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 31, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

JADED?....As Bob Somerby and Peter Daou and Media Matters have all pointed out, it really is remarkable how little attention the confirmation of David Manning's explosive prewar memo has gotten in the past week. Here's what the New York Times reported on Monday:

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second [UN] resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons...."The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

And this is in addition to the news that Bush was brainstorming ideas for deliberately provoking a war since it didn't appear that Saddam Hussein had any actual WMD to give him a legitimate reason for invasion.

And yet as near as I can tell from a search of both Nexis and Google News, a grand total of about a dozen U.S. newspapers bothered to even report this. This is despite the fact that Manning was Tony Blair's chief foreign policy advisor, the Times reviewed an actual copy of the memo, and two "senior British officials" confirmed its authenticity. What's more, the conversation between Bush and Blair took place on January 31, 2003, which means that Bush was flatly lying for six consecutive weeks when he pretended that war could be averted if only Saddam Hussein would cooperate with UN inspectors.

Is the "collective yawn" from the media because everyone figures this is old news? Because it comes from a competitor and no one wants to credit them? Because no one really cares anymore?

Or are we now so jaded by the relentless mendacity of the Bush administration that high level lying just isn't worth reporting these days? What other explanation is there for this not being front page news in Los Angeles and Washington DC as well as New York?

Kevin Drum 3:27 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (161)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Jaded? Or complicit?

Posted by: 2shoes on March 31, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

The corporate media knows on which side their bread is buttered!

Posted by: Freedom Phucker on March 31, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

You could say the same about the Murray Waas article in the National Journal. "Bush lied" isn't news any more.

Posted by: Mimikatz on March 31, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

I think they are both jaded and cowed.

It's absolute proof he was lying through his teeth and yet they continue to pretend there's some doubt there.

I think they're just afraid to go where this will lead them.

Posted by: four legs good on March 31, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

What other explanation is there for this not being front page news in Los Angeles and Washington DC as well as New York?

Read Daou more closely. The dissemination of this story would be helped by more flogging from Democratic Congressmen (besides from the usual suspects - think Conyers).

Posted by: Mimir on March 31, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Jaded. And it lacks oral sex.

Posted by: Hoyt Pollard on March 31, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

I think by and large most of the operative people in the press are still afraid of being called "liberal" or a "Bush hater." It makes no difference that the facts have an anti-Bush agenda.

Posted by: Alan on March 31, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

One of the few things that some in the media did report accurately before the war was the idea that it was a foregone conclusion, especially after Powell's U.N. speech.

The reason the lies leading up to the war don't sink in is simple: The Bush Administration's con-job merely reinforced what the media and many policy-thinkers already believed to be true about Iraq and WMD.

Posted by: enozinho on March 31, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

This lament is almost a year old now. The Downing Street Memos got their fifteen minutes of fame. If a major New York Times article isn't going to recharge it, what do you want?

So, when is the NYT going to release the text of the memo?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 31, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

To report on it out would further reiterate just how complicit (good word) the media was in the march to war. The media wants their role as lead cheerleaders to go away. Some SCLM we have.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

The trolls must be sleeping. This post has been up 16 whole minutes and only tbrosz has managed to rouse himself into a state of semi-snark. I'm very disappointed.

Posted by: Everett on March 31, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Sheesh. To report on it would further...

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Granted the lack of coverage of that memo is fucked.

But what about Bush claiming for the third time that we went to war because Saddam refused to allow the inspectors in? Its hard to find words strong enough to characterize that statement. Mendacious? Yep. Insane? Yep. Delusional? Check.

But the media don't even see fit to report it. Just another day in George Bush's paradise.

Posted by: The Fool on March 31, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

I'd say that one thing that seems to be missing from the dynamic that makes these things take off is concerted Democratic criticism.

Or have I made an oxymoron again?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 31, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

So, when is the NYT going to release the text of the memo?

The answer to this is obvious to anyone with the brainpower to actually read the NY Times story. Not surprisingly, this does not include tbrosz.

Posted by: grh on March 31, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Operation Mockingbird has been working well - The MSM is so full of CIA plants that they quash any negative news about the Bushies and paint a smiley face on dreadful things like the Occupation of Iraq.

That, and the American people are so sedated by the latest episode of Lost or American Idol that they don't care if fascism has taken root in America....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 31, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

This lament is almost a year old now.

Doesn't stop wingnuts from still bringing up blowjobs, Tom.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

If the Democrats were to make this very public deception a further ground for censure, THEN it might get the proper attention.

This is so hard to do?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 31, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0 is right on target - the lack of Democratic voices jumping on this was obvious

isn't Joe Biden ranking Dem on the Foreign Relations Committee and thus the likely Dem spokesman in the Senate?

might it not be news is Joe Lieberman voiced some outrage?

Posted by: hopeless pedant on March 31, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

The Democratic members of Congress must share a major part of the blame.

Posted by: lib on March 31, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Sadly, "Old News" is what you will hear from the NYT and WaPo. I have received this reply in the past. They somehow feel that once reported, their
work is done with these topics. To repeat such old news makes them shrill, angry, and biased. This is exactly why Bush is allowed to re-run the old lie now about the inspectors not being allowed back into Iraq. It is "Old News" that they were not so expelled by Saddam.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on March 31, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Rational Americans are waiting for a leader to appear before they are willing to confront the reality of how we were brought into this war. For them the leadership void that exists in the party that is currently out of power is not a comforting place to hand a broken America.

Posted by: Jim on March 31, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0: If the Democrats were to make this very public deception a further ground for censure, THEN it might get the proper attention.

Good point. Watched the censure hearing today. During the C-SPAN call-ins, all (but one raving GOP lunatic) backed censure and some expressed a desire for impeachment.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Old News is newsworthy when the government is using Old Lies.

Posted by: David in NY on March 31, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

The thing that always keeps me from believing that Bush went to war knowing he would find nothing is the fact that they didn't plant any evidence of WMD. If you're willing to completely lie about the existence of WMD, you're surely capable of planting a few barrels of Ricen right? And judging by how willing the media was to believe the WMD threat, it seems to me that a few barrels is all it would take.

Am I way off here?

Posted by: enozinho on March 31, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

"It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us."

Note the above. Bush was not itching to go to war.

Saddam was playing a dangerous game and he lost.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on March 31, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

The thing that strikes me about the failure of Democrats to jump on this is that it's practically a freebee. It's as easy as picking's get -- not a downside in sight.

Sometimes I wonder if they grasp the concept of politics.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 31, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

At least this should help demonstrate the assertion that the media is some liberal monolith of Bush bashers is a manufactured fantastic myth. Of course, that wont make the persistent myth go away. I dont know, perhaps the media is fearful being accused of being liberal if they pursue these stories more aggressively.

Mentioned earlier here is a link to the Waas story.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

Posted by: Catch22 on March 31, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

A combination of jaded and 'so what?'

Consistent with what others have said, the Democrats are not rushing in with either criticism or leadership alternatives. I don't think American's are willing to admit they were suckered by their President, at least until a suitable replacement is identified.

Posted by: xyz on March 31, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

it really is remarkable how little attention the confirmation of David Manning's explosive prewar memo has gotten in the past week

No, it really isn't. It's infuriating for those of us out here on the lunatic fringe who believe that deliberately deceiving the public into war is an abuse of power, but it's no longer surprising.

Why would any of the manufacturers of conventional wisdom want to admit at this point just how thoroughly they were played by the administration? What's in it for them? "I was so terrified after 9/11 that I lost all control of my critical thinking skills...but I've got them back now, so you can start trusting me again!" Yeah, that's gonna sell a lot of newspapers...

Posted by: Uncle Kvetch on March 31, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

"the lack of Democratic voices jumping on this was obvious"

Well, how do you know that? The MSM has stopped reporting the reaction of Democrats as well. Since they have no power, they're not making news.

If a Republican't, (calling Senator Hagel) commented on it, it might make the MSM.

But in general, I think they think it's old news. Like everyone else, the MSM has a frame. "Nobody cares how we got in, the story now is how we get out, and Democrats don't have a plan for that." THAT's the story. No matter that the Shrub Admin doesn't have a plan either. It's been obvious for years and years that THEY don't have a plan. So now the MSM focus is on the Democrats--what will they do about it?

Just watch Tweety any night of the week.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 31, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Why isnt the media calling Bush on his repeated false claim that Saddam denied entry to UN inspectors?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/31/bush_lies/

Are the standards for the President so low now that repeatedly saying demonstrably false and misleading statements about Iraq is now just par for the course? Is the press afraid that they will be portrayed as too hard on Bush or is Presidential dishonesty just not newsworthy anymore?

Posted by: Catch22 on March 31, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'll add a vote for Jaded and Complicit.

ITMFA

and then send him to The Hague

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 31, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, so can we maybe start prefacing all Bush quotes on Iraq with "President Bush, who lied repeatedly in the runup to war, said..."

I mean, if it's so noncontroversial that it's not worth reporting on, then it should be reflected in the coverage, right?

Posted by: theorajones on March 31, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

enozinho, Bush didn't believe he would find nothing. He didn't believe he would find something. He just didn't care. WMD was hand waving for the rubes, nothing more.

Posted by: Boronx on March 31, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry to post off topic, but I thought Kevin might be interested in this story. A recent study shows that "Countries that have national health services easily accessible to people of all ages are more likely to have better survival rates for their teenagers and young adults (TYAs) with cancer, than are countries where individuals have to pay for their own medical insurance."

Hmmm, and here I was thinking that survival rates for cancer patient were so much worse in those socialist medicine countries.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 31, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

What other explanation is there

News reporting businesses make money when their nation goes to war. News reporting businesses make less money when they report the lies that led to starting war.

Posted by: Hostile on March 31, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

grh:

The answer to this is obvious to anyone with the brainpower to actually read the NY Times story. Not surprisingly, this does not include tbrosz.

Tell ya what, why don't you enlighten me? The NYT has access to all five pages of the memo, and absolutely no problem picking out extensive portions that it wants to print. Why not release the whole thing? Obviously, its status as a secret document doesn't bother them any more than it ever does.

I've had enough experience with "cherry picking" documents to want to see the originals.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 31, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Jaded, cowed,( by threats of being perceived as par tof the "liberla media") complicit. These are all good reasons. Another might be that none have bothered to look for an angle that could make it fresh and capable of selling newspapers. Kevin provides such an approach here: "What's more, the conversation between Bush and Blair took place on January 31, 2003, which means that Bush was flatly lying for six consecutive weeks when he pretended that war could be averted if only Saddam Hussein would cooperate with UN inspectors."


Of course to run this story someone would have to break free of the paralysis caused by the first three reasons.

Posted by: URK on March 31, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's because much of the traditional media see their mission as protecting the GOP's back.

Posted by: LeisureGuy on March 31, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Feisty Helen Thomas writes for The Nation, Lap Dogs of the Press, about the "obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq." She also noted the lack of coverage on the Downing Street memos:

The Downing Street memo was a bombshell when discussed by the bloggers, but the mainstream print media ignored it until it became too embarrassing to suppress any longer. The Post discounted the memo as old news and pointed to reports it had many months before on the buildup to the war. Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley decided that the classified minutes of the Blair meeting were not a "smoking gun." The New York Times touched on the memo in a dispatch during the last days leading up to the British elections, but put it in the tenth paragraph.
In the article, the exchange between Helen and Scottie McClellan is a riot. Scottie's replies remind me of the troll comments posted here. Helen concludes with this thought:
I honestly believe that if reporters had put the spotlight on the flaws in the Bush Administration's war policies, they could have saved the country the heartache and the losses of American and Iraqi lives.
A dirty rotten shame, isn't it?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Everybody knows that Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to, not because of some threat -- everybody.

What amazes me is that some people have a hard time with the notion that a large portion of America doesn't mind. There are millions of Americans who could give a shit about the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the niceties of international law. Hell, less than one percent, less than one percent, of Americans can name the rights protected by the First Amendment (22% know all five names of the Simpsons).

So Bush decided to invade Iraq -- big deal. At least he is "protecting" marriage from gays. At least he is preventing those crazy Canadians from entering our country without a passport (they want our health care, you know).

Get over it, guys. A good portion of America likes Bush and would vote for him again if they could. It isn't just Bush that is crazy -- its a huge portion of this nation's citizens, as well.

Posted by: Dicksknee on March 31, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Tell ya what, why don't you enlighten me?

That's an exercise in futility.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Don't confuse people with the facts. At the time there was a palpable sense that America was ready to go beat up on someone. I have the sense that many Americans are eager to go to war, slow to concede that there was no cause. America has invaded or supported wars in South and Central America as well as Southeast Asia and other places. The only real argument came against our cooperation with Nato in Eastern Europe and that was because the Regressives were unhappy that Clinton might get some good press from that. Plus, once you start talking about foreign affairs a lot of people lose interest. Only in Viet Nam and only after terrible costs did a substantial reaction to war and its management take place.

Posted by: johnK on March 31, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Boiled Frog Democracy

Posted by: ferd on March 31, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us."

Note the above. Bush was not itching to go to war.

Saddam was playing a dangerous game and he lost.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on March 31, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Comrade Truthpolitik it's been 3 years in Iraq are saying glorious leader has won.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 31, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

90% Troops in Iraq think the war is primarily in retaliation for Saddam's Role in 9/11

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060327

Posted by: Catch22 on March 31, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin asks: What other explanation is there for this not being front page news in Los Angeles and Washington DC as well as New York?

The handful of giant corporations that own virtually all of the mass media in the US have supported Bush since the very beginnings of his campaign for the presidential election of 2000, and they continue to do so. They helped him to get close enough to steal the 2000 election by lying about Al Gore. They covered up Bush's theft of the 2000 election. They covered up the truth about Bush's tax cuts for the rich. They covered up the truth about Bush's complete and abject failure (due to incomptence, negligence or worse) to stop the 9/11 attacks. They aided and abetted Bush's lies that led to the Iraq war and they continue to cover up as best they can the fact that Bush lied. In every respect they have propped up and enabled a presidency that otherwise would have long since been tossed out of office by the American people as the criminal enterprise that it is.

The giant corporations that own America's mass media want the Bush administration's tax cuts for the rich, shifting taxation from capital to labor, and they want the deregulatory policies that will enable them to buy up and control more and more radio and TV stations and newspapers.

That's the "other" explanation.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 31, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

I've had enough experience with "cherry picking" documents to want to see the originals.

Yet you still support the Bushies who cherry-picked intel from a Chinese memo. Yeah, sure, We believe you. Not.

Froomkin writes today about the Murray Waas piece:

What emerges in Waas's stories is a consistent White House modus operandi: That time and time again, Bush and his aides have selectively leaked or declassified secret intelligence findings that served their political agenda -- while aggressively asserting the need to keep secret the information that would tend to discredit them.
Maybe this is where tbrosz got his experience.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Your liberal media at work.

Posted by: craigie on March 31, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

When is the last time some tv news figure married a known Democrat?

Was it --Jane Pauly?

Posted by: cld on March 31, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Uhm, maybe it's because we already knew this, Kevin.

Is reporting old news what you Democrats want? Every day, run some screaming headline about "Bush lied!' ??

Sheesh. Then you'd be angry that the headline wasn't in all caps, giant font. In red. "Dang corporate media whores."

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on March 31, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

NYT: "It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction."

So who was the potential defector and what information did that person have that we haven't already heard (and dismissed)?


Posted by: Ross Best on March 31, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Every day, run some screaming headline about "Bush lied!' ??

Actually, to be accurate, the headline should read, Bush lied. Again!

Followed up the next day with, Bush lied. Again and again!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

The Medias roll in this is connected to the general indifference and short attention span of so many Americans. Most people just dont seem to care enough. Americans are so removed from the horrors of the war and pains associated with substantially lower standards of living that exist in the world that they cant quite grasp the importance of this, and other important issues. Couple this with an increasingly shorter attention span/TV vacuum/American Idol existence and you have people who when it comes right to it -- dont give much of a shit.

The Media, for all its wussiness, is trying to make money, and I have to believe that they just dont go where they think no one is interested. I doubt that there is extreme pressure not to print stories that expose this administrations corruption. This news vacuum is a sad reflection of the apathy of far too many people.

Meanwhile the Democrats are unwilling, or incapable, of jumping down the throats of their opponents full throttle. They worry too much about there viable survival as an opposition party, when in reality their lack of focus and backbone ensures their continued demise.

Our daily lives are so easily filled with opportunities to avoid anything unpleasant -- like hard news with distasteful findings that most people, when given that choice, will flip on the tele and veg. Until people are forced by their own personal unpleasant experiences to look up and look around, I cant see this substantially changing.


Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on March 31, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Freq. Kenneth,

Try to imagine the searing pain and smoldering rage a loving father feels when news arrives that finally confirms, beyond doubt, that his child was misled into war, and was killed there.

Posted by: ferd on March 31, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly guys...I think most people aren't really surprised by it at this point. Their credibility on Iraq has been destroyed to the point where no reasonable person could immediately trust anything they have to say. So we have those on the left wondering why more people aren't talking about it, conservatives dismissing it...and then I think in the middle is a large group of people who are saying "So what?" Maybe it's that their jaded, or cynical, or just don't care...but to them, it's just not big news.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on March 31, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

In addition to the usual self-serving economic reasons, the media doesn't want to rub its readers' noses in how they allowed themselves to be mislead by Dubya and the posse. Why remind the readers that their fear and hatred enabled the administration to pick their pockets and send their children off to get killed. Those are all painful memories. Why bother? Missing white women are much more interesting to talk about. At least the reporter might be able wangle a trip to the Caribbean on that topic. Talking about the war only gets you sent to Falujah. Who needs it?

Posted by: PrahaPartizan on March 31, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

They've all been paid off not to print it.

Posted by: Mazurka on March 31, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo - glad you Dems admit what you want is screaming headlines, every day, about BUSH LIED.

As a Republican, it's nice to see you Dems didn't learn anything from your humiliating defeats in 2002 and 2004.

Maybe after another electoral loss in 2006, you will learn that hatred is not an effective strategy.

Posted by: BigRiver on March 31, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin writes:

...it really is remarkable how little attention the confirmation of David Manning's explosive prewar memo has gotten in the past week...Is the "collective yawn" from the media because everyone figures this is old news? Because it comes from a competitor and no one wants to credit them? Because no one really cares anymore?

Kevin: What exactly is so explosive about this news? We all know that the administration considered the Hussein regime to be a grave danger to America in a post-911 world because of said regime's well-documented efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. We can certainly understand its refusal to allow itself America's freedom of action to be restricted by the UN. We can also understand that it would hardly consider the failure to find such weapons dispositive of their existence.

I'm not sure that the point of this post is. Maybe I'm missing something, but absolutely nothing "exposed" by this prewar memo is anything we didn't already know. Right?

Posted by: P.B. Almeida on March 31, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo - glad you...

Rubber Stamp troll. *Yawn*

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe after another electoral loss in 2006, you will learn that hatred is not an effective strategy.

But lying is. And if you can get hundreds of thousands of people needlessly killed, well, that's the price of an electoral win.

Why doesn't it bother you? Are you really that far gone in immorality?

It's like a race of aliens walks among us.

Posted by: shortstop on March 31, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

OK,OK already, I will make some noise.

Yada yada evil capitalist pigs, blah blah.

Posted by: Matt on March 31, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

This lament is almost a year old now. The Downing Street Memos got their fifteen minutes of fame. If a major New York Times article isn't going to recharge it, what do you want?

tbrosz, better to hold the President accountable for his incontrovertible mendacity than to celebrate his avoiding accountability. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on March 31, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

OT: Another topic suggestion for you Kevin:

1965 Voting Rights Provisions to Expire (August 6)

My S.O (who is black) says (with feigned street talk): "Well, dat suckah better getit fixed now, cause every niggah from da top 2 da bottom gonna be riotin' in da streets if dat happens!"

Not a threat. Just a prediction.

Not saying it's right. It's hard for me to imagine "top niggah" Condi "rioting in the streets." But who knows.

Posted by: Libby Sosume's evil self on March 31, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

I've had enough experience with "cherry picking" documents to want to see the originals.

Shorter tbrosz: Everyone else is as much as a partisan hack as I am.

Posted by: Gregory on March 31, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Why doesn't it bother you? Are you really that far gone in immorality?

I think he's too busy cradling his Dubya doll and singing 'Tomorrow Belongs To Me' to answer.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 31, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

It's hard for me to imagine "top niggah" Condi "rioting in the streets." But who knows.

Nuh uh. It might cut into her valuable Jimmy Choo buying and Spamalot viewing time.

Posted by: shortstop on March 31, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

These comments are funny from Jan. 26, 2006:

CAFFERTY: ...A new CNN-"USA Today"-Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of Americans consider President Bush's second term a failure. And 51 percent of them say they're likely to vote for someone who opposes President Bush. So the question is, will congressional Republicans up for re-election distance themselves from the president?
Lois in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma: "My congressman can distance himself from Bush all he wants and I will still do all in my power to see him out of office. As far as I'm concerned, the entire mess of them should go." I like that. Mess of them.
Kevin in Springfield, Massachusetts: "If the Republicans want any chance of winning their elections, they will distance themselves from the president. Bush tried stepping into the Virginia governor's race, and only helped the Democratic Party in taking over a traditionally red state. I wouldn't [want] help from Bush if I was running for junior high class president."
Paula in Albuquerque, New Mexico: "One of the first things newly elected Congress members learn is to find which way the wind is blowing at all times. Right about now, Republicans on the Hill are upwind from somebody resembling the Amarillo stockyards after a heavy rain. My guess is yes."
Michael in Lynchburg, Virginia: "Of course not. If Republican congressional candidates want the campaign money controlled by the Republican National Committee, they will cozy up to Commander Chimpy McFlightsuit. Bush has shown that he punishes his critics."
Doris in Austin, Texas: "I don't think they can distance themselves from Bush without distancing themselves from the Republican Party, the religious right, and the financing by lobbyists. I think that's a package that you either accept all or reject all."
And Phyllis in Seattle writes, "Distance themselves? I imagine they're shredding their personal collection of Bush grip-and-grin photos as I type this. By the way, Jack, have you ever had your photo taken with the president?" [Cite]
Commander Chimpy McFlightsuit... LOL!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

The comments from Frequency Kenneth and BigRiver make it very clear what Bush supporters really want.

They want to be slaves.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 31, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

A more egregious lie of GWB has been that we will not stay in Iraq permanently. He has been making ambiguous statements like we will not stay a day more than necessary to obfuscate his real aim: to establish permanent US military presence in the area. Permanent bases may sound good, but definitely not for the soldiers who will continue to be required to put their lives on the line for objectives that only GWB and his minion understand.

Posted by: lib on March 31, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

WMD was hand waving for the rubes, nothing more.

Boronx, I think you're probably right that Bush didn't care about WMD. But that doesn't mean he didn't expect to find something.

I'm in the camp of people who believe that they were convinced Iraq would be easy, and that they would be able to point to something, however small, that would justify all the WMD hype. Did they lie (a lot) along the way? Of course. But I don't think most people believe they told the type of lies that would lead to pitchfork-carrying mobs on the White House lawn.

Posted by: enozinho on March 31, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

The comments from Frequency Kenneth and BigRiver make it very clear what Bush supporters really want.

They want to be slaves.

Actually, we want you to be our sex slaves. We get sick of hand-jobbing each other. Plus, College Republicans just don't have the muscle mass and stamina to be very useful for very long.

Posted by: Al on March 31, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

let me get this straight. George Bush lied to Congress and the American People? That's still wrong, right?

Posted by: virgil on March 31, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

I can't help but notice that the trolls are not disputing the validity and truth that Bush lied us into war, only that it's old news.

Posted by: ckelly on March 31, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Today Somerby makes a huge statistical mistake. I'm surprised Kevin didn't jump on that!

Posted by: Josh on March 31, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist: They want to be slaves.

I think you're being optimistic, SA. They're already slaves.

ckelly: I can't help but notice that the trolls are not disputing the validity and truth that Bush lied us into war, only that it's old news.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. Bushtards aren't capable of anything much but wide-eyed idol worship of Dear Leader so lies don't much matter, I guess.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Despite the lack of press coverage of the David Manning memo, the amount of us who think Bush deliberately misled the American public has steadily grown:

Do you think the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?
Jul. 2003 -- 39%
Jul. 2004 -- 45%
Jul. 2005 -- 51%
[Gallup]

Bet when Gallup follows up in July 2006, the percent will be in the 60-70% range.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

I have got a question for the "Bush lied" crowd. Did you really think that war could be avoided? What gave you that idea? After 9/11 resumption of hostilities in Iraq was inevitable, if for no other reason than the Army was already there. Iraq, as difficult as it has been, was and is the low hanging fruit. No other justification was necessary, and going to the UN for another resolution was just window dressing. Now that Russia has been shown to have been in Iraq's pocket, further discussion of the Security Council doing anything at the time is just silly.

Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech on March 31, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

While you guys console yourselves with comments submitted from some of Cafferty's dozens of viewers, I'd like to point out why you keep getting your clock cleaned in national elections -- the vast majority of the American people think that Saddam was a bad guy, and that the Americans fighting him are not the bad guys.
Kevin has now drunk the kool aid and thinks that WMD was the only legitimate reason to go to war against poor Saddam. Here's a link to help you refresh your memory:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

Even accepting, arguendo, that the bloodthirsty, warmonger Bush was about to rape and pillage his way through Mesopotamia, Saddam could have stopped it by fully and completely complying with the UN. Bush was confident that he would not do it because the loss of face would pull the rug out from under any totalitarian regime. Sorry Kev, no matter how badly you want to blame America first, it just won't wash.

Posted by: minion of rove on March 31, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the link you posted at 4:31 PM, Apollo 13...It's a good article.

Give 'em hell, Helen!

Posted by: grape_crush on March 31, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Seems to me any first year law student could build a case for impeachment. The lies have been out in the open and there are many of them. Not to mention the laws broken(spying etal..) I know there are a couple of lawyers who frequently post, why not present it to your congress persons. Or better yet is there any president of a citizen filing such a law suit?
Just asking..

ITMFA

Posted by: imbroglio on March 31, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

"While you guys console yourselves with comments submitted from some of Cafferty's dozens of viewers, I'd like to point out why you keep getting your clock cleaned in national elections --
....Sorry Kev, no matter how badly you want to blame America first, it just won't wash.

Posted by: minion of rove on March 31, 2006 at 6:00 PM"


Ahh, the Bushbots are still celibrating the slow destuction of the once great U.S.A., as well as the pimping of the remaining husk to Chinese business men.

The GOP - Triators, All.

Posted by: GOPNemesis on March 31, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Add "minion of rove" to the roster of Bush supporters who want to be slaves.

There is nothing that they hate more than being free citizens of a republic in which government is accountable to the people.

There is nothing that they long for more than to be the worshipful subservient subjects of a king.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 31, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

I can't help but notice that the trolls are not disputing the validity and truth that Bush lied us into war, only that it's old news.

I noticed that too. I guess that's something.

Posted by: craigie on March 31, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Tassled Loafered Leech and minion of rove,

Please take your arguments to the American public. I'm sure you'll find a receptive audience that will cheer the Iraq War as a incredible success. Please, please make it an issue for the mid-term elections and take Bush with you to help out Repub incumbents. I'm sure it will help enormously.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin has now drunk the kool aid and thinks that WMD was the only legitimate reason to go to war against poor Saddam.

Yes, there were also ALL those connections to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

Posted by: ckelly on March 31, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the editors at my hometown paper, The Providence Journal, still think there is a conection between Saddam and 9/11, sigh.

They're not going to let any pesky British memos destroy their illusions.

Posted by: bren on March 31, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

"I have got a question for the "Bush lied" crowd. Did you really think that war could be avoided? What gave you that idea? After 9/11 resumption of hostilities in Iraq was inevitable, if for no other reason than the Army was already there. Iraq, as difficult as it has been, was and is the low hanging fruit. No other justification was necessary, and going to the UN for another resolution was just window dressing. Now that Russia has been shown to have been in Iraq's pocket, further discussion of the Security Council doing anything at the time is just silly."

Bush may have lied but I don't think so. How ever I agree that we had to go into Iraq. Saddam had made fools of the Clinton administration. All he had to do was cooperate but after playing Clinton for an idiot he thought he could get away with it with Bush. And if 9-11 had not happened he may have. The bush lied crowd have their heads in the sand.

Posted by: TruthTroll on March 31, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

I dunno, I think the American public is way ahead of you on this. The conduct of the war right now is going to be an issue in the mid-terms, but start of the war is "old news".

Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech on March 31, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Is the "collective yawn" from the media because everyone figures this is old news? Because it comes from a competitor and no one wants to credit them?

Correct, acccording to Froomkin, in a WaPo online chat day before yesterday:

"You're seeing two contemporary journalistic influences at work. First, it was a Times exclusive of sorts (although actually a month after the British press had much of the story.) People traditionally hate chasing other people's stories in this business.

"Second, in your typical Washington newsroom, pretty much anything to do with the path to war is considered "old news" at this point. Bringing it up again and again is considered shrill.

"I couldn't disagree more. I still think that the question of how Bush went to war has not been fully explored, and I can't think of anything more important. But there you go."

Posted by: penalcolony on March 31, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

America has voted to live under a quasi-authoritarian rule -- and it is authoritarian if the President can do whatever he wants with impunity. The Bushistas have done so gladly.

Unless some other transformational event occurs, we have to live with it.

Posted by: nut on March 31, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

The bush lied crowd have their heads in the sand.

LOL! Ah, that's not a nice characterization of most Americans. "Incompetent", "idiot", and "liar" top the list of descriptions for Bush.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

ckelly on March 31, 2006 at 6:12 PM:

Yes, there were also ALL those connections to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

B-b-b-but, The Iraq War resolution my not-that-smart minion bro linked to also sez that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime...

Really, it does! That means 'invade!' INVADE, dammit!

Oh yeah, I forgot:

- Yer all a buncha of angry, Bush-hating liberals;
- No wonder you guys can't win elections;
- You'd rather swallow Saddama Bin Lauden than give a US soldier a reach-around;
- The MSM's reportin' all those people bombin' and a dyin' is downright treason!

Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah;

- It's Clinton's fault! Lewinsky!...LEWINSKY!...

Posted by: minion of rove's slightly smarter minion brother on March 31, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Who has time for memos about war? It's time to sit down and stare at tall africans throwing a ball into a hoop.

Posted by: Pechorin on March 31, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Grape,
You're cracking me up!

Glad you liked the Helen Thomas article. I've been a Nation subscriber for some time. Good stuff every week and the editors weren't fooled by the Bushie Iraq propaganda. Here's a snippet from Michael Massing at The Nation, Jan. 6, 2003 [sub. only]:

Yet here, it seems, the left faces a trap. By insisting that any action against Iraq be undertaken multilaterally, it seems bound to endorse the decisions of the UN--even if they include a declaration of war. Yet, as was clear during the deliberations over Iraq, the Security Council has become more and more subservient to the will of the United States. What's more, the forces unleashed by an invasion--even if backed by the UN--could still be catastrophic. If the Security Council sanctions a war, does that automatically make it just?
There must be another way. One nonviolent alternative, proposed recently in these pages by Andrew Mack (a former aide to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan), would seek to bolster the internal Iraqi opposition by lifting most of the sanctions on Iraq and opening up the country to foreign investment and other forms of international engagement [see "Containing Saddam," December 16]. A more hardheaded policy of "containment-plus," proposed by Morton Halperin and others, would combine an expansion of the no-fly zones in Iraq to cover the entire country, more intensive surveillance and inspections, and the use of precision airstrikes against targets not destroyed voluntarily on the ground. If evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program did emerge, a raid like the one Israel carried out in 1981--this time with UN backing--could effectively dispose of it.
...the forces unleashed by an invasion... could still be catastrophic.

Prophetic.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

I think Bush is the worst president in American history and disagree heartily with your lumping him only in the bottom 5 somewhere -- and yet this even elicited a yawn from me. It's sort of like the loss of a drug's effectiveness overtime or the development of callouses where a person is often rubbed raw. We have become innured. There are no surprises left. After year after year after year of Bush finding yet a new low and yet another level of incompetency and indecency, there's no outrage and shock left. Right now, he could be caught with the proverbial dead girl or live boy and folks would barely muster a yawn.

Posted by: Kija on March 31, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

LEWWWWINSKYYY!!!

Oh wow...something shiny....

Posted by: minion of rove's slightly smarter minion brother on March 31, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

enozinho - I would just add this to your questioning why Bush et al didn't simply plant some WMDs. First, the risk-reward was very high. I remember hearing UN inspector Hans Blick on CSPAN soon after the war 'ended' in 2003 explaining, in answer to somebody asking a question about the possibility that the US might plant WMDs, that planting weapons would be readily detectable, since the source of the anthrax, for instance, could be determined. Imagine the outrage if the US had been caught red-handed planting WMDs!

No, I think they simply assumed they'd win in a cake walk, be greeted by flowers -- their whole otherworldly fantasy -- and they'd all be applauded as heros. And by the time they were off to Iran or Syria in the next top on their crusade, nobody would care what justification they used to invade Iraq.

Posted by: Jones on March 31, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Apollo 13...It's dinner time on the North Coast, so I'm off for some lobster bisque and a chance to meet the future ex-Mrs_grape.

Lessee...Subscribe to WaMo or The Nation?...Careful with your answers, everyone...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 31, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Jones - I don't disagree. It's true that whenever the administration was forced to hand over actual evidence to an indpendent entity (see Niger Forgeries, Aluminum tubes), their arguments were quickly proven questionable or outright false.

You could infer that the more truth they told, the less likely they would be to get their war. Man, these guys are teh suck!

Posted by: enozinho on March 31, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13,

I think the diabolical Bushies could have lived with Morton Halperin's plan. Colin Powell's #1 foreign policy goal up until 9/10/01 was smart sanctions, I still believe if they had been implimented this war would have been unnecessary. I just wish you lefties could direct a tiny percentage of your bile at our so-called "allies" that fought tooth and nail to derail any effective response short of war, at Saddam's bidding and for his bribes.

Posted by: minion of rove on March 31, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

I think the big story is that so many republicans, not just Bush's base, could care less about Bush's deceit. Hes one of their own, maybe flawed, but they still root for him like some immature parents root for their kids at a youth soccer game, i.e., we are us and they are them. Ethnocentric as hell.

Reminds me of Nixon fans, Reagan fans. Dont matter what they do, getting caught would be the only crime.

Republicans know how awful Bush is, but their political ethnocentrism trumphs everything.

tbrosz: so you suspect the NYT of cherry-picking? Got a better question for you. Are you willing to send your kids to die in Iraq for this noble cause? I really want to know.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on March 31, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

"I think the big story is that so many republicans, not just Bush's base, could care less about Bush's deceit. Hes one of their own, maybe flawed, but they still root for him like some immature parents root for their kids at a youth soccer game, i.e., we are us and they are them. Ethnocentric as hell."

Sounds a lot like fans of Bill Clinton and the Clinton Administration, probably the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in history.

Posted by: floop on March 31, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds a lot like fans of Bill Clinton and the Clinton Administration, probably the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in history.

I never really liked Clinton. He always seemed smart, but kind of a phoney, a typical politician. I found Gore a complete snooze. But the longer Bush is President, the better and better Clinton and Gore look. I'd love to see polling data on Clinton and Gore. I'd bet their ratings have gone up over the past few years.

Posted by: enozinho on March 31, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think the diabolical Bushies could have lived with Morton Halperin's plan.

Yeah, right. Not one mention of "containment-plus" in the Downing Street memos or Manning's memo.

Sec. O'Neill said the plans to invade Iraq began 10 days after Bush's inauguration.

Cheney told a Senate Republican Policy lunch meeting in March 2002 that "it is no longer a question of if the United States will attack Iraq, it's only a question of when. The vice president doesn't bring up the question of why, the answer to which is a work in progress."

Bush also in March 2002, told Condi Rice, Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out. [Cite]

None of the Bushie rhetoric in the march to war mentioned containment as an option so I don't know where you got your thought. Dubya doesn't swat flies, don't you know?

Colin Powell's #1 foreign policy goal up until 9/10/01 was smart sanctions...

And Bush listened to Powell?! You're a jokester, eh?

I still believe if they had been implimented this war would have been unnecessary.

Containment? Yep, on this we might have agreed. Unnecessary war, definitely.

I just wish you lefties could direct a tiny percentage of your bile...

Lost me. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'd love to see polling data on Clinton and Gore. I'd bet their ratings have gone up over the past few years. Posted by: enozinho

I believe the only time Bush had a higher approval rating than Clinton was just after 9/11, and then that had nothing to do with Bush. Now, if they'd foiled the attack, then it would make sense. Otherwise it was just a knee-jerk closing the ranks response by the sheep that are the 'Merkun public. How else to you explain someone going from around a 50% approval rating one day to 90% the next, even thought the thing was pretty much your fault (the bucks got to stop someplace)?

Even at the depths of the Lewinsky "scandal" (much worse you know than lying your way into an unnecessary war, thus being directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands and wasting what will be over $300 billion by the time he leaves office), Clinton's approval never went below 40% and climbed to over 60% by the time he left office.

As for Gore, he remains misunderstood.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 31, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

The Editorial Board of the NY Times supports the Iraq War
The Editorial Board of the NY Daily News supports the Iraq War
The Editorial Board of the NY Post supports the Iraq War
The Editorial Board of the NY Sun supports the Iraq War
The Editorial Board of the Wall St. Journal supports the Iraq War
The Editorial Board of the Washington Post supports the Iraq War
The Editorial Board of USA Today supports the Iraq War
The Editorial Board of the Wash'ton Times supports the Iraq War
The Editorial Board of the LA Times supports the Iraq War

Wait, who's supposed to make this front page news in NY, DC, and LA again?

Posted by: Alderaan on March 31, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

"I never really liked Clinton. He always seemed smart, but kind of a phoney, a typical politician. I found Gore a complete snooze. But the longer Bush is President, the better and better Clinton and Gore look."

Well, of course they do. People tend to forget the corruption and scandals of past presidents focus on the current one.

As for Clinton's approval ratings, they have more to do with his skills at public oratory and the fact that he was lucky enough to be president during an economic boom than with anything he actually achieved.

Posted by: floop on March 31, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

What's this? David Corn compares Bob Woodward's account of the Blair-Bush meeting to the Manning memo and, um, Bob comes up a bit short. Ah, those pesky WH sources.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

The only question now is how many years of jail time Bush & crew deserve. I presume a firing squad isn't in the cards.

Posted by: MarkH on March 31, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Are the standards for the President so low now that repeatedly saying demonstrably false and misleading statements about Iraq is now just par for the course?


Posted by: Catch22

Yes

Is the press afraid that they will be portrayed as too hard on Bush

Yes

or is Presidential dishonesty just not newsworthy anymore?

Yes.

Posted by: anandine on March 31, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

"...and wasting what will be over $300 billion by the time he leaves office"

I really hate reading things like this, unless you are assuming he will be out of office in a matter of weeks. More than $300b has already been spent in the war. Comprehensive estimates put it at around $500 billion so far, and projections for total costs assuming we get out in the next few years at close to $1 trillion.

$300 billion is just what the republicans have been unable to avoid explicitly requesting so far. It is amusing to see the great confidence the right suddenly has in government accounting, but we should not be suckered into accepting thier numbers at face value.

Posted by: jefff on March 31, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13,

"And he listened to Colin Powell?"

Yeah, actually he did. When he agreed to take the issue to the UN Cheney almost popped another gasket because Saddam, if he'd been smart, could have wriggled off the hook. Fortunately, Saddam wasn't very smart, and Cheney prevailed. I still say for every "warmonger" [Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.] there was an Armitage, Powell, Rice or Blair that could have tugged Bush the other way if circumstances permitted.

No need to reply, I'm going to bed now.

Posted by: minion of rove on March 31, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton Administration, probably the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in history.

Most corrupt? What have you been smoking? And if you don't think lies to get us into Iraq, the missing billions of Iraq reconstruction dollars, Bushie top procurement guy, David Safavian, tied to Abramoff, etc., is corrupt to the point of pathological, well, I'd hate to see your idea of corruption. Oh, but it's Clinton, Clinton, Clinton for you? LOL! Why I do believe you're making the case for how the press has favored Bush over Clinton. What liberal media, eh?

Well, of course they do. People tend to forget the corruption and scandals of past presidents focus on the current one.

Not with you around, Chuckles.

As for Clinton's approval ratings, they have more to do with his skills at public oratory and the fact that he was lucky enough to be president during an economic boom than with anything he actually achieved.

Nutso Chuckles and his endless love for Clinton.

Buh-bye.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Clinton's approval never went below 40% and climbed to over 60% by the time he left office."

CNN/USA Today/Gallup have conducted regular polls asking respondents to whether they had a"favorable" or "unfavorable" opinion of Bush and Clinton.

Bush's "favorable" ratings were regularly in the high 50s and 60s even before 9/11, and occasionally climbed into the 70s. His "unfavorable" ratings have mostly been in the 30s and 40s, and didn't go above 50 until last December.

Clinton's "favorable" rating never topped 60 after August of 1998, and never entered the 70s at all. His "unfavorable" rating was mostly in the 40s and 50s and increased as his second-term progressed, hitting 54 in August 2000, and 59 in March 2001, after he had left office.

Posted by: GOP on March 31, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

As for Clinton's approval ratings, they have more to do with his skills at public oratory and the fact that he was lucky enough to be president during an economic boom than with anything he actually achieved. Posted by: floop

While there is some truth to this (it's always nice to have a president who speaks and the English language), you cannot begin to compare presiding over a period of relative calm and economic health to someone who goes out of their way to fuck thing up. There is an important difference there.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 31, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

I really hate reading things like this, unless you are assuming he will be out of office in a matter of weeks. More than $300b has already been spent in the war. Comprehensive estimates put it at around $500 billion so far, and projections for total costs assuming we get out in the next few years at close to $1 trillion. Posted by: jefff

I'm gonna give you a pass this time, kid, just because you've got a nice name.

Perhaps I understated a bit, but costs are going down because we aren't doing anything but "police work" these days. However, you're over by more than $200 billion with your number as of today.

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

Posted by: Jeff II on March 31, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

"While there is some truth to this (it's always nice to have a president who speaks and the English language), you cannot begin to compare presiding over a period of relative calm and economic health to someone who goes out of their way to fuck thing up."

Let's rephrase that, shall we? You cannot begin to compare a corrupt, lying, do-nothing, deeply unpopular President and his scandal-ridden Administration with a strong and determined President and Administration who, with the support of the country and Congress, have led the fight to defeat a murderous thug and bring democracy to the middle-east.

Posted by: GOP on March 31, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Clinton's approval never went below 40% and climbed to over 60% by the time he left office."

CNN/USA Today/Gallup have conducted regular polls asking respondents to whether they had a"favorable" or "unfavorable" opinion of Bush and Clinton.

Bush's "favorable" ratings were regularly in the high 50s and 60s even before 9/11, and occasionally climbed into the 70s. His "unfavorable" ratings have mostly been in the 30s and 40s, and didn't go above 50 until last December.

Clinton's "favorable" rating never topped 60 after August of 1998, and never entered the 70s at all. His "unfavorable" rating was mostly in the 40s and 50s and increased as his second-term progressed, hitting 54 in August 2000, and 59 in March 2001, after he had left office. Posted by: GOP

Why do miserable assholes trolls like GOP even bother posting "facts." Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 65%. Furthermore, it hit 73% according to a Gallop poll right after the impeachment nonsense. Bush was never above 52% prior to 9/11, and that was in the first 100 days.

GOP you are a pathetic piece of conservative shit you are.

Clinton

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Public_approval

Bush vs. everyone else.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml

Bush

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/16/opinion/polls/main702487.shtml

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_len_hart_060330_the_founders__reveng.htm

http://www.surveyusa.com/50StatePOTUS0805.htm

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=728

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2004-01-06-poll.htm

Posted by: Jeff II on March 31, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

Let's rephrase that, shall we?

We? Nah, go spread your wingutty POVs somewhere else. We're not suckers.

Jeff II: GOP you are a pathetic piece of conservative shit you are.

Typical GOP. Probably an unemployed Tom DeLay aide trying to pick up some bucks from Mellon-Scaife by trolling here.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

It's because the corporate media is not a "press". They are just PR firms for defense contractors like General Electric and the Murchochs and Blacks of the world (however you want to describle those two). That's not jaded. That's just the plain truth. The evidence of their favoritism to the Republican corporate agenda is just too overwhelming.

Posted by: jussumbody on March 31, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II,

You are a liar, a fool, a moron, and just an all-round scumbag.

The polling data I cited clearly found Bush's favorability rating to be generally higher than Clinton's, and Clinton's unfavorability rating to be generally higher than Bush's.

Suck it up. Clinton was a liar, an adulterer, a crook. He was utterly ineffective as a President. His one big "progressive" policy initiative--"universal health care"--crashed and burned.

We Republicans do thank him for ending the 40-year-old program of federally-guaranteed handouts to the poor, though.

Posted by: GOP on March 31, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

I really don't think the lack of coverage is that sinister; it has more to do with the model and culture of the news business.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was based on a complete fabrication - yet, even long after the country had turned against the Vietnam War, no mainstream news outlet ran a story saying "Johnson Lied!" At some point, without it ever being covered as a news story, the facts about the Tonkin Gulf "incident" became generally known through books and retrospectives about the war. But the story itself was a dead letter - as news.

Why? Because it wasn't "news," in the sense of something happening now that people can respond to and demand something be done about. The Vietnam war had done incredible damage to America for reasons that had very little to do with how it started. There wasn't much point in being angry about how the war started, when there were so many more, and more current, reasons to be angry about how the war was being conducted.

The lies Bush told to get his war aren't irrelevant, by any means, but people have already turned against the war, against Bush, and there's no particular reason to make a point of saying he lied us into it in the first place.

The time and place that Bush's lies will become a subject for general analysis and discussion, by the news media, will probably follow the Vietnam model: when someone writes a major, important, retrospective book about it. And that'll be long after how we got into the war becomes a moot historical point - which is to say, long after Bush leaves office.

There's one important caveat to this model: if Bush keeps pressing to go to war against anyone else (Iran, for example), then the lies about Iraq become very relevant - because he'll use the same template to agitate for war against Iran.

If the drive to war with Iran becomes more focused, begins to sound like another fait accompli, and it becomes "news" to talk about a probable-definite war with Iran, then it is absolutely incumbant upon the news media to remind people that Bush lied before and is lying now.

Whether they'll actually do so is another matter. I can't predict, one way or the other. News organizations love wars; they don't much care how they start or the merits of them. They just love covering them: there's glory, adventure, Pulitzer Prizes, and increased readership to be had.

On the other hand, Iraq is an acknowledged clusterfuck, and Bush-loyalty is no longer a sellable commodity.

I should also point out that focusing on cable news coverage is a bit misleading. The combined audience for Fox, CNN and MSNBC is less than 5 million. Network news viewership, at about 24 million, still vastly dwarfs that of cable news, so the important coverage to focus on will be how the networks cover Bush's attempts to provoke war with Iran.

Posted by: CaseyL on March 31, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

Woo hoo!

A GOP sighting! It's a Clinton-hating Bushtard.


.....................BUSHTARD...........................
............................*.......*................................
..............................\../.......ZZZZZ...............
............................./uu\..../............................
.........................../...o...\................................
........................./............\..............................
...............q....../......W......\.......p...................
.................\.../...................\..../....................
..................\/.......................\/......................
............Doh-dee-doh-doh-doh!.................
......................................................................

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Please, someone get Alpo13 help before he ends up in a belltower somewhere with a high-powered rifle.

Posted by: GOP on March 31, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Project much?

I'm LMAO at you, GOP.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever keeps you away from the guns, Alpo.

Just try to think happy thoughts.

Posted by: GOP on March 31, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Let's check the American public's opinion on corruption since it is an election year. Survey says:

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Feb. 1-5, 2006. N=1,502 adults nationwide. MoE 3 (for all adults).
Do you think bribery and corruption in Congress is more common now than it used to be, or no different from the past?
2/1-5/06
More Common Now -- 36%
No Different -- 60%
Unsure -- 4%
Is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party more involved in corruption and bribery in Congress? Party names rotated
Republican Party -- 31%
Democratic Party -- 14%
Both Equally (vol.) -- 34%
Neither (vol.) -- 4%
Unsure -- 17%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 23-26, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling ethics in government?1/23-26/06
Approve -- 42%
Disapprove -- 56%
Unsure -- 2%
1/5-8/06
Approve -- 45%
Disapprove -- 52%
Unsure -- 3%
12/15-18/05
Approve -- 48%
Disapprove -- 49%
Unsure -- 3%
Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job standing up to lobbyists and special interest groups? Party names rotated
1/23-26/06
Democrats -- 46%
Republicans -- 27%
Both (vol.) -- 1%
Neither (vol.) -- 20%
Unsure -- 5%
12/15-18/05
Democrats -- 42%
Republicans -- 34%
Both (vol.) -- 2%
Neither (vol.) -- 17%
Unsure -- 5%
[Cite]

The corruption scandals haven't helped Repubs. Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Libby, and who knows which Rubber-Stamp Repub will be next?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Alpo,

Thank you for showing us a poll that found that a large majority of Americans believe that the incidence of bribery and corruption in Congress is "no different" now than it was in the past.

It is interesting to learn that you think Democrats and Republicans are equally corrupt, but that does rather undermine your argument that the former are preferable to the latter.

Posted by: GOP on March 31, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Alpo's decision to cite a poll finding that a majority of people think the Democrats do a better job than the Republicans of standing up to lobbyists and special interest groups is similarly puzzling. I didn't think you wanted Democrats to stand up to lobbyists and special interests. I thought you wanted the Democrats to give in to, rather than stand up to, the demands of the labor unions, the teachers unions, the ACLU, the NAACP, gay rights groups, and so on.

If you now think standing up to the labor unions and the teachers unions is a good thing for the Democrats to do--hey, I'm with you, bro.

Posted by: GOP on March 31, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone was hot and bothered by the subject of illegal immigration (either for it or against it) and the memo slipped through the cracks.

Posted by: wilder on March 31, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

"We Republicans do thank him for ending the 40-year-old program of federally-guaranteed handouts to the poor, though."

We also thank Clinton for signing into law the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of homosexual marriages.

He must have really liked doing that, too, because he later bragged about it on Christian radio.

Posted by: jibjab on March 31, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

It's Bush Fatigue, pure and simple.

We all expect that the more we dig the more we'll find and that it will, in all probability, be bad. I'm reminded of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Karen Allen stumbled into the tomb and body after body covered in snakes and who knows what else covered and surrounded her. We all know the bodies are there (hell we have pictures from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and whereevernextistan) and we also know he couldn't care less as he ruins this country.

Most of us are so aghast that the ability to sustain such high levels of anger has simply burned out. We are a nation waiting for a new administration and hoping it will be safe to reset our outrage meter.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on April 1, 2006 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks, GOPher.
For showing us your poor reading comprehension and analytical skills. Don't see any trends? Ah, so you're doomed to live under the bridge with the rest of the Bushtard trolls.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

...a majority of people think the Democrats do a better job than the Republicans of standing up to lobbyists and special interest groups is similarly puzzling.

Only a Bushtard would be puzzled. Big pharma subsidies, corporate welfare, war profiteering -- all the little Repub piggies at the trough. GOP, out of touch with America.

Doh-dee-doh-doh-doh.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Alpo13,

I'm not surprised you're evading the question. I would be too if I were in your position. Do you think it's a good thing for the Democrats to stand up to the labor unions, teachers unions, immigrant groups, and other special interests, or don't you?

No wait, I get it: Standing up to special interests is a good thing. Except when it isn't. Yeah, that's it.

Posted by: GOP on April 1, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Everybody really loves Bush... The Republicans really are popular... Wenck and Steiner will be here any day now... I do believe in fairies, I do...

Posted by: GOP (In The Bunker) on April 1, 2006 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

Ralph Reed, hypocrite extraordinaire and corrupt crony:

The Christian Coalition co-founder's first campaign for public office--lieutenant governor of Georgia, a position Reed and his fans envision as a stepping stone to bigger things--has turned into a waking nightmare. Every week brings a new revelation about the millions in dirty money Reed earned by duping his fellow evangelicals into putting their political muscle behind "Casino Jack" Abramoff's gambling clients. Reed's huge leads in both popularity polls and fundraising have almost disappeared. Instead of making his triumphant debut as a politician, the man Time magazine called "The Right Hand of God" is fast becoming the new poster boy for Christian-right corruption.
..."Tricky Ralph," as he was known on campus, went on to make a similar splash with the national CRs, teaming with the equally tricky pair of Abramoff, who was national CR chairman in the early 1980s, and Grover Norquist, whose Americans for Tax Reform is also caught up in the scandal.
...This is vintage Reed, the incorrigibly boastful, smooth-talking operator who long dazzled--and blinded--evangelical Christians, big-money Republicans and mainstream journalists. Now 44, he still looks like a million bucks, his elfin face perma-tanned to a brick red, his pencil-thin body subtly bulked out by a well-tailored suit. Only one thing is missing: applause. Maybe some CRs know the real history of that 1980 mock election from Nina Easton's book Gang of Five, in which Reed's first big political triumph is revealed to have been rigged--his first notable act of mass deception. Maybe they're just waiting for Reed to finally offer a satisfying explanation of his star turn in the Abramoff scandal. But his mea culpa smacks more of false piety than genuine gut-spilling.
When he announced his candidacy last spring, Reed figured that his biggest challenge would be winning over moderate, "party regular" Republicans who worried he might be too far right to win a general election. But the Abramoff scandal has forced him to fight for votes he should have been able to take for granted--especially those of Christian conservatives. Reed's struggle to hold on to their loyalty has given this lieutentant governor's race a rare national significance. Judgment day in Georgia, July 18, when Republicans cast their primary votes, is shaping up as a crucial test of how Christian conservatives will respond to their leaders' entanglement in the ugliest corruption scandal since Teapot Dome. In the words of Georgia native Ed Kilgore, vice president for policy at the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), Reed has become "the Abramoff mine canary."
It's easy to see why. As executive director of the Christian Coalition from its founding in 1989 till his departure in 1997, Reed got--and took--the lion's share of credit for transforming the politically unsophisticated evangelical right into a disciplined Republican Party machine. "Ralph Reed symbolizes the rise of the Christian right to political power," says Frederick Clarkson, author of Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. "He became the story of the movement--the face and voice for those millions of conservative Christians in the mainstream press. Now he's becoming a symbol of what's gone awry."
Last June Georgia's former GOP House minority leader, Bob Irvin, blasted Reed in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed. "His M.O. is to tell evangelical Christians that his cause of the moment, for which he has been hired, is their religious duty," Irvin fumed. "As an evangelical myself, I resent Christianity being used simply to help Reed's business."
Irvin's dart went straight to the heart of the matter. While grassroots organizing has been the key to lifting evangelicals to power in the GOP, the movement's political model has mostly mirrored the traditional hierarchy of churches, with trusted leaders setting the tone and issuing marching orders to their foot soldiers. What if the generals--the Reeds and James Dobsons--are proven to care more about power and money than stamping out abortion or homosexuality? The damage to evangelical politics would clearly be immense. So would the damage to the Republican Party, which cannot carry a national election without the full enthusiasm and participation of the evangelical troops.
Other evangelical leaders and allies are taking their hits in L'Affaire Abramoff--former House majority leader Tom DeLay, in particular, along with antigay crusader Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition and right-wing Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition, both of whom allegedly took money from Abramoff client eLottery to help defeat a federal ban on Internet gambling. But Reed's involvement runs the deepest and broadest by far. And the particulars of his cloak-and-dagger activities strike the evangelical political movement straight in the gut.
From 1999 to 2002 Reed's Georgia-based consulting firm, Century Strategies, set up "anti-gambling" coalitions in Alabama, Louisiana and Texas to oppose proposed new casinos (and in one case to shut down an existing one). Reed convinced dozens of influential pastors in those states, along with some of the biggest national names on the evangelical right--Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer, Donald Wildmon, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson--to mobilize their flocks in a series of successful anti-casino campaigns. The front groups Reed established, with upright names like Citizens Against Legalized Gambling, organized religious rallies, sent out mass mailings decrying the evils of wagering and flooded legislators and state officials with thousands of calls from concerned Christians.
These were the same techniques Reed had groomed to perfection in his Christian Coalition days--the same techniques that groups like Dobson's Focus on the Family continue to use on issues ranging from abortion restrictions to Senate filibusters. But this time, the concerned Christians were unwittingly doing the bidding of gambling interests--of Abramoff's Indian casino clients, who were forking over millions to fend off competitors.
In Texas alone, Reed reportedly raked in more than $4 million for organizing fake anti-gambling campaigns and strong-arming Republican officials while failing to register with the state as a lobbyist, a criminal offense. (He also failed to register for his clandestine lobbying efforts on behalf of another Abramoff client, Channel One, the in-school network loathed by "pro-family" conservatives.) Three public-interest groups in Texas filed a complaint against Reed in December for failing to register his lobbying; he could have been jailed for up to one year if convicted. But in March prosecutor David Escamilla declined to pursue the investigation, citing a two-year statute of limitations in the Texas lobbying law. By hiding his activities cannily enough that it took three years to expose them, Reed squirmed out of trouble on a technicality.
But the fallout from Reed's "anti-gambling" efforts has already flattened the once mighty Texas Christian Coalition. The equally powerful Christian Coalition of Alabama, which helped Reed fend off video poker and state lottery bills in 1999 and 2000--spending some $850,000 that has now been traced back to the casino-owning Mississippi Band of Choctaws--has also fallen into a tailspin, with its most popular political champion, former "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore, trailing by almost thirty percentage points in the GOP primary race for governor.
Reed has denied from the start that he knew Abramoff was paying him with gambling money. But their e-mail exchanges, made public by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, indicate that Reed knew where his bread was being buttered. In a 1999 e-mail Abramoff asked him to "get me invoices as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks ASAP." In 2000 Abramoff told Reed, "The firm has held back all payments pending receipt of a check from Choctaw." The correspondence also shows that Reed played an active role in diverting tribal money through faux Christian-right groups like the US Family Network. Rather than receive his payoffs directly from Abramoff, or from the casino-owning tribes he represented, Reed made sure his checks came from pure-sounding sources. ("That's sometimes called laundering," Senator Byron Dorgan archly commented during Indian Affairs hearings last spring.) So byzantine was the whole arrangement that it sounds almost farcical in a 2001 message from Abramoff explaining a delay in paying Reed: "The originating entity had to transfer to a separate account before they transferred it to the entity which is going to transfer it to you."
While the Abramoff scandals are plenty damning on their own, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has uncovered a pattern of similar instances in which Reed "tapped into his vast network of conservative religious activists" to do the bidding of big-money clients. In one example from 1998 Reed concocted the Alliance of Christian Ministries in China, a group of missionary organizations supporting favorable trade status for China purportedly to benefit efforts to spread the Gospel there. But the alliance turned out to be an empty shell, serving the interests of Reed clients, including Boeing, which hoped to sell $120 billion worth of airplanes to China. Like his efforts on behalf of the Indian casinos, Reed's pro-China lobbying was not just dishonest but hypocritical to boot. Just as he often preached against the "nationwide scourge" of gambling, Reed had spoken out consistently against favorable trade status for China. "We believe that human and civil rights and religious freedom and liberty should be at the center of our foreign policy," he piously declared at a 1997 Christian Coalition press conference, just one year before setting up the phony alliance. "We believe that if the United States makes the center of its foreign policy profits rather than people, and money rather than human rights, then we will have lost our soul as a nation."
Given the Reed scandal's potential to erode evangelicals' faith in politics, it's no surprise that the main reaction among movement leaders has thus far been "an embarrassing silence," to quote Ken Connor, the former head of Dobson's Family Research Council. Even Richard Land, the normally forthcoming Southern Baptist powerhouse, has been rendered speechless. ("Dr. Land has decided to pass on this topic," his spokeswoman told The Nation after first agreeing to an interview.) President Bush's staff has gone to considerable lengths to keep Reed, who chaired the Bush/Cheney campaign in the Southeast in 2004, safely away from the President--and from a photo op Reed desperately needs--during his most recent appearances in Georgia. One notable exception to the official silence has been Marvin Olasky, a longtime Texas adviser of Bush who literally wrote the book on "compassionate conservatism." Olasky, editor of the most popular organ of the evangelical right, World magazine, has been outspoken in his view that Reed "has damaged Christian political work by confirming for some the stereotype that evangelicals are easily manipulated and that evangelical leaders use moral issues to line their pockets." World reporter Jamie Dean has filed a series of fearless Reed exposes, causing a sensation in the evangelical community. Her dogged questioning of Christian-right leaders whom Reed dragged into his "anti-gambling" campaigns inspired sharp criticism from the most powerful of them all, Focus on the Family leaders Dobson and Tom Minnery, in a February radio broadcast. "They have a reporter who wanted me to dump on Ralph Reed," said an exasperated Minnery, explaining why he refused to answer questions from World.
Nobody has nailed the discomfort better than Reed's old cohort Pat Robertson. "You know that song about the Rhinestone Cowboy," he told The New York Times last April as the Abramoff-Reed connections began to go public. "'There's been a load of compromising on the road to my horizon.' The Bible says you can't serve God and Mammon." Robertson has subsequently fallen quiet on the matter--perhaps because he knows that a willingness to serve both God and Mammon has been indispensable to the success of evangelical politics. It's the very glue that holds together the awkward marriage of Christian moralism and high-rolling Republicanism. [Emphasis added]
Lots more to read....,

LOL! Even Bush avoids Tricky Ralph. Ouch!

Ah, nothing like the smell of corruption, a stink that seems to follow Reed and Repubs like their shadows.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

GOPher spins and deflects. He dodges and weaves. Look over there. No corruption here in the GOP. La-la-la-la. Me not want to talk about the special interests of the GOP. Don't look here.

Little Bushtard. Strawman is the best its got... always change the subject quick! Answer me, answer me. Harumph!

Clap harder so no one will notice, GOPher.

Buh-bye, little wingnut.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

I don't get why this is supposed to be interesting. Wasn't it obvious that we were planning to go to war in 2002. I remember being pissed that we didn't go in in the fall because if we went in spring is would be harder on the troops and give Sadam way more time than he deserved.

Posted by: aaron on April 1, 2006 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

If you think people are getting jaded about any story relating to Iraq now, just wait until next November if the current lull in the "civil war" keeps up the way I think it will during the summer.

It will be the "silly season" for news and the lack of eventfulness in Iraq and Afghanistan dooms us all to yet more breaking news reports on the latest riot by spoiled youngsters in France and the latest theory of who killed the girl in Aruba and how they got away with it.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on April 1, 2006 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINK

Because it is of no importance. Saddam had to fully co-operate. He didn't. He was removed. That's the whole issue in a nutshell. Nothing else is important. :)

Posted by: Tymbrimi on April 1, 2006 at 6:43 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo displays his entire debating arsenal in his 1:10AM post.

Complain harder.

Buh-bye loser liberal

Posted by: Jay on April 1, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

I love kids! Literally!

I'm 58 years old with a long track record of home schooling children. I'm bringing up another crop of Republicanites who are as much damaged goods as I am. Heh.

Posted by: Jay the pedophile on April 1, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Ralph Reed has nothing on Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton - two Dems firmly planted at the crooked special interest trough.

Demapigs.

Apollo at least have the balls to post slander under your own name you liberal weak ass piece of shit.

Posted by: Jay on April 1, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Saddam had to fully co-operate. He didn't."

Uh, no. He did.

Sorry you can't read.

Posted by: Joel on April 1, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

I don't like weak asses. I like strong nine year old male asses.

Posted by: Jay on April 1, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Add "minion of rove" to the roster of Bush supporters who want to be slaves.

SA, you just reminded me of one of my favorite books!

From I.F. Stone's 'Trial of Socrates':

It is a pity we do not have the text of the accusation by Polycrates so we could see for ourselves just which poets Socrates is supposed to have quoted in alienating youth from the democracy. There were famous aristocratic poets who could have been so used. Two who spring to mind are Pindar and Theognis. Indeed in the only other but little known surviving Apology of Socrates, that of Libanius in the fourth century a.d., Pindar and Theognis are named among the poets Socrates was accused of quoting against democracy. Pindar sang odes in honor of many famous tyrants. Theognis in his elegies expressed the furious hatred of the old landed nobility for middle-class upstarts, the craftsmen and merchants who were demanding the right to vote and to public office.

In one ferocious outburst, Theognis compared them to a herd of oxen and advised,

Stamp on the empty-headed people! Jab With your pointed goad, and lay the heavy yoke Around their necks! You won't find, under the sun A people who love slavery so much.
Posted by: obscure on April 1, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Is the "collective yawn" from the media because everyone figures this is old news? Because it comes from a competitor and no one wants to credit them? Because no one really cares anymore?"

None of the above.

It is because they were complicit in Bush's lies from the beginning. Who can forget the corporate media's cheerleading for war in the months leading up to the Iraq war?

It is certainly not because this is old news. The press didn't think Clinton's decades old real estate deal was old news. It is not because it appeared at a rival publication. This happens all the time and other news organizations immediately jump on the bandwagon.

No, it is because they were all in the tank with Bush selling this war to the American public from the very beginning.

Posted by: Nan on April 1, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton Administration, probably the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in history.

My God you're a tool. Remember Nixon? How bout Reagan? Iran-Contra mean anything? You're confusing trumped up "investigations" by a Republican Congress and a rogue investigator named Starr with REAL scandal. How much did Starr waste again?

Posted by: ckelly on April 1, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

"You're confusing trumped up "investigations" by a Republican Congress and a rogue investigator named Starr with REAL scandal."

No, I'm talking about real scandals. The Clinton Administration was plagued with them from day one.

Posted by: GOP on April 1, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

"No, I'm talking about real scandals. The Clinton Administration was plagued with them from day one."

So he was getting blowjobs from other chicks besides Monica? Who knew?

Posted by: Joel on April 1, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Clinton Administration, probably the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in history."

So you haven't heard of Iran-Contra, Watergate, Teapot Dome. You are obviously still in junior high, GOP. Any high school graduate would know about these scandals, which dwarfed anything that occurred in the Clinton Administration.

Posted by: Joel on April 1, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, look. Love notes from Jay.

Sorry, Jay. I post under my own moniker. I don't need to pretend to use your name or a derivative to post nonsense since you make yourself look like a Bushwacko all by yourself. You and GOP have a lot in common.

LOL!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

ckelly: How much did Starr waste again?

I'm glad you asked, ckelly. Answer:

In its first 15 months, the [Plamegate/Fitzgerald] investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office."
Think about that number for a minute. It's astonishingly low by any standard.
Consider that over about the same period of time that Fitzgerald spent $723,000, independent counsel David M. Barrett spent more than $3 million.
Who the heck is Barrett? He was appointed more than ten years ago to investigate then-Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros. It's not clear what he's been doing lately, other than tidying up. He's spent more than $21 million in all.
And as George Lardner Jr. wrote in The Washington Post on March 31, 2001, by that point independent counsel investigations of Clinton had cost almost $60 million -- about $52 million by Kenneth W. Starr alone.

floop, a GOPher tool, pontificates: Clinton Administration, probably the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in history.

Ah, if only GOPhers like floop (or Jay) could make an argument that meant something to the American public. Just because your Bushwacko brain makes you think something and you are a Bushtard enough to post it, doesn't make it so.

For all the troll's hyperbole, (here's a link on the definition of "hyperbole" since it's a word you don't understand), explain how it is Clinton exited the WH with an approval rating much greater than Dubya has now?

Hmmm, can you answer that question? Can any of you GOPhers?

Notice the following ratings. Dubya isn't too popular. Must really burn you to see that Clinton was more popular going into his second term than Dubya was... and is now. LOL!

Pre-Inaugural Approval Ratings - Second Term Presidents
Bush 52% [-8 point difference under Clinton]
Clinton 60% [-8 point difference under Reagan]
Reagan 68% [+17 point difference over Nixon]
Nixon 51% [-20 point difference under LBJ]
LBJ 71% [-2 point difference under Ike]
Eisenhower 73% [+4 point difference over Truman]
Truman 69%
[Source: ABC News, Jan. 17, 2005]

Kevin posted this interesting tidbit on Nov. 3, 2005, just for dullards like you GOPhers [with emphasis added]:

RATING THE SCANDALS.... Via Atrios, Editor & Publisher takes a look at a recent CBS poll and tells us that the public thinks the Valerie Plame scandal is more important than any scandal in the past 30 years. Here are the numbers:
Plamegate: 86% important 12% not important
Clinton-Lewinsky: 62% important, 37% not important
Whitewater: 49% important, 45% not important
Iran-Contra: 81% important, 19% not important
Watergate: 78% important, 22% not important

Wow! Plamegate is more important than Watergate! Nixon was impeached for his cover-up. Well, guess what Americans think about Bush?

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq:

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company.The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9 [2005].
The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.
Those who agreed with the statement were also more passionate: 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.
I bet the above poll numbers favoring Bush's impeachment have risen five months later. Compared to polls about the Clinton impeachment -- 26% for impeachment and removal -- as I said before, Dubya isn't too popular. IMTFA!

Did anyone listen to the call-ins on C-SPAN after the Senate censure hearing on Friday? All callers but one Repub was for censure and the Repub dissenter raved about McDermott (must have been one of the trolletariat like saladmaker or Michael Cook). The rest wanted censure and some talked about impeaching Bush -- including Repub, Dem and Independent call-ins. That lonely Repub caller must have been one of you GOPhers like Cut'N'Run Jay. LOL!

You Bushtards must be paid shills since most of us Americans don't rate Bushie very well.

Isn't that like a Bushwacko? In it for the moolah, the payola, the cha-ching.


Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 1, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

If a president's lie doesn't involve cum, it's not worth scum.

Posted by: Frederick on April 1, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

GOP: Clinton was a liar, an adulterer, a crook. He was utterly ineffective as a President.


not if you compare clinton with gwb...

using americans killed by terror and size of federal debt...

clinton had way less of both....hands down...

as to clinton being a liar....i always love how bush defenders use clinton;s words as support for their positions on iraq...

dead enders dont do facts...

or irony...


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on April 2, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

"I really hate reading things like this, unless you are assuming he will be out of office in a matter of weeks. More than $300b has already been spent in the war. Comprehensive estimates put it at around $500 billion so far, and projections for total costs assuming we get out in the next few years at close to $1 trillion. Posted by: jefff

I'm gonna give you a pass this time, kid, just because you've got a nice name.

Perhaps I understated a bit, but costs are going down because we aren't doing anything but "police work" these days. However, you're over by more than $200 billion with your number as of today.

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

Ahh, i was a bit sloppy with the phrasing. Spent isn't quite the word I wanted, though I am sure more than 300b has been spent. 500b has been committed by now, but perhaps not yet spent. Some of the big items are future liabilities.

In general, however, that website is exactly what I was talking about. Congressional appropriations for Iraq total 270b or so right now. These are not all the costs piled up by the war so far and not even all the money already spent. There are 16,000 soldiers entitled to medical care for the rest of thier lives because of wounds, a few thousand of these are greviously injured and will be very expensive on average. That is estimated to be a few tens of billions that aren't showing up on the books yet. Congress has already increased funding to the VA because of the influx of Iraq vets, at least part of that was not an Iraq appropriation. Congress has increased funding for recruitement, that sometimes is not counted as an Iraq cost. Not all consumables (eg bombs, vehicles) are being replaced immediately, some maintenence schedules are behind so thier costs aren't yet counted fully. The training cost of a dead soldier doesn't show up. Aid bribes to Poland, etc aren't in there.

That website is to war costs as IraqBodyCount.org is to deaths, a conservative count using a method known to under-represent reality. The real costs are intentionally and unintentionally obscured by the bugeting process and the fact that those who control it have an interest in getting the smallest number possible. It is useful information but should not be confused with a comprehensive cost picture.

Thus one should never say "the war has cost about 200b" or even "the war has cost 270b so far" but "according to the republicans we have spent at least 270b so far" and whenever you have time add in "but of course the real cost is significantly higher" and when you really have time point to one of the comprehensive estimates which are now up around 500b.

Posted by: jefff on April 3, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

A friend and I deduced that Bush was going to invade Iraq during the summer before the war!

Anyone who traveled an interstate highway or crossed a railroad track could have made the same deduction, as all one saw were military vehicles being shipped east!

We figured that if people like Bush and Co. were sending all that hardware to Saudi Arabia, it was because they planned to use it.

Posted by: Dennis Goodrich on April 3, 2006 at 11:14 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