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

March 19, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY....Jonathan Alter provides a glimpse at Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats:

Just as Harry Truman ran against the "Do-Nothing Congress," Democrats will run against the "Rubber-Stamp Congress," which pimped for K Street, took a dive on its critical oversight duties (particularly on Iraq) and helped the president bankrupt the country by shoveling money toward the rich.

Emanuel won't say yet which votes supporting Bush he plans to wrap around the necks of incumbents. But look for gut-punch ads that highlight the incumbents' 90-plus percent backing for Bush on issues like cuts in college loans and veterans benefits, privatizing Social Security, selling out to Big Pharma on prescription drugs and halting stem-cell research. Republicans are now scurrying away from Bush, but it may be too late. They can't take those roll-call votes back.

That all sounds good, but I still think we need a stronger focus on Iraq (i.e., withdrawal from) and national security (i.e., what we'd do if we're not up for invading Iran). I hope we're not planning to ignore that stuff again, like we did in our famously winning efforts of 2002 and 2004.

Kevin Drum 4:38 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (307)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.
The game plan, devised by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators on Thursday at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to The Washington Times by a congressional staffer.
Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.
"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states.
However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."
Jim Manley, Mr. Reid's spokesman, said yesterday the planned events are not part of a political campaign. They would involve only incumbent Democratic senators, some of whom are up for re-election, but not Democratic Senate challengers, he said. Democrats hope to capture Senate control in November's election.
"These are events to highlight the need for increased funding for the troops," Mr. Manley said. "It's an effort to paint the White House and the Republican Congress as having a failed effort on national security issues, which is a direct result of their misplaced priorities and mismanagement."
The Senate plan urges holding town hall events to "draw attention to the security vulnerabilities caused by the Bush budget and explain how Democrats fought to restore programs that keep America safe."
The plan is the latest attempt by Democrats to criticize Mr. Bush on national security issues in the aftermath of the Dubai ports deal dust-up, which Republicans conceded was mishandled by the administration. One of the few areas where Republicans continue to poll well versus Democrats is on fighting terrorists.
In almost every issue in the Reid memo, Democratic lawmakers are called upon to criticize the president for not spending enough federal dollars.

Posted by: Patton on March 19, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq is easy, politically.

Most Americans want (1) success and (2) get out.

Therefore, the Dems need to convey that the best path to success is to leave. Our presence is fueling the insurgency. In order to create a stable, free Iraq, the best strategy is to carefully withdraw troops and support the Iraq govt with money, weapons, econonmic aid, strategy, etc.

Note to Dems: the message is "succeed by leaving" not "we've lost." Big difference.

Posted by: Oberon on March 19, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Explain this to me. Justify It. Convince me that it is worth it.

Then you'll get my vote.

How much do you need George to finish the mission?

Another $300 billion?

No problem, we'll just raise the debt ceiling for government spending.

I think it's fitting that our grandchildren will be paying for this endless black hole of a war.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on March 19, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

A) Doesn't the "rubber stamp" charge cover Iraq and national security issues as well? The Republicans have barely questioned a war strategy in Iraq that isn't really working, shirked oversight of Presidential activities like wiretapping, and barely questioned defense appropriations.

B) I think the point is framing (ye Gods, that word again) the discussion on Dem terms - this isn't just a war/national security election. It's a "do we want more of this mess" election. Let's not get too bogged down on proving that we were really right all along. That's really a needless distraction, on some level. Especially when winning - and changing things - is in our grasp.

Posted by: weboy on March 19, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

That all sounds good, but I still think we need a stronger focus on Iraq (i.e., withdrawal from) and national security

Iraq: Murtha's plan is good. National Security: the litany of letdowns: letting bin Laden get away, letting the Taliban resurge, starting wars that were distractions from the real threat, chemical plants doing nothing, nuke plants little--some added a night-watchman or two, ports almost completely in foreign hands, squandering resources investigating Bush political opponents, ...and has anybody checked out how the INS has been doing lately?

Posted by: jim p on March 19, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree. You don't vote for a congressman because you think that'll get us out of Iraq.

But rubber stamping every stupid thing Bush and the admin did? ... that's something you can hold an individual accountable for.

And should

Posted by: curious on March 19, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

curious is right. who votes for a congressman because of Iraq?

Posted by: Freedom Phucker on March 19, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

The biggest problem is the deficit. How much debt does it take to get through to the Great American Pubic??

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on March 19, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Both sides are of course being a bit disingenuous. The Republicans will absolutely use gun control and my opponent supports higher taxes and Osama bin Laden.

The Democrats will use Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham and Gangster Jack Ambramoff. The rubber-stamp argument is particularly strong when linked to the Hammer.

The "values" horseshit mentioned by Barnes has real potency. I think the Dems should preemptively attack the South Dakota abortion law. It's much better to be AGAINST something. And god, guns, gays, etc. is what the press likes to cover.

Dubai is great issue to accuse your opponent of rubber-stamping the president on. The more he claims he didn't, the more he gives the rubber-stamp argument legs. Oh, sorry, you mean you voted against Bush once and with him 199 times? That makes you a real independent thinker.

Posted by: Steve High on March 19, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

That all sounds good, but I still think we need a stronger focus on Iraq (i.e., withdrawal from) and national security (i.e., what we'd do if we're not up for invading Iran).

Just my opinion, but I think our beltway bandits still feel trapped between Bush's cowboy foreign policy and the ghost of George McGovern. Its going to take more Dems with a backbone to work with Feingold and Murtha in coming up with a third way out while pointing out that the hot potato of our current mess has always been in the President's hands.

Posted by: Doug H. on March 19, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, I must have been watching the 2004 election on some other planet, because I could have sworn the whole thing was about John Kerry's foreign policy credentials, or arguable lack thereof.

Really, does anyone here remember a single damn domestic policy proposal of Kerry's? No? Me neither.

Posted by: Monstertron on March 19, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

I remember Kerry planned to roll back tax cuts for the rich and spend a big chunk of change on health care.

Posted by: Lucy on March 19, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Monstertron:

Offloading catastrophic healthcare insurence from his expanded coverage proposal.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

At the risk of being redundant (I posted this last thread), here's an ad proposal on national security:

TOTALLY DEMAGOGIC, REVERSE-ROVIAN DNC AD:

{slo-mo shot of plane crashing into WTC}

Voicover: Four years ago, America was dealt a devastating blow by our
most implacable enemies ...

{shot of jihad types rallying and burning American flag}

George Bush, our Commander-in-Chief, rallied our country in
a shared sense of purpose ...

{shot of W at Ground Zero, in the fireman helmet with the bullhorn}

We liberated Afghanistan from the religious tyranny of the Taliban

{shot of Taliban shooting women in a soccer stadium --
crosscut to feel-good footage of post-invasion
Afghanistan -- schools, grateful citizens voting, etc.}

And then, Bush turned his attention to Iraq ...

{music turns ominous; shot of Rumsfeld on Russert "We know where the
weapons of mass destruction are; they're somewhere around Tikrit."}

George Bush assured us that Saddam Hussein had nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons -- but none were found ...

{sbot of Charles Duelfer press conference " ...
no weapons of mass destruction ... "}

And Iraq now is costing us over a billion dollars a week

{feel-bad Iraq footage of bombings and chaos, sewage in streets}

Now Bush wants to wiretap the al Qaeda
masterminds to prevent another attack

{shot of Osama video}

And all Americans support him in this goal

{shot of Congress applauding during SOTU}

But Bush doesn't want to tell Congress, or a secret
national security court, anything about the program.

{freeze frame of Bush's face on an exasperated expression}

And so did another president, when questioned on surveillance

{morph Bush's face into Nixon's, with a simlar expression}

Today, the stakes are even higher. Tell your legislators
that you support the Bill of Rights for all American citizens.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I don't know about Dems retaking the house or winning anything.

I though I was a dem, that's what my voter registration card says anyway.

But I can't see myself voting for any dem...or any republican...I will probably write in a name if nothing changes...because both parties are now run by fringe lunatics.

And after 4 years of lurking on blogs from DKos to Redstate to Slate to Blog america, etc,etc.etc....ad nausum...I am begining to think they are more bad than good, as they seem to attract the fringes of both sides...and the politicans mistakenly think the netroots represent the majority of Americans.

No matter which party or person you elect..given the current choices...you will still be up the creek without a paddle.

Neither one is going to change our foreign policies or trade policies, and since they won't, the domestic policies won't matter, they will be nothing domestic left.

good luck.

Posted by: Carroll on March 19, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Kerry also wanted to save some money (to pay for health care) by allowing us to negotiate with drug companies or reimport drugs from other countries.

Let's see: Oh yeah, "energy independence" was up there years before Bush started talking about grass and what not. Increasing minimum wage. Increasing funding for R&D as well as education. It's easy to foroget those things. I mean, he only mentioned them in pretty much every single speech.

Posted by: gq on March 19, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

No Democrat will win unless he takes on the media and gets it to stop repeating RNC talking points. Republicans keep hammering the media for being too "liberal". Democrats never say anything about it. This has to stop.

Posted by: dan on March 19, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Carroll:

I believe they call that a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

I've got a few "punchy" campaign slogans:

"Where's Osama? Don't Ask a Republican."

"'Spreading democracy in the Middle East' is revisionist history."

"Republicans - Exploiting the blood of 9-11 for corporate gain."

Or are they too "reality-based" for the Democratic Party?

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 19, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Stephen Kriz:

Shi'ite happens

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Carroll,

When I read the lefty blogs, I always see them complain that the Dems aren't listening to them, etc., etc. They don't seem to be having much of an impact. For instance, Howard Dean got trampled dispite raising the most money. Their project, Ciro Rodriguez, also got trampled. (Admittedly, I would have liked to have seen the latter win.)

The "netroots" is just another constituency within the Democratic Party. They don't make up the majority of the Party and I doubt many politicians believe they do--at least no successful ones. That said, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a voice?

The best way to get a feel for the Party is to join the county Democratic Party. Those are the people who are actually knocking on doors and doing the work (instead of just sending out mass faxes from the comfort of their computer chair). You get a much different feel from talking to the people who are doing the "busy" work for the Party. They are much more tolerant of other Democrats' views than the "netroots" who come across to me as bullies.

Posted by: gq on March 19, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

The Dems need a positive message to go with the negative one. I don't see why the Dems won't run as the party of Civic Responsibility. Congressional oversight, balanced budgets, solvent social security, reforming welfare, revitalizing involvement in education (ie Teach for America, not just testing), and yes, proper sex education to decrease the rate of abortions. That's the record, and now Dems have ideas for the new challenges (one hopes): security, economic, environment, and health care. The ads are easy: here are the challenges ahead (list). Who do you want facing them? The party who did x, y, z. Or the party that has spent to record deficits, mismanaged natural disasters, and has a laundry list of indictments for bribery. It might sound very 1950s, but it sends two messages loud and clear. Dems care about Civic life, not just personal gain, and Dems act responsibly when entrusted with the public good, rather than venally.

Posted by: lisainVan on March 19, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

gg:

Good points.

That's why Howard Dean has focused the DNC strategy on building the local parties in all 50 states.

It sure looks different when you're knocking on doors.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

"It's the stupidity, stupid"

Posted by: Lucy on March 19, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

LisainVan:

On a broad thematic level, I like that very much.

Civic life vs private venality. Accomplishments vs incompetence.

Well-stated.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

What do you mean "they can't take back those roll call votes"? Sure they can. They will just say "no I didn't". The press will report it as "some critics allege" and never bother to look it up.

Posted by: Layne on March 19, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

It would be nice if civic responsibility resonated with the voting public as much as moralism.

Posted by: Lucy on March 19, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

The comments all sound tactical. "Framing" the message.

On security the Dems are losers and will be while they keep to the refrain that sounds like Vietnam. McGovern indeed. The one good effect it might have is on Iraqi politicians. I can imagine Bush telling them that if the Democrats win the Congress, they will be SOL. That may stimulate more compromise.

Complaining about Republican spending reminds people about who would spend even more.

A major policy effort could be a well thought out single payer health plan. RAND and Brookings are left-leaning think tanks. They should be able to come up with a better plan than Clinton's which was killed by Hillary's political mistakes.

You have to realize that Bush's poll numbers are the result of a determined negative campaign by the MSM for the past 6 years. The voters don't follow the polls.

Posted by: Mike K on March 19, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

They should hire the guy who made the Read My Lips ad for the first Clinton campaign.

Posted by: lib on March 19, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Stephen Kriz--

I think the Freeway Blogger had the best slogan--
a drawing of Bin Laden with "I'M NOT IN IRAQ MORONS"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29847284807@N01/913242

Posted by: beowulf on March 19, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Jonathan Alter provides a glimpse at Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats...

Ronald McDonald provides a glimpse at Alfred E. Newmans's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats...

Posted by: koreyel on March 19, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K:

"The voters don't follow the polls."

Uh-hub.

Lucy:

Civic responsibility is a sort of moralism in itself. I think people tend to become as enraged at crooks in Washington as they do at sexual immorality.

THROW THE BUMS OUT is as moralistic as anything that could crawl off of Donald Wildemon's or James Dobson's fingers.

The incumbent party is corrupt. Simple as that.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK
The voters don't follow the polls.

Funniest goddam nonsense I've read in about a year.

Posted by: SavageView on March 19, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK
You have to realize that Bush's poll numbers are the result of a determined negative campaign by the MSM for the past 6 years. The voters don't follow the polls.

Keep sleeping, keep dreaming, we will wake you when its over.

Posted by: molly bloom on March 19, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Jonathan Alter provides a glimpse at Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats..."

Kevin...

I'd like to know the opinion of Matt Yglesias in regards to Jonathan Alter glimpse at Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats...

PS: not really...

Posted by: koreyel on March 19, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Complaining about Republican spending reminds people about who would spend even more.

Frankly, at this point I'm not sure there's much difference.

The Federal Government's prime function nowadays is transferring wealth between citizens in return for political power. In a system where those who pass out the most goodies get the most votes, you tend to select for spenders, no matter which party it is.

Those few who are for fiscal discipline, either cutting spending (usually Republicans) or raising taxes (usually Democrats) are soon out on the street. Why vote for somebody who tells you you can't have it all for nothing?

I'm not sure there's a way out of it. The process is institutionalized. Every "attempt" to impose fiscal restraints over many years (debt limits, spending limits, etc.) have been easily routed around and ignored.

Maybe term limits?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 19, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK
... either cutting spending (usually Republicans)...

Another Republican denies that the last five years actually occurred. Smashing job!

Posted by: SavageView on March 19, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

SavageView:

Read more carefully. Those few that are trying for fiscal discipline, usually fall into those categories.

Of course it's obvious that most Republicans aren't doing a hell of a lot to cut spending, and most Democrats aren't standing up to seriously propose major tax increases, either.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 19, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

It is unnecessary to read "more carefully." I take your words as written.

The Republicans have been in complete charge at the federal level since January 2001, and spending has exploded even absent 9/11-related efforts. Your words, like you, are orthognal to simple fact. Perhaps you could try to read a paper.

Posted by: SavageView on March 19, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

I know as a Democrat, I'm supposed to berate my own side, but I'm actually quite excited about this. Congress deserves about 80 percent of the blame for everything Bush has done, not only by abdicating their oversight role, but by putting on the accelerator any time someone points out Bush is driving us off a cliff, and then by doing everything they can to protect him from the consequences of their actions. They have done more to weaken their own institution than any other Congress by shifting all their powers to Dear Leader. I do agree that Dems have to take a stand on security other than seconding everything Bush does. The ports, as BS as it was, was the first time the Dems showed themselves as the party to trust over the Republicans on the Security front.

Posted by: Memekiller on March 19, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

The democrats biggest challenge is not coming up with a campaign strategy based on policies - it's coming up with enough reason for voters to go to the polls. There is no question that the polls today favor the democratic party, even if it is a protest opinion over the whores, liars, and thieves currently in power.

To motivate the voting public out of a sense of hopelessness and apathy is the goal. There is no problem with disgust for those W, L and T. It is a matter of convincing the voters that they will not be replaced with a differently branded set of W, L and T.

Who runs and what they have done in the past is going to be under a microscope. We can all feel it in the air: very few democrats are going to fall for superficial PR bullshit. You want my vote? Be honest. Be credible. Otherwise, I may not even show up. And that is what the Repugs are praying for.

Posted by: jcricket on March 19, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

SavageView:

I did read a newspaper, which is where I got the article I linked to. Try reading that one, and see which party members mentioned in the article were actually trying to hold back the spending.

I am not at all happy with the Republican record on spending, but if you sit a Democrat down and get his wish list for what the government ought to be doing and spending money on, and how much, the mind boggles. Their assurances that they will raise taxes to the limit to cover it don't help.

At this point, even speaking on domestic issues only and not national security, I'd still rather have Republicans running the show than Democrats. Both parties are driving for the fiscal cliff edge, but while the Republicans aren't stepping on the brakes, at least they aren't jamming their foot down on the accelerator either, which I believe Democrats would eagerly do.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see France as the ideal role model for our nation. Too many Democrats and liberals do.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 19, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not seeing Britain as much of a role model either.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 19, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

Democratic talking points for 2006:

1. Talking about incompetence makes a lot of sense for the 2006 elections. "Vote for competence --- vote Democrat."

2. Making the 2006 election a referendum on Bush should also be part of the plan. We too often let Republicans frame things --- for instance, we describe the Republicans in Congress as loyal, a positive strong term, instead of as wimps who won't stand up to this Administration. "The weak Republican yes-men in Congress won't stand up to President Bush. I will. Vote Democrat."

3. I also like what Wesley Clark has said about ending one-party rule. "Checks and balances don't work when we have one-party rule. The Republican-controlled Congress are the ones who let Bush appoint his incompetent cronies to high positions. They won't tell Bush "No." But I will. We've got to put checks on this out-of-control Congress. Vote Democrat. Just say No."

Posted by: catherineD on March 19, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

There's one thing I'm always wondering about when reading that Emanuel is pulling the strings again: Who tf elected this former ballet dancer into this important position? And why tf is he still in it? Because of his great sucesses? Ha!

Posted by: Gray on March 19, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

What selective amnesia you have tbrosz.

Bush inherited a surplus from Bill Clinton before proceeding to sack the treasury.

Jesus H. Christ.

Posted by: Lucy on March 19, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, the difference you ignore is the difference between investing money and throwing money away.
Investing $87 billion three years ago would have established a nationalized healthcare system where everyone pays their own way (at 7% of earnings). The payoffs from heathcare would be tangible and enduring
Throwing away $87 billion in the first year in Iraq has paid no dividends. The mounting costs in money, security, and morale are enduring.
Investing a trillion dollars over several years in sustainable energy development, wind, solar, biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen: this would spin off major new industries, bring new fungible products (e.g. glycerine) to the marketplace, free up petroleum for the needs of future generations' medicines and materials (90 percent of each come from petroleum), and pay dividends in money/jobs, increased security, decreased environmental degredation, and more.
Throwing away a trillion dollars on tax cuts for the wealthiest, and throwing a way another trillion dollars on the extended war bring: no payoffs, many detriments, and--frankly Mr, Brosz, I do not understand what values guide you any more in your thinking.

The old left-right meme is dead. We need to realize what right vs. wrong means.

If you want to be greedy and put the little guy down, that's one thing.

But supporting this unjust, immoral, ungodly, illegal war, the trampling of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, standing blithely by while our vote is made meaningless, our debt ($30k/person) mounts as far as the eye can see, the environment degrades to the point of planetary suicide, and on goes the list, to carry on in this fashion really makes no sense.

Jeremiah, are you out there?

God, are we screwed for good?

Posted by: Cassandro on March 19, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz is still stuck in the '80s meme of "all taxes bad."

Adult pay for what they want. Children expect something for nothing.

As long as the Democratic vision is linked to a mechanism to pay for it, they are behaving as adults.

As long as the Republican vision is linked to a mechansim that shifts the costs to someone else, they are behaving as children.

tbrosz votes with the children.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

cassandro, quite the little liberal tantrum. Far be of me too rain on your pity parade but allow me to challenge you a bit. $87 billion invested three years ago in UHC would have today resulted in nothing. $87 billion is a small drop in the bucket to what a comprehensive UHC program would cost. Investing a trillion dollars in sustainable and newer energies is what is being done and has been since the Clinton administration which was ratcheted up at GW's SOTU. Many hybrid cars are currently available and as the technology becomes more sophisticated and less expensive, the availability will be greater.

Currently the US economy is in good shape. Historically low unemployment, a GDP growing every quarter for the last ten at an avg. of 3-4% and the nasdaq and dow currently perfroming well. That's what tax-breaks for the rich do, stimulates growth and expansion resulting in more tax revenues in 2005 than projected. The Iraq conflict is now really just that and no longer a war. Our troops have accomplished deposing a dictator and helped to establish a freely elected government and a trained military/security force in three years and now will begin coming home this year.
Iraq war = trillion dollars
A peaceful Iraq = priceless

Honestly cassandro I don't know what values drive you, except the selfish ones where you do not care to help others free themselves from oppression and then expect everyone here to help pay for your healthcare needs. Seems a little self centered.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq war = trillion dollars
A peaceful Iraq = priceless

Hey... we get all those schools painted yet?

Posted by: koreyel on March 19, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

"A peaceful Iraq = priceless"

Great! When does that happen?

"Current US occupation of Iraq = Vietnam"

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see, an nationally elected representative government supported by a 200,000+ and growing military/security force that now controls over 50% of the country doesn't exactly equal occupation. But hey thanks for playing.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Let's see, an nationally elected representative government supported by a 200,000+ and growing military/security force that now controls over 50% of the country doesn't exactly equal occupation. But hey thanks for playing."

Sorry, I was talking about Iraq. You know, with a puppet government approved by the occupiers, a pathetic military that does nothing with US support, a corrupt police force that exacts political revenge, and hundreds of Iraqis murdered monthly.

But, hey, thanks for playing. Moron.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Ayad Allawi said this weekend that Iraq was already in a civil war.

Allawi represents the secular parties that we'd like to see running Iraq.

So, uhh ... what's his deal? He talking to Howard Dean and John Murtha or something? :)

Or are *you* just a partisan shill, immune to inconvenient facts.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

"military that does nothing with US support"

. . . does nothing *without* US support . . .

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Is this the Rahm Emanuel, congressman and former Clinton staffer, that collected $17 million dollars from Citicorp for three months worth of work in 2001?

Who's the pimp?

Posted by: mark on March 19, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Have you read Riverbend's recent meditation on the three-year anniversary of the invasion?

Oh right -- she's *also* talking to Dean and Murtha. Juan Cole, too.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

It's the same one Mark, ironic isn't it?

This then is the quietest, most bloodless civil war in history. Why even MSNBC is having trouble finding concrete evidence of the "civil war". Gen. Casey, you remember him don't you Bob, the leader of the our ground forces in Iraq, has stated that the up-rising that many feared would lead to a civil war, never fully materialized and was successfull thwarted by the Iraqi forces and the calls for peace from the clerics.

Now I remember you calling Awalli and Bush puppet not too long ago but now his words are golden and you believe him over Gen Casey?
Interesting.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans.

Repeat over and over again.

This is a winning meme, both because it's short and alliterative, and because it's true.

Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans.

Make the Republican lemmings pay the price for their blind loyalty to Dear Leader.

Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans.

Hey, Red Stater, your congressman isn't representing you. He's there to do the bidding of Dear Leader. He's nothing but a RSR.

Rubber Stamp Republican. Rubber Stamp Republican. RSR RSR RSR . . .

Yes!

You gotta love it.

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvark on March 19, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

No I haven't read riverbends meditatins Bob, but I did burn incense last night. Does that count?

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Most of the troops we're training have a much deeper loyalty to their sect than they do to the notion of Iraq. In fact, many ISF -- especially police -- were recruited directly from sectarian militias. Why do you think it's been so easy for sectarian militias to get ISF uniforms and patrol vehicles, eh? And who kidnapped those 35 civilian contractors last week while dressed in the uniform of the Interior Ministry, eh?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz is estranged from reality.

Posted by: SavageView on March 19, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Ayad Allawi is an *Iraqi*, dimbulb.

General Casey is not. General Casey will go home to a nice homecooked by his wife in the US of A in a few short years.

Allawi won't.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, with optimism like yours, no wonder the left has done so well. Operation Swarmer was the first major mission planned entirely by Iraqi Generals and executed almost entirely with Iraqi forces, with US support. They confiscated many of the fake uniforms worn by the insurgents and despite your lack of confidence, the military has held together through the mosque attacks, which is a huge tribute to them.

And of course they came from the sectarian militias, it is a fairly small country where else do you think they would have come from?

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Now I remember you calling Awalli and Bush puppet not too long ago but now his words are golden and you believe him over Gen Casey?"

I remember you calling Alawi (not "Awalli," bozo) a trustworthy interim prime minister not too long ago, but now he's not reliable?

Interesting.

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Riverbend is *also* an Iraqi, asshole.

You know -- the people you like to pontificate about liberating?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Never said he was unreliable did I? Liar (I know that's a word you like). I said I trust Casey more.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Operation Swarmer was the first major mission planned entirely by Iraqi Generals and executed almost entirely with Iraqi forces, with US support."

LOL! You fell for "Operation Potemtin"?

Wow, Jay, you really are a dupe!

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Look, I have no problem with Operation Swarmer being a training mission.

I have a huge problem with the propaganda spin attemping to make it into something more than that.

When the ISF faces an enemy, we'll know how cohesive it is as a fighting force.

When the ISF ceases to pass on intelligence to the insurgents and militias, we'll know how worthwhile it is as an instrument to build the Iraqi nation.

Both are still at this point far off goals.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Operation Potemkin"

They arrested some suspects, many of whom were let go the next day. They captured a few empty uniforms and a few weapons, easily replaced.

I guess the plan is to wait until the insurgents retire and declare victory. Only 50 years to go!!

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

democrats need to plaster repukelicans with the bushliar-criminal, tying him as a massive boat anchor around their greedy, sinister necks so bush can drown them all in the massive republican cesspool.

Posted by: pluege on March 19, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, where's the love? All that internationalism and meditating?

It's all in who you believe and my money is on Casey considering the lack of any concrete evidence of huge conflicts and the fact that he has been front and center in the middle of that country for three years. He also maybe one of the only truly objective people in the theatre.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

" . . . one of the only truly objective people in the theatre."

BWAHAHAHA! Jay, babe, this has to be the stupidest comment on the thread!

Thanks for the laugh!

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

What is eventually going to lead to victory in Iraq is the people's confidence in the military and security forces. That's why Operation Swarmer was so important; not so much the execution but the planning of such a large mission. And successfully pulled off by the Iraqi's. They deserve our praise, not our mockery. The ability of the Iraqi forces to secure their country is growing rapidly and the confidence is growing in direct proportion. Soon it will turn and turn quickly towards peace.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

So General casey, a life long military man has been reduced to nothing more than a Bush shill, is that it Joel?

Because if that is what you're implying, you really do have shit for brains.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

"Objective" -- by what standards? Seems to me that he's got a mission to do, and everything he says about Iraq is going to be colored by that obligation. Hardly makes for a motive to offer objective observation.

Allawi, OTOH, lives there. He's a representative of precisely the sort of western-leaning ideology we'd like to see take root in Iraq. Unlike the Sunni, Kurds and Shia in government, he has no vested interest in pushing his group's position at the expense of seeing a realistic picture of the country's prospects as a whole.

In short, Jay -- no contest. An Iraqi would be a better judge of Iraq just as an American would be a better judge of America.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Soon it will turn and turn quickly towards peace."

heh.

You mean like this?

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18512

Jay, baby, unlike you, I wan't haploid during the Vietnam War. You sound just like one of those Johnson-Nixon military parrots I remember seeing on the television back then. Wrong then. Wrong now.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

"lack of concrete evidence."

Jay, there's no lack of concrete evidence.

Only evidence you'd rather not see.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

"a life long military man"

I'll take Jack Murtha over Casey.

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, you do realize what happens to military men who contradict Bush talking points, right?

Posted by: Hank Scorpio on March 19, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hank Scorpio:

That, too.

I'm sure Casey has his doubts.

I'm also sure that Casey, as supreme commander in Iraq, keeps those doubts to himself and his most trusted aides.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Just a matter of perspective Bob. I see it that Allawi has alliances and must favor their positions, as does every politician. Who knows why he said it, or believes it when there truly isn't any real evidence to support it. OTOH, Casey is their to do a job and has on several occasions stated when things were not good, however now he says that he is optimistic that the civil war has been suppressed.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Hank, you must be referring to Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, a life long military man who failed to be a Bush shill.

Jay thinks Shinseki had shit for brains.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Not Brokeback Military Camp I hope.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK


catherineD is exactly right. Dems may have the same plan as the Reps, but the diff is Dems are competent.

Posted by: Andy on March 19, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Picking Murtha over Casey in the Military realm is akin to picking Waukegon High School Baseball team to beat the Yankees.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

It is the height of absurdity to say that an Iraqi politician has a less clear picture of what's happening in his country than an American general who's responsible for occupying it.

Allawi is not aligned with any of the apocalyptic religious parties. He's *secular*, pro-free market, a former friggin' CIA operative. If anyone would have a motive to shill for a strictly pro-American vision of Iraq, it would be him.

But funnily enough, he offered his assessment -- as a politician *without* much of a constituency. His jockeying for power days have pretty much ended when his party captured like two seats, if that.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Some links and commentary on the "civil war" issue from Belmont Club.

Don't see why Talabani's opinion on this isn't at least as relevant as Allawi's, based on the same rationales given in a number of comments here.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 19, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

Picking Murtha over Casey in the integrity realm is like picking integrity over blind obedience. Sorry you can't tell the difference, Jay.

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

Are you kidding?

Talibani's a Kurd.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

look for gut-punch ads that highlight the incumbents' 90-plus percent backing for Bush on issues like cuts in college loans

Most Democratic politicians support taking discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens and giving them to illegal aliens.

That kinda makes complaints about Bush cutting student loans a bit moot, doesn't it?

If the Dems want to get support from America, perhaps they should start acting like Americans.

Posted by: TLB on March 19, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Some links and commentary on the "civil war" issue from Belmont Club."

heh.

Pajamas media.

You'll have to clap a little louder than that, tbrosz.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, doesn't the fact that since he lost big in the election that there might be a little bit in him to want things to disintegrate?

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

TLB:

That's a fight that Republicans are having with Bush, atm. Lovely how all you patriots are all strongly behind his guest worker program :)

One of the biggest fault lines in the GOP, actually. All the Dems have to do is stand back and watch the fratricide :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

"Senator Harry Reid, reporting for duty!"
Is Reid really so NOT BRIGHT that he takes a page from John Kerry's losing Presidential campaign?

The game plan, devised by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators on Thursday at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to The Washington Times by a congressional staffer.
Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.

Posted by: SombreroFallout on March 19, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

No particularly, no.

In fact, the last thing a guy like Allawi would want, seems to me, would be for his country to disintegrate.

What he's seeing, perhaps a little ahead of the curve, is the disintegration of the idea of Iraq as a unified nation.

You'd expect a secular like Allawi, willing to share power with all factions, to be the most concerned about that than, say, the health of Kurdistan as a region (like Talibani).

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Most Democratic politicians" = one columnist from the Salt Lake Tribune?

WTF?

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Rahm can Rahm his strategy up his fucking ass.

He is part of the problem.

Posted by: angryspittle on March 19, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Blunt force is not really a wise approach to foreign policy. But Bush is too fucking stupid to exercise anything else.

Posted by: angryspittle on March 19, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

It's obedient to have integrity.

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, doesn't the fact that since he lost big in the election that there might be a little bit in him to want things to disintegrate?

You're thinking like a Republican. Last I checked, Allawi wasn't one.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 19, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

It's obedient to have integrity.

What a load of crap. That's the Adolf Eichmann view of integrity - 'following orders'.

You think integrity just means following orders? That explains a lot.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 19, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

"It's obedient to have integrity."

Uh, no. To have integrity means *not* obeying when the orders conflict with integrity.

But I don't expect you to understand integrity, Jay. Bush worshippers like you can't. You only understand obedience.

Posted by: Joel on March 19, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Um, tbrosz, did you actually read what Talabani said? "One can completely rule out the threat of a civil war."

I'm supposed to believe that ... why, exactly? When it's patently untrue on its face? Care to actually turn on your brain and think for a change?

Posted by: PaulB on March 19, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and for the record, the Belmont Club's definition of civil war is laughably broad, not to mention self-serving. Come back when you've got something real, won't you?

Posted by: PaulB on March 19, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, listen to this guy Jay crow about the splendid state of Iraq.

Plan A had US soldiers out of Iraq in a matter of months. It's been THREE YEARS.

And in the event that a functioning state arises out of the chaos, Iraqi women--half the country-- will almost certainly be relegated to second-class citizenship under the new theocracy.

Priceless.

Posted by: Lucy on March 19, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy:

See, it's good that we're talking about "civil war" now, because that means that we're no longer talking about the "insurgency." It must mean that the insurgency is MOL neutralized, but the negative nelly MSM can't have that, so they start trumpeting "civil war."

I kid you not. Click tbrosz's Belmont Club link; that's how they're spinning it.

Hey, all other things being equal ... I think I'd rather live through an insurgency than a civil war, thanks -- even if it's big insurgency vs a minor civil war.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

I knew that would elicit a good tolerant liberal response. I was just fucking around, good play on words though huh?

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

"You have to realize that Bush's poll numbers are the result of a determined negative campaign by the MSM for the past 6 years. The voters don't follow the polls.
Keep sleeping, keep dreaming, we will wake you when its over.

Posted by: molly bloom"

You woke me on November 3. It was over. Thanks.

Pretty lame.

Posted by: Mike K on March 19, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy, please explain exactly where Plan A was announced. I only remember GW saying that this would be a difficult and arduous task, a different kind of war fighting an enemy who hides in the shadows. Does that ring a bell?

Posted by: Jay on March 19, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

I knew that would elicit a good tolerant liberal response. I was just fucking around, good play on words though huh?

Nup. Pretty lame, actually.

You want play on words, how about:

"Conservatism is King in the US.
...and Liberalism is the tide.

Have fun building sand castles, Kaynute.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 19, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

One of the biggest fault lines in the GOP, actually. All the Dems have to do is stand back and watch the fratricide :)

IOW, the Dems are willing to put political interests ahead of what's right for the U.S.

Of course, if they came out against illegal immigration they would also gain a tremendous amount of support from those they have (supposedly) pledged to represent and they'd also do a great service to this country.

That is obviously too much to ask of them.

"Most Democratic politicians" = one columnist from the Salt Lake Tribune?

My mistake. I should have provided other links. Most Democratic politicians support taking discounted college tuitions away from U.S. citizens and giving them to illegal aliens.

There are two ways they do this: by supporting the national DREAM Act, and by supporting state bills like those in California.

For specific examples, Tim Kaine of Virginia wants illegal aliens to take discounted college educations from U.S. citizens.

From MA come Rep. Tim Toomey and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, a candidate for governor who's being supported by the Boston Globe.

And, here's a list of those "U.S." Senators who support the DREAM Act.

Posted by: TLB on March 19, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Which Churchillian masterpiece was that again?

Posted by: Lucy on March 19, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,

I did go walk through the looking glass to the Belmont Club. Whew! Nice catch.

Posted by: Lucy on March 19, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy:

Lookout, it's the .... pajamahadeen !

Anything to avoid admitting the obvious.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Lucy:

I mean for me ... Riverbend has always had the most poignant commentaries on what's actually going on in Baghdad.

And she represents precisely the sort of secularized, tolerant, Western-looking Iraqis who should be the most in favor of Iraqi democratization ...

Sad ... sometimes I wish she'd just emigrate before she gets herself killed.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 19, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

Lame? Is that the best you can do? After claiming Bush's drop in the polls is the result of some MSM conspiracy rather than a natural response by voters to Bush's rank incompetance, you call me lame? that's the best you can do? What a riot!

Posted by: molly bloom on March 20, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Her anniversary post is just heartbreaking.

What have we done!

Posted by: Lucy on March 20, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Operation Swarmer was the first major mission planned entirely by Iraqi Generals and executed almost entirely with Iraqi forces, with US support.

In that case, shouldn't it have been called Operation Shwarma?

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

In that case, shouldn't it have been called Operation Shwarma?

Or since Iraq is pretty hot, how about Operation It's Warmer?

Posted by: floopmeister on March 20, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Lucy:

Gods, I just now read the one where her friend who owned the music store, Alan, got killed as the translator for Jill Carroll.

All her reminicences about the hours spent in his shop going through CDs ... how much he loved music ... how that place was one of the few connections to the outside world during the sanctions ... what a good guy he was, how he helped out everybody.

I'm fucking choked up. It's so unbearably heartbreaking what we've done to that country.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

The least Americans could have done was to repudiate the Bush administration in 2004.

But no.

Posted by: Lucy on March 20, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

It's obedient to have integrity.

That reads better in the original German.

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

Lucy:

It wasn't for lack of trying, at least on the part of every *fucking* person I know ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

Droll :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, I love shwarmas, or Jewish tacos.

Mmmm....shwarmas.

Posted by: Keith G on March 20, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

The truly funny thing about that statement is that TrollBoy has it ass-backwards.

Obedience is an outward result. Having integrity is a cause.

It's more accurate to say that having integrity causes one to conform in obedience to one's principles.

It's obedient to have integrity doesn't parse at all ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

gq and Bob

Perhaps you are both right.

As a Southern moderate democract, I see Southern dems vilified by the "left", called rednecks, ignorant hicks, (both my brothers are Harvard MBA's..so go figure)....not too smart of them if they are trying to win the southern vote. And I agree the netroots lefties are bullies very much like the right wing loonies at places like freerepublic...they have different platforms but the same kindergarden gang mentality.

I can say that neither the dems nor the repubs that I talk to in my area are happy with either party, in fact they seem pretty much disgusted with both.

I am just looking for an ethical person with some common sense and someone other than a profe$$ional politican for a change who won't "pander" to anyone's special interest, my own included.
Someone concenrating on restoring America to something resembling it's former self, with a few improvements, would get my vote.

Anyone out there like that?...anywhere?...hello?...we are waiting for you....come quick please.

Posted by: Carroll on March 20, 2006 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

Carroll:

The villification is directed by seculars at the increasingly muscular Christian right, and I don't think for entirely bad or unfair reasons. Cf. Kevin Philips' new book American Theocracy. I know of no secular northern liberals who gratuitously bash Southern people qua Southern people -- though Southern Baptist-bashing is indeed fairly common.

As far as looking for that nonpartisan knight in shining armor -- well, we're all waiting for deliverance in one way or another. I felt I found it last primary season in Howard Dean -- a man who is truly an accidental politician. I still hold him in very high esteem.

But understand that people are people and any politician is going to be flawed in some way; there is no escaping this.

I'm going to leave you with two horrific (but true) cliches: 1) Politics is the art of the possible and 2) Don't make the Perfect the enemy of the Good.

Stay involved and hold whichever candidate you choose to back accountable. In a democracy we get the government we deserve -- and it is only as good as the quality and vigor of citizen involvement.

[soapox mode *off*]

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

>That reads better in the original German.

Thanks for that hilarious break from the downward spiral.

Posted by: Lucy on March 20, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

As a Southern moderate democract, I see Southern dems vilified by the "left", called rednecks, ignorant hicks,

Aw shit Caroll, no time for any thin-skinned southern paranoia.

Twenty years ago, I moved to the South. As young very liberal, union loving ativist yankee, I caught no end of crap from your supposedly genteel compatriots.

Stop the whining!

Posted by: Keith G on March 20, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

A Family in Baghdad was interesting lately in that Iraqis came to the U.S to try to discuss what a botched up mess so many U.S. initiatives were. But hey, what do the natives know ?
...offside comment. Found in a fortune cookie today : "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power".

Posted by: opit on March 20, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

I posted this in the cooking thread, but oh wot thee 'ell, I'm bored ...

From The Nihilist Cookbook: BOB'S SARCOPHAGILICIOUS BBQ TREATS

Ingredients:

2 moderate-sized Republicans, pre-shaven
12 quarts of Miracle Whip
2 large apples
A case of Velveeta
5 lbs of flour, freshly ground

Take pre-shaven Republicans and liposuction out all available body
fat. Place fat in large baking bowl
Empty flour sacks into bathtub. Place dessicated Republicans into
flour. Roll gently, pouring fat evenly across body surface until the
flour sticks. Get your children to help.

Take Velveeta blocks and place them in your yard. Run over them with
your lawnmower. Place Velveeta and grass clippings onto four large
baking pans, taking time to smooth them out evenly. Bake each tray of
Velveeta lightly in oven until cheese turns the color of a sebaceous
(smegma) secretion.

Dig hole in your back yard with backhoe. Fill with 12 quarts of
Miracle Whip. Take third car that doesn't start anymore and smash
gasoline tank with hatchets. Stand 5 feet away, toss match and jump
back immediately. Cut down telephone pole in your front yard, remove
cables and save them. Take Republicans and tie them across pole with
cables. Place large apple in each Republican's mouth. Enlist your
family to carry pole with Republicans to burning car and hoist it over
the hood. Cooking should take 20 minutes, until flesh starts to
release acrid smoke.

Remove blackened Republicans from poles. For the sake of the
neighbors, be careful to avoid the temptation to sing Al Jolson songs
too loudly. Section Republicans with chainsaw, laying slices across
the Velveeta bed. Carry to your back yard, say Grace, and dip
sectioned Republican in Miracle whip. Throw bones into this pit.

Start backhoe and run soil back into pit and over the evidence when
meal is finished.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

Are you kidding? Talibani's a Kurd.

Bob

The point I was making is that there were a number of posts here touting Allawi's statement, with rationalizations along the lines of "well, he's over there, he's Iraqi, he should know." Based on that, another Iraqi's opinion, however accurate or inaccurate it eventually turns out to be, should be just as valid.

My own definition of a civil war doesn't have the whole army on one side, scattered gangs of thugs on the other, and generally doesn't have the leaders of various factions negotiating in a government environment instead of hunkered down in their various headquarters egging their people on. "Civil war" is being used as a buzzword now, much like "quagmire." If terrorism and gang violence was all it took to define "civil war," a lot of countries would fall under that category.

As for Riverbend, she is a skilled and sensitive writer, but it should be pointed out thst prior to the war she was part of the elite of that country, and it's not surprising that her views of the changes might be different from those of a Shiite, Kurd, Marsh Arab, or some others.

You wouldn't know it to come here, but there are other bloggers in Iraq.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 20, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

> "Are you kidding? Talibani's a Kurd."

> The point I was making is that there were a number of posts
> here touting Allawi's statement, with rationalizations along
> the lines of "well, he's over there, he's Iraqi, he should know."
> Based on that, another Iraqi's opinion, however accurate or
> inaccurate it eventually turns out to be, should be just as valid.

Except that my discussion with Jay wasn't "based on that." If you
followed that exchange, you wouldn't be asking such a simpleminded
rhetorical question. The point there isn't cred-ing Allawi in a
vaccuum, it's a question of whose assessment you'd rather believe,
Allawi's or Casey's? I think that one's a no-brainer. As for
Talibani, his being a Kurd gives him a different agenda and
perspective than Allawi. Iraq falliing into ever-more-bloody sectarian
conflict doesn't threaten the prospects for an eventual Kurdistan.

It actually strengthens them. Allawi the secular Shi'ite has a
lot more to lose from a breakdown in civil order than Talabani.

> My own definition of a civil war doesn't have the whole
> army on one side, scattered gangs of thugs on the other,
> and generally doesn't have the leaders of various factions
> negotiating in a government environment instead of hunkered
> down in their various headquarters egging their people on.

Really? How about a weak, embryonic central government that's barely
functional in providing essential services? How about death squads
run out of the Interior Ministry? How about sectarian militias with
allegiances to clerics infinitely stronger than allegiances to the
government? "Scattered gangs of thugs"? Hardly. They're armed
sects. Try an army and police force infiltrated top to bottom by
sectarians more loyal to their militia leaders than their commands.

Why do you think we were so intent on embedding American
advisors in as many brigades as possible? Because these
guys are useless otherwise. Not because they're unskilled in
basic soldiering; because they're disloyal to their commands.

> "Civil war" is being used as a buzzword now, much like "quagmire."
> If terrorism and gang violence was all it took to define "civil
> war," a lot of countries would fall under that category.

Iyad Allawi believes Iraq is in a civil war, because they've lost
50-60 people per day to violence since the Samarra mosque bombing.
Play Mr. Historian and call that typical Arabic histrionics if you'd
like; I'm inclined to take him at his word. Whether or not the current
phase of conflict fits the technical historical definition of civil
war is far less important than the fact that Baghdad is beginning
to resemble Sarajevo in the year before Milosevic's siege. Cross-
sectarian solidarity in formerly mixed neighborhoods is breaking
down in a way that's striking if you've ever studied those accounts.

> As for Riverbend, she is a skilled and sensitive writer,
> but it should be pointed out thst prior to the war she was
> part of the elite of that country, and it's not surprising
> that her views of the changes might be different from
> those of a Shiite, Kurd, Marsh Arab, or some others.

You know, unless you can prove some sort of connection between
Riverbend's family and upper levels of the Ba'ath party, this is
just calumny, Tom -- and politically and socially clueless, besides.
Riverbend's cohort -- secular, middle-class, Western-leaning Sunnis
living in a mixed neighborhood with mixed family ties are precisely
the sorts of Iraqis you'd expect would support America's plan for
Iraqi democracy the most. These are not sectarians waiting for
their moment in the sun, these are organic Iraqi pluralists, and
as such, Riverbend is the perfect canary in the Iraqi coalmine.

Watching Riverbend's life change is watching suspicions and prejudices
flourish between sects that were considered backwards before.

Once again, the most salient analogy here is pre-siege Sarajevo.

> You wouldn't know it to come here,
> but there are other bloggers in Iraq.

And there are other bloggers in America.

Your point?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

Bob:

You know, unless you can prove some sort of connection between Riverbend's family and upper levels of the Ba'ath party, this is just calumny, Tom -- and politically and socially clueless, besides.

Riverbend's cohort -- secular, middle-class, Western-leaning Sunnis living in a mixed neighborhood with mixed family ties are precisely
the sorts of Iraqis you'd expect would support America's plan for Iraqi democracy the most.

I didn't say anything about the Baath Party. I said her class was part of the pre-war elite. You know, well-off Sunnis. She spent much of her childhood overseas, and came back to Baghdad to go to school. In the 90s. She was obviously financially well-off, and well-placed in society.

This is not a person who was connected with the oppressive elements of the regime, but obviously she was never seriously threatened by it either. One of those who flew kites under the old regime, not one of those who waited for the knock on the door at night.

Think white person in old South Africa. Doesn't run around with the police beating black people, but isn't going to stay up nights worrying about the police beating on her, either.

What did she really have to gain from the war?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 20, 2006 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

If I were running for office, on any level, I would tar all of them with one brush. Wecan also make the Dems famous fractiousness work for us. Something like this:

And what do you think the shareholders of any corporation would have done with the executives if they made half as many mistakes as this bunch of losers? They would have tossed them out on their ears long, long ago!

The Republicans have driven our country down in the eyes of the world, they have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on this quagmire of a war that we could be using on schools and healthcare, they have dirtied our streams and the air we breathe.

While Bush and Cheney were carrying out their sorry plans, Senator X and Congressman Y were acting like their poodles. Bush said speak and Congressman Y said, Arf! We cannot allow ANY of these incompetents to serve for one minute longer! We need a congress that will put the needs of the people above the needs of the party!

"Let us return to the Clinton years when America was respected all over the world. We had prosperity at home, we had a balanced budget, we made progress in cleaning up our environment AND no Americans died in foreign wars. You, the shareholders in America, must vote a straight Democratic ticket and we will get those years back!

Posted by: James of DC on March 20, 2006 at 3:43 AM | PERMALINK

What did she really have to gain from the war?

What species of idiocy is this?

We know full well what Bush had to gain from the war: reelection. What did any other American gain?

Really, what did Riverbend have to gain? Death rained down from bombers, the devastation of the local economy, the breakdown of law and order for year after year, the ascendance of religious extremism, the subjugation of women?

Riverbend may not have considered how much she had to lose until the invaders put their boot upon her country's throat.

Posted by: bad Jim on March 20, 2006 at 4:04 AM | PERMALINK

Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best. -- Frank Zappa

Posted by: kostya on March 20, 2006 at 4:15 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

> "You know, unless you can prove some sort of connection
> between Riverbend's family and upper levels of the
> Ba'ath party, this is just calumny, Tom -- and
> politically and socially clueless, besides."

> "Riverbend's cohort -- secular, middle-class, Western-leaning
> Sunnis living in a mixed neighborhood with mixed family ties
> are precisely the sorts of Iraqis you'd expect would support
> America's plan for Iraqi democracy the most."

> I didn't say anything about the Baath Party. I said her
> class was part of the pre-war elite. You know, well-off
> Sunnis. She spent much of her childhood overseas, and
> came back to Baghdad to go to school. In the 90s. She was
> obviously financially well-off, and well-placed in society.

You know, the irony here is flabbergasting. Leave aside that
you completely blew by my point about how Riverbend represents
Iraqi pluralism -- I mean, that's sort of par for the course
for you. But watching an upper-middle-class Northern Californian
engineer who spends his time here sparring with who he'd call
redistributionists making an entirely vague class resentment-based
argument to try to put Riverbend in her place is just ... wow, Tom.

> This is not a person who was connected with the
> oppressive elements of the regime, but obviously she
> was never seriously threatened by it either. One of
> those who flew kites under the old regime, not one of
> those who waited for the knock on the door at night.

And this proves ... what, exactly?

> Think white person in old South Africa. Doesn't run around
> with the police beating black people, but isn't going to stay
> up nights worrying about the police beating on her, either.

Bullshit, Tom. I've seen this little stilletto out before from
you, and it's just grotesquely ignorant. You obviously haven't
read with care one word Riverbend has written -- you probably
get it all secondhand from the pajamahadeen. Saddam's persecution
of the Shia wasn't based on some broad-based preexisting cultural
hatred or superiority complex like whites for blacks; Sunnis and
Shia are ethnically identical and in mixed neighborhoods culturally so
besides. Riverbend's parents considered it the mark of backwardness
for Riverbend to even *ask* her friends to which sect they belonged.

> What did she really have to gain from the war?

Tom ... who aside from Halliburton, Custer Battles (et al.), al-
Sestani, al-Hakim, al-Sadr and al-Zarqawi have gained from this war?

The Shi'ites in the slums of Sadr City? The Kurds who just
rioted against the PUK and set fire to a museum dedicated to
their gas attack? The Sunnis who have been dragged off and
tortured by the Interior Ministry? The families of the war dead?

Even though you blew right past it and it's quoted at the top of this
post, let me spell it out to you again: RIVERBEND'S COHORT STOOD
THE MOST TO GAIN FROM DEMOCRACY. Are you listening? Hel-looo, Tom?
Need I be more explicit? Riverbend, being secular, Western-educated
and pluralist by temperament and family ties, is the sort of person
who already has the requisite cultural skills necessary for democratic
government. She isn't some pampered rich airhead -- she's a computer
programmer. If you hear a nostalgia for Saddam's regime based the
previous dominance of her sect, you are fucking HALLUCINATING, Tom.

One of the most tragic aspect of this fool's errand is that we
lost people like Riverbend -- precisely the sorts we need the most.

If you want to call that part and parcel of the disenfranchisement
that's driving the Sunni insurgency, that's character assassination.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 4:34 AM | PERMALINK

One of the most tragic aspect of this fool's errand is that we
lost people like Riverbend -- precisely the sorts we need the most.

I have never seen this point made better, Bob. Unfortunately it's a point that, while rather simple, is too complicated for most conservatives to understand. Or else it's simply inconvenient for them to understand, so they refuse to understand it.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 20, 2006 at 5:39 AM | PERMALINK

How about -

"If you liked Iraq, wait to see what we do in Iran and North Korea. Invest your children today - Vote Republican!"

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 20, 2006 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

Wow! Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams makes the case for why Feingold's censure resolution was good on principle and good politics. Brit Hume got, um, perturbed. Heh. Too bad the DCCC and Dem congresscritters don't get it. Can you say voter disenfranchisement? I have a feeling Indies will get a boost this fall if the Dem leadership doesn't wake up and smell the burnt coffee.


Bob, brooksfoe, and Riverbend fans,

She also has a sense of humor. Loved her Oscar nominees post.

I see that tbrosz has offered his round of the usual worthless comments. Still the same-o wingnut. I believe Gregory has got his number...shameful.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

>One of those who flew kites under the old regime, not one of those who waited for the knock on the door at night.

Who's that knocking on the door now.

Posted by: Lucy on March 20, 2006 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK

How much money would it take to get George and Dick to resign? I mean, do you think if we gave them each $10,000,000,000 in cash they might step down and go away?

Cheaper in the long run....

Posted by: Joey Giraud on March 20, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

Honest, I find it hard to understand why the GOP would want some of the Bushie morons who post here to post here.

Take the clueless tbrosz: What did she [an Iraqi female] really have to gain from the war?

What did we Americans gain from the Iraq War? Explain that to the American public. We all want to know that big mystery. A majority of American say that the war wasn't worth it and that Bush deliberately misled us into the Iraq War. Do I have to post the polls up again?

Please, keep bringing up Iraq. Shows how the Bushwackos are so incompetent and out of touch with the majority of Americans the GOP is.

As far as Riverbend goes...I can only guess without digging through her website. Pre-war there were those rape rooms under Saddam but they had electricity. After the liberation (LMAO! Yeah, what a joke.) of Iraq, she has Sharia law dangling over her head to look forward to and still no electricity after three years of occupation! She's screwed before and after. So what's your point?

Clueless troll. Go ahead and demonstrate for us how the GOP has no ability to plan for national security. Bushies and the GOP are just a bunch of poseurs who had:
No plan for post-war Iraq and this was a preemptive war, not in reaction to a Pearl Harbor surprise. And thanks for reminding us, Bush-Cheney lied about WMDs and Saddam ties to AQ!
Big disconnect on the DP World port deal and Repubs have killed port security initiatives. Wingnuts!
Gone fishin', doh-dee-doh-doh-doh, on the August 2001 PDB, Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S. just before 9/11.

And this also merits attention:
Not a clue about how to have handled Katrina. FEMA/DHS is a bureaucratic big government nightmare. So much for the GOP sticking to its party platform of small government, oh, and fiscal responsibility. Borrow and spend America into the biggest deficit of all time.

No wonder America is in a heckuva mess if you right-wing posters are the best the GOP has to offer. Maybe you ought to, um, not post for the sake of your party. As a liberal, I say post so we can show how freaking incompetent, idiotic, and what was that other Pew poll description about Bush? Oh, yeah. Liar!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

well, gee carroll, wes clark fits all of your criteria. why not get behind him?

Posted by: danelectro on March 20, 2006 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Frankly, at this point I'm not sure there's much difference.

tbrosz, you've already admitted that both the Democratic and Republican parties spend money at roughlt equal levels. Thus the question becomes, do we pay for the spending that both parties agree upon with tax revenue or with deficit? To this day, you have refused to condemn the Republicans for using deficits, rather than taxes, to fund their spending -- because, after all, if you do, there goes your sweet, sweet tax cuts.

But I just love this little trick of intellectual dishonesty -- it's a new tbrosz classic!

Those few who are for fiscal discipline, either cutting spending (usually Republicans) or raising taxes (usually Democrats) are soon out on the street. Why vote for somebody who tells you you can't have it all for nothing?

tbrosz, Democrats who advocate a certain level of spending and paying for it with tax revenue are not the ones saying you can have it all for nothing. The Republicans who run on constant tax cuts, and then continue spending on borrowed money, are the ones doing that. And anti-tax zealots like you are the ones who just lap it right up.

Republicans who advocate cutting spending are out on the street because, on the balance, the public likes the a certain level of government spending and programs. Democrats agree, and also argue that a public that demands government services must pay for them. Republicans claim that they can cut taxes and still deliver the spending -- and they do, but hocking this country to the Chinese.

But when it comes right down to it, tbrosz, you'll give the Republicans a pass on their deficit spending, because they do deliver the tax cuts. You get up from your taxpayer-funded job and vote Republican. You, and the Party for which you so doggedly carry water, are the ones responsible for the deficit mess. Shame on you for trying to dodge your responsibility through your pose of cynicism.

Posted by: Gregory on March 20, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo, haven't said it in a while: Love your style, baby.

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory: Republicans who advocate cutting spending are out on the street because, on the balance, the public likes the a certain level of government spending and programs. Democrats agree, and also argue that a public that demands government services must pay for them.

Yep. The Repubs defeated the PAYGO (pay as you go) amendments introduced by Dems and not once but twice in the past year. Every one of the 45 senate Dems voted for PAYGO. The usual Repubs, four of them and the lonely Independent, Jeffords from Vermont, crossed over to join the Dems.

The Dems have become the party of fiscal responsibility (Clinton's surplus in 2000) and not the Repubs.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo, you are a fine representative of the minority fringe of the minority party and all conservatives hope that your concerns are at the top of the democratic agenda.

For every Riverbend there are thousands of everyday Iraqi women and men who are very optimistic about their country and their future, for people who obsessively watch polls I would think you should have noticed that. (Zogby poll, October 2005) But according to Bob, if Riverbend is unhappy well then he cries crocodile tears over what "we've" done to the country. Not at all acknowledging the fine progress that Riverbend and her compatriots saw that country through the last 100 years. If there was ever a model of a progressive society it would have been Riverbends Iraq, right Bob?

And now the Democrats are deficit hawks, again not pointing out that it took a republican led congress for the first time in forty years in 1994 to straighten things out. Oh but now they are the fiscal conservatives, again not acknowledging that just last week the Democratic Senators were attempting to add another $200 billion to the budget. What would we do without all of these intellectually superior and oh so caring and nurturing liberals?

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop and apollo, brokeback blogging?

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Jay,
You are barking up the wrong tree. Let's talk about today's Repubs and their voting record and what that has gotten America today?

You want to talk about me and I am not running for office.

Clueless shill.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop and apollo, brokeback blogging?

This is, like most of your posts, inadvertently funnier than you think. See if you can figure out why. Oops, time's up.

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo is one of those liberal morons who loves to credit Clinton for the 90's economy failing to acknowledge the face that the first economic policies of Clinton would not have been realized until 1995. (took office in Jan. 1993, crafted economic policy which took effect in 2004, results showing in 2005). Yet has no problem laying the blame of 9/11 on GW after being in office for only 8 months. How partisan of you, moron.

If you are the best the liberals have to offer, well then conservatives have nothing to worry about.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

I just love the immorality of the Repubs today. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Porn star Mary Cary says: Drunk Republicans hit on me more than the Porno fans

Say, anybody seen anything lately about "brokeback" David Drier, Repub from California? Wasn't he in line for House majority leader?

And, Jay, tell me about how gay Jeff Gannon is? You want some pictures?

How about Bush and his brokeback-friendly picks like, um, old-time buddy and aide, Israel Hernandez?

Say, Jay, why does Dubya call Rove, Turdblossom?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Let's do talk about where we are today. Historically low unemployment, a growing GDP for the last ten quarters in the range of 3-4%, homeownership at an all time high specifically among minorities, democratic elections in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi, a new ally in India and a freely elected government supported by a growing 200,000+ military/security in Iraq. Sure beats talking about Monica.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop: This is, like most of your posts, inadvertently funnier than you think. See if you can figure out why. Oops, time's up.

LOL! I can't wait to show this to Mrs. Apollo! News to her! LOL!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Don't liberals embrace sexual freedoms? That's not very open-minded of you Apollo. I am disappointed.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

For A13, because he used to like these...

Repub denial:
Merrily, unverily
Life is but a dream

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Mean old libs, stop it!
Don't confuse me with the facts
We make our own truth

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, I don't have a problem with gays. The GOP has a problem with gays.

So Jay supports gay marriage. Thanks for clearing that up. Because your brokeback posts seem to make me think you were against gays.

Hey, maybe you're not all bad, Chuckles. ; )

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, shortstop. You vixen, you. Haikus before lunch. Ah, thanks. Tell Mr. shortstop how lucky he is for me.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

But Apollo, you just pointed out two gay conservatives and yet later said the GOP has the problems with gays. Will you keep your lies straight.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

As a Southern moderate democract, I see Southern dems vilified by the "left", called rednecks, ignorant hicks,

Seven of the last eight Democratic presidential tickets have had at least one Southerner on them (the only one without was Mondale-Ferraro in 1984). The last two Democratic Presidents, Clinton and Carter, have been Southern Democrats. Al Gore, who won the majority of the votes in the 2000 election, was a Southern Democrat. John Kerry's running mate Senator John Edwards was a Southern Democrat.

Just where exactly do you see this hostility to Southern Democrats?

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

And now the Democrats are deficit hawks, again not pointing out that it took a republican led congress for the first time in forty years in 1994 to straighten things out.

...and yet with Republicans in charge of both the White House and Congress, it's red ink as far as the eye can see. Rip that one up, Jay. That dog won't hunt.

Unlike Republicans these days, I believe in checks and balances, which is why I suspect that a divided government may be the best answer for curbing the excessive tendencies of both parties. tbrosz is correct to point out that the Democrats' wish list might be more extensive than is feasible, but what he ignores -- dishonestly, of course -- is that by its very nature, obvious excesses are again subject to checks and balances -- if taxes and spending grew too much, voters would toss them out. But the Republicans' dishonest promises of tax cuts forever with no cuts and services -- and the dishonest rhetoric about tax increases of any size or scope -- give them the kind of cheater's advantage tbrosz referred to. And yet the GOP is his party of choice.

Posted by: Gregory on March 20, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

And now the Democrats are deficit hawks, again not pointing out that it took a republican led congress for the first time in forty years in 1994 to straighten things out.

yeah, then they really "straightened things out" since 2001--record deficits and debt, and they raised the credit limit again!

and what did Bush do during those first eight months to fight terrorism? Oh that's right, nothing. Cleared some brush at the ranch while lemmings like Jay sat there and talked about what a manly and rugged guy he was.

Posted by: haha on March 20, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Republican homosexuals, such as me and Ken Mehlman, are perfectly happy to remain in the closet for the good of humanity.

We're unclean, and we don't deserve all the rights that other Americans have.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Picking Murtha over Casey in the Military realm is akin to picking Waukegon High School Baseball team to beat the Yankees.

OR picking the Canadiens to beat the US....Ooops.

Posted by: ckelly on March 20, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

I pointed out gay conservatives to show how hypocritical the GOP is, Jay.

Explain your brokeback posts, Jay. What were you trying to say about gays. I'm waiting for your answer: you for gays or not, yes or no?

And explain how the GOP talks tough about national security but voted down the port security initiatives.

Explain why Dubya didn't protect us against 9/11.

Explain why Dubya thinks the Dubai port deal is such a good idea without the port security initiatives.

Explain it to us, Jay, what America got from the Iraq War.

Inquiring minds want to know. Does the GOP want my vote or not?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

What did Clinton do for eight years prior to 9/11, oh yeah, got a blow job while the libs thought how great he was at foreign policy.

Do you think the deficits, which began to ramp up in 2003, are in part due to Iraq? Do you also realize that the nations economic volume has grown to over $12 trillion in the last five years making the current deficit as a percentage to volume less than what it was in 1992? Do you realize that once the spending in Iraq slows down, which will be this year, and GDP continues at a 3-4% growth that the deficit could be cut in half in less than five years just based on tax based growth, without any cuts of any program? And without raising taxes. Hmmmm.....

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

The GOP does NOT WANT your vote. Please vote for the lunatic left, it is who you are.

I have no problem with gays unless one of my good freinds sees it differently.

The brokeback comment was a JOKE, jeez you liberals are so defensive.

Clinton 8 years in office prior to 9/11, GW 8 months in office. Shouldn't I be asking you what Clinton did?

Have we been attacked in the last five years? What about the Toledo three, jeez I hope we didn't listen to their phone calls!

"I killed the Patriot Act" - Harry Reid.
Now that's tough and that is who you should vote for Apollo.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay: Do you realize that once the spending in Iraq slows down, which will be this year,

This year, I promise! I know I said that last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, but this time I really really mean it!

and GDP continues at a 3-4% growth that the deficit could be cut in half in less than five years just based on tax based growth, without any cuts of any program?

I love this claim that cutting the deficit "in half" is some kind of victory, since when Bush took office there was no deficit at all, but a surplus. Cutting the defict doesn't mean you've made any money, it just means you owe less.

Let's put it in simple terms: I start out with $10,000 in the bank. Due to reckless spending, five years later I've lost all that money and now owe $20,000, which is my deficit. But I promise that in five years, if all goes well, my deficit will be "cut in half" so that I will owe only $10,000 -- which will mean that cumulatively I'll still be $20,000 behind where I started from ten years earlier. Is this any kind of achievement?

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Have we been attacked in the last five years?

Um, we're being attacked several dozen times a day in Iraq, I believe.

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Well, Jay/Chuckles, you had to bring in Clinton's blowjob so I know it's you!

BTW, 9/11 didn't happen on Clinton's watch. It happened on Dubya's watch.

The Iraq War happened on Dubya's watch but you keep trying to change the subject, don't you? Take us back to a time when things were a lot better for America than they are now under the GOP-controlled House, Senate, and WH.

Explain about today and the future, Chuckles. See, that's what matters to voters in November.

You're doing a pretty good job of making the case that America needs to throw the Repub bums out of office to balance Dubya with a Dem-controlled Congress since we can't vote Bush out of office in November. Good job, Chuckles!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

It was a PROJECTED surplus shit-for-brains Stefan. I guess you conveniently missed that point.

When the Iraqi forces take over the secuirty of their country and our troops start heading home this summer, the intellectually superior left will look well pretty foolish and dare I say, intellectually inferior.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I am pretty sure most Democratic Representatives and Senators were rubbing stamping Bush's Iraq War, tax cuts for the rich, pharm medicaid bill, Patriot Act, no bankruptcy for the poor bill, ending the estate tax, etc. So. it may not be such a good idea for Democrats to point out all of the terrible Republican legislation that they all voted for.

Posted by: Hostile on March 20, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

What did Clinton do for eight years prior to 9/11, oh yeah, got a blow job while the libs thought how great he was at foreign policy.

He was a success, and all that Jay can do is obsess over the guy's penis.

Jay, come out of the closet.

Posted by: haha on March 20, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

No we're not shit-for-brains Stefan, it's called sectarian violence. They are attacking each other now and on a much smaller scale everyday. The good people of Iraq are turning the tide, not that you give a fuck about them.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

such hostility Jay.

Come out of the closet and let go of your anger Jay. No one's going to judge you here.

Posted by: haha on March 20, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo, if you would pull your head out of your brokeback ass long enough you might actually realize that your side lost and is till losing. But hey daydream believers huh?

Iraq is no longer a war, but a police enforcement issue at this stage which the iraqi military is getting under control. That will reap huge rewards for not only America but the rest of the entire civilized world, not that you give a fuck about anybody but yourself. It was a lot of fun and success during the Clinton adminstration as we talked about blow jobs and carpet bombing Kosovo. Who knows how many innocent people died during that distraction. But hey as long as we ignored a growing and dangerous Al Qaeda and sang kumbaya, all was well, right?

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

No, it was an actual surplus, Cut 'N Run Jay:

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

...In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years. [Ah well....]

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.


Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Jay is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. He is full of hate. He is intolerant. He believes using deadly force against innocent men, women and children is righteous. Jay is a Republican bigot.

Posted by: Powerpuff on March 20, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

BTW, Somalia was a huge success for Clinton, remember that one? I am also sure that the people in Waco, specifically that Branch Davidians might not think the Clinton administration was a success. Oh that's right they're dead. Who knew that a small weapons violation could get you killed under a Democratic President.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Wow! Jay, you've got quite a mouth on you for being a GOP representative. Are family values also another GOP hypocrisy like national security, fiscal responsibility, and small government?

You into porn, too? I'm not...but seems that Repubs are, especially Washington Repubs according to the previously posted porn star's comment.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

That's an annual budget surplus Stefan, which had yet to resolve the overall deficit. And oh btw, who controlled the purse strings? Congress right? A republican congress.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

conservative intolerant religion + homosexual in the closet= Jay

it's never pretty.

Posted by: haha on March 20, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

No powerpuff, remember Waco? It was the democrats that believe in killing innocent men, women and children and violating their civil rights all over a small weapons violation. Wow, who would have thunk it?

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Iraq is no longer a war, but a police enforcement issue at this stage which the iraqi military is getting under control.

According to the Brookings Institution periodic "State of Iraq Update", excerpted in yesterday's NY Times, in February 2004 there were 21 US troop fatalities, as compared to 54 in February 2006.

In February 2004 there were 65 Iraqi security force fatalities, in February 2006 there were 158.

In February 2004 there were 10 car bombs, in February 2006 22.

In February 2005 there were 5,000 estimated rebels, in February 2006 there were 18,000.

In Februray 2004 there were 21 estimated daily attacks by rebels, in February 2006 there were 75.

In February 2004 there were 115,000 US troops in Iraq, in February 2006 there were 133,000.

Doesn't look like that war is winding down, does it?

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

BTW, Somalia was a huge success for Clinton, remember that one?

yeah, Bush I got us into it--remember that?

I am also sure that the people in Waco, specifically that Branch Davidians might not think the Clinton administration was a success.

you can always count on Jay to defend child molesters and abusers.

Who knew that a small weapons violation could get you killed under a Democratic President.

yeah, just ask Randy Weaver. Oops, he was killed under a Republican president. I guess Jay was okay with that one.

Time to come out of the closet Jay. Let go of your hatred.

Posted by: haha on March 20, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, I mean, Chuckles with the filthy mouth,

Bill Clinton isn't on the ballot this November. The congressional Repubs who have gone along with fiscal irresponsibility are on the ballot. A Dem-controlled Congress is the way to offset Dubya's incompetent administration.

haha: conservative intolerant religion + homosexual in the closet= Jay

Not that being gay is wrong, but we've long suspected that Jay/Chuckles/Charlie/Cheney is gay and so in the closet. You know, it's a mystery but there are homophobic gay people. I worked with a "Jay" who was gay and bashed gays. Weird, I know.

Is that you, Jay? You ever get it on with that guy you liked who worked in the composing room?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Geez Louise Jay, are you retreating into the past *again*?

Try to stay focused, okay? We are talking about the present, the here and now, what is happening at this time, get it?

Sure, I know, it sucks to be you, and the present sucks even worse but if you don't facts you will never have any improvement.

Oh, and don't go sneaking off into the future, either. I don't want to hear any scary slippery slope futuristic whatifs, okay?

Posted by: Tripp on March 20, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

In 2003, there was one blood thirsty person who controlled Iraq. In 2006 there are over 200 freely elected representatives guiding the future of the country.

In 2003, there was the incompetent Iraqi military that laid down their weapons at the sight of the US military. In 2006 there are 200,000+ forces of all beliefs prtecting their new country.

In 2003, there were 17 UN resolution violations and Saddam paying Palestinian suicide bombers to blow up innocent Israeli's. In 2006, Saddam is on trial.

In 2003 there were rape rooms and women were petrified at the sight of Saddams maniacal children. In 2006, women are voting and going to school.

In 2003, Abu Nidal was enjoying a peaceful life in Iraq, you remember him? He is the one that pushed a wheel-chair bound man overboard to drown for the crime of being a Jew. In 2006, Abu Nidal is dead.

Not that you give a fuck about anybody but yourself.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK


Jay: I am also sure that the people in Waco, specifically that Branch Davidians might not think the Clinton administration was a success. Oh that's right they're dead. Who knew that a small weapons violation could get you killed under a Democratic President.

I guess this means that the terrorists are all carrying "large" weapons and that no innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq.

Typical mendacity by Jay.

BTW, hundreds of thousands of Albanians who would have been slaughtered if conservatives had had their way are thankful to Clinton.

Another lie by omission from Jay.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

And oh btw, who controlled the purse strings? Congress right? A republican congress.

Who is the majority in Congress now? Who voted in the biggest deficit in U.S. history?

You keep making the case to throw the Repub bums out and put Dems in charge of Congress. Thanks!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Neither is Bush on the November ballot, you fucking idiot, but yet you still are running against him. Good luck with that.

Liberal feathers are ruffled this morning. I don't know why you are all so defensive, I mean aren't you guys always on the right side of history? Maybe your defensive because you see your positions getting blown out of the water time and time again.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, come out of the closet. You're becoming more insane with every post.

Posted by: haha on March 20, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Neither is Bush on the November ballot, you fucking idiot, but yet you still are running against him. Good luck with that.

uh, yeah Jay--that's because he's still president, and as long as he's campaigning with Republicans who support his policies, then it's relevant. As opposed to Clinton's penis.

Come out of the closet Jay, clear your mind.

Posted by: haha on March 20, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Jay,

Not that you give a fuck about anybody but yourself.

Interesting. Who exactly is that directed at? Do you know? Where does this anger come from?

Deep down you know the truth but you can't face it. It is too painful. So you try to fix yourself by fixing the world.

It doesn't work that way, dude.

Posted by: Tripp on March 20, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

In 2003, there was one blood thirsty person who controlled Iraq. In 2006 there are over 200 freely elected representatives guiding the future of the country.

Well, they're trying to, but they haven't yet been able to establish a government. Hopes are not high.

In 2003, there was the incompetent Iraqi military that laid down their weapons at the sight of the US military. In 2006 there are 200,000+ forces of all beliefs prtecting their new country.

Wait, I thought that "incompetent Iraqi military" was supposed to be a threat to peace in the region -- isn't that why we invaded? But those "200,000+ forces" exist only in your mind. Besides being incompetent, poorly led and underarmed, the Iraqi "military" is little more than a collection of sectarian militias, more loyal to their particular sect and/or ethnicity than they are to a unified Iraq.

In 2003, there were 17 UN resolution violations and Saddam paying Palestinian suicide bombers to blow up innocent Israeli's. In 2006, Saddam is on trial.

Actually, he was paying a stipend to the surving families of sucidide bombers, not to the bombers themselves. But so what? That's Israel's problem, not ours. Did we invade to protect Israel? They're more than capable of protecting themselves.

In 2003 there were rape rooms and women were petrified at the sight of Saddams maniacal children. In 2006, women are voting and going to school.

And now we run the rape rooms and the torture rooms! That's progress for you. And women have lesss rights than they did under Saddam, live under Sharia law, and are afraid to leave the house for fear of being raped and kidnapped.

In 2003, Abu Nidal was enjoying a peaceful life in Iraq, you remember him? He is the one that pushed a wheel-chair bound man overboard to drown for the crime of being a Jew. In 2006, Abu Nidal is dead.

Abu Nidal was killed by Saddam in April 2002, not by us. Ironic, isn't it?

Not that you give a fuck about anybody but yourself.

And when exactly are you going over to Iraq? Those schools aren't going to paint themselves, you know!

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Not that you give a fuck about anybody but yourself.

So, where were you when Bush 41 was aiding and abetting Saddam's gassing of the Kurds?

. . . Saddam paying Palestinian suicide bombers to blow up innocent Israeli's . . .

Outright lie.

In 2006, Abu Nidal is dead.

Did Bush 43 kill him?

No.

Another lie by implication.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

I am also sure that the people in Waco, specifically that Branch Davidians might not think the Clinton administration was a success.

Since the Branch Davidians were child molesters who shot at the police I certainly hope not.

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Neither is Bush on the November ballot, you fucking idiot, but yet you still are running against him. Good luck with that.

Weren't you the idiot who said liberals would be sorry when massive stockpiles of WMDs were eventually found in Iraq?

Weren't you the idiot who said the liberal strategy of calling the president a liar and incompetent wouldn't work?

Saddam's WMDs? - None.

Liberal strategy? - Bush 40% and lower in all polls.

And liberals are the idiots.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

This is just too funny not to pass along.
Jack and Jeanne Block followed a group of Berkeley kids (yeez, they address the sample issue) since the late 1960s. They found that certain childhood traits were indicative of being politically liberal or conservative in later life. Remember the original work did not focus on political orientation.

Twenty years earlier, the personality qualities characterizing subsequent Liberals and
Conservatives are surprisingly numerous and coherent, especially for nursery school girls. Even after the inevitable attenuation of measurement and the diverse influences of intervening life, a psychological internal consistency filters through.

Thus, the relatively Liberal young men, when in nursery school two decades earlier, impressed nursery school teachers as boys who were: resourceful and initializing, autonomous, proud of their blossoming accomplishments, confident and self-involving. The relatively Conservative young men, when young boys, were viewed in nursery school as: visibly deviant, feeling unworthy and therefore ready to feel guilty, easily offended, anxious when confronted by uncertainties, distrustful of others, ruminative, and rigidifying when under stress.

Relatively Liberal young women, as identified via the LIB/CON Index, 20 years earlier were evaluated in nursery school by a coherent host of qualities: self-assertiveness, talkativeness, curiosity, openness in expressing negative feelings and in teasing, bright, competitive, and as having high standards. The relatively Conservative young women, as young girls in nursery school two decades earlier, impressed the then assessors as: indecisive and vacillating, easily victimized, inhibited, fearful, self-unrevealing, adult-seeking, shy, neat, compliant, anxious when confronted by ambiguity, and fearful.

Jack Block and Jeanne H. Block 2006 Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later. Journal of Research in Personality. In press

Posted by: bellumregio on March 20, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Maybe your defensive because you see your positions getting blown out of the water time and time again.

I think Jay does not understand what the word "defensive" or "blown out of the water" means any more than he understands the meaning of "massive stockpiles" or "imminent" or "welcome with open arms and flowers" or "desperate" or any of the other words conservatives routinely misuse.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

"Who voted in the biggest deficit in U.S. history?"

Not sure about "in U.S. history," but in the post-war period, the Democrats voted for biggest deficit, in 1983, when the deficit hit 6% of GDP.

Posted by: Santa on March 20, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

As is evident, Jerkoff Jay is yet another closeted, unemployed Republican who lives with his mommy and (though of an appropriate age for service) wets himself at the thought of actually serving his country.

The Army needs men for Iraq and Jerkoff, you sorta qualify (as long as no one asks and you don't tell). Why not join up to support what we can laughingly refer to as your principles?

But you have to love this:

"Iraq is no longer a war, but a police enforcement issue at this stage which the iraqi military is getting under control."

Apparently all the screaming and drooling and spitting out of government cheese affects Jerkoff's memory- he can't remember all the times he has sung the praises of the "war" in Iraq and chided the "leftists" for thinking of it as a "law enforcement" problem.

Geez if retarded psychopaths like this didn't exist, we would have to make them up or our amusement.

P.S. Jerkoff, has Dubya answered any of your valentines yet? Or is your love still unrequited?

Posted by: solar on March 20, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Neither is Bush on the November ballot, you fucking idiot, but yet you still are running against him.

What you keep missing is that the Repubs in Congress have given everything Bush has wanted including the biggest deficit in U.S. history.

Vote the Bush Repubs out of office. Clean slate, folks. Get rid of the Abramoff-corrupt Repubs.

Balance the Incompetent Idiot King with a Dem-controlled Congress.

Here, Jay/Chuckles, I'll spell it for you...

c-h-e-c-k-s and b-a-l-a-n-c-e-s.

A Dem-controlled Congress will help to control Dubya from doing anymore serious damage like, oh, maybe invading Iran instead of using diplomacy. Gosh, I honestly don't think it would be smart to let Dubya try his hand at national security much longer after getting a Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S. PDB, after 9/11, and after Operation FUBAR in Iraq.

We need a Dem-controlled Congress to provide adequate oversight on Dubya. He stinks as president.

Say, isn't the Taliban making a comeback? And Dubya rushed away from Afghanistan to invade Iraq, for what reason exactly?

Dubya probably tells Rummy he's doing a heckuva job. LOL!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Santa: Not sure about "in U.S. history," but in the post-war period, the Democrats voted for biggest deficit, in 1983, when the deficit hit 6% of GDP.

Cherry-picking your own definition of "biggest", I see.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Happy to see that The Piranha Lady has returned - Beware trolls - she has sharp teeth and she bites - Combine that with a sharp wit and she becomes "tres dangerous".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 20, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

liberal lies, lies, lies and more lies. However I guess thatis how they their brainwashed constituency together right Steffy?

Abu Nidal died of natural casues after living a peaceful existence in Baghdad. Wasn't "killed" by Saddam.

The Branch Davidians were not child molesters.

We are not running rape rooms.

"That's Israeli's problem" How international of you?

I also see that you offer ZERO proof for your asinine assertions. lies, lies, lies.

I never stated there were massive stockpiles of WMD,s but the entire world's intelligence community thought so, It was only the lunatic left in America that had that crystal ball. Too bad it that crystal ball doesn't work for the minorities that you have fought so hard for the last fifty years and have yet to accomplish anything for them. Oh well I guess that is the minorities problem, right Steffy?

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think Jay's done here. When he trots out a defense of the Branch Davidians he's finished.

Game. Set. Match.

Posted by: ckelly on March 20, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Wishful thinking ckelly. And of course therein lies the problem for the left - "wishful demented thinking".

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

From the BBC, August 19, 2002

"Palestinian sources say the maverick Palestinian militant leader Abu Nidal has been found shot dead at his home in Baghdad, Iraq.
The reports, which have yet to be confirmed, first emerged in al-Ayyam newspaper published in the West Bank, which said the militant leader - whose real name is Sabri al-Banna - died three days ago."

Posted by: Botecelli on March 20, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Paul, heh! Believe it or not, I fished for piranha last week. I won. (But I was careful not to tippecanoe and fall in too.)

Everyone stop spanking Jay's bottom so hard. How many times do I have to explain that he likes it? And there's no safety word (is that what it's called? I'm having trouble retrieving nouns this morning) in his limited vocab.

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

solar-flare, I will spell it out for you.

s.u.c.c.e.s.s.f.u.l. t.r.a.n.s.i.t.i.o.n.

From a military effort to now a security effort.

But watching the left lose on every issue every time is pure entertainment. Pass the popcorn, it's going to be another fun year.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

(Stamps his little foot)
Pay no heed to daily bombs!
IT'S NOT A CIVIL WAR!

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: The Branch Davidians were not child molesters.

Yes, they were.

They permitted and encouraged statutory rape.

Another way in which Koreshs revelation of sexual practices within the Mount Carmel community led his downfall and destruction was the fact that in the state of Texas, he was committing statutory rape by having sex with such young girls. In Texas, girls may marry at fourteen with parental permission, but they cannot legally consent to have sex outside marriage, with or without parental permission (Thibodeau 114).

Jay, U. R. A. LIAR!

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Whoopsie! That last line had six syllables, not five. Let's replace it with:

It's NOT a war! WHINE!

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: Abu Nidal died of natural casues after living a peaceful existence in Baghdad.

Wasn't killed by Bush or as the result of actions by Bush, the clear implication of your comment.

U. R. A. LIAR. Again.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Abu Nidal died of natural casues after living a peaceful existence in Baghdad. Wasn't "killed" by Saddam.

Au contraire. From Wikipedia (not the only source on this):

On August 19, 2002, al-Ayyam, the official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority, reported that Abu Nidal had died three days earlier of multiple gunshot wounds in his home in the wealthy al-Masbah neighborhood of al-Jadriyah, Baghdad, where the villa he lived in was owned by the Mukhabarat, or Iraqi secret service. [16]

Iraq's chief of intelligence, Taher Jalil Habbush, held a press conference on August 21, at which he handed out photographs of Abu Nidal's bloodied body, along with a medical report purportedly showing he had died after a single bullet had entered his mouth and exited his skull. Habbush said that Iraq's internal security force had arrived at Abu Nidal's house to arrest him on suspicion of conspiring with the Kuwaiti and Saudi governments to bring down Saddam Hussein. Saying he needed a change of clothes, Abu Nidal went into his bedroom and shot himself in the mouth, Habbush said. He died eight hours later in intensive care. [17] He is known to have been suffering from leukemia.

Palestinian sources told journalists that Abu Nidal died of multiple gunshot wounds. Jane's reported that Iraqi intelligence had been following him for several months and had found classified documents in his home about a U.S. attack on Iraq. When they arrived to raid his house on August 14 (not 16 August, according to Jane's), fighting broke out between the Abu Nidal's men and Iraqi intelligence. In the midst of this, Abu Nidal rushed into his bedroom and died, though Jane's writes that it remains unclear whether he killed himself in there or was killed by someone else. Jane's sources insist that his body bore several gunshot wounds. Jane's further suggests that Saddam may have ordered him arrested and killed because Abu Nidal was a mercenary who would have acted against Saddam in the event of an American invasion, had the money been right. [18]

Marie Colvin and Sonya Murad, writing in The Sunday Times, say that Abu Nidal was assassinated by a hit squad of 30 men from Office 8, the Iraqi Mukhabarat assassination unit. [19]


Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Denies the war, and
Now defending pedophiles?
This guy's so fucked up!

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: never stated there were massive stockpiles of WMD,s but the entire world's intelligence community thought so . . .

The UN inspectors didn't think so.

Powell didn't think so and said as much in February 2001.

U. R. A. LIAR. Yet again.

It was only the lunatic left in America that had that crystal ball.

So, conservatives like Jay have now relegated Colin Powell to the "lunatic left" which is what they do ever time they get caught with their pants down and their facts wrong - they blame the messenger as being part of a conspiracy of the left.

I'll bet after Ronald Reagan admitted there was an arms-for-hostages deal Jay started calling him a leftist.

Jay. Is. A. Liar.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

The Branch Davidians were not child molesters.

Koresh acknowledged on a videotape sent out of the compound during the standoff that he had fathered more than 12 children by several "wives" who were as young as 12 or 13 when they became pregnant. ("Why Waco?," by James D. Tabor and Eugene V. Gallagher.) A review of Waco events published by the Justice Department in October 1993 concludes, "Evidence suggested that Koresh had 'wives' who were in their mid-teens, that Koresh told detailed and inappropriate sexual stories in front of the children during his Bible study sessions, and that Koresh taught the young girls that it was a privilege for them to become old enough (i.e., reach puberty) to have sex with him." (Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas February 28 to April 19, 1993.)

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

I never stated there were massive stockpiles of WMD,s but the entire world's intelligence community thought so,

If the world's intelligence community told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

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

Jay: But watching the left lose on every issue every time is pure entertainment.

A sign of utter desperation - the real kind not the kind Dickless Cheney is always talking about.

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

civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

war
n.
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Iraq - a place where a state of open, armed, and now prolonged conflict is being carried on between factions in the same country.

I.e, civil war.

Conservatives R Liars.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

We are not running rape rooms.

True. We usually rape the prisoners right in their own cells.

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: The Branch Davidians were not child molesters. We are not running rape rooms.

Remember folks, you heard it here first . . .

According to Jay, if you are not running rape rooms, then you are not engaged in child molestation - anything less than rape rooms is, well, okay in Jay's mind.

An uncle has sex with his 10 YO niece?

Okay by Jay - not child molestation according to Jay, unless of course the uncle does it in a "rape room."

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, I read Riverbend back when she and Zeyad were almost the only people blogging from Iraq.

Had the war never happened, she would still be going to work, programming computers, living in air-conditioned comfort from the electrical power sucked from the rest of Iraq, going to college, and blissfully ignorant, or trying to be, of the oppression falling on those who were not lucky enough to be part of her group.

She seems to have very little to say about Saddam, about the effect of sanctions or tyranny on her life (if any), or other issues like that. Iraq's middle class was supposedly being destroyed by sanctions (I remember the articles, even if a lot of others don't.) Does she sound like she missed any meals?

Do you think she ever railed against living in a dictatorship prior to 2003? If there is some mention of her pre-war activism, I must have missed it.

These are facts, and other Iraqi bloggers have similar observations.

What's funny is that under so many other circumstances, a liberal would treat the political opinions of someone in a privileged class in a foreign nation with a lot more skepticism. Certainly Iraqi bloggers who are more pro-war are consistently accused by the Left of being paid shills on no real evidence.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 20, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: From a military effort to now a security effort.

Tell that to the US soldiers dying.

They shouldn't get purple hearts or any other medals according to Jay because it is no longer a military action.

LOL.

Why does Jay hate our soldiers?

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Oops.

My bad.

Jay was NOT talking about the Branch Davidians when referring to "rape rooms."

But then again, he was still lying about the child molestation issue.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Poor Jay; he really has drunk the Kool-Aid, hasn't he? His assertions on the recent Potemkin operation are classic. This, too, was a classic, though:

"I never stated there were massive stockpiles of WMD,s but the entire world's intelligence community thought so,"

Alas for poor Jay, the statement is entirely untrue, since the "entire world's intelligence community," including our own intelligence agencies, did not believe this. The news has come out that we were warned at various times by the IAEA, the Germans, the Italians, the French, and the Russians, that the case we were making was fatally flawed and that the statements made by the Bush administration in the run-up to the war were highly questionable and based on even more questionable sources. Our own CIA's assessment in the year before the war was that Saddam Hussein was not a threat.

"It was only the lunatic left in America that had that crystal ball."

No, dear, everyone knew that Saddam Hussein did not possess any nuclear capability. And everyone also knew that he did not possess "massive stockpiles." At most, he might have had a few surreptitious research programs and some small caches of decaying chemical weapons, but that was about it. It was only the Bush administration that refused to accept this reality.

I find it interesting, by the way, that you go out of your way to avoid pointing out the obvious fact that the "crystal ball" we were using was, in fact, correct and that the Bush administration and you, and those like you, have been wrong every time. Why is that, Jay?

Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation specifically when girls of that age are allowed to marry in many countries, even in some states in this country. Is it right, no. But does it justify killing them? no.

I was wrong re: abu nidal but many accounts state that he committed suicide.

A-muse-zing, the person that convinced me that Iraq had WMD's was Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the SIC. His speech in Oct. 2002 was very convincing. How is he reacting now with his pants down?

Even the Iraqi generals under Saddam thought he had biological weapons ready for use. I guess everyone is lying except the left. You know the old refrain when everyone is wrong except you, a re-examination of yourself is required.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Certainly Iraqi bloggers who are more pro-war are consistently accused by the Left of being paid shills on no real evidence.

Admitted manipulation of Iraqi journalists paid by the administration to write "positive" stories about the occupation is "no evidence" that the administration would ever pay to have Iraqi shills spin the administration's agenda.

What a doofus you are, tbrosz.

I mean, really, "no evidence"?

That's just laughable.

And pathetic.

And pretty much shoots whatever credibility you had, which was little enough as it is.

Maybe you should go back to your "Bush 41 never criticized Clinton while Clinton was in office" schtick.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jay wrote: "I guess everyone is lying except the left."

No, dear, just you and those like you, since you cannot seem to get even the basic facts about Iraq straight.

"You know the old refrain when everyone is wrong except you, a re-examination of yourself is required."

Dear heart, have you looked in the mirror recently? Your every pronouncement on Iraq, on this thread and others, has been blatantly and completely false.

Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Not sure about "in U.S. history," but in the post-war period, the Democrats voted for biggest deficit, in 1983, when the deficit hit 6% of GDP.

Wow, that's relevant to today [rolls eyes]. And Reagan and Poppy Bush increased taxes. See, I can play the cherry-picking game, too.

So what's your point about November this year? Why don't conservatives want to talk about the record of the current Repub-controlled Congress?

Dems have changed in 20+ years. Look who today voted down the PAYGO (pay as you go) amendments. Only four Repubs, one Indie, and all the Dems in the Senate voted for them. If we had had a Dem-controlled Congress today, the bills would have passed.

Dems have also been on top of the national security/port security issue. Too bad Repubs killed the latest effort, courtesy Kevin, Mar. 16, 2006:

House Republicans voted almost unanimously against an amendment to beef up port security and install radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. They also blocked consideration of an amendment to require 100% scanning of shipping containers entering the United States. I think this tells you just how seriously they take the actual threat of a nuclear Iran.


shortstop: Everyone stop spanking Jay's bottom so hard. How many times do I have to explain that he likes it?

Is that what this was? Guess he was trolling for a paddling.

What a haiku at 12:17 PM. Poetry in the morning and now the afternoon...Thanks, shortstop. Nice change of pace.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq is the most successful and bloodless war in history. Unfortunately 2200 soldiers have lost their lives, yet they established a new freely elected government, trained a 200,000+ military/security force and put Saddam on trial in just three years. They will be heading home this summer and the Dems will continue to try and spin that as well. Again pure entertainment.

In the Democratic led Vietnam war America lost over 58,000 in ten years without accomplishing shit.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, that's an interesting defense of having sex with 12- and 13-year-old girls. Tell us more about how you formed this opinion. We're listening.

Posted by: Jay's local law enforcement officials on March 20, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

And now the Democrats are deficit hawks, again...

Thanks for admitting the truth, Jay. Finally! Yes, the Dems are the grown-ups now.

...not pointing out that it took a republican led congress for the first time in forty years in 1994 to straighten things out.

Wow, and it has worked out so well today. Now the Dems are the fiscally responsible party. Time to vote them back into power in Congress while we've got Deficit Dubya in office to contend with. I just love the way Jay keeps making that point. Over and over.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

sounds like an excellent strategy to me. Even Rasmussen is showing that W is unpopular. The more we tie the GOP in congress to W, the better it is for Dems. From Rasumussen:

Monday March 20, 2006--For the third straight day, just 40% of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Prior to the past two days, the President's Job Approval had fallen to that level just once in a Rasmussen Reports survey.

Finally, I agree with Kevin that this strategy sounds good but needs to be augmented with more credible sounding National Security/Homeland Defense focus. Katrina and the Dubai ports deal provide ample resources for this line of attack.

Posted by: Edo on March 20, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

In many rural areas in this country, 14 is the age that most girls can marry. Just a basic search would have told you that, but ignoring the basics is a liberal trait.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Wow, that's relevant to today [rolls eyes]."

Ha ha ha. You're a pistol, Apollo 13 [rolls eyes]. After just asking who voted for the biggest deficit "in U.S. history" you now declare the answer irrelevant. Then why did you ask the question?

But of course, this kind of bait-and-switch is vintage Apollo 13.

Posted by: GOP on March 20, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Reps will be voted back in again just like '94, and '00. '06 will prove the liberals to be losers again, over and over.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Mmm hmm. Are you attracted to 12-year-old girls, Jay? Pay no attention to my sidekick, Bad Cop. He doesn't understand you. But you and I know how it is, don't we, buddy? Tell me how it went down. I'm listening.

Posted by: Good cop on March 20, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yes good cop, I was attracted to twelve year old girls...............when I was thirteen. Now run to your room and mastrubate over that.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation specifically when girls of that age are allowed to marry in many countries, even in some states in this country."

Jerkoff not only has a hard-on for Dubya, he's also a pedophile! This is what happens when sexual deviants are allowed access to computers.

This?

"Iraq is the most successful and bloodless war in history."

Just more proof of illiteracy, lack of education and general brain death, if any was actually needed.

Posted by: solar on March 20, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Damn! He almost admitted it. Well, unfortunately these pedophiles can be wily. Go ahead and do your thing, Bad Cop.

Posted by: Good Cop on March 20, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

the fool Flanders: Do you think she ever railed against living in a dictatorship prior to 2003? If there is some mention of her pre-war activism, I must have missed it.

You mean, prior to 2003 when to do so would have gotten her killed or at least arrested, tortured and raped? Gosh, I wonder why she wasn't more outspoken against Saddam while he was in power?

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

solar, please provide an example of a more efficient war where boots were actually on the ground. I'll wait....................

good cop, is this your fascination of brokeback police work. Are you done masturbating yet. Be sure to clean up your moms room.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, fine example of that pre-war nirvana the left thought Iraq was. Well done!

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Dems should really try running on old conservaitve issues and steal conseravtive voters out from under the GOP. The conservatives ARE the Dems these days. Dems help veterns, Dems don't want to close Walter Reed, want to help veterns,and Dems want a real drug policy for seniors, so why DO seniors vote for big spending GOP reps and their rip offs that clearly don't benefit voters. The GOP has clearly out spend any Dem policy ever created?

Bush is the "spend and borrow" president EVER and has FAR more liberal with spending then any Boston Liberal Bush use to poke fun at. The war was a big spending mistake that didn't make the US any safer. Bush spend all that money in Iraq and now has nothing to show for it except a lost war that created more terrorist without resulting in anything close to democracy and bin Laden still hasn't been found.

I see that George F. Will is off telling Bush to lose the democracy thing about Iraq. Noonan is also trying to sell didn't points of view. A truly lost cause for the Bush administration. Nothing is going to stop that free fall now - only a Republican pres wanabe willing to really distance himself from Bush's failed policies is going to have any real chance in 2008.

BUT Dems are just to afraid to take any risk and are about to hang poor old Feingold out to dry just like they did Howard Dean - they don't dare speak up against Bush not matter how low his polls fall.

This leaves any Republican who pretends to be Bush's friend - like McCain, up to the task and far away the best pick rather than any spinless Dem candidate. The Dems are going to burn Feingold - just like the did Howard Dean - a pity really. Standing up to Bush is simply a big no, no in the lossing spinless Dem Party.

What really cost Dems is when bloggers like Kevin Drum tell them that that standing up to Bush's American spying program is a losser - Dems are left with their hands tied behind the backs again - just like 2002, 2004 - terrified of standup for ANYTHING. It's those spineless central Dems that really cost the Party everything time and time again.

Posted by: Cheryl on March 20, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

In many rural areas in this country, 14 is the age that most girls can marry. Just a basic search would have told you that, but ignoring the basics is a liberal trait.

And yet Koresh had sex with girls as young as 12 or 13, not 14. And, since he was "married" to mulitple under-age girls, in marriage "ceremonies" that he conducted himself, none of these "marriages" were legal.

But Jay, please do go on with your stirring defense of sex with under-age girls. It's doing wonders for your standing, here. I'm sure the average American mom and dad just love reading a Republican defend how it's OK for a grown man to fuck their pre-teen daughters.

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I'd like to hear Jay attempt to continue his defense of raping 12- and 13-year-olds as well. You are one sick bastard, Jay.

Posted by: shortstop on March 20, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

solar, please provide an example of a more efficient war where boots were actually on the ground. I'll wait....................

God knows what he thinks he means by "efficient" but, assuming he means total casualties, here's a partial list:

US invasion of Dominican Republic, 1965.

Six Day War between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, 1967 (about 22,000 killed on both sides).

Falkland Islands War, 1982.

US invasion of Grenada, 1983.

US invasion of Panama, 1989.

Kosovo war, 1999.


Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

253 comments. That says it all.

Posted by: ELR on March 20, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

"...solar, please provide an example of a more efficient war where boots were actually on the ground. "

Which one of Jerkoff Jay's personalities are we speaking to now? Is it the one who believes there is a war, or the one who believes there isn't?

Now Jerkoff, we know you were home-schooled by Satanist, white supremacist, NAMBLA Republicans but this still doesn't make me sorry enough for you to do research for a fuckwit pedophile. As I've said before, buy a book and have Jeff Gannon read it to you before he puts you to bed.

Posted by: solar on March 20, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

So the Dems are going to run in November claiming Republicans are the Do-Nothings and No-accounts who won't hold Bushie to account for his disasters?

And they are going to do this how? Why, of course, by taking away the most powerful weapon in their arsenal - threatening censure because the republicans won't seriously investigate bushie's lies (we always get a court warrant) and violations of the Constitution.

Trying to run on the basis of a do-nothing republican congress by doing nothing - makes perfect sense in the dem consultant and pundit world.

What kind of political instinct is this? The American people, conservative and liberal want the s.o.b's held to account and are sick of the arrogance and abuse of power.

Posted by: Chrissy on March 20, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: Fathering children with girls teen girls doens not constitute child molestation specifically when girls of that age are allowed to marry in many countries, even in some states in this country.

It is a crime.

It is the crime of statutory rape.

Are you saying that statutory rape is not a form of child molestation?

Then, you are lying.

But what is new.

BTW, child rape is punishable by death in some countries, so by your own logic the "death penalty" would be justified for Koresh and those who aided and abetted him.

The rest?

According to the conservative logic, they were justified collateral damage.

Just like the children of Iraq killed by American soldiers ordered to kill anybody on the off possibility that they will actually kill a single alleged sniper.

You lose.

By your own words.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

ELR wrote: "253 comments. That says it all."

Not really. It just says that we have a persistent moron/troll making some really stupid, not to mention false, statements. Take out those comments and the responses and you'd have easily eliminated half of the thread.

Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: I guess everyone is lying except the left.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Besides, according to you, no liberal has any credibility, so why did you believe Rockefeller?

Again, you are proven a liar.

Rockefeller has no credibility, but you believed him anyway.

The UN inspectors proved just before the invasion that there were no massive stockpiles.

Whatever existed before, in opinion or evidence, was irrelevant after that.

Bush ignored that finding and invaded anyway - he lied, just as you lie.

(It is hilarious that a conservative says that intercourse with a 12-13 year old girl is not "child molestation" after conservatives claimed that Clinton's sexual activities with Lewinsky were.

Too, too funny!

I LOVE IT!

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

the fool Flanders: Certainly Iraqi bloggers who are more pro-war are consistently accused by the Left of being paid shills on no real evidence.

U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press
Troops write articles presented as news reports. Some officers object to the practice.
By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi, L.A. Times Staff Writers
November 30, 2005

WASHINGTON As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military.....

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

The nanosecond Jay enters a thread, it goes to hell; probably his goal.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 20, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Falklands war was a British effort.
The six day war had more casualties, 22,000>2200
No boots on the ground in Kosovo.
And the others were hardly "wars" but more of a military exercises. I mean the Dominican Republic, c'mon, Rhode Island could kick their ass.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: Iraq is the most successful and bloodless war in history.

Liar.

The wars in Bosnia and Kosovo were.

Both in terms of civilians and US forces.

And Clinton didn't have anybody tortured.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Jay says (in effect): war is not war, unless their are ground troops and when I use the term war that's what I mean because I can't ever say what I really mean but must talk in code and ambiguities so when my lies are discovered I have an out by proclaiming hidden definitions of the terms I've been using.

BTW, pass it around the web: conservatives believe that non-consensual intercourse with 12 and 13 year old girls should not be a crime, that this should be viewed through the cultural prism of, dare we say it!, moral relativity!

I LOVE IT!

Jay arguing for the application of moral relativity!

I JUST LOVE IT!

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't give a fuck who Clinton fucked, which was a lot, but that fact that he LIED about. You know that wrod lie don't you? You sure bandy it about a lot. He even lied to a grand jury and was stripped of his law license (oh excuse, he voluntarily gave it up). And what a woman Hillary is, sticking by her philandering man, doesn't that set back feminism a few years?

Hey, if the libs don't want teen girls to notify their paretns if they're are pregnant, why would they care who they're having sex with?

A-muse-zing I am ROTFLOL at your stupidity.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Bush at 40% approval in the Rasmussen poll for the third straight day!

60% of Americans are liars and traitors, according to Jay!

I JUST LOVE IT!

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Falklands war was a British effort.
The six day war had more casualties, 22,000>2200
No boots on the ground in Kosovo.
And the others were hardly "wars" but more of a military exercises. I mean the Dominican Republic, c'mon, Rhode Island could kick their ass.

Pedophile Jay had previously asserted that "Iraq is the most successful and bloodless war in history" (not just US history -- emphasis mine).

Then, when presented with multiple examples of wars that were, in fact, more bloodless and more effective he attempts to define them away as either not involving America or "not real wars". Typical dishonesty.

By the way, the 22,000 dead figure is the Six Day War is for both Israel and its opponents. Israel itself lost only 687 dead, which is rather less than the 2300 we've lost so far.

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hey stupid, BOOTS ON THE GROUND!!!!
It's easy to drop bombs from the sky. BTW, how many innocent people that you care so much about we're killed in the indiscriminate bombing of Kosovo? Care to venture? Does Clinton have blood on his hands, which isn't Monicas?

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, keep talking.

Posted by: Local law enforcement, now closing in on Jay's house on March 20, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Please, PLEASE, keep posting this stuff, Jay!

It will be fun to watch when it gets spread around the web as examples of how conservatives really think!

You'll get tremendous support from parents when they find out you support intercourse with their 12-13 year old daughters and think that this is not a big thing.

Parents everywhere will celebrate the conservative contribution to sexual freedom in the US!

Oooorah!

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

No, 60% of Americans want him to be more conservative. A fact that will turn your little wooden head in '08.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Waaaah! I want my mommy. On second thought, I want my little brother.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ima war expert. Also, expert on sex with children. Just ask me!

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Just as the family values part of the democratic agenda denies parental notification. I will keep talking but I believe you have spoken enough, hence the lost elections in the past few years. But remember it's not the message that is losing those elections, it's those evil republican voting machines.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: Hey, if the libs don't want teen girls to notify their paretns if they're are pregnant, why would they care who they're having sex with?

Why should parents who think its okay for their daughters to have sex at 12 and 13 be notified?

What are they going to do, foist post-signed consent forms on the judge?

BTW, interesting that you are down with Clinton lying about something which no one had any business asking about and which had nothing to do with his presidential duties, but it is okay for Bush (or his subordinates on his orders) to lie about:

* the reason for lack of body and vehicle armor

* the existence of Al Queda connections to Saddam

* the near completion of nuclear weapons in pre-invasion Iraq

* the ability of Iraq to deliver a WMD against the continental US from Iraqi soil

* the presceiption drug bill cost

* global warming

* the government's knowledge of levee failure

* the government's knowledge of probable levee failure

* Winnebagos being WMDs

* etc

* etc

* etc

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I need to put my boots on the ground and walk further because all the kids at the local playground know what I look like by now.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Hey stupid, BOOTS ON THE GROUND!!!!

I love how he's latched onto this phrase as his rhetorical liferaft. The Israelis and British had "boots on the ground" in the wars I've cited, and we had "boots on the ground" in the Dominican, Panamanian, and Grenadan conflicts. So why don't they count?

So I suppose we now have to redefine Jay's statment that "Iraq is the most successful and bloodless war in history" to read "Iraq is the most successful and bloodless war [of a certain predetermined size that only I am the judge of] in [US] history [that involved infantry forces in ground combat, and not naval or air operations] [and that was not Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, Bosnia, or Kosovo]"

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I've never had sex with a teenage girl because none of em want to ride on my bike. Also the state keeps making me register as a sex offender and that puts a real crimp on my dating.

Posted by: Jay on March 20, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: BTW, how many innocent people that you care so much about we're killed in the indiscriminate bombing of Kosovo?

Fewer than in Iraq.

But remember it's not the message that is losing those elections, it's those evil republican voting machines.

We know. Good to see you are finally coming around!

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 20, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't the age of consent in most parts of the US 16? Anything under that is statutory rape.

Posted by: Wombat on March 20, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

I always enjoy the wingnut trolls who post here, thinking they're going to teach everyone a thing or two, only to be exposed as moronic liars.

Then I enjoy watching them try to salvage their dignity, only to dig themselves further into a hole, and descend into complete batshit craziness. Anyone remember crazy Norman? Could be the same person as Jay.

Thanks for the laughs Jay. But seriously, you need to come out of the closet. Come out of the closet Jay.

Posted by: haha on March 20, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know which is more disgusting. Jay's defense of Koresh and the Branch Davidians or his defense of the Bush Administration.

Truly revolting.

Posted by: ckelly on March 20, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan wrote: "Then, when presented with multiple examples of wars that were, in fact, more bloodless and more effective he attempts to define them away as either not involving America or 'not real wars'. Typical dishonesty."

It's even worse than that, since he's ignoring the casualties on the Iraqi side, not to mention the improvements in body armor that is result in fewer deaths, but more injuries, and the inconvenient fact that the war isn't over yet, so any speculation about its bloodlessness and effectiveness is, at best, premature.

At this point, Jay is simply flailing away with typical kindergarten tactics. One would hope that he's just a garden-variety troll since the alternative, that he's genuinely that clueless, is rather pathetic.

Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

Nice to see you back. Where've you been?

And I even gave Jay the "gimme" of not mentioning the 1991 Gulf War.

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Tens of thousands of U.S. military vehicles, ships and aircraft are guzzling fuel every day around the world and with the bill rising the Pentagon is trying harder to conserve.

Big Oil price gouging hurts our soldiers.

Why do Bush and the GOP hate the military?

Because they love Big Oil money.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 20, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

> Bob, I read Riverbend back when she and Zeyad were
> almost the only people blogging from Iraq.

And this excuses your interpretation ... how?

> Had the war never happened, she would still be going to
> work, programming computers, living in air-conditioned
> comfort from the electrical power sucked from the rest
> of Iraq, going to college, and blissfully ignorant, or
> trying to be, of the oppression falling on those
> who were not lucky enough to be part of her group.

And the moral of this story is ... what? That Riverbend and her
social cohort should have been annihilated for being an example
of how Saddam's tyrant state selectively persecuted people?

You obviously haven't read much great war literature, have you.
Most of the most eloquent and wise commentaries on the aftermaths
of wars have been written by the former elite newly disenfranchised.

Gone With The Wind ring a bell?

Riverbend's social situation isn't any more her fault than the
fact that we invaded her country. Just as your own privileged
position gives you no greater or lesser purchase on the truth of
America. It says exactly zero about the justification of the war.
If Riverbend were some kind of pro-Sunni bigot or Saddam apologist
-- well, alright then. But she obviously is neither, so people
like you and the resentment-driven pro-American Iraqi bloggers have
to make this crap up out of whole cloth. It is the most egregious
kind of pseudo-Socialist class warfare rhetoric that you would hotly
reject in any other context. Save when it serves your purposes.

> She seems to have very little to say about Saddam,
> about the effect of sanctions or tyranny on her
> life (if any), or other issues like that.

Right, Tom. She stands as a repudiation of the prowar
propaganda about Saddam's tyrant state -- which is why you and
prowar apologists feel such a strong need to shit on her for, you
know, the happenstance of being born an upper-middle-class Sunni.

> Iraq's middle class was supposedly being destroyed by
> sanctions (I remember the articles, even if a lot of
> others don't.) Does she sound like she missed any meals?

I don't know if she did or not, Tom. Do you? Do you have
*anything* other than this secondhand sectarian resentment
to imply that she found life under the sanctions hunky-dory?

> Do you think she ever railed against living in a
> dictatorship prior to 2003? If there is some mention
> of her pre-war activism, I must have missed it.

So ... Riverbend's views *now* would only be relevant if she
were in favor of the war. Makes a lot of sense to me. It *does*,
however, explain how people on the shorter end of Saddam's stick
would wish to discredit her views. And that's fine -- their
perspective is also valid. But so is hers as a secularized Iraqi
pluralist and technocrat with a cultural predilection for democracy.

This irony here is truly too grotesque to be remotely funny.

> These are facts, and other Iraqi bloggers have similar observations.

Of course they do, Tom. It was well-known before the war that
there was a cohort of urban middle class who lived well (by Mideast
standards) and relatively unmolested under Saddam's regime. That
had, you know, women's rights -- which are now imperiled by the
religious coalitions jockeying for power in the Iraqi government.

Why *wouldn't* a woman like Riverbend fear and tremble over that?

> What's funny is that under so many other circumstances,
> a liberal would treat the political opinions of someone in a
> privileged class in a foreign nation with a lot more skepticism.

What's funnIER is that a conservative would try to
discount a person's views based on her class alone.

Tom, in a warfull of clueless analogies, this one's still a doozy.
NEWS FLASH: The Iraq war wasn't the result of a popular uprising.

> Certainly Iraqi bloggers who are more pro-war are consistently
> accused by the Left of being paid shills on no real evidence.

I don't know if they're all paid shills or not (although I have no
doubt that some have been championed and disseminated by right-wing
blogs, and I strongly suspect that others have received financial
help from Americans and/or the US government). What I do know is
that the so-called pro-Saddam and pro-Sunni bias in Riverbend is
made up out of whole cloth and inferred by what she doesn't say.

And anybody who's studied literature or journalism knows that
you can't critique a work based on what you'd like it to say.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Keith

...as a liberal yankee union activist you caught no end of crap from southerners?

Something tells me it wasn't your views, it was most likely your manners...blame your parents.

Posted by: Carroll on March 20, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, look. After lunch love notes.

GOP: Ha ha ha. You're a pistol, Apollo 13 [rolls eyes]. After just asking who voted for the biggest deficit "in U.S. history" you now declare the answer irrelevant. Then why did you ask the question?

LMAO at you! The 1983 answer is irrelevant because I didn't ask for who voted for the biggest budget in U.S. history based on % of GDP , did I? No, I didn't. But I noticed that the Santa poster didn't post a $ figure for the 1983 deficit and neither did you.

The deficit in 1983 was (-$208 billion) compared to the largest deficit in 2004 (-$412 billion) . Second largest deficit was in 2003 (-$378 billion) and third largest in 2005 (-$331 billion).

From a 2005 report -- CBO Confirms 2005 Will Post the Third Largest Deficit in History:

The $331 billion deficit for 2005 is the third worst in history. In fact, over the last three years 2003, 2004, and 2005 the Bush Administration has overseen the three largest deficits in our nations history. When the calculation excludes the Social Security surplus, the 2005 deficit is $504 billion. [Cite, CBO Summer Update, Aug. 15, 2005]

At least the deficit was better last year compared to the two years before. Of course, that's not as low as 1981 (-$79 billion).

When there was a Dem president (Clinton) in the WH and a Repub-controlled Congress, we got record surpluses starting in 1998-2001 before Bush got his hands on the budget with his buddies in Congress.

Maybe that's a good thing to have for America -- vote in a Dem-controlled Congress in 2006 to balance the Incompetent Idiot King in the WH until January 2009. Worked in reverse very well with Clinton and the Repub Congress.

Vintage GOP troll: But of course, this kind of bait-and-switch is vintage Apollo 13.

Let me give an answer for vintage GOP troll: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 20, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Something tells me it wasn't your views, it was most likely your manners...blame your parents.

Someone with real manners wouldn't criticize someone else's parents.

Posted by: Stefan on March 20, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

Touche :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 20, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan wrote: "Nice to see you back. Where've you been?"

Thanks. I've been incredibly busy trying to get my current software project out the door. I've got a bit of a breather now but will have to disappear again shortly for another couple of months until this thing finally ships. I'll try to be back again for the run-up to the November elections.

Jay is either incredibly ignorant or he's a deliberate troll. These days, it's hard to tell the difference but, alas for Jay, I suspect the former. He reminds me a little of our dear friend rdw, who could take a single fact and spin a whole novel full of fantasies from it (see, for example, Jay's posts on the subject of Operation Swarmer).

Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Don't let the door hit you on the ass.

Posted by: Don P. on March 20, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

LOL... Oh, dear ... poor little Donnie is feeling a mite perturbed that I'm back, particularly since his first attack on me after I returned was such a fiasco. I love his latest, though, where he accuses me of being "a self-admitted fag."

Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Since you think PROVING you indeed have used the word quagmire re: Iraq is an "attack", perhaps now you know why I'm pulling my punches - I don't want to break the itty bitty faggot.

Posted by: Don P. on March 20, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, dear, whatever you say. I'm sure that your Mummy has some milk and cookies waiting for you now that you've demonstrated your manly prowess and showed us how awash with testosterone you are, Donnie dear.

Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Poor little Donnie seems positively obsessed with me, writing on another thread: "I'm happy to leave your radioactive (and who knows what other filthy diseased) ass alone."

Goodness, I feel positively faint.

Posted by: PaulB on March 20, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

I like it when Jay touches my peepee.

Posted by: Don P. on March 20, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Great bunch of thinkers while you are thinking up solgans ,and the others are looking for billboards,why are you not thinking about how much capital that you could match,when the media and all the other upper class folks that got all the tax breaks,wake up and do your searches on who contribute to the republicans election,then start pressuring on the line of limits,because by the time of the next election,no matter who you choose,they are going to buy you right out of any chance,no matter how much wit you come up with,and then they could wipe your ass with a chimp,think whats in office now! du! Simiple called common sence,now back to the math one trillion on the war and homeland sercurity,500 billion on common affairs,in the rear oh my in the rear again,brain storm collect the taxes from the indians,what treaty,oh my do we have a constitution! Expired 2006,we are now a coloney of the Arabs, new name Dowithout.

Posted by: STRANGE on March 21, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

After reading about telling others that its your cvic right ,and we are going to be there for you,I starting laffening,then you tall about gay and others rights,I started crying,but realy throught all your ideals,I came to understand why you are called jackasses,but I will give you credit it not so your balless,when you have someone thats has the peoples attention,you morans set back in your easy chairs and cause them to be chew up from the media and the corpant assholes and not a one would jump on the band wagon because you dont have any sack,With this in mind why waste your time,there is no more middle class your either rich or poor,so with out the money control your over with ,there is no more unions that realy matters anymore so there will beless funds from there,so what does that leave you a full scale attack on Mickey Dees the republicians own the media and all the printing and broadcasting stations,and your going to send faxes,dam it do your homework plain and simiple.No chance unless you thin the courpt bastards out,which as I see it your only chance without money is to shame the media and newpapers with common ecthics,and when you get the peoples support these businesses will be force on your side,that means quite your bitching and dig into there personal affairs or hit the lottery everday untill the election, must I state the odds.

ya! uneducated but not dumb,but gentleman whats your excuse! Here we go again put your differences to aside unite and dig ,look at everything they do,and you will find the scams because all big money you will have greed and thats there soft spot,think about it what else do you have! Hate me or join,atleast give it a shot,and dont worry I dont want no lime life ,I just want the best for all,while I do want to smile as they leave office,now that excites me!


q1

Posted by: STRANGE on March 21, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

Er, I've been away for a while. Why is Charlie now posting under Don P.'s name?

Posted by: shortstop on March 21, 2006 at 7:25 AM | PERMALINK

Please know that this site is. "The fastest growing jewish dating site. http://jewish.dating-smarts.com/ click here for the latest league tables. The information on jewish.dating-smarts.com is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.

Posted by: Jewish dating on March 22, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Connecting indian singles around the world for more than 7 years. For indian singles to find matrimony. http://indian.dating-smarts.com/ indian singles are waiting to meet you now for romance and friendship. indian singlesdatin uk, www dating com etc.

Posted by: Indian singles on March 22, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

indian dating. indian dating Meet Indians around the world here - for dating and marriageSingles around the world from India or of Indian decent Find Indian singles that are. http://indian.dating-smarts.com/ leicester indian dating agencies. birth date UK dating agencies, Canadian singles, Australian singles, African personals, New Zealand dating, European personals and indian dating services,.

Posted by: Indian dating on March 22, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

christian dating web site. Top Religious Dating - Christian Dating - Muslim Dating - Jewish Dating -. http://christian.dating-smarts.com/ christian dating sites. Relationships, Love and Romance Find christian dating at Love.

Posted by: Christian dating on March 22, 2006 at 6:59 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