Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPresident Bush finally found the long-missing Weapons of Mass Humiliation in Iraq. Iraqis, millions of them, are wearing them on their feet. Not exactly WMDs, but WMHs will have to do.
Unfortunately, Bush discovered the WMHs when a pair of them sailed past his head at a press conference in Baghdad. The hurler, Muntader al-Zaidi, is already a hero in Iraq, and beyond.
I hope I don't get in trouble with the Secret Service by saying that I, too, found satisfaction in the display of anger toward Bush, whose reckless war costs hundreds of thousands of lives and destroyed an entire nation. What Zaidi did was to put an exclamation point on Bush's war, fittingly -- and, given the fact that the smoothly bipartisan, rancorless Barack Obama isn't likely to investigate the crimes of the Bush adminstration in Iraq, it might be all we get before Bush rides off into the Texas sunset.
Sunnis and Shiites, both, and Arabs across the region celebrated Zaidi's act of courage. Reports the Times:
In [Shiite] Sadr City, the sprawling Baghdad suburb that has seen some of the most intense fighting between insurgents and American soldiers since the 2003 invasion, thousands of people marched in his defense. In Syria, he was hailed as a hero. In Libya, he was given an award for courage. ...In Samarra, one of the centers of the Sunni insurgency against American forces, Mr. Zaidi received nearly unanimous approval from people interviewed Monday.
The family of the shoe-hurler, according to AP, said that Zaidi (himself a Shiite) was opposed both to the United States and to Iran's heavy-handed role in Iraq:
Over time, Muntadhar al-Zeidi, a 28-year-old unmarried Shiite, came to hate both the U.S. military occupation and Iran's interference in Iraq, his family told The Associated Press on Monday.Family members expressed bewilderment over al-Zeidi's action and concern about his treatment in Iraqi custody. But they also expressed pride over his defiance of an American president who many Iraqis believe has destroyed their country.
"I swear to Allah, he is a hero," said his sister, who goes by the nickname Umm Firas.
Thousands of people, in Sadr City, in Najaf, and in Sunni areas demonstrated their support for Zaidi.
Raed Jarrar, the Iraqi bogger and activist in the United States, has started a petition to free him. You can read Jarrar's commentary here.
According to AP, Zaidi's act of defiance is being hailed across the region:
Images of Bush ducking the fast-flying shoes at a Baghdad press conference, aired repeatedly on Arab satellite TV networks, were cathartic for many in the Middle East, who have for years felt their own leaders kowtow to the American president..So the sight of an average Arab standing up and making a public show of resentment was stunning. The pride, joy and bitterness it uncorked showed how many Arabs place their anger on Bush personally for what they see as a litany of crimes -- chief among them the turmoil in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths since the 2003 U.S. invasion
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
If Bush doesn't get the message after that, he will never get it...we are not wanted there and never have been, the Iraqi's never asked us to go over there!!! Still, I find it incredible how the Secret Service were so slow to act...how did this guy even get a chance to throw a second shoe?? Who knows maybe they also thought Bush had it coming to him!!
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 3:28pm
Well, it is also here in black and white
Senate Armed Sevices Committee report on detainee abuses:
"The administration's policies and the resulting controversies, damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.""
And caused shoes to fly, apparently.
Gawd, I may have to go through an hour worth of dial-up downloading to see Chimpy dodging that shoe! Guffaw!
No, no, history will tell us that Chimpy McFlightsuit was one of the top ten presidents! He was welcomed as a liberator.
The good thing for Chimpy is that about all he'll be able to be after his reaign of error is a used shoe salesman. Now he has the start of his inventory.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2008 @ 3:48pm
It is sad that so much of Washington used the idle threat of Impeachment these last two years as a fund raiser. It say much about a group of elected officials who place their hand on a bible and promise to uphold the law, only to use the crimes again America and the world buy Bushco as a ploy to raise funds for themselves. It speaks to the crassness, smugness, and total lack of humanity to do such a thing, all the while continuing to allow Bushco to get away with such in your face disregard for the rule of law, and the care for humanity this country stood for for so long. It shows how little respect both Democrats and Republicans have for you, me our children and grandchildren.
Posted by lappercad at 12/15/2008 @ 3:48pm
"reign of error"
Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2008 @ 3:49pm
Geez, don't those guys realze that Dubya "liberated" them?!?!?!?!?!?
How many shoes you think the French or Dutch would have thrown at FDR in 1945?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 12/15/2008 @ 3:52pm
It shows how little respect both Democrats and Republicans have for you, me our children and grandchildren.
Posted by lappercad at 12/15/2008 @ 3:48p
I am a Dem, but I must admit I have found Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid really very wishy washy over a lot of things. They seem to just give in to certain things instead of making a stand. I think impeachment should be on the table for Bush and I wish they had the guts to carry it out...don't see it happening though.
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 3:54pm
111th congress should start off by canning Reid and Pelosi.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2008 @ 3:56pm
Still, I find it incredible how the Secret Service were so slow to act...how did this guy even get a chance to throw a second shoe??
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 3:28pm
Caj, have you ever tried to stop a 90-mile an hour shoe being pitched at you? Of course not! Knowing you, you're probably not quick enough to dodge one, let alone two, heeled soles.
Gotta admit that was some of the best pitching I'd ever seen sense Moe threw a pinapple and it turned the corner to hit Curly!....(hehehe)
Posted by ACook at 12/15/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by ACook at 12/15/2008 @ 3:58pm
I'm surprised Rush and Sean and Fox News haven't started calling it an...
"assassination attempt!"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/15/2008 @ 3:59pm
111th congress should start off by canning Reid and Pelosi.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2008 @ 3:56pm
We should give them the same "shoe" send off.
Posted by ACook at 12/15/2008 @ 4:00pm
I doubt Obama will be having shoes thrown at him when he visit'overseas..he probably will be welcomed with open arms and maybe flowers!! That has to be a huge smack in the face...no pun intended there...for Bush and his administration though, what a way for him to leave office!!! Still, when you think you can rule the world and you don't, people will start making their voices heard in whatever way they can. What a very embarrassing day for America.
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 4:03pm
W got the message.
His reply: "So what?"
Yes, Reid & Pelosi have been W enablers, big time. They should go. But they won't.
Those shoes watched round the world are all the justice we'll ever see.
Think the man will ever work again? Walk again?
While W is cramming the White House stockings with pardons, that poor thrower will be rotting, chained to the the wall, his reward for speaking truth to power.
Posted by sloper at 12/15/2008 @ 4:04pm
Posted by Mask at 12/15/2008 @ 3:59pm
I saw the vid and it was funny! Had that happend to me, I'd bust out and laugh so hard.
Makes me think of the Stooges theme song.... bawhahahah
Posted by ACook at 12/15/2008 @ 4:07pm
If we stay in Iraq much longer, everyone in the Middle East will be bare footed.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/15/2008 @ 4:11pm
I doubt Obama will be having shoes thrown at him when he visit'overseas.He probably will be welcomed with open arms and maybe flowers!!
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 4:03pm
You have seriously got to stop tokin' what ever it is you're smokin'!
Posted by ACook at 12/15/2008 @ 4:14pm
Knowing you, you're probably not quick enough to dodge one, let alone two, heeled soles.
Posted by ACook at 12/15/2008 @ 3:58pm
Seeing as you know me apparently, you are correct though I have never had any shoes thrown at me...no one has hated me enough for that!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 4:23pm
You have seriously got to stop tokin' what ever it is you're smokin'!
Posted by ACook at 12/15/2008 @ 4:14pm
No need to do anything, you just wait and see, o ye of little faith!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 4:27pm
No way in hell someone gets 2 tosses at Bozo without the secret service plugging him. Something smells.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/15/2008 @ 4:49pm
How many reporters would have been able to walk away alive if they had tried that with Saddam? That reporter would likely have been hung along with his family. If Saddam would have given any sort of open interview to non-state run media.
Not that I don't understand the sentiment, but it does underscore Iraqi's new freedoms.
Posted by Extraneous at 12/15/2008 @ 5:24pm
no degrading Bozo. HE was a class act.
And he acknowledged it was just an act, something Bush will never do.
ACOOK, look what I smoked:
"200,000 Germans turn out for Obama speech"- July 25, 2008
Nov 5, 2008--TOKYO – "Yes we can! Obama!" roared Japanese men and women in hula-dance costumes on national television. They're members of possibly the most ardent of Barack Obama supporters in Japan, a small fishing town in western Japan with a population of 32,000 which shares the same name as the new president-elect.
It's no surprise to see the outpouring of excitement here about Obama's victory at the polls: a July Gallup poll found that 66 percent of the Japanese respondents favored Obama, overshadowing John McCain's 15 percent.-MSNBC/worldblog
---
Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki declared a public holiday Thursday in the country of Obama's late father, allowing celebrations to continue through the night and into a second day. From Europe and Asia to the Middle East, many expressed amazement that the U.S. could overcome centuries of racial strife and elect an African-American president.
In Indonesia, where Obama lived as child, hundreds of students at his former elementary school erupted in cheers when he was declared winner, pouring into the courtyard where they hugged, danced in the rain and chanted "Obama! Obama!"
In Britain, The Sun newspaper borrowed from Neil Armstrong's 1969 moon landing in describing Obama's election as "one giant leap for mankind."-Chicago Sun Times
Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2008 @ 5:35pm
I can only imagine the sheer terror and panic in the posts if a reporter ever attacked Obama.
Bush sucks. But apparently he was a good dodge ball player as a kid!
Posted by urmygyro at 12/15/2008 @ 5:41pm
shooed out of office searing histrionic moment spanning the ages Roosevelt's V
Posted by tionlighs at 12/15/2008 @ 5:50pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 5:25pm
Hmm more partisan drivel. When will you realize that this kind of post doesn't float here? Go to a right wing echo chamber if you want to spew hateful stupidity in your more than obvious believ in partisan politics and the somehow I guess "genetic" superiority of the right.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/15/2008 @ 5:55pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/15/2008 @ 6:00pm
A list of countries where the US is welcome would be one on the shortest list imaginable.
Posted by ehross at 12/15/2008 @ 6:11pm
But most of the leftists only believe in Americans who agree with them
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 5:25pm
Don't dare to pretend that the rightwingers would not be laughing and having a good time if the roles were reversed and it was Obama or Clinton who was embarresed. Don't compare haveing a pair of sneakers thrown is comparable to being shot at or worse. All that occured was an insult, not an "attack". What occured was not intented to do physical harm, but to insult and embaress. Not in the same skein as an attack on the president. I have heard some pretty nasty things said about Obama and his family by ignorant rightwingers, don't pretend that ignorance does not cross party lines.
Posted by Extraneous at 12/15/2008 @ 6:11pm
dear lvliberty bush is committing some pretty heinous crimes dude - having some shoes thrown at him is a good start - maybe someday it'll be more like mussolini - and the shoes will still have feet in them. your idea that this is somehow an insult to all americans is a pretty freaking fascist notion.
Posted by montemerrick at 12/15/2008 @ 6:14pm
After 18 years of wars and sanctions the Iraqi's now have the "new freedom" of tossing shoes at an American president. Wonderful. The destruction of a society for the privelage of a shoe toss. Fucking wonderful.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/15/2008 @ 6:16pm
In Britain, The Sun newspaper borrowed from Neil Armstrong's 1969 moon landing in describing Obama's election as "one giant leap for mankind."-Chicago Sun Times
Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2008 @ 5:35pm
The righteous right hate to admit that PE Obama is adored overseas already and he's not President as yet....just can't get over their awful loss. Bush has never had any kind of exciting welcome when he visit's other countries he can only invoke protests everywhere!! What does that say about this great President we have now...it's beyond embarrassing and it will be nice to see the end of the Bush era once and for all.
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 6:17pm
And clintoon should have shoes tossed at his ass too. War criminals are war criminals.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/15/2008 @ 6:20pm
When a president travels overseas, he travels representing me; whether it's Clinton, Bush or Obama. It's a shame that your hatred is greater than your sense of being one Nation. to the world
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 5:25pm
I am in agreement with you in the sense that Bush is our President and represents us when travelling overseas. I do not think what happened to him was very nice at all, but on the other hand you must put yourself in the position of that reporter, who by the way lost family members in this current war in Iraq. Lot's of Iraqi's don't see Bush as a liberator, he is seen as an invader of their country and he's not welcome there. So no, I don't agree we on the left only have hatred for Bush, but we do have hatred for his policy regarding the invasion of Iraq and many other things he has done over the years....current state of the country being a prime example. I also think you'll find that the folks on the right are the ones who only like those who agree with them...or else you are un-patriotic...un-American...if you don't like it here,leave!!!! Oh yes,those sayings are all too familiar from the rightwing.
Posted by Caj at 12/15/2008 @ 7:01pm
If you look closely at the video it appears that Bush had second string Secret Service agents waddling towards the perp. Although Bush did a fair job at dodging 2 shoes. In Islam shoe tossing is the ultimate insult. I was rooting for the shoe tosser to nail him in the forehead. But due to interference the second shoe missed the mark.
Damn, almost.. The Iraqi's deserve a hero shoe tosser. Let them rejoice. As a result of American Imperialism and the death of numerous innocent civilians at the hands of a meddling fascist American government this was actually a civilized protest. Yes Bush is a dog. (no offense to actual dog's). But the sad thing is the bastard still didn't get it. Stupid jackass..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 7:09pm
And I've always argued against those who rail at our president when he is overseas representing all Americans.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 6:58pm
Bush is not and never has been a true American President. He stole two elections. Election fraud LVL. That moron was elected by the Supreme Court in the first case and elected by fraud in the second case, not by the people. He will always be looked at by history as an abomination. Not a President. An abomination I might add as a result of people like you right wingnuts supporting him.
Why don't you confess to your sins? You are suposedly a religious man. Confession is good for the soul, right? Maybe it's time to fess up to your lack of judgment. You enabled this asshole to gut the country we all love. That makes you culpable.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 7:33pm
Just let me say this, If the Secret Service was to go after you (ROBERT DREYFUSS) for writing this article and for saying that you "found satisfaction in the display of anger toward Bush" then I guess myself and a whole lot of American citizens are going to be getting in trouble by the Secret Service as well! I for one am glad that Mr. Muntader al-Zaidi had the chance and the courage to do such a thing. I am sure it (or something similar) has been on the minds of a lot of Americans and non Americans alike. The man should be honored, not criminalized.
As for Obama and his administration going after the ILLEGAL acts of the Bush Administration, I doubt that that is going to happen and I will tell you why; A lot of people in the current Government would end up going down in flames as well, If I am correct I believe Vice President Elect Joe Biden as well as Hillary Clinton and A whole bunch of other Congress and Senators voted in favor of W.'s wars crimes, so that would bring down a bunch of people who would be serving alongside President Elect Obama, and I just don't see them doing that, unfortunately.
Also, if we continue on in Iraq and any other sort of "war on terror" following W., then that would put the incoming Presidential team in the cross hairs as well, and I just don't see them doing that to themselves. Again, Unfortunately.
http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 12/15/2008 @ 7:37pm
The major leagues should take a look at that guy.
Watch the slow-mo, his aim is dead on.
And with something as awkward as a shoe.
And the second throw, quick as lightining.
Try and steal second from him and you're smoked!
Posted by bleedingheart at 12/15/2008 @ 7:41pm
Due to the awakening of the American People we now have a REAL President. One who was actually elected. I would thank god if I believed in it. As it is I can only thank the Repugs. For making it so damn obvious that we were on the train of the flaming rails to Hell.
I guess that is what happens when you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 7:48pm
Posted by bleedingheart at 12/15/2008 @ 7:41pm
I agree. Can you imagine two throws under that kind of pressure, with two objects that are not round? Shoes are not exactly aerodynamic in nature. I would say it was a great effort, considering.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 7:56pm
Posted by comanchenation at 12/15/2008 @ 7:41pm
What? Maybe you could expand your ignorance on that statement? And explain to me how the election process works when all the votes are not counted before the election is decided. And how the Supreme Court has anything to do with the electoral process.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 8:04pm
"A lot of people in the current Government would end up going down in flames...(if Obama went after the illegal acts of this administration)"
Pelosi for one outrageously denied impeachment, and we now know why: She sat in on the torture meetings, essentially approving of this despicable and illegal barbarism.She refused impeachment because she would implicate herself in war crimes.I wonder if the taxpayers have to pay for her Botox injections in prison?
Posted by mystic at 12/15/2008 @ 8:38pm
Posted by mystic at 12/15/2008 @ 8:38pm
It is obvious that Pelosi and Reed are traitors as well. Many Democrats have much to lose. That is exactly why Obama will not go after the Repug traitors. It would implicate the Democrats who are also involved. Sadly, that is why we will never see justice until the far left can get their shit together and sacrifice the Democrats who are complicit in the betrayal of our Constitution.
And Obama will likely also sell out. But maybe not. There may be hope yet. I don't see how. But you never know.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 8:51pm
I'm a Socialist. Not a Democrat. I see the dead souls on both sides.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 8:57pm
Yes, you are probably right! Almost all Islamic Terrorist sympathizers and enablers are well recieved!
Posted by comanchenation at 12/15/2008 @ 7:25pm
It appears that you are incorrect, Bush was not received well.
The administration's policies and the resulting controversies, the Senate Armed Services Committee panel concluded, "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."- John McCain (Arizona) Ranking Member
John W. Warner (Virginia) James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Susan M. Collins (Maine) Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) John Thune (South Dakota) Mel Martinez (Florida) Roger F. Wicker (Mississippi)
Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2008 @ 9:21pm
I agree w/LVL....those of us on the Right, aren't anything like the Lefty scumbags who post their glees above, including author Dreyfuss. When he is President traveling abroad, Barack Obama will be representing me and in no way, would I take glee in any insults `pitched' his way. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/15/2008 @ 9:15pm
HAPPY would NEVER refer to the president as a magic negro would you happy? In no way could that be construed as anything other than respect.
Hey, how does it "feel" to be one that strengthens the hand of Al Qaida and Mugtada-al Sadr and inhibits the gathering of intelligence that could have saved American lives? Does it "feel" patriotic?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/15/2008 @ 9:27pm
This was a glorious, but non-repeatable event. Even if it someday becomes commonplace for Iraqis to hurl their shoes at politicians they don't like, Muntader al-Zaidi was the first, and he will always be the first to have done something so bold.
Some will say that his disrespect went too far. I say, if the shoe fits...
"When he is President traveling abroad, Barack Obama will be representing me and in no way, would I take glee in any insults `pitched' his way," vowed "HAPPYLonghorn."
I say, ANYBODY can make a promise that he's not likely to have to keep.
Posted by JakobFabian at 12/15/2008 @ 9:33pm
"There was a time in this country when we declard with one voice that attacks againts any president, Democrat or Republican, was an attack against all Americans.
But most of the leftists only believe in Americans who agree with them. The fact that any of you find acceptable or amusing that this happened shows what small minded individuals you are."
Personally, I believe I would be really pissed off if another country invaded mine and then later its leader came and told me things were great. I would do more than throw a shoe at the bastard.
Speaking of small minded, didn't this country once believe it was wrong to invade other nations? I think we fought Nazis, but maybe I am wrong on that one. Oh those small minded World War II soldiers.
Posted by onthehelm at 12/15/2008 @ 9:39pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/15/2008 @ 6:00pm
Somebody kick Maasch, he's passed out again.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/15/2008 @ 9:41pm
LET'S SEND OUR OLD SHOES TO BUSH!!!!!!!! PERHAPS, HE IS UNAWARE OF HOW LITTLE RESPECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE FOR HIM. THIS WOULD BE A NON VIOLENT PROTEST. I'M SENDING AT LEAST ONE PAIR ON TUESDAY.
Posted by 123MAIL at 12/15/2008 @ 9:53pm
Maybe all Muslims should start buying shiney black pointy FBI and CIA shoes. And have training schools to instruct them and train them to hurl those shoes with Ninja precision at the heads of invaders. Fuck the haphazard use of suicide bombers with ball bearing explosions that take life indiscriminately. Roadside bombs could be filled with shoes that pinpoint only those who would wear them. Precision shoe tossing may actually repel the invader by using their own shoe leather against them.
And in the process gain the respect of the entire world without resorting to random terrorism.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 9:56pm
I'm sending two pair on Wednesday. Anyone have the correct address?
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 10:00pm
Send all your old shoes to the White House! Make sure you use them to clean up the droppings of your Great Dane before you FedEx...
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 10:06pm
Imagine this... It would be a beautiful thing if truckloads and boatloads of shoes started arriving from around the world... All addressed to him. Mauve mink suede Nikes from New York City. Clogs from Holland. Mukluks from the far North. Combat boots from the war zones, work boots from unemployed laborers everywhere, flip flops from Asia and the tropics, huaraches from Central America & Mexico, Shoes piled up so high that when he came down the driveway in the armor plated SUV he couldn't find the damned mailbox. A guy can dream can't he?
Posted by ticklingmedusa at 12/15/2008 @ 10:16pm
Posted by ticklingmedusa at 12/15/2008 @ 10:16pm
Awesome post! I was about to apologize for my excess as I just finished off a rather good batch of Peyote Chili. But you just took it to the next level. And yes a guy can still dream. They can't take that away from you.
At least not yet..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 10:19pm
Now we are cookin! Imagination takes the cake, but does not eat it, no just not yet. We let it simmer in the crock, and only taste it when it Rocks!
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 10:28pm
Across the gulf,
A growing chorus of boo's
Whirling pumps and stilettos
Doc Martens and Jimmy Choos
Spinning faster and freer, liberated at last
By surgical strikes
And bunker buster blasts
Ripped off corpses of greying people
Once mostly brown in hue
Fueled by Big Oil, rednecks, blood and fear
Comes a screaming, from the deepest of blues
A perfect Katrina storm of shoes
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 10:47pm
"One toke over the line sweet Jesus"
http://www.jango.com/music/Brewer+Shipley?l=0
Wooooooooooo some delicate harmonies...
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 10:57pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 10:40pm
My Marxist Hell? So you judge me? Who are you to judge me you pompous bastard. Do you now deign yourself to be God? How can you accuse me of descent into anything? When you already occupy the deepest darkest depths of depravity?
My mind is just fine. Don't you worry about that. My mind is finely tuned to seek out and challenge the likes of yours. It is my mission, it is my purpose and my passion. Never underestimate the strength of your opposition. I was put here to sweep your feet of their foul indentation upon this Earth.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 10:57pm
C'mon Larry - show some humanity or divinity. Send him a cool lyric. We're all brothers and sisters, even Marx had some sense of this.
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 11:07pm
Your response kind of says it all. I guess I really struck the mark. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 10:58pm
I really expected a much better reaction to my post than that! You dissapoint me. You quote my entire response and then respond to it with a short and inane rebuttal. You defend yourself with my words. And then state that my words say it all. And that you suppose that YOU struck the mark?
Your Hubris is astounding Larry. Do you gaze at yourself in the mirror of your ego? How disgusting..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 11:31pm
Posted by comanchenation at 12/15/2008 @ 11:32pm
I would expect nothing less from a succubus or incubus. You wouldn't know a rational or clarified thought if it bit you in the ass...
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 11:41pm
Posted by comanchenation at 12/15/2008 @ 11:32pm
And my use of certain psychoactive subtances has nothing to do with your idea of a rational point of view. In fact your idea of "rational" appears as a confusing mixture of dark colors swirling in a void. I sense a diseased perspective. I see you. I feel you. Can you say the same? Pity..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 11:58pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 11:55pm
Awesome lyrics there brother. Do you really understand them?
I doubt it. If I was stranded on a desert island "Surrealistic Pillow" would be in contention for one album I would want along.
Maybe right behind "Electric Ladyland" but I doubt you get it. For one thing the "We live but Once" lyric is true to a point. We live but once in this body and we live but once with this personality (or ego). But we live forever with this soul. And that means our true family interacts with us forever. And I would speculate that whatever pod of family you belong to will be somewhat dissappointed with your performance. And that at some point we will have to do this all again...
Posted by chaoszen at 12/16/2008 @ 12:20am
As the international papers declared after 911, we're all American... Same when it comes to appreciating some sweet lyrics, yes, not equally - but that's a secondary point, more like a truism.
Posted by winyahn at 12/16/2008 @ 01:03am
We're all American's but NOT ALL IDIOTS. Isn't a MEXICAN AN AMERICAN? CALLING ALL NORTH AMERICANS...PLEASE SEND YOUR USED WORN OUT MADE IN CHINA SHOES TO DUBYA, 300 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WASHINGTON DC. This is a perfect way to protest the biggest little idiot ever!
Posted by valiant at 12/16/2008 @ 02:49am
LvLiberty loves to lie to himself like any Democrat.
The big joke is, he'll never ever ever come to terms with his lying.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/16/2008 @ 03:02am
And who would've guessed Larry would use this time as a way to show off the "hatred" of the "left" (Larry's favorite bogeyman).
Bush would be lucky to warrant hatred from anybody other than the families of the various people he's murdered during his holy war.
I don't see hatred from anybody left or right or in between in America. More like 82% disgust and 18% self-righteous indignation.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/16/2008 @ 03:06am
I guess this is the difference between statistics and anecdotes. One guy throws a temper tantrum and we are to believe that this proves the "will" of a billion people?
Well then, I guess it also proves all Mulsims are anti-American haters who can't be reasoned with and should be in US military custody.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 04:29am
I guess this is the difference between statistics and anecdotes. One guy throws a temper tantrum and we are to believe that this proves the "will" of a billion people?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 04:29am
Well then, I guess it also proves all Mulsims are impotent children given over to irrational tempertantrums. No wonder the Left idolizes them. I'm for more than their anti-Americanism.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 04:36am
I guess Lee Harvey Oswald proves that all Americans despise Democrats.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 04:40am
I guess JFK proves that all Democrats are dishonest philanderers.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 04:41am
In all seriousness, there is only one thing that this guy proves: That Iraq has changed for the better.
How many people threw shoes at Saddam and lived to tell about it?
Read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ world/article850587.ece
A CHIEF executioner to one of Saddam's sons has revealed how he helped drag two victims into a cage to be devoured by lions.
The executioner said that he was ordered to seize two 19-year-old students and take them to a farm of Uday Hussein, Saddam's oldest son who was killed by American forces last week.
As soon as they arrived the students were dragged to a cage containing the lions and forced inside. "I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite," he said. He then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men: "By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh."
He was told later that the two young men "had competed with Uday where some young ladies were concerned".
The 36-year-old executioner, who used the pseudonym of Abu Ahmad, also took part in mass beheadings on the orders of the sadistic Uday. In a single afternoon he supervised the decapitation of 36 people, including a pregnant woman.
He was so distressed at participating in the killing of an unborn child that he "wished for Allah to open up the ground and swallow everyone there including myself". But he feared that if he disobeyed orders he too would be executed.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 04:46am
President Bush finally found the long-missing Weapons of Mass Humiliation in Iraq. Iraqis, millions of them, are wearing them on their feet. Not exactly WMDs, but WMHs will have to do. *************************************************************
Grow up.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 04:48am
"..Speaking of small minded, didn't this country once believe it was wrong to invade other nations? I think we fought Nazis, but maybe I am wrong on that one. Oh those small minded World War II soldiers.
Posted by onthehelm at 12/15/2008 @ 9:39pm"
Yup...and we invaded Germany , Italy, Japan, France, Africa, et all...to prove our point...
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 06:14am
I'm sending two pair on Wednesday. Anyone have the correct address?
Posted by chaoszen at 12/15/2008 @ 10:00pm
Ah, yes...all left feet...
the address?
Governors residence in Illinois...
I am sure Jesse Jackson has the exact address...
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 06:18am
You know, on second thought, maybe you lefties are correct. I'm sure that these couragous journalists would have deposed Saddam and installed a functioning democracy with the threat of a stern shoe throwing. Yeah, the Iraqi war was inconsequential because if the US hadn't removed Saddam, I'm sure these shoe throwing journalists would have a couple of months later anyways.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 06:45am
"Well then, I guess it also proves all Mulsims are who can't be reasoned with and should be in US military custody."
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 04:29am
For one, I am an "anti-American hater". I hate those anti-Americans.
And yes, the US military should have total dominion over anyone who is unreasonable or hates US policy, anywhere in the world.
Lets invade everywhere and incarcerate everybody. Quick. Before we run out of Americans to incarcerate at home.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/16/2008 @ 06:59am
Don't worry....I'm saving these for later-
Sorry to disappoint, but I support the president and the office of the presidency no matter which party. And I've always argued against those who rail at our president when he is overseas representing all Americans.--------Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 6:58pm
When he is President traveling abroad, Barack Obama will be representing me and in no way, would I take glee in any insults `pitched' his way.----Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/15/2008 @ 9:15pm
And yes, willing to bet, that LVLIB and HAPPY will "suddenly discover" a few CAVEATS to their bipartisanship. Things like "I'm just mentioning...I'm not 'railing against him'" or "That was hardly an 'insult'".
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 07:13am
Posted by Malcontent at 12/16/2008 @ 06:59am
Eric, I was being sarcastic. One person throwing an imature temper tantrum doesn't PROVE anything. I guess my point got lost because the journalist is currently in Iraqi military custody, not US miliatry custody.
But at least I can identify with a lot of your teammate. I kinda wish Saddam was back in power now so that all the children could fly kites and I could see YouTube vidoe of this shoe thrower been eaten alive by Uday's pet lions.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 07:58am
The trouble with Bush is he never learned how to deal with his enemies. A return comment like "May the ghost of Hulagu Khan spread camel dung on your mothers grave" would have returned the humiliation to an overly passionate and tactless reporter.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/16/2008 @ 07:59am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 07:58am
Doesn't it seem a little strange that that journalist isn't "eternally grateful" to his "liberator" (Dubya)?!?!????
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 08:42am
Act of courage?? An act of courage would have been tossing his shoes at Saddam. How many times did he do that? He is still alive with both feet so I'm going to guess never. It takes no courage to make fun of the US President. Look at the late night comedians(?) and Barney Frank and The Nation. This guy tossed his shoes because he has freedoms and security that George Bush presented to Iraq. In a stupid, backhandned muslim way this guy, through his shoe toss, was thanking George Bush for allowing him to live and practice his profession and not fear jail, torture for himself, rape for his wife, abuse for his childern and live to see another day. Personally, I would have preferred a simple thank you.
Bill Redner
Posted by wredner at 12/16/2008 @ 08:46am
Posted by wredner at 12/16/2008 @ 08:46am
What is Dubya's view of the SAUDI rulers, Bill? And please note the Sweden-like civil liberties and democracy that those people enjoy.
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 09:34am
Doesn't it seem a little strange that that journalist isn't "eternally grateful" to his "liberator" (Dubya)?!?!????
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 08:42am
Naw, most jouranlist are idiots.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 10:28am
Doesn't it seem a little strange that that journalist isn't "eternally grateful" to his "liberator" (Dubya)?!?!????
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 08:42am
So "The Good" is the mortal enemy of "The Perfect". Nice strategy for making the world a better-- no scratch that. Nice strategy for making the world a perfect place.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 10:31am
i too found the whole thing strangely satisfying, funny, and apropo.
reminded me of an incident a few years ago when an irate german punched helmut kohl in the gut over something...
funny when an average joe pulls something like this on a world leader, and bush deserves a lot worse than a couple of shoes launched at him..."this is a goodbye kiss" WHOOSH, WHOOSH! LMAO!
i gotta say two good things about the prez, though...
1. he has great reflexes. those shoes were flung with some serious velocity. chimpy was bobbin' and weavin' like muhamed ali.
2. he was remarkably cool and calm in his reaction. seems when the adrenaline gets pumping he mushmouths a lot less and i could see some of the humble charisma that some who voted for him in 00 must have seen.
still the worst prez ever, imo, but its hard to hate the guy.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 10:44am
I wonder what would have happened to this journalist if he'd thrown shoes at Sadam Hussein...
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/16/2008 @ 11:02am
What a nightmare these eight years of tyranny have wrought.With all the embarrassing record on video, be it the shoe hurling, the dancing on the graves of the American fallen, the "So what?" comment about how he brought on the influx of Al Qaeda in Iraq,the drunken "pretzel" pratfalls, the dismembering of our economy and global respect, the war crimes, the holocaust in Iraq, the tortures, the crematorium at Abu Ghraib, the list goes on and on, Bush has earned the appellation of the worst president in US history.Obama is already starting out as a warmonger in Afghanistan and who knows what else, but at least he is not the embarrassment and despicable disgrace Bush has been.The neocons who brought on this nightmare in America and Israel will live in infamy forever.
Posted by mystic at 12/16/2008 @ 11:54am
Now, if only the left wing media could just get some courage and throw the chimpy bastard some hardball questions.
Posted by valiant at 12/16/2008 @ 11:57am
Since when does one person throwing a temper tantrum "speak" for and entire country? Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 11:35am
"BAGHDAD -- Calling someone the "son of a shoe" is one of the worst insults in Iraq. But the lowly shoe and the Iraqi who threw both of his at President Bush, with widely admired aim, were embraced around the Arab world on Monday as symbols of rage at a still unpopular war.
In Saudi Arabia, a newspaper reported that a man had offered $10 million to buy just one of what has almost certainly become the world's most famous pair of black dress shoes.
A daughter of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, reportedly awarded the shoe thrower, Muntader al-Zaidi, a 29-year-old journalist, a medal of courage.
Although that action was not expressed in a civilized manner, it showed the Iraqi feelings, which is to object to the American occupation," said Qutaiba Rajaa, a 58-year-old physician in Samarra, a Sunni stronghold north of Baghdad.
But many more expressed undiluted pleasure. "I swear by God that all Iraqis with their different nationalities are glad about this act," said Yaareb Yousif Matti, a 45-year-old teacher from Mosul, in northern Iraq.
Mr. Zaidi, who remained in custody Monday, provided a rare moment of unity in a region often at odds with itself. Glee, even if thinly veiled, could be discerned in much of the reporting, especially in places where anti-American sentiment runs deepest.
In Syria, Mr. Zaidi's picture was shown all day on state television, with Syrians calling in to share their admiration for his gesture and his bravery. In central Damascus, a huge banner hung over a street, reading, "Oh, heroic journalist, thank you so much for what you have done."
Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2008 @ 12:36pm
"Your problem is Mask that you are such a cynic that you don't understand those of us from a previous generation who still believe that the office of the presidency is not a political party. "
Talk about naive!
Bush NEVER EVER played politics with his office. Nope, never happened.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2008 @ 12:40pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/16/2008 @ 11:33am
LVLIB, I am 90% sure that sometime in the next 4 years, when Obama is abroad...
you will criticize him, especially if somebody here at "TN" praises him with a blog thread.
You won't be able to resist...and when you do, I'll re-post the above....and you will come up with some "excuse" for why "it doesn't apply to ______" or "I waited until he got back home to attack him for what he said in Paris/Riyadh/Beijing/Sydney!"
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 12:52pm
The only hateful stupidity is that exhibited by those who find this incident to be something to find joy in. that you don't, speaks volumes about yourself as a partisan. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/15/2008 @ 6:59pm
PFFF. Give me a break LVL. It's not like the guy tried to kill Bush. He threw a shoe at him. It's a sign of defiance. Just because the guy isn't an American throwing the show doesn't make his opinion of the man any less valid. This isn't a matter of partisanship for me this is a matter of getting a laugh out of someone throwing a shoe. I don't care who is on the receiving end. All this shows is that you think that you are better than the rest of us because your mind is so warped you actually believe that you are a superior person to those on the left. You can't even see that we are all the same. You should see a psychiatrist.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/16/2008 @ 1:43pm
Sample this heinous self-serving piety from the Pastor who has, among other things, praised McCarthyism to the skies, issued endless apolgetics for the sick and ghoulish on-air Farwell-Robertson America-hating celebration of 9-11, and praised Saint Sarah-style successionism from the United States of America with endless gaiety:
"the president is ALWAYS, our president when overseas. Not the Republican president, not the Democrat president."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/16/2008 @ 11:33am
The Reverand has claims to be a Vietnam veteran who signed up for the cause in order to...prevent a Muslim from ever becoming POTUS. You will have to ask him to amplify all of these far-out, rightwing circus freak views in his own peculiar ways. For now, we may just observe that the Reverand suports the POTUS, where ever he or she may go --- provided that the POTUS subscribes to the religous party line in strict congruence with the Reverand's orthodoxies. Hence, LVL's uninterupted bouts of ass-wiggling lordosis toward the America-despising loser George W Bush.
The Reverand may be a speciman of particularly hideous rightwing detritus in and of himself. However, his case also illustrates the general inferiority of rightwingers who are incapable of stating (to say nothing of following) generalizable principles. In this instance, the Reverand goes apeshit if the shoe is hurled at the Vietnam evading/Vanity War Initiating self-hating rightwing loser who has spent 8 years sabotaging America from the top. LVL would not moan the same pieties if the shoe flew at a Dem. LVL would instead righteosuly bray that the shoe-thrower is grounds for a special prosecutor, an impeachment, a witch-burning of the POTUS. It is the righwing way of cowering pathetically before the rigors of reality.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/16/2008 @ 1:56pm
What a nightmare these eight years of tyranny have wrought.
Posted by mystic at 12/16/2008 @ 11:54am
Let me guess, when your college bar did away with 25¢ taps after hearing about a bar that got sued, you wrote a letter to the paper describing that as "tyrany" also.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 2:12pm
I can't believe some of the right wingnutjobs thinking this guy doing a shoe toss is proof that bush has indeed liberated Iraq. The destruction of a society for a shoe toss. Where should the Iraqis' line up to thank the moron?
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 2:23pm
I can't believe some of the right wingnutjobs thinking this guy doing a shoe toss is proof that bush has indeed liberated Iraq. The destruction of a society for a shoe toss. Where should the Iraqis' line up to thank the moron?
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 2:23pm
Okay, prove me wrong. Find a story of a journalist who threw a shoe as Saddam and lived to tell about it.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 2:33pm
The only reason I know shoes are insults in Iraq is becuase I remember the stories of the thousands of people in the crowd who tore down the statue of Saddam and touched their feet to the statue's head.
Or maybe that has been airburshed from history and the entire country agrees with the temper tantrum of the journalist.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 2:35pm
So part of the country is glad the US removed Saddam and the rest pretend that they wish Saddam was back by demonstrating freedoms they never had when Saddam was in power.
Do you remember the pharmacutical add from a few years back. It showed a PETA protest of a dozen irate college kids screaming of the tyrany of having to pay full price for beer.
The capation read (something similar to), "Medical labratory testing on animals has extened the average lifetime by 12.3 years this century. What you choose to do with that time is up to you."
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 2:39pm
I don't care what saddam would have done to someone who threw his shoes at him. It's irrelevant. The fact is we destroyed a society. You can try and sugarcoat every act of defiance of todays Iraqi "society" as some kind of progression from saddam's days but it doesn't wash. We destroyed a society. Period.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 3:04pm
Wow, I wonder what you Nation readers will do when the "shoe" is on the other foot? Do you really think the skies will open up and sunlight will greet the Sun God as he visits all the corners in the globe?
I lived overseas for five years and saw Bill Clinton, the president of enlightenment, burned in effigy in three separate countries in two continents.
Do you really think it makes a damn bit of difference who the president is? Don't you think it is kind of crazy how you are celebrating an attack (amusing as it was) on the office of the president? Basically, like it or not, our country?
Shoes to you all!
Posted by Weyld1 at 12/16/2008 @ 3:18pm
The Shoe was a cultural answer. it was meaning that the the roots of culture are moore strong than the WMD. We must anderstand this.
Posted by elyagoubi at 12/16/2008 @ 3:20pm
The only reason I know shoes are insults in Iraq is becuase I remember the stories of the thousands of people in the crowd who tore down the statue of Saddam and touched their feet to the statue's head.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
You remember that, do you Darin? Did it look like this?...
http://tiny.cc/4MMDv
...or did those "thousands of people" look different in your delusion...er...recollection?
Jeez, who's really trying to "airbrush" history there, dufus?
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 3:34pm
One can be pleased that someone has more freedom than he had five years ago but still bemoan the fact that his nation has been torn to shreds by the invaders who made that little bit of freedom possible. This is known as being able to keep two opposing thoughts in your head at once while asessing the relative weight of each.
Hussein was a butcher, a tyrant and a war criminal. Clinton was a slickster and a war criminal. Bush is an idiot and a war criminal. As I have said for years, I would have been happy to see Hussein hanging from a lamppost if it was the Iraqis who actually put him there, but it was not our job to overthrow him, especially when (a) he constituted no legitimate threat to our country, and (b) there was no discernable groundswell of support within Iraq for a U.S. "Invasion for Liberation."
Posted by cka2nd at 12/16/2008 @ 3:35pm
The fact is we destroyed a society. You can try and sugarcoat every act of defiance of todays Iraqi "society" as some kind of progression from saddam's days but it doesn't wash. We destroyed a society. Period.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 3:04pm
What society was it that we destroyed..
exactly...?
the one drowned and starved out in the salt marshes?
the one of 300k buried under the desert?
the ones dead on the Iran/Iraq battle field?
The one Uday and his sweet brother fed alive to animals?
The ones were men watched their women raped?
The one where men were thrown off buildings for sport?
Or the one ...
But Abu Grab and wearing panties on your head is torture and we should pay for that with our lives...or shoes
but then again...if that is the measure, we need to close down half the Universitys, Sororitys, Fraternitys..and San Francisco...
The man threw shoes...maybe Bush should have been allowed to throw them back..
I am questioning where the hell was the Secret Service?
Can you imagine the uproar when someone throws horseshit at Obama or whatever?
I can hear the chorus here already...
Personally...I would have taken those shoes, put them on my feet and returned them to the owner...right up his ass...
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 3:36pm
It was obvious from his two throws, soccer is alive and well in Mesopotamia!
Posted by Weyld1 at 12/16/2008 @ 3:49pm
It's so delightful to see the resident assholes once again justifying American transgressions by holding us up to the standards of...Saddam Hussein?
When did the bar drop so low JM, LVLIB, or DARIN? Aren't you even slightly embarrassed? Why do you hate America so much that you're willing to take your own country down to that level?
Although it's nothing new since you've been using the exact same tactic in American politics. Clinton lied and stole, so it's okay for Dubya to do the same!
Disgusting, every last one of you.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/16/2008 @ 3:49pm
I'm sure the Iraqis feel better about having themselves and their family members blown up, as long as the bombs and bullets are coming from the "good" team.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/16/2008 @ 3:52pm
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/15/2008 @ 9:15pm
You are almost as full of shit as the fat deaf guy that does all your thinking for you...damn that's a lot of shit!!!
Posted by ADHD at 12/16/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 3:36pm
MAASCH, you always struck me as a more "realpolitik" kind of conservative...not a raging ideologue on neo-conservatism...so a question...
geo-strategically speaking ALONE...which is better-
1. an Iranian-friendly Shiite government in Baghdad?
2. an ANTI-Iranian Sunni government in Baghdad (and 4100 non-dead GIs and no 3/4ths of a trillion...in DEBT for the US)?
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 4:18pm
I agree with some..that throw was awesome. He was dead on! Bush is no lilly-dipper either! Did you see how he ducked his head at the last millisecond? Geesh it must of felt great when Montather Al-Zaidi let it fly!! I can only dream...
Posted by Guitar Man at 12/16/2008 @ 4:26pm
Yourjomamma: Obviously you believe that the ethnic cleansing was a natural thing.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 4:31pm
And your flippant comparison of Abu Grhaib with soroities, frats and homosexuals is disgusting.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 4:48pm
Mask,
Which is better?
How about a parking lot?
Just kidding...
Yeah..3/4 of a trillin in Iraq...it will soon be chump change as we will spend 5 times that in a year here..all of the talk about Bush spending, and now more demanded of Obama admin with zero regard to its effect..FDR, they cry...sweet...I believe FDR caused more long terms damage tha he solved short term problems..maybe made them worse.
I am at a point where I no longer think it matters...the left will not be happy until America is deballed, defanged and no matter what happens in Iraq will be Bush fault unless Iraq blossoms into something they conclude it a good thing..and at this point, I think the left here would love to see Saddam returned to power..American transfer trillions more for all the "damage" we did...forget.. like building electric grids...and running water..doesn't matter.
I am withdrawing from the political dialog as I believe Bush killed the conservatives off and left us with a group far worse..IE bigger spenders with an even bigger pro govt agenda..and more hostile to anyone who disagrees..
I am returning from China from a very successful trip and will focus on building a solid economic base under me and my family for the furure in these fluid times..BTW, I am negoiating to be paid in Swiss Francs..at the rate we are going to print dollars...toilet paper will have more value.
Sorry Mask, I haven't really answered your question,but I am losing interest in the Nation site extremely fast...and in the political future here..it looks to be doomed to socialism ..instead of helping raise people up a level...govt checks, forced unions and "free" shit from a bloated govt apparacheks will finish off the golden goose in the name of raising people up.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 4:54pm
Is this what "Liberated" looks like?
.
http://tiny.cc/SwoxB
In their quest for stability in Iraq, U.S. officials have empowered tribal and religious leaders, Sunni and Shiite, who reject the secularism that Saddam Hussein once largely maintained. These leaders have imposed strict interpretations of Islam and enforced tribal codes that female activists say limit their freedom and encourage violence against them.
"Women are being strangled by religion and tribalism," said Muna Saud, a 52-year-old activist in Basra.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/130602
Tribal fighters have cut down Iraq's violence. But they're subjecting women to often-medieval mores.
The Americans imposed order a few months ago by recruiting and paying local men to turn in the names of suspected jihadists. Similar armed groups have popped up all around the city. Each has its own bizarre rules; some threaten to kill women who don't wear veils in public.
Saddam's Iraq at least offered women the protection of enforced secularism; they were encouraged to study at universities and to pursue professional careers.
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 5:10pm
I love the spin and attempts to protect the reputation of George Bush. This monster invaded a non-threatening sovereign nation using deception and lies; He then destroyed this country, murdered 1.2 million of its citizens, tortured them, and even did something to them which resulted in what looked like human bones being left in a crematorium at Abu Ghraib.He caused the upheaval of hundreds of thousands of refugees, crippled and maimeds thousands of inncent lives, bombed civilian homes with impunity. I think throwing shoes is totally understandable in the circumstances considering that Saddam was hanged for the murder of only 359 or so human beings.Bush needs to be tried and convicted for crimes against humanity. The shoes are a symbol of global outrage at what he perpetrated.
Posted by mystic at 12/16/2008 @ 5:23pm
<<I love the spin and attempts to protect the reputation of George Bush. This monster invaded a non-threatening sovereign nation using deception and lies; He then destroyed this country, murdered 1.2 million of its citizens, tortured them, and even did something to them which resulted in what looked like human bones being left in a crematorium at Abu Ghraib.He caused the upheaval of hundreds of thousands of refugees, crippled and maimeds thousands of inncent lives, bombed civilian homes with impunity. I think throwing shoes is totally understandable in the circumstances considering that Saddam was hanged for the murder of only 359 or so human beings.Bush needs to be tried and convicted for crimes against humanity. The shoes are a symbol of global outrage at what he perpetrated.
Posted by mystic at 12/16/2008 @ 5:23pm>>
Let's take this piece by piece, because most of it relies on some crazy exaggeration (Abu Ghraib=crematorium? Seriously?) Though I agree that our unacceptable handling of the war has created vast refugee displacement and massive civilian deaths (that we therefore have a moral obligation to fix to the extent possible rather than abandoning), Bush is not a murderer. No good evidence establishes that he went in for corrupt motives, and everything we have suggests that his intentions were good. Certainly, his actions are not even remotely comparable to what Saddam did, not by any stretch of the imagination. I grant you that this does not by any means let him off the hook for the disastrous failures that have taken place on his watch, but we should be careful that strong rhetoric is accurately attuned to the reality of the situation.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/16/2008 @ 5:42pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 4:54pm
Yep, falling to the unions. Wait, Luvvt told us that union membership was dropping fast. bzzzt.
I can feel the patriotism oozing from your pores John.
Good Luck to you in Switzerland
A list of parties holding seats in the Swiss Assembly
Radical Free Democratic Party
Social Democratic Party
Swiss People's Party
Christian Democratic People's Party
Green Party
You won't be safe from government interference in banking:
"While the Swiss market index has outperformed the Nasdaq composite index this year, it has still lost 31 percent of its value. UBS, the flagship Swiss bank, amassed the biggest losses in Europe in the credit crunch, forcing the government and central bank to offer $59 billion in support. The Swiss franc has tumbled against the dollar. "-Int Herald
Some Swiss Banks will be taking money from Arab banks and investors.
Union members protested at banks in Dec of this year.
Should be a nice change of pace for you John.
I know, you just want their cash, not their liberal agenda.
Peace to you brother.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2008 @ 6:07pm
LILLIAN, Darin loves Psi-ops!
It works great on most of the cons. Look at the belief that they helped the war effort by acting all Jack Bauer on their asses,when in fact they were killing Americans by supporting policies that have led to a 10 year war and inhibiting intelligence gathering by US troops.
drone planes
links to AQ
Bogeymen in the Illinois congress and education boards.
PSYCHE!
sorry about the 700,000 dead.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2008 @ 6:14pm
Bush is too stupid to understand what he has done to America, Iraq and the World. He is a dim-witted ignorant, preveledged son of rich parents. A non-intellectual moron with an education brainlevel of that of a child. Bush is incapable of feeling, and for the responsibility for the atrocities he has committed as President. He should be tried, convicted and sentenced to a public hanging, like his pal Saddam!
Posted by terramartom at 12/16/2008 @ 6:16pm
the 700,000 dead
friends
neighbors
brothers
sisters
aunts
uncles
cousins
sons
daughters
nieces
nephews
he threw his shoe because he hated our freedoms
Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2008 @ 6:17pm
chimpy pulled in a cool 3.2 mil for his time in the white house, then had the chutzpah to moan about being on "government wages" last week.
class act.
with good reflexes for a middle aged American. Lots of exercise, little time for ponderin'.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2008 @ 6:19pm
Crab,
Meds kicked in for you again..
I want to be paid in the currency of Swiss francs..they have held their own better than most..
..talking about Swiss francs does not equivicate to moving to Switzwerland anymore than it purports a desire for Swiss chocolates..
"Try again grasshopper...and when you can leave no trace on the rice paper, it is time for you to leave."
Auf Weidersehen.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 6:23pm
And your flippant comparison of Abu Grhaib with soroities, frats and homosexuals is disgusting.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 4:48pm
I find most lib positions here disgusting..
and the truth is...
most of what you see in the pictures from Abu Grab would cost you $500 a night in San Frabcisco according to a "street" brochure a friens of mine showed me while I was there!
What went in Abu before might have been disgusting...
ever see the videos of the American being beheaded? Watch that and then tell how you feel...
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 6:27pm
Saddam's Iraq at least offered women the protection of enforced secularism; they were encouraged to study at universities and to pursue professional careers.
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 5:10pm
Ah, yes, the good old days..a pleasant trip down memory lane..
before or after Uday discovered the women..
but then again,
guarenteed secularism...I see your point..
The Nation...what a group.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 6:32pm
chimpy pulled in a cool 3.2 mil for his time in the white house, then had the chutzpah to moan about being on "government wages" last week.
class act.
with good reflexes for a middle aged American. Lots of exercise, little time for ponderin'.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/16/2008 @ 6:19pm
$3.2?
Chimp change...
He needs to talk with his brother, Billy...now that guy knows how to drain cash..get young chicks..and make it look like someones else fault, while he was just there to help!!!
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 6:34pm
Though I agree that our unacceptable handling of the war has created vast refugee displacement and massive civilian deaths (that we therefore have a moral obligation to fix to the extent possible rather than abandoning), Bush is not a murderer. No good evidence establishes that he went in for corrupt motives, and everything we have suggests that his intentions were good. Certainly, his actions are not even remotely comparable to what Saddam did, not by any stretch of the imagination. I grant you that this does not by any means let him off the hook for the disastrous failures that have taken place on his watch, but we should be careful that strong rhetoric is accurately attuned to the reality of the situation.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/16/2008 @ 5:42pm
Wow. Didn't go in for corrupt reasons? Had good intentions? Please. And his actions dwarf saddam's. You need to check on reality.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 6:35pm
Saddam's Iraq at least offered women the protection of enforced secularism; they were encouraged to study at universities and to pursue professional careers.
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 5:10pm
.
The Nation...what a group.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 6:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Uh John, that was a quote...straight from Newsweek.
But then, it surprises absolutely no one that you never bothered to educate yourself by reading the article...
...just passed summary judgement based on who quoted it to you.
It's the kind of moronic, kneejerk response we've all come to expect from you.
(Pure 'Archie Bunker'!!)
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 7:01pm
Loss of rights by the women of Iraq was a given years ago. They have been set back some 30 years. Why would anyone argue that?
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 7:45pm
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/16/2008 @ 7:57pm </i>
In my honest opinion, some of the people who despise Bush as a war criminal can never be persuaded otherwise, but at the same time I would argue that wars resulting in massive numbers of deaths generate questions of motive and accusations of corruption. Because war can corrupt even the best of intentions, I think we should always be prepared to scrutinize the decisions made by those who begin and execute wars. Thus, though I think the conclusions of individuals like stpwarsnow are extremely exaggerated versions of reality, I also believe that they nonetheless deserve to be seriously engaged. Others who are asking legitimate questions deserve to have those questions discussed, even if posters like STPWARSNOW are not THEMSELVES open to such discussion
In doing so, I want to hit 2 primary areas. First, his specific response to my post. It's worth noting that he doesn't really respond at all. In fact, his response was nothing more than a mockery of my claims. This is problematic because in this matter, he holds the burden of proof. When an individual's motives and character are in question, the burden is on the one who would impugn that individual's character, not on the one who finds no basis for doing so. Additionally, the claim that Bush's action far oustrip the heinousness of Saddam's is to ignore the massive and deliberate pattern of wanton and cruelty-driven abuse which bears no comparison to Bush's own misguided actions in pursuit of a cause he at least reasonable believed justified. Is he morally responsible for not probing further into it, for not asking the hard questions? Absolutely. But he is no Saddam, not by any stretch. That vast an accusation deserves FAR more evidence than has yet been attempted.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/16/2008 @ 8:47pm
RE:
Well, some posts did mention Obama's Bush-lite, aka goofy, happy warior who don't care to know much. Now Rahmo's just the notoriously famous Rove, the Bush' brain. Change? What change? Spare me.
---------
Rahm's calls on tape The Blago scandal . . . December 16, 2008
BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist Sneed hears rumbles President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds -- dealing with his boss' vacant Senate seat!
Posted by HelenDAO at 12/16/2008 @ 9:23pm
<i>Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/16/2008 @ 7:45pm </i>
<i>Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 7:01pm</i>
I hope you are not actually contending that women had rights under Saddam's rule. I would think that rape rooms alone would be sufficient to put that claim to rest; if you (or Newsweek, for that matter) care to make the claim that Saddam actually promoted women's rights, they have a lot of explaining to do in reconciling those rights with rooms where women's very autonomy and agency could be stripped away simply for the pleasure of Saddam or other powerful figures. Saddam cared nothing for women's rights anymore than he did for those he manipulated as playthings or tortured for pleasure.
And yes, before you ask, I do also oppose the US torturing people, for some of those exact same reasons. Even if we believe that there was a utility to torture (which I think is questionable at best), it would still involve the government treating other human beings as less than what they are. Terrorists do not cease being human beings, and if you'll indulge me, they do not by any stretch cease being children of God whom he loves. All-loving does in fact mean ALL-loving.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/16/2008 @ 9:24pm
Thrawn and JM, No amount of presentation of the facts will ever change the minds of the low life cretans that call themselves anti-war liberals and who call Bush a war criminal. They are so bound up with their hate and ignorance that they are incapable of rational evaluations. Let them simmer in their hate. I guarantee you that President Bush is not and will not lose any sleep over their infantile minds; nor should we. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/16/2008 @ 7:57pm
Hilarious hypocrite. I haven't seen any post on here that is filled with more hate than this one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/16/2008 @ 9:49pm
hey, ARCHIE!
what size shoes you wear?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2008 @ 10:25pm
One size shoe fits all underwear and pants worn by idiots and assholes..
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 10:33pm
LIL,
The problem is not my not educating myself...
the problem is someone reading NEWSWEEK and believing they are being educated...
Newsweek ain't news or newsworthy in case you missed the point.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 10:35pm
Newsweek ain't news or newsworthy in case you missed the point.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Oh I get your point John...
...you think reading news isn't educational.
(It explains a LOT about your posts here.)
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 11:02pm
Posted by Thrawn at 12/16/2008 @ 9:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thrawn, I've often wondered what the people of Iraq think about our 'liberating' them. I saw a very interesting piece on cable TV - a 'before' and 'after' series of interviews with a variety of differnt Iraqis. (Before and after several syears of American occupation.)
In the beginning, not long after the inintial action, many were optimistic that life after Saddam would be 'better'. They were willing, to some extent, to embrace the idea of American culture as something positive. And they felt, to some extent, 'liberated'.
Then, when Saddam was actually caught and executed, while few defended Saddam, very few were actually happy about his demise. They felt they'd lost some part of their cultural identitiy, even as brutal as Saddam had been to them.
towards the end, after YEARS of living without power or clean water or basic sanitation, after the endless violence and general apathy and ineptness of American occupation, after the closure of their schools and destruction of their hospitals and the turning over of their security to brutal bands of religeously medieval tribal leaders, the vast majority openly expressed a preference for Saddam's rule over American occupation.
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 11:19pm
The problem is not my not educating myself...
the problem is someone reading NEWSWEEK and believing they are being educated...
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually John, the problem is in getting your 'education' soley from Rush Limbaugh and Faux News...
...and thinking you now somehow know what you're talking about.
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 11:26pm
Actually John, the problem is in getting your 'education' soley from Rush Limbaugh and Faux News...
...and thinking you now somehow know what you're talking about.
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 11:26pm
I neither listen to or watch either on any kind of regular basis..I spend more time on this site than there..
And I find it illogical and lacking common sense on the "progressive" side...
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 11:33pm
I neither listen to or watch either on any kind of regular basis..I spend more time on this site than there..
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 11:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
And where do you get your "news"?
Posted by Lillian at 12/16/2008 @ 11:56pm
I hope you are not actually contending that women had rights under Saddam's rule.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/16/2008 @ 9:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Thrawn, you KNOW I'm not defending Saddam's rule.
I'm merely pointing out that taking an oppressed group of people, killing thier oppressor, then delivering them into oppression that is just different...
...hardly qualifies as 'liberation'.
(Only someone completely blinded by their rank partisanship would come to such an inane conclusion.)
Posted by Lillian at 12/17/2008 @ 12:14am
Okay, prove me wrong. Find a story of a journalist who threw a shoe as Saddam and lived to tell about it.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/16/2008 @ 2:33pm
Darin, you've missed the point. Thanks to the target of those shoes, 1.2 million Iraqis are no longer alive to tell of anything. Of course, Bush has liberated these people. From their earthly concerns. And their earthly bodies. If Iraq is such a free place, how is it that Zaidi has already been beaten by authorities? The reality is pretty stark, Darin. Bush has murdered their families and destroyed their society to satisfy his greed, his blood lust, his God complex, and his Oedipal issues.
And, Thrawn, Bush started a war of aggression against a sovereign nation that had done us no harm, that was never going to do us harm. He caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. He ordered, or minimally knowingly acquiesced in the torture of captives. Those are war crimes. And someone who commits war crimes is...yes, it's true...a war criminal. By definition.
Posted by jmusolino at 12/17/2008 @ 02:06am
has the GWB admin. created...umm...I mean discovered a link between al-Zaidi and Iran yet?
Posted by NukularProficy at 12/17/2008 @ 04:52am
Thrawn: Abu Ghraib = crematorium If you don't believe me, here is a credible source based on actual photographs: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/24/080324fa_fact_gourevitch We KNOW that torture was taking place on a grand scale in this notorius prison with Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld's approval (and Nancy Pelosi, Condoleeza Rice among others). These photos were too horriffic to show to the public, but the journalist states what I said: What look like human bones were found in a crematorium at Abu Ghraib. I find it hard to believe that they were animal bones, and we should assume they were human until an investigation proves otherwise. Some have defended Bush by speculating that the incineration of human beings in this crematorium was actually done by Saddam; If that were the case why weren't they cleaned out, and why haven't forensic examinations been done to prove or disprove speculative theories (= coverup)? One recalls that the forensic evidence of the World Trade Center on 9/11 was impossible because the debris and remnants of steel columns was shipped out to Japan the next day quickly before any forensics could be done. Obama should institute an investigation as soon as he becomes president, and that doesn't mean hiding the incinerated bones like they did with evidence on 9/11. The very fact that no is outraged by this article is amazing. Jonathan Turley, a constitutional attorney on Rachel Maddow, says that war crimes is not disputed by anyone he knows; It is up to the outrage of the public to demand war crimes investigations and not sweep them under the rug, which many democrats want to do (Nancy Pelosi for one, because she sat in on torture meetings and any investigation would incriminate her.She IS a war criminal.
Posted by mystic at 12/17/2008 @ 07:11am
I believe FDR caused more long terms damage tha he solved short term problems..maybe made them worse.----Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 4:54pm
In actual terms or just in your ideological/political terms?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 07:28am
JOMMAMA, read and comprehend...
"I know, you just want their cash, not their liberal agenda."
Why is it that they have so many socialist parties, unions galore, a public education system and don't attack nations that threaten Israel, yet you want their solid cash? I would think such a country would fail, according to your ideology.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2008 @ 08:03am
Why is it that they have so many socialist parties, unions galore, a public education system and don't attack nations that threaten Israel, yet you want their solid cash? I would think such a country would fail, according to your ideology.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2008 @ 08:03am
There are not enough Swiss to make a difference in the socialist world..and it is their choice..I do not give a shit what govt Europe has or chooses...
I just do not want a Europe model here..
They are the German bankers...
I want Chinas cash,too, but do not wish to live here either..
You have no point.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/17/2008 @ 09:32am
So is the neo-con view that...
since Hitler was a horror, that East Germans should have been grateful to have been under Pieck, Ulbricht, Stoph, and Honecker?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 09:58am
Bush is incapable of feeling...
Posted by terramartom at 12/16/2008 @ 6:16pm
I may agree that Bush is a war criminal but it is ALWAYS a mistake to dehumanize one's enemies. It makes it a lot easier to brutalize and kill them, thereby dehumanizing yourself.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/17/2008 @ 10:57am
It amazes me how some folks cannot carry around more than one thought, idea or piece of data and, if they seem to contradict each other, find some way to rationally reconcile them.
Under Hussein, women could get an education, become professionals and enjoy a real degree of freedom of movement and dress. On the other hand, Hussein was a brutal dictator and his sons were monsters who raped women left and right. On balance, the majority of Iraqi women had it better under Hussein than under the current occupation, but it was no paradise.
Hussein started wars against Iran and Kuwait, used poison gas against both the Iranians and his own subjects and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, millions if you include the Iranians (who he attacked with U.S. support). On the other hand, Bush, good intentions or not but ignorant and under the influence of a neo-con cabal that had been jonesing to invade Iraq for years, invaded and occupied a country that was no longer a threat to his own or its neighbors. In the process, millions have been made refugees and hundreds of thousands, or more, killed, (I think mostly by U.S. bombing or gunfire, but please correct me if I am wrong). Whatever their personality differences or intentions, both Hussein and Bush presided over regimes that have committed atrocities and war crimes.
Finally, under Hussein, Iraq was probably the most modern large state in the Arab World, both economically and socially, but did not enjoy freedom of speech or association. Under the U.S. Occupation, it has regressed in the first areas, with far less clean water and electricity, greatly reduced oil production and lower health and living standards, but has gained in the latter. Iraqis have made their own calculations and it ain't good.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/17/2008 @ 11:31am
Posted by cka2nd at 12/17/2008 @ 11:31am
Or as I noted, CKA...how about just the plain, ol', ugly "gunboat diplomacy" angle...
with Saddam, we had a Sunni who RABIDLY hated Iran and would act as a bulwark even aggressive force against Iran.
These same guys who keep telling us how dangerous Iran is...
are the same ones who took down the guy BESIDE Iran who worked the most against it...
and installed a FRIENDLY-to-Iran governmetn in Baghdad.
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 12:02pm
Miscellaneous comments:
jmusolino said "And, Thrawn, Bush started a war of aggression against a sovereign nation that had done us no harm, that was never going to do us harm.
My Comment: jmusolino conveniently forgets the WMD that Saddam would have gone back to making, once he was off of the hook. jmusolino also forgets that Saddam seemed to be intent on becoming a troublemaker big time in the Middle East. Put the two together and you have Saddam giving WMD to terrorists, and terrorists creating havoc with them. Massive catastrophe and death. jmusolino forgets you can not take a chance on "peace" with the possibility of the havoc to come with Saddam off of the hook. We (some of us, anyway) learned that from the history of the events prior to World War II.
TexasFlood says "Why do you hate America so much that you're willing to take your own country down to that level? Although it's nothing new since you've been using the exact same tactic in American politics. Clinton lied and stole, so it's okay for Dubya to do the same!
My comment: TexasFlood is good at declaring that anything opposite TexasFlood's opinions are "hating America" and an attack on "freedom" (that has come up before- not in this post). It is true, as we know, that Clinton lied and stole. It is not ok for "Dubya" to do the same. "Dubya" (George W. Bush) KNOWS this, that is why he does not lie and steal.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 12:11pm
chaoszen says:
"Bush is not and never has been a true American President. He stole two elections. Election fraud LVL. That moron was elected by the Supreme Court in the first case and elected by fraud in the second case, not by the people. "
and also "And explain to me how the election process works when all the votes are not counted before the election is decided. And how the Supreme Court has anything to do with the electoral process."
Here is how it worked.
1. The Florida election was close.
2. There was an automatic recount
3. Gore wanted manual recounts, in selected counties.
4. Gore's legal team did not convince judges of the need for manual recounts.
5. The process wound down to certification, according to deadlines set by law and required by law.
6. The Florida Supreme court interfered and ruled the process could continue.
7. The U.S Supreme court rightfully overturned this... and also on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause, that in recounting procedures and ballots would not have been the same from county to county.
There are rules and laws, and you do not bend them on the fly to achieve a desired outcome. But, with Democrats, if they are not allowed to bend the rules on the fly they declare the election was stolen from them.
In Scott McClellan's book (the one feted by the left as an expose of the Bush Administration), he describes being present in Florida in 2000 as ballots were being reviewed. Democrat and Republican election officials were present.
The Republicans noticed a lot of chads on the floor. Since chads would only come out during voting, what were chads doing on the floor?
Apparently some additional voting was occuring by Democrat election officials during the inspection/recounts!
This was fair?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 12:19pm
Bush was lucky there weren't a pair of feet in those flying brogans.
Posted by Cookie at 12/17/2008 @ 12:46pm
Responses to Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 12:11pm:
"jmusolino conveniently forgets the WMD that Saddam would have gone back to making, once he was off of the hook."
This is mere speculation. We don't know when or if sanctions would have been lifted, nor if Hussein, or whomever was running Iraq, would have resumed WMD production, nor if they even could have with the rest of the world watching.
"jmusolino also forgets that Saddam seemed to be intent on becoming a troublemaker big time in the Middle East."
That's it! Hussein did what he did merely to stir up trouble. He was also a member of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, right? As evil as Saddam Hussein was, he had strategic reasons for attacking Iran and Kuwait, and for supporting Palestinian groups fighting against Israel. The reasons - control over the Shites, oil, water resources and access to the Persian Gulf, or maintaining standing in the Arab world, among others - may or may not have been in any way legitimate, but they were not done merely to stir up trouble.
"Put the two together and you have Saddam giving WMD to terrorists, and terrorists creating havoc with them. Massive catastrophe and death."
This is a geopolitical fantasy. The vast majority of terrorist attacks conducted by non-state actors have been done with low-tech weaponry such as homemade bombs and guns, or weapons of NON-mass destruction such as RPGs. Any even mildly rational head of state - and Hussein had a brutal, ruthless rationality - would not give a WMD to another group or state unless they got a boatload of money AND plausible deniability. Not to mention, most of the groups he favored were involved in a regional struggle and could not use a WMD for fear of killing too many of their own (Palestinian) people.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/17/2008 @ 2:22pm
SJCHERMAK-killer of Americans.
According to John McCain.
Nice to hear from the allies of AQ. Those that helped AQ reach their goals, and those that helped AQ kill Americans.
According to "the troops".
now, if SJ has a problem with Sen McCAin and the troops, well he must hate America too.
Simple neo-con logic.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/17/2008 @ 2:53pm
cka2nd,
It doesn't matter why Saddam was doing what he was doing and what he would have done..... the result is what matters and it would have been a mess.
You indicate what I say is speculation. Of course it is..... it is a projection of what may have happened.....which is reason enough to have stopped it before it could possibly start.... because the consequences would have been too grave otherwise.... in this case you err on the side of caution and prevent the potential catastrophe.
And by the way, his own people said he intended to resume production of WMD... I think he (Saddam) was letting this charade of inspections play out on purpose.... letting WMD production go into abayance for a time as a means of eventually being declared by Hans Blix to be free of WMD, so he could get back to WMD procuction again.... George W. Bush and Tony Blair did not let him get away with that.
And the world wouldn't have been watching..... Once Saddam was blessed by Hans Blix as free of WMD, the world's attention would have been elsewhere.
And, as far as geopolitical fantasy, you say that the vast majority of terrorist attacks have been conducted by using "low tech weaponry"..... but apparently not all, unless you consider hijacked aircraft to be "low tech weaponry"...... and don't forget, making sure Palestinians weren't harmed did not seem to be a concern during the attack with the low tech hijacked aircraft.
And you said Saddam would have wanted a boatload of money and plausible deniability.. Some terror organizations, such as al-Qaeda, had the wherewithal to come up with money for Saddam to use to build more palaces, and could have easily hid any connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda. (remember, there were connections in the past- but libs on the Nation say no)
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 2:56pm
crabwalk,
Apparently you and TexasFlood must communicate too much, because your post sounds similar to what TexasFlood would come up with, i.e., that I kill Americans and I hate America.
In your world, I guess up is down and out is in and left is right and everything is twisted around beyond recognition.
Kind of like the way Algore thinks judges should view the U.S. Constitution!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 3:00pm
My Comment: jmusolino conveniently forgets the WMD that Saddam would have gone back to making, once he was off of the hook. jmusolino also forgets that Saddam seemed to be intent on becoming a troublemaker big time in the Middle East.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 12:11pm
Care to back those up with some facts, sj? You know that he would have...how? Or are you simply trying to justify mass murder on an utterly horrific scale? Also, are you trying to say that, given the influence of the apocalyptics in Bush's administration, given Bush's delusions of grandeur and his apparent sociopathy, given his nuclear arsenal and his ability to increase the size of that arsenal, given his penchant to start unprovoked wars, given all of those factors, that other nations, or perhaps the rest of humanity allied, would have been justified in a first strike, preemptive war against this country? I don't think that justification exists. Explain to us all, given your comments above, why that justification does not exist. And try to leave out the myth of American exceptionalism in the process.
Posted by jmusolino at 12/17/2008 @ 3:54pm
jmusolino,
You say "Care to back those up with some facts, sj?"
OK... here they are...
Saddam was going to restart WMD:
Media Ignore Saddam's WMD Intent Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:33 AM http://www.newsmax.com/ kessler/saddam_wmd_/ 2008/02/13/72345.html
Pentagon Report on Saddam:
Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | March 14, 2008 http://www.nysun.com/ foreign/report-details- saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
Then, jmusolino, you make a bunch of statements that are both your own opinion as well as gobbeldygook and nonsense, followed by a request that I prove, I guess, that George W. Bush does not have "delusions of grandeur" among other things.
Since those are your opinions and have no basis in fact to begin with, I have no ability to "Explain to us all" what is rattling around in your mind and why it is not true. It is up to you to prove that it is true, since those are your statements.
How does George W. Bush have "delusions of grandeur"?. I know you and other libs will declare that he went into Iraq and that is "proof"! You libs believe your statements are self-contained entities that are self-proving. If a lib declares something that is personal lib opinion, that also is "proof" somehow. Why? Because a lib said so, that's why!!
You are lecturing me like a college professor. Of course, since most college professors are lib, that does nake sense. You may be a college professor, for all I know. God help your students if you are!
I say that because I am saying you may be a college professor. If you were to be a high school teacher, then I could not say that because libs have forbidden all religion, except the Holy Koran, from high school.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 4:11pm
I find most lib positions here disgusting..
and the truth is...
most of what you see in the pictures from Abu Grab would cost you $500 a night in San Frabcisco according to a "street" brochure a friens of mine showed me while I was there!
What went in Abu before might have been disgusting...
ever see the videos of the American being beheaded? Watch that and then tell how you feel...
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/16/2008 @ 6:27pm
Typical neocon. If I saw an American being beheaded I'd understand that our torture is tame in comparison.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/17/2008 @ 4:44pm
In doing so, I want to hit 2 primary areas. First, his specific response to my post. It's worth noting that he doesn't really respond at all. In fact, his response was nothing more than a mockery of my claims. This is problematic because in this matter, he holds the burden of proof. When an individual's motives and character are in question, the burden is on the one who would impugn that individual's character, not on the one who finds no basis for doing so. Additionally, the claim that Bush's action far oustrip the heinousness of Saddam's is to ignore the massive and deliberate pattern of wanton and cruelty-driven abuse which bears no comparison to Bush's own misguided actions in pursuit of a cause he at least reasonable believed justified. Is he morally responsible for not probing further into it, for not asking the hard questions? Absolutely. But he is no Saddam, not by any stretch. That vast an accusation deserves FAR more evidence than has yet been attempted.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/16/2008 @ 8:47pm
I only mocked your claims because it's as though you have been living under a rock based on your outdated opinions.
We went to war based on fixed intelligence. bush didn't believe in any of the bullshit that was coming out of his own mouth. You make it sound like he made a mistake. He didn't. This was part of the neocon game plan. Christ, there has been dozens of books on the subject. He's been sold out numerous times but our paid off congress won't do shit.
And again, bush dwarfs saddam in the number of people he has been responsible for killing. Most of the atrocities we bitch about saddam doing were done while he was our ally. What bush/clintoon/bush have done sine '91 makes saddam and his 2 murderous scumbag offsring look like choir girls.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/17/2008 @ 5:00pm
Here's one for hardened "warriors" like metrosexual pansy George W Failure or mewling armchair apologists like JOHM MAASCH and SJCHERMUCK:
Report Preface By Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Ret.)
"This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individuals' lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.
The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted--both on America's institutions and our nation's founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.
In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored...
After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/17/2008 @ 5:04pm
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/17/2008
Guess you are new, so I'll give you the sketch. What you have to understand about YOURJOMAMMA (JOHN MAASCH) is that he is somewhere between a has-been and a never-was, although far closer to the latter. He is still living in 1982 when Reagan was in the saddle and Dana Rohrbacher was a muj -- and when the now nostalgic JOMAMMA did not yet have a physique like Dolly Parton (more accurately, Dolly Parton + heavy 5 o'clock shadow + a beer belly + Fred Thompson hair). In other words, JOMAMMA has even admitted in this forum that he has bosoms, likely hairy ones that are matted down with his drool as he dimly absorbs the party line from Rush and Sean.
And what about JOMAMMA's intellect? No there there, although he is awfully slow to catch on even to that vast lack, in light of how many times he has been obliterated in arguments here. JOMAMMA simply has a very a feminine and impressionistic way by which he emotes weepily or sentimentally toward all questions, a manner that is further colored by small-mindedness and a total allergy to facts and evidence. One time he could not accurately state his age. Thick thick thick...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/17/2008 @ 5:18pm
<i>Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/17/2008 @ 5:00pm </i>
Calling my opinions outdated does nothing more than beg the question. If you're going to make the claim that Bush acted from corrupt motives, you have to support it. All you have done up to this point is to assert that Bush didn't make a mistake, and freely acted in accordance with a neocon game plan. You never support that, and furthermore the evidence doesn't either. If you look at accounts such as Bob Woodward's, you find that Bush himself was not a neoconservative. He was certainly guilty of not probing further and asking difficult questions, but that's about it (not that that's insubstantial). He certainly didn't go into Iraq as part of some giant conspiracy to give oil companies profit or some nonsense like that.
You also mistake deaths for murders, and in doing so make the same unwarranted leap that Vincent Bugliosi does. It's not enough to say that people have died; you have to ask what the circumstances were and what the motives were surrounding it. Do I think we have failed to pay attention to civilian deaths as much as we should? Absolutely. However, as far as character goes, Bush is certainly NOTHING near what Saddam and his sons were, I think that's pretty clear. He didn't make people suffer for his own pleasure, and he hasn't by any stretch of the imagination ruled as a dictator.
The bottom line is this: making accusations against Bush and other members of his administration is not enough. When you're attacking other people, you have the burden to back those claims up with evidence. Thus far, you have failed spectacularly in that crucial regard.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/17/2008 @ 5:24pm
Before I go, just want to repeat General Taguba's punchline for all of the manly "warrior-poets" and tuff-guy posturers like SJ"Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote"CHERMAK and the drooling anal seepage machine without pause that is JOMAMMA. I'm sure they can match Teguba with their, umm, tales from the frontlines of the battlefield as they...umm, as they heroically blog against dangerous enemy fusillades to, you know, expose Barack Hussein Obama and Michelle too.
Also notice that Taguba was only discussing a fairly thin slice of the whole sicko Bush era failure to live up to American and international standards that profoundly inferior rightwing primitives cannot even comprehend to say nothjing of implement:
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/17/2008 @ 5:30pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 4:11pm
SJ, you're citing Newsmax? As a source of factual information? Fox News didn't have anything you could quote? I didn't ask you to disprove Bush's delusions of grandeur (and if you think his Mission Accomplished stunt was anything less than that - the AWOL draft dodger as Top Gun). I asked you for facts, not Newsmax, but facts that Saddam was about going to develop WMD. Because every objective read of the situation by neutral observers said otherwise. I also asked you a question about YOUR opinions that you didn't answer. Specifically, given those circumstances and your opinions about preemptive war, would such have been justified against the US. Care to answer the question, given your statements, or do you care to write another non-response response.
As for college profs, sorry, sj, I'm not one. As for your whining about liberal profs, maybe a lot of them simply don't buy into the current know-nothing brand of conservatism. Maybe their well-honed ability to examine problems from a perspective a bit deeper than black-and-white fuels liberalism in some of them. Time for a survey, perhaps? Maybe Newsmax and Fox can put one together. You know, "Professor, are you a liberal or are you a REAL American?" "Professor, do you believe in education, or would you rather brainwash your students with Marxist orthodoxy?" "Do you have real values or do you say 'Happy Holidays'?" And, sj, if I were to teach, my goal would be to encourage my students to think. Critically. To question all that is subjective. As for the Koran reference...say what?
At any rate, I'm still posing the question I asked you previously. You know, the long-winded one about preemptive war and its justification across the board. Care to give it an answer this time?
Posted by jmusolino at 12/17/2008 @ 6:05pm
Posted by Thrawn at 12/17/2008 @ 5:24pm
What is your point? bush was just a dupe for the neocon agenda? And what facts do you want me to give you that haven't been splattered all over the internet since the downing street memo? Evidence? Jesus, you are living under a rock.
When I talk about deaths, I talk about the unnecessary variety. I don't give a fuck about charecter. And again, saddam's was doing the same shit while he was our god damn ally! Don't give me the excuse that bush is a benevolent killer.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/17/2008 @ 6:36pm
PhilMcCrevice,
You referred to me in the following manner "SJ"Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote"CHERMAK"
Lets go, PhilMcCrevice... get with Mask and go through the history of my postings (Mask I think keeps these records if needed to pull up something from the past that Mask feels contradicts something a person says now).
Go through my postings and show me and the rest of The Nation where I have ever, EVER expressed a sentiment like that.
You will find the OPPOSITE. And you will find it expressed more than once that many white liberals and wealthy white liberals are the real racists with their pandering, condescending attitude towards Black people.
It is like I said above, libs are used to declaring things and having them accepted as fact, and also libs are used to re-inventing history on the fly. The problem is libs get used to this and forget the actual facts are in the public domain that can prove libs wrong.
On The Nation, you get away with it. Sometimes a Conservative may call you on it, but you have enough other libs that agree with you. In the real world, you can not get away with it.
Maybe you stay away from the real world, and only associate with other libs.
If the real world is too big of an adjustment, try going someplace like Oz or even Bizzaro World first, in order to ease the adjustment.... although even that may be too taxing.... as far as I can remember, there were no libs in OZ..... Dorothy got rid of the Wicked Witch of the West, she did not try to negotiate peace with her!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 7:42pm
"Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 6:45pm
So saddam, fearing Iran more than the US, decided to continue his bluff that he, indeed, did have WMDs. He also had the power to end the impending assault by just admitting he had no WMDs. Wow. Where was I when this shit was happening?
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/17/2008 @ 9:13pm
And of course jmusolino and stpwarsnow, these folks were obviously in bed with Bush, preparing the way for him.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 8:03pm
Are you preaching to the converted? Did I defend any of the warmongers mentioned above? The war machine runs smoothly regardless of party affiliation. I have as little use for clintoon as I do for bush.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/17/2008 @ 9:31pm
The assistant leader to our proud democracy, Dick Cheney, admitted to giving the OK to torture and this evening on the Chris Matthews show smerconish supported the use of torture. Are these guys sniffing rattle cans for kicks. How can a state descend into criminal behavior to fight criminal behavior? How did the mentally deficient become so prevalent in the mainstream thinking. Thank god for people like Chris Hitchens.
Posted by julien38 at 12/17/2008 @ 9:53pm
<i>Thank god for people like Chris Hitchens.
Posted by julien38 at 12/17/2008 @ 9:53pm </i>
I won't even BEGIN to comment on the irony he would find in that statement... :D
Posted by Thrawn at 12/18/2008 @ 03:03am
I guarantee you that President Bush is not and will not lose any sleep over the 700000 dead or the 2000000 displaced or the ethnic cleansing in the neighborhoods.
---
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 9:57pm
They were wrong. Many people, including many nations did NOT believe he was a threat, because he was not. Revisionist history is what we should expect from those that don't worry their pretty little minds about a mere 700000 dead and 2000000 run out of their homes. The 20 million that now live in a war zone with little electricity or fresh water. Whiners, all.
And then you guys supported AQ, strengthened them and helped them achieve their goals. The same people that told you to be very afraid now tell you this, but you brush this off, why?
-The report is the most direct refutation to date of the administration's rationale for using aggressive interrogation tactics -- that inflicting humiliation and pain on detainees was legal and effective, and helped protect the country. The 25-member panel, without one dissent among the 12 Republican members, declared the opposite to be true.
The administration's policies and the resulting controversies, the panel concluded, "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."-
--
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 8:15pm
I knew, why didn't you?
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 07:25am
It is like I said above, libs are used to declaring things and having them accepted as fact, and also libs are used to re-inventing history on the fly. -SJ the AQ supporter
Fact: no wmd's were found in Iraq in 2003-2008, other than 2 dud rockets full of useless goo.
Fact: the person in charge of Iraqi wmd programs told UNSCOM that ALL had been destroyed in 1991.
Fact: not a shred of evidence contradicted Mr. Hussein Kamal testimony that ALL wmd's had been destroyed in 1991
Fact: Saddam was not a threat to you
Fact: you helped Al Qaida
Fact: the war is almost 6 years old and 120,000 troops are still stationed in Iraq, still getting killed.
Fact: AQ was not operating in Iraq till you helped them
Fact: Hans Blix told us he was finding nothing and inspections should continue before a war was started that would not be pretty.
Fact: ISG found no evidence prior to the 2003 invasion that proves Iraq had revitalized a chemical weapons program.
Fact: aluminum tubes that were professed to be used ONLY for centrifuges were for rocket bodies and could NOT have been used in centrifuges.
Fact: to pay for the war, every dime has been borrowed from your children.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 07:43am
Fact: an iraqi citizen threw a shoe at his "liberator".
Fact: hundreds of thousands of Arabs across the world rejoiced when the shoe was thrown.
Hypothesis: hundreds of thousands of Arabs think you are the enemy and will help AQ BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES YOU SUPPORT.
Fact: You helped AQ recruit terrorists that then killed Americans
Fact: you helped AQ achieve the goal of getting the US bogged down in an endless expensive war in the ME.
Fact: AQ wanted Saddam gone, you did it for them.
Fact: the mullahs in Iran wanted Saddam gone, you did it for them.
Fact: the mullahs in Saudi Arabia that preach anti-american hatred in their schools wanted Saddam gone, you helped them.
Fact: Iran is a stronger player in the region, because you helped them.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 07:50am
Did "everyone " know ?
Nope
Bi-partison report- ...Bush's staements did not reflect the "...substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."
"Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing."
Anthony Zinni, the Marine general who commanded the air assault in the first Gulf War, also had doubts. "Up until Desert Fox, I believed that [Saddam] had WMD," he told authors Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier. "Then Clinton said we would bomb the WMD sides. I asked the intelligence community for the targets, but they couldn't give me any. Nothing they gave me was definitively a WMD target. They were all dual-use. That's when my doubts began."
On September 19, 2002, Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick described a report "by independent experts who questioned whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program," as the administration was contending. On January 30, 2003, Walter Pincus and Dana Priest reported that the evidence the administration was amassing about Baghdad hiding weapons equipment and documents "is still circumstantial."
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 07:57am
‘Fears are one thing, hard facts are another.'"- Vladimr Putin
The Guardian reported on October 12, 2002 that, "Vladimir Putin yesterday rejected Anglo-American claims that Saddam Hussein already possesses weapons of mass destruction
The BBC reported on February 11, 2003, that, "France, Germany, and Russia have released an unprecedented joint declaration on the Iraq crisis, demanding more weapons inspectors and more technical assistance for them . . . ‘Nothing today justifies a war,' Mr Chirac told a joint news conference with Mr Putin. ‘This region really does not need another war.' He said France did not have ‘undisputed proof' that Iraq still held weapons of mass destruction."
UNSCOM noted in 1998 that virtually all of Iraq's offensive missiles and other delivery systems had been accounted for and rendered inoperable.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, told the U.N. Security Council in late January 2003 that, "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990's." He also "put the kibosh" on the administration's charge that Iraq was seeking aluminum tubes for nuclear weapon development. Eleven days before the invasion, he repeated his assertion that there was absolutely no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said in 2003 of his inspections leading up to the invasion, "The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later."
---- YEs SJ, "everyone knew" and any other take on it is just not "factual".
What does it "feel" like to be helping Al Qaida?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 08:01am
I guess, in the eyes of the neo-cons, the only thing worse than a Clinton is a European that disagrees with a Clinton.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 08:13am
To: SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK:
Explain to us once again that there were no procedural anamolies (for example, over-zealous roll-scrubbing or inadequte poll infrastrcuture) that disprotionately disenfranchised legitimate voters in 2000 Florida and tilted the partial vote count to a metrosexual pansy loser who should never have left his bar stool, under the auspices of Gov Bush and SoS Harris.
... Now let's sit back and watch as the hopeless and pathetic simpleton ideologue SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK ploddingly talks around the issue with warmed-over rightwing drivel, patronizes black people with the hard bigotry of disenfranchisement that (in SJ's mind) they should nonethless take as being a privilege, cites NewsMax as something akin to words that descended from Mount Sinai, postures as some kind of heroically persecuted figure himself, blames Obama for the finacial collapse and for the 1986 Challenger crash ... blha blha blah ... the usual rightwing drool and puppyshit in other words....
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/18/2008 @ 08:38am
Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 12:19pm
More on SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK who exhibits the tiresome and typical characteristics of a simple-minded rightwing ideologue. SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK does not understand the world around him, much like a backward-assed 5 year old, but will ape rightwing talking points when they coincide with his preferred fantasies and myths. For instance...
"3. Gore wanted manual recounts, in selected counties."
Which the Florida Supremes corrected by calling for a hand recount in all 67 counties.
"4. Gore's legal team did not convince judges of the need for manual recounts."
Totally fucking incoherant, although one is to expect that with the sorry likes of SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK. How does one square his point "3" with "6": "6. The Florida Supreme court interfered and ruled the process could continue"???
"5. The process wound down to certification, according to deadlines set by law and required by law."
These are safe harbor laws designed in the (cough, ahem) 18th century for that time's infrastructure. They are simply that: safe harbors for timely results. For instance, on review, Hawaii's electoral voytes were shifted from Nixon to Kennedy in JANUARY 1961, in the interest of getting the outcome of the election accurate in detail even though the winner was already apparent.
But notice that in SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK's mind an arbitrary December deadline is something sacrosanct, far more important than getting the substance (identity of the winner) correct.
In other words, a clear speciman of typical reltivistic, arrogantly ignorant rightwing garbage.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/18/2008 @ 08:56am
More simple-minded "Posted by sjchermak at 12/17/2008 @ 12:19pm" sidewalk puppyshit drivel:
"6. The Florida Supreme court interfered and ruled the process could continue.
7. The U.S Supreme court rightfully overturned this... and also on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause, that in recounting procedures and ballots would not have been the same from county to county."
Just a couple of questions here:
1. Ideological fantasies aside, Why is the Florida court "interfering" when a Florida case comes before it, but the SCOTUS (that only intervenes very selectively) absolutely had to bulldoze into Florida's electoral business?
Can you detect the whiff of "state's rights over fed intervention" relativism from the ragged right when it conveniently serves their purpose of installing the metrosexual suburban Dallas/phony cowboy pansy into office so he could subsequently pull an inside job on America?
2. Putting aside the bad faith of the Replicant5 in this case, explain how the 14th ammendment bears on this case. Who was being "equally protected" and from what?
3. As each of the counties already had different procedures and electoral infrasture that guarnateed vastly diferent ratios of uncounted ballots, was the whole election invalidated by the logic of "7"? Please explain.
As Antonin Scalia said, there is no such thing as a right to vote. Even more so if you are black, as SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK's comprehends even if he is quite dim on all else. But what really offends here is the raggedly pompous and phony way that SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK attempts to put a gloss over his views to disguise his real, bluntly Scalia-like authoratarian world-view via pathetic psuedo-intellectualizing.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/18/2008 @ 09:12am
To the bleeding heart likes of...
LVL! SJ "Blacks Don't Want or Need a Right to Vote" CHERMAK! JOMAMMA!
Please list all the refugees from Saddam's ghastly regime that you adopted during his decades long rule on a throne of skulls:
1. _________________
2. _________________
3. _________________
4. _________________
5. __________________
Please list approximate dates of all the prayer vigils that you organized to stop the Reagan administration dead in its tracks from materially arming Saddam as he gassed villages, chopped off heads, castrated shoe-throwers and other well-dcoumnted grisly crimes:
1. _________________
2. _________________
3. _________________
4. _________________
5. __________________
Please indicate approximate occasions on which you made contributions to Amnesty International or attended meetings in solidarity with the people of Iraq during the 1980s as they suffred under Saddam's unrestrained boot and lash:
1. _________________
2. _________________
3. _________________
4. _________________
5. __________________
Indicate the occasions on which you phoned Donald Rumsfeld's office to excorciate him for "palling around" (see: Saint Sarah's phrasebook) with Saddam. Also list boycotts of Rumsfeld's business interests that you organized or participated in, in order to send Rummy the unequivocal message that... SADDAM IS THE NEW HITLER!!!
1. _________________
2. _________________
3. _________________
4. _________________
5. __________________
This is certain to be an exhausting task for the bleeding hearts, so we will need to give them several weeks to sort through the extensive roster of all their 1980s sit-ins, Kurdistan solidarity events and anti-Saddam/Reagan admin activities...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/18/2008 @ 09:29am
crabwalk,
You said, "Fact: you helped AQ achieve the goal of getting the US bogged down in an endless expensive war in the ME."
So, al-Qaeda has attached Maine? (ME).
Has Bar Harbor been attacked? How about Bangor?
Warning to al-Qaeda - I don't know what the people of Maine think about things but you had better not spill over and attack New Hampshire - the state license plates say "Live Free or Die"..... you aren't going to win if you attack New Hampshire! You may succeed in conquering Maine but New Hampshire is another matter.
note to Crabwalk.... I am obviously being sarcastic.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/18/2008 @ 09:55am
PhilMcCrevice,
First of all, you continue to refer to George W. Bush as a "metrosexual". You are completely confused here - it is Algore that is the metrosexual.
Second, you need to start relaxing a bit regarding the 2000 election. The election was stolen and no disenfranchisement occurred. The claims of disenfranchisement have been disproven over and over again.
I realize that you, as a lib, are just recycling 2 of the same themes that libs put forth over and over again.
1. If a Democrat loses, the election was stolen.
2. Use of the race card, whenever possible.
The 2000 election, you feel, gives you the opportunity to combine these themes into one big gigantic tirade against whoever you want to vent against (Republicans, George W. Bush, Conservative Bloggers, evil corporate American, etc etc etc). What you don't realize is that it just comes out as a bunch of mush, getting more convoluted and mixed up and incomprehensible and also UNDEFENDABLE, with each trip through the "Progressive" Recycling Machine.
Give it a rest. You lost in 2000. You lost in 2004. George W. Bush was elected (not chosen, but elected) President and he stopped Saddam and there is nothing you can do about it now.
You need to search the internet and see what Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (who you libs called the "poodle") of Sedgefield, England, UK had to say on the subject of removing Saddam.
Educate yourself, please.
January 10, 2005, 7:42 a.m. The Florida Myth Spreads Another "stolen election." By Peter Kirsanow http://www.nationalreview.com /comment/ kirsanow200501100742.asp
October 15, 2003, 8:22 a.m. The Florida Myth An urban legend to fire up the base. By Peter Kirsanow http://www.nationalreview.com /comment/kirsanow 200310150822.asp
Posted by sjchermak at 12/18/2008 @ 10:26am
TYPO Alert,
I said in my 2nd paragraph above "The election was stolen and no disenfranchisement occurred."
I, of course meant to say THE ELECTION WAS NOT STOLEN.
I don't want to give any libs an opening of some kind, or any kind.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/18/2008 @ 10:28am
Note to SJ, I am just quoting the report signed by EVERY republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the opinions of the troops that served in the US Special Forces intelligence gathering operation ins Iraq.
YOU HELPED AL QAIDA KILL AMERICANS
Your policies did the exact opposite of what you claimed they would. Do your intientions matter? Not a whit.
If I had helped AQ grow it's membership I would "feel" poorly about it. You seem proud.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 11:09am
How goes the construction of the Laura Bush hospital in Iraq? This was a claim of success in 2006.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 11:10am
Bush is a klingon, blackcoptermedia.com posted a somewhat funny article about Bush. and a cool poster gallery.
Posted by sidthekidney at 12/18/2008 @ 12:12pm
Darin took exception to my comment that AQ has "metasticized".
from Global Security.com
The headquarters of al-Qaeda are not known anymore.
CIA Director George J. Tenet, "Usama Bin Ladin's organization and other terrorist groups are placing increased emphasis on developing surrogates to carry out attacks in an effort to avoid detection. For example, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) is linked closely to Bin Ladin's organization and has operatives located around the world--including in Europe, Yemen, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. And, there is now an intricate web of alliances among Sunni extremists worldwide, including North Africans, radical Palestinians, Pakistanis, and Central Asians. Some of these terrorists are actively sponsored by national governments that harbor great antipathy toward the United States."
Al-Qaida has cooperated with a number of known terrorist groups worldwide including
Armed Islamic Group
Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya
Jamaat Islamiyya
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
Asbat al Ansar Hezbollah (Lebanon)
Al-Badar
Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen Al-Hadith
Harakat ul Jihad
Jaish Mohammed - JEM
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Laskar e-Toiba - LET
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)
Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)
--- So, if the GWOT is working, how come AQ is growing affiliates? Because of SJ and his crew of Finger Fighters that want to "feel" tough.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/18/2008 @ 12:41pm
There was a time in this country when we declard with one voice that attacks againts any president, Democrat or Republican, was an attack against all Americans.
this was before the pres of the US abrogated the Geneva conventions. Bush is a war criminal and like Milosovic belongs before the Hague.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 4:16pm
The greater point was that you charged that Bush made this stuff up and committed war crimes because of it. The record is quite different and shows that not only the US, but many nations had the same intel and believed that Saddam was a threat.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 9:57pm
And I stand by that charge. He commited war crimes whether the accusations of saddam's weapons program were bullshit or true. Pre emptive wars are only legal in neocon minds.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/18/2008 @ 4:20pm
what will Bush do after he leaves office? he will do what Franklin Pierce did.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 4:21pm
stpwarsnow,
You say that "Pre emptive wars are only legal in neocon minds"
I have seen this sentiment expressed before by some of the most ardent pacifists among libs.
I guess what it means is that if your enemy wants to kill you, then the moral high road is to lay down and allow your enemy to do so. It apparently is not moral (in your view) to fight back. It is more honorable (in your view) to lay down like a lamb and die.
Of course, a lot of people (elsewhere than on The Nation), would say that you should speak for yourself only, that if you want to die fine, but don't tell other people they can not fight back, that they have an obligation to die if their enemy wants them dead.
Your statement does say something else about you that I now know, one of two things.
1. You most likely do not live in New Hampshire, where the license plates say "Live Free or Die"
2. If you for some reason DO live in New Hampshire and own a car, you have probably covered up those words with duct tape or something and replaced them with the peace symbol.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/18/2008 @ 10:08pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/18/2008 @ 10:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
when Hitler invaded Poland, he claimed to be fighting back.
the US put germans and japanese on trial and hung them for starting pre-emptive wars.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 10:19pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 10:19pm </i>
OK...but if Hitler WERE fighting back, it would be a bit of a different story, wouldn't it?
<i>Posted by stpwarsnow at 12/18/2008 @ 4:20pm </i>
If he had WMD, then the arguments derived from Resolution 1441 would be correct, wouldn't they? Otherwise, you can obstruct the UN's processes simply by bribing one member of the Security Council (not that Saddam would ever do that...).
I also don't think this philosophy toward the UN is inherently contradictory. Why is it implausible to think that the UN might put forth a resolution that is correct, but fail to enforce it not because they aren't convinced the principle applies to X case, but because they've been BRIBED not to enforce it? In that case, I fail to see what the clear alternative is. Do you let one particularly rich country hijack the UN's ability to enforce its own resolutions with respect to them?
In short...tell me what your alternative is.
Oh also, btw, if Saddam can bribe countries to vote differently than they otherwise would, he can probably also bribe them to not have sanctions...especially after a no vote on the Security Council followed by no actions helps dissolve the momentum to maintain sanctions in place.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/19/2008 @ 12:03am
Act of courage?? An act of courage would have been tossing his shoes at Saddam. How many times did he do that? He is still alive with both feet so I'm going to guess never. It takes no courage to make fun of the US President. Look at the late night comedians(?) and Barney Frank and The Nation. This guy tossed his shoes because he has freedoms and security that George Bush presented to Iraq. In a stupid, backhandned muslim way this guy, through his shoe toss, was thanking George Bush for allowing him to live and practice his profession and not fear jail, torture for himself, rape for his wife, abuse for his childern and live to see another day. Personally, I would have preferred a simple thank you.
Bill Redner
----------------------
redner, I suppose you, in a very stupid christian way, believe that bastard got his orders from God to kill and maim a million Iraqis. You stupid evil bastard.
Posted by hafeez at 12/19/2008 @ 05:33am
Act of courage?? An act of courage would have been tossing his shoes at Saddam. How many times did he do that? He is still alive with both feet so I'm going to guess never. It takes no courage to make fun of the US President. Look at the late night comedians(?) and Barney Frank and The Nation. This guy tossed his shoes because he has freedoms and security that George Bush presented to Iraq. In a stupid, backhandned muslim way this guy, through his shoe toss, was thanking George Bush for allowing him to live and practice his profession and not fear jail, torture for himself, rape for his wife, abuse for his childern and live to see another day. Personally, I would have preferred a simple thank you.
Bill Redner ---------------------------
redner, I suppose you, in a very stupid christian way, believe that bastard got orders personally from God to kill and maim a million Iraqis. You stupid evil bastards.
And, what do you think is currently happening to him, you idiot?
Posted by hafeez at 12/19/2008 @ 05:39am
Act of courage?? An act of courage would have been tossing his shoes at Saddam. How many times did he do that? He is still alive with both feet so I'm going to guess never. It takes no courage to make fun of the US President. Look at the late night comedians(?) and Barney Frank and The Nation. This guy tossed his shoes because he has freedoms and security that George Bush presented to Iraq. In a stupid, backhandned muslim way this guy, through his shoe toss, was thanking George Bush for allowing him to live and practice his profession and not fear jail, torture for himself, rape for his wife, abuse for his childern and live to see another day. Personally, I would have preferred a simple thank you.
Bill Redner ---------------------------
redner, I suppose you, in a very stupid christian way, believe that bastard got orders personally from God to kill and maim a million Iraqis. You stupid evil bastards.
And, what do you think is currently happening to him, you idiot?
Posted by hafeez at 12/19/2008 @ 05:39am
Posted by Thrawn at 12/19/2008 @ 12:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
sorry, I don't do "woulda"
Posted by emile duBois at 12/19/2008 @ 10:00am
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 12/19/2008 @ 10:00am </i>
But here, you have to. The "woulda" constitutes the difference between the Hitler example and the situation as at least some actors in the Bush Administration rationally (though incorrectly) understood it to be. The difference between your case and this case is that Hitler used the utterly-implausible-by-any-rational-standard "we're defending ourselves" argument to rationalize an attack, as opposed to "evidence which turns out to be wrong says there are WMD which, if they're there, unambiguously constitute a meaningful threat."
So in short...the "woulda" is the reason your analysis doesn't work.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/19/2008 @ 12:49pm
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Bush is a NUMBSKULL who has managed to transfer billions of dollars to his buddies and bankrupt our nation's future. And anyone who voted for him is a numbskull too. But I am burning that list right now.
Posted by valiant at 12/19/2008 @ 2:11pm
So in short...the "woulda" is the reason your analysis doesn't work.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/19/2008 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Thrawn, this has to be one of the weakest posts we've ever seen from you.
"woulda"????
.
"unambiguously constitute a meaningful threat."
.
Unambiguously"?!?!?
.
(And how do you get from there, even making the rather lame assumption that "there" is actually within reason) to the notion that the 'USA now has free reign to act unilaterlly to use force to punish Saddam for not fully complying with a UN resolution"?!?!...
even when the UN did NOT specifically authorize the US to use force?
Posted by Lillian at 12/19/2008 @ 11:37pm
<i>Posted by Lillian at 12/19/2008 @ 11:37pm </i>
In all fairness, my main intent was just to differentiate from the Hitler example. Granted, some of the analysis was a little hazy. I have to confess that I grow more and more disenchanted not just with the WMD justification itself, but the extent to which many members of the administration believed it (though I still strongly except Powell from this).
However, the part I WOULD still defend is the notion of unilaterally enforcing a UN resolution, at least under certain circumstances. This was the argument I made earlier, which no one responded to. The structure of the current security council, with the veto power, is such that a rich leader (such as, say, Saddam) need only bribe one or two of the powers involved to effectively prevent a resolution from being enforced by Security Council vote. That's an awful state of affairs. Though I recognize that the alternative allowance for unilateralism can certainly be dangerous (how hard would it be for a President to simply point fingers and say "but, but they were bribed!" as a rationalization), I'm not convinced that the alternative is really better. At the very least, the potentiality for unilateral enforcement mitigates the incentive for leaders to bribe Security Council members, which seems like a good thing.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/20/2008 @ 02:35am
Sorry for this second post, but I feel it's necessary.
What we really need, more fundamentally, is a more critical discourse about war. More and more, I find myself siding with people who say that we need to ask a lot more questions, not just about justifications for a particular war, but about the reasons we consider justifiable for war in general. I'm finding myself thinking that perhaps we should take the "declaration of war" requirement seriously, and consider the vast costs to civilians that it tends to impose. Civilian deaths, massive displacement, and so on should not be dismissed cavalierly, as it feels like they tend to.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that war as such should be categorically rejected (though it is of course an evil, I think it can sometimes be a lesser evil). Moreover, I think it especially behooves those of us who worship a Prince of Peace, or those of us who regardless of our religious faith (or lack thereof) embrace the fundamental dignity of every human being, to scrutinize with the utmost care any decision to go to war.
I could probably go on longer, but I feel like this is transforming into a soapbox routine.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/20/2008 @ 02:40am
Posted by Thrawn at 12/20/2008 @ 02:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
first post. again with the conjecture. someone MIGHT bribe a country.
second post, a good one.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 10:21am
<i>first post. again with the conjecture. someone MIGHT bribe a country.
second post, a good one.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 10:21am </i>
As to the first...evidence at LEAST suggests that Saddam DID that, so it's not exactly a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical.
As to the second...thanks. Like I said, though, towards the end it felt like I was sort of rambling/"soapboxing" (to the extent that that's a word and not a fighting activity in which either gloves or the platform involved are composed of soap).
Posted by Thrawn at 12/20/2008 @ 11:15am
you don't think that the US "bribes" other members of the UN to vote their way. you can substitute the word pressure for bribe.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 11:26am