President Bush is “ticked off big-time”
By on Oct 9th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
President Bush is “ticked off big-time”
at former aides who helped Bob Woodward paint a lurid portrait of a dysfunctional, chaotic administration in his new book, “State of Denial.” The NY Daily News reports, “In the obsessively private Bush clan, talking out of school is the ultimate act of disloyalty, and Bush feels betrayed from within.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
And yet the Republicans want everyone to think there was no coverup in La Cage Aux Foley? Puh-leeeze.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:45 pmBush should review something called the Constitution of the United States and compare it with his actions in office before attempting to define disloyalty.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:46 pm“ticked off big time”? Can we expect our little emperor momma’s boy to take out his frustration now? Maybe the chimp will order a teeny weeny little nuclear strike on Iran to show that he is still in charge.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:46 pmOnce again, pissed at the messengers, not the message.
You got to change your moron and evil ways before people stop talking about you like that Mr. Bush.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:47 pmWatch you’re back Mr. Woodward, you may be the first in the gate of GITMO to test bull shit bush’s new bill’s that were passed….Right TP.??
October 9th, 2006 at 12:47 pmTo all the Bush supporters and those who support the invasions but wont join the military. Listen up! If George W. Bush invades North Korea he will do it alone. He will have to open the draft so all the bloggers can go and fight 1 Billion Korean military. Now let’s see if the Bush support is still there.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:51 pmMost Americans will talk the talk but wont join to fight. They’ll tell others to do their duty for country but like Bush/Cheney/Rummy who were scared to fight just set at home safe with their kids and tell others stay the course.
Now when the draft comes watch those same Americans say they wont send their sons/daughter to invade North Korea. Plus there’s no oil to steal so the big business will only be able to keep robbing the US Treasury. The North Korean President is smart to test while the White House is weak. Notice none of the GOP have sent their children in these invasions because they knew it was a death sentence. Pray for the families that believed Bush’s lies as their children died based on corruption and greed not to honor our country.
Bush feels betrayed from within.
Wow. Me, too.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:51 pmCareful, as soon as BushCo. (inc.) signs their new detainee bill, Mr. Woodward could ‘disappear before the law is ruled unconstitutional….
October 9th, 2006 at 12:52 pmOh, cry me a frickin’ river, Baby Boosh. What a pathetic little excuse for a man.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pm“In the obsessively private Bush clan, talking out of school is the ultimate act of disloyalty, and Bush feels betrayed from within.â€
True Americans feel betrayed from within, as well.
Iraq
Foley coverup
WMD
Abramoff
Libby
DeLay
Cunningham
Hughes
Wolfowitz
2K Election
2004 Election
Macaca
Leiberman
So, Mr. President, welcome to the ‘betrayed bunch’. We know all too well how it feels.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pmHow’s it feel?
October 9th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
No sympathy here. Your getting just what you deserve Mr. Bush and I hope it only gets a lot worse. You have screwed this country, the poor, the middle class, our men and women in the military with your stupid war, and now your own are turning on you. It is now your turn to be screwed in spades!
October 9th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI just can’t do it anymore. Every time I log onto ThinkProgress and see a gossipy thread all I can think about is the large numbers of Democrats who voted for torture and the yanking of Habeas Corpus.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:55 pmInsult to injury was ThinkProgress’s complete and total refusal to discuss Habeas Corpus at all.
It now completely and totally depresses me to look at this website. It was nice meeting you folks.
His biggest betrayer is himself. If he hadn’t betrayed the Constitution, this country, democracy, rule of law, and competency in government, none of these books would be appearing with such unswerving regularity!
October 9th, 2006 at 12:57 pmOB/GYN Guy,
If you’re still here, check Keith Olbermann tonight. He’s going over the habeas corpus issue.
Maybe TP will do a film clip…ugh.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:58 pmYeah, Clinton didn’t mind at all when his people spoke (speak) out against him. He and Dick Morris still play poker on Friday nights, I hear.
Try and surprise me today, people.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:00 pmAnd I feel betrayed from without, how does it feel George?
October 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pmThink Progress is great…I regularly check it throuout the day, agree with itscontent 98% of the time, and find it to be well researched and written. While I don’t doubt Bush is peeved over the Woodward book, the article linked to in the ost is pathetic and made me cringe. It was a whole lot of nothing…you can do better; there is so much material to choose from!
October 9th, 2006 at 1:02 pmOB/GYN Guy
I would be more interested in an article over habeas corpus myself. The silence is deafening on that issue and it is time for something to get put up.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:03 pmBush = whiny titty baby.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:06 pmI guess “what happens in the White House stays in the White House?”
October 9th, 2006 at 1:06 pmBut isn’t this all Clinton’s fault? That has always been the fall back position when something goes bad. Hastert is still on message in that regard.
The confluence of two strategies has placed us where we are today.
1. My way or the highway
2. Stay the course
When combined, they are a toxic brew.
The day Bush mentioned “axis of evil” he set both Iran and North Korea on a collision course with the goals of America. The first shoe has now dropped. What will the inappropriate Bush response be? I shudder to think.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:06 pmSeth II
From the article.
Clinton on the other hand, was objecting to lies. Try to keep up.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:06 pmBruce,
Tp ignoring the habeas corpus issue, is just like TP ignoring the Israel/Lebanon issue. In comprehensible.
James Risser was banned over it (miss him!) — how many are we going to lose over this?
October 9th, 2006 at 1:07 pmBush can only sit and watch North Korea now
he can do NOTHING
when he adopted “we can nuke NNPT countries resolution at the UN attitude”
his next step was an oil embargo, this is what made NK drop out of the NNPT and build weapons
Blame Bush himself
October 9th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#24 Zooey,
Probably me. I intend to keep mentioning their lack of mentioning it all the time. Can’t wait to hear what Keith has to say. And don’t forget, Everyone, to send him an e-mail thanking him for speaking up and saying what needs to be said. ‘Cause you know no one from the Democratic party is going to call the president a liar like Keith did. Go, Keith!
I nominate Keith Olbermann to be Minister of Truth, but it will be an Olbermannian ministry, not an Orwellian one. In this case, the “truth” will actually be true.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:15 pmMr President,
BOOOOO FRICKEN HOOOOO
Signed,
October 9th, 2006 at 1:15 pmThe Smart 70% who’ve had enough!
The habeas corpus issue will be talked about when he signs the bill and will then have a negative effect worldwide he will sign this Bill on the eve of the 7th November i bet
October 9th, 2006 at 1:16 pmZooey
Israel/Lebanon was sort of understandable: Foreign countries duking it out, one could argue that this was peripheral to America in a lot of ways.
Habeas Corpus and torture however are kind of central to the whole “Lets Impeach Bush” movement. I mean it is one of the serious issues, and to think it is being outranked by the Foley scandal, and Woodward’s book is kind of, well, it doesn’t leave a good taste in the mouth.
I mean, really we have had Foley for long enough, yes we get the point that the Republicans are perverts who shelter perverts, can we talk about something else now? Like maybe how it would be a good idea to, you know, not torture people, try them for their lives in front of kangaroo courts?
This is an issue which a lot of us feel very deeply about, and it is very relevant to what is going on right now. It warrants at least as much attention as Foley.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:18 pmWayne,
I hope it doesn’t come to that. If people like you and Jane start leaving, I’ll be gone, too. Let the trolls bounce off each other on an empty blog.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:21 pmSomeone said it, pissed at the messenger, not the message. The guy acts like he’s 5 years old and someone told the teacher he was picking his nose while outside on the playground.
For every person who voted for Bush who NOW tell me how wrong they were about him, I tell them they get no quarter from me. Why? Because now begins the restoration and they’re going to have work doubly hard to help.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:23 pmI see your point, Bruce.
That “god damned piece of paper” is what holds this country up, and TP is spending more time talking about a pervert — not that I don’t think he shouldn’t have been exposed.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:25 pmHey George : On Tuesday, September 11, 2001 you betrayed the WORLD.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#32 – How negatives is that? You know what I mean…
October 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pmIf you are not a registered democrat, please do not read the following–it is not meant for you.
COMING SOON at a television screen near you–a TV novel that frankly treats of such delicate subjects as political righteousness, pedophilia sex, criminal cover-ups by politicians, homosexual sex, political hypocrisy, and –oh, yes– sex. This powerful and very gripping TV special, entitled “Foley’s Follies”, was produced and
directed by that stellar Republican political in-sider Jack Abranoff, and includes outstanding performances by such illustrious players as George Walker Bush, Dennis Hastert, and John Boekner. Of course the star of the show is that darling of the Republican religious right, George Foley! I will never forget that very emotiona l
climactic scene, in which Her Honor Judge Luwinsky asks George Bush–oops, I meant George Foley–”Why did you have sex with all those boys, George?” George’s reply is reminiscent of Bush’s explanation as to why he made war on Iraq. With tears in his
eyes and streaming down his face, and in a voice quivering with emotion and religious zeal, George answers, “God told me to do it–I did it all for God”.
Jack says that if this TV special is well received, he has another in mind featuring George Walker Bush, and treating of such themes as war crimes, destroying the US Army, detroying the US economy, torture, kidnappi ng, secret prisons, illegal wire-taps, nepotism, political corruption, election fraud, pathological dissimulation, alcoholism, etc., etc. If this is not to be, Jack has a back-up
October 9th, 2006 at 1:28 pmproject in mind that is not based on an idea of his own, but rather on one of George Walker Bush. He plans to market a brand of toilet paper (”George Walker Bush Toilet Paper”) in which each sheet of toilet tissue is imprinted with a page from “The Constitution of the United States of America”.
Is Emperor Bush pissed off enough to choke on snack foods?
October 9th, 2006 at 1:28 pmBruce, you’re right. There is no valid criticism about any aspect of Clinton at any time from any person whatsoever. And the Catholics think the Pope is infallible!
October 9th, 2006 at 1:29 pmBush? Pissed? Well then, to him I say…
Phuque Yew!
I’ve been pissed for the better for part of five years now. Welcome to the damned club.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:31 pmDrugs supply inquiry at US base
A dozen airmen serving in Britain with the United States armed forces are under investigation in connection with the alleged supply of controlled drugs.
Eleven of the airmen belong to the 48th Maintenance Group or 48th Medical Group at RAF Lakenheath, it is revealed.
They are suspected of supplying 2500kg of Afghan Hashees and 500kg Heroin, a base spokeswoman has confirmed.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:37 pmWhy do right wing hacks always speak in infinites. Don’t they know that it makes them sound really stupid? I don’t even allow my kids to use infinites, because they 99% don’t aply to reality. Oh yeah, I am talking about a right winger. reality doesn’t aply to them. NVM.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:38 pmZooey and all, I mentioned last week when there were a dozen sites on the Foley deal, while it was important, not nearly as important as the distruction by these miserable bill’s. Sadly someone pointed out sex sell’s and indeed it does…Hope this post make’s it, one other one didn’t…Guess TP is getting realy good at cutting off topic’s by the regular’s and alowing the troll’s to pollute……Well I took yesterday off and may do a lot more of that if TP is going to continue with not putting up a thread on what’s realy important….I do have more important work to do…..Blessings
October 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pmSeth II
None that Clinton got overly peeved about. The only time we have really seen him angry is when he was accused on TV of not doing anything to prevent 9/11. On his work performance Clinton has been relatively open to criticism compared to Bush, who was afraid of Cindy Sheehan’s T Shirt.
Zooey
Yes.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pmThe truth can be painful. And Bob Woodward’s book may have the truth contained within.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:44 pmNow THAT was funny! Thank you. Still not surprised, but at least I got a chuckle.
After you used infinites to mock the use of infinites, perhaps you realized I wasn’t describing “reality”. I was mocking the apparent perception of Clinton by many of his supporters.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pmReal loyalty is earned, not taken by fear and threats. Bush should not be surprised that the fear he has generated did not win the hearts and minds of anyone… much less that of the people most threatened… his own cabal’s staff.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pmTo all of the TP regulars that want TP to post about other topics besides Foley. It is true that sex sells. I have been sending my parents articles, speech transcripts and PDF of various acts and bills. Nothing has broken through the thick hide of republicanism, until Foley came along.
While I think that TP should post some threads on our potential loss of Habeus Corpus, this Foley scandal is not gossip and as soon as we start to label it as gossip, then it becomes so.
I have fought for 6 years to get my parents back from the dark side. I have done it thanks to Foley. It is not gossip, it is a crime.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pmSo, I gather, Bush sort of feels like his trust has been betrayed, and that he considered it a precious thing, and this is a terrible hurt having that cherished confidence broken. Yes. Well.
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD, MR. PRESIDENT.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:50 pmBruce,
Strangely, I don’t remember Wallace asking Clinton why he “didn’t do anything to prevent 9/11″. I remember him asking, “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business…” Surely you see the difference your spin makes.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:53 pm#29 – …Habeas Corpus and torture however are kind of central to the whole “Lets Impeach Bush†movement. I mean it is one of the serious issues, and to think it is being outranked by the Foley scandal, and Woodward’s book is kind of, well, it doesn’t leave a good taste in the mouth…
Habeas Corpus uses Big Words. Too big for the likes of most people. Yet it is central to how we live in the US and is central to our “freedom” and “liberty”.
D***ed right this is a serious issue! But the time Emperor Chimp signs this into law, it will be too late!!! It will take years in a heavily ReichWingNut stacked Supreme Court to unravel the mess.
Does anyone think that the highly politicized Court will rule in favor of We the People? I don’t think we can take that chance.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:54 pmHabeas Corpus
How come everyone in Congress votes with McCain to ban Torture then 2 years later legalises Torture ????
And On Any American citizen too ????
WHY
October 9th, 2006 at 1:59 pmIf one took the trolls on this blog seriously, one might come to believe that Bill Clinton is indeed the most powerful man EVER! He’s responsible for EVERYTHING! Why, Bush can’t even step up to the plate because Clinton is at bat all the time! He may be more powerful than GOD, since he is able to, singlehandedly, thwart the ‘party of god’ at every turn. Bush doesn’t even run this country, as evidenced by Clinton’s role in every single failure that has occured since Bush took office. It’s amazing that the GOP Congress bothers coming to work at all since it is their understanding that Bill Clinton has already made all the relevant decisions, so any glory and all the condemnation are his. I say, if he’s the one that is really in charge, then he should be the official president. We should stop with this phoney baloney stuff about Bush being in office. Since when? Six years ago? Hardly time to blow Clintons’ dust out of the closets. No wonder the GOP is frustrated. They huff and they puff and they blow stuff up and down, and STILL, it’s Clinton who’s responsible. Talk about unfair!
October 9th, 2006 at 2:00 pmDid you ride the short bus to school.
Bin Laden = 9/11
It is the same thing just wrapped in a different question to throw off retards like you.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:08 pmOoh, he’s really ticked off. He’s seriously cheezed. We’ve messed with the wrong muchacho. Watch out or he’ll be a real baby and take the football back to the White House.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:08 pmDumass, republicans fall into the 1% that you decided to not quote me on. Stupid.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:09 pmDon’t let Bush go into his bunker. Sounds like he’s beginning to feel that the American people do not deserve his leadership. Right out of the Hitler playbook. Might consider taking away his access to the launch codes for our nuclear missiles. Scared yet? Sieg heil!
October 9th, 2006 at 2:13 pm… i didn’t get past the byline… gotta say this…
October 9th, 2006 at 2:17 pm“…and Bush feels betrayed from within.†…
…i doubt he has any clue how much he’s betrayed his countrymen…
.
Dick Morris means nothing really, just as your posts about apparent perceptions about Clinton, Morris and Poker has nothing to do with this thread.
You may as well have used Strom Thurmond, Racist, and the child he had with a black woman and how they still play ‘poker’ on Sunday after Church every week.
Your not ‘mocking perceptions’, your trying to create them, just as I did with Thurmond, now go away.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:17 pm1)paranoid
2)vindictive/vengeful
3)unable to accept responsibility / blameshifting
4)egomaniacal / closed to new or external information
Yeah, that’s definitely what you’d call the list of top characteristics for a President-type…
October 9th, 2006 at 2:18 pmBruce Gorton and OB/GYN Guy,
The habeas corpus issue is one EXTREMELY important reason democrats MUST win the election in November…
…so that ALL of Bushiva’s bullsh*t can be OVERTURNED…
…not through congressional overrides…
…but his and L’il Dick’s impeachments…
…Democrats probably went along with this habeas corpus issue…
…to take it away as a campaign issue in the retarded inb’RED’ states…
…
October 9th, 2006 at 2:20 pmOne last post and then I’m otta here…..Every one read…..Micky Z’s Is Michael Moore Dead.? on the oped site, please…….Then maybe, just maybe you will understand my outrage with TP and all who are ignoring one of the most important issues, the passing of bill’s that strip our constitution and civil right’s..After you read it and think on it then you can ask why I am mad as hell and why I horde food, water and ammo…Or maybe you will realy get (it)…The jigg’s up and we are out of time…Do something for you’re country, I am…
True patriot’s are those that keep a close watch on the workings of their rogue government and try to right it…..Blessings…Peace
October 9th, 2006 at 2:25 pmSpudge_Boy,
If you think “bin Laden” and “9/11″ were the only differences between your misquote and my quote, maybe I should have underlined all the differences for you. Then I read your other reply (#56) and realized that wouldn’t have helped either.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:35 pmAnd I’ve been ticked off for 5 years watching our country turn into something other than what made us the most respected country in the world. I’ll stop being ticked off when we are able to turn back into the country I learned about in school – the one who demonstrates respect for human rights and individual freedom, and who cooperates with other countries toward achieving shared goals. Whatever happened to that country?
October 9th, 2006 at 2:39 pmExcuse the error, will try again.”Who Killed Michael Moore” on oped new’s.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:39 pmTicked off? Tough sh*t! GOP…Hasta la vista, baby!
October 9th, 2006 at 2:49 pm#26 Wayne…
First of all, congratulations on a GREAT weekend of baseball.
Secondly, “I nominate Keith Olbermann to be Minister of Truth”
How ’bout Chris Berman as Minister of Foreign Affairs?
Trey Wingo as Minister of Defense?
Dan Patrick as Minister of the Treasury?
And, of course, Peter Gammons as Cultural Minister?
Does any know what Warner Wolf’s take on the Military Commissions Act is?
What about Sal Marciano????
Is the left so bereft of leaders that they are now lionizing an ESPN reject???? That’s just…Well…That’s just sad (And yet VERY funny!)
October 9th, 2006 at 2:57 pmNothing like telling the truth to piss off Bush and his co-conspirators. “Talking out of school” is the ultimate betrayal? It’s like the Mafia.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:59 pmSeth_II,
You are right, there isn’t one damn thing that you can say to me that will make me change my mind about Bush or the Neo Cons. Republicans aren’t all that bad, but you aren’t one of those are you?
October 9th, 2006 at 3:01 pmAre you mad at yourself mr bush?…..you sure should be…YOU made all this mess..yes YOU.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:01 pmFrom State of Denial:
October 9th, 2006 at 3:07 pmPage 88: Prince Bandar told Bush stories about how Saddam kept people loyal. He required his bodyguards to do two things to prove themselves: kill somebody else from within their own tribe and kill somebody from another tribe. This created a double vendetta. “If I want to trust you with my life,” Bandar explained, “I want to make sure nowhere else you are safe except with me.” – - The Prince schooled young Bush.
It has been reported that President Bush is “ticked off big-timeâ€. This became evident when the President stormed upstairs to his room, slamming the door as hard as he could and then preceding to throw a temper tantrum while telling everyone on his staff that he “wasn’t going to be best-est friends with them anymore”.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:13 pmBadmoonman,
Killing their own tribe. You mean like knocking down a couple of building that held Americans (his own tribe) and foriengers (a different tribe)?
Hmmmmm, very telling.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:16 pmWanna know something sad? George Allens presidential plans..bwahahhahaa
October 9th, 2006 at 3:19 pmIf he gets pissed enough, he might pull a page from King George III’ds playbook and hire the Hessians to invade NK and Iran…
October 9th, 2006 at 3:20 pmOctober 9th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Exley, what’s your point? Because Olbermann worked on SportsCenter he couldn’t possibly do anything else? Seriously?
I suppose if that’s true then you have to admit that righties get conned by Sean Hannity (former construction worker) every day, cause what does he know if he’s not talking about framing houses. Not to mention Ronald Reagan (former actor), what could he have possibly known about politics?
October 9th, 2006 at 3:25 pmI bet he layed on that rug in front of the oval desk, rolled from back to front, red-faced and crying, kicking the floor, until poppy bush came in and gave him something to suck on.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:28 pmExley,
First of all nobody, least of all me, picked me to be a spokesman for “the left”, so don’t judge all liberals by what I say.
Second, Keith has two jobs which, apart from both being in broadcasting, have little to do with each other. I am a fan of his politically-oriented program, not his sports ones (although I do like his home run call.) In this regard I would trust him to tell us the truth. I trust no one from the Bush Administration to do that.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:28 pmRepublican leaders Bwahahhaaaa! They don’t lead Exley, they follow!! Trained lemmings!!
October 9th, 2006 at 3:30 pmEx(crement)
You right wingers have as your Minister of Truth…
…an Oxycontin addict…
…hmmm
October 9th, 2006 at 3:32 pmWayne, I don’t see you as the spokesman for the left. Many others here have also expressed their belief that Keith “SportsCenter” Olbermann is now the champion of truth, justice, and the American Way….
All I want to know is what does Suzy Kolber think of North Korea’s nuclear test and where does Mel Kiper stand on the preemption doctrine.
All America awaits these sportscasters’ views on the issues!
October 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pmExley, what’s your point? Because Olbermann worked on SportsCenter he couldn’t possibly do anything else? Seriously? – - And the Republican God known as Reagan was a baseball radio broadcaster. Exley, your arguments have the tensile strength of cobwebs.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:44 pmBush is not ticked off or gives a damn about anything. The only thing that Bush and the rest of the corruption in Washington care about is money, money and more money and how to keep the greatest swindle ever perpetrated upon the nation going until he leaves the White House with his pockets full. When Cheney returns to his hobby as CEO of the Halliburton War Corporation after filling his pockets from the treasury and the dolt returns to whatever the hell he does, they will live like Saudi princes with all the money they have placed in the hands of their corporate cronies. Fortunately for them, all they had to do was convince an ignorant electorate that they were the good guys.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:44 pmB. O’Rielly was the anchor of a women’s couchpotato tabloid show. I’ll take the former sportscaster’s view anyday.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:51 pmUmmm, can anybody tell me what is wrong with being a sports caster?
Arnold Schawenegger (sp) was a freaking actor. THat means he doesn’t know anything, he just ACTS like it.
Tom DeLay was an exterminator.
What is your point Excrement?
October 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pmMany others here have also expressed their belief that Keith “SportsCenter†Olbermann is now the champion of truth, justice, and the American Way….Comment by Exley — October 9, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 3:54 pmSportsCenter was a job he did, a trade for a paycheck. If you watched the f*cking program D*ckhead, you would know that he is a Student of History as well, some may argue he has a Historians view of the world… so, Waaaake Uuuuup……!
Exley you should get out more your talking crazy pasty goldberg bilge.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pmIt doesn’t occur to him that this may not be a case of disloyalty, but there may be some aides in the White House who are truly frightened by what they observe, and have taken an opportunity to get out a message.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:05 pmWoodward was a favored reporter in the Bush White House in the early years, now he is cursed and phones are slammed down on him. Woodward would have been a likely avenue for anyone with a story who wanted to have legitimacy with Bush&Co.
No, Exley that was the Republican ‘big tent’ that says they have the ‘truth’. Go back to reading your LaHaye series of ‘truth’ like a good little ‘end timer’ sheep.
The ‘truth’ departed from the GrOPes a long time ago;
The big lie is over Exley you can step down off that mythical pedestal of morality you have imagined yourself to stand upon.
Bwahahhahahaa!!
October 9th, 2006 at 4:11 pmyou would know that he is a Student of History
Yes, he can name EVERY World Series MVP going back to 1922!
He’s brilliant, I tells ya! BRILLIANT!
October 9th, 2006 at 4:11 pmAs for Olbermann, did you complainers forget that Reagan was a movie actor (and a grade B one as well?) and Schwarzenneger also made a lot of grade B movies?
October 9th, 2006 at 4:14 pmI always thought Reagan was of too low intellect to be president, and I feel the same about Schwarzenneger. I think their elections were the result of the mindset of Americans who know more about the celebrities in the country than they do about what actually affects them.
Spudge_Boy,
I’m not a very loyal Republican. They’re just closer to most of my positions than Democrats. They’ve let me down on some issues, but no more so than the Democrats would have by design.
Mostly I just find the criticism of Republicans on this site to be desperate, irrational, and narrow-minded. Nazi comparisons, misquotations, blame assignment for unassociated events, and excusing Democrats for similar but usually worse activities comprise about 90% of what I read in the comments. I don’t think most of the public buys it, and y’all just lose more and more credibility. Republicans aren’t doing well right now, but that doesn’t mean you Progressives are. Your only hope for success is apathy from your opponents’ supporters. That’s pretty damn sad.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:20 pmYes, he can name EVERY World Series MVP going back to 1922!Comment by Exley — October 9, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 4:21 pmWell, I apparently you don’t watch the show….what a fag…
Exley forgets Bush was the manager for the Texas Rangers baseball team before he became Governor of Texas [which is really just a title, the LT. Governor does the work]
Yeh George Bush Baseball manager preznit!!
Bwahahahaaa!
What was yout point about again Exley?
October 9th, 2006 at 4:21 pm#93 Dikdn’t Rush Limbaugh work for the Kansasa City Royals as an anouncer? Yet this paper rustling, oxycontin poping, erectile disfunctional sad imposter for a male can be the flag barer of the moral right and many will jump when he says so.
Keith O. Will put his opinion out there and then back it up with facts. Rush L. will rustle some papers, talk to someone out of mike range, laugh and jump to another subject that holds no factual evidence.
Go ahead an slam Keith O. but back it up ass crack
October 9th, 2006 at 4:22 pm“Well, I [sic] apparently you don’t watch the show…”
What are you talking about? I watch “SportsCenter” all the time…Keith is sorely missed there. No one could do an NHL recap like Olbermann….
October 9th, 2006 at 4:29 pmYeh Exley, lets talk Bush Baseball!!
Bwahahahaaa.
The Party of Exley, the Party of Crooks!!
October 9th, 2006 at 4:32 pm“Exley forgets Bush was the manager for the Texas Rangers baseball team” – - Well no, he wasn’t. Bush was a part owner of the Rangers.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:32 pmWasn’t Ronald Reagan also a sports announcer?
Maybe this is the new political fast track…
October 9th, 2006 at 4:34 pm#101 Yeah the Rangers would be in trouble if he tried to actually manage them. His primary job was to be the son of a powerful politician.
And provide blow for the parties.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:35 pmWhat are you talking about? I watch “SportsCenter†all the time…Keith is sorely missed there. No one could do an NHL recap like Olbermann….
October 9th, 2006 at 4:36 pmComment by Exley — October 9, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
What the F*ck you Retard…. Olbermann’s show d*ck, you don’t watch Olbermann’s show… man o’man, you are dense!
Clearly having certain non-political jobs disqualifies Republicans (but clearly not Democrats) from politics. I used to drive trucks delivering electrical supplies to construction sites. Should I just give up any political ambitions?
I forgot to mention your reliance on non sequiturs in my prior post. Why the hell do I even bother?
October 9th, 2006 at 4:36 pmBaseball watching (since they can’t play the game themselves, they’re too weak on defense… LOL!!!) boy chasing ReichWingNut perverts must really be getting their panties in a wad. Their base is gone.
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Sun Oct 8, 6:53 PM ET
NEW ALBANY, Ind. – After winning over moms in back-to-back elections, Republicans have lost their advantage among married women with children this year.
The Republican Party has seen the support of people like Jeannette Hopkins evaporate.
A 30-year-old married mother of two and a Republican, Hopkins voted for President Bush in 2004. But she says she probably will support the Democrat in her congressional district this fall “because of the way that everything’s been handled” with the GOP in charge of Congress and Bush in the White House.
“We’re in a really scary place right now,” Hopkins said recently. She vented about what she called the gone-on-too-long Iraq war, a sluggish economy, the bungled Hurricane Katrina response and a continuing terrorism threat…
D**n right! we’re in a scary place right now. This monkey is on the back of all Republicans. It’s their game, their show. Yet they BLEW IT! Big time.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:37 pmBush finally got something right, he aint never done anything!
He was the managing partner and part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball
October 9th, 2006 at 4:37 pmOf course, I don’t watch “Countdown.” Nobody does.
By the way, if you guys are interested, I hear Terry Bradshaw will be giving a talk on Third World debt reduction later this week….You might want to catch that.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:40 pmCause your a assclown??
October 9th, 2006 at 4:43 pmNaw, I figured I would watch that uncredentialed chickenhawk political hack Rove try to discuss Foreign Policy.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:44 pmOf course, I don’t watch “Countdown.†Nobody does.Comment by Exley — October 9, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 4:45 pmYay, and we finally find you are Clueless…….
“He was the managing partner and part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball” – - Yep, and your original post just said “manager.” That’s VERY different from managing partner. Accuracy counts, kids.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:45 pmI also hear that Dennis Hastert, wrestling coach, is gonna start giving lessons on how to wrestle pages to the ground and seduce them!! Foley of course will be giving pointers on his techniques as well!!
October 9th, 2006 at 4:47 pmMy apologies for starting someting that got everything sidetracked. I didn’t think my enthusiastic endorsement for someone who tells the truth would turn into a ridiculous debate. I’ll have something to say to TP before I go home tonight.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pmOr I enjoy observing groups of them.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pmHmmmm? what’s that, ren? I’m sorry…I was listening to Tim McCarver give his thoughts on the capital gains tax cut….
You were saying something about “Clueless.” Are you going to tell us how Alicia Silverstone stands on nuclear proliferation?
October 9th, 2006 at 4:53 pmExley,
Why not give it a try? Watch “Countdown” tonight. Why not? No playoff games until tomorrow. Watch tonight and see if you agree that we do have quite a bit to fear from this administration. I challenge you to see if you can handle the truth. (And I can tell you right now, it looks a lot different from the “truth” you’ve been getting from O’Reilly.)
October 9th, 2006 at 4:55 pmNo he was a managing partner, not just a part owner, and your original post just said ‘part owner’
October 9th, 2006 at 4:55 pmAccuracy counts Kiddo!
Even Republicans are seeing BushCo’s Iraq policies as failed!
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a longtime Republican strategist, is preparing recommendations that
President George W. Bush reconsider his “stay-the-course” strategy in Iraq…
…On a related topic, the former secretary of state questioned the administration’s policy of not talking to Iran or Syria.
He noted he made 15 trips to Damascus as secretary of state. Syria eventually joined the U.S.-organized coalition that drove the Iraqis from Kuwait.
“I don’t think you restrict your conversations to your friends,” he said.
“It’s got to be hard-nosed,” Baker said. “It’s got to be determined. You don’t give away anything. But in my view it is not appeasement to talk to your enemies.“
OK, ReichWingNut trolls, defend Bush from that! Don’t forget, Baker is one of your’s.
After all the whoopla, ReichWingNuts turn out to be “Cut and Run” types. They turn out to be weak on defense. But boy are they strong on, well, man on boy or man on man perversions!
October 9th, 2006 at 4:56 pm#114,
No apologies necessary, Wayne.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:57 pmI hear Richard Simmons and Don King are making another appearance on FUX news to discuss social security!
October 9th, 2006 at 4:58 pmI wonder how the former aids feel about Bush’s torture bill now? They might comprise the first round of purges as “unlawful enemy combatants.”
Those courageous people who come forward with testimony and evidence about this Administration’s crimes deserve our admiration and support. They are the true Patriots.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:58 pmYeh me too, The Rupert Murdoch neo-liberal FOX channel seems to have the most species of them!!
October 9th, 2006 at 5:00 pmBush got purdy ticked off. He wuz gotdam madder ena bull in a hornet’s nest. It’s going to take someone with some picturesque speech to put it into context. I know, someone with past sports knowledge that can also see through all the Bushit that’s being thrown. I know just the guy.
Starting countdown…………….
October 9th, 2006 at 5:01 pm#117 Wayne…I have seen Olbermann’s political commentaries (I don’t watch him on a regular basis)…He lost any credibility he might have had as a political commentator when he compared Ken Starr to Heinrich Himmler.
He is a smug political poseur, whose commentaries are factually vapid but filled with obtuse and flowery language, designed to obscure his insecurity about being known as a sportscaster who is pretending to know anything about history, politics, or policy.
Jon Stewart, at least, is funny and has some idea about what he is talking. Olbermann is a guy who couldn’t hack it as a sportscaster on ESPN.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:03 pmMan, I’ll bet this is torturing him.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:04 pmWhich of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow.
#5 Is Exley ripping one former sportscaster while trying to ignore and defend others because of the actual facts or is it Jealousy.
#4 How many times did Rep. Foley contact Seth II?
#3 Bush got purty gotdam mad…..again
#2 Did I see 36% approval rating for the Pres?
#1 Do all Republicans hate (fill in the blank) or is it fear of the truth?
October 9th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#114 My apologies for starting someting that got everything sidetracked. I didn’t think my enthusiastic endorsement for someone who tells the truth would turn into a ridiculous debate. I’ll have something to say to TP before I go home tonight.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:06 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 9, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
#114,No apologies necessary, Wayne.
Comment by Exley — October 9, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
There aren’t words to describe how gay you two are…
And what are you going to say to TP before you go home to mommy? You both need help….
Wanna see something funny?
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/cavutokatrina.jpg
October 9th, 2006 at 5:09 pmNo need for you to apologize either, Ren.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:14 pmThis message was both e-mailed and posted.
Dear ThinkProgress,
Keith Olbermann has promoted a story he’ll be doing tonight about the demise of habeus corpus. I encourage all of you (who don’t have to watch O’Reilly) to watch it and then I challenge you to post a story on it. Keith will explain how the new detainee bill applies not only to people picked up on the battlefield; it can also apply to him, me, Jane, Zooey, unbelievable, Sharon Cox, Bruce Gorton, Judd, Faiz, Nico, Amanda, Payson and anybody else the president decides he wants to put away forever. And yes, even Exley and ren! If there isn’t an item tomorrow with a review of Keith’s story and an update on the status of our legal rights (has the bill been signed into law yet?), then I don’t know why ThinkProgress exists.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:15 pmWell I guess it is official:
George W. Bush is suffering from the “Hitler Complex”. He is Der Fuhrer and believes that everyone around him is out to get him.
Isn’t this cause for removing him from office because of mental deficiency?
October 9th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#129 your apology is on Wayn’s ass so you can kiss it good….
October 9th, 2006 at 5:16 pmSeth II
Straight after Path to 9/11 and you couldn’t see what that question came out as? Come on, nobody is that stupid. Now onto the more burning issue:
If those trucks always arrived late and the construction materials were not not in good enough condition to actually be useable, and you had a history of cutting corners and siphoning fuel from the trucks, yes it does mean you should give up on your dreams of being president.
What you righties miss when the left talks about Bush’s past careers is that he was awful at them. He showed a distinct lack of managerial ability in all of them. Heck his oil companies were structured in the same way as Enron, and they ended up going broke, just like Enron.
About all Bush ever really succeeded at was going broke right up until he entered politics, where is less then ethical take on management was right at home.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:18 pmren,
Thank you. I’ll be sure to give your comments the thought they deserve.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#134ren,
October 9th, 2006 at 5:28 pmThank you. I’ll be sure to give your comments the thought they deserve.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 9, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
thanks…
Wayne, The rantings of constititutional scholar and ESPN score-reader Keith Olbermann aside, the Miltary Commission Act revokes all U.S. court’s jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions by alien enemy combatants in U.S. custody. It does not apply to U.S. citizens.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:29 pmHerewith are the Exley Files part 1; chronicles of a legend – “Let’s face it, Zooey, I am good. I am VERY good!” – in his own mind.
Debate employs three tactics: acknowledgement, accommodation, and refutation. In honest debate, one acknowledges a perceived conflict with (or within) a stated assertion, one accomodates a perceived conflict, by showing how it fits into the assertion, or one refutes a perceived conflict, by presenting convincing evidence to the contrary. As the readers will see, Exley, and most conservatives who frequent ThinkProgress (with specific apologies to Coach Jason, and a handful of others), prefer the “Squat and Trot” style of debate: acknowledge nothing, accommodate nothing, and when refuting an assertion, ignore those who would present stronger evidence to the contrary.
While liberals and progressives occasionally react to news events by giving voice to outrage in the crudest of terms, they don’t hew to the intellectually-corrupt style of debate employed by the Exleys of the Internet, who use a constantly-revolving array of half-truths, willful ignorance, arrogant misstatement, and outright fraud. Debate with such deeply partisan individuals is near-impossible, as they have constructed an internalized paradigm in which they are never wrong, and as such, never repentant for any slur, false assertion, or conflation of facts. It is instructive to plumb the depths of the intellectuallly-cowardly, and insincere Exleys of the Internet, and to chronicle their style of “debate,” which ill-serves the public discourse. While there are other examples of his rancid rhetoric scattered throughout ThinkProgress’ comment boards, this particular set of postings is the most vivid example of the internet’s Exleys; intellectual dishonesty, narcissistic self-absorption, and plainly puerile patter.
In the interests of a better understanding of the inconsistent (and occasionally incoherent) Exley, I present to you, The Exley Files. For clarity, posts unrelated to The Files have been deleted. Anyone wishing to view the unedited comments, can read them at the thread, “Torture in Iraq may be worse now.”
The Chronicles begin in the comments section, on a Sept 22 thread, entitled:
FLASHBACK: Conservative Lawmakers Decried Clinton’s Attacks Against Osama As ‘Wag the Dog’ » “Torture in Iraq may be worse now”
After opinions by posters winston smith, wisedup, Sharon Cox, Republicans are the fear and smear party, Dave M., Terrythe Turtle, Zippy the Other Pinhead, and dlet, Exley makes an unsupported claim [my comments.]:
From the article:
Nowak added, “That means something, because the torture methods applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine.â€
Wha? How could that be???? After all, so many posters here at ThinkProgress keep telling us the the Iraqi people LOVED Saddam and that he really wasn’t that monstrous a dictator….
Do you mean to tell me that Saddam was actually a evil and murderous tyrant???? I’m shocked! SHOCKED! Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
[Dave M. notes the obvious/absurd aspects of Exley's abortive attempt at sardonic wit]:
Exley: Saddam was actually a evil and murderous tyrant.
Comment by Dave M. — September 22, 2006
[TerrytheTurtle pounces on the unsupported Exley claim, giving an apt descriptor of Exley's overwrought imagination]:
Freedom’s Untidyâ€
#10 And once again….â€After all, so many posters here at ThinkProgress keep telling us the the Iraqi people LOVED Saddam and that he really wasn’t that monstrous a dictator†– holy strawman Batman! Comment by TerrytheTurtle — September 22, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
[Dave M. chides Exley for his myopic worldview, willful ignorance, and laser-like focus on the trivial]:
Also Exley, it really saddens me that all you got out of this is that Saddam tortured people. Did you intentionally ignore the part that we are apparently doing things worse than Saddam, which, as you pointed out, was “the worst you could imagine�
I don’t know how you can sit here wagging your finger at a bunch of goofy people on a progressive blog instead of calling your representatives and demanding that we hold those that are perpetuating this torture to account. That, my friend, is what leaves me shocked. SHOCKED. Comment by Dave+M. — September 22, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
[dlet, a witness to Exley's dishonest smear of TP commenters, issues a clarification - before Exley attempts to twist his words as well.]
#9 was sarcastic. Just to be clear.
Do you mean to tell me that Saddam was actually a evil and murderous tyrant???? I’m shocked! SHOCKED! Comment by Exley
First I don’t know who here liked Saddam or even shook hands with him. And as for the situation being worse now in Iraq than it was under ASaddam how do you think the Iraqi people like there freedom given to them by bushie. Think they have a good feeling towards the US yet. Its hard for me to take that someone as horrible as Saddam is a lesser evil to the Iraqis that the President of the US. Sad. Comment by dlet — September 22, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
[PLC also feels offended by Exley's unsupported slur, and demands that he quit bluffing and show his hand.]
Name one poster who keeps telling us the the Iraqi people LOVED Saddam and that he really wasn’t that monstrous a dictator. You may like the taste of that Red Kool-Aid but that does not mean that you need to try to jamb it down our throats and try to get us to swallow it. Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 22, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
[Realizing that Exley "speakum with forked keyboard," SpudgeBoy defends himself, delivering a viscious kick to the head of Exley's strawman.]:
After all, so many posters here at ThinkProgress keep telling us the the Iraqi people LOVED Saddam and that he really wasn’t that monstrous a dictator….
Nobody here has said anything like that and you know it. The only thing people have said regarding Saddam and the Iraqis is that some of the Iraqis want Saddam back BECAUSE HE RULED WITH AN IRON FIST. Some people want that. Take people like mighty aphrodite and roger_roger. And after the stuff you said last night, I figured you were normal. But, no, you are just another troll. Jerk Comment by SpudgeBoy — September 22, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
[Republicans are the fear and smear party then takes a whack at the synco-'phant X-hibitionist]:
Exlax always makes these outrageous statements…not unlike George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rick Sanatarium, Tom DeLay, etc., etc.Comment by Republicans are the fear and smear party — September 22, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
[This next posting is a vivid example of Exley's putrid, cowardly style of debate. He employs a willfull ignorance of history, coupled with hair-splitting, to make a meaningless distinction]:
#16, Dave+M, A few points…1) Let me just correct you on one thing you said…The article does NOT report that “we†(meaning the United States) are doing things worse than Saddam. The report was focused on Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence.
["We" (meaning the United States) armed Saddam during the time he committed these acts, and by invading and overthrowing the country's political structure, "we" also fostered "Iraqi-on-Iraqi" violence. Nowhere in the thread does he ever acknowledge this fact. An honest debate of this issue would entail voicing these acknowledgements of America's past and present involvement in the country's current crisis. But honest debate isn't what narcissistic trolls like Exley crave; his monkey-like antics feed a need to validate his existence by throwing rhetorical poop at all who challenge him. It matters not (in his mind) that he lies, distorts and defames, as he thinks he holds the moral high-ground, and that the ends justify the means.]
[This second "point" is an attempt to backpeddle from his previous contention that "many posters here at ThinkProgress keep telling us the the Iraqi people LOVED Saddam and that he really wasn’t that monstrous a dictator…."without offering any proof other than SpudgeBoy's question,]:
2) I was simply trying to re-state a point that has gotten lost in much of the debate over the Iraq War. I have noticed a tendency amony many posters here to downplay the horror that permeated Saddam’s rule over Iraq.
[This is also an example of the intellectually dishonest style of debate employed by squat-and-trot trolls like Exley. Whenever they engage in "debate," anything goes: posting unproven innuendo and smear, previously-refuted "facts," and political commentary that debunks itself (as Exley has been documented doing many times in the past.)]
[In this example, Exley, realizing that he must at least make an attempt at even-handed rhetoric or be seen by the casual readers of ThinkProgress as an ideologue, yet again posts unproveable assertions, this time that "many of my liberal or “progressive†friends argued that democracitizing Iraq was impossible because the Arab-Muslim world was incapable of forming such a society." Exley expects the readers of TP to believe that he actually has liberal or "progressive" friends (which, judging by his generally dismissive tone of progressives, would be difficult to imagine), while willfully ignoring his many instances of intellectual dishonesty in the past. Like all the other conservative squat-and-trotters, Exley's corrupt internal paradigm will not allow him to admit reality, even once. In his mind, he is never wrong, nor unjustified in any slur, strawman, or weak generalization he posts. Honest debate is beyond him, as he continually tries to thumb the scale with pettifogging and self-defined "missions" to overstate the obvious. Exley's tone in point #3 sounds non-partisan - until it is combined with the two previous "points:" that "we" Americans are not responsible for the violence, as it is "Iraqi-on-Iraqi," and that "many posters here at ThinkProgress keep telling us the the Iraqi people LOVED Saddam and that he really wasn’t that monstrous a dictator…." - while offering no conclusive proof, other than posting a question, that he has treated as if it were an assertion.]
3) I am in fact greatly saddened and disappointed but what I see going on in Iraq today and I freely admit there may be no way to stop the Muslim-on-Muslim carnage going on in Iraq right now. It is a tragedy. The United States and its Coalition partners, by deposing the monstrous Saddam Hussein, provided the Iraqi people with a golden opportunity to create a modern, tolerant democratic society. Tragically, it appears the Iraqis are squandering this opportunity. Rather than creating a decent, civilized society for themselves and their children, they appear to be indulging in ancient tribal and ethnic divisions. In the run up to liberation, many of my liberal or “progressive†friends argued that democracitizing Iraq was impossible because the Arab-Muslim world was incapable of forming such a society. I, on the other hand, believed that given the opportunity, the Iraqi people would embrace freedom and tolerance. Perhaps I was wrong and my progressive friends correct. I am not yet sure. When I see the daily Iraqi-on-Iraqi, Muslim-on-Muslim carnage, I am pessimistic. When I see millions of Iraqis go to the polls to participate in the democratic process, I am hopeful. But lately my pessimism outweighs my optimism. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
[To demonstrate that I, barfly, am not "cherry-picking" comments to prove my points, I am also submitting progressives' foul balls, like the one below. But please note the difference between a simple misunderstanding of an assertion, and a willful misrepresentation of the facts. The only posts omitted were those not related to this outrageous, trollish behavior]
Exley Please show us where TP has said the Iraqii people loved Sadaam? There have been discussion abotu wheether Iraq is better off under Sadaam or under Bush. But I can not recall where TP has claimed the Iraqii’s loved Sadaam. They may also have published statements from people in Iraq, on the ground, who preferred the stability and peace of the Sadaam days to the chaos and war of Bush. Comment by Mark — September 22, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
[Juan C also piles on Captain Contra -- diction]:
Exley, sorry to see your world crumbling apart with facts.Comment by Juan+C — September 22, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
[Still hoping to salvage a few, tattered, remants of credibility, he holds tight to his wobbly strawman. Note, if you will, the irony of Exley lecturing others about "twisting history," after being caught doing so himself]:
#17, 18, Dlet, PLC…I didn’t say ALL posters here have expressed that opinion and I didn’t mean to so imply. I know that is not the case. But undeniably, some have. And when I read that, it saddens me. One can have their opinion and argue about whether the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing to do or not. But people should not twist history in order to make their points. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
[Kermit the Freedom Frog jumps on the obvious flaw in Exley's strawpal]:
Exley, who said Saddam was a nice guy? Oh right, Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld did! Even when liberals like Amnesty International were begging them to drop support. Comment by Kermit+the+Freedom+Frog — September 22, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
[In the melee, ReadyForChange sees an exposed foot, and stomps down hard]:
#17 First I don’t know who here liked Saddam or even shook hands with him. That would be Donald Rumsfeld – you know, our secretary of defense? I think if you truly look at what the Iraqis have been through since the U.S. invasion and put yourself in their shoes, it is not difficult to think that they might hate the U.S. occupation as much or more than they hated the rule of Saddam. Also lets get the record straight – we all agree Saddam was bad. Mkay? That doesn’t mean the U.S. gets off the hook for the situation we created – which was PREDICTED by many people and consequently ignored by the stubborn Bush administration. EVERY prediction they’ve made about Iraq and the war on terrorism has proven false. And now the Iraqis are not only being tortured and killed in massive numbers every day, they have an unstable government with little food or water, electricity, etc. On top of that, we’ve CREATED a new hotbed for terrorists. Iraq has become a magnet for people in the Middle East who hate America. It was not the central front on terrorism until we invaded! Not to mention that the whole debacle has made the U.S. less safe, inflamed anti-U.S. sentiment and given Al Qaeda the biggest recruiting tool in their history. Comment by ReadyForChange — September 22, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
[Exley offers a weak defense, instead letting his strawman take the punishing blows.]:
#20, SpudgeBoy, Nothing I wrote here today contradicts anything we discussed last night. See also posting #22. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
[dlet is temporarily overcome from the fumes of Exley's smoldering hypocrisy.]:
#25,But people should not twist history in order to make their points. Comment by Exley
I read this over and over and over again. Looked at who wrote it. read it over and over and over again. Looked at who wrote it again. Read it over and over again. I am seriously in shock and awe. I may have to leave for the day. I can’t think straight. Comment by dlet — September 22, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
[ Kermit the Freedom Frog kicks at Exley's poorly-made strawman - and its head comes clean off.]:
#25 Either name some names or admit you haven’t seen anyone say Saddam was a nice guy here.Comment by Kermit+the+Freedom+Frog — September 22, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
[Spudge delivers a rapid, one-two punch]:
“But undeniably, some have.” [Exley quote.]
Name one. Show one post where one of us or TP says that the Iraqis “LOVED†Saddam. Put up or shut up. Comment by SpudgeBoy — September 22, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
Dude, last night your meds must have been working. You said that we need to stop the BS and work together as a country. Then you come in this morning, before your meds kick in and say that ’so many of us think the Iraqis LOVED Saddam’ That is complete and utter BS and you know it. You just felt like being a jerk this morning and losing whtever normality you had last night. Be a man and admit you were wrong. Comment by SpudgeBoy — September 22, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
[Exley, now lying down on the ground next to his dismembered pile of straw, looks up at the assembled mob. Through split, bloodied lips, he smiles, and asks, "Had enough yet?"]:
#30, 31 Now, now, you two!…Don’t play “dumb.†You know as well as I do that it has been said and who has said it. I can understand that it may embarass you that some of your fellow TP posters have expressed such a vile thought, but don’t pretend it hasn’t been said. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
[TerrytheTurtle, now showing his sadistic side, twists Exley's assertion into a forced-lock position.]:
#25 OK Exley, let’s go from “so many posters†to just one. Name the heartless bastard so we can pummel him with cyber abuse…or perhaps your strawman just dried up and blew away….Comment by TerrytheTurtle — September 22, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
[Groggy, Exley mistakenly thinks he's winning.]:
#29, Dlet…“I may have to leave for the dayâ€. Awww, don’t go. You’d be missed. You always make such fascinating points….They’re usually wrong, but they’re fascinating nonetheless. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
[His head clears just enough for Exley to realize that he's getting the worst of it. He windmills rhetorically in all directions, trying to keep everyone at bay.]:
#34, What’s the point? I could name them (One in particular comes to mind immediately), but then they will just deny it and so it will go on and on….The fact is I have succeeded in my mission…I have finally gotten a number of posters here on ThinkProgress to acknowledge FINALLY that Saddam Hussein was indeed a monstrous, murderousn dictator. You, Kermit, Mark, Dave, dlet, PLC are now on the record as agreeing with me that Saddam Hussein was a cruel and vicious tryrant…And that is a big step. And something of a victory for me and all of those who supported liberation. In short: Mission accomplished. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
[Unholy Moses plants a foot in Exley's rectally reposited research]:
Exley–TP has a search feature. Use it and show one — JUST ONE — person who posted what you claim has been posted. Or, you could just be a real man and admit you pulled something out of your ass. Comment by Unholy+Moses — September 22, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
[Exley drops to his stomach, mouthing incoherencies in the hopes that the mob will take pity, and the pummelling stop. He covers himself as best he can, grabbing bits of straw and hurling it up into the air in a useless attempt to fend off the gathered crowd.]:
#32, Spudge, My comments from last night still stand. But please, don’t pretend that there aren’t posters and other “progressives†who haven’t claimed that the Iraqi people were not happy to be liberated from Saddam. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
[Republicans are the fear and smear party taunts the infantile Exley]:
Exley, can’t you just read the posts and not comment? You add nothing to the dialogue. You are either a child or an adult who is so brainwashed that critical thinking has completely shut down. Your comments are silly. Comment by Republicans are the fear and smear party — September 22, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
[Here, he attempts to crawl away from the beating . . .]:
#37 Unholy Moses, It does not appear that the “search†function enables one to search postings…Just the articles that begin the threads. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
[- but is dragged back into the angry mob.]:
Exley Come on, name one. Oh, that’s right, you can’t because nobody has. You made it up. Frankly if you are going to lie, make sure the people you are lying to, aren’t the people you are lying about. Comment by Bruce+Gorton — September 22, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
[The savage rhetorical beating affects his cognitive abilities as well]:
#39, Exley – that’s a triple negative…read it closely… maybe you are too busy putting your burning pants out to check your posts closely… Comment by TerrytheTurtle — September 22, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
[dlet reaches down,and gives him a purple nurple]:
Ooooohhh, Exley has us all on record. I bet he wore a CIA baseball cap when he wrote that. What an ignamaroon. Psst. Exley I have you on record that you say the stupidest things. Comment by dlet — September 22, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
[Exley begins exhibiting signs of blunt, head-trauma]: Add “Bruce†and “Republicans are the fear and smear party†to the list of people who I have gotten to admit FINALLY that Saddam Hussein was a murderous and evil tyrant. Thank you, boys. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
#47, Dlet, Why so hostile? I am congratulating you on finally acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was a uniquely evil and murderous dictator. I am proud of you! Well done. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
[Unholy Moses takes pity on the Exley, and is bitten on the leg for his magnanomy]: –Just admit you lied and move on. Comment by Unholy+Moses — September 22, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
#50, Unholy Moses, Heh! Not only did I tell the truth, but I also rather successfully maneuvered several posters here, including you, into agreeing with me and acknowledging that Saddam was a murderous, evil tryrant. Not a bad job on my part, if I do say so myself…Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
Part 2 of the Exley Files will be posted soon.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:32 pmAnd now back to your regularly-scheduled thread.
Dog: “No he was a managing partner, not just a part owner, and your original post just said ‘part owner’
Accuracy counts Kiddo!” – - -
Bush was PART owner. Bush bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:33 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/
For clarification: When I write, “It does not apply to U.S. citizens,” I am referring solely to the revocation of the court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction. Other aspects of the MCA do indeed apply to U.S. citizens.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:35 pm#136 I’m not so sure it can’t be applied to you and me, too, Exley. If all it takes for someone to be declared an “enemy combatent” is the president’s say-so, and no other corroborating evidence need be presented, then habeus corpus is indeed dead. I’d like to know the truth. That’s why I’m going to watch Keith tonight. You should, too. Unlike Rush, O’Reilly and Hannity, Keith doesn’t make his living deceiving his audience. He knows it they’re too smart for that.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:37 pmBarfly,
While I thank you for again bringing people’s attention to my rather impressive dismantling of my opponents’ arguments that day and for devoting so much of your time and energy to me, thereby showing your simultaneous fear and admiration of my expertise, I must confess feeling a bit sad for you, seeing you so obsessed….But it’s your life, sport. Look forward to Part II.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:40 pm“Let’s face it, Zooey, I am good. I am VERY good!â€
Comment by barfly
Ugh, barfly, you had to remind me. Now Exley’s going to be feeling all special and complimented by your efforts…
I need a shower.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#140…Wayne, The MCA specifcially defines alien military combatant. It does not apply to U.S. citizens.
By the way, Wayne, did you see Barfly’s rather extensive posting dedicated to me???? I’m a STAR, baby!!!!
October 9th, 2006 at 5:41 pmBruce,
In all honesty I’m not interested in assigning blame for 9/11 and didn’t even care to watch Path to 9/11 when I heard that the network labeled it a “fictionalized drama” or whatever. I think all the time and effort wasted on assigning blame only distracts from actual issues and delights our enemies. Why wouldn’t they want to attack us again? Look at all the finger pointing they encouraged.
Bush’s supporters blaming Clinton alone for 9/11 is just as asinine as Clinton’s suporters blaming only Bush. I’d be a much happier man if the idea of blame had never come up (beyond blaming the perps, of course).
Regarding Bush’s past jobs, I didn’t vote for Bush based on his experience with oil companies or baseball teams. He was fairly well respected as a governor (except by you all…I know, I know) and that meant more than the other, irrelevant, experience. Why it’s so much more relevant to you, I’ll probably never understand. If people here are going to mock O’Reilly for hosting Inside Edition and defend Olbermann for his ESPN stint, well then, consistency just isn’t your thing. Again, I still haven’t been surprised by anything I’ve read here today.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:42 pmI’m a STAR, baby!!!!
Comment by Exley
So’s Mark Foley.
I wouldn’t get too excited about it (which is exactly what they told Foley! – rim shot)
October 9th, 2006 at 5:44 pmGreat comments… I agree that Bush is NOT one to talk about loyalty.
Would love to see some threads on habeus corpus as well. But, like Spudge accept that Foley is the neocon’s kryptonite. Our puritanical heritage insures that we will gravitate toward the sex stories every time. It hurt Clinton, and now, it will hurt the neocons.
Best even yeared October in a while!
October 9th, 2006 at 5:45 pmExley
You lied, we pointed you were lying, you lost the argument. Point blank lost. You made an assertion, we pointed out that you were lying, you couldn’t even come up with a single name to defend your assertion. Maybe it is a form of cognitive dissonance coupled with extreme hubris on your part that makes you think you won, but the fact is in that argument you got your backside kicked.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:45 pmAh, it was nothing. In part Deux, the beating intensifies.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:48 pmSo’s Mark Foley.
I wouldn’t get too excited about it (which is exactly what they told Foley! – rim shot)
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
SNAP!!!
Remember signing statements, GWB will do whatever he pleases — to any of us.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:51 pmActually Bruce it was two assertions that Peabrain got chumped for. The original, and the “Saddam was a uniquely brutal dictator in the last thirty years” baloney that I debunked.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:51 pmI’m not sure which is more pathetic about this thread, Seth II characteristically reaching for the Clinton card or Exley defending the sweeping away of 800 years of legal precedent to save his dear leader’s ass. I think…. Exley!
October 9th, 2006 at 5:55 pmI am not surprised by anything you have written — actually you bore the hell out of me.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:56 pmI live in Texas and we were GLAD to see Bush leave. He is a do nothing and still is.
October 9th, 2006 at 5:59 pmwatch out! that exley will hit you with some of that extra-sharp, dennis millery stuff that he saves for these dicey situations – before you know it, you’ll be feeling like screech in a saved by the bell rerun being mocked in the episode, and on the retro-mentary you’re watching on vh1, narrated by miller. prepare for the sting of it, babe….keep the lanacaine handy m-chacho
October 9th, 2006 at 6:03 pm#136 I’m not so sure it can’t be applied to you and me, too, Exley. If all it takes for someone to be declared an “enemy combatent†is the president’s say-so, and no other corroborating evidence need be presented, then habeus corpus is indeed dead. I’d like to know the truth. That’s why I’m going to watch Keith tonight. You should, too. Unlike Rush, O’Reilly and Hannity, Keith doesn’t make his living deceiving his audience. He knows it they’re too smart for that.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:03 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 9, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
nice point, my apologies…
Olbermann was very much a part of making ESPN the juggernaut that it is today. Back when he and Dan Patrick hosted ESPN was smart, cutting edge and the absolute balls! Inside edition was never anything more than tabloid TV.
WTF are you talking about?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:05 pmnice point, my apologies…
Comment by ren
Your comments are beginning to become more deserving of my thoughts. Thank you.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:09 pmOkay I am going to repost, because I think the links killed it, search Wikipedia with the term “Inside Edition” And this is what it has to say about O’Reilly:
Which means he lied to make himself look better, and got caught. Oh yeah, and even with his “correction” he was still lying, because you know, that Polk award came after his tenure and 1 does not equal 2. When you are an anchor who can’t even count to 1, don’t be surprised when people mock you.
Of course, Olberman on his past work with ESPN:
Here Olberman told the truth, and did not aggrandise himself in the process, indeed saying that ESPN were right to fire him.
That is why we mock O’Reilly, and not Olberman.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:12 pmJeebus badmoodman let it go already, we were both right!!=)
October 9th, 2006 at 6:12 pm“Back when he and Dan Patrick hosted ESPN was smart, cutting edge and the absolute balls! Inside edition was never anything more than tabloid TV.”
Absolutely, and Olbermann has never had to lie about his accomplishments. O’Rielly, on the other hand publically stated his Inside Edition received the Peabody Award, which is a lie. I’ll take intelligent honest Olberman over dumbass, lying O’Reilly any day and evidently, the American public is coming around.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:15 pmSorry, Bruce Gorton. I didn’t see you making the point before I posted this redundant statement. Bottom line: O’Rielly is a frickin liar and his loyal fans have no self-respect. If they had any self-respect, they’d resent the fact that he lies in their faces over and over. Hey O’Reilly fans: hows that “If there are no WMD’s, I won’t support Bush anymore” statement working out for you? Still believe everything O’Reilly says?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:20 pmRen, #128, hey, Wayne’s not going home to his mommy, he’s going home to ME!
October 9th, 2006 at 6:22 pmand Bush feels betrayed from within.
Did he eat at KFC?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:22 pmWayne’s not going home to his mommy, he’s going home to ME!
Comment by JaneESchneider
Lucky Wayne, right Jane? :)
October 9th, 2006 at 6:24 pmI only bring up Clinton to point out consistency, or lack thereof, in peoples’ arguments. For instance:
#146 – unbelievable
You want to compare sex scandals. Very well.
1) Sleezeball Clinton was in a sex scandal, lied about it under oath, apologized only when he knew he was pinned, Republicans impeached him but ultimately didn’t remove him, and Democrats defended him throughout and would relect him in a second if only they could.
2) Sleezeball Foley was in an e-sex scandal, resigned immediately after he knew it would go public, was vilified by Republicans and defended by none, and Democrats are demanding as many resignations as they think they can get away with while calling the Republicans hypocrites.
Do you really want to gravitate towards sex scandals?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:24 pmLucky Wayne, right Jane? :)
Comment by Zooey
I always support truthful statements like that. Thanks. :)
October 9th, 2006 at 6:26 pmSeth you are minimizing Foley’s “e-sex scandal”. More like “e-predator preying on minors scandal”. I think you compare apples to oranges.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:29 pmSeth: “Democrats defended him throughout and would relect him in a second if only they could.”
A large majority of congressional democrats called for censure, an extreme rebuke rarely used in the history of congress. Democrats resisted impeachment because they didn’t think lying about a personal affair was an impeachable offense.
By comparison, the Watergate commission discovered that Nixon was guilty of tax evasion to the tune of about $250K, technically a felony, but decided not to include it in articles of impeachment because they felt it was a “personal matter.”
October 9th, 2006 at 6:31 pm#165 Seth II,
I believe you might be missing the point. The Foley “scandal” is not about what Foley did, it’s about what the House Republican leadership who found out about it failed to do. And what they failed to do was to look into the matter further! It’s not about the sex; it’s about the failure of the Republicans to protect the children placed in their legal care.
That’s what the majority of us are upset about. Don’t misunderstand, Foley should be out of there, but so should those who helped him keep doing what he was doing for years.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:31 pmBTW, I’m not a big O’Reilly fan. I just don’t see why Olbermann is any better. They’re both opinion commentators having both fans and hate-mail. I don’t know any O’Reilly fans as fanatical as y’all are towards Olbermann. Olbermann is much more effective at immature behavior, though. I’ll give him that. Holding an O’Reilly mask over his face while Nazi-saluting? Come on, really??? Wait, now I see why he appeals to you. Same rhetorical fallicies.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:34 pmbarfly,
Thanks for the entertaining recap of us ripping Excrement a new one. I got more than one chuckle.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:34 pmSeth: “was vilified by Republicans and defended by none”
Well…. ok, but only after they covered his behavior up for years out of political necessity. Since he was already out, what else were they going to do. The question is why they didn’t do anything before he was out.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:36 pmHolding an O’Reilly mask over his face while Nazi-saluting?
Comment by Seth_II
I admit I haven’t been watching Keith’s show from the very beginning, but when did he ever do that?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:37 pmGood job going off topic Seth. Now what were we talking about, oh yeah, how you minimized the Foley scandal.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:37 pmSeth: “I don’t know any O’Reilly fans as fanatical as y’all are towards Olbermann.”
“Y’all”????? OK… Seth, let me give you a hint here. It may be that authoritarian personalities who rush to defend Bush have never considered this basic reality: Olberman speaks TO power. O’Reilly speaks FOR power. There is a profound difference. The founders of our country had far more respect for those who speak to power than for those who speak for power.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:41 pmBush does put loyalty to himself above loyalty to the country, and that’s why he should be removed from office.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:41 pmWrong, one is a repeater and ones a reporter. Bill O’Rielly repeats a lot of right wing talking points. Keith Olberman reports on the reality that is happening in the world. But, we know how much you NeoCons hate things like reality, science and technology. Bummer for you, not us. Go bang on a rock with a stick or a bone if you can find one. word has it that bones are better weapons for neandrathals.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:43 pmDo you really want to gravitate towards sex scandals?
Comment by Seth_II — October 9, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Yes, lets…
Clinton had a consensual affair with a 22 year old adult.
Foley sexually propositioned a range of 13-17 year old BOYS.
Your side loses the contest of “who’s representative is more loathesome”. Grow up and deal with it.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:43 pm#175 Bluedog49,
Well said.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:43 pmThanks, Wayne. I think that issue spills over to comedy as well. When Dennis Miller was cracking wise making fun of the President, it was kind of funny. When he cracks jokes in support of power, it’s not so funny.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:48 pmI just get this picture in my mind of Bush sitting in the oval office crying and beating his fists on the table screaming “IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!!!”.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:49 pmWhile disgusting and perverted, Foley was chasing after teenagers (still questionable about who was a minor when it happened) after they had left his immediate influence. The one former page who claims to have actually had sex with him was 21 by that time. Lewinski, however, was actually working under Clinton (pardon the pun) when their thing happened. You’re right that they’re not perfect comparisons, but the difference cut both ways. If we want a closer comparison I could bring up Gerry Studds, who committed the worst of both Foley and Clinton.
Regarding the who-knew-what-when issue, that is still a huge open question. Democrats like to complicate the issue by intentionally confusing the e-mails and the instant messages. It’s a tactic that may serve them well, but is totally dishonest. Nobody has yet demonstrated that any Republicans knew about the IMs, but Democrats are getting a lot of mileage out of pretending that they have.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:50 pmunbelievable, I know you are interested in being accurate. Monica Lewinsky was a 23-year old paid staffer when she had her little thing with Clinton. She was not an intern, she was not a teenager and she wasn’t even 22. Incredible, isn’t it.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:50 pmBush does put loyalty to himself above loyalty to the country, and that’s why he should be removed from office.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 9, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
He has really redefined the word ‘egocentric’ – in a more negative way. His mother should be punished for raising such a spoiled rotten brat.
Proof:
“That’s George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three — three or four books about him last year. Isn’t that interesting?”
–George W. Bush, while showing German newspaper reporter Kai Diekmann the Oval Office, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2006
“As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself — not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch. As a matter of fact, the Colonel asked if I needed first aid when she first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks for your compassion, Colonel.”
–George W. Bush, after visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006
“I aim to be a competitive nation.”
–George W. Bush, San Jose, Calif., April 21, 2006
“I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense.”
October 9th, 2006 at 6:51 pm–George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006
Ren, #128, hey, Wayne’s not going home to his mommy, he’s going home to ME!
October 9th, 2006 at 6:53 pmComment by JaneESchneider — October 9, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
I retract my stupid comments on Wayne…I thought he was one of Exly’s boys at first because exley made it seem that way in some comments…
I just get this picture in my mind of Bush sitting in the oval office crying and beating his fists on the table screaming “IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!!!â€.
Comment by WhiffleballTony
Maybe, but I picture him more as fuming in his Oval Office trying to figure out if there is anything he can do to anybody about this that might make him feel better (such as to fire someone, or have them extraordinarily renditioned to one of those countries that we haven’t admitted we do that with.) But you could be right. In any case, you think this will make him hit the bottle (harder)?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:53 pmZooey: Paraphrase “The Jerk”: “Who’s the luckiest guy in the world?” Wayne is! “That’s right!” :-D
Hi, Exley, everyone’s picking on you, huh? Poor thing – but hey, at least the Mets SWEPT!
Seth II: If you put your mind to it, I’m sure that you should be able to think of several impeachable offenses that Bush has committed that have far more of an effect on the country than Clinton’s blow job (I’ll start you off with: pulling money and troops out of Afghanistan and sending them to Iraq BEFORE the official invasion, without Congress’s approval.) Unless, of course, you agree with Bush’s theory of “unitary executive”, which he interprets as being able to do anything he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants, regardless of what the Constitution (”goddam piece of paper”) expressly states. I’m sure that you would have gladly let Clinton have such power, right?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:57 pmRoast pig guest-stars on Bush visit to Germany
October 9th, 2006 at 6:58 pmBy Tom Armitage
STRALSUND, Germany (Reuters) – U.S. President George W. Bush had more on his mind than Iran’s nuclear programme, Middle East tensions and Russian press freedoms during a visit to Germany on Thursday.
He kept mentioning a wild boar, slaughtered and roasted according to local tradition, that he planned to share at a dinner with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in her home constituency at a Baltic resort.
“I’m looking forward to the feast you’re going to have tonight. I understand I may have the honour of slicing the pig,” Bush told Merkel at the outset of their joint news conference in Stralsund, north of Berlin.
A few minutes later — after discussing Iran, the Middle East, the merits of press freedoms in Russia and progress on the Doha round of free trade talks — Bush returned to the boar.
“Thank you for having me,” he told Merkel. “Looking forward to that pig tonight.”
Bush answered a few more questions before wandering back to the boar for a third time.
“I haven’t seen that pig yet,” Bush said out of the blue. Merkel laughed and said she had seen television pictures of the boar and could verify it was dead, adding she hoped it was on the spit and ready in time for dinner.
Near the end of the 30-minute briefing, Bush fielded a question about the Middle East with his fourth pig rejoinder.
“I thought you were going to ask about the pig,” he told a reporter, who then said he was indeed curious about that too.
While disgusting and perverted, Foley was chasing after teenagers (still questionable about who was a minor when it happened) after they had left his immediate influence.
No, there is no debate. And really, you are trying to say it makes him less offensive because they weren’t working for him at the time?. That genuinely makes you disgusting.
Lewinski, however, was actually working under Clinton (pardon the pun) when their thing happened.
By her own testimony, SHE pursued him. BIg time. Not the other way around. It’s only sexual harrassment when you are the victim, not the aggressor.
If we want a closer comparison I could bring up Gerry Studds, who committed the worst of both Foley and Clinton.
And I’m sure someone else would be happy to paste that endless montage of pedophile Republicans that outnumber the members of the Senate…
Regarding the who-knew-what-when issue, that is still a huge open question.
No, it’s not.
Democrats like to complicate the issue by intentionally confusing the e-mails and the instant messages.
Complicate? Do you actually think that’s a logically argument? Really? You are a serious joke. I suppose you think the law likes to complicate things with evidence and facts too…
It’s a tactic that may serve them well, but is totally dishonest. Nobody has yet demonstrated that any Republicans knew about the IMs, but Democrats are getting a lot of mileage out of pretending that they have.
Comment by Seth_II — October 9, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
Your detachment from reality is astounding. The proof is straight from Republicans themselves. No one has to invent anything, well, except the faux victimization you neocons don when you’re losing – and let me assure you, you are losing BIG, pedophile defender.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:01 pmunbelievable,
Both Bush and Cheney (who once shot a 78-year-old man in the face and then sent his friend out to lie about it) have all about the “imperial presidency” from the beginning (before 9/11). There goal was to expand executive authority each and every single way they could. That’s why they had Ashcroft order DOJ employees to turn down all FOIA requests and force the person to go to court (where Ashcroft knew the government would eventually lose most of the time.) They don’t give a damn about you and me (I’m not a Bush Pioneer or Ranger, and I’m sure you’re not either); they only care about preserving their power. But what they forget is that even if they manage to stay in office for their full terms (try not to gag), they could still face prison for any illegal things they did while in office. (Once impeached and removed from office, a public official can still face criminal charges is applicable.) So we have to convince the Democratically-controlled Congress next year to investigate ALL abuses of power by this administration and show people what “a nation of laws” means.
Sorry, gotta run if I’m going to catch Keith’s Truth Hour!
October 9th, 2006 at 7:03 pm“I thought you were going to ask about the pig,†Comment by ren — October 9, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
That’s what Merkel was thinking after Bush attempted to grope her at the G8 Summit…
October 9th, 2006 at 7:03 pmunbelievable: “and let me assure you, you are losing BIG, pedophile defender.”
You are sooooooo right! Bill Schnieder on CNN just announced that the 11 point virtual lead dems have in the upcoming election has ballooned to 21 points! We actually may see democrats take back congress.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:08 pmPlease excuse the typos, unbelieveable. That should read “have been all about the “imperial presidency”, and obviously that should read “Their goal was to expand…”. I’ll tolerate typos in other people’s posts if I can still get their meaning, but I don’t like them in my own.
Now I’m heading home. Good night all. Hang on to your habeus corpi before they’re all gone!
October 9th, 2006 at 7:08 pmWoodward wries a couple of glowing Bush praise books, and W and the BA loves him. He’s a “respected” journalist, etc., etc. Bob W. finally sees the truth and W doesn’t like it. No his tome is a “hit job” from a “biased” source.
Hey, did anybody hear about Tom Reynolds’ “flu”. That’s what caused him to skip his grilling on ABC’s This Week show yesterday. http://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com I think he’s just trying to hide.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:09 pmThanks ren, I know it’s just the tip of that heinous iceberg…
October 9th, 2006 at 7:10 pmWayne,
I guess the O’Reilly mask thing didn’t get posted here? Surprise. It wasn’t on his show, it was at some Television Critics Association press tour. Check out these links (I hope this works, can’t preview):
Wikipedia entry
ADL letter of protest
“Truth to power”? “Repeater/Reporter”? How much populist rhetoric can you stand? They both speak their opinions, which is just fine. Olbermann is immature about how he deals with those he disagrees with, which is not fine. You guys love him for it, which is…whatever.
Foley propositioned 13- to 15-year old boys??? Not from anything I’ve read. The pages are usually 16, and everything I’ve read so far indicates that he goes after them after they left the page program. I shouldn’t have to repeat that even that is disgusting, but somebody here will claim I’m defending him if I dont. But nobody should have to make up stories about 13- to 15-year olds to make Foley look sleezy. He already does.
Bluedog49:
I get it now. It’s strictly a partisan thing.
ForTruth: Minimizing the Foley scandal? The conversation is evolving. I hope you can keep up. We’re already far, far away from the original post.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:10 pmKeith Olbermann tells America the truth every night, based on the facts. He sounds irrational or shrill to the folks (like Seth) living outside of the reality-based community. O’Reilly sounds irrational, dishonest, arrogant, angry and bullying, because that’s exactly what he is.
The rightwing mouthpieces are hacks, being paid to spread disinformation and sway public opinion rightward (not truthward). Their lies are so transparent that it often feels like I’m watching an SNL skit when I tune in to Fox. It’s a joke. If that Fox/Limbaugh, et al. don’t strike you this way, you should be thinking about de-programming.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:10 pmAnd let’s not forget this self-centered remark:
“I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake.”
–George W. Bush, on his best moment in office, interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, May 7, 2006
October 9th, 2006 at 7:10 pmThey covered up soliciting gay sex with teenage pages, they covered up forced abortions in the Northern Marianas and they covered up the ruining of an important intelligence asset (Brewster Jennings and Assoc.) for political reasons. They’ve covered up the fact that a gay male whore using an assumed name visited the Whitehouse at night on a number of occasions with no record of checking out. They’ve covered up the fact that Abramhoff and his people had 487 separate meetings with this administration. If Bush is “ticked off” now, how’s he going to feel when Dems have subpoena power?
October 9th, 2006 at 7:13 pmRen, no problem! We both (Wayne and I) talk civilly (most of the time) with Exley, mainly because we’re all die-hard Mets fans. Other than that, as you can see, we disagree with him about almost everything. But at least we keep the dialog open, in case something else might come up that we actually agree on. Okay, and pigs might fly, but you never know! :-)
Yeah, what is it with Bush and all those pig remarks? I think he has an obsession with farm animals (my pet goat?)
October 9th, 2006 at 7:13 pm#199 nice……
October 9th, 2006 at 7:14 pmWe actually may see democrats take back congress.
Comment by Bluedog49 — October 9, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
Oh yeah… yet, sadly, not on their own merits, but because the neocons got sloppy and over-confident in their ability to get away with everything. Sad what has happened to our political system. I really hope Al Gore wants to run again in 2008…
October 9th, 2006 at 7:14 pmNow I’m heading home. Good night all. Hang on to your habeus corpi before they’re all gone!
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 9, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
Night Wayne! Night Jane!
October 9th, 2006 at 7:16 pmunbelievable,
I remember Shrub’s “best moment” comment. Even that was a lie. He said it was a 7.x lb. perch and people quickly dug up the state record for a fresh water perch and Bush’s “fish tale” would have broken that record. He sprinkles his deceptions with lies.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:16 pmSeth: “I get it now. It’s strictly a partisan thing.”
No, obviously Y’ALL don’t get it at all. It’s speaking TO power as opposed to speaking FOR power. Maybe that’s just too complicated for Y’ALL to get. Speaking TO power requires courage. Speaking FOR power requires Y’ALL to be a dick.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:17 pm#201 Yeh, I used to have some issues that Exley and I could agree on but, when he starts going off on some of his bullsh*t I can’t let that slide w/o being checked. He is alright otherwise and we are all trying to make the conversation happen so that’s good….
October 9th, 2006 at 7:18 pmFoley propositioned 13- to 15-year old boys??? Not from anything I’ve read. The pages are usually 16, and everything I’ve read so far indicates that he goes after them after they left the page program.
Comment by Seth_II
Seth would you go after a 16 year old boy?
October 9th, 2006 at 7:21 pmI remember Shrub’s “best moment†comment. Even that was a lie. He said it was a 7.x lb. perch and people quickly dug up the state record for a fresh water perch and Bush’s “fish tale†would have broken that record. He sprinkles his deceptions with lies.
Comment by Jay — October 9, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
You’ve genuinely reached pathetic when your best moment ever was a flat out lie…
Shame on the people who got fooled again…
October 9th, 2006 at 7:21 pmSeth II,
Wrong Mr. Infinite. E-mail and IMs are completely different technologies.
Electronic Mail was invented in the ’50s by DARPA and are easily traceable.
Instant Messaging was invented in the ’90s and was thought by some, who aren’t in the know, to have no “paper trail.” As Mr. Foley is finding out, easily traceable also.
There is no confusing e-mails and IMs. Only republicans are sheepish enough to think they are the same. If some democrats are confusing the two and its working, your side should explain the difference between the two to your masses.
But, once again, we know how much you hate reality, science and technology. You probably don’t have anybody in leadership that could explain the difference.
You could have Ted “Internet Tubes” Stevens to give it a whirl.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:23 pmRen, we feel the same way. We get along okay most of the time.
I gotta run, Wayne’s nudging me–Night all!
October 9th, 2006 at 7:23 pmJay you hit the nail on the head!
KO is my favorite news program as it is innovative and is not corrupted by MSM. He has wit, humor, and many great qualities which Exley’s god (Billdo) will never have. Hey Exley did ya read Billo’s piece of crap book “Culture Warrior.” He is the man with the bloated ego you should be critical of. OH well trolls will never learn…….
October 9th, 2006 at 7:24 pmunbelievable,
You are, in fact, unbelievable. There are many unanswered questions about the Foley scandal, and I for one want answers. You, on the other hand, want to believe whatever propaganda gives the Democrats the best chance of winning next month. You are the disgusting one.
You’re right about only one thing: the Democrats could very well win back one or both houses in the election. I’m not going to be as arrogant as you and pretend I can predict the future. But if the Democrats win based on the Foley scandal, it should be a sour win because of how they have spun the unknowns. It won’t be sour for them, though. They don’t seem to care about how they get power back, as long as they get it.
If Olbermann then editorialized in favor of the Democratic Congress will you all turn on him, because he would be “speaking FOR power”??? I doubt it. You’ll fawn over him all the same, because it’s not about “speaking ___ power”, it’s about whatever immature propaganda you can poke your opponents with.
Fortunately, even if the Democrats do regain power, you won’t be with them. Progressives are small in the party. You’ll be sent back to the kids table because they won’t need you. The flaming political rhetoric will continue. Fighting between the parties will continue, except that the Republicans will be the angry ones again. Basically, we will be where we were once before. Hopefully we won’t forget that there are enemies beyond our border as well.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:26 pmUnbelievable
The only people who believe bush about anything are obviously retarded. Isn’t he the same guy who proclaimed that Jesus “proclaimed” that he should be president? The faux news drones are dying off (i hope) so that educated americans can take back our beloved country…
October 9th, 2006 at 7:31 pmunbelievable,
It was a perch.
BBC
May 7, 2006
Big fish gave Bush biggest thrill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4982338.stm
That is important because the largest perch on record ever being caught is only around 4 pounds.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2006/031606a.html
March 16, 2006
Bush couldn’t think of a good moment, so like a typical republican, he lied. Adn just like with most lies, they are made up. Bush being a moron, couldn’t think of any fish that would really be 7.5 punds, so he named the fish that he stocks his man made pond with. The perch.
Lying through and through.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:32 pmI laugh at the hypocrits out there. Honoestly, would you like information leaking out? How about if we really knew the truth behind the Clinton administration? This isn’t Water Gate, it never will be, quit living in a dreamland and see the information for what it really is.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:33 pmseth you are absolutly rediculous.
How do even think you can assume what KO will do once the democrats take back congress(which they will)? What are some kind off psychic? Oh wait your kind condemns psychic behavior because it is “Godless.”
YOUR AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!
October 9th, 2006 at 7:34 pmFoley propositioned 13- to 15-year old boys??? Not from anything I’ve read. The pages are usually 16, and everything I’ve read so far indicates that he goes after them after they left the page program.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmI didn’t know there was a difference between going after a 13 year old and a 16 year old boy….
Seth: “But if the Democrats win based on the Foley scandal, it should be a sour win because of how they have spun the unknowns. It won’t be sour for them, though. They don’t seem to care about how they get power back, as long as they get it.”
Typical of today’s conservatives, Seth projects. He backs a party with leaders who knew what Foley was doing in 2004 and surpressed it to win an election. He backs a party that accuses the other major party of treason and “being soft on terrorism,” of even “wanting to let terrorists go.” And in the midst of all this, he announces that dems want power any way they can get it. Seth, Y’all are amazing.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmOlbermann is going to rip whoever needs ripping, be it D or R, he’s always been this way. The man has tremendous courage and patriotism and we should all be extremely thankful that he’s calling out this fascistic administration for pissing all over our Constitution, funneling our tax $’s straight into the pockets of the military/industrial complex (hmmm, why is Social Security projecting a shortfall…..can’t imagine!), sending our sons and daughters off to die for their warped, hubristic worldview.
The Republicans should lose the mid-terms because they’ve been complicit in this disaster. Period.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmJay – 198:
Rightwing mouthpieces are hacks, but leftwing mouthpieces are truth embodied? Yeah. And I’m criticized for my grasp on reality.
ForTruth – 208:
Did you miss where I called Foley “disgusting” in that very same paragraph? I knew one of you would pull some shit like that. The question is do you defend pretending that 16-year olds are 13-year olds in order to LIE about how PERVERTED a PERVERT is??? Foley’s actions are demonized by all without having to lie about them.
Spudge_Boy – 210:
This has nothing to do with the definitions of the technologies. The Democrats are pretending the CONTENT of the IMs was presented in the E-MAILS. Do you really not understand this basic concept or are you just pretending to waste my time?
October 9th, 2006 at 7:36 pmJoe @ 216, are you trying to make a point here? If you are, I’m not sure it came through.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:38 pmYou are, in fact, unbelievable.
There are many unanswered questions about the Foley scandal, and I for one want answers. You, on the other hand, want to believe whatever propaganda gives the Democrats the best chance of winning next month. You are the disgusting one.
No, I’m the smart one. I am able to understand that 1+1 = 2 without trying to spin what ‘1′ is.
There aren’t any valid unanswered questions. The guy apologized for his behaviour and then resigned his job. That’s pretty well answered to me.
You’re right about only one thing: the Democrats could very well win back one or both houses in the election.
I didn’t make that statement.
I’m not going to be as arrogant as you and pretend I can predict the future.
It’s not about predicting the future, it’s about using common sense to know that ceratin facts generally add up to certain logical conclusions. You can call that arrogant – normal people call it conscious…
But if the Democrats win based on the Foley scandal, it should be a sour win because of how they have spun the unknowns. It won’t be sour for them, though. They don’t seem to care about how they get power back, as long as they get it.
I think I already said that Seth… Stop repeating me. I’m not a Democrat, before you try to run with that.
If Olbermann then editorialized in favor of the Democratic Congress will you all turn on him, because he would be “speaking FOR powerâ€??? I doubt it. You’ll fawn over him all the same, because it’s not about “speaking ___ powerâ€, it’s about whatever immature propaganda you can poke your opponents with.
I haven’t watched Olbermann since I left San Francisco to move back to Georgia last year. So you can quit catagorizing me.
Fortunately, even if the Democrats do regain power, you won’t be with them. Progressives are small in the party. You’ll be sent back to the kids table because they won’t need you.
Keep telling yourself that to control the overwhelming panic attacks… It’s funny to the rest of us.
The flaming political rhetoric will continue. Fighting between the parties will continue, except that the Republicans will be the angry ones again. Basically, we will be where we were once before.
Sounds like the words of a sore loser…
Hopefully we won’t forget that there are enemies beyond our border as well.
Comment by Seth_II — October 9, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
Oh, yeah, the boogeymen. They don’t work on us. We aren’t that gullable.
Let’s talk about real threats to Americans – like other Americans… You know there are like 16,000 Americans who murder other Americans each year. Osama only got 3,000 in 2001. You didn’t do very well in math did you?
Try this one on… Your chances of dying from heart disease are 1/30. That’s what you should worry about… the beef fat in your fast food clogging your arteries. It’ll get you before Osama (a.k.a. “kidney-failure”) ever will…
October 9th, 2006 at 7:38 pmJoe: “How about if we really knew the truth behind the Clinton administration?”
Earth to Joe! Urgent message! Your republican congress spent close to $150 million in taxpayer dollars to investigate various things in the Clinton administration. They spent 100 hours of valuable time investigating the Clintons’ Christmas list! They spent $70 million investigating a 20-year old land deal in which the Clintons LOST MONEY!
The bastards you support have spent a total of 12 hours investigating Abu Garabe.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:39 pm“I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5lb (3.4kg) perch in my lake,†he told Bild am Sonntag.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:40 pmThat is important because the largest perch on record ever being caught is only around 4 pounds.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ dnrnews/ pressrelease2006/ 031606a.html
That’s great, they cannot tell the truth even when they are talking about catching fish….
Jay yet again good point!
Olbermann is not a slouch who will let anything go. He will devour anyone who is doing us (meaning America) any harm. You see, Seth, he doesn’t care what his ratings are, he wants people to know the TRUTH about what are government is doing. He doesn’t kiss ass like the idiots at faux news, so shut up about it!!!!!!!
October 9th, 2006 at 7:40 pmSeth, Olbermann isn’t a mouthpiece for the left, a point that you clearly haven’t grasped yet. He a mouthpiece for the truth. In other words, he’s an honest to goodness journalist, telling Americans what the rest of the media should have telling Americans before the fuc*ing invasion of Iraq.
To the deceived, the truth always hurts.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:41 pmIsn’t he the same guy who proclaimed that Jesus “proclaimed†that he should be president? Comment by NewProg — October 9, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
I think you’re right…. Most people who hear voices are treated for schizophrenia… Not allowed to rule a powerful nation.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:42 pmYou are right. Watergate was about spying on political enemies.
This is about:
Rendition
Torture
No Habeus Corpus
Black Prisons
False Flags
Quagmire in Iraq
Tax Cuts that only help the rich
Osama bin Laden still on the Loose
Taliban Resurgense in Afghanistan
Not Sending Enough Troops into Afghanistan or Iraq
Not giving those Troops Proper Armor
Giving No-Bid Contracts to a Company Previously CEO’d by the Vice President
I can go on and on, but you are right, this isn’t Watergate and it never will be. This is 100,000 times worse than Nixon could have dreamed of.
Or could he.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:42 pmOlbermann is going to rip whoever needs ripping, be it D or R, he’s always been this way. Comment by Jay — October 9, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 7:43 pmSo has Jon Stewart and yet they still give him Sh*t….
seth thinks I’m unbelievable
Definition: wonderful
Synonyms: aces, amazing, astonishing, astounding, bang-up, best, breathtaking, cool, crack, dilly, doozie, extravagant, fab, fantastic, fictitious, first class, gone, greatest, groovy, immense, in spades, inconceivable, incredible, legendary, marvelous, mind-blowing, out-of-this-world, outrageous, peachy, phenomenal, primo, prodigious, rad, remarkable, spectacular, striking, stupendous, super, superb, terrific, top drawer, tops, turn-on, unbelievable, unreal, wicked, wondrous
Antonyms: common, normal, ordinary, routine, run-of-the-mill
October 9th, 2006 at 7:44 pmunbelievable
lmao, yep he must be the mildly retarded cousin of John Nash (oh wait that may be seth…)
October 9th, 2006 at 7:45 pmStop picking on my unbelievable! (she’s going to hell anyway)
October 9th, 2006 at 7:45 pm#233 Stop picking on my unbelievable! (she’s going to hell anyway)
October 9th, 2006 at 7:48 pmComment by Wilco — October 9, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
Where in the hell did you come from?
Ren this is the truth about the radical right
They hate anyone whose opinion is different than theirs. John Dean talks about it in his wonderful book “Conservatives without Conscious. It is about the authoritarian nature of these people that keep them from excepting differing views. They are dangerous to our country and must be stopped. Secondly the radical right is so pissed off about Jon Stewart is the fact is his show is doing so incredicly good. 4 emmys! Keep up the good work jon!!!!!!!
October 9th, 2006 at 7:49 pmTo the deceived, the truth always hurts.
Comment by Jay — October 9, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
Like water to witches… No wonder Seth is making all those horrific moaning and groaning noises…
October 9th, 2006 at 7:49 pmNope, I just don’t understand why you are sticking up with a pedophile. I don’t understand why YOU don’t think that anybody that knew about this freaking sicko should be kicked out of Washington. I find you to be a weird sick whacko yourself. Would you be Mark Foley’s attorney? Would you stand in court and defend his right to send e-mails and IM to 16 year old boys? Sicko.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:50 pmWhere in the hell did you come from?
Comment by ren
My mother’s embracing womb.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pmOh have the trolls are rolling in. we got are darlings Seth, exlax, wilco, and maybe are all time favorite JASON!!!!
October 9th, 2006 at 7:52 pmhe must be the mildly retarded cousin of John Nash (oh wait that may be seth…)
Comment by NewProg — October 9, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
I’d go with Seth… :)
October 9th, 2006 at 7:52 pmNewProg – 217
In your short rant you say plenty of stupid things without me even having to use “[sic]” (you gave me at least five opportunities):
Did you not see that I said, “If Olbermann then editorialized…”? I was setting up a hypothetical but you accuse me of predicting the future. And you call me an IDIOT.
You prophesy the Democrats win and then immediately ask if I’m a psychic?
You pull out religion when you don’t even know a goddamned thing about my religion???
ren – 218
I went through this already. If a lie is the same as the truth to you, then you can go ahead and think that claiming 13-year olds were involved is okay.
Bluedog49 – 219
We’re all amazing here. I just can’t compete with the rationalizations of deceit, the obfuscations of information in the name of “truth”, and the unquestioning acceptance of favorable propaganda that is practiced at TP. I pop in only once in a while to remind myself of just how deluded this crowd is.
If the Republicans are overplaying the terrorist threat (and I might give you that much), at least they are pointing to a real threat that has, in fact, attacked us. The Democrats are having to concoct threats in order to appear strong. It’s ironic (or hypocritical) that one of the concocted threats is that the Republicans are concocting threats to stay in power.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:53 pmWilco, I feel sorry for yer mom….
October 9th, 2006 at 7:53 pmStop picking on my unbelievable! (she’s going to hell anyway)
Comment by Wilco — October 9, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
You’ll need someome to keep you company… :)
Oh wait, does talking to Seth count as time served?
October 9th, 2006 at 7:54 pmMy mom loves me to pieces.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:55 pmHere’s the Stewart/Colbert response to O’Leilly and Geraldo. Devestating. Haven’t heard a peep from those two weasels since.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:56 pmmaybe are all time favorite JASON!!!!
Comment by NewProg — October 9, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Speaking of retarded…
I haven’t seen Jason M. Hitler lately.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:57 pm#238 Oh, I remember you…. Ha Ha,,,,The Joker right? The guy who does sarcasm and sounds like a Troll to throw people off and then when they address your comments you say you were just kidding. Great character your playing….WTF
October 9th, 2006 at 7:57 pmUnbelievable, I’m not going to hell; I don’t believe in it.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:57 pmI am, however, going home. Maybe you crazy kats will get more of my normally insightful postings later. Stay tuned!
Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWqneVIA3zs
October 9th, 2006 at 7:58 pmWilco, Your comedy routine sucks… I don’t get the sarcasm when you come out of the blocks with someone is going to hell…. Make it relate to the subject to that we can know when you are kidding….
October 9th, 2006 at 7:59 pmSeth, you accuse this crowd of being deluded. This is simply more projection on your part. You must know by now that the 55 to 65% of you republicans who still believe Saddam had WMD’s and a relationship with bin Laden are simply delusional. You must have caught the poll which showed that the vast majority of people who went to the polls to vote for Bush in 2004 believed these lies. You must, of course, be aware of the fact that most people who vote republican think they’re voting for “values.” Your entire party is built on delusion. Y’ALL should maybe look in the mirror.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:00 pmWhat threats are Democrats concocting?
October 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pmSeth, oh you like to bitch dont ya?
For one thing I was calling ya on your baseless claim the KO is a partisan hack(which you never responded to). You set up a hypothetical to support your BASELESS claim that KO is a partisan hack. And lastly I called you an idiot, which is a hell of a lot more respectful than what you and your troller friends call homosexuals. Eat hypocracy because you sure are good at it.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pmUnbelievable, I’m not going to hell; I don’t believe in it.
Since when did you start taking me seriously? We were dancing so well in our sarcasm…
I don’t believe in Hell either. I’m a full-blown Atheist, remember.
I am, however, going home. Maybe you crazy kats will get more of my normally insightful postings later. Stay tuned!
Comment by Wilco — October 9, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Bye.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pmWilco is always kidding… It’s just one of those things to remember.
I think he’s hysterical. Well – that is now that I know he’s sarcastic. The first time I met him I thought he was serious. It got ugly.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:04 pmOh by the way Seth,
You seem to bitch a lot about KO and yet you let Faux news slide on everything. Are you just mad that a progressive is stating his views? Oh well you and your kind are intolerant of anyone who doesn’t believe your convoluted view of the world….
October 9th, 2006 at 8:06 pmUnbelievable,
Wico’s not a troll? Wow he sure got me then….
October 9th, 2006 at 8:08 pmOh well you and your kind are intolerant of anyone who doesn’t believe your convoluted view of the world….
Comment by NewProg — October 9, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
That’s basically the crux of it. We are inclusive and they are exclusive. It’s why they come in here and try to break up the love fests… :)
Okay, I’m missing The Daily Show rerun… Gonna try to catch Colbert.
You guys are awesome. Except you Seth. Just everyone else here who knows pedophiles shouldn’t be in charge of children’s organizations, or hold elected offices… Have a great evening!
October 9th, 2006 at 8:12 pmWilco is always kidding… It’s just one of those things to remember.I think he’s hysterical. Well – that is now that I know he’s sarcastic. The first time I met him I thought he was serious. It got ugly.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:14 pmComment by unbelievable — October 9, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
F*cking Yawn… I’ve got a buddy who does that and it’s a stretch to say it’s “sort of funny”… It can be done, Colbert does it well but you get it when he does it. Please, if you do it, do it well….
Wow he sure got me then….
Comment by NewProg — October 9, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
Me too. But I wasn’t as polite as you. :)
Enjoy your evening… I’m outta here… (by the way, we’re gonna build haunted houses tommorrow out of candy… I love my job :)
October 9th, 2006 at 8:14 pmunbelievable – 223:
Foley resigned…that was a big part of my point. The unanswered questions involve who knew what and when. I mentioned that in a prior post. If I have to repeat every point every time my posts are going to get unbearably long.
The end of your post #189 — you predicted Republican defeat. That’s what I was referring to. Even Bluedog quoted you.
Your application logic to predicting the future is silly. I even agree that the Democrats may very well win. I’m just not so arrogant to pretend to KNOW what’s going to happen. Democrats were supposed to win big in 2004. And 2002.
I should have made clear that the last two paragraphs of my post #213 were to the general audience, not specifically to you. Sorry about that.
Your stats on death — what would you have Bush do about the spicy sausage I have for breakfast? Arrest me? Ban sausage? What the hell was your point there??? Murderers get pursued by local authorities. Is the statute of limitation up for Osama? Really, you seem to argue that the federal government should address everything EXCEPT for what it really is tasked to address!
NewProg/Jay – 226/227:
You’re confusing opinion with truth again. Olbermann sometimes reports facts. Sometimes he speaks opinion. Sometimes he makes mistakes. Sometimes he lies. All the same with O’Reilly. I can tell O’Reilly’s opinions from facts. You can’t seem to do the same for Olbermann.
ren – 230:
I actually like Jon Stewart. He is hilarious. Not always right, but always hilarious.
unbelievable – 231:
I prefer the actual definition of “unbelievable”:
un·be·liev·able
Pronunciation: -’lE-v&-b&l
Function: adjective
: too improbable for belief
NewProg – 235:
P – R – O – J – E – C – T – I – O – N! What does it spell? What you’re doing now.
unbelievable – 236:
No horrific groaning and moaning noises. I’m actually laughing my ass off most of the time.
Spudge_Boy – 237:
You are doing EXACTLY what I predicted some of you would do. Maybe I SHOULD become more arrogant, because you’ve done precisely what I said somebody would. And you’re using it to dodge the question about somebody else’s lie. Predictable sicko.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:18 pmlol unbelievable.
Have a good time. I think it is my time to return to MMFA anyways. They are waiting for me :)
The cons on MMFA are usually better educated than the trolls who come here…
October 9th, 2006 at 8:19 pmlol seth
You can spell? You and you inbred family must be proud of you. B.t.w lighten up we are just pokin fun at yeah. My god do you have yer panties in a bunch…..
October 9th, 2006 at 8:25 pmSeth,
I’m left with the obvious but painful conclusion that you’re a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. Best of luck to ya though.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:27 pmBluedog49 – 251:
There are definitely delusional people in the Republican party as well. That does not excuse any of the delusions that are floating around here. I voted for Bush in 2004 knowing full well that the WMD rationale was looking bad. Fortunately there were multiple reasons for Iraq that still hold up today.
Nat – 252:
Republicans. Conservatives. Chrisitians. Supreme Court nominees. Basically anything they don’t agree with is a threat. Nice democracy they want there, those Democrats.
NewProg – 253:
Stop digging the hole you’re in. I have several close gay friends, and have never called gays anything derogatory. This insipidness is why I ignore you.
NewProg – 256:
Insipid. I haven’t let Fox News slide on anything. When it’s opinion, it’s opinion. When it’s fact, it’s fact. When it’s wrong, it’s wrong. I don’t admire Fox News or O’Reilly like Olbermann is worshipped here. I even linked to an idiotic stunt involving an O’Reilly mask and a Nazi salute and not a single person emitted an iota of criticism towards him. I’m fine with the concept that O’Reilly is wrong at times. It’s part of accepting reality.
unbelievable – 258:
Yeah, so inclusive. I disagree with this group and am labeled a troll and an idiot and told I’m “bitching”. Can you feel the love tonight? This is more like a beehive attacking a rival bee. Fortunately, I’ve been here before and know what to expect. After my first visit, I haven’t yet been surprised.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:31 pmlol 264
I swear this guy sounds exactly like “woman hater” Hendler. hmmm………
October 9th, 2006 at 8:32 pmSee you all in a few weeks when the next story gets spun beyond recognition by your side. And if we’re all wrong and the Republicans actually somehow retain control of Congress, I’ll probably be the only one of us laughing my ass off.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:35 pmNewProg – 266:
When did I say anything about women?
NewProg: *dig dig dig*
Me: Can I get you some water?
NewProg: Mph. *dig dig dig*
October 9th, 2006 at 8:37 pmSeth is gone…
finally we can get back to buisness at discussing something intelligent…
October 9th, 2006 at 8:39 pmThis is used a common talking point among republicans but I don’t remember seeing any polls that said Democrats were going to win big in either 2002 or 2004.
And before the revelations of Foley’s extracurricular activities and the cover-up by republicans, I thought the Democrats had a great chance of taking back the House and a good chance of taking back the Senate.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:41 pmlmao
seth you are hillarious. honestly you won me over… maybe ill vote rethuglican now that you set me straight. oh wait i am not an idiot….
October 9th, 2006 at 8:41 pmseth you claimin the left spins everything?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
yep that is exactly what billo does…spins everything to the left….
wow seth you seem to be losin it
maybe you should stop listening to the voices in your head….
October 9th, 2006 at 8:43 pmPoor baby!!!
October 9th, 2006 at 8:52 pmlol bev
i am not sure if you were responding to me but that was funny(i think)
October 9th, 2006 at 8:58 pmActually it is kinda fun when trolls come here, so we can verbally undress them. they need a little dose of reality every now and then…
All, I’m more convinced every day as I watch the mainstream media report on politics, that the real power in this country (along with some elderly statesman and insiders from days of yore) have decided that the Cheney/Bush regime must be brought down. I think poppy Bush, Baker, Scowcroft and the rest of the former Republican power players from the Reagan/Bush 41 (Carlyle group/Saudi nexus) are quietly working to end this administration because the Cheney faction hasn’t budged on their greed and warmongering. Too many people have suffered, the U.S. has lost a tremendous amount of credibility. The Bush 41 crew knew that the neocon crowd was bad news and in fact they called them the “crazies”. They’ve been trying to reign in this admin and they’ve failed. These guys don’t screw around and I’m betting that they’ve moved on to plan B, which is to subvert them with their power and connections.
Cheney/Bush is going down.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:04 pmThat’s not the real Wilco. I think a troll has hijacked Wilco’s name.
Just sayin’
October 9th, 2006 at 9:06 pmI am still reading this, fellows. I thought everybody was running off to drool over Olbermann. Those who remained just took this thread DOWN a few notches. Lovely work. I swear you guys must be intentionally dense. You’d need more intelligence than you’ve shown to even turn on a computer.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:43 pmOooo, you are not going to say what you predict, so it seems mysterious, but I can guess what it is, because you are a NeoCon hack. Tell Rove I said Hi.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:45 pmWhy both arguing with Seth_II? Obviously this guy is determined to defend Bush and the Republicans NO MATTER WHAT. In fact, I think there is a pretty good chance that he is a GOP party operative working the TP beat today with the express purpose of defending the team.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:51 pmSETH I see you got hammered many times today.
Why do you think your intelligent?
October 9th, 2006 at 9:51 pm#187
Hi Jane! LET’S GO METS!
Nah, I don’t see it as being “picked on.” Barfly, Bruce Gorton, Spudge are just letting out a little of their embarassment at their inability to argue facts and history with me … They are like high school students who get angry at their history teacher after the teacher had to flunk them because they failed their exams …It comes with the territory. We all know that the people they are really mad at are themselves….I take satisfaction is knowing (as we can see in Barfly’s tribute to me) I got them to admit (albeit begrudgingly) that Saddam Hussein was a brutal torturing murderous dictator, whereas previously they had believed that the Iraqi people loved Saddam. They have loved…And for me, who is here to serve as a teacher, THAT is the greatest gift of all!
October 9th, 2006 at 9:57 pmAnd then Exley woke up….
October 9th, 2006 at 10:03 pmI haven’t learned a damn thing from any of your posts. Why? Because you have nothing to teach. You just think you do.
About the most idiotic teacher I have ever heard, and not even funny.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:07 pm#291, Oh, Baker, c’mon! You know that is not true…Why just on this thread I have taught you that the MCA’s limitations on habeus corpus jurisdiction does not apply to U.S. citizens…I have taught you (not to mention Barfly, Spudge, Bruce Gorton, et al) that torture methods “applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine.†I taught you on the other thread that despite ThinkProgress’ deception, candidate George W. Bush discussed North Korea a great deal of the time in 2000.
Yes, I have you a great deal….You’re welcome!
October 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pmWow! Methods of torture under Saddam Hussein were the “worst you could imagine”. That is enlightening…thanks Exley.
Ugh!
October 9th, 2006 at 10:18 pmOh, it looks like I need to teach Baker another lesson. Y’see Baker, Terry Bradshaw is a former quarterback in the NFL having played on the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s and 1980s, winning four Super Bowls (which is the championship game of the National Football League or NFL). Currently, Bradshaw serves as a football commentator on Fox Sports. Therefore, Baker, Bradshaw is unqualified to discuss the complex and specialized issue of Third World debt, in the same way that ESPN radio show host (ESPN is a cable and radio network devoted to the coverage of sports) Keith Olbermann is unqualified to discuss complex issues of foreign policy and constitutional law.
Class dismissed, Baker.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:20 pmJay, I grant you that for most people that is a matter of common knowledge. Sadly, people like Bruce Gorton, Barfly, and Spudge did not know that Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator. And that is why they mistakenly believed that the Iraqi people did not want to be liberated from Saddam.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:22 pmYou have said nothing new or that I didn’t know already. But hey, we wouldn’t want to deny your projectionism, so pat yourself on the back for a job well undone that no one knows except you.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:25 pmExley is just here for the attention. So, “Candidate Bush” discussed North Korea a great deal. But President Bush?
You serve to deflect and detract. I wonder, for what price have you sold your soul?
Don’t EVEN think about playing your little word games with me, for I see you as the disgusting little bug you are. Just remember, I did give you a chance to see the light, and you chose darkness. So darkness it shall be for you, until you learn.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pmBaker wrote: the MCA’s limitations on habeus corpus jurisdiction does not apply to U.S. citizens [Knew that]…I have taught you (not to mention Barfly, Spudge, Bruce Gorton, et al) that torture methods “applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine.†[Old news]
Well, then, you know more than many, many of the posters here. Good for you!
October 9th, 2006 at 10:30 pmAnd that is why they mistakenly believed that the Iraqi people did not want to be liberated from Saddam.
They did before Arbusto Junior came along.
Besides Bush sr. left the Kurds to die and he also helped Saddam to gas them while Rumsfeld looked the other way.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:31 pmYeh, they hated Saddam so much that they had to get waivers for conflicts of interest!!
Exley, you couldn’t teach my dog.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:35 pm299…Baker, we are not discussing the failures of Bush, Sr., Ronald Reagan, or Harry Truman. We are discussing the current administration and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:35 pmMeanwhile, President Bush is ticked off “big-time.” Not, as much, I think, as the family members of those killed in his illegal and immoral war.
I wonder how ticked off he’d be if some foreign country decided his daughters were “unlawful enemy combatants” and tortured them before holding a “Military Commisson” and executing them?
October 9th, 2006 at 10:39 pm301 – initiating a war for the purpose of regime change is a violation of international law.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:40 pmI have been around alot longer than your projectionism allows you to see.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:40 pmHmmm….do you think the Iraqi people were worth liberating?
Do you think that as a fledgling democracy the Iraqi people’s overwhelming desire for their American occupiers to leave their land is also worthy?
Do you honestly believe that the invasion of Iraq was executed “to spread freedom and democracy?”
Do you know that, if you don’t count the decidedly difficult to extract and convert tar sands in Canada, Iraq possesses the world’s 2nd largest proven supply of oil?
Did you know that the neocon insiders that now control U.S. foreign policy had been drawing up plans to overthrow Hussein’s regime since well before he started to entertain the idea of flipping from dollars to euros?
Did you know that both Powell and Rice are on record as saying that the Hussein regime was “boxed in” and “not a threat” as recently as 2001?
Were you aware of the fact that Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz et al. have direct ties to both big oil and corporations that profