Run, Lowell, Run

posted by John Nichols on 12/15/2005 @ 2:31pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (196)

Subscribe Now

George W. Bush has a new favorite senator: Joe Lieberman.

As part of his "I've-Got-a-Secret-Plan-That's-Just-As-Good-As-Nixon's" stump tour to shore up sagging support for his war in Iraq, the president has been talking up the Connecticut Democrat as just about the only official outside the administration who "gets it."

In his December 7 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Bush was quoting Lieberman -- a Vietnam war foe who eluded military service every bit as efficiently as did Vice President Dick Cheney -- as if the senator was a modern-day Carl von Clausewitz. Recalling Lieberman's most recent pro-war outburst -- "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will, and, in a famous phrase, 'to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory'" -- the president declared: "Senator Lieberman is right."

Lieberman's over-the-top cheerleading for a war gone wrong has been just about the only good news that Bush has gotten on the domestic political front in recent weeks, and the president and his supporters are playing the senator's support for everything that it is worth. There is even speculation that Bush might pluck Lieberman from the Senate and award him a Cabinet post -- perhaps as Donald Rumsfeld's replacement at the Department of Defense.

Whatever Lieberman's poliutical trajectory may be, there is no question that it is being the cheered from the right.

Rare is the afternoon when Rush Limbaugh does not mention Lieberman's "courageous" support for the war on his radio show. Rarer still is the evening when the Democratic senator is not giggling along with Sean Hannity as Fox's propagandist-in-chief derides war critics as dupes, cowards and traitors. Hannity has gone so far as to announce that he will support Lieberman for reelection. And it is a reasonably safe bet that Lieberman will not face a serious challenge from the Republican right when he seeks reelection in 2006.

After all, this Democratic senator has a long track record of delivering for the conservative movement. Elected to the Senate in 1988 with the support of William F. Buckley and Buckley's National Review magazine, Lieberman has regularly sided with the Republican establishment on everything from trade policy to military misadventures. He has, as well, been Joey-on-the-spot when George W. Bush has needed an election ally.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Lieberman, who was then the party's vice presidential nominee, parted company with his running mate, Al Gore, to tell the Wall Street Journal that Gore's populist rhetoric wasn't serious. Don't take Gore seriously, Lieberman promised, Democrats could be counted on to deliver for corporate America.

During the Florida recount fight of that year, Lieberman told Democrats to back off their challenges to Republican efforts to count votes that were cast late or illegally.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, after Democrats had overwhelmingly rejected Lieberman's candidacy for their party's nomination, the senator traveled to the battleground state of Florida three weeks before the election and told a predominantly Jewish crowd in Delray Beach that criticism of Bush's Middle East policies were "unjustified." "We are dealing with a president who's had a record of strong, consistent support for Israel," Lieberman argued. "You can't say otherwise."

It's a safe bet that Bush will return the favor next year, making friendly statements about Lieberman at appropriate moments during the senator's reelection race.

Presumably, in a state that voted 54-44 for Democrat John Kerry in 2004, and where the president's approval rating has fallen to an abysmal 32 percent in recent polling, Bush's enthusiasm for Lieberman is something less than a plus for the Democrat.

But for Lieberman to be beat, he will have to have an opponent.

Despite a good deal of grumbling from Connecticut Democrats, as well as some national prodding from MoveOn,org, Democracy for America and other groups that want the Democrats to offer a choice rather than an echo, Lieberman does not face a serious Democratic primary challenge going into the 2006 election season. And, since Connecticut is not a state with a strong tradition of intraparty fights, Lieberman could well dodge the primary defeat he so richly deserves.

But that does not mean that the president's favorite senator will go without a serious anti-war challenge.

Former U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker, the Republican incumbent Lieberman narrowly beat in 1988, is talking seriously about taking the senator on next year. And Weicker would run as an anti-war candidate.

"I disagree 100 percent with the position (Lieberman''s) taken on this war. It mirrors that of the president, and obviously I disagree with the president," says Weicker, who adds, "I am interested in the war. I am interested in putting heat on people that continue to put us in the position that we're in in Iraq."

To be clear, Weicker, who is 74 and serves as president of the Trust for America's Health, would prefer to see someone else take on Lieberman. But, he says, he'll run if no one else does because he thinks it is so essential to challenge the senator's support of the war.

It would be wrong to see a Weicker campaign as a protest vehicle, however. Weicker remains a respected and potentially viable political player in Connecticut -- and nationally. After he was defeated in 1988, he turned around and won the governorship as the candidate of his independent "A Connecticut Party" in 1990. And, as recently as 2000, he was encouraged to run for the presidency on the Reform Party line.

What makes Weicker so appealing is that he is genuine maverick. As a Republican senator, he was a leading critic of Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. He supported civil rights and civil liberties, stood up for abortion rights and gay rights, backed campaign finance and ethics reforms, voted against right-wing judicial picks, condemned Nixon as the Watergate scandals were revealed and aggressively attacked Reagan and his aides for their Iran-Contra crimes.

When Weicker served in the Senate during the 1970s and 1980s, there were a good many moderate Republicans, and even some liberal members of the Grand Old Party. It is a measure of how far American politics has moved to the right that, without changing his politics at all, Weicker felt most comfortable in 2004 backing Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.

But Weicker is no Democrat. Indeed, as Hartford Courant columnist Colin McEnroe explains, "I think it's almost impossible to overstate the degree to which, psychologically, Weicker has identified himself as a third party, independent guy. When you get him talking about that stuff, you realize it's really at the heart of how he sees himself these days." Weicker's independence -- and the fact that he has already won a statewide election without the benefit of major-party backing -- makes him all the more attractive as a challenger to Lieberman.

Make no mistake, it would still be an uphill challenge.

Lieberman retains an appeal to at least some Democrats -- he's got a strong record on the environment and a pretty good one on domestic labor issues -- and, of course, to Republicans who appreciate what he's done for Bush. But a genuine independent who challenges the incumbent on the most fundamental questions of war and peace will have appeal across the political spectrum.

Done right, a Weicker campaign could telescope the debate about Iraq and expose Lieberman for what his is: a politician whose moralizing has always been a mask for his overaching ambition.

A Lieberman-Weicker race could well give Connecticut the most interesting, issue-based Senate race in the country.

And it might just give George Bush the jolt he needs. After all, losing a favorite senator would be a blow to any president -- even a president as disengaged as this one.

So Weicker should run. Indeed, he must run.

Run, Lowell, run!

Comments (196)

sounds like the pubs are getting ready to pretend to turn power over to the dems in presidential elections in 2008 - this time by trying to assure that neocon lite lieberman is the representative of the farcical opposition. gotta let the losers win every now and then or peeps might start seriously questioning the effectiveness of our democracy. brilliant!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/15/2005 @ 2:57pm
See, this is what's weird....

I thought the Democratic Party was a "big tent...full of diversity" and it was only the Republicans who "marched in lock-step and crushed any dissent, like poor ol' Jim Jeffords".

Yet the guy we were told by "The Nation" (less than 4 years ago) was the "legitimate Vice-President" has no place in the Party and needs to be run out on a rail by Lowell Weicker doing his Walter Mondale-2004 impersonation???

Posted by Mask at 12/15/2005 @ 3:20pm
MASK

TOUCHE'!!

Posted by CPT at 12/15/2005 @ 3:48pm
Is there now any question that the left is becoming desparate about the turnaround for Bush over the past 2 weeks. The economic news is great-first decline in consumer prices in 56 years, Iraq is going according to plans, and poll numbers are up.

As I mentioned earlier this week, Nichols and the leftwing bloggers are going nuts with their failure to bring down Bush. Now they want to tear down a decent man like Lieberman for refusing to toe the liberal line. Freedom is a strangely defined word in liberal-la-la land.

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 3:53pm
I think where many on the left believe that Lieberman crossed the line is when he attempted to silence dissent, in a most arrogant fashion I might add. Disagreeing with those in his party is quite acceptable, but telling fellow Dems to shut up and trust Bush's judgment is beyond the pale. It begs the question: why would Lieberman state such a thing? Why should any American not be allowed to publicly disagree with the President?

Yes, Lieberman needs to be replaced not because he agrees with the President, but because he defies what the Democratic party stands for: free expression.

Posted by jkbriscoe at 12/15/2005 @ 3:59pm
LL,

The only turnaround that Bush is experiencing is the spinning from the "Bubble" in which he finds himself.

Spin Bush spin.

Posted by oraibi1952 at 12/15/2005 @ 4:05pm
Iraq going according to plan??

No progress being made against the insurgency and Shiite death squads became part of the plan when?

Lieberman is a Republican in all but name, there's nothing wrong with suggesting that his running as a Democrat is absurd and dishonest. At least Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Richard Shelby had the honesty to switch parties. And any one that thinks that Zell "Pistols at Dawn" Miller is a fine American has questionable judgement.

Posted by brunowe at 12/15/2005 @ 4:20pm
My main beef is the hypocrisy...

Again, all we hear is "Republicans march in lock-step...they crush any dissent", yet Lincoln Chaffee is still the Republican nominee for RI Senate seat, Chuck Hagel is not "on the outs" in the Senate and McCain, despite several disagreements with the Administration (including the latest on torture) is still a presumptive front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2008.

But Joe Lieberman doesn't tow the line on Iraq...and he's ostracized and "needs a 'real' Dem challenger" like Weicker to throw him to the curb??? In the party of "diversity and big tent"???

and JKBRISCOE, did Lieberman say "Shut up and trust Bush"...or that that many Dems are wrong about Iraq?

Posted by Mask at 12/15/2005 @ 4:25pm
Is there now any question that the left is becoming desparate about the turnaround for Bush over the past 2 weeks. The economic news is great-first decline in consumer prices in 56 years,

Oil declined slightly from an all-time historical high dropping the rate of inflation back from a trailing rate just below 4% which = NOTHING

Iraq is going according to plans,

Assuming that the objective was to commit mass murder against a people who had done nothing to harm us and that a half trillion dollar spending deficit is better than sliced bread and that a theocratic Iraq is good for everyone and that having America's prestige as a nation in the toilet is desirable and that medieval forms of torture reintroduced by the USA is something to be proud of and . . . well, bandwidth considerations, etc., why go on?

and poll numbers are up.

Enjoy the 3% artifact while it lasts. Who did you say is "desparate" (sic)?

As I mentioned earlier this week, Nichols and the leftwing bloggers are going nuts with their failure to bring down Bush. Now they want to tear down a decent man like Lieberman for refusing to toe the liberal line. Freedom is a strangely defined word in liberal-la-la land.

Yeah, where did we ever get the idea that we could decide who will speak for us, that's LOVE LIBERTY'S area of responsibility.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! You're down the toilet, Republicans!

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 3:53pm

Kudos to The Nation for calling Lieberman out on his Republicanism.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/15/2005 @ 4:37pm
The idiot rightwing bloggers here miss the point, again. Zell Miller, Lieberman, and any number of Southern Dixiecrats are about as liberal as I am Puerto Rican... that is, not at all. If there were a true liberal in the Republican Party, they would be villified just as vehemently by their party members. (Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and few other Northeasterners are about as liberal as Republicans could get, and even they would be considered reactionaries if their peers weren't teetering on the edge of the fascist cliff) The Republican "Big Tent" is inclusive, all right. They have white evangelicals, white CEO's, and white gun nuts / tax haters.

(Reminds me of the Blues Brothers movie: Elwood: "So, ah, what kinda music ya play here?" Bob's Country Bunker bartender: "Oh, we have both kinds, country AND western!"

Cut the sanctimonious crap, dittoheads. No one is allowed to remain in your party if they don't goose-step in unison with your high priests of uniform conservatism. Funny, the GOP seems to have adopted the European-style of party discipline: if you vote against your party, you have to leave that party and "cross the floor". And the point you RWB's (right wing bloggers) are trying to make is flawed anyways. You assume that everyone who reads The Nation is a Democrat, and that every Democrat is a liberal. A lot of us vote for the Democrats out of spite for the GOP, not because we believe in their values. Given the choice of a far-right and a center-right political party to vote for, what do you think a lot of self-respecting liberals, socialists, and minorities do? They don't vote. Well, if I was in Connecticutt, I wouldn't vote either, if my choice was Liebermann or some Republican tool. The GOP regularly throws their national election money behind challengers to incumbent Republicans who dared to think for themselves.

Posted by Robespierre at 12/15/2005 @ 4:39pm
My main beef is the hypocrisy...

Again, all we hear is "Republicans march in lock-step...they crush any dissent",

Posted by MASK 12/15/2005 @ 4:25pm

Where did you hear that?

Posted by fromredbird at 12/15/2005 @ 4:40pm
Chaffee isn't important enough for the Republicans to get rid of. Maybe he's just been careful not to board any single-engine planes, lately....

And Chuck Hagel could run against Jesus Christ in Nebraska and win... he used to own the company that makes all of the state's electronic voting machines.

Posted by Robespierre at 12/15/2005 @ 4:43pm
Mask, Nichols cited a couple of issues besides the war. There were his favorable comments re Bush in Florida during the election, his arguing the Dems should back off in 2000. I can add his arguing against removing stock options as a business expense, his support of Social Security privatization, his support of the FDAs restrictions on RU-486.

Posted by brunowe at 12/15/2005 @ 4:48pm
The only turnaround that Bush is experiencing is the spinning from the "Bubble" in which he finds himself.

Spin Bush spin.

Posted by ORAIBI1952 12/15/2005 @ 4:05pm

Well, here is the latest poll from MSNBC issued Dec 14th, with commentary from Democratic Pollster Hart. Look for even better numbers given the way the elections went with Sunni participation.

For the first time in months, Bush's job approval has increased, albeit by one point. In addition, as elections take place Thursday in Iraq, Americans are more confident about success there than they were a month ago. And an overwhelming majority backs Bush's stance that the United States should not immediately withdraw all of its troops from Iraq.

"Clearly, the president is better off," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff

And 39 percent say they're more confident the war in Iraq will come to a successful conclusion, which is a seven-point gain since last month

In addition, 68 percent agree with the president and believe the United States should not immediately withdraw all of its troops from Iraq. Just 27 percent support such a withdrawal

I truly hope Lowell runs. It will only help Lieberman.

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 5:00pm
"Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy."

Thanks for the newspeak update, LL. You know, another media personality used an name with the same first letters... what was his name? Big..., Big...., oh, I just can't remember.

*gone*

Posted by Robespierre at 12/15/2005 @ 5:10pm
Robes,

We are well aware that many of you are socialists, commies, and anarchists. However, those groups have no political power and aren't worth addressing.

As to marching out those who don't march in step; maybe I missed the memo where we did that to Guliani, Pataki, Arnold, Peter King, Bloomberg, Richard Riordan, Snowe, Collins, William Cohen, Chafee, and Chris Shays.

So stay on the fringe and have no real voice in the US. It makes it easier for those of us who work within the system.

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 5:13pm
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 5:00pm

For the first time in months, Bush's job approval has increased, albeit by one point.

Wow! 37% now?!

I truly hope Lowell runs. It will only help Lieberman.

Brilliant! Your dexterity with political strategy is even more impressive than your ability to recognize whether a war is a net gain or a net loss!

Posted by fromredbird at 12/15/2005 @ 5:17pm
LL:

Wow! Bush's number went up 1 point. Well, within the margin of error I might add.

So, tell me again, who is desparate?

Posted by Hman23 at 12/15/2005 @ 5:23pm
So stay on the fringe and have no real voice in the US. It makes it easier for those of us who work within the system.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 5:13pm

Oh, Christ! Another Thousand Year Reich? There were surely, also, some nazis who were deluded enough to listen to the speeches Hitler made to his troops three days before Berlin fell.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/15/2005 @ 5:27pm
I know how you can spin it even better LL.

Take 1%. And then assume something like 200,000,000 American adults 9I could be off). That means 200,000 more people this month than last month approve of Bush. Awesome!

Of course, at a 55% disapproval, that means 110,000,000 disapprove. But, hey LL, that's okay, you only have to sway 32,000,000 more people and Bush's numbers will be dead even!

Thought you didn't trust polls, by the way.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/15/2005 @ 5:35pm
oops, math boo-boo, meant 2,000,000.

ha-ha joke is on me, I guess.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/15/2005 @ 5:37pm
HM,

It's not so much about trusting polls, it is that there are indications everywhere except in the minds of the far left that Bush has begun turning his political image around. The polls are actually the least accurate indicator.

Of far more importance are things like:

1. The real change that is underway in Iraq

2. The economic data which is very good

3. The market's reaction to the data

4. The consumer confidence level

5. The Arab and world reaction to what is going on now in Iraq

6. The renewed confidence by Conservatives that Bush is back on track

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 5:58pm
We are well aware that many of you are socialists, commies, and anarchists. However, those groups have no political power and aren't worth addressing.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 5:13pm

Liberty!

Now, I have to disagree with you just a little bit on this one. The commies have had some wonderful legal and lobbying work done for them here in the US by Companies like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, etc...

And considering the K-Street take over orchestrated by my favorite commie sympathizer Tom "The Hamster" Delay and his insistence that lobbyists be hired from the bloated ranks of boot licking, conservative, yes men, I'd have to say that not only do the commies and the socialists have political power in this country, but that power is firmly entrenched,

in the Republican Party.

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 6:10pm
sorry, I don't know any anarchists

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 6:12pm
Will C

LOL

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 6:18pm
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 5:58pm

Begun turning, eh?

well, send the kids off to grandmas and pull the shades cause baby we gone have some fun tonight.

There's a boner on the rise.

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 6:19pm
LOL

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 6:18pm

Telling answer liberty

But does it tell us a happy story of heart felt laughter or does it tell a sad story of the on set of dementia.

If only option two didn't rule out further commentary from you

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 6:24pm
Bush supporters: please look at the congressional voting record before you start accusing Democrats of enforcing "lock-step" discipline on political issues. If you look at the voting record, you will find much more diversity of opinion among Democrats than among Republicans. It doesn't matter what McCain or Hagel say if they keep voting with the party on every issue. As usual, talk means much more to today's conservatives than facts.

And, again, Love Liberty, you have no business calling anyone a hypocrite. You stated here that your religious belief causes you to need to "follow the leader." Unless you unquestionably followed Clinton, that statement makes you a hypocrite.

Posted by BBatten at 12/15/2005 @ 6:49pm
Will C

Heartfelt all the way! Life is good every day that you wake up. Every day brings new hopes, new opportunities, new horizons.

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 6:52pm
Bush apologists: the last time Iraqis voted, many of you predicted a Bush resurgence in the polls. It didn't happen. Why do you think it will happen this time? And, does it bother you that Shiite militias who only last year were killing Americans are now patroling the streets as Iraqi security? Does it bother you that they're pulling Sunnis and Kurds off the streets and murdering them or torturing them. Is this what you meant by "standing up so we can stand down?"

Posted by BBatten at 12/15/2005 @ 6:54pm
And, again, Love Liberty, you have no business calling anyone a hypocrite. You stated here that your religious belief causes you to need to "follow the leader." Unless you unquestionably followed Clinton, that statement makes you a hypocrite.

Posted by BBATTEN 12/15/2005 @ 6:49pm

I called no one a hypocrite. You must be referring to the post by Mask. And yes, I did support Clinton on Kosovo, I did not go into rebellion against him on his decisions; even though I dislike his morals, I obeyed scripture to pray for him constantly.

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 6:56pm
Heartfelt all the way! Life is good every day that you wake up. Every day brings new hopes, new opportunities, new horizons.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 6:52pm

Oh know

Dementia

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 7:19pm
New thread. Thirty-two posts. All of them posted either by Neocons (who, as always, were the first on the "respond" key), or non-Neocons replying to what the Neocons posted. Sorry, guys, but none of the Neocons here have done anything but repeat their same, tired, old, dogma, but they've still managed to turn it into their thread.

I'm going to toddle off to see if there are some discussion boards that haven't been co-opted by Bush-lovers and dittoheads. I'll check back periodically to see if anything like reasinable discussion of Nichols' actual column eventually springs up . . .

Posted by LisaJo at 12/15/2005 @ 7:20pm
Sorry LJ

I'd comment on smoking Joe but he's not my senator.

And my voice isn't heard in Connecticut politics

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 7:25pm
on the otherhand,

commie supporters like liberty and the distructive policies of the rebublican party do affect me directly.

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 7:27pm
Damn, Frank, I was just about to post the same comment: that Joe Lieberman's primary political interest is Israel, and he'll support anyone who will allow the Israelis to do whatever they damn well please.

Just wondering, Love Liberty, what your thoughts were on Lieberman in 2000. Was he as fine and upstanding a character to you when he was running for VP, as he is now that he's become a closet-Republican?

I am an anarcho-liberal, by the way, so I guess you don't have to answer my question. ;)

Posted by Amsterdam69 at 12/15/2005 @ 8:26pm
Just wondering, Love Liberty, what your thoughts were on Lieberman in 2000. Was he as fine and upstanding a character to you when he was running for VP, as he is now that he's become a closet-Republican?

I am an anarcho-liberal, by the way, so I guess you don't have to answer my question. ;)

Posted by AMSTERDAM69 12/15/2005 @ 8:26pm

I have admired Senator Lieberman for years. While we don't agree on everything, I find him to at least understand the world we live in and he is a decent man on most moral issues. He certainly was the better man on his campaign ticket in 2000.

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 9:45pm
Liberty and Will are just loveable old stains. Like Abbott and Costello for the new century, but totally ripped on a viagra, vioxx, and "wine in a box" cocktail. You old fools are disgusting idiots. Your politics embrace the has-beens, and your pretense towards religiosity is only done to serve a tax break.

The world is leaving you clowns behind.

All of my love,

Bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 12/15/2005 @ 10:00pm
We can always count on Bloppy who believes in nothing and likes no one. Reading Bloppy's postings, I have a mental image of a house filled with cats and rubbish, cursing at the children who walk by his/her house.

Ah, but we love you anyway Bloppy.

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 10:10pm
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 10:10pm

What a cheery image liberty.

Perhaps your rush to see ill in people

is nothing more than a hallucination cause by your own sickness.

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 10:19pm
No liberty, I love my two cats, and they have a lot more smarts than you do. As for your image of a house filled with rubbish, well pal, at least I take my trash to the landfill at weekly intervals. You seem comfortably snuggled in to your own delusional mental filth. Lather up asshole, you can still come clean.

Bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 12/15/2005 @ 10:20pm
BLOPPY

I have told you before young one, shhhhhs, this is big people talk.

Posted by CPT at 12/15/2005 @ 10:23pm
BBATTEN

Well, did it bother you, when Black South Africans did the same to the minority whites, when apartied was dismantled? Or is your outrage selective?

Posted by CPT at 12/15/2005 @ 10:25pm
CPT

Big people talk?

Are you three

or a dwarf

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 10:27pm
WILL C,

Liberty and Will are just loveable old stains. Like Abbott and Costello for the new century, but totally ripped on a viagra, vioxx, and "wine in a box" cocktail. You old fools are disgusting idiots. Your politics embrace the has-beens, and your pretense towards religiosity is only done to serve a tax break.

The world is leaving you clowns behind.

All of my love,

Bloppy

This is the man/women you defend?

Posted by CPT at 12/15/2005 @ 10:29pm
absolutley

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 10:30pm
WILL C

Well he is a liberal fringe guy/gal so your outrage is like many liberals; selective and filled with hypocrisey

Posted by CPT at 12/15/2005 @ 10:32pm
ROBES

Considering you think Lincoln Chaffee is a "reactionary" (Posted by ROBESPIERRE 12/15/2005 @ 4:39pm)...I guess you'd consider Hugo Chavez a "moderate" and Mao Zedong "somewhat left"?

Posted by Mask at 12/15/2005 @ 10:32pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/15/2005 @ 4:40pm |

Where?....quite often here at "The Nation", actually. Check the archives on stories about Chuck Hagel or Jim Jeffords.

Posted by Mask at 12/15/2005 @ 10:33pm
Well he is a liberal fringe guy/gal so your outrage is like many liberals; selective and filled with hypocrisey

Posted by CPT 12/15/2005 @ 10:32pm

Nah

I like him because he is consistent, creative, and authentic.

I can't really say they about you wingnuts

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 10:35pm
correction... that

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 10:36pm
and I don't need to be loved

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 10:36pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 12/15/2005 @ 4:48pm

And Chuck Hagel and John McCain have gone up against the Bush Administration on numerous issues as well...but no conservative magazine is calling for some "real" conservative to go up against them in their Senatorial runs.

Lieberman ran as Al Gore's Vice-President...so if he's a "sell-out" than Gore was too. So what's that now...10-15 TOP Democrats that aren't "pure" enough for the liberal base (from Hillary to Biden to Joe to Steny Hoyer)?

How much of the DNC membership gets cut out as "Republican-lites"....20%?...30%...maybe 40%?

and how many elections get won after that?

Posted by Mask at 12/15/2005 @ 10:37pm
WILL C

and I don't need to be loved

I dont think you have to worry about that, just a guess.

Bloppy, creative? Nah, tearing and ripping at people is easy, its lifting them up that is hard. Now that takes talent few possess

Posted by CPT at 12/15/2005 @ 10:46pm
Posted by CPT 12/15/2005 @ 10:46pm

You enter this thread with this post

I have told you before young one, shhhhhs, this is big people talk.

and you lecture me about tearing people down or building them up?

There's one other thing I can say about Bloppy that I respect.

He's honest

Posted by Will C. at 12/15/2005 @ 11:02pm
Love Liberty wrote:

Is there now any question that the left is becoming desparate about the turnaround for Bush over the past 2 weeks.

Uh, please provide a poll that overwhelmingly shows where Bush is having a "turnabout". And speaking of "desperate", that would apply to the right-wing publication National Review's justification of torture because some Hollywood movies have advocated it. Pu-fucking-lease. (By the way, as of today, Bush has supposedly backed McCain's ban on torture; so if you want to criticize those who oppose torture, then you better start with Bush, then, shouldn't you, toe-the-line Bushies out there?)

The economic news is great-first decline in consumer prices in 56 years

That's odd: When the economy's bad, then it's the 'ol "the president doesn't affect the economy" stuff, but when it improves, it's "all the president's doing". Typical, see-through hypocritical drivel.

Iraq is going according to plans

Uh, yeah. A nation occupied and controlled by the U.S. has "elections" going on. So totally sure the U.S. doesn't have a hand in how they turn out. In your dreams, maybe.

and poll numbers are up

In light of record low polls. please don't dress.

As I mentioned earlier this week, Nichols and the leftwing bloggers are going nuts with their failure to bring down Bush.

Only in your own, blindly-defending-Bush mindset are they not "bringing Bush down".

Now they want to tear down a decent man like Lieberman for refusing to toe the liberal line.

Yet Bushies like you toe the Bushie line, yet it's supposedly not good to toe the liberal line. Quite the double-standard, no?

Freedom is a strangely defined word in liberal-la-la land.

Apparently "fiscally-conservative" is in Republican-la-la-land in light of the Bush administration's record deficits.

Posted by TexasDemocrat at 12/15/2005 @ 11:24pm
CPT, you might as well call your stuff "big pussy talk" As for your concerns about me "ripping and tearing" ..Well, you had best get used to it. I will never cut you any slack. Do you hear me? Never!!!

Love and fists,

bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 12/15/2005 @ 11:34pm
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 5:58p Of far more importance are things like:

1. The real change that is underway in Iraq.

The need for a stable goverment of the bush admins choosing to protect the oil contracts made by the oil industurys henchmen who controlled the Coalition Authority and embezzelled $8.8 bil. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/01surface.htm

2. The economic data which is very good?

Why is the poverty rate still climbing at 3-5% a year. The only real good economic data is for those in the top 5% bracket who are laughing all the way to the bank while those in real need are still trying to decide which is more important meds or food. 3. The market's reaction to the data.

Those who have made record quarterly profits by reinvesting a minor portion in jacking up the petrolium & energy futures while raping the american people at the pumps, home heating and energy.

4. The consumer confidence level.

and personal debt is at an all time high. You rationalize for those who don't need while believing that you are pious.

5. The Arab and world reaction to what is going on now in Iraq

That the United States is run by an ignorant jack ass who is the bootlick of special interests. They are still holding us off with a very long pole.

6. The renewed confidence by Conservatives that Bush is back on track

Aha which dream (or the Ann Coulter polling service) did you find this info in OH! you listen to Rush limpbrain and the fox (Interpretive) news.

Once again LL you are full of S--t. How long do you make those homeless folk suffer through your sermons before you feed them. You make me sick you and falwell, robertson and the rest who preach god and use the bible to hypocritise the teachings of christ for your own profit

Posted by dycel8r at 12/15/2005 @ 11:38pm
Will C, We will see, won't we?

Thanks bud!

Bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 12/15/2005 @ 11:43pm
I must be doing something right on this site to generate so much hate by those who only know hate, who never will see the glass as half full.

Texasdemocrat and Dycel8r are wonderful examples why you should not let children drive a car. Fortunately, we have some excellent programs today for the mentally challenged. With a little training they can probably make a positive contribution to society in a semi-skilled job.

Posted by love liberty at 12/15/2005 @ 11:47pm
and you LL drive a Caddy with all the extras in the land where you are king

Posted by dycel8r at 12/15/2005 @ 11:50pm
and you LL drive a Caddy with all the extras in the land where you are king

Posted by DYCEL8R 12/15/2005 @ 11:50pm

No Caddy for me. I drive a 2004 Dodge Ram Quad Cab with a Hemi engine.

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 12:00am
Lieberman ran as Al Gore's Vice-President...so if he's a "sell-out" than Gore was too. So what's that now...10-15 TOP Democrats that aren't "pure" enough for the liberal base (from Hillary to Biden to Joe to Steny Hoyer)?

How much of the DNC membership gets cut out as "Republican-lites"....20%?...30%...maybe 40%?

and how many elections get won after that?

Posted by MASK 12/15/2005 @ 10:37pm

Hopefully, a lot. We'll throw a going away party for you, MASK . . . the day after you leave town.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 12:04am
yeah liberty, you await your stupid rapture, and squander irreplaceable resources with your retarded "tough guy" car. What a wanker.

Love you till death, and see you in hell.

bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 12/16/2005 @ 12:07am
I must be doing something right on this site to generate so much hate by those who only know hate, who never will see the glass as half full.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 11:47pm

There you go, LOVE LIBERTY, because of the haters in America it's people like you who are truly oppressed, you and Charles Manson. We're just too dumb to understand the beauty of Charlie and you.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 12:10am
No Caddy for me. I drive a 2004 Dodge Ram Quad Cab with a Hemi engine.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/16/2005 @ 12:00am

What happened, did they run out of garbage trucks?

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 12:13am
Love Liberty,

As usual, your hypocritical self fails to counter the points made contradicting your puerile statements.

Posted by TexasDemocrat at 12/16/2005 @ 12:16am
Texas got a new dictionary and learned the word puerile today! for tomorrow, look up the word wisdom.

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 12:23am
yeah liberty, you await your stupid rapture, and squander irreplaceable resources with your retarded "tough guy" car. What a wanker.

Love you till death, and see you in hell.

bloppy

Posted by BLOPPY 12/16/2005 @ 12:07am

Gee, I wonder how many trips I would have to make in a Prius hauling food and clothing to the needy vs my Dodge Truck (especially the out of state trips).

Please keep it up Bloppy, the world needs more clowns!

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 12:26am
And Love Liberty still hasn't apparently looked up the word "conservatism", which is a word blatantly in contradiction of the record-deficit Bush administration! Keep on avoiding the points broght before you; it's typical of inconvenient-facts-are-my-worst-enemy Bushies like yourself.

Posted by TexasDemocrat at 12/16/2005 @ 12:35am
Rio Bravo,

Please save your sub-par-IQ gab for Hannity. Your homophobic self offers neither context nor subtext for your defend-Bush-at-any-costs rants.

Posted by TexasDemocrat at 12/16/2005 @ 12:43am
Liberty, Your self- serving, rubbishy talk is almost unbearable. Do you jerk-off after delivering poptarts and other wallymart meals to your hapless dependents? You are drowning in sanctimony. You are truly disgusting.

I smell a fraud

Bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 12/16/2005 @ 12:48am
Yea bloppy LL is is another of those "preachers" who take money from the poor to buy themselfs big shiney trucks instead of using the funds to help the poor they make damm sure they take care of themselfs first of course in the name of god. Just another BS artist at work

Posted by dycel8r at 12/16/2005 @ 01:03am
Liberty is unable to respond to my last post. He is out in freezing cold, muttering scripture to himself, and loading shrink-wrapped packages of junk food into his gas-guzzling, (I am a badass, hemispherical-head, truck). Shortly, after a bunch of donuts and soda at a local quicky mart, our dear hero will hit the road and save godless, "po-people" from perdition. He will use shitty junk-food as incentive for them to come over to his side.

Oh what a stinky, nasty mess this is!

Life just may suck, (if jerks like you play a part).

What's to love?

Bloppy

Posted by bloppy at 12/16/2005 @ 01:07am
who never will see the glass as half full.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/15/2005 @ 11:47pm

Liberty!

Damn son, you even cherry pick simple reality.

By definiton a half a glass of water is both half full and half empty. Why would anyone honestly trying to understand the truth of the world, purposefully disregard half of that truth.

Posted by Will C. at 12/16/2005 @ 01:22am
Gee, I wonder how many trips I would have to make in a Prius hauling food and clothing to the needy vs my Dodge Truck (especially the out of state trips).

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/16/2005 @ 12:26am

you could rent a truck when you actually need a truck.

and use the Prius as your daily driver.

: O

What a concept

Posted by Will C. at 12/16/2005 @ 01:29am
Why is it that those who claim to serve in the name of god forget that to serve means just that not take money for the poor and support themselves first then distribute the crumbs. Does this possible have anything to do with the glass half full concept, how can the glass get full if those who are handling the water drink their fill.

Posted by dycel8r at 12/16/2005 @ 01:36am
I thought the Democratic Party was a "big tent...full of diversity" and it was only the Republicans who "marched in lock-step and crushed any dissent, like poor ol' Jim Jeffords".

Lurkers begone! And this means the likes of you, Mask, spewing the Kool-Aid infused illogic that is the wont of the right wing Oxycontin crowd. Lieberman has never been progressive, and for this reason his trashing is justified, in fact necessary. The man is kissing Bush's behind, and not because he really believes the nonsense and malarkey that Ape Boy repeats over and over after being fed his lines by Darth Vader Cheney and Turd Blossom. He has something to get out of Bush. If you think his sycophantic praise for Bush is anything other than meant for Lieberman's own aggrandizement, you are more stupid than you obviously seem to be. Big Tent? Yes, if you mean the Democratic actually has members who are not as lily white as those we saw at the last Republican convention...oh sure, there were some ethnic faces, but the Tom level of those minorities was way high...they were about as white as Cinderella... The only reason you have dissent among Republicans is because you have some wise people not drinking Bush's Kool-Aid like you have who know the man is a buffoon, a crook and a baldfaced, unrepentant liar, and they don't want to be a part of that. They do wish to win re-election in 2006, and, despite any feeble upticks in economic signs (for the wealthy, mind you), Dubyah is a serious drag on anyone's chances for re-election. Let's just say he makes wolfbane look positively benign.

Posted by MCENJ at 12/16/2005 @ 02:08am
Returning to Nichols, here is Lieberman by the Numbers.

It is amusing to read postings from the wingers praising the Connecticut Democrat. One can't help wondering, upon reading such praise as "I have admired Senator Lieberman for years," if they will feel the same way after reading his voting record from organizations that usually produce the "react" in reactionaries; or will they think they bought a pig in a poke?

Here is a brief sample of Lieberman's voting record expressed as a per centum of votes the rating organizations deemed important to their causes last year. To contrast, a GOP Senator's rating is listed too. Data are collected from Project Vote Smart (www.vote-smart.org):

NARUL (the pro-choice folks): Lieberman 100; Santorum (R. PA) 0

ACLU: Lieberman 83; Santorum 11

Labor - AFL-CIO: Lieberman 83; Santorum 10

NTU (National Taxpayers Union – beloved of the right): Lieberman 14; Santorum 83.

This may read like a leftist's backhanded compliment to Lieberman; it is not intended as such. Rather, it illustrates the singularity of Bush's war as the determiner of deeming good guy versus bad guy.

Posted by seattlescribe at 12/16/2005 @ 03:21am
.

Nichols' Irresponsibility

I have been away a bit. I'd like to comment on the last thread: "I'm Responsible -- Sort Of".

Bush did, on Wednesday, finally state the obvious when he said: "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong,"

What was far more remarkable was the next line in the speech, the one where he said: "As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."

Remarkable is that John Nichols refuses to consider the obvious. Yes, the intelligence was wrong. All the spy agencies, including those of Russia and France, advised Bush that Iraq had a significant arsenal of WMDs. President Bush acted on that advice and affirms that he takes responsibility for that decision.

Suppose Bush, had disregarded those unanimous warnings. What would the critics of the president be saying today?

They would be in a position to demand his impeachment! And justifiably.

A policeman seeing a hoodlum threatening a crowd with a shotgun must act decisively. It is his duty. If he clobbers the thug, but it turns out that the shotgun was not loaded, he nevertheless acted correctly. Had he done nothing, had he risked the life of the crowd, he would have failed in his responsibility and been derelict, and deserving of punishment. He had no way of knowing that the shotgun was empty. He had a duty to assume that it was loaded, and to act accordingly.

A president who would have ignored the urgent threat Iraq was described as presenting by all the intelligence services, would have been failing his oath to protect this country. He would have been failing his most essential responsibility. He would have been guilty of a high crime. It does not matter that the intelligence community erred. To have ignored the danger would have been treason.

Yokels like Nichols ignore that reality. They create a climate where future leaders will hesitate to meet threats to US national security, in fear of being second guessed about the unforeseeable.

The only ones who at the time opposed ejecting Saddam were those who favored a militant and dangerous Iraq able to threaten US interests. That they now execrate President Bush for responding responsibly to a Saddam waving a revolver, unaware the tyrant had removed the bullets, is the height of impudence.

.

Posted by nacl at 12/16/2005 @ 04:51am
.

CHUCK 12/14 @ 9:35pm

Not only is Kissinger still around, he's still creating havoc. However there are several countries around the world that he won't fly into for fear of being arrested for war crimes.

Rubbish.

Sure, Kissinger at one time had to flee a country for his life, indeed, an entire continent. But he came back in a US uniform and all of Europe ended up relying on his judgment.

Last night I was in an audience that was treated to the views of Ex-President Ernesto Zedillio of Mexico, Felipe Gonzalez, the former President of Spain, Alvaro Unbe, the current President of Colombia, Judge Batasar Garzon, who prosecuted Pinochet, and Henry Kissinger. They were all highly respectful and attentive to old Heinz. And for good reason. He made the most sense. Even at 82 he still has more brains and wit than The Nation's entire staff and subscriber list combined.

.

Posted by nacl at 12/16/2005 @ 04:59am
.

LEFTOFCENTER 12/14 @ 5:44pm & 7:53pm

NaCl I see up thread a mite something of a nod....hmmmm. Better check the weather report in Hades!

Look further up thread you will see me noting, short of hitting you over the head with a led pipe, it is impossible to insult you. Now, its worse. I comment on your "creativity" and you take it as a complement.

when I am wrong I admit it and move on.

Alright, what are the issues between us? What mistakes have you admitted to? And what errors do you wish me to admit to? (Apart from the fact that I am becoming a little tired of you.)

As to who I am...I have given enough info about myself - you could find it if you tried.

If I tried, how? A strange coyness.

But okay. You have told me, "you are welcome to ask Prof Tolley (on my PhD committee) or Dr. Dyer, or even Dr Koropchak. You can also ask the Chair of the Physics Dept whom I know quite well, or anyone in my own Dept." If I am welcome to speak your department about you, if you bravely dare me, shouldn't you also have the courage to give me your name?

But alright. There won't be too many elderly guys with a child in the military, who has been working for a long time on a degree in the environmental sciences, and using GC/MI-IR equipment at SIUC. Moreover, there are a few other details you have dropped about yourself, over the year. Even if much of what you have said is untrue, there still will be enough to identify you.

If you mean your words, that I am welcome to inquire about you, I will. You are a wise guy and offensive. I have no reason to be concerned for your standing or your career. Short of you specifically saying, I should not, I will take it that you are encouraging me to show some of that faculty a string of your posts. Whether they will want to talk to you about it will be up to them.

.

Posted by nacl at 12/16/2005 @ 05:41am
How much of the DNC membership gets cut out as "Republican-lites"....20%?...30%...maybe 40%?

and how many elections get won after that?

Posted by MASK 12/15/2005 @ 10:37pm

Hopefully, a lot. We'll throw a going away party for you, MASK . . . the day after you leave town.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/16/2005 @ 12:04am |

Ok, FROM...just remember one word....."Whigs"

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 07:01am
Lurkers begone! Posted by MCENJ 12/16/2005 @ 02:08am

MCNJ...first, look up the definition of a "lurker" on a blog....then we'll talk about the rest of your post.

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 07:03am
Rather, it illustrates the singularity of Bush's war as the determiner of deeming good guy versus bad guy.

Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 12/16/2005 @ 03:21am

SEATTLE, doesn't that cut BOTH ways? You seem to be saying the "wingers" (I assume there are only "Right" "wingers") like Lieberman for his stance on Iraq, but would he be catching such flack from the Left "wingers" if he was in lock-step with Russ Feingold or John Murtha?

Isn't it likely that if Joe Lieberman were "one of the most vocal opponents of the war", that John Nichols would very kindly over-look his more conservative stance on other issues AND bring up the voting record you did to defend him?

But since he's not....he gets savaged by the liberal bloggers and Mr Nichols wants a retired Democrat to run against Lieberman.

You're right...the war IS a defining issue, but mostly on the Left, where now EVERY truly potential Presidential candidate, except Feingold, was a "Republican-lite" on Iraq, from HRC to Biden to Richardson to Warner, with Edwards having to do a mea culpa just to keep his name alive.

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 07:10am
WILL C

I never claimed to posses that talent that I spoke of, merely illustrating that Bloppys posts and hardly creative, rather juvenile.

What is honest about profanity laced and infantile attack? Its self-pleasing BS, "full of sound and fury; signfying nothing!"

BLOPPY

Are you under the delusion that simply because you use profanity filled tirades, that makes YOU tough? I assure you are not! You are laughable, at best.

Seen plenty of "tough guys" who talk a good game like yourself, but when push comes to shove or the bullets start flying; YOU guys curl up into the fetal position and start sucking your thumbs. YOU are the type of guy/gal that have the "deer in the headlights look;" YOUR type HIDES in the bunker when mortars or rockets are incoming. YOUR type shits their pants when they spot the enemy at 300 meters out.

And YOUR type never takes responsiblity for ANY self-inflicted problems you incur; its ALWAYS someone elses' fault beause your a F*** up and YOUR type stabs your "buddies" in the back, in order to make himself look good.

So you see BLOPPY; You are not extraordinary, or cool, honest, or creative. You are a FAKE. You are like a fart in the wind, you smell bad and just like that your gone and forgotton.

You see WILL C., you see how easy it is

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 08:24am
NaCl

Not coy....I noted some time back a page detailing a conference where I had a poster preso. You dismissed it rather than look.

As to "admit my error"...if you recall re: fermentation some time back the "I cannot say with certainty" is an acquiesence to a lack of fact in my own support )one example). On your side, I think the closest you come is admitting a dictionary definition is correct, while noting doubt due to the lack of "what" dictionary. Of course, you never give any external refernce to anything about anything....note the dichotomy.

As to asking anyone about me....that I do not have a problem with. As to your "selective cut-n-pasting" letters TO them, I'd rather you spent less time trying to piss on my shoes. You see, I volunteer info about myself from time to time to various folk in order to give context to my conversation. Not to give nut jobs like yourself a "Where's Waldo" excercise in character assassination. I am not ashamed of who and what I am, regardless of the thinly veiled jibes that I should be from you. I think I speak for many here is saying we are still waiting to know a little about you....

I would note to you....and to everyone out there on this blog, that NaCl, while an effective ranter reveals nothing about him/her self. While many offer some details to substantiate various claims, this dour and offensive soul offers nothing but disdain for the "virtual" residents herein. Even when asked he/she chooses to ignore.

What does this say about the two of us? It certainly doesn't take a "scientist" to figure out...

Posted by leftofcenter at 12/16/2005 @ 09:35am
Oh...and NaCl....re: "compliments"

I thought someone as "hi-falutin" as yerself, would recognize satire...guess not.

BTW: your blanket statements re intel are a bit off in spots. In particular there were some very key bits that the CIA found unsubstantiated, but GWBs "cherry-pickin squad" voted credible. Also, a key Iraqi "witness" was a known liar per German intel, (am not taking time to re-search out the details as these are commonly known quanta and I have to go turn grades in...) we took his word as gospel, and the infamous "aluminum tubes" that the Dubya squad said were to be used for U enrichment, were in fact not so suited (per the Atomic Energy Commission).

Posted by leftofcenter at 12/16/2005 @ 09:44am
Texas,

"As I mentioned earlier this week, Nichols and the leftwing bloggers are going nuts with their failure to bring down Bush.

Only in your own, blindly-defending-Bush mindset are they not "bringing Bush down".

I believe, if Bush is "going down", then it will be by a combination of his own undoing and the media constantly drip,drip, drip anything and everything negative about him and his policys.

Right now, Bush is finally fighting back with some pretty good speeches on defending his polic ys, which seem to be working. As for the media, they are the only ones who can't come up with ONE single positive story on Bush policys. Not ONE..so whose "side are the unbiased" MSM on?

As far as the left and those who occupy these blog sites and pulling Bush down?......The hard truth is that you here represent a small portion of the voting public asnd are mostly ignored by the population at large. You also are part of the Democratic party that is killing it off with kooks and are viewed that way by most who will never read here.

I have read some very good and intelligent arguements here, but they will never see the light of the political day, since the country at large does not see the US as the root of all problems in the world and socialism(progressive?) as their savior, as most here do. Therefore, you are left to rant and rave here. When you do get some publicity, it comes in the form of Howard Dean statements and one can actually HEAR the nations eyes roll. More Ragan Democrats being created daily.

The GOP is setting up to gain more seats in the House in 06, keep the Senate and the WH in 08. And the rhetoric here will still be flying.

You are the same as the hard radical right,which also are ignored. Kind of like Bloppy, and some of the real lefties that are all rant and rave but nothing else seems to be there.

Bush is doing well and will continue to improve. Events will carry him through.

Posted by john maasch at 12/16/2005 @ 10:01am
MAASCH,

I'm not affiliated with either party, mainly because the US has a one party system masquerading as two and both are pretty much full of shit. But I really wonder when I read the hosannas you and your ilk sing about the most incompetent and belligerent US government in the history of the empire. No one is trying to pull down anyone, it's a matter of people seeing that their interests are not even close to being represented by the criminals who run the country and wanting change. The liberals actually care about fixing domestic problems and reparing the horribly damaged (perhaps irreparably) image of their country in the world. People laugh at the US and its people, which I'm sure you don't care about, but that will be your downfall, for you can't always go it alone, and this unilateralism will eventually come around to bite the US in the ass, whether run by Dems or Repubs. But some of the things you spit about things going right and events carrying Bush through, I mean, what the hell are you talking about? Do you really think Iraq is going to one, be a real democracy (for the US isn't even a real democracy) and two, actually change any of the regimes in the region? Give me a break. Iran has more to gain than we do by a Shia controled Iraq, which it will be, and the conflagration will only continue to rage as the Sunnis become more desperate. Muslims will never stop fighting the Western occupiers, never.

Tell me, what good is the war doing for you? What good does the Patriot Act, the Pentagon's domestic spying adventures, the plan to dismantle SS, the outsourcing of more and more jobs, the slashing of education and decline in overall scholarship, the reliance on sheer force to maintain any kind of competitive edge in any and every field, an ever growing and record-breaking trade deficit, the incompetence of FEMA (which as you know has the power to suspend most of your rights, and probably will in the future) and other such realities accomplish for you in your zombie-like trance? You're full of hot air, nothing more. And how is it that no Republicans can even be honest enough to admit that Bush is ignorant and unsophisticated, as the majority of his comments evidence so clearly? "I can't see how someone like Bin Laden could understand the joy of Hannukah." What a load of crap. It says a lot about people when they praise morons. You may be doing OK, but most Americans are not. It's this divide, stubborness and greed that is bringing the entire empire down. It goes way beyond sinking Bush...

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 10:43am
Maasch,

Yippee! Bush is a demi-god! The country is finally waking up and seeing that the rightward shift isn't anywhere near right enough yet. The uniforms are being made. The NSA is doing the job they've always wanted to but were not allowed to since Nixon. Yippeee!

Are you entirely mad or did you just not take the pills this morning?

Some day soon you will realize that whatever the reason we originally went to Iraq, the reason that we are still there today (despite having achieved all tangible objectives) is because the war is good for business.

$9B of your and my tax dollars lost and nobody cares enough to investigate in over two years. So because the precedent was set that its a free-for-all we now have school paint jobs that cost $354M and bridge repair bills that are multiples of 150 times the actual value!

It's a god damn scam to fleece us tax payers and there are a lot of brave young men and women needlessly losing life and limb for this insanity.

When will you demi-god stop the insanity?

Posted by colmes at 12/16/2005 @ 10:49am
Liberty and Maasch seem to adhere to the Field of Dreams style of debating - "If I say it, people will come." What is scary is that this style has sometimes been quite effective. Look at how many people think Hussein was behind 9/11 simply because Bush kept talking about Hussein and 9/11 in the same stream of thought over and over again. Maasch and Liberty's hope is similar to that of conservative commentators in the media - if they keep saying Bush's numbers are improving, the public supports him, the vast majority of people are behind him, etc., over and over and over again, this will somehow cause an upward shift in Bush's dismal numbers simply because some people inherently want to conform to what "most people" think. Admittedly, this can cut the other way too (bad news on Bush, etc.). Problem for you guys is that there is substance behind the criticism of Bush; all you two have are empty conclusions.

Here is a simple exercise guys. Look at any chart or graph showing Bush's approval/disapproval numbers over his terms. A fourth grader can see the trend since 9/11 and it is not pretty. Then compare Bush's second term numbers to similarly situated president since Eisenhower. You will see that Bush is far below every president except Nixon at this point in his second term. Now tell me that "Bush is doing fine."

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 11:04am
Good Morning all,

I see I woke everyone up!!

Good,

Chime,

".... 1) The liberals actually care about fixing domestic problems and reparing the horribly damaged (perhaps irreparably) image of their country in the world. 2) People laugh at the US and its people, which I'm sure you don't care about, but that will be your downfall, 3)...for you can't always go it alone,"

As for 1) Replace the word liberal with conservative and you have our position during Clinton..I do agree the difference between the Dms and Repus in clouding over.

2) It depends who is doing the laughing..if it is the French, well, the real world hasn't stopped laughing since Napolean, but for me it does depend on who is laughing. I have the feeling you and I have differents concerns as to who is laughing. I can accept that.

3) No one can't go it alone all the time...but sometimes someone has to LEAD and take action.In mu opinion that is why I admirw Bush. You are so concerned as to how we got to Iraq that you forget why we are involved in the entire area.

Hman,

Never connected Hussein with 9/11 and never did. Don't know anyone, includubg Bush who said that as a fact, but I know of millions who THINK they heard this....kind of like the Bush lied nonesense..

Colmes,

You and I probably agree on many tax issues, so how about this...we actually CHARGE Iraq for our services when we leave? If you think schools have trouble painting walls becuase of shortage of money or because of pentagon, then you might want to re examine how much is spend each year by government..what, 3 trillion and waste is 10% or $300 billion so $ 9billion is relative...

Posted by john maasch at 12/16/2005 @ 11:50am
COLMES

My goodness you have a the gift of hyperbole, we are not leaving Iraq.

Needless? Interesting but current events, as in the form of the election in IRAQ where up wards of 11 million voted, would EXPLICITLY contradict that statement of yours and many like it.

The logical fallacy being if those brave young men and women, which I agree with you, had NOT deposed of SADDAM those elections would have occurred. No way! Even you would agree with that. Hence your assertion that "they are needlessly, losing life and limb" is FALSE.

This has not been a NEEDLESS campagin, of course the same old argument is trotted out. SADDAM did not have WMDs, a fact which we ONLY know CONCLUSIVELY because of our action, the Duelfer report stated that "he retained the capability," Presumably just he retained this capability for medical purposes. And of course SADDAM and AQ had no OPERATIONAL ties, and the informant turned out to be a liar.

Yes I know, ZARAQAWI was only in IRAQ to get treatment at a hospital for Iraqi elites, which UDAY gave direct permission, because SADDAM is just a humanitarian guy. But that is hardly a link, right? Nevermind your tendency to believe every wild secret government plot fantasy about the US government. Saddam would hardly operate in secret, right? Saddam would not have had a link with AQ because Usama HATED Secular SADDAM. USAMA HATED the USA, but that did not stop him from accepting our help to fight the Soviets. SADDAM would have at LEAST had AQ over for a State visit, complete with a treaty of mutual cooperation being signed in grandiose fashion, with several press members snapping photos.

And despite the FACT the ZARAQAWI started setting off car bombs almost immediately after the fall of Bagdad, HE HAD STILL NEVER BEEN in IRAQ before, nevermind that in order to not get caught he has to sleep in a different spot every night. He is coordinating this all on the fly, right?

You are ready to believe at the drop of a hat unsubstantiaed govt plots, secret prisons, secret deals, fixing intell, and God knows what else, but for SADDAM and AQ to have even the most TENOUS of ties, you DEMAND absolute, 100% beyond a ANY doubt, proof. Amazing.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 11:50am
Colmes

Not infer that SADDAM had anything to do with 911, i know he didnt, but he had everything to do with terror.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 11:52am
The Republicans who flit around this discussion forum like moths are totally immune to the reality of the harm that their party has done and is continuing to do to America. If harm to their country means nothing to them then what are their real objectives and loyalties?

The large budget surplus built up by a two-term Democratic administration has been completely destroyed by the Republicans and we're now bearing a half-trillion dollar budget deficit, they invaded a country that was no threat to us and had not attacked us, and they're making every attempt to shred the civil liberties enshrined in our Constitution. The President that they worship ordered the NSA to spy on the telephone, e-mail, and fax communications of American citizens without any warrant whatsoever, a clear and willfull violation of the law.

Such questionless loyalty could only come from someone who desires an America that has been twisted into a dictatorial and despotic state whose only reason for existence is perpetual war. Desires like that originate in personal inadequacies that are incapable of admitting that the tide has turned against them.

Another sign of their shrinking base is the possible turning back [tinyurl.com] of the "Non-Patriot Act" in Congress, led by Russ Feingold. It's loyal Americans like this that the Republicans hate and fear.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 11:56am
Maasch - you missed my point entirely. I never said Bush explcitly said Hussein did 9/11. The trick was conflating the two topics enough for people to mistakenly associate the two.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -- Pres. George W. Bush, 5/24/05

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 12:01pm
Never connected Hussein with 9/11 and never did. Don't know anyone, includubg Bush who said that as a fact, but I know of millions who THINK they heard this....kind of like the Bush lied nonesense..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/16/2005 @ 11:50am

JOHN MAASCH and the Republican base that he is a member of are conscienceless conmen who gloat over the gullibility of their victims. Most people don't appreciate it when they finally realize that someone has made a sucker of them [antiwar.com].

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 12:07pm
Now tell me that "Bush is doing fine."

Posted by HMAN23 12/16/2005 @ 11:04am

Yes he is thank you. The latest numbers show that Bush has a 79% approval rating from his Republican base. The Democratic base will seldom ever support a Republican. About 10-15% of Democrats are social conservatives and will vote Republican under most instances, unless there is a truly charismatic Dem who appears moderate to conservative on social issues. That leaves regaining the approval of the independents. Assume (from various polling data) that constitutes approximately 25% of voters. Somewhere between 3-8% (again from polling data) represent the hardcore left who would never under any circumstances support Bush or any conservative. That leaves probably 10% of the independents that Bush needs to recapture in order to preserve Republican control of Congress.

I repeat, I am very happy with the direction things are going for the President and the Republican Party. Any real student of politics knows that you must analyze the underlying data to really understand where your electorate is in terms of political success.

Polls in general, take a snapshot of "eligible" voters. This is a truly distorted number from "likely" voters (who tend to be conservative and older). It is the latter group that political operatives and politicians really chart. It is also that latter group who is providing the level of renewed confidence (aside from all the recent good news) that Bush is experiencing.

The problem HM that you and many of the left leaning bloggers here make, is an over reliance on your peer group conversations and the truly misleading use of polling numbers that are ignored except for attempts at spin by both the GOP and Dems.

It is this lack of political awareness that keeps blogs busy, while ensuring that no real political progress is achieved.

I welcome your comments and those of anyone else here; especially those who think my analysis is off base.

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 12:08pm
Redbird,

The balanced budget came about INSPITE of the democratic president...your buddy and mine, Newt and Kasick are responsible for balanced budget PROJECTIONS...like the tax cuts for the rich, they are not cuts, just that next time around the tax man is not INCREASING his take..

CPT,

The flaggelence(sp) here about why and how we got in Iraq does not change anything..we are staying and we will finish the job despite AQ and the American left, and the UN...I can't tell how mant times in my travels I apologize for the crap the soldiers see and hear from our MSM and the left..it is always the same, why don't they tell you what is going on over there and how much better it is? I have no answer either.

We perservere and like the tortoise, plod along gaining ground continuiously and thank God for the nature of opponents...we are truely blessed.

Posted by john maasch at 12/16/2005 @ 12:09pm
CPT,

Are you talking to me???

My beef is that we are still there. Still NOW needlessly wasting American life and limb and dollars. For the record I personally believed Powell when he stood at the UN and claimed that they had satellite imagery much more conclusive that what he was "permitted" to show to the UN and the world that Saddam had WMD's.

Fine, we went.

But why are we still there? We have rid all doubts of Iraq / Saddam being a threat, we have installed democracy and a constitution we have restarted the oil wells. Now we're just a stupid imperialist occupier that is not wanted.

The reason we have not left is becasue the fleecing via KBR et al is absolutely wonderful.

Some day you'll see that the CONTINUATION of this madness is for the reason of pure unmitigated financial corruption.

And I ask you, is it worth those poor kids lives that you recruit to lose life and limb for a few more bucks for KBR?

Maasch, how stupid do you think Iraqi's are that they would pay for the US corporate corruption with their own money? Remember, the Iraqi company that built the bridge bid $330,000 to repair it but the award went to an American contractor at $50M. Why should the Iraqi people be forced to pay for $49,670,000 of USA corporate theft on one bridge?

Posted by colmes at 12/16/2005 @ 12:10pm
The beloved "same intelligence" propaganda [tinyurl.com] of the goosestepping Republican Base can now be authoritatively laid to rest, also.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 12:10pm
FROMREDBIRD

Point of FACT no violation of law took place. If the CIA director or some other official took it upon themselves to do that, you would be correct. The National Security Act, authorizes the President of the United States to take action, in circumstances he deems warrant such action. Yeah, I know you dont like it, or Bushs' judgement, but oh well.

"Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation."

Fighting terrorists is a bitch isnt it.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 12:11pm
FROMREDBIRD

Correction, not National Security Act, the congressional resoultion as mentioned in the qoute from the report

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 12:12pm
LL,

Well said, I myself, am very happy with the direction of the GOP and Bush these days. There are many of us not happy with Bush, but not for ANY of the reasons sited on this site. He should have been harder and faster in Iraq, Syria and scared the shoit out of Iran with an "oops" sorry about that 20000 pounder that got away..., for example....this should wake up more lib wrath in my direction...

Posted by john maasch at 12/16/2005 @ 12:15pm
CPT,

Yeah, it's a bitch fighting "terrorists". But it's frightening when the party in power of the "world's greatest democracy" apparently paving the way for global freedom classifies its opponents, even the most peaceful and law-abiding ones, as terrorists.

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 12:18pm
Colmes,

You are talking dimes and nickels while in billion dollar event. The over all bill if you were an Iraqi, is cheaper to pay America to give you a fighting chance at democracy than to hope for something from Saddam cheaper than UN food for oil? ...look at the voter turn out...freedom is not free..

Posted by john maasch at 12/16/2005 @ 12:18pm
MAASCH,

Perfect example of a fascist posing as a freedom-loving Republican. Like Limbaugh, I'm sure you believe the best way to reduct the number of nukes in the world is to use them. That sounds fantastic. But your Fourth Reich is doomed by the Yellow Man, you know that, though I doubt it stops you from contemplating more 'final solutions'.

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 12:21pm
Waitwaitwait...The Nation spent all of 2004 bashing and trashing any third party candidate who dared to challange the magazine's prowar democrat pic for prez, and now they're suddenly backing an independent???

Well, will wonders never cease!

Posted by AlanSmithee at 12/16/2005 @ 12:21pm
Mask

I think the Democracts will win more elections than they did under the Repub-lite of the DNC (botching 2000 enough for the Bushies to steal Florida, actually losing ground in the off-year in 2002 and losing again in 2004). As to their victories, Clinton won 1992 to a large extent because of Perot, an economic slowdown and Bush ticking off the economic conservatives with the tax increase and 1996 due to a good economy and Dole being a sub-par candidate.

Posted by brunowe at 12/16/2005 @ 12:22pm
COLMES

All I know about KBR is that they were contracted to help feed Soldiers, steak and shrimp EVERY Friday, and the Thanksgiving and Christmas meals we pretty damn good, considering the enviroment we were in, and the Port-a-Johns were clean, mainly, at 930 am so you had to time just right, and KBR a subcontractor of Halliburton, were there to fix the heating and air-conditioning units everytime. Now did they give the PortaJohn guy 70-90 a grand a year, just to clean the shitter, tax free? Yeah, but hey, it is not your average job is it?

I for one, am thankful, I will not denigrate the whole of Halliburton, and yes they have been far from perfect, for the actions of a few subcontractors. I will always be apprecative of the KBR cook, Charlie, every morning he would put whatever you wanted on your omelette. I wont bite the hand that fed me, under the circumstances in which we lived.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 12:23pm
FROMREDBIRD

Point of FACT no violation of law took place. If the CIA director or some other official took it upon themselves to do that, you would be correct. The National Security Act, authorizes the President of the United States to take action, in circumstances he deems warrant such action. Yeah, I know you dont like it, or Bushs' judgement, but oh well.

"Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation."

Fighting terrorists is a bitch isnt it.

Posted by CPT 12/16/2005 @ 12:11am

Quoting an opinion from a corrupt Republican lawyer doesn't make the grade, genius. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law. The Republican administration ordered warrantless eavesdropping, a clear violation of the law.

I won't bother trying to explain to you the purpose and need for the law. A government restrained from dictatorship doesn't mean anything to you, so it's a waste of time and energy. I already know from your previous posts that you don't care about law, morals, decency or anything else. All you want is a dictator to goosestep to. You don't want to fight terrorists, you want to destroy America. It's all you live for.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 12:29pm
LL, Maasch and CPT:

From the asses mouth:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

"Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 12:39pm

CPT,

And if you could tell that 18 year old that is thinking about signing....but waivering that the pay is $90,000 tax free do you think your job would be easier?

Outsource standard army positions for three to five times as much so KBR can make a mint. Wow gee thanks.

As a taxpayer I'm sick of it and the fact that you and your ilk are all about telling me that this level of blatant corruption is all worth it in the end is absolute bullshit. Our job as citizens is to root out the corruption ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE.

For the love of this country stop apologizing for this mess just because some guy at KBR cleaned the john once every 24 hours in a desert environment with bullets flying around!

Posted by colmes at 12/16/2005 @ 12:40pm

And with all these internal nuts out there trying to destroy every ideal the US stands for and demolish every freedom the average Joe has, (scaring him to death with phony threats while conditioning him for the police state), isn't it great how they continually come up with these tangents, like about the semantics of Merry Christmas and the evildoers who say Happy Holidays, or the concentration on the steroid problem in baseball, a missing teenager in Aruba, homosexuals marrying one another, or a couple of sex offenders roaming the east coast? And they accuse the left of avoiding the real issues or straying from point. CPT is probably talking more about those omelets, Nerf football games and clean shitters while giving his sales pitch than the horrible realities soon to be experienced and lived with forever by the young men and women duped into going over to Iraq and Afghanistan. No qualms about preying on the meek and ignorant. Gotta keep the suits happy...

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 12:45pm

It from a Congressional Resolution. I think that qualifies as law

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 12:46pm

Those of you interested in joining the effort to Draft Lowell Weicker to run as a Democrat against Joe Lieberman are encouraged to visit the site www.draftlowellweicker.com [draftlowellweicker.com]

Posted by ahynes1 at 12/16/2005 @ 12:47pm

Posted by MASK 12/16/2005 @ 07:10am | ignore this person

Mask,

In my opinion, if Senator Lieberman's views on Iraq mirrored Senator Feingold's, the Connecticut Democrat today would be the front-runner for that party's nomination for president. Objectively, Mr. Lieberman has demonstrated a willingness to step to the front of the line in offering opinions – and providing cover for his party colleagues – on controversial issues. I have no doubt that if he had the correct view on Iraq, he would not have been constrained by party strategy, as so many others have been, and would have spoken out early. Unfortunately for his political future, he is wrong on Iraq and the best he can hope for is either re-election to his seat or an appointment in the Bush cabinet.

I cannot speak for Mr. Nichols as to what he may have written about Senator Lieberman should the Democrat's views on Iraq have been antipodes to his current pronouncements. Regarding his wanting, as you write, "a retired Democrat" to challenge the incumbent senator – I believe you are referring to Lowell Weicker; Mr. Weicker is a retired Republican. He was, of course, elected governor as a third party candidate.

You correctly state that the current crop of Democrat presidential contenders, excepting Senator Feingold, is "Republican-lite." Further, you have probably read more criticism of those contenders because of this fact by progressives here than anywhere else.

Although the degrees of separation between Republicans and Democrats have been very close with the Democrats tilting to the right – thus favoring Mr. Lieberman in the past, the muted voice of opposition is beginning to strengthen. As the anti-war sentiment escalates, it is hoped by some of us that these "Republican-lite"-Democrats will be challenged and replaced next year by more progressive types and at least one chamber will become a Whig Free Zone. Well, it is a hope, but any serious bets today would still favor your side.

Posted by seattlescribe at 12/16/2005 @ 12:49pm

Doumer,

Your points is? Everything you listed there on Bush statements was validated by the 9/11 Commission.

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 12:49pm

COLMES

Tax-free status is of course , extented to all in theater. In addition to several special duty pays. Besides never saw a KBR guy under the age of 30, most 18 year olds we deal with are looking for something different and its not working for KBR.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 12:50pm

Chimi,

I have news for you; you left our country because of your hatred for it. Well, you may make all the rattling noises that you will, but is like the outsider trying to butt into a family argument. You are no longer part of the family! I take your comments just about as seriously as I would a stranger trying to tell me how to raise my family-never!

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 12:52pm

CPT is so full of feces. If this government is so damn opposed to terrorism, CPT, why does it continue to shelter Toto Constant, the Haitian terrorist and director of the Ton Ton Macoutes? He lives in Brooklyn. Nor has it ever done anything about the right wing Vietnamese gangs who were killing political activists in San Francisco twenty five years ago, and Orlando Bosch has been enjoying a very comfortable exile in Florida despite his bombing of a Cuban jetliner almost thirty years ago. Let's not overlook the terrorist behavior of the Los Angeles Police Department, which, for many years, has been seen as just another gang by all too many people in South Central, due to its numerous harassment episodes and murders of people during the "Just say no war on drugs" up to the present. The same could be said with ample evidence about the NYPD street patrols in the South Bronx, lots of eyewitnesses to that mess, but of course, they're all lying, aren't they CPT? In my own experience, I saw the NYPD charge and brutalize the funeral procession of Patrick Dorismond out in Brooklyn a few years ago, apartheid South Africa style, and nearly beat to death a journalist from WBAI. And let us not forget that the intelligence apparatus in this country seems to be a little single minded in its ignorance of the growing right wing militia movement, whose terrorist program is proclaimed openly and demonstrated its objectives quite effectively in Oklahoma City ten years ago. I haven't noticed any mass arrests of mouthy white rednecks behind that shit, either. And let's not even get into the numerous killings conducted by police officers all over this country, which somehow find legitamacy in the eyes of the mainstream public, which long ago endorsed the idea that some criminal suspects, especially those of color, may be executed before they are brought to trial. If that's not terrorism, there is no terrorism.

No, CPT, since you want to get real, since you want to get serious, let's take the gloves off. Your war on terror is a phony. The terrorism of this state and its most militant supporters overseas and here at home is a farce. It attacks innocents, and it defends the prerogatives of the fucking state. It will be brought down, because despite your cant, this country is much larger than your camp says it is, and people will turn on this shit. It will be brought down.

Posted by Legba at 12/16/2005 @ 12:54pm

birdy, that was very funny with the garbage truck.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/16/2005 @ 12:57pm

CPT,

Who gives a shit whether all in Iraq are earning tax free income.

The country that you cherish. The country that you think is doing the good of fighting the evil is simply running a scam to divert your wealth from your pocket to pockets in corporations that are friendly with the adminstartion. I see that neither you nor any of your ilk care about this.

So tell me, what do you care about?

Posted by colmes at 12/16/2005 @ 12:58pm

It attacks innocents, and it defends the prerogatives of the fucking state. It will be brought down, because despite your cant, this country is much larger than your camp says it is, and people will turn on this shit. It will be brought down.

Posted by LEGBA 12/16/2005 @ 12:54am

what is it now, nearly a hundred years since the revolutionary proletariat began chanting the same song?

You are no closer now to your mythical revolution than you were at the beginning.

But I do enjoy the enthusiasm

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 1:00pm

Doumer,

Your points is? Everything you listed there on Bush statements was validated by the 9/11 Commission.

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/16/2005 @ 12:49am

Try again LL:

," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States." The panel's executive director, Philip D. Zelikow, said the finding referred to a lack of evidence of "operational" ties between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 1:01pm

Its funny that according to Ma"ass"ch and cpt and the antichrist Love Lib the repubs are returning to gw, that they are clueless delusionals is apparent. To make my point I hunt duck in Calif central valley.

These are americas farmers in general these folks are dyed in red from top to bottom hanging out at Bert's after a long day hunting we get the hole picture fox news on the tv 24/7, pics of Oreilly, classic love it or leave it posters, Mention Bush and these folks faces look like they were looking forward to taking castor oil they change the subject rather than even talk about the fool.

They have good reason to react this way they're farmers backbone of america and they are being forced out by the big farm conglomerates who along with those ( Cheney for one) who own large farms but don't farm them are getting the majority of the farm subsidies, and now in the effort maintain the tax cuts these folks are having their share of these subsidies put on the cuts table.

To say " the polls show" is in need of a reality check but then you hang on ever piece of garbage Ann Cuntor and rush limbrain spew probable go to sleep listening to them. Well guys you are living proof that Pavlov's theory works on homo sapians.

Posted by dycel8r at 12/16/2005 @ 1:03pm

Yes Doumer,

That still makes you wrong because Bush has never said, nor did he say in those statements that there was any operational tie between Saddam and 9/11

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 1:07pm

Dycel8r,

I think you should adopt a new handle.

notaclue

Posted by love liberty at 12/16/2005 @ 1:07pm

CHIMICH

There is no doubt what the US Army does or its mission, "To Fight and Win this Nations Wars" PERIOD. You think those signing up are OBLIVIOUS do that? You actually think, that those "young men and women" believe all those periods of instruction on Rifle Marksmenship, IED training, First Aid, how to call in a MEDAVAC, Convoy Training, is for fun? Exactly how are we "duping" them?

Remember first aid training invovles, treat for shock, applying a field and pressure dressing, tourniquet; applying splints for broken bones(compound and simple fractures), treating head wounds and treating a sucking chest wound. AND doing all these tasks while in a crouching or laying down position to simulate being under fire. So exactly at WHAT point are we "duping" them? Especially when they MUST demonstrate proficienciey in all of these tasks in order to graduate basic combat training. So again how is the "duping" taking place?

This is the argument of the foolish and the Charlie Rangels' of the world.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 1:08pm

"I have news for you; you left our country because of your hatred for it. Well, you may make all the rattling noises that you will, but is like the outsider trying to butt into a family argument. You are no longer part of the family! I take your comments just about as seriously as I would a stranger trying to tell me how to raise my family-never!

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/16/2005 @ 12:52am

WOW, Yowsers LL. That was a good one. From reading Chimis previous posts, he is teaching in Columbia. I would regard that as being quite exemplary. Now, if Chimi was a christian missionary, teaching in Columbia, would that change your view.

In your view LL, Chimi has forfeited his right to express his views as an american, albeit living abroad, simply because his views are not up to par with yours.

That Ugly American thing again! LL

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 1:09pm

LL would consider this but it would be plagerism you and M have the market coverd

Posted by dycel8r at 12/16/2005 @ 1:12pm

I am done arguing with you LL about this. When faced with the results of a simple poll question: "Do you approve or disapprove of how Bush is doing his job?'" you scoff at that and want to analyze percentages of party affiliations (based on polling data I might add), do some voodoo math and viola - Bush only has to persuade 10%. I still am doing the math from your latest post. Sorry, the KISS method works best, and the public think Bush is a fuck-up. Have a good weekend.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 1:12pm

LL: You don't read very well do you? Please translate the following:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,"

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 1:12pm

Now Charlie Rangel's a fool, CPT? A damn Korean war veteran. I like the way you respect vets who speak against "the family". Would that be the Corleones, or the Sopranos?

Everyone's a fool except for you all. And you demand we all be serious. Serious, in your book, is functioning within your construct. Bloody party line zealot. And keep trainiing the Iraqi military, by all means. Many of them are just waiting for a chance to use it on you. That's how guerilla war works, after all. Since you know so much about Che, I'm surprised you've forgotten that.

Posted by Legba at 12/16/2005 @ 1:14pm

DOUMER,

Don't worry, we will prevail and when it is over you can still claim anything you want...you, my friend are doumed..despite your views, all will go as it will and 5 yeqrs from now some idiot journalist from NYT or WASH POST may write, was Bush correct all along?.

Posted by john maasch at 12/16/2005 @ 1:16pm

LL,

If I'm lucky enough to see the revolt by the poor in the US and the downfall of the fascist regime taking shape which you so proudly hail, I'll come back to watch your church burn to the ground and see you and the rest of your guilty party sent into exile. I'm thinking Iraq would be a great place for you to be sent to, so you can for once sleep in the bed you're helping to make.

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 1:17pm

Also LL, what do you have to say about the link posted by Doumer re: CRS report finds that Bush and Congress did not see the same intelligence? That was one of the lines of garbage you and your brethren were standing behind about a month or so ago. No comments? Was that yesterday's talking point?

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 1:18pm

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/16/2005 @ 1:16pm

That all you got Maasch. I asked LL to translate

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,"

Want to take a stab at it Maasch. Truth is, PeeWee was lying through his ass.

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 1:23pm

LEGBA

Yes, Rangel is a fool, when he sprews nonsense. And how excatly was CHE caught? They read his own book.

CHIMICH

When? Exactly is it all coming down?

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 1:23pm

CPT: What are your views of the upcoming win for Morales? Is it time to start Spanish language training for the troops?

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 1:26pm

DOUMER

How was ZARAQAWI able to start car bombing almost immediatley afte rthe fall of Bagdad? To set up an operation such as his, THINK what does he need? Base of operations, secured and what does that mean? He has to have an alternate base to go to if he needs to know ALL the routes in and out of that city. And he has to know where he is going next and IT must be equally secure. Remember he moves EVERYDAY, do you think he is setting all this up on the fly?

HENCE he has been there BEFORE!

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 1:32pm

DOUMER

Not to worry Spanish speaking troops is a language skill we are NOT in short supply of

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 1:33pm

CPT,

It is unlikely given the collective ignorance of the American public, upon which you prey daily for a living, which is why I said "If I'm lucky enough." Either way, I'm quite happy in South America and love living in a society where there is pride even in the smallest things, family values and unity (unlike your country of latchkey kids and 65% divorce rate), where people work to live instead of live to work, and I admire the general attitude of anger and fear towards the US, though everyone, including me, loves the material goodies you produce. I know you arrogant shysters like to believe that you're superior to all other people, throughout the ages past and those to come, actually thinking your empire will avoid the fate of every other one before it, but you're wrong. Though I don't doubt that like Hitler, you'd prefer to call on the plebians to destroy the place and go down with the ship rather than yield to a younger, stronger and perhaps wiser power. This is what really scares me. I mean, you have all those God blessed nukes for a reason, right? If shephards like Pat Robertson can make people believe Delaware is in for Armaggedon after ousting the teachers promoting intelligent design, then you loonies will surely get millions to believe the world would be better off nuked to oblivion than led by anyone but you guys...

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 1:34pm

Hey CPT,

You never answered my question about whether or not you speak Afghan Persian or Pashtu. You claim to be so knowledgeable about the realities in Afghanistan and all the great things people are saying over there. I doubt you are, given the fact that American's are less fluent at other languages than just about any other country on earth, AND, if you actually did have some kind of skill other than being able to pull a trigger or pitch your masters' war games you wouldn't be cramped in some den with your other trench buddies looking for the bilingual Hispanics and other underprivileged youths who are doing most of the fighting so LL can stay home with his chattels and get a chubby over every Muslim killed over there.

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 1:41pm

((Apparently "Speaker-to-be" Nancy Pelosi disagrees with Mr Nichols (and much of the "Nation's" bloggers) and feels that Mr Lieberman's view is just as valid a view of any Democrat))

Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances

By Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 16, 2005; A23

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.

"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her.

She said her support for Murtha was not intended to forge a Democratic position on the war, adding that she blocked an effort by some of her colleagues to put the Democrats on record backing Murtha.

Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently said Democrats were beginning to coalesce around a strategy that would pull out all troops over the next two years. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day Murtha offered his plan, "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."

Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126 Democratic votes against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House.

Pelosi said she had not consulted with Dean or Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) before taking her position. Her action angered some Democrats, who believed it left the party vulnerable to criticism from the Republicans, but cheered the party's antiwar activists who want party leaders to challenge Bush more vigorously on the war.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are planning to seek a vote as early as today on a resolution saying that an "artificial timetable" for the withdrawal of troops is "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq."

In a wide-ranging interview, Pelosi labeled the Republican-controlled Congress "the most corrupt in history" and repeated her assertion that Democrats will make ethics a central issue next year. She said that the issue and ethical climate in the country point to Democratic gains next year, and noted that if the elections were held today, Democrats would take control of the House.

If Democrats are able to win the majority next year, Pelosi pledged aggressive oversight of the administration on issues including the war, intelligence and how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina.

Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year.

"Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'people like me,' " she said.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 1:49pm

Posted by BRUNOWE 12/16/2005 @ 12:22am |

Sorry, BRUN...not sure how exactly that makes the case for a "pure progressive, no DLC'ers welcome" Democratic Party winning?!?!?!??

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 1:51pm

Yes,CPT Che committed a few howlers, that's for sure, all of which he answered for, unlike what you represent. My biggest contention with his ideas is that he forgot the essential depravity of the system he was fighting. He forgot he was at war with a civilization that is so barbaric it actually displayed his corpse in the same manner one would a deer that had been shot. And nothing much has changed, given the display of the corpses of Hussein's sons a little while back. You represent a bunch of savages, and you insist on dragging our young people into your swamp. It's going to backfire in due time. Keep your eye on that grand old frag.

Posted by Legba at 12/16/2005 @ 1:56pm

Mask - just my two cents, but, I am someone "on the left" who agrees with Pelosi's statment. While I disagree with Lieberman on many issues, in particular his stance on the war, I am not in the "all Democrats must march in lockstep" camp.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 1:57pm

CPT: "HENCE he has been there BEFORE!"

Kinda like Mohammed Atta knew his way around the eastern seaboard of this country?

What point were you attempting to make? Think about the time frame when the insugency actually started to take root. Right after Bremer delcared that the Iraqi armed forcers was forthwith...disbanded. There is no question that ZarQawi received a lot of support then as he contiunes to receive it now. Who are his supporters and why are they supporting him?

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 2:00pm

SEATTLE

You're right....Weicker WAS a "Republican" (of a sort) and is now an Independent. But he also pulled a "Bush-41" flip-flop on a state income tax in Connecticutt which led to a 50,000 person protest and a State Assembly reversal, and then attempt at veto over-ride. And ultimately resulted in the state going from one of the lowest taxed states to probably THE highest. (All of which I'm sure is part of his "charm" to Mr Nichols...hehe).

All Lieberman would have to do is point to THAT....and his record on other issues (which you supplied) and Weicker would be toast.

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 2:00pm

Doumer,

Good point about Atta. He too had supporters here, even after the strikes as evidenced by the amazing discovery of his sligthly singed passport two blocks from the WTC, which as we all know collapsed when the flames were hot enough to melt the steel frame of the building. The FBI even put a picture of the indestructable passport on their website. Boy, that's convenient. Too bad the Enron records inside weren't made of the same material..

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 2:06pm

HMAN

That's fine...but the problem is

...who's running the show...Pelosi and "All views are welcome"?...or people like Mr Nichols and "Oppose the war and Bush or we'll run a challenger against you, you apostate so-called Democrat"?

If the Minority Leader, then Mr Nichols "threat" is meaningless....if Mr Nichols and others, then Pelosi's claim to a "party of diversity" is so much fluff.

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 2:06pm

DOUMER

But is it NOT your sides contention, that AQ hated SADDAM and vice versa, hence they could never, ever, ever , ever work together?

How if you are right to you settle that? And if they are working together at some level, how did they hook up? But lets say your inference is correct and he is being supported by like minded, Iraqis, is not reasonble to assume they had a previous relationship. Remember you guys contend, quite strongly that SADDAM and the Baathists hated AQ types.

Logically speaking, Iraq is roughly the size of Texas, you really think its feasible to LEARN the cities of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio, without prior knowledge of the terrain you are operating in, in that short amount of time? Much less, Bagdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, and Mosul. Oh and all the small towns and roads in between

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 2:09pm

Chimi:

"which as we all know collapsed when the flames were hot enough to melt the steel frame of the building"

Incredibly hot flames Chimi. And they're still burning.

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 2:10pm

CHIM

I actually did answer your previous posts, go back and check.

And since you fail to explain exactly how they are "duped" based on my response, i dont feel compelled to answer you here.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 2:10pm

CPT: I don't get your point. As a military man, in fact as any man in this country, you and I would both join up and work with the devil himself to fight anyone occupying our country.

Insurgents do not need ideological motivation. They have one thing in mind and that is what keeps them doing what they do.

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 2:15pm

They took that post down before I could see your answer, but I already know you don't speak any other languages, though I'm sure like many soldiers over there I've known or met, you can say things like bomb, gun, explosion, on the ground! don't move or I'll shoot, and the like. That's what freedom is all about.

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 2:16pm

Mask

My point is they can't do any worse.

Posted by brunowe at 12/16/2005 @ 2:22pm

I wish there were at least 100 Weikers.

The US conduct in the invasion and occupation of Iraq represents a colossal failure of American leadership and an abandonment of the final pretences to decency and respect for law.

I'm hoping a good chunk of our elected "representatives" get sent back home to practice law, make real estate deals, and teach government courses at local universities. They failed us when they went along with the current administration's lies, and they are failing us still by not imposing more accountability upon the Cheney/Bush crowd.

Posted by joepanzica at 12/16/2005 @ 2:24pm

CHIMICH

Hey we dont we need to, as my old First SGT, used to say

"They all speak M-4."

I know another "bellicose," uncaring, insensitive of "vomitous bile" remark no wonder your hated kind of thing.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 2:29pm

Iraq is going to collapse into civil war. It has to, sooner or later. It is inevitable. With US occupation we can forestall that inevitability for perhaps a few extra years. Why bother?

"Cha ching" is why! Hell, when you can steal from the American taxpayer at the current rates what's a few thousand dead American's got to do with it?

Posted by colmes at 12/16/2005 @ 2:31pm

DOUMER

My simple point is this, no way ZARAQAWI and his cell could NOT be in Iraq many months if not years before we went in, and in SADDAM's REAL police state, no way someone high up did not know he was there.

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 2:32pm

birdy, that was very funny with the garbage truck.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/16/2005 @ 12:57am

A garbage truck is an alternate form of transportation with a bloated ego that stinks, good for nothing but a bad trip.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 2:40pm

Mask - I see your point but both views can coexist because of where the opinions are coming from. Pelosi is speaking as the Majority Leader about the Democratic part as a whole. That is what she should say and think, in my opinion. Nichols is an opinion writer who thinks the war is a big enough singular issue that an anti-war candidiate should run against Lieberman - fine. If people agree that the war issue is vital and lieberman is on the wrong side, then they will vote against him.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 2:41pm

LL, Maasch and CPT:

From the asses mouth:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

"Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

Posted by DOUMER 12/16/2005 @ 12:39am

Republican Robot: "Yeah, OK, but he never said . . . "

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 2:42pm

CPT I don't get it. Why do you like what you do so much? Were you raised in a broken house, got beaten up all the time by your dad or the local bully? You don't think the mentality of your last remark plays horribly to the rest of the world, especially those in the US who like to believe that the Abu Ghraibs are isolated incidents, and not part of a universal pattern of sick brutality and prodigious ignorance? I mean, if you mention these kind of things to any kids looking for college money via a "tour" in the Middle East, US society and the armed forces have declined more than I imagined. This is the same "shoot first ask questions later" line of thinking. And people wonder why so many Iraqis view it as acceptable to kill Americans and Brits over there. You represent a scourge, not a liberation. If called on, would you perform the same techniques used there and Gitmo on your fellow US citizens should another decade like the 60s break out? I'm afraid of your answer...

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 2:43pm

It from a Congressional Resolution. I think that qualifies as law

Posted by CPT 12/16/2005 @ 12:46am

Yeah, as much as you qualify as an American patriot or a legal genius.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 2:43pm

CPT,

And if you could tell that 18 year old that is thinking about signing....but waivering that the pay is $90,000 tax free do you think your job would be easier?

Posted by COLMES 12/16/2005 @ 12:40am

He probably does. Republican-talk is authorized because the "war on terror" is a "bitch".

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 2:46pm

Oh, yes indeed. Not only a bitch, but phony as hell. The president is very concerned about alleged contact between Al Queda and Hussein, but he can't be bothered about contact between right wing politicians in Washington state and Idaho and many of the local rightie militia groups. An ongoing problem, as the tradition of town sheriffs who were also Kluxers not so very long ago- and probably up to the present moment. But that's only domestic terrorism, you see, and they're on his fucking side. The war on terror is a HOAX, a one- sided piece of shit that lets demonstrably dangerous people run loose because they believe in property, the bibble and apple pie.

Posted by Legba at 12/16/2005 @ 2:53pm

How was ZARAQAWI able to start car bombing almost immediatley afte rthe fall of Bagdad? To set up an operation such as his, THINK what does he need? Base of operations, secured and what does that mean? He has to have an alternate base to go to if he needs to know ALL the routes in and out of that city. And he has to know where he is going next and IT must be equally secure. Remember he moves EVERYDAY, do you think he is setting all this up on the fly?

HENCE he has been there BEFORE!

Posted by CPT 12/16/2005 @ 1:32pm

Gee, genius, I wonder if all those problems could be resolved with a good street map. It must be really hard to find sympathizers in a country that is occupied by another country's army. And how long does it take to learn how to wire up a car bomb in Iraq since it would have to be wired up completely differently there than anywhere else in the world?

If you're any example the war is definitely lost.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 2:58pm

The president has the lowest approval ratings in history for any 2-termer at this point, the House leader is under indictment, the administration's chief procurement officer has been indicted, the Senate leader is under investigation, the VP's chief of staff has been indicted, the president's chief of staff is about to be indicted, at least 30 republican lawmakers are about to be implicated in a lobbying scandal some say is the worst since Teapot Dome, a leading Republican lawmaker has pleaded guilty to bribery, we have the greatest deficit and trade imbalance in history, our military, by some estimates, is broken, poverty levels have risen for 5 straight years, abortion rates have risen every year for the last 5 years....

Republican John Maasch: "I myself, am very happy with the direction of the GOP and Bush these days."

nuff said.

Posted by BBatten at 12/16/2005 @ 2:59pm

DOUMER

My simple point is this, no way ZARAQAWI and his cell could NOT be in Iraq many months if not years before we went in, and in SADDAM's REAL police state, no way someone high up did not know he was there.

Posted by CPT 12/16/2005 @ 2:32pm

You should recruit this guy Cpt. The phantom robo-rambo. Killing the infidel evildoers 16 places at once. Maybe LL and Rio could "convert" his miserable ass and you could then whip it into shape.

New poster boy at the recruit stations.

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 3:01pm

CPT: "My simple point is this, no way ZARAQAWI and his cell could NOT be in Iraq many months if not years before we went in, and in SADDAM's REAL police state, no way someone high up did not know he was there."

According to the Pentagon, Bush had three oportunities to kill Zarqawi but rejected those operations for political purposes. He was in the Kurdish-controlled north. Saddam knew where he was and so did the American military. We could have killed him, but the Bush administration thought killing him would "undercut the rational for invasion." Imagine what CPT would be saying if Clinton had pulled a political stunt like that.

Posted by BBatten at 12/16/2005 @ 3:04pm

Can it be believed that these "RR's" (Republican Robots") are still flogging the Iraq/Al-Qaeda lie? They're like Charlie McCarthy with a tape recorder installed.

Dumbo still hasn't figured out that Zarqawi wasn't even directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda until long after the invasion. If Saddam caught him in Iraq he would've thrown him in prison just like he did every other militant Islamist extremist he found.

And, who did the invasion empower in Iraq? The Shiite extremists that are ruling the roost now have a lot more in common with Al-Qaeda than they ever did with Saddam Hussein.

The RR's are so in the dark it's sad.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 3:08pm

The president has the lowest approval ratings in history for any 2-termer at this point, the House leader is under indictment, the administration's chief procurement officer has been indicted, the Senate leader is under investigation, the VP's chief of staff has been indicted, the president's chief of staff is about to be indicted, at least 30 republican lawmakers are about to be implicated in a lobbying scandal some say is the worst since Teapot Dome, a leading Republican lawmaker has pleaded guilty to bribery, we have the greatest deficit and trade imbalance in history, our military, by some estimates, is broken, poverty levels have risen for 5 straight years, abortion rates have risen every year for the last 5 years....

Republican John Maasch: "I myself, am very happy with the direction of the GOP and Bush these days."

nuff said.

Posted by BBATTEN 12/16/2005 @ 2:59pm

I'm very happy with their direction, too . . . straight down the toilet.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/16/2005 @ 3:12pm

Why not CPT? Zaraqawi needed years in-country to set up people who put bombs in their cars and drive them into things? And then hide? From the crackerjack Iraqi authorities – who had him and released him?

Isn't it possible that he began his planning, establishing contacts, intelligence, etc. only in the months leading up to the war, as a result of knowing that the US was going in?

Besides, even assuming that he was doing this months before the war, so what? Bush was already listing AQ in Iraq as a reason TO GO TO war. Seems like circular logic to me.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 3:14pm

Yes, but it's easier to trod on in the dark - "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see." Does anyone else find it strange that there hasn't been even a random bombing of public transportation, much less an easily executable suicide bombing, in the US yet? I mean, surely there are cells just waiting, in addition to Muslims and others, both foreign and domestic, who side with the downtrodden and see the US "liberation" for what it is, and no doubt the US contains more than plenty discontented and angry people, desperate enough to do something like this. Hell, the show COPS proves this on a regular basis to a lesser degree. NO ONE can prevent a Madrid, Bali or London bombing from happening. Sure it will happen, just like Bin Laden will be back with another video, maybe just in time for elections next year...

Posted by chimichenga at 12/16/2005 @ 3:21pm

LL and Rio:

Either your voyeuring or taking a short sabbatical to ease your pain. Either way, you will come back and I expect an answer to my earlier question. You can't play dodge ball forever and expect to never get hit.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Both of you fiercely maintain that bush never extrapolated a connection between Hussein and 911. I'm calling your man a liar.

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 3:24pm

Don't hold your breath Doumer. There is selective amnesia in some minds here. No responses to your post re: debunking myth that Busha and Congress saw same intel. But, about a month or so ago, that was one of the talking points.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 3:28pm

this Zarquwi thing is a canard. we are fighting the previous government of Iraq,

Bush wants to blur distinctions, hence the war on terror, which is a complete phony, I dare anyone to show what that "war" has consisted of,

I know Iraq, Iraq Iraq, if you repeat the lie often enough, some dense people will believe it, all evidence to the contrary. it's very much like saying we haven't been attacked since 9/11, so Bush's policy must be working, a fallacy to be sure.

Rice and other administration lackeys have claimed from the start that the president in wartime is a king and he can do what he wants, which is like Nixon saying, if the president does it it's not illegal.

to follow this to its logical conclusion, we can toss the constitution and all laws during wartime, even if that war is a war of choice engaged on the basis of lies, halfway around the world.

Bush has repeatedly violated his oath of office, which states he will protect the laws and the constitution of this country. Maybe that's not a problem for Maasch but it's an increasing problem for an increasing number of americans, including republican senators and congressmen and women.

so now McCain is running the country? I guess it's an improvement over Cheney, Bush, who is as dumb as a brick, can only follow, he is indeed the ventriloquists dummy.

If Paula Jones can sue a sitting president, the thousands of people who were illegally spied on should be able to sue the president too.

funny the bounce from the Iraqi elecyion has already evaporated, crowded off the headlines by this new domestic spying scandal.

keep whistling in the dark, Maasch, your days are numbered, your numbers are dwindling, maybe there's hope for the republic yet.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/16/2005 @ 3:38pm

Posted by BRUNOWE 12/16/2005 @ 2:22pm

Well, yes BRUN they can....right now they're down a dozen seats in the House, 5 in the Senate, and lost to Bush by "only" 52-48%

There is still a way to go DOWN...especially if the Dems decide to be the "pure progressive" Party and kick out 10-20% of its membership.

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 4:01pm

HMAN

But Pelosi speaks for the Party leaders...and Mr Nichols for the base....ONE has to be "in charge"?

Who is it?

Posted by Mask at 12/16/2005 @ 4:01pm

NEWSFLASH:

The consotium of American contractors has just informed Chenney that he will be permitted to declare victory and begin the withdrawal when they've conned $500B out of the US treasury.

Hurray!!! We have an end in sight!

Posted by colmes at 12/16/2005 @ 4:07pm

Here is an excerpt from the Congressional Research Service/Library of Congress report titled: International Terrorism/Sept; Issue Brief for Congress December 10, 2002

Resolution 687 required Iraq to end support for international terrorism, and Iraq made a declaration to that effect to the U.N. Security Council. FBI Director Robert Mueller said in early May 2002 that, after an exhaustive FBI and CIA investigation, no direct link has been found between Iraq and any of the September 11 hijackers, although some still assert that hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001. Senior U.S. officials said in late September 2002 that there is intelligence that some high-ranking Al Qaeda members have had contacts with Baghdad and that Iraq had helped Al Qaeda train with chemical weapons at some point in the past. Others believe that Baghdad has little contact with Al Qaeda because it differs with Iraq's secular ideology and would hurt Iraq's efforts to improve relations with Egypt and other moderate Arab states that are threatened by Al Qaeda. French terrorism investigators say they have found no evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda linkages. The CIA told Congress on October 7, 2002 that Iraq would likely not conduct a terrorist attack using WMD against the United States unless there were U.S. military action against Iraq. Iraq remains on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, and according to the State Department's reports on international terrorism (most recently the report for 2001, issued May 21, 2002), continues to harbor the Abu Nidal Organization and the Palestine Liberation Front of Abu Abbas. In August 2002, Abu Nidal died (committed suicide or was killed) as Iraqi police went to arrest him for alleged contacts with foreign governments opposed to Baghdad. Iraq says it is paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000, and some press reports say Iraq is cultivating Palestinians that might unleash anti-U.S. or anti- Israel terrorism in the event of a U.S.-led war against Iraq.

Posted by doumer at 12/16/2005 @ 4:12pm

FROMREDBIRD

Street maps?????? you rely on street maps for your family vacation, not when your life depends on their accuracy...are you that stupid?

HMAN

its possible, not probable and it speaks to the oft claimed no AQ and Iraq link

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 4:24pm

BBATTEN

Where did those reports come from, this is the first I heard of this, where is that from? Counterpunch?

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 4:26pm

FROMREDBIRD

I thought you mental giants were consistently on point as saying NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER , EVER would SADDAM Baathists and AQ would work together. EVER! How do you reconcile that?

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 4:30pm

FROMREDBIRD

"Dumbo still hasn't figured out that Zarqawi wasn't even directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda until long after the invasion. If Saddam caught him in Iraq he would've thrown him in prison just like he did every other militant Islamist extremist he found."

You are worse off than I thought. I suppose SADDAM left those TWO terror training camps, Al AQS Martrs and Anslar Al Islam, the latter of which had DEFINITIVE ties to AQ operate in his country out of the goodness of his heart

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 4:35pm

CHIHMICH

Very proud of what I do and very well adjusted, middle class of Hipanic (Mex-Amer) descent, yes I said Hispanic, mi primo. Very proud of my country and the men and women I served with, We, THE US ARMY have conducted more "civil affairs" and MEDCAP(missions were we would go in and innoculate the kids and the farm animals from disease and, built more wells, clinics, and schools(and we talking Little House on the Prarie so dont worry DOUMER you tax money was well spent) missions than the Peace Corps or any other NGO has ever dreamed of. The NGO REFUSED to go certain places because they were too scared or more so than not, "because its too hard,"

WE went places were others could not go,

WE went places other NGOs would DARE NOT go,

And in the end We were proud to call ourselves what we were

Soldiers.

You see, we would put into action, what NGOs would only put into words

Posted by CPT at 12/16/2005 @ 4:45pm

If you examine the "facts" put forth by "Love Liberty", you will always find he is distorting or lying. Example: in an earlier post, he asserted that the recent drop in consumer prices due to decreased oil prices was the "first drop in consumer prices in 56 years" WRONG! It was the FASTEST drop in consumer prices in 56 years, because oil prices had driven inflation up so rapidly.(LL was suggesting that happy days are here again under the Bush Reich.) So when LL throws out these assertions of fact, beware! He is a shameless propagandist.

Posted by philbq at 12/16/2005 @ 5:32pm

Mask - I really do not see this as a conflict that needs to be resolved. Why does one have to be in charge? Pelosi speaks for the Democratic party as a whole - hence the big tent position. Nichols is advocating one postion from the base. As a voter, you pick what is important to you - if opposition to the war is such an overwhelming issue, then you won't vote for any Dem or Rep that is in favor of the war. I think Nichols' point is that the war is such an issue, not so much that as Dem, you should only vote for Dems who vote like other Dems all of the time.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/16/2005 @ 5:36pm

Now we learn that the Bush Reich ordered the NSA to spy on American citizens. Are you surprised? These people are fascists, and the spying agencies are their Gestapo. Any principled conservative would be outraged by this. Sadly, principled conservatives are very scarce. There are none at this site.

Posted by philbq at 12/16/2005 @ 5:37pm

I never claimed to posses that talent that I spoke of, merely illustrating that Bloppys posts and hardly creative, rather juvenile.

What is honest about profanity laced and infantile attack? Its self-pleasing BS, "full of sound and fury; signfying nothing!"

Posted by CPT 12/16/2005 @ 08:24am

Strange illustration! In basic training I had a Drill instructor tear me down for the purpose of building me up. But then destruction is the precursor of creation. To create light, one must destroy the night.

Is it infantile? I've yet to run into an infant or young child that could produce even a fraction of the genius of Bloppy. And, I must disagree with you that profanity is dishonest. Profanity simply expresses an emotion, generally a negative but not always.

What's dishonest is your use of BS as opposed to the actual word Bullshit. That's hypocrisy. It's the double standard. It's dishonest. You sling dirt but don't have the balls to take off your Platex rubber gloves and get your hands dirty.

In most of America that's called "Pussy"

Posted by Will C. at 12/16/2005 @ 6:28pm

How was ZARAQAWI able to start car bombing almost immediately after the fall of Baghdad? To set up an operation such as his, THINK what does he need? Base of operations, secured and what does that mean? He has to have an alternate base to go to if he needs to know ALL the routes in and out of that city. And he has to know where he is going next and IT must be equally secure. Remember he moves EVERYDAY, do you think he is setting all this up on the fly?

HENCE he has been there BEFORE!

Posted by CPT 12/16/2005 @ 1:32pm

Of course he knew the lay of the land. He had an operational base in northern Iraq outside of Saddams control and under the US air cap and he was never attacked. His base wasn't attacked. He was allowed to operate freely in Iraq, uncontested by our commander in chief who gave an excuse for not bombing the base that went something like this:

Well, we couldn't really be sure he'd be there.

Hey, who gives a shit?

Take the base out!

Posted by Will C. at 12/16/2005 @ 6:57pm

Street maps?????? you rely on street maps for your family vacation, not when your life depends on their accuracy...are you that stuipid?

Posted by CPT 12/16/2005 @ 4:24pm

Some of our troops in Granada were using tourist maps. And calling north carolina via land line to get fire support.

Guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

Posted by Will C. at 12/16/2005 @ 7:04pm

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July 2009

June 2009

Subscribe to The Nation RSS Feed

Atrios

Arts and Letters Daily

The Caucus

Campus Progress

Crooks and Liars

The Daily Gotham

Daily Kos

Echidne of the Snakes

Ezra Klein

FAIR

Feministe

Feministing

Firedoglake

Glenn Greenwald

Gothamist

In these Times

Hendrik Hertzberg

Huffington Post

Hullabaloo

Matthew Yglesias

Media Matters

Mother Jones

My DD

New York Review of Books

Openleft

Pam's House Blend

Pandagon

Political Wire

The Progressive

RaceWire

Real Clear Politics

Roberto Lovato

Romenesko

Swing State Project

Talking Points Memo

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Tapped

Tech President

Tompaine

The Washington Note

Utne Reader

Wonkette

ZNet