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 13, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

HART ON BUSH....Here's some more right-on-right mudslinging from our current issue. The author of this one is Jeffrey Hart, a longtime National Review editor so conservative that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he considered Barry Goldwater slightly unreliable. But George Bush? That's a bridge too far:

Today, the standard-bearer of conservatism in the United States is George W. Bush, a man who has taken the positions of an unshakable ideologue: on supply-side economics, on privatization, on Social Security, on the Terri Schiavo case, and, most disastrously, on Iraq. Never before has a United States president consistently adhered to beliefs so disconnected from actuality.

....As Bushs ideology leads from one disaster to another, one might ask: How far can it go? It has already brought us to Baghdad, an adventure so hopeless that [William F.] Buckley recently mused, If you had a European prime minister who experienced what weve experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or resign. The more we learn about what happened behind the scenes in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, the more apparent it becomes that evidence was twisted to fit preconceived notions. Those who produced evidence undermining the case for war were ignored or even punished. It was zealotry at its most calamitous.

Who can argue with that? But remember: if you want to see more pieces like this, you won't find them in National Review. You'll find them in the Washington Monthly. So please help us stay alive by donating some money or buying a subscription.

To donate, click the ad (or click here) which takes you to a page that allows you to write a check or donate online. You can buy a subscription to the magazine here, or buy a gift subscription here. Or donate via PayPal here:

Kevin Drum 1:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (63)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

A PROGRESSIVE VIEW, PROGRESSIVE QUA PROGRESSIVE:

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 VICTORY IS WON THAT IS THE DEATH OF ALL OUR ENEMIES AND THEIR ENABLERS; POWER IS OUR SWORD, MERCY IS OUR SHIELD; THEY THEMSELVES ARE OUR WITNESS; THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING THAT WE WILL END IN OUR VICTORY: WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STRIKE BACK. VICTORY!

Iraq is by historical standards the greatest military campaign and occupation in world history given the context and Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld are the greatest military leadership the U.S.A. ever had with Lincoln and FDR being horrible commanders-in-chiefs in comparison. But, I do think we need a new direction in war policy.

Let us end our wasted time listening to Hart et al., the old pussycats who grow weary of their 5 years of meowings-past. Let us finally release the lions, the XXX U.S. Death Squads, upon our enemies; they have seen our mercy and have been ungrateful, now let us show them our wrath.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on September 13, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

really? paypal? This will be interesting: is one of the staunchest liberal websites able to muster the commitment on the part of its readers (money, folks, i'm talking money here)? My hypothesis here is that readers will not commit monetarily to a blog - o -news magazine in sufficient amounts to actually keep it running. So, for all you scientists out there, recognize the challenge of the null hypothesis, and prove it wrong.

Posted by: Chris on September 13, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

You'll have to excuse TOH. There was a security breach at the institution, and he got out. It will all be okay once he's back safely on his meds.

Posted by: jcricket on September 13, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

Goddamn, who said this?

Never before has a United States president consistently adhered to beliefs so disconnected from actuality.

Wasn't it the out-of-touch Left? Oh no, apparently not. Oh well, we were out in front early with the truth - again.

Posted by: craigie on September 13, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

TOH demonstrates very effectively the total batshit loonyness in a single statement.


Somehow, it's "the greatest military campaign in world history" and yet, simultaneously, "we need a new direction in war policy." You just can't make this shit up. For that, you need a conservative.

Posted by: craigie on September 13, 2006 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

TOH, like Al, is parody.

"Id call my skepticism conservative, but Bushism has poisoned the very word." -- That's going on my bumper. Right now. And I'm a liberal.

Posted by: brooksfoe on September 13, 2006 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

This delusional crap didnt start with Bush. The Reaganites ran on a platform of 'voodoo economics' and started the serious cultivation of the wackoo fundamentalist vote, knowing that without a solid base of naive indiscriminate followers they would never be able to enact and sustain their class warfare objectives. When Clinton acquiesced to most of their proposals, moving the Democratic party far to the right, the Republicans were apoplectic and resorted to a series of sanctimonious witch hunts. Their dreams of attaining long term majority status were in jeopardy. Calculating the vagaries of the electoral college, they realized that if the fundamentalists all came out and voted as a block they wouldnt even need a majority. Hence they nominated an unqualified candidate with blueblood credentials, very likely to pursue their plutocratic aganda, who also had solid fundamentalist props.

They shouldn't be allowed to easily disavow Bush. He is the natural result of a party attempting to achieve, by dishonest methods, political objectives that most of the country doesnt really want. They have empowered and legitimized a group of zealots who may not quietly slip back into the shadows. Who knows, we may in a few years look back on GW as we now do on Reagan. That's a scary thought.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on September 13, 2006 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe:

If you're around, I answered your question on the National Security thread.

"US Death Squads. We have shown them our mercy. Now let them see our wrath."

Woah ... Haldol for this guy -- or Thorazine?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

Damn. I misread that as U.S. Death Squids.

I saw a bumper sticker that read something like "Annoy a Liberal: Work Hard, Succeed, Be Happy" which seemed rather twisted. How to reply? "Annoy a Conservative" seemed sufficient by itself. What wouldn't annoy a conservative?

I just got, as a birthday present, a magnetic sticker with "wtf?" and a picture of our beloved leader.

Posted by: bad Jim on September 13, 2006 at 3:33 AM | PERMALINK

"Annoy a Conservative: Be Rational and Generous at the Same Time"?

Posted by: brooksfoe on September 13, 2006 at 3:50 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, I settled on "Annoy a Conservative: Think for Yourself", but since I never saw the original provocation again, I concluded that even that would be overkill.

Poor bastards, living in fear all their lives.

Posted by: bad Jim on September 13, 2006 at 4:03 AM | PERMALINK

"Annoy a Conservative: Practice Freedom"

Posted by: Calton Bolick on September 13, 2006 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

We can't deny the fact that Pres. Bush had so many mistakes, wrong moves actually. WE all see his negative decisions etc. Why don't we try to weigh things here. Has he done some positive things so far? Did we ever praise whatever is this good thing that he did?

Posted by: ca90 on September 13, 2006 at 4:49 AM | PERMALINK

I've actually asked every Bush supporter I know to name one positive accomplishment of Bush's, or name one thing that he's done to benefit all of America. I asked that question over a year ago, and no answers so far. And these people are true ditto monkey wingnuts.

Posted by: merlallen on September 13, 2006 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINK

so, ca90, I have tried. even his most devoted fanatical following can't name a positive accomplishment of his.
The idiots do tell me how Clinton raped and murdered untold numbers of women and that Michael Moore is a lunatic, but that's it.

Posted by: merlallen on September 13, 2006 at 6:24 AM | PERMALINK

A reply to the Republican party on national security and defense.


Please distribute this saying to as many people as you can.

"Despite the Republican propaganda accusing others of weakness on national security and national defense, only the Republican party has demonstrated their weakness on national security and national defense when the planes hit the towers and the pentagon on Sept 11, 2001 which they failed to defend against which resulted in 3,000 deaths."

email this to press people especially and to your freeper family members and coworkers.

fax it to george w bush, ken mehlman, the speaker of the house, the senate majority leader.

The Republican party appears weak and vulnerable at the cash registers of the companies that donate money to them.

This Bush misadministration wants to buy the election with their lowering of the gas prices 60 days before the election. Too little too late and who will find it surprising that they will increase gasoline prices after the election.

The Republican party also plans to attempt to privatize social security in 2007


Look at this commercial on national security and defense that I created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glaYJzeGK7I

Posted by: www.dmocrats.org on September 13, 2006 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

Remember the Ronald Reagan Question of 1980?

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

The question on every Liberal's lips now should be, are you better off than you were eight years ago.

Posted by: 2.7182818 on September 13, 2006 at 7:27 AM | PERMALINK

The old adage goes that - politics is a circle. You go far enough left or far enough right and you get to the same point.

I agree with every word that Jeffrey Hart wrote.

[By the way, Kevin, I'll see if I can scrounge up $25 or so, to send you for your new Lexus, I mean, for your blog...]

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 13, 2006 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

Chris: My hypothesis here is that readers will not commit monetarily to a blog - o -news magazine in sufficient amounts to actually keep it running.

I've subscribed to the Washington Monthly for, oh, 18 years or so and keep subscribing although I mostly read the articles online now. I'm somewhat to the left of most WM writers, but it still seems to me about the most sensible liberal magazine around, as this is one of the more sensible liberal blogs. Put your money where your eyes are.

Posted by: anandine on September 13, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

And why is it NOT in the National Review? Why is the fact that even wingnuts now accept that the Usurper lied us into war not blasted from the rooftops and emblazoned on the front pages of every newspaper in the country? Why aren't impeachment hearings now winding up and preparing for Senate trial? Why is every single person who supported this war not being forced to publicly recant, tearing their hair and clothes, pouring ashes on their heads and screaming for mercy? Why are they not presenting themselves for scourging to the mother of every soldier killed or maimed in their SAYP (Sorry About Your Penis) war?

God DAMN them - God Damn them all, make them burn in hell forever and ever and ever.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on September 13, 2006 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

The thread title reminds me of that 1987-era joke: what's the difference between Republican women and Democratic women? (A. Republican women give their heart to Bush.)

Posted by: RT on September 13, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

The article has to appear in Washington Monthly because the National Review is caught up in the Bush cult of personality that pervades the Republican Party and the right-wing. It's Dear Leader, right or wrong. And he's usually wrong.

Posted by: Pug on September 13, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

What is with all the begging for money?

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on September 13, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

Frequency, no one minds that you're dumb, but do your attempted insults have to be so limp? Baby, spend some of those bucks Kenny Mehlman raises with his "Democrats are fag lovers! Uh...wait!" e-mails and hire a better writer. We have troll standards here.

Posted by: shortstop on September 13, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Frequency is right. Being stupid is what dear leader wants us to do, he role models it for us continually. Do not bash Frequency for looking up to the leader of the free world by engaging in inanities, non sequitors, and general mental sluggishness. It's being done for 'Merika. Bless you Frequency. You are a patriot.

Posted by: trifecta on September 13, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

I've actually asked every Bush supporter I know to name one positive accomplishment of Bush's, or name one thing that he's done to benefit all of America.

I have never been shy about answering that the Bush administration's greatest accomplishment and his legacy will be the implementation of the FCC's Do Not Call List.

Posted by: Constantine on September 13, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

What is with all the begging for money?

Frequency nailed it!

Washington Monthly is experiencing financial hardship, not unlike the woes of the ailing Air America.

Liberals are nowhere without entitlements and handouts. They've got plenty of insults to hurl, but won't consider putting their money where their mouth is.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on September 13, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you're trying too hard. Good luck and all that but you illustrate why the Republican Party is so more interesting than the Democrats. There is a paleo-conservative wing, like Robert Novak for example, who never were in favor of invading Iraq and had no patience with the concept of trying to build a democracy in a country of Wogs. Maybe they were right. I hope not.

Many conservatives are unhappy with Bush for better reasons. I'm unhappy that he has not vetoed some pork barrel spending bills. I cheer Obama for joining with true conservative Coburn, who has been frozen out by many of his big-spending colleagues, to pass the earmark reform bill. The Democrats, meanwhile, are narrowing their party by trying to expel Lieberman, the best hope they have for a winning presidential candidate. Hillary has shown she has the political skills to maneuver through the nutty Democrat inside baseball stuff but probably can't win a national election.

The Republican Party has a wide range of views but the members share a few basic principles. One is economic rationality, missing in Democrats as seen by the dumb comment above about Reagan "Voodoo economics." Why do you think we did not have a recession after 9/11 ? I know. You have no idea or think we did. I hear the seminar callers to talk radio reciting talking points about job loss under Bush. Even Kevin had to revise his post about income changes because the original piece had cooked the books to make Bush look bad.

You guys would try to tax your way out of a recession. That worked well for Hoover, didn't it ? I see Democrats, and some Republicans like George Will, opting for the same theory of national security chosen by France in 1940. Build walls and wait for someone to hit you. Except, by my reading, most Democrats, especially the lefties (and that's the big majority these days) don't even think there is a threat. I just don't think this message will sell.

If it does and you take the house, the lunatics like Conyers and Alcee Hastings who take over committee chairs, will wise the public up for 2008. Kevin, I used to contribute to your blog but these days, I just don't see the value. When you were investigating the Bush TANG story, which you did a good job with (better than CBS but that's a low standard), I thought you were really adding value. Now, I don't know. The Plame obsession has cost you all a lot. Good luck.

Posted by: Mike K on September 13, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, last week's issue of the National Review contained a great deal of Bush-bashing. Seriously.

As for a legitimate accomplishment of this administration that we can all agree on: see what both Bill Clinton and Bill Gates had to say the other week about Bush's achievements on AIDS in Africa. He really has done a great deal of good and it turns out that bypassing the UN was the right way to do it.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Why do you think we did not have a recession after 9/11 ? I know.

Uh, because we were already in one at the time?

Posted by: D'Oh Jones on September 13, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

I always find a way to kiss Bush's ass.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I used to contribute to your blog, but now I don't. Except when I do, like I just did, above.

As long as Democratic committee chairs don't start shooting watermelons in their back yard, they'll never be as crazy as Republican leaders.

Posted by: Mike K on September 13, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

If it does and you take the house, the lunatics like Conyers and Alcee Hastings who take over committee chairs, will wise the public up for 2008.

Shorter Mike K: don't let the black people take over!

Posted by: D'oh Jones on September 13, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

The cluelessness here is beautifully illustrated by the baboon who doesn't understand the difference between commenting and contributing. Contributing means money, doofus.

Posted by: Mike K on September 13, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Paid - to continue reading Kevin's excellent economic takes in particular.

Especially in face of bozo remarks like this: "The Republican Party has a wide range of views but the members share a few basic principles. One is economic rationality..."

Ha ha ha! The Democrats shoot for balances. Their system works. As the stockmarket knows well...

Posted by: Fast Pete on September 13, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

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 VICTORY IS WON THAT IS THE DEATH OF ALL OUR ENEMIES AND THEIR ENABLERS; POWER IS OUR SWORD, MERCY IS OUR SHIELD; THEY THEMSELVES ARE OUR WITNESS; THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING THAT WE WILL END IN OUR VICTORY: WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STRIKE BACK. VICTORY!

Yes, this flawed masterpiece by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld could be fine-tuned to be even more effective by military tactics that, generally speaking, result in fewer US casualties and fewer US funds spent; I anticipate, without purpose or definite necessity, that such tactics would increase dramatically Iraqi deaths, but only in the very short term.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on September 13, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter Mike K: don't let the black people take over!

The "wog" reference was charming as well. You can always count on Mike K. to show his bias in the most laughable language possible. He's in his 70s and talks like it's 1890.

Posted by: shortstop on September 13, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Good Ford, would whoever's spoofing people's handles just cut it the fuck out already?

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Annoy a Conservative: Cite Facts.

Posted by: alex on September 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Well, now isn't this just predictable. Everybody is just jumping on the anti-conservative band wagon, way to go Hart. Way to be real original there.

Finally people are speaking out, though a tad bit late.

Posted by: Tyler on September 13, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Heck, by today's standards of "conservatism," Barry Goldwater was unreliable. Going to Nixon to tell him his position was untenable? Criticizing Reagan for spending too much on his first inaugural bash? Saying that good Christians ought to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass? I mean, whose side is this guy on, anyway?

Posted by: Alek Hidell on September 13, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

THIS WORLD WAR IS ON UNTIL OUR VICTORY IS WON THAT IS THE DEATH OF ALL OUR ENEMIES AND THEIR ENABLERS

Charlie/Cheney/Thomas1/Chuckles will be along any minute to claim that threatening the death of Bush and Cheney is a criminal offense...

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Actually regarding the article, Hart's reference to Burke is spot on, but he would probably benefit from becoming acquainted with the contemporary description of "metaphysical dogma": "truthiness"

Posted by: KC on September 13, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

So impeaching Alcee Hastings from his lifetime appointment as a federal judge was racism ? That was the Senate. I can't recall which party was in the majority at the time.

The "Wog" reference was a reference to the theory you folks espouse that Arabs cannot rule themselves. It was irony but I don't expect you to get it.

Posted by: Mike K on September 13, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

The "Wog" reference was a reference to the theory you folks espouse that Arabs cannot rule themselves.

Cite one prominent Democrat who's "espoused" that theory. You can't, becuase it's a lie.

Posted by: D'Oh Jones on September 13, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

"You folks," Mike? Is that like "you people"?

Help us find these posts in which "we folks" claim that Arabs cannot rule themselves, won't you? Shouldn't be too hard since this is a commonly held theory of ours, no?

There's a lot of irony here. But it's not quite what you think it is, Mikey.

Posted by: shortstop on September 13, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

mikek: lunatics like Conyers and Alcee Hastings who take over committee chairs, will wise the public up for 2008.

yeah....dr. "i can diagnose from video" frist and

denny "show me your subpoena" hastert are so much

more lucid...

dead enders....

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 13, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

It all started when the Republicans made a deal with the Iranians in 1980 election to keep the Americans hostages caged till the Presidential inauguration in January 1981. Since then Republicans have had no limits on what tactic is appropriate and what is not for winning the presidential election. As GWB says, it's all politics.

Posted by: gregor on September 13, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK


upthread: Why do you think we did not have a recession after 9/11 ? I know.

D'oh Jones: Uh, because we were already in one at the time?

.
and to think the attacks were sooo bad economically that...

the recession ended just 2-months after 9-11...

go figure...

Posted by: mr. irony on September 13, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

"It's ok...just go on in...take a shower...really, it's ok...do some shopping...go to work...go on in."

Poison Air in NYC

What morality do torturers have? Who's using torture now?
Who's trying to rationalize justifications for its use?
Where does that effort come from? The White House.
Who's now the Attorney General...in charge of US law enforcement?

The people who produced and created 9/11 have zero morals.
That's one thing everyone can agree on.

Would anyone capable of committing the attacks on 9/11 be capable of committing further murder?

What kind of morality is at work in ordering the EPA to lie and tell everyone the air, which was known
to be deadly, was safe to breathe and everyone should return to New York?
Where did that effort come from? The White House.

New Yorkers, rescue workers, clean-up workers and tourists...AMERICANS...were all invited to enter
a defined area that was known to contain a poisonous atmosphere. The EPA and the White House
had FULL KNOWLEDGE of the truth.
It's been long documented folks.
Many have already died. Many are dying now. Many more will die.
Picture another defined area into which people were led that contained a poisonous atmosphere.

What picture came to mind?

There's no difference. NYC may as well have been a massive shower stall filled with poison gas.
It's mass murder.
Would OUR government ever do such a thing?
They already did.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/09/national/main567489.shtml

WAKE YOURSELVES UP.

Ask yourselves some questions:

Would anyone capable of committing 9/11 then turn around and be incapable of destroying evidence?

Would OUR government send an organized squad of goons to someone's home to terrorize them
for speaking out?
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=2589&blz=2
Feel more secure now?

You CANNOT say "Our own government would never do such a thing" as an excuse to not research
this on your own and come to your own conclusions.

Would OUR government ever do such a thing as plan and carry out the attacks on 9/11?

Don't take ANYBODY'S word for it but YOUR OWN.

First, Communicate.
Second, Stay informed.
Third, Develop very good relationships with any number of LOCAL authorities.
Fourth, only a fool goes down with a sinking ship. Have a lifeboat ready.
Fifth, Make a list of personal priorities just in case the current trends in this country continue to accelerate.
Sixth, Don't deny it to yourself IF (when?) conditions make it completely obvious that you need to act in a
way you've already decided for yourself.

Executive Order 11921

Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the
mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and flow of
money in the U.S.A. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that
when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

and...

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=01-06-06&storyID=23155

and...

http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/news.jsp?newsurl=/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2006/kbrnws_012406.html

Rumsfeld has already issued the warning when he said to America, "You better watch what you say,
watch what you do".

They've gotten away with EVERYTHING so far. They're not about to stop now.
Can anyone pretend that these people will allow the normal operation
of what we believe "the democratic system" to be after the crimes they have committed?
Events clearly show they cannot and it may be past time to think that they might be stopped by
activism within the "system".

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on
American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary
said Tuesday.

The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from
others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens,
then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne.

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2006%2FUS%2F09%2F12%2Fusaf.weapons.ap%2Findex.html

Posted by: byland on September 13, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

*looks at the advertisement for Jesus Camp*

I see the WM is advertising for a movie about the American Taliban.

As I've said elsewhere, no need for a draft we're recruiting our own crack suicide squads and training them in the dakotas...scary stuff

Posted by: Dreggas on September 13, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Study Study study History.Never never go into the middleast ever. It has been the down fall of every country that has tried to tame the wilds.Mankind has spent the better part of history trying to find trade routes arond the Middleast do you know why?? Never go into the Middleast ever.

Posted by: Mann Coulter on September 13, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

What's suprising in the stay-the-course argument is how inferquently it's mentioned that in order to "win" it is absolutely necessary to increase the number of US troops. Given current deployment levels and the heavy rotation schedule the only reasonable option would be to reenact a draft.

The answer to those who tout the "cut and run" argument must be the question: "are you willing to do what it takes to restore law and order in Iraq?". In this particular case, the middle-ground is not a reality-based option.

Posted by: raymond on September 13, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

"Annoy a Conservative; Wish Thema Happy Holiday!" I had a wingnut colleague of mine jus the other day e-mail a rant about the decadent left forcing people to say "holiday" rather than Christmas, and how American hated liberals for it, and that was why democrats would never win a "national Presidential election" (there's another kind?). I found his election qualifier intriguing, because he had never used it berfore. Apparently, even the wingnuts are acknowledging they will lose in November.

But seriously, with Bush's approval ratings in the 30's, 60% disagree with Iraq, 60% concerned about the economy, billions in Iraq reconstruction money missing, a rubberstamp congress asking for no accountability from the WH, $400 billion added to the debt each year (not including the costs for the Iraq debacle!), dozens of pols convicted, indicted or under suspicion, and this guy thinks Americans care about "Happy Holidays"?????

You can't make this shit up.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 13, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

I repeat what I posted yesterday:

To follow up my earlier post about Buckley's inanity, wow...

What an incredible mix of slobbering over dual shibboleths of "true conservativism" and "checks and balances."

The first shows that the critiquers are just as much ideologues as the man they criticize. The second shows their blind slavery to an anachronistic document (a view likewise held by Democrats and even a certain percentage of left-liberals, sadly.)

In either case, all the bloviating begs the question: Where were these folks four or more years ago?

The Dept of Ed budget bursting? That was happening before Iraq was invaded. The Wilsonian foreign policy? That was being put into frightful practice at that very moment.

Hey, two or more years ago would have worked. Iraq was already halfway to failiure by the 2004 elections; from a "true conservative" POV, the Dept of Homeland Security had to already be a nightmare; Education continued to swell, etc.

But, where were these folks then?

If Wa Monthly wants to either kill trees, or incinerate plankton via coal or natural gas for electronic delivery, for such massive pablum, it needs to redirect more of its current funding along with asking for new.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on September 13, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

The lunatic left in full display mode here the last 10 comments or so. The whole premise of the left opposing Bush's theory that Iraq could rule itself with a democratic system was that he was a hopeless romantic. I don't what else you call. Unless you think theocratic thuggery is a desirable system of governing. Well, people elect the government they deserve so we'll see.

Posted by: Mike K on September 13, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you think we did not have a recession after 9/11 ? I know. You have no idea or think we did.

Hey, Mike, is that why Sean Hannity blamed the recession on Clinton? Maybe he got the bad paperwork, too!

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 13, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

The whole premise of the left opposing Bush's theory that Iraq could rule itself with a democratic system was that he was a hopeless romantic.

OK, Mike, now you're jsut delusional! I have heard many things, but I have NEVER heard a liberal describe Bush as a "hopeless romantic". God forbid we heed the advice of military experts, who warned of sectarian strife before we invaded Iraq.

Why don't you trust our military experts, Mike? Why do you hate America?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 13, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Mike K,

You're aware who originally accused Reagan of advocating "voodoo economics," right?

Funny you should use that to try to show that Democrats lack "economic rationality," or whatever. George H. W. may not be your hero or mine, but history will at least credit him with not having drunk the Kool-Aid.

(His life must be a painful one these days. Imagine Marcus Aurelius living through Commodus' reign.)

Posted by: nandrews3 on September 13, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

mike k: "hopeless romantic"


you mean jeff gannon - man whore?

Posted by: Laffin at u on September 13, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K drooled: "The whole premise of the left opposing Bush's theory that Iraq could rule itself with a democratic system was that he was a hopeless romantic."

Bush never had and does not now have any such "theory" so there has never been any opposition to it from the Left or from anyone else.

You just make stuff up. You're nuts.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

If you had a European prime minister who experienced what weve experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or resign.

and yet, tony blair still refuses to even set a date.

Posted by: snuh on September 13, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

best nfl picks bwn best nfl picks bwn http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.combwn
college football picks bwn college football picks bwn http://college--football-picks.blogspot.combwn
football betting bwn football betting bwn http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.combwn
free football picks bwn free football picks bwn http://free-football-picks.blogspot.combwn
nfl picks bwn nfl picks bwn http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.combwn
aa bwn aa bwn http://testtestbwn
football predictions bwn football predictions bwn http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.combwn
football predictions bwn football predictions bwn http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.combwn
best nfl picks bwn best nfl picks bwn http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.combwn
college football picks bwn college football picks bwn http://college--football-picks.blogspot.combwn
football betting bwn football betting bwn http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.combwn
free football picks bwn free football picks bwn http://free-football-picks.blogspot.combwn
nfl picks bwn nfl picks bwn http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.combwn
aa bwn aa bwn http://testtestbwn
football predictions bwn football predictions bwn http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.combwn
football predictions bwn football predictions bwn http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.combwn
best nfl picks bwn best nfl picks bwn http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.combwn
college football picks bwn college football picks bwn http://college--football-picks.blogspot.combwn
football betting bwn football betting bwn http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.combwn
free football picks bwn free football picks bwn http://free-football-picks.blogspot.combwn
nfl picks bwn nfl picks bwn http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.combwn
aa bwn aa bwn http://testtestbwn
football predictions bwn football predictions bwn http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.combwn
football predictions bwn football predictions bwn http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.combwn

Posted by: best nfl picksbwn on September 15, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

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

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly