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

April 11, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

GET THIS MAN A BLOG!....Who said this?

We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car....I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

Answer here.

Kevin Drum 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (85)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Finally.

Posted by: Marion Ross on April 11, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

surely some sort of pinko commie terrorist-loving America hater.

Posted by: haha on April 11, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting move to the left on his part.

Now, if he would only back requiring safety reinforcement in mini trucks and moving the gas tanks forward of the rear axle, he might actually become a responsible human being.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 11, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, just another part of the moonbat George Soros-MoveOn-Lee Iacocca crowd.

Seriously: you know he'll be demonized like Soros, starting today.

Posted by: Tom Hilton on April 11, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for,/i>

Ummm...imagine how pissed off he'd be if, like me he was 10th generation instead of second. I just love this casual assumption that American History began with the immigration waves in 1880 - 1890's.

'There are at least as many illegal aliens now in the United States as all English, Irish and Jewish immigrants who came to America in 400 years. Every month, the border patrol apprehends about 150,000 illegal aliens, more than the number of troops in Iraq. And one in every 12 people breaking into the United States illegally has a criminal record.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/illegal-key-problem-wit_b_43675.html
Michael Smerconish

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 11, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Who said this?

Some over the hill has-been. As people get older, they get more in support of the Democratic party, because the Democratic party promise to make the old rich at the expense of everybody else (medicare is a huge subsidy, for instance). It's not a surprise that, as he gets older, he's becoming a leftie zombie.

[This is a warning Al.]

Posted by: Al on April 11, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting how all the blame is placed on an individual (Bush) and not a word* regarding the philosophy of today's republican party that put us in this mess.

* in the excerpt I read.

Posted by: joeis on April 11, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Ummm...imagine how pissed off he'd be if, like me he was 10th generation instead of second. I just love this casual assumption that American History began with the immigration waves in 1880 - 1890's.

and I just love the assumption that you have a right to be more pissed off about something if your ancestors spent a few more decades here than someone else's--therefore you're somehow more "American".

Posted by: haha on April 11, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

As people get older, they get more in support of the Democrat party, because the Democrat party promise to make the old rich at the expense of everybody else

yeah, he needs the money.

Posted by: haha on April 11, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Number one, Fire Condi,Hire Bill Clinton.

Posted by: john john on April 11, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

MsNThorpe - way to change the subject! On the other hand, maybe what you're saying is related - that no matter how screwed up things are here, people still risk their lives evey day to get in to the country.

Now, I'm a 5th generation American and my ancestors came in the 1850's so yours must have come prior to the revolutionary war. Does that mean they had fewer dreams than Iacocca's parents who came 200 years later? That's all he was trying to say.

Posted by: lamonte on April 11, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder who wrote it for him. It sounds like another case of ghost writer run amok, similar to the Paul O'Neill book.

Posted by: Mike K on April 11, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

From Al: As people get older, they get more in support of the Democrat party, because the Democrat party promise to make the old rich at the expense of everybody else (medicare is a huge subsidy, for instance).


Oh yeaahh! That Lee Iacocca is just WAITING to cash in on his lucrative Medicare and Social Security benefits. The he'll REALLY be rich!

(Seriously, Al, did you even bother thinking about what you wrote?)

Posted by: Tom Ames on April 11, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Interesting move to the mainstream on his part."

fixed it for you.

Posted by: craigie on April 11, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

He also helped run Chrysler into the ground, claimed that it "invented the mini van," though the Japanese had had them for more than a decade, and did a commercial with Snoop Dog.

Posted by: JeffII on April 11, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder who wrote it for him. It sounds like another case of ghost writer run amok, similar to the Paul O'Neill book.

yeah, because it's hard to imagine why anyone wouldn't want his head planted up Bush's ass like you.

Posted by: haha on April 11, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

and I just love the assumption that you have a right to be more pissed off about something if your ancestors spent a few more decades here than someone else's--therefore you're somehow more "American".
Posted by: haha

Hey, and I didn't even mention that's I'm also Alabama-Coushata by way of my father's mother.

And 1654 isn't 'a few more decades', jerk-off. It's a few more centuries.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Get This Man A Blog!

Hell, run him for VP. He'd have all the same things going for him that Cheney supposedly did -- seasoned, capable, no ambitions to succeed to the presidency -- and he'd also be talking sense instead of raving lunacy.

Posted by: bleh on April 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

One more guy who should've started speaking up a few years earlier.

Even last year would have been helpful. Sure, we won last fall without his help, and without that of many others who've now seen the light. But nothing's clear now that wasn't already obvious in October - except for which way the domestic political winds are blowing.

If they'd thrown in when the 2006 election was still to come, to help influence the outcome, I could at least take bozos like Iacocca and all the other Johnny-come-latelies (including Jeane Kirkpatrick, posthumously) semi-seriously.

But for them to finally get outraged NOW that we've already turned the tide...BFD.

Posted by: RT on April 11, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

And 1654 isn't 'a few more decades', jerk-off. It's a few more centuries.

either way you're a moronic douchebag who thinks he's more American than someone else. Color me unimpressed.

let's see, my dad's family goes back to pre-Revolutionary War, half my mom's family came here in the late 19th century, the other part early 20th through Ellis Island, and her paternal grandmother was a Seneca--so you can blow me, douchebag.
Everything in that link is correct and most Americans agree with him, despite your xenophobic rants.

Posted by: haha on April 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Almost everyone regrets what President Bush has done, even many of those who voted for him. What is disconcerting to me is that their attitudes about American exceptionalism, its foreign policies, and the military have not changed. The progandga themes used to encourage antipathy towards Iran are used by Republicans, Democrats, moderates and liberals. Even though just about every aware person understands what has happened during the Bush presidency is wrong, they have not changed their ways of thinking about American power and the military idolatry that drives it. Expect more American abuses of power in the future, because Americans have not corrected their beliefs about themselves or about others.

Posted by: Brojo on April 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Iacocca publicly and vocally supported Kerry in 2004, so you can't say he's just a rat leaving the sinking ship. I think the ever-increasing leakage of Republicans from the Bush camp is a fairly big deal-- negatives matter more in politics than positives, and Bush is fast becoming the Mother-Of-All-Negatives.

Posted by: MattF on April 11, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously, Al's comment is borderline to being deleted? Who is doing the moderation, Kevin or someone else?

Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 11, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Its happening slowly, but it appears as though the worm is turning. And he's packing an uzi.

Posted by: jg on April 11, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

He may have supported Kerry in 04, but he supported DeVos in 06, and I still think of DeVos as Bush Lite. I can't say I care much for Granholm, but DeVos was by far the greater of two evils in that election.

Posted by: jh on April 11, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

*sigh* Why does Lee Iacocca hate America?

Posted by: Stefan on April 11, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

He may have supported Kerry in 04, but he supported DeVos in 06, and I still think of DeVos as Bush Lite. I can't say I care much for Granholm, but DeVos was by far the greater of two evils in that election.

Posted by: jh on April 11, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously, Al's comment is borderline to being deleted?

they don't have very high standards, but knowing the difference b/w a noun and adjective might be where they draw the line.
Not sure why you'd want to advertise yourself as being one of his intellectual peers.

Posted by: haha on April 11, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

propaganga

Posted by: Brojo on April 11, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I read that as get the party name right, and stop being a deliberate jackass, Yancy.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 11, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

And 1654 isn't 'a few more decades', jerk-off. It's a few more centuries. Posted by: MsNThrope

Wrong. If our reference forward is the mid-1850s, it's just a couple more centuries, as "few" is generally understood to be three or more, jerk-off.

Posted by: JeffII on April 11, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl, Red State,

OK, fair enough, but are they seriously considering deleting a commenter, or banning one because he chooses use one adjective form over another? Come on! Really, with standards like that we would have warn/ban you because my name has an "e" in it.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 11, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward: Seriously, Al's comment is borderline to being deleted? Who is doing the moderation, Kevin or someone else?

Al's comment is close to being deleted because he persists in using the inaccurate and insulting term "Democrat Party" instead of the correct "Democratic Party" even after being corrected numerous times.

Posted by: Stefan on April 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Among actual wealthy business people I know (chiefly in the mining industry, which alas runs in the family), this has been the view of Bush The Lesser for years. Some hope for him back at the beginning of his reign of error--they thought Daddy's crew would keep him from screwing up too badly--and increasingly downhill from there, to the point that today it's pretty much just sheer contempt. Not but what they all still consider themselves conservative Republicans. But they have actually done the things that W only pretends to have done, and they can tell the difference.

You know. The kind of people who actually could (and do) write those $25,000 checks our resident poseur Norman only talks about fecklessly in comment threads.

Posted by: DrBB on April 11, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Ban Yancey now! That "e" is clearly a reactionary plot! Real Americans know it's spelled "Yancy."

Posted by: cazart on April 11, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

but are they seriously considering deleting a commenter, or banning one because he chooses use one adjective form over another?

you and Al should just start your own blog--"The Obtuse Jackass Daily"

Posted by: haha on April 11, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Come on! Really, with standards like that we would have warn/ban you because my name has an "e" in it. Posted by: Yancey Ward

Good enough for me! You probably drink buttermilk too.

Posted by: JeffII on April 11, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

I always thought, that for a CEO, Iacocca was fairly "right" on.

Posted by: Neil B. on April 11, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

And in other reviews of His Uselessness from the realm of people who actually know how to do things, there's always the classic:

I met the guy. I said I don't think he adds that much value. We'll put him on the board because - you know - we'll do a favor for this guy; he's done a favor for us. We put him on the board and spent three years. Came to all the meetings. Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years - you know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.

Posted by: DrBB on April 11, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Are they going to delete or edit comments that use the term "Rethuglican", for example? For some reason, I doubt it, but am willing to be proven wrong even though I would not support such editorial activity. In any case, I think Al is entitled to his opinion that Democrats are not democratic, and it is not in bad taste to express that opinion in the manner he did.

Again, I ask who made such editorial additions/corrections?

Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 11, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Democrat Party"

AL does it on purpose as a slur. But I have a friend who is a yellow dog democrat. With big time bona fides. And this past weekend I noticed on her bumper the following:
Had Enough? Vote Democrat.

So it seems we do it too. Or is that bumper sticker actually gramatically correct?

I think the party name unfortunately invites this problem. Probably should change the name to, oh I dunno, God's Party... or the Constitution Party or the Founder's Party, your ideas are welcome.

Posted by: joeis on April 11, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

My people got here in the 17th century as well--on prison transport ships. No, I am not making that up. Once Norman found out I'm descended from criminal stock, he immediately assumed I was easy as a Sunday morning and started hitting on me.

Posted by: shortstop on April 11, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

The Rational Party. But our illiterate trolls would just call it the Ration Party.

Posted by: shortstop on April 11, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

You can't delete Al! What would we do for entertainment?

(Which is not to say that I don't continue to stand by my hypothesis that "Al" is actually a construct of Kevin's, or somebody's, that was invented to serve as a foil. Now, I grant you that there's enough wingnuttiness out there that you don't HAVE to invent them, any more than you do, say, pigeons, but Al's remarks are always so purely and genuinely nutcase, not to mention on point, that he just CAN'T be for real.)

Posted by: bleh on April 11, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder who wrote it for him. It sounds like another case of ghost writer run amok, similar to the Paul O'Neill book.

Ah, there it is, the koolaid two-step. "Betrayed by another turncoat! A traitor, viper in his breast, really a partisan Democrat all along, irrational Bush hater!" or whatever precise value best fits the circumstance and gets slotted into the appropriate variable.

So, what interests me about this manifestly cultic little mental algorithm is, is there any number of iterations such that the sheer quantity of them starts to be a problem for you? I mean, at this point, if we accept the hypothesis, W turns out to have been surrounded by more covertly disloyal depraved self-enriching turncoats than any president in history. Even you can see that, right? Just look at the quantity of 'em. Why would that be, do you suppose? Because of His Inimitable Greatness, Which the World Cannot Grasp? Some version of that kind of thinking is lurking just under the skin of this sort of statement. Pretty much has to be.

You ever get just a teeny little inkling of the kind of mindset you're actually ensnared in, or is that just no longer possible for you?

Just curious.

Posted by: DrBB on April 11, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Democratic party

Political Animal moderating may have been outsourced to the DLC. I wonder why they do not make an issue of not capitalizing 'party.'

Posted by: Brojo on April 11, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

"The death and violence in Iraq are bad enough without this outside interference," Caldwell said. "The death and violence in Iraq are bad enough without this outside interference," Caldwell said."

Yes, indeed.

But let's rewrite his second sentence to make sense:

"[The U.S.] and all of [its allies] really need to respect Iraq's sovereignty and allow the people of this country the time and the space to choose their own future."

The U.S. is helping one set of Iraqis and the Iranians are helping another set of Iraqis, but all of the Iraqis are "people of [that] country" so why is the interference by Iran any worse than the interference by the US?

Particularly considering that the US is there illegally and Iran has more of a legitimate interest in what goes on in Iraq than the US, just as the US would have more interest in what goes on in Mexico than Iran.

Conservative vision of the Monroe Doctrine and its ilk: okay for the US, not so okay for Iran or any other nation that Princess Bush doesn't like.

Posted by: anonymous on April 11, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

even after being corrected numerous times.

Al has a lot in common with those pesky Iranians, who are always defying American authority.

Posted by: Brojo on April 11, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Wow.

This reminds me of how impressed I was when Generals Schwartzkopf and Powell spoke after the first Gulf War.

I respected those guys. They really knew their business.

Posted by: Tripp on April 11, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

It ddoesn't take long for business to figure out the fraud, it just takes them longer to speak out because they want to hedge their investments before letting us in on the "fix".

Posted by: Matt on April 11, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

It sounds like another case of ghost writer run amok...

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” -- George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003, SOTU.

Who was the ghost writer run amok in George's case?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 11, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

You probably drink buttermilk too.

I don't drink it, but buttermilk does make for delicious waffles. YMMV.

Posted by: Edo on April 11, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp: This reminds me of how impressed I was when Generals Schwartzkopf and Powell spoke after the first Gulf War. I respected those guys. They really knew their business.

Although Schwartzkopf didn't know the difference between a Hail Mary and a Statue of Liberty play.

Unless he was still misdirecting and wanted the Iraqis to still believe he had thrown a long one into the end zone hoping someone would catch it rather than having gone back to pass and had someone take the ball from his passing hand for an end-around.

Posted by: anandine on April 11, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Who was the ghost writer run amok in George's case

That would be British Intelligence and they stand by the report. Saddam WAS trying to get yellowcake.

Posted by: rdw on April 11, 2007 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously: you know he'll be demonized like Soros, starting today

Only if he starts contributing Ten's of Millions to liberal candidates. Lee is just looking for attention to sell a book.

Posted by: rdw on April 11, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Lee is just looking for attention to sell a book.

Ah, you have to admire -- well, no, you don't, really, the well-practiced, adept manner in which rdw employs the slime-and-defend tactics of the diehard bush Cultist.

But it's interesting that, if Iacocca is looking for attention, he bet on marketing his opinion to those who oppose, rather than support, Bush.

Posted by: Gregory on April 11, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

"he bet on marketing his opinion to those who oppose, rather than support, Bush."

Because there are far more of them, and they know how to read.

Posted by: CN on April 11, 2007 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Lee is just looking for attention to sell a book.

Yes, generally, that's what people with books to sell do. Now let's move on to the next step, which is why he would think that a book bashing Bush would be more popular and sell more than a book praising him. Could it be, one wonders, because Bush is a generally detested and despised president?

Posted by: Stefan on April 11, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

"That would be British Intelligence and they stand by the report. Saddam WAS trying to get yellowcake."

Nicely done, RDW. As A Brit, I can comfortably say that I would trust 'British Intelligence' under the Blair Regime about as much as I would trust George Bush - or any member of his White House staff - to tell the truth about, well, anything.

Saddam WAS trying to get yellowcake, indeed. And I SWEAR I saw six alien Yeti pulling Santa Claus's carriage outside my house last Christmas, while Jesse Jackson and Don Imus danced hand in hand around a giant Festivus pole in the front garden.

So RDW, what colour is the sky in your world?

- Steve

Posted by: Steve on April 11, 2007 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: That would be British intelligence . . .

The same Brits that just negotiated with terrorists?

Yep.

Now we know why rdw loves them; it's because just like Reagan, they negotiate with terrorists - Iranian at that!

Reagan - weak.

Blair - weak.

Bush - just plain pathetic.

Posted by: anonymous on April 11, 2007 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Good for Imogene Coca, I'm glad she's come in from the cold.

Bad for rdw; Saddam wasn't trying to buy yellowcake,he already had 500 tons. Some of it enriched (plutonium!! egads!!) All of it inspected.Still buying that centrifuges in the garden story? No? Ok,ok,wait...the "they flew it to Syria on Cessnas?"
Murderous enabler.

Posted by: TJM on April 11, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

That would be British Intelligence and they stand by the report.

So you're saying the Brits were the ghost writers of Bush's SOTU?

Wow, that's dumb.

And BTW, Tenet, Condi Rice, and Ari Fleischer said those 16 words were wrong despite what you say the Brits said. It's amazing that you discount the WH in favor of British intel that turned out to be wrong based on a frigging forgery!

And if you had been paying attention (doubtful or you obfuscate intentionally), Tenet got those 16 words out of Bush's Cincinnati speech but someone at the WH put them back in for the SOTU. Who was that? And why?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 11, 2007 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, I'd like to see a cite on that MI6 yellow cake. Not interested in the Sun or Daily Mail.

Although a generalization, I thought this observation had value:

...Expect more American abuses of power in the future, because Americans have not corrected their beliefs about themselves or about others.

Posted by: Brojo on April 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: notthere on April 11, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you for trying to restart the discussion notthere. I had this conversation on Easter. Many say they no longer like Bush, but I do not think they have really changed their attitudes about why they liked him in the first place. I think that is true for many people. Even Democrats justify having our huge military system and the America as world policeman foreign policy. It is these things that have to change, otherwise the US will continue to make war and exploit other nations.

Posted by: Brojo on April 11, 2007 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, good strong words from a child of Allentown, PA. (Ma used to hang out at his dad's Oki Dog stand while in high school... Lee was a couple of grades behind her...)

Nothing further to add.

As you were.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 11, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Al's comment is close to being deleted because he persists in using the inaccurate and insulting term "Democrat Party" instead of the correct "Democratic Party" even after being corrected numerous times."

Not to mention that his post is off-topic, an ad hominem attack, and troll/flame bait designed to derail a thread rather than initiate or foster any serious discussion.

Posted by: PaulB on April 11, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward wrote: "and it is not in bad taste to express that opinion in the manner he did."

I think you read a different comment than the rest of us did.

Some over the hill has-been. ... It's not a surprise that, as he gets older, he's becoming a leftie zombie.

And I didn't even have to refer to this gratuitous attack:

because the Democratic party promise to make the old rich at the expense of everybody else

In short, defend someone worth defending, not a mindless bot posting partisan drivel intended to inflame.

Posted by: PaulB on April 11, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

This is not surprising. Iacocca has always presented himself as a moderate, middle-of-the-roader. Does no one remember when he was sending up trial balloons about making his own run for POTUS back in the 80s?

Posted by: Disputo on April 11, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Dear little rdw, just as clueless as ever, writes: "Saddam WAS trying to get yellowcake."

No, dear, he wasn't, as the Iraq Study Group showed quite conclusively. You remember them? With access to the sites, the documents, the scientists, and the leaders? There was never anything there, dear.

Nor did it ever make sense since, a) Saddam had hundreds of tons of the stuff right there in Iraq, and b) Saddam had no use for it since he had no active program that required or could use it.

Posted by: PaulB on April 11, 2007 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you for trying to restart the discussion notthere. I had this conversation on Easter. Many say they no longer like Bush, but I do not think they have really changed their attitudes about why they liked him in the first place. I think that is true for many people. Even Democrats justify having our huge military system and the America as world policeman foreign policy. It is these things that have to change, otherwise the US will continue to make war and exploit other nations.

Posted by: Brojo on April 11, 2007 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Here's Brojo AGAIN, folks, wagging his finger and giving us the benefit of his view of what is wrong with America. This from the dummy who voted for Ralph Nader and STILL comes here regularly between lectures to sniff how there is no difference between the political parties. Guess what, AGAIN, jackass? We wouldn't be in a war in the Middle East if retards like you hadn't voted for Nader. C'mon. Repeat after me: "I, Brojo, have no right to lecture or criticize. My vote for Ralph Nader helped elect George W. Bush. I share responsibility for what has happened over the last six years. I am stupid and irritating." Good.

Posted by: Richard on April 11, 2007 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever happened to Republicans like Lee Iacocca?

Is Lee Iacocca the only one left? The whole party is turned into a bunch of Glen Reynolds. Bush trash someone, talks treason about free speech and Reynolds wants whomever Bush points too dead.

Bush turned the GOP into pure grade A shit.

Posted by: Cheryl on April 11, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

...Repeat after me: "I....

Posted by: Richard on April 11, 2007 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Richard, you know, people vote for what they think is right at the time. Personally I would never want Nader for a preznit, but, then again, there are not many people who stand that I would actually would want.

You are being a judgmental ass. Votes can be a protest too, not just the best of the worst.

And one third don't vote at all. They have any right to complain about the government? Of course they do!

Stop being so exclusionary.

Posted by: notthere on April 11, 2007 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

I irritate and make Richard look stupid because I wag my finger about his support for military action against Iran. He is afraid of a country that releases military detainees in a timeley manner without brutalizing them. His tactics for arguing with me are to smear. Richard is a coward. He does not post anything else and no one can say what he stands for. He only comes in at the end of these threads to harass me, a person who is not ashamed of admitting they did not vote for Gore in 2000. I think he is a DLC troll.

Posted by: Brojo on April 11, 2007 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

IF we had managed to "succeed" in Iraq and get their oil output up to the anticipated levels in the timeframe that PowerPoint had predicted along with low energy prices, 50%+X of the public would be fine and dandy with the Neo-Colonialism in the wake. But, the idea was all toast from the beginning. 50%+X might just think that the *tactics* and the *leadership* were all fucked now but that will dwindle to the core of folks that believed that "Vietnam just wasn't done right"- maybe 25%. IOW, the validity of the idea will not be seriously evaluated by the public until the proof is done in the world by "losing" the thing.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on April 12, 2007 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

So you're saying the Brits were the ghost writers of Bush's SOTU?

Wow, that's dumb.

No you are dumb. Ghosts writers are uncited and uncredited. They write Hillary's books. The SOTU provided full attribution up front.

This is one of th oddest threads of the Iraq opposition and the one that will give liberal historians such problems. You and MSM twits can recite the "Bush lied" theme all day long for political purposes because they're addressing morons. Historians have a special problem. They need evidence for what they write or they're excoriated as frauds.

This is why liberal historians don't write about Reagan. They have their opinions but no facts to supoirt them.

Posted by: rdw on April 12, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

I would trust 'British Intelligence' under the Blair Regime about as much as I would trust George Bush - or any member of his White House staff - to tell the truth about, well, anything.

And the point here is? Does anyone else care who you trust? Saddam is gone and you are not bringing him back. He walked the green mile.

As I just noted, twits like you can blather on but history will record everyone had the same intelligence. The UN issued how many useless resolutions?

One of the more interesting aspects of the recent British cowardice with Iran was the support they received from the EU. That would be none. So much for, "An attack on one is an attack on all".

Tie this factoid in with the negotiations GWB has completed with Poland and Rumania to place Star Wars missle defense sites in their countries. Mosoow is pissed. Brussles,Paris and Berlin are clueless. Seems neither Poland more Rumania felt the slighest inclintion to keep the EU or FRance and Germany in the loop. GWB has made them irrelevent. The UN made itself irrelevent a long time ago.

The real world is vastly different than liberals can see and GWB has reacted accordingly. The UN and EU are irrelevent and he refuses to pretend any differently while embracng India, Japan, Australia, Israel, etc. We have coalitions of the willing and we all know they bring nothing to the table. We knew that before Kosovo.

Posted by: rdw on April 12, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

he wasn't, as the Iraq Study Group showed quite conclusively

They proved what a fraud Joe Wilson has been. Just read a few Washington Post editorials and you'll get a clue.

Posted by: rdw on April 12, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

England tried to intimidate Iran with armed soldiers in Iranian territory. Europeans know that. If Iran had attacked England, the EU would have rallied to its defense. Iran never attacks anyone, however, because they are a peace loving people who have a nascent limited democracy that the war monsters who run the US find offensive.

Posted by: Brojo on April 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Could it be, one wonders, because Bush is a generally detested and despised president

GWB has been hated by the left since before hi was president. They hate all conservatives and always will. It's been selling books forever.

The good news today is the conservatives have their own very profitable book publisher and if anything a more vibrant market. Talk radio is the perfect outlet to not only sell books but discuss idea's. Gone are the days when a New York Times book review is necessary for success. There have been countless best sellers they've ignored making themselves irrelevent.

Lee's book isn't going far. He's just not an interesting guy.

Posted by: rdw on April 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Steering a ship over a cliff?

Nevermind. Let it go--he's on a roll.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on April 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

England tried to intimidate Iran with armed soldiers in Iranian territory

That's just stupid. If the UK wanted to intimidate anyone they would not use inflatable rafts. If the coalition wanted to imitate someone they would not use the UK.

Posted by: rdw on April 12, 2007 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

who have a nascent limited democracy

Unelected mullahs have controlled Iran since 1979. It is not a democracy nor does it resemble a democracy. No economy this poorly managed could be of a democratic country. Iran is only dangerous for the same reason North Korea is dangerous. There are few whackjobs in charge. Each will eventually collapse from within as all non capitalist nations must do. They simply cannot compete economically.

Posted by: rdw on April 12, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

The Electoral College and ballot (in)access in America are very similar to the limited Iranian democratic model.

England should stay out of Iranian territorial waters, like the Iranians stay out of English territory. Why England sent their soldiers into Iranian territory can only be guessed at, but I assume it was to intimidate Iran. I am glad it did not work.

Posted by: Brojo on April 12, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

I assume it was to intimidate Iran. I am glad it did not work.

That's the trick. Want to imtimidate a country send in an inflatable raft.

You are a moron.

Posted by: rdw on April 12, 2007 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Does no one remember when he was sending up trial balloons about making his own run for POTUS back in the 80s?

You know what I remember about Iacocca in the '80s? I remember a series of Chrysler commercials that featured him standing in front of a giant flag, Patton-style, exhorting Americans to buy American, at a time when a lot of Chrysler's products were actually rebadged Mitsubishis. I've had no use for the guy since.

Posted by: RobW on April 12, 2007 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

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

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly