestors don't view arrest as a badge of honor.

    I can say Frita once again earns another straw dildo award.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2007 @ 2:05pm

  348. Just because there are various polls concerning impeachment of hsuB, doesn't mean that they nutralize each other, they just vary as to their method, group selected and question, but they are all moving towards the same direction to a greater or lesser degree, impeachment.

    http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2007 @ 2:34pm

  349. HSUB, it boils down to trust.

    You put yours in a politician who has shown two faces. Once BEFORE THE ELECTION and his assumption to power via a won majority...the "basement hearing" Conyers who was drafting articles of impeachment BEFORE there was even a Dem majority (Now, WHY did he do that...when THEN (especially) he "didn't have the votes"?!?!?)...

    or Cindy and her friends. But to HSUB....untrustworthy and "pushing their own agenda", because their "point of view" not only contradicts HSUB's view of John Conyers, but also attacks him and calls him out for abandoning impeaachment.

    Someone isn't being completely honest here. To HSUB...it's the protestors, not the politician who had them arrested when he's supposed to be their ally in "The Cause".

    What's amazingly ironic is...HSUB's view of Cindy Sheehan....isn't THAT far removed from the Right's view of her.

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2007 @ 10:52pm

  350. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/18/2007 @ 11:28am

    C'mon. You can tell the truth. Pelosi hasn't cheered the neo-cons spying on you personally. Yet.

    Anybody who doesn't vote third party, votes against saving the American dream. Say all you want about probability, but the fact is, if people actually did vote their conscience it would've already happened.

    It's OK guys. Vote democrat. Their not coming for us, yet.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/19/2007 @ 2:16pm

  351. Posted by MASK 08/18/2007 @ 10:52pm

    Frita just wants to use her straw dildos to create more friction than is between the congressional process and the McD fast food solution. Frita wants you to buy the argument that a chef that has a prepared menu sans the hamburger and french-fries she wants-- means the chef won't serve her food. How cruel the chef is refusing her food... hsuB may be a dry-drunk, but Frita is a wet-dunk.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2007 @ 6:32pm

  352. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/19/2007 @ 6:32pm

    "fast food"?!?!? HSUB, unless you forgot, it was YOU that predicted (back in January when Pelosi and Conyers took over)...

    that predicted bills of impeachment out of the House in....LESS than 2 1/2 months from now.

    Odd thing, that means that Conyers kicked Cindy and her friends to the curb with something they "weirdly" took as a rejection....of something YOU think Conyers MUST get "on the table" in less than 90 days?!??!!?

    Seems the "agenda" that Sheehan and friends "are pushing"....was YOUR agenda, just 7-8 months ago!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/19/2007 @ 7:16pm

  353. Seems the "agenda" that Sheehan and friends "are pushing"....was YOUR agenda, just 7-8 months ago!

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 08/19/2007 @ 7:16pm

    Another straw dildo Frita-- is that all you're good for? Impeachment is happening, as sure as people eat. We're just doing our part, a different part. Your part is being an obstructionist straw dildo maker.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2007 @ 11:42pm

David Corn David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
Posted at 8:46 PM ET

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
30 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
42 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
25 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
56 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman