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

September 11, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

BUSH AND 9/11....James Joyner, noting the harsh tone evident in many of the lefty blogosphere's 9/11 posts today, says that "the stridency of these posts, even from bloggers and publications on the moderate side of the lefty blogosphere is surprising."

Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure this should come as a surprise to anyone. My biggest disappointment of the past five years the biggest by a very long way has been the way that George Bush transformed 9/11 from an opportunity to bring the country together into a cynical and partisan cudgel useful primarily for winning a few more votes in national elections.

Compare and contrast: FDR was surely one of the most partisan presidents of the 20th century, but after Pearl Harbor he announced that "Dr. New Deal has been replaced by Dr. Win the War." And he made good on that. World War II was largely a bipartisan war and FDR largely governed as a bipartisan commander-in-chief.

And Bush? Within a few months of 9/11 Karl Rove was telling party members what a great issue terrorism would be for Republicans. Andy Card was busily working on the marketing campaign for Iraq, timed for maximum impact on the midterm elections in 2002. Joe Lieberman's DHS bill was hijacked and deliberately loaded with anti-union features in order to draw Democratic complaints and hand Bush a campaign issue. The UN resolution on WMD inspections in Iraq was kept on fire until literally the day after the midterms, at which point the version acceptable to the rest of the world was suddenly agreeable to Bush as well. Democrats who supported Bush on the war were treated to the same scorched-earth campaigning as everyone else. Bipartisanship bought them nothing.

What else? Bush never engaged with Democrats in any way. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both hawkish Dems who could have been co-opted early if Bush had had any intention of treating the war seriously. He didn't even try. He continued pushing divisive domestic issues like tax cuts and culture war amendments. ("Dr. Tax Cuts has been replaced by Dr. Win the War" would have been more appropriate.) He showed little interest in funding anti-proliferation efforts or working with serious Democratic proposals to improve domestic security at ports and chemical plants. The national security rhetoric from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration was relentlessly inflammatory and divisive.

I think this is a complaint that most conservatives don't accept even conservatives who have soured on Bush over the past couple of years. But believe me: on the Democratic side of the aisle, Bush's intensely and gratuitously partisan approach to 9/11 and the war on terror is keenly felt. Sunday's Republican Party photo-op at Ground Zero was just more of the same.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman puts it this way: "By using September 11 to aggregate power for himself, and to make his opponents you, me, and every other liberal who needed to feel like we could trust our leaders after we were attacked feel disloyal to their country, he prevented us from healing."

Kevin Drum 6:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (253)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I agree 100%. President Bush was presented with an opportunity to unite the entire country in a way that hadn't been done since Pearl Harbor. Hell, 90% of the world was with us.

Instead he and his advisors saw it as an opportunity for the GOP and pissed away every last bit of goodwill within the country and through-out the rest of th world. And every other Republican in the country jumped right on board thinking that it would give them a permanent majority.

Fuck them all.

Posted by: Mike S on September 11, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Click. The. Link!!

So there!

Posted by: Al on September 11, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK


GOP '06: MAJORITY RULES...BUT DON'T BLAME US

Posted by: rnc on September 11, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Ditto.

It the GOP who should be pissed at Bush/Cheney/Rove. Shortly after 911, I thought, "Good Gawd, if Bush does the right thing now, we'll have GOP Presidents for the next couple decades." But true to form, Bush/Cheney/Roves uses 911 for short term partisan gains and the ridiculous Iraq Invasion and piss away all the good that could have come out of 911. You're doing a heckuva job, W.

Posted by: Robert on September 11, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

And Bush? Within a few months of 9/11 Karl Rove was telling party members what a great issue terrorism would be for Republicans.

This sounds like a 6-year old, but, it's true, so... Democrats started it. I remember vividly the Democrats' partisan sniping as soon as Afghanistan began. And it hasn't stopped to this day.

Imagine what would have happened if Democrats had tried to get along with the Bush Administration. We genuinely could have fought the war on a bipartisan basis. But you people on the left ruined that.

Posted by: Al on September 11, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

I'm disgusted by how commemoration of 9/11 has become another feather in the cap of Osama Bin Laden. When Clinton was fighting OBL, including attempting to kill him, I didn't know OBL's name. Now, he's known the world wide and lionized in a lot of places, and that's for three main reasons: the successful attack on the US in 2001, Bush's bungled attempt to capture or kill him (so he's still alive to be lionized) and Bush and his enablers talking about the fucker all the time! Osama Bin Laden - as big as Hitler! Hitler threw half the world into war with a country behind to use as a war machine. According to the Repugs, OBL can do the same thing from a cave somewhere, a cave that the most powerful country in the world can't find (although maybe we could if we actually tried.)

OBL was successful beyond his wildest dreams because of Bush and his cronies, and that's the real tragedy of 9/11.

Posted by: greennotGreen on September 11, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK


Days after Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered: 1,365

Days since 9-11, that Bin Laden has remained ALIVE: 1800+

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 11, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

The very idea that chasing down Al Qaeda is a national war is itself a PR concoction to keep Republicans in power. They are not exploiting the War on Terror for partisan purposes; they invented it for partisan purposes. They mixed and confounded various Middle Eastern regimes, political struggles, resistance forces and the North Koreans with the gang of Saudis that perpetrated 9/11 to take care of pre-existing agendas. At the top of that list is winning elections, so the War on Terror exists to give power to Republicans. If Mr. Cheneys sentiments are properly understood, they intend to have absolute power.

Posted by: bellumregio on September 11, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

GOP '06: SWALLOW HARDER

Posted by: RNC on September 11, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Just dropping by to hear what Al has to say.

Posted by: humble blogger on September 11, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK


EVER NOTICE:

BUSH NEVER SAYS AMERICA WON'T BE AFRAID...

BUSH NEVER SAYS AMERICA WON'T BE TERRORIZED...

Posted by: froomkin at the wapo on September 11, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Al:Errr. No it's not. At the time, Democrats, at least the precursors to the blogosphere, (you're talking to us. So talk to us). were pretty solid on support of the Afghanistan operation, at least until the disaster that was Tora Bora.

Posted by: Karmakin on September 11, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Once again Al proves that Republicans are lying sacks of shit.

They didn't used to be that way. Not until team Nixonand the college Republicans of that era decided that winning was more important than anything else.

Al is just one more bastard child of tha era.

Posted by: Mike S on September 11, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK


gop: no terror attacks inside the usa in the 5-years since 9-11


fact: no terror attacks inside the usa in the 5-years before 9-11...either...

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 11, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Tora Bora wasn't a disaster. It went exactly as planned.

Posted by: Disputo on September 11, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

James Joyner has demonstrated many times that he is a partisan, clueless, fucktard.

Posted by: jerry on September 11, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

One further thing. The feeling about Bush was that after 9/11, everything changed. We were a bit tepid, but we were more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

We were entering serious times, and we were expecting the Bush administratiion to kind of reinvent itself for those times.

We were wrong.

Posted by: Karmakin on September 11, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Osama's living in a rented ranch house in Utah in the Federal Witness Protection Program.

His new American name is Al Kida.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

When the Republicans use 9/11 and religion as partisan weapons, when they take possession of them, they become theirs.

To me 9/11 and Christianity are no better than flag burning and Willie Horton. From now on I'm going to ignore 9/11. To get all worked up about it every year only helps OBL and the Republicans. I ain't playing their game.

Posted by: abe on September 11, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo:To me it was a disaster.

Posted by: Karmakin on September 11, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

The very idea that chasing down Al Qaeda is a national war is itself a PR concoction to keep Republicans in power.

BINGO!

According to an editorial by that conservative/libertarian guy that rights for the NYT occassionally, more Americans have drowned in their bathtubs than the number of people worldwide killed by Al Quaeda or aligned groups since 9/11.

Relentless attacks on critics and even skeptics for five straight years. Their foreign policy is "shoot first, ask questions never." Their domestic policy is "ask questions, get shot."

It's been years in the making, but our political process has been completely reduced to "tastes great vs. less filling, with Republicans on both sides of that trivial choice". The Democrats are dead, they just don't know it yet. The Republicans have the manly man brand sewn up, and as long as white males worried about losing their erections and entitlements are more likely to vote (or donate, or control voting), the GOP will dominate elections.

It's time for the rise of the Libertarian Liberal. You'll know it's too late to organie when the GOP starts talking about their version of gun control, which will undoubtably require various tests that prevent non-sheep from owning firearms.

Paranoid? Hell yes. But being paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you.

Posted by: Lysander Spooner's Ghost on September 11, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Mr. Perspective, but that isn't true. Terrorists tried to take down the WTC in 1993, but their bomb didn't work very well and they're all in jail now. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, but he was executed. 'Course, those both happened on Bill Clinton's watch so the fact that the perpetrators were captured and prosecuted in courts of law (without the use of torture) doesn't really count.

Look, Bill Clinton had oral sex!!!

Posted by: greennotGreen on September 11, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

You are much, much too kind to these animals.

I don't really see the country EVER recovering from the bush presidency. Our children are going to be living in a very different nation that we were born in. In terms of the history of the United states, 911 will represent a more significant divide than any other event in our nations history, even greater than the Civil War. Not because of the event itself, as significant as it was, but because of Bush's reaction to it.

Bipartisanship is (thankfully) dead for the next two generations.

Posted by: Larry on September 11, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Bush did exactly what a narrow minded, thoughtless person would do.

9/11 was about Bush and the GOP; Not America.

It never has dawn on Bush that he's President of a nation. As far as Bush can preceive he's the president of a country club called GOP which just happens to be in a nation called America.

Anything else is just background noise to him.

The real question in November is how much damage the GOP did to itself as a national party.

November could signal the beginning of a long decline for the GOP in national politics. Just like in the 1960's.

BTW- Where IS Bin Laden?


Posted by: James on September 11, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

In concept, GWB has two roles...that of president (and de facto leader of his party) and as commander in chief (leader of the military and unifying leader of us all). He often confuses the two, and in my view this is why the country suffers. I did not vote for him, but I would support him if he had the ethical courage to approach these issues above the fray. Our times have called for leadership, someone to stand as commander in chief in actions as well as name. But even now Bush has not risen to the challenge, and this is why there is such dissension.

Posted by: orion on September 11, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

You nailed it for me. Of all the reasons I am ticked, the betrayal of my trust and the use of a day that was the most horrible I have ever witnessed for cynical, political purposes is the worst of all.

It's like a punch in the gut since I, as did the majority of Americans, trusted Bush to do it right, we should have known better.

Posted by: Dreggas on September 11, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Say Kevin, if you or Spencer think you're going to win over anyone who voted for W with this stuff you're sorely mistaken.

"Bush prevented you from healing."

From healing? Are you serious? Is this a parody of the CodePink site? Am I reading ScrappleFace? I can see the adverts now:

Vote Republican if you want to win the war against terror.

Vote Democrat if you think it's time to stop and let the 'healing' begin.

Posted by: SunBeltJerry on September 11, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

My reaction: what took so-called "centrists" so long to notice?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on September 11, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Parisians watch complaints tonight, then cite the one President's speech. It's a reminder of childhood, like a an early evening in summer, when even the ice cream sellers pause and take notice of the beauty and aroma, not the gas fumes and sticky fingers.

Posted by: Will on September 11, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK
Vote Republican if you want to win the war against terror.

Because they have done such a bang up job so far, right? It's time to have a resurgence of Cult Deprogramming groups. The Current GOP cultists make the Moonies look rational.

Posted by: Mike S on September 11, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Funny you should mention this. I blogged today from a quantum universe in which the President of the United States made good decisions after 9/11. It's a tough thing to contemplate.

Posted by: Rob Salkowitz on September 11, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

karmakin: We were entering serious times, and we were expecting the Bush administratiion to kind of reinvent itself for those times.


"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake."

- G.W. Bush 5/7/06

Posted by: mr. irony on September 11, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "My biggest disappointment of the past five years ..."

There is no reason to be disappointed since there was never any reason to expect anything better from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, both of whom are career corporate criminals and war profiteers, both of whom came to power through the blatant theft of a presidential election, and who, once having gained that power, immediately set about abusing it for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for themselves, their cronies and their financial backers.

There were many people who said, immediately after the 9/11/2001 attacks -- and indeed some expressed this view on that very day -- that the Bush administration would make much the same use of it that Hitler's administration made of the 1933 Reichstag fire, and they were quite right.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 11, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush Administration's Policy For Just About Everything: (sticks hand in pocket, pulls out keys, jingles them,) "Look! Shiny!"


Let Osama get away? No problem!
"We'll begin marketing the war in the fall."
Andy Card (jingle!)

Political cronies completely expose your incompetence at FEMA? No problem!
"The threat is real." (jingle!)


And so on, ad nauseum. Works great on sheep like Al and SunBeltJerry. Me, I'd like results.

Osama Bin Laden killed a freind of mine five years ago today. I want his head on a fucking stick. This administration has utterly failed to deliver.

That's what makes me mad.

Posted by: Cazart on September 11, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK


GOP '06: IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED...

...VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN!

Posted by: rnc on September 11, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

GOP '06: MORE DEBT AND DEATH SINCE 2001

Posted by: rnc on September 11, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

thomas1,

Watch the President's speech tonight and then cite ONE partisan complaint.

Is the challenge to limit our examples of partisanship to only one citation? Or do you truly believe that it will be nigh impossible to even cite one example?

Posted by: Edo on September 11, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, Thomas1;
Pi is still 3.0. Bible's still wrong.

Bin Laden still alive, Bush's still incompetent.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Don't watch the hand that is waving to get your attention - watch the hand that is hiding the cards. The whole point of the GOP campaigns since the 60s has been to take all power and to hold it. That has always been the goal of Atwater, Gingrich, Delay and Rove. The story about James Baker in this issue of the Monthly is just another illustration of that (setting up the Party to survive GWB's disaster).

Why is anybody surpised that they would use the GWOT also as a tool to gain more power for themselves and reduce the power and effectiveness of their political opponent?

Former Speaker of the House is credited as having said "all politics is local", and the GOP is simply using this - the GWOT - as an avenue to generate more local political gains, where local is defined as anywhere the Republican Party operates.

Posted by: anonymous coward on September 11, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

GOP - HOME OF THE WHOPPER

Posted by: rnc on September 11, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

GOP '06: SURE IT HURTS...YOU'RE GETTING SCREWED BY AN ELEPHANT

Posted by: rnc on September 11, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Don't watch the hand that is waving to get your attention - watch the hand that is hiding the cards.

Posted by: Will on September 11, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to thank the Bush Family and the American Press for glorifying our warrior status and keeping you infidels terrorized.

Thanks, GOP. We couldn't have done it without you.

Posted by: Osama on September 11, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

There is no reason to be disappointed since there was never any reason to expect anything better from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, both of whom are career corporate criminals and war profiteers, both of whom came to power through the blatant theft of a presidential election, and who, once having gained that power, immediately set about abusing it for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for themselves, their cronies and their financial backers.

SA - sometimes, it's good to know that there's at least one other person out there who "gets it".

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

thomas1: I think you are going to be surprised.

so he's gotten that desperate?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 11, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

These fuckers aren't incompetent.

They have emptied the fucking treasury into their own fucking pockets haven't they?

They have succeeded brilliantly.

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

I believe I've given you possible explanations already of how the Bible's not wrong in that regard.
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 11, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. Possible. And quite possibly lame.

Same "explanations" I got in confirmation class. That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

The bigger difference is that, if a Dem had been President on 9/11, Republicans wouldn't have rallied around him/her, but would have torn this country apart in the days following.

Posted by: kth on September 11, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin and the other Sensible Liberals are finally coming around to what many of us realized about Bush et al. even as far back as 2001:

Worst. Presidency. Ever.

Glad you could join us - maybe now you'll stop enabling them?

Posted by: Irony Man on September 11, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

I really don't understand how people take this administration seriously about the GWOT when, after 5 years, I'm still reading headlines like this:

"Senior U.S. official says Taliban stronger than expected"

Why am I still reading about the Taliban in Afghanistan ??? Didn't George Bush rid the world of this evil after 9/11? -- Christ - if the Democrats are weak on terror what are these guys ? Can't they at least do one thing right and rid the world of this scourage ? Apparently not !
This time around I'm voting Democrat - How could it be worse !

Posted by: One who doesn't want to have a beer with GWB on September 11, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Bush lost me after the "Axis of Evil" speech. Not being politically aware before 9/11, I was willing to give him a chance. I just remember the knot in my stomach when it became clear that our foreign policy was being directed by morons with a mandate.

Posted by: enozinho on September 11, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

I confess I thought the whole return-to-normal bit was electoral suicide, and judging from the 2002 and 2004 election results (in which Democrats ran on half-a-war-on-terror, much as Republicans ran on half-a-New-Deal in the 1930s) it was at least half-electoral suicide.

But - you know - apart from the preverse third of the country who still approves of this president's performance is there anyone out there who wouldn't prefer it to be 1999 again? It takes a certain kind of demented morbidity to prefer these times to peace, prosperity (Christ: even liberal arts college graduates were being offered living wage jobs in the Clinton economy), and frivolity.

Posted by: Linus on September 11, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

Vote Republican if you want to win the war against terror.

Sounds great! When are they gonna start?

Posted by: Irony Man on September 11, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm,

Morons with a mandate.

What the fuck ever happend to that male prostitute dude posing as a reporter?

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

About a week after 9/11 I became very depressed. I knew the US was going to begin killing and my outlook became black.

Posted by: Hostile on September 11, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

"...he prevented us from healing."

this is missing a word: together as in "...he prevented us from healing together."

As a proud liberal 9/11 only strentghened my beliefs in liberalism and I healed plenty. But the bush regime and lapdog republican congress crystalized my views of republicans and conservative republicans in particular as craven opportunists out only for their own selfish intersts, and who will put their own power pursuits above the needs and interests of the country and the American people everytime.
.

Posted by: pluege on September 11, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

It would not have bothered me if the Bush administration had tried to score some political points if they had only addressed the threat with some better analysis than a kindergarten class could have come up with.

They really had a 66% chance of success. One possibility would have been to blame the entire threat on a combination of the slimy Jews and Clintonian "nation building" -- and announce a "fortress America" campaign of isolationism not seen in decades. Obviously not finely tuned, but if I would have gotten us the hell out quite a few places where we insist upon sticking our big, Bud Light swollen nose, it might have been a good thing. Americans are not colonialists at heart, we don't really have the attention span or the maciavellian will that a really good European colonial power had, so we always do it half assed. All of the costs and none of the benefits.

The second option would have been if Bush turned out to be a closet "Star Trek" fan -- similar result to option, one, but adopt a "prime directive" in which the official United States policy is to not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. Slowly carve back our ridiculous military spending, and rely on economic leverage when needed. Admittedly, this requires a subtlety not present in this administration.

Yet, we went with option three -- break something - and declare it a "victory" in the "war" on "terror."

Ahh.... its just too depressing to think of the last five years of fe'd up foreign policy.

Posted by: hank on September 11, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

And all this painfully forced sentimenality about Where You Were on 9/11: please.

Can we just stop pretending that apart from a flickering moment of national unity the last five years haven't been the most polarized since those leading up to the Civil War.

America was a country when Lincoln was shot, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, when JFK had his brain blown out on the streets of Dallas, when that first shuttle blew up. It isn't anymore, at least not in the same way.

A generation from now it will be finally clear that America is no longer a republic, but simply the world capital of an emerging global, multicultural civilization. There is another word for it: empire.

The news media can feign sentiment all it wants, but sentiment is a republican virtue.

Posted by: Linus on September 11, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Worst. Presidency. Ever.

The week before 9/11/2001 I gave my father's wife a biography of Reagan, she is a California Republican, and wrote in it "the second worst president."

Posted by: Hostile on September 11, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

The great opportunity that was offered to us by 9/11 was totally missed by these fucking brain-dead dipshits.

Imagine, if you can, a brilliant president calling for a Manhattan Project for energy independence. The country would have eaten it up, and we would have spent these wasted billions creating millions of jobs, generating goodwill, and setting an example of decency for the world thereby promoting peace. The world was appalled by 9/11 and would have totally isolated the crazy terrorists that pulled of that crime and they probably would be behind bars today.

Instead of honestly answering the question of why do they hate us the idiot motherfucker told us to go fucking shopping. GO FUCKING SHOPPING!

What a scumsucking asshole.

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

The great opportunity that was offered to us by 9/11 was totally missed by these fucking brain-dead dipshits.

Imagine, if you can, a brilliant president calling for a Manhattan Project for energy independence. The country would have eaten it up, and we would have spent these wasted billions creating millions of jobs, generating goodwill, and setting an example of decency for the world thereby promoting peace. The world was appalled by 9/11 and would have totally isolated the crazy terrorists that pulled of that crime and they probably would be behind bars today.

Instead of honestly answering the question of why do they hate us the idiot motherfucker told us to go fucking shopping. GO FUCKING SHOPPING!

What a scumsucking asshole.

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Typo in 4th paragraph: "The UN resolution on WMD inspections in Iraq was kept on fire" -- presumably should be "on file."

Posted by: TheMandarin on September 11, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

How is it that the perfectly reasonable explanations offered by Thomas1 were simply dismissed by you

There's perfectly reasonable; then there's "this is the perfect unerring word-for-word capital W-word of God, for ever and ever amen." Perfectly reasonable is questioning something. Is the argument of someone using an inner diameter measurement for diameter, and outer diameter measurement reasonable? Sure! But not for "perfect" God.

Scripture is either perfect or it's not.
The Pi=3.0 example is simple one of the most accessible ways to prove that it's not - among the many numerous other discrepencies, contradictions, and unprovable assertions.

If it's not perfect, then it's PERFECTLY REASONABLE to question other assertions that sheep herders wrote about God 2500 years ago.

If you take the position of scriptural inerrancy - then your mind is closed to the possibility that it could be wrong.

Trying to accuse someone who accepts the proposition of scriptural errancy of being "closed minded" is rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-hilarious.

Scripturalists are basically idolotors anyway.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Excerpts from Bush's speech tonight can be found here and here (same excerpts in both locations).

I can hardly wait to see how Bush is planning to "unify" this country, particularly in light of the fact that the Republicans have already admitted they will be engaging in a bitter, negative, nasty, and divisive campaign.

Posted by: PaulB on September 11, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Damnit, sorry for the double post.

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, the irony in this statement from Bush: "We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations."

... by destroying that way of life?

Posted by: PaulB on September 11, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Irony?

How about fucking hypocrisy?

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

What the fuck ever happend to that male prostitute dude posing as a reporter?
Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently, since he hasn't died of AIDS yet, we can conclude that Bush has at least one advisor who can show him the proper use of a condom.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Virtually everything these assholes accuse their opponents of doing they themselves are guilty of.

They are masters of projection.

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

"The great opportunity that was offered to us by 9/11 was totally missed by these fucking brain-dead dipshits."

they're not brain-dead, they're sinister. every craven, loathesome, divisive thing they do is on purpose.

Posted by: pluege on September 11, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

"World War II was largely a bipartisan war and FDR largely governed as a bipartisan commander-in-chief."

What the hell does this mean? Was there partisan disagreement about whether or how we should fight WWII? Did the Republicans publicly critize FDR's handling of the war or for his failure to "connect the dots" that led to Pearl Harbor? Or worry about his use of executive authority as Commander-in-Chief to protect the nation from enemy attack? My guess is no.

"Bush never engaged with Democrats in any way. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both hawkish Dems who could have been co-opted early if Bush had had any intention of treating the war seriously. He didn't even try. He continued pushing divisive domestic issues like tax cuts and culture war amendments."

Apart from the fact that neither Clinton or Gore were elected, who were these "hawkish Dems" that you speak of Kevin? The only hawkish Dem that I can think of is Lieberman and he was just run out of the Party. All the other Dems Senators, at least the ones considering an 08 run, who voted for the war have disowned their vote.

When the ranking Dem on the Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, says that America would be safer with Saddam in power, Bush can probably be forgiven from failing to "engage" them.

By the way, do you agree with Rockefeller's statement?

Posted by: Chicounsel on September 11, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

Bush:

And we are fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom, and tolerance, and personal dignity. . . .

. . . by torturing, setting up kangaroo courts, and spying on our own people.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Al: Thomas stole my Enzyte.

Posted by: I'm HozenAl on September 11, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

James Jpoyner pretends to be all calm and thoughtful annd moderate but he's just another rationalizier for the Rethuglicans. There are no intellectually honest Republicanns. The good people are leaving the party.

Posted by: lily on September 11, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

pluege,

Yeah, I guess I did contradict myself there.

These fuckers have been successful in acheiving their goals.

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

When the ranking Dem on the Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, says that America would be safer with Saddam in power, ....
By the way, do you agree with Rockefeller's statement?
Posted by: Chicounsel on September 11, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

Absolutely.

Dangerous Iran was kept occupied with fighting Saddam for 20 years. Now they don't have Saddam to kick around anymore. Who do you think they're going to focus on next, numbnuts?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

bellumregio wrote: The very idea that chasing down Al Qaeda is a national war is itself a PR concoction to keep Republicans in power. They are not exploiting the War on Terror for partisan purposes; they invented it for partisan purposes.

Lysander Spooner's Ghost agreed, writing,

BINGO! According to an editorial by that conservative/libertarian guy that rights for the NYT occassionally, more Americans have drowned in their bathtubs than the number of people worldwide killed by Al Quaeda or aligned groups since 9/11.

You can't have it both ways. Those who don't think the GWOT is a real war surely don't want their representatives to give wholehearted support to a phony war.

I don't agree with Kevin that FDR governed bilaterally after Pearl Harbor. He didn't stop expanding government in order to placate conservatives. What actually happened was that Republicans simply got behind FDR's war effort. (Of course, he was so popular, it would have been political suicide not to.)

The person I admire was Eisenhower. After the botched Bay of Pigs, Ike could have blasted JFK. Given Ike's war hero status vs. JFK's youth and inexperience, criticism from Ike would ahve been devestating. However, Ike kept his mouth shut for the good of the country. As a result, JFK and the the Dems gained in popularity, but the country gained a more unified foreign policy.

I wish Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had followwed Eisenhower's example and put their country's interest before their party's interest.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 11, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

What actually happened was that Republicans simply got behind FDR's war effort. (Of course, he was so popular, it would have been political suicide not to.)

Hm. Politicians being political - now who would have accused Democrats of being like that?

I wish Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had followwed Eisenhower's example and put their country's interest before their party's interest.
Posted by: ex-liberal on September 11, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, that's right. You did.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

I've just read 75 comments here, many with the f word or something like it, filled with hate for George W. Bush. The tenor of this says to me you are still very much the minority party with little hope of commanding the Congress or the White House any time soon. In fact, it sounds like you are probably falling back. You have nothing positive to offer.

Posted by: exguru on September 11, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Your biggest disappointment? How about:
1. The needless destruction of human life.
2. The illicit invasion of a non-threatening nation.
3. The use of torture.
4. Arbitrary detention without due process.
5. Secret prisons.
6. The loathsome waste of our economic resources.
7. The enrichment of Bush/Cheney's corporate cronies. There's so many other worthy nominees for biggest disappointment. Add your own.

Posted by: McDharma on September 11, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

What the hell does this mean? Was there partisan disagreement about whether or how we should fight WWII? Did the Republicans publicly critize FDR's handling of the war or for his failure to "connect the dots" that led to Pearl Harbor? Or worry about his use of executive authority as Commander-in-Chief to protect the nation from enemy attack? My guess is no.

Your guess is dead wrong. Republicans criticzed Roosevelt's handling of the war from the get-go. Here's from a speech Senator Robert A. Taft, the leading conservative of his day and known as "Mr. Republican", gave two weeks after Pearl Harbor:

"As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."

Taft also claimed that "the duties imposed by the Constitution on Senators and Congressmen certainly require that they exercise their own judgment on questions relating to the war."

Salon.com notes that:

There was more, a lot more. Debates were raging in Congress at the time -- and, remember, American territory had just been attacked, bodies and wreckage still lay in the harbor, and U.S. soldiers were already in harm's way -- over questions like the conversion of industry to support the war and the best way to expand the draft. Taft weighed in on each, specifically opposing plans the Roosevelt administration had floated ("I see no use in sending boys of nineteen or twenty to war").

At great length Taft argued that the higher defense appropriations Roosevelt was seeking should lead to the end of both Keynesianism (New Deal economists "are confident that a people can spend itself into prosperity") and New Deal programs like the Works Progress Administration. Thus Taft was tying the war to domestic politics in a way that today's Republicans have also carped at Democrats for sometimes doing. Finally, there were shades of renegade Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind. (who, angered at the administration's secrecy, has threatened the Bush White House with "war"), when Taft called for a congressional investigation into whether Cordell Hull, FDR's secretary of state, had informed Secretary of the Navy Franklin Knox of the contents of his famous Nov. 26 note to the Japanese. The note contained conditions that Hull knew the Japanese would never accept, and the suspicion was rife among Republicans that Hull, and Roosevelt, actually wanted the Navy to be ambushed at Pearl Harbor to stoke war fever among the populace. "Perhaps the fault at Hawaii," Taft said, "was not entirely on the admirals and generals." Mr. Republican, that Dec. 19, minced few words.

And his fellow Republicans got the message. According to historian Richard Darilek in "A Loyal Opposition in Time of War" (1976), Republicans entered 1942 ready to fight the administration head-on. Wendell Wilkie, the party's nominal leader, was an interventionist, but in a bid to placate the GOP's isolationist wing he appointed an America Firster named Clarence Boddington Kelland head of public relations for the Republican National Committee. On Jan. 8, Kelland delivered a speech in Salt Lake City on the importance of robust partisanship. Democratic National Committee chairman Ed Flynn countered by cautioning against the election of a hostile Congress. New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, who would run against FDR in 1944, warned of the existence within the administration of "an American Cliveden set ... scheming to end the war short of military victory" ("Cliveden set," a reference to the Astor estate in Britain that served as a salon for government ministers, was synonymous with "appeasers"). By the time of the Republican Lincoln Day dinners -- mid-February, just two months after Pearl Harbor -- politics in Washington, Darilek writes, were more or less back to normal.

....Taft's speech hardly caused a ripple. If the New York Times covered it at all, it did so in a small enough way to escape my notice as I looked through newspapers from that time. The Washington Post did mention the speech, but only at the tail end of a larger story that was mostly about Hull. In the American political system that existed then, Taft's right to speak his mind on policy was a given, and no high-ranking Roosevelt official launched a major public attack.


http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/03/19/dissent/index.html?pn=2

Posted by: Arminius on September 11, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Right now I am watching Max Cleland on MSNBC.

What more needs be said, other than what they did to him?

You can not appeal for unity and bipartisanship for a cause, and then use the same club to hit the other side on the groin.

Despicable I must say.

Posted by: gregor on September 11, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

What actually happened was that Republicans simply got behind FDR's war effort. (Of course, he was so popular, it would have been political suicide not to.)

No they didn't. See above.

Posted by: Arminius on September 11, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Did FDR call those he opposed him treasonous?

Did he swiftboat his vocal opponents in the elections?

Did he have a known thug and dirty trickster as his Chief Political and Domestic Policy advisor?

Posted by: gregor on September 11, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

When the ranking Dem on the Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, says that America would be safer with Saddam in power, Bush can probably be forgiven from failing to "engage" them.

Number of Americans dead in Iraq when Saddam was in power under Clinton: zero.

Number of Americans dead in Iraq with Saddam out of power under Bush: 2,600 and counting.

Who's safer now?

Posted by: Arminius on September 11, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah. The most depressing thing was the way President Bush acted.

Not the way Markos Moulitsas acted when Americans were brutalized. Or when Nick Berg's head was sawed off. Or when our soldiers have died. Not the anthrax attacks. Not the DC snipers. Not the LAX shooting. Not the SUVs used to attack people in Chapel Hill, NC and San Francisco. Not the attack on the Jewish community center in Seattle. Not the London Tube bombings. Not the Madrid bombings. Or Bali. Or the attempted bombings in Germany.

I get it.

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

The lying sack of shit who posts scripted Republican right-wing extremist talking as "ex-liberal" wrote: "I wish Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had followwed Eisenhower's example and put their country's interest before their party's interest."

Nothing that Bush has done since he stole the 2000 election has been in the country's interest. It has all been in the interest of enriching himself, the other members of his criminal gang, the other members of his criminal family, and their various cronies and financial backers.

Bush is a crook. Cheney is a gangster. Anyone who opposes them, Pelosi and Reid included to the extent that they have done so (and they have not opposed Bush as consistently or as aggressively as they should have done), is acting in the best interests of the USA.

Tell your owners to get you some better talking points, dumbass.

And while you are at it, tell them that your fake, phony, dumbass pretense of being a former "liberal" is making you the laughingstock of this blog and they need to give you a better pose if they want your scripted talking points to go over as anything other than the bad joke they are.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 11, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

I understand and support Kevin for posting them, but I've found a number of his recent threads entirely demoralizing and difficult to comment in.

Mainly because I agree so much it hurts, and all the stuff posted in comments is just more of the all-too-well-known story of how Bush and his merry band serially gangraped everything good about this country.

Sigh. It's just flashback city.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel

How dare you?

Posted by: gregor on September 11, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

The U.S. military did not count people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks when it reported a dramatic drop in the number of murders in the Baghdad area last month, the U.S. command said Monday.

The decision to include only victims of drive-by shootings and those killed by torture and execution, usually at the hands of death squads, allowed U.S. officials to argue that a security crackdown that began in the capital August 7 had more than halved the city's murder rate.

More Bush lies about Iraq.

To go with his lies about 9/11.

To go with GOP lies about the Democrats.

To go with Cheney's daily lies about everything.

And we also find that Bush hid an additional report, that undermined his case for war, from Congress and the Democrats.

And yet conservatives continue to lie about the Democrats seeing the same intelligence that Bush did.

Shameful.

Treasonous.

Putting national security and historical truth behind partisan interest.

Typical, typical conservatives.

Typical, typical GOP.

Typical, typical Bush.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 - right you are.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 11, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel:

If we had a true moral leadership, we could've mourned those personal tragedies and moved on.

Oh, and you forgot the victims of Katrina, and the tsunami, and the Pakistani and Iranian earthquakes, and the African AIDS epidemic, and the genocide in Darfur and Congo, and the Afghanis backsliding into Taliban-terrorized anarchy, and over a hundred thousand dead Iraqis ...

But who, after all, is counting.

White people *are* so much more photogenic as victims, aren't they ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

gregor,

Sorry for bringing some truth to the truthers. Reality based community....

Feh!

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel: I get it.

We get it.

As long as Bush is a microscopic speck better than the terrorists, he isn't evil, even if he embraces torture, commits crimes against humanity, violates international law, lies to Congress and the American people about matters important to our national security and which lies result in the needless deaths of thousands of Americans . . .

Yeah, we get it.

Hail der furher.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

No, Bob. The things you mentioned aren't related to America's war against Islamofascist terrorism.

Now, if you want to engage in Darfur because it's the Islamofascist Mulsims there who are killing their African (and darker skinned) brethren, I agree. We should be more involved. So should every country intent on stopping the march toward Islamic totalitarianism. What? That's not what you meant? Oh...

BTW, That 100K number was bull shit on the day the Lancet published it and it still is today. Never you mind that, though.

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: I wish Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had followwed Eisenhower's example and put their country's interest before their party's interest.

Neither is a former president, asshole.

They are elected officials of the US government whose duty it is to act as a check on the president.

Yes, you truly are a intellectually dishonest asshole.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel

No truth can ever come out of a delusional mind such as yours.

Posted by: gregor on September 11, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God,

I just burped. It made a better argument than I've ever seen you make.

I'll bet you're the type of person who has bumper stickers on your car. I mock you in a way that causes me no stress whatsoever. You're a laughingstock. NTTAWWT.

I hit the snooze bar with more intellectual rigor than you can muster on a good day. I find you sad. I pity you. You are not worthy of my scorn.

Off with you.

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Kevin Drum post:

Bush would have had our support if he would have fought the war like France would have.

With white flags.

Posted by: none on September 11, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel: I just burped.

It's because you are drinking again between lies and jerking off at each death of an American soldier (which you pray for so you can add another notch to your main argument for 'staying the course' in Iraq - so their efforts won't have been in vain), just like your hero GWB.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

gregor,

Wipe your lip. There's some spittle. No. You missed it. There you go.

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

PPS I was watching public access the other day. There was one of those community college history classes on. The professor (who you sensed had slept with every third dumb 19 year old girl who crossed his path) showed two pictures of Abraham Lincoln, one in 1860 and one in 1864 or 5. He looked youthful in the first, and ancient in the second.

I'm watching Bush now. What does the fact that he looks like the same f'ing moron he did five years ago tell us about him class?

Posted by: Linus on September 11, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel:

I was talking about the death toll *today*, not three years ago when the study was published -- you who trumpets the estimates of Iraqi deaths allegedly from the sanctions in order to justify the invasion. You use statistical methods there -- then accept them over here.

Umm, Brainiac ... the anthrax attacks are unsolved, but all evidence points to an American right-wing extremist perpetrator. Malvo and Muhammad were NOI looney tunes who killed out of racism and a half-baked extortion plot, totally unconnected to Islamism. Most of the other incidents you cite were the result of disgruntled individuals not tied to terrorist plots of any sort. Even the London and Madrid bombings haven't been definitively linked to al Qaeda. So much for the unitary global march towards *cough* Islamofascism.

And you're going to throw a comment of a *blogger* in with events like these? Nice moral compass *you've* got there, pal.

Michael Moore is fat and slovenly, too !!!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

The clever art of the truncation.

Gotta love a truther.

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Bob.

They were all just odd ball nuts. If only we could find something that connected all those events.

Something they all had in common...

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel: The clever art of the truncation.

You know much more about the clever art of "drunkation".

Stick with that, it's what you know best.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Today I ate a fanny plopper and told Mommy about it.

She wasn't very pleased with me.

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

There you have it.

Although Iraq and its government were specifically mentioned, I didn't hear any "as they stand up we'll stand down".

Now it's all about we're staying in there until it's won. But I still don't hear a plan.

I don't think you can say that was a uniting, non-political speech as it was all about what he's brought on line in way of changes and nothing about anything he might have done wrong, or that there is any allowable dispute to his actions.

Remember, put aside your differences. Especially when you differ from the fearless leader.

And, by the way, the 11th September attacks were NOT intended "to bring us to our knees". This administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted: alienate as many Muslims as possible.

Well done George. Goodnight to you, too!

Posted by: notthere on September 11, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin points out a sea change in the discourse from civil to kamikaze. Al and Birkel are the proof of it, each time they post making Kevin's point a little more airtight.

Posted by: MarkC on September 11, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

"But believe me: on the Democratic side of the aisle, Bush's intensely and gratuitously partisan approach to 9/11 and the war on terror is keenly felt" - Kevin

I just feel so bad about that I don't know what to say. Have you tried therapy?

Posted by: Jay on September 11, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney:

There's that ; ) emoticon again. The one with the space between the semicolon and the close paren that I've never seen *anyone else* use in my decade of posting on message fora.

Except, of course, Thomas1.

What in heaven could that ever possibly mean? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: I just feel so bad about that I don't know what to say.

If only that were true, but like all things you post, even this is a lie.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

You do have a firm grasp for the obvious advocate.

Posted by: Jay on September 11, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe there's a dumbass here who actually thinks we are safer today because Sodom is out of power. Puhleeze, any freaking moron except Dumbya knows that the best way to keep your power is two keep your two enemies fighting against each other. Instead we have Osama playing the role the Americans should be playing. Gawd, how much are these GOopbers paid to post on this board.

Posted by: bumblbee on September 11, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: You do have a firm grasp for the obvious advocate.

Obviously, you have a firm grasp on nothing, including reality.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

In a track record of doozies, that is without question the lamest thing I've ever seen you say.

I used the ; ) emoticon to *identify it*.

You and Cheney use it *as* an emoticon.

You're busted, pal. Cheney, too :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Obviously, you have a firm grasp on nothing, including reality." - advocate

oooh, skewered by the rapier wit of a liberal.

Again, have you tried therapy?

Posted by: Jay on September 11, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Good post, Kevin.

One might add that the majority of those directly harmed by 9/11 were LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS. This is just a matter of demographics -- Manhattan . . .

Posted by: captcrisis on September 11, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Nice attempt to change the subject. Can't exactly say as I, uhh, blame you :)

Unlike many regulars here, I *can* post highlighted links.

[a href="http://yourlinkhere"]highlighted text[/a]

Replace brackets with angle brackets.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

It wasn't.

Obviously :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: Linus -- you don't think Bush has any more gray hair today than on January 20, 2001?

That's what happens when you constantly f*ck up so bad that you send your own political party down the electoral toilet, get thousands of Americans killed, stoop to torture, have to keep up with all the lies you've told, and can look forward to the lamest of lame-duck last two years in office.

Failure has made Bush grey - nothing more.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

You just described my worst cyberspace nightmare :(

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: oooh, skewered by the rapier wit of a liberal.

Yes, you were.

Nice of you to admit it.

First honest thing I've seen you post!

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Destabilizing the middle east with the Iraq war was the worst mistake in the history of the country. We will pay for it for decades.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on September 11, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: Which one is it then, Bush has more gray hair or not?

You tell us, since you believe you know it all.

It seems to matter to you a lot, so I'm sure you've done a lot of research.

Perhaps you can even provide a link to prove your point!

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: bellumregio on September 11, 2006 at 6:49 PM:

"The very idea that chasing down Al Qaeda is a national war is itself a PR concoction to keep Republicans in power. They are not exploiting the War on Terror for partisan purposes; they invented it for partisan purposes. They mixed and confounded various Middle Eastern regimes, political struggles, resistance forces and the North Koreans with the gang of Saudis that perpetrated 9/11 to take care of pre-existing agendas. At the top of that list is winning elections, so the War on Terror exists to give power to Republicans. If Mr. Cheneys sentiments are properly understood, they intend to have absolute power."

Excellent post, bellumregio.

Another plane on which to view to War on Terror is to compare it to a similarly interminable war with ever changing enemies and victory conditions: the War on Drugs.

Much like the "War on Drugs" exists to give power to the state and erode the rights of individuals, while solidifying America's [eroding] hegemony over South and Central America, the War on Terror exists soley to empower those who claim to fight it, giving the state unprecedented power to control our lives, while providing ample domestic cover to wage war at will in the Middle East.

From a propoganda standpoint, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein now play the roles once reserved for such luminaries as Pablo Escobar and Manuel Noriega.

Posted by: smedleybutler on September 11, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: With Our Help, The People Of The Middle East Are Claiming Their Freedom.

Now, that's the lamest thing you've ever posted!

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: By standing with democratic leaders and reformers . . .

Nope.

This is the lamest thing you've ever posted!

You exceed your own lameness with each sentence that rolls form your keyboard!

Democratic leaders like . . . Musharref . . . the Saudi Monarchy . . . Khaddafi . . .

Reformers like . . . Musharref . . . the Saudi Monarchy . . . Khaddafi . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: How about this, AOG:

Yep, that speech was pretty lame too.

Every bit as lame as your posts.

Full of lies, empty promises, and equally empty platitudes.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Uh-oh.

Since I just definitively outed Thomas as Cheney (with the help of that unique ; ) emoticon), now he's getting his revenge by doing the decidedly Cheney-esque thing of wrecking the thread with "official" spam he could have just as easily linked.

Since, you know, he's so good at using HTML and everything.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

You're not Birkel. Birkel has a decided *flavor* to him. He's acidic; you're passive-aggressive :)

And besides, Birkel disappears every time someone spoofs him.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Uh-oh ... here comes the Psychotic Thomas persona ... it happens everytime he's tweaked ... he starts getting all grandiose.

It's really a fascinating case study to observe.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Who cares about being healed?

I want to win, so I can live under the rule of law in a Constitutional system again, instead of the authoritarian system the Republicans forced down our throats.

Posted by: lambert strether on September 11, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

I hate to disabuse you of a self-image that is inflating as I type like blowtorch-fired balloon -- but you're really not a particularly skilled parodist or spoof artist.

Cheney and Thomas sound pretty damn identical, truthfully.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

One or a hundred. Regardless of how many people that enlist, few become lancers in the British cavalry.

The engagement of Islam and Fascism was not prearranged, like you thought when you were a child. The Darfur did not say to the mother or his brethren, they arent related so I have nothing against terrorism and totalitarianism. No, he did not mention it, yesterday or today. If theyre African or even darker, it is a number too large. Incidentally, phrenologists analyze who are good and bad by feeling heads with their fingers, which explains why we feel the way we do, calling this a better way to deal with those marching Mulsims, but it cant be, it cant be.

Now, publish it and spread the news because fertilizer can help your noggin heal.

Posted by: Will on September 11, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

HAH!

FDR was more anti-civil libertarian and more incompetent a commander-in-chief than perhaps any U.S. president in history. He permitted both Japan and Germany to become threats to our shores. But the difference today is THOSE REPBULICANS put aside petty politics and their own civil liberties issues and other secondary-to-defense issues where THESE DEMOCRATS will not rally to the war effort.

This is the saddest post I have ever read here. You who agree with this understanding of the comparison between 1941 and 2001 are deluded and "framed" and weak-minded and sad and a burden on our soldiers' noble fight and noble sacrifice of time, effort, life, and limb, to defeat an enemy that, if it gains strength, would destroy us and our SAFE, LIBERAL, ORDERED, and CIVILIZED way of life: The United States of American Way. Our enemy, Al-Qaida and their supporters including Saddam Hussein who had provided long precedent safehaven to Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia as is proven in the 9/11 Commission Report, are substantively our opposites in the political field and Regressive-Democrats don't want the U.S. to fight back when they wage war on us if it means U.S. soldiers dying or U.S. soldiers killing people. And that is what it means. If anything, our merciful President is TOO DOVISH.

Glory to our soldiers, glory to our United States of America, and glory to our citizens; life to our allies; death to our enemies; everyone else, scurry now, because this is war is on and we have only begun to STRIKE BACK.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on September 11, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: Had he just told the truth when the Swift Boat Veterans came forward, he'd be POTUS today.

He did.

You aren't even good at hindsight.

Posted by: Advocate for God on September 11, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

"BTW: Linus -- you don't think Bush has any more gray hair today than on January 20, 2001?"

I'm over that topic.

Posted by: Linus on September 11, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

The lying bastard Bush is barely 11 years older than me. I hope to outlive him. Why? Because I swear if he's buried someplace accessible I will make a trek to dance on his grave.

Posted by: steve duncan on September 11, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Duncan,

Not if I can piss on it first!

Posted by: angryspittle on September 11, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

What I want to talk about now, on this apparently Very Important National Day of Mourning and Remembrance (shouldn't I be allowed to go home early or something and cry for all our fallen heroes and mourn the dirty libs trying to take over the country?), is all the crap patriotic music this country has discharged from its collective arsehole.

England has this lovely Blake poem turned song:

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Amongst these dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold
Bring me my arrows of desire
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of Fire.
I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

Ever heard the Billy Bragg version? It's almost enough to make me happy with my 70-some percent Englishness.

But the Star Spangled Banner? Pompous rubbish. America the Beautiful? Worse.

Posted by: Linus on September 11, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

you, me, and every other liberal who needed to feel like we could trust our leaders after we were attacked feel disloyal to their country, he prevented us from healing."


Ahhh, poor guy! No denying this clown is a liberal. What a sniveling fraud of a human being. He couldn't heal. Woe is him. He's the victim here. Nothing a spine transplant couldn't cure.

Posted by: rdw on September 11, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, angry,

No such luck will be coming your way. You can't carry all of that anger and hatred and expect to live long. GWB by contrast has clearly learned to take excellent care of himself. He'll outlive each of you by a long stretch.

Posted by: rdw on September 11, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Right now I am watching Max Cleland on MSNBC.

What more needs be said, other than what they did to him

The simple ass did it to himself. He voted against homeland security because it didn't have union protections. Max forgot he lives in a right to work state. Max lost because Max got stupid.

Posted by: rdw on September 11, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

Well, this thread sure went to hell.

Posted by: Foundation of Mud on September 11, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

You're a legend in your own mind. There were several unsolicited comments elicited by your rmck1 spoofathon to the effect that they weren't me. You didn't fool a soul for a microsecond. And you looked like a *particular* idiot when you tried to pass of progrock trivia *from the 90s* -- google boy :)

Linus:

I grew up with ELP's version. Not to everybody's tastes, of course. You do know, right, that The Star-Spangled Banner was actually an old drinking song, To Anacreon in Heaven?

Thomas Pynchon has a great take on Colonial enthusiasm for that tune in his historical novel Mason & Dixon.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

I know that lots of people find "chicken hawk" talk inappropriate for various reasons (most of which I've never really understood) when we talk about enthusiastic supporters of the war in Iraq.

But look at the video of George's speech tonight. While he sits there talking about a mother who nobly dedicated her children to service in the the "War on Terror," he has the gall to sit with a photo over his right shoulder of his two yuppy, military-aged daughters--smiling and sunny and civilian.

How can we fail to call this man on his shocking, un-American arrogance when he sits there commending other parents for their sacrifice with this photo carefully positioned in camera range by his handlers?

There's truly no limit to the depths these people will sink to. But isn't this really a new low?

Posted by: RS on September 11, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

The drivel on this site is astounding and the fact that the left is trying to blame Bush on all of the partisanship when the Democrats have been foaming at the mouth with Bush hatred that they couldn't give real support to the fight against terrorism inspite of themselves.

Also, the rewrite of history to forget the long list of terror attacks that were not responded to by the Clinton Administration or any previous administration is dispicable and to try an paint Clinton as fighting terror or going after Osama bin Laden is a farce.

Posted by: democratsRWEAK on September 11, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

I know that lots of people find "chicken hawk" talk inappropriate for various reasons (most of which I've never really understood) when we talk about enthusiastic supporters of the war in Iraq.

But look at the video of George's speech tonight. While he sits there talking about a mother who nobly dedicated her children to service in the the "War on Terror," he has the gall to sit with a photo over his right shoulder of his two yuppy, military-aged daughters--smiling and sunny and civilian.

How can we fail to call this man on his shocking, un-American arrogance when he sits there commending other parents for their sacrifice with this photo carefully positioned in camera range by his handlers?

There's truly no limit to the depths these people will sink to. But isn't this really a new low?

Posted by: Randall on September 11, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

VERSION 1.2:

GLORY TO OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GLORY TO OUR SOLDIERS, AND GLORY TO OUR CITIZENS; DEATH TO OUR ENEMIES, WHO DID STRIKE US FIRST; EVERYONE ELSE, SCURRY NOW OUT OF HARMS WAY IF IT IS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THIS WORLD WAR IS ON UNTIL OUR ENEMIES AND THEIR ENABLERS ARE ALL DEAD AND OUR VICTORY IS WON; POWER IS OUR SWORD, MERCY IS OUR SHIELD; THEY THEMSELVES ARE OUR WITNESS; THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING A BEGINNING THAT WE WILL END IN OUR VICTORY: WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STRIKE BACK. VICTORY!

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on September 11, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Foundation of Mud on September 11, 2006 at 10:40 PM:

Well, this thread sure went to hell.

Yeah, it looks like the 'Publican disinformation squad got something extra in their pay bucket to clog up the center-left blogs for the month before election...

Posted by: grape_crush on September 11, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

I apologize to all readers for triggering Thomas off into another one of his OCD episodes.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Saddest dove, ish too merciful to stop those U.S. soldiers killing people, it is weak-willed, no burden, no sacrifice, no dying, no delusion, no life is safe from our noble sacrifice to preserve and save order. Read it and weep, you who are denuded, enemy and supporters of a way of life, framed with understanding and comparison. You will never agree, the precedent was made in Mesopotamia a very long time ago. Thats proven. The paymaster, remember him from your youth, sometimes he would pay commission, for something good and well done or a big sale was closed, not like the mind, because you did good. That is what it means, to cooperate and work together. The pay off strengthens civilized man.

Posted by: Will on September 11, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

All readers, I would like to apologize for the *non-apology* that prefaced my previous prima facie remarks and state that Thomas1 is yanking the snark chain a bit too tightly.

I understand and have sometimes even expressed my support Kevin for posting them, but I've found a number of his recent threads entirely demoralizing and difficult to comment in. So difficult in fact that sometimes even being *shit-faced* on Drano and Captain Morgan fails to subdue me.

Mainly because I agree so much it hurts, and all the stuff posted in comments is just more of the story of how Bush and his merry band serially *butt* gangraped everything good about this country without so much as a fisting and a reacharound with a jug of KY.

Speaking of which, I read Time magazine now and that ass fucking girl is in there. Ana Cox? She of Wonkette fame? A blog about *ass fucking* hits too close to home for me. I should say *tits* too close to home.

Hehhehehehehhehhheeeehheheh

?9~C:; X>>>.;'

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

It's not necessarily you, Bob...It's like someone sent a signal for all the freak rightwingers to batshit tonight...All because it's the fifth anniversary of a horrific event in US history.

Like Tony Snow said, "It's just a number", so why is there special significance attached to this anniversary? Using Snow's reasoning, one day is pretty much like the rest...

Is there a full moon out? If so, the trolls are out howling at it.

Posted by: grape_crush on September 11, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

The Objective Historian: Neither objective nor a historian. Read up on isolationism, would you?

Posted by: Wombat on September 11, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

*rolling eyes, snickering under breath*

A true case study, all right.

Look, if you want to write vulgar with impact, you have to learn how to be sardonic -- to balance understatement and tone with the raw language. It's not just about throwing out vulgar terminology.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

I apologize to all readers for triggering Thomas off into another one of his OCD episodes.
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I dunno, I blame myself more than you for bringing up the Pi thing.

btw - it's still not 3.0.

I don't know why.

That program keeps looping and looping. . . .

I should have written it with a counter so I could tell him how many times it discovered that Pi != 3.0.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Glory be our name. Our soldiers are united to strike death into enemies first, everyone else will be harmed, scurrilously, out of the way until they themselves are gory. Glory be thy name, the war is a world, the swords end its victory. General Lee knew that, remember reading about him when young. He knew what victory was. He was witness to the mercy and when you think about it, it turned into a pretty good beginning.

Posted by: Will on September 11, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you people bother sending notes. Democrats are not listening nor are Republicans. No one's mind is changed by these notes so why bother? Oh it makes you feel good.
Find a better hobby.

Posted by: JL on September 11, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Grapey & OBF:

Points taken :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

It must be like Mischief Night for them or something.

Tomorrow they'll be trick-or-treating dressed in normal sane people costumes :)

Bob

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

Kevin,

Your and Spencer's takes are good. 9-11 was just another cudgel, to this crowd. That they used it as a cudgel while actively prevented real examination of the events, to the point where 36% of the country still wonders 5 years later if the administration is complicit says much. The whole psychological need for the creation of this Disney fiasco piece says everything that needs to be said about this crew. They can't accept responsibility, they can't share power, they require a world view based on lies just to maintain their day to day operations. They are a sick sick lot, and they need to go down in infamy.

I said it before in 2003. Dictatorship is not a model of leadership that can scale its group intelligence to handle the complexities of the modern world. You can't get enough minds through the circles of trust and into the required world view fast enough to permit the meaningful examination modern day problems. Worse you can't re-examine your principles to accomodate the frame of reference changes that rapidly supplied new information warrants. As the group in charge loses the ability to reason correctly and reality bites it on the ass, the group must expend more and more energy to deny and suppress the comprehension of this reality both internally and externally. After this event horizon has been crossed, the process of denial creation and deinal management quickly ends up being the full-time job of the whole group. Essentially reality overwhelms the group at exactly the point at which their intelligence scale-up peaks out. This limit is predetermined by the inflexibilty of the very nature leadership structure itself.

In previous centuries when populations were smaller and technology and knowledge were less understood and diffusing through society at a slower rate, the limits of the dictorship model were not as recognizable, but with the modern world as it is, the dictatorship model really shows its weaknesses.

Posted by: patience on September 11, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

A wingy dingy on the down low

Sowing the seeds of love backbreak the word is on the way of a suck suck sucky. I was going to bring you a lovely bunch of coconuts but my balls went numb and I said something dumb and now I'm young and I'm full of cucumber jam.

Sane normal people make fishsticks bleed lip gloss.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

"I grew up with ELP's version. Not to everybody's tastes, of course. You do know, right, that The Star-Spangled Banner was actually an old drinking song, To Anacreon in Heaven?"

I didn't know that. But that's understandable. About all that was suitable to drink back then was drink.

America's patriotic songs are all so pompous, operatic, imperial; they're like Germany's. America has the imperial soul, not England.

Posted by: Linus on September 11, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

After this event horizon has been crossed, the process of denial creation and deinal management quickly ends up being the full-time job of the whole group.

patience, that's an excellent analysis. You could replace "dictatorship" with "idealogue" and come out with the same result, as the whole process is defined by refusing to reexamine one's principles in the light of changing information.

well done.

Posted by: mhart on September 11, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

> Sane normal people make fishsticks bleed lip gloss.

Hey, I like that. Not quite up to the level of Will yet, but definitely getting there ...

Linus:

I dunno. You've heard Arne's Rule Britannia, right? No, not the first four notes you hear on the Finstones when Fred gets clobbered in the head with something heavy -- the whole thing. With orchestra and chorus. Gahh, it's the most unlistenable piece of drek ever composed. The literal theme song of the British Empire. Talk about smug, pompous and overbearing ...

While Germany, Russia and France were pushing the boundaries of dissonance and the sonata form in the Romantic era, Arne was writing steroidally overarranged Baroque concerti for the Hanoverian courts well into the middle of the 19th century. Truly stuck in a time warp.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

...confidence in our purpose, and faith in a loving God who made us to be free.

Posted by: Thomas1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Right now there is obviously declining confidence, at least in the direction, as in leadership, of that purpose, even (or maybe especially) among those receiving the directives. I would say with good reason.

Whose God, and "us" being who?

10:18 pm, is it my imagination or has TOH become even more insane than he ever was?

Posted by: notthere on September 11, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

The person I admire was Eisenhower. After the botched Bay of Pigs, Ike could have blasted JFK. Given Ike's war hero status vs. JFK's youth and inexperience, criticism from Ike would ahve been devestating. However, Ike kept his mouth shut for the good of the country. As a result, JFK and the the Dems gained in popularity, but the country gained a more unified foreign policy.

An inapt parellel. No US soldiers were sent into Cuba, and the BoP (sadly) didn't result in the fall of the Castro government. Therefore, it didn't create three years of rising chaos due to a conscious decision not to plan to avoid it. Remember "I'll fire the next one who mentions it ..."?

If Cuba in '64 had looked like Iraq does today, Ike would long since have had plenty to say. As would every other responsible public figure of the day. Calls for that kind of accountablity only get treated as a "deranged" attack these days.

Posted by: just sayin on September 11, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's like someone sent a signal for all the freak rightwingers to batshit tonight..

I think it had to do with their "god" giving a talk on TV tonight.

He'll outlive each of you by a long stretch.
Posted by: rdw on September 11, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

If there's any justice in the world (and there is not), he'll meet an early demise at the end of a rope after his fair trial at The Hague.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 11, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Cheney and Thomas sound pretty damn identical, truthfully."

Of course they do. Is there any doubt at all that they are the same person? Chuckles' style is unmistakable, even without the emoticons. Among other things, note the "drama queen" behavior each time another sock puppet of his enters the thread.

Posted by: PaulB on September 11, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Dear little Chuckles, just as dumb as he was months ago when he first started posting here, wrote: "You do realize that threatening to dance on the grave of the president, i.e, harm the POTUS, is an actionable offense?>"

No, dear, it isn't, any more than is threatening to punch the president in the nose. I thought you had learned your lesson the last time we went through this. Have you finally figured out the correct statute? And learned to interpret it correctly? And has the Secret Service ever gotten back to you after you complained to them?

No? Yeah, I didn't think so. Good ol' Chuckles; always good for a laugh.

Posted by: PaulB on September 12, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Amen, brother. Bush's legacy: intense, gratuitous, partisanship.

Posted by: sd on September 12, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

James Joyner can go fuck himself with a rusty chainsaw. And if that upsets him, tough fucking shit. Let him pull up a fucking fainting couch and collapse in a fit of the vapors.

And now I'm off to perform some abortions on women who got pregnant by gay men just to make Chuckles cry.

Posted by: ahem on September 12, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

This time, the bullet cold rocked ya;
A yellow ribbon instead of a swastika.
-Rage Against the Machine

I said it before in 2003. Dictatorship is not a model of leadership that can scale its group intelligence to handle the complexities of the modern world.

Patience, the modern age brings all kinds of wonderful tools too. Mass media propaganda, TIA, cluster bombs, tear gas, microwave weapons, databases, etc.

They're still figuring out how to use these tools, but I'm pretty sure that the right formula exists out there.

There's another quote, maybe from Orwell; "Imagine the future - a boot stomping on a human face, forever."
George W Bush's wet dream.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 12, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

...Arne was writing steroidally overarranged Baroque concerti for the Hanoverian courts well into the middle of the 19th century. Truly stuck in a time warp.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, you're going to think I'm picking on you, but it's your own sloppiness that brings it on. I'm not the music scholar you so obviously are but . . .

In 1740, Thomas Arne adapted Rule Brittania from a poem by James Thomas. It's drek, but was written to be so; a popular, inspiring reaffirmation of Britains independence in the face of adversity.

Arne died in 1778 making it hard for him to write any music "into the middle of the nineteenth century".

Although not British, Joe Haydn (1732-1809) was rapturously received in Britain in the 1790s and, it is said, was so inspired (and commissioned) as to write some of his best symphonies.

As an aside, Haydn greatly admired Arne's opera "Artaxerxes". Musically, Arne is better remembered for his songs, including Shakespearean, and operas, and he was the first to introduce women singers into the opera chorus, at least in the UK.

Maybe you confuse him with another Arne. Or maybe he channelled some? I can't help you.

Posted by: notthere on September 12, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

just sayin wrote: If Cuba in '64 had looked like Iraq does today, Ike would long since have had plenty to say. As would every other responsible public figure of the day.

In fact, Cuba did look awful, and the "responsible public figures" pretty much ignored it. But, the unfortunate Cubans were forced to deal with Castro's government. Since Castro took over, twenty-five per cent of the population have fled the country for the US and various Latin American counties. Many of the escapees drowned or were killed by Castro's goons. They preferred risking the lives of themselves and their children to living in what Cuba had become.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 12, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you Kevin, well said.

And that is why I hate GW Bush with the intensity of a thousand suns - because he deliberately chose to use 9/11 to demonize Democrats and consolidate power for the looney Right minority. It's absolutely disgraceful - and a Democratic President would have been called on it by the mainstream media a long time ago.

Fuck him, and fuck them.

Posted by: craigie on September 12, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

On tonight's speech: An open wound left infected.

Posted by: Joseph on September 12, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

notthere:

Arrgghh. You absolutely and totally nailed me on Arne's chronology. My humblest apologies to your superior knowledge here. I had recalled that from conversations with a rather fevered Arne fan on a BBS ages ago. I should've checked that out.

He *was* writing "Baroque symphonies" for the Georges years after the Baroque period went out of style (usually put at around the time of JS Bach's death in 1720), but into the High Classical, not Romantic, period.

Let it be known that I do try to be gracious when called out.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 12, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

"...Eisenhower. After the botched Bay of Pigs, Ike could have blasted JFK...."

Not really. The CIA planned it all under Ike's watch and JFK was just allowing the CIA to follow on on prior foreign policy planning.

That experience gave him the heads-up to trust his own judgement more, and the military and CIA less when the missile crisi came about.

Now we know, which noone on the US side did at the time, that nuclear warheads were already in Cuba. Mmmm. How close to catastrophe did we come but for JFK's instincts.

Can't say the same for this dumb-ass's judgement or instincts.

Posted by: notthere on September 12, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

Go Keith. Holy shit, that was fierce.

notthere:

IIRC, Arne wrote that trumpet voluntary they used to use as the theme to Masterpiece Theatre.

Nifty little riff, that.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 12, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans like the trolls on this site are whiny, pathetic little cowards who shit themselves wioth fear whenever Bush or Cheney or Robe orders them to.

The modern GOP is a neo-Stalinist organization: all for the One Great Leader; all for the One Great Party. It's run by lying traitors, who tell the sheeplike, frightened idiots who vote for them what to think. These cowering followers are so goddamned afraid of their own shadows that they'd rather give up their freedom than have their big powerful GOP Daddies get mad at 'em.

Traitors and cowards: today's GOP.

You don't like that, Republican trolls? Kiss my red white and blue ass. Move to North Korea, it's more your speed. This is America, and we don't follow little punkass dictators like your snotnosed preppy cheerleader, George "The Deserter" Bush.

Long Live the U.S.A.! Down with the traitorous G.O.P.!


Posted by: Rocky Marciano on September 12, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

If there is one thing above all else that Bush will live in infamy for it was the transmutation of both global and domestic unity for crass abusive domestic partisan political gains instead of meeting this threat head on, healing the country of the fear it felt from it's vulnerability, and by doing so reducing the power of international terrorism for years/decades to come. What he and his Administration have done to weaken the power of America across the board in both the hard and soft senses of the word is little short than what a paid operative out to destroy American power would have done. This Presidency will be seen as one of the most disastrous, if not the most in American history, that will be the judgment of history, regardless of who writes it this has been such a massive blunder. Even the historians of American competitors and enemies will record this for decades to centuries to come this has been such a massive cock-up in so many sense of the term.

This is an Administration and President that have traded in the reality of fighting for the appearance and have managed to discredit America as the bastion of the rule of law and equality for all into just another State that routinely kidnaps people and tortures people often without acknowledging their existences to begin with. The stain of dishonour Bush will carry throughout the rest of recorded history as unfortunately so will America is an ugly one indeed, and all for the grasping of partisan power at home. Bushco has destroyed much of what was left that made the GOP a party worthy of respect even by it's opponents (and this is another thing the modern GOP owns, this idea that to oppose is to be the enemy and to fight the enemy requires total warfare) and many of it's own moderates with this blunder. They are the ones that have made the idea of questioning Presidential power nigh on treason in the land that was founded on the right to dissent and to have free political speech protected above all other forms of speech.

If only they had some success to point to for the high price that has been paid for their actions, but that is what makes this truly not just historic but legendary a level of historic failure. For what will likely be less then a decade of power Bush has sold out the reputation of the GOP of being strong on security in truth/reality, wise with the government check book, understanding of the place of America in the global community (granted this was not a widespread thing outside the GOP base unlike the others which some independents tended to believe) and the bastion of liberty, justice for all, and the primacy of the rule of law not force.

This is a tragedy of epic proportions, and I fear end up significantly scarring America even worse then the 9/11/01 attacks themselves did, not small feat. When Clinton handed over the country to Bush America was seen as poised for being dominant for the next century...it is remarkable how rapidly Bush managed to destroy that notion for all but the most hard core of his followers like the various trolletariat representatives this thread had in it.

Posted by: Scotian on September 12, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

You know, it never fails to amaze me how silly democrats are. When they aren't mindlessly attacking the President, they're lying about the economy, or smearing people who don't agree with them as extremists. They're so arrogant, narrow-minded, and intolerant that it's little wonder that people like me left the party and became Republicans. I did not wish to be in the same party as some of the posters here. And I look forward to the day that blacks stop giving democrats 90% of their vote. On that day, your party will be finshed.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

You say that "...Within a few months of 9/11 Karl Rove was telling party members what a great issue terrorism would be for Republicans..."

9/11 would not have been a "great issue" for Republicans if the Democrats had been even slightly serious about defending the nation. For the last 40 years the Democrats have made one thing crystal clear - they won't defend this country from anything but those evil Republicans. If the Democrats were remotely serious about national defense, Rove Inc. would not have been able, and would not STILL BE ABLE to make the war (FYI we're at war) an election issue.

Don't blame the right for the left's self inflicted wounds.

Posted by: Rick Gutridge on September 12, 2006 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK

And besides, Birkel disappears every time someone spoofs him.

Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Bob -- along those lines, have you ever noticed that Jay shows up once Birkel has completely lost control beyond anything even troll-redemptive?


Scotian -- Good to read a post from you. It's been a long time.

Posted by: jcricket on September 12, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Bob rmck1 --

didn't think this would keep going and I don't crow. I just like truth and I've made plenty of errors myself. Like you, I'll take correction and process it.

Yes, Arne wrote some nice stuff but you're right that there's a reason why he's not played so much these days. Although I have a large collection of classical music there's never been Arne in it.

I'm finished on this item but, to get back to the theme, the Democratic side of US politics has every right to feel offended by all that has happened these last 5 years -- so does the world, and that is more dangerous!

Posted by: notthere on September 12, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Also, as far as working with democrats is concerned, no one compromises when they don't need to. If a liberal had won the presidency and had a democratic Congress, there would not have been much compromise, either. A poster mentioned earlier that FDR was a "bi-partisan President". That's a false statement. Roosevelt had huge majorities in both houses and totally marginalized the Republican minority. President Bush has generated strong economic growth, badly damaged Al-Quada, imprisoned Saddam, and has gone to great lengths to keep us safe, and has succeeded. It was the left that destroyed unity in the country. That's why you keep losing elections, and why the democrats are a complete joke.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

I see the idiot parade is here. Tell me Rick Gutridge, who was in charge on Sept 11, 2001? What did that man do to prevent the event Republicans are currently celebrating?

The truth is quite simple. For a decade the Republican Party invested all of its efforts into eliminating what they felt was the biggest threat to the United States the legitimately elected President Clinton. They ignored terrorist attacks by enemies both foreign and domestic in order to attack the President. No person cognizant of history can take the Republican Party seriously on national security.

Posted by: heavy on September 12, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

"black republican for bush" or "charlie," what, specifically, did bush do to prevent 9/11? How did his presidency mitigate the attacks? How are we better off with bush having murdered 2600+ of our soldiers and 30,000+ Iraqis?

Oh, and why did your joke president run crying like a little girl on Sept 11, 2001?

Posted by: heavy on September 12, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Reading Heavy's post leads me to ask--is LSD making a comeback?

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK

...That's why you keep losing elections, and why the democrats are a complete joke.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

I have a real problem with your moniker.

You obvously want to write with a racial overtone but noone can substantiate your race. I already am suspicious that this is a counter-op.

Please clarify or remove yourself.

Posted by: notthere on September 12, 2006 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK

black republican for bush:

I was going to make the same point as notthere. Why racially identify on an entirely colorblind medium?

I thought one of the things that Blacks find attractive about the GOP (those few who do) is the whole "colorblind society" deal. IOW, don't you guys make a career out of deemphasizing your race and running from "Black consciousness" cuz it reeks of all that identity politics and laundry-list liberalism that you so despise about the Democrats?

What is the purpose of this rhetorical Kinte cloth?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 12, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

I can see that the silliness has started again. The problems that led to 9-11 were institutional. Various agencies did not communicate with each other. That situation had existed for years. Bush had been in office for only 9 months. If anyone was to blame, it was his predecessor. Clinton had 8 years to correct the situation. In all fairness,the problems goes back decades, and I don't place great blame on Clinton or Bush. But if blame were to be assigned, it should not go to a man who inherited these problems from Clinton.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

I attended an interfaith service this evening, a memorial for 9/11. It was held at Temple Emanuel, a Reform temple.

Five Christian denominations were represented: Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, African Methodist Episcopal, and Baptist. An imam participated, as well as a member of the local Baha'i congregation, and several representatives of the Sikh tradition.

Tucson's mayor was there, and a number of other politicians and public figures. There was music from the Sikhs, the Jewish people, the representative of Baha'i, and one of the Baptist churches. The other Christian leaders presented prayers. The Imam read passages from the Quran in both Arabic and English.

It was a beautiful and moving service. The music was wonderful, and varied from a portion of a Liszt piano piece, to Gospel, to a guitar-accompanied Jewish hymn, to a Sikh chant with a stringed instrument and drums, to a pianist/singer accompanied by ASL signing by one of the priests of his church. The service ended with a rousing rendition of America the Beautiful in which we all joined.

All faiths were treated with respect, as well as the politicians and public figures, who gave remembrances which were not specifically religious in nature.

I kept thinking throughout the service: THIS is what makes American strong. Being able to get people together of diverse backgrounds under one roof, and to have a remembrance together.

I have just retired from the Arizona Health Sciences Library. Of approximately 45 fulltime workers, the Head Librarian and two other staff members are Jewish. Two Hispanics work there, one born in Mexico. One member is from Iran and practices Islam. Another co-worker is from Vietnam and is married to an Iranian. There are two African Americans on the staff.

Again, this is America's strength. People can work side-by-side, can get along and even be fast friends, whose backgrounds are diverse.

Our strength does NOT lie in our weaponry, or our huge army. Iraq now, Afghanistan now, and Vietnam 30 years ago, all demonstrate the futility of huge armies and arsenals.

But we have this diversity, from which it is possible to have unity. Not rigid conformity, but respect for each others' differences, and working together to achieve common purposes, and relying on each others' strengths.

THIS is what I wish we Americans would trumpet to the world. THIS makes me still proud to be an American, despite the dreadful mistakes of our malAdministration.

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on September 12, 2006 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK

jcricket:

I've always found Birkel and Jay to be very rhetorically similar ... but I don't think I'd go so far as to call them sock puppets.

For one thing, Jay seems a bit more resillient. He pulls some of that same sardonic, indignant shit -- but deep down, I think he wants to be accepted here. I've actually see him acknowlege being called out every once in a while. He's had a few friendly words with me.

Birkel, OTOH, has always been highly brittle, sardonic, insanely arrogant, and rarely capable of making sustained arguments. Jay will really try to tear up a thread and make roundhouse rebuttals. Lately, when Birkel tries that with a few people he just completely melts down and becomes a six-year-old. I've never quite seen Jay lose his cool so spectacularly. Jay likes to admit he loves pulling our chains.

Also with Jay, often times he'll say something highly provocative, get stomped on relentlessly for it (e.g. some of his comments about nuking Muslims) and then it will turn out that that wasn't *quite* what Jay meant, and that he was intentionally pushing the envelope.

I've never seen Birkel back down over anything.

So I'd call what you've observed a coincidence -- although the pattern does bear watching. I could, of course, be wrong; Birkel could be Jay's "safe" venting persona. We'll see ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 12, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

...But if blame were to be assigned, it should not go to a man who inherited these problems from Clinton.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, I'm so sorry! I never received your confirmation of being a Black Republican.

You probably understand. Being Black and al'that.

For so many years the Republicans inhibited (and still do) Black ability to fairly represent themselves in voting. Do not like Blacks to fairly represent themselves in education, industry, or government. Wonder why you're a "black republican".

Please show proof. Otherwise drop the racist handle.

Posted by: notthere on September 12, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

If you guys are so fair minded about race (as democrats supposedly are) why bother making an issue of it? I know that people on the left hate the fact the some blacks are Republicans. But, if you must know, I'm using the same moniker that I use on free republic, and for those who might recognize it from that site. Kinte cloth? I see you have a racial problem. Or you're simply an idiot. Clarify or remove yourself.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

black republican for bush:

Your handle preceeds you. *IT* makes an issue of race before the first sentence crawls off your fingers.

A Freeper, eh? Boy, you must love all the attention from all those ... demographically common ... right wingers. They must crowd around you in wonder, like you just walked out of Area 51 or something :)

So can the disingenuous crapola 'n' explain to us why a Black GOPer feels the need to play identity politics, eh?

I thought identity politics was the problem as far as you're concerned.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 12, 2006 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINK

There's nothing racist about the name I'm using. I need prove nothing. But it says something about you that you doubt my race. Race isn't the issue here. We're talking politics. Let's stick to that. Like for instance, the foolish statements about 9-11 you guys have been posting? Despite what you may think now, our current president will stand much taller in history than you think. Remember Election Day Nov 2, 2004? What a glorious evening that was. I know you had your crying towel handy!

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 2:51 AM | PERMALINK

black republican for bush:

You reallize that you're not really saying much, just going nyah nyah nyah on a liberal blog.

Can you get into something a little meatier like why you consider all the various Islamist movements around the world, comprised of many different ethnicities and flavors of Islam (some incompatible with each other, like Sh'ite Khomeneism and Sunni takfiri Salafism) are part of some allegedly singular movement of so-called Islamofascism?

As a Black person, doesn't the phrase "Islamofascism" make you a little uncomfortable?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 12, 2006 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

At top, Kevin Drum wrote:

("Dr. Tax Cuts has been replaced by Dr. Win the War" would have been more appropriate.)
Kevin, surely you meant to say it the other way 'round:

"Dr. Win the War has been replaced by Dr. Tax Cuts" . . . .

or even

"Dr. Win the War has been replaced by Dr. Impose One Party Rule."

Posted by: Raven on September 12, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

Identity politics? I never use that term. You're making a big issue about race. I was a democrat for many years. But I became more conservative on the abortion issue, and I've always been pro gun. Also, I believe in a strong national defense. And for years before the Iraq War, I felt that force should be used to remove Saddam from power. I still feel it was the right decision, and if it weren't late I'd give a long discourse on the topic. Anyway, I'll go now, you take care and be well, and good night. Maybe I'll post tomorrow.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

I was a democrat for many years.

BINGO! So, how much is Unca Karl paying you to troll Internet comment boards at 3 in the morning?

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on September 12, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

black republican for bush:

Oh well, take care too, and thanks for ending so civilly in the face of so much snark.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 12, 2006 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK

...But if blame were to be assigned, it should not go to a man who inherited these problems from Clinton.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

So, as a "black republican", that we can take on your written word, is the truth, in a way we never take truth from anyone else on this blog, without any cite? Wow. I DON'T THINK.

OK. Give us an argument but substantiate the same way as every one else. Cite!

Posted by: notthere on September 12, 2006 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you conveniently pretend that the Democrats were not attacking the President at every chance they got before AND after 9/11. After all, wasn't part of the Democrat's desire with the 9/11 commission to try and get the country to "see" how much Bush was to blame for 9/11? Just look at the comments to your musings and you'll see a hearty bunch whose hatred started way before 9/11. Please stop pontificating as though you and the Democrats are innocent little things and are just put upon by the evil partisan Republicans.

Posted by: Alex on September 12, 2006 at 6:51 AM | PERMALINK

The evidence is overwhelming. 9/11 was a attack on American soil funded by Pakistan and facilitated by the government of George Bush.

If you are one of the few people who STILL defend this administration after everything we know, you have no moral backbone.

Watch this documetary for everything you need to know about 9/11 and its aftermath:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=9+11+press+for+truth

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on September 12, 2006 at 7:09 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you conveniently pretend that the Democrats were not attacking the President at every chance they got before AND after 9/11.

Meanwhile, Alex conveniently fails to mention that the Republicans have been attacking the Democrats at every chance they got before AND after 9/11.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on September 12, 2006 at 7:10 AM | PERMALINK

Watch this documetary for everything you need to know about 9/11 and its aftermath:

And don't forget to ask Gene Ray about the fallacy of the 24 hour day, or Robert McElwaine about our Hollow Earth!

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on September 12, 2006 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINK

"The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat." - gwb 9/11/06


1991 INVASION: 400k TROOPS

2003 INVASION: 150k TROOPS

its obvious

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 12, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK


"Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither." - gwb 9/11/06


THE SINGLE MOST DOWNLOADED FILE AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV. NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE IS:
.
RUMSFELD'S HANDSHAKE WITH SADDAM HUSSIEN FROM DECEMBER 1983

Posted by: mr. irony on September 12, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

" The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power." - gwb 9/11/06


Most studies show the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is on the rise. According to U.S. government figures released in April 2005, there were 651 significant international terrorist incidents in 2004, more than triple the record 175 documented in 2003.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8274/terrorism_issue_brief.html


state department study showed similar results until the bush administration ordered that study not be produced anymore.

f.y.i.

Number of roadside bombs that went off in Iraq in July, the highest monthly total of the war: 1,666

Posted by: mr. irony on September 12, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Watch this documetary for everything you need to know about 9/11 and its aftermath:

And don't forget to ask Gene Ray about the fallacy of the 24 hour day, or Robert McElwaine about our Hollow Earth!

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on September 12, 2006 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINK


Do you have something relevent to say on the subject of 9/11 or do you just refuse to see the government for what it is? And it is a cabal of lying, cheating, law-breaking individuals out to secure their grip on power.

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on September 12, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK


"On September the 11th, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores" - gwb 9/11/06


because on august-6th 2001...there were fish to catch

"All right. You've covered your ass, now."

-G.W.B. 8/6/2001 to a CIA briefer who informed him of the P.D.B. titled - Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 12, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK


"We're adapting to stay ahead of the enemy, and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds." - gwb 9/11/06


"The White House reveals that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad now houses a formal 'Office of Hostage Affairs'. - 9/7/06

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/waronterror/2006/sectionIV.html

Posted by: mr. irony on September 12, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK


"And we will never back down from the work they have begun. " - gwb 9/11/06

"what do you mean 'we' keemosabee?" - Tonto

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 12, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

"We've created the Department of Homeland Security." - gwb 9/11/06


that was after he was against it....


"We have torn down the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence from sharing information." - gwb 9/11/06

9/11 Panel Gives Gov't Poor Marks on Reform - A.P. 12/3/05

Posted by: mr. irony on September 12, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, that was so well said. I wish even 1 Dem could say it so succinctly on the talking head shows. They keep saying the same vague 'sqaundered the chance' talking point without bringing up the specifics as you did. Kerry had another prime chance to elaborate on that point Sunday, but he blew it (again).

The inarticulate Dem reactions to Bush are as much of a problem as Bush himself. Reid, Pelosi, and HRC rarely get to the point. I'd like to see Obama come more to the front as a spokesman for the congressioanl Dems.

Posted by: dml on September 12, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK


"We're training Iraqi troops so they can defend their nation." - gwb 9/11/06


The Pentagon says that "the -only- Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded." February 25, 2006

Posted by: mr. irony on September 12, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK


"Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country, and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us. " - gwb 9/11/06

"You can support the troops and not the president." - Tom Delay 1999

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." - Tony Snow March 24, 1999


Posted by: mr. how times have changed on September 12, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

"Scoatian's back?! Have you ever met rmck1 / Bob? He will enjoy specific tales of all the thousands of sexual partners you've had . . ."

Posted by: Thomas1 on September 12, 2006 at 1:45 A

Why hello Nathan/Cheney/Chuckles, you really love outing yourself in your various sock puppets like this, don't you? Only you ever remember this idiocy (likely since you are the only one that thinks it is at all relevant or for that matter at all capable of discrediting my comments especially since you take it out of context every single time), only you have ever used it to try and discredit a voice whose arguments you have never managed to discredit, and only you would think it had any relevance to what was written. You really think that this has any effect other than to show yourself as a petty, vindictive, nasty piece of work whose is entirely unable to actually discredit someone except by attempting to smear them with such irrelevancies to the arguments being put forward?

It never ceases to amaze me that Chuckles thinks this is going to have any effect other than to show himself as described. For that matter that it will have any effect in discrediting me aside from with his various sock puppets and maybe other trolletariat despite each and every time he has used it the only response it gets is mockery for it's incredible lameness, ineffectiveness and irrelevance. Which is of course exactly the only mode of operations Chuckles and his various sock puppets have ever been able to demonstrate he can manage.

jcricket:

I still read here, but lately I haven't had much to say that wasn't already being said. Besides, we all need a break from time to time from the various stupidities from Charlie and his sock puppet factory here...:)

Posted by: Scotian on September 12, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you for getting this right Kevin.

Posted by: Nemesis on September 12, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

1) is there a more worthless comment than 'you are sooooo right"?

2) you libs are so right, on Sept 10 2001 there was no partsianship and all the world loved us. you guys are retards.

Posted by: suckass on September 12, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK


"Taliban no longer is in existence." - GWB Sept-2004


Afghanistan is...."close to anarchy." - Lt. Gen. David Richards Head of Nato's security force in Afghanistan 7/21/06

Posted by: mr. irony on September 12, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

...noting the harsh tone evident....

I'm Over It

I will be really glad when this 9/11 national holiday has passed. I am at the point where I immediately grab the remote when a related story is introduced. How long will it be until we start having 9/11 sales at a store near you?

3,000 people died.

I wish we were as obsessive about the 43,000 deaths caused by traffic accidents (non alcohol related), the 85,000 deaths related to alcohol use, the 435,000 deaths caused by tobacco use, the 29,000 killed by guns. (Multiply each of these numbers by 5 to compare with the 5 year total of deaths by terrorism.)

How about the fact that twice as many black babies die than do white ones.

A whole bunch of people die premature and preventable deaths. Let's act as if we care about them all.

Posted by: Keith G on September 12, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Most studies show the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is on the rise. According to U.S. government figures released in April 2005, there were 651 significant international terrorist incidents in 2004, more than triple the record 175 documented in 2003.

And that's deliberately NOT counting terrorist incidents in Iraq, which are running at the rate of 50-70 a day.

Posted by: Arminius on September 12, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Scotian:

I have been reading here since it was called CalPundit -- that's how I know all about you and your posts from the library computer -- however, I am neither "Charlie" nor "rmck1 / Bob" (the latter of whom I was trying to introduce you to since you have much in common with him re: deviant sex -- how are your meds holding up BTW?).
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 12, 2006 at 11:59 AM

Yes Chuckles I know exactly who you are, as do all the other regulars. As for this comment about an interest in deviant sex that I supposedly share with rmck1/Bob, perhaps you might be able to quote anything I have written that demonstrates I have an interest in deviant sex aside from having had many partners over my lifetime, something you appear to be quite envious of given your repeatedly bringing it up as you have. Since I know exactly what I have written on the topic of my sex life here I know you are unable to do so. Nice of you to yet again provide an example of your inherent inability to tell the truth about anyone that does not share your POV on matters political.

You are not the only one that has been here for so many years and all the rest of us remember you in your various sock puppets Chuckles, so trying to pretend that you are not Chuckles at this point also indicates just how pitiable you are in truth. I thank you though for yet again demonstrating to the newer commentators here just what kind of low life sleaze merchant you really are. It is too bad that you are more focused on the sex life of a commentator than you are on the actual topic under discussion, which is how your Dear Leader has managed a strategic disaster of not merely historic but legendary proportions.

Incidentally, why do you bother referencing my sex life when you know it matters not at all to me, that I find it vastly amusing when you do so, and that outside of the trolletariat here and your various sock puppets no one else here finds it relevant nor something to get all hot and bothered over? It would seem you have some serious and deep psychosexual issues to work through given your unhealthy fixation on my sex life/history to go along with that clear tone of envy. You really need to grasp this, if I was bothered/troubled by others knowing I have been rather promiscuous in my sex life I would never have brought it up in the original discussion about sexual education versus abstinence only as the best way to reduce sexual diseases, unwanted pregnancies and such matters. Which of course I might add is an appropriate context/discussion to reference such a thing unlike this topic thread which has nothing to do with sex/sexuality, well except for the hard ons you and your war fetishers keep getting whenever you hear Dear Leader talking about it.

Get a grip on something other than your dick next time, all you have managed yet again is to make yourself look foolish and pitiable. It is pathetic really just how obvious this is about you and more so that you are so comfortable showing this for all to see.

Posted by: Scotian on September 12, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

"The literal theme song of the British Empire. Talk about smug, pompous and overbearing ..."

That's probably true. Maybe it's the case though that good patriotic songs are impossible in America because nostalgia is next to impossible in America. (England is nothing if not permanently preoccupied with some mythical, innocent past; its culture, like European culture today generally, is more like a theme park to past glories.) Our past is too haunted by race, and nostalgia always seemed tinged with racism. Much sentimentality in American culture seems to be southern, and it's always overshadowed by race.

I keep thinking of Henry Adams referring to himself as an 18th century man. There's probably some racism to that too (or at least anti-Catholic feeling; despite the Holmeses and the Transcendentals the blue bloods were fading), but it always seems more intellectual than sentimental (although the Civil War was such a terrible arse fuck for the country it is not so difficult to understand why people might long for a more transparently noble conflict and politics, much as Americans today seem preoccupied with remaking theese times in the image of the Second World War).

Posted by: Linus on September 12, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Get a grip on something other than your dick next time

LOL! Buuuuurrrrn Charlie!

Posted by: Cheryl on September 12, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas!: How many in the United States since 2001, Arminius?

Ever notice this Republican attempt to start the clock on September 12, 2001? As if the September 11th attacks somehow shouldn't be counted against Bush? So since JANUARY 2001, which is the real standard, we had the singlest biggest terrorist attack in our history under Bush's watch.

And hey, whatever happened to those anthrax attacks?

Posted by: Arminius on September 12, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

LOL! Buuuuurrrrn Charlie!

No kidding. One of the things I love about Scotian is his ability to temporarily set aside his elegant prose for some equally eloquent plainspeak.

Have to disagree, though, that Nathan and Charlie are the same person. They're equally noxious, but clearly different, characters. Charlie only piled on that sex obsession of Nathan's because he thought there was blood in the water. He still hasn't figured out that it's his.

Posted by: shortstop on September 12, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

number of terror attacks inside usa in the 5-years --BEFORE-- 9-11:


zero

Posted by: factchecker on September 12, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

f.y.i.

in the 10-years from september-11th 1996...to september-11th 2006

there was only one terror attack inside the usa attributed to islamic fundies...

one...

9/11/01

none since...and none in the 5-years before....

Posted by: fact checker on September 12, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

you tell 'em thomas1....


osama may still be alive...

but that 7.5-lb fish g.w. said was his best moment in his presidency...

is long gone...

Posted by: bass master on September 12, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

The anthrax attacks were not by Islamofascists, were they?

They weren't? How do you know? They were never solved. If you have evidence to the contrary, please contact your local FBI office.

Also, would you have blamed Bush had 9/11 happened on 1/21/01 instead?

Yeah, if everything was completely different from the way it actually was in reality then my response would also be different. Real clever point there, Sparky. And if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.

However many significant terrorist incidents there have been around the world since 2001, something more than chance accounts for none here in the U.S.

Great, then something more than chance accounted for the fact that there were no major terrorist attacks in the five years before September 2001 as well -- Clinton and Gore's vigilance.

Posted by: Arminius on September 12, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK


thomas1....says who? you?...

out here on the docks..

the general rule is...

democrats --get-- bj's while in office...

republicans -- give-- while bj's in office...

Posted by: bass master on September 12, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

had a hook in my finger....

makes typing hard work...

democrats --get-- bj's while in office...

republicans -- give-- bj's while in office...

Posted by: bass master on September 12, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

How many in the United States...?

The next terrorist attack in the US will be perpetrated by a US military veteran who is serving in Iraq now.

Posted by: Hostile on September 12, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

however, I am neither "Charlie"

God punishes liars, Charlie: you'll burn in hell.

Posted by: ahem on September 12, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Bush had been in office for only 9 months. If anyone was to blame, it was his predecessor.

"black republican for bush", kindly name one action bush took in response to the August 6 PDB.

Other than telling his briefer "you've covered your ass, now," of course.

Go on. We'll wait. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Gregory on September 12, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I'm sure President Bush, using his psychic powers, could have looked into the future and plucked the hijackers out of time and space, stopping the attack cold. The "blame Bush" crowd simply doesn't care about how silly they are. Many threats are received by our govt regularly, then and now. The problem, as I stated before, was that agencies did not share information. Now, while it's true that it happened on his watch, the difficulties he inherited from the previous president cannot be laid at Bush's feet. At the time of the attack, I was a democrat who had voted for Al Gore(which I regret). I came to realize that it would be unfair to blame a guy who had been in office for 9 months for inefficiencies that had existed for decades. As any fair minded person would.

Posted by: black republican for bush on September 12, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Also, if Osama were caught tomorrow, it would change nothing. We've damaged Al-Qaeda considerably. One man's death would make no great difference. It would make us feel good, for sure. But these people who whine about not catching him are just absurd. Also, what ever happened to that draft that John Kerry said would occur if Bush were re-elected? It's been 2 years. And that phony Kerry said this not long after the House of Reps had voted a draft resolution down 402 to 2. That's 2 in favor, 402 against. Boy, that was real close.

Posted by: Black Republican for Bush on September 12, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

I find that people on the left are generally intolerant of people who do not share their opinions. If someone doesn't agree with race preferences, they're 'anti-civil rights'. If a person is disturbed by the fact that nearly 1 million abortions take place in America each year, that person wishes to 'take away women's reproductive rights'. Simply believing that people should be able to defend themselves with firearms makes you a 'dangerous gun nut'. And so on and so forth. Disagree with a liberal, you're either ignorant or stupid. What lovely open minded people. Everyone who agrees with you is right. Those who disagree are misguided. I guess a person can't express dissent and have a reasonable point. We're all entitled to our opinions, no matter how strongly some may disagree. Remember that.

Posted by: Black Republican for Bush on September 12, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Incidentally Chuckles you are also lying about my having claimed thousands of sex partners in my life. If you would actually link to the original comment it would show you and everyone else here that I estimated my total number of partners to be around *a* thousand, not thousands plural. Yet one more example of your inability to show even basic accuracy when you are citing something someone has said, a problem in your comments across the board I might add. You routinely exaggerate anything that can portray in any manner negative those you are opposing here and you do the reverse when it comes to positives about those you support. That is when you are not inventing things out of total fiction/imagination on either side of that routine formula you follow.

For years you have tried in so many outrageous manners to try and get me to completely lose it on you and to date you have failed in that. The frustration you must feel but will never admit publicly over that cannot be good for your health I imagine, so why not do yourself a favour and just stop digging that hole to China any further past the planetary core than you already have? I mean you must recognize by now you cannot manage this task with me, no matter how many different sock puppets and approaches/styles you use to try and disguise yourself with. I will admit that I find your Nathan persona to be the best of the lot, that one actually feels like a real person much of the time, pity you cannot appear to accomplish that with any of the rest.

As well, for your claim that I need all of the conservatives here, especially the hard core Bush supporters to be one person running a massive sock puppet campaign is yet one more piece of fiction from you. I recognize several different conservative regulars here, some of which are members of what I sarcastically have come to refer to as the Trolletariat and some of varying levels of demonstrating intellectual honesty and/or recognition of real world facts. You though appear incapable of either quality though. Don't forget, I remember you spending close to a week using my alias and e-mail address to make false posts in my first couple of weeks here. Granted it was because I foolishly thought one could not duplicate address as well as alias here and this was your way of showing otherwise, but you kept it up well past the point I acknowledged this, indeed you were quite obnoxious about it.

You are what you are Chuckles, and why you are makes more sense if you are a political operative (paid or unpaid but acting for a political campaign/operation) out to disrupt, distract, and prevent real discussion of topics that can harm your side's political interests. Me, I have no idea whether this is true or not, because I have seen real crazy/fanatical types that would also act in such a manner in the service of their fixation/obsession, but aside from those two general categories it is hard to see you as anything else. You do your side a disservice in the manner of masks you chose to wear, and you repeatedly fail at actually preventing meaningful conversations and discussions from happening despite your best efforts.

In case you or others here are wondering why I am even bothering to spend this much time on this with you it is for the benefit of newer people that are either unaware of your nature and history as well as reminding you yet again by a public spanking which one of us actually acts like a rational and reasonable adult in this little squabbles and which one of us acts like some sort of elementary/junior high level bully in both tone and "substance". This is also being done here and now since this thread appears to be essentially done with on the primary topic and you have chosen to yet again demonstrate just how disgusting and despicable a person you are by responding to someone's post with not just a personal attack, but one that is so totally unrelated to the subject at hand and the material to be rebutted (in your case attacked) is devoid of any intellectual challenge whatsoever. Indeed it's sole attribute aside from snarkiness was salaciousness, something if you claim to be so strict about sexual mores and practices demonstrates quite the hypocrite you are on this to boot. This is what makes you so pitiable and pathetic in my eyes, and I strongly suspect the eyes of many others here, including some of the rational conservatives that come here and present actual refutations to what is being said instead of inane irrelevancies intended to provoke intense emotional reactions from both the target and the wider audience.

Shortstop:

I went back and forth for a long time about Nathan, but the thing of it is only Nathan/Chuckles has ever used that approach with me, indeed appeared to be the only one that even remembered the comment since I originally (as in prior to his first attack with it outside of that thread and the immediate aftermath) made it. That combined with a few other things have left me reasonably confident about Chuckles being Nathan, although unlike all his other sock puppets this one took me a looong time to make my mind up over. Indeed it is this usage that finally convinced me sufficiently. Chuckles also has had a particular problem with me for the reason I have laid out above, that while I am long winded I am not pompous and take myself too seriously, that I can admit mistakes when actually shown/proven to be the case, and that I do not loose my temper and descend to a righteous fury rant attacking him solely on irrelevant personalities. He over the years has actually been a fascinating case study in certain propaganda techniques in action as well as a wonderful caricature whether he intends it or not of the modern conservative movement.

Thank you though for the kind words about my ability to switch from ponderous wordiness to rather blunt and direct when I feel the need. I know I am long winded, but I like to think that the wind is not empty of content and substance, and aside from the more intense partisans of the GOP here that does seem to be the general consensus of most commentators here. That at most they would wish I could be a bit less verbose in my writings, something 'I can understand but is alas as yet out of my reach. Part of the problem with being too succinct in today's environment is that it makes it much easier to twist things out of context without looking too much like it when compared with the original text. My wordiness I find is in part a way of making that far more difficult, as is attempting to fake my alias and try to frame me with some sort of ugly comments as has been done to others here and elsewhere over the years.

General:

Sorry for the prolonging of the sparring with Chuckles, but he left me too golden an opportunity to not do so with his fixation and distortion of my personal life. His inability to grasp that this is utterly irrelevant to anything at all to do with the topic under discussion, the comment I originally posted on it, and the reality of just how childish it makes him appear was quite nicely shown in full flower in this particular attack and I could not pass up on the opportunity. I know, perhaps a bit petty but I am alas human and Chuckles has earned it so many times over in the past with me and with so many others here that when in such a shining moment he demonstrated how outclassed he is not just by myself but by almost every other person that posts here of any political persuasion was simply more than any flawed person in my place could have resisted. It may not be noble, it may not be one of my own nicer traits, but let's face it compared to that which I am dealing with it is still sweetness and light.

Not to mention still maintaining civility, demonstrating I hope that one can be civil while shredding someone's juvenile behaviour as well as when dealing with poorly thought out critiques of one's own writings. There is this misunderstanding by too many that civility equals inability/unwilling to fight agressively, that is a very fundamental misjudgment IMHO. One does not have to become the enemy to fight the enemy, something Bushco and the GOP clearly have never been able to understand, let alone put into practise, which is part of why they are selling out so many fundamental/Constitutional elements of American society/culture. The American Founding Fathers understood this, and there was a time when many GOP supporters/voter in America also understood this and stood up for it, nowadays these are the new members of the independent category, those that have not crossed over completely into the light into the Democratic party that is thanks to the great GOP sellout of fundamental American values and beliefs.

Posted by: Scotian on September 12, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

"I find that people on the left are generally intolerant of people who do not share their opinions."

I agree. Them libs and their anti-cannibal crusades.

Posted by: Blue Cannibal for Bush on September 12, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 经典手机铃声 最新手机铃声 手机铃声制作 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 免费小电影 免费电影在线观看 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 电影夜宴下载 激情影视 两性 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 性激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情电影下载 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 女性阴部 美女乳房 美女裸照 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱图片 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福电影 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 乳房写真 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 美女人体 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片

Posted by: mms on September 12, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

BRFB -

Your racial preferences are, of course, your own, and we all wish you the joy of them. That doesn't mean you get to impose them on everyone else.

Unless you're a woman making the decision whether or not to have an abortion, it's none of your business. Tough to take, I know, but there it is.

And lots of us silly libs have guns. I promise.

Posted by: CatStaff on September 13, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, I'm sure President Bush, using his psychic powers, could have looked into the future and plucked the hijackers out of time and space, stopping the attack cold.

Nice staw man. I said name one action bush took in response to the August 6 PDB, in which he was warned of al Qaeda's ambition to hijack US aircraft (and, of course, no hijacking, no 9/11).

Your utter failure to address the point, and your feeble attempts at distraction, reveals that you know the answer -- as far as anyone can tell, he did nothing. While it's obvious you give Bush a free pass for his abject failure to lift a finger to defend this country, it's amusing to see how much cognitive dissonance prevents you from admitting it.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2006 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK

I find that people on the left are generally intolerant of people who do not share their opinions.... Disagree with a liberal, you're either ignorant or stupid. What lovely open minded people. Everyone who agrees with you is right. Those who disagree are misguided. I guess a person can't express dissent and have a reasonable point. We're all entitled to our opinions, no matter how strongly some may disagree. Remember that.
Posted by: Black Republican for Bush on September 12, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

A hillarious statement coming from a supporter of the Republican Party, whose entire political strategy since Goldwater has been to highten the partizan divide in order to win. Disagree with a liberal and you might get called stupid, disagree with a conservative and you are called a traitor who hate his own culture. Now tell me who is more measured?

Incidently it is not YOU who are ignorant and stupid it is the CONTENT OF YOUR IDEAS. Which is a lot more genreous treatment than you afford us as you always attack, slander and malign us for the CONTENT OF OUR SOULS.

In my books that makes conservatives the unjustified intolerant branch of the American political scene.

Posted by: Nemesis on September 13, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, I'm sure that you don't have the slightest idea, one way or the other, what Bush did or didn't do. You just assume that he must have done nothing. Admit that, and stop posturing.What did Clinton do to stop the first Trade Center attack? You just keep going on with the same "blame Bush" nonsense. That act of yours is pretty tired now. As for you, Nemesis, I would never deny that there are intolerant Republicans. I don't support intolerant people in general. But much more of this attitude exists on the left, which one of many reasons that I am now a Republican. You talk about "heightening the partisan divide". Lefties fear this because they know that they usually come out on the losing side when this occurs. Conservatives comprise 35 % of the electorate, liberals 20%. So when partisan lines are strictly drawn, your side loses. And, by the way, I say the content of our ideas are clearly superior to yours. That is, if democrats actually have any these days. Take care and goodbye.

Posted by: Black Republican for Bush on September 14, 2006 at 2:54 AM | 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