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

June 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

MAKING LEMONADE....Here's the lead of today's Washington Post story about George Bush's recent good fortune:

In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like, the past few weeks have been refreshing. A Republican won a much-watched special congressional election. President Bush recruited a Wall Street heavy hitter as Treasury secretary. U.S. forces killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And now the architect of the Bush presidency has avoided criminal charges.

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. The GOP barely won a congressional election in a district that's 60% Republican. After a year of looking, the White House finally persuaded someone to become Secretary of the Treasury. They killed a terrorist they could have killed three years ago if they'd wanted to. And Bush's top aide has "avoided criminal charges."

Next up: FEMA fails to screw up after Hurricane Alberto is downgraded to a tropical storm. Another triumph for the White House!

Kevin Drum 2:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (201)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Well, of course the press has to synthesize some kind of interesting "change" even if no interesting change has actually occurred, in order to sell more papers. This isn't so much a pro-Bush bias as a pro-sensationalism bias on the part of the press, which has always existed and always will.

I myself will believe Bush is back on the upswing when I see it in the polls -- and Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby have all already reported that the capture of Zarqawi did almost nothing to raise his ratings. (On the average they gave him a 1% rise.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on June 14, 2006 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

Incidentally, in the political poll department, the most interesting recent one may be tonight's Survey USA poll (they have a pretty good record) of the Ohio Senate race, which now shows Sen. Dewine trailing his firmly liberal Democratic opponent by 9 points.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on June 14, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Three more and we'll be at 2500 dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq ... at almost the same time as Dubya snuck in there without even telling our new friend the PM about it in advance.

As Jon Stewart wagged, the PM said, "Why Georgie, if I'd known you were coming, I'd have built an infrastructure for you....."

Cheers,

Posted by: Arne Langsetmo on June 14, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, W hasn't had a scratch on his face in weeks!

Posted by: MaryCh on June 14, 2006 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

And hasn't choked on a pretzel in years!

Posted by: Treetop on June 14, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

That's a great campaign slogan the GOP's running on: Not Yet Indicted.

I'll defer to Patrick Fitzgerald's judgment on this Plame/CIA investigation, but I can guarantee that we don't know the whole story about Karl Rove here. Hell, Rove probably promised to testify at Scooter Libby's trial. He better damn well keep his story straight if he wants to avoid Fitzgerald's crosshairs in the future. As he undoubtedly learned over the last few months, Fitzgerald doesn't bluff or blink at a legal confrontation.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 14, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

It's also been several years since George passed out after choking on a pretzel, or fell off a bike or Sedgway. His brave battle against inanimate objects and snack foods continues....

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

Nobody has bad luck every day forever. But no public figure in my memory has come as close to achieving that mark as W has.

Dead cat bounce, anyone?

Posted by: Jones on June 14, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

honestly

what do you expect when the Rethuglican party is comprised of pussies who get deferments to avoid service and combat and whores like Man Coulter?

the repugs can no longer be trusted to even balance the nationaln check book

all they do is manage elections

all they do is smear anyone who isn't ideologically pure

christ someone take the keys from them before they kill us all

Posted by: Maccabee on June 14, 2006 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

Good news for GWBush is when he remembers to put on pants in the morning.

Posted by: SteveAudio on June 14, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

"Doesn't matter what we think - history will be the final judge."

Unfortunately for your side . . .

Posted by: rea on June 14, 2006 at 3:24 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter WaPo: The White House is in disaster mode if the mere absence of disasters is considered good news.

Posted by: ogmb on June 14, 2006 at 3:33 AM | PERMALINK

It's also been several years since George passed out after choking on a pretzel, or fell off a bike or Sedgway. His brave battle against inanimate objects and snack foods continues....

He fell off his bike less than a year ago in Scotland. Granted he was colliding with an animate albeit stationary Scotish police officer. His bicycle is actually a little much for a person of his skill (ultra light weight + high center of gravity + excellent brakes --> quite easy to go over the handlebars).

BTW, why is the White House proud of the fact that Bush can't even trust his own cabinet with knowledge of his trip to Iraq until after it happens:

Apart from Cheney, the only Cabinet members notified in advance were Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Are Gonzales and Spellings going to turn him over to the insurgents? Does this just clarify the size of the man's bubble?

Posted by: B on June 14, 2006 at 3:50 AM | PERMALINK

The really good news is that we're not just about to bomb Iran, the way we were a month ago. Hurray! Things aren't going to get horribly worse in a hurry, for a change!

Posted by: bad Jim on June 14, 2006 at 4:35 AM | PERMALINK

What all the trolls are saying about just ignoring Ann Coulter and she'll go away? Let's try it on the WaPo and see if it works there first.

Why would anyone read the thing? Their cred dried up in the 70s.

Posted by: olvlzl on June 14, 2006 at 4:52 AM | PERMALINK

哈尔滨酒店预定
西安酒店预定
海口酒店预定
上海酒店预定
大庆酒店预定
延安酒店预定
三亚酒店预定
合肥酒店预定
长春酒店预定
兰州酒店预定
博鳌酒店预定
蚌埠酒店预定
吉林酒店预定
敦煌酒店预定
厦门酒店预定
安庆酒店预定
沈阳酒店预定
银川酒店预定
福州酒店预定
黄山酒店预定
大连酒店预定
乌鲁木齐酒店预定
武夷山酒店预定
郑州酒店预定
丹东酒店预定
拉萨酒店预定
杭州酒店预定
洛阳酒店预定
北京酒店预定
西宁酒店预定
温州酒店预定
开封酒店预定
天津酒店预定
成都酒店预定
宁波酒店预定
新乡酒店预定
呼和浩特酒店预定
峨眉山酒店预定
金华酒店预定
武汉酒店预定
包头酒店预定
绵阳酒店预定
嘉兴酒店预定
宜昌酒店预定
石家庄酒店预定
重庆酒店预定
绍兴酒店预定
长沙酒店预定
北戴河酒店预定
昆明酒店预定
台州酒店预定
张家界酒店预定
承德酒店预定
丽江酒店预定
义乌酒店预定
南昌酒店预定
保定酒店预定
贵阳酒店预定
南京酒店预定
庐山酒店预定
唐山酒店预定
南宁酒店预定
常州酒店预定
香港酒店预定
济南酒店预定
桂林酒店预定
苏州酒店预定
青岛酒店预定
北海酒店预定
扬州酒店预定
淄博酒店预定
柳州酒店预定
无锡酒店预定
烟台酒店预定
广州酒店预定
徐州酒店预定
潍坊酒店预定
湛江酒店预定
南通酒店预定
威海酒店预定
深圳酒店预定
宜兴酒店预定
泰安酒店预定
东莞酒店预定
太原酒店预定
中山酒店预定
大同酒店预定
珠海酒店预定
潮州酒店预定
佛山酒店预定
惠州酒店预定
江门酒店预定
茂名酒店预定
南海酒店预定
汕头酒店预定
肇庆酒店预定

Posted by: david on June 14, 2006 at 4:54 AM | PERMALINK

haerbin hotel booking
xian hotel booking
haikou hotel booking
shanghai hotel booking
daqing hotel booking
yanan hotel booking
sanya hotel booking
hefei hotel booking
changchun hotel booking
lanzhou hotel booking
bo hotel booking
bangbu hotel booking
jilin hotel booking
dunhuang hotel booking
xiamen hotel booking
anqing hotel booking
shenyang hotel booking
yinchuan hotel booking
fuzhou hotel booking
huangshan hotel booking
dalian hotel booking
wulumuqi hotel booking
wuyishan hotel booking
zhengzhou hotel booking
dandong hotel booking
lasa hotel booking
hangzhou hotel booking
luoyang hotel booking
beijing hotel booking
xining hotel booking
wenzhou hotel booking
kaifeng hotel booking
tianjin hotel booking
chengdu hotel booking
ningbo hotel booking
xinxiang hotel booking
huhehaote hotel booking
emeishan hotel booking
jinhua hotel booking
wuhan hotel booking
baotou hotel booking
mianyang hotel booking
jiaxing hotel booking
yichang hotel booking
shijiazhuang hotel booking
zhongqing hotel booking
shaoxing hotel booking
changsha hotel booking
beidaihe hotel booking
kunming hotel booking
taizhou hotel booking
zhangjiajie hotel booking
chengde hotel booking
lijiang hotel booking
yiwu hotel booking
nanchang hotel booking
baoding hotel booking
guiyang hotel booking
nanjing hotel booking
lushan hotel booking
tangshan hotel booking
nanning hotel booking
changzhou hotel booking
xianggang hotel booking
jinan hotel booking
guilin hotel booking
suzhou hotel booking
qingdao hotel booking
beihai hotel booking
yangzhou hotel booking
zibo hotel booking
liuzhou hotel booking
wuxi hotel booking
yantai hotel booking
guangzhou hotel booking
xuzhou hotel booking
weifang hotel booking
zhanjiang hotel booking
nantong hotel booking
weihai hotel booking
shen hotel booking
yixing hotel booking
taian hotel booking
dong hotel booking
taiyuan hotel booking
zhongshan hotel booking
datong hotel booking
zhuhai hotel booking
chaozhou hotel booking
foshan hotel booking
huizhou hotel booking
jiangmen hotel booking
maoming hotel booking
nanhai hotel booking
shantou hotel booking
zhaoqing hotel booking

Posted by: david on June 14, 2006 at 5:02 AM | PERMALINK

Welcome to China!My name is WangWei
If somebody who wants to booking hotels,I can transelate chinese into English for him or her.My MSN is administrator_wang@hotmail.com

Posted by: david on June 14, 2006 at 5:05 AM | PERMALINK

Now to mention the fact that former child star Kirk Cameron is like totally on their side.

Now all they need is Tina Yothers and Winnie from the Wonder Years.

Posted by: Linus on June 14, 2006 at 5:19 AM | PERMALINK

Anyboby care to spam-bomb WangWei's email address please?

Posted by: brooksfoe on June 14, 2006 at 5:47 AM | PERMALINK

Bush is listening
Use big words

Posted by: bad Jim on June 14, 2006 at 6:29 AM | PERMALINK

George W. Bush has always benefitted from extremely low expectations - and he always meets them. He is a genuine loser. Of course, with Karl Rove and other world-class spinmeisters around him, manufacturing opinions and myths about his "competence", he always manages to hang on. Not unlike the coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons.

However, with his approval ratings in the toilet, it may be time to really get worried.
Paul Craig Roberts, a Reaganite, thinks another 9-11 is in the works.

Let's pray he is wrong.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 14, 2006 at 6:57 AM | PERMALINK

But...

We haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since 2001. Unless I missed some major news story.

That loser Bush. It must have just been a fluke that we haven't been hit sooner. He has such dumb luck.

Amazing how a dumb president with poor poll numbers still gets the best of every Democrat he faces.

Posted by: Orwell on June 14, 2006 at 7:15 AM | PERMALINK

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Posted by: bad Jim on June 14, 2006 at 7:18 AM | PERMALINK

Harry Truman!

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 14, 2006 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

If Libby is let off the hook, what will the left have left?

Posted by: Orwell on June 14, 2006 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

YUP...this is what we have left...get up each day and send THANKS to GWB that he hasn't invaded another country, outed more agents, borrowed another generation's financial future, allowed a segment of our population die before our eyes AND most importantly is keeping us safe from THE GAYS and further medical advances...not to mention taking us closer to being a facist state! YIPEE!!!

Posted by: Dancer on June 14, 2006 at 7:39 AM | PERMALINK

"They killed a terrorist they could have killed three years ago if they'd wanted to"- Kevin Drum

Great moonbat comment. Hope they quote it whenever you turn up in the public eye.

Yes, the US army is faking all its mistakes. It lets people die to match political orders from the White House and all without tipping off a whistleblower.

Posted by: McA on June 14, 2006 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

We haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since 2001. Unless I missed some major news story.

And a good thing, too, because judging from the Administration's utterly incompetent response to Katrina, the US is clearly not prepared.

That loser Bush. It must have just been a fluke that we haven't been hit sooner.

Remind us, "Orwell," what action Bush took in respons to the August 6 PDB warning of a possible hijacking by al Qaeda.

If Libby is let off the hook, what will the left have left?

Pretty big "if" there, "Orwell," but I submit that if holding malefactors in government accountable is the sole provenance of the "left" -- and admittedly, it sure seems to be -- then the "right" has well and truly jumped the shark.

Posted by: Gregory on June 14, 2006 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

Dancer you forgot the nucaler threat in Iran.
I wonder if there are any other non-undercover agents who would want to appear in a full page spread of Vanity Fair out in the country. Or run the lecture circit for college campuses.

It's too bad President Bush cancelled medical research. At least you still have your Ambien.

Posted by: Orwell on June 14, 2006 at 7:45 AM | PERMALINK

I for one am glad the President is having a pretty good couple of weeks. Not great but pretty good. He hasn't done anything to move his poll numbers, but he has given Republican candidates some reason to not distance themselves from him as much as their advisors have been suggesting.

On Stewart last night Mulhman essentially said that it is every Republican candidate for him or herself this fall. They have to do it without Bush. Given the oh so close relationship between the Administration and Congressional Republicans that kind of separation is going to be a tough sale.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 14, 2006 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINK

the limbo presidency.

Posted by: mestizo on June 14, 2006 at 7:54 AM | PERMALINK

In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like,

What's disgusting is the media reports this as if it's just a very long string of bad luck, rather than the natural result of incompetent and corrupt leadership that it really is.

Posted by: Del Capslock on June 14, 2006 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

You know, "Administrator Wang" is a remarkably appropriate name to show up in this comment thread.

Posted by: S Ra on June 14, 2006 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK

I guess it depends on one's prism. From the right it seems strange that Democrats continually celebrate losing - "but not by as much as before" - and continually hitch their wagons to losing campaigns like Bill Burkett (loved the interview), Lucy Ramirez, Jason Leopold and Joe Wilson (read the report).

Oh, I forgot, you rewon NJ and VA. On a roll, baby, on a roll.

Posted by: RW on June 14, 2006 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

Could it be because of the actions of the president we haven't had a domestic terrorist attack in the last 5 years? Could he have damaged enough of their command structure that they have been unable to mount an attack in the recent years?

Or maybe it is because all the wacko terroist/islamic lunatics were drawn to fight by the mother of all battles in Iraq. Nah. None of those. It has to be some huge conspiracy involving hundreds of people.

Maybe we will find out that the agressive interogation and execution of people in Haditha led the rest of the town to give up the location of Zarkawi.

Nah. That is too much of a conspiracy theory too.

Posted by: Orwell on June 14, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

The one that kills me is the Treasury Secretary. Gee, they found a sucker. This guy will have zero impact in that White House.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on June 14, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Rove cleared, Francine Busby loses her bid to win Duke Cunningham's seat, Patrick Kennedy pleads to a misdemeanor, Zarquari gets offed, Bush steals the headlines with his surprize visit to Baghdad.

And here is poor Kevin Drum, whining about it all.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on June 14, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

If Libby is let off the hook, what will the left have left?

Backwash?

Oh wait.

Posted by: Googles McGurk on June 14, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

Doesn't matter what we think - history will be the final judge.

Have you asked history her opinion lately?

Posted by: Googles McGurk on June 14, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Doesn't matter what we think - history will be the final judge.

Posted by: Cheney on June 14, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

Yes it does, we and our children will pay for it. This country will never be the same. Travel abroad is more dangerous. Idiot

Posted by: Mc Mullah on June 14, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, new rule. Trolls too stupid to correctly spell Zarqawi's name, even when they're signing themselves as the guy "done dead," may no longer refer to him. Sorry, boys, but this isn't the GOP--we have minimum standards.

Posted by: shortstop on June 14, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

**Amazing how a dumb president with poor poll numbers still gets the best of every Democrat he faces.**

Truly amazing.

But it's not his democratic opponents he 'bests', it's the voters. The GOP religious base continues to swallow the Bush propaganda.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on June 14, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

"Sorry, boys, but this isn't the GOP--we have minimum standards."

Like "You don't need papers to vote"?

Posted by: RW on June 14, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Orwell, one reason that we haven't had a successful terrorist attack within the U.S. is because the FBI hasn't stopped watching extremist religious right types, and has been able to prevent the bombings of several abortion clinics.

Posted by: kenga on June 14, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, paragon of the English language has again refuted the points made concerning Zarawormsfoodqawi by transforming into the MS Word red squiggly line. If you want I will misspell all kinds of cool words so that you may feel that sense of victory which your arguments have failed to provide. We silly little people who havent bought into the Rove is evil, Bush is stupid, brainwashing kicked out with mechanical consistency here have inoculated ourselves through the secret ability to misspell words.

Keep your lies spell right and no one will refute them, correct?

Posted by: Orwell on June 14, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Kenga's probably right. We did stop Al Gore's biggest fan from killing anyone else by bomb. Other than that he is living in the 80s with the abortion clinic bombing claim.

And we know that some of the terroists have been Christianists - no wait a minute, all of them have been Islamic.

Where is that right wing church where they teach their congregation to suicide bomb? Even Fred Phelps group isn't stupid enought to do that.

Posted by: Orwell on June 14, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, trolls, why don't you both go do something anatomically impossible to yourselves. Let's be logical about this-- you are convincing NO ONE of anything here, you're basically arguing just for the sake of argument. This is not an argument clinic, so why don't you go masturbate or something, you know, do something fun, something that is more productive than arguing with a bunch of complete strangers. You do know what fun is, right?

Posted by: barbarella on June 14, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

We haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since 2001. Unless I missed some major news story.

Yes, you may have missed the major news story about the terrorist attack in September 2001! You know, the one that happened on Bush's watch, after he was warned "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and bravely responded by spending another few weeks on vacation?

That loser Bush. It must have just been a fluke that we haven't been hit sooner.

What, like within 9 months after he took office?

He has such dumb luck.

If only the victims on the four flights, the Pentagon, and in the World Trade Center had had such dumb luck.

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Orwell, Bush doesn't "best every Democrat". He lost in 2000 and a Republican coup handed him what he had not earned. As for his other victories, they are the product of the most viciously unprincipled smear machine in American history. As one observer put it, Bush's campaigns in 2000 and 2004 represent the heaviest and most concerted attack ever mounted by draft dodgers and deserters against military veterans.

As for Rove, he wasn't "cleared" or exonerated in any way. Let Josh Marshall explain:

Now, I'm happy to take Patrick Fitzgerald's word for it, his evaluation of the evidence, that there's not enough evidence to indict Rove on any criminal charge. As Rove's defenders have long made clear, the underlying statute dealing with revealing the identities of covert operatives is very hard to bring a charge with. Same goes for making false statements or perjury. Hard to prove and you need lots of evidence as to intent and so forth.

In fact, not only am I happy to take Fitzgerald's word for it, if this is in fact the case, good for Fitzgerald. A prosecutor's role is not to punish people for malicious acts. It is to ascertain whether they've committed specific criminal acts and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a charge.

But none of this changes the fact, for which there is abundant evidence, even admissions from Rove himself, that he did the malicious act. And he lied about doing it. Indeed, on top of that, President Bush welched on his promise to can anyone who was involved.

Damn right. He's still a filthy little traitor as far as I'm concerned, who disrupted a CIA operation AIMED AGAINST IRAN.

As for Busby, she came within 4.5 points in a district she lost by 22 two years ago. And the Republicans had to spend 5 million dollars and accuse her of being friendly to pedophiles to do it. There will be a rematch in November.

Orwell, Bush and his lying bastards are killing this country. The real patriots are fighting them and trying to stop them. The patriots who simply talk a good game excuse everything that's gone wrong and simply look the other way, hoping that if they don't see disaster coming, it won't see them.

Posted by: Joe on June 14, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. Up until a few minutes ago I was a very liberal, secular Jewish lesbian. But after being absolutely stunned by the utter brilliance of Orwell and RW, I'm a changed woman! I'm going to dump my wife of 7 years, change my voter registration to Republcian, become a born-again Christian and turn my back on all of my friends and family who are anti-American, godless heathen Democrats! They're worse than the terrorists!

Where does anyone think I can pick up a big manly, man that I can properly submit to and serve? Oh, at a GOP convention, of course!

Posted by: zoe kentucky on June 14, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

We haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since 2001.

I always think this reasoning is rather like someone in 1946, say, claiming "we haven't had a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor since 1941." Yes -- because they've already done it.... This is like claiming credit for locking the barn door after the horse has already escaped.


Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

This may explain the presence of some of the resident trolls
http://frogsdong.blogspot.com/2006/06/strange-days-indeed-shadowy-propoganda.html

Posted by: Botecelli on June 14, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Our allies in Iraq (the ones suffering and dying to prevent terrorists from winning and avoiding civil war) finally constituted a unity government. The defense minister and interior minister posts are filled with a Shitte and a Sunni. The prime foreign instigater of terrorism in Iraq has been killed. Today they implement a plan to further secure the city of Baghdad with 70,000 troupes we have helped train.

Did anyone see frontline last night?
Let me ask you this Does anyone on the political left have any hope or good wishes, much less resolve for the Iraq people?
Is it all about Bush and cutting and running and handing the U.S. a defeat?
Spite is not a foreign policy.

Posted by: Zarqawi Done Dead on June 14, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Starting from its own 11, Team BushCo grinds out a first by inches and has the ball on its 21. And the crowd goes wild! If I were BushCo though, I'd keep the punter loose.

Posted by: demisod on June 14, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

I'm going to dump my "wife" of 7 years

Not in Kentucky!

Posted by: Zarqawi Done Dead on June 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Could it be because of the actions of the president we haven't had a domestic terrorist attack in the last 5 years? Could he have damaged enough of their command structure that they have been unable to mount an attack in the recent years?

Since most of their "command structure" is in Pakistan, to which we let them escape after Aghanistan, no, I don't think so.

Or maybe it is because all the wacko terroist/islamic lunatics were drawn to fight by the mother of all battles in Iraq.

Wait, so their command structure is so damaged that they can't mount another relatively simple operation involving a few dozen men and some box cutters like last time, but they're also capable of smuggling thousands of men into Iraq to fight a large-scale guerilla war using sophisticated explosives and involving dozens of coordinated terrorist attacks a day, at the cost of millions of dollars? Well, which is it?

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Today they implement a plan to further secure the city of Baghdad with 70,000 troupes we have helped train.

Is this a theatrical troupe? Perhaps a troupe of dancers, or or mimes? Has Bush finally called out the National Avant Guard?

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

TAPPED's "Horse's Mouth" blog does a good comparison of the Baker piece and an even more sycophantic piece in the NYTimes. After reading it, Baker's piece comes off pretty well.

Posted by: brewmn on June 14, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

I always think this reasoning is rather like someone in 1946, say, claiming "we haven't had a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor since 1941." Yes -- because they've already done it.... This is like claiming credit for locking the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

It also highlights how difficult something like 9/11 is to pull off and, by extension, how shoddy Bush's national security credentials are to have allowed it to happen.

If you've actually been following the hijackers story as it has come out in the various trials and investigative reports, its stunning how easily they could have been noticed and stopped, and how much sheer dumb luck they enjoyed. Any reasonably competent administration should have been able to prevent 9/11.

If the Bush administration is simply relying on the fact that "nothing has happened since 2002" to keep us safe, then we're all in a lot of trouble.

Posted by: moderleft on June 14, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Somebody please pay attention to me.

Posted by: RW on June 14, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

they can't mount another relatively simple operation involving a few dozen men and some box cutters like last time

Uh, buddy9/11 was a highly complex, highly coordinated, military style operation that was years in the planning and execution.

Posted by: Zarqawi Done Dead on June 14, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney: Doesn't matter what we think - history will be the final judge.

Yes, and history has judged conservative appeasement of the Shah of Iran during Nixon's and Ford's reigns and of Saddam Hussein during Reagan's and Bush 41's reigns, by supplying him with money and arms, as well as the Taliban, as dismal foreign policy failures.

So will the new Iraqi war and support for the new puppet democracy be judged.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Any reasonably competent administration should have been able to prevent 9/11.

"Reasonably competent" -- yes, well, that right there is our problem....

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone on the political left have any hope or good wishes, much less resolve for the Iraq people?

A Bushlicker at his very best.

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

ZDD-- um, you do realize that I'm not using my real name and that you have no idea where I live, right? For all you know I live in Massachusetts or got married in one of the many countries that has legalized gay marriage. Or perhaps I got married by a rabbi in a synagogue in Kentucky. (Look it up-- the largest Jewish denomination in the US recognizes and performs same-sex marriages and supports full legalization.)

By the way, if she's my "wife" then you're a "human."

Posted by: zoe kentucky on June 14, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Orwell: We haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since 2001.

An orwellian lie.

There have been numerous terrorist attacks in the US since 2001, 9 in 2005 alone.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Mr Drum,
Good looking blog. I know you like your readers would love to support the troops. Read here how to help with the "Had Enough" ad www.onemarinesview.com
Semper Fi

PS-Thanks for the space

Posted by: Capt B on June 14, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

This is rather OT, but check this photo out:

Tony Snow and Dan Bartlett

Funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on June 14, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Orwell: I wonder if there are any other non-undercover agents who would want to appear in a full page spread of Vanity Fair out in the country.

I wonder how many more Bush and his staff will out before the end of Bush's term.

That's probably the same number taht would want to appear in Vanity Fair, since once their cover is blown, they'd better get sufficient funds from publicity to cover the costs of the additional security they will need.

I don't wonder how many times you are going to lie about the Plame matter, though.

It will be as often as you can.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone on the political left have any hope or good wishes, much less resolve for the Iraq people?

Sure, and we have for years.

The question is whether anyone on the right does, instead of merely good wishes for Bush's success and his use of the lives of the Iraqi people and our soldiers to further his own political and personal ambitions.

After all, the right wasn't too concerned about the Iraqi people (or the Iranian people) when it was supporting Saddam by giving him military arms and the means to produce WMDs, as well as additional funding and international political support, while he was gassing the Kurds and butchering the Iranians.

Conservative tears for the Iraqi people are crocodile tears.

Just ask the Kurds gassed with the help of Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

I always wear my helmet and flak jacket when I travel to and from the airport as well. I also make sure no one knows I'm going.

Posted by: Nemo on June 14, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

This is one of the funniest entries on Kevin's blog in years. I think the Chinese spam makes more sense.

Vanity Fair is the brain trust of the Democratic Party these days.

I wonder when the tiny lurking fear that Iraq might actually work will surface in your collective consciousness?

Politicians usually split the difference because they realize that the future is hard to predict. It can be expensive to be wrong. Bush will never run for office again so he has little to lose. The Democrats who would like to be president must realize that they are caught between netroots who could not care less about getting elected to anything and the majority of the country who do not buy the hate-America left.

Hillary seems to be toughing it out. The rest seem to be crawling out on the limb even more. The ghost of Tony Benn is creeping into the minds of a few practical pols. I wonder what Carville really thinks.

I think this is a huge loser for Democrats but be my guest. If Iraq works, and I know you are counting on it to fail, the Democratic party will not be trusted with the presidency for a generation.

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

"Uh, buddy9/11 was a highly complex, highly coordinated, military style operation that was years in the planning and execution."

And most of those years were when Clinton was president. All this liberal clap-trap about presidential briefing memos and Albright "warning" the incoming amdinistration doesn't change who was in power as the threat of terrorism escalated.

Posted by: subminion on June 14, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Boy Bush has a week of good news (after months and months of self-inflicted bad news) and the trolls come out of the woodwork, strutting like peacocks.

Enjoy it while you can!

Posted by: Charlie Bucket on June 14, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, buddy9/11 was a highly complex, highly coordinated, military style operation that was years in the planning and execution.

If by "highly complex" and "highly coordinated" you mean buying 19 airplane tickets across four flights from two airports, then yes. But by that criteria my secretary mounts highly complex, highly coordinated, military style operations every time she books a business trip....


Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

What were those 5 domestic attacks please? Enlighten this poor weak minded conservative.

AFG I wonder how long you will dismiss the lies of Wilson. Probably as long as you will defend Alger Hiss.

Stefan the operative word is "or" which means you get to choose which idea you like or dislike the most. So when you ask me which is it, I can only assume you didn't understand the question. And you make a terrorist attack sound so easy to complete. So why haven't we had any more like 9/11?

Posted by: Orwell on June 14, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

All this liberal clap-trap about presidential briefing memos...

So now it's "liberal" to expect the President to take action when warned about a threat to the United States? Since Bush didn't, I suppose the Bush cultists condone Bush's inaction.

But we knew that.

Posted by: Gregory on June 14, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

From Josh Marshall: Tom DeLay slips, tells legions of Virginia voters he has re-registered in "Northern California."

I guess it's hard to keep track of your lies after a while.

Sorta like GOP/rdw/Jay/Orwell.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

The real news that's not news about this story is that the Washington Post, like the rest of the corporate-owned mass media from which most Americans get most of their information, is continuing to shill for Bush Inc. as they have done since 1999.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 14, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

But the founder of DailyKos soon moved on. "I reach more people than most of these publications that are interviewing meI don't need them."

If this is an accurate quote from the Slate article, it just proves the point I've made here before - both Duncan Black and Kos are either delusional or hucksters.

More people read the NYT in just NYC ever day than visit DailyKos and/or Atrios. There are more people still watch the CBS Evening News every night than people visiting those blogs in a week.

I would guess that for most people in congress liberal and conservative blogs are mostly a back of the mind thing, unless one has produced something so outrageous that the MSM picks up on it. Right now, I can't think of a single incident that fits this category.

Posted by: JeffII on June 14, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

"Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. The GOP barely won a congressional election in a district that's 60% Republican."

Ummm, the soft bigotry of low expectations is apparent in viewing yet another Democratic defeat as a victory. Yaaay!!! We made the GOP spend more money!!! Yaaay for us!!! Ummm, not really. News flash - the GOP has deep pockets and can raise more cash. Getting the GOP to blow cash is not a victory by any means.

Posted by: Pocket Rocket on June 14, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

So why haven't we had any more like 9/11?

Because it's hard to re-destroy the World Trade Center when it hasn't been rebuilt yet?

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Orwell: What were those 5 domestic attacks please? Enlighten this poor weak minded conservative.

Here.

So why haven't we had any more like 9/11?

We didn't have any like 9/11 under Clinton or any other previous president - only under Bush.

I wonder how long you will dismiss the lies of Wilson.

Since I've never dismissed any lies allegedly told by Wilson, not very long at all. In fact, not even a nanosecond.

However, you have and will continue to dismiss Bush's lies for a long, long time.

Just as you dismiss your own lies.

Mike K: I know you are counting on it to fail . . .

Predicing something will fail and counting on it to fail are two different concepts.

I know that's hard for a dimwit and liar like you to appreciate, but if you really feel they are the same, then you are acknowledging that the GOP (and their conservative lemming supporters) wanted the US to fail in Kosovo and Bosnia and wanted US troops to be killed in Kosovo and Bosnia and wanted genocide to continue in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Additionally, you are acknowledging that the GOP (and their conservative lemming supporters) wanted the US to fail in Haiti and wanted US troops to be killed in Haiti and wanted the Haitian populace to dissolve into anarchy.

Fortunately, conservative predictions/wants did not come to pass.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Low expectations indeed. What else can you expect from this admin? The Bush Admin like Iraq has turned the corner.

Posted by: ckelly on June 14, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Boo-Freakin-Hoo

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

So why haven't we had any more like 9/11?

No need. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are content to sit back and watch Bush continue to destroy our way of life.

Posted by: ckelly on June 14, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

More people read the NYT in just NYC ever day than visit DailyKos and/or Atrios. There are more people still watch the CBS Evening News every night than people visiting those blogs in a week.

True, but, on the other hand, DailyKos and/or Atrios have more committed readers and ones more likely to take action because of a direct appeal they read on those sites. It's partly an apples to oranges thing to compare the two, because Kos and Atrios are sites meant not just to inform, like the NYT or CBS, but also to exhort and stir their readers into action, like volunteering for a campaign, writing a check, or calling their Congressman.

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Pocket Rocket: Getting the GOP to blow cash is not a victory by any means.

It is now that your biggest fundraisers are going to jail.

Good luck raising cash from behind jailbars.

There are limits even to Republican corruption and criminality.

Not self-imposed limits, to be sure, but practical limits nevertheless.

LOL.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

BTW, Orsmell, it was 9, not 5, attacks in 2005.

More. Reading. Comprehension. For. You.

Your lack of attention to detail pretty much demonstrates why your conclusions are always so far from reality and why your opinions are untrustworthy.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Getting the GOP to blow cash is not a victory by any means.

thou does protest too much. It's a victory when they're forced to blow millions in a district that is solidly Republican and then spin themselves silly claiming that it's part of a Bush "bounce".
He's still below 40%, everything he touches turns to shit, he's a dismal failure, period.

Posted by: haha on June 14, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

"But it's not his democratic opponents he 'bests', it's the voters. The GOP religious base continues to swallow the Bush propaganda."

Yes, going back at least as far as Eisenhower/Stevenson, Dems have claimed that they're smarter, but the voters are too dumb to appreciate them.

It doesn't seem to be good politics for a political party to tell the voters that they're too stupid to appreciate them. However, if this belief makes you feel good, go ahead an enjoy the feeling.

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 14, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

"It doesn't seem to be good politics for a political party to tell the voters that they're too stupid to appreciate them. However, if this belief makes you feel good, go ahead an enjoy the feeling."

Liberals never win elections, and hold to a philosophy resoundingly rejected by the American people. The need to do something to make themselves feel better, and so they like to imagine they're smarter and more compassionate than everyone else.

Posted by: subminion on June 14, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

It doesn't seem to be good politics for a political party to tell the voters that they're too stupid to appreciate them. However, if this belief makes you feel good, go ahead an enjoy the feeling.

I hope that you and others like you are able to get past your hypersensitivity and (possibly justified) feelings of inadequacy.

Posted by: haha on June 14, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Lying ex-liberal: Yes, going back at least as far as Eisenhower/Stevenson, Dems have claimed that they're smarter . . .

You are welcome to provide proof of this false and defamatory statement any time you want . . .

. . . what, can't find any?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Liberals never win elections

interesting. So Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy aren't/weren't liberals?

The reason that people consider themselves smarter than you is because most of them are. Political affiliation doesn't even have anything to do with it.

Posted by: haha on June 14, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Mike K,

If Iraq works

If Iraq works and Bush does nothing else extremely wrong for the rest of his term (like, for example, start WW III) I'd be willing to give him credit for having a successful Presidency.

What about you? If Iraw fails are you willing to concede that Bush failed?

Posted by: Tripp on June 14, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, we have had a terrorist attack since 911 - Bush has poured $400 billion of our and our children's money into a sinkhole. ROI on this 'investment'? Negative, negative, negative as far as the mind can project. You could call it 'financial terrorism', the resulting pain of which will remain with us for decades.

They say that if you can take $10,000 in bills to the top of a windy hill, rip the bills into small pieces and throw them to the winds, you have the potential to become a commodities trader. The act, however, imparts no information about future success or failure.

Bush has proven he's got what it takes to become a commodities trader, and has proven clearly he would be a pathetic failure. They threw Nick Leeson into the slammer for losing a few hundred million and destroying Barings Bank in the process. How many years should Bush get for blowing several hundred billion and destroying the US of A?

Posted by: BumperSticker on June 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK
More people read the NYT in just NYC ever day than visit DailyKos and/or Atrios.

Maybe you don't understand the phrase "most of" very well; or are you suggesting that most of the media outlets that interview Kos have the readership of the New York Times?

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

AFG, you are saying ALF and ELF are equal to the attacks of islamic terrorists? You are joking, right? The people who belong to ALF and ELF expect to be taken seriously - with names like that? Oh, right I forgot. You don't joke about these kinds of things. You are way out on the left wing of the space ship earth.

Your legalistic interpretation of "terroist" attack betrays your blind hatred for anything without the offical liberal stamp of approval. Call the home office, Rove has walked.

Joe Wilson is a liar. See? My reasoning is as sound as you calling me a liar.

ALF and ELF - that is priceless.

Posted by: Orwell on June 14, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

subminion: Liberals never win elections, and hold to a philosophy resoundingly rejected by the American people. The need to do something to make themselves feel better, and so they like to imagine they're smarter and more compassionate than everyone else.

Conservatives never won elections until recently, when they decided on a program of corruption in fundraising and a campaign of voter intimidation and fraud in order to steal elections they could not win fairly.

Conservatives constantly pat themselves on the back for how moral they are and just as consistently engage in the vicious personal destruction of opponents, even if it means lying about those opponents (through, for example, false and malicious allegations of child molestation and pedophilia) time and again, clearly implemented with a need to make themselves feel better about winning illegally.

Conservatives like to imagine that they have more 'street smarts' than anyone else, despite a history of foreign policy failures that have endangered US security time and again (such as giving Saddam the means to produce the WMDs he held during the 1980's and early 1990's), better values, and never commit a sin, despite having as many if not more extramarital affairs and "illegitimate" children and despite constant lying about their own acts, the acts of others, and any and every issue facing the American people.

And one of the lies, one of the most frequent lies, is the claim that liberals say they are smarter and more compassionate than everybody else.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

"I know that's hard for a dimwit and liar like you to appreciate, but if you really feel they are the same, then you are acknowledging that the GOP (and their conservative lemming supporters) wanted the US to fail in Kosovo and Bosnia and wanted US troops to be killed in Kosovo and Bosnia and wanted genocide to continue in Kosovo and Bosnia."

Your evidence for this wild accusation ? Oh, I know you don't need no stinkin' evidence.

"Additionally, you are acknowledging that the GOP (and their conservative lemming supporters) wanted the US to fail in Haiti and wanted US troops to be killed in Haiti and wanted the Haitian populace to dissolve into anarchy."

Wow! What a mind reader !

"Fortunately, conservative predictions/wants did not come to pass.

Posted by: Advocate for God"

Advocate, I know this will be a shock but nobody I know wanted us to fail in Kosovo or Bosnia. Nobody thought Haiti would be anything but a failed state. We didn't get too enthusiastic about reinstalling a criminal ex-priest but I don't recall the attacks on the military by lowlifes like Murtha.

You are so consumed by this Bush-Hitler frenzy that you project your own thoughts on people you don't know and have no understanding of.

I don't really care what you think (It's mostly reflexes anyway.) but I do worry that we are about to see the self-immolation of a major political party. I don't like that. There are things supported by Republicans that I don't approve. Now, because of the selfish fixation of a bunch of adolecents with ISPs, we will have little or no choice.

There are still a few adults in the Democratic Party but, like Joe Lieberman. they are under attack by a bunch of kids who have no sense of history. That's too bad.

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Bush will never run for office again so he has little to lose.

Besides, he's already said that Iraq will be someone else's problem to clean up.

Posted by: ckelly on June 14, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

"In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like, the past few weeks have been refreshing. A Republican won a much-watched special congressional election. President Bush recruited a Wall Street heavy hitter as Treasury secretary. U.S. forces killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And now the architect of the Bush presidency has avoided criminal charges."

If they want to call standing in the eye of the hurricane a refreshing break...who am I to gainsay them. Let them enjoy their break, they'll screw it up soon enough.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on June 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals never win elections, and hold to a philosophy resoundingly rejected by the American people.

Wow, suddenly a decade of success for the Repubs means "never" for liberals. What must the prior 40 year domination by Dems have meant to Repubs? Yes those crazy liberal philosophies like New Deals and Social Security are SO dead. Seems that conservatism is what's dead - and Bush as well as other alleged "conservatives" have helped kill it.

Posted by: ckelly on June 14, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God: I know that's hard for a dimwit and liar like you to appreciate, but if you really feel they are the same, then you are acknowledging that the GOP (and their conservative lemming supporters) wanted the US to fail in Kosovo and Bosnia and wanted US troops to be killed in Kosovo and Bosnia and wanted genocide to continue in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Boozehound Mike K: Your evidence for this wild accusation ? Oh, I know you don't need no stinkin' evidence.

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." -Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." - Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." - Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." - Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." - Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years" - Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" - Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag" - Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" - Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." - Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."- Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

"You can support the troops but not the president" - Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." - Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce" - Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." - Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started" - Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode" - Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country" - Pat Buchanan (R)

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton." - Michael "Weiner" Savage

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals." - Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation." - Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

"There are still a few adults in the Democratic Party but, like Joe Lieberman. they are under attack by a bunch of kids who have no sense of history. That's too bad."

But Dear Leader says history doesn't matter "because we'll all be dead". And he always proves himself right in the end. Are you calling your president a liar, Mike? Please state your address clearly into the telephone -- it won't matter who you are talking to -- and someone will arrive shortly to escort you to the reeducation camp.

Posted by: Kenji on June 14, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K. Read the damn thread before you post. AFG was responding to the tired old saw by trolls like yourself that liberals or Dems wish failure in Iraq and failure of our troops etc. So, AFG responded in kind giving the analogy that this must mean that conservatives wished failure in Kosovo, Haiti etc. during Clinton as there are abundant examples of lack of support by the Right.

Read the damn thread.

Posted by: ckelly on June 14, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

lowlifes like Murtha.


Wow. just wow. Are you an active swift-boater?

Posted by: ckelly on June 14, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Orwell: AFG, you are saying ALF and ELF are equal to the attacks of islamic terrorists?

You made your statement without qualification.

That is not my problem.

You said "[w]e haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since 2001."

This was a lie or at the very least a grossly inaccurate and imprecise statement born of stupidity and lack of intellectual rigor.

I made no attempt to equate the 9/11 attack with the terrorists attacks I cited to.

You did that all on your own.

The equality of attacks was not at issue.

On the other hand, if it had been, then it must be admitted that no president prior to Bush ever let a terrorist attack of the magnitude of 9/11 occur in the United States.

In Bush's own words, the attack was unprecedented, proving the point.

Thus, Bush is the only president in American history to allow an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 to occur within the United States of America, excluding foreign consulates, which would also count as US soil.

That there have been no more attacks of this magnitude proves nothing, particularly in light of the fact that no attacks of this magnitude occurred before Bush.

Your legalistic interpretation of "terroist" attack betrays your blind hatred for anything without the offical liberal stamp of approval.

There is nothing "legalistic" about it.

The web site referred to is linked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (nominally under the control of George W. Bush, the Republicans, and conservatives) as an official source of terrorist attacks against the US.

Thus, the listing of such attacks as "terrorist" has the official stamp of approval of the FBI and by clear implication the Bush administration, regardless of whether it has the "liberal stamp of approval."

ALF and ELF - that is priceless.

No, what is priceless is your own incompetence, just like your mentor Bush, at saying what you mean and your own mendacity about meaning what you say.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe we will find out that the agressive interogation and execution of people in Haditha led the rest of the town to give up the location of Zarkawi.

If a bunch of my neighbors were killed by occupying troops for no good reason, I would not feel more inclined to help those troops, would you? I would try to stay out of their way more, but I'd also be more inclined to help people trying to get rid of them.

Zarqawi got killed because he bombed hotels in Jordan, killing many Jordanians. The Jordanians got involved and deployed intelligence assets in Iraq. They found him, and told us where he was. Zarqawi made the same mistake that we are making in Iraq. Indiscriminate use of violence.

To be successful, force must be wielded like a scalpel, not a flamethrower.

Posted by: Doctor Jay on June 14, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: ... I don't recall the attacks on the military by lowlifes like Murtha.

Murtha has never, ever "attacked the military", you lying scumbag.

And who the hell are you to call a patriotic veteran and public servant like Murtha a "lowlife", you stupid, ignorant, lying little Bush-bootlicking asshole?

You are a pathetic idiot. All you are capable of doing is regurgitating the turds that you gobble from Ann Coulter's stinking toilet bowl and the bile that you slurp from the toxic sewer that is Fox News.

And as such, you represent everything the Republican Party of today stands for: it's an army of slavish, scripted, programmed, neo-brownshirt know-nothing drones led by a gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers laughably masquerading as "conservative" politicians.

You are a nothing but a sad, sick little clown.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

mike k :who have no sense of history.


"How many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? The answer is not that damned many." -Dick Cheney, 1992 (4 years after Saddam gassed the Kurdish people)

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 14, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate, I know this will be a shock but nobody I know wanted us to fail in Kosovo or Bosnia.

Well, "nobody" that is except Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Karen Hughes, George Bush, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Tony Snow, Rick Santorum, etc.....

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK


who is surprised that the gop majority in calif-50 chose a lobbyist to replace an admitted bribe-taker?

i guess the culture of corruption runs deeper than i thought

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: Advocate, I know this will be a shock but nobody I know wanted us to fail in Kosovo or Bosnia.

Then you are lying when you equate liberal predictions of failure in Iraq with wanting failure in Iraq.

Conservatives predicted failure in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Conservatives predicted large troop losses in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Conservatives predicted continued genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia even if the US intervened.

If as you claim prediction = desire (want), then yes conservatives wanted failure in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Which is no more than what I said.

I didn't say conservatives wanted failure in Kosovo and Bosnia, liar, I said that if your implied equivalence between prediction and want was true, then conservatives wanted failure in Kosovo and Bosnia.

So, either disclaim that prediction and want are equivalent and admit that you lied when you implied they were, in saying liberals want failure in Iraq, or accept the consequences of such an equivalence.

I'm not responsible for you getting trapped by your own failures in logic and honesty.

We didn't get too enthusiastic about reinstalling a criminal ex-priest but I don't recall the attacks on the military by lowlifes like Murtha.

An "elected" ex-priest whose criminal acts have never been proven in a court of law, meaning they are "alleged" criminal acts.

Conservatives only demand trials when it is their own fundraisers and politicians who are being called criminals.

Then, they deny the criminality even after conviction!

And since Murtha hasn't attacked the military, you are lying about and defaming him, another routine tactic by scumbag conservatives like you who deny their previous real financial and political support for Saddam while falsely claiming current or recent liberal support him and who deny their previous attacks on the troops (using your own standard about what constitutes an attack on the troops) while falsely claiming such attacks by liberals.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

I see SecularAnimist beat me to the use of scumbag.

Good call, SA.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Zarqawi made the same mistake that we are making in Iraq. Indiscriminate use of violence."

Doctor Jay, I don't see it that way. It's true that innocent civilians have been killed in crossfire. But, we're not bombing areas where the insurgency has support, although we could. Our soldiers are on the ground, doing house to house searches and directly engaging enemy.

It's wrong to equate Zarqawi with the US. He set out to kill and torture innocent civilians. We try not to kill civilians, although we don't always succeed. That's why the elected Iraqi government asked us to stay and wants to drive al Qaeda out.

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

We didn't get too enthusiastic about reinstalling a criminal ex-priest but I don't recall the attacks on the military by lowlifes like Murtha.

From the Congressman's bio page. Yep, sounds like an anti-military lowlife to me:

He learned about military service from the bottom up, beginning as a raw recruit when he left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the Marines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67, receiving the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He remained in the Reserves until his retirement. This first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues has made him a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties and one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in Washington. At the request of Presidents and Speakers of the House, he served as chairman of delegations monitoring elections in the Philippines, El Salvador, Panama and Bosnia.

He was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal by the Marine Corps Commandant when he retired from the Marines.

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Great cites, Stefan. But it's disheartening to be reminded that there is no accountability for words or actions, even after such a short interval between massive contradictions. If the press won't do it, shouldn't the Dems be using this stuff?

Hate to say it, but maybe it's time to go negative, because playing up their merits just ain't cuttin' it in a country where traitors will Swift Boat you the moment you start to clear your throat.

Posted by: Kenji on June 14, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal wrote: But, we're not bombing areas where the insurgency has support, although we could.

That is blatantly, screamingly false. The US military is making heavy use of air strikes (ie. bombing) in Iraq, including in residential areas of Iraqi cities, including in the huge "security crackdown" in Baghdad that began this morning. You are either deliberately lying or grossly ignorant.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 14, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: [Zarqawi] set out to kill and torture innocent civilians.

So did Bush.

And the following is an outright lie . . .

But, we're not bombing areas where the insurgency has support . . .

Lie confirmed by the following headlines:

A US Marine warplane bombed suspected militants trying to rebuild a command post in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah . . .

Recent U.S. bombing has concentrated on the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi . . .

U.S. warplanes and artillery bombed the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Fallujah on Monday, killing at least 16 people and wounding 12, hospital officials and witnesses said. . . . Witnesses said the bombing targeted the city's residential al-Shurta neighborhood, damaging buildings and raising clouds of black smoke. Ambulances and private cars rushed the injured to hospital.

And Haditha didn't involve simply "crossfire".

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

You are either deliberately lying or grossly ignorant.

That's not fair. It could be both!

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: Doctor Jay, I don't see it that way.

That's because you are a blind partisan infected by BIS.

After all, it's hard to see anything with your head stuck up Bush's ass.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK


AFG: Then, they deny the criminality even after conviction!


"Deny everything and if convicted allege fraud." G. Gordon Liddy

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP barely won a congressional election in a district that's 60% Republican.

I think you missed the point here: despite expectations to the contrary, Busby's vote percent was a close match to what she got before, and to Kerry's in 2004; that in a year when Democrats have been gloating about the possibility of regaining the majority in the House. If the rest of the nation follows suit, the makeup of the House and Senate after the 2006 election will be exactly as it is now.

As to Zarqawi, they might have killed him years ago, but most likely they would have missed. They had lots more intel this time, and a more rapid response.

They didn't just get "somebody" to replace Snow, they got somebody really good. And it wasn't just that Rove avoided indictment, but that the liberal and mainstream press was full of rumors that Rove would be indicted.

All this while the Jefferson and Mollohan stories are just starting.

Before long, you'll have to write about the economy and the federal governments increased revenues.

Meanwhile, here as an interesting item:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/search.php

Posted by: republicrat on June 14, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: Busby's vote percent was a close match to what she got before . . .

Can't you at least be imaginative in your lies?

[In 2004, Busby] got 37% of the vote versus Cunningham's 58%.

Bilbrays 4 percentage-point margin was tiny compared to Cunninghams 22-point thumping of Busby two years ago.

Maybe its just that Dictionary of Convenient Conservative Misdefinitions definition of "close match" at work, eh?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: I think you missed the point here . . .

No, you missed the point.

Busby picked up 7 percentage points in a heavily GOP district.

Seven percentage points would have given either Gore and Kerry the presidency.

Seven percentage points in 2004 would have given the Dems both houses in Congress.

If you are saying 7 percentage points is "a close match" you are either incompetent at evaluating facts or lying.

I'll take either one, although your conservative credentials suggest both.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

As to Zarqawi, they might have killed him years ago

...if, you know, Bush hadn't nixed Pentagon plans to get him three times.

Posted by: Gregory on June 14, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist, if the US is indeed making heavy use of bombing in Baghdad neighborhoods, I'd like to know about it. Can you provide some cites, please?

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 14, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: SecularAnimist, if the US is indeed making heavy use of bombing in Baghdad neighborhoods, I'd like to know about it. Can you provide some cites, please?

I already provided the headlines, so use your words and look up the sources on Google yourself.

But, then, you already know about it and this is just more of your typical dissembling.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, ex-liberal, how about providing some legitimate cites (something other than Rush or 'Instahack' or NRO or whitehouse.gov or the like) that prove that the US hasn't bombed any civilian areas in order to get at insurgents?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK
You are either deliberately lying or grossly ignorant.

That's not fair. It could be both!

Or deliberately ignorant or grossly lying.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

You know, really republicrat it was a total 18% swing away from the GOP in the California race.

If you really think that the GOP will retain Congress in 2006 with an 18 point negative swing in votes, you just keep on smoking the funny weed and lying to yourself and everybody else about what a "close match" the GOP performance in 2005 is to 2004.

And you wonder why we don't take any of your citations or conclusions seriously.

Are you sure you are not rdw in disguise, because your claim about Busby seems to exactly mirror the nature of rdw's false claims about Strickland and DeWine in Ohio.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Before long, you'll have to write about the economy and the federal governments [sic] increased revenues.

OK, let's write about them. Of course, as thisspaceavailable has pointed out previously, we'll also have to write about the fact that federal tax revenues decreased in 2001 when Bush came into office, decreased again in 2002, and decreased even futher in 2003, which hasn't happened since the Great Depression.

And we'll have to mention the fact that in sheer dollar terms, federal receipts from personal income taxes in 2004 ($802 billion) are still lower than they were in 1998 ($826 billion) and far lower than in 2001 ($994 billion).

SOURCE: "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates." - Congressional Budget Office 12/10/05

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God -- I watched the news this morning. Their report on a joint Iraqi-US operation in Baghdad said nothing about bombing, which is what secular animist alleged. S/he wrote, "The US military is making heavy use of air strikes (ie. bombing) in Iraq, including in residential areas of Iraqi cities, including in the huge "security crackdown" in Baghdad that began this morning."

Your headlines said nothing about current operations in Baghdad nor did they prove the "heavy use" contention. For all I know, secular animist may be right. I'd like to see confirmation of specific details.

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 14, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Aside and apart from SecularAnimist's post, you claimed the following, ex-liberal:

But, we're not bombing areas where the insurgency has support . . .

This is false and it was to this claim I first responded.

My response vis-a-vis your response to SecularAnimist merely was to point out that my previous response lends support to SecularAnimist's claims and tends to refute your own or the need to prove anything to you.

You can't prove something to someone who consistently proffers false claims, such as that the US hasn't bombed areas of insurgent support.

You perhaps meant to say "hasn't with absolute knowledge before hand bombed areas that support the insurgents but contain no insurgents" (assuming there in fact are such areas, a dubious proposition with respect to any significant time frame), but it is ubiquitous among conservatives ('ex liberals' or long-serving) to never say what they mean and never mean what they say and ever deny that they have said or meant anything that they have in fact said or meant.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

But, we're not bombing areas where the insurgency has support . . .

From those anti-American commies at the Voice of America:

US Air Strike Kills Seven Insurgents, Two Children in Iraq
By VOA News
12 June 2006

The U.S. military in Iraq says a coalition airstrike has killed seven al-Qaida-linked insurgents and two children Monday near Baquba.

The military says the insurgents had ties to senior al-Qaida leaders and worked to help foreign fighters in the restive area.

Major General William Caldwell confirmed two boys, aged six months and four years, were also killed in the strike. He called their deaths extremely unfortunate, and says the children were with insurgents who were shooting at U.S. forces.

A third child was wounded and evacuated for medical treatment....


And from BBC News, January 3, 2006

US air strike hits Iraqi family

Several members of the same family, including women and children, have been killed in a US air strike that destroyed their home in northern Iraq.

There was confusion over the number of casualties, but local authorities in the town of Beiji, north of Tikrit, have confirmed at least six dead.....

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

republicrat: As to Zarqawi, they might have killed him years ago, but most likely they would have missed. They had lots more intel this time, and a more rapid response.

Well, not to hear the military tell it:

"Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

Posted by: cyntax on June 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: Your headlines said nothing about current operations in Baghdad . . .

BTW, ex, the offer is still open for you to provide a link that proves that the US military has abandoned a tactic, bombing of areas of insurgent support, that they have used throughout the conflict.

Anything.

A presidential decree to no longer use bombing of insurgent areas as a military tactic in Iraq.

An executive order.

A Pentagon directive.

An order laying out changed rules of engagement.

A press release.

A Tony Snow statement. (not that this would carry much weight)

Hey, even a bald-faced unsupported claim by Rush Limbaugh!

How about it?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

They had lots more intel this time, and a more rapid response.

I thought we had all the intel we needed from the Clinton era?

That's what Bush and his lemming supporters like republicrat/rdw/Orwell/Charlie/Jay/ex-liberal/conspiracy nut/Birkel/American Chickenhawk/etc claim.

If we had all the intel necessary back then, why would more such intel, especially more bad intel (cause we know it is bad intel provided by the evil Bush-hating CIA, not Bush and Dumbsfeld incompetency, that is keeping the US from closing down the insurgency!), make getting Zarqawi easier now?

And you are ignoring the fact that Zarqawi was allegedly in a terrorist training camp back then, but in a residential neighborhood now.

You mean Bush deliberately waited until he could kill some innocent bystanders to strike?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Ohhhhhh.

Bush back down to 41% approval from 42% approval.

I guess that Right can no longer wildly claim that Bush's poll numbers are rising based on a mere movement up from 41% to 42%.

Damn!

Of all the luck.

Rightie predictions shot down again!

Just like with the "massive stockpiles of WMDs" and "liberals will have egg all over their faces when we find them."

Now who has egg on their faces - the GOP and their lemming supporters.

(It's really sh*t from having their heads up Bush's ass, but don't tell anyone - we don't want to overly embarass them about this no WMDs thing.)

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

If we had all the intel necessary back then, why would more such intel, especially more bad intel (cause we know it is bad intel provided by the evil Bush-hating CIA, not Bush and Dumbsfeld incompetency, that is keeping the US from closing down the insurgency!), make getting Zarqawi easier now?

We did not have all the intel necessary back then. The US and Iraqi government forces receive about 5,000 actionable tips per month that help them target the jihadists and insurgents. It was tips from the locals that allowed them to get Zarqawi.

Posted by: republicrat on June 14, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

A jet leased by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for use in emergencies has instead been used to shuttle the secretary of Health and Human Services to appearances and meetings, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

More Bush administration corruption.

Time to promote the secretary!

Those who lie, cheat, steal, forge intelligence and other government information, torture, and kill the innocent get promoted.

Those who refuse to do these things get fired and destroyed personally.

All in a day's work for the Bush administration!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Mike K,

If Iraq works

If Iraq works and Bush does nothing else extremely wrong for the rest of his term (like, for example, start WW III) I'd be willing to give him credit for having a successful Presidency."

Fair enough.

"What about you? If Iraw fails are you willing to concede that Bush failed?

Posted by: Tripp"

Yes, although I don't think he had a good alternative.

As far as Stefan's list of statements about Clinton's wars:

A cover story of Foreign Affairs during that time was "Foreign Policy as Social Work." That is the basis of most of that criticism. Clinton would fire off a bunch of cruise missiles and call it a day. He ran away from Somalia. He didn't even ask the Saudis to let the FBI investigate Khobar Towers after he had promised Freeh that he would.

Kosovo was a joke. The Serbs used decoy tanks and made fools of the F 16s that were ordered to stay above 25,000 feet because of Clinton's fear of casualties. When they finally pulled out, and I still am not sure why they did, they had all their armor intact.

The Chinese Embassy hit was an example of Valerie Plame at work. Her CIA section was doing the targeting and used an old Belgrade street map.

My comments were directed at the juvenile tone of the comments about Bush, who had a good week.

I see very few policy suggestions from this side of the debate. Kervin even addresses that in his latest post. I respect Kevin because, while I don't agree with most of his ideas, he has a few.

Bush has staked his presidency on Iraq. It took a lot of guts to do that. I'm rereading Manchester's second volume of his biography of Churchill. He was in worse shape than Bush in 1939. Then came May 10, 1940.

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K,

Yes, although I don't think he had a good alternative.

Going down with the ship eh? Well there is some honor in that, although generally I prefer to learn from my mistakes and live to reproduce.

Posted by: Tripp on June 14, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Bush has staked his presidency on Iraq. It took a lot of guts to do that.

No, it just took arrogance to invade under false pretenses and condescension to abuse people's fear of terrorist attacks and mislead them about the nature of the threat.

Posted by: Windhorse on June 14, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm rereading Manchester's second volume of his biography of Churchill.

An illustration of the maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Or, from "A Fish Called Wanda," in which Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) calls Otto upon his intellectual pretensions:

Wanda: You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it!

Replace "philosophy" with William Manchester and bang, we've got Mike K....

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: It took a lot of guts to do that.

No, it simply took self-centeredness and arrogance.

And, what's the matter, Mikey, why won't you tell us whether you really believe that prediction = want and that the GOP wanted Clinton to fail in Kosovo or admit you lied when you claimed that liberals must want Iraq to fail because they've predicted it will fail?

When they finally pulled out, and I still am not sure why they did, they had all their armor intact.

And yet they pulled out, which was the goal, and the genocide was stopped.

Your goal apparently is to kill as many people as possible, whether innocent or not, and do so only after the genocide is long done, done under and with the assistance of a conservative set of US presidents.

I see very few policy suggestions from this side of the debate.

Because like Bush you are blind to any suggestion that doesn't feed your preconceived, faith-based, fact-deprived ideas about what is right and what will work, not because such suggestions don't exist.

Then came May 10, 1940.

Since there is no defined enemy state to capitulate, something that conservatives have constantly ignored, LOL on that fantasized liberating moment for Bush.

Bush has staked his presidency on Iraq.

While others say he's staked it on a tax-cut driven economic boom and shrinking the government.

Guess those aren't working out too well, so Mike K is going to Plan B.

The Chinese Embassy hit was an example of Valerie Plame at work. Her CIA section was doing the targeting and used an old Belgrade street map.

Funny how conservatives keep bringing this claim up without being able to cite any evidence whatsoever that this actually happened or that Plame herself was involved in any such decision or misintelligence.

Sorta like their continued claim that massive stockpiles of WMDs were spirited out of Iraq, despite not a shred of evidence in support of such a contention and despite refusing to acknowledge Bush's abject failure, if the claim of spiriting-away were true, to secure said WMDs by refusing to even look for them until months after the invasion.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, the US army is faking all its mistakes. It lets people die to match political orders from the White House and all without tipping off a whistleblower."

Good to see that McA is finally getting it. Whatever it is.

And Mike K... Churchill, jeez, you gotta be kidding. Party allegiances aside (your check is in the mail), how can anyone look at that smirking chimp and see anything more than a feebly propped-up son of privilege and proud purveyor of ignorance, historical and otherwise. I mean, Churchill could, like, read and write and everything. And W's personal charisma vanishes the moment his earpiece malfunctions.

The man's a bad joke, and more than two-thirds of the country has finally realized it.

Posted by: Kenji on June 14, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

You beat me to it, windhorse, while I was busily typing away and surfing for facts on the claim that Plame was responsible for a mistaken bombing of the Chinese Embassy, facts which could not be found, although many claims could be found on wingnut hatred-spewing blogs!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

mike k : Bush has staked his presidency on Iraq. It took a lot of guts to do that.

what tipped you off....the carrier landing on may-3rd 2003?

too funny...


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 14, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, Churchill could, like, read and write and everything.

Much more than that -- Churchill was one of the foremost orators and prose stylists of his generation, a man with the utmost mastery of the power and rhythm of the English language, whereas Bush can barely stumble his way through a simple sentence without doing himself an injury.

Not to mention that Churchill was also a novelist, journalist, painter, historian, soldier, diplomat, parliamentarian....to compare Bush, the idiot Bush of all people to Churchill is like comparing a neutered housecat to a lion.

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK
Kosovo was a joke. The Serbs used decoy tanks and made fools of the F 16s that were ordered to stay above 25,000 feet because of Clinton's fear of casualties. When they finally pulled out, and I still am not sure why they did, they had all their armor intact.

I dunno, they stated their intent to stay, we began a large scale air campaign that targetted their forces in the field and regime targets in Belgrade, and they decided to withdraw.

Now, I suppose that there are other possible explanations for their decision to withdraw, but I'd have to think the desire to see a cessation of the application of force against their regime was high on the list.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

speaking of bush speaking....from froomkin today:

In possibly his most ironic statement of the morning, the president -- who twice won office by a hair's breadth and refuses to acknowledge that his dismal poll numbers mean anything -- said, in the context of Iraqi democracy:

"That's the great thing about being elected; you get a sense if people don't kind of like what you're doing, or not."

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 14, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kosovo was a joke. The Serbs used decoy tanks and made fools of the F 16s...

The result of a steady diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter...

Holy shit man how do you feed yourself?

Posted by: ckelly on June 14, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, Mikey, I'm still waiting for some proof that Plame was responsible for the Chinese Embassy bombing.

How about any evidence that Plame was even employed by the CIA's CPD in 1999 when the bombing occurred.

How about any evidence that if she was so employed that she was in fact involved in the decision to provide the targeting choice or involved in creating and providing the alleged misinformation.

Or is this just another example of conservatives stringing together a group of phrases that taken individually are true but when combined give a false impression?

So far, I haven't found a single source for this alleged terrible deed by Plame that provides any evidence she was in any way involved in that incident or even employed by the CPD at the time.

Yet, Mike K posts as fact that Valerie Plame's work was responsible for the Chinese Embassing bombing.

Unless you can provide a link to some credible source that shows Plame was an employee in the CPD in 1999 at the time the targeting of the Chinese Embassy was implemented and shows that she was involved in providing information or making decisions concerning the same, it would appear that you are a bald-faced liar or simply don't care whether what you post is true or not, as long as it proffers damaging claims against someone who you perceive is a Bush foe.

In other words, for all your claims about the Bush-hating Left, it appears that you are simply projecting your own Left-hating MO of making sh*t up about your political opponents and lying, exaggerating, providing false context, and misrepresenting facts to defame the same solely on the basis of unfounded hatred.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Oops!

That would be "Chinese Embassy" not "Chinese Embassing"!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Mike K: ... I don't recall the attacks on the military by lowlifes like Murtha.

Murtha has never, ever "attacked the military", you lying scumbag."

He asserted that they had murdered civilians in cold blood in Haditha. That story is more and more being shown to be a hoax. We actually have a Constitution and a Uniform Code of Military Justice. Both assume innocence. Of course, when you are trying to run for a House office like majority leader, anything goes. Especially when you are relying on the party of surrender for votes.

"And who the hell are you to call a patriotic veteran and public servant like Murtha a "lowlife", you stupid, ignorant, lying little Bush-bootlicking asshole?"

And who are you, besides a semi-literate goof, to defend him ? Want to compare DD 214s ?

Fool.

"You are a pathetic idiot. All you are capable of doing is regurgitating the turds that you gobble from Ann Coulter's stinking toilet bowl and the bile that you slurp from the toxic sewer that is Fox News."

Does all this obscenity give you a hard-on ? Or can you tell ?

"You are a nothing but a sad, sick little clown."

Have you ever heard of projection ?

Posted by: SecularAnimist

Who has a problem changing his diaper. Time for a change, sweetie.

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of leomade , former govenor Ben Barnes was hawking his new book no NPR on the 13th of june. This one lady called in to ask If he got GWB into the Texas Air National Guard ? He stated that it was in the book that a friend of the Bush family called and ask him to get GWB to the front of the line of more than over two hundred other people. It did sound as if he wanted to repent of his sins on NPR.
Maybe all politicans should go on NPR to repent !

Posted by: LEOMDROP on June 14, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: He asserted that they had murdered civilians in cold blood in Haditha. That story is more and more being shown to be a hoax.

Liar.

Just like with your lie about Plame being responsible for the Chinese Embassy bombing.

LOL.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

"The Chinese Embassy hit was an example of Valerie Plame at work. Her CIA section was doing the targeting and used an old Belgrade street map."

MikeK,
You've just proven to me how little you know. Anything else you wish to "enlighten" us with?


Posted by: sheerahkahn on June 14, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

"Mike K: He asserted that they had murdered civilians in cold blood in Haditha. That story is more and more being shown to be a hoax.

Liar."

So you have proof that the Marines murdered innocent civilians in cold blood ? Would you like me to notify the Marine JAG office ? I'm sure they could use your testimony.

As far as Churchill and Bush, if you read any history you would see the parallels. But, of course, you haven't

It looks like the teenagers are out in full force now and I don't conduct a battle of wits with unarmed men so, toodle.

The Plame comment, by the way, referred to her SECTION of the CIA which was doing targeting in their usual skillful fashion.

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

"He asserted that they had murdered civilians in cold blood in Haditha. That story is more and more being shown to be a hoax."

MikeK,
Once again, you have proven that you do not know a dam thing.
Is there any bottom to your ignorance?

Posted by: sheerahkahn on June 14, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

A 4.2% spread is BARELY winning?

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/Special/cd50/elections_cd50_genresults.htm

Posted by: Campesino on June 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

"As far as Churchill and Bush, if you read any history you would see the parallels. But, of course, you haven't"

Now you're just making sh*t up.
Dude, seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, it's okay to be quiet and learn from others who do.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on June 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

"The Plame comment, by the way, referred to her SECTION of the CIA which was doing targeting in their usual skillful fashion."

Mikek,

Why don't you do something unique and novel for you, stop...seriously, stop now.
You're in over your head now, and you're proving that you don't know jack sh*t about what happened there.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on June 14, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: We actually have a Constitution and a Uniform Code of Military Justice. Both assume innocence.

They do not, however, establish innocence, and neither applies outside the context of legal proceedings.

And, most importantly, since you have never assumed innocence with regard to allegations against any liberal politician or activist, your post clearly shows that you clearly don't really care about the presumption of innocence, but are only using it to divert attention from your other lies and the lies of your fellow conservatives and the human rights violations committed by conservatives, both within and outside of the military.

So you have proof that the Marines murdered innocent civilians in cold blood?

I don't need proof, because I haven't claimed that they have.

I've only claimed that your claim that Murtha is lying is based on no evidence and that your claim that the matter is being proven a hoax is a lie.

You do need proof, however, because you are claiming that they did not and that the matter is being proven a hoax.

The Plame comment, by the way, referred to her SECTION of the CIA which was doing targeting in their usual skillful fashion.

No it did not.

You are lying again.

You specifically referred to it being Plame's work: "The Chinese Embassy hit was an example of Valerie Plame at work."

Moreover, if she wasn't employed at the CPD at that time, then it wasn't even "her section", further compounding your lie.

I don't conduct a battle of wits with unarmed men so, toodle.

Translation: I've been caught in a bunch of lies and am getting my assed kicked for it, so I'm running home to momma because I wet myself and I need her to change my pants.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

I love the way these guys suddenly care about competence when it comes to their critics. Valerie Plame's service record is subject to intense scrutiny, which of course makes it okay in retrospect to have ruined her career (and to have deprived the CIA of her specialized knowledge) -- which of course they didn't do and how could you think such a thing? But she had it coming, the bitch. Not that we... but she...

Why don't you suck-ups get it together and think about your country for a change, instead of trying to "win" all the time. Some victory.

Posted by: Kenji on June 14, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Campesino: A 4.2% spread is BARELY winning?

When your party won by 22% the last time around, and the district is 60% Republican and you got only 49.5% of the vote this time, and your opponent picked up an 7% additional percent of the vote from last time around, despite the fact that you outspent that opponent by more than 2x, yep.

Nice that you tried to take it out of context, though, and make it look like something other than what it was.

Sorta like conservative comments on those "massive stockpiles of WMDs": lies, exaggerations, non-contextual claims, misrepresentations, and misdirections.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

" I mean, Churchill could, like, read and write and everything.

Much more than that -- Churchill was one of the foremost orators and prose stylists of his generation, a man with the utmost mastery of the power and rhythm of the English language, whereas Bush can barely stumble his way through a simple sentence without doing himself an injury.

Not to mention that Churchill was also a novelist, journalist, painter, historian, soldier, diplomat, parliamentarian....to compare Bush, the idiot Bush of all people to Churchill is like comparing a neutered housecat to a lion."

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 3:08 PM

What really makes this comparison utterly idiotic is that in his private speaking Churchill apparently tended to have a stuttering problem. Yet this is man was able to give some of the most stirring orations of the 20th century. The idea that there is any area in which the speaking styles and substances of Churchill and those of Bush43 are comparable is laughable at best and also a clear demonstration by anyone trying to make such a comparison their lack of understanding of history and/or their ignorance of it in favour of imaginary partisan fantasies to mask the failures galore of Bushco.

Posted by: Scotian on June 14, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: "The Plame comment, by the way, referred to her SECTION of the CIA which was doing targeting in their usual skillful fashion."

There is, of course, another lie within here, namely that this CIA section was targeting in their "usual" skillful fashion.

That CIA section, which was the point of the lame conservative attempt to tie Plame to to the embassy bombing, doesn't normally, or usually in Mike K's vernacular, perform targeting functions.

Here's an analogous example (analogous to the conservative claim about Plame) of the method of argument that conservatives often use to tar a liberal target with a false allegation, albeit from a liberal perspective, using one or more technically factual statements combined with an explicit or implied conclusion:

The same executive branch that Bush is head of ordered the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki.

From which the conservative would, by analogy, proffer either explicitly or implicitly the false conclusion that "the bombing of Nagasaki is an example of Bush at work."

The intent, in other words, of the above statement and Mike K's statements, are to give the reader a false impression of the truth, to convince the reader to believe a falsehood that negatively portrays a political opponent.

In this analogous example, to falsely portray Bush as responsible for Nagasaki in the same manner as Mike K (and other conservatives) attempted to portray Plame as responsible for the Chinese Embassy bombing.

No matter how you look at it, however, Mike K's statements constitute a lie, as would the above analogous example if I were truly proffering it, since they were made with the intent to deceive.


Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Well, one thing we have to admit--he IS president and we're a bunch of moonbats with tinfoil hats, hoping for the end of the world. WHEEE!

Posted by: HSD on June 14, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate;

Instead of ranting about things you have no idea about, why don't you try to deal with this ?

PELOSI NOW

"During the debate on the war, I was the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. I saw all the information, all the intelligence. And my statement was that I will not vote for this war because the intelligence does not support the threat being claimed by the administration."

But in fact, during the long debate on whether to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, Pelosi indicated that the intelligence she saw DID support the administration's claim of Saddam Hussein as a "gathering" threat:

PELOSI THEN

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

During debate to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, Pelosi said:

PELOSI THEN

"Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons." And she told Tim Russert on a November 17, 2002 appearance NBC's Meet the Press, "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

But flash forward to the "Take Back America" rally where Pelosi insisted:

PELOSI NOW

"[T]here was never anything in the intelligence that said Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, never."

So which is it? As the House prepares to debate the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terror, these brazen flip-flops only further underscore Capitol Hill Democrats' lack of seriousness in combating terrorism. When it comes to strengthening national security, the American people have a clear choice between Republicans who want to meet the challenge and Democrats who want to relent and retreat.

You just don't know what you are talking about so try to focus on Pelosi and how she explains that sequence.

Try to concentrate now. I know that crystal meth makes it hard but try anyway.

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

" If they ask you why we died , tell them ; because our fathers lied "

Posted by: R. KIPLING on June 14, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: So which is it? As the House prepares to debate the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terror, these brazen flip-flops only further underscore Capitol Hill Democrats' lack of seriousness in combating terrorism. When it comes to strengthening national security, the American people have a clear choice between Republicans who want to meet the challenge and Democrats who want to relent and retreat.

Now, again, what has this to do with your lies about Murtha and Plame and even about what you've previously posted?

BTW, there are more terrorists in Iraq now than before the invasion, at which time there were virtually none and certainly none involved in 9/11.

Bush opposed the Homeland Security Agency and Dems forced him to approve it.

Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission and Dems forced him to convene it.

Bush diverted our troops from fighting the real terrorists in Afghanistan to Iraq which was a non-threat even to its own neighbors, while funding and arming a radical and overally belligerent Pakistan.

Bush has tried to cut troop hazard pay, has delayed body and vehicle armor to the troops, failed to provide effective training or manpower in Iraq, and failed to plan for post-invasion occupation.

Bush has ignored port security and diverted funds from homeland security to patrol of the Mexican border in order to prevent the illegal entry of workers, not terrorists, while ignoring the Canadian border where most of the attempted terrorist entries have occurred.

Bush has allied himself with the nation most responsible for the 9/11 attacks - Saudi Arabia.

Bush has weakened our ability to project military power by wasting those resources in Iraq and pushing up the national debt to fund tax cuts that haven't done anything significant for the economy.

There is nothing serious about Bush's response to terrorism.

Taking a bunch of quotes out of context and pretending that quotes from the victims of a con game, a disinformation campaign by the White House, are relevant, while trying to direct attention away from the lies you've been caught telling is more indicative of a meth problem than anything I've posted.

If you are as incompetent at medicine as you are at delivering the truth, then I truly feel for your patients and students.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Compare the Kipling and Mike K quotes and you have the two Americas, right there, in June of 2006.

Posted by: Kenji on June 14, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has used an Illinois trust to invest in real estate near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, a highway project for which he's secured $207 million in earmarked appropriations.

Yep, the GOP has got Jefferson and possibly one more Democrat to fill your "corrupt Dems too" playbook, hampered of course by a loss from the failed and dishonest attempt to get at Reid.

On the other hand, the Dems can counter with DeLay, Hastert, Cunningham, Ney, Frist, Lewis, Harris, Abramoff, Wilkes, Libby, Doolittle, Tobin, Norquist, Reed, Safavian, and a host of other bit players . . . . a list that is growing daily!

Take Rove, he's damaged goods now.

We have plenty of ammunition; you have virtually none.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji, you are exactly right. Two Americas. We'll see who wins come November.

Orwell once wrote, there is no need to have long wars. One can always surrender.

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Apes read Orwell, Mike K. They just don't understand him.

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

"Kenji, you are exactly right. Two Americas. We'll see who wins come November."

Mike,
I'll pay for you to move to the country of your choice when the Democrats take back the US government, and return us to the rule of law.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on June 14, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

When it comes to strengthening national security, the American people have a clear choice between Republicans who want to meet the challenge and Democrats who want to relent and retreat.

Well, let's see how that choice is shaping up. From an article summarizing the April 2006 AP poll:

In the past two congressional elections, Republicans gained seats on the strength of Bush's popularity and a perception among voters that the president's party was stronger on national security than Democrats.

Those advantages are gone, according to a survey of 1,003 adults conducted this week for The Associated Press by Ipsos, an international polling firm.

On an issue the GOP has dominated for decades, Republicans are locked in a tie with Democrats - 41 percent each - on the question of which party people trust to protect the country. Democrats made their biggest national security gains among young men, according to the AP-Ipsos poll, which had a 3 percentage point margin of error.

The public gives Democrats a slight edge on what party would better handle Iraq, a reversal from Election Day 2004.

As for Bush's ratings:

-Just 36 percent of the public approves his job performance, his lowest-ever rating in AP-Ipsos polling. By contrast, the president's job approval rating was 47 percent among likely voters just before Election Day 2004 and a whopping 64 percent among registered voters in October 2002.

-Only 40 percent of the public approves Bush's performance on foreign policy and the anti-terror campaign, another low-water mark for his presidency. That is down 9 points from a year ago. Just before the 2002 election, 64 percent of registered voters backed Bush on terror and foreign policy.

-Just 35 percent of the public approves Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest in AP-Ipsos polling.

"He's in over his head," said Diane Heller, 65, a small-town New York real estate broker and independent voter....

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060407025609990001

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: We'll see who wins come November.

If America is lucky, it won't be the Grand Old Party of Liars Who Sold America Out With Their Global Whine on Terrorism.

Remember, an unprecedented attack occurred against America on Bush's watch.

Being unprecedented, the conservative characterization, no attack like it ever occurred under a Democratic president.

Now, despite over 200 years previously without such any such attack, Bushiites want to proclaim how competent Bush is for not allowing another such unprecedented attack in just the last four years.

The soft bigotry of low conservative expectations.

Clinton allowed no such attacks in eight full years; Bush has allowed at least one in five years and his term isn't up.

The soft bigotry of low conservative expectations.

One can always surrender.

Bush already has.

He surrendered the war on terror to fight the Global Whine on Terror in Iraq.

You can lie all you want about Democrats favoring surrender, but it just won't fly, especially in the face of the multitude of other lies you've told.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, Mike K, I thought you were toodling off.

Typical conservative troll.

Proving yet again that you can't trust anything that conservatives proffer.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 14, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

from B, way up thread:

"Apart from Cheney, the only Cabinet members notified in advance were Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Are Gonzales and Spellings going to turn him over to the insurgents? Does this just clarify the size of the man's bubble?"

1. Um, other way around: my daddy Dick was the one who told W he was going.

2. That's not a bubble, that's shrink wrap!

Posted by: MaryCh on June 14, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

""Kenji, you are exactly right. Two Americas. We'll see who wins come November."

Mike,
I'll pay for you to move to the country of your choice when the Democrats take back the US government, and return us to the rule of law.

Posted by: sheerahkahn"

Done !

Send me your address so I know where to send the bill for the plane tickets. The timing couldn't have been better. I've thinking about the south of France for years. I'll be there in 10 days and now will take a few days to go house hunting. You could join me to give me an idea of your budget. E-mail me off-list (I include my real e-mail unlike most of these tinfoil hat types around here) so I know your schedule.

Of course, they could fail to win the House. Oh drat !

Well, we can hope, can't we sheerahkhan. Is that a Muslim name ? Is there any ulterior motive behind your offer ? You wouldn't be lying now would you sheerahkhan ?

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

"ainthappn@here.com"

Oh, sheerahkhan. You lied ! I was ready to pack !

Typical phony.

Yeah, I'm going Advocate. I just stopped by for a free trip to France when you guys win the election.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

Stirring up the untermenschen. Maybe you guys will think of something useful now that you are awake.

Hey. Come on Sheerahkhan. Where is the color of your money ?

What a colony of losers !

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

We're gunning for the second Bush recession, Iraq is a mess, our great-grandkids will be paying for the Bush deficit, and our international reputation is shot, but hey, as long as Republicans keep winning elections, all is right in Wingnutland! \

Politics as sports! Bandwagon for the winning side! SUPER BOWL! SUPER BOWL!


Posted by: The Ghost of CREEP on June 14, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

What a colony of losers !

SUPER BOWL! SUPER BOWL!

Posted by: The Ghost of CREEP on June 14, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

If this is an accurate quote from the Slate article, it just proves the point I've made here before - both Duncan Black and Kos are either delusional or hucksters.

You forgot the rest of what Markos said about his critics. I'm paraphrasing here: "Who gives a shit what they think? They're going to say that crap anyway."

Your jealousy of the world's most successful blogger is showing.

Posted by: Repack Rider on June 15, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

As a tax concession for conflict-of-interest regs, Paulson gets to shield maybe $100M from capital-gains tax, and Bush still had to call him up to kiss his ass. Paulson knows how hideously deep is the shit that we're in.

Posted by: vidkun on June 15, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

June 15, 2006
ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE DEFEAT for the pullout crowd:


The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year's end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.

The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007.


93-6.

Posted by: rdw on June 15, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

93-6

Actually, I think the key number in the article above is

a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.

2,500

Posted by: Stefan on June 15, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 9:29 PM

Yeah, I'm going Advocate.

Given your serial lying, no one believed you.

And with good reason . . .

Posted by: Mike K on June 14, 2006 at 9:29 PM

What a colony of losers !

Thanks for proving our point about your mendacity.

rdw: ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE DEFEAT for the pullout crowd

You can't lose a fake vote.

And you can't win one either.

The GOP just dug itself a bigger hole.

The public has made it clear that they despise how the GOP has governed - misusing Congress for partisan posturing while ignoring the good of the nation - and this is a fine example of more of the same.

Look for GOP numbers to continue their downward slide.

The military kills Zarqawi and Bush gets no bump.

The public knows: Bush and his policies have nothing to do with any US victories in Iraq, much less in the war on terrorism, because he's fighting the global whine on terrorism instead.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 15, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

stefan, AFG,

A Great Visual [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

The Senate held a cut-and-run vote yesterday and, according to CQ Today:

After the vote, when Kerry rose to express his ire at McConnell, Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, slumped in his chair on the Senate floor and covered his eyes with his hand.

Posted at 6:21 AM

**************************************
I think the key number is 6. This is not as good as Murtha voting against his own resolution but it's good.

Posted by: rdw on June 16, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

You can't lose a fake vote

Kerry managed.

Don't get me wrong. I want that clown to run as hard for as long as possible. He's a moron.

Posted by: rdw on June 16, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: The Senate held a cut-and-run vote yesterday and, according to CQ Today

That is a lie.

CQ Today never once called it a "cut-and-run vote".

Typical rdw mendacity.

Don't get me wrong.

You aren't wrong, you are a liar.

It didn't start with your lies about Strickland and DeWine and it won't end with them either.

You just proved that once again with your lie about CQ Today.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 16, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Discount pharmacy UK:
cheap cialis cheap cialis
discount cialis discount cialis
generic cialis generic cialis
buy cialis buy cialis
order cialis order cialis
cheap tadalafil cheap tadalafil
discount tadalafil discount tadalafil
order tadalafil order tadalafil
buy tadalafil buy tadalafil
cheap propecia cheap propecia
generic propecia generic propecia
buy propecia buy propecia
order propecia order propecia
generic propecia generic propecia
cheap proscar cheap proscar
discount proscar discount proscar
order proscar order proscar
buy proscar buy proscar
generic proscar generic proscar
cheap meridia cheap meridia
discount meridia discount meridia
meridia pills meridia pills
order meridia order meridia
buy meridia buy meridia
generic meridia generic meridia
cheap soma cheap soma
generic soma generic soma
discount soma discount soma
order soma order soma
buy soma buy soma

Bad credit: stuff for all with bad credit:
bad credit mortgage bad credit mortgage
bad credit loan bad credit loan
bad credit home loan bad credit home loan
bad credit home equity loan bad credit home equity loan
bad credit personal loan bad credit personal loan
guaranteed bad credit personal loan guaranteed bad credit personal loan
bad credit refinance bad credit refinance
bad credit auto loan bad credit auto loan
bad credit auto loan financing bad credit auto loan financing
bad credit used car loan bad credit used car loan
bad credit debt consolidation bad credit debt consolidation
bad credit debt consolidation loan bad credit debt consolidation loan
bad credit credit cards bad credit credit cards
credit card for people with bad credit credit card for people with bad credit
unsecured credit card for bad credit unsecured credit card for bad credit
unsecured credit cards unsecured credit cards
bad credit military loan bad credit military loan
bad credit lone mortgage bad credit lone mortgage
bad credit loan mortgage bad credit loan mortgage
bad credit mortgage lender bad credit mortgage lender
bad credit repair bad credit repair
credit repair credit repair
bad credit motorcycle loan bad credit motorcycle loan
bad credit unsecured loan bad credit unsecured loan
bad credit boat loan bad credit boat loan
loan for people with bad credit loan for people with bad credit
second mortgage bad credit second mortgage bad credit
bad credit signature loan bad credit signature loan
bad credit motorcycle financing bad credit motorcycle financing
bad credit home mortgage bad credit home mortgage
bad credit lender bad credit lender
bad credit lenders bad credit lenders
bad credit home improvement loan bad credit home improvement loan
bad credit cash loan bad credit cash loan
california bad credit mortgage california bad credit mortgage
erase bad credit erase bad credit
bad credit visa card bad credit visa card
bad credit secured loan bad credit secured loan
bad debt credit card bad debt credit card
bad credit card bad credit card
online freelance online freelance
freelance jobs freelance jobs
bad credit help bad credit help

discount viagra discount viagra
generic viagra generic viagra
buy viagra buy viagra
order viagra order viagra
cheap viagra cheap viagra
discount levitra discount levitra
generic levitra generic levitra
buy levitra buy levitra
order levitra order levitra
cheap levitra cheap levitra
discount cialis discount cialis
generic cialis generic cialis
buy cialis buy cialis
order cialis order cialis
cheap cialis cheap cialis
mens health pills mens health pills
adult DVD rental adult DVD rental
adult DVD adult DVD
Wholesale adult dvd wholesale adult dvd
adult DVD rentals adult DVD rentals
adult sex movies adult sex movies
adult video adult video
adult DVD movies adult DVD movies
adult DVD empire adult DVD empire
adult video and dvd adult video and dvd
cheap adult DVD cheap adult DVD
adult porn DVD adult porn DVD
adult DVD download adult DVD download
adult xxx DVD adult xxx DVD
rent adult DVD rent adult DVD
online adult DVD rental online adult DVD rental
adult DVD now adult DVD now
Prescription drugs online prescription drugs online
Prescription drugs prescription drugs
Drug prescription drug prescription
drug online prescription drug online prescription
drugs store drugs store
Drugs online drugs online
Discount prescription drugs Discount prescription drugs
Discounted prescription drugs Discounted prescription drugs
Prescription drugs discount prescription drugs discount
Cheap prescription drugs Cheap prescription drugs
Prescription drugs prescription drugs
Discount drugs Discount drugs
Drugs store Drugs store
Adult dating personals Adult dating personals
personal adult dating personal adult dating
dating personals dating personals
Adult dating Adult dating
Adult personals Adult personals
Adult dating personal Adult dating personal
Adult dating services Adult dating services
Adult dating online Adult dating online
Adult dating Adult dating
Online adult dating Online adult dating
dating online dating online
Online dating Online dating
Adult dating services online Adult dating services online
online dating service Online dating service
Adult dating site Adult dating site
Adult sex dating Adult sex dating
Adult dating service Adult dating service
Adult dating online Adult dating online
internet portal internet portal
internet search engine internet search engine
online portal online portal
seek and find seek and find
pay per click search engine pay per click search engine
ppc search engine ppc search engine
internet dating internet dating
free internet dating free internet dating
free online dating free online dating
Posted by: top choice on June 17, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

Discount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia -
Buy meridia -
Discount meridia -
Buy meridia online -
Generic meridia -
Cheap propecia -
Buy propecia -
Discount propecia -
buy propecia online -
Generic propecia -
Cheap proscar -
buy proscar -
Discount proscar -
Buy oproscar online -
Generic proscar -
Cheap finasteride -
Buy finasteride -
Discount finasteride -
Hair loss pills -
Weight loss pills -
Cheap Rogaine -
Buy Rogaine -
Discount Rogaine -
Generic Rogaine -
Discount minoxidil -
Buy minoxidil -
Cheap cialis -
Discount cialis -
Buy cialis -
Buy cialis online -
Generic cialis -
Cheap tadalafil -
Buy tadalafil -
Discount tadalafil -
Cheap hytrin -
Discount hytrin -
Generic Hytrin -
Buy hytrin -
Buy hytrin online -
Cheap terazosin -
Discount terazosin -
Buy terazosin -
Cheap viagra -
Generic viagra -
Discount viagra -
Buy viagra -
Buy viagra online -
Cheap sildenafil -
Buy sildenafil -
discount sildenafil -
discount anafranil -
buy anafranil -
cheap anafranil -
generic anafranil -
buy anafranil online -
discount asendin -
buy asendin -
cheap asendin -
buy asendin online -
generic asendin -
cheap celexa -
buy celexa -
discount celexa -
buy celexa online -
generic celexa -
cheap effexor -
buy effexor -
discount effexor -
buy effexor online -
generic effexor -
cheap elavil -
discount elavil -
buy elavil -
buy elavil online -
generic elavil -
buy endep -
cheap endep -
discount endep -
cheap luvox -
discount luvox -
buy luvox -
generic luvox -
buy luvox online -
cheap pamelor -
discount pamelor -
buy pamelor -
generic pamelor -
buy pamelor online -
Cheap paxil -
discount paxil -
generic paxil -
buy paxil -
buy paxil online -
cheap prozac -
generic prozac -
discount prozac -
buy prozac -
buy prozac online -
cheap
sinequan
-
buy sinequan -
generic sinequan -
discount sinequan -
buy sinequan online -
cheap
tofranil
-
buy tofranil -
discount tofranil -
generic tofranil -
buy tofranil online -
cheap
wellbutrin
-
generic wellbutrin -
discount wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin online -
cheap bupropion -
buy bupropion -
cheap zoloft -
generic zoloft -
buy zoloft -
discount zoloft -
buy zoloft Online -
cheap
vermox
-
discount vermox -
buy vermox -
buy vermox online -
generic vermox -
cheap aralen -
discount aralen -
generic aralen -
buy aralen -
buy aralen online -
cheap sporanox -
buy sporanox -
generic sporanox -
discount sporanox -
buy sporanox online -
cheap zyprexa -
discount zyprexa -
buy zyprexa -
generic zyprexa -
buy zyprexa online -
cheap compazine -
generic compazine -
buy compazine -
discount compazine -
buy compazine online -
cheap
claritin
-
discount claritin -
generic claritin -
buy claritin -
buy claritin online -
cheap
allegra
-
discount allegra -
buy allegra -
generic allegra -
buy allegra Online -
cheap benadryl -
discount benadryl -
generic benadryl -
buy benadryl -
buy benadryl online -
cheap periactin -
discount periactin -
buy periactin -
generic periactin -
buy periactin online -
cheap advair -
discount advair -
generic advair -
buy advair -
buy advair online -
cheap albuterol -
generic albuterol -
buy albuterol -
discount albuterol -
buy albuterol online -
cheap salbutamol -
buy salbutamol -
buy theophylline -
generic salbutamol -
cheap singulair -
discount singulair -
buy singulair -
generic singulair -
buy singulair online -
cheap aceon -
buy aceon -
generic aceon -
discount aceon -
buy aceon online -
cheap altace -
buy altace -
generic altace -
discount altace -
buy altace online -
cheap avapro -
buy avapro -
generic avapro -
discount avapro -
buy avapro online -
cheap capoten -
discount capoten -
buy capoten -
generic capoten -
buy capoten online -
cheap diamox -
discount diamox -
buy diamox -
generic diamox -
buy diamox online -
cheap lipitor -
buy lipitor -
discount lipitor -
generic lipitor -
buy lipitor online -
cheap zocor -
buy zocor -
discount zocor -
buy zocor online -
generic zocor -
cheap lopid -
discount lopid -
generic lopid -
buy lopid online -
buy lopid -
cheap mevacor -
generic mevacor -
discount mevacor -
buy mevacor -
buy mevacor online -
cheap pravachol -
discount pravachol -
generic pravachol -
buy pravachol -
buy pravachol online -
cheap actos -
discount actos -
generic actos -
buy actos online -
buy actos -
cheap
avandia
-
generic avandia -
buy avandia -
discount avandia -
buy avandia online -
cheap precose -
discount precose -
generic precose -
buy
precose
-
buy precose online -
cheap micronase -
discount micronase -
generic micronase -
buy micronase -
cheap glucovance -
discount glucovance -
generic glucovance -
buy glucovance -
buy glucovance online -
cheap lamictal -
discount lamictal -
buy lamictal -
generic lamictal -
buy lamictal online -
cheap mysoline -
discount mysoline -
buy mysoline -
generic mysoline -
buy mysoline online -
cheap neurontin -
generic neurontin -
buy neurontin -
discount neurontin -
buy neurontin online -
Cheap sodium valproate -
Generic sodium valproate -
Buy sodium valproate -
discount sodium Valproate -
buy sodium valproate online -
cheap tegretol -
discount tegretol -
buy tegretol -
generic tegretol -
buy tegretol online -
cheap dilantin -
discount dilantin -
buy dilantin -
generic dilantin -
buy dilantin online -
cheap aciphex -
discount aciphex -
buy aciphex -
generic aciphex -
buy aciphex online -
cheap bentyl -
discount bentyl -
buy bentyl -
generic bentyl -
buy bentyl online -
Cheap carafate -
discount carafate -
buy carafate -
buy carafate online -
generic carafate -
cheap cephulac -
generic cephulac -
discount cephulac -
buy cephulac -
buy cephulac online -
cheap colace -
generic colace -
buy colace -
discount colace -
buy colace online -
cheap dulcolax -
discount dulcolax -
buy dulcolax -
generic dulcolax -
buy dulcolax online -
cheap imodium -
discount imodium -
buy imodium -
generic imodium -
buy imodium online -
cheap nexium -
discount nexium -
buy nexium -
generic nexium -
buy nexium online -
cheap prevacid -
discount prevacid -
buy prevacid -
generic prevacid -
buy prevacid online -
cheap prilosec -
discount prilosec -
buy prilosec -
generic prilosec -
buy prilosec online -
cheap protonix -
discount protonix -
buy protonix -
generic protonix -
order protonix -
cheap reglan -
buy reglan -
discount reglan -
generic reglan -
order reglan -
cheap zantac -
buy zantac -
discount zantac -
generic zantac -
order zantac -
cheap zofran -
discount zofran -
buy zofran -
generic zofran -
order zofran -
cheap rebetol -
discount rebetol -
buy rebetol -
generic rebetol -
order rebetol -
cheap ribavirin -
buy ribavirin -
order ribavirin -
cheap zovirax -
discount zovirax -
order zovirax -
buy zovirax -
generic zovirax -
cheap epivir -
discount epivir -
buy epivir -
order epivir -
generic epivir -
cheap pyrazinamide -
discount pyrazinamide -
order pyrazinamide -
buy pyrazinamide -
generic pyrazinamide -
cheap retrovir -
discount retrovir -
buy retrovir -
order retrovir -
generic retrovir -
cheap viramune -
discount viramune -
order viramune -
buy viramune -
generic viramune -
cheap zerit -
discount zerit -
buy zerit -
order zerit -
generic zerit -
cheap aldactone -
discount aldactone -
buy aldactone -
order aldactone -
generic aldactone -
cheap calciferol -
discount calciferol -
buy calciferol -
order calciferol -
generic calciferol -
alfa calcidol -
order alfa calcidol -
buy alfa calcidol -
cheap danocrine -
discount danocrine -
order danocrine -
buy danocrine -
generic danocrine -
cheap decadron -
discount decadron -
order decadron -
buy decadron -
generic decadron -
cheap deltasone -
discount deltasone -
buy deltasone -
order deltasone -
generic deltasone -
cheap provera -
discount provera -
buy provera -
order provera -
generic provera -
cheap cycrin -
cheap synthroid -
discount synthroid -
buy synthroid -
order synthroid -
generic levothroid -
cheap levothroid -
cheap robaxin -
discount robaxin -
buy robaxin -
order robaxin -
generic robaxin -
cheap soma -
discount soma -
buy soma -
order soma -
generic soma -
cheap zanaflex -
discount zanaflex -
buy zanaflex -
order zanaflex -
generic zanaflex -
cheap alphagan -
discount alphagan -
buy alphagan -
order alphagan -
generic alphagan -
cheap betagan -
discount betagan -
order betagan -
buy betagan -
generic betagan -
cheap mydriacyl -
discount mydriacyl -
buy mydriacyl -
order mydriacyl -
generic mydriacyl -
cheap propine -
discount propine -
buy propine -
order propine -
generic propine -
discount tobramycin -
buy tobramycin -
cheap tobramycin -
order tobramycin -
buy flour-op -
order flour-op -
cheap flour-op -
discount flour-op -
cheap advil -
generic advil -
order advil -
buy advil -
discount advil -
cheap celebrex -
discount celebrex -
buy celebrex -
order celebrex -
generic celebrex -
cheap imitrex -
discount imitrex -
buy imitrex -
order imitrex -
generic imitrex -
cheap ponstel -
discount ponstel -
order ponstel -
buy ponstel -
generic ponstel -
cheap timoptic -
discount timoptic -
buy timoptic -
order timoptic -
generic timoptic -
cheap tylenol -
discount tylenol -
order tylenol -
buy tylenol -
generic tylenol -
cheap anacin -
buy anacin -
cheap ultram -
discount ultram -
buy ultram -
order ultram -
generic ultram -
cheap benadryl -
order benadryl -
discount benadryl -
buy benadryl -
generic benadryl -
cheap ditropan -
discount ditropan -
order ditropan -
buy ditropan -
generic ditropan -
cheap eldepryl -
discount eldepryl -
buy eldepryl -
order eldepryl -
generic eldepryl -
cheap arava -
discount arava -
order arava -
buy arava -
generic arava -
cheap feldene -
discount feldene -
order feldene -
buy feldene -
generic feldene -
cheap mobic -
discount mobic -
buy mobic -
order mobic -
generic mobic -
cheap naprelan -
discount naprelan -
order naprelan -
buy naprelan -
generic naprelan -
cheap naprosyn -
discount naprosyn -
buy naprosyn -
order naprosyn -
generic naprosyn -
cheap relafen -
generic relafen -
order relafen -
buy relafen -
discount relafen -
cheap zyloprim -
discount zyloprim -
order zyloprim -
buy zyloprim -
generic zyloprim -
cheap ambien -
generic ambien -
discount ambien -
buy ambien -
order ambien -
cheap aygestin -
discount aygestin -
order aygestin -
buy aygestin -
generic aygestin -
cheap clomid -
discount clomid -
order clomid -
buy clomid -
generic clomid -
cheap diflucan -
order diflucan -
discount diflucan -
buy diflucan -
generic diflucan -
cheap evista -
discount evista -
order evista -
buy evista -
generic evista -
cheap fosamax -
discount fosamax -
order fosamax -
buy fosamax -
generic fosamax -
cheap nolvadex -
discount nolvadex -

Posted by: top choice on June 17, 2006 at 6:56 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