The Notion

Bush to Karzai: Will You Just Shut Up About Iran?

posted by john on 08/06/2007 @ 2:50pm

Things got a little testy at the Camp David Summit between Afghan President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and American President George Bush.

Karzai, who when he is in the U.S. is expected to act as a puppet of the Bush administration, made the mistake of actually speaking his mind. In a CNN interview broadcast Sunday, the Afghan president said terrorism in Afghanistan is getting worse, that the hunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is at a standstill and, then, he described Iran as a positive player -- "a helper and a solution" -- in the region.

All of these statements are objectively true.

But George Bush does not deal in the realm of truth. And he certainly does not like his puppet presidents getting off their strings.

On the eve of the summit, Karzai told CNN that:

1. "The security situation in Afghanistan over the past two years has definitely deteriorated. The Afghan people have suffered. Terrorists have killed our schoolchildren. They have burned our schools. They have killed international helpers."

2. "We are not closer (to catching bin Laden), we are not further away from it. We are where we were a few years ago."

3. "So far, Iran has been a helper (in the fight against terrorism)."

All of those statements, made by Karzai in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on the eve of his trip to Camp David, were corrected by Bush upon the Afghan president's arrival.

On the security situation, Bush told Karzai not to believe what he was seeing on the ground in Afghanistan. "There is still work to be done, don't get me wrong," Bush said. "But progress is being made."

On the bin Laden search, Bush spoke of how the hunt is progressing and declared that, "With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done."

On Iran's positive role in the region, Bush again told Karzai not to believe his own experience but instead to accept the neoconservative version of events. "I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence there in Afghanistan is a positive force," the American president pointedly told the Afghan president.

So there you have it, a meeting of the minds Bush-style.

A foreign leader from a region of supreme interest to the United States comes to Camp David to brief the American president on what is going on. The foreign leader speaks his mind, offering his best assessment of the experience he is living. Then the president tells the visitor from abroad that he is wrong.

As Bush famously declared at a policy session in 2005, "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

And it is just so damned inconvenient when a puppet who is supposed to help spread the propaganda instead messes everything up by talking about what is really happening.

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

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (165)

  1. Mr. Nichols, excuse my French, but who the FUCK do you think you are to call a foreign visiting leader a "puppet"? Foreign leaders are neither poodles or puppets, regardless of how you feel about their `peformance' as America's ally or enemy! You may call them a "corrupt" leader or "effective" dictator, but please show some class, I know it's very difficult for you!

    Now, as to your "puppet" designation for Prez. Karzai, why do you suppose he was ALLOWED to be interviewed pre-meeting Bush? If he is on strings, who was pulling them to tell him to be so, shall we say, candid w/his views? Karl Rove?

    Posted by Happy at 08/06/2007 @ 5:42pm

  2. And it is just so damned inconvenient when a puppet who is supposed to help spread the propaganda instead messes everything up by talking about what is really happening.

    Great article, John!

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/06/2007 @ 5:46pm

  3. Mr. Happy, excuse my French but what is your excuse for your obvious lack of reading comprehension.

    Nichols wrote: Karzai, who when he is in the U.S. is expected to act as a puppet of the Bush administration

    He plainly did not call Karzai a puppet but clearly expressed his belief that Karzai was expected to act as one by the Bush administration, hence Bush's clear disregard of Karzai's knowledge of the facts on the ground in the country he heads.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/06/2007 @ 5:48pm

  4. I just can't imagine a reason John Nichols here is never considered as an advisor to the President when he is so obviously better informed that anyone else? Why isn't Nichols taken seriously by any one other than the Nation and its bloggers....so much insight wasted..sigh..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2007 @ 5:52pm

  5. Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    And I can't imagine why an ignorant old fool like you feels capable of commenting on anything that is posted here. You're a moron. Why don't crawl back under whatever rock it was you came from? Your ignorance of history is matched only by your ignorance of the present. Stick with peddling your Third World wares, old man.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/06/2007 @ 6:02pm

  6. Even as American and NATO soldiers are under attack by the Saudi- funded Taliban in Afghanistan and the Saudi-funded Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the traitors in the White House continue to cover up the truth about the Saudi sponsorship of terrorism. That's why they're trying to blame Iran; blaming Iraq didn't exactly work out as they had planned.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/06/2007 @ 6:04pm

  7. Even as American and NATO soldiers are under attack by the Saudi- funded Taliban in Afghanistan and the Saudi-funded Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the traitors in the White House continue to cover up the truth about the Saudi sponsorship of terrorism. That's why they're trying to blame Iran; blaming Iraq didn't exactly work out as they had planned.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/06/2007 @ 6:04pm

  8. Posted by HAPPY 08/06/2007 @ 5:42pm

    ...who the FUCK...please show some class...

    The irony speaks for itself. Perhaps a little more focus on the second part? I know it's been a cess pool here lately but let's try to rise above it shall we?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/06/2007 @ 6:13pm

  9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2007 @ 5:52pm

    An ad hominem attack? Where is Pontificus when we need him?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/06/2007 @ 6:13pm

  10. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/06/2007 @ 6:02pm

    Are you competing with Will in a race to the bottom?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/06/2007 @ 6:13pm

  11. Nichols.....plainly did not call Karzai a puppet ....

    Posted by BRUNOWE 08/06/2007 @ 5:48pm

    Last paragraph/sentence BY NICHOLS: "And it is just so damned inconvenient when a puppet who is supposed to......"

    And you had the galls to quesion MY reading skills?

    Posted by Happy at 08/06/2007 @ 6:17pm

  12. "All of those statements, made by Karzai in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on the eve of his trip to Camp David, were corrected by Bush upon the Afghan president's arrival."

    "Corrected"? Rectified, à la 1984, is more like it. But Mr. Nichols has no need to overstate his case. The Karzai and Bush quotations that he so deftly juxtaposed do the job for him!

    Karzai said: "The security situation in Afghanistan over the past two years has definitely deteriorated."

    Bush said: "But progress is being made."

    Karzai said: "So far, Iran has been a helper (in the fight against terrorism)."

    Bush said: "I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence there in Afghanistan is a positive force."

    These are matters of fact, not opinion. Which man do you believe is telling the truth?

    That Bush quote about "catapult[ing] the propaganda" was really the icing on the cake! Just in case any reader needed another hint!

    What a wonderful short web article! I hope Mr. Nichols enjoyed writing it as much as I enjoyed reading it. We've got lousy government, but we still have a few good journalists!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/06/2007 @ 6:45pm

  13. "And it is just so damned inconvenient when a puppet who is supposed to help spread the propaganda instead messes everything up by talking about what is really happening."

    If, with "Happy," we assume that the word "puppet" in the above sentence is John Nichols's own epithet for Hamid Karzai, then it follows that we should assume that the rest of this sentence also represents Nichols's opinion.

    Let us consider the plausibility of this assumption. Is it plausible that Nichols personally believes that Karzai is "supposed to help spread the propaganda," and is it plausible that Nichols personally finds it "damned inconvenient" that Karzai instead "messes everything up by talking about what's really happening"?

    Not likely, say I. "Happy's" interpretation of Nichols's use of the word "puppet" this sentence is a misreading that fails to consider either the context of the article or the possibility of irony. An English teacher would give it a 'C' at best. However, in defense of "Happy," I suspect that this misreading is attributable rather to malice than to interpretive failure.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/06/2007 @ 7:14pm

  14. Frank,

    Good to see you haven't lost your edge. However misguided it may be.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/06/2007 @ 7:15pm

  15. Bush to Karzai: Don't ever tell the truth. Freedom of speech except for telling the truth.

    Posted by conshame at 08/06/2007 @ 7:16pm

  16. And you had the galls to quesion MY reading skills?

    Posted by HAPPY 08/06/2007 @ 6:17pm

    HAD THE GALLS, HAP, HAD THE ***GALLS***???...

    Shouldn't that be "had the balls"? In my experience, you need to be smacked down in just about every thread that gets going on "The Nation." Congrats to Brunowe for being the smacker this time around. (Not to worry, though, Snow's on her way to pat you on the head.)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/06/2007 @ 7:17pm

  17. Posted by SRJENKINS 08/06/2007 @ 6:13pm

    They have a lot in common...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/06/2007 @ 7:20pm

  18. AND YA KNOW, HAP, WITH A HOWLER LIKE THAT...

    I sometimes think you're actually George W. Bush posting here on the sly. Wouldn't surprise me.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/06/2007 @ 7:22pm

  19. THAT MS. WHITE...

    Not Tony.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/06/2007 @ 7:25pm

  20. SR,

    EMPTY is already at the bottom..robbing banks was actually a step up..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2007 @ 7:29pm

  21. "The headline could have easily read, 'America uses weapon of mass destruction against innocent Japanese women and children.' But it was ok in those days because we were at war.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/06/2007 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person

    Or..

    LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT NUKES A MILLION PEOPLE..FOOLISHLY SAVING AMERICAN LIVES AT EXPENSES OF INNOCENT JAPANESE

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2007 @ 7:31pm

  22. Bush has fired Generals for telling the truth, Bush has fired US Attorneys for telling the truth. Bush wants to send the message that ANYONE, who reports to Bush - such as Karzai - can be fired for telling the truth.

    Posted by conshame at 08/06/2007 @ 7:41pm

  23. You certainly are funny fellows over there. Karzai has his agenda and Bush has his. Why on earth should they agree on the details? Karzai wants more US money so things need to be pretty bad; Bush needs support for the WOT so his policies need to be shown to be working.

    Of course you lefties really don't like the untidiness of subjectivity in the data so the subjective must become the "objective". The left doctrines are invariably set in stone, for the simple minded and there are few lefties such as the Hitchen's exceptions who dare think outside the sanctioned "objectivities".

    How on earth could Bush or Karzai or Nichols be objective in any real sense. One only has to read the different media reports that come out of Afghanistan to realise that any "analysis" is always likely to be a partisan game. ie one party's list of positives can be balanced by a contra party's list of negatives.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/06/2007 @ 7:44pm

  24. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2007 @ 7:31pm

    I'm sure that in your black and white world where your personal bias trumps insightful analysis that a book like "Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb" by Ronald Takaki that includes statements by Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower as well as by Admiral Leahy that dropping the bomb was unnecessary are not nearly as meaningful as your preconceived notions.

    The following may be be simply another effort of banging a head into a brick wall, but...

    (Book Review from Publishers Weekly accompanying the Amazon.com catalog page for the book.)

    The bombing of Hiroshima was one of the pivotal events of the twentieth century, yet this controversial question remains unresolved. At the time, General Dwight Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, and chief of staff Admiral William Leahy all agreed that an atomic attack on Japanese cities was unnecessary. All of them believed that Japan had already been beaten and that the war would soon end. Was the bomb dropped to end the war more quickly? Or did it herald the start of the Cold War? In his probing new study, prizewinning historian Ronald Takaki explores these factors and more. He considers the cultural context of race - the ways in which stereotypes of the Japanese influenced public opinion and policymakers - and also probes the human dimension. Relying on top secret military reports, diaries, and personal letters, Takaki relates international policies to the individuals involved: Los Alamos director J. Robert Oppenheimer, Secretary of State James Byrnes, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, and others... but above all, Harry Truman.

    Posted by canaar at 08/06/2007 @ 7:50pm

  25. Posted by W_M_BEAR 08/06/2007 @ 7:22pm

    Recently, there hasn't been much coming my way from you! I'm much busier than before during the week, and I'm looking to whittle down what I see here! Make your next `shot' count for something resembling intelligence! Galls vs. balls, ain't it!

    Posted by Happy at 08/06/2007 @ 8:04pm

  26. Posted by MASK 08/06/2007 @ 7:20pm / Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2007 @ 7:29pm

    Taking cheap shots encourages this kind of descent and you both have played your part. Can you just use the ignore feature (either on the site or in your mind) so we can move beyond the name calling? Mask, you especially should just move Will to ignore since the bulk of his posts these days are focused on trolling you.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/06/2007 @ 8:28pm

  27. CAMP DAVID, Maryland (CNN) -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Monday that the Taliban still endanger innocent people, but they pose no significant threat either to his government or to its institutions.

    "It's a force that is defeated, frustrated, acting in cowardice by killing children going to school," Karzai told reporters during a joint news conference with President Bush. Karzai said he is working to root the Taliban out from their mountain hideouts.

    For his part, Bush described the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan and harbored al Qaeda before the September 11, 2001, attacks, as "brutal coldblooded killers" with "a vision of darkness."

    Bush noted that speculation last spring that the Taliban would launch an offensive against Karzai's government was countered by a U.S., NATO and Afghan offensive. Bush said Afghanistan's 110,000 troops are being aided by 23,500 U.S. troops and 26,000 troops from other nations".

    So there you are. Would you allow us cynics to speculate that Karzai had been guaranteed his funds before this "truth". The question that all of us may find hard to establish is this: Was this also an objective statement or was the one that captured Nichol's attention subjective rather than objective or is this a subjective statement? The other possibilities are that both are objective statements (in a world where A = notA) or both are subjective statements. Oh to be a simple minded leftie; life is much simpler when one allows someone else to tell you what is true and what is not.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/06/2007 @ 8:47pm

  28. Posted by SRJENKINS 08/06/2007 @ 8:28pm

    First, no cheap shot. WILL and Empty SPENCE actually DO have a lot in common. Both the "working class" "progressive" thing, both youngish (early 30s) and a penchant for homophobia (both fear of homosexuality and use of homophobic slurs).

    As well as a obsessive need to confront those who can out-think them and point out their hypocrisies.

    The main diff of course is that WILL is a partisan hack and even thinks HILLARY is a "liberal", while Empty is a virulent anti-partisan who offers no answers to the problems but dreams of some "collapse" or "crises" for his revolution to come.

    As for ignoring WILL...no fun. And against my principles. So far I have only the rabid nutjobs (RIO still on the fringe) and the bigots like METTEYA. But as a favor to me, ask WILL, if you find him here how he "figured out" that I was a female. (which I'm not, but happy to be lumped in with our superior sisters).

    Posted by Mask at 08/06/2007 @ 8:57pm

  29. the Afghan president said terrorism in Afghanistan is getting worse

    Which begs the question: What is Karzai and his government/military/police force doing about it? Sounds like a backdoor plea for more international aid. Since the Karzai govt. has been in power for a few years, why don't they have this under control?

    Which begs another question: Why is it that when there is a difference of opinion between world leaders, Nichols and his ilk think foreign leaders are virtuous, truthful, smart, and competent, while deriding the US govt. of being the opposite?

    For the umpteenth time, is the "Hate America/Blame America first" label just a bit of irony, or self-fulfilling prochecy?

    ...And wouldn't Bush's actions of increasing aid/funding/troops to the Karzai govt. make BUSH the puppet?

    Posted by Sliver at 08/06/2007 @ 9:41pm

  30. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/06/2007 @ 9:52pm

    FRANK, you joining the "Truman was a war criminal" Club?

    Posted by Mask at 08/06/2007 @ 10:00pm

  31. Posted by MASK 08/06/2007 @ 8:57pm

    By that standard, I too have a lot in common with Will and MTS.

    What Will has figured out is that he can irritate you by trivializing your comments and calling you a woman - something that clearly bothers you irrespective of your claims that you are proud to be associated with our "superior sisters".

    Your behavior doesn't match up with that you are saying. If it was a non-issue, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Moreover, your reactions to Will reflect poorly on you. You are helping him to trivialize your own perspective. Perhaps you can find a way to make exercising a little discretion "fun" - for your own sake if for no other reason.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/06/2007 @ 10:06pm

  32. Posted by SRJENKINS 08/06/2007 @ 10:06pm

    SRJ, I'm not offended by WILL thinking I'm female...I'm fascinated by it.

    Why does he? He says he has some "outside information" that proves his point, but will not or cannot disclose it. I'd LOVE to know what that is. Hacking into "The Nation" registration system seems a bit beyond his carpenter skills. I don't post anywhere else as "MASK". Yet, he claims he "didn't learn it from my posts here"?!??!!? What other "source" would he have?

    The answer is obvious. He has some unresolved issues with women, and by transference links them to me (a poster who has called him on his various statements in the past). Maternal/Oedipal complex, maybe?

    If he said I was gay...or African-American...or even a damn Yankee (heheh), I wouldn't be offended, as I'm not that he thinks I'm a woman. But his INSISTANCE that I am, not just "Oh well, whatever, you're still an idiot" (which any sane blogger might say) and his secretiveness about his "inside info"...just blows my mind.

    My main idea is that it's just EGO. He decided I was female a few months back and now, due to a massive inferiority complex, cannot "take it back" without looking foolish to himself and that he just "couldn't handle" it being thrown back in his face for months afterwards.

    But, frankly I think my goofing around with him...and saying that I had determined that his lover was a male...and his subsequent and obviously homophobic reaction....might be telling.

    Again, seriously, ask him how he "knows" I'm a woman. I guarentee you he won't give you a straight answer....because there isn't one.

    Posted by Mask at 08/06/2007 @ 10:27pm

  33. The US Military is being defeated by the Taliban. Al Qaida has the same safe haven they always had, Pakistan. Our own Karzai says Bush is a liar - he says Bush lied about Iran, he called Iran a much more positive influence than America. Over in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki says US troops are nothing but a bunch of butchers, he also feels that he can trust Iran more than America. Bush is currently handing out weapons in Iraq to whoever "says" they won't attack Americans. Meanwhile the Democrats are playing the game as though this was still the USA and we can all just get along. Conservatives hate America because we are Free and they must vanish from the page of history.

    Posted by conshame at 08/06/2007 @ 10:37pm

  34. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/06/2007 @ 11:09pm

    Tinfoil hat alert.

    Posted by canaar at 08/06/2007 @ 11:18pm

  35. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/06/2007 @ 10:57pm

    Frank it doesn't really work like that. All war is horrific but the winners are always grinners. That hardly needs to be said. People die in the most horrible way in wars. (That this is more general is born out by what happened during the partition of India after WW2 and the formation of Bagladesh in 1971. All those tensions between Hindu and Muslim had simmered through the 1900s and continue today in Kashmir and, Gandhi notwithstanding, resulted in unspeakable atrocities).

    A more fruitful way is to look at WW2 and ask the question: What would the world have been like had the Axis powers, Germany and Japan, won the war? That also isn't a bad sort of question to ask WRT Iraq, Saddam and the present options.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/06/2007 @ 11:29pm

  36. ...couldn't an argument be made that the use of WMD in those instances is actually comparable as another leader, say Saddam Hussein, using wmd, (gas), on his percieved enemy? Why are we any more righteous in our slaughtering of innocents in the name of preservation than a Saddam Hussein is....

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/06/2007 @ 9:52p

    In GRITTYBRAIN's Blame-America world:

    1) Saddam's gassing his "percieved enemy" who are, BTW, his own countrymen is EQUAL TO the US dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japan that really DID end WW II

    2) Saddam's gassed "percieved enemy" who had no global atrocities to their name is EQUAL TO the Japanese Imperial Army and Air Force that raped, pillaged and bombed all across Asia (Do the following ring any bells? The Nankin Massacre, the Battan Death March, Korean Comfort Women?)

    3) Saddam's gassing of his "percieved enemy" to preserve his evil ways of goverance is EQUAL TO the US dropping atomic bombs to end the Japan that WAS, and transform it into the most powerful Asian democracy today!

    Yes, GRITFORBRAINS, you have proven to us that many libs like you, (can we generalize it to be inclusive of all HRC lovers?) do in fact, HATE America! You can believe otherwise, but if you sound like a traitor, walk like a traitor and quack like a traitor, you probably are a traitor! Just saying!

    Posted by Happy at 08/07/2007 @ 12:11am

  37. From The Weekly Standard come this just SHOCKING revelation that their STAR TROOPER, had fabricated his Baghdad Dairies!!!!

    Beauchamp Recants

    THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.

    Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

    An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

    According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."

    The magazine's editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety--meant to illustrate the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war"--took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been "melted" by an IED.

    Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic's editors complained that the military investigation was "short-circuiting" TNR's own fact-checking efforts. "Beauchamp," they said, "had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you."

    Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?

    Posted by Michael Goldfarb on August 6, 2007 09:52 PM

    Posted by Happy at 08/07/2007 @ 12:31am

  38. Shame on all of us for allowing the Bushwacking of American principles. Once a source of pride for our democratic ideals, we are now no different than the former communist regimes in presenting the newer versions of so called truths.

    The Strength, Courage, and Wisdom of Truth --- victims all!

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 08/07/2007 @ 01:07am

  39. JOHN, I must tell you that for you to believe that Iran in its present state will ever do ANYthing that results in something positive for us represents the height of naievete. I base this on two inescapable facts:

    I. They hate us

    II. You can't really have a clue as to what went on at that meeting, especially given Bush's penchant for secrecy, so chances are if Karzai DID say it, (or you didn't take it out of context) the idea that Iran would be a positive aid probably really is wrong.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 08:26am

  40. ...what congress is actually trying to do you.

    And this verbiage isn't borrowed directly from the world of paranoid conspiracy theoriticians?

    How did you become omniscient? Born that way or divine intervention? Clearly you know not only what the motivations of 100 members of congress are as well as being able to assign the appropriate weight to each of their motivations resulting in actual knowledge of what attempts they are making but...

    You also know what has been occupying my mind as well.

    Care to share the winning lottery numbers for this week's Powerball with me?

    Posted by canaar at 08/07/2007 @ 08:54am

  41. make that 535 members of congress.

    Posted by canaar at 08/07/2007 @ 08:55am

  42. Posted by SLIVER 08/06/2007 @ 9:41pm

    could it be that Bush is a proven liar and has been shown to be disconnected from reality time and time again?

    Yes, it could. Because it is.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 09:08am

  43. Posted by HAPPY 08/07/2007 @ 12:11am

    And Reagan supported Saddam through the whole campaign.

    what does that make Him?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 09:13am

  44. I. They hate us-CHIP

    Who hates us? The entire nation? Or the few at the top?

    Honey or vinegar? So far the vinegar treatment has caused an increase in jihadism. Contrary to the goal, is it not?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 09:18am

  45. CRABWALK, The few at the top. Unfortunately, they are the ones making the decisions

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 09:20am

  46. I know the cons like to play this "blame America" game. It is nonsense of course. America is not heaven, it is far from perfect. "We" are responsible for the largest genocide ever in the history of man. "We" are the only ones to have ever used a nook against another country. "We" helped Saddam, Pinochet, The Shah, Batista, etc

    "We" are also responsible for doing great works and offering up tremendous support for downtrodden people.

    why is it so hard to see both sides of this country and attempt to lean towards the better parts?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 09:25am

  47. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/07/2007 @ 09:20am

    for now. The reason Achminijaed won was because of a backlash against your policies of war around the world.

    Keep that in mind. If you had not invaded Iraq, a more "progressive" candidate may have won the election Iran.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 09:27am

  48. Chip,

    Why should Iran "do something that is positive for the US"?

    Doesn't Iran have a responsibility to its citizens to do what's best for Iran?

    Frankly, if I were the leader of a country that had been tagged a member of a three member Axis of Evil by a country that had thereafter invaded and occupied the militarily weakest of the three and then I looked at the only other remaining state and saw they had nukes and i didn't.....well it doesn't take a Kasporov to figure out what is the ONLY rational move!

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2007 @ 09:38am

  49. Hey RESE, can we hear some more on the "lightning ray" they used to cause the Minnesota bridge collapse?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 09:40am

  50. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/07/2007 @ 09:38am

    What CHIP seems to forget (or probably didn't know) is....Iran WAS helping us capture Al Queda when we went into Afghanistan.

    AQ is Sunni, Iran Shiia, so they were happy to get rid of them.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 09:41am

  51. Let it be known that last night on this thread John Maasch actually stumbled across something (although he didn't realize it).

    He wondered why the writer of this blog hadn't been tapped as a top adviser given that the writer of this blog is much more accurate than virtually anybody in the Admin.

    Well John Maasch....I don't have an answer to your question but it's a very, very good question. I also don't have an answer as to why the corporate media continually parades out "pundits" that are less accurate than a magic eight ball....instead of switching to pundits that actually have a record of vague competency.

    (Well I do have answer John but since you are a bushbot with the KNOWNFACT of the "MSM is Librul" imprinted on your brain, it would go over your head.)

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2007 @ 09:46am

  52. Mr. Nichols, excuse my French, but who the FUCK do you think you are ...

    Posted by HAPPY 08/06/2007 @ 5:42pm

    I thought you viewed foul language as a sign of low intelligence. Or is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/07/2007 @ 09:46am

  53. A historical note. It was sixty-two years ago today that the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Japan, killing 140,000 people. The headline could have easily read, 'America uses weapon of mass destruction against innocent Japanese women and children.' But it was ok in those days because we were at war.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/06/2007 @ 7:02pm

    Hiroshima was headquarters for the Japanese 4th Army.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/07/2007 @ 09:48am

  54. Posted by MASK 08/07/2007 @ 09:41am |

    Till Chimpy pulled out his "Axis of Evil" speech that the cons loved so much.

    The McFlightsuit has done so much that is counterproductive that I cannot keep track of it all.

    Just look where we are 6 years after the Twin Towers fell.

    Iraq= civil war, terrorism daily

    Iran- has nukes or soon will, a right wing president

    Afghanistan- record poppy production, Taliban still alive and well, recruiting more daily, Al Qaeda still operating

    Palestine- Hamas ascendent

    Egypt- Muslim Brotherhood gains seats

    Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Libya- still run by ruthless dictators coddled by the US.

    Saudi Arabia- still run by dictators, still supporting jihadism.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 09:51am

  55. SR,

    EMPTY is already at the bottom..robbing banks was actually a step up..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Robbing banks or exploiting Third World labor, which is worse?

    Mary:

    People refer to you as a female because you act just like a little girl.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 09:55am

  56. CRAB, I wouldn't classify Musharif as ruthless.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/07/2007 @ 09:56am

  57. Crab,

    Fueling the resentment is a positive development (to a neocon) as it creates a viable enemy where before there was no VIABLE enemy only a bunch of ill equipped, ragtag quaran chanting nutcases.

    If you're a neocon or a defense contractor there is nothing more scary than virtual peace.

    The specific ideology is irrelevant though. In other words if Russia were to once again challenge us we'd make these whack jobs our friends, but without a REAL enemy we have to manufacture one.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/07/2007 @ 09:57am

  58. First, no cheap shot. WILL and Empty SPENCE actually DO have a lot in common. Both the "working class" "progressive" thing, both youngish (early 30s) and a penchant for homophobia (both fear of homosexuality and use of homophobic slurs).

    As well as a obsessive need to confront those who can out-think them and point out their hypocrisies.

    The main diff of course is that WILL is a partisan hack and even thinks HILLARY is a "liberal", while Empty is a virulent anti-partisan who offers no answers to the problems but dreams of some "collapse" or "crises" for his revolution to come.

    As for ignoring WILL...no fun. And against my principles. So far I have only the rabid nutjobs (RIO still on the fringe) and the bigots like METTEYA. But as a favor to me, ask WILL, if you find him here how he "figured out" that I was a female. (which I'm not, but happy to be lumped in with our superior sisters).

    Posted by MASK

    Fear of homosexuality? No, not at all. I'm very comfortable, confident in my sexuality. Nor do I support the party that proudly discriminates against gays and lesbians.

    Early 30's? Wrong again, mary. I'm over 40.

    Working class? Yes, and proud of it. If you knew anything about laboring might understand the situation a little better.

    Out thinking me (or anyone else)? In your dreams. What solutions do you offer? None, none what so ever, just the same old thing. You claim you're going to vote Dem, but I've got you lying. That one comment there reveals more than anything else. You really think you're smart; you really think you know something. You know it all, so why should you listen to what anyone else has to say?

    I bet you were on the cross country team in high school, weren't you?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 10:10am

  59. Yes Mask, I know about the sectarian division between the two and the help we got from Iran. There is no arguement that Bush has completely miscalculated in his actions over there and in Central Asia. Before its over I think Musharraff will be assasinated by some fanatic and then we will have no friends there. These Govt's have however regarded us with suspicion and distrust for many years. Holding out vinegar might not be the right method, but hold out honey? They will take it, smile and go right on hating us.

    I would like to ask CRABWALK what she refers to when she claims we are responsible for the largest Genocide in the history of man

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

  60. The U.S. needs and wants strife and tension in the world to further its geo-political goals.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 08/07/2007 @ 10:43am

  61. I would like to ask CRABWALK what she refers to when she claims we are responsible for the largest Genocide in the history of man

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/07/2007 @ 10:14am

    "He" refers to the Native Americans nearly wiped from the face of the Earth by our wholesome forefathers and the theft of their land. (I now "own" some of that land)

    whats up with the gender reclassification and homophobic slurs around here?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 10:58am

  62. And Reagan supported Saddam through the whole campaign....

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2007 @ 09:13am

    CRAB,

    You've got crabby memory of geopolitics.....remembering nothing of substance!

    Reagan followed who as POTUS? Hint: He who was a peanut farmer!

    Saddam waged war for 8 years (I believe 1980-1988) against which country? Answer: Iran! Was there any red-blooded American during that time did NOT want to see Iran blown to kingdom come?

    Reagan was the most pragmatic POTUS of my adulthood! He made some minor mistakes but even those, IMO, I'm reasonably certain he considered most angles!

    Posted by Happy at 08/07/2007 @ 11:02am

  63. In the early 18th century, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey promoted a genocide of their local Natives by imposing a "scalp bounty" on dead Indians. "In 1703, Massachusetts paid 12 pounds for an Indian scalp. By 1723 the price had soared to 100 pounds."

    In the 18th century, George Washington compared them to wolves, "beasts of prey" and called for their total destruction. 4 In 1814, Andrew Jackson "supervised the mutilation of 800 or more Creek Indian corpses" that his troops had killed.

    Extermination of all of the surviving natives was urged by the Governor of California officially in 1851. 4 An editorial from the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, CO in 1863; and from the Santa Fe New Mexican in 1863 expressed the same sentiment. 6 In 1867, General William Tecumseh Sherman said, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux [Lakotas] even to their extermination: men, women and children."

    In 1848, before the gold rush in California, that state's native population is estimated to have been 150,000. In 1870, after the gold rush, only about 31,000 were still alive. "Over 60 percent of these indigenous people died from disease introduced by hundreds of thousands of so-called 49ers. However, local tribes were also systematically chased off their lands, marched to missions and reservations, enslaved and brutally massacred." The price paid for a native scalp had dropped as low as $0.25. Native historian, Jack Forbes, wrote:

    "The bulk of California's Indians were conquered, and died, in innumerable little episodes rather than in large campaigns. it serves to indict not a group of cruel leaders, or a few squads of rough soldiers, but in effect, an entire people; for ...the conquest of the Native Californian was above all else a popular, mass, enterprise."

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm

    the killing fields of Russia and China held more corpses, but I am not sure they were targeting just indigenous populations. We can debate whether those were genocide's. Even if I grant that they were, that still places America at number 3, behind Hitler and Pol Pot.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 11:06am

  64. Posted by HAPPY 08/07/2007 @ 11:02am

    I don't view support of Saddam Hussein as a "minor mistake".

    this red blooded American did not support the total destruction of Iran. That would be cold blooded. Thats your realm.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 11:09am

  65. FRANK, I have to disagree with you about the state of Japan. They had about 5000 aircraft ready for Kamikaze attacks on any invasion fleet that threatened the home islands. They had a war government that viewed death preferable to "dishonor". They had a loyal populace, hundreds of thousands of troops on the home islands, and vast stores of munitions. They were prepared to make the battle for Japan dwarf the Okinawa operation in terms of carnage.

    The japanese emperor himself had to intervene and force the warlords to accept surrender. In fact, there was a failed plot to abduct the emperor Hirohito the night before his surrender broadcast, with the intent of withholding the broadcast from the airwaves and continuing the war.

    There were also casualty estimates for the allied forces, if the invasion of Japan were to be carried out in '46, of anywhere from 1 million casualties to 1 million dead! Japanese casualties would likely have been 5 to 10 times that, judging by the results of other island battles in the war.

    You must not fully understand the japanese mindset at the time. Prior to Midway, the Japanese navy had NEVER suffered a defeat. The japanese fighting man viewed death as preferable to dishonor, and was quite willing to sacrifice himself. That is what made the kamikaze tactic viable. Imagine the US airmen employing the same tactic - it is anathema to our western thinking.

    The Japanese navy and airforce were defeated, it is true, in August of 1945, but the Japanese army was not. Your characterization of it as a defeated army is mistaken.

    All of these factors lead me to the conclusion that the use of atomic weapons on Japan was a legitimate military act.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/07/2007 @ 11:11am

  66. I thought you viewed foul language as a sign of low intelligence. Or is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/07/2007 @ 09:46am

    In 20 months or so of blogging, I'd used that 4-letter bomb about 3 times....which is about how many times I've been `pissed off'!

    Since you & SRJ called me on it, you are owed an explanation! What I may not have stated in extremely clear terms, is that `constant and habitual' use of foul or High-Schoolish language are definite signs of low intelligence and/or just being too young for me to waste time with! Most of such types on this blog, aren't visible on my screen!

    The fact that I shot out my first F-word (and at NIHCOLS) here after ~7 months, should tell you that NICHOLS is HAPPY's lowest-rated POS at TN!

    Posted by Happy at 08/07/2007 @ 11:13am

  67. Reagan followed who as POTUS? Hint: He who was a peanut farmer!

    whats your point? Why do you hate farmers? Did you know that that lowly "peanut farmer" received a degree from the US Navy and was chosen to serve as a command officer aboard nookyular vessels, something Chimpy cannot even pronounce correctly?

    did you know that Raygun negotiated with the Iranians behind the back of Carter and supplied the Iranians with weapons while you were calling for the deaths of millions of those same Iranians?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 11:16am

  68. Or is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/07/2007 @ 09:46am

    A founding principle of neo-conservatism. Along with utopian fantasies fed by the spilling of the blood of brown people.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 11:20am

  69. Reagan followed who as POTUS? Hint: He who was a peanut farmer!

    whats your point? Why do you hate farmers?....

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2007 @ 11:16am

    Would you rather I refer to Carter as "He who let our Embassy be taken and hostages kept in Iran for over a year?"

    Carter will forever be known as what I didn't state (first time) and as the peanut-farmer-turned-POTUS.....nothing against a peanut farmer at all.

    Somewhere in a thread, I learned you're a woman....which could explain why your think like a Venusian! You take mens' (most of us here) words in the narrowest sense and overly literal!

    Posted by Happy at 08/07/2007 @ 11:22am

  70. Somewhere in a thread, I learned you're a woman....which could explain why your think like a Venusian! You take mens' (most of us here) words in the narrowest sense and overly literal!

    Posted by HAPPY 08/07/2007 @ 11:22am

    Chock it up to even more ignorance on your part then. I've got a dong hangin' 'tween my legs. Always been there.

    Curious, how would you have gotten the hostages out? Raygun used cocaine, guns, missiles and negotiated with terrorists.

    gotta run, work beckons. Therefore I am not a liberal as described The Great Book of neo-con mis-information.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 11:34am

  71. PS, I am an ignorant savage, a hypocrite, mean spirited and often leap before I look.

    I am also kind hearted, sensitive, have voted republican and love boobies.

    Ya'll can assign whatever you wish to me, it matters not much.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 11:36am

  72. What CHIP seems to forget (or probably didn't know) is....Iran WAS helping us capture Al Queda when we went into Afghanistan.

    AQ is Sunni, Iran Shiia, so they were happy to get rid of them.

    Posted by MASK 08/07/2007 @ 09:41am | ignore this person

    Mask is correct, and I compliment him for that.

    Hamid Karzai also says that Iran IS helpful.

    Posted by conshame at 08/07/2007 @ 11:38am

  73. just don't call me the "n" word. I married a lovely jew, I am sensitive to being called a genocidal maniac.

    love, Sibling main gauche of peace.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 11:39am

  74. CRABWALK,

    Thanks for the answer: Our "Genocide" of the American Indian involved a small part of the approximately 375,000 souls living here when we got here. Genocide is not to be confused with conquest, which we did, and certainly not to be confused with the systematic extermination of 6 mm Jews, 20MM Russians by Stalin, 20MM Chinese by Mao, or the 600,000 Kwharezmian Turks killed by Chingiz Khan's Mongols when he invaded Transoxania in 1219 (Uzbekistan, E Afghan, The Tadzhik,)Or the millions killed in North China during his campains there. There are others, and to compare any of them in terms of ferocity or purpose to the demise of the Indians is ludicrous. In addition, I suspect from some of their acts, and man being man, that had the situations been reversed they would have done the same. In fact, with the discovery of the Kenniwick skull in Oregon, it looks like the Indians might well have BEEN conquerors themselves, as well as victims.

    Secondly, sorry if I referred to you as "she": Somehow I thought you were a woman. Must have confused you with Darladoon. As far as homophobic goes, don't know what you're referring to, although I gotta tell you I believe homophobic to be merely a label invented by someone to get others to think the way they do and I regard it as a non-word.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 11:42am

  75. You can believe otherwise, but if you sound like a traitor, walk like a traitor and quack like a traitor, you probably are a traitor! Just saying!

    Posted by HAPPY 08/07/2007 @ 12:11am

    Go fuck yourself.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 12:00pm

  76. the idea that Iran would be a positive aid probably really is wrong.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/07/2007 @ 08:26am

    Funny how they offered to help after 9/11 and bush responded by slapping them in the face.

    Ever wonder how different things would be if that little monkey bush would stop insulting people and try to work for the common good?

    You know, UNITE, NOT DIVIDE? Just one of the countless lies we have been told by that smirking fool.

    Or do you ever even bother to think?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 12:06pm

  77. Would you rather I refer to Carter as "He who let our Embassy be taken and hostages kept in Iran for over a year?" Posted by HAPPY 08/07/2007 @ 11:22am

    I, for one, would rather you refer to Carter that way. And, following the path of history, refer to Chimpy as "He who let 19 hijackers fly airplanes into U.S. buildings, killing 3000 people in one morning, then followed up by allowing UBL to escape into Pakistan, while redirecting the country into a disastrous invasion of toothless Iraq." [I understand this leaves out many of the Decider's other catastrophic uses of his executive powers, but at least you can say it in one breath]

    Posted by nathanhale at 08/07/2007 @ 12:07pm

  78. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/07/2007 @ 10:10am

    Sorry, Empty....only ONE of us is flinging around homophobic slurs and then claiming they're "completely confident in their seuxality".

    And you aren't supporting ANY party, so you're effectively "neutral" towards gay rights, aren't you?

    As for lying about voting Dem, you keep saying the Dems are no different from the Republicans, so even if I was the "right-winger" you claim I am, why SHOULDN'T I vote for them?

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 12:09pm

  79. BTW, Empty....CKA2ND, one of our resident socialists, has called you on your use of homophobic slurs as well.

    So it's not just me.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 12:11pm

  80. Genocide is not to be confused with conquest Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/07/2007 @ 11:42am

    Dixie-Chip is remaking himself as Frank Luntz

    Posted by nathanhale at 08/07/2007 @ 12:17pm

  81. Dr DECIBELS

    I wonder sometimes how you could think the situation was so simplistic as "they tried to help & Bush slapped their face". Please elaborate, or in the language of some here, what the fuck does that mean?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 1:27pm

  82. CHIP, how about this?--

    March 7, 2007---Reuters

    By David Morgan

    WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - Iran could be interested in cooperating with the United States to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, a leading U.S. expert on Afghanistan said on Thursday.

    Barnett Rubin, one-time adviser to former U.N. special representative to Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi, said Iranian officials have told him privately that al Qaeda poses a new threat to Afghanistan that could have implications for Iran's national security.

    "They believe that al Qaeda is the number one threat to Iran, maybe after the United States," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Iran's ruling Muslim clerics are Shi'ite, an Islamic sect opposed by the Sunni-dominated al Qaeda and Taliban.

    "They told me they had some information about it, and they would like to cooperate with the United States. But neither their government in Tehran, nor our government in Washington, had authorized the sharing of that information, which they found frustrating," Rubin added.

    The committee's top Democratic and Republican senators said they would urge the State Department to consider Rubin's remarks ahead of two conferences with Iran and Syria set to begin next week in Baghdad.

    "That's pretty important information," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's Democratic chairman. "That directly relates to even the limited purpose that's been stated for meetings with Iran and Syria."

    Rubin did not identify the Iranian officials he met in Kabul last November. But he said they also expressed interest in cooperating with the United States against the Taliban.

    "Every time I meet with Iranians, they warn me that I should tell the U.S. government not to make a deal with the Taliban, because they're concerned that the U.S. is too soft on the Taliban," said Rubin, who is now at New York University's Center on International Cooperation.

    Levin and Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia said they would order Rubin's testimony sent to the State Department with a request that the issue be considered for upcoming talks.

    Afghanistan is bracing for a surge of Taliban and al Qaeda violence this spring. Last year proved to be the bloodiest since the U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban's Islamist government in 2001.

    U.S. officials say Iran is holding al Qaeda members under house arrest. Analysts have estimated that the members held by Iran could number as many as 100.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 2:13pm

  83. That's nice to see. Hope its real although you know Bush will never buy it.

    Mask, I became familiar with the divisions between the Moslems when I started working on my book about the Mongols. Its just difficult for them to decide, it seems, which is more important to them, their hatred of us or the Sunni's. Religion is so interwoven into their daily lives, never can be sure which way they'll go

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 2:22pm

  84. Religion is so interwoven into their daily lives, never can be sure which way they'll go

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/07/2007 @ 2:22pm

    Yeah, good thing we don't have that here, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 3:01pm

  85. "Keep that in mind. If you had not invaded Iraq, a more "progressive" candidate may have won the election Iran.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2007 @ 09:27am

    I think all the progressives in Iran are dead or left and are living in the evil West, after Carter sold the Iranians down the river and gave them the Kohmeni years as a gift to them and the world.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 3:03pm

  86. BTW, Empty....CKA2ND, one of our resident socialists, has called you on your use of homophobic slurs as well.

    So it's not just me.

    Posted by MASK

    Mommie, mommie, he's calling me names! Stick a bottle in that cry baby mouth of yours.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:15pm

  87. Anyway, you made the same point but with the shorter version.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/07/2007 @ 12:18pm

    I don't like wasting time beating around the bush with fools.

    And if it made Mr Civility, "Dick" cheney feel better, why not give it a try?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:16pm

  88. Well, MASK its a good thing that we have learned to mesh our secular lives with our faith. They havn't yet. I've never thought it has to be one or the other. I know plenty of people from my Church that have families, businesses, make money, drive decent cars, etc etc just like every one else, and sometimes I wish I had their faith. You'll never see one of them stop what he's doing at 5PM, kneel down & face Rome and pray. But their faith and knowledge is as solid as any others, be sure of it.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 3:17pm

  89. Please elaborate, or in the language of some here, what the fuck does that mean?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/07/2007 @ 1:27pm

    It means yet ANOTHER missed opportunity in the "war against terror" by Herr Shrubenfuhrer, who would rather puff out his chest and act tough then work on the problem.

    Or don't you follow the news? I'm not here to educate you. I just point out the bullshit you people spew.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:18pm

  90. I think all the progressives in Iran are dead or left and are living in the evil West, after Carter sold the Iranians down the river and gave them the Kohmeni years as a gift to them and the world.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    No, you don't think. The revolution was a popular uprising supported by the majority of the Iranian people. As usual the US put a puppet in power in Iran, ignored the negative effects of US domination of the Iranian economy and its puppet's (the shah) oppressive policies (don't forget, moron, the US has a bad habit of supporting repressive regimes if they're friendly to USinterests)--all of which erupted in a revolution the CIA completely failed to anticipate. What the hell was Carter supposed to do, invade Iran, overturn a popular revolution? You reap what you sow, dumbass.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:20pm

  91. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 08/06/2007 @ 7:14pm

    My thoughts exactly.

    >Of course you lefties really don't like the untidiness of subjectivity in the data so the subjective must become the "objective". The left doctrines are invariably set in stone, for the simple minded and there are few lefties such as the Hitchen's exceptions who dare think outside the sanctioned "objectivities".Which begs another question: Why is it that when there is a difference of opinion between world leaders, Nichols and his ilk think foreign leaders are virtuous, truthful, smart, and competent, while deriding the US govt. of being the opposite?

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/06/2007 @ 11:23pm

    So you've noticed the republicans are staging a slow the work of congress down campaign in an effort to make the dems look like they are doing nothing. You must also have noticed they are using the same tactics (philibusters) they claimed to deplore when the dems used it agianst them when they were in power.

    Posted by zakquiet at 08/07/2007 @ 3:22pm

  92. Well, MASK its a good thing that we have learned to mesh our secular lives with our faith.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    You really are not in touch with reality, are you?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:22pm

  93. "Yeah, good thing we don't have that here, huh?

    Posted by MASK 08/07/2007 @ 3:01pm"

    Yeah, we no longer do...my kids get out of school in December for "Winter Hoilday Break" when for the last 200 years it was Christmas vacation, so as not to belittle the non Christian minoritys, I guess,...all 5% of them...

    oh well...I think we are well on our way to creating a society free from religon...although, even tho I am not a very strong practicioner(sp), I never understood how one could be hurt by any religious exposure...the worship of all thing government has caused us far more damage as a people and species than anything else....

    Look how many EMPTYs and Conshams we are saddled with....Most of us can't take care of our selves any more...to me it looks like we are lining up for one of natures "thinning of the herd" events, where by only the fittest survive...I would guess some kind of disaster might befall us as a species one of these days(and it ain't global warming),and it would be interesting to see the types of individuals that really would survive to rebuild..as opposed to those Hollywood leads us to imagine..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 3:23pm

  94. You'll never see one of them stop what he's doing at 5PM, kneel down & face Rome and pray.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    You've got that much right. All they do is go to church on Sunday and they believe that makes them good Christians.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:25pm

  95. "What the hell was Carter supposed to do,.."

    I'll bet things may look a little different today if Kohmenis plane landed a little short of the runway back then, who knows..maybe Carter would have had a second term...naw, he kill off the economy....

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 3:26pm

  96. Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    So, in other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:29pm

  97. I had many friends I attened college with from Iran who never copuld go back and their parents were killed..they worked for the govt back then..one was thre head of the Education Dept in Iran..

    Thats school, Empty...where one presumedly learns basic fundementals...and prison living, "early banking withdrawls, or banking without deposits" ain't on the curriculem, or wasn't when I was in school, now with the improvement our our unionised schools system, who knows.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 3:30pm

  98. "Look how many EMPTYs and Conshams we are saddled with..."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Do I have to remind your Alzheimers ass that I have a job, pay taxes, and--unlike you--I served the country.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:31pm

  99. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2007 @ 3:30pm

    Still fleecing the flock preacher boy?

    Do you feed them the same shit you try to feed us?

    We don't eat it, have you found a group of morons who actually believe it? A group stupid enough to pay for the "privilege" of hearing you blather on as if you know something?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:34pm

  100. I had many friends I attened college with from Iran who never copuld go back and their parents were killed..they worked for the govt back then..one was thre head of the Education Dept in Iran..

    Thats school, Empty...where one presumedly learns basic fundementals...and prison living, "early banking withdrawls, or banking without deposits" ain't on the curriculem, or wasn't when I was in school, now with the improvement our our unionised schools system, who knows.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Are you referring to when you dodged the war in Vietnam? No, of course not, that was the early '70's. So you went to college for some seven or more years?

    Can you refute that you don't know what the hell you're talking about? Or are references to my felonious past all you can manage, old man?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:35pm

  101. "So, in other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/07/2007 @ 3:29pm"

    Well, if I don't, it cetainly wouldn't be you I or anyone I have met in my life time would turn to..not even for robbing banks...you even failed at that..speaking of not knowing what the hell you are doing.

    Are my fries ready yet?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 3:35pm

  102. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill

    Pretty accurate description of bush, cheney, delay, rove, gingrich and all the rest of the Repug draft dodgers crew.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:36pm

  103. Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Can you refute that you don't know what the hell you're talking about? Or are references to my felonious past all you can manage, old man?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:40pm

  104. Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    And you're much too small to simply admit that you're wrong and move on.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:41pm

  105. 2 POINTS DR D:

    1. DER SHRUBENFURHER-I like it!

    2. You are correct- You are definitely not educating me.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 3:43pm

  106. "unlike you--I served the country.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/07/2007 @ 3:31pm"

    But not enough..

    You should be serving 6-20..

    ...and I am sure all are proud of your service to your community..especially those who came home from the service, got jobs, raised familys they work to support, only to have them see you, their former brother in arms..say "stick 'em up", because you were jerked around some,...and withdraw the fruits of their labors and their rewards after their service to our land..

    You do not count and do not matter to me...and not because you are a thief...but because you are a fraud preaching to the rest of us here, left and right,how screwed up the place is, as if you offer a fix for anything... I disagree with 90% of what spews on this site, but respect those I totally disagree with..

    ...you are a waste and needlessly crude and cruel...you could be 2 steps from hell and I think I would nudge you in..

    It is amazing what some will excuse away...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 3:45pm

  107. Your last posts to me, MTSPENCE, are moving into that area which makes you not worth taking to, as you are making judgements and claims the substance of which you know nothing

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 3:46pm

  108. "Pretty accurate description of bush, cheney, delay, rove, gingrich and all the rest of the Repug draft dodgers crew.

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 08/07/2007 @ 3:36pm '

    And Clinton? Ever read his letter to the draft board?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 3:47pm

  109. Posted by FREIHEIT

    I don't hate corporations. I don't believe corporations should be treated with the same rights as individual Americans. I appreciate that corporations are interested in making profits; they do not care about creating jobs, our Constitution, the air we breath or the water we drink or the food we eat; the corporate structure is anti-democratic. Corporation can be and often are malevolent. In short, corporations have immense power and that power is used to further the interests of the corporations, even if those interest are in opposition to the US, the Constitution, and the vast majority of American citizens.

    You understand me about as well as you understand the system we live in.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:47pm

  110. You are definitely not educating me.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/07/2007 @ 3:43pm

    Good to hear you enjoy living in hate filled ignorance.

    Please don't breed.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:47pm

  111. ...you are a waste and needlessly crude and cruel...you could be 2 steps from hell and I think I would nudge you in..

    It is amazing what some will excuse away...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    And I will be there waiting for your exploitive, parasitic, old ass.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:48pm

  112. MTSPENCE05 08 - Have you ever seen the movie The Newton Boys?

    Real life story about some brothers who practiced "unorthodox withdrawals" from banks.

    Very funny, and one of them is interviewed by Johnny Carson at the end.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:48pm

  113. 2. You are correct- You are definitely not educating me.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    A closed mind is incapable of learning.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:49pm

  114. And Clinton? Ever read his letter to the draft board?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Is it anything like yours?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:49pm

  115. And Clinton? Ever read his letter to the draft board?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2007 @ 3:47pm

    Ok, that's ONE. Al Gore served, Teddy Kennedy served, the list of Dems who served goes on and on.

    And the list of proud Repugs who served their country?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:50pm

  116. Posted by DR DECIBELS

    I've never seen it.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:50pm

  117. Posted by DR DECIBELS

    Hey, hold on there! Ronnie made a lot of propaganda films during WWII.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:51pm

  118. MTSPENCE05

    Rent it, it's a good watch. And you'll love the little old guy at the end explaining why they did it.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:53pm

  119. http://www.amazon.com/Newton-Boys-Matthew-McConaughey/dp/6305364559

    The Newton Boys were the most successful bank robbers in the history of the United States. They never killed anyone, never snitched, and only robbed banks (just bigger thieves, in their opinion), until their final deal, which was a botched train robbery for $3 million. Engagingly played by Matthew McConaughey, Ethan Hawke, Skeet Ulrich, and Vincent D'Onofrio, the Boys don't have the kind of flaws of more brutal criminals that make for more volatile dramas. The film ambles along in a leisurely way to tell its story of the Newtons' bank-robbing career, with an ever-present air of reverent Americana.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:55pm

  120. You'll never see one of them stop what he's doing at 5PM, kneel down & face Rome and pray. ----Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/07/2007 @ 3:17pm

    No, they stop what they're doing on SUNDAY, kneel down, face an altar, and pray.

    What's the diff?

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 3:56pm

  121. It is amazing what some will excuse away...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    I've never made excuses for what I've done. It was of my own voilition; no one put a gun to my head. I chose to do what I did and I explained it, that's all. I don't rationalize it, either. As I said, our economic system is amoral (at best). Take you, for example: you take the bread out of working Americans mouth by exploiting the oppressed, underpaid labor of the Third World. Which is worse?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 3:56pm

  122. Hey, hold on there! Ronnie made a lot of propaganda films during WWII.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/07/2007 @ 3:51pm

    Yeah, While George McGovern flew combat missions and won decorations.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 3:56pm

  123. Between deciding who is going to hell, who should breed and the flag waving, it's amazing that you all can work in this substantive commentary.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/07/2007 @ 3:56pm

  124. Posted by DR DECIBELS 08/07/2007 @ 3:55pm

    Well, now wait a minute Doc. Did the Newton Boys have the excuse of suffering the humiliation of having a bad skipper in the Navy? And did they rob "just for subsistance"?

    And besides, Big Corporations do much worse!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 3:58pm

  125. "...and only robbed banks (just bigger thieves, in their opinion)..."

    Posted by DR DECIBELS

    It's funny: The banking industry is one of the most powerful, influential in American politics. If the economy tanks because of economic policies that the banking industry advocates and lobbies heavily for, any and all with loans on cars, houses, and whatever else loose their investment. They don't get their down payment back or anything else. That just doesn't strike me as cricket.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 4:00pm

  126. Too late, Einstein! Ha HA

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 4:04pm

  127. "Real life story about some brothers who practiced "unorthodox withdrawals" from banks.

    Very funny, and one of them is interviewed by Johnny Carson at the end.

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 08/07/2007 @ 3:48pm

    True, a good movie , but they all died broke and reduced to a joke on late night TV or as entertainment for someone else with a $5 box of popcorn ans $4 coke...never to be taken seriously.

    sound familiar to any one else? Remind you of any one?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 4:04pm

  128. Posted by MASK 08/07/2007 @ 3:58pm

    You should really check out the flick - they felt the banks were screwing the poor, and they were just returning the favor.

    Unrepentant to the last!

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 4:08pm

  129. "...suffering the humiliation of having a bad skipper in the Navy?"

    Posted by MARY

    The point of that story was not that he was criminal, a tyrant, but that he was not prosecuted for his crimes. The law applies to some but not others, ergo, it is invalid.

    You argue that impeachment is a "political" process. All crime and punishment in this country is a political process. If Jr can wantonly disregard the Constitution, then why should anyone else be expected to follow the law? I know that's beyond the parameters of your limited mind, but it's true, nonetheless. I only robbed banks. Jr started a war that has killed over 3,500 Americans and crippled many, many more physically and mentally; he is responsible for the thousands that have been disfigured; he has squandered billions of our tax dollars. All I did was rob a few banks. I did my time; I paid for my crime. Why the hell doesn't Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld? They have harmed, killed thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 4:09pm

  130. "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 4:10pm

  131. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2007 @ 4:04pm

    Life is a carnival baby, 2 bits a shot!

    I don't recall hearing them bellyaching about the results....

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 4:12pm

  132. Life is a carnival baby, 2 bits a shot!

    I don't recall hearing them bellyaching about the results....

    Posted by DR DECIBELS

    Oh, the old, lying, bald coward wants only to play it safe. He fancies himself as some sort of mountain man, on his own, trapping for a living hundreds of miles beyond the frontier, without the protection of the military or the police, without roads, airports, canals to transport his goods. He is confused to say the least. His head is so far up his old ass he doesn't know whether it's day or night.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 4:15pm

  133. Posted by DR DECIBELS 08/07/2007 @ 4:08pm

    Yeah, THAT sounds familiar.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 4:16pm

  134. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2007 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person

    I have some good quotes also...

    War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. ~ General Smedley Butler

    We may extend our dominion over the whole continent...but be assured it will be at the price of our free institutions. ~ Rep. William Waters Boyce

    I hate war for its consequences, for the lies it lives on and propagates, for the undying hatreds it arouses... ~ Harry Emerson Fosdick

    Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly. ~ Senator Robert M. La Follette

    After every ''victory'' you have more enemies. ~ Jeanette Winterson

    Our children are not born to hate, they are raised to hate. ~ Thomas della Peruta

    Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~ George Washington

    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. ~ Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice

    The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous. ~ Frederick Douglass

    Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. ~ Noam Chomsky

    The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions. ~ Robert Lynd

    Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

    War doesn't make boys men, it makes men dead. ~ Ken Gillespie

    We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. ~ Edward R. Murrow

    It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people... ~ Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice

    It is always more valuable to report the truth. ~ Jean-Paul Sartre

    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell

    In this war - as in others - I am less interested in honoring the dead than in preventing the dead. ~ Butler Shaffer

    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. ~ Voltaire

    Look at you in war...There has never been a just one, never an honorable one, on the part of the instigator of the war. ~ Mark Twain

    No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. ~ James Madison

    A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. ~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children. ~ Jimmy Carter

    The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. ~ Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps

    The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated. ~ William Ellery Channing

    ...Uncalled-for aggression arouses the hatred of the civilian population... ~ Jean-Paul Sartre

    War remains the decisive human failure. ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

    That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. ~ Thomas Jefferson

    Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. ~ Albert Einstein

    I hate war...for the dictatorships it puts in the place of democracies, and for the starvation that stalks after it. ~ Harry Emerson Fosdick

    War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ~ General Smedley Butler

    War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality. ~ Senator John McCain

    Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. ~ William Penn

    May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat. ~ General Vo Nguyen Giap

    Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac. ~ George Orwell

    Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government. ~ Sen. Robert Taft, (R) Ohio

    The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people. ~ Frank Kent

    If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. ~ Thomas Jefferson

    I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. ~ James Baldwin

    There were no international terrorists in Iraq until we went in. It was we who gave the perfect conditions in which Al Qaeda could thrive. ~ Robin Cook

    Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. ~ Mark Twain

    All men having power ought to be mistrusted. ~ James Madison

    National defense is the usual pretext for the policy of fleecing the people. ~ Senator John Taylor

    War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. ~ Congressman Ron Paul

    The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. ~ Herman Goering

    We Americans have no commission from God to police the world. ~ Benjamin Harrison

    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

    The biggest lesson I learned from Vietnam is not to trust [our own] government statements. ~ Senator James W. Fulbright

    I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security. ~ Jim Garrison

    No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots. ~ Barbara Ehrenreich

    You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake. ~ Jeanette Rankin

    All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it. ~ Alexis de Tocqueville

    It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. ~ General Douglas MacArthur

    There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. ~ Howard Zinn

    All wars are fought for money. ~ Socrates

    Posted by Lillian at 08/07/2007 @ 4:18pm

  135. "A closed mind is incapable of learning"

    Very good MTSPENCE, The first step on the path to Enlightenment is self awareness.

    You'll get it ;)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 4:18pm

  136. Can't answer that MASK

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/07/2007 @ 4:21pm

  137. Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly. ~ Senator Robert M. La Follette

    Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~ George Washington

    It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    Posted by LILLIAN 08/07/2007 So many good quotes, thank you so much!

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/07/2007 @ 4:21pm

  138. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/07/2007 @ 4:09pm

    No, the point of the story is, Empty....you got caught and you're pissed you got caught and other criminals have not been.

    Other than that, it's a matter of degrees. They intimidated people to get them to do what they wanted. You did that (hard to rob a bank by saying "Give me the money or...I'll leave").

    They say that what they do is minimally bad....you said you robbed banks "for subsistance" (like you JUST stole enough for food, rent, and utilities...but left behind money, if you "didn't need it"....want to make THAT claim?)

    And they excuse their behavior by claiming a "greater good"....just like you FIRST say "I make no excuses"...and then keep excusing it by talking about how rotten the Banking Industry is (like Bush bringing up 9/11 everytime he needs to do something).

    So from voting....to homophobia...to just plain ol' personal morals, you're a hypocrite.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 4:29pm

  139. HEY, LILLIAN's here....what with DARLA's return, it's like old home week here at "The Nation"!

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 4:31pm

  140. No, the point of the story is, Empty....you got caught and you're pissed you got caught and other criminals have not been.

    Posted by MASK

    Haven't been caught? You're the hypocrite, mary. You rationalize this and that, I don't. I did what I did, no excuses. You and the other fools claim it was "immoral." I demonstrated that the system is amoral, and you did nothing to refute it. All you have are smear tactics--smear tactics and incessant whining.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 4:35pm

  141. Other than that, it's a matter of degrees. They intimidated people to get them to do what they wanted. You did that (hard to rob a bank by saying "Give me the money or...I'll leave").

    Posted by MASK

    On one job I was actually naive enough to write on the note: "I'm not here to hurt you, just give me the money and I'll be gone." As I was exiting the bank lobby, shoving the cash down into a book bag, a dye pack went off.

    Unfortunately you cannot be nice; the banks instruct the tellers to put their asses on the line for the bank's money. If I were some sort of violent nut job that young women would have gotten herself hurt. Why? Because the bank management values its money more than the lives of tellers. I suspect bank management is composed of chickenshits just like you, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 4:44pm

  142. Unfortunately you cannot be nice; the banks instruct the tellers to put their asses on the line for the bank's money. If I were some sort of violent nut job that young women would have gotten herself hurt. Why? Because the bank management values its money more than the lives of tellers. I suspect bank management is composed of chickenshits just like you, mary. ----Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/07/2007 @ 4:44pm

    and now....

    Unfortunately you cannot be nice; Al Qaeda instructs the terrorists to put their asses on the line for the cause. If I were some sort of violent nut job I'd have nuked the bastards. Why? Because Al Qaeda values its cause more than the lives of operatives. I suspect Al Qaeda is composed of chickenshits just like you, mary. Posted by MT-CHENEY 08/07/2007 @ 4:44pm

    Rationalization.....it's a wonderful thing, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2007 @ 4:57pm

  143. LvLiberty-None of your quotes have any relevance to Iraq.None of them would have been so stupid as to respond to 9/11 by attacking Saddam.You conservatives aren't strong which is why this war is still going on and why AQ is still alive and well.You have strong words,but weak actions.Cute quotes from politicians and others are nice,but only if they're relevant to the situation,but none of yours are.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/07/2007 @ 5:02pm

  144. Wolf Blitzer is offered unfettered access to Hamid Karzai, Hamid Karzai gives the Bush Administration a figurative slap in the face, and Mr. Nichols has the audacity to accuse the President of pulling the strings of his puppet? Granted, I have my doubts about whether Karzai is a Leader or a puppet; however, given the fact that the one man who truly gave his heart to Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was assassinated two days prior to the terrorist attacks against the United States, I've looked objectively at the situation and conclude that Hamid Karzai may have been the only person available who could somewhat check the power of the various Afghan warlords. Clearly, though, Mr. Nichols has lost all objectivity as he makes false, irresponsible, and dangerous statements such as the one leading into his opinion piece.

    Dangerous... why, one must think, would such a statement be dangerous? Well, as Mr. Nichols could tell you, any statement that Hamid Karzai is a US puppet is always used to undermine him; these false accusations are ammunition for terrorists who, by the way, are flowing across the borders of Iran in order to create fear among the Afghan people and to kill the perceived puppet masters on the ground... the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who struggle against the darkness flowing over the borders of Iran and Pakistan.

    People need to wake up and realize that Iran is after two satellite states, one in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. Iran has already taken great strides to set up a proxy government in Iraq as they control those who control President al-Maliki. In Afghanistan, too, Iran was quick to move, creating a relationship with Ismail Khan, warlord of Afghanistan's Herat Province. The relationship began sometime in late 2001 or early 2002. Is it unreasonable to think that Iran may have reached President Karzai by now? No. In fact, foolish reasoning would lead one to believe Karzai's statement that Iran is helping in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan.

    Again, it's wake-up time for America. Iranian Intelligence and the Iranian regime's ability to project power beyond its borders aren't limited to Hezbollah. In addition to seeking fissionable material, Iran has sought the means to project a nuclear capability that will reach the Continental United States and, sadly, it doesn't take huge nuclear warheads or ICBMs... Iran has missiles that could be launched from common freighters miles off the US coast. The missiles need not be aimed; rather, they'd simply be fired high into the atmosphere above the US, creating a crippling Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) as the warheads explode. The result of an EMP would send our nation into an age before electricity, automobiles, and indoor plumbing. What would the death toll be as the American food supply spoiled or rotted in place, unable to be transported for lack of any transportation? People, wake up; Iran is just getting started.

    If Iran and the other enemies we fight in Afghanistan in Iran are successful, the US will pull out and elect whichever candidate promises not to fight anymore "unjust, racist" wars. As our enemies begin to devour the defenseless, we'll react as President Carter reacted to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. We'll give the world a laugh and maybe boycott another Olympics. Meanwhile, the darkness of despotism almost defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq will spread.

    So, you're presented with a gloomy picture but, remember, it can't happen without your participation. Protest the "unjust, racist" wars and witness a repeat of "The Killing Fields" that resulted after the US pulled its support from another "puppet" government. Go ahead and believe the likes of Mr. Nichols and undermine Hamid Karzai and the United States of America. Or, study the cycle of History and, instead of electing the politicians who promise to protect your Freedom as they also promise to abandon the fight for Freedom, elect a Leader who understands the threat. Elect a Leader willing to take the necessary action to eliminate the threat so that we may not only survive, but prevail in a nation that still knows Liberty.

    Posted by HenryAgha at 08/07/2007 @ 5:03pm

  145. And, once again, you fail to refute anything.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:04pm

  146. Or, study the cycle of History and, instead of electing the politicians who promise to protect your Freedom as they also promise to abandon the fight for Freedom, elect a Leader who understands the threat. Elect a Leader willing to take the necessary action to eliminate the threat so that we may not only survive, but prevail in a nation that still knows Liberty.

    Posted by HENRYAGHA

    Yeah, study the history. If anyone had bothered there would not have been an invasion of Iraq, or Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc. Had the US not installed a puppet, the shah, in Iran maybe the mullahs wouldn't be running Iran now.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:08pm

  147. Instead you twist my words to fit your false logic, just like the good little Repub you are, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:14pm

  148. Posted by LILLIAN 08/07/2007 @ 4:18pm

    That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    That damn Teddy was a very very unpatriotic fellow. I think W and Cheney should have his name removed from the list of previous presidents for comments like that. They also need to have his name removed from the list of Republican presidents as well.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:15pm

  149. "I demonstrated that the system is amoral, and you did nothing to refute it."

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/07/2007 @ 4:35pm

    You demonstrated what every 1st grader knows...systems are amoral, it is the people in them that make the systems out come moral, immoral, or amoral...

    You demonstrated that you are either immoral or amoral(in the Clinton sense)...maybe a rare combination of both.

    As far as whinning...I can't think of anything more irritating than to combine your posts with a voice..forget whinning.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2007 @ 5:17pm

  150. Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Ok, war dodger, coward.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:20pm

  151. So what kind of system is it that the authoritarian Chinese have set-up for labor, old man? The labor you profit off of?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:23pm

  152. Are they free to organize? Do they have access to impartial courts? Are there regulations in place to ensure safety, health that are diligently enforced?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:26pm

  153. So, you're presented with a gloomy picture but, remember, it can't happen without your participation. Protest the "unjust, racist" wars and witness a repeat of "The Killing Fields" that resulted after the US pulled its support from another "puppet" government. Go ahead and believe the likes of Mr. Nichols and undermine Hamid Karzai and the United States of America. Posted by HENRYAGHA 08/07/2007 @ 5:03pm

    HENRYAGHA, I'm sorry but I have to use a quote off the show Everybody Loves Raymond...HENRYAGHA, you're an idiot wrapped in a moron. What the hell are you talking about. If you look at who is attempting to sell weapons to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the middle east, it woud the U.S. right now. We are selling weapons to everyone but Iran. Do you think that Shrub and the Cheney Warmeister might be trying to provoke Iran into attacking? Arming Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt isn't a very friendly gesture and if the U.S. gets total cooperation from those countries, the Iranians are going to get a little on the jumpy side. So, who is really trying to destabalize the middle east?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:27pm

  154. HenryAgha-Viet Nam was keeping the cold war hot and,if you study history,you'll discover that the cold war began to seriously cool down after we left Viet Nam.Saddam was no threat to my freedom.In fact,Saddam and Iran were keeping each other in check because of the hatred and paranoia that was generated during the 8 year war they fought with each other.What army are our enemies going to use to devour the defenseless?The Iraqi army that lost every war it fought?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/07/2007 @ 5:29pm

  155. HenryAgha-Viet Nam was keeping the cold war hot and,if you study history,you'll discover that the cold war began to seriously cool down after we left Viet Nam.Saddam was no threat to my freedom.In fact,Saddam and Iran were keeping each other in check because of the hatred and paranoia that was generated during the 8 year war they fought with each other.What army are our enemies going to use to devour the defenseless?The Iraqi army that lost every war it fought?

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 08/07/2007 @ 5:29pm

    Another point to bring up here is look at the middle east right now. How many troops does Iran have in Iraq?

    We'll humor the right wingers and say that they have 500 stirring up the pot. Now, how many soldiers do we have in Iraq? So either the Iranians have better soldiers than us, or are better trainers of the enemy soldiers because we have roughly 270 to 1 odds or better on our side over them. Either that, or the enemy is home grown....

    Remember that Al Qaeda are Sunni and Iranians are Shiite by an overwhelming majority. So evidently Iran must be on our side in the war on terror since Al Qaeda is the buzzword Bushco likes to pull out to scare the crap out of Amercians because of 9/11.

    It was mostly Saudi citizens responsible for 9/11 but somehow the blame was shifted to Iraq and Iran. Two nations which hated each other with a passion. So, Sadam and the Iranians were plotting against the U.S. together? Considering they kicked each others asses for years would make one think that is extremely unlikely.

    The next question is, what exactly are our soldiers doing in those countries? It sure as hell isn't preserving or restoring freedom and democracy. If we didn't find WMD and we aren't promoting freedom and democracy but are rather promoting a theocracy and moving the rights of Iraqi women back into the stone age, what are we doing there?

    Our soldiers are trained for warfare, not nation building. As a matter of fact, I don't think the U.S. has the resources for nation building at all and don't know of a country capable of the feat. Our nation is great, our soldiers have been asked to do a job they weren't and aren't trained for. There is no shame in getting our guys the hell out of there. Only armchair warriors wish to remain there evidently to prove to themselves that they are off some kind of tough mental character or something along those lines. Other than that, what the hell is the point?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/07/2007 @ 5:52pm

  156. I must agree that the United States stole Freedom from Iran by taking down Mossadegh and installing the Shah. That shameful act should have long ago been rectified; instead, the US did support a puppet Shah and infuriated the good people of Iran.

    The US planted the seeds of Revolution not knowing the harvest that would be reaped and we now have the Akhoond (mullah) regime in Iran. I agree that our acts were reprehensible.

    As for Southeast Asia, though, look up your history, please. French Colonialism was being replaced by Maoist Communism; are you going to tell me that the defenseless should have been subjected to such rule after surviving the French? Tell me, please, what were these Communists like? Tell me, too, what resources did the US stand to gain from this region? They were wiped out! We couldn't have taken a bowl of rice from these people after the abuse they'd already suffered. We fought for their freedom and we failed them. "The Killing Fields" were coming; we just staved it off for several years. But, please, be honest and tell me that these Communists weren't going to commit the same atrocities already committed in China and North Korea.

    Oh, and as far as present-day Iran is concerned, I stand by what I've already said. In fact, why don't you read some Iranian media and see what the Akhoond have in store for the "Great Satan" and the "Little Satan"? How are we going to eliminate this threat while protecting the innocent citizens of Iran if we recklessly abandon our present battle for freedom?

    Posted by HenryAgha at 08/07/2007 @ 6:01pm

  157. Posted by HENRYAGHA

    In Vietnam, Ho (and virtually all other Vietnamese) did not want to be dominated by the Chinese. Ho was communists, yes, but a nationalist first and foremost. If the US had been smart it would negotiated with the Vietnamese and played them against the Chinese and Soviets. It was the will of the Vietnamese the US was fighting, a will for freedom borne from centuries of Chinese and French domination. Military might can only accomplish so much. Vietnam should have taught the US that much.

    The US isn't fighting for freedom, however. The US government cares only about access to markets and resources.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/07/2007 @ 6:13pm

  158. Wolfgang-good post

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/07/2007 @ 6:14pm

  159. Oh, and as far as present-day Iran is concerned, I stand by what I've already said. In fact, why don't you read some Iranian media and see what the Akhoond have in store for the "Great Satan" and the "Little Satan"? How are we going to eliminate this threat while protecting the innocent citizens of Iran if we recklessly abandon our present battle for freedom?

    Posted by HENRYAGHA 08/07/2007 @ 6:01pm

    You are out of your mind. Do you think the spread of communism and protection of freedoms is what these wars were about? Wars are for profit, power and land acquisition and nothing else. Killing people serves no other purpose other than that. Vietnam was a foothold French, Russians and U.S. all wanted in the Asian theater as is Israel (for us and Britain) in the middle east. Look at how pissed of the Russians are for NATO closing in on their borders. It's pretty much like gang wars on a global level. The powerful countries wish to gain more terf and control. The smaller nations are crapping their pants hoping they aren't picked next.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/07/2007 @ 6:18pm

  160. HenryAgha-We were not fighting for anyones freedom in Viet Nam and we are not fighting for anyones freedom in Iraq.You live in a fantasy world.The pro war crowd did not care about the Vietnamese people and pro war people do not care about the Iraqi people.We did not know that the killing fields were coming and no one who was pro war cared that the killing fields might be coming.You are obviously young and don't remember the reasons the pro war crowd gave for wanting the war,but the freedom stuff is pure bull tacos.Most pro war types during Nam despised the people and referred to them as gooks,slopes,etc and many pro war types now hate Muslims,who many refer to as ragheads..It would be nice if our motives were so pure,but they aren't.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/07/2007 @ 6:26pm

  161. Posted by NATHANHALE 08/07/2007 @ 12:07pm

    LOL!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2007 @ 7:46pm

  162. As I was exiting the bank lobby, shoving the cash down into a book bag, a dye pack went off.

    Sounds more like "Raising Arizona" ...."I'll just be taking these Huggies...and whatever cash you've got laying around."

    Posted by Sliver at 08/07/2007 @ 8:28pm

  163. Well, MASK its a good thing that we have learned to mesh our secular lives with our faith. -CHIP THORTON

    Really?

    Friday 03 August 2007

    A report released publicly on Thursday by the Defense Department's (DOD) inspector general has found high-ranking Army and Air Force personnel violated long-standing military regulations when they participated in a promotional video for an evangelical Christian organization while in uniform and on active duty.

    The report recommended Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, Army Brig. Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, and a colonel and lieutenant colonel whose names were redacted in the inspector general's report, "improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform" and the men should be disciplined for misconduct. Caslen was formerly the deputy director for political-military affairs for the war on terrorism, directorate for strategic plans and policy, joint staff. He now oversees the cadets at the Military Academy at West Point. Caslen told DOD investigators he agreed to appear in the video upon learning other senior Pentagon officials had been interviewed for the promotional video.

    The 47-page report was also highly critical of Pentagon Chaplain Col. Ralph G. Benson, whom the inspector general's report accused of knowingly misleading the DOD when he requested permission from DOD officials to film a video inside the Pentagon claiming he was interested in gathering information about the Pentagon's "own ministry." In fact, the report says, Benson was determined to use the video to "attract new supporters" to the Christian Embassy, an evangelical organization that evangelizes members of the military and politicians in Washington, DC via daily Bible studies and outreach events. The group holds prayer breakfasts on Wednesdays in the Pentagons executive dining room, according to the organization's web site. Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, founded the Christian Embassy 30 years ago.

    ...The Army generals who appeared in the video appeared to be speaking on behalf of the military, but they did not obtain prior permission to appear in the video. They defended their actions, according to the inspector general's report, saying the "Christian Embassy had become a 'quasi-Federal entity', since the DOD had endorsed the organization to General Officers for over 25 years."

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

  164. The former White House attorney under Ronald Reagan, and the author of the book "With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military", said he is still "dissecting" the inspector general's report, but "clearly this is a gigantic victory for our foundation."

    "The report confirms the total destruction of the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating supernatural and natural, metaphysical and physical, spiritual and temporal, church and state at the highest levels of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind; our honorable and noble United States military," Weinstein said in an interview. "The embarrassingly pedestrian excuses feebly offered by senior US Army and US Air Force generals and other senior officers are pathetic and not worthy of those that might have been offered by a first-grader. The fact that these senior Pentagon officials control our country's nuclear arsenal should shake the very foundation of the American public's trust in our country's current leadership."

    "The rise of evangelical Christianity inside the military went on steroids after 9/11 under this administration and this White House," Weinstein said in an interview. "This administration has turned the entire Department of Defense into its own personal faith-based initiative. "

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2007 @ 08:57am

  165. Posted by CRABWALK 08/08/2007 @ 08:57am

    Crab, What's really scary about this is that Weinstein was part of the Reagan adminstration. When the Reagan boys start saying things are going to far to the right...holy crap! How does the saying go....Jesus, please save me from your followers.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/08/2007 @ 11:52am

About the Authors

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
12 Comments
Posted at 1:28 PM ET

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
17 Comments

» The Beat

John Murtha: The Old Soldier Who Said "Bring the Troops Home" | His Iraq War debate with Dick Cheney highlighted the difference between the modern era's sunshine patriots and winter soldiers.
John Nichols
99 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
47 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Welcome to Palinland | Though Sarah Palin's National Tea Party Convention keynote garnered applause when she invoked Ronald Reagan, the real sage behind her speech was Barry Goldwater.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
250 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
46 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman