Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

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

September 10, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

AMERICAN PUBLIC STILL SMARTER THAN YOU THINK....There's a considerable amount of fascinating data in the latest New York Times/CBS poll, but for now I'll just highlight this question:

77% of the public wants us to leave Iraq within 24 months. Good job, public! By way of comparison, I was at a super-secret LA blogger get-together on Sunday and asked a tableful of liberal bloggers how long they'd be willing to extend a withdrawal from Iraq if the pullout timetable were credible. I got a couple of answers of two years and a whole bunch of head nods. So even fire-breathing liberals are willing to allow 24 months to give the Maliki government some breathing space and the generals time to withdraw safely.

In other poll news, one-third of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in 9/11. Sheesh. On the other hand, this is down from 51% five years ago, which I suppose is a good sign. Similarly, one-third of Americans correctly guessed that Shiites were the majority group in Iraq. I'll bet those were different thirds, though.

Kevin Drum 12:52 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (139)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Iraq "has not worked out as we had hoped." - Gen. Petraeus
"The war situation has developed not necessarily to our advantage." - Emperor Hirohito

Posted by: Gwailo on September 10, 2007 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

Gosh, I hope we have presidential candidates capable of reading polls (and pointing out the slowness of Congress and the other candidates to catch on).

Posted by: Ross Best on September 10, 2007 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

To see how propaganda is actually done, read this from one of the petsls at the NRO Corner.

A day after the Washington Post/ABC News poll highlighted the failure of the multi-million dollar anti-war campaign this summer to decrease support for the war in Iraq (their poll showed most positions unchanged on the war, and that support for the surge actually grew since July), the New York Times/CBS News poll shows similar results.

Posted by: gregor on September 10, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

However, the answers to these two questions suggest that something like 10% of the US public is confused, or always picks the first alternative:

20. Do you think the United States made a mistake getting involved in the current war against Iraq, or not?
[Mistake: 64%, Not a mistake: 34%]


51. Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?
[Right thing: 41%, Should have stayed out: 54%]

Posted by: JS on September 10, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

After somehow ending up with George W. Bush as president after two elections, it is going to take more than a poll to convince me that the American public is smarter than I think it is. We can only hope that eventually his words will turn prophetic: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Posted by: Nemo on September 10, 2007 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

What percentage is Al from? I didn't see a category for, "I'll just do whatever I'm told and pretend to believe it".

Posted by: Kenji on September 10, 2007 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

I did listen to an article on NPR the last couple of days how people drop the "not" out of a statement over time. The guy was talking about countering rumor or bad publicity, etc., trying to recover reputation. Hmmm. Wonder who was talking about.

Anyway, if say X says "Saddam blew up the twin towers" and the refutation from Y is "Saddam did not blow up the twin towers," then, over time, with a greater propensity for older people, the "not" gets dropped from memory. Y should counter with something positive like "Saddam and Rumsfeld were best buddies. Here, look at this photo" (visual reinforcement). Or, "Saddam gassed Iranians for us by the thousands" (dramatic mental visual). Think of your own statement.

Anyway, seems like the Repugs have known this for years. That besmirching people works; the mud always sticks.

Listening to a BBC world service programme about an ABC/BBC poll in Iraq. Nothing good for the surge, it seems. Should be headlines in the morning.

Posted by: notthere on September 10, 2007 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

I was just checking here before bed.

Kevin hasn't mentioned Fedderer????!!!!

You people been unkind to him or something? He must be ill, or something.

Anyway, on the Beeb-ABC poll, 70% or Iraqis think the security situation got worse, 70% thought the political dialogue got worse since the surge started, and 60% still think it's OK to take a shot at the US troops.

The general will have to be careful with his words. Seems like a lot of independent evidence against the White House view has dropped this last week. Let alone the home polls.

Posted by: notthere on September 10, 2007 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, polls are notoriously unreliable. Push polls force people to answer questions even when they don't want to answer. I suspect right now the American people don't want to answer the poll question whether or not to stay in Iraq because they are waiting for General Petraeus' report before making a decision. Unlike you and other liberals, the American people believe we should trust what the military and the General say instead of partisan politicians.
If General Petraeus says the Surge is succeeding, as I think he will, the American people will back him 100% and say they will support staying in Iraq as long the General says we should. But the NY Times push poll is deceptive and misleading because it's push poll is biased in favor of its anti-liberation agenda.

Posted by: Al on September 10, 2007 at 3:31 AM | PERMALINK

If you say anything mocking about him, reliable Al is right there to instantly prove you right -- and to prove that the American Public is not quite as smart as one would like. He's the Ol' Faithful of stupid.

Posted by: Kenji on September 10, 2007 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK

What does not make voters look more intelligent is when they say things like "I like his positions on Law and Order" to defend their support for Fred Thompson! The shocking advantage Thompson is getting from Law and Order is unbelievable!!
More at CampaignDiaries.com.

Posted by: Daniel on September 10, 2007 at 3:57 AM | PERMALINK

More about the super-secret LA blogger get-together here, at my place.

Because it was, literally, at my place.

Posted by: SteveAudio on September 10, 2007 at 4:57 AM | PERMALINK

One wonders how stable these data (#52) are. Were similar percentages so responding one or two years ago?

Law & Order got pretty bad way before Mr. Thompson arrived (although I had stopped watching by then, I occasionally caught the tail end, with some shockingly bad acting), it was almost like jumping the shark, but it worked for a while.

Posted by: jhm on September 10, 2007 at 6:50 AM | PERMALINK

The Shia-Sunni conflict has been going on for 1200 years. Do we have to stay another 1200?

Posted by: bob h on September 10, 2007 at 7:21 AM | PERMALINK

A few data points leading to the right questions, IMNSHO:

1) Roughly a fifth to a quarter of our troops WILL leave by next spring, cuz their deployments are up.

2) There are no troops to replace 'em. So...

3) There will already be a substantial reduction in our forces, regardess of the rationalization given for it. Which means...

4) Bush will play this as proof of success. Does that necessarily require that...

5) Progressives will insist it is proof of failure? Cuz even Kevin observes that...

6) If progressives are sure that we WILL get out, taking two years to do it is fine. That means withdrawal starts under Bush, and concludes under his sucessor. BUT...

7) If our drawing down troops is explained by Bush as victory for his last year in office, why would we continue it (even if the good guys win, insha'allah) in the next administration as a DEFEAT for American interests?

Baird alone shows substantial (and SUBSTANTIVE) reasons for Democrats to give it two more years. The echo chamber insistence that there is NO way that we can get out of this without a humiliating disaster forgets that this time, it won't be Cheney running things from the White House, the way he was when the helicopters took off from the Embassy roof in Saigon. Which leads to the last question...

8) Shouldn't we give ourselves some room, so that WE can do a better job than these clowns?

Posted by: theAmericanist on September 10, 2007 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

SteveAudio: "More about the super-secret LA blogger get-together here, at my place."

Thanks for answering my unasked question with the extra info and the names of the participants. An excellent idea and sounds like you all enjoyed yourselves! I was interested to see that the numbers worked out to 11 male bloggers (85%), two female bloggers (15%) and 1 female "Mrs" accompanying one of the male bloggers. I know its somewhat arbitrary, depending on invitations and acceptances, etc, but consistent with what we've heard on other occasions. Ah, stats. Sometimes it is hard to know what to do with the data.

So 77% of the public (even fire-breathing liberals) are willing to stay in Iraq for another 24 months, and 24% are willing to have large numbers of US troops in Iraq for more than two years? And I am supposed to think that the American pubic is still smarter than I think? GWB's support is currently around 30%, yet 53% of Americans voted for him in 2004. So 23% must have changed their minds after giving this jerk what he calls his mandate. I don't call that "smarter than I think." I call that slow learning and bad decision making. We tried and tried to tell them, but they wouldn't listen.

Posted by: PTate in FR on September 10, 2007 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

"Good job, public." Why a 'good job' because the public agrees with you. Bull shit. What were you doing during Viet Nam? I got 35 months combat time, Mr. Drum, and in my opinion, the U.S. can't get out of Iraq quick enough. We have no national interest in Iraq except to keep Exxon/Mobil supplied w/ crude oil.

Posted by: Chief on September 10, 2007 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin blogged
In other poll news, one-third of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in 9/11. Sheesh.

There's plenty of stupidity to go around, liberal and conservative. From the Scripps-Howard 2006 poll.

Poll question: "Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".

* Responses: 36% said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely"

"The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings".

* Responses: 16% said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely"

"The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists".

* Responses: 12% said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely"

Posted by: SJRSMG on September 10, 2007 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

More on the intelligence of USA-ers, filmed in Los Angeles (Kevin's home?). Warning: requires sense of humor.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

The data is right there. 5 times as many people believe we should stay as long as it takes than believe we should leave now. America supports staying and anyone who reads this poll any other way is a traitor.

Posted by: Just a lurker on September 10, 2007 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Someone ask Petraeus about permanent bases.

It's a simple question.

"Are the large American bases in Iraq intended to be permanent bases?"

Posted by: dglynn on September 10, 2007 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Faux News: Petraeus challenges bin Laden to race in the desert!

Baghdad. Unable to find any American soldier who could beat him in a foot race in 120 degree desert heat, Gen. Petraeus, the ultimate gamester, has challenged Osama bin Laden to a foot race just outside of Baghdad. Petraeus has promised bin Laden brief immunity in return for the opportunity to compete "mano a mano" (or "pie a pie," to be more precise).

Terms of the contest were also announced: each would wear 500 pounds of gear and the course would run 200 miles, the event taking place between noon and 2 PM to ensure temperatures no less than 200 degrees Farenheit. Neither would be allowed any fluids during the race. Petraeus expressed confidence that the conditions would pose no obstacle, stating "I've outrun men 20 years younger than myself in conditions far worse than anticipated for this race."

After the race, Petraeus plans to hold a press conference where he will announce that Iraq is virtually free of violence of any sort, criminal or military, and is a nice place to run. He will recommend imposing a draft on Americans and training them in the violence-free deserts of Iraq by leading them on daily 200 mile runs wearing only 250 pounds of gear.

"Americans need to toughen up," Petraeus said. "This is the best way I know to strengthen America's hand against terrorism."

George Bush expressed unconditional support for Petraeus and the draft plan, stating, "While Petraeus is re-making our next generation military, I will be relaxing at my ranch in Texas, where I can better keep track of our progress in the war on terror. Oooh rahhhh!"

Posted by: anonymous on September 10, 2007 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

"cuz their deployments are up"

And this had stopped DoD from extensions in what way? This is turning into a D-Day event, whereby a British special unit was assisgned to secure a key bridge - Their orders included, "Hold until relieved, hold until relieved". At least there, bagpipes were finally heard coming down the Rue.

Loved the photos of Shrub at a prayer, er preyer meeting, with the head of the Anbar Salvation Council - Shrub justs loves the word salvation - Risha the thug was the recipient of Shrub's adoring stares - Story over at HuffPo. Some wag posted that Shrub was Lawrence of Arabia with a lobotomy. Can't see Shrub in combat, but he would have enjoyed the time spent with the Turks.

Homeland Security's predator drones must have been down for maintenance in LA this past weekend.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 10, 2007 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

"In other poll news, one-third of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in 9/11. Sheesh. On the other hand, this is down from 51% five years ago, which I suppose is a good sign."

No, Kevin, this is NOT a good sign. Name one other instance in which Americans have been as successfully propagandized as this? Sure we've been lied to before. But in most of those cases the public had no conflicting credible evidence to the contrary. But name one other time when the public has been so successfully and persistently convinced by a lie that had been so successfully and completely debunked as the lie that Hussein was involved in 911.

This is no laughing matter. At least 30% of Americans have now undeniably -- and apparently permanently -- been BRAINWASHED by the leaders of the Republican party along with their media whore allies and complicit elements in the military (not the entire military).

This is a new development in American politics. And it is a chilling one.

Posted by: Junius Brutus on September 10, 2007 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

But name one other time when the public has been so successfully and persistently convinced by a lie that had been so successfully and completely debunked as the lie that Hussein was involved in 911.

The Truther Movement.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

This is no laughing matter. At least 30% of Americans have now undeniably -- and apparently permanently -- been BRAINWASHED by the leaders of the Republican party along with their media whore allies and complicit elements in the military (not the entire military).

No, it's not a laughing matter, and not to take deserved blame off the GOP leaders and complicit media and military, but one reason for the lingering idiocy regarding Saddam and 9/11 is this group of voters' fundamental inability to admit they've been horrendously, gigantically, body count-spiralingly wrong. For some people, the higher the stakes in getting it wrong, the less likely they are to concede error.

As has been pointed out, the reason quite a few initially pro-war people were able to let go of their pit bull-like hold on unreality just in time for the 2006 election was that Mark Foley and the covering up of the GOP leaders made it easy to dissociate themselves from the party and Bush. "I don't hit on teenagers; this has nothing to do with me and I don't want anything to do with these people" is a lot easier to say than, "I'm so dumb let these people dupe me about Saddam's WMDs and his 'connection' to 9/11." For a lot of people, admitting that they were such credulous fools for so long is an ego blow they'd rather die than take. We have several of them posting here even now.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

No, it's not a laughing matter...

So you don't think that having over 1/3rd of Americans thinking our Government actively participated in the 9/11 attacks (and guess whether those 1/3 are mostly liberal or conservative) and 1 in 6 thinking it was a US-launched cruise missile that hit the Pentagon isn't also toxic to the rational policy making process? Stupidity has no ideological preference.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Third asks:

""cuz their deployments are up"

And this had stopped DoD from extensions in what way?"

This is yet another example of why it helps to learn something about a subject before forming opinions.

Put the choice clearly: if either Bush (again!) extends combat tours in the spring, OR ELSE he draws down our forces by 20-25%, I am predicting that he will draw down our forces.

(This is what the 'reality-based community' OUGHT to be doing, folks: talking about reality. All this bullshit about Petraeus and the surge just tells me y'all are suckers for a story line -- ANY story line. Follow the facts.)

If, as Third seems to think, Bush simply extends the tours, THAT will be the issue: and it is all on Bush's opponents' turf -- weakening the military, Iraq isn't worth the effort, etc.

So he's gonna let 'em come home. He doesn't have the troops to replace 'em. Do the math -- our forces will be reduced by 20-25%.

This will require some explanation.

It will EITHER be Bush declaring that the new strategy of a soft partition with the help of Sunni militia attacking foreign fights (AQI) is working, OR it will be effectively portrayed as an American defeat: but we do know that it won't be over when Bush leaves office.

So if it is Bush's victorious handing-the-war-over-to-the-Iraqis strategy for a year, while a divided Democratic party insists that it is slow motion defeat: WE look bad, not him, especially when (if, insha-allah) a Democrat takes over and finishes the plan: "See, we told you so -- when WE took office, we made SURE we lost!"

The more knuckleheads like Third insist that the ONLY outcome has to be Bush humiliated (e.g., by Congress overturning combat extensions, a Constitutional confrontation in which Bush is FOR his war and against our troops: James Carville should be so lucky), the more likely it is that the Kos wing of the Democratic party will actually snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here -- not simply for America, but (not incidentally) also for the Democratic party.

Posted by: theAmericanist on September 10, 2007 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Those poll results at 8:52 have nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of reasons could explain why people chose those answers and they don't require that the respondent be a liberal.

The person who posted that comment is just smearing people.

Posted by: Swan on September 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

**

Posted by: mhr on September 10, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

If I were to rate the post of 10:36 AM, I would have to say, "Gooooooaaaaaaalllll"

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

So you don't think that having over 1/3rd of Americans thinking our Government actively participated in the 9/11 attacks (and guess whether those 1/3 are mostly liberal or conservative) and 1 in 6 thinking it was a US-launched cruise missile that hit the Pentagon isn't also toxic to the rational policy making process?

It might be, if in reality such thinking had any discernible effect on U.S. policy. Perhaps you can point me to an example? Just one?

No? Well, I'll assume that this is the latest example of your increasingly desperate attempts to equate a towering mistrust of the Bush administration--a mistrust that has plenty of documented justification, whether or not one thinks this particular expression of it is appropriate, helpful or credible--with your own ongoing gullibility, which has cost thousands of American lives and ended or destroyed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

It would be interesting to see if you're man enough to admit your mistakes in 20 or 30 years. Meanwhile, thanks for providing a shining example of the dysfunction I described in my post of 10:36.

You just never see it coming.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

(not sao) paulo: If I were to rate the post of 10:36 AM, I would have to say, "Gooooooaaaaaaalllll"

Don't be snide. I never expected the USA to win. Besides, the Brazilians I was sitting with were considerably more fun, anyway. It's so weird to be in a venue in which Americans are the least emotional people present.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop,

Didn't even know the score - But, try sitting through a boxing match at the Olympic Auditorium in LA between boxers from Mexico and El Salvador. A helmet, face mask, and rib protectors are advised.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

A helmet, face mask, and rib protectors are advised.

Aw, I bet you looked cute. We were in little physical danger other than getting hit by instruments in impromptu samba performances. Wish I'd had the Guarana concession, though.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

The New York Times has an agenda and the overwhelming majority of what it publishes is in support of that agenda. The Times does not approve of the Iraq war. Period.

You moronic fuckwit. One name for you: Judith "Iscariot" Miller.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 10, 2007 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

It might be, if in reality such thinking had any discernible effect on U.S. policy. Perhaps you can point me to an example? Just one?

How can having over 1/3rd of the electorate thinking 9/11 was an inside job NOT affect the government? Do you think these people set aside their monumental irrationality when they enter the voting booth or write letters to the editor or grab signs and picket?

--with your own ongoing gullibility...It would be interesting to see if you're man enough to admit your mistakes in 20 or 30 years.

You read what you want to read and ignore the rest. I have said in these comments that I "knew" we would find WMDs in Iraq, and I have said that I expected Bush/Rumsfeld to have a post-war plan and that they botched it royally. Me and the list of Democratic Senators who voted for the resolution that I posted. I have said that in hindsight going in to Iraq was a mistake. But you ignore all that because you need your bogeyman to maintain your narrative. Kind of like how Truthers think. Selectively choosing your facts.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

AMERICAN PUBLIC STILL SMARTER THAN YOU THINK....There's a considerable amount of fascinating data in the latest New York Times/CBS poll, . . .

Actually, no. If they were, Shrub never would have been "elected" president and we wouldn't be in Iraq.

So even fire-breathing liberals are willing to allow 24 months to give the Maliki government some breathing space and the generals time to withdraw safely.

Seems about right given the mess we created and the amounts of people and material we have there. It would take six-months at a minimum just to get everyone and to port in full rout mode.

In other poll news, one-third of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in 9/11. —Kevin Drum

See my first response. To elaborate, Americans were, on the whole, pretty dumb before 9/11 and have learned fuck-all since then.


Posted by: JeffII on September 10, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Stupidity has no ideological preference.

Using our troops as a shield--who does that? Questioning the patriotism of people who point out that the Emperor has no clothes and the management of his war is a disaster--who does that?

Stupidity reigns supreme in the Republican Party. It's so bad, Chuck Hagel basically ran screaming from your party. Maybe that rat bastard from Nebraska finally realized he had to grow a pair and quit voting in lock step with Bush, but I love this "a pox on both your houses" bullshit.

The fact of the matter is, the Democrats don't have the votes to end the war. A slim majority doesn't cut it. The fact of the matter is, you can't cut funding for the war because the DoD will simply play an accounting trick and make it look like the troops in the field don't have funding. Who runs the DoD? The Republicans. Who has installed lackeys and cronys of Dick Cheney all throughout the government in order to carry out the orders of Dick Cheney? The Republicans. What have they demonstrated time and again--yes, that they will break the law and use the Executive Branch as a political tool against the political enemies of the Republican Party.

Yes--I know--you CAN cut funding and all it will do is force the post commander on Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio to miss payments to the local power company, as happened last year, but the reality is, you can't stop funding Bush's war. They'll pull money from some bullshit satellite program that doesn't work and scream that the Democrats have left us undefended. Guess what? The next Democrat who runs DoD is going to become a master of that game and will turn the Republican minority in the Senate inside out in 2009. Enjoy your little grasp on power--every tactic used in the last two years will bite the Republicans in the ass from now until President Kanye West takes over and really fixes things.

We have a Republican Party that is using whatever means necessary to use our troops to blunt any reasonable effort to end the war so that their political viability can be continued through the next election cycle, which they believe will get them into another cycle where the attention span of the American people will shorten even further and allow them a chance to push their "Liberals Lost Iraq!" theme. None of them believe in the Iraq war, the US military or anything decent. They care about shoving money in their pants and fucking whatever they can get their hands on.

I used to think you could discuss these matters; now I think a two by four to the ear works just as good. I've been called every name in the book and I don't give two shits anymore--end this war and bring the troops home.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

There will not be ANY significant reduction in the number of troops until January 2009 (when the fool on the hill is gone.) There will always be one "official" Bush crony that will ALWAYS cite the need for sustained troop levels in Iraq. ALWAYS.

A gambler on a losing streak always stays at the table until he has no money left in his wallet. W

Posted by: ny patriot on September 10, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Stupidity has no ideological preference.

While it is not the case that all Republicans are stupid people, it is generally the case that stupid people trend towards being Republican.

Posted by: Stefan on September 10, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

"So you don't think that having over 1/3rd of Americans thinking our Government actively participated in the 9/11 attacks (and guess whether those 1/3 are mostly liberal or conservative) and 1 in 6 thinking it was a US-launched cruise missile that hit the Pentagon isn't also toxic to the rational policy making process? Stupidity has no ideological preference."

1) I want to see the exact poll language you base this claim on because you wingnuts have proven over and over again that you are not to be trusted. Post a link, wingnut.

2) One huge and crucial difference is that however they came to have those beliefs, if they did, it was not the result of government propaganda. At least it shows that those people are being skeptical about the claims coming from a government that is known -- beyond the shadow of a doubt -- to be completely dishonest. In the end that is far less threatening to our form of government than the converse: liars in control of the government who are able to brainwash people despite the evidence.

If some people are leaping to conspiratorial conclusions its because they can no longer have any trust at all in what comes out of the mouths of the compulsive liars in the Bush Adminstration. There are a fair number of people who believe in UFO's etc. but they don't really pose a threat to our form of government. But if the government began to push a UFO story and use it as a rationale for constricting civil liberties and giving all power to Dear Leader, THEN I would start worrying about the UFO nuts.

Posted by: Junius Brutus on September 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Poll question: "Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".

Worded that way, the only correct answer is yes, since "took no action" is very broad and there's a lot of evidence that tips were left by the wayside by officials all the way up to the president. Aug 6 PDB "bin Laden determined to attack inside US".

Posted by: Boronx on September 10, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

The New York Times has an agenda and the overwhelming majority of what it publishes is in support of that agenda. The Times does not approve of the Iraq war. Period.

Would that be the same New York Times that publishes the drivel of the Moustache of Understanding™ twice a week?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 10, 2007 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

1) I want to see the exact poll language you base this claim on because you wingnuts have proven over and over again that you are not to be trusted. Post a link, wingnut.

Sure thing, moonbat.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

It's referenced widely. Take home quote:

...Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11.

2) One huge and crucial difference is that however they came to have those beliefs, if they did, it was not the result of government propaganda.

I am saying that Saddam's participation in 9/11 has been debunked equally as thoroughly as the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and yet still stupidity reigns. It didn't take a massive propaganda campaign, it just took stupid people.

At least it shows that those people are being skeptical about the claims coming from a government that is known -- beyond the shadow of a doubt -- to be completely dishonest.

The 9/11 commission consisted of 5 dems and 4 repubs. Are democrats equally unworthy of trust?

If some people are leaping to conspiratorial conclusions its because they can no longer have any trust at all in what comes out of the mouths of the compulsive liars in the Bush Adminstration.

Again, the 9/11 commission was bipartisan. Are you saying that these people were in on the conspiracy?

* Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana
* Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
* Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
* Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska
* Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

What I'm saying, Jingo, is that you don't know how to read your own poll question.

Posted by: Boronx on September 10, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Poll question: "Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".

If that's the question, then I'm not surprised a lot of people answered in the affirmative. The Pentagon didn't take action to stop them.

I was in Washington D.C. on 9/11 and I vividly remember staring out the office window, before we were evacuated, and asking the people I was with, "Where is the Air Force? Why haven't they scrambled planes to protect the Capitol?" I don't have a conspiracy theory about U.S. complicity in the attacks, but I still wonder why there weren't fighter jets circling the Capitol.

Boronx makes some good points too.

Posted by: Junius Brutus on September 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

What I'm saying, Jingo, is that you don't know how to read your own poll question.

I know exactly how to read the poll question.

By the way, how do you read the poll question "The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists" that 1 out of every 6 people agreed was somewhat likely or very likely?

Posted by: SJRSM on September 10, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Jingo Lower Now: I have said that in hindsight going in to Iraq was a mistake. But you ignore all that because you need your bogeyman to maintain your narrative.

I ignore all that because you're a serial dissembler who isn't any more honest with us than you are with yourself. Far from wanting a bogeyman, I wish to god every one of you backwashers would wake the fuck up so we can get out of Iraq starting now.

If you ever actually said that "going into Iraq was a mistake," I missed the big conversion. All I've ever seen from you is "the war was right but the execution was wrong" CYA nonsense--as recently as the other day. And you'll have to point me toward any unqualified endorsements of a near-term drawdown you may have made...oddly, I don't think I'm going to be able to find those without your help.

Boronx: Poll question: "Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".

You mean Red-State Mike grossly mischaracterized this question as "our Government [love the capital G showing all due respect to Our Dear Leaders] actively participated"? I'm shocked, yes, shocked, that he would be so dishonest.

As for actual conspiracy theorists having a tangible, measurable effect on actual policy, Junius Brutus did a pretty good job of summing up reality on that.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Poll question: "Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".
* Responses: 36% said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely"

Hmmm, I've seen this question referred to, but I think this might be the first time I've seen the phrasing... that's it? If someone thinks it is at least somewhat likely that federal officials "... took no action to stop" the attacks, they're an unhinged conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush's cousin Marvin planted the charges himself? Um, not quite. Bush is a federal official. Bush got the "Bin Laden determined to attack U.S." memo a month before the attacks. Bush ignored it. Q.E.D.

Yeah, there are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around as well (which means the next two questions are more interesting), and they are much shakier than my explanation above, and even my narrative isn't totally airtight. But if this poll is the sign that a bunch of Americans are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, then it suddenly appears very weak evidence.

As for those more specific questions, 16 percent say it's very/somewhat likely that the towers were bombed from the inside, and 12 percent say it's very/somewhat likely that the Pentagon was hit by a missile? Wow, almost twice as many people agreed with the "tower was bombed" question than thought aliens were hiding behind a comet 10 years ago. How horrible! I wonder who the Hale-Bopp alien believers would have voted for? Just kidding, actually: it doesn't matter a bit. You can get 15 to 20 percent of people to agree to anything, except maybe the political ideologies of bad guys in action movies. Numbers like 30 percent really do begin to matter, though. Sorry.

Posted by: Cyrus on September 10, 2007 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Ad hominem deleted...You mean Red-State Mike grossly mischaracterized this question as "our Government [love the capital G showing all due respect to Our Dear Leaders] actively participated"? I'm shocked, yes, shocked, that he would be so dishonest.

So again, how do you read the poll question "The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists" that 1 out of every 6 people agreed was somewhat likely or very likely?

A little bit harder to spin that one to your needs. I look forward to efforts.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

So again, how do you read the poll question "The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists" that 1 out of every 6 people agreed was somewhat likely or very likely?

A little bit harder to spin that one to your needs. I look forward to efforts.

I read it as: the people who answered SL or L to this particular question are pretty damned paranoid. Now ask me how I read your flat-out lying with this statement: "over 1/3rd of Americans think our Government actively participated in the 9/11 attacks" and your refusal to explain exactly why you think such a belief could possibly have the same practical effect on policy--and wholesale death--as the erroneous, administration-fired belief that the head of a state we preemptively invaded was involved in 9/11.

Heh, just kidding. You already know the answer. Flail on.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

So again, how do you read the poll question "The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists" that 1 out of every 6 people agreed was somewhat likely or very likely?

Oh, for fuck's sake. What a non-issue.

You're telling me that it shocks you that people believe something like that? This is a country full of people who think that:

1. OJ is innocent
2. UFOs are really space aliens
3. Video killed the radio star
4. The Earth is only 5,000 years old
5. There really was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq
6. KFC is finger lickin' good!
7. Amy Grant is a slut for leaving her husband for Vince Gill, although Vince Gill is the best country male vocalist alive
8. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War
9. Jesus is related to Elvis
10. Elvis is alive

Take your false indignation and shove it up your ass--so what if people think that the government was "in on 9/11?" Who cares? At any given time in this nation's history, you might be shocked to discover that large segments of our population used to believe outrageously ridiculous things to be true--I'll cite you one example and it has to do with African Americans and monkeys. [No, there is no relation between African Americans and monkeys--but, quite tragically, a large part of the American population once believed that there was.]

It's not like the Bush administration has been a paragon of virtue and truth-telling, right? That's what you're trying to say, correct? That thank God George W Bush is here to protect us from the wackos who think the Pentagon fired a cruise missile into itself to disguise the fact that two F-16s were responsible for bringing down flight 93? Right?

I mean, talk about your wacko theories...

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Ad hominem deleted...

You deleted a little more than my observation that you're a liar. You also ran away from my challenging you on your assertion that you've said that going into Iraq was a mistake.

Now why would you just skip over that? If you have in fact disavowed the rightness of this war, why not just say so and help us find that post?

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

I read your flat-out lying with this statement: "over 1/3rd of Americans think our Government actively participated in the 9/11 attacks"

Again, selective reading disorder on your part. Or maybe you're doing it on purpose? Go back and read my post in this thread. I can cut -n- paste with the best of them.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

You are surprised that 1-in-6 is barking fucking mad? Sounds about right to me, if not a little low.

I am assuming that these are the same same idiots who, in the 90's, believed the UN was stalking them with black helicopters.

Why the hell are you arguing about minutiae such as this? If you don't realize that there is a large percentage of batshit insane among us, you need to take public transportation more often.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Poll question: "Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".

Ignoring a warning entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" by telling the CIA briefer "OK, you've covered your ass, now" and then continuing on vacation rather qualifies as "took no action to stop them."

Or perhaps you can point to something, anything, that the Bush regime did in order to prevent the attacks after that point?

Posted by: Stefan on September 10, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter shortstop and others...

It is OK for over 1/3rd of the democrats to exhibit monumental stupidity in believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories, because we don't have the Whitehouse (yet).

Heh

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Why the hell are you arguing about minutiae such as this? If you don't realize that there is a large percentage of batshit insane among us, you need to take public transportation more often.
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.)

I posted earlier "Stupidity has no ideological preference" and "There's plenty of stupidity to go around, liberal and conservative." We seem to be debating that point.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I certainly don't remember RSM saying that it was a mistake to invade Iraq. If he did say it, fine. I'm sure that, buried somewhere in the archives, he might have said it once. That certainly has never been an over-arching theme of his defense of the Republicans who support the war.

I also don't think we're ever going to run out of conservatives/wingnuts/neocons/Republicans/sex maniacs who claim to have opposed the war, told George W Bush personally what was being done wrong and who also will claim that somehow--somehow--liberals lost Iraq. I think we're going to see a whole lot of them claim to have stood outside the Green Zone, shirtless and with a green bandana tied around their head in a way that doesn't interfere with their wire-rimmed reading glasses, firing belt after belt of M60 rounds into the charging bodies of the insurgents, only to be knocked on the head from behind by Nancy Pelosi and dragged into a helicopter and whisked away before they could save us all from the Shiite protectorate of Iraq.

Why don't the wingnuts just come out and say it? Democrats are going to be held responsible for losing the war. That's what the "surge" is all about--pushing the dates forward, six more months, and then six more months, until we get to the end of the Bush administration, whereby the whole flaming turd can be left at the doorstep of a Democratic President.

It's not like Republicans are being honest anymore. There's no one on their side running who actually expects to win, is there? It's all about the next Friedman and running out of DC with a wad of cash while everything burns down.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Even after finding out his evidence contradicts his conclusion, Mike soldiers on.

101st keyboardist! No retreat. No surrender.

Posted by: Boronx on September 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the bickering like teenagers is giving me a headache. I'll see you all on another thread. I'm out.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 10, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Never mind. Pale Rider is in fine form. I'm sticking around.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Poll question: "Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".
Posted by: Stefan

I wish they had asked the question, "Federal officials participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center." The answer obviously would have been between 18% and 36% agreeing, and I bet it would have been closer to 36% than 18%.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

There's plenty of stupidity to go around, liberal and conservative." We seem to be debating that point.

That's how you get out of being held responsible for your decision to support the war? Because there are people in this country who are stupid?

Now if only that would get people out of having to vacate their property after their home has taken away from them in a foreclosure. Two million people are going to lose their homes in the next year or so. I don't think the bank is going to let them stay in their homes just because "there are a lot of stupid people in this country who think an ARM loan is a great way to go!"

Accountability is a bitch, ain't it?

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Kristol: “The truth is we are going to have over 100,000 troops in Iraq when George Bush leaves office,” Kristol said. He added “sober Democrats who want to be serious about” Iraq and “who want to think about the consequences of losing” are coming to the view that “of course you can’t just pull out.”

Defend that statement, wingnuts.

Suddenly, I'm not a sober person who wants to be serious about Iraq?

See, it's that kind of rhetoric that leads me to believe that our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't really give a shit what they do or what position they take--it's not about what's best for the troops. It's about questioning the patriotism of anyone who tries to hold Republicans accountable for their disasterous policies and their shameful track record in managing the war. It's an all or nothing game with our troops being used as their only weapon against anyone who disagrees with them.

And we're supposed to think a 4 star General who failed to train the Iraqi security forces, who can't get along with the prime minister of Iraq, who is at odds with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs AND the Commander of CENTCOM is going to tell the truth today?

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Jingo: Again, selective reading disorder on your part. Or maybe you're doing it on purpose? Go back and read my post in this thread. I can cut -n- paste with the best of them.

Apparently you couldn't cut and paste with first-year Little Leaguers. Read your post at 10:45 for the exact wording I quoted: "over 1/3rd of Americans thinking our Government actively participated in the 9/11 attacks." Oopsy!

Shorter shortstop and others...It is OK for over 1/3rd of the democrats to exhibit monumental stupidity in believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories, because we don't have the Whitehouse (yet).

No, Mike, we've asked you repeatedly to explain how this particular theory, not endorsed by any government entity or even Democratic leader of influence you can name, tangibly affects policy, and whether you think it equates with a Bush administration-fed deception that killed hundreds of thousands...and you won't.

In addition, I've asked you repeatedly to back up your assertion that you've ever disavowed the justness of the war...and you can't.

You're just digging now--but still, as always, always--dissembling. Does it not even remotely embarrass you to get caught constantly fabricating like this?

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

The answer obviously would have been between 18% and 36% agreeing, and I bet it would have been closer to 36% than 18%.

Hey, what's Bush's approval rating?
Gallup 8/13-16/07 APPROVE (32) DISAPPROVE (63)

There you go, RSM. the number of people who are misguided and who will believe anything is at 32% right now. Hope that helps.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

That's how you get out of being held responsible for your decision to support the war? Because there are people in this country who are stupid?

First, read the thread.

Second, as to my support for the ware, yea, it was kind of like Kevin Drum himself, and these other guys who all voted for the resolution. You may recognize a few names and even potential Presidents. Some of them haven't been thrown out of office yet for their stupidity. Unlike my vote, which is one of 300 million, there's is 1 of 100.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM on September 10, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

If I read this correctly, 20% of those polled would support anything forever.

Posted by: hollywood on September 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

So nice to see Pale Rider kicking ass and taking names. The only reason I even scroll through these things is the hope that PR or Scotian has dropped by to comment. The truth hurts.

Posted by: jcp on September 10, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

This made coffee come out of my nose. Better than Advil:

Pale Rider: I also don't think we're ever going to run out of conservatives/wingnuts/neocons/Republicans/sex maniacs who claim to have opposed the war, told George W Bush personally what was being done wrong and who also will claim that somehow--somehow--liberals lost Iraq. I think we're going to see a whole lot of them claim to have stood outside the Green Zone, shirtless and with a green bandana tied around their head in a way that doesn't interfere with their wire-rimmed reading glasses, firing belt after belt of M60 rounds into the charging bodies of the insurgents, only to be knocked on the head from behind by Nancy Pelosi and dragged into a helicopter and whisked away before they could save us all from the Shiite protectorate of Iraq.

So did this dreamy pronouncement pulled from deep within the GI tract of Mike in a desperate attempt to save his gig at Delphi:

I wish they had asked the question, "Federal officials participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center." The answer obviously would have been between 18% and 36% agreeing, and I bet it would have been closer to 36% than 18%.

Well, I guess we'll never know, will we, Mike? But you can darkly suspect. We can't take that away from you.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently you couldn't cut and paste with first-year Little Leaguers. Read your post at 10:45 for the exact wording I quoted: "over 1/3rd of Americans thinking our Government actively participated in the 9/11 attacks." Oopsy!

Nice cherry picking, ignore the first complete, referenced, and linked post and only read the "flyby".

Further mud slinging will have to wait until this evening. Job to do...

Posted by: SWJRSMG on September 10, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

You want to throw votes around? How about we start with the votes that will haunt the Republicans for the next 20 years or so?

How about this bill?

On July 11, the Senate failed to muster a 3/5 majority to approve an amendment that would limit the length of U.S. troop deployments in Iraq to 12 months for Army and 7 months for Marine personnel, but would allow for presidential waivers. The vote was 52 to 45 (Democrats 49-0, Republicans 2-44, Independents 1-1). [Vote 243 on S. Amdt. 2032, “Hagel amendment,” to H.R. 1585]

How about this bill?

On July 18, the Senate failed by a vote of 52 to 47 (Democrats 47-1, Republicans 4-45, Independents 1-1) to invoke cloture on an amendment to require the U.S. to complete a withdrawal of most combat troops from Iraq by April 30, 2008. [Vote 252 on S.Amdt. 2087, “Levin amendment,” to H.R. 1585]

Now, go down this list and tell me how many of these clowns are pulling the plug and bailing out of the Senate? Take a good look at this list--it's got quite a few endangered incumbents on it.

Alphabetical by Senator
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Nice cherry picking, ignore the first complete, referenced, and linked post and only read the "flyby".

Uh, yeah. Except that, you know, you again misrepresented the poll question at 11:20: "over 1/3rd of the electorate thinking 9/11 was an inside job," and when others quoted your "actively participated" misstatement several times (and someone even warned you you weren't reading your own poll question correctly), you stuck out your little lip and declined the opportunity to correct yourself. We note that you still haven't done so. Gee, you're not having much luck with this storyline of yours.

Further mud slinging will have to wait until this evening. Job to do...

Someone less given to self-delusion and more able to recognize the object being proffered to him as his own ass would have run away an hour ago. We give you points for pluck, if not for smarts, judgment, honesty or integrity.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: ...only to be knocked on the head from behind by Nancy Pelosi and dragged into a helicopter and whisked away ...

You left out that the helicopter was black.

Posted by: thersites on September 10, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Nancy Pelosi only flies on a 757 Jumbo Jet--not a helicopter. Mustn't mess with our wingnut talking points.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Don't forget Nancy's lesbian-oriented moon station where you get sucked through the airlock for putting paper in the aluminum bin. That may be my favorite Norman Rogers post of all time.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Jingotard:

Another point. We now know that Bush is not in principle opposed to the idea of faking an attack. We know that he proposed a "false flag" mission (involving a plane that would be disguised as a UN plane against Hussein) to Tony Blair.

That doesn't in any way prove that Bush staged 911, but, given the facts that 1) Bush is a monumental liar who DID lie on a massive and unprecedented scale about WMD and Hussein's relationship with al Qaeda and 911, 2) given that Bush has no qualms about false flag operations, and 3) given that there are a number of still unexplained facts about 911 (e.g. Why no planes circling the Capitol? Why did Bush keep reading that book when he learned about the attacks? Why did Bush lie and say he saw the first plane crash into the WTC? Why did they evacuate all the bin Laden family members when no one else could fly? -- not to mention, why did Bush let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora and then say he didn't care much about him?), its not hard to understand that people would say it is "somewhat" "likely" there was government involvement. Note that "somewhat likely" just means there is a non-zero probability, not that it is certain.

And the main point, as I argued upthread, is that given that both the Bush-did-911 conspiracy theorists and the Saddam-did-911 conspiracy theorists are probably wrong, the latter is a far more threatening phenomenon than the former. The Saddam-did-911 conspiracy theorists persist even after their beliefs have been debunked beyond a shadow of a doubt -- even by Bush himself! The Saddam-did-911 conspiracy theorists are the products of a government-organized propaganda campaign, which is far more threatening to a free people than a popular conspiracy theory that has no impact on policy.

Finally, your argument puts a lot of weight on the authority of the 911 Commission. People rightly have little faith that these kind of commissions will come to conclusions that make the government look very bad. The Warren Commission Report on the JFK assassination is deeply flawed. The Iran-Contra report that Lee Hamilton co-chaired was a joke, so its not surprising that some people would be skeptical about his 911 report too. The fact that Bush had be dragged kicking and screaming into even doing the report, whose recommendations he has proceeded to largely ignore, also detracts from its credibility

Fuckin' A. I remember when the conservatards hated Big Guvmint and thought presidents had to be impeached if they lied about blow jobs. We've come so far since then.

Posted by: Junius Brutus on September 10, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, come on. Serious, sober Republicans would never do anything foolish, would they?

EXCLUSIVE: BUSH PLOT TO BOMB HIS ARAB ALLY
Madness of war memo
By Kevin Maguire And Andy Lines 22/11/2005

PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.

But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.

The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.

Advertisement
A source said last night: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.

"He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

You have to remember that about 1/3 of the American people believe the World was created in seven days approximately 6,000 years ago. It may be the same people.

Posted by: Sherpa on September 10, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Don't forget Nancy's lesbian-oriented moon station

Hey, I think I saw that in The X From Outer Space!

Which, silly as it was, was less silly than the spew from RSM's cognitive dissonance here.

Posted by: Gregory on September 10, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Junius Brutus: If some people are leaping to conspiratorial conclusions its because they can no longer have any trust at all in what comes out of the mouths of the compulsive liars in the Bush Adminstration.

RSM, in response to JB's post above: Again, the 9/11 commission was bipartisan. Are you saying that these people were in on the conspiracy?

More serial dissembling from Mike. Junius Brutus is talking about "the Bush Administration." Mike, trying to play his usual game of "b-but they did it too!" then attempts to shift the conversation, ever so clumsily, onto "the 9/11 Commission." I don't know in what reality he functions, but in this one the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission are not one and the same.


Posted by: Stefan on September 10, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Don't forget Nancy's lesbian-oriented moon station

Is this finally available for PlayStation or is stil Xbox platform only?

Posted by: JeffII on September 10, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Short break in meetings...

On what I think. First, I have never liked Bush. I would have voted for McCain. I could never have voted for the dem who ran.

IF the intelligence had been right on WMDs and they had planned for the post-war phase, I would have been for the war. Improper prior planning led to piss-poor performance. They didn't, it was a mistake to go in. That does not mean we should get out now, nor does it mean we should stay. Getting out or staying should be based on today's facts and the impact on the future.

Stefan
attempts to shift the conversation, ever so clumsily, onto "the 9/11 Commission." I don't know in what reality he functions, but in this one the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission are not one and the same.

As usual you put up a strawman to shoot down. The bipartisan (that means it included democrats, and some pretty good ones at that) 9/11 commission investigated and found no evidence of a conspiracy by the Bush administration. Either there was none, the commission (including the democrats) was incompetent, or they were in on the conspiracy. Which do you think it was, Stefan?

Shortstop
and when others quoted your "actively participated" misstatement several times...

When others are held to anywhere near the standard of proof that I met, quoting and linking, I'll consider your argument. If they chose to enter the thread midstream, it's their own fault if they don't get it right. It does explain why Brunius asked me to link to it when I already did. Speaking of Brunius...

And the main point, as I argued upthread, is that given that both the Bush-did-911 conspiracy theorists and the Saddam-did-911 conspiracy theorists are probably wrong, the latter is a far more threatening phenomenon than the former.

Since Saddam was captured and is now 6 feet under, I have a hard time seeing what it matters what people think about it now. That Iraq is gone and won't be back.

However, assuming the democrats will take the Whitehouse, which seems a reasonable outcome, having over 1/3rd of them thinking Islamists didn't attack our country on 9/11...will they divert attention on defending us from terrorists?


Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 10, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

On what I think. First, I have never liked Bush. I would have voted for McCain. I could never have voted for the dem who ran.

One big black mark.

IF the intelligence had been right on WMDs and they had planned for the post-war phase, I would have been for the war. Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon

To be rejoined, or course, with, and if monkeys flew out of your ass . . . Second big black mark.

Just go home. Nobody wants to play with you here.

Posted by: JeffII on September 10, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike wrote: I could never have voted for the dem who ran.

You don't say.

Posted by: Gregory on September 10, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Just go home. Nobody wants to play with you here.
Posted by: JeffII

What you meant to write is "please stop interfering with our echo chamber ditto-heading."

Are you kidding? Half the posts here are in response to me. You like me. You really, really like me.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon That No One Wants to Play With on September 10, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

When others are held to anywhere near the standard of proof that I met, quoting and linking, I'll consider your argument. If they chose to enter the thread midstream, it's their own fault if they don't get it right. It does explain why Brunius [sic] asked me to link to it when I already did. Speaking of Brunius [sic]...

We had a huge storm here a few weeks ago, and I watched 100-year-old trees and street lights go flying by horizontally. I imagine Jingo's goalposts moving at about the same speed and in the same direction.

Mike, we know you're this dishonorable, but you can't really be this dumb. You seem to think posting a link aids your credibility, when as has been repeatedly noted, the cite you put up directly contradicts your representation of it. Because Junius Brutus missed a link, you're seriously trying to argue that all those quoting you on exactly what you said aren't "getting it right"? This is really the best you can do?

You've had every opportunity to correct your original lie, but instead, when you were called on it, you:

a) insisted you read the poll correctly even when it was pointed out to you that you had not.
b) refused to acknowledge your fabrication and the correction.
c) next, tried to refocus discussion on a different poll point, still without acknowledging your original mistake.
d) then, shifting to claiming you'd actually said something else other than the original statement.
e) when provided with evidence of your original statement, accused poster of "cherrypicking," still without acknowledging your error.
f) when provided with additional evidence showing that not only was the statement in question not a "fly-by," but you had repeated the statement in similar language plus failed to contemporaneously object to being quoted on it (since the cherrypicking defense was a late-in-the-game desperation move). You then berated other posters for not magically discerning, still without any concession of error on your part, that the one post in which you correctly repeated the poll results is the "operative" one and all others in which you lied were "inoperative."

The only thing hard to follow here is your constantly changing, increasingly wild arguments.

This flailing, denying and blaming is how emotionally disturbed adolescents behave when confronted with their misbehavior. I have no idea, frankly, how you've passed any military psychological evaluations. This is just fucking sad.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Are you kidding? Half the posts here are in response to me. You like me. You really, really like me.

There's our mentally ill little boy! Any attention is better than the pressing emptiness of being constantly ignored and brushed aside in real life.

Well, we've made his week and done our good deed for the day. You owe us, Jingo. So very much.

Posted by: shortstop on September 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

a) insisted you read the poll correctly even when it was pointed out to you that you had not.

I quoted it directly from the website and linked to it. It is really that simple.

b) refused to acknowledge your fabrication and the correction.

Eh? I linked and quoted it in my very first post.

c) next, tried to refocus discussion on a different poll point, still without acknowledging your original mistake.

There was no initial mistake. Some people seem to think that "took no action to stop them" includes Bush not responding to the Al Qaeda threat (due to incompetence). I think the people who said "yes" in the poll meant because looked the other way. There is wiggle room in that question. But not in the "cruise missiles hit the Pentagon" one. Anyone who belives that is a nut job, and over 18% of democrats do.

d) then, shifting to claiming you'd actually said something else other than the original statement.

I claim my first post is accurate and referenced.

e) when provided with evidence of your original statement, accused poster of "cherrypicking," still without acknowledging your error.

You ignore my first post and refer to another one where I didn't completely quote myself. Frankly, I figured people reading that one would have already read the first one.

f) when provided with additional evidence showing that not only was the statement in question not a "fly-by,"

No such evidence was offered

but you had repeated the statement in similar language

Nope, in the second quote I said that "over 1/3rd of the electorate thinking 9/11 was an inside job," which includes looking the other way while Al Qaeda attacks, which is how I interpreted the poll question. You disagree.

plus failed to contemporaneously object to being quoted on it (since the cherrypicking defense was a late-in-the-game desperation move).

You fail to recognize that in my very first post in this thread I accurately quoted and referenced the poll question, and rest your whole entire everything on a later post, which was indeed a "flyby". To paraphrase the software industry, RTF Thread next time.

You then berated other posters for not magically discerning, still without any concession of error on your part, that the one post in which you correctly repeated the poll results is the "operative" one and all others in which you lied were "inoperative."

The first post on the topic with links? #$%-ing duh.

Posted by: SJRSMWNOWPW on September 10, 2007 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

On a multiple choice question with two answers (the majority of Iraqi's are sunni/shiite) only thirty percent got it right?? My god, we're doomed.

Posted by: skelly on September 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

I said, "And the main point, as I argued upthread, is that given that both the Bush-did-911 conspiracy theorists and the Saddam-did-911 conspiracy theorists are probably wrong, the latter is a far more threatening phenomenon than the former."

Jingo "responded" by saying, "Since Saddam was captured and is now 6 feet under, I have a hard time seeing what it matters what people think about it now. That Iraq is gone and won't be back.
However, assuming the democrats will take the Whitehouse, which seems a reasonable outcome, having over 1/3rd of them thinking Islamists didn't attack our country on 9/11...will they divert attention on defending us from terrorists?"

Jingo obviously just didn't even begin to grasp my point -- thus the weird nonsequitur response.

To recap: Jingo started by asking me if I was as worried about the Bush-did-911 cosnpiracy theorists as I was about the Saddam-did-911 conspiracy theorists.

The short answer is no. The Saddam-did-911 conspiracy theorists exist as the product of a government-organized propaganda campaign and they persist despite mountains of counterevidence including from their own Dear Leader.

BY CONTRAST, the Bush-did-911 crowd is not the product of a government-organized propaganda campaign, many of the questions surrounding 911 have never been answered, and their conspiracy theory makes much more sense given what we know about George Bush and his complete lack of character.

Government-organized propaganda campaigns are inherently more worrisome than urban mythologies that have no effect on policy, Jingo.

Posted by: Junius Brutus on September 10, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

me: [Mike] attempts to shift the conversation, ever so clumsily, onto "the 9/11 Commission." I don't know in what reality he functions, but in this one the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission are not one and the same.

Mike: ss usual you put up a strawman to shoot down. The bipartisan (that means it included democrats, and some pretty good ones at that) 9/11 commission investigated and found no evidence of a conspiracy by the Bush administration.

Yeah? And? So what? The question isn't whether any of these conspiracy theories are objectively true, it's whether the people who believe them have some objective or at least not irrational basis to believe them. So when you respond to people's justifiable suspiciouns about the Bush regime with your patented "b-b-but look over there at some other guy!" it's as usual a complete non-sequitur.

Either there was none, the commission (including the democrats) was incompetent, or they were in on the conspiracy. Which do you think it was, Stefan?

Actually there's a fourth choice, which you unaccountably neglect, that there was a conspiracy but that the Bush regime successfully covered it up. (Though personally I don't believe there was a conspiracy. Frankly, I don't the Bushies are competent enough to pull it off -- if they'd been in charge all the hijackers would have somehow managed to stab themselves to death with their own boxcutters while tripping over their shoelaces).

Posted by: Stefan on September 10, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Jingo: the point is one of the reasons why we all hated the USSR was because of the mind control the government practiced over their people. That's why government-organized propaganda campaigns are more insidious than urban mythologies that have zero impact on policy.

Need I add that government-organized propaganda campaigns are also COMPLETELY UN-FUCKING-AMERICAN? I ask you, what the hell is a conservatard good for if they don't even hate Big Guvmint anymore?

If we let Bush get away with this crap, not only will the terrorists win as we dismantle the civil liberties and balance of powers that define America's former greatness as a nation, the fucking communists will win too as Bush begins to resemble Brezhnev.

Posted by: Junius Brutus on September 10, 2007 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

On a multiple choice question with two answers (the majority of Iraqi's are sunni/shiite) only thirty percent got it right?? My god, we're doomed.
Posted by: skelly

That's not half as scary as the fact that Sunnis in Iraq believe they are the majority there.

JB:
The short answer is no. The Saddam-did-911 conspiracy theorists exist as the product of a government-organized propaganda campaign and they persist despite mountains of counterevidence including from their own Dear Leader.

No non sequitur. I understood you and disagree. I don't think it took some huge government propaganda machine to make people believe something stupid like that, anymore than it took a huge propaganda machine for the truthers. People are primed for that stuff. That people still believe it just demonstrates their continued stupidity. Saddam playing a role in 9/11 has far more plausibility and is far easier to argue through bluster than the US of A firing a cruise missile into the side of the Pentagon, yet the diff in percentages between the two is only 15%.

And the Saddam - 9/11 connection legend is in the past. The Truther meme affects the here-and-now.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Jingo:

No, it's a non-sequitur. You asked me if the Bush-did-911ers were as toxic to our discourse as the Saddam-did-911ers. You did not ask me which was more irrational.

Nothing could be more toxic to our national discourse than government-organized propaganda that successfully brainwashes the majority of the population for at least part of the time and 30% of the population apparently permanently, in the service of a policy that represents the worst strategic disaster in American history.

Government propaganda that completely shuts down rational public discourse is as toxic as it gets. On the other side, a population that is skeptical of its government, particularly when it is led by a known liar and when important questions about 911 have never been answered is far less toxic, even if they are also wrong.

Posted by: Junius Brutus on September 10, 2007 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

There is wiggle room in that question. But not in the "cruise missiles hit the Pentagon" one. Anyone who belives that is a nut job, and over 18% of democrats do.

You earlier called this 16%, now 18%. But it was actually 12%. (Which by the way is 1 in 8.3, not 1 in 6).

More importantly, that's 12% of the US public, not of Democrats. In a poll with 4% statistical error. (Stretch a little here, a little there, and you can make any point you want).

But there is something here that should be addressed directly: Namely, the fact that the article from Scripps interpreting the poll did say, as RSM quoted, "Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11". It did not quantify this, nor did it explain which poll question(s) it was based on. A look at the poll itself seems to suggest that it was based on the question being debated here -- and if this is the case, it was an unsupportable statement.

That Scripps article, by the way, appeared in a number of places -- sometimes showing one author, sometimes two. Too sloppy for a university "research center". The part-time author was the director of Scripps (both the Scripps Research Center and the Scripps News Service). There are two links to the actual data for this poll at the Scripps website -- but they are both broken.

(The same fellow is also director of the "Bush Research Endowment" -- but Google doesn't know what that is).

And finally, the actual question (which hasn't yet been fully quoted here) was too complex -- and should have been broken up into at least two. It asked people to comment on the likelihood of the following statement:

People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to [sic] United States to go to war in the Middle East.

Note that it mentioned "people in the federal government" -- not "Feferal officials" as the Scripps article sloppily paraphrased. And its reference to a motive (war in the Middle East) could very well have dominated the perception of the question for many responders. And it has a typo too.

All in all, not a fine hour for Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center.

Posted by: JS on September 10, 2007 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

You earlier called this 16%, now 18%. But it was actually 12%. (Which by the way is 1 in 8.3, not 1 in 6).

Yep, working from memory.

All in all, not a fine hour for Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center.

Yep, and yet I found it to be one of the better worded polls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 10, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

And the Saddam - 9/11 connection legend is in the past.

Bullshit--Cheney is still pushing that meme. Apologists for this administration are still pushing that meme.

You can't keep moving the fucking goalposts and call it a victory for a team that has no fucking honor.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Bullshit--Cheney is still pushing that meme. Apologists for this administration are still pushing that meme.

So what. They're just fighting to control their wikipedia entry now.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 10, 2007 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, it seems to me that you are grasping for technicalities. I don't give a rat's ass how what poll taken when the fuck ever was worded. What the hell does it have to do with the here and now?

Nothing?

Well then, how about we address an issue that does?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 10, 2007 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

So what. They're just fighting to control their wikipedia entry now.

Ha! That was so cute and smarmy I forgot to laugh.

Why would the Vice President of the United States be out there, pushing the demonstrably false and laughable theme that there was ever--ever--a link between Saddam and al Qaeda? Is it because a secular Sunni dictator and a fundamentalist, insanely religious sect are interchangeable because the Vice President is counting on the short attention span of the American people to slack off just enough so that he can continue to lie, mislead and misinform people?

Isn't he just pushing those poll numbers of people who believe ridiculous things in a direction that politically favors the Republican Party?

Why? Let's revisit the issue:

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda. Others in al-Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

Why would the Vice President feed Rush Limbaugh's audience the raw meat they need to continue to believe a lie?

It's called "propaganda" and that's all we've come to expect from craven, dishonest liars who have sold this country down the river to line their own pockets and grab as much power as they can possibly grab.

You must be proud to blindly carry water for these people. Will they let you drink from the trough?

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Not to be a nit-picker, but since when does 54 + 22 = 77?

Posted by: beb on September 10, 2007 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, you answered your own questions as to why it does or doesn't matter what Bush/Cheney are tossing out with this...

Hey, what's Bush's approval rating?
Gallup 8/13-16/07 APPROVE (32) DISAPPROVE (63)

His propaganda is irrelevant. The ability of Presidents with 32% approval ratings to sell their stories is minute. I'm pretty sure the only people paying attention are Rush Limbaugh and the unswayables. And you.

Now if you think holding that opinion = carrying water for Bush...step away from the crack pipe.

BGRS
What the hell does it have to do with the here and now...how about we address an issue that does?

I hear the Britney Spears was terrible last night. Discuss.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 10, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

His propaganda is irrelevant. The ability of Presidents with 32% approval ratings to sell their stories is minute. I'm pretty sure the only people paying attention are Rush Limbaugh and the unswayables. And you.

Ah, the false indignation of earlier today over the fact that "there are over 30% of the people in this country who think the government was in on the 9/11 attacks" gives way to a pithy aside that no one is paying attention to the Vice President of the United States of America. Does it matter that the Vice President lies in public? Does it matter that they could have killed Zarqawi when they had the chance? Does it matter that the whole issue of whether to attack the known Ansar al Islam camps was merely gamesmanship played by incompetent fools? I think it does matter when people tell lies.I don't care if its a Democrat or a Republican--you tell lies about war and the conflict which has killed thousands of Americans and you deserve nothing but scorn and abuse. Lying about a blowjob? Well, who gives a shit. Lying about the reasons that have gotten so many people killed? Bloody raw and cheap, that is, no matter how you want to spin it.

Which way do you want to have it? Either it matters that a third of the electorate believes in something stupid or it doesn't.

Wait--there it is. It only matters when the issue cuts against the very same Republican Party you carry water for.

Do you have your own ideas or did they come in the package with the tighty-whiteys you bought at Wal Mart, along with your Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly books?

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

I hear the Britney Spears was terrible last night. Discuss.

[Rolling Eyes] Again...What the hell does it have to do with the here and now?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 10, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

What the hell does it have to do with the here and now?

Oh, come on. When the well runs dry, go with the boobie jokes. It's better than having to answer for glaring inconsistencies and dishonest reasoning.

Look! Over there! Ohh, a shiny object...

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 10, 2007 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Which way do you want to have it? Either it matters that a third of the electorate believes in something stupid or it doesn't.

It matters when it can affect what is going on. It is meaningless if a third of the electorate think Elvis still lives. It matters a little but is headed towards meaningless that people thought Saddam was related to 9/11. He's dead, that Iraq is never coming back.

Do you have your own ideas or did they come in the package with the tighty-whiteys you bought at Wal Mart, along with your Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly books?

Classy to the finish.

Here's what I think. Bush/Cheney was wrong on WMDs, he was wrong on "we'll be out of there in six months", he was wrong on the Saddam - 9/11 connection. Because of that their words have no credibility. Their approval rating is low 30's, so their words have lost their power. You have few friends in DC when your approval ratings are at toxic levels. Because I'm not a part of them, I have no influence. So I just tune them out. Incorrect and unimportant. Kind of like GregorHeavy, and now you.

I figured you out. You have Cheney on the brain much like the right has Clinton on the brain. It is the raw meat you need to sustain yourself, the thing that keeps you going. Not that you can change anything about it, what you say is going to have zero impact on what they think. And everybody here already hates them, so you're not going to change that either. The hate knob is already at 11. It's just your way of cheerleading, of group bonding, running around waving your hands in the air yelling at the top of your lungs, "CHENEY! CHENEY!". Heh.

The worst thing you can ever do to a politician is ignore them.

Look! Over there! Ohh, a shiny object...

Look! It's CHENEY! SADDAM IS DEAD! LET'S ARGUE ABOUT HIM!

Posted by: Swaggering JinGoistic RSM Goon on September 11, 2007 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

Classy to the finish.

Funny, Mike, that's what I was going to say about the free pass you give to the Bush Administration for, as you admit, lying us into the war.

Posted by: Gregory on September 11, 2007 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

Against my better judgment, because as I stated yesterday, I think Jingo lives for attention here he can't get elsewhere, I will address the breathtaking shallowness of this gem:

It matters a little but is headed towards meaningless that people thought Saddam was related to 9/11. He's dead, that Iraq is never coming back.

And yet this war, based on the very lie we're talking about, goes on and there are no good options before us
--because of that administration-sponsored lie. People continue to die, get maimed, be tortured and become refugees every day, and this administration and certain media outlets continue to sell the Saddam-9/11 connection and, most recently, flat-out lie about the significance of AQI without acknowledging that their own actions are what put AQ in Iraq to begin with.

The devastation coming out of this administration-sold deceit isn't over just because you finally figured out there are no WMDs and Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, although it would certainly be more convenient for your conscience to think so.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't acknowledge that the extent of the global damage from this propaganda is gigantic and has no end in sight? How self-delusional do you have to be to smarmily state that this little misunderstanding was over when Saddam's neck snapped? In the time it took you to type that, how many people died because of this "it only matters a little" mass deception?

Posted by: shortstop on September 11, 2007 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't acknowledge that the extent of the global damage from this propaganda is gigantic and has no end in sight? How self-delusional do you have to be to smarmily state that this little misunderstanding was over when Saddam's neck snapped? In the time it took you to type that, how many people died because of this "it only matters a little" mass deception?

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't acknowledge that figuring out whose fault it is in no way changes the situation as it stands? No matter how we got here, here is where we are? That playing woulda-shoulda-coulda is fine and dandy and fun finger pointing, but as someone who is in the military and has loads of friends deployed and sends others over there and other places, I am focused on the future. What to do now. How to unfuck the situation we are in. I'll leave you to argue endlessly over whether Saddam had Osama in his speed dialer or not.

Dems want to impeach him? Then do it. Get off your asses and just fucking do it. Start the process. Or STFU already. Complaining without action = whining, and there's a shitload of that going on here.

If you think that that is what will help move things forward from this point, if it will be a positive step, that it won't divert our energies away from the task at hand, the way Clinton's impeachment probably interfered with our fight against Al Qaeda. ...then have at it. Go after him, I could care less about either Bush or Cheney. If you think you'll be doing the country a favor by moving ahead with impeachment proceedings in the middle of the Iraq War and Afghanistan. But put up or shut up.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 11, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Caught in the inconsistency between his earlier hysteria that "How can having over 1/3rd of the electorate thinking 9/11 was an inside job NOT affect the government? Do you think these people set aside their monumental irrationality when they enter the voting booth or write letters to the editor or grab signs and picket?" and his later bemused dismissal that voter irrationality matters at all, how silly it all is, with "His propaganda is irrelevant. The ability of Presidents with 32% approval ratings to sell their stories is minute. I'm pretty sure the only people paying attention are Rush Limbaugh and the unswayables," Mike retreats to the claim that "It matters when it can affect what is going on....It matters a little but is headed towards meaningless that people thought Saddam was related to 9/11. He's dead, that Iraq is never coming back."

Of course, as Mike wells knows, the claim that Saddam was tied to September 11th does still affect what is going on because even know, years after the invasion, it is still being used by the Bush regime as a justification for our continued attack on and occupation of Iraq. Just last night Brit Hume mouthed his White-House coached words to get Petraues to claim that the Iraq War is really "more than anything else a War with al Qaeda."

This war, started in large part by the Bush-Cheney lie about Saddam, is ongoing. Iraqis and Americans are dying and being maimed in large numbers every single day because of that lie. The GOP clings to that lie every single day so it can keep having its shiny shiny war and not have to admit that it has plunged Iraq into a hell on earth. And defending that lie by dismissing it merely shows Mike up, once again, for the shallow, vain, irresponsible little man he is.


Posted by: Stefan on September 11, 2007 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

I am focused on the future. What to do now.

Pathetic. It's always the people who are the biggest fuck-ups who retreat to this excuse when all else fails. If someone who works for me screwed up a deal and, when I confronted him with that mistake, said hey, let's not focus on how I fucked up, let's focus on the future, I'd fire his ass that day because I'd realize that here was someone who was never going to learn from his mistakes, someone who was so pathologically invested in being right that he could never be trusted.

Posted by: Stefan on September 11, 2007 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, as Mike wells knows, the claim that Saddam was tied to September 11th does still affect what is going on because even know, years after the invasion, it is still being used by the Bush regime as a justification for our continued attack on and occupation of Iraq.

So what? How is that an argument about anything other than the history books? How does the answer change anything?

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 11, 2007 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

You just aren't capable of getting it, are you, Jingo? What we do now is certainly a major issue, but it's not the issue you were arguing. I was correcting the latest in your parade of outrageous misstatements. Freaking duh.

Let's review, and I'll type slowly so you might be able to follow along as you're searching for a new goalpost location. You claimed that the mass, government-created lie that started this war is meaningless because--you actually said this with a straight face--the guy it was about is dead. I'm explaining to your itty-bitty, self-centered consciousness that it's not over because in case you haven't noticed, Iraq is in fucking flames and there is no good outcome possible. There won't be any "unfucking up" as you continue to irrationally argue. The only possibility, the only one, is trying to choose the route that fucks up slightly less.

Do you get it now, moron?

It matters how this war started because continuing to lie about it is the basis for perpetuating it. It matters because acknowledging the reasons for this war are inextricably tied to what we do next. It matters because until jackasses like you figure out what you fell for and why, you'll continue to fall for it over and over (hello, Iran, for only one example). You don't prevent future crimes by pretending that the last ones never occurred. You don't change toxic foreign policy by glossing over towering idiocies like this.

You're worried about how cranks who think the Pentagon bombed itself will behave in the voting booth? How the hell do you think the entire nation and world feel about the likely voting patterns of purposeful self-deluders like you who'd rather see thousands more die than admit how it happened and acknowledge your own part in it?

You characterless, dishonorable fool.

Posted by: shortstop on September 11, 2007 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

If someone who works for me screwed up a deal and, when I confronted him with that mistake, said hey, let's not focus on how I fucked up, let's focus on the future, I'd fire his ass that day because I'd realize that here was someone who was never going to learn from his mistakes, someone who was so pathologically invested in being right that he could never be trusted.

Too fucking true. People like this are worthless employees, coworkers, citizens...and soldiers. Get them the hell out of the way so we can try to clean up their mess.

Posted by: shortstop on September 11, 2007 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

No matter how we got here, here is where we are? That playing woulda-shoulda-coulda is fine and dandy and fun finger pointing, but as someone who is in the military and has loads of friends deployed and sends others over there and other places, I am focused on the future. What to do now. How to unfuck the situation we are in.

Sorry, Mike, but given that you're also,/i> about giving a free pass to -- er, "not focusing on" -- the mendacity and incompetence of Party that you suppport that got us into this mess in the first place, your claims are unpersuasive.

The Republicans are bent, broken, fools with no credibility or honor (ah, no wonder you like them so much!), and anything other than "these jackesses aren't to be trusted with national security" is a nonstarter in terms of "unfucking this situation" (which, incidentally, can't be done, thanks to your boy Bush, and may the war's thousands of dead haunt your feeble, twisted, partisan concience).

It defies belief that you trust the lives of your friends deployed over there to the Party that's perfectly willing to sacrifice them on the altar of Bush's ego and the neocons' politial ambitions, but that you so clearly and unapologietically do so is reason enough not to take you seriously.

Posted by: Gregory on September 11, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't acknowledge that figuring out whose fault it is in no way changes the situation as it stands?

Because if no one is held accountable, we'll have another war just like this one. If no one is held accountable for their very serious and completely avoidable actions, we will repeat our mistakes and send thousands more Americans to die just like we did in Iraq.

Now, the Republicans love accountability. They held Clinton accountable for every single solitary thing that went wrong. But it's a dodge when Americans want to hold them accountable. They controlled all three branches of government. They ignored the advice of everyone around them. They ignored their own internal voices--you know, the one where Cheney in 1994 spells out the reasons, all of them good, why we should never have invaded Iraq. I don't have Cheney on the brain--I know the context of this argument backwards and forwards. I lived through the first and second Gulf Wars and the interim period of containment. I spent months studying these conflicts because it was my daily responsibility to know radar sites, troop dispensations, and roadways. I had to learn every single piece of Soviet-era radar and I had to learn all of the pieces sold on the black market that could be used to augment air defenses. Fuck off if you think there are people out there who don't know the brigade structure of every Republican Guard division that was created. Fuck off if you think there aren't people out here who had daily access to shit the rest of America never saw.

All you're doing is trying to avoid accountability for the disasterous war in Iraq. Why would you want to avoid accountability? Because it's going to lead to electoral defeat and the judgement of history.

And when the judgement of history is written, generations will view the Republican Party, and all of its members and supporters, in the first decade of this century, as a vile and pathetic betrayal of American values.

Bush is Hoover. Hoover haunted the Republican Party well into the 1960s. And that's why you people shit yourself with fear at the thought that we're not going to let you rewrite history and blame this shit on liberals.

Fuck your "classy" riposte. Classy is for pussies who won't stand up to idealogues and charlatans who want to question the patriotism of people who were right all along about this disasterous war.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 11, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't acknowledge that figuring out whose fault it is in no way changes the situation as it stands?

And another thing, Mike -- you and the dirty minions of the Party you carry water for have been preparign the Dolchstosslegende for months now. The GOP, in a desperate attempt to salvage its ruined branding effort on defense, is quite visibly preparing to claim that the chaos and carnage that'll occur in Iraq after Bush leaves office is the fault of the Democrats, handily ignoring the culpability of Bush's incompetence and the thousands of deaths and other waste that's already occurred, and more, employing the same bullshit propaganda assets -- yourself included -- that got this misbegotten war started in the first place.

Don't hand us that "let's not bicker and argue over 'oo killed 'oo" bullshit. The fact is, your people are at fault for this mess. Your people have blood on their hands, and are no longer to be trusted. And anyone who continues to carry water for the GOP is either a scoundrel or a fool.

Posted by: Gregory on September 11, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

OK, one of my posts was deleted. The thought police have spoken. No dissent allowed. Impressive.

[I have a no-three-peating yourself rule. Rephrasing a debunked argument in a more unhinged manner is not 'debate']

Posted by: SJRSM on September 11, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

No dissent allowed.

I love it how Mike equates "spewing debunked GOP propaganda" with "dissent."

Dissent implies honesty, Mike, a quality you and your fellow Rushlickers lack.

Posted by: Gregory on September 11, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

OK, one of my posts was deleted. The thought police have spoken. No dissent allowed. Impressive.

Maybe you'll have better luck posting on a winger site. Say, how many of them allow commentary these days, anyway? Of those, how many don't moderate? I can't seem to remember.

Posted by: shortstop on September 11, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Mod...
[I have a no-three-peating yourself rule. Rephrasing a debunked argument in a more unhinged manner is not 'debate']

My rule of thumb is "Tit for Tat". I show respect to posters at the beginning of the thread, and then respond in kind for follow-on posts, to include name calling and profanity. You might ask the "locals" to look in a mirror, or to evenly apply your standards.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 11, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

You might ask the "locals" to look in a mirror, or to evenly apply your standards.

You werent' being called on name-calling and profanity, jackass, but on rephrasing your debunked argument in a more unhinged manner. it isn't the mod's fault or ours that that's all you've got.

Oh, and Mike? Your deliberate obtuseness and intellectual dishonesty isn't "respect." Again, I know it's all you've got, but your bullshit gets the respect it deserves -- ripped into tiny, quivering shreds -- and if you want to play childish "tit for tat" namecalling games while your contentions go down in flames around you, weasel, then so be it.

Posted by: Gregory on September 11, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Your deliberate obtuseness and intellectual dishonesty isn't "respect."

Yeah, I note that most everyone here can easily deal with being called nasty names and sworn at; just about the only people who ever complain about this are wingers whose limp arguments are being torn apart: Jingo, Will Allen, John Hansen, ex-liberal, brian. Who else starts whimpering about a little salty language or rough handling when they're losing an argument?

It certainly does demonstrate a difference in mindsets when these fellows "debate" via moved goalpost, red herring, strawman, outright fabrication and/or screams of victimhood, then piously maintain that they're acting "respectfully" because their posts lack profanity. I don't suppose they'll ever get it, because their screens and scrims are designed to obscure what they're doing from themselves as well as from us.

Posted by: shortstop on September 11, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

You can call me all the fucking names you want--it's not like I care what anyone thinks. Hey, you want to comment in this place, get used to abuse. It's that simple. Quit falling down on the goddamned fainting couch when someone says something nasty. This is part and parcel of how we do business these days.

And So long as we're clear that "no one cares" about this whole Iraq-al Qaeda connection...

From the September 9 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

HUME: Juan, look at what's happening in Iraq. Al Qaeda is a Sunni operat -- organization. And which people in Iraq are turning against Al Qaeda? It's the Sunnis. Al Qaeda --

WILLIAMS: Brit, this is one limited area in Anbar --

HUME: Excuse me --

WILLIAMS: -- and we can't even afford to pull our forces out of Anbar because the progress there is so tenuous.

HUME: It isn't just in Anbar; it is elsewhere as well. The problem that Al Qaeda faces in any war of ideas is that it is a gang of mass murderers. That's what these people are. They offer nothing to the people of the world. And that is why what he [bin Laden] says in the tape is true: All these nations in the world are after them, they're on the run. They're not winning. They're not winning any war of ideas. The truth is, they really have no ideas.

WILLIAMS: Well, in fact, what we're seeing, and this is something that even what the 9-11 Commissioners say this morning in the paper, is that the war in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, creating this group Al Qaeda in Iraq where it might not otherwise exist. And so, therefore, what you're seeing is this propaganda effort continuing to grow.

HUME: That's the whole -- that's the whole argument that you've heard all along: You better not go and take these people on in any way because it only stirs them up and creates more of them. I don't buy it.

WILLIAMS: Well, that's not why we went to Iraq --

WILLIAM KRISTOL (Weekly Standard editor): Well, there were about 16 --

WILLIAMS: Remember we were going there after weapons of mass destruction? Remember we were going there to spread democracy?

HUME: We also were going there because we believed there was a terrorist connection and if the terrorists didn't care about Iraq --

WILLIAMS: And we never proved the terrorist connection, Brit.

HUME: Who are we fighting there now, Juan? Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were there before we got there, and they're there now.

WILLIAMS: We are overwhelmingly in the middle of a civil war between Shia and Sunni, and we have switched sides. Initially, we were supporting Shia and we thought that we could get a political structure of governance working -- which is why we had a surge -- to allow a government to take place, a successful government, and to allow the army and the police to stand up so we could stand out. And guess what? They haven't done any of that in the time the surge has been in place.

---------------
Now, why the fuck would he keep repeating that lie over and over and over again?

Why?

Because they have no decency. No shame. They know the war is lost, they know Bush is responsible, they know the Republican Party is doomed.

End of story.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 11, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

AQI was not in Iraq before we invaded.

AQI has, estimated, less than a thousand members.

AQI is not operationally linked to any other al Qaeda entity.

AQI is responsible for 5% of the total attacks in Iraq.

But if you repeat a lie to the American people often enough, roughly 30 percent of them will believe it, I guess.

But who cares, right? Who cares who dodges accountability, lies about how things came about, and who cares if a generation of Republicans are trying to escape culpability for this disaster? It's not like any Republicans have died in Iraq or anything, right? It's all been "poor people" and "people of color" who have done the dying, not those rich donors to the Republican Party or their sons and daughters.

Heavens, no! Couldn't have that now, could we? So keep telling the lies. Dodge the accountability. Run like a screaming bitch from the truth.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 11, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider
Waaaaahhh....

Fine. Want him fired? Think that is what the country needs right now? Impeach him. Get on with it. Think it will help the dems get back the WH? Smart political move with elections in a year? Don't expect blowback like the repubs saw when they impeached Clinton? Think it will help ongoing ops in Iraq? Is it really for the good of the country and not just to punish Bush? Do you even think you have a snowball's chance in hell of actually uprooting him? Then do it. Stop the endless whining and do it. Do it!

The dems lack the courage of their convictions. They'll never do it. They'll just sit around posting impotent rants ad nauseum. Fine. Harmless that way.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 11, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Where did I talk about impeachment, dumbass?

I want him there, front and center, until January 20, 2009, as the living embodiment of the Republican Party and all that it stands for, so that the American people can see him and his cronies for what they are:

Despicable.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Hilarious. What YOU want is for Bush/Cheney to disappear so that their incompetence can no longer be the issue. YOU want them off the stage so that their mistakes, lies, and failures can be swept under the rug so that you can continue to try to say that this is some sort of bogus bi-partisan failure.

Forget it.

Nah, keep them there. Put them on TV every day, saying "we're kicking ass in Iraq" and "we're seeing the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency" so that the American people can get a cold, hard dose of reality and a bitter, bitter taste of the medicine that goes with voting for Republicans.

Keep them on the stage. Shine the lights down upon them. Let them have their 8 years of unprecendented incompetence and let no American forget how these people betrayed the military, abused the trust the people, governed only in the interests of a small slice of craven contributors, abandoned every principle of Reagan, Goldwater, Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt, shamed themselves with their horrendous hypocrisy about family values, and allowed their willful incompetence to actually drown and kill their fellow citizens.

Put up a big poster. Put a light on it. Let no one forget what happens when a Republican is allowed to run this country.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 11, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Mike is really unhinged when he confuses Pale Rider with the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

But I'd disagree with Mike's implication that impeachng Bush and/or Cheney would result in the blowback that the GOP's bullshit impeachment of Clinton did. As PR said, the American people -- those not afflicted with terminal cognitive dissonance like ol' Mikey, anyway -- recognize the nigh-criminal incomepetence and mencadicty of Bush and Cheney.

If I could rule out their launching yet another disastrous war, this time with Iran, I'd agree with Pale Rider that they should remain as millstones around the necks of the Republican Party. While that'd do to have loyal Americans turn away in disgust, it's a true pity that some, like Mike, embrace their disgrace.

Posted by: Gregory on September 11, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

I want him there, front and center, until January 20, 2009, as the living embodiment of the Republican Party and all that it stands for, so that the American people can see him and his cronies for what they are:

That is the first realistic thing you or any number of other posters here have said. I think you're in the minority on it too. Contrast that with Stefan's "I'd fire his ass that day" comment, to name one.

And you know who would be President if Bush was kicked out.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 11, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

And you know who would be President if Bush was kicked out.

Yes, there would be a concurrent impeachment of the Vice President and the President.

The Vice President would be impeached FIRST. The Democrats would essentially allow the Republicans to nominate an acceptable candidate for Vice President, subject to Congressional approval.

[I think they'd have to pick John Warner.]

Bush would then be impeached; Warner would then pick a Vice President.

[I think he would have to pick Dick Lugar.]

Tell me how Warner and Lugar running this country would be a bad thing.

And quit putting words in my goddamned mouth. And quit thinking you won something today--you should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 11, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

And quit putting words in my goddamned mouth.

I'll stop if you stop. And you do it every time you call me a winger shill, etc.. You think the stuff I wrote would be welcomed at a winger site? They're worse then you moonbats.

Warner's a good choice, but I prefer McCain.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 11, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Dude, the shit you write constitutes 90% of what's on the winger sites because they have started to scrub the racist/anti-semitic/anti-arab shit from their sites.

McCain demonstrated today why he can't lead this country. Reality left that man a long time ago.

And it would be nice to hear people say it:

Kerry was right.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 11, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

It isn't just Bush and Cheney who will be humiliated in the history books, who are a worldwide grim joke already. But I understand why Jingo wants to frame it as "so impeach Bush, then!"

Because it's much easier than facing the fact that Jingo's own credibility, his own judgment, his own lack of critical thinking skills, his own crappy analysis and his own moral bankruptcy are on display here and everywhere he opens his yap to defend the beginning, middle and continuation of this war.

Making sure there's full accountability for this disaster--and thus preventing more like it, and more administrations like this one--means calling on the carpet not just the Bush administration, but every dumb saber rattler who helped make it happen, helped prolong it and is still making excuses for it. Of course Jingo wants to pretend this war magically began today. Of course he wants to look forward and pretend he doesn't know how we got here. As if his judgment is any better looking forward--he advocates the same ludicrous course he's always advocated. Doing the same dumb thing 1,000 times, hoping to get a different result the 1,001st.

Stop thinking you can salvage your mistakes by repeating them and wishing hard, Jingo. Geez, lab rats learn a hell of a lot faster than you. Like Bush's--and McCain's; that boy never learns from his giant pile of mistakes, either--your credibility on this war and on political candidates is completely gone. You're a sad joke now. Deal with it.

Posted by: shortstop on September 11, 2007 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

And you do it every time you call me a winger shill, etc.. You think the stuff I wrote would be welcomed at a winger site?

While the dishonesty of right-winger sites is legendary, Mike, it's you who display your dishonesty and dishonor here, and you're judged, quite rightly, by your lack of credibility, lack of humility and lack of shame.

If you object to being known as a winger shill, Mike, it's easy -- don't post as a winger shill. Not calling your betters "moonbat" as your sole remaining retort among the smoking ruin of your contentions might be a start.

But we've already seen that cognitive dissonance prevents you from confronting your long history of error and dishonesty in service of this terrible Administration. You do shill for them, Mike, and it's beyond pathetic that you whine about it.

There are honest conservatives, Mike. That you aren't among them is hardly the worst indictment of your haracter; you do yourself much more harm in threads like these. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on September 11, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

I do have to admit, however, that I am a moron and say a lot of stupid things. My apologies to all the right wing posters I have offended. I promise to better, but expect I will fail because I'm just not a good person.

[SJRSM , handle spoofing will get you banned - mod.]

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 5:07 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