The Notion

For Rove to Imply He Didn't Leak Plame's Identity Is "Nonsense"

posted by john on 08/21/2007 @ 08:14am

Karl Rove is working feverishly to rewrite history in the few remaining days before he is no longer taking taxpayer money to do the political work of the Bush-Cheney administration.

The White House political czar, who had never been a frequent guest on the talking-head shows where Washington insiders make news on otherwise slow Sundays, was front and center on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" and Fox News Sunday. The interviews of Rove by NBC's David Gregory and Fox's Chris Wallace were lousy.

Obviously hoping to get Rove's help in landing heftier interviews with those who will remain on the administration's sinking ship longer than the man they referred to as "Bush's brain," Gregory and Wallace asked soft questions and then allowed Rove to dodge them. Indeed, when the discussion came close to getting serious about documented examples of Rove's dramatic abuses of his position, the soon-to-be-former presidential aide glibly responded, "nice try," or declared "I'm going to leave it there" -- essentially telling his supposed inquisitors that it was time to move on to the next topic.

Fortunately, in the discussion that followed the Rove interview on "Meet The Press," Gregory hosted veteran Time Magazine Washington reporter Matt Cooper.

Cooper bluntly described Rove's precise role in the scandalous -- and, depending on chosen interpretations of the law, treasonous -- leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. That 2003 leak came as part of an administration scheme to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who had revealed details about the misuse of intelligence prior to the launch of the Iraq War by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others.

While Rove is busy evading questions about the abuse of his position to punish a political critic, and while Rove's defenders continue to peddle the lie that says their man was never in the lead when it came to leaking information about Plame, Cooper's comments again confirmed the dirty dealing in which Bush's political henchman engaged on behalf of the president and vice president.

Here is the significant section of the conversation between Gregory and Cooper:

DAVID GREGORY: Matt Cooper, let's pick up on an aspect of the interview with, with Karl Rove having to do with the leak case, the CIA leak case, that you were part of as well. And something that's very interesting, he, he went out of his way to say, "I would not have been a confirming source on this kind of information" and taking issue with, with Novak's testimony in his column that he knew who Valerie Plame was. He said he would never confirm that information. That's different from your experience with him.

MATT COOPER: Yeah, I, I think he was dissembling, to put it charitably. Look, Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plame's identity on July 11th, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson was in the news that week. I didn't know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove and he said that she worked at the agency and she worked on WMD. I mean, to imply that he didn't know about it or that this was all the leak...by someone else, or he heard it as some rumor out in the hallway is, is nonsense.

DAVID GREGORY: But he makes no apologies to Valerie Plame.

MATT COOPER: Karl Rove never apologizes. That's not what he does.

Karl Rove will keep spinning for a few more days.

So, too, will Rove's apologists.

But spin is another word for "lie." And, while Rove has every reason to keep spinning, Cooper has no reason at all to do so. Additionally, while Rove avoids mention of precise dates and details with regard to the Wilson-Plame scandal, Cooper is forthcoming and specific.

The truth, as Matt Cooper has made plain, is that attempts by Rove and others to suggest that the political czar served honorably are simply "nonsense."

The question that remains -- for congressional investigators if they ever choose to get serious about their oversight responsibilities -- is not: Did Karl Rove intentionally leak the name of a CIA agent who worked in the sensitive area of investigating weapons of mass destruction? He did that. The question is: Who did Karl Rove consult with before making that leak? Did he talk with the vice president about a plan to discredit an administration critic? Did he talk to the president about leaking the identity of a CIA operative?

David Gregory and Chris Wallace failed to ask Karl Rove the relevant questions.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as well as other committees charged with checking and balancing these sorts of abuses, should now ask those questions. And if Rove claims executive privilege, the response should be that no president has the authority to convey upon a present -- or former -- aide the right to use an executive position in a secretive campaign to discredit a critic of the administration.

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

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 (164)

  1. NICHOLS: But spin is another word for "lie."

    The truth, as Matt Cooper has made plain,...

    So, that's what all you pundits do, "lie"! Glad you admit this, John!

    So, according to Matt Cooper, his "spin" is true while Rove's "spin" is a "lie".....

    or is Rove's "spin" is the truth while Cooper's "spin" is the "lie".....

    or is it both Rove's and Coopers' "spin" are "lies".....

    or finally, both of their "spins" are true in accordance to their "spin-prone" or "lie-prone" memories?

    When you get down to it, it's never clear without some third-party substantiations, who is "spinning for truth" and who is "spinning for lies"! That, you can take it to the Bank!

    BTW, was Rove indicted by Fitz? Take the Bank!

    Posted by Happy at 08/20/2007 @ 4:51pm

  2. Posted by HAPPY

    Some people deserve the benefit of the doubt, others don't. This administration has demonstrated time and time again that the truth is not important. Once you lie you have no credibility.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/20/2007 @ 5:12pm

  3. I think that the only responsible way to approach anything coming out of Shrubtown is to regard it as bullshit, utter bullshit, complete bullshit, or some combination of the above.

    These people are without shame; I question whether they themselves know what the truth is anymore.

    So much for restoring 'honor and dignity' to the White House. These douchebags couldn't restore an outhouse.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/20/2007 @ 5:17pm

  4. What a bunch of pure bullshit artists are infesting the WH.

    What a shame.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/20/2007 @ 5:20pm

  5. i'm surprised rove didn't bring gonzalez with him. he could have let gonzalez answer each question with a beautifully rehearsed "i don't recall"

    remember kids, these are trained professionals. DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!

    sir, do you realize you were speeding? "i don't recall" i think you're the father of my child. "i don't recall" do you have aids? "i don't recall' is arsenic poison? "i don't recall"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 5:36pm

  6. sorry to post this twice (originally on a very slow sunday) (sorry mask) but it seems topically relevant:

    homage to beckett [en.wikipedia.org]!

    aka "waiting for goredot"

    act 2 scene 4

    (we see the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FREEDOMPLACES (POTUFP) upstage left continue to read "Prescott, the Nazi Goat" to a group of assembled school kids, as he has been doing for the entire play, despite the machiavellian machinations of his Vice President for Imperial Development, LORD WYOMING and his sidekicks, REDDBEENZN RICE, Secretary of Other Places; DONALD DUCKSFELD, Secretary of Attack and GONZBERTO ALBERTEZ, who doesn't recall his title.)

    LORD WYOMING: and now here to address you, is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FREEDOMPLACES (vague applause (27.2%))

    (LORD WYOMING now proceeds to pick up a very large rope which has been tied around the waist of POTUFP for the entire play. he takes said rope and forcefully pulls POTUFP from his chair to downstage centre, where a microphone awaits.)

    (lights dim. only a very bright bare incandescent bulb hangs down directly above POTUFP, in the manner of a police interrogation.)

    POTUFP: (in this dialogue, it is important that POTUFP begin this speech in a folksy, down-home manner which during the course of the talk becomes more and more monotone.) my fellow freedom lovers (loud feedback). whoa, seems like the sound guy's been sent overseas to fight for oil oil oil as the terror war on al-quackeda is moo moo in iraq or crawfordistan protect liberty by lincoln jefferson moo moo as the vice-president so cuacuacua said excess of evil and axis of weevils like canada and canada and canada and canada and canada and canada and saint pierre et miquelon who threaten homeland moo moo moo or as we say in texas mmmmmmmmmooooooooooooooooo can only be won by habeas crapus denial of service attack in the congress of god bless this land the home of the cuacua because they hate freedom places and twinkies and me and yews and ewes and youse gotta a problem with that and so gitmo action gitmo money getmo gitmo mah-nah mah-nah doo doo doo doo doo do you follow the new oil the clear oil the new clear oil and the dumbocrats hate freedom more than a hot dog needs freedom fries and catch up and don't worry the money's there and the chinese are nice and moo moo and got lots more gitmo for getmo getmoo i run i ran i run i ran i run i ran i run you run when i ran carry her groups of persian cats who perfectly terror terror terror terrory terrorize tear error cuacuacua oh the yellow rose of diplomacy has been exhausted and yellow cake and twinkies are twinkies and barney would have made a good vp but jenna said LORD WYOMING so we don't recall and are unable to answer at this time because tonysnowflakes says we can't because of quakeda's plan to mmmmmmoooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    any questions?

    LORD WYOMING: that was excellent, "sir"!

    POTUFP: thanks, now can i go back to my story. i love goat stories. maybe when mr. goredot gets here he can tell me some that i've never heard before.

    LORD WYOMING: i bet he will (aside: sinister laughter). now, back to your story, you little scamp.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 5:39pm

  7. Once you lie you have no credibility.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/20/2007 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person

    Like Clinton? Both of them?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2007 @ 5:47pm

  8. i think rove left to spend more time with the other rats that have already left the sinking ship.

    Posted by pretzel at 08/20/2007 @ 5:48pm

  9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 5:47pm

    heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreee'sssssssssssssss ¡¡¡JOHNNY!!!

    hey brutha,

    is it true that you live in nebraska?

    i thought archer daniels midland had appropriated it. ::))

    btw Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant.

    sorry, nation staff--FZ

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 6:00pm

  10. The problem is that republotarians who watched that show know Rove did a great job.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/20/2007 @ 5:52pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 6:02pm

  11. "I caught Rove in several lies on that program.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/20/2007 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person

    Frank,

    You caught Rove in lies, eh? Man you are just too sharp for him, I guess...the problem I have is why can't you catch Hillarys lies? Do you need help, or is it too far up there under her, ah, skirts?

    "The problem is that repugs who watched that show probably thought Rove did a great job.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/20/2007 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person"

    Republicans don't watch the show or the network(think Keith Dobermann), Frank...it is biased in the same way you think Fox News is biased.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2007 @ 6:06pm

  12. FZ,

    Johnny was a funny show....

    Straying off topic is a fundemental right here at the Nation..and as far as personal attacks..if we stopped those, where would Willc, EMPTY,COPROGRESSIVE, Frank and many others go?

    As far as the staff...FZ...do you mean staff, as in infection?...:)

    Great White North was also good...one of my wifes friends married a Canadian man..a good guy, knows his hunting and fishing..having grown up in Minnesota and Wisconsin, I am familiar with fishing storys, but this guy is a pro..

    He is immigrating to the US, so I told him, he better be legal or we are gonna run his ass back up north!!......:)

    Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2007 @ 6:11pm

  13. Frank,

    You caught Rove in lies, eh? Man you are just too sharp for him, I guess...the problem I have is why can't you catch Hillarys lies? Do you need help, or is it too far up there under her, ah, skirts?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 6:06pm

    or obama's or gore's or frosty zoom's or pine-eyes'...............................

    why, even pinocchio's!!

    even yours, nebraskanite.

    right now, the essential question is: whose lies are going to end up f@#$%&*@$#cking this world up more (or, fingers-crossed, LESS)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 6:19pm

  14. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 6:11pm

    jm,

    if you thought GWN was funny, check this [en.wikipedia.org] out. please, check it out.

    this may help in your quest [youtube.com] for understanding who canadians are (please let us know, we have no clue).

    as far as immigrating here, let me tell you this:

    my wife is mexican. immigration canada says 6-8 months to process "family status sponsorship" i.e. residency. it took 3 YEARS!!!!! 3 years of my wife's being in limbo (she could live here--no work or no school allowed)!

    many refugees (# going down--getting harder) and professionals (# going up--getting easier) immigrate here. however, the professionals end up driving taxis and working in variety ("convenience" in gringospeak) stores because their qualifications are deemed insufficient (i.e. they are not caucasian).

    there is a double-edged bonus: professionals tend to marry professionals. they have smart kids. so, canada get's a new generation of intelligent, hard-working slave labour and receives a future generation of "properly trained" professionals.

    a plot so machiavellian from canada! even wolfowitz is envious!

    i lived in méxico for 10 years, and although i went through hassles (latinos love paper and formality) my dealings with mexican immigration were relatively painless (especially in the later stages when i vibed with their system better). in fact i was well on my way to becoming a mexican citizen (we can have two in canada) when we returned to canada (mom's more important).

    good luck to your buddy, i wouldn't want to have to deal with HOMELAND SECURITY.

    sh#$%t i probably will have HS problems next time i go to amerika after all these lefty posts at The "gotta be commies" Nation.

    ps i really know who canadians are. they're freaks who waste time talking to americans. that's why i'm here. way more interesting (and more important on a macro level) than what goes on here. it's the closest i can get to voting in your popularity contests.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 6:50pm

  15. First paragraph correction of liberal bias: Rove was earning his paycheck, not "taking taxpayer money" which implies sitting around doing nothing (except, perhaps, Bush-inspired evil, lol.)

    For those who want to quibble about where the money comes from...Yes, taxpayers fund our government, including the salaries of elected officials from all parties.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 08/20/2007 @ 6:55pm

  16. I believe I must gently remind ALL contributors to this thread that Karl Rove was by no means "caught in a lie."

    Rather, he exercised the "right" that politicians of our increasingly imperial Executive Branch have recently arrogated for themselves: The "right" not to have to respond to journalists. Every time another cowardly journalist cowers before a public official and refuses to ask follow-up questions -- especially if this public official, like Rove, is a washed-up soon-to-be has-been who should pose no threat at all -- this "right" of our more and more secretive, less and less "public" officials becomes more and more real.

    Should we expect journalists soon to have to "beg an audience" of officials whom they must address as "Your Excellency" and from whom every answer given to a question must be regarded as an act of grace?

    The real scandal here is that Karl Rove didn't HAVE to lie. All he had to say was: "We're not going to go there." And David Gregory smiled and let it go at that.

    I leave to "Happy" to explain to us exactly why we should reject the entirely plausible claims of a journalist like Mark Cooper -- simply because the Illustrious Karl Rove refuses either to confirm or to deny them in an interview.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/20/2007 @ 6:55pm

  17. Decibel, I prefer the "bullshit" in the WH as opposed to Dem cockroaches (no pun intended, Bill).

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 08/20/2007 @ 6:59pm

  18. Posted by DJ IN AZ 08/20/2007 @ 6:59pm

    how could anyone whose been alive for the last 7 years utter such nonsense?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 7:36pm

  19. Evidently Nichols has been either in a coma or kidnapped by some rightwing fanatics and out of the news loop during the past 3 years. His columns evidently were posted by someone using his alias. How else to explain his demand for Congress to investigate Rove? Nichols must have been unable to see that a Federal Prosecutor named Fitzgerald investigated this case including having Rove give testimony to the FBI and a Grand Jury.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/20/2007 @ 8:21pm

    well, i'm sure mr rove was represented by some fancy (really fancy) lawyers.

    and he probably lied and had his own "don't recall" moments

    BTW how can you defend someone who blew the cover of an important asset in your country's quest to keep iran nuclear free?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 8:27pm

  20. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/20/2007 @ 8:39pm

    perjury, smurjury.

    these folks cost your country an important operative.

    no one listened to armitage.

    everybody (in k streetville) listens to rove.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 8:55pm

  21. Pretty weak response.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/20/2007 @ 9:43pm

    thank you.

    perhaps the words of professor cole (don't know who he is?--google) will provide you with a better perspective (please read):

    Saturday, March 17, 2007 Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy: the Plame Affair

    Valerie Plame Wilson, whose career Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted destroyed in a fit of pique, was finally allowed to testify before Congress on Friday. Some in the blogosphere are arguing that the outing of Plame Wilson was an impeachable offense.

    Defenders of Rove and Cheney say that if they did not know that Valerie Plame Wilson was an undercover operative, then they did not break the law by trying to out her. But first of all, as high officials of the US government, they had a responsibility to excercise prudence in this regard. The "reasonably prudent person" is always invoked in tort trials, why not in national security affairs? Can anyone argue that Rove and Cheney were being prudent in their actions? Shouldn't they have to be to stay in office?

    Moreover, they did know that Plame Wilson was involved in counter-proliferation efforts, including against Iran. By leaking her name with the intent that journalists such as Judy Miller publish it, they were conveying information about a CIA operation to Iran. That is high treason, even if they did not know she was covert. All they had to know is that she was trying to impede Iran's nuclear program, and that the Iranians did not know that that was what she was doing. You can't make her public without also letting the Iranians know. Here is what the Constitution says:

    Article III, Section 3:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    It aided and comforted Iran to know that Valerie Plame Wilson and her dummy CIA corporation, Brewster Jennings & Associates, had been engaged in counter-proliferation efforts against it. Bush put Iran in the Axis of Evil, thus declaring it an enemy of the US.

    Therefore, Rove and Cheney (and maybe Bush himself) gave aid and comfort to an enemy of these United States by a deliberate act of outing a CIA operative who was not known to Iran and whose cover and activities had not been.

    That's treason. That warrants impeachment.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 9:52pm

  22. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZFlame? Plame? Who?zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by davebarlett at 08/20/2007 @ 10:01pm

  23. I leave to "Happy" to explain to us exactly why we should reject the entirely plausible claims of a journalist like Mark Cooper....

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 08/20/2007 @ 6:55pm

    Did I SAY or coach anyone else to "reject" Matt Cooper's claim? Did I express skepticism? You bet!

    Given that Rove had been through Fitz's `grinder' and given journalist' low level of integrity today--well publicized media scandals notwithstanding, their inability to keep CLEAR BIAS out of their reporting is SIN No. 1--now why would anyone take a journalist's unsubstantiated claim, oops, I mean "spin" to be true? It could be true, yes, but it could be "spin", and it most certainly could be a lie! Even POTUS lie under oath and claim on national TV: "I am NOT a crook!"

    Posted by Happy at 08/20/2007 @ 10:02pm

  24. Mtspence05: " once you lie, you have no credibility"! Wow, then Bill Clinton has no credibility, correct? Although i totally agree with your position on "lies", I feel that you may just apply that rule conveniently! Regardless, if Bush or Rove or cheney or any other bush admin. official is caught lying, and it's PROVEN, then they should be gone and lose all credibility! As for now, you loser's still don't have shit on Bush Cheney or Rove, but keep at it, and if you ever find what you're looking for, i'll be right there calling for their heads, but until then I'll stick with that ol' liberal claim that we are ALL " innocent until PROVEN guilty! By the way losers, Rove is gone now, can't you just "MOVE ON".org! Stop the hate, it'll eat you up inside. Get help now for BDS ( Bush derangement syndrome ). I've got the cure. I just cured some punk ass lib at the park the other day. He was obviously suffering from BDS, whining about Katrina and war, so I open-hand slapped that piece of shit upside his head, and wouldn't you know it, he SHUT UP! I try to help whenever I can!!!!!!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/20/2007 @ 10:13pm

  25. FZ<

    "sh#$%t i probably will have HS problems next time i go to amerika after all these lefty posts at The "gotta be commies" Nation."

    Don't worry, the Nation is the last thing the NSA or HS would listen to, as they already know it is ignored by 90% plus of the country..and is even ignored by the dem party, except near election time...kinda like the black vote... there are no surprises here.

    BTW, did you here Hillary just annouced to the VFW that the surge is working? What will that clever Frank say?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2007 @ 10:27pm

  26. Sorry, but like impeachment, "justice for Rove" will have to wait the "Great Karmic Wheel", the "Lord God Jehovah and his right hand...or is it left?", the "Black Barge" of the Klingons, or just History to be implemented.

    Fitzgerald couldn't nail him. Leahy and the Congress may break exec privilege, but ultimately an Special Prosecutor on Attorney-gate will face a pre-indictment possibility that Bush will pardon Rove as he leaves 1600 Penn. on January 19th, 2009 (and NO prosecutor goes into an investigation, knowing it'll go nowhere.)

    Sorry, but mere human justice isn't likely to hit Turd Blossom. I don't like it, but it's best to get used to the idea and not strain your selves.

    Posted by Mask at 08/20/2007 @ 10:31pm

  27. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZFlame? Plame? Who?zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 08/20/2007 @ 10:01pm

    That's treason. That warrants impeachment.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 11:08pm

  28. He was obviously suffering from BDS, whining about Katrina and war, so I open-hand slapped that piece of shit upside his head, and wouldn't you know it, he SHUT UP! I try to help whenever I can!!!!!!

    Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2007 @ 10:13pm

    wow, that's cool!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 11:12pm

  29. BTW, did you here Hillary just annouced to the VFW that the surge is working? What will that clever Frank say?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 10:27pm

    give me links

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 11:12pm

  30. Posted by MASK 08/20/2007 @ 10:31pm

    i guess we'll have to let karma do its nasty brand of justice.

    but sure would be nice to see these crooks in jail.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 11:14pm

  31. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 10:27pm

    but not ignored by you.

    does that say something?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2007 @ 11:31pm

  32. Rove is a despicable individual who has made a career out of telling lies to the point that I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sky was blue or milk was white.

    He puts his spin (aka lie) on everything. If his lips are moving you can bet he's trying to get you to believe the unbelievable, just because he thinks he can.

    "These guys [Republicans] are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen." - John Kerry

    Posted by COProgressive at 08/21/2007 @ 12:11am

  33. FZ,

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6

    Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2007 @ 12:14am

  34. Like Clinton? Both of them?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 5:47pm | ignore this person

    Ah, the quintessential right-wing response. OK, righties, repeat after me - But...but...but...but...CLINTON!!

    Posted by jmusolino at 08/21/2007 @ 12:57am

  35. Funny stuff JOHN M.! This is a "historical moment"! Someone with the last name of CLINTON praising and supporting the American military in any campaign!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/21/2007 @ 12:29am | ignore this person

    Well, Rio, speaking of supporting the military (since you were questioning others' support) - why are you not supporting them with your own enlistment? You talk a pretty bellicose game, but seem afraid to put your own continued health/existence on the line for your "cause". How did John Shaft put it the other day - "writing checks with your mouth that your ass won't cover"? So here's a little reality, Rio. Valerie Plame was covert, working on Iran WMD issues. Your people ratted her out. You support that treasonous behavior because it was your people who engaged in it. You're safe and sound here, while you avoid a war you so desperately want. You and your kind don't get to question anyone's patriotism or support of US troops until you actually develop a little patriotism and troop support yourselves. Not that you won't continue to blow smoke anyway. It's easier than actually fighting your battles. And one other thing - Rove is absolute scum. You know, the old legal definition of obscenity - no redeeming social value.

    Posted by jmusolino at 08/21/2007 @ 01:10am

  36. Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2007 @ 10:13pm | ignore this person

    But, Barry, you're here, rather that open-handedly helping the troops by joining the fight in Iraq. Why's that? Your post indicates that you like to use force to solve issues, so why are you not in the military, where you can use force on a daily basis? Your post was funny, coming from yet another right-wing chickenhawk as it did. But it sure sounded like utter, moronic bullshit. Because you just don't have the balls, pal.

    Posted by jmusolino at 08/21/2007 @ 01:15am

  37. Once you lie you have no credibility.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/20/2007 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person

    Like Clinton? Both of them?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 5:47pm

    Well, that makes it OK then. If Clinton did it, it's just cool.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 08:10am

  38. I see Nichols and you lefties are beating the same old dead horse, insisting that you WOULD have caught Rove doing something criminal, if only Libby hadn't lied about it. In the absence of proof, your suspicions will do, I suppose. At least for yourselves. The dogs bark (and slaver), but the caravan moves on.

    Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2007 @ 08:10am

  39. Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 08:10am

    Well, that makes it OK then. If Clinton did it, it's just cool.

    Good point, CRABBIE. President Clinton's lies under oath in investigation of his use of his employees for sex DON'T excuse anyone else's lies under oath. Perhaps one day you can explain to us, however, why when Clinton lies under oath it's just 'lies about sex' and when Libby gets convicted of lying under oath, it deserves a prison term, and other relativistic phenomena, no doubt using arguments that would confuse Einstein.

    Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2007 @ 08:14am

  40. Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2007 @ 10:13pm

    Shall we list the lies again so your mommy can read them to you? Again.

    Shall we list the FIVE times Rove had to go before a grand jury?

    shall we list the republicans who are in jail right now, or would be if the tough on crime president Didn't want to protect his VP from prosecution?

    Shall we list the damage done by outing Brewster Jennings to the Iranian Republican Guard?

    Shall we list the times Bill Clintons name has been brought up to try and defend the indefensible?

    who will you hate when Bill is gone from the WH for 6 years, BARRYIQ25?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 08:20am

  41. "Once you lie you have no credibility.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/20/2007 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person

    Like Clinton? Both of them?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 5:47pm

    Well, that makes it OK then. If Clinton did it, it's just cool.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 08:10am |

    I am just agreeing with EMPTY for th first time. And Bill was cuaght...on tape.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2007 @ 08:23am

  42. Was Plame covert?

    Yes.

    Did the White House out her to the Iranian government?

    Yes.

    Did Bill Lie?

    Yes.

    did it harm national security?

    No.

    Is Pontificus an ideologue ?

    Yes.

    Is Pontificus a moron?

    Yes.

    Does Pontificus believe things that are not true, because someone with an (r) next to their name told him?

    Ohhh, yes.

    Did Rove intentionally drive wedges into our politics to get to 50.5%?

    yes.

    Is that good for the country?

    No.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 08:25am

  43. Are RIO, BARRY, PONTI, MAASCH,HAPPY hiding behind other peoples kids?

    yes.

    will they go fight for what they believe in?

    Hell no.

    Are they cowards tht support treasonous acts?

    Hell yes!

    Will they hold their own up to the same standards they hold Clinton?

    No.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 08:27am

  44. Why do you war mongers support outing federal agents to the Iranians?

    Remember: Shinseki= traitor

    Achmed Chalibi= Hero

    Oliver North= hero

    Daniel Ellsburg= traitor

    Curveball= good source

    Libby= honest

    Rumsfeld= good Sec Def

    Valerie Plame= traitor.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 08:32am

  45. The twisted logic of war mongers.

    an increase in worldwide jihadism is seen as success.

    Outing a federal agent to the Iranians for purely political reasons is good for our country

    Chimpies losses in court are wins.

    Lies are truth

    Convictions are railroading in action by activist republican appointed judges.

    Democratic witch hunts have no democrats involved.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 08:35am

  46. y Estes Thompson Associated Press Monday, August 20, 2007

    Troops training for and fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are firing more than 1 billion bullets a year, contributing to ammunition shortages hitting police departments nationwide and preventing some officers from training with the weapons they carry on patrol.

    An Associated Press review of dozens of police and sheriff's departments found that many are struggling with delays of as long as a year for handgun and rifle ammunition. And the shortages are resulting in prices as much as double what departments were paying just a year ago.

    The pinch is blamed on a skyrocketing demand for ammunition that followed the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, driven by the training needs of a military at war, and, ironically, police departments raising their own practice regimens following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The increasingly voracious demand for copper and lead overseas, especially in China, also has been a factor.

    Local law enforcement have felt the pinch of the nationwide ammunition shortage, Clark County Sheriff's Office Sgt. John Reedy said.

    Reedy, a training instructor, orders ammunition supplies once a year.

    "I ordered it probably about three and a half months ago," Reedy said. "The normal turnaround is two weeks."

    Over the course of the three-plus months, the supplies came "piecemeal," Reedy said. "It was just coming in a box at a time as they had it."

    Reedy said the delay in supplies just began this year. Although he has seen an increase in cost, the availability of supplies is the biggest problem.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 08:44am

  47. Why do you war mongers support outing federal agents to the Iranians?

    Is the Iranians right to know more important than exposing Chimpies obfuscations?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 08:46am

  48. Dear "Happy,"

    Yes, I should have predicted that your response would refer to "bias." As I have said before on these threads, bias is an easy thing to charge. Anybody can do it. It's much easier than fact-checking.

    Now the facts of the Valerie Plame case are these: She was outed as a CIA operative. She lost her job. Matt Cooper was one of the journalistic instruments of her "outing." His information about her was accurate. He therefore did not invent Plame's identity out of thin air, but obtained it from somebody inside the Bush Administration. Cooper claims that this somebody was Karl Rove.

    Not only Cooper, but quite a few neo-conservatives seem to believe that Cooper got his information from Rove (or perhaps from Cheney) rather than from the one Bush Administration official who has been tried and convicted for leaking: Mr. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. How else to explain the passionate movement for Libby's pardon, and how else to explain its success? If Libby were really the only leaker, then who would want to pardon him?

    This is of course circumstantial evidence, which explains why Rove is still a free man -- as he should be, if our legal system is to preserve the integrity of due process. But none of this circumstantial evidence makes Karl Rove look good. All of it makes him look bad. And his imperial shrug of denial ("We're not going to go there") makes him look even worse.

    Public officials, unlike the rest of us, have both an individual life and a political life. The former is tried in real courts, just as ours is when we are suspected criminals. The latter is tried in the fabled "court of public opinion." There has not been enough evidence to try Rove in the former court, but in the latter court, Rove has lost grandly. The only graceful thing he has done has been to bow out of political life before being forced to resign from it as precipitously as his likely victim, Ms. Plame.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/21/2007 @ 08:50am

  49. rather than from the one Bush Administration official who has been tried and convicted for leaking: Mr. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. How else to explain the passionate movement for Libby's pardon, and how else to explain its success? If Libby were really the only leaker, then who would want to pardon him? ----Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 08/21/2007 @ 08:50am

    JAKOB, appreciate your passion, but the Right is going to pick apart your argument rather quickly.

    1. Libby was not tried and convicted as the leaker. But for perjury in his testimony to the grand jury about the leak.

    2. It's been pretty clearly understood for sometime that Richard Armitage was the original leaker. Though Rove facilitated the dissemination of that info, Armitage was the original leaker.

    and 3. "The only graceful thing he has done has been to bow out of political life before being forced to resign from it as precipitously as his likely victim, Ms. Plame."

    No, he hasn't. It's a calculated move to pull heat from the WH on "Attorney-gate" and possibly to help Bush's successor in 2008.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 09:17am

  50. What this whole Plame thing demonstrates, is how little Conservatives back up their lip-service about National Security.

    Posted by conshame at 08/21/2007 @ 09:22am

  51. Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 08:35am

    an increase in worldwide jihadism is seen as success.

    Hmmmm...you call zero attacks on the US an 'increase in global terrorism'? Oh, I get it. If you call every attack in Iraq and Afghanistan a 'terrorist attack', then your delusions gain some semblance of reality, but only by redefining that reality. Neat trick.

    CRABBIE, you're just raving now. I'm just curious, do you know anyone who takes your ravings seriously? Really, I'm interested.

    Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2007 @ 09:26am

  52. Posted by CONSHAME 08/21/2007 @ 09:22am

    What this whole Plame thing demonstrates, is how little Conservatives back up their lip-service about National Security.

    Or, alternatively, that Plame has nothing to do with national security? Ever think of that?

    Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2007 @ 09:27am

  53. Many thanks, "Mask"! I stand thrice-corrected.

    Even so, your record of the facts, though more accurate than mine, does not serve to exonerate Karl Rove! Quite to the contrary.

    Your correction point (1) exonerates only Libby, if anyone, which displaces the onus onto other Bush Administration officials, including Rove.

    Your correction point (2) makes Rove an accessory to the leak (and one more knowing and hence more culpable than any journalist), though not its originator.

    Your correction point (3) makes Rove appear less "graceful" and more "calculating." Still, what's "calculating" to a Leftist may be "graceful" to a Rightist.

    What remains beyond dispute is that the leak occurred. And no matter how gracefully (or calculatingly) various Bush Administration officials may pass the buck back and forth -- in motions that resemble a masterful shell game –- They cannot convince me, or anybody else, that this leak happened without a leaker.

    But I am most interested to learn about Armitage. I have to hand it to you, "Mask": Your eyes have followed the ball in this "shell game" better than mine.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/21/2007 @ 09:56am

  54. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 08/21/2007 @ 09:56am

    Several problems with any case against Rove. 1. Armitage was the original leaker, which means that any "accessory after the fact" can probably get away with "Well, I heard it from him, who heard it from him, so by that point, she was 'outed' and the IISA law doesn't apply."

    2. "Attorney-gate" probably going to go nowhere. President has the authority to fire US Attorneys and from the beginning the charge has been "un-ethical" rather than "illegal". That means that in the end Rove can say "Well, Senator, what did I do that was illegal?" The answer is "nothing, but..." And Rove says "Well, then this is purely political, TOO, isn't it?"

    3. The only thing left is the potential violations of the Hatch Act by Rove, whereby he used Administration officials and targetted resources to help Republicans in swing districts/states. Again, tough to prove since pork is pork is pork and it's been going on for years (apparently will continue to, even under the Dems).

    Again, sorry to say, but "getting Rove" or "watching KKKarl frog-marched" anywhere isn't likely. Bush can pardon and Hillary or whoever will just drop it come 2009 because...well...that's what usually happens.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 10:26am

  55. It's sad to see the usual trolls equate the outing of a CIA agent in an act of political retaliation with Clinton attempting to cover up an extra-marital affair. A special prosecutor can find nothing else with which to go after a sitting president after an exhaustive witch hunt other than to ask a married man a question that had nothing to do with anything. This administration, on the other hand, has lied, mislead, obfuscated and did everything else to get its way, regardless of the costs; and yet we still have fools supporting and defending it. This is not about politics. This is about our country. Are you a rank partisan or an American?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 10:30am

  56. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    Why did Clinton dissemble? He was asked a question that never should have been asked.

    Why did this administration choose to play games with Plame and Wilson?

    Apples and oranges. And it's more than illuminating to see this "law and order" crowd, this "restore respectability to the White House" bunch rationalize the illegal, unethical behavior of this administration.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:06am

  57. ...She lost her job......as his likely victim, Ms. Plame.

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 08/21/2007 @ 08:50am

    Looks like I'm late to the Plame party! YES, MASK's commands of facts and issues are impressive and JACKO's acceptance of such is admirable (quite unlike some NOBODYs)!

    With far less ground to cover (now), my retort will merely be on Plame & Wilson's alleged `victimhood'! Beginning with Corn's extensive and originating rant and rave on Plame-gate, I had felt, and today believe firmly, the Wilsons have benefitted from the controversy by `outing' themselves! JACKO claims Ms. Plame "lost her job" but isn't it more accurate to say she resigned and is now enjoying life in bucolic New Mexico? Something about book deal? More on making the speech circuits, publicity, etc.....?

    From a purely entrepreneurial standpoint, the Wilsons are to be commended for taking advantage of every situation that developed out of their own actions....and it appears they did it all legally! I'd want Even their friend, David Corn, got to share in the `loot'!

    Posted by Happy at 08/21/2007 @ 11:18am

  58. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    No, the Plame affair is emblematic of this administration. The war is illegitimate; it is based upon lies, sustained with misinformation. This administration lacks the strength and courage to do what is right, and it is only playing out the clock, waiting to dump this mess on the next WH occupant. It's actions, misdeeds represent an undeniable threat to our Constitutional system. As I said, this is not about partisanship; this is about our country.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:20am

  59. For the anti-war crowd, the Plame affair justifies their faith in the illegitimacy of the war.

    But the people who don't share you faith, don't care about your holy relics.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    You're delusional. The Plame affair is only one of many, many facts that prove this war is illegitimate.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:22am

  60. ...an entertainment about nothing.....

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/21/2007 @ 11:16am

    Precisely! Staged political theater....like Attorney-Gate, Ashcroft-Bedside-Coercion-Gate, Foreign-Comm.-Intercept-Gate, blah, blah, blah...

    Posted by Happy at 08/21/2007 @ 11:23am

  61. "...I had felt, and today believe firmly, the Wilsons have benefitted from the controversy by `outing' themselves!"

    Posted by HAPPY

    And it's more than illuminating to see this "law and order" crowd, this "restore respectability to the White House" bunch rationalize the illegal, unethical behavior of this administration.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:24am

  62. Oh, where is the outrage? The right attempted to impeach a president over a blow job, and turns a blind eye when its president makes a mockery of our Constitution.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:26am

  63. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    Oil.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:31am

  64. Did Clinton embroil us in an endless conflict? Did he attempt to inject political considerations into the Justice Dept? Did Clinton subvert science with parochial religous believes?

    This war has cost the lives of many, many men, women; countless more will bear the physical, mental scars of the conflict for the rest of their lives; it is draining our much needed tax dollars.

    There is no comparison between the crime of Clinton (a married man lying about an extramarital affair) and the unconstitutionl, criminal actions of this out of control administration.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:37am

  65. And it's more than illuminating to see this "law and order" crowd, this "restore respectability to the White House" bunch rationalize the illegal, unethical behavior of this administration.

    Hypocrites--all of you!

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:38am

  66. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZBartlett? Buttmunch? Who?zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 08/20/2007 @ 10:01pm

    Moron. They're looking for you over in Freeperville.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 11:44am

  67. And it's more than illuminating to see this "law and order" crowd, this "restore respectability to the White House" bunch rationalize the illegal, unethical behavior of this administration.

    Hypocrites--all of you!

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 11:57am

  68. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/21/2007 @ 11:50am

    Maybe to prevent Empty SPENCE from embarassing himself and being forced to defend Bill Clinton (where on any other thread he would not)....as a Clinton fan, I will--

    "Yes. Somalia, the Balkans, and the UN. Domestically, he raised taxes, hired Surgeon General Joyclen Elders who wanted to teach elementary school kids how to masturbate, Travelgate, The mass slaughter of 74 women and children in Waco. There was no shortage of conflict."---MBB

    Somalia? Bush-41 landed the troops in Somalia. Clinton pulled them out. Bosnia? It came SIX YEARS after Somalia and how many troops did we lose? Hardly "endless".

    "the UN"?!?!? We invaded the UN?

    Aside from a war of words on talk radio, not sure I see the "endless conflict" in Joceylyn Elders or Travelgate.

    And as for Waco...Senator John Danforth, a Republican, was Special Counsel investigating that...and he found nothing criminal or improper.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 11:59am

  69. Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 08:35am

    an increase in worldwide jihadism is seen as success.

    Hmmmm...you call zero attacks on the US an 'increase in global terrorism'? Oh, I get it. If you call every attack in Iraq and Afghanistan a 'terrorist attack', then your delusions gain some semblance of reality, but only by redefining that reality. Neat trick.

    CRABBIE, you're just raving now. I'm just curious, do you know anyone who takes your ravings seriously? Really, I'm interested.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/21/2007 @ 09:26am

    Yes, Ponti, YOUR guvt takes my FACTS seriously.

    Clearly you find the real world difficult to negotiate, so you make it up as you go along. Don't you ever tire of being so wrong?

    April 30, 2007

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism in 2006, the U.S. State Department reported Monday.

    The number of people killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq rose from 8,262 in 2005 to 13,340 last year, said Russell Travers, deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

    *By Susan B. Glasser Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

    The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

    Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

    I order to debate PONTI, you must first have some facts to back you up. I am still waiting for the list of democrats involved in the democratic wit hunt in the Plame debacle. And still waiting for your proof that Plame was not what she, and the CIA and the justice Dept claim she is.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 12:01pm

  70. And as for Waco...Senator John Danforth, a Republican, was Special Counsel investigating that...and he found nothing criminal or improper.

    Posted by MASK

    The situation was grossly mishandled by the ATB. And the bunch of yahoo FBI men that were in charge during the stand off should have been held responsible for the catastrophe that resulted.

    I'm not defending Clinton; I am pointing out the differences and the hypocrisy of these right wing fruits.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 12:04pm

  71. I suspect that a lot of the rage here is because if Plame hadn't been outed, we never would have gotten into the war in the first place. You see, if Wilson's op-ed in the NYT hadn't been attacked, the country never would have supported war and the President never would have had polls showing 70% of the country favored invading Iraq. Well, at least that's the theory.

    MBB

    You have gone off the deep end, MBB. You need professional help. No kidding. No joking. You are no longer sane.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 12:04pm

  72. Precisely! Staged political theater....like Attorney-Gate, Ashcroft-Bedside-Coercion-Gate, Foreign-Comm.-Intercept-Gate, blah, blah, blah...

    Posted by HAPPY 08/21/2007 @ 11:23am |

    Who staged it? The republican head of the CIA, the republican appointed special prosecutor, the republican appointed judge?

    Who told Cooper Plame worked for the CIA? Armitage? No, Rove did. Who told Russert? Armitage? No, Libby did.

    Query to the apologists , Why did Libby lie if he had nothing to hide?

    answer: "because he had a lot to hide.".

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 12:08pm

  73. PONTI, you're just raving now. I'm just curious, do you know anyone who takes your ravings seriously? Really, I'm interested.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/21/2007 @ 09:26am

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 12:08pm

  74. These clowns can't argue anything without bringing up Clinton.

    Cowardly clowns.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 12:10pm

  75. I was foaming at the mouth crazy pissed-off that Clinton was destroying our country. MBB

    Uh, MARY, care to explain just HOW that blowjob "destroyed the country"?

    Or can you explain your irrational Clinton hatred in sensible terms?

    Care to contrast destroying counter-WMD proliferation for political gain with a blowjob?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 12:11pm

  76. Still waiting for an answer to why ya'll support telling the Iranians (and the Syrians, Jordanians, Libyans ) who our agents and front groups are.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 12:12pm

  77. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/21/2007 @ 12:04pm

    Here's the deal, ol' buddy. The Clinton Impeachment, by its failure, ironically, innoculated Bush against his coming to fruition.

    The GOP going after Clinton for perjury in a civil suit, and then discovering that the people were against it (hence, the Senate vote to not remove Clinton), thereby made any future (atleast for a generation or more) impeachment impractical and with an air of potential backlash for the party impeaching.

    In a way, they "won" on the Clinton impeachment by losing. Now the Dems (despite HSUBFOOLS' increasingly shrill protestations) look at that example and see that it's a political loser for them. Thus, Bush and Cheney and even Gonzales maybe will be protected from it.

    On Waco, oddly those same folks who STILL think the Clinton impeachment was justified and hold him directly responsible for the deaths at the Koresh Compound....say that Bush had no responsibility for upgrading airline security after the Presidential Briefing of August 2001....or didn't have responsibility for the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina and FEMA.

    Also odd that MBB who claims to "now be over his Clinton hatred"....continues to push the same ol' Limbaugh lines and attacks on Clinton?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 12:15pm

  78. MBB supports the gunning down of Federal agents, as well as the outing of agents to Iran.

    Real patriot, eh?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 12:15pm

  79. Cowardly clowns.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 12:10pm

    Let's not insult clowns by putting these scum in the same category.

    These people are absolutely beyond belief in their ability to bend over backwards to get fucked by a godammed Yankee pretend cowboy.

    Scum. That is all that they are. Fucking anti-American SCUM.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 12:17pm

  80. MBB supports the gunning down of Federal agents, as well as the outing of agents to Iran.

    Real patriot, eh?

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 12:15pm

    Aim for the head, they wear body armor.

    Treason. Nothing else describes it.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 12:17pm

  81. MARYBRETBRAD is a pod person, a Moonie whose posts (above) reveal that his head is totally wired into Moonie media like THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Thus, when MARYBRETBRAD goes through the patently laughable pretense of "saying something", it is really just the divorced-from-reality rightwing Moonie media that is reverberting mechanically through his MARYBRETBRAD's skull and out his mouth or fingertips onto the keybaord.

    Examples are legion and MASK has tried, bravely if breifly, to point out some of the ways in which MARYBRETBRAD is a lonely, undernourished orphan from reality. But there is almost nowhere to start in demonstrating that MARYBRETBRAD is an abysmal pod-person, an empty husk and hollow shell. But since MARYBRETBRAD has angered on cue about Elders, as he was programmed to do by his masters, here is one salient line of information.

    The following was taken from the webpage of the Union of Concerned Scientists -- it's a Marxist organization according to LVLIBERTYY1, a judgment that he refuses to explain (!!!). It will suffice to say that they put empirical evidence before the heinous superstition that animates the dismal likes of him and MARYBRETBRAD.

    Reports and research: Scientific Knowledge on Abstinence-only Education Distorted

    This page is an excerpt from the 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.

    Since his tenure as governor of Texas, President George W. Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers "abstinence only" rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

    During President Bush's tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.43 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.44 The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all support comprehensive sex education programs that encourage abstinence while also providing adolescents with information on how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases.45 In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually "may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants."46

    The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants.47 In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants' program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.48

    In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency was forced to discontinue a project called "Programs that Work," which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies.49 All five of the programs identified in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website...

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/21/2007 @ 12:19pm

  82. Did Armitage tell Matt Cooper about Wilson's wife?

    Did Judith Miller go to jail because she wouldn't divulge Armitage as a source?

    Has Rove's testimony in the leak case been made public?

    Does anybody else find it odd that, despite being convicted, Scooter spent 85 days fewer in jail than JM...???

    Do you think there was a quid pro quo that if Rove & Libby were not called as defense witnesses in the Libby trial that Scooter would get no time behind bars?

    Posted by nathanhale at 08/21/2007 @ 12:23pm

  83. Sex bad.

    Killing good

    Torture good.

    Being wrong good.

    theories better than reality.

    Ahh, the neo-con world view.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 12:24pm

  84. Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 12:04pm

    C-WALK,

    Right you are, it is impossible to parse the stupid gibberish that MARYBRETBRAD is spouting like a StepfordCitizen gone berserk. Wilson's op-ed was published after the invasion and occupation were underway, as anyone with even the flimsiest grasp on facts would know -- a dismally low standard that MARYBRETBRAD cannot reach even from a crane.

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/21/2007 @ 12:27pm

  85. The effort to impeach Clinton and the need to impeach Bush (and/or Cheney) is the usual apples and oranges you're constantly peddling. The situation with Clinton was a blatantly partisan affair, seeking to hold a sitting president accountable for doing what any married man would have to do when asked about an extramarital affair. (What the hell a blow job has to do with the executive office I still don't understand. The backed him in to a corner intentionally.) It was a disgraceful act of partisan politics, essentially a legal attempt at a coup.

    Bush has subverted our system, he has thumbed his nose at the Constitution. His crimes are real and have cost the lives of over 3,500 service men and women. His efforts to inject political considerations into any and all facets of our government are real, disturbing, detrimental to our government. Allowing this administration to skip out of town at the end of its term sets a dangerous precedent. This is not about politics, it's about our system of government.

    It is the acquiescence of people like you that lead to a complete disregard for the Constitution. Sometimes you have to be a dreamer and forget about the easier, more practical, "realistic" options.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 12:27pm

  86. Sex bad.

    Killing good

    Torture good.

    Being wrong good.

    theories better than reality.

    Ahh, the neo-con world view.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 12:24pm

    The Neo-Con CHRISTIAN hypocrite point of view.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 12:30pm

  87. Dear "Happy,"

    For the event that somebody challenged my claim that there can be "no leak without a leaker," I was prepared to suggest that maybe Valerie Plame outed herself -- and destroyed her career, in the hope that by cleverly imitating the voice of Richard Armitage, she could make it appear that he had outed her, thereby eventually making the entire Bush Administration look bad, provided that Rove could be counted on to play his part by stonewalling and Libby could be counted on to play his part by lying to Congress, thereby preserving her secret and enabling Plame to embark on a new and lucrative career as a memoirist and a public speaker. This would have been an example of what we call the "argumentum ad absurdum."

    But you saved me the bother, "Happy"! I owe you some thanks, too.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/21/2007 @ 12:32pm

  88. No, but I would love to contrast the actual situation. A FORMER agent with perjury and obstruction of justice.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/21/2007 @ 12:30pm

    Stop with the damned lies already. The CIA stated she was covert. You lose. You are wrong. Can you not grow the fuck up and accept THAT?

    You got fucked by your hero. Deal with it. We have to.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 12:32pm

  89. Precisely! Staged political theater....like Attorney-Gate, Ashcroft-Bedside-Coercion-Gate, Foreign-Comm.-Intercept-Gate, blah, blah, blah...

    Posted by HAPPY 08/21/2007 @ 11:23am |

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 12:08pm

    C-WALK,

    Should someone inform CRAPPY that the leading source for Gonzo and Card's hospital bed assault on the barely conscious Ashcroft was ... James Comey? The Comey File: Republican, Bush appointed, deputy AG and at the time of Ashcroft's infirmity acting AG, and appalled by the sickening behavior of his colleagues.

    A hapless mole that dwells underground removed from sunlight, smelling its way along, has far greater capacity to vision the world in which he lives than CRAPPY.

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/21/2007 @ 12:34pm

  90. Re-Posting the Following as, for Some Reason, TN's Web-Page Placed It Out of Sequence:

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/21/2007 @ 12:04pm

    C-WALK,

    Right you are, it is impossible to parse the stupid gibberish that MARYBRETBRAD is spouting like a StepfordCitizen gone berserk. Wilson's op-ed was published after the invasion and occupation were underway, as anyone with even the flimsiest grasp on facts would know -- a dismally low standard that MARYBRETBRAD cannot reach even from a crane.

    Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/21/2007 @ 12:27pm |

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/21/2007 @ 12:38pm

  91. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/21/2007 @ 12:27pm

    Sorry, Empty, not arguing merits, just giving you the political reality.

    If you feel there's some possibility of Bush and/or Cheney being impeached, be happy to see your evidence.

    I'm looking at Pelosi, who's keeping it "off the table". John Conyers, who kicked Cindy Sheehan to the curb with a "sorry, our only recourse is election" (i.e. 2008) Russ Feingold, who was opposed to impeachment before he was for censure. As well as Howard Dean, Rahm Emmanuel, even Al Gore.

    If the historical example had been Nixon, they might be pushing it. But it isn't. It's Clinton and the fallout from that.

    Sorry, just the way it is.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 12:43pm

  92. Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/21/2007 @ 12:34pm

    Not dubious or supportive, but one thing I'm curious about in that whole "Gonzales and Card came to Ashcroft's hospital bed" thing....

    where's Ashcroft today on that? He's not dead. Why isn't HE backing up Comey....or backing up Gonzales and Card???

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 12:45pm

  93. Posted by MASK

    Isn't it you that is always insisting that I and others vote Dem? Not a chance, that's just the way it is.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 12:47pm

  94. FORMER agents are "covert" for five years after their last overseas mission as defined in the intelligence identities protections act. You act like they can't be both a former agent and covert at the same time. You are wrong, not me.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/21/2007 @ 12:51pm

    Not me, jackass, the head of the CIA. But I guess you know more then he about the whole deal.

    You people are absolutely unfuckingbelievable.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 12:52pm

  95. Is there NOTHING that bush could do that you people would not find some rationalization for?

    No crime, no treason, nothing that you would not willing rush to excuse?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 12:56pm

  96. where's Ashcroft today on that? He's not dead. Why isn't HE backing up Comey....or backing up Gonzales and Card???

    Posted by MASK 08/21/2007 @ 12:45pm

    MASK,

    Ashcroft is not DEAD ... but the guy he lost his Senate seat to in 2000 was. And all of Missouri knew it!

    I cannot speak for Ashcroft, whom I believe that I read has become a lobbyist. While he was in the hospital bed, he was apparently not completely "with it", so his testimony may be qualified by that. But I also recall reading that the alarmed Comey arrived with an FBI detail once he learned about the Gonzo-Card shakedown in progress (info that may have been from Ashcroft's wife). In other words, it is not one guy's word against another.

    Have also not heard anything from Card on the matter, although he is out of government now as well.

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/21/2007 @ 12:59pm

  97. Does that make her a covert former agent?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/21/2007 @ 12:58pm

    It just makes you an anti-American jackass bootlicking moron.

    You find treason funny, huh?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 1:10pm

  98. We've never excused mentioning Harriet Meirs name in the same breath as Supreme Court Justice.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/21/2007 @ 1:00pm

    Oh, gee, thanks so much. You are a great American Patriot.

    No wait, your still just a bootlicking jackass.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 1:11pm

  99. Here is part of CNN's coverage of Comey's account (dated 16-May-07). It was Mrs. A who summoned Comey to the hospital room.

    When Ashcroft qualifies as one of the admin's "liberals", a circus freak show of rightwing deformity has comandeered the highest echelon of our govt:

    In his testimony Tuesday, Comey recounted Ashcroft's wife calling a Justice Department official that night informing her Card and Gonzales were on their way to see Ashcroft. She had banned all outside phone calls and visitors, Comey said.

    He immediately headed to the hospital and soon after he got there, the White House officials entered. He said Ashcroft, who had been weak from gall bladder surgery, "very strongly expressed himself" regarding his objections to a classified program, but added that his views didn't matter because he was, temporarily, not the attorney general.

    'An effort to take advantage of a very sick man' Comey said Card and Gonzales then left the hospital room without acknowledging him.

    "I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself -- and I said to the attorney general -- in a way that demonstrated a strength that I had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper," Comey told the committee.

    Comey told the committee that he and Ashcroft the week before had determined the classified program he declined to name Tuesday should not be authorized and had communicated that to the White House.

    Comey said some time after the hospital visit he got a call from Card, who was very upset, asking him to come to the White House. He responded that after what he had seen, he would not meet with White House officials without a witness and said he wanted to bring Solicitor General Ted Olson.

    Later that night, Comey said, he did go to the White House, but he said the issue was not resolved then.

    Program authorized without Justice Department approval Comey said the program was reauthorized the next day without a Justice Department signature, and he then prepared a letter of resignation. However, he said he did not hand that letter in because the Justice Department's chief of staff asked him to delay it until Ashcroft could also resign.

    The Justice Department later declined to comment on Comey's testimony.

    Posted by John_Shaft at 08/21/2007 @ 1:14pm

  100. They'll keep after me. Let's face it. I mean, I'm a myth, and they're -- you know, I'm Beowulf. You know, I'm Grendel. I don't know who I am, but they're after me." -- Karl Rove, 8/19/07

    Paranoia strikes deep, little traitor. We'll keep after your ass until we have the truth, little traitor.

    You've been a backstabbing dirty tricks bitch all your life, and you will pay.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 1:28pm

  101. We'll never know the anwers to your questions. My only point is that regarding the Clinton question, my hatred of him prevented me from forming rational opinions regarding his motives and actions. The same is true for you and Bush.

    Sorry, the difference is real. Clinton's perjury didn't involve an abuse of executive power. The actions of Nixon and Bush arguably did. In the case of the latter, the authorization of warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendtion to countries that torture, the USAtty firings (based on the argument that they involved obstruction of justice in some cases) are all possible grounds. Having said that, the popular support doesn't appear to be there.

    I think that if Congress can't step up enough to impeach Gonzalez, then going after Bush/Cheney is a pipe dream. However, there are certainly stronger bases for this than "hatred".

    Posted by brunowe at 08/21/2007 @ 1:31pm

  102. Hypothetically, say Plame went on her last mission 4 year and 11 months ago. Then quit being an agent and took a desk job a Langley. Does that make her a FORMER

    It is simple logic. Why can't you believe it?

    Ultimately immaterial. If she had covert status, leaking her CIA employment was illegal. It would also have endangered any contacts she had made overseas while under cover as a Brewster-Jennings employee.

    Bear in mind too that citing to Armitage is a red herring. Armitage was the first person to leak when he leaked to Novak, but it was Rove/Libby who were involved in the leaks to Cooper/Miller.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/21/2007 @ 1:34pm

  103. Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/21/2007 @ 12:59pm

    But SHAFT (BTW, Mr Roundtree was on the 1st Season of "The Closer", cool as always)...where's the "Rest of the Story" as ol' Paul Harvey used to say?

    We have Comey...we have Gonzales...in a "he said, he said". But if Ashcroft was incoherent or drugged up that night, where are the doctors to testify to that (thus adding fuel to Comey's story)? If Ashcroft was suspicious of Gonzales and Card...why not step forward and, if not back Comey's story, back the idea that the White House was trying to push him (pre-hospital) into authorizing the NSA spying?

    Again, not dubious nor supportive of this story, but "the holes" in it are unusual. Seems SOMEBODY (Ashcroft, his doctors, Card, etc.) would be stepping forward to either confirm Comey's version...or Gonzales' version.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 2:08pm

  104. People like Ponti, Maasch, Liberty, Rio, Barry/Aludra, etal., are not Americans. They are operatives and pure partisans with an agenda that is detrimental to the survival of America. If we were living in Colonial times, these people would all have been spat upon and hung as traitors. That's a fact

    Where do I sign up? Can we throw dead cats and offal at them before we open the trap door? Can we subject their families to scorn and public humiliation? Seize whatever meager assets they possess and sell them off the help the needy?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 2:25pm

  105. As a matter of fact, this president DOES have that authority. As a matter of fact, this president has the authority to do ANYTHING HE DAMN WELL PLEASES. Rove does not have to testify before Congress. Rove does not have to pay his taxes. Rove does not have to obey ANY LAW AT ALL EVER. That's the way it works now. Love it or leave it, the Dems are cowards and the Repubs are criminals. What a country!

    Posted by Noodle at 08/21/2007 @ 2:27pm

  106. FRANKGRITS, just a heads up---

    t his is already being thrown at you by MAASCH and others [news.yahoo.com].

    Hillary is "pro-Surge"???

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 2:27pm

  107. Posted by DR DECIBELS 08/21/2007 @ 2:25pm

    No, no, no, Doc. You need something more systematic, more organized. Like....forcing them to wear armbands, rounding them up on freight cars, and moving them to large enclosed areas for orderly disposal.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 2:29pm

  108. Dennis Hastert: liberals want to take "the 130 most treacherous people, probably in the world...and release them out in the public eventually."

    Tom Delay : Pelosi and Reid are getting "very, very close to treason" by opposing the Iraq war.

    Donald Rumsfeld : War Critics are like Hitler Appeasers

    John Ashcroft : "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

    Dick Cheney : "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again,"

    George Bush : "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

    Scumbags. Chickenshit cowards, all of them. Self-serving opportunistic swine.

    And they have the nerve to wonder why we don't like them.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 2:33pm

  109. Apparently not since no one was charged. You had to knowingly leak, which, apparently, Ameritage didn't do.

    Or Fitzgerald didn't have a case beyond a reasonable doubt. To what extent this was occasioned by Libby's perjury will likely never be known, but it is a reasonable conjecture.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/21/2007 @ 2:49pm

  110. Dear "Happy,"...

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 08/21/2007 @ 12:32pm

    Oh, dear! I guess I better "Dear" you back........Hahahahah..

    Dear Jako: The `train' pulled out of the station when Amb. Wilson announced his (now-discredited) opinion to the world on some murky uranium deals between Saddam & Nigier....in the NYT no less....This `train' turned into Gravy as was symbolized by a nice photo spread in Vanity Fair....propelled along by his friend, Mr. Corn!

    Wilson, the Inside-the-Beltway political player he has been most his life, willfully outed his wife knowing quite well he would draw media attention....& succeeded....and they lived HAPPILY everafter........The End!

    Posted by Happy at 08/21/2007 @ 2:53pm

  111. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/21/2007 @ 12:28pm

    saddam was obviously evil. but he was evil from July 16, 1979, until April 9, 2003. why wasn't there an effort to remove him earlier?

    because he served u.s. foreign policy's interests.

    how else can you explain this [video.google.com] ?

    iraqi's are very happy that he is gone because they were always afraid of him. but now they are afraid of everything

    unfortunately, the silver lining that could have resulted from this folly, that of the iraqis' enjoying their freedom was squandered by inept management (stuff happens).

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2007 @ 2:56pm

  112. Rove's every slimy move needs to be watched, documented, and reported. He needs to be hounded, (within the bounds of the law), like Princess Di. Every politician who even breathes the same air as this doughy piece of shit needs to be shown the spotlight, and then the door. As a political animal, he needs to be neutered.

    He should have no peace.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/21/2007 @ 3:01pm

  113. Posted by HAPPY 08/21/2007 @ 2:53pm

    hi haps

    i'm canadian. do i have a right to talk about u.s. (usually foreign) policy? maybe. however here we say "when the elephant sneezes, the mouse catches a cold" (u.s.--canada)

    the decisions of the american government have a greater bearing on my quality of life than my own government's, so this is very important to me.

    i cannot vote in the u.s., so i like to talk to americans and try to steer them the right way (left).

    i realize even talking about 9/11 is a touchy subject with americans, even those on the farthest left. but foreign policy decisions in america's past played a roll in that abhorrent act.

    if express dismay about america it is the government, not the people (lincoln said "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people...."--however, it seems there are few places left on earth where this is truly true).

    i lived in méxico for 10 years. people thought i was american (look the part) and they treated me badly. when i informed them i was canadian, the typical reaction was "oh, o.k. c'mon in!".

    to this i always responded: "never judge a person for the actions of their government, imagine if i judged you for the actions of the mexican government".

    the point was always well taken.

    america rules:

    jazz

    gumbo

    abstract expressionism

    bluegrass

    blues

    democracy (at least its birth pangs)

    again, my ramblings are directed to those in power, not to helpless proles like you (don't care how much $ you make--your not rupert murdoch, are you?) and the rest of us.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2007 @ 3:19pm

  114. As a political animal, he needs to be neutered.

    He should have no peace.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 08/21/2007 @ 3:01pm

    actually i just heard he was hired to run [allheadlinenews.com] al gore's campaign!!!

    god help us.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2007 @ 3:24pm

  115. ha ha

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2007 @ 3:24pm

  116. He should have no peace.

    Posted by DRHAMMER

    I'd like to see him go in a manner similar to Atwater.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 4:57pm

  117. So where was Matt Cooper when we needed him?

    Posted by motamanx at 08/21/2007 @ 5:03pm

  118. THANK YOU FREEPTARDS FOR ALL THE STEREOTYPICAL POSTINGS THAT FOLLOWED! You are living proof that rightwing ignorance is not really bliss, but it is entertaining!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/21/2007 @ 4:57pm

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 5:09pm

  119. I'd like to see him go in a manner similar to Atwater.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/21/2007 @ 4:57pm

    Throw in spitting blood and I'm with you. Oh, and maybe some organ failure type pain, too.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 5:12pm

  120. Here's a toss-up question for those in this "discussion" who don't believe that the other side has a shred of good will or common sense going for it: What has Bush done, as president, that is any good? This is a serious question.

    Posted by motamanx at 08/21/2007 @ 5:13pm

  121. Posted by DR DECIBELS

    I want him to have time to contemplate his death and what he has done with his miserable life. Terminal, it all nothing but a matter of time. Laying on his death bed with weeks to wonder what awaits him in death. (That and a truly painful rectal inflammation.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 5:20pm

  122. Here's a toss-up question for those in this "discussion" who don't believe that the other side has a shred of good will or common sense going for it: What has Bush done, as president, that is any good? This is a serious question.

    Posted by MOTAMANX

    Any American that truly values the will of the electorate and has just a tiny bit of class would have refused the office after failing to pull more of the popular vote than his opponent.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 5:22pm

  123. Here's a toss-up question for those in this "discussion" who don't believe that the other side has a shred of good will or common sense going for it: What has Bush done, as president, that is any good? This is a serious question.

    Posted by MOTAMANX

    He has enlighted us to the evil of Wingnuts Gone Wild.

    Not that we couldn't figure it out on our own, but some out there STILL haven't caught on.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 5:38pm

  124. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/21/2007 @ 5:20pm

    Ah, but I never said I wanted it to be QUICK. Just excruciatingly painful. Like it has been for us to watch him in action.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 5:39pm

  125. I want him to lay there, dreading the end, grasping for each and every minute in a panic, full of fear. No peace for the bastard.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/21/2007 @ 5:45pm

  126. Care to contrast destroying counter-WMD proliferation for political gain with a blowjob?

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 08/21/2007 @ 12:11pm

    How 'bout this: which is worse: outing an agent who - at the very least had done covert work in the past and might reasonably be expected to do so again - or revealing the location of a missile silo, or the launch codes for a ballistic missle sub?

    I've challenged the wingnuts before with this and only MBB had the 'nads to offer an answer.

    So which is the greater act of treason to the nation, wingers? Anyone with the stones to join MBB with an attempt at a reasoned response?

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/21/2007 @ 5:58pm

  127. Here's a toss-up question for those in this "discussion" who don't believe that the other side has a shred of good will or common sense going for it: What has Bush done, as president, that is any good? This is a serious question.

    Posted by MOTAMANX 08/21/2007 @ 5:13pm

    As far as we know, he has not soiled himself in public.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/21/2007 @ 6:29pm

  128. Posted by SKELETONMAN 08/21/2007 @ 5:58pm

    They don't get blowjobs, so I'm guessing THAT will be the more important.

    If they can't have them, by god nobody can!

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 6:30pm

  129. Here's a toss-up question for those in this "discussion" who don't believe that the other side has a shred of good will or common sense going for it: What has Bush done, as president, that is any good? This is a serious question.

    Posted by MOTAMANX 08/21/2007 @ 5:13pm

    well, no child has been left behind.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2007 @ 6:43pm

  130. They don't get blowjobs

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 08/21/2007 @ 6:30pm

    From girls that they aren't related to.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/21/2007 @ 7:06pm

  131. well, no child has been left behind.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/21/2007 @ 6:43pm

    'cept for the ones whose healthcare funds he is going to veto

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/21/2007 @ 7:10pm

  132. From girls that they aren't related to.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 08/21/2007 @ 7:06pm

    DOH!

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/21/2007 @ 7:17pm

  133. I see no one responds to FRANKGRITS, as usual, probably laughing too hard, so I will respond with the what I know to be sadly true..poor thing.

    " If we were living in Colonial times, these people would all have been spat upon and hung as traitors. That's a fact."

    Frank would have called our resistance an illegal war, where Washington, et. al., lied us into a war we couldn't win. Spent all the money we didn't have, and 6 years later would have wanted to quit, have France negoitate for our surrender...to save lives.

    "There is a vast rightwing conspiracy in this country, just as Hillary tried to point out years ago."

    The same conspiracy Hillary, complete in pink outfit sitting under Lincoln, claimed was responsible for lying about Bills BJs, until Bill got caught and the dress showed up on ABC News?

    "FRANKGRITS, just a heads up---

    this is already being thrown at you by MAASCH and others [news.yahoo.com].

    Hillary is "pro-Surge"???

    Posted by MASK 08/21/2007 @ 2:27pm "

    NO,THIS IS WHAT HILLARY IS THROWING AT FRANK.

    Is it any wonder Frank sits where he does in the place of HONOR in the Kook section? His propellar (a red one)on his hat is spinning so fast that he levitates and puts static electricity in the air, endangering explosive gas(from his bullshit), risking himself as he hides under Hillarys skirt, licking her balls, and then alternating to Bill...no problem, it only sex, sorta.

    How will he take the inevitable let down he will suffer when she screws him over...and you know she will...

    Poor Frank is so sick...and nothing can save him...sigh. I wonder what it he does for work...one couldn't have that type of sycophant(sp) behavior in an office setting.

    "I try to do my part by exposing Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and others as much as possible. These people reach millions of fascinated listeners everyday as they ride in their cars. "

    " It's all part of the plan. "

    Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2007 @ 7:20pm

  134. "I want him to lay there, dreading the end, grasping for each and every minute in a panic, full of fear. No peace for the bastard.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/21/2007 @ 5:45pm"

    Thats how many feel about bank robbers lecturing the rest of us on moral ethics, governmental politics and economic political justice.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2007 @ 7:22pm

  135. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2007 @ 7:26pm

    My God, he is patheic...he sees "danger" eveywhere, except in his own self...this obsession with "monitoring" Limbaufgh woud be funny if it weren't so sad...and he offers up Hillary as an example of all things righteous...in the face of her and Bill's own history...

    And yet, the ones who listen to another drummer are the brainwashed...and he can't see his own...which, I guess is the definition of brainwashed..

    I read his posts and just shudder with the discomfort I would feel when one is watching a pompous ass lecturing on cleanilness...and no one tells him he has a huge bugger on his face he missed from an obvious deep mining session...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2007 @ 7:41pm

  136. What has Bush done, as president, that is any good? This is a serious question.

    Posted by MOTAMANX

    Well, I guess we know what kind of answers we can get to serious questions from Numbskullman and Dr. Dumbass......Par for the course, guess no attacks since 9/11 don't make us safer.......continued economic growth can be taken for granted, and what the hell do those of us who are gainfully employed care care about lower taxes, anyway???

    Posted by davebarlett at 08/21/2007 @ 9:02pm

  137. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2007 @ 5:47pm

    Yes, exactly like the clintons.

    Why is that an excuse for the Bushies to do it?

    Posted by MADLIB 08/21/2007 @ 9:25pm

    The Clintons (Bill) has been caught on tape with evidence in the dress and nailed on the stand, so to speak...the Bushies have not been charged, indicted or been "Fitz'ed"....they are only accused by those who hate him...and by dems politicians and grandstanders...not in a court of law.

    That makes a huge difference, especially in a court of law..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2007 @ 9:37pm

  138. Karl Rove made a comment on Meet the Press that Wilson's op ed in the NYT was basically a lie. He claimed that the ambassador's report on his visit to Niger revealed that Iraq and Niger did, in fact, meet and that the only purpose could have been an effort on Iraq's part to obtain yellow cake. What DID the report actually say, and to what extent is this another Rove lie? Since Gregory never followed up on this claim, listeners were left wondering on what basis Rove makes this claim. What is the truth?

    Posted by mikeinwaco at 08/21/2007 @ 10:50pm

  139. Daily neo-con delusions :

    Wilson caused a war already under way

    Terrorism worldwide has decreased under GWOT

    Overturning Supreme Court precedents at an unprecedented rate is good. Brought to us by the Stare decisis crowd.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 10:56pm

  140. Wilson was sent to verify the documents received from the Italian guvt. These documents were clear forgeries, a google search would have shown that to be the case. Wilson discovered that the documents were bad juju, that Iraq had attempted to buy something from Niger YEARS earlier and was rebuffed, and that the French controlled uranium mining and refining industry had no leaks. Nigers only export of worth is uranium, so it is safe to assume that is what Reagans buddy was after. It is also safe to assume that Saddam made no further inquiries knowing he would get nowhere. The system in Niger was sound.

    Regardless of any facts, misrepresentations, lies or tails told by Wilson, that had NOTHING to do with Plame, the covert CIA operative working on Iranian weapons proliferation. Chimpy McFlightsuit could not attack the voracity of Wilsons claims on the level, so they went after his wife as a message to anyone willing to stand in their way and point out their lies. It was a concerted effort involving at least 3 admin officials, one of whom covered up other potential crimes by lying under oath.

    cute, eh?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/21/2007 @ 11:09pm

  141. "... and that the French controlled uranium mining and refining industry had no leaks. "

    Why is this teh assumtion? France has been a sieve for years..

    .."It is also safe to assume that Saddam made no further inquiries knowing he would get nowhere..."

    Why? What would make you just hop over to that conclusion?

    Given Saddams history as a tyrant and I don't care who buddy he was ...If we are talking buddies here, then Kohmenis buddy(Carter)helped him come back to Iran as no one else could, including freezing out the Shah...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/21/2007 @ 11:18pm

  142. CRAB is good at making assumtions....Let's see:

    France was a buddy to Saddam for a long, long time.....

    France was the key beneficiary of the Oil-for-Fraud program....

    France sits on the Security Council and was Saddam's biggest supporter to lift sanctions......

    France controlled Nigier's uranium mines.....

    I can easily assume the French concocted anything to help out Saddam's by hiding uranium sales to Iraq and through subterfuge, plant forgeries to muddle the picture and sucker Wilson into playing his `critic' role.......

    Assumptions are easy..... proof, NOT so easy!

    Posted by Happy at 08/21/2007 @ 11:33pm

  143. That makes a huge difference, especially in a court of law..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/21/2007 @ 9:37pm

    maybe, but a semen-stained dress is hardly akin to 650,000 dead people and $500,000,000,000 in debt to china.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2007 @ 12:25am

  144. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/21/2007 @ 11:18pm

    actually, the shah was a horrible despot brought to power after "operation ajax" (brit-cia (kermit roosevelt)) overthrew the democratically elected pm of iran in 1953.

    i guess democracy only "counts" if it supports u.s. foreign policy (see hamas)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2007 @ 12:32am

  145. No, no, no, Doc. You need something more systematic, more organized. Like....forcing them to wear armbands, rounding them up on freight cars, and moving them to large enclosed areas for orderly disposal.

    Posted by MASK 08/21/2007 @ 2:29pm

    ....and the banner over the enclosures could read;

    " Not by their race, creed or color of their skin. But, for the content of their character"

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/22/2007 @ 01:08am

  146. I make these assumptions based on Wilsons report and statements made by US guvt officials, as well as statements made by IAEA head Al Baredi, who has way more credibility than your president.

    sorry guys, you live in a fantasy world.

    Like Ponti, who said Chimpy never lost a court case, and here he is losing a court case:

    By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

    SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration to issue two scientific reports on global warming, siding with environmentalists who sued the White House for failing to produce the documents.

    U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration had violated a 1990 law when it failed to meet deadlines for an updated U.S. climate change research plan and impact assessment.

    I know ya'll don't like to admit your president is a law breaker, but there ya go. Open your eyes and minds to reality.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 07:57am

  147. CRAB is good at making assumtions....Let's see:

    America was a buddy to Saddam for a long, long time.....

    Texas oil company was a key beneficiary of the Oil-for-Fraud program....

    France was right about post invasion Iraq, you were wrong, Happy, Maasch and crowd.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:01am

  148. Then the story fell apart. On 7th March, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the UN security council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. "The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents... are in fact not authentic," ElBaradei said.

    One senior IAEA official went further. He told me: "The documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me... that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking."

    The IAEA had first sought the documents last September, just after Britain released its dossier. After months of pleading by the IAEA, the US turned them over to Jacques Baute, director of the agency's Iraq nuclear verification office.

    It took Baute's team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated 10th October 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger minister of foreign affairs, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the president of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior IAEA official said, that "they could be spotted by someone using Google on the internet."

    The large quantity of uranium involved should have been another warning sign. Niger's "yellow cake" comes from two uranium mines controlled by a French company, with its entire output presold to nuclear power companies in France, Japan, and Spain. "Five hundred tons can't be siphoned off without anyone noticing," another IAEA official told me.

    This official told me that the IAEA has not been able to determine who prepared the documents. "It could be someone who intercepted faxes in Israel, or someone at the headquarters of the Niger foreign ministry, in Niamey. We just don't know," the official said. "Somebody got old letterheads and signatures, and cut and pasted." Some IAEA investigators suspected that the inspiration for the documents was a trip that the Iraqi ambassador to Italy took to several African countries, including Niger, in February 1999. They also speculated that MI6 had become involved, perhaps through contacts in Italy, after the ambassador's return to Rome.

    ElBaradei's disclosure has not been disputed by any government or intelligence official in Washington or London.

    The bush administration's reliance on the Niger documents may, however, have stemmed from more than bureaucratic carelessness or political overreaching. Forged documents and false accusations have been an element in US and British policy toward Iraq at least since the autumn of 1997, after an impasse over UN inspections. Then as now, the security council was divided, with the French, the Russians and the Chinese telling the US and Britain that they were being too tough on the Iraqis. President Bill Clinton, weakened by the impeachment proceedings, hinted of renewed bombing but, then as now, the British and the Americans were losing the battle for international public opinion. A former Clinton administration official told me that London had resorted to, among other things, spreading false information about Iraq. The British propaganda programme was known to a few senior officials in Washington. "I knew that was going on," the former Clinton administration official said of the British efforts. "We were getting ready for action in Iraq, and we wanted the Brits to prepare."

    Over the next year, a former US intelligence officer told me, at least one member of the UN inspection team who supported the US and British position arranged for dozens of unverified and unverifiable intelligence reports and tips-data known as inactionable intelligence-to be funnelled to MI6 operatives and quietly passed along to newspapers in London and elsewhere. "It was intelligence that was crap, and that we couldn't move on, but the Brits wanted to plant stories in England and around the world," the former officer said. There was a series of clandestine meetings with MI6, at which documents were provided, as well as quiet meetings, usually at safe houses in the Washington area. The British propaganda scheme eventually became known to some members of the UN inspection team. "I knew a bit," one official still on duty at UN headquarters acknowledged in April, "but I was never officially told about it."

    The chance for US intelligence to challenge the documents came as the administration debated whether to pass them on to ElBaradei. The former high-level intelligence official told me that some senior CIA officials were aware that the documents weren't trustworthy. "It's not a question as to whether they were marginal. They can't be 'sort of' bad, or 'sort of' ambiguous. They knew it was a fraud-it was useless. Everybody bit their tongue and said, 'Wouldn't it be great if the secretary of state said this?' The secretary of state never saw the documents." He added, "He's absolutely apoplectic about it." (A state department spokesman was unable to comment.) A former intelligence officer told me that some questions about the authenticity of the Niger documents were raised inside the government by analysts at the department of energy and the state department's bureau of intelligence and research. However, these warnings were not heeded.

    "Somebody deliberately let something false get in there," the former high-level intelligence official added. "It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up." (The White House declined to comment.) - Seymour Hersh

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:08am

  149. .."It is also safe to assume that Saddam made no further inquiries knowing he would get nowhere..."

    Why? What would make you just hop over to that conclusion?

    Because there is not a single shred of evidence to the contrary. Why would you assume he did, minus ANY evidence? Fantasy dreaming?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:10am

  150. On 19 February, Wilson met with the CPD to discuss "the merits of the former ambassador travelling to Niger." The meeting included analysts from the CIA and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). Plame attended the meeting only to introduce Wilson.

    The State Department analyst present at the meeting was skeptical that the alleged uranium contract could be carried out because it would be hard to hide such a large shipment of yellowcake, noting that the French "would seem to have little interest in selling uranium to the Iraqis." State also though sending Wilson to Niger was redundant and suggested embassy officials (no surprise, embassies are part of the State Department) "would be able to get to the truth on the uranium issue." (40)

    On 1 March 2002, the State Department published an intelligence assessment entitled: Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely. The assessment was written in response to interest from the Vice President's office. It was distributed in a routine manner, not directly to the Vice President via special delivery.

    A report based on Wilson's trip was widely disseminated via routine channels on 8 March 2002. (44) This report indicated the the former Prime Minister of Niger was unaware of any Iraqi contracts for yellowcake, but acknowledged that in 1999 Iraq may have been interested in discussing yellowcake sales but the PM "steered the conversation away." Niger's former Minster for Energy said that there had been no yellowcake sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the 1980s.

    This report also described "how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to ell uranium to any rogue states."

    The consensus expressed in the Senate report was that Wilson's trip provided little or no new information. Thus, the information was not used to "produce any further analytical products" and the CIA did not brief the Vice President on the report. (46)

    And yet.

    There is no explanation why the CIA reported on 25 March 2002 from the same [foreign] government service, which said "the 2000 agreement by Niger to provide uranium to Iraq specified that 500 tons of uranium per year would be delivered in --redacted--." In other words, the report is now asserting "as fact" that there was a contract. What caused the CIA to determine that the information was now "firm"?

    You been took, cons.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:15am

  151. So, what do you have, John?

    I am keen to see your information, and where it comes from.

    Do tell.

    Show me the wmd's.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:17am

  152. What is absolutely impossible for me to understand is this: a 4 October 2002 draft of a Presidential speech asserted that "the regime (Iraq) has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa -- an essential ingredient in the enrichment process." (55) The CIA objected (56), asking that the sentence be removed because "the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

    On 6 October 2002, the CIA elaborated on why the sentence should be removed: (56) The evidence is weak ...The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory ... and we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them the Africa story is overblown and telling them this one of the two issues where we differed with the British."

    This and above reprints from :http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger_3.htm

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:23am

  153. While your at it, maybe you have the secret list of democratic witch hunters.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:25am

  154. Assumptions of the apologists:

    Iraq had wmd's

    Iraq had drones that could reach the US

    Iraq had an operational relationship with AL Qaeda

    There was no doubt Saddam had reconstituted his nookyular plants.

    The war would last a few months

    Iraq would be a peaceful liberal democracy by now

    There would be no urban guerilla war.

    Plame was not covert

    chimpy never lies

    Chimpy never loses in court

    I guess you guys are just plain wrong, a lot. Maybe your sources are not credible?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:30am

  155. got any more fish in your barrel?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 08:31am

  156. It's why I renamed myself about a month ago to ShitForBrains 'cause his theme song is "If I only had a brain".

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2007 @ 7:26pm

    You fuckwads have a lot to answer for, fake partiot bastards.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/22/2007 @ 09:32am

  157. You been took, cons.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/22/2007 @ 08:15am

    They like it that way. They live to get fucked by Chimpie boy. They line up, slavering at the jaws, waiting until "Dick" slides it in deep.... then they heave a big sigh and chant "Please sir may I get fucked again, your highness?"

    Usefull idiots indeed. Only WE will pay the price for their idiotic "governance".

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/22/2007 @ 09:39am

  158. France was right about post invasion Iraq, you were wrong, Happy, Maasch and crowd.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/22/2007 @ 08:01am

    Shit, Darth was right in 1994 about post-invasion Iraq; what changed in the interim to make invasion palatable?

    Could it have been that the US would have control over who got the oil?

    Nah. That would be, like, underhanded and evil.

    Oh. Nevermind.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/22/2007 @ 10:44am

  159. HAPPY, do you think the French may have acted out of economic self interest? I ask you because you are an expert on the subject.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2007 @ 12:49pm

  160. do you think the French may have acted out of economic self interest?...

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/22/2007 @ 12:49pm

    You know the answer!

    HAPPY Position Statement: Any country that does NOT act out of "economic self interest" is undeserving of being a `country'...it should be a CHARITY!

    France wanted to keep a good thing going for itself by keeping Saddam in business....today, France is positioning its biggest oil co., Total, for `action' in Iraq's oil industry and explains, at least in part, its apparent willingness to re-engage in Iraq (which we seem to welcome)!

    Our going into Iraq definitely has an economic component....to prevent future large-scale (possible WMD type) attacks which could harm our economy (which 9/11 clearly did) and hoped to establish a democracy in Arab ME which in turn, may temper the Arab's historical tendencies to use Oil Embargoes as a weapon against the West!

    Posted by Happy at 08/22/2007 @ 1:49pm

  161. Well, I guess we know what kind of answers we can get to serious questions from Dave Dickmunch......Par for the course

    what the hell do those of us who are gainfully employed care care about lower taxes, anyway???

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 08/21/2007 @ 9:02pm

    You have a job???? WOW.... Where can I get me one of them thar job thingies???

    Asshole. Freeper land is still looking for you, "moran"

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/22/2007 @ 2:53pm

  162. "... and hoped to establish a democracy in Arab ME which in turn, may temper the Arab's historical tendencies to use Oil Embargoes as a weapon against the West!"

    Posted by HAPPY 08/22/2007 @ 1:49pm

    Too bad we didn't spend trillions to temper our tendency to be vunerable to oil embargoes.

    Of course, eventually we will....we will have no choice. I guess in the interim, we will waste many more times as much money, to keep the economy running on oil. Then we can whine about the consequences of our previous inaction, while we whine about the money we no longer have to fix the problem.

    Maybe, our great-great grandchildren, won't mind picking up the tab for that one, once their parents and grandparents have finished paying for putting off the inevitable. (For huge private profit, of course).

    What a plan. (Can it even be called a "plan", if it doesn't consider the future?)

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/22/2007 @ 7:30pm

  163. Dr. Dumbass contines to impress with his intellectual and insightful prose.....But, he's right, I don't have a job, I'm self employed....

    Posted by davebarlett at 08/22/2007 @ 9:55pm

  164. I should explain my new moniker for Dr. Decibels, formerly I referred to him as Dr. Goebbels, and while Dr. Dumbass may not give him enough credit, calling him Dr. Goebbels certainly gave him too much.......But unless anyone can come up with anything more descriptive.....Dr Dumbass will have to do.....

    Posted by davebarlett at 08/22/2007 @ 10:44pm

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 Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
Posted at 8:46 PM ET

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
31 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
43 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

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

» Act Now!

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

» And Another Thing

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

» Altercation

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