I'm still The Decider!
I Decide!
ME!
ME!!

Decidering is hard work.

Shake hands with the new Bush. Same as the old Bush.

Then wash your hand.

So say the lame-duck Dem minority filibusters... what can Bush do? Don't his recess appointments expire at the start of the new (Democratic-majority) Congressional session?

Isn't this a can't-lose solution, or am I missing something?

One silver lining of Bush 2's preznutcy is the realization
That Washington D.c. is not the center of the universe, that saner folks prevail elsewhere.

The world has suffered the arrogance of power
by the dimmest of minds.

Think about it. We have been force fed drivel that good vs evil is all there is. That terrorists are anyone who so much as whispers a threat aginst 'merica.

I am so looking forward to reasoned debates beyond the Limbaugneshit that we've had to endure for so long.

Never mind bipartisanship. What sense does this make?

Democrats on Foreign Relations had all voted against confirming Bolton before; Sen. Chafee had said he would vote against his renomination; and the push Bolton got among the pro-Israel groups during Nasrallah's War was months ago. The point is that there isn't any reason to think that Bolton could get confirmed in a lame duck session or in the next Congress. What is the point of sending his nomination back up, unless no decision had been taken in the White House on someone else as UN Ambassador?

Given the length of time it has often taken to fill senior posts in this administration, that's probably the most likely possibility.

C'mon -- we all know that THE TERRORISTS WON and AMERICA LOST!!

Bush said so, over and over and over!

How can you think we can possibly work with you commie baby-butchers?

Bring on the signing statements!

Ben Cochran asks what can Bush do if the Dems filibuster. Well, he might think its time to pull out the nuclear option and get rid of filibusters. Just in time for the Republicons to be the minority party in the Senate. It ain't just Dems that Bush thinks of and treats as doormats, it's the entire Article 1 branch of the U.S. Government. It's time all the Republicons in Congress know their place. And it's a low place.

Bolton is DOA. He should be, if Reid does his job.

Thank goodness this man is a known
painkiller moron.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/09/the-liberation-of-limbaugh/
(as per my earlier post)

Kevin, Sen. John Cornyn spoke at a joint south suburban Dallas chamber lunch today.

Here's my blog on it:

http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2006/11/sen-john-cornyn-passing-buck-on-iraq.html

You know, I see Bush talking, but all I can hear is "quack quack quack quack...."

It doesn't matter. Chafee has already said he's opposing Bolten and Biden has declared it dead in the water. There's no way Bolten gets out of committee. I suppose Bush could try another recess appointment, but if he really wanted to piss the Dems off, that'd be a good way to start.

He renominates John Bolton to be ambassador to the UN.

Will the nomination be voted on by the 109th or the 110th Congress? If the latter, then great! We actually will get a chance to grill him in committee and *then* vote him down, still in committee. Heh!

It conforms their definition of 'bipartisanship', i.e. date rape.

In the flickering 15-watt bulb that is George W. Bush's mind, the two parties will have achieved bipartisanship when the Democrats just roll over and let him do what he wants.

I'm guessing that the nomination is going to the 109th congress. Since Bolton was a recess appointment, he expires when the 110th congress is sworn in. This, presumablyy is Bush's last chance at getting Bolton to keep the job past January. Or else, he'll leave the position open until the first time that congress takes a recess (do weekends count?) and renominate Bolton that way.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.

Nuthin' left to do but impeach.

Only John Kerry liberals would buy into that bipartisan sass.

Looky: Repugs are evil.

They are war criminals.
They have killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

The only proper attitude towards them is overt loathing.

Troll above.

You know, I see Bush talking, but all I can hear is "quack quack quack quack...."

Posted by: Stefan on November 9, 2006 at 5:48 PM

Here is a cartoon you might enjoy, Stefan.

Body language can be soooooo important in evaluating appearances and performances - The other day Gen Casey glared at and pushed Ambassador Khalilzad.

Yesterday, Shrub approached the Press Corps with no spring in his step, did a slight stumble and a very pissed look on his face - Glared at the press with a WTF do you want attitude - Looked as though Barbara had just sent him to the dentist - He had as much grace as an infuriated duck - Sooo, if it walks like a duck, quacks like one, has his left wing in a cast, then this is one very lame duck.

Bipartisanship? I prefer billmon's ode to "Pulp Fiction" on this.

Looky: Repugs are evil.
They are war criminals.
They have killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
The only proper attitude towards them is overt loathing.
Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on November 9, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

They have killed more Americans than Saddam ever did:

9/11 (not Saddam): 2700.
Iraq (insurgents, also not Saddam): 3000
Katrina (probably not Saddam): 1836

and. . .
Ongoing Big Tobacco War on The Human Race: untold millions.
Ongoing Big Oil War on Earth's ability to support life: hundreds of millions - eventually, 6+ billion humans, trillions of various other creatures.

Recess appointment only works until the end of the year, so it's either get him confirmed now or he's out of a job in January (unless renominated, of course).

This nomination is formal, which means it will be taken up by the lame-duck 109th.

And as for "bipartisanship," even in his "conciliatory" speech he used "Democrat" as an adjective, rather than "Democratic" SEVERAL times.

Why on Earth does anybody think this petulant little man-boy is suddenly going to change his ways? It's way too late for that.

Soon, Bush will be compressed by all sides. Congress, DoD, and Poppy's friends are going to be all pushing the president to do things he does not want to do. Rove will abandon the loser very soon and Bush's only friend will be a Saudi prince. I expect him to go mad before his presidency ends.

The next time one of the Chris Matthews types tries to get a Dem to pledge to be bipartisan, the proper response would be: "I promise you, Chris, we will be at least as bipartisan as the Republicans have been for the past six years."

Global Citizen >"Here is a cartoon you might enjoy..."

Horsey !!

He is sooooo good (maybe another Pulitzer will come his way)

Thanks GC

"...you cannot save your face and your ass at the same time..." - vachon@shadrach.net

If Bush says nominating Bolton is the bi-partisan thing to do, it's bi-partisan. He's the decider.

Seriously, any Dem that gets suckered into betraying the caucus to work with Bush is an effing idiot. He's made it clear the game is still the same.

Well, Jim Beam sales are up near 1600 - More and more calls to Tony Montana's old gang.

However, Shrub did offer lunch - The new Speaker to be suggested a light repast at Ernie's in San Francisco, Shrub countered with Wendy's in Foggy Bottom, so GodFather's delivered pizza as a compromise. Who says they can't work together?

I don't think Bush has any choice in the matter, if he wants Bolton in the U.N. AFAIK, he can't make a second recess appointment to the same position, although I guess he could appoint Bolton to some other U.N. post.

It doesn't matter. Chafee has already said he's opposing Bolten and Biden has declared it dead in the water. There's no way Bolten gets out of committee. I suppose Bush could try another recess appointment, but if he really wanted to piss the Dems off, that'd be a good way to start.
Posted by: gf120581 on November 9, 2006 at 5:50 PM |

Please bitch-slap him again, Nancy. Apparently, he didn't quite get it the first time.

P.S. It's still a stupid idea; as others have already mentioned, Chafee has made it clear that he will vote against moving a Bolton nomination out of committee (Senate Foreign Relations).

It's also a stupid gesture, but not a not unexpected one...

Joe Biden & Richard Lugar have the best bi-partisan ranking member relationship on any Senate committee. But as new chairman, Biden gets to say how much deference he gives Lugar. I doubt Lugar - newly reelected, likely for his final term, wanting to work together with Biden as much as possible - is going to make a big issue about Biden. It's not worth it to him.

Ah, suddenly being bipartisan is something Bush believes in, after five years of nonstop partisan attacks and completely disregarding the Dems across the board. The lovely bipartisanship we saw in the GOP controlled Congress, you know where in the House the GOP completely cut the Dems out of not just making legislation but also from reconciliation meetings between the GOP House and GOP Senate. Then there is the bipartisan GOP Senate we watched completely shut out the Dems on matters of national security like the WH use of intelligence investigations that to this day the GOP chair of the Intelligence committee (Roberts) has sat on hiding from Dems while using that position and control to bad mouth someone like Wilson in a highly partisan way in a committee that until Bushco was one of the most non/bi-partisan committees around. That is the GOP definition of "bipartisanship" and if Bush tries to act like he is still the top dog the Dems should show Bush the same bipartisanship he and his party showed the Dems for the last four years. Not to mention all that bipartisan consulting with the Dems Bush has been doing the last four years, like the bipartisan consulting on how to fix the Iraq fiasco he has been doing the last couple of years now...(snark for those too sarcasm challenged to grasp it)

Bush is going to try to get as much as he can through the GOP lame duck Senate and any attempt to prevent that will be portrayed as "proof" of the Dems not being willing to work with him. Considering that Bush's notion of the Dems working with him is to not get in his way and to do as he directs I see a major clash coming up fast, and given the clear anger in the American populace I doubt Bushco will be able to spin their way out of it this time unlike in the past. It is Bush who is going to have show he can work with others even more than the Dems and Pelosi/Reid, because it is his refusal to do anything other than stay the course on his policies from Iraq to tax cuts to spying without judicial oversight on Americans that was in no small part responsible for the GOP "thumping" the other day. Rove and the GOP strategists in the WH may think they can portray the Dems as obstructionist, problem is though on things like Bolton and the spying on Americans legislation the majority of the public is almost certainly going to want the Dems to be obstructionists given the disasters Bushco policies have created to date.

