There's nothing in that quote you cite that suggests he was welcoming a nuclear attack. There's certainly no comparability with Robertson's remark. It is jarring to read the quote and learn that the audience found it funny, however.

It seems to me more significant that Bolton is continuing to misuse an Obama quote for fearmongering.

This is the great schadenfreude of the GOP -- an attack on the USA would justify their righteous anger -- put these sickos on a lie detector and each one of them would hope it happens... not fear it, hope for it.

This is the great schadenfreude of the GOP -- an attack on the USA would justify their righteous anger -- put these sickos on a lie detector and each one of them would hope it happens... not fear it, hope for it.

Re CPAC - Michele Bachman, Michael Steele, Josh Bolton, Joe the plumber, what does that remind you of - the inmates are running the asylum.With Jindal in charge and these people in the party how's that for a republican govt?

These people focus their fear and loathing on big blue cities that freaking subsidize their little red towns. I'd like to see how long "Real America" could last without us propping them up.

Having said that, I agree that Bolton's remark was in no way comparable to Robertson's or O'Reilly's. He's melodramatically fearmongering, but not openly wishing as Robertson and O'Reilly were.

Does this kind of rhetoric remind anyone else of the rehearsal and escalation of hate? What scares me is that someone in that audience, or watching, will begin to feel justified in gunning down the president (few of us say it out loud, but I know we all worry about the possibility).

"I find it hard to believe Bolton sincerely wants to see Chicago hit by a nuclear strike,"

I find it hard to believe that you find that hard to believe. John Bolton is a sick, sick man. Scruples are beyond him.

I agree, it's a bit of a dishonest stretch to compare this asinine Bolton remark in the same post with O'Reilly and Robertson's remarks.

That said, what the hell is up with the old administration's discretion? They didn't have any before, come to think of it. But a new Republican administration would go apoplectic about anti-patriotism, if outgoing democrats were promising demise on America. America voted assholes. Fear mongering doesn't work as well, anymore!

This morning I turned on NPR's "Morning Edition" to hear Fox News employee and partisan Republican Mara Liasson's glowing, jovial story about this conference.

This was followed by various stories about Obama's budget, DC voting rights legislation, etc.

In each and every case, the story lead with a Republican, giving the Republican view of the issue.

The Democratic view of each issue was primarily represented by Republicans giving their view of the Democratic position. Republicans were consistently portrayed as "principled" and Democrats consistently portrayed as politically motivated.

As far as I can tell, NPR's news operation has become an extension of Fox News: corporate-sponsored right-wing partisan Republican propaganda masquerading as "journalism", with the only difference being that it is presented in a manner crafted to be more "palatable" to well-off suburban audiences.

No doubt Liasson thought this was a sign of enthusiasm:

As Steele concluded his remarks, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann -- the event's moderator -- told Steele he was "da man."

"Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man," she said.

i once described an acquaintance as "not lock-up-able crazy, but if she were locked up, she'd have a hard time talking anyone into letting her out."
that goes double for john bolton.

Vicki, it is still the case that conservatives indulge in brinkmanship about "taste" in referring to nuclear attack on the USA, but rail against liberals if the latter should slip. But your attention to the side issue is a good point.

BTW I don't recall you here before; if you're new, welcome to the sharp crew.

By the way, Bolton took Obama's "tiny" quote out of context. He's not only joking about domestic terrorism and the death of millions; he's lying about it, too.

Oh, wait...

David W: Urp, that's a literal quote - not a line from an SNL parody of the new Refunklicans trying to be down hip with the brothers and sisters?!

It physically pains me to hear Michele Bachmann speak. That goes for da man, too.

Some of the comments here are truly baffling to me. NPR as an extension of Fox News? Bolton truly wanting to see millions incinerated? Blue States propping up Red States? What has gotten into you people? Take a few deep breaths. Yes, you won the election. That means you can stop the paranoid fantasies about a right-wing takeover. You may also want to get used to tolerating the opposition. I seem to remember something about "dissent being the highest form of patriotism". Well maybe that only counts for the "Good Party" and not the "Evil Party." Believe it or not, Bolton is allowed to dissent. If his statement provoked laughs, that's unfortunate, but probably more of an indication that even the alarmist right doesn't really believe we will see an American city vanish in a mushroom cloud any time soon. But when (not "if" as many experts seem to dread) it does happen, I hope a president that is hated by the media is in the Oval Office. Wasn't it FDR that sent all those Japanese (oh right, I forgot, they were Americans) to concentration camps after Pearl Harbor? The real threat isn't the poor taste of Bolton's comments-- it's that we've elected a cipher at a time when millions can die in an instant.

Hmmm.... don't think that these people wouldn't genuinely welcome a mushroom cloud over Detroit?

Remember that Israeli Mossad agents danced and sang as they filmed the towers going down on 9-11. [fact] When one of the agents was asked a few years later 'why were you there?' on an Israeli tv show, he responded "We were there to film the destruction of the towers". [fact]

Now consider the linkage between the necons and Israel... and be afraid, be very afraid.

terrence, pick a fucking handle and stay with it.

Obama a Cypher?

BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA

terrance, thanks for my morning laugh!

Projecting IS really near and dear to the republican heart.

Thank you for the welcome, Neil B. I've been reading here for a few months and find it an incredibly valuable source for keeping up with the political news in a pro-Obama kind of way.

The reason I feel it necessary to correct what I see as a misconstruing of the Bolton remark is not of course because I want to give Bolton the benefit of the doubt but because I feel that as the reality-based community we need to not fall in to the same patterns that the conservatives do of seeing things that are not there just because it suits our views. Whatever Bolton's actual feelings about a nuclear attack may be, he didn't suggest that he wanted to see one in that quote.

Let's keep our wits about us when we confront these people. Its to our benefit.

Bolton is the "threat to our nation". What a fantastic asshole!

(I also shudder to think what the reaction would be if, say, a prominent official from a Democratic administration appeared at the Take Back America conference and joked about a nuclear attack on an American city.)

Pick one at random, say, Dallas?

Believe it or not, Bolton is allowed to dissent

No one is suggesting he can't dissent, you're just wasting words to hear yourself talk. Bolton is, however, continuing the right-wing fantasy of wishing and hoping for an attack on U.S. soil to "prove" that he and Republicans were "right:"

"McCain Adviser: Another Attack on U.S. Would Be "Big Advantage" For McCain"

"Santorum Suggest New Terror Attacks Will Change View Of War: Former Senator predicts "unfortunate events" within a year that will alter perceptions" (2007)

"A Republican State Party Chairman Wishes More Terrorist Attacks on U.S. to Prove George W. Bush "Right" (2005)

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country

"Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo–Con Agenda"

Et al. Hoping for terrorist attacks or that the economy will fail so that you can pursue your own pet ideological projects -- scenarios wherein many Americans will suffer or die -- isn't patriotism, it's sedition.

Blue States propping up Red States? -terrence

It's a simple fact. Look at returns per dollar of federal taxes.

Now, granted, the old 'red state, blue state' dynamic is probably too antiquated after Obama kicked your asses in some of those 'red states,' but the point still stands that overwhelmingly liberal, urban states subsidize more conservative, rural states.

Illinois gets $0.78 in return for every federal tax dollar, California gets $0.80, New York gets $0.82. Where does the rest of those dollars go?

Alabama gets $1.63 back for every federal tax dollar collected, Alaska gets $1.83, Mississippi gets $2.02.

Take a few deep breaths. -terrence

I would suggest you do the same, and then follow that up with a few Googles, lest you say something stupid and remove all doubt.

Oh. Too late.

Bolton doesn't actually want Chicago nuked.

On the other hand, he desperately wants to be acknowledged as being correct on the extent of the Iranian threat. Which a nuke in Chicago would, tragically, do.

What's more disturbing is that the idea of Obama being proven so catastrophically wrong was greeted with laughter and applause by the audience. I'm sure that no more than one or two of them would actually be willing to lose Chicago to prove Bolton right, but the thought of Obama getting a comeuppance was certainly titillating to them.

The idea of being right is so alluring to them that they engage in lurid fantasies about it. Do they really want those fantasies to come true? Well, no. Only sort of.

They are not well, psychologically.

Blue States propping up Red States?

Ahem.

Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot that the tax thing was a fact provable by numbers and statistics -- you don't do facts, do you?

"Ya be da Man"

Sounds as though Michelle was trying to get out of the ladies room at the Union Station in KC, so she could re-board the "Silver Streak" and crash into the old Dearborn Station.

So does John Bolton and the other neocons actually believe that Iran would spend billions on an R&D program to build and deploy an ICBM or two, armed with nuclear warheads, that could reach the United States?

And then use them?

Iran is a "tiny" threat compared to the Soviet Union. Iran has no nuclear weapons, no HEU to build a single Atom Bomb, no delivery system other than boat to get an atomic bomb into the US.

They also are fairly rational, they have no interest in living in the 14th century like the Taliban.

So they have no offensive weapons, and no desire to use an offensive weapon against the US anywhere in the world, most particularly inside the US. The existential threat from Iran is exactly zero. They do threaten Middle East peace, but Bolton and Bush were as much a threat as Iran.

So they have no offensive weapons... -tomj

I wouldn't say they have 'no offensive weapons.' Perhaps their greatest weapon is the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which most Middle Eastern oil is shipped, using various types of short range missiles which they've tested as recently as the summer of 2008.

At the very least, this would represent a nearly immediate 10% drop in the world's oil supply.

Doubtful:

Yes indeed, Iran could close off the Strait of Hormuz, making things much more difficult for much of the world. But given that their own well-being depends on payments for that oil, they would probably close only in extremis, and very quickly re-open the Strait.

Vicky and Biggerbox:

Thank you for your comments about Bolton and the CPAC folk. I agree that they don't seriously want Chicago to be nuked. What concerns me is that they seem to seriously believe that Iran represents a very real existential threat to the U.S. That Iran is at this very moment actively working towards nuclear capability, solely for the purpose of nuking a U.S. city. It's reminiscent of the smoking gun leading to the mushroom cloud statement that Condy made in the ramp-up to the Iraq war, and, IMHO, an equally faulty assumption.

I feel sorry for Bolton, the CPAC, and the like, because they are obviously so filled with fear that it seriously interferes with their ability to process reality. Their lives must be miserable. But I also worry for the rest of us, since the mighty Wurlitzer magnifies their ability to influence U.S. policy, based upon their fears.

God Help Us........ since the MESSIAH is our PRESIDENT. Look what he has done in the 30 days he has been president. SPENT MORE MONEY THAN ANY PRESIDENT ON RECORD.... AND THE DOW HAS DROPPED MORE THAN A 1000 POINTS SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE. LOTS OF STUFF THAT HE IS TRYING TO PASS IS SCARRY, SCARRY, SCARRY. GOD HELP US. HE IS GOING TO BANKRUPT THIS COUNTRY AND IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR WE WILL BE IN A DEPRESSION. HOW SAD THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE LOST OVER 60% OF OUR 401K'S AND WE WERE READY TO RETIRE IN LESS THAN A YEAR.
I AM REALLY PISSED BECAUSE ALL OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE DEMS WOULD HAVE LISTENED WHEN THEY WERE TOLD THAT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC WAS IN THE RED, BUT THE DEMS (liberals) wouldn't listen, so this is what we get. I DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL.....

Gee, an all caps post from-----the right. Bolton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, all from the same mold. Loonies on the left--Retards on the right. Someone ought to jumble the postings from ultra liberal-ultra conservative sites and make them even funnier than they are now.

Blue states propping up Red states-- my point wasn't that this isn't factually accurate; I was just surprised that you would slice and dice statistics to pit Red States against Blue states. We did this kind of thing before and a lot of Americans died, though it did end positively, with a Republican President freeing the slaves.

I typed in one post before bed (hence the silly mistake with "cipher") and I get called stupid for my trouble. Anyone want to see my college transcripts? I bet they're better than a lot of people posting-- maybe better than Obama's, though I can't be sure because he won't release them.

Again, on the "provable by numbers and statistics" thing, let me note that I wish the political debate in this country was limited by such things. Instead, you get a president who claims in front of a joint session of Congress that there were no "earmarks" in the stimulus bill and he isn't shredded by the media. Please, no responses explaining what an "earmark" is, etc. I know Obama's brand of bullshit here, but I'm afraid most Americans don't know they're being lied to.

I usually don't waste my time with posts like this, but sometimes I can't help myself, and when I read that response above about how the Joooos knew all about 9/11, I knew I was in familiar territory. Please, be aware that all the evils in the world were not caused by the Joooos and GOP. They weren't caused by the Commies or the Abortionists either (if you favor those characterizations). They were caused, I believe, caused when free people gave up their responsibility to stand up for what is right, when they passed on this responsibility to others, and eventually suffered dearly for it. I belive we have done this with Obama, and I hope our system can repair the damage before we go much further down the road.

No, I don't believe he's a secret Muslim, or he has some plan to destroy America, but I do believe he wasn't properly vetted, and it scares the crap out of me.

One other thing-- my nose hairs curl whenever I hear calls for us to adhere to "reality" while out opponents prefer to ignore it. Why does this trope always get rolled out? Quit trying to demonize the the other side. Half of the country is Red and half is Blue. Each side, except for the minority of nut jobs on both sides (like the assholes who think the Joooos knocked down the Towers) love their country.

Bolton may offend many people on the left, but posting a snippit from Youtube and claiming he wants to see Chicago nuked just so he can feel better about himself is insanity. Too me, watching this video and claiming Bolton wants to vaporize Chicago is as moronic as Googling "Jooos responsible for 911" and then claiming that the Mossad flew drones into the Towers.

Also, on the "attacking fellow Americans" front, how many of you Lefties cut Michael Moore out of your lives when you read his famous quote on how Al Qaeda should have attacked Red states instead of Blue? I thought so. The only reason this quote has attracted your attention was because it was made by a Republican. But when Obama says that his grandmother is a "typicall white person," doesn't cause a flutter, but when McCain refers to "that one" at a debate we get an avalanche of outrage. Or when Biden claims FDR was president in 1929 and went on TV to calm the country. Do I need to continue...

Please be cordial in any responses. I would prefer not to field any more ad hominem attacks. Also, I'm not Jewish, though sometimes I wish I was, cause it would further separate me from some of the assholes posting on this web site.

Please be cordial in any responses. I would prefer not to field any more ad hominem attacks. Also, I'm not Jewish, though sometimes I wish I was, cause it would further separate me from some of the assholes posting on this web site.

Priceless juxtaposition of sentences.

I wasn't writing about a specific poster, so I didn't consider it a personal attack. Also, I guess I make an exception when it comes to anti-semitic conspiracy nuts.

Why don't you comment on some of the arguments in the post?

I thought so.

Why don't you comment on some of the arguments in the post?

What arguments? You haven't said anything substantive beyond vague condescending scolding and poorly articulated personal beliefs. Boiling it down, your main thrust seems to be that you think lefties are unfair in their characterizations of Republicans, to which you've offered some weak anecdotal counterexamples as "proof."

Are you possibly related to Red State Mike?

Yes, Bolton may "offend many people on the left." Why? It's not because of his table manners or funny moustache. It's because he is lying fucking warmongering conscienceless asshole with an imperialism complex who would do anything to start wars with people who not only have not attacked us, but are no threat to us.

You can indulge yourself in your little self-created solipsism where Republicans have been just as sweet as pie over the last eight years -- hell, fourteen years...or you can use some modest mental effort to address the actual concerns of liberals and the real reasons they feel the way they do and why they might feel the need to mock John Bolton, who in a sane world be answering questions before a judicial body.

Also: saying that Obama is "lying" to the people by saying there is no earmarks in the bill is ridiculous. The goddamm thing is posted on the web for anyone to read, and the specific measures in it have been debated on TV ad nauseam.

What's ridiculous is that you're here scolding everyone for allegedly engaging in hyperbole clearly abusing it with all of your "Obama is going to destroy us" language.

Fuck. You. You. Peabrain.

Terrence -- it's Friday night -- go out and get laid.

Oh I'm sorry, was that not cordial? How ungracious of me.

It's not Friday night on Terrence's continent.

actually, it's saturday morning here.

Actually, I didn't argue that Obama is going to destroy us; quite the opposite-- you should read my post again.

Again with the "peabrain" thing again. Why is it that Republicans are stupid in addition to being evil? Remember all the "Stupid White Men" that Moore wrote about? Are they still stupid now that they wholeheartedly put Obama in office, or are they smart now?

Look my point on the stimulus package is that touting the fact that it doesn't have earmarks in it is ludicrous given the huge tidal wave of pork that thing is going to swamp the economy with.

OK, want an argument? How about I argue that if you feel Blue States deserve some special consideration because they are shouldering more of the tax burden than Red States, then perhaps the top 5% of taxpayers should receive similar consideration. What do you think?

"...Why is it that Republicans are stupid in addition to being evil." Terrance @ 9:06 PM.
Genetic?

Again with the "peabrain" thing again. Why is it that Republicans are stupid in addition to being evil?

I dunno: inbreeding?

In all seriousness, the peabrain remark was used to denote the bland stupidity of your arguments. It was nothing personal.

Are they still stupid now that they wholeheartedly put Obama in office, or are they smart now?

Uh, I have a feeling the particular demographic Moore is pinpointing in his book are, in general, NOT the ones who voted for Obama.

But that's another example of the aforementioned stupidity: fuzzy thinking and conflation of unrelated data sets.

Look my point on the stimulus package is that touting the fact that it doesn't have earmarks in it is ludicrous given the huge tidal wave of pork that thing is going to swamp the economy with.

Firstly, fiscal stimulus in the form of jobs programs doesn't "swamp" an economy: by definition it "stimulates" it and gets money flowing.

There's an example of that hyperbole and loaded language while pretending to appear high-minded that I mentioned earlier.

Secondly, your explanation of what you meant by Obama telling "lies" to the American people flies in the face of your actual remark, which calls Obama a bullshitter and a liar and says nothing about concern for pork swamping the economy.

And as for the "joo" thing that you seem to have hung so much of your tiny little hat on? Why don't you google the archives of this blog and see if it's representative. It's not. In fact, it is exceedingly rare as comments like those are virtually unheard of here.

How about I argue that if you feel Blue States deserve some special consideration because they are shouldering more of the tax burden than Red States, then perhaps the top 5% of taxpayers should receive similar consideration. What do you think?

Well I don't feel that way. No one here does. So when you try and build an argument around a strawman you really have no place to go, do you?

No one here remotely claimed Blue States should get any special consideration. Are you on some sort of medication that would perhaps conjure up that hallucination for you?

Red state wingnuts have spent eight years calling those in the Blue states "unamerican" or not "real" Americans (Sarah Palin) and traitors and troop haters and Bush haters. Over the years many of them have come to this blog frequently to convey that message in person, in fact.

Someone made the simple point that many of these bozos rely on the largesse of the economic engine that lies largely in the Bluer states, all the while deriding us as the ones who are "socialists" or not "hard working."

Yeah, you waded in way over your head and you got nothing. Sorry. But I'm certainly game to continue.

Actually, I didn't argue that Obama is going to destroy us; quite the opposite-- you should read my post again.

Here's what you wrote:

"The real threat isn't the poor taste of Bolton's comments-- it's that we've elected a cipher at a time when millions can die in an instant."

"No, I don't believe he's a secret Muslim, or he has some plan to destroy America, but I do believe he wasn't properly vetted, and it scares the crap out of me."

Yes, Obama's secret plant won't destroy us but his inexperience will. Sure, you make condescending noises that "most" right-wingers aren't afraid of mushroom clouds -- then turn right around and say Obama being unable to protect us against mushroom clouds is the "real" threat.

That's what is called being "mealy-mouthed."

I know, I know: I'm sure you meant something entirely other than what you wrote. Have you considered taking composition classes to hone your communications skills?

>

if you think the stimulus bill wasn't loaded with pork, then you aren't reading the newspapers

>

this doesn't make any sense to me, but let me repeat my original point-- Obama was bullshitting America by claiming the stimulus bill didn't have any earmarks in it, sort of like when Bill bullshitted Hillary about not having "sex with that woman" because all he did was fuck her with cigars and get sucked off. I'm not really hung up on the Clinton sex thing; more concerned about the fact that he was disbarred after being convicted of a felony, but that is another can of worms I really shouldn't have opened.

>

this is my first visit to this site, and I immediately noted the anti-semitic 911 troofer above. please re-read the string

>

again re-read the string above. i'm not going to bother pasting in the post i was referring to. my point was that its silly to start separating different parts of the country against eachother-- blue versus red, etc. It's about as unfair, I believe, as it is targeting the top 5% of wage earners in the country, which already pay about 60% of the taxes. On the hallucination thing, I'm not mentally ill, but I know people who are. I don't think it's anything to laugh about and I don't know what it has to do with the argument at hand.

On my communication skills, I make my living vetting communications with the public-- and I made $275,000 last year. See that's who I am, and you're... what exactly?

find it hard to believe Bolton sincerely wants to see Chicago hit by a nuclear strike

You have a great and generous spirit. Personally I see no reason not to take Bolton at his word.

The Internet Said It
I Believe It
And That Settles It

i'm not going to bother pasting in the post i was referring to

Yes, it's so much effort to scroll up the page.

my point was that its silly to start separating different parts of the country against eachother-- blue versus red, etc. It's about as unfair, I believe, as it is targeting the top 5% of wage earners

And I think it's about as unfair as accusing lefties of being paranoid, Jew-hating, Michael Moore-loving, promoters of the potential destruction of society by voting for Obama.

But what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

The top 5% of wage earners have been targeted by every tax this country has levied since Lincoln, whose politics bore no resemblance to the bigoted money-grubbing corporatist party that is the Republicans today. In fact, as I pointed out in another thread today, the original idea being taxation was that the average worker and certainly the poor would never have to pay, struggling as they already were to get by.

The wealthy, on the other hand, can afford to pay taxes and not only eat and have homes but can still enjoy many luxuries, while enjoying a disproportionate measure of protection the country affords, which is the idea behind progressive taxation and comes from none other than Adam Smith.

Originally only the richest 1% paid income tax, but that reality has been a victim of mission creep. It doesn't matter what the top wage earners pay, what matters is what Warren Buffet pointed out: his secretary pays almost double the tax rate that he does, and at $30,000 a year she can ill afford it.

When the richest few percent control 40% or so of the wealth, I have a feeling they'll be doing OK if Obama's plan to have them pay 3% more sees fruition.

I'm not really hung up on the Clinton sex thing; more concerned about the fact that he was disbarred after being convicted of a felony, but that is another can of worms I really shouldn't have opened.

What that really is is an attempt at tough talk to distract from the humiliating rebuttals you've endured, otherwise known as false bravado.

On my communication skills, I make my living vetting communications with the public-- and I made $275,000 last year. See that's who I am, and you're... what exactly?

Someone with superior debating and analytical skills, obviously. Is that where you feel the need to go with this now that you've gotten your rhetorical ass kicked, to the world of college transcripts and pay stubs? Unfortunately, whatever they might say they don't reflect your performance here today. Your comments here have been a morass of half-thought-out condescending remarks poorly disguised as arguments.

Your condescension was not backed up by your abilities, sadly for you. Perhaps you'll tread more carefully next time.

Also, feel free to give your employer my contact information. Apparently I'm pretty good at this communications stuff.