Snow Declares Resurgence of Taliban ‘Predictable,’ Bush Previously Said It Was ‘No Longer…In Existence’
Snow Declares Resurgence of Taliban ‘Predictable,’ Bush Previously Said It Was ‘No Longer…In Existence’
This afternoon on CNN Late Edition, White House Press Secretary repeatedly claimed that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan was entirely predictable:
BLITZER: Let’s move on and talk about some other issues. I know your time is limited. Afghanistan. Is the Taliban making a serious comeback right now?
SNOW: I think what the Taliban is doing — and it’s predictable — is that they are trying to test in the south, where the U.S. forces are handing over to NATO…But A, it’s predictable, and B, in the encounters, as you know, the Taliban fighters have overwhelmingly been losing. Now, I think it is predictable…you can expect there to be pushback by the Taliban.
One person who didn’t predict this is President Bush. Here is what he had to say about the Taliban in September 2004:
And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.) In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you’re saying, and you better mean what you say.
The resurgence of the Taliban was not predicted by this administration. It is a consequence of shifting resources to Iraq before the mission in Afghanistan was completed.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hard to get that “spin” just right without a teleprompter…
June 18th, 2006 at 6:45 pmI think Snowflake needs a vacation already. The predictable resurgence of the non-existent Taliban? Surely he talked to his boss…?
June 18th, 2006 at 6:53 pm/sarcasm off
Judd, we have as many soldiers in Afghanistan now as we did back then. What’s the real beef here? The UN presence in Afghanistan is failing is it? The NATO force is failing us? Of course, the only criticism is directed the Bush administration. I guess it’s not the job of anyone else to try and predict the future and deal with world problems. Hindsight is wonderful isn’t it?
June 18th, 2006 at 6:53 pmUnfortunately, the answers from the White House are all too predictable: “stay the course” in Iraq, blame the media and the Democrats/liberals and focus on gay marriage.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:10 pmPlease, will you liberals stop attacking this man He has recovered for a grave personal inllness. There is a “law of liberal infallibility” that prevents you from attacking this man, so please live up to the rules.
-GSD
June 18th, 2006 at 7:15 pmSeixon, don’t you have some wooden shoes to cobble?
-GSD
June 18th, 2006 at 7:17 pmWe need to take up a collection for GSD’s “inllness.” Please give generously. ;)
June 18th, 2006 at 7:21 pmWhen the Shiites Rise, Vali Nasr, From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2006
Summary: By toppling Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has liberated and empowered Iraq’s Shiite majority and has helped launch a broad Shiite revival that will upset the sectarian balance in Iraq and the Middle East for years to come.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:31 pmClearly it is Mr. Snow’s job to make this all look like issue of incompetence.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:42 pmIn no way are any of these “mistakes”, or misteps, or miscalculations done intentionally. No way. They wouldn’t do that.
Actually, it is the job of the military commanders to predict these things.
The reason it is Bush’s fault is because he didn’t listen to the military Leaders when they told him this would happen.
You are stupid.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:42 pmHow many more weeks will it be before Fox/Saudi News reject Tony Snowjob completely loses what little credibility he has?
June 18th, 2006 at 7:49 pmSeixon inquires “What’s the real beef here.”? Could it be that Afghanistan is experiencing serious problems, despite the fact that, unlike Iraq, the Afghans welcomed the Americans as liberators? Last May, in Kabul, a serious traffic accident involving a military truck led to rioting in the streets. During the rioting, an interpreter working alongside an American reporter overheard a middle aged woman say “We don’t want their help. We want them to go away and leave us alone. We don’t want their progress or their development. We would rather stay in the ruins just like we were before.” The few jobs that are to be had in Afghanistan belong to those who can speak English and can work with a computer. Most of the inhabitants of this country are dirt poor and resent the fact that their society, as they see it, is being supplanted by Western culture. So many Americans do not seem able to grasp the fact that Iraqis and Afghanis, as well as other countries in the world, do not view Americans as being benevolent, especially when they attempt to force democracy upon them at the point of a gun. As this angry Afghan woman has tried to point out, their fervent wish and desire, like the Iraqis, is for the Americans to stop occupying their country, pack up their military vehicles and go home.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:50 pmMammy T,
Seixon, don’t you have some wooden shoes to cobble?
Was that an attempt at an ethnical slur? Huh? WTF are you talking about?
Erroll,
We forced all those millions of Afghanis and Iraqis to the polls at the point of a gun? Wow, I guess Bush really can get things done! I mean, you’d almost think you’d have seen coverage of this on the news, a massive operation that should have taken at least 1 million troops to carry out.
Or maybe, just maybe, your Afghani woman has been selectively chosen (or fabricated) to give the message you want to hear, while the vast majority of her country willingly and voluntarily participated in democracy.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:00 pmNo mention of the massive DRUG problem ?
June 18th, 2006 at 8:13 pmYou know how thw taliban are getting there funds from.
From a recent Times of London article:
Heckofa democracy we’ve got there!
June 18th, 2006 at 8:14 pmIn other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you’re saying, and you better mean what you say.
Around the corner, of the course, look, see, I mean what I say, we will not use the troops for nation building. I predict the course is predictable, I think it’s predictable. Corners are predictable if you stay that course, understand?
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” –G.W.B, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
June 18th, 2006 at 8:17 pm“The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany.” —George W. Bush, D.C., May 5, 2006
I hear Norway is next on the list to get some Bush Afghan Iraqi style Democracy.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:24 pmThe purpose of this and other Blog sites, as viewed from my narrow aspect, is admittedly multifaceted, but ultimately the primary function is to stimulate comments, as opposed to debate, that expands the point of view of the the original poster. I say comment as opposed to debate because generally there is no true debate, there is just “position taking” and “name calling.” Actually, there is some value in the “name calling” because we all learn something new to call the next stupid SOB that doesn’t agree with our particular taken position. I read probably every posting and most of the comments numbered less than fifty or so. I respond to a few, positively or negatively, and reflect seriously on those comments submitted by those participants for whom I have formed a great deal of respect. At one time or another I have entered into a brief personal exchange with each of you and to attempt to identify each of you would be disastrous for me so I will just say “I love you all.” The whole point of this monologue is to point out that we cannot get rid of the BUSH Administration, and that act is my primary goal at this point in my life, by preaching to the choir or chastising the janitor. Leave the trolls alone! Even if you convince them we have gained nothing but a few idiots. Post the good stuff we all can use to recruit our respectable friends and neighbors. We can win this thing and restore our Country to what it should be. I use sarcasm and comedy because that is my nature as a crusty old bastard. You young ones use your talents to make it better for all of us. Thanks for the opportunity to preach this Sunday.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:50 pmAmen.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:55 pmSeixon
You think this story of what the Ahghani woman said concerning the American occupiers was, to use your words, fabricated? Then perhaps in the world of conservative thinking, in their ideal world, the Washington Post does not exist. Pamela Constable, a reporter for the Post, wrote those very words contained in her article in today’s Post, specifically on Sunday June 18, 2006. She also writes that “Farmers and former militia [in Afghanistan], disillusioned with the lack of services and development after four years of Western-backed democracy, were restless. There was a growing sense that despite the presence of foreign troops, the country was unraveling at the fringes.” Despite what hard core conservatives like Laura Ingraham may think, there are some reporters, like Pamela Constable, who do not report a story from their hotel balconies, but actually, unlike unembedded journalists, attempt to discover the truth in an occupied country. I would rather trust the journalistic instincts of people like Ms. Constable and Dahr Jamail and Nir Rosen and Robert Fisk than the propaganda that is handed out by the military, Tony Snow, and such intrepid journalists as Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter, who are so willing to believe and push what this administration says as being true.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:55 pmPoint taken Clyde. Good idea.
June 18th, 2006 at 9:05 pmWaPo has a leaked cable (also on E&P, and Huffington) indicating the extremely dire circumstances in Iraq. Cable was dated just a day or two before Bush’s surprise visit.
June 18th, 2006 at 9:07 pmSo much for “the war is going well.”
There is another developing story of oil well byproduct, black oil, having been dumped in and near the Tigris and then set afire, creating a huge environmental emergency, extending forty miles down river to Tikrit.
Ah, but the media reports only “bad news” so sayeth the king and his court – and the good news is not being reported. Perhaps, sire, there is no good news, sayeth the messenger. Fire that lying messenger! sayeth the king.
But we have Tony Snowflake telling us exactly the opposite from what our boy-king declared less than two years ago about Afghanistan and the taliban. The taliban have miraculouslyly risen from the “dead,” as the royal liege cannot err.
People are dying, others are suffering and these criminals go blithely on their way. I heard of a construction project (sorry no link) that the Iraqis wanted for themselves for $100,000 – Halliburton bid $1 million – need I tell you who got the contract?
Damn, this administration makes me just sick. I hope they have nightmares one day that drive them insane, before they are executed.
Obviously Seixon never heard of “saboteurs” – look it up.
June 18th, 2006 at 9:36 pmwell said, clyde… i heartily concur… especially this: “to stimulate comments, as opposed to debate”… what little debate there is can be tolerable; it’s the arguing and bickering and name calling that is so annoying, even embarrassing…
June 18th, 2006 at 9:39 pmMarie, isn’t it obvious that they are already insane?
June 18th, 2006 at 9:39 pmNice name Snowflake it fits him. I think Snowflake is trying to hard to be important. Le’ts see now he has said Tar Baby, soldiers are not human but numbers, all blacks look alike I guess and now his statment is different then his boss. Snowflake should send his resume back to Fox aka Bush News and try to get his job back. This week should be interesting to see what mistakes, racist statments Snowflake will make. He represents the White House and there policy. Now we know the Bush policy is to steal hire dumbies and power to the KKK. Yes and brake every international law that you can and laugh while doing it. Rove is busy spinning and lying also making sure the voting machines are fixed for the Nov. election.
June 18th, 2006 at 9:48 pmHere’s something else Snow said today:
So: why wasn’t Afghanistan a “democratic benchmark”? And if it was, why hasn’t there been a “ripple effect” from it?
Then he follows it up with this:
This fighting against democracy business is such nonsense. The basic problem is that much of the fighting in Iraq right now is not against us. It is Iraqi on Iraqi. Read just about any of the blogs written by Iraqi people and you’ll realize this. They’re fighting each other: they don’t give a crap about democracy.
June 18th, 2006 at 10:04 pmWhat’s the real beef here? The UN presence in Afghanistan is failing is it? The NATO force is failing us? Of course, the only criticism is directed the Bush administration. I guess it’s not the job of anyone else to try and predict the future and deal with world problems. Hindsight is wonderful isn’t it?
Comment by Seixon — June 18, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
Seixon, just in case you’re still following this thread, and apparently since you can’t seem to figure this out for yourself, one of the points of this thread is that your leader (whom the right seems to follow blindly) as standard operating procedure, tells the world lies, lies and more lies. I believe that TP probably finds it relevant to keep showing just how dishonest GWB is. If the left keeps pointing out his lies long enough, then maybe a few more sheeple may start paying attention to what is really going on.
June 18th, 2006 at 10:10 pmSeixon would rather get drunk and then make stuff up. And then cry when people point out his ignorance.
You know just like Gilligan, I mean Seixon, GW hates to be contradicted. I wonder how much longer Snow has before he ‘retires’? Can’t have the minions pointing out that the Emporer has no clothes, after all…
Good night all…
June 18th, 2006 at 10:23 pmPerhaps someone should ask Snow why US deaths in Iraq have increased dramatically over the past 2 years. According to Repug talking points, we have less of a presence in Afghanistan. Well, if that is the reason, then why are our soldiers being killed in Afghanistan at twice the rate they were in 2004? The Taliban learned to shoot? Bush FAILED to catch bin Laden because of inadequate troop levels. Bush FAILED to secure Afghanistan because he wanted to fight another war in Iraq.
June 18th, 2006 at 10:24 pmThe ‘resurrection’ of the ‘extinct’ Taliban was “predictable”? Okay then, WHY was it allowed to happen? Did all of those soldiers who were either killed, or maimed, or otherwise affected, sacrifice so much, FOR NO REASON??? It must have been as ‘predictable’ as the Insurgency in Iraq. Oh yeah, they weren’t ‘predicting’ THAT happening. Never even occured to them, until it was too late, and still they denied it, until they no longer could. And how is Karzai, these days? Still confined to Kabul? Warlords, and poppies are thriving, I hear. Was it only 5 years ago that we invaded them? Time flies… whether you are having fun or not. But not for our soldiers. But, hey, maybe NOW we can find that rascal, Osama. Like a ‘bonus’, a ’selling’ point, if you are wary about it all coming together, THIS time around. Maybe Iraq can even provide some troops to help out. They could use the practice, I am sure. Go from “Axis of Evil”, to the “Coalition of the Willing”. Wow, THAT would be ‘progress’ indeed!
June 18th, 2006 at 10:47 pmGet Tony Snow a bottle of moonshine and let him be for a couple of days.
These folks are freaking out of their freaking minds.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:05 pmThis just in from Captain Obvious:
Failure in Afghanistan was entirely predictable – what’s the problem?
June 18th, 2006 at 11:07 pmTony Snow is making the previous press secretary look competent and tactfull.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:07 pmjust like Custer, they’ve got them on the run. George Bush is nuts.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:11 pmAnd now, Tony Snow will demonstrate the most popular dance in Washington, DC for the fourth year running — THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BACKPEDAL!
It’s all the rage at the White House…
June 18th, 2006 at 11:19 pm#18 – I have fallen off this particular wagon, Clyde, and now pledge to climb back on again. I know better, I know I do! Thanks, Clyde.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:46 pmYes Clyde I agree except when it becomes a pissing contest for the trolls. Then the site looses all value for me. When someone is continuely knocked in short order by foul mouthd loonies that fill up hundreds of inches of space with the same drivel over and over argueing I have better things to do….Only been back a couple of day’s and I’m jumping ship…Gonna look for a site with plans, more posts on solutions and hope for a better future. Like this site was doing a few weeks ago, before all the massive troll banter…..May look in from time to time but not likely to stay untill the train wreck is fixed……Blessings to you all.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:09 am#38- Sharon, please keep us ‘posted’ about your journey. And PLEASE let us know if you find those ‘greener pastures’. I promise not to drop any ‘cow pies’ there! Best wishes to you!
June 19th, 2006 at 12:32 amTony Snow is a soulless prick.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:38 amThe fact is that poor Tony is not quite as smart as his boss, or as accomplished a liar.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:54 am# 38 Sharon Cox:
GOOD RIDDANCE !
June 19th, 2006 at 3:02 am[...] Most recently, the Taliban has started really giving us a problem in Afghanistan. It may have something to do with the fact that we have 140,000 US troops mired in shit one country over in Iraq. Tony says we predicted that. BLITZER: Let’s move on and talk about some other issues. I know your time is limited. Afghanistan. Is the Taliban making a serious comeback right now? [...]
June 19th, 2006 at 6:21 amThe Taliban became an enemy only after Bush attacked them and took the side of the Northern Alliance.
Bush claims that he attacked the Taliban because they refused to deliver Osama bin Laden to U.S. custody.
The Bush regime blames bin Laden for 9/11, although the evidence is sketchy and inconclusive. Take a moment to consider the chances of bin Laden, who was fully occupied in his involvement in civil war in Afghanistan, being able to organize a successful attack on high-tech America from a primitive country half a world away. A man in a cave operating on a shoestring somehow defeats the myriad intelligence agencies of the U.S.
Regardless of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11, the Taliban could not turn over bin Laden, and the Bush regime knew that. Bush made a demand that could not be met in order to have the excuse to attack the Taliban.
Why couldn’t the Taliban turn over bin Laden? Osama, of course, had his own armed fighters, but this is not the reason. Bin Laden helped to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan and is an Afghan national hero. He was helping the Taliban to finish off their opponents, including the remains of the Soviet puppets. The Taliban could not possibly claim to be unifying Afghanistan in the name of Islam and turn over an Islamic hero to the Great Satan.
At that time, Americans were told that bin Laden was the target of the invasion of Afghanistan. In retrospect, we know that that was just another lie. The target was Iraq (and Iran and Syria). Bin Laden was the excuse for getting the camel’s nose under the tent.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:41 amThe Taliban’s leaders knew nothing of 9/11, a plot actually hatched in Germany. When the U.S. demanded bin Laden be handed over, the Taliban refused: He was a guest and national hero, wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle. The Taliban offered to send bin Laden to an international tribunal once the U.S. presented evidence of his involvement. Washington refused and invaded, blaming the Taliban for 9/11.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:45 amUnable to withstand U.S. power, Mullah Omar ordered his men to blend back into the Pushtun population and wage low-grade guerrilla war against the invaders. Other movements, like Hizbi-Islami, joined in battling foreign occupation. Canada unwisely chose to pick a fight with fierce tribesmen whose only desire is to end foreign occupation and be left alone.
2. “Canada is defending ‘democracy’ in Afghanistan.†This is pure propaganda. The U.S. installed the puppet Karzai regime in Kabul, then held an election even more rigged than the ones run by the Soviets. The U.S. spends hundreds of millions to bribe Afghan warlords, most of whom are up to their turbans in drug dealing. Since the Taliban’s overthrow, opium production is up 90%. The U.S.-NATO ruled narco-state Afghanistan now produces most of the world’s heroin. Karazi’s regime would collapse the moment foreign troops leave.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:47 amAfghan Absurdities
Americans have heard many news reports about Bush administration falsehoods on Iraq. However, the scams of Afghanistan have not gotten as much attention as they deserve. Following are some examples of how the Bush administration has misled the American people regarding Afghanistan.
In the wake of the U.S. military victory over the Taliban, President Bush warned America in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002,
Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears…. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities…. What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning.
The news that al-Qaeda was targeting American nuclear reactors was the most chilling revelation in Bush’s speech. Senior CIA and FBI officials gave background briefings to the Washington media in the wake of the speech, amplifying the threat that Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda fighters were targeting U.S. nuclear-power facilities. This news made the terrorist threat far more ominous and may have spurred support for Bush’s preemptive war policy.
Two years later, the Bush administration admitted that the president’s statement was false and that no nuclear-power-plant diagrams had been discovered in Afghanistan. A senior Bush administration official told the Wall Street Journal, “There’s no additional basis for the language in the speech that we have found.†Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, who had testified in 2002 on this issue in closed hearings on Capitol Hill, commented that Bush was “poorly served by a speech-writer.â€
When word began circulating that the nuclear-power-plant story was a hoax, at least one White House official refused to raise the white flag. Nucleonics Week reported that National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack denied that Bush ever claimed the nuclear-powerplant diagrams were found in Afghanistan. McCormack told Nucleonics Week, “We stand by the line in the president’s speech.†McCormack emphasized that, although Afghanistan was mentioned in sentences before and after the bombshell about discovering U.S. nuclear-powerplant diagrams, the word “Afghanistan†did not appear in that specific sentence. He revealed that Bush’s comment was merely referring to the possibility that terrorists might access the websites of U.S. nuclear-power plants. McCormack said,
In terms of wording of the president’s speech, at the time we didn’t want to talk in public about what we knew about the ability of al-Qaeda to access the Internet and download information from the Internet.
But the FBI had revealed months earlier that the 9/11 hijackers routinely used the Internet to communicate with one another.
That Bush’s Afghan nuclear claim was bogus popped up in the news for a day or two and then vanished. Almost no one on Capitol Hill showed any interest in investigating.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:55 amThe reality based community doesn’t understand that when one creates a new reality, it replaces all previous realities. Thus, it is pointless to attempt reconciling a recent statement with a past statement — they are part of different realities. Keeping track of all these realities drives the left nuts, but it doesn’t bother the right since reality was never all that important anyway. Ideology is what matters.
June 19th, 2006 at 7:49 amThis comment from a stupid jerk who said the 2,500th soldier killed in Iraq was “just a number!” What an asshole!!!! I don’t believe any of the crap that they spread our way. He is definately living up to his name “Snow” as in “Snowjob”!!!!!!
June 19th, 2006 at 8:14 amSeixon admitted that he got kicked out of two liberal websites for “unknown reasons’… I’m sure we can guess. And he’s probably not the only one, as there seems to be an influx of them the last couple of weeks.
I’m not for censorship, but if someone is coming in here and saying nothing but hate speech, well, deleting that is no different than discarding junk mail.
Seixon has proven to me that he is not in here to debate. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt before stating that as a FACT. He’s made no effort to engage in dislog – just insult people who dare point out the errors in his views. He’s not here to debate – he’s here, like most trolls – to convert. That’s all the right wing understands “All or nothing’ And I say we give them nothing…
Sorry you feel that way Sharon, but in leaving, you’ve allowed them to accomplish their goal of silencing you. For too long the left has backed down from the right when the right got loud or obnoxious or fought dirty. And we see where that has gotten us. We need to stand up to these bullies and let them know that we have had enough of tehm, their lies, and their greedy ways of life that they think they can force upon us because we do not stand up for what we believe in.
We have to call them on their nonsense before the Wall goes up, and Guantanamo Concentration camp multiples, and we are required to thank their God for forcing us into submission. I’ve read 1984. It’s submission these people want – and it’s the very thing we cannot give them.
Unfortunately, you have to fight for your freedom. Lets do it with words before it becomes too late.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:42 amCheck out Juan Cole and his transcript of Tony Snow comparing our current situation to the Battle of the Bulge. He re-writes history and claims most Americans were ready to throw in the towel in late 1944. When in doubt, just make shit up!
June 19th, 2006 at 8:47 amClyde, well said. After my exchange last week with one of the trolls, I had some time to think about that troll’s aims. And it is purely trollish. Like that person is going to come in here, and in a comment or 2, convince us that “Gee, GWB really does care about us Amerikans. Sure, and the sun is causing “global warming” which means God wants to cook us all. Right.
If the trolls really gave a damn about trying to win people over, they’d start with the 10% of Americans lost between the drop from 40% to ~30% approval ratings of Der Leider. And they ain’t gonna find them here, just a guess.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:51 am[...] From Think Progress: [...]
June 19th, 2006 at 8:56 am[moderated by admin.]
June 19th, 2006 at 8:58 amPardon talk for Libby begins
BY TOM BRUNE
Newsday Washington Bureau
June 17, 2006, 10:48 PM EDT
WASHINGTON — Now that top White House aide Karl Rove is off the hook in the CIA leak probe, President George W. Bush must weigh whether to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the only one indicted in the three-year investigation.
Speculation about a pardon began in late October, soon after Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald unsealed the perjury indictment of Libby, and it continued last week after Fitzgerald chose not to charge Rove.
Washington hand who shares that view with many pundits.
“These are the kinds of cases in which historically presidents have given pardons,” said the veteran Republican attorney.
The White House remains mum on the president’s intentions. Spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to comment Friday.
Bush has powerful incentives to pardon Libby, however. They range from rewarding past loyalty to ending the awkward revelations emerging from pretrial motions, a flow that could worsen in his trial next year.
Libby was indicted for lying in Fitzgerald’s probe into who in the administration leaked the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters in 2003, apparently to undercut her husband’s attack on Bush’s war-justifying claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.
By demanding sensitive, sometimes embarrassing materials, some say, Libby appears to be goading the White House into issuing a pardon. Libby’s spokeswoman did not respond to questions about a pardon.
One attorney familiar with the Plame case said Bush might find that it is in his interest to pardon Libby sooner rather than later.
A pardon before the trial could could cut off the disclosures and spare Vice President Dick Cheney from testifying as Fitzgerald’s witness about Libby, his former chief of staff.
But the timing of a pardon, the attorney suggested, likely would depend on the outcome of the midterm elections.
If Republicans retain control of Congress, Bush could act swiftly. But if Democrats win control of the House or Senate, Bush might wait, and use Libby’s trial as an excuse not to cooperate with any congressional investigations into the leak.
The counterargument to a pardon this year or next, however, is that it would be a political bombshell and distract from Bush’s agenda.
DiGenova predicted that Bush, like other presidents, would issue controversial pardons on his last day in office.
As president, Bush has constitutional power to issue a pardon at any time — even before a crime is charged. And presidents of both parties have pardoned political friends.
In 1974, for example, President Gerald Ford pardoned ex-President Richard Nixon for any crimes he might have committed. In 2001, President Bill Clinton pardoned convicted political friends as he left office.
A few weeks before leaving office in January 1993, President George H.W. Bush granted Christmas Eve pardons to six Reagan-Bush officials charged in the Iran-Contra scandal, including two whose trials were about to start.
To justify the controversial pardons, the elder Bush blamed “the criminalization of policy differences.” That “troubling development,” he said, was created by an independent counsel probe of how the executive branch evaded a congressional ban on funding Nicaraguan Contras by selling arms to Iran and sending proceeds to Contras.
DiGenova said that similarly, Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Libby “is the epitome of the criminalization of the political process.” Fitzgerald, he said, has found no evidence of the underlying offense — the knowing revelation of a covert agent’s protected identity.
In filings, Fitzgerald argues Libby’s lies obstructed him.
But a pardon for Libby at any time also carries political risk.
Ford lost the 1976 election, for example, and the elder Bush and Clinton were tainted in the controversies over their pardons.
Democrats have already indicated they will go on the attack. Last fall, their congressional leaders wrote Bush urging him to pledge not to pardon Libby. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Bush did not respond.
“I think it would be very wrong to pardon Scooter Libby, and I doubt the president would do it,” Schumer said Friday. “It would cause him real damage.”
June 19th, 2006 at 9:08 am“I think it would be very wrong to pardon Scooter Libby, and I doubt the president would do it,†Schumer said Friday. “It would cause him real damage.â€
Comment by Tobey Tall — June 19, 2006 @ 9:08 am
I almost hope he does in late October – it incite the sheeple to come out and vote against the corruption in Washington… Wishful thinking, I know. But I don’t know what else will cut through the apathy of the Average American and get them to vote for change in November – if they will vote at all…
June 19th, 2006 at 9:18 amRead His Lips: No More Taliban…
From ThinkProgress via DailyKos via The Daou Report, here’s President Bush on the Taliban, in September 2004:
June 19th, 2006 at 9:31 amAnd as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applaus…
Everyone feeding the trolls on the thread – stop it. Their mass influx over the past few weeks is no coincidence.
June 19th, 2006 at 9:37 amTony Snow was just a talking empty head at FOX News, so he has no idea how to answer questions since his cranium is filled with helium > lol.
June 19th, 2006 at 9:38 amunbelievable, you are the most dishonest person here.
Comment by Seixon — June 19, 2006 @ 9:44 am
You still haven’t said anything new, relevent or worth reading. Just more lies, spin and nonsense. You don’t even understand basic nuclear fusion even though I have explained it repeatedly. Everyone knows the sun is burning itself out. The entire universe is burning itself out. You and your astrologers seem to be the only ones missing that fact.
Get some 2006 information. In science, 6 year old studies are about as germain as you (they aren’t).
June 19th, 2006 at 9:59 amunbelievable,
Everyone knows the sun is burning itself out. The entire universe is burning itself out. You and your astrologers seem to be the only ones missing that fact.
You are lying, again. You claimed the Sun was constantly getting colder and smaller – which is false. Yes, the Sun will eventually die, but that won’t be for billions of years. Before it dies, it will become 100 times larger. Instead of admitting that you were wrong to claim that the Sun is getting colder and smaller all the time, which is false, you move the goal posts and attack me personally. Dispicable.
Get some 2006 information. In science, 6 year old studies are about as germain as you (they aren’t).
The nth time you have repeated this lie. The study I linked to, this one, is from 2005. Why do you continue to lie?
Six years old? Is it 2011 right now, or are you a pathetic liar?
June 19th, 2006 at 10:14 amSeixon- Bottomline, the reasearch is six years old. That’s the crux of the article, and your argument. It’s obsolete… and apparently, so are you.
June 19th, 2006 at 10:36 amIt’s a riot that this guy want to talk about Global Warming and HIMSELF on this thread.
June 19th, 2006 at 10:45 amThis is not the topic.
Why would he want to drag us off topic?
Hmmm.
Gee, I wonder.
Every day the sun fuses quadrillions of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms through nuclear fusion.
Specifically, in the sun’s case, 4 hydrogen atoms are fused into 1 helium atom.
Hydrogen weighs 1 atom unit. Helium weighs 2 atomic units.
4 x 1 = 4 (hydrogen weight before fusion). 1 x 2 = 2 (helium weight after fusion).
4 (before) -2 (after) = 2 (resulting) = shrinking. Only a doorknob wouldn’t get that the sun is loosing mass. Slowly, but none the less it is burning itself out.
It will only enlarge just before it supernovas – when it runs out of hydrogen… its fuel source.
From Stanford University:
The Sun actually does lose mass in the process of producing energy. Let us see how much.
We can use the following numbers from Kenneth R. Lang’s book: _Astrophysical Data_:
Solar Mass = 1.989 x 1033 g
Absolute luminosity = 3.86 x 1033 erg/sec
Speed of light c = 2.99 x 1010 cm/sec
Start with Einstein’s famous equation: “E = mass times c2″ and rearrange the terms to solve for the mass M:
M = E/c2
And after inputting our numbers:
= 3.86×1033/(2.99×1010)2
= 4.289×1012 g/sec
we find that the Sun loses mass 4.289×1012 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×1020 g every year to energy.
June 19th, 2006 at 10:51 amThey’re trying to switch back to Afghanistan. Mid-term elections are coming and haven’t you noticed how we’ve been stepping up operations in Afghanistan? Looks like they’re going to go ahead and get Bin Laden now. The dopey 51% of us might let the word “Taliban” replace “Al Qaeda” in our minds and help us decide in November that we do need republicans protecting us from the terrorists. Or maybe a few percent have stopped drinking the Kool-aid by now. It’s really something else.
June 19th, 2006 at 11:11 amWhy would he want to drag us off topic?
Hmmm.
Gee, I wonder.
Comment by Solitaire — June 19, 2006 @ 10:45 am
THE question IS: why would SOME let that happen???
June 19th, 2006 at 11:12 amsome people just like to hear themselves argue…
And some just like to complain that others have something to say.
June 19th, 2006 at 11:15 am# 67 katy:
Some are lonely,and crave the attention.
June 19th, 2006 at 11:43 amAnd some like to pretend that they are teachers;school-marm types.
Some like to play cult leader,with a clique of ding-bats.
unbelievable,
Seixon- Bottomline, the reasearch is six years old. That’s the crux of the article, and your argument. It’s obsolete… and apparently, so are you.
Research conducted in 2004 is six years old? Please, tell me more from the world of the Insane, Delusional and Lying.
the Sun loses mass 4.289×1012 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353×1020 g every year to energy.
Except the Sun is hydrostatically balanced…
Darn, foiled again!
June 19th, 2006 at 11:51 amI see Sybil is giving her auto-biography again.
June 19th, 2006 at 11:55 amFrom your post. Data and research conducted in 2000 Report written in 2005. Out-dated data and research.
Foiled about what? I proved it is losing mass. Just because it remains within a relatively similar foot print doesn’t mean it isn’t burning itself out… Just like you can eat half of your cookies and then scatter the rest to occupy a similar area. You still have fewer cookies. Less – not more. And that is the point.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:00 pmHow do you force someone to be democratic????????? People in afghanistan are crazy muslims. The president thinks he can change that by bombing them????? Please…….If bombs create order then maybe I can clean my house by bombing it………….
June 19th, 2006 at 12:06 pmunbelievable,
From your post. Data and research conducted in 2000 Report written in 2005. Out-dated data and research.
This is completely fabricated. Now you’re creating quotes out of thin air to support yourself? Again, why do you lie so much? What’s your beef? Let me quote from the study, AGAIN:
The study:
You = liar extraordinaire.
I mean, here you are pretending that data from x amount of years ago makes it worthless. Really? Well gosh, what about the ice core data you were talking about? That’s old data. Is it irrelevant? What about temperature records taken since 1900? Are all of those obsolete? Of course not, they are temperature records.
You are completely dishonest and debunked. Anyone can read the study and see that it is neither old nor obsolete. You hate the facts don’t you? Why do you hate science?
Foiled about what? I proved it is losing mass. Just because it remains within a relatively similar foot print doesn’t mean it isn’t burning itself out… Just like you can eat half of your cookies and then scatter the rest to occupy a similar area. You still have fewer cookies. Less – not more. And that is the point.
No, you proved a process but you didn’t take into consideration the special circumstances present at the Sun. In other words, you tried to apply a piece of theory to something it doesn’t fit. Hydrostatic balance, do you want to comment on what that is?
The Sun is going to get 100 times larger and hotter in a few billion years. Why do you hate science?
June 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pmReceived 2 December 2004; revised 20 April 2005; accepted 28 June 2005; published 1 October 2005.
That means the report was published 5 years after the research was concluded. Not that the research was conducted in 2005. How are you missing that? Seems quite obvious to those who don’t get drunk every night.
Calling me names doesn’t make it true. No matter how much you repeat your propaganda. I still have not lied once. Disagreement doesn’t equate to lying. You should invest in a dictionary, or go here for free – http://www.dictionary.com
June 19th, 2006 at 12:20 pmNo, you proved a process but you didn’t take into consideration the special circumstances present at the Sun. In other words, you tried to apply a piece of theory to something it doesn’t fit. Hydrostatic balance, do you want to comment on what that is?
I proved I knew what I was talking about. That proves I wasn’t lying.
What ’special circumstances’ are you referencing? The sun is in space – which is a vaccuum. Aside from occasional tiny in comparision meteros that impact it, it does not get added to by its environment.
I already did comment on what it is with an example.
The Sun is going to get 100 times larger and hotter in a few billion years. Why do you hate science?
Comment by Seixon — June 19, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Huh? I told you that some time ago. The sun won’t expand until the end of its life. But only for a short time before its gravity causes it to collapse upon itself, creating a supernova that will destroy the solar system. The sun will most likely become a white dwarf, and then, when the last of the hydrogen is spent – a black dwarf (dead star).
It is you who hates…
June 19th, 2006 at 12:26 pmunbelievable,
That means the report was published 5 years after the research was concluded. Not that the research was conducted in 2005. How are you missing that? Seems quite obvious to those who don’t get drunk every night.
Except it doesn’t say anywhere that the research was conducted in 2000. Whoops! You lie, lie, lie, and lie. A liberal telling a “conservative” not to get drunk every night? Wow, another seemingly ironic event.
Calling me names doesn’t make it true. No matter how much you repeat your propaganda. I still have not lied once.
The study was not conducted in 2000, even though you have said so over and over again. That is a lie, and you know it is. You lie about not being able to see the document, and won’t answer why you aren’t able to open it. The reason: there is no excuse.
I proved I knew what I was talking about. That proves I wasn’t lying.
I already showed you the entry from Wikipedia detailing that you were wrong, but that didn’t stop you from repeating your, although academic, irrelevant information.
Huh? I told you that some time ago. The sun won’t expand until the end of its life. But only for a short time before its gravity causes it to collapse upon itself, creating a supernova that will destroy the solar system. The sun will most likely become a white dwarf, and then, when the last of the hydrogen is spent – a black dwarf (dead star).
Eh, no, it was I who told YOU this by excerpting Wikipedia. The fact remains that the Sun will get 100 times larger and hotter in a few billion years, directly contradicting your claims that the Sun is getting colder and smaller.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:38 pmYes it does – the stuff in brackets – [ ] are references… Those dates are 2000. That means the report was referencing data that was from the year posted in the brackets. How the hell did you graduate high school without knowing how to reference sources? Or is that why you plagerize so much?
No Seixon, I taught the fate of the sun to my class in February. I’ve known for a while before that, which was how I landed the job.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:44 pm# 78 unbelievable:
Being a ”teacher” then you should know how to spell PLAGIARIZE.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:57 pmunbelievable,
Yes it does – the stuff in brackets – [ ] are references… Those dates are 2000. That means the report was referencing data that was from the year posted in the brackets. How the hell did you graduate high school without knowing how to reference sources? Or is that why you plagerize so much?
A high school teacher that can’t spell plagiarize…. Hmmm… Yes, the stuff (also called numbers, or even years) in the brackets are references. You are 100% correct about that. What you are not correct about is claiming the references are for the DATA that was used in the study. They simply referenced other studies that had spoken about the issues mentioned.
The study has a whole page full of references. Does that mean all of them were references to data used in the study? No, of course not. By your complete ignorance of the English language, I think it’s either apparent that you are not a high school teacher, or a completely delusional liar.
I will excerpt, again, for the enjoyment of the audience that you are completely disgraced:
For those of us with reading comprehension, the first reference is to a study about solar irradiance, the second reference is to a study about UV irradiance, the third is to a study about cosmic flux. The last two references are to studies detailing the difficulty in obtaining reliable quantitative estimates concerning their effects on climate.
None are references to “data” being used in the study.
Like when you write a thesis paper, if you use claims or findings found by others, you have to reference them. Does that mean that you are using their data? No, you are simply referencing other previous work in supporting the reasons for which you are conducting your own research.
You are completely unhinged and debunked as a shameless delusional liar who can’t even read or comprehend simple English.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:10 pm”I think it’s either apparent that you are not a high school teacher,or a completely delusional liar.
Comment by Seixon to unbelievable.
DING DING DING DING———————–BOTH.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:22 pmunbelievable and Seixon,
June 19th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThe reactions occurring in the Sun are a bit more complex than you describe. The binding energy of a single helium atom is less than the binding energy in two hydrogen atoms. In a star of our Sun’s mass, the gravitational force is only enough to support fusion up to the point where iron is a byproduct of the process. At this point, the energy from the thermonuclear reactions is insufficient to keep the Sun’s atoms separated. At that instant, the Sun will collapse and the total energy left at that point will be concentrated in a bundle about the size of Saturn. As a result of this concentration. the lighter elements in the solar waste basket will be accelerated to speeds that will produce a near super-nova. The result will be detrimental to any beings up to the orbit of Mars and a bit beyond, but the net effect is that energy will disapated over a larger volume than before the process started and hence, cooler (But life on Earth will not be pleasant as atmospheric temperatures approach 3 or 4 thousand degrees and the oceans boil off.
Now, back to the subject, Snow is the poster child for a brain drained idiot.
Seixon – now you’re just being ridiculous. Do that on yor own.
I’m not a typing teacher (my typing sucks – whici I will spell out once again so you can focus on the issues and not keep making assinine attacks). Besides, you’re not one to talk. You mistook ‘astrologer’ for an ‘astronomer’. And your spelling leaves a lot to be desired.
The only one debunked is you. Yet again.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:27 pm# 83
How about this; STOP TYPING !!
June 19th, 2006 at 1:53 pmYou go first…
June 19th, 2006 at 1:56 pmPLAGIARIZE not plagerize.
That is a flat out mis-spelling and not a typo.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:02 pmAgain with the twisting of fact.
unbelievable,
You mistook ‘astrologer’ for an ‘astronomer’. And your spelling leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, I did. I wrote the wrong word. That’s not as if I misspelled it. What about my spelling leaves a lot to be desired? You are so cheap and lazy. You just throw out accusations and BS without backing it up.
Now you can’t even respond to my debunkings of you because you have no legs to stand on at all. Everyone can transparently see that you’ve been lying from the start.
My study shows that solar activity is intensely debated in climate research, and you have pretended all along that the study is “out-dated” or even that since it’s in a geophysical journal, it was discredited.
You just throw up as much shit as you can and hope something sticks. Unfortunately for you, none of it has.
You’re the one who claimed that the study was meaningless because geophysical scientists don’t deal with the Sun. LOL.
When both NASA and the American Geophysical Union seem to disagree with that notion, you shut up fairly quickly about it, didn’t you?
You are discredited as a dishonest hack unbelievable, plain and simple. You hate science when it doesn’t say what you want it to.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:18 pmSo I misspelled a word… better than being you.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:20 pmA teacher, who can’t spell. A person who can’t read English. A science teacher who doesn’t know that geophysical science includes studying effects of the Sun.
I don’t know what to say really. It seems like you are a worthless person for all the tasks you claim to be doing.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:23 pmSeixon,
Did you read the conclusion? The authors claim that they show trends but the corelation is not significant, i.e. we did not disprove the null hypothesis (Usokin et al., 2005). They did not show anything and need to continue their research.
I will have to agree with you that it is not an out of date paper, it often takes years to get a paper published after you do research, especially if you do not disprove your null hypo.
Conrad
June 19th, 2006 at 2:27 pmMy comment is for those of you who might be persuaded by Seixon’s repeated references to one particular article. It looks like he is drawing unwarranted conclusions based upon this article, as well.
Seixon:
Every time you have repeated your citation, you have neglected to include the most important part of any citation, which is the name of the journal, volume, issue, pages, and year published. Here is the rest of the citation:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, A10102, doi:10.1029/2004JA010946, 2005
I read the article. While it does say that their research shows some correlation between sunspot activity and climate, it is not saying that global climate change is due to sunspot activity alone. In fact, a major point of the article is an attempt to correlate sunspot activity with cosmic rays and possible effects on climate. You leave out the info on cosmic rays entirely. Also, the article is only able to extrapolate back to AD 200. And this sentence from the article is rather telling:
“For the following correlation study we consider the series up to AD 1900 because of the possible anthropogenic effects unevenly distributed over the globe.”
And the article’s study of variations in sunspot activity and cosmic rays goes up only until 1980. The levels of CO2 have risen dramatically since then, and the highest 14 years of summer temperature averages have occurred also since 1980.
Ice core samples taken in the Antarctic show correlation between CO2 levels and temperature going back 650,000 years. Throughout those years CO2 level has varied, and correlation with temperature is striking. This is used by skeptics to claim that the current high levels of CO2, which no one can deny, are natural variations since there have been high levels before, but the skeptics conveniently leave out that the current level is much higher yet than any previously recorded highs, thus suggesting strongly that another factor is operating beyond the previous natural oscillations in levels. And since various human activities also unquestionably contribute to the rise in CO2, Houston, we’ve got a problem.
Bottom line: I don’t think the article proves what you seem to be trying to assert.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:38 pmConrad,
The only thing I was talking about in regards to the study is the fact that it states point blank that the Sun’s influence on climate is intensely debated in climate research.
unbelievable can’t have that be true, since she is hooked on the “consensus” propaganda spouted by Al Gore and Think Progress, so she sought to suppress, misrepresent, and undermine the study in order to avoid its obvious contents.
The conclusion shows that the scientists have still a long way to go in understanding the influences of the Sun on our climate, so anyone claiming they can explain everything to do with the climate warming are not being honest. The CO2 emissions agenda is trying to jump the gun on real science because it buttresses their theories that they want to be true.
With that said, as I have already pointed out, rimfrost.no contains temperature series from all over the world, the most comprehensive and publically available set of weather data. This tool shows that most places in the world are not significantly warmer than 70-100 years ago. Thus it seems that there can be other local phenomenon causing the warming, such as ocean systems, like the Gulf Stream.
The atmosphere and the Earth are a complex system, yet we are supposed to believe theories that increased CO2 emissions are the only explanation for a warming that, for the most of the world, is not unprecedented.
That sounds almost like a religious cult to me.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:38 pmWolfdaughter,
Now you have just been roped in by the strawmen of others. I never claimed that this study proves anything, I said that it shows that there is intense debate about the role of Sun in global warming.
That’s all I have sought out to show, which the study does quite fine and dandy. I have also not left out the date, source, or name of the article, I have excerpted it before and provided a link to it. So I fail to see how that changes anything. I’m being open and honest here, providing links and excerpting to prove my point.
unbelievable, on the other hand, still claims that the study is out-dated and based on data from 2000, which is of course completely false.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:43 pmBack to the topic at hand: when we invaded Afghanistan, I knew we wouldn’t get rid of the Taliban, but just drive them into hills and caves, and Afghanistan has lots of those. That’s one of the reasons the Soviets weren’t able to take over Afghanistan, after 10 years of bloody warfare, even though Afghanistan is essentially in the backyard of the former Soviet Union. But we thought we could do this overseas?
The Taliban has been in Afghanistan for a long time. The factors which gave rise to the Taliban are still in existence. There are religious fanatics everywhere on the glove. Conditions in Afghanistan make a Taliban or similar group almost inevitable.
The Afghanis are living in primitive, desperate conditions, at least outside of Kabul, in small groups relatively isolated from one another geographically, which makes it easier for fanatics with some charisma to gain control of small scattered groups.
I don’t think we can realistically expect to drive them out or to exterminate them. Making war the “conventional way” has 2 problems: 1) it’s like aiming a cannon where a wellplaced bebee would be better; 2) the resentment that the local populace feels towards those who have killed off their loved ones, results in the next generation growing up hating the invaders and vowing to get revenge. This pattern can be observed over and over in history. The Israelis haven’t exactly been successful in killing off all of the Palestinian extremists, have they?
And with regard to the poppy crops, as long as people get addicted to opium and morphine, there will be a market. And as long as you have people living in desperate conditions, growing a big cash crop is going to happen, because there may not be a realistic alternative for them to survive. So OF COURSE poppy production is back up! DUH!
There are no short-term solutions to this. Going in with both guns blazing is just setting up the conditions for further unrest down the road, and given the geography of the place and the desperation of the people, poppy growing isn’t going away anytime soon.
I would like to see us in the United States get back to what our country is about, hope opportunity for all sorts of people, freedom. Let’s provide an example of an alternative way of life and make sure it gets publicized.
Very brave women in Afghanistan have been starting schools despite rape and death threats. Let’s support that with money and international praise, with international opprobrium for the men that would stop the education of women.
Do negotiation and diplomacy, accepting that only small incremental gains can be made. Use our Special Forces to take out the worst of the local despots, on the ground, rather than airstrikes which DO take out civilians and create the desire for revenge.
Monetary support for schooling for all, girls and boys, and for small local enterprises such as women getting together and starting small shops where they weave fabrics which can be sold on the international markets, and similar ventures. Small loans for small women-run enterprises have been very successful in India.
Long-term. Incremental. We Americans don’t do either well, but those are successful.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pmI will have to agree with you that it is not an out of date paper, it often takes years to get a paper published after you do research, especially if you do not disprove your null hypo.
Comment by conrad — June 19, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Actually, in scientific circles 6 year old data is out-dated IF it has been trumphed – which has happened. In Science 6 years is a long time. The consensus is that Global Warming is largely human amplified.
Except he won’t admit the data was collected in 2000. He said it was gathered in 2005. He can’t read references.
This started in April when he said that solar warming was causing Global Warming. And all he has to show is an article that he cannot understand doesn’t prove anything of the sort But rather than admoit he was wrong, he resorts to windy rants that insult the people who’ve pointed out his gaping holes.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:14 pmI see the trolls are all high on the latest dose of spinulin provided by the administration. The Zarqawi bounce, the green-zone eyegazing; it has them all euphoric and self-righteous again, even as the din of reality again overtakes the herring music. They are so predictable, so obedient, so doggedly dumb. Let’s take a moment of silent reflection to pity their ancestors, who would never have expected their offspring to turn out so poorly.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:58 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
June 19th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#98 tom:
Good point.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:16 amThrough the Looking Glass: the Fascist State is floating the idea of pardoning Libby BEFORE the trial.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:13 amInternational opprobrium?, These evil bigots dismiss your opprobrium as worthless infidel whining.
When the evil fanatics threaten afghani schoolteachers with rape or death we should kill them
(The fanatics, not the teachers), tell everyone in the area how and why, and _then_ make a show of supporting the school.
Preferably by decorating one of the walls with their skulls, with a sign in the local languages, english and arabic saying “Let the girls learn how to read or earn a spot on this wall”
The pen IS mightier than the sword, after swords have become ornamental,
June 21st, 2006 at 7:02 amand then, only because you can pen “fire at will” faster than you can carve it with a sword.
[...]  Snow Declares Resurgence of Taliban ‘Predictable,’ Bush Previously Said It Was ‘No Longer…In Existence’ Excerpt: BLITZER: Let’s move on and talk about some other issues. I know your time is limited. Afghanistan. Is the Taliban making a serious comeback right now? SNOW: I think what the Taliban is doing — and it’s predictable — is that they are trying to test in the south, where the U.S. forces are handing over to NATO…But A, it’s predictable, and B, in the encounters, as you know, the Taliban fighters have overwhelmingly been losing. Now, I think it is predictable…you can expect there to be pushback by the Taliban. [...]
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:30 am[...]  Snow Declares Resurgence of Taliban ‘Predictable,’ Bush Previously Said It Was ‘No Longer…In Existence’ Excerpt: BLITZER: Let’s move on and talk about some other issues. I know your time is limited. Afghanistan. Is the Taliban making a serious comeback right now? SNOW: I think what the Taliban is doing — and it’s predictable — is that they are trying to test in the south, where the U.S. forces are handing over to NATO…But A, it’s predictable, and B, in the encounters, as you know, the Taliban fighters have overwhelmingly been losing. Now, I think it is predictable…you can expect there to be pushback by the Taliban. [...]
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:30 am[...] Think Progress highlighted this great little sound bite from Tony Snow on CNN yesterday: [...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:37 pmIt won’t be long now. Very soon Snowjob will assert that the return of the Taiban is Clinton’s fault.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:56 am