After all it wasn't a Dem that said bipartisanship is like date rape, no that was one of the masterminds of the now defeated GOP revolution of 1994 onwards, Grover Norquist.

"about Biden"?

That's "thumpin'" without the "g" -- polite for ass-whooping.

Problems for the Democrats continue to accumulate. This is about Alcee Hastings and his staff.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110906D

William Jefferson was forced into a runoff, gaining the most votes but short of majority; Allen Mollohan won outright, still under investigation.

Stay tuned.

nobody explained what the big word means.
.

So say the lame-duck Dem minority filibusters... what can Bush do? Don't his recess appointments expire at the start of the new (Democratic-majority) Congressional session?

Well, hold on a second, let's hear the president out. There is probably a compromise position that we can take, or (if it so happens that we can't all agree on a solution) we can defer to the historical wisdom of his position.

I'm all in favor of efforts by Reid and Pelosi to engage in genuine bipartisanship. There will be no more conference committee date rapes. No more cynical rotations of Republican pseudo-moderates who provide the Democrats with just enough votes to lose. Democrats have some leverage now, and using it to swing deals that actually benefit America would clearly be preferable to militant Newty standoffs and government shutdowns.

That said, bipartisanship needs to be on a probationary basis for the next two years. The House GOP leadership will have to be wiped clean and the White House will have to be fumigated before the damage from the last few years can truly be repaired.

Scotian nailed it. There is really nothing more to add to his/her analysis.

I hope the Democrats reward Bush's "bipartisanship" with immediate hearings into:

(1) Cheney's 'secret'energy task force. It worked so well that gasoline prices have doubled since it met. If Cheney refuses, impeach him.
(2) No-bid contracts to Halliburton, Bechtel, et al.
(3) Who forged the Niger documents purporting to show Iraqi purchases of yellowcake uranium?
(4) Prosecute the outing of Valerie Plame vigorously.
(5) The use of private mercenaries (e.g. Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc) in Iraq and Afghanistan. How much has it cost the American taxpayer? How many war crimes have they committed? Have they been held accountable for torture and other atrocities?
(6) Who knew of and authorized the torture of Afghani and Iraqi prisoners? What did Bush and Cheney know and when did they know it? How about the "renditioning" of prisoners to foreign countries for the sole purpose of torturing them?
(7) Is there evidence to substantiate the Downing St. memo that alleged the "facts were fixed" to support the conclusion that there were WMDs in Iraq?

No name just a few. It is a very target-rich environment, to turn a Rumsfeldian phrase....

Despite the Bush WH's apparent hopes, Amb. Bolton's "formal" renomination is about as dead as Gmo. Franco: and only slightly more likely to come back. IIRC, Bolton's appointment to the UN position expires with the 109th Congress: if not acted on one way or another, I believe Bush has to submit it again (or someone else) - and the likelihoood that the next Senate will gladly confirm Moustache John, or some other neocon hack is next to nil. If* President Bush were smart, he'd toss Bolton off the train (it's not like he's going to end up on welfare!), and put up some "respectable" "internationalist" type - another retread from Reagan/Bush 41, no doubt - who would probably have the same contempt for the UN as the neocons, but would at least be too savvy to show it or say it.

*NOTE: the BIG "If"!!

I'm all in favor of efforts by Reid and Pelosi to engage in genuine bipartisanship.

I'm not convinced there is such a thing as genuine "bipartisanship"; it's just a word used as either an excuse for surrendering the good of the country to momentary expediency, or as a bludgeon to try to get the other gut to do the same with his belief of what is good for the country.

I'm willing to listen to what the Republicans have to say, and if they have a convincing, well-supported argument that something is good for the country, not reject it out of hand because its from them. That being said, given their historical behavior, I'm not willing to trust them, so they better have proof, not just-so stories.

Beyond that, I'm not interested in any more "bipartisanship", and I hope the Democrats in Congress don't get suckered in by the calls for them to surrender values on the altar of "bipartisanship" either.

Oh, and besides: The Decider-in-Chief has bigger fish to fry with the departing Congress -

via Glenn Greenwald :

President Bush is apparently planning to use the lame-duck Congress to try to ram through his (typically Orwellian-titled) "Terrorist Surveillance Act" in order to retroactively legalize his Administration's abuses of the FISA system, and give them a backdated blanket amnesty for any possible prosecutions re the Administration's warrantless wiretaps. IOW, scrap the whole FISA system by making it - legally - subject only to the President's discretion (and with no judicial appeal).
With only limited time left for the 109th Congress, I don't think John Bolton's future employment prospects will mean that much to the Bush gang vs. the possibility of avoiding censure/judicial smackdown/indictments/jail over their cavalier attitude towards the law.

Let's filibuster him, and dare the GOP to drop the Nuclear Option and get rid of filibusters once and for all right now. Perfect timing...

on the plus side, the Democrats have already turned things around in Afghanistan:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061109/a_afghansurvey09.art.htm

Scotian on November 9, 2006 at 6:55 PM

Well said. Eventually, however, the Democrats will want to pass laws in addition to conducting hearings; then they'll be more bipartisan. So, bloodletting and settling of scores first, then a more moderate approach. And it really will be fun to watch what happens with William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings, and Allen Mollohan.

As for Hastings, Mollohan and company (not to mention Sen. Mendendez), if they're crooks let's expel 'em. It's not as though we need them anymore. And as for Bill "Freezer" Jefferson, if he loses that runoff next month to the female Democrat he's now running against (or even if he had lost to a Republican), I'd set off fireworks.

But let's keep in mind, shall we, which party is currently far, far ahead in the number of members under investigation for corruption? The GOP tried to set up a classic Mark Hanna-type national political machine -- a closed cycle of massive campaign contributions in return for massive favors -- and it finally broke down, just as Hanna's machine broke down in 1910 due to voter revulsion. If, and only if, the Dems try to set up something similar will we see a comparable number of their members under investigation for corrupt deals.

And it really will be fun to watch what happens with William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings, and Allen Mollohan.

apparently you're the only one who cares--run them all out of office, fine by me.
We're still in charge, deal with it.

Guess what folks. We're in this together. We don't have a veto-proof majority, nor can we guarantee that some moderate-conservative democrats will tow the party line when it comes to some legislation. So we have to reach across and work with the other side. Otherwise, we won't deliver the goods and show this country that we are, in fact, better at governing. Let's leave the partisanship and slash-and-burn tactics in the past, where they belong.

...the GOP completely cut the Dems out of not just making legislation but also from reconciliation meetings between the GOP House and GOP Senate.

Payback will be soooo sweet in this specific arena. Now the Dems get to gut the GOP sponsored pieces of "bipartisan" legislation in the conference committee and watch them squirm in their respective houses when the "reconciled" legislation comes up for a no-ammendment vote. I truly look forward to this--especially in defense-related leglislation.

Eventually, however, the Democrats will want to pass laws in addition to conducting hearings; then they'll be more bipartisan.

Why then? The GOP managed to get some legislation passed and they weren't exactly bipartisan. Or if you think they were, then when the Dems act the same way I trust you'll be consistent in referring to that behavior as bipartisan.

Bush and Pelosi Sell-Out Middle Class

By Krissah Williams
Washington Post Staff Writer

Immigrant workers are sending more money than ever to their families in Latin America, but two new studies show that only a small portion of the billions of dollars directed there has gone to economic development.

A report released yesterday by the Inter-American Development Bank estimates that immigrants living in the United States will send $45 billion to family members this year, representing a steady increase from about $2 billion in 1980.

Are we not draining our economy with illegal immigrants and work visa programs that promote the sucking sound of U.S. dollars to Mexico and Latin America? Are we not enabling the ruling class of Countries like Mexico to abuse their people by promoting unregulated cheap labor to flow in our Country, while they send the money back home?

When Congress and the President talk about Immigration reform, what about the trade deals that destroy working class people in all the Countries and create this race to the bottom? If we merely legalize cheap labor ( work visa program) through Immigration reform that Bush and Pelosi are working on together, this will be one more nail in the coffin for workers and small business.

The first 100 days of the next Congress (what should happen!):

1) Repeal of the Patriot Act
2) Defunding of the U.S. occupation of Iraq & Afganistan
3) Defunding of all aid to Israel and end for support for the continued occupation of Palestine
4) Repeal of all Bush tax cuts
5) Immediate increase in top income tax bracket to 50% for rich families earning over $100,000 per year
6) Repeal of the illegal border fence bill
7) Immediate granting of amnesty for undocumented workers
8) Comprehensive universal health care legislation

Now that's a good 100 days work. Savings from ending of occupations, Israel aid, prior tax cuts and tax increase on the people that have been undertaxed for years will easily pay for health care bill as well as new taxes from now legalized undocumented workers (who will certainly vote Dem in the future). Also the deficit will evaporate too! You want a permanent majority? Let's get this done!

If Bush veto's, then begin impeachment proceedings for Bush and Cheney - President Pelosi won't veto.

Guess what folks. We're in this together. We don't have a veto-proof majority, nor can we guarantee that some moderate-conservative democrats will tow the party line when it comes to some legislation. So we have to reach across and work with the other side. Otherwise, we won't deliver the goods and show this country that we are, in fact, better at governing.

The way to show that we are better at governing is to offer options that people want, that will, if implemented, actually work. Then our opponents can either (1) agree with us, and help us prove that we are better at governing, or (2) obstruct us, and demonstrate that they are opposed to what the people want.

The way to show we are better at governing is not to "reach out to the other side" and do what they want. We can be respectful to the other side. We can let them have their say. We don't treat the other side badly because they are the opposite party. But neither do we roll over for them just to show "bipartisanship". We seek what is good for the nation, and if they want to come along, we don't spit on them just because they have an "R" next to their names. But we don't support bad policy to get "bipartisan" headlines. That's the way to defeat.

And we don't avoid proposing good bills because Bush might veto them. If Bush wants to veto good and popular registration and give the voters more reason to seek a Democratic President and (as an insurance policy in case that fails) a stronger Democratic Congress in 2008, we welcome that, too.

MatthewRMarler >"...This is about Alcee Hastings and his staff.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110906D..."

Quoting :

"...Mr. Hastings voted consistently against key counterterrorism tools, including the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, the Intelligence and Law Enforcement Resolution, and the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act. He has been an opponent of the trial by military commissions of unlawful terrorist combatants as well as border control, NSA communications intercepts, and terrorist financing tracking measures..."

Hmmm, while Mr. Hastings does seem to be quite the chicken house fox, those "sins" of his above reveal that he sure isn`t a neo-conster puppet and does support the MAJORITY American opinion on these matters

So with this whine of yours Mr. Marler you have revealed, once again, yourself for the right wing hack you are since if you were ACTUALLY concerned about corruption you wouldn`t be here complaining about Democrats but you would be adopting a "wait to see what happens" attitude. Mr. Jefferson ain`t out to the woods yet & if he is reelected, the FBI still has some discussions to hold with him.

Give it a rest wing nut & give Grandma Speaker a chance to actually screw up before you let loose the drooling rant.

BTW, have those checks from Karl started bouncing yet ?

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." - Thomas Jefferson

Bolton and wiretapping. I knew his bipartisanship was fake. I am a bit surprised that he's trashing it so fast. He certainly must be counting on the media to make the Dems look like the louts.

Payback is a bitch, and I hope her name is Nancy (and I don't mean Sinatra). But maybe her name is Charlie.

You keep saying you've got something for me.
something you call love, but confess.
You've been messin' where you shouldn't have been a messin'
and now someone else is gettin' all your best.

These boots are made for walking,
and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

You keep lying, when you oughta be truthin'
and you keep losin' when you oughta not bet.
You keep samin' when you oughta be changin'.
Now what's right is right, but you ain't been right yet.

These boots are made for walking,
and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

You keep playin' where you shouldn't be playin
and you keep thinkin' that you´ll never get burnt.
Ha! I just found me a brand new box of matches yeah, and what he know you ain't HAD time to learn.

Are you ready, boots? Start walkin'!

Rove's genius is working. Dump Bolton and pass SuperDem's bills, and President Bolton will win the 2008 election.

1) Repeal of the Patriot Act
2) Defunding of the U.S. occupation of Iraq & Afganistan
3) Defunding of all aid to Israel and end for support for the continued occupation of Palestine
4) Repeal of all Bush tax cuts
5) Immediate increase in top income tax bracket to 50% for rich families earning over $100,000 per year
6) Repeal of the illegal border fence bill
7) Immediate granting of amnesty for undocumented workers
8) Comprehensive universal health care legislation>>

This is so insane on so many levels.
You are talking about utopia, not the next Congress (and some of the ideas are bad anyway).

First of all, Bush would veto all of it - so it wouldn't become law.
Second, it would be irresponsible - how are you going to come up with a workable health insurance plan in 100 days? It will take years to create one.
50% tax bracket for families over $100,000? California, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey will be more Republican than Utah.
End aid to Israel? Please, politically impossible, and I don't think we want to be complicit in that nation's collapse.

A Congress that did what you want would end the Democratic party and progressive politics forever in this country.

Let's leave the partisanship and slash-and-burn tactics in the past, where they belong.
Posted by: dave on November 9, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Who's this "we", white boy?

First of all, Bush would veto all of it - so it wouldn't become law.
Posted by: hopeless pedant on November 9, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Step 1.
IMPEACH.

With a REAL investigation - there will be ample evidence such that even the remaining unindicted republican senators and representatives won't be able to fight it.

Is this where Nancy gets suckered?

Again?

Bush never intends to do anything in a bipartisan manner.

This is where Bush tells voters that Nancy, Reid and the Dems ARE NOT trying to work with president in a truly bipartisan manner, as they claimed they would with the elections.

Dems better learn to play hard ball, and to throw Bush's lies right back in his face. Refocus his projectionism to reflect that indeed Bush is the one that is NOT bipartisan, that Bush was using the war for politics, not the Dems, that Bush is being dishonest.

Bush claimed Dems were isolationist but it was the Bush administration that were the true isolationist. Bush refuses to talk to anyone in his foreign policy.

This administration uses bully tactics and Dems do have to stand up to this kind of campaign, but this is something Dems have serious trouble doing. Why I'm sure.

That's the game Rove plays, don't let him play it. The minute he says something nasty, don't take it laying down. Answer it right away.

It's Gates and Bolton Bush wants confirmed by the lame duck Senate. Bush to Ask Lame Duck Congress to Confirm Gates:

"The readout I got from the meeting is, it was primarily focused on the lame-duck session," Mr. Snow said at a White House briefing. He ticked off a list of pending issues, which he said included "the nominations of John Bolton and also, if possible, Bob Gates.

Yep, this all looks like the tradtional Bush idea of bipartisan compromise: he agrees to do as he damn well pleases after waiting a news cycle or two, while you agree to shut up and stop bothering him.

He has pulled this manuever on Democrats, Republicans, pundits, allies, friends, enemies. The fate of the world is in the hands of a sixty year old spoiled brat who never really grew up.

The Onion has it dead to right --

Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats
November 7, 2006 | Issue 42•45

WASHINGTON, DC—Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.

see http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55018

The beauty of it is (and I heard this on the Fox Grapevine straight from Britt Hume's mouth, so it's gotta be true) is that, forget confirmation in either congress -- if Bush wants to make a recess appointment a second time, the rules say he can.

However, the rules *also* say that Bolton would have to serve his second term without his government salary :)

Bob

However, the rules *also* say that Bolton would have to serve his second term without his government salary

Speaking of gov salaries, free med coverage, and outrageous retirement benefits...

Any chance that war criminal Rummy will forswear his huge piece of the public dole in the interest of "paying his own way"?

Or is all that republican poop about "individual responsible" just so much backwash into a bottle of 2-buck Chuck?

I assume that bipartisan would mean ask whom Nancy wants and appoint him. I say him because if the rumours that she is going to replace Ms. Harman, a woman, with Representative Alec Hastings of Florida are true, then out with the woman and in with the convicted male felon.

You are a funny lot you Yanks. Much has been made by many of the fact that Bush and co cannot be trusted, as if it matters to you. I would remind you that we Australians are there with you in Iraq, and we trusted you to go the distance, despite the claims from the left here that the US always bottles out. We should learn not to trust you I guess, you clearly don’t need old friends when there are plenty who hate you to be cuddled up to. Or is it that you operate like Hamas, you feel no obligation to agreements reached with us, if it wasn’t the Democrats who signed up.

Yet one of the endearing aspects of Americans is that you are addicted to having another go at trusting, well not your political opponents, but certainly Iranians or Syrians for example. I cannot grasp how it is that so many believe that you can talk with and reach compromises with Syria and Iran. Despite the fact that they always stick it up you, whatever they mouth off. And will do so again. Iran will have a nuclear bomb, whatever you say or do, like abandoning the Iraqis. Grovel if you like, it won't put a stop to their decades long determination to have one.

One of the things I like about your Rumsfeld is that he doesn’t trust your enemies, and he doesn’t believe in certainty and hence the availability of extended periods of equilibrium as a result of trusting those who practise betrayal as a matter of course. Interesting report of a study of trust and betrayal in the Harvard Review.

“She had an enlightening experience when teaching negotiation and decision analysis to a group of government ministers from the Persian Gulf region in a Kennedy School executive-education program. “I started the class by asking them to recall a time when they lost trust in someone,” Bohnet recalls. “One minister said, ‘Trust is not an issue for us. We never trust.’ What a beginning! It opened up a very interesting discussion. A minister said, ‘We cannot dare to trust because we may lose face. I would never come to a meeting and put something on the table that other people could decline.’ The meeting-before-the-meeting is absolutely critical in the Gulf, because being let down is terribly humiliating.”

I guess telling the world that you are giving up, or is it, “solving a problem” equates with the meeting before the meeting, though its efficacy is lost if it is broadcast to the world. Even heard the Beeb of all sources offering in its summary of the Democrats win in the News of the World that the tyrants of the ME will be pleased, those hoping for democracy very sad, and the terrorists (yes "terrorists") very pleased. And reported the Afghanis gratitude to Rumsfeld.

But trust in deals done with those who would harm you, always other than your President, indeed it seems any Republican. And never trust your friends! Or should that be the motto of Australians.

I've never understood why you folks invested so much energy in opposing Bolton, instead of trying to clean up the UN with an imperfect messinger. You are the party that tried to make John Kerry President, after all. Nevertheless, you deserve the spoils of your victory - if the best prize you can think of is John Bolton's head I guess I'm willing to concede it. How about Michael Steele as a replacement? The guy showed real savvy fighting above his weight class in MD, and could bring some charisma to the job that Bolton doesn't have.

I really wish you could get spellcheck on this thing so I wouldn't have to wait 5 minutes and reread my posts. When I type fast I type phonetically and detract from the pearls of wisdom I'm trying to deliver.

I just want to say congratulations to all of you. Your efforts paid off and your message obviously resonated with the majority and that is what democracy is all about.

I disagree with you on many issues though, oddly enough I can find common ground on many others. Just note that I will hold your feet to the fire, just as all of you have done in the past.

I hope your efforts will continue to make this country great.

That was the fake Jay at 10:15.

I just want to say congratulations to all of you. Your efforts paid off and your message obviously resonated with the majority and that is what democracy is all about.

I disagree with you on many issues though, oddly enough I can find common ground on many others. Just note that I will hold your feet to the fire, just as all of you have done in the past.

I hope your efforts will continue to make this country great.

"That was the fake Jay at 10:15"

um...no it wasn't, that's genuine. But I see that the immaturity still reigns supreme on this site.

Jay, after months and months of your constant inane insults and bullshit dishonest rhetoric, you have absolutely zero basis for complaining about the maturity of anyone else on this site.

"And never trust your friends! Or should that be the motto of Australians." - Ros

Eloquently stated Ros from a true frustrated Austrailian friend. I share your frustration. Just know that many of us here will continue to fight the good fight and that many Democrats that won, ran very conservative to moderate campaigns. This is certainly not a victory for the far left.

Well at least you exposed yourself cleek.

"bullshit dishonest rhetoric" - cleek

Incidentally, I have NEVER said anything dishonest.

Jay: This is certainly not a victory for the far left.

Which is exactly your problem . . .

. . . you lie to yourself and everybody else about who the Democratic Party is and what they stand for.

Which is why you lost.

Americans are tired of your sad, pathetic lies.

Just ask those who Steele attempted to mislead.

Americans are tired of the GOP treating them like dummies and dupes.

Jay: I have NEVER said anything dishonest.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Good one!

Read the election results.

The American people have cast their verdict: Bush and his allies suck.

"ASHEVILLE, North Carolina: In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/news/dems.php

AOG, Please describe in detail the far left leanings of someone like James Webb, Heath Shuler among others.

That's hardly a lie, only your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions........

A recess appointment can only made if a committee does not vote it down, or if sent to the floor, is not acted on (including because of filibuster).

The reason Bush wants to re-do this is so he'd be approved. If he weren't voted on (like last time) he would be ambassador until January. If we were voted down now, he'd be done right away. If submitted in January and voted down, he could not be appointed in any form to the position.

Again - recess appointments only come when the vote is pending and no final action has been taken, and only until the end of the current COngress.

"Heath Shuler, a devout Christian, is more conservative than the average Democrat. He opposes abortion rights and gun control, and he plans to fight for balanced budgets as part of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats that backed his campaign. But, he says, his family roots in the party are stronger than any differences he has with its leaders."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20061108/pl_cq_politics/repelectheathshulerdnc

Don't fool yourself AOG.

n

Ros in Australia,

Unfortunately you sided with Bush in Iraq, not with the majority of Americans. Next time choose smarter friends. And FYI, I personally know there are plenty of Aussies cheering the Dem's victory on Tuesday.

We're inheriting a crappy situation all around in Iraq and we will try to make the best of it.

Democratic leaders will, I'm sure, honor Australia's friendship and sacrifice these last three years. Don't buy into the Republican "cut and run" nonsense. And don't assume because Democrats think the Iraq War was absolutely the wrong decision that we are therefore naive about terrorists.

FireDogLake is reporting that...

Ken Mehlman is gay.

Oh Sweet Jesus...
ROFLMAO!

Its been known for years that Melman is gay - what's the big deal?

Its been known for years that Foley was gay and fucking little boys- what's the big deal?

There are some conservative Democrats that were voted into office, but there were some extremely liberal ones as well.

This is just more SPIN SPIN SPIN. The real truth is, the American people have woken up to the fact that the Democrats represent people across a wide spectrum of beliefs, unlike the narrow little niche of angry losers that the Republicans claim as their own.

But, on second though, spin away. It's the only political exercise you folks are gonna get for the next 10-15 years.

Posted by: Ros on November 9, 2006 at 9:52 PM

I must say I find the above referenced post a little suspicious, it reads a little too much like the talking points I have heard and seen from American conservatives on this point. That said though I am going to respond to it as if the writer is as they claim.

"But trust in deals done with those who would harm you, always other than your President, indeed it seems any Republican. And never trust your friends! Or should that be the motto of Australians."

I have one simple thing to say to you, get off your high horse because you have no right to be on it. You went into Iraq aiding a cause that aside from the UK and America and Israel no other first world/western democracy saw a threat posed by this country. The UK went in more to maintain the traditional alliance between itself and America to continue acting as the bridge/interface between it and Europe. Israel has its own obvious reasons for wanting Saddam gone tracing back to the first GW and afterwards. Australia went in because of similar ideological beliefs in the leaderships of both and a desire to not just maintain but strengthen the relationship between the two countries.

What was lacking though was any real basis to do so on the grounds of any immediate to even long term threat posed by a man in a nation with the top and bottom quarters out of his control and in that of the west (no fly zones), sanctions degrading everything over a dozen years following a massive military loss in said GW, and was the known rival of Osama's as opposed to an ally and was a secular dictator that resisted religious extremism as a threat to his own power base. In other words there was no good reason to take him out other than that is what the WH wanted to do and several allies chose to humour the nation and go along with the notion for their own reasons/agendas. Then, to make matters worse to do so left Afghanistan half done, let Osama slip through Tora Bora, and has allowed the resurgence of the Taliban to the point where Afghanistan far from being secured is more and more starting to look like Iraq. Thank you so much for helping Bush do this to us all Ros, way to go. Make us all less safe.

What about the commitment Bush made shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan to not abandon the Afghans as they had been before by the West? Yet the country was never secured, Karzai has for several years now been known as the Mayor of Kabul for a reason, the Taliban has regrouped and these days has an open retreat and supply base thanks to the transparent Afghanistan-Pakistan border which Mushariff leaves open. NATO troops were left to try to hold things together despite lacking both the military and financial resources to complete this task. Yet this is where the attack of 9/11/01 came from, not Iraq.

As well, I seem to recall in WWI, WWII, and Korea they stayed the course once they joined the war, as they did in the first Gulf War. So your rant about how faithless their word is on military commitments is not only mean spirited it is not based on much substance either. Now yes granted they are not the best at keeping their word on trade disputes but until recently with the Bush43 Presidency they have not been bad at keeping their military commitments. That you chose to paint a picture such as you did seems more than a little dishonest and dishonourable to me.

Personally I think you are nothing more than an empty hat cheerleading without understanding what really goes on. For you to think so highly of a SecDef that has been as massively incompetent as Rumsfeld demonstrates a level of ideological thinking rarely seen outside of the hard core American right and some American conservative worshippers in places like Canada and yes Australian, which is why I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in your claims of being from there despite those doubts. The only people here that will agree with you are trolls and maybe one real conservative that is too drunk on the Kool-Aid on this issue to know better. However you are basically leaving empty rhetoric in a polemic unsupported by reality and historical fact, which means you deserve no serious consideration on those grounds alone, let alone your attitude problem and your clear poor understanding of America, Americans, and the Democratic party itself.

ROTFLMFLiberalAO:

That's old news.

Jay:

True enough, but consider this: Linc Chafee was the most liberal Republican in the Senate. He lost to an even (slightly) more liberal Democrat. Sherrod Brown ran as an old fashioned eat-the-big-corporations Dick Gephardt paleolib. John Yarmuth beat GOP True Believer Ann Northrup (classy lookin' lady), and he was like Rahmbo's fourth or fifth choice, as not only an unapologetic liberal (Kentucky is a red state, but Louisville is fairly progressive), but also an alt-press journalist, with many opinion pieces on lefty stuff like legalizing pot for Northrup to trumpet. She trumpeted 'em and nobody cared.

Consider all the moderate Republicans who lost in the Northeast to standard-issue liberals. Consider Christaian-right water carriers going down like Phill Klain (sp?) and Rick Santorum. And consider that not a single incumbent Dem lost.

Sure, there a bunch more socially conservative Blue Dogs and DLCers. But there are also populists who defy easy description (John Tester), citizens' candidates who were supported by the netroots in NH and CT. It's even arguable that some of the close races we lost, we might've won if the grassroots-supported primary candidate wasn't pushed aside by Rahm's money machine (Christine Cegelis was elbowed out of the way to make room for Tammy Duckworth. Many feel that cost the seat GOTV volunteers).

Bottom line, the Dems have a hugely diverse coalition now -- while the GOP has lost half their Main Street Partnership coalition of moderates. Our party right now looks more like America than the strange amalgam of Christians and corporatists who now hold the GOP by the short curlies with an even more implacable grip.

Already, the right-o-sphere is claiming that the Repubs can't become Democrat Lite, that they lost because they abandoned their conservative principles.

Oh preach that old time religion! Amen, brother!

Keep talkin' that talk and you'll never win another national majority. Become a party of the fringe right, and we will tar you as economic elitists and ideological extremists out of touch with America, just as you made "liberal" a dirty word.

It's time for "extremist GOP conservative" to suffer that same fate, my friend :)

Bob

ROTFLMLiberalAO:

Chill on the gay-baiting. It's really creepy to hear a liberal mouthing an ugly gay stereotype like that, even if it is to mock a closeted hypocrite.

Bob

Bah! You're all pathetic.

What is the measure of a man? Is it his soul? Is it his character? I don't care what a man does in the privacy of his own home, so long as I don't have to hear about it.

What I care about are fiscal matters, plain and simple. If you Dumbocrats think you're going to raise taxes on me, Norman Rogers, think again. If you think I'm going to stand idly by while you bankrupt the treasury and start delivering Escalades to Moms Mabley and her fifteen illegitimate children, THINK AGAIN! If you think we're not going to hold you accountable, you should step back and reconsider your options--and do so immediately. Fiscal security is the key to American security.

Do you not realize that Richard Cheney has now been angered? This is a man who has been in Washington longer than most of you have been alive. The wheels are turning and he's been reaching out and calling in favors--I don't want to minimize this, but the Dumbocrats will be running nothing in this country once Martial Law is declared.

Think about that, Liberals. Habeus Corpus? Gone. The Federalization of the National Guard? Written in stone, the laws accomplishing this were passed last month, as a matter of course.

Say hello to your new reality, liberals. You are in charge of nothing.

Chill on the gay-baiting. It's really creepy to hear a liberal mouthing an ugly gay stereotype like that, even if it is to mock a closeted hypocrite.

Please note that my eyes have now popped out of my head--is the sickest, most vile and unhinged liberal in all of Creation trying to enforce a moral standard on Political Animal?

Hypocrisy, meet contradiction, writ large and named rmck1! What a twit! What's next from you and your insane comedy stylings? Grooming tips? Vocational choices for the young? Advice on how to shoot baking soda and smack into one's armpit on a city bus?

Norman Rogers:

"Moms Mabley?" Isn't that racial code? I thought you said you despised racism in all its forms, Norman? Or is that only when you want inner-city black folk to vote Republican :)

How's the investigation going, Norm? Did you post bail? How much? Did you get the money from the Gomez Addams drawer, or did you have to liquidate a security?

Bob

Norman:

That's really adorable, Norman -- coming immediately after your uplifting little lecture on how you don't care what somebody does in their own bedroom :)

Bob

"Moms Mabley?"

Now my jaw just hit the floor--I'm being lectured on racial matters by someone who opined that a black person in Maryland who endorsed Michael Steele can't be a thinking person? Moms Mabley is a treasure and every American should know who she was.

Once the insanity takes hold, do you put on a cape and a tight leotard and jump around after you post such things?

...even if it is to mock a closeted hypocrite.

Well that's just it isn't it?

Sure it is a matter of degree...but--
Mehlman is like a Jew caught working for the Gestapo...

When you sell out your own people, and pretend to be something you aren't in doing so... that is a sin of the highest degree. You deserve to be mocked--relentlessly.

Lastly... I didn't mean to imply a sterotype between Mehlman and Foley. Rather that was just a blurt to show the fallacy of minion-of-rove's cast off line: "what's the big deal?" The repugs can't have it both ways:

They can't say gays are less than human and deny them basic rights such as marriage AND SIMULTANEOUSLY employ them in their leadership roles.

Similarly they can't say everyone knew Mehlman was gay... ho-hum, no-biggy... AND SIMULTANEOUSLY deny that they knew Foley was.

I call Bullshit on all that...

That was the spirit built into my preceeding post.

That's really adorable, Norman -- coming immediately after your uplifting little lecture on how you don't care what somebody does in their own bedroom :)

Your problem is, anyone who is consistent, like myself, has obviously figured things out. You, who are batshit crazy and shoving your own fist in your ass every three seconds to see what you can find for source material to post on this blog, cannot conceive of a world where someone actually makes sense from one day to the next.

What was it that obscure said about you--something about eye-popping contradictions?

No, not you. Nah. Mmmm, nope. Never.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Norman:

Moms Mabley is a national treasure? Really?

I thought you were just about to take the Escalade away from her 15 illegitimate children? :)

Bob

ROTFLMLiberalAO:

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of outing. I understand why certain sorts of gays are Republican and why they work for the party. I don't agree with them, of course -- but I can understand the thought processes.

As liberals, if we're going to support civil rights for gay people, we ought to be consistent, even if the other side isn't.

Bob

Scotian's reply to Ros is spot-on. I would add that if Ros wants to toss aside the age-old alliance between the US and Australia because he thinks we're going to "cut-and-run" (or whatever idiot phrase the neocons down under use to denigrate their own critics), well, he's welcome to his opinion.

Will he be willing to toss out ANZUS as well? Given China's military buildup? Suuuuurrre he will...

If you think Australia should "stay the course" (or whatever mindless non-strategy your neocons have), even in the face of a US/UK withdrawal, you go right ahead. It's so far cost us a half-trillion dollars (US$), but I'm sure you'll have no problem with that. I'm perfectly willing to let some other country play global cop for a while. Might as well be you. Better you than us.

Don't trust us now, huh? Y'all have been trusting us to defend you since Imperial Japan came knocking at your doorstep. So, you want to start ponying up for your own defense? You want to start spending the same percentage of YOUR GDP on military power as we do? For that matter, does Japan? Do any of our allies? Didn't think so.

You're fookin' welcome.

So, anyone know how the Australian electorate feel about the Iraq war? What are the polls there showing? Is it as popular there as it is here or in the UK?

ROTFLMLiberalAO:

Back away, slowly. Do not take your eyes off of rmck1. He might have a butter knife or a jagged, broken bottle in the pocket of his Member's Only jacket. Yes, you and I must ease our way out of the room and not give him a chance to spring at us and try to bite or claw at us. He is a vicious beast. He has been known to run up and try to kick a person in the shins--typical for a coward such as he. We must get away while we can. Careful, he looks like he just saw raw meat and a bullwhip.

What was it Pale Rider said about you, rmck1? Something about how you're a sick dog that needs to be put down?

Come on, my wayward liberal friend! We must flee! rmck1 is about to blow his stack and start coming unglued. Follow you uncle Norman to safety! We'll locate a constable who can escort the poor rmck1 to the local detox unit for testing and evaluation.

And you liberals think I'm not looking out for you.

PS: Moms Mabley can make due with a Dodge Caravan.

Norman:

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who admitted to spending a horribly undignified night shitting in a jail cell's stainless steel toilet for disabling 48 buses on election day.

Any further tips on mental hygiene and moral uplift you'd care to offer the peanut gallery?

Bob

RobW:

Austrailian public opinion polls, like those in Europe, are pretty solidly against the war -- despite some of its more American-like cultural tendencies.

Bob

As liberals, if we're going to support civil rights for gay people, we ought to be consistent, even if the other side isn't.

Yes, the source of a lecture on consistency must originate from rmck1. This is how the world works, liberals.

See? I actually made the effort to protect a liberal from rmck1 and give you honest, valuable advice (not that any of you would pay attention to a man who hasn't had to work for the last seven years because of his wealth). That's how topsy-turvy things get when he starts to rant and rave. I start to turn all nice and the exact reverse of my true self. In a moment, I shall be offering small amounts of change to hobos and I will stop claiming seventeen tax exemptions for the foster children I am not caring for at this time.

And you wonder why I have money and you do not.

Oh, and rmck1? Need bus fare? Hypodermic needle? Directions to a veterinarian who takes payment on the barter system?

Don't trust us now, huh? Y'all have been trusting us to defend you since Imperial Japan came knocking at your doorstep. So, you want to start ponying up for your own defense? You want to start spending the same percentage of YOUR GDP on military power as we do? For that matter, does Japan? Do any of our allies? Didn't think so.

I'm not inclined to be lectured by Crocodile Dumbdee tonight about the security of this nation. Your people cling to your coastline and have a bit of a problem with the spirits, you know. God may have made whiskey to keep the Irish from ruling the world, but he made beer because it's funny to watch an Aussie fall down in the gutter and piss himself at eleven in the AM.

One word from me and your whole country will go without imported cheese for six months, wallaby ass.

Norman:

*Which* liver are you on again? It's your second or third, I forget exactly which ...

Bob

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who admitted to spending a horribly undignified night shitting in a jail cell's stainless steel toilet for disabling 48 buses on election day.

I am a stoic. I fought for what I believe in. You walk around in a blue haze of self-satisfaction and denial. Somehow, I just don't think you get it--I'm Norman Rogers and you are not. But you'd cut off your left arm at the elbow just to be me for one day.

And all of you know it. Even you, koala lips.

Norman:

Why woud a country like Australia, with all those grazing ungulates, hurt for a lack of cheese?

Bob

Incidentally, I have NEVER said anything dishonest. Jay at 10:38 PM

... - what's the big deal? minion of rove at 11:18 PM

Say hello to your new reality, liberals. You are in charge of nothing.Norman Rogers at 11:42 PM

Democrats will be the majority in both houses. They will set the agenda; they will head the committees that hold the hearings and investigations. The christo-Taliban agenda will not be passed.

...I have money and you do not. Norman Rogers at 12:10 AM

One word from me and your whole country will go without imported cheese for six months, wallaby ass. Norman Rogers at 12:15 AM

Think about that, Liberals. Habeus Corpus? Gone. The Federalization of the National Guard? Written in stone, the laws accomplishing this were passed last month, as a matter of course. -Norman Rogers

He's got a point here.
He also may want to remember that it wasn't the liberals who supported these laws. (FYI, Hillary ain't a liberal, never was.)
He may want to remember which party opposed them, admittedly ineffectively due to a small conservative minority within it, and which party was virtually unanimous in its support for them.
He may want to remember the party affiliation of the authors of these laws, and the party of the president who pushed hard for them.
He may have noticed that it was the lefty blogs agitating against these atrocities and gnashed and wailed over their passage, while it was the righty blogs that called anyone who opposes them traitors and joyously celebrated their passage.

I'm just sayin'... If you want to blame either liberals or conservatives for them, remember who pushed these laws, and who tried to stop them.

Thanks, Bob. That's what I figured, but I'm just too lazy to look it up right now...

Norman:

Tell us about the bail. Did you give them a cashier's check -- or would a personal check suffice?

Or did someone have to bail you out? Did you have to wring Aunt Griselda up out of her spinster's early evening catatonia, or did doddering old Winthrop Beans make his Mr. Magoo-like way down to the station in his Packard?

Bob

Mike:

That's fine, I'm a man and I can take your abuse. Make sure you don't turn your attention to rmck1--he's in rare form this evening. Earlier, he was attempting to enforce "standards" on this blog thread because he was "personally offended" by something that someone said.

"Allegedly," he is "consistent" in his opinions and he is not "contradicting" himself but your uncle Norman is "wondering" when he'll pull a steak knife out of his shoe and "casually" begin carving a picture of Shirley Maclaine into the sole of his foot.

Beans is only a year my senior. A good fellow. Can't use the Internet worth a damn but he's a genius at hedge funds. He is very adept at using the fluctuations of the market to arrive at a point five years out where he's made money on the nervousness of others.

Why? Thinking of stabbing him in the neck with a fork so you can drink his blood and live another day?

And you wonder why even a wooden stake through your heart wouldn't get you to stop posting.

Goodnight liberals. Sleep tight knowing George W Bush has kept you safe for another day of waiting for the government to give you a handout. I thank God for the safety that man provides me, and one and all, you liberals should sing God Bless America when your side is sworn in this January.

I rather think you'll be singing Me and you and a dog named Boo instead.

Goodnight Norman, you extremely strange person who I still can't figure out if your are a sardonic parody, or some bored wealthy guy, perhaps more marginally than we'd care to think pushing the envelope of who you really are just for shits and giggles ...

Bob

Think about that, Liberals. Habeus Corpus? Gone. The Federalization of the National Guard? Written in stone, the laws accomplishing this were passed last month, as a matter of course.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 9, 2006 at 11:42 PM

Then, at 12:33 AM, he posts this...

Sleep tight knowing George W Bush has kept you safe for another day of waiting for the government to give you a handout. I thank God for the safety that man provides me...

Wow. My jaw just dropped. He really doesn't seem to see any contradiction there at all.

...I have money and you do not. Norman Rogers at 12:10 AM

To a conservative, that really is all that matters, isn't it? Do you think, Norman, that having money makes you better than, well, anyone? How socially Darwinist of you.

A Bush prediction by a commenter over at Raw Story:

I wonder what the signing statements are gonna look like now. The smart money's on crudely drawn middle fingers along with helicopters shooting at the passages he doesn't feel like obeying.

November 9th, 2006 at 10:32:17 From: sheephead

瘦身,运动,减肥产品,美容,肥胖
避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法
各个部位的减肥
减肥茶
减肥明星

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品 避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法 身体各个部位的减肥 茶 减肥明星

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品
避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法
身体各个部位的减肥
茶
减肥明星

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品 避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法 身体各个部位的减肥 茶 减肥明星

瘦身,运动,减肥产品,美容,肥胖
避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法
各个部位的减肥
减肥茶
减肥明星

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品 避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法 身体各个部位的减肥 茶 减肥明星

肥胖，痩身，运动，减肥产品
避免肥胖的办法，减肥方法
身体各个部位的减肥
茶
减肥明星

Wow, and Australians are supposed to be direct.
Thanks RobW, this female middle aged (like to claim middle aged) Australian residing in the suburbs of Adelaide has always believed that you guys thought well of us, hence my anger at the possibility that the current mindset in the US is to leave us dangling in the wind. That blast leaves me wondering if the LEFT in Australia isn’t right, we can only count on the US when it suits them. Norman’s attack of spleen is an interesting insight into the Australia’s standing in the US. Note the LEFT it is that tells us you are not to be trusted. It is the LEFT that denies the huge lifting you did for us and others into East Timor. It is the LEFT who claim you did nothing for the Indonesians, indeed any one ever anywhere unless there was a buck in it, including the Presidents Clinton and Carter etc. It is from members of the Australian LEFT that I have read Katrina was no less than Americans deserved. Oh and it is the LEFT in Australia that wants to toss aside ANZUS, not because of Bush, but for most of my life they have viewed you as less than decent. Some of the LEFT even like to argue that the Battle of the Coral Sea did not save Australia from the Japanese, it was just a typical American ego plus distortion yarn.

And Scotian if you want to throw Afghanistan in our faces with cracks about Mayors, did you know that Governor Hakim Taniwal, a very brave and highly respected man, who was recently assassinated was an Aussie Afghan who went back to help.

To discuss why Rumsfeld is and was such a clever man I think would be a waste of my time and do considerable damage to your blood pressure.

Don’t really know what a neocon is, apart from an American program on one of our public broadcasters that made the point, again and again, that to be a neocon is usually to be a Jew. There is not an identifiable “neocon” group in Australia. Unless of course it is just being used as a term of abuse.

“Bush and his allies suck” would seem to sum up what it is like to be a friend of the US these “new days” amongst the folks here. I would remind those who don’t remember that the COW included, South Korea. Poland, Italy and the Kurds, so piss on them too, after all who needs loyal friends. Not the left in America it would seem.

Rob W., mck1, Scotian,
Actual facts re: 'Ros' & Australian opinion,

Australian disapproval of the invasion & war in Iraq is currently around 68% where it's been (roughly) for a couple years.
A majority of Australians always opposed the invasion & war. The main opposition party, Labour (unlike US Dems, UK Libs & Conservatives) was from the outset 100% opposed to joining the US led Coalition in Iraq.

Every politically astute Australian I know ( a surprisingly numerous category) is utterly delighted by the Democrat's convincing mid-term success. 'Ros' may be an Australian, but his Pelosi-phobia & whiney fear about imminent Iraqi abandonment is (ahem...) deeply uncharacteristic of his countrymen.

Ros,

Can you possibly be suggesting that America "stay the course" in Iraq because some Australians will be disappointed in us? That may be good dinner party strategy but it's not something to base America's foreign policy on.

Your summary of the Australian left makes them sound like Rush Limbaugh's mirror image Down Under. There you are, caught between the far right and the far left. What's a reasonable Aussie to do?

You sound educated, so why not start with some real facts (Where were the WMDs?) and take it from there.

I'd be interested to know why the Aussie government agreed to side with Bush in the first place -- what did he promise your country? More US spending with Aussie contractors? More military support?

Has it been worth it?

If Norman Rogers is a real person and not just a parody of a slightly more well-off Archie Bunker, I think it is pointless to banter with him. If real, he seems to think that all liberals (or 30% of the American population or so) are poor, drug-addicted, lazy and on welfare. Absurd, eh?

As for myself, I have a Masters degree and my annual income and net worth are significantly higher than the national median, I am very active in community affairs and charitable causes and I don't smoke, drink or use drugs. In fact, most of the liberals I know in my community are the same way. Mr. Rogers might be interested in learning that half of the people that are "on welfare" (i.e. TANF, food stamps, public housing) are children under age 16. Are these children not working hard enough to suit you, Mr. Rogers?

In short, gang, ignore this sad old man. He is misinformed or uninformed and mistakenly believes myths propagated by drug-addicted college drop-outs like Rush Limbaugh. There is really no way to teach an old dog new tricks...

Outsourcing company
access_control_solutions
advantage
application_development_india
application_development_using_java
application_maintenance
application_porting
biometric_application_development
card_software_development
client_server_application_development
client_server_based_application
custom_application_development
database_application_development
database_solutions
develop_offshore_software
development_model_in_outsourcing
development_services
application_integration
enterprise_application_development
it_outsourcing
it_outsourcing_india
j2ee_application_development
java_application_development
java_card
java_card_applet_development
java_card_consultancy
java_card_programmers
java_card_programming
java_card_solutions
java_consulting
java_j2ee_development

java_programmers
loyality_solutions
loyality_solutions_on_card
major_benefits
microsoft_net_development
migration_porting
migration_services_software
mobile_application_development
mobile_solutions
net_application_development
odc_offshore_center
offshore_development
offshore_development_center
offshore_india_company
offshore_outsourcing
offshore_outsourcing_india
offshore_outsourcing_services
offshore_partner
offshore_product_development
offshore_programming
offshore_programming_india
offshore_services_of_realitexperts
offshore_software
offshore_software_development
offshore_software_development_to_india
offshore_software_india
offshore_software_programming
oracle_consulting

oracle_consulting_companies
oracle_migration
oracle_outsourcing
oracle_outsourcing_solution
oracle_programming
oracle_solutions
outsourced_product_development
outsourcing
outsourcing_application_development
outsourcing_common_fears_faq.
outsourcing_meaning
outsourcing_oracle_application
outsourcing_software_india
outsourcing_to_india
palm_application_development
pl_sql_programming
pos_programming
post_rfp_rfi
Title
programming_j2ee
programming_smart_card
programming_using_net
quality_engineering
site_map
smart_card
smart_card_consultancy
smart_card_development
smart_card_programmers
smart_card_programming
smart_card_solutions
software_application_development
software_development
software_development_india
software_development_outsourcing
software_migration
software_outsourcing
software_outsourcing_center
software_outsourcing_company
software_outsourcing_india
terminal_application_development
vb_application_development
vendors
web_enabling_legacy_application
web_enabling_legacy_applications
web_services
why_realitexperts
windows_application_development
wireless_application_development
wireless_mobile_application_development
wireless_solutions
xml_application_development
xml_development
outsourcing_application_development
software_development_outsourcing
development_services

Good Morning liberals. I hope you slept well, knowing that George Bush was watching over you the whole time, like a Guardian Angel - patient and fearless, whispering the Good News About Republicanism in your ears while you sleep. Don't you feel a little more Republican today? I know I do.

Speaking of Republicanism, isn't it amazing how much it got its ass kicked on Tuesday? Maybe George got bored with the hossanahs to the GOP and starting singing dicso hits of the 70's, and got everybody all queered-up for the election. That's the only way you could've won. Once again, I blame Bush. You can thank him.

'And Scotian if you want to throw Afghanistan in our faces with cracks about Mayors, did you know that Governor Hakim Taniwal, a very brave and highly respected man, who was recently assassinated was an Aussie Afghan who went back to help." Posted by: Ros on November 10, 2006 at 5:08 AM

I'm sorry but what does this have to do with anything? The point about the Mayor of Kabul was to underscore the reality that America abandoned her NATO allies right in the middle of that operation to go into Iraq, which left much undone against the Taliban which has led to more of the country supporting the Taliban again than the western forces sent there to help them. If you have been paying any attention to Afghanistan you should bloody well know just how bad things are there and how far they have deteriorated in the last year in particular.

You sound more and more like a clone of the American Right, which I've noticed seems to be something of a fetish with certain Americaphiles in your country and Canada's conservative movements. As for this sentence of yours: "To discuss why Rumsfeld is and was such a clever man I think would be a waste of my time and do considerable damage to your blood pressure." If it is going to be such a waste of time then why bother to mention it in the first place when you made this absurd claim? You do realize this is the man that has effectively broken the American Army, shown the world how to beat the American military, and has been unable to recognize such basic military precepts as once you occupy a country you need to secure it and have a plan, Rumsfeld never had any plans. Indeed, if America had gone in with as few troops as Rummy wanted to go with the situation would have deteriorated far faster than it did. This is a guy that thought America could overthrow and replace a government with a few tens of thousands of troops. As it was the 130,000 or so troops he did use were nowhere near enough as the last three and a half years have made painfully clear to the American people. As for my blood pressure, after watching the last five years of utter incompetence and stupidity of the Bush Administration, the GOP Congress that rubberstamped Bushco, and those internationally that humoured Bushco with Iraq if it has not caused me problems with my blood pressure your explanation upon what you specifically base your premise of Rumsfeld "is and was such a clever man" certainly won't.

It is very typical conservative copout to make such comments though; it lets them off the hook from actually having to explain what their reasoning/"logic" is. You made the claim, you advanced the notion that Rummy is so clever, since both wars he was responsible for have come undone on America (Iraq certainly and Afghanistan is well on the way over the cliff now as well) you might want to explain why anyone should think well of him in his role as SecDef. His so called transformation of the military was always a bad idea, that a need was there to shift from Cold War world operations to working in a less conventional theater of war is one thing, his so called brilliant solutions as to how to go about it though were doomed to fail just as they have failed in Iraq. The only people that still think he is a clever/capable SecDef have been those that have drunk so much Kool-Aid (if you don't get the reference look up Jonestown) they have no connections to reality anymore if they ever did.

So your second comment here was not much better than the first, and about as contemptuous in tone as any red blooded American neocon wingnut (congradulations on that btw how's it working out for you?). Incidentally, claiming it is "The Left" that is telling you about how bad America is and how can America be proving them correct demonstrates your own political alignment to be quite conservative, and you hold a POV that is not shared by a clear majority of your own population. You're not John Howard in drag, are you?

Norman:

Oh believe us, Norman ... we do. We do, indeed :)

Bob

C'mon -- we all know that THE TERRORISTS WON and AMERICA LOST!!

Bush said so, over and over and over!

Part of the new anti-terrorist bill will allow for the arrest and transfer of all new Democratic House & Senate winners to Gitmo as well as anyone else who opposes that action.

"-I don't want to minimize this, but the Dumbocrats will be running nothing in this country once Martial Law is declared."

Orwell once wrote, scratch a pacificist, and you find a jingo.

Is it true that scratch a "libertarian", and you find an authoritarian?

Bolton has done a decent job as UN ambassador. In the spirit of bipartisanship (a phrase which doesn't mean that Democrats get everything they want), the Dems should reconsider their opposition. After all, Bolton works at the president's behest, so the issue is not his politics but whether he has been an effective advocate of American policy at the UN.

I always thought that a libertarian is just a Republican who smokes dope!

But hasn't Bolton actually done a pretty reasonable job of representing American interests at the UN without being an obstructivist asshole? It seems to be that this would be a good way for the Dems to demonstrate their bipartisanship...

Scotian, Rumsfeld has the gratitude of the Afghans and that is what I said. You elevated that to “thinking so highly of the SecDef.”

Harlan Ullman made the point on Australian television that Iraq was not Rumsfeld’s war. If you thought about Rumsfeld’s Doctrine, small, very fast, high tech flexible forces operating with networked, adaptive communications, reliant on air forces and delivered to the trouble spot via lily pads and naval platforms, you might see that. It is not Rumsfeld that wants the huge standing armies to occupy other places for long periods, his is a force that goes in very fast in response to emergent dangers, hits the bad guys very hard and gets out. One pundit I read today argued that amongst the problems of post Iraq invasion was that because it happened so fast without huge battles very few of the Baathists were damaged during the invasion itself.

It is the 2 star (as Ullman pointed out) retired generals that have been squawking about Rumsfeld. They are the chaps who want huge standing army to occupy and play the role of Empire. And the Powell Doctrine was for a huge occupying army. As for “this is the man that has effectively broken the American Army” well that is a highly debateable point. But as is pointed out by others, the army and the forces structures (yours and ours) have stayed the same since the sixties. The world and its dangers have changed, and in particular the lead times to a fight, who the fight is with and how they fight. And then there are the Chinese who advocate unrestricted warfare, which includes lawfare , economic warfare and terrorism.

His "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know," probably sums up Rumsfeld’s understanding of the world as it is best. And whereas in recent years the military has been learning from business, in contrast to the direction of knowledge flow a few decades back, the known knowns etc goes the other way, business is adapting that concept of Rumsfeld’s.

There are those who were always opposed to the war, WMDs included, eg Gore,

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country….and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front.”

but he still had this to say,
“So it is reasonable to conclude that we face a problem that is severe, chronic, and likely to become worse over time.”
Gore offered lots of talking and a belief that there was time to deal with Saddam. Sanctions and the US and UK pilots putting their lives on the line protecting the Kurds did not rate.
The Democrats in the majority conceded there was a problem and the solution was a war. That there are as it turns out known knowns which were in fact unknown unknowns doesn’t give them a free pass. Its tough, but the Iraqis didn’t ask the US to invade, the Democrats however agreed to them being attacked. So now they cannot claim foul and walk away. And if the Democrats think it is OK to say, Australia did the deed with Bush so they can push off, who is it that they would seek to join them next time. Who would want to?

OzDanJoaquin, just to be clear, I was making no claims about Australian public support for the Iraq War, rather that as Australia supported the USA in this war, and is a longstanding ally, for the USA to walk away from the Iraqis is also to walk away from its steadfast allies. And I am pleased for you that you only mix with the politically astute, but what would you say to HER contention that the Australian left is proudly anti-American?

And while all of the Parliamentary members of the Labour Party were against the war, not so other prominent members, eg Michael Costello, but then I suppose you would not rate him as he clearly can’t be politically astute.

Pelosi phobia, not really, just that this woman got a giggle out of the woman who is going to dump a woman for a crooked man.

But hasn't Bolton actually done a pretty reasonable job of representing American interests at the UN without being an obstructivist asshole?

oddly, i agree. he's been surprisingly non-calamitous.

Scotian, Rumsfeld has the gratitude of the Afghans and that is what I said. You elevated that to “thinking so highly of the SecDef.”

Posted by: ROs on November 10, 2006 at 11:50 AM

Sorry lady, try again. Unlike your country mine only deployed to Afghanistan and is one of the ones taking significant fatalities this year because of the failures. We have also paid a lot of attention to the Afghanistan environment and I know that there is not this gratitude towards Rummy that you speak of, except perhaps among the few like Karzai that owes their current positions of power to America. The people of Afghanistan, those that even know Rummy's name though are not grateful to Rummy, no they want the invaders (That's us, NATO and the western powers) occupiers out of Afghanistan. You seriously need to update your talking points to reality because man are they ever disconnected.

I’d continue this but RL is calling and I doubt I’ll be back sooner than Monday given my agenda. So I conclude with this, whatever you may think you have shown all here outside of the Trolletariat just how ignorant you are of the realities of Afghanistan, Rumsfeld, and the general disaster that has been the Bush foreign policy post 9/11/01.

Assuming you are British Scotian, it was the BBC that reported the Afghan thanks to Rumsfeld. I haven't discussed the Bush foreign policy.

Woops missed only Afghanistan, NATO forces? Not those that won't leave the north?

ROs: Harlan Ullman made the point on Australian television that Iraq was not Rumsfeld’s war. If you thought about Rumsfeld’s Doctrine, small, very fast, high tech flexible forces operating with networked, adaptive communications, reliant on air forces and delivered to the trouble spot via lily pads and naval platforms, you might see that. It is not Rumsfeld that wants the huge standing armies to occupy other places for long periods, his is a force that goes in very fast in response to emergent dangers, hits the bad guys very hard and gets out.

Winning wars is more than winning battles. Rumsfeld’s is properly criticized for a DoD transformation (*cough*) intented to win battles, not wars.

Then we got the excuse of "going to war with the army you have". The army Rumsfeld and the administration wanted. The army they worked hard to get. The army that could not support the administration's strategy.

This was most definitely Rumsfeld's war, but not only Rumsfeld's war; there are plenty of others who are culpable.

ROS:

The fundamental problem with your argument is that Rummy's new doctrine is precisely why Iraq pranged. You needn't evoke some second-order conspiracy theory involving retired two-stars dreaming of Empire.

We couldn't seal the borders. We couldn't protect the oil infrastructure. We couldn't guard the weapons dumps. Our lack of troops, more than anything else, set the conditions for the insurgency.

Had we marched in there with 300k troops -- yes, we would've been a Euro-style occupying power for a little while. But a benevolent one, because we wouldn't need to be so focused on force-protection that we blow the living shit out of civilians as a safety precaution. Besides, a full-blown occupying army might've served to focus the Iraqis' minds toward finding a united consensus in government so they could chase us away. What are we left with now? The Maliki government pleading with us not to set timetables because of their utter dependence on us to keep the Green Zone safe for a little while longer if nothing else. A completely dysfunctional relationship.

You lose this argument entirely on the merits, my Australian friend.

Bob

Fair enough. I think I have taken up enough of this space, so will retire.

Bob:

Thanks for taking over, this is my last post and it is going to be a short one because of time constraints. Please, continue shredding our Aussie poster's clear ignorance of what she is talking about. Her reasoning (such as it is) clearly comes from a set of talking points and not from informed understanding of what is really going on. She couldn't even figure out what my country was despite the clear hint I gave by pointing out we are the ones taking serious fatalities in Afghanistan currently as we are the ones fighting in the South/Kandahar region.

Anyways, I am still not convinced that this is not one of our trolls in another incarnation given the reasoning, but I could be wrong about that, as I noted in m first post responding to Ros. BTW, speaking of trolls chalk me up for the Jeffrey is Chuckles brigade, the feel and style fits to a "T". Have a good weekend Bob, we shall see you around. I might stop by later today or tomorrow if circumstances permit, I simply do not know whether they will or not as of this time. Take care and be well.

Awaiting the solid reasoning of Floopmeister.

Oh, all of you little Trools, tomorrow is Veterans Day. Many veterans will be marching.

Please, find your little US flags or even your tattered Confederate ones, and either practice your Faux patriotism over your Faux concern for our troops or have the decency to descend into your rabbit and chickenhawk holes.

I'm a die-hard for whom Nov 11 remains Armistice Day and commemorates the end of WWI (and the start of WWII).

Bah! And take 'Presidents Day' with ya...

Hey Paul.

matthew r. malher: Problems for the Democrats continue to accumulate. Hastings..William Jefferson..Allen Mollohan won outright, still under investigation.

while those three are being investigated..

why did you leave out

gop's congressman doolittle and lewis.....and senator frist?

all of those republicans are still under investigation...

or

didn't you know that?

Your lie, Jay, is that the Democratic Party is and wants to be "far left".

But, then, I didn't expect you to really understand my point, since people like you live in such a delusionary world that it is impossible to see the truth . . . hence, all your lies.

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av电影 情色电影 同志电影下载 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 美女写真 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购

Ros -

You're wise to retire. You could read a little more, perhaps, & write a little less. (I'd recommend R.Clarke's Against All Enemies, H.Blix's Disarming Iraq, R.Suskind's Price of Loyalty, J.Risen's State of War, G.Vidal's Dreaming War & B.Woodward's Bush trilogy.)

2nd, I apologise for mistaking your gender. It's based on a sexist assumption that bellicose sloganeering & incurious bombast are inherently male, which Ann Coulter & others have ably disproved.

3rd, I was responding to Rob W's query re Australian support for Iraq war, not directly refuting your specious rhetoric. However, since we're there anyway I'll do so now. A majority of Australians NEVER supported the US invasion. When you say "Australia supported the US", what you actually mean is Australia's conservative PM supported the Bush Administration. Don't confuse party political leadership with national pluralities. Most Americans now feel the same way about Iraq as most Australians (& Brits, Europeans & the rest of the world).

Get used to it, Ros.

You & like-minded others backed a war that was worse than unpopular, illegal & immoral. It was deeply stupid, obscenely wasteful, clearly counterproductive to reducing terror, devised by corrupt, mendacious incompetents & therefore, necessarily, unwinnable. This has now become obvious to everyone except those, like you, who can't admit they were wrong, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

4thly, I'm new here but I'd guess Scotian (as in Nova) is Canadian but I'd definitely ask rather than assume. After all I assumed from your incurious sloganeering that you had a Y chromosome.

5thly, finally, to answer your contention that "the Australian Left is proudly anti-American" I'd impatiently contend you continue to confuse party politics with nationality. A majority of Australians & world citizens, left-wing & otherwise, are not anti-American. They are nonetheless, anti-Bush &, to a lesser extent anti-Republican. On the basis of the US mid-term elections, most Americans now hold similar views. Therefore, since the "Australian left" shares the US electorate's rejection of Bush & Republicans, the Oz left is actually now more supportive of mainstream American opinion than either you or PM Howard who support an unpopular increasingly marginalised Bush administration. If anything, it's now the Australian right that's anti-American. You ignore the view of the US electorate at your own peril & out of (a frankly incomprehensible) ideological kinship with a lame-duck, moronic, corrupt & failed GOP leadership. You need to get out & read a LOT more. Adelaide's always been a great city for both.

Regards.

"4thly, I'm new here but I'd guess Scotian (as in Nova) is Canadian but I'd definitely ask rather than assume. After all I assumed from your incurious sloganeering that you had a Y chromosome." Posted by: OzDanJoaquin on November 11, 2006 at 10:33 AM

Bingo. What really gets me is that all she had to do was drag the cursor over my alias to see my e-mail addy which has at the end .ca, the internet country code for Canada. While I rarely bring up my nationality here I have never hidden it either nor denied being a proud Canadian. Incidentally, you grasped the basis of my alias, something many never seem to, congradulations. I am a proud norn and bred Bluenoser.

Hey Scotian - I didn't think to cursor your alias either but your Afghan ref implied Canadian - so Scotian suggested Nova. A lucky guess. I'm wary of nationalism, but Canada does have an enviable record for prudence & prescience in foreign policy, even when your Conservatives are in power...Best regards

Hi, nice site. I really like it.
http://wtc.awardspace.com/woman_timex_watch/ woman timex watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/official_site_third_watch/ official site third watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/ebel_watch_womens/ ebel watch womens http://wtc.awardspace.com/omega_dynamic_watch/ omega dynamic watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/lady_hamilton_watch/ lady hamilton watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/cartier_lady_tank_watch/ cartier lady tank watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/kenneth_cole_reaction_watch/ kenneth cole reaction watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/lady_pocket_watch/ lady pocket watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/petite_skagen_watch/ petite skagen watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/omega_deville_watch/ omega deville watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/womens_casio_watch/ womens casio watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/christian_music_video_watch/ christian music video watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/kinetic_man_seiko_skh640_watch/ kinetic man seiko skh640 watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/nixon_roadie_watch/ nixon roadie watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/guess_heart_watch/ guess heart watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/watch_wide_world/ watch wide world http://wtc.awardspace.com/geneva_review_watch/ geneva review watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/discount_watch_anne_klein/ discount watch anne klein http://wtc.awardspace.com/tag_heuer_womens_watch/ tag heuer womens watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/womens_dress_watch/ womens dress watch
see you soon..

To be fair to The Stupidest President Ever, the word bipartisan has too many syllables for him to comprehend. But boiled down:

Bush-bipartisan: *both* parties do what I tell them to.

Thanks for the continuing ad hominens guys. Scotian, I did when you pushed me to read more carefully what you had said work out you were Canadian - casualty rates reference. Hope your and our troops are better at seeing each other’s point of view than we are. By the way your armed forces are also undergoing a process of “Transformation”. They started fairly soon after Clinton and Cohen commenced the “Transformation”. Canadian catchcry “in early, out early”, reflecting as does the US approach RDO, "fight light, fight fast" Before heart attacks are caused by the reference to Clinton and Transformation, Democrats are making the point that it was Clinton who recognised the need for and initiated Transformation, which is why the armed forces were so good post 9/11, the spokesperson said.

Transformation
“Transformation seeks to create a new vision. It is paradigmatic in scope. In other words, a prevailing perspective or collective belief system, previously unquestioned or unexamined in a rigorous manner, has been changed … Cognitive change leading to radical behavioural change within the organisation, is the goal of successful transformation.”

I would assume therefore Scotian that it was Rumsfeld’s implementation of Transformation, not the fact of it, which you object to.