Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 15, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

DISSENSION IN THE RANKS....Another conservative revolt?

The White House yesterday found itself fending off a conservative revolt over the North Korea nuclear deal....Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser, fired off e-mails expressing bewilderment over the agreement and demanding to know why North Korea would not have to first prove it had stopped sponsoring terrorism before being rewarded with removal from the list, according to officials who reviewed the messages.

Sweet. Apparently the conservative chattering classes are blaming this rank appeasement on the departure of Donald Rumsfeld.

Kevin Drum 12:56 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Today is "International That's What She Said" Day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm7HMA1tDM

So get out there and expose those innuendos!

Posted by: Tyler on February 15, 2007 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

I can't wait till Republicans are taking pot shots not only at Smirk, but Rove too. That is when we'll know it's all over.

Posted by: This Machine Kills Fascists on February 15, 2007 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

Man, that's crazy! You'd think they would be happy! That't sh best foreign policy news the Bushies have had in years!!!

Republicans really are crazy!

Thanks,

Mike

Posted by: lord_mike on February 15, 2007 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

What terrorism is NK supporting, besides that against its own citizens?

Posted by: Disputo on February 15, 2007 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

So you guys are pulling for the enemy openly these days?

I'm just asking.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya on February 15, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

American Troops Held Hostage

Posted by: elmo on February 15, 2007 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

I'm all confused now. I thought we were supposed to trust The Leader. He is our Commander-in-Chief sent from above. Any questioning of His words or plans emboldens the enemy. Don't these Republicans understand that we are at war!?! WAR, I tells ya. Aren't these pro-terrorist Republicans who are criticizing Bush supposed to self-immolate now? Shouldn't they be calling for themselves to be hanged for treason? Why do they hate America? Why don't they support the troops? Why do they want Al Qaeda to win?

I'm just asking.

Posted by: Orson on February 15, 2007 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

PNACers/neocons are nuts. Brent Scowcroft called their ideas "revolutionary utopianism." And now they're displaying open disloyalty to Bush and irritating the prez. Uh-oh. Does Abrams realize how easily he can be replaced by a Bushie loyalist?

Appears that the Condi camp is winning over the Cheney camp in this instance of in-fighting. I could be wrong but I wonder if Cheney is about to exit the building (to avoid impeachment) for engineering the Plame leak. The Libby trial has shown Dick's dirty fingerprints all over the hit against the Wilsons.

Didn't the CIA promise a damage assessment of the Plame leak post-Fitz investigation? Hello, Jay Rockefeller?

Meanwhile, I'm gonna have some popcorn and watch the circular firing squad.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 15, 2007 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

I missed something. I never saw the proof from Elliot Abrams that North Korea sponsored terrorism.

I need the link.

Posted by: Mudge on February 15, 2007 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13 - is that right about the assessment? Thats got to be the first classified matter on Plame that Cheney WON'T leak!

Posted by: bmaz on February 15, 2007 at 3:57 AM | PERMALINK

If liberals find faults with Bush's North Korea policy it is considered "bush bashing". Now that the conservatives are also finding fault with the crummy deal, it is now official : North Korea is a bad deal.

I thought we didn't negotiate with axis-of-evil members. Maybe that doesn't apply to those with a suspected nuclear arsenal. Hmmm, wonder why Iran is so eager to join the nuclear club...

Posted by: rational on February 15, 2007 at 4:38 AM | PERMALINK

If it doesn't lead to war, it ain't diplomacy.

Posted by: Kenji on February 15, 2007 at 4:48 AM | PERMALINK

I find conservatives to be pretty revolting. Just when in the last 6+ years have they been right anyway.

Don't you think it is time we simply started ignoring the conservative ideologues.

I am waiting to see how the administration screws up the North Korean diplomacy. I am hoping the Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans won't let them.

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 15, 2007 at 6:26 AM | PERMALINK

"Does Abrams realize how easily he can be replaced by a Bushie loyalist?"

Does Bush realize how easily he can be replaced by a Abrams loyalist?

Posted by: BroD on February 15, 2007 at 6:27 AM | PERMALINK

It's a little sad. Just a few years ago, the conservatives were able to convince themselves that caving in and negotiating with Libya was an instance of Libya being so impressed with the Iraq invasion. Now they don't think they could get even the Washington press corps to take seriously a spin job to the effect that "this deal shows how much we have intimidated the North Koreans with our might!"

They can't spin it as negotiation from strength, and they can't admit they've squandered their strength invading and occupying Iraq. No wonder their poor brains are imploding. A horrible filthy thought is circling their heads, this close to getting inside: the thought is "we wouldn't be so helpless in the face of NK defiance if a Democrat had been in the White House since 2000."

Posted by: derek on February 15, 2007 at 6:51 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think the most poignant paragraph in the article is this one:

"And the National Review, a conservative bastion, yesterday slammed the agreement as essentially the same one negotiated by President Bill Clinton in 1994 -- "

So, after six years of huffing and puffing and dithering, the Bushies are re-neogtiating the same Agreed Framework that Clinton and Jimmy Carter put in place in 1994? And what was accomplished by the Republican Party in those six years? Jack shit! Except allowing the North Koreans to develop a nuclear weapon. Good God are these conservatives ineffective and incompetent. Let's put a Democrat in the White House in 2008 and get something done!

TCD

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 15, 2007 at 6:59 AM | PERMALINK

Liberals like to portray the administration as monolithic, but in fact there is always wise and thoughtful debate going on, about all kinds of issues. North Korea is just one example.

In the end President Bush will base his decision on the best available evidence. Hopefully it will involve bombing them.

Posted by: Al on February 15, 2007 at 8:00 AM | PERMALINK

bmaz: Apollo 13 - is that right about the assessment? Thats got to be the first classified matter on Plame that Cheney WON'T leak!

Sorry I missed your question earlier.

Here's one cite from WaPo, CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure, October 29, 2005:

...the CIA informed the Justice Department in a simple questionnaire that the damage was serious enough to warrant an investigation, officials said.
The CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted....
...Intelligence officials said they would never reveal the true extent of her contacts to protect the agency and its work.
Steve Benen at Carpetbagger has more from an earlier timeframe, Aug. 5, 2005, entry:
The Wall Street Journal’s John Harwood noted today that Dems have been trying to find out.
Democrats two years ago sought a damage assessment over the outing of Valerie Plame, but Congress still hasn’t received one. Such assessments are routinely done for unauthorized disclosures of an agent’s identity.
The National Counterintelligence Executive has said the Central Intelligence Agency took steps to mitigate real or potential damage. A CIA spokeswoman declines to comment amid the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has probed the role of Bush strategist Rove and others. Democrats, who would benefit from showing the leak was costly, say Republicans want to play it down.
Nearly two full years ago, we learned that the CIA was, in fact, conducting an extensive damage assessment after Novak’s column ran. Is it complete? What does it say? Why has the CIA been reluctant to share it?
In May 2006, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) "called on CIA Director Porter Goss to provide an assessment of the damage to national security from the incident" according to Raw Story:
The call comes after MSNBC confirmed a RAW STORY report that Plame was [working to track Iran’s effort to obtain nuclear weapons when her identity was leaked.]
In RAW STORY's original Feb. 13, 2006 report, by Larisa Alexandrovna, intelligence officials said that while Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation.
Current and former intelligence officials familiar with the damage assessment say that what is called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt.
Former CIA counterintelligence officer Larry Johnson said that such an assessment would have had to be done for the CIA to have referred the case to the Justice Department.
"An exposure like that required an immediate operational and counter intelligence damage assessment," Johnson said. "That was done. The results were written up but not in a form for submission to anyone outside of CIA."
Lautenberg’s letter to Goss follows...
Of course, the Repubs didn't want anything to come out before the midterm elections.

However, I doubt we will ever know the full truth of the damage done to protect CIA assets, of course. But who knows? The assessment may already be totally complete and we may learn the gist of it (Fitz presented "voluminous classified filings" during Miller/Cooper's motion to quash hearing -- see Judge Tatel) with only loose ends to tie up based on what went public during the Libby trial.

I say that Jay Rockefeller needs to kick some booty...and he may already have pushed for the CIA assessment...it being a classified matter and all, and we not know it.

And yeah, Cheney won't leak that assessment, I daresay.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 15, 2007 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

Torn and conflicted - Who to believe? The erudite and always astute Apollo 13 or that gasbag Lou Dobbs?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 15, 2007 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

I think the North Korean agreement is likely related to an upcoming military 'adventure' in Iran. With the military already stretched thin, Bush needed to get some sort of closure on one 'front' before opening another.

Probably related... I noticed there was another Holocaust story on the front pages yesterday (the shocking revalation that Anne Frank's father tried to borrow money to leave Germany). Last week the Wiesel 'strongarm' story was featured on the front pages.

When you see 'news' items like that popping up, rest assured that some sort of Israeli military action is coming... they are greasing the PR skids.

Better buy those oil futures now.

Posted by: Buford on February 15, 2007 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

By softening our rhetoric on NK, we force China, Japan and Russia to be more directly involved - simply by default, right? A win for us!

Bush seems to be listening to State and applying a little nuance. Diplomatic brains over military brawn. That's gotta drive the neocons crazy.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on February 15, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Since Elliott Abrams's White House job concerns the Middle East only, one might well wonder why he's firing e-mails about North Korea all over the place.

Might have something to do with this.


Posted by: penalcolony on February 15, 2007 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

TCD said: And what was accomplished by the Republican Party in those six years? Jack shit! Except allowing the North Koreans to develop a nuclear weapon.

Actually I think BushCo forced them to develop a nuclear weapon. It was the only way to get Bush's attention. From what I can tell, North Korea loves the drama of saber rattling and empty threats and bloviation even more than neocons. I bet Kim hated to spend money developing the nuke capability when he could have been spending it on his favorite brandy.

Posted by: cowalker on February 15, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

So you guys are pulling for the enemy openly these days?

I'm just asking.

you should just ask the Bush Administration, dumbass. They're the ones making the deal.

So do you support an administration that makes deals with the enemy?

I'm just asking.

Posted by: haha on February 15, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

I'd say the Republicans win both ways, they get a high profile PR win with any NK agreement, and Democrats who want to undermine this PR win will find support among even more extreme right-wingers.

Posted by: kim on February 15, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Elliot Abrams! Now there's a sulphur-reeking blast from the past.

I totally forgot about that living Cold War fossil. If our little convicted Iran-Contra bamboozling two-dimensional cartoon action figure doesn't have his right-wing panties in a twist over one thing, it's probably over another.

Some people are just never satisfied, and the next thing you know, there's either a coup d'etat being fomented somewhere, or something involving Latin American death squads ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 15, 2007 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Why would dems want to undermine this "PR win"? Just sit back and watch as the GOP cannibalizes itself because Bush is doing what we want him to do.

Posted by: haha on February 15, 2007 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

The Post story is remarkable because it shows how different is the treatment of administration officials who criticize administration decisions, depending on whether they are or are not sponsored by the Vice President.

Earlier in the administration officials who hinted at doubt about an administration policy -- even supposed Bush favorites like Lawrence Lindsay -- were liable to be replaced. Abrams is different, a man who has a job for which he is in no way suited because he is the Vice President's man. The leak of his e-mails (Abrams, incidentally, has been around government long enough that we may assume the leak was deliberate on his part) is potentially embarrassing to the administration; if Abrams and his associates outside the administration were able to throw negotiations over North Korea off the tracks right now it would be a lot worse than embarrassing, since at this point our relations with China are involved.

Yet Abrams, as far as I know, will retain his job security after this. I'd like to be proven wrong but don't expect to be.

Posted by: Zathras on February 15, 2007 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

I totally forgot about that living Cold War fossil. If our little convicted Iran-Contra bamboozling two-dimensional cartoon action figure doesn't have his right-wing panties in a twist over one thing, it's probably over another.

seems to me that all the right people have their panties in a twist over this, including Bolton, so we must be on the right track.
Again, no reason for dems to try and undermine anything here, and they won't. Besides, they're focused on Iraq now, and that's not gonna change anytime soon. There's a lot of oversight to catch up on too.

Posted by: haha on February 15, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13 - Thanks. You outdid yourself in responding to my question; it is appreciated. I am thinking that the damage assessment has been done, at least for awhile. Larry Johnson, who would stand a decent chance of knowing, has been saying for about a year or so, maybe longer, that the damage was real and far more severe than anybody contemplates. He is a good friend of Valerie Plame, but to the best of my experience and knowledge, is a pretty straight and square shooter, so I tend to believe him. As much as you and I would love to know the truth here, it is probably better if it doesn't see the light of day. At any rate, thanks again.

Posted by: bmaz on February 15, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Well, he can always resign in protest on a point of principle . . . oh, wait. Elliot Abrams? Principle?

Posted by: Steve Paradis on February 15, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Third Paul - Good one re: Lou Dobbs! Heh, heh.

Posted by: bmaz on February 15, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

So six straight years of getting your way isn't enough for some neocons?

Well boo fricking hoo. Why don't they stamp their widdle feet and prance off the stage.

Posted by: Tripp on February 15, 2007 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Conservative critics say the NK deal didn't do enough to prevent terrorism, and Kevin says, "sweet." There may be a bunch of murders by terrorists that could have been prevented by a better deal. This is a sweet outcome? Kevin seems to feel that embarassing the President is more important than saving innocent victims of terror.

For all his errors, at least President Bush thinks first of the country and the world. Too many of his political opponents think first of their party.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 15, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Let me fire off an e-mail expressing bewilderment as to why Elliott Abrams isn't in prison, where he belongs.

Posted by: Roger Ailes on February 15, 2007 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Conservative critics say the NK deal didn't do enough to prevent terrorism, and Kevin says, "sweet."

In a closed venue like this, where there's so little at stake, why purposefully misread a statement like that? Why? Do you think people can't read? The attempt to link "sweet" to the interpretation you chose is childish.

Drum was obviously saying "sweet" to the intellectual falling out of the vicious-vacuous Abrams and vacuous-vicious Bush.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 15, 2007 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: Conservative critics say the NK deal didn't do enough to prevent terrorism, and Kevin says, "sweet."

Your dishonest paraprase is only the latest lie you've told in this forum, "ex-liberal." Shame on you.

There may be a bunch of murders by terrorists that could have been prevented by a better deal.

Kevin seems to feel that embarassing the President is more important than saving innocent victims of terror.

Bush's incompetence should well be embarrassing.

For all his errors, at least President Bush thinks first of the country and the world.

Objection: Assertion not in evidence. But, of course, that's all "ex-liberal" ever has.

Indeed, the notion that Bush thinks of "the world" is laughable in the face of the public record.

Too many of his political opponents think first of their party.

You are a scurrilous, and, yes, uncivil liar, you disgusting, neocon toad.

Besides, "ex-liberal," you relentless shill for the neocons, that claim coming from you is a laugh and a half. You consistently advocating subordinating American interest to that of the State of Israel, and you point fingers at others? Fuck you.

Bottom line: "ex-liberal", true to his/her/its scoundrel nature, tries to obscure the fact that he has no defense of Bush's incompetence other than the laughable "his heart is in the right place," so he accuses Bush's critics of a lack of patriotism.

Civil, my ass. But thanks for revealing yet again the bankrupt, bereft nature of the Bush Cultists and their neocon allies, "ex-liberal."

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Well, there's no doubt about it -- Elliott Abrams is revolting.

Posted by: AndrewBW on February 15, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

In a closed venue like this, where there's so little at stake, why purposefully misread a statement like that?

Because "ex-liberal" has no principles save carrying water for the neocons, and no other defense of Bush's incompetence than to obfuscate with scurrilous, outrageous charges.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2007 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

For all his errors, at least President Bush thinks first of the country and the world.

Spit Take Alert!!!

You are asserting facts not in evidence, as per usual. We insist that you provide evidence of this assertion, or apologize immediately.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 15, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

I'm thinking that one of the primary concerns among the neocons like Abrams is that the NK deal indicates that negotiation can succeed. With their interest in attacking Iran paramount and with the clock ticking, they do not want the public to hear that particular story. Their foreign policy, so-called, is based upon typical right wing appeals to the use of force, preceded by a visceral distrust and fear of negotiation. So with Iran on the agenda, Abrams truly fears that the lesson of the NK settlement might turn the public towards engaging the likes of Iran and Syria in an active negotiation regarding the abysmal charnel house that we've created in Iraq. So, I'm thinking that among the many things that cause them the willies, this NK deal and the negotiating that brought it about, has got them really panicked.

Posted by: Mixonseemsquaint on February 15, 2007 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

We insist that you provide evidence of this assertion, or apologize immediately.

And, as usual, -- as with, say, "ex-liberal"'s repeated assertions that Iran (the latest target on the neocon hit parade) is behind attacks on US forces in Iraq -- he/she/it will do neither.

Remind me again what value this cretin adds to these forums? "ex-liberal", do you get points or something for posting pro-neocon bullshit in forums like these?

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

He is a perfect foil to illustrate what makles us better than his ilk to the lurkers.

ex-thinker, you magnificent bastard, don't you ever die, or even stop posting. You do more for our cause than all the door-to-door canvassers we can scrape together.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on February 15, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey Davis: Drum was obviously saying "sweet" to the intellectual falling out of the vicious-vacuous Abrams and vacuous-vicious Bush.

Yes, of course he was. But, my point was that the post focused only on the intellectual falling out of these conservatives. It didn't address Abrahms's substantive point. If Abrahms is correct, we could have negotiated a deal with NK that would have reduced their support for terrorism, thus preventing some future terrorist attacks.

Even if Kevin thinks Abrams is wrong, it would be well to say so. I think one should first consider the impact of this deal on the world. Its domestic political impact should be secondary.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 15, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone can see what is going on,The rest of the world knows as we do, that there will be a Democratic President in o8.So they are going to work Bush over knowing he needs somthing to walk away with after having nothing to show after 6 years.

Posted by: john john on February 15, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal," I will agree with you that Bush's incompetence has had disastrous consequences for both the nation and the world. The sole bright spot is that Bush's incompetence has pretty much put paid to you neocons' plans to use American blood and treasue to take down Israel's regional strategic rivals (and 'fess up, "ex-liberal," doesn't that piss you off? Or does the fact that admitting that would force you to confront the neocons' own incompetence and corruption cause too much cognitive dissonance?)

Given that, whether he "means well" doesn't amount to a pisshole in a snowbank. And it makes your tepid, dishonest, risible defense of him all the more disgusting.

I agree witht he redoubtable Global Citizen, though that your every post discredits you as a person and the lunatic political movement you adhere to. Why do you bother?

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK
For all his errors, at least President Bush thinks first of the country and the world.

And how do Bush and his Administration think about the country? Well, as Bush himself tells it: "They [the terrorists] never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

Mission Accomplished!

Posted by: cmdicely on February 15, 2007 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

So you guys are pulling for the enemy openly these days?
I'm just asking.
Posted by: Inigo Montoya

So we don't support the boy king we're enabling the enemy but then conservatives don't support the boy king and we're enabling the enemy?

Is this some sort of weird conservative jui-jitsu logic?

Posted by: klyde on February 15, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

For all his errors, at least President Bush thinks first of the country and the world

Hey we had a breakthrough 'never-was-liberal' admitted that his man crush isn't perfect of course he followed with a bald faced lie but it's a start.

Posted by: klyde on February 15, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

This deal basically gets us bakc to where we were in January 01. But like the stock market reaching an "all time high" it just gets us back to square one.

And North Korea would not have to first prove it had stopped sponsoring terrorism? What would that be? Selling nuclear or missile tech to Pakistan?

Posted by: markg8 on February 15, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

I bet Kim hated to spend money developing the nuke capability when he could have been spending it on his favorite brandy.

Cognac. Cognac not brandy. Its eggregious lies like this one that give liberals a bad name.

Posted by: Edo on February 15, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't it odd how much of conservative ideology relies on one nation or one person PROVING that they've stopped doing something?

Have you stopped being rude to your wife? Prove it or pay the consequences.

The whole idiocy of the prospect related to the impossibility of absolutely proving a negative seems never have occurred to this group of big brains. Still they persist.

All those cluster bombs used by Israel to kill Lebanese civilians were Made In The USA. I wonder if America has stopped murdering innocents in Lebanon. I wonder if we can prove it.

Posted by: filmex on February 15, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, an attack on NK would trigger an immediate retaliation against Seoul. We would not be able to stop the first few volleys of missiles, only those that would follow them. The Atlantic Monthly had a war games table a little while ago where everybody agreed such a scenario would lead to at least 100,000 dead innocent South Koreans. This doesn't even take into account a likely attack on Tokyo.

Posted by: Reality Man on February 15, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Abrams's dissention is over. In fact, it never really existed. He was just seeking clarification.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said he spoke with Abrams and assured him North Korea will not be removed from the list unless it changes it behavior.

"The North Koreans don't get it for free," Snow said. "They've got to earn it, like everything else."

"We've seen conservatives criticizing this provision because they want the same kind of reassurance," Snow said. "So here it is - no political deal, it has to be based on facts and performance on the part of the North Koreans."

Snow said Abrams was reassured about the terms, and that Abrams did not oppose the deal - he was just seeking clarification.

Asked if Abrams was satisfied with the answers he'd received, Snow said: "Yes. I can say that without reservation."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Bush_NKorea.html

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 15, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK
....For all his errors, at least President Bush thinks first of the country... ex-lax at 11:29
Bush: Ask what our country can do for us rich connected folk -- tax breaks, cronyism, nepotism, no-bid contracts to contributors, land deals, bribes, give-aways; yup, Bush sure takes care of his own class, big big time. You may not have noticed, but aside from Israel, the entire world is against Bush's insane policy. Well, also maybe Poland. Mustn't forget Poland.
Abrams's dissention is over. In fact, it never really existed. He was just seeking clarification.... ex-lax at 5:03 PM
Why don't you check with your hero, John Bolton, on the North Korea deal? "Real men don't make deals" – Neo-con motto. Posted by: Mike on February 15, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, thethirdpaul.

And your welcome, bmaz.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 16, 2007 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

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

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly