Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE USUAL SUSPECTS....The full Media Matters report on the composition of Sunday talk shows should be available on their site before I wake up on Tuesday, but in the meantime I thought I'd highlight an interesting tidbit. One of the things they note is that although 23% of senators voted against the Iraq war resolution, only 11% of the senators who appeared on the Sunday shows before the invasion were anti-war. Why did the anti-war side get shunned so badly by the talk shows?

I suspect the chart on the right contains the answer. Aside from documenting the insane love affair that Sunday hosts have with John McCain, it shows that eight of the ten most popular Sunday talkers were senators and every single one of them voted for the war resolution. The reason that anti-war senators didn't get much air time was just simple laziness: the talk show bookers kept booking their favorites regardless of what was happening in the outside world and regardless of whether that meant they were shortchanging their viewers. They were on autopilot.

So here's a note to the Sunday show bookers: Maybe you should try to reach out more often to senators other than John McCain and Joe Biden. Aren't you a little bored with them anyway?

UPDATE: The full Media Matters report is here.

Kevin Drum 2:07 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (230)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

hey, round up the usual suspects. they're safe; you know what you're getting. who knows what you'd get if you go beyond them? perhaps an interesting discussion.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 14, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

I find it interesting that the talk shows mostly booked the "mavericks" within each party. McCain, Lieberman, Hagel, and even Powell are known for going agains their party line to an extent. To a lesser degree Biden fits in that category. The exceptions were Kerry (because he ran for President) and Hatch.

Posted by: Elrod on February 14, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

considering the clout that these shows should have you'd think they could book anybody they want outside of king w. so what is their excuse?

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 14, 2006 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINK

Well, how many anti-war Senators are there by vote?

I mean Kerry counts as pro-war by vote, although his position was more convoluted later.

Posted by: McA on February 14, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

Well, how many anti-war Senators are there by vote?

I mean Kerry counts as pro-war by vote, although his position was more convoluted later.

Good question Aristotle. Kevin probably wouldn't be happy unless the talk shows invited Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky every week.

Posted by: Al on February 14, 2006 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINK

"They were on autopilot."

You're being too generous, Kevin. They were scared witless. Let's remember the climate in those days. I mean, W still acts like a monarch when he's at 40%. Have we forgotten how stifling the air was when Bush was at 80%?

Posted by: Jones on February 14, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

I suspect that Senator Russ Feingold is going to become a Sunday morning media darling in a few more months when Operation IranIsGlass begins. This, of course, will immediately trigger the usual RMR -- Radicalization Mobilization by Rovistas.

I pledge to enjoy it while it lasts, as it will represent the tipping point of final descent for what we Kool-Aid-free-thinkers will formerly recall as "America the Beeeautiful".

The clouds are darkening my personal horizon, can you tell?

--
HRlaughed

Posted by: HRlaughed on February 14, 2006 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

Only policy wonks want to hear from Wyden, Jeffords, or Stabenow and they already have two cable channels complete with quorum calls.

If cable news organizations could rewrite the constitution they would get rid of the house of representatives and pair down the senate to 15 members. Even then they'd have the senators complete silly challenges so the public could vote them off the hill one by one.

Posted by: ranaaurora on February 14, 2006 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not convinced that the statistics really add up to anything. You might just find that more popular senators tend to be shrewd enough to tell which way the wind is blowing. Or that the 23% tend to be wonks that don't play well on TV.

Ice cream sales correlate with muggings. Correlation != causation.

Posted by: eric on February 14, 2006 at 3:24 AM | PERMALINK

The medias basic criterion for giving a megaphone to a politician is a combination of the politicians power and novelty factor. Its no surprise they love people like McCain who is seen a maverick and is also a prominent member of the party in charge of well, everything. So basically you are not going to see lots of anti war democrats on because to a producer a democrat who is opposing a republican presidents policy is not a story, especially when said politician cant do anything about it.

Posted by: kelsy on February 14, 2006 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

This chart seems to reflect the disingenuousness of Media Matters with their overall talking point that they originally released. The only hard core conservatives in the top ten are Hatch and Lott. And Powell as a conservative? Give me a break. It is ridiculous to afford Media Matters any credibilty when they are so clearly partisan.
If you take McCain and Powell out, the dems and their liberal television hosts probably win hands down.

Posted by: brian on February 14, 2006 at 3:43 AM | PERMALINK

Pro-war liberals, right. Wake me once you've straightened out your talking points.

Posted by: bad Jim on February 14, 2006 at 3:49 AM | PERMALINK

Powell of the RV's of mass destruction, the messiah of the aluminum tubes, the drone aircraft that will murder us in our beds... if now he is no true conservative, you've got none but nutcases in the bag.

Cheney turns around and shoots somebody to his rear. That's conservative sportsmanship.

Posted by: bad Jim on February 14, 2006 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, there are not that many Democrats with interesting TV personalities. TV shows, even the Sunday morning ones, are after ratings and advertizing dollars. The truth is that if they put up Pelosi, Leahy, or Weinstein people will reach for the remote.

I assume this is something even Stephanopoulos figured out pretty fast.

Posted by: JS on February 14, 2006 at 4:16 AM | PERMALINK

So who, short of Hilary, should we put up? Michael Moore? George Clooney? Brad Pitt? Matt Damon?

Posted by: bad Jim on February 14, 2006 at 4:22 AM | PERMALINK

So you want to bring the "fairness doctrine" back?

You just said earlier today "The fact that there are two sides to a story does not make both sides equally valid." Maybe the media just recognizes the fact and books guests accordingly. The best democratic guests are former senators and cabinet officials anyway. Biden is a blowhard.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 4:42 AM | PERMALINK

Indeed, in retrospect it seems perfectly clear than the case against the invasion of Iraq, which was not presented in the allegedly liberal mass media at the time, and which now stands factually incontroverted, yet remains politically incorrect and hence nearly unmentionable.

Posted by: bad Jim on February 14, 2006 at 4:59 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter form: better to be a phony cowboy, like Bush or Reagan, than to an honest policy wonk. Fake image trumps honesty forever.

Hell, the rubes still think John Wayne was a genuine Western hero.

Posted by: bad Jim on February 14, 2006 at 5:04 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter form: better to be a phony cowboy, like Bush or Reagan, than to an honest policy wonk. Fake image trumps honesty forever.

Hell, the rubes still think John Wayne was a genuine Western hero.

Posted by: bad Jim on February 14, 2006 at 5:04 AM | PERMALINK

Is twice enough, or should I try it a third time?

Posted by: bad Jim on February 14, 2006 at 5:05 AM | PERMALINK

Laziness? Please.

That's a lazy explanation you've got there though.

How about popularity and profit. TV telling uncomfortable truths? Ad revenue doesn't think so.

Politicians willing to stand up and be counted - brave, principled and self-sacrificing - in the face of a bloodthirsting zeitgeist? Not bloody likely.

I understand spineless pols and avaricious news execs telling lies and letting assertions go unchallenged. Harder to understand the "smart" kids on the liberal blogs falling for this "remake the middle east" nonsense. So what's the excuse for Drum, Yglesias, et al?

Posted by: luci phyrr on February 14, 2006 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK

"I mean Kerry counts as pro-war by vote, although his position was more convoluted later."

Bullshit. Kerry doesn't deserve a break. He voted for the war, however much he may have subsequently hemmed and hawed. I have yet to see a Senator or congressman come out and flatly say, "I voted for the war, and in retrospect, I did the wrong thing. I was wrong." Murtha's come close, but even he hasn't, ultimately.

And all persons in congress who whine about how they were "misled", like so many bleating innocents, are unworthy of respect, regardless of party. You knew what you were doing.

Posted by: Jonathan Versen on February 14, 2006 at 5:45 AM | PERMALINK

"If you take McCain and Powell out, the dems and their liberal television hosts probably win hands down."

And if you don't count the three major branches of government, the Dems control Washington! I am so sick of these whiny liberals using numbers to bolster their arguments. The only thing numbers make you is numb! Er. hehe.

Posted by: MarkC on February 14, 2006 at 6:08 AM | PERMALINK

You just said earlier today "The fact that there are two sides to a story does not make both sides equally valid." Maybe the media just recognizes the fact and books guests accordingly.

So, tbrosz...you're saying the talk shows in their wisdom recognize that there is a right and a wrong answer to factual questions like "does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction", and that they only book the guests who answer wrong?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINK

I am just tired of the same old faces. Both John McCain and Joe Biden have worn out their welcome. I suspect the bookers are just lazy. They go with the tried and true. They know what McCain, Biden and Powell are going to say on any given subject. I would point out that in the case of Powell and Rice, they are/were government officials doing their job getting out the administration's message. Their presence is to be expected. The others, not so much. There are 100 hundred senators. Only a handful seem to get all the face time. Anyway, who said we need to see senators every week?

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 14, 2006 at 7:06 AM | PERMALINK

You should read E.J. Dionne. He points out that the anti-war Senators were hiding in the tall grass before the 2002 elections, if not casting a "nuanced" [read "two-faced"] vote they could bactrack on later. They had no desire to argue their point of view on national TV.

Posted by: wks on February 14, 2006 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

Facts sure are inconvenient for our trolls, aren't they? Either the anti-war Democrats are "boring" or the guests aren't "real" conservatives.

It really is depressing that there is no real dialog here. It wouldn't seem to cost conservatives that much to say that the Sunday AM guest lists are stale, and that they have been heavily tilted towards the GOP. Our trolls, however, are either in love with arguing just because they can or unable to let go of their cherished "liberal media" story.

Posted by: Marc on February 14, 2006 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman is essentially a Republican, too, and Biden is hardly a representative Democrat. I don't see on liberal dem on that whole list...

Posted by: anon on February 14, 2006 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

Does the possiblity that the shows are simply inviting popular Senators, rather than conservative Senators every occur to anyone? And further that more popular Senators (particularly those with national ambitions) were far likelier to vote for the Iraq War authorization?

Posted by: TWAndrews on February 14, 2006 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: the talk show bookers kept booking their favorites regardless of what was happening in the outside world and regardless of whether that meant they were shortchanging their viewers. They were on autopilot.

Here's Kevin playing dumb about the media, as usual.

The "talk show bookers" were doing what their bosses told them to do, which was to drum up public support for the war. The corporate owned mass media has, since early in the 2000 presidential campaign, clearly and consistently supported Bush and the Bush administration's agenda -- which is to say, the agenda of the ultra-rich corporate ruling class -- and propagandized on his behalf. In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, they deliberately and systematically marginalized and excluded anyone who spoke out against Bush's planned war of unprovoked aggression, and hammered the country with a pro-war message.

This was not the result of low-level employees (talk show bookers) on "autopilot". It was a deliberate policy decision by the ultra-rich CEOs and upper management of the media corporations to support Bush's war.

And it wasn't just the selection of guests on the Sunday talk shows either. It permeated ALL TV programming, in particular the "news" programs, both cable and broadcast, as well as the major newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post. All of them propagandized in favor of war.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

That's right secular, this war has nothing to do with the extreme violent faction of Islam that is systematically creating chaos in every civilized region they can reach out to: Beslan, London, Madrid, Jakarta, New York, etc.. It is all about big money and big corporations supporting Bush and his oil men. And your party wants to be in charge of National security?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

PeculiarAnimal, would talk show promotion of the Bush war agenda have helped or hurt ratings back then? Would Sunday morning wonkers be more inclined to view a highly patriotic, pro-war theme, or rather some anti-war maverick who draws everyone's ire -- and attention?

I tune in to try and learn something. And the big names teach me nothing, other than the partisan spin of the week. I learn so much more from the journalist/columnist round tables, even when all they can do is speculate.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on February 14, 2006 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

These political talk shows do not want controversy, they want loud voices who say essentially the same thing. If you invited anti-war Senators in groups large enough to outnumber the Administration, you would have controversy. NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS-NOT GOOD FOR FUTURE GUEST CO-OPERATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION....read my lips....no new news.

Posted by: murmeister on February 14, 2006 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

The reason that anti-war senators didn't get much air time was just simple laziness: the talk show bookers ... were on autopilot.

Kevin, I agree that anti-war voices -- particularly those willing to call bullshit on nonsense talking points like the aluminum tubes and the al Qaeda ally operating from under the cover of US/UK air power thanks to the no fly zone -- were not heard. But aren't you jumping to conclusions to attribute the motivation to "laziness"?

And yes, fake tbrosz, I'm all for a return of the fairness doctrine. The fact that it's so-called conservatives who oppose the fairness doctrine says all you need to know about the myth of the "liberal media."

Posted by: Gregory on February 14, 2006 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

If you were "liberal?" Tim Russert, wouldn't you want the Straight Talk Express to give you Straight Talk?

Even "liberal" Wolf Blitzer had two Republican Seanators on this week - Chuck Hagel and some guy from Connecticut, Joe Whinerman. Therefore, it was fair and balanced - If Hagel wavered in lock step support of the administration, Whinerman could counter with the company line.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 14, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Check out Joe Alterman at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

"The Real John McCain"

Posted by: CFShep on February 14, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

biden's a prick

Posted by: jeff on February 14, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

And enthusiatically seconding everything Secular had to say about the deliberate manipulation of opinion.

Hear. Hear.

Posted by: CFShep on February 14, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

The fact that the blow Joes, Loserman and Biden, were the two most common Democrats says all you need to know about both the Sunday shows and the pathetic state of the party.

Posted by: Bragan on February 14, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

Don't look to TV news programs to save democracy in America. Look to TV news to preserve groupthink. Jesus, the current cast of characters running the major TV networks would have embedded with Custer at the Little Big Horn rather than risk being labeled unpatriotic.

Posted by: lou on February 14, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

"I have yet to see a Senator or congressman come out and flatly say, "I voted for the war, and in retrospect, I did the wrong thing. I was wrong.""

Then you haven't been paying attention - I've seen several. For example:
"It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002.
I take responsibility for that mistake."
- John Edwards
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

Hell the very first sentence in the article is exactly what you asked for: "I was wrong".

Posted by: chaboard on February 14, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Aside from the fact that major media have corporate ties to the defense industry... uh...

Posted by: PW on February 14, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

How many people actually believe that the media is giving us what we want?


The media says this all the time. Do you believe it?


And if so, do you believe all advertising is true?


Posted by: Joey Giraud on February 14, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

These shows are geared to do one thing. Bring in viewers. They focus on politics, but their goal is to have the largest viewer base. The more "looney", "wacky", and off the wall beliefs one brings to the show, the higher ratings go. What I also think is funny, it seems to me that the people who find themselves watching these shows are the people from the other side of the fence the guest is one. I would like to think people do this to keep their minds open, and learn new perspectives on their beliefs; however, they're probably just doing it to criticize the guest. What do you think?

Posted by: Victor on February 14, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Regarding the advertising Are you kidding me? Advertising is nothing more then brainwashing. Its up there with religion. All it tries to do is tell you what you want.

We deliver what you want translates into: We are going to show you what we want. And you are eventually going to want it. Because if you like the show even once, you will return to that broadcast and think they deliver what you want, when in fact you are just being manipulated and lead into believing that is what you want. Its all lies.

Posted by: Victor on February 14, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

McCain is relentlessly conservative. Far more conservative than he's give "credit" for. His only rupture with conservativism was his campaign finance bill and that one's entirely for show: it was the equivalent of King Cnut telling the tide to turn back. He's never actually been "independent" when it counted.

And LIEberman is a DINO.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 14, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

There's been a distinct pro-war bias to the MSM all along. Take, for example, Scott Ritter. He was dead right, dead right way early. Bravely correct in all respects. And you don't see him, anywhere. He was derided as nothing less than a traitor. And now, when it turned out that he was entirely correct, he's nowhere.

Peter Daou posted some material recently about media narratives. The war's narrative has been structured falsely around terrorism, and the talk shows have reflected that narrative.

Posted by: JayAckroyd on February 14, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

As a poster on another thread noted (sorry, can't remember her name), pay attention to the ads shown on these Sunday morning shows -- they're largely geared to the sort of products, such as Cadillacs, bought by wealthy older white men. Advertisers want that group to tune in, and the bookers and producers do a good job of catering to that group's conservatism, conformity, and distrust of innovation in their choice of guests. If Rhandi Rhodes, for example, suddenly appeared on their screens half these viewers would drop dead with fright.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

You know, I've decided that I like the left's ideas for who should be on the Sunday Morning talk shows. It would be great if they would book some barking mad moonbats to go into some spittle flecked rant about how bad America sucks, about how we should be taking our foreign policy advice from France, about how we should capitulate to terrorists.

I think the American public deserves to see real Democrats, instead of the DINOs they keep showing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

Had to laugh when I read Brian's comment about the liberal Bob Schieffer - You mean the golfing buddy of the Bush Dynasty and the frequent guest of Shrub at the Ranger games when Shrub was mismanaging the team?

In addition to the Media Matters report, there was another last year from C-Span showing their imbalance with bringing in far more right wing think tank guests than moderate or left leaning.

The RWTT people show up on CNN, MSNBC and FAUX far more than the left tanks.

Had to laugh when O'Reilly's first segment recently was on the Paul Pillar report - He said that he had asked the WH for a guest to respond; they refused, so he brought on Rich Lowery of NRO to present a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. And the difference was?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 14, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

kerry voted for? who knew???

how can he even figure it out himself?

Posted by: nick on February 14, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Was Kerry for the Iraq war, or against it?

I can't remember.

Posted by: BigRiver on February 14, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

"That's right secular, this war has nothing to do with the extreme violent faction of Islam that is systematically creating chaos in every civilized region they can reach out to: Beslan, London, Madrid, Jakarta, New York, etc..:

That's right Jay, if by "this war" you mean the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Most of the world, including the POPE, opposed it. We wanted to catch Osama bin Laden, who has a lot to do with "the extreme violent faction of Islam that is systematically creating chaos in every civilized region they can reach out to...". Your team wanted to spank Saddam. OK, you got him. More that 2 years ago. Now there are more terrorists in the world than before we went into Iraq, while our troops are stuck in a quagmire fighting....who? Terrorists we created by dropping bombs on their houses? And bin Laden runs free and laughs at us while HIS recruitment numbers go through the roof. Heckuva job, Bushie.

Posted by: BG on February 14, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

The democrats should just buy informercial time. Take the midnight - 6 AM slot. You could get Christy Brinkley and Chuck Norris (the most powerful force in the universe) to take a break from selling their kid toys and juicers and talk policy. Maybe that cajun woman that reads minds. heh.

If nothing else, it'd cure a lot of sleeplessness.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

"The reason that anti-war senators didn't get much air time was just simple laziness: the talk show bookers kept booking their favorites regardless of what was happening in the outside world and regardless of whether that meant they were shortchanging their viewers. They were on autopilot."

Kevin, you're giving these folks too much credit, as other bloggers have noted. What about the Corporate Media and its bias towards conservatism and the status quo? What about Bu$hCo's systematic intimidation of reporters and editors and constant pressure to avoid "liberal bias"? Somehow, I just don't think "laziness" is an adequate explanation of the bias that this Media Matters report so clearly illustrates.

Posted by: Doofus on February 14, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

And bin Laden runs free and laughs at us while HIS recruitment numbers go through the roof.

Runs free? As in, runs free in the remotest corner of the planet constantly ducking while drones and spies hunt him and his homies down one by one? Except when they gather, which lets us work more efficiently.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

It's not like the networks never had anybody anti-war on. Why, I remember Janeane Garafalo, the comedian and actress, was on quite a bit, with her bleached yellow hair, punk glasses, and Hollywood resume filled with B-comedies. I'm sure she made quite an impression. If that's not balance, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Stupid McStupid on February 14, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

I have better things to do on my Sunday mornings than have talking points parroted to me.

Posted by: David W. on February 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah that's right BG, if it wasn't for old evil America there would be no terrorism. It's all our fault that they decided to blow up nightclubs in Jakarta and shoot school children in the back in Beslan. And it was Clinton's fault that they had to blow up the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC Bombing. Moreover, it would make sense then that the election of George Bush prompted them to fly planes into the WTC in 2001. And that darned "unprovoked" invasion of Iraq. We should have just let Saddam continue to kill his own people and violate every resolution the UN would unnecessarily impose upon his peaceful country along with firing upon patrol planes. Completely unprovoked. And your party wants to be in charge of National security?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Runs free? As in, runs free in the remotest corner of the planet constantly ducking while drones and spies hunt him and his homies down one by one? Except when they gather, which lets us work more efficiently.

Yeah, he's been constantly ducking for five years. Oh boy. Victory! Mission accomplished! When can we have the parade?

Of course he's free, moron. Bush said, over five years ago, that the was going to get bin Laden "dead or alive" -- what do you think the reaction would have been if he'd said "I plan to get bin Laden someday, maybe, after I take care of a few other things first, but first I'm going to leave him free to plot and plan for at least the next five years!" Would you have cheered?

You've continually tried to spin away Bush's incompetent failure to catch bin Laden with this lame excuse, and it gets lamer every time. Bin Laden is free. He's unobstructed. He's free to plan, to incite his followers, to coordinate actions, to recruit, etc. -- and this is over four years after committing the largest mass murder in American history.

You say he was contained -- well, so was Saddam. So explain why it was necessary to take out Saddam, who was contained and who posed no threat to the US, while letting bin Laden, who murdered 3,000 of our countrymen and daily plots to murder more, gallivant over the Pakistani tribal lands?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

It is a shame that the Democrats can't get their message (assuming there is one) out. If only there were more funerals!

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

In fairness to the bookers, they book who the audience wants. If the anti-war Senators would have had a more coherent message and better public speaking skills, they would have gotten more air time.

Posted by: MDS on February 14, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

"Unfortunately, there are not that many Democrats with interesting TV personalities.

Umm, does Barack Obama ring a bell? How about Barbara Boxer? Or how about some dynamic Dem governors, like Mark Warner or Granholm?

Posted by: Doofus on February 14, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Runs free? As in, runs free in the remotest corner of the planet constantly ducking while drones and spies hunt him and his homies down one by one? Except when they gather, which lets us work more efficiently.

Red State Mike, thank you for your courage in typing this.

Posted by: Stupid McStupid on February 14, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

assuming there is one
Oh, there is one: "Bush is Evil!"

Surely you remember how well it worked getting Kerry elected in 2004.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

If it wasn't for those election stealers in Ohio. Drats foiled again!

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

If people like Noam Chomsky would be invited they would stimulate some minds, we can't have that.

People like Al and Co. like Pablum, mush.

Anyone wanting information to make up their own minds will have to start reading. TV is a waste of time.

Cable TV 24x7 is just a white spot.

Posted by: Renate on February 14, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

CINCINNATI - Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, who gained popularity for his staunch criticism of President Bush, is abandoning his Democratic race for U.S. Senate in Ohio and declared his political career over.

ADVERTISEMENT

Hackett, unhappy with Democratic pressure to drop out of the Senate primary and run again for Congress, said Tuesday he will not seek the House seat that he narrowly lost or any other political office.

"I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests from party leaders, as well as behind-the-scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign," Hackett said in a statement.


Heh. The Kossacks will be crying in their beer tonight.

Posted by: knock on February 14, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

The Bush Administration spends $1.6b taxpayers money in a lttle more than 2 years on public relations much of it on TV and paid pundits like Williams, who needs the Sunday morning propaganda???

Was that information on the news? If not, why not? The sure tell us all about Lacy Peterson and Michael Jackson.

If we have a free press doing what it is supposed to do, please let me know.

Posted by: Renate on February 14, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

This is off the present subject, but I didn't know how else to make this request:

*Please*, please, please say something about Paul Hacketts being pushed out of the senate race in Ohio by the same people who first asked him to run. Our own party has a lot of fucking explaining to do at this time, as far as Im concerned. Ive never been so angry as I am right now at our so-called leadership.

A concerned Dem and citizen.

Finally, there was someone I could actually believe in and politics as usual screwed such a person in the ass. Theres no place to turn in politics now in this country for someone like me


Linda (regular Washington Monthly reader)

Posted by: Linda on February 14, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

If we have a free press doing what it is supposed to do, please let me know.
Me too. Airwaves crowded with big government Democrats and big government Republicans. When they start showing someone from the Cato Institute for some real balance, let me know.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

stefan
You've continually tried to spin away Bush's incompetent failure to catch bin Laden

You're continually trying to pin the decision to use Afghan militia to assault Tora Bora on Bush, and continually suggesting that if not for Iraq, we would have massed troops on the Afghan-Pakistani border and invaded our "ally". If you aren't suggesting that, what are you suggesting? Killing him while he's located in Pakistan is not a job for an army. In short, your logic sucks. Moron.

As for planning and inciting, just how much connectivity do you think he has in the current 4th world country he lives in? And the more he communicates, the sooner he's dead.

You say he was contained -- well, so was Saddam. So explain why it was necessary to take out Saddam, who was contained and who posed no threat to the US, while letting bin Laden, who murdered 3,000 of our countrymen and daily plots to murder more, gallivant over the Pakistani tribal lands?

Strawman. Bin Laden is not "contained" in that we can turn away and ignore him. But neither is he free as a bird to go hither and thither and communicate as he sees fit. He's a hunted man and the clock is ticking. Stop crapping on our soldiers in an attempt to take pot shots at Bush. As for Saddam versus Bin Laden, we want them both dead.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Kos has a front-page piece on Hackett, and it isn't what wingers would like.

What I think the conservatives here completely miss is that the slanted media treatment of the Iraq war has utterly transformed the attitude of progressives towards the media. Many of us clearly saw that the nation was headed towards an entirely predictable disaster in Iraq. And we saw *no one* who spoke for us. So-called liberal TV networks didn't bother to present our views. So-called liberal papers like the Washington Post were - and are - war cheerleaders. Everything that was wrong with the 4th estate came into sharp focus.

Many Democrats also had an ineffective response, which did not help. But there were strong - and in retrospect, clearly correct - voices that were raised in opposition. The rage of the left against business as usual is the anger of Cassandra. We saw the train running into a wall. The media acted as if the Emperor did, in fact, have clothes on. All of the bipartisan ideals about the role of the press were shown to be lies.
If the wingers here actually care about understanding what motivates us, this is it.

Posted by: Marc on February 14, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, your last shot, I'll stay on thread after this.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

The recent cartoon debacle clearly demonstrates how unhinged the ME is and that this is a time for unwavering strength and resolve to win this conflict. This is not a time for compartmentalized passivism. The sooner the left realizes that, the better chance they have of winning the WH.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

The sooner the left realizes that, the better chance they have of winning the WH.

Please. You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect sanity here...

Posted by: knock on February 14, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

you're right, my bad, knock

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Ive never been so angry as I am right now at our so-called leadership.

Eieiei. Just what dems need right now, more anger.

Posted by: knock on February 14, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

You're continually trying to pin the decision to use Afghan militia to assault Tora Bora on Bush,

I'm sorry, I thought he was the commander-in-chief? Was someone else in charge? Should I blame it on Cheney, instead? Rove, perhaps? Just who was giving the orders there?

and continually suggesting that if not for Iraq, we would have massed troops on the Afghan-Pakistani border and invaded our "ally". If you aren't suggesting that, what are you suggesting? Killing him while he's located in Pakistan is not a job for an army. In short, your logic sucks. Moron.

It's not? It does? If getting Saddam in Iraq was a job for an army, then why not getting bin Laden in Pakistan? After all, it's SOP for Republicans to assert that the "war on terra" is a war that must be fougth with military means, not a law-enforcement matter. And if we were willing to invade Iraq for no good reason at all, then why not invade Pakistan? After all, it's a dictatorship, it has WMD which it may hand over to Al Qaeda, it hates America, it's one of the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism, it has a history of invading its neighbors and committing genocide, it not only has strong ties to Al Qaeda but also shelters bin Laden -- every standard Republican excuse for why we simply had to invade Iraq applies to Pakistan, and more. Bush has repeatedly asserted that if you shelter terrorists, you'll be held equally responsible -- well, Pakistan, via the ISI, not only shelters bin Laden, it actively aids and assists him.

As for planning and inciting, just how much connectivity do you think he has in the current 4th world country he lives in? And the more he communicates, the sooner he's dead.

All the connectivity he needs. He's constantly in touch via courier. And this claim that we're somehow able to track him is nonsense, because if we were able to track him we'd be able to find him, and he'd be dead. He lives embedded in a network of hundreds of thousands of local sympathizers, most of whom are within a short trip of a computer modem or radio or satellite phone. He only has to whisper to a courier and his message is spread worldwide within hours.

Strawman. Bin Laden is not "contained" in that we can turn away and ignore him. But neither is he free as a bird to go hither and thither and communicate as he sees fit.

Yes, he is. He doesn't need to go hither and thither in the sense that he needs to take a flight to the next Al Qaeda board meeting -- he only needs to go as far as his couriers.

He's a hunted man and the clock is ticking.

Four and a half-years now. Yeah, that's some loud ticking. The hunt is on!

Stop crapping on our soldiers in an attempt to take pot shots at Bush.

Fuck you. You know very well I'm criticizing Bush straight up. The soldiers take their orders from him -- it's not their fault he's a monumental lazy drunken fuckup.

As for Saddam versus Bin Laden, we want them both dead.

So why did Saddam, who was no threat to the US and hadn't attacked us, priority over bin Laden, who was and who had?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Linda,

Democrats and Republicans are all the same. They give us the delusion of democracy, in reallity we are just the road kill for these people.

Why else would so called democratic governments go out of their way to topple other democratically elected go governments?
Hamas, Schavez and others in latine america, like it or not, were legally elected.
.
Our own government is choking on corruption and the Democrats are silent. Why, because they are in the same pockets. What has this government done for the people in the last years?

Globalization is giving us a global beurocracy that serves the international capital and to hell with the people.

The press people and politicians are all up for sale.

Posted by: Renate on February 14, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

No, fuck YOU, Stefan. And screw bin laden and saddam, too.

Let's talk more about Hacket! (giggles)

Posted by: knock on February 14, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

this is a time for unwavering strength and resolve to win this conflict

it's funny - when you parrot Bush's words, you make it clear that neither of you have any idea how to "win this conflict".

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

"Just what the dems need right now, more anger" ok, I don't care who you are, that was funny

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Democrats and Republicans are all the same. They give us the delusion of democracy, in reallity we are just the road kill for these people. The press people and politicians are all up for sale. Posted by: Renate

Renate, you should just give up. Politics is clearly not for "progressives" like you. Trouble is you're just too darn niice.

Posted by: knock on February 14, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Bush's foreign policy The Project for a New American Century. The republicans version of Mien Kamf. Sorry if we don't get real excited about that.
Oh, how is PNAC working out?

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Mien Kamf is... no, no, please don't tell me, it's right at the tip of my tongue.

It's a Swiss opera, isn't it?

Posted by: ack on February 14, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

no ack I believe it's austrian

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

yep that's right cleek, "no idea how to win this conflict". Three elections, a representational government in place, Saddam on trial and a 200,000+ and growing Iraqi security and miltary force. So far that is not a bad idea, huh? Also, Osama and Zawahiri avoiding drone missles and hiding in caves, in my opinion this beats the tactics of Stefan and Howard Dean which calls for the compartmentalization of the conflict, ie: Osama = bad, Saddam = good and that "The notion that this war is winnable is just wrong". Do I have that about right? Also explain to me how the left can celebrate the depiction of Jesus in urine yet say that the recent cartoon of Muhammed was insensitive?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Right, now I remember. It's where the strapping young lad Hachetz is vying for the throne of Ohiania. Tragically, he is thwarted in his ambitions by the forces of the evil Count Dien. Hachetz's aria when he commits suicide in the last Act is especially poignant.

It's one of my favorites, now that you reminded me.

Posted by: ack on February 14, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan
Just who was giving the orders there?

The on scene commander. NOT Bush.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Marc
Many of us clearly saw that the nation was headed towards an entirely predictable disaster in Iraq. And we saw *no one* who spoke for us.
A reasonable comment, thank you.

You've noticed that not only will the media not speak for you, neither will your politicians (by and large). Even Murtha stopped short. There was no general outcry to not invade Iraq, and there is currently no outcry to abandon Iraq or the WoT.

I submit to you that your "Many of us" are a small subset of the US public. If you cannot even get the bulk of your politicians behind you, you cannot be carrying that much weight.

Your argument hinges on the premise that if people could only hear your argument, they would be persuaded. But Dean advanced your argument, Kucinich advanced your argument. Obviously sites like this advance your argument, and Michael Moore's movie; but presidential candidates are fairly "mainstream", so your argument has not only been made to the choir, but also to the public at large.

So people have heard your argument and have not been pursuaded. Your own politicians have not been pursuaded. I submit that you don't need more exposure, you need a better argument.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

If only there were more funerals!

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan
RSM: Stop crapping on our soldiers in an attempt to take pot shots at Bush.

Fuck you. You know very well I'm criticizing Bush straight up. The soldiers take their orders from him -- it's not their fault he's a monumental lazy drunken fuckup.

Fuck you, Stefan. I know you think you're trying to criticize Bush straight up, but the decisions at Tora Bora were made by Commanders on scene, even by men who were fighting and dying at the scene. And every time you say Tora Bora was a failure, you are therefore saying *they* failed, since they were the ones planning, directing, and executing the assault. No matter how many wet dreams you may have that Bush was at the tiller in conducting the day to day fight in Afghanistan, you're wrong.

Go ahead and keep saying it. It exposes you for the heartless bastard you are that would piss on a troop's grave in order to get at the President. Bush has screwed up in enough other ways that you don't need to do it. But you do anyway. And again, fuck you you fucking moron for crapping on the troops.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

knock,

what is progressive, conservative or any lable?

Just comon sense, would you say our so called government is honest, competent or anything even close?

They can't handle a hurrican, no terrorist attacks? That is nothing but DUMB LUCK.

They do know how to rape the nation and get rich.

Can't you see what they are doing to your nation?

Maybe you are sarcastic. I did not read your previuos posts.

Posted by: Renate on February 14, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Agreed, Jay. The opera would have been better if the funeral for Kerr von Massadonia had been longer. But the scene where Hachetz is sodomized by Count Dien is a bit too gruesome, don't you think? (You know what I'm referring to: the sound of the screams that mix in with the music).

Posted by: ack on February 14, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Good to see the proto-fascists out in force on this thread. Keep up the fight, RSM!

Posted by: SavageView on February 14, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Renate: no more lables!

Posted by: ack on February 14, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Do I have that about right?

nope, not even close.

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: When they start showing someone from the Cato Institute for some real balance, let me know.

The fake, phony, pseudo-libertarian poseur corporate ass-kissers of the Cato Institute are guests on National RePublican Radio talk programs all the time, shilling for the corporations that pay their ludicrous so-called "think tank" to crank out drivel for idiots like you.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

ie: Osama = bad, Saddam = good and that "The notion that this war is winnable is just wrong".

Actually, that reminds me of a Bush quote. When Matt Lauer asked Bush on Aug. 31, 2004 if we could win the "war on terror" Bush answered "I don't think you can win it."

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Fuck you, Stefan. I know you think you're trying to criticize Bush straight up, but the decisions at Tora Bora were made by Commanders on scene, even by men who were fighting and dying at the scene. And every time you say Tora Bora was a failure, you are therefore saying *they* failed, since they were the ones planning, directing, and executing the assault.

Um...wasn't there just a book published that showed that the fight at Tora Bora was commanded, disastrously, by like a dozen different commands back at the Pentagon, who all insisted on exercising minute detailed authority by remote control and refused to allow the commanders "on the scene" to exercise any command authority?

Anyway, it's pretty widely agreed by military experts that Tora Bora was a big screwup, right? How is critiquing a big screwup "crapping on the troops"? If the Pentagon does an incompetent job of something, as far as I've ever seen, "the troops" would be the first to make a stink about it.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Yo Secular, if you think NPR is right wing, you must be so far left that I harbor true concerns that you might fall off the edge of the Earth.

Are you wearing a safety harness and line?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

I submit to you that your "Many of us" are a small subset of the US public.

I submit to you, conspiracy nut, that less than 40% of the US public thinks the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, and comparable numbers approve of Bush's handling of the war on terror. So that would be a "small subset" in the neighborhood of 60%.

I think it's time for you to submit to us, actually. Though you can always continue to live in February 2003 if you prefer - I'm sure it was a nice time for you.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK
Just who was giving the orders there?

The on scene commander. NOT Bush.

And who is responsible for setting the criteria, parameters, and scope of resources on which the on-scene commander would make the decision?

I like how the right likes to paint the "Commander-in-Chief" provision of the Constitution as giving the president limitless authority, but zero responsibility for what is done with that authority.

The Republican Party is the "party of personal responsibility" onyl so long as the "person" involved isn't a Republican politician.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Jay wrote: That's right secular, this war has nothing to do with the extreme violent faction of Islam that is systematically creating chaos in every civilized region they can reach out to: Beslan, London, Madrid, Jakarta, New York, etc.

That's exactly correct. The invasion and occupation of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with what you refer to as "the extreme violent faction of Islam." Except perhaps to make it much, much easier for them to recruit and train new terrorists.

It is all about big money and big corporations supporting Bush and his oil men.

That's also exactly right.

And your party wants to be in charge of National security?

No political party in the history of the USA -- and indeed, no foreign enemy -- has done more to undermine the national security of the USA than the Republican Party under the leadership of President Dick Cheney.

FYI, my voter registration is Green, not Democrat.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK
How is critiquing a big screwup "crapping on the troops"?

Any criticism of any action carried out by or under the authority of this administration is "crapping on the troops". Its just part of the new Republican English.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

There was no general outcry to not invade Iraq

this might have something to do with the fact that no opposing viewpoints were given serious attention during the salesjob. in fact, any opposing viewpoints were (and still are) labelled as "objectively pro-Saddam". and any salesman will tell you it's tough to expect people to choose A if all they hear about is B.

and there is currently no outcry to abandon Iraq or the WoT.

nice conflation. your masters must be proud.

b.t.w., have you checked the stats on number of terrorist incidents over the past few years? number of attacks going up or down?

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Bah.

Here's what the people who book guests are up against:

First, no guests that will alienate half the audience before they've even opened their mouths. No Michael Moore, no Ann Coulter, no James Dobson, no David Brock, no Swift Boat "Veterans."

Second, the guest has to look good on television. It's television.

Third, the guest has to be able to talk without putting people to sleep. If the guest happens to know what the hell he or she is talking about, well, that's gravy.

Now count up how many people in Washington circles fit these three criteria (you'll be able to keep your shoes on while you do it.)

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on February 14, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Fuck you, Stefan. I know you think you're trying to criticize Bush straight up, but the decisions at Tora Bora were made by Commanders on scene, even by men who were fighting and dying at the scene. And every time you say Tora Bora was a failure, you are therefore saying *they* failed, since they were the ones planning, directing, and executing the assault.

Well, of course they failed. By definition they failed since bin Laden and much of Al Qaeda's leadership got away. Me pointing out that we failed, though, is nowhwere near pointing out that the soldiers are somehow "to blame" -- mistakes happen in war, and they can only do what their commanders tell them to do. What matters, though, is whether we admit to those mistakes and whether we try to correct them.

If I point out that we failed in Vietnam is that equivalent to blaming the soldiers? If I point out that we failed in Somalia am I blaming the Rangers?

No matter how many wet dreams you may have that Bush was at the tiller in conducting the day to day fight in Afghanistan, you're wrong.

Oh, so Bush was not then, in fact, commander-in-chief of the American armed forces in Afghanistan. My mistake.

Go ahead and keep saying it. It exposes you for the heartless bastard you are that would piss on a troop's grave in order to get at the President. Bush has screwed up in enough other ways that you don't need to do it. But you do anyway. And again, fuck you you fucking moron for crapping on the troops.

Well, we can trade "fuck yous" all day long over this, but my point is clear: Bush is the commander. Whatever happens is ultimately his responsibility. If we'd caught Bin Laden at Tora Bora then you and every other Republican would be crowing "Bush caught him!" -- but when he gets away, suddenly it's the fault of the on-scene commander, not Bush. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? Whatever happened to taking responsibility and owning up to your mistakes?

But hey -- if you ever accuse me of pissing on a troop's grave again you come up to New York and you say it to my face. We can meet right in front of Ground Zero -- I've got a lovely view.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Jonathan Versen wrote:
"I have yet to see a Senator or congressman come out and flatly say, "I voted for the war, and in retrospect, I did the wrong thing. I was wrong." Murtha's come close, but even he hasn't, ultimately."
Posted by: Jonathan Versen on February 14, 2006 at 5:45 AM | PERMALINK


I heard a couple, though the only one I remember specifically was my state's junior senator, Jay Rockefeller. He said that if what we know now was known then he doubts there would have even been a vote, much less a pro-war result.

Posted by: MarkH on February 14, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

"The biggest and most important failure of CENTCOM leadership came at Tora Bora when they turned down my request for a battalion of U.S. Rangers to block bin Laden's escape." Gary Berntsen's statement in Jawbreaker.

And CENTCOM leadership works for whom? who works for whom?

This was not a mistake by The Commander on the ground, RSM. And even Berntsen is a little too kind in his treatment of Franks.

Berntsen led the CIA's operation in taking out the Taliban. He is no lover of Clinton.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

What Secular Animist said. Adding to that 13 countries in South America have adapted a more socialist approach in their governments. They are distancing themselves from a pure market based approach.

So what's the score so far? 1.3 billion muslims hate us, were losing South America. Europe's ticked off at us. Even Mexico had the nerve to send armed troops across our border.
Go Team!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, Bush's quote meant that "we" will not win this war, but the majority of the good people of the ME will win this war. I know that went over your head, but much does.

secular, you can ignore the war and blame the Reps for this war all you like but the fact is that the only thing standing in the way between you and your beheading is the Reps. Explain to me how Clinton's inaction following the '93 bombing of the WTC led to more terrorism and consequently the bombing of the USS Cole? So it appears that if we do nothing, that leads to more terrorism and then if we do do something that leads to more terrorism. So what exactly is your plan?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Dang, what is it with you moonbats? A reasonable comment shows up, which I respond reasonably to; and you're thinking I'm going to ... what? Pay any attention to your mouth-breather responses?

Go find one of my wingnut comments to play with.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

And your party wants to be in charge of National security?

Not sure which troll initially asked this dumb question, but we all might find it interesting to note that the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, Jan 23-26, has Americans trusting the Democrats over Republicans on "handling the situation in Iraq", by 47 pct to 40 pct.

So, yes, we would like to be in charge of national security, please. Perhaps we could start actually making Americans more secure, rather than simply bombing a bunch of Muslim countries to gratify bloodthirsty evangelicals.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely wrote: I like how the right likes to paint the "Commander-in-Chief" provision of the Constitution as giving the president limitless authority, but zero responsibility for what is done with that authority.

Well said. I think it is because the basic instinct of the "right" is that they don't really want to be citizens of a democratic republic, in which the President is a civil servant with limited authority who is responsible to the citizens for his job performance. They want to be subjects of an all-powerful king, who has no limits on his authority and is answerable to no one, whom they can slavishly worship, and thereby feel vicariously powerful themselves.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

They want to be subjects of an all-powerful king, who has no limits on his authority and is answerable to no one, whom they can slavishly worship, and thereby feel vicariously powerful themselves.

Maybe they should move to Russia where they belong.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: you're thinking I'm going to ... what?

I'm thinking you're going to post stupid, ignorant drivel, which is all you ever do.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, Bush's quote meant that "we" will not win this war, but the majority of the good people of the ME will win this war. I know that went over your head, but much does.

Ah, so now Bush is placing American national security in the hands of the "good people" of the Middle East. And you wonder why people don't trust Bush to protect us?

Bu similarly, when Dr. Dean said "The notion that this war is winnable is just wrong" he meant that "we" will not this war, but the majority of the good people of Iraq will win this war. I know that went over your head, but much does.


Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

I'm thinking you're going to post stupid, ignorant drivel, which is all you ever do.
When in Rome...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Odds on wager that ack and Jay are sock puppets?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Every day, I work among the severely wounded from this war, many of whom were wounded, as they tell me, in trying to subdue the same areas that had been "subdued" multiple times before in a terribly ineffectual, terribly wasteful, terribly dangerous process.

I have never expressed anger in this public venue or any. I am for the most part a "moderate Dem."

But I am angry about the treatment of Paul Hackett, and it is right to express this anger. And frankly, I don't care what such anger looks like to the opposition, especially when my own party has taken on that role to me.

Is there someone else better to run in the Ohio senate race for the Democratic party? Perhaps - but isn't that what the primaries are for? When neither party respects the voting process, then what does any of it mean?

Paul Hackett gave many of us directly involved in this war a voice, as no other person has. And I am hurting and angry right now, and I came here to express that...

Posted by: Linda on February 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Explain to me how Clinton's inaction following the '93 bombing of the WTC led to more terrorism and consequently the bombing of the USS Cole?

Actually, the Clinton Administration caught, tried and convicted the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing (which was not done by Al Qaeda) and they sit in jail still. (And they did all this without torture and without spying on Americans).

The Cole bombing was done by Al Qaeda, and the incoming Bush regime refused to retaliate against Al Qaeda for that because they felt it was "stale."

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Explain to me how Clinton's inaction following the '93 bombing of the WTC led to more terrorism and consequently the bombing of the USS Cole?

Uh, Jay, I don't think anyone can explain that to you. It's a garblebag of nonsense.

So it appears that if we do nothing, that leads to more terrorism and then if we do do something that leads to more terrorism. So what exactly is your plan?

Disciple: So it appears that if we do nothing, then it will rain, and then if we do something, it will rain nevertheless. So what exactly is your plan for staying dry?

Confucius: I plan to build a roof over my head, you idiot.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

There is a big split down the middle of the Democratic party. The Liberals are finding a voice, or more accurately room for many of their voices, on the Internet. But, the Moderate/Conservative Dems have more popular support and money. The M/C Dems are probably leading within the party by 60/40 or 55/45, but they're taking all the important elections and leaving no breadcrumbs for the Liberals.

This is very different from the fractures in the Republican party. On their side they vote like robots in lockstep as their fearless leader dictates. It works and they're sticking to it for now.

Dems need to work out their differences somehow and the most common way in recent decades has been during the primaries the public decides. But, if the Moderate/Conservative Dems can kick a Liberal out of a primary race (as has apparently happened with Hackett), then what reason does the Liberal base have for staying involved in Democratic party politics. If you're not allowed to participate then what good is the party?

Hackett should've been encouraged to participate and let the better candidate win.

Posted by: MarkH on February 14, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

the only thing standing in the way between you and your beheading is the Reps

idiot

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Jay where did you buy your wingnut decoder ring and magic anti-muslim cloak?

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Is there someone else better to run in the Ohio senate race for the Democratic party? Perhaps - but isn't that what the primaries are for? When neither party respects the voting process, then what does any of it mean?

Yeah, Linda, there is somebody better to run in the Ohio senate race. Sherrod Brown is a better candidate.

Paul Hackett is a single-issue candidate. You don't want him as your Senator. And the way he's chosen to pull out of this race, in a fit of pique, reflects very poorly on his viability in the real world of politics. If he can't hack this primary fight, the GOP would've taken him apart in a Senate race.

He ought to buckle down and run against Jean Schmidt. She's done herself a lot of damage and has made herself a perfect target for him. If he's too pigheaded to do that, then he's got to learn some things about politics.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

I like how the right likes to paint the "Commander-in-Chief" provision of the Constitution as giving the president limitless authority, but zero responsibility for what is done with that authority.

Say what you want about the rest of the right. I am perfectly willing to hold Bush accountable for his screw ups. But it is to his credit (usually) that he does not micromanage, especially in military affairs. he is known for that in the military.

Would the right celebrate the capture of Osama as Bush's victory? Well, fuck the right. I would know it's the troops that did it.

Stefan
But hey -- if you ever accuse me of pissing on a troop's grave again you come up to New York and you say it to my face. We can meet right in front of Ground Zero -- I've got a lovely view.

Stefan, you don't need me. Head down to the local VFW and bend the ear of the locals there. Preferably a vet with time in Afghanistan. Let them know what you think. They'll be no blows, but you may find they see it differently.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

I know you think you're trying to criticize Bush straight up, but the decisions at Tora Bora were made by Commanders

The decision on what resources to use were not local The decision to pull US forces out and use Afghan resources were not made by the military. That was a political, or, if you prefer, a policy decision. But it was not a military decision.

The larger, more disturbing point that is beginning to trouble me is whether the administration is purposely keeping bin Laden around. We saw an earlier instance of this when NBC reported that the president had rejected pre- Iraq war plans to get Zarqawi. It's really becoming a reasonable question to ask whether they want to keep bin Laden around to serve as a bogeyman.

It's hard to get one guy. But they've had enough time to do it, and US resources are effectively unlimited in the pursuit of such a narrow goal.

Posted by: JayAckroyd on February 14, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

ack:

> "The notion that this war is winnable is just wrong".

Is Iraq "winnable?" Of course not. It might be *conquerable*;
Iraq is no Vietnamese jungle. I'm sure we could bomb the country
into oblivion until all its remaining institutions and infrastructure
were in ruins, and then we could march in and take it over by force.

What any of this has to do with instilling a democratic government
I have no idea. In that sense, Iraqi democracy (the whole idea
why we invaded in the first place) is only winnable by the Iraqis.

Duh.

> Do I have that about right?

Clutch tightly to your lame talking points :)

> Also explain to me how the left can celebrate
> the depiction of Jesus in urine yet say that
> the recent cartoon of Muhammed was insensitive?

Much as I am loathe to defend shock-for-shock's-sake aesthetic
of recent modern art, it *does* have a rather long tradition. In
fact, modern art is defined precisely by its ability to repudiate
the mainstream, and has been since at least the Impressionists.
Marcel Duchamp's "ready made" urinal installation was hugely shocking
in the 20s -- not least of all because it was simply a public urinal
installed in a gallery. Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring is a ballet
about sacrificing pagan virgins -- and caused a riot in 1913. It
happens to be one of my all-time favorite pieces of music.

But the controversy over Serrano's "Piss Christ" had
nothing to do with whether or not that installation
piece was validly described as "modern art." The issue
had to do with public funding for it through the NEA.

The analogy's valid with a legitimate work of
art in the Western tradition, like Rushdie's
The Satanic Verses and van Gogh's Submission.

The analogy is not valid with lame-ass, not-even-funny
editorial cartoons whose only purpose was to offend.

It's like trying to conflate an edition
of Hustler with Lady Chatterly's Lover.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, the Clinton Administration caught, tried and convicted the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing
That's right, and the terrorists fear of facing the awesome American legal system prevented 9/11 from happening ... oh wait ...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Formatting error there, Kevin. I'm sure it's just an oversight. Lieberman's bar looks blue on my browser. I'm sure you'll fix that.

Cheers,

Posted by: Arne Langsetmo on February 14, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

secular, again your stupidity is on display

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK
That's right, and the terrorists fear of facing the awesome American legal system prevented 9/11 from happening ...

...as long as Clinton was in office. Not long after an administration whose AG told his underlings he didn't want to hear any more about terrorism was in power, 9/11 happened.

Coincidence theorists will insist that there is no connection between these events.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

cleek, strong argument, no wonder your party is in power.....oh wait

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

That's right cm, Al Qaeda was just waiting to see who would be in office and when GW was elected (not selected) UBL had eight months to plan and execute one of the worlds worst terrorism event. Stop listening to Airhead America

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK
secular, you can ignore the war and blame the Reps for this war all you like but the fact is that the only thing standing in the way between you and your beheading is the Reps.

Seems the whole beheading thing didn't become a big trend until -- and as a direct result of -- the Republicans pet project of an idiotic invasion of Iraq.

So I'd say the Republicans are doing more to promote than prevent beheadings.


Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

yea cm, before Bush they only blew people up.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton is history, he was president some years ago, don't the Republicans know?

Why oh why are the Republicans stuck in the past? Is it because Bush has nothing to show but failure? It is just like a true Republican, Cheney peppers a man in the face and says "it is all his fault" He is not responsible.

No matter how lousy the performance, no one gets fired, no one resigns. They have no sense of integrity, no character.

They only care about power and money.

Yes we know, power corrupts and absolute corrupts absolutely. We can see it every day.

Posted by: Renate on February 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Renate:

"And stop bleeding on me, goddamn you."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 14, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Man, I'm still waiting for a couple of divisions of digital brown shirts from the famed highly decorated 101st keyboarders to head on over there. To you know ahh, well, kick some islamofascist butt. Before they get over here to behead the sons and daughters of Amerika.It's better to fight them thar than here.

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Yeah that's right BG, if it wasn't for old evil America there would be no terrorism. It's all our fault that they decided to blow up nightclubs in Jakarta and shoot school children in the back in Beslan. And it was Clinton's fault that they had to blow up the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC Bombing. Moreover, it would make sense then that the election of George Bush prompted them to fly planes into the WTC in 2001. And that darned "unprovoked" invasion of Iraq. We should have just let Saddam continue to kill his own people and violate every resolution the UN would unnecessarily impose upon his peaceful country along with firing upon patrol planes. Completely unprovoked. And your party wants to be in charge of National security?"

When you are done arguing with yourself you can address the point in my message. I never said or implied any of the above. I said we created MORE terrorists by bombing innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11. I said we wanted to catch bin Laden. If you are worried about what dictators do to people in their own country, please go there and take care of it yourself. Don't use our military and my tax dollars to do so. If you think it is OK for us to invade and kill the citizens of EVERY country (not just Iraq) that violates UN resolutions, please make that case here.
I know this is hard for wing nuts, but try to put yourself in some one elses shoes for a minute.
Suppose in 1998 Finland decided that Bill Clinton was a threat to the world. In order to stop him, they bomb America. They kill hundereds of thousands of people, including many in your family.

Now, do you think that more Americans would hate Finland BEFORE or AFTER they bombed us? And how about you? Would you feel OK, knowing that the hated Clinton was gone, or would you become a "terrorist"?

BTW, Your party was in contorl of National security on 9/11, or have you forgotten?

Posted by: BG on February 14, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

compartmentalization Bob. If the left were not so afraid of Islam, we might make some progress.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

CN wrote:
--------------------------
Marc
Many of us clearly saw that the nation was headed towards an entirely predictable disaster in Iraq. And we saw *no one* who spoke for us.
A reasonable comment, thank you.

You've noticed that not only will the media not speak for you, neither will your politicians (by and large). Even Murtha stopped short. There was no general outcry to not invade Iraq, and there is currently no outcry to abandon Iraq or the WoT.

I submit to you that your "Many of us" are a small subset of the US public. If you cannot even get the bulk of your politicians behind you, you cannot be carrying that much weight.

Your argument hinges on the premise that if people could only hear your argument, they would be persuaded. But Dean advanced your argument, Kucinich advanced your argument. Obviously sites like this advance your argument, and Michael Moore's movie; but presidential candidates are fairly "mainstream", so your argument has not only been made to the choir, but also to the public at large.

So people have heard your argument and have not been pursuaded. Your own politicians have not been pursuaded. I submit that you don't need more exposure, you need a better argument."
----------------------------------------
Thanks CN. I'd prefer discussions on this level to emotional screeds by either side.

I didn't say, nor do I believe, that things would have necessarily turned out differently with a more honest debate than the one we had. I do think that we did not have an honest debate, and this is the reason why progressives are as deeply hostile to the media as they are now. I find the treatment of Dean and Gore particularly instructive in this regard. Both have their roots in the moderate wing of the Democratic party. Both are routinely portrayed as mentally unstable screamers, but on the substance of the issues they hold views that are widely shared.

Scorched earth tactics, whether in politics or in warfare, have consequences. It actually matters that people perceive the process as being legitimate. I disageed with Reagan, but accepted that a majority of Americans agreed with him. I was persuaded by Bush Sr. on the Gulf War. Folks like me have been ignored by the media, insulted by Bush and his acolytes, and are morally appalled by what we see happening in our society. You only have to read progressive sites to appreciate that there is no small amount of scorn for business as usual Democrats as well.

Republicans will wish that they had factored in the byproducts of winning at all costs when the tables are turned. Because if all limits are removed from politics, the GOP will then be left to the mercy of whatever Democrats are moved to offer. And a lot of us are not feeling an excess of charity right about now, at least not until we have the equivalent of a Truth and Reconciliation Committee to sort out the civil breakdown that we have experienced in the last 5 years.

Posted by: Marc on February 14, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

> Also explain to me how the left can celebrate
> the depiction of Jesus in urine yet say that
> the recent cartoon of Muhammed was insensitive?

Have you ever actually taken a look at "Piss Christ"? It's really beautiful, just at a visual level, not to mention a conceptual one. I think it's about "this is my body, this is my blood" - how something as astounding as the Divine could be incorporated in something as filthy and unlovely and mundane as a human body, and whether you can really take the challenging proposition that implies, that everything human, even the most degrading aspects of humanity, has the potential for the divine.

Obviously, the vast majority of people can't take that challenging proposition, which is why they think "Piss Christ" is just an insult. I don't actually understand why they think it's an insult. Didn't Christ piss? Isn't that partly the whole POINT of Christ, actually?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

What's stopping you Jay The Great Wall of Mississippi? Iraq is just a plane flight away.

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

BG please. it took you a long time to muster that response, I am not sure you believe it yourself. Let's see here though; Clinton presided over National security for 8 years prior to 9/11 and Bush presided over NS for 8 months prior to 9/11; hmmmm...........
Your point was that there is more terrorists now because of our actions, which is absurd and of which I responded. The left is terrified, deathly afraid of this radical Islamic threat and they are blaming everybody but the people responsible. They have no plan, no clue and want to run and hide. The only person they feel tough enough to pick on is GW, kind of like a bunch school girls picking on the monitor at recess. And you want to be in charge of National security?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

you can understand why Muslims were offended but not why Christians were offended? You are definitely qualified to be the head of the democratic party.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq is no Vietnamese jungle. I'm sure we could bomb the country
into oblivion until all its remaining institutions and infrastructure
were in ruins, and then we could march in and take it over by force.

We did. Duh. The problem has always been, "And what happens THEN?"

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK


you can understand why Muslims were offended but not why Christians were offended?

Jay, I realize that, as a moron, you will have a hard time understanding this, but let me try a thought experiment for you. Christians put a picture of their Savior, humiliated, starved, and covered in blood, up on the wall of the majority of their houses of worship. This, obviously, is not considered offensive; it is in fact central to their faith. Now, Andres Serrano creates a work of art depicting Christ covered in urine, rather than blood - an interesting way of making many of the same points about the union of Godhood and manhood which are made so powerfully in all the revolting, humiliated depictions of Christ in which the Christian tradition abounds. And zillions of Christians decide this is an insult.

Do YOU understand why they were offended? Can you explain it to me? Does it offend you? Why?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

"There was no general outcry to not invade Iraq"

Other than the Pope and 15 million people who took to the streets here and around the globe in what is generally agreed to be the biggest world wide protest in history. 15 million people, pointing at George Bush and saying "Don't do that!" would constitute a general outcry, I think.

You are confusing American right wing media opinion with world opinion.

I know, I know, who cares what the rest of the world thinks.

Posted by: BG on February 14, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

again brookie, the cross depiction is the example of the painful death Jesus suffered at the hands of secular Romans. It is an historic depiction and is to be forever remembered that He died for our sins. The "piss Christ" is nothing more than secular mockery and offensive, but I acknowledge the right of people with no soul to display such nonsense.

The fact that you can not wrap your little mind around that certainly qualifies you for leadership in the DNC. Good luck.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

BG, if only there were more "caring" people marching against the Muslims and shouting "no, don't shoot school chidren in the back!"
I know though that might take integrity, strength, courage and all of nasty little traits that get in the way of destructive passivism.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, you don't need me. Head down to the local VFW and bend the ear of the locals there. Preferably a vet with time in Afghanistan. Let them know what you think. They'll be no blows, but you may find they see it differently.

I'm sorry, do you have some fucking idea that you know me personally? I know quite a few people who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have had a hell of a lot of conversations about it. But not one of them has ever had the sheer fucking witless contempt and lack of basic respect to accuse me of pissing on a dead soldier's grave. So again, if you want to accuse me of that feel free to say it to my face next time.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, do you have some fucking idea that you know me personally?

I know you about as well as you know me, moron.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

cleek, strong argument

argument is not necessary when dealing with trolls.

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

The "piss Christ" is nothing more than secular mockery and offensive

No, it is not. Do you actually know whether or not Andres Serrano is a believer? I don't. I repeat: have you seen the piece of art? Your answers lead me to think you haven't. In fact, if you didn't KNOW that the rich yellow skies in the image were produced by urine, you could easily think it was a Rembrandt. Rembrandt, needless to say, has not been accused of apostasy or of disrespect to Christians - though in fact I don't know whether he was a believer, either. So your decision to believe that this is a piece of mockery is based on the following beliefs: that the yellow in the image is produced by urine; that the author of the image is not a Christian; that his intent is to mock Christianity, not to celebrate it. In fact, you don't know whether any of these are true. You've just decided to be offended by something, because people like you enjoy being offended.

You keep repeating that the piece is a mockery of Christianity, and you still have made no attempt to explain why this is the case. Is it because anything with peepee in it is automatically offensive? (And your party wants to be in charge of our nation's health care system?)

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

It's really scary when the many headed hydra forget which sock puppet is supposed to represent exactly which outlandish POV and they start decompensating and arguing among themselves.

Egads and forsooth.

> had a much beloved ex-CIA poli-sci prof (covert) who was fond of the phrase "It just boggles the mind." .

>boggled.

Posted by: CFShep on February 14, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK
If the left were not so afraid of Islam, we might make some progress.

Its the right that is so craven that they want to throw liberty out the door for fear that the nasty "hate us for our freedom" Islamists might hurt them otherwise.

The left isn't afraid of Islam.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

first of all, NO, we do not want to be in charge of a national health care system, remember WE don't want a national health care system. And are you still on the "piss Christ" thing? The fact that you are trying so hard to convince me that it wasn't offensive, suggests to me that you yourself believe it could have been offensive. Move on.org (couldn't resist)

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Awwwww, the troll word is unveiled. This is the official sign that the left is out of arguments and now resorting to name calling. Well done!

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

people with no soul

Oh, sorry, Jay - I just reread this, and realized that you are not a Christian. Sorry for leaping to that conclusion. What religion are you, exactly? Some kind of voodoo thing?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Your point was that there is more terrorists now because of our actions, which is absurd and of which I responded.

Well, by the Bush regime's own estimates significant terrorism has tripled over the last three years. And what else happened three years ago? Oh, I don't know, let me think about that....

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

cm, is that why Clinton lobbed missles from afar at an Afghanistan aspirin factory? Is that why the Dem administration did nothing when the USS Cole was bombed and the Embassies in Kenya and Khobar towers in Saudia Arabia were taken out? Is that why Murtha, Dean and Pelosi are calling for a withdrawal? Is that why the NYT refused to reprint the Dane cartoon saying that it is offensive to Muslims?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

I know you about as well as you know me, moron.

And I'm not the one who accused you of pissing on a soldier's grave. And when I challenged you on it, you backed off and said "you don't need me, talk to some veterans." And when I told you that I do, in fact, talk to veterans quite frequently about this (some of whom are homeless, for God's sakes) this is your answer? I repeat, you can say it to my face or you can acknowledge that you owe me an apology for that contemptible slur. Where the fuck do you get off thinking you can accuse me -- or any fellow American -- of that? Where's your fucking sense of shame?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

But not one of them has ever had the sheer fucking witless contempt and lack of basic respect to accuse me of pissing on a dead soldier's grave. So again, if you want to accuse me of that feel free to say it to my face next time.

Fuck you again, Stefan. The things our troops and others have done in Afghanistan are incredible. With absolutely minimal troops on the ground and lives lost they did what the russians couldn't do after untold years and lives. Threw out the Taliban. Stood up a democracy. Freedom for women. Two democratic elections. But all you care about is the failure to capture Osama, slippery fuck that he is, and you only care about it so you can get to Bush. If your vet friends tolerate you, cool. Be sure and let them read your postings here. I'm not your friend. Fuck you. If we meet face to face, I'll say it there too. If you can't take being told to fuck off, either don't start the "FuckYouFest" or stay off the internet.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Is that why reagan did what after 200+ marines were killed in Lebanon?

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, re-read one of my earlier posts wherein I state that the left blames everybody for terrorism but the terrorists themselves. You are terrified of them and are just hoping they go away. Which school girl would you be?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

first of all, NO, we do not want to be in charge of a national health care system, remember WE don't want a national health care system.

Uh huh. I'm sure the vets in the national VA Hospital system will be happy to hear you're planning to shut those down. And the voters will all be happy to hear you're going to shut down the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health; we didn't need all that research into how to fight avian influenza, AIDS, heart disease, and cancer, anyway.

I'm just interested in the "Piss Christ" example you raised, because it's a perfect illustration of how people who get all riled up over representations usually don't actually understand what those representations are about. It's actually a kind of idolatry, to attach such fixed and obsessive meanings to particular symbols. We Jews have mostly been less vulnerable to that kind of psychosis, though in the Likud era the attachment to "the Land" has become a kind of idolatry of its own sort. And for some reason some Muslims seem to have made the prohibition of depictions into its own kind of idol, which is weird.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see Neo, comparing terrorism in 1983 vs. 1998, hmmm.............
I am glad though that you actually remembered a terrorist event prior to GW, because I thought the mantra of the left was that GW was the root of all terrorism. Or was the 1983 Lebanon tragedy GW's fault? I am sure you could spin that somehow.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Marc
Both are routinely portrayed as mentally unstable screamers, but on the substance of the issues they hold views that are widely shared.
Dean was elected governor in a state that elects, as it's sole House member, a socialist. Lieberman, on the other hand, viewed by many here as virtually a Republican, scores 76% on the liberal scale (ABA, a liberal organization). And Lieberman had to abandon most of his moderate stances to be Gore's running mate. Notwithstanding the actual screaming they have done, neither Dean nor Gore are mainstream. Even Lieberman is left of center. That is one of my points, the viewpoints that the left forwards are not anywhere near middle of America.

Folks like me have been ignored by the media, insulted by Bush and his acolytes, and are morally appalled by what we see happening in our society.
Me too, I'm a small government conservative. Bush ain't no prize, and that was known in 2000. But too much of the argument goes on in a visceral manner instead of on substance. I disagree a lot with Republican's myself, but if I want to have any hope of swaying anyone I need to make an argument on merit.

And mind, the right was just as bad with Clinton. This ain't news, we just swapped ends of the field at halftime.

But our government is not set up for radical change (and regardless of how much I want radical change, I recognize this as a good thing). So the best you or I can hope for is moving in baby steps. Of course, we'll be trying to pull the government in different directions, but hey, that's what makes America great. You keep me from doing something stupid and I keep you from doing something stupid.

Republicans will wish that they had factored in the byproducts of winning at all costs when the tables are turned.
I could here produce a list of Democratic actions just as repugnant as your list of Republican actions. But it serves no purpose, politics has always been an ugly game. You can look up things that were said about Abraham Lincoln and find this to be true.

As an illustration, not a challenge, on your "when the tables are turned". How are the Democrats going to like those judicial filibusters the Repubs will mount? The whole thing is too widespread to be pointing fingers.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

brookie, your examples of government provided health research and assistance isn't exactly "nationalized" is it. Secondly, I am not that riled up.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

No need to spin it. Reagan cut and ran like a little girly boy. Now my big question to you is what is enough? How many people do you have to kill to feel you have had enough revenge? Bush has said 30 thousand have died, other have said 200 thousand. Had enough yet tough guy?

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

because I thought the mantra of the left was that GW was the root of all terrorism.

Nope, you're wrong again there; you just made that little mantra up yourself. Our mantra would be, not that GWB actually set the initial fire, but that he is the most idiotic, incompetent, foolish, untrained, negligent and ineffective firefighter ever seen in the history of the force, and that he has managed to set a series of new fires, in what he said was an attempt to limit the spread of the initial fire, which have actually turned out to be vastly more damaging than the fire he was supposed to be fighting in the first place.

But some people decry incompetence, while others prefer to celebrate it. Go figure.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

is that why Clinton lobbed missles from afar at an Afghanistan aspirin factory
Just a correction: Clinton bombed empty tents in Afghanistan, the aspirin factory was in Sudan.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

The big question is how much is enough? How about just one more. You.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

bring it on girly boy

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

you're right cn, my mistake. BTW Neo, you forgot the troll word.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Fuck you again, Stefan. The things our troops and others have done in Afghanistan are incredible. With absolutely minimal troops on the ground and lives lost they did what the russians couldn't do after untold years and lives. Threw out the Taliban. Stood up a democracy. Freedom for women. Two democratic elections. But all you care about is the failure to capture Osama, slippery fuck that he is, and you only care about it so you can get to Bush.

Why did we invade Afghanistan? Was it to overthrow the Taliban? Obviously, no, otherwise we would have done that whether 9/11 happened or not. We did it solely and simply to get Bin Laden after he attacked us -- anything else that happened was merely an afterthought. So yeah, damn straight I care about the "failure to capture Osama" -- since that was the central point of the mission in the first place! If the Taliban had handed bin Laden over to us we never would have invaded at all.

And do I care about getting Osama solely to get to Bush? I care about getting Osama because he killed 3,000 Americans and tried to kill my friends and family. Sorry if that's not enough motivation.

By the way, the people who threw out the Russians -- the Northern Alliance, mainly -- were on our side when we invaded. The Taliban had nothing to do with kicking the Soviets out as they only came about in 1994.

I'm not your friend. Fuck you. If we meet face to face, I'll say it there too. If you can't take being told to fuck off, either don't start the "FuckYouFest" or stay off the internet.

Hey, you can say "fuck you" to me all day long. I'm not tender. But that's not what we were talking about, and you know it. What you can't say to me is that I'm pissing on a soldier's grave. That's the subject, so stop trying to change it. You still standing behind that statement?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

brookie, your examples of government provided health research and assistance isn't exactly "nationalized" is it.

Yes, they are. That's why they call them the "National Institutes of Health". I might add that your party currently administers Medicare and Medicaid and has just added the massive national prescription drug coverage system to Medicare. So when you say you don't want to run a national health care system, you're wrong.

Incidentally, I recommend you learn how to make subjects and verbs agree when writing. It's not that hard, and it makes one sound like less of an idiot.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

No, Jay your not a troll a pussy maybe for letting other real men fight your battles for you.

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

If incompetence is a freely elected government in Iraq, a first ever Iraqi national constitution in place, Saddam on trial, a 200,000+ and growing Iraqi military and security force, and a freely elected and democratic Afghanistan all within the last two years? Yeah, I will take incompetence.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

are you still there Neo?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK
By the way, the people who threw out the Russians -- the Northern Alliance, mainly -- were on our side when we invaded.

Um, the Northen Alliance weren't the people that threw out the Russians. In fact, they included units that were part of the army of the Russian puppet government.


Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK
book some barking mad moonbats to go into some spittle flecked rant about how bad America sucksPosted by: conspiracy nut
You are describing the Republicans to a tee, including the part about aiding the cause of the anti-American Islamists. France follows its own interest as do most countries. Britain seems to think their interest is to place their nose up Bush's butt.
runs free in the remotest corner of the planet constantly ducking while drones and spies hunt him and his homies down one by one?Posted by: Red State Mike
So you are the one who knows were bin Laden is. Please tell Bush who claims to be looking for him. In the meantime, you are perfectly happy blowing up innocent families in order to create more anti-American hatred.
violate every resolution the UN would unnecessarily impose upon his peaceful country along with firing upon patrol planes. Completely unprovoked. Posted by: Jay
Since you now think that it is the duty of America to enforce UN resolutions, when are you going to enforce the Israeli one? Are you still unaware that the no-fly zones were not UN sanctioned and hence, illegal? Unprovoked? Are you still unaware how Bush and Blair tried mightily to provoke attacks? We need to have adults in charge of foreign, domestic, and security policy, because the people in the Bush regime are all childish ideologues.
If only there were more funerals! Posted by: Jay
Bush will provide.
The on scene commander. NOT Bush. Posted by: Red State Mike
So Bush isn't the C-in-C and can't give orders to the army. Who know?
That's right, and the terrorists fear of facing the awesome American legal system prevented 9/11 from happening ... oh wait ... Posted by: conspiracy nut
And the lack of success in capturing bin Laden will prevent the next attack how?
when GW was elected (not selected) UBL had eight months to plan and execute one of the worlds worst terrorism event. ..Posted by: Jay
The selection of Bush to be president was the best thing that could have happened for bin Laden. Gore would have been alert to terrorist threats; Bush ignored them.
the left were not so afraid of Islam, we might make some progress. Posted by: Jay
The left is afraid of nothing, the betwetter right uses fear fear fear as a political ploy to demagogue.
if only there were more "caring" people marching against the Muslims and shouting "no, don't shoot school chidren in the back!"Posted by: Jay
Tell your Israeli allies that.
I will take incompetence. Posted by: Jay
Indeed, you have. Posted by: Mike on February 14, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,
Without reading any of the thread since my last post (I'm sure you've replied...justifiably) I will apologize. My posts were crass and tasteless, and I hold myself to a higher standard. My bad.

Until the next thread...

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 14, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

well you certainly would know something about "sounding like an idiot". I will admit though you have a point about all of the "nationalized" health systems in place. Those prgrams cover the people that deserve it though. I am definitely opposed to offering a "National Health Care" system that would include everyone though, the government could not handle it nor could they afford it. BTW, I am not happy with current adminstrations spending habits at all.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

a first ever Iraqi national constitution in place, Saddam on trial, a 200,000+ and growing Iraqi military and security force, and a freely elected and democratic Afghanistan all within the last two years? Yeah, I will take incompetence.

Iraq has had numerous national constitutions since the 1950s, at least one of them democratic. The Iraqi military still has exactly one brigade that's judged capable of military operations on its own; that number is the same as last year. The freely elected government in Afghanistan is nice, and it might actually control most of its own territory if the US had concentrated its resources on Afghanistan instead of throwing them away on the pointless chaos of Iraq. And the invasion of Afghanistan took place over 4 years ago, the invasion of Iraq 3 years ago. But why would I expect accurate dates, numbers, stats, spelling, grammar, or logic from you?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Mike parsing the posts again to make your point. BTW, the left is definitely afraid. Terrified of GW. Want to go hunting with Cheney?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Jay I am here. Have you enlisted yet?

Posted by: Neo on February 14, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

And the lack of success in capturing bin Laden will prevent the next attack how?
Ah, but look at the choices Bush has given them:
- Killed (long list of those)
- Captured (remember those CIA prisons you're whining about?)
- Discovering all the ways you can boil goat in a cave (a la bin Laden)

We know that making use of the fearsome US legal system leads to increasingly severe attacks, and time will tell what killing them or chasing them into caves will do.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Um, the Northen Alliance weren't the people that threw out the Russians. In fact, they included units that were part of the army of the Russian puppet government.

I was being simplistic, but large elements of them, such as the forces of Ahmed Shah Massoud, were. The Northern Alliance was a (very) loose confederation of Afghan warlords, most of whom had gotten their start during the Soviet occupation. They did, also, include some Afghans who had fought on the Russian side.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

"The freely elected government in Afghanistan is nice"! Wow! Baby steps, brook, baby steps.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Want to go hunting with Cheney?

Dude, this is absolutely the weirdest right-wing rallying cry I have ever seen. You're now bragging that your Vice President shoots his own hunting partners? I can't even fathom this.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, do you actually think that Democrats are opposed to democracy in Afghanistan? Have you ever actually seen a Democrat? Do you live in Utah, or something?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

get a sense of humor brookie

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Stefan, Without reading any of the thread since my last post (I'm sure you've replied...justifiably) I will apologize. My posts were crass and tasteless, and I hold myself to a higher standard. My bad.

Thank you very much, Mike. I genuinely appreciate it. I'm happy to engage in any kind of political argument, but I absolutely won't stand being accused of insulting our fallen soldiers. That's beyond the pale for me. I think we're both above that sort of thing, and I happily shake your hand to end this.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

They are not opposed to democracy, what they are opposed to is having to actually struggle to achieve it.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK
Dude, this is absolutely the weirdest right-wing rallying cry I have ever seen. You're now bragging that your Vice President shoots his own hunting partners? I can't even fathom this.

But, odd as it is, it is the approach directed from the top down:

Source

The White House has decided that the best way to deal with Vice President Dick Cheney's shooting accident is to joke about it.

President Bush's spokesman quipped Tuesday that the burnt orange school colors of the University of Texas championship football team that was visiting the White House shouldn't be confused for hunter's safety wear.

"The orange that they're wearing is not because they're concerned that the vice president may be there," joked White House press secretary Scott McClellan, following the lead of late-night television comedians. "That's why I'm wearing it."

The president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, took a similar jab after slapping an orange sticker on his chest from the Florida Farm Bureau that read, "No Farmers, No Food."

"I'm a little concerned that Dick Cheney is going to walk in," the governor cracked.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you hate Utah?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

do you actually think that Democrats are opposed to democracy in Afghanistan?
Hell, they're opposed to Democracy here. Repubs win the House, Repubs win the Senate, Repubs win the Presidency; but Repubs are supposed to roll over for the wishes of moonbats.

The moonbat's definition of democracy is: When we win, it's democracy. When someone else wins, it ain't.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

They are not opposed to democracy, what they are opposed to is having to actually struggle to achieve it.

If you polled the people who actually did the work of helping rebuild Afghanistan - the development workers, the people who staff the democracy training institutes, the health care professionals and health care training experts, the agricultural development specialists, what have you - I guarantee you you'd find 75% of them were either Democrats or (ahem) Europeans. The US armed forces, which are majority Republican, play a circumscribed role in the task of rebuilding a nation. Their role is to provide security. The security situation in Afghanistan is, shall we say, not so good. To the extent that US armed forces carry out development tasks, like building schools or delivering non-emergency civilian health care, they generally do a lousy job of it; it's not what they're trained to do, and it's better left to development pros like USAID.

The GOP deserves no particular credit for the invasion of Afghanistan; any President would've done it. There was no alternative. But a Democratic administration would've done a better job of stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan - just as a Democratic administration did a better job of stabilizing and rebuilding Bosnia.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

"The "talk show bookers" were doing what their bosses told them to do, which was to drum up public support for the war. The corporate owned mass media has, since early in the 2000 presidential campaign, clearly and consistently supported Bush and the Bush administration's agenda -- which is to say, the agenda of the ultra-rich corporate ruling class -- and propagandized on his behalf. In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, they deliberately and systematically marginalized and excluded anyone who spoke out against Bush's planned war of unprovoked aggression, and hammered the country with a pro-war message.

This was not the result of low-level employees (talk show bookers) on "autopilot". It was a deliberate policy decision by the ultra-rich CEOs and upper management of the media corporations to support Bush's war.

And it wasn't just the selection of guests on the Sunday talk shows either. It permeated ALL TV programming, in particular the "news" programs, both cable and broadcast, as well as the major newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post. All of them propagandized in favor of war."
Posted by: SecularAnimist

Sec, you are hereby awarded today's Tinfoil Hat Trophy. Congratulations.

Posted by: Brian on February 14, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Incidentally, I love Utah. But it's the place where one is less likely to meet Democrats than in any other part of the U.S. Apart from the best spots, that is, like Moab and Park City.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

And it wasn't just the selection of guests on the Sunday talk shows either. It permeated ALL TV programming, in particular the "news" programs, both cable and broadcast, as well as the major newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post. All of them propagandized in favor of war.

Well, this part is unfortunately accurate. Though my explanation leans more towards mass psychosis than towards the conspiracy of the CEOs and majority shareholders.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 14, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent blog. This is my first time here, haven't seen this one before but saved to my favorites. I can't see McCain getting in. His last bid to run failed and it was "poof" his campaign ended. The press now reports that Hillary is dropping in the polls as folks think she is "too mean" when she acts agressive.

We have all noticed that the candidate that runs the most positive campaign always seems to win. Here are some examples.
Carter vs Ford Carter had positive message he won
Bush vs Carter Bush won (thousand points of light)
Clinton vs Bush Clinton way more positive with his campaign than Bush
Bush W runs again Gore Bush had more positive message he wins
Kerry vs Bush Kerry talks mostly about Vietnam and his voice reminds us of the donkey from Winnie the Pooh what's his name "Eeore"? So Bush wins.
Just you wait and see you guys, whoever has the most positive message wins. Here's another good site, it's not a blog but it's a non partisan pro America video page. Enjoy
http://www.turnyourspeakerson.com/powerofamerica.html

Posted by: Chris on February 14, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Paul Hackett gave many of us directly involved in this war a voice, as no other person has. And I am hurting and angry right now, and I came here to express that...

Wwwhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!

Posted by: ack on February 14, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Your instinct's right, though, Lydia.

Let's talk more about Hacket! Why do you guys think he just couldn't hack it?

Posted by: ack on February 14, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, please look around. You have chosen to hang out in a site with a bunch of people you consider traitors and wimps. Go hang out with your friends now. I know that the pool of people who agree with you is shrinking every day, but there are still plenty of logic free hate mongers out there.

But before you go....

" Let's see here though; Clinton presided over National security for 8 years prior to 9/11 and Bush presided over NS for 8 months prior to 9/11; hmmmm..........."

20/20 hindsight. If Clinton had taken out Osama, your team would have cried Wag The Dog. Hell, you probably would have made Osama into a hero. I can hear Rush now, "...and Clinton has managed to inflame the entire Muslim world by killing the man responsible for driving Russia from Afghanistan. This just proves he's on Russia's side...."

You don't dispute my point, but instead level a charge against Clinton. Bush was president on 9/11. That's all I said.
But if it was so obvious that Clinton should have taken out bin Laden, why didn't Bush make it priority #1? Oh that's right, he had to clear brush in Crawford. For a month.

If you really believe that Clinton is at fault for 9/11 and Bush isn't, please answer these two questions. Yes or no:
1) Is Bush senior responsible for the 1993 WTC attack?
2) Is Bush senior responsible for the right wing attack in Oklahoma City?

I notice you left that one out of your litany of terror above. HAVE Y0U FORGOTTEN OKLAHOMA CITY? WHEN A RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN TERRORIST KILLED 230 PEOPLE, 50 OF THEM KIDS IN A DAY CARE CENTER?

At the time it ocurred, the Republican bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building was the worst terrorist attack in our history. It was done by one of YOUR Republican team mates. And you want to be in charge of National Security?

Posted by: BG on February 14, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Theocracy was the word you were looking for cn.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

You gotta love speech codes and censorship. Maybe limiting free speech is a good idea after all:

"One of Britain's top Muslims, the ever-entertaining Sir Iqbal Sacranie, is in trouble for having expressed the wholly orthodox -- and even, by his religion's standards, moderate -- view that homosexuals are 'not acceptable' and 'immoral' and that 'same-sex relationships damage the very foundations of society.' For having come up with this stuff on the BBC's 'PM' programme, he has been investigated by the police for the thought-crime, or, as the police put it these days, hate-crime, of homophobia.

"...If Sir Iqbal -- and adherents of the Muslim faith in general -- believe homosexuality to be repugnant, then that is their view, and it is not the business of the government, or the police... to divest them of it. But the Old Bill [=police] are scurrying around to Sir Iqbal's house with a view to prosecuting him for merely articulating one of the fundamental tenets of a religion whose strictures will soon be protected by law. [ i.e. the proposed UK law to criminalize the defamation of Islam] This is, quite literally, madness. The two laws -- one proposed and one already on the statute books -- are in direct, unequivocal opposition. One day we will surely see the prosecution of a gay person for suggesting that Islam is ludicrous and, by dint of its opposition to homosexuality, illegal. And where will we be then?"

Posted by: nok on February 14, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

20/20 hindsight. If Clinton had taken out Osama, your team would have cried Wag The Dog. Hell, you probably would have made Osama into a hero. I can hear Rush now, "...and Clinton has managed to inflame the entire Muslim world by killing the man responsible for driving Russia from Afghanistan.

Good thing dems are not making that argument now AT ALL. Never. Wouldn't think of it. Taking the side of our enemies? infinkable.

Posted by: ack on February 14, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

The explanation for the discrepancy between the ratios of those who supported the Iraq invasion to those who did not, and the corresponding ratios of the guests on television is that the anti-war group were pretty reluctant to make a public case in 2002.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 14, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

"The explanation for the discrepancy between the ratios of those who supported the Iraq invasion to those who did not, and the corresponding ratios of the guests on television is that the anti-war group were pretty reluctant to make a public case in 2002."

Oh you want to get serious all of a sudden, Yatzy. I thought this was the funny board. (Most of the comments here are hilarious. Unintentional of course, but still).

Not only were the anti-war group reluctant, but they are also extremely boring guys (see Kevin's post above this) who do nothing for ratings.

Now, can we get back to laughing at Hacket???

Posted by: ack on February 14, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Blasphemy BG, I heard there were only 49 kids in that daycare.
I never said Clinton was responsible for 9/11(though you drew a nice conclusion),
and no, Bush Sr. is not responsible for the other attacks. You know who is responsible? The attackers! One is dead (McVeigh) and the other (the Islamic terrorists) are currently active in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

ack:

Harry Whittington has shotgun pellets in his heart.

They moved him back into the ICU.

The Paul Hackett story has already blipped off the radar screen.

Dead-Eye Dickless will apparently be around for a couple more news cycles -- at least.

You better get on your knees and pray this guy doesn't die.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Good thing dems are not making that argument now AT ALL. Never. Wouldn't think of it. Taking the side of our enemies? infinkable."

If you have any quotes or any proof whatsoever to support your thesis that dems support terrorists, please supply them here. You could have avoided the whole argument. But you have none. That's why you change the subject and don't answer direct questions. Just for the record, being against Bush does not = being for the terrorists. I know you think it does. But it doesn't. What will prove your point to me is providing quotes of democratic leaders saying they support the terrorists.

"You know who is responsible? The attackers! One is dead (Tim McVeigh, i.e.THE REPUBLICAN)" I edited that for clarity.

"... and the other (the Islamic terrorists) are currently active in the Democratic Party."
Again, proof of this would be helpful in making your point. Saying that they are in the Democratic Party if you can't prove it is a lie. I know that your team doesn't mind that, but while you are on our turf could you try to play by our rules?

I should have left it alone after your first reply, when it was obvious you did not want to address my points, but instead insisted on making up my points for me and then shooting them down.

But I'm glad I kept it alive long enough to let you show us that you are the type of guy who glibly jokes about the fact that one of his Republican soul mates killed "only" 49 kids in a day care center. Hilarious. And classy.

Posted by: BG on February 14, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

If you have any quotes or any proof whatsoever to support your thesis that dems support terrorists, please supply them here.
Uh, a thousand Mogadishus, insurgency as minutemen, and the classic "it's the only weapon they have". Nothing else springs immediately to mind.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Ack said:
The explanation for the discrepancy between the ratios of those who supported the Iraq invasion to those who did not, and the corresponding ratios of the guests on television is that the anti-war group were pretty reluctant to make a public case in 2002.

Liar. You = pwnd. There were at least 4. The largest protest was indeed in 2003, not 2002 , but anti-war folks were naything but silent. They just weren't covered on Fox. Read on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war

Putting your head in the sand doesn't make facts go away. And I hope that's sand your head is in...

Posted by: Saint Waldo on February 14, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Oh wait, little Eichman's and we deserved it.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Uh, a thousand Mogadishus, insurgency as minutemen, and the classic "it's the only weapon they have". Nothing else springs immediately to mind."
Obviously no quotes supporting your thesis sprang to mind either. I'll wait.
And if you want to say that one pissant professor in Colorado speaks for the Democrats then I'll go ahead with saying that Tim McVeigh speaks for all Republicans.
Quotes. From Democratic leaders. If you've got 'em, put up or shut up.

Posted by: BG on February 14, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Saint Waldo,

The comment was not Ack's, but was mine. However, I was talking about politicians, not the general class of anti-war protesters. The politicians who were against the invasion of Iraq, while largely principled, were not eager to make much of a public showing of their opposition.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Democratic leaders; changing the requirements on me, huh? Well, Democratic leaders aren't generally stupid enough to say such things. But I'll do a little searching, because I bet Pelosi has popped off something she regrets saying.

And Dean is a likely source, and Al Bore. Give me a bit...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a defeatist quote from a politician when asked if we can win the "War on Terror" (TM): "I don't think we can win it, no."

Oh, wait, that was by George W. Bush, so it doesn't count. Never mind.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Pelosi was easiest
Pelosi Calls for Withdrawal From Iraq (you may note that is the same position the terrorists hold)

And what have we here, from her response to the SOTU

We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force
You may not that is the same position the terrorists hold. (To some Democrat's credit, she was urged not to say that) Then we have her under actual questioning by a human.
Asked what she thought America should do to defeat the terrorists, Pelosi initially sidestepped the question, but Rose (most uncharacteristically) kept pushing her for an answer until she finally said that the way to fight Muslim terrorism was through (yes, she really said this) "education."
Oooh, that'll teach 'em! We'll get 'em GEDs for flying planes into our buildings!

Anyway, I guess for Pelosi the answer is to give the terrorists what they want, then give them a good education. If you want to find out what opposing terrorists looks like, we turn to Rumsfeld:

"I'm hopeful that some will surrender. I suspect some won't, and I suspect the result from that will be that the opposition forces will kill them.
And oh ya, Gore is a treasure trove of idiocy. I don't have any quotes, I'm sure there are some but I laugh too hard reading that guy. Can't keep my concentration. But what was he saying in Saudi Arabia the other day? Lastly there is this guy
"I think unleashing 3,000 smart bombs against the city of Baghdad in the first several days of the war . . . I would call that an act of extreme terrorism," said [East Bay Rep. Pete] Stark, a Democrat from Fremont.
Sure, make those terrorists feel OK about their homocidal instincts; hell, everyone does it. In fact, everyone knows that Republicans are worse than terrorists, right?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 14, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, those are quotes from Democratic leaders all right. And I agree that your interpretation of those quotes is that they = hating America. I disagree with that interpretation.
I don't want to argue based on interpretation. I want to argue the facts. You impy that Democrats hate America and support the terrorists.
So, when you can find a quote saying somethng along the lines of "I hate America" or "I support the terrorists" you will have proved your point.
Until then, you will have only proven what you think And I already know that.

Your first Pelosi quote amounts to a very rational description of how our occupation is viewed by the vast majority of Iraqis and and a vast majority of the rest of the the world. Pointing out what everybody thinks is not treason. The second example is a 1 word quote, "education". Which is set up by an unnamed (right wing?)writer. And you interpret that as hating America and supporting the terrorists. Good luck in court with those 2 examples.

You have made a banket charge of treason against the 60% of your fellow citizens who disagree with Bush. If that is true, surely, out of 45 Senators, 20 or so governors and 200 congressmen who share this view there must be one who said something to back up your implication. I mean, you seem to have based your entire political philosophy on the premise that we hate America. So, let's see the proof. Not your interpretation or opinion.
Or are you so paranoid that you believe that 3 out of every 5 people you see on the street support the terrorists, but not one has ever said so out loud?

Posted by: BG on February 15, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

BG, I see that after asking for quotes from Democrats supporting terrorists, which I provided, you then asked for quotes from Democratic leaders supporting terrorists, which I provided, you have now moved the goalposts to treason instead of supporting terrorists.

Tell me, BG, just how far are you willing to back up?

And just so I'm clear before I start this Google search, are you talking about Democrats, Democratic leaders, some subset of Democratic leaders, or what?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 15, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I didn't think you could find any, but feel free to keep looking.
"quotes from Democrats supporting terrorists,
which I provided", No you didn't. You provided the jumble of words pasted below.
"you then asked for quotes from Democratic leaders supporting terrorists, which I provided," No you didn't. You provided quotes from Pelosi and Stark that commented on the situation in Iraq. You incorrectly interpreted them to mean they support the terrorists. They were commenting on the situation. Columbo saying, "She did it for the money" doesn't mean he approves of killing someone for money. He is commenting on a possible motive. As for the Stark quote, if Finland dropped 30,000 tons of bombs on your home town, would you consider them terrorists? According to the non-partisan Red Cross, we have killed 100,000 + innocent Iraqis along with the terrorists and insurgents. That's one of the rasons that we are against the war, the whole killing 100,000 people who didn't attack us thingy.
"you have now moved the goalposts to treason instead of supporting terrorists."
Sorry to confuse you. Supporting out enemy is treason.

Most of your original "proof" is 2 or 3 words taken out of context.
Example:
"Uh, a thousand Mogadishus, insurgency as minutemen, and the classic "it's the only weapon they have". Nothing else springs immediately to mind."
Still waiting. I'll leave the goal post right here:
Provide a quote from a Democratic leader where he or she says they support the terrorists over the USA. The whole quote. And a way to verify it. You know, like in the real world where people deal with facts.
I could take Bush quotes out of context and, using your standard, "prove" that he hates blacks, he was AWOL, etc. etc. But I'm not against him because he seems as racist as the right wing in general, or because he apparently skipped out on his military obligation. I'm against because, like most of the people on this planet, I disagree with his Iraq policy.
It seems that we disagree whith what your side does, while you just don't like who we are (See Clinton, Bill, 1992-1998). Or who you think we are.
You are basing your opinons not on what we say, but on what you believe we think. Like The Thought Police.

Posted by: BG on February 15, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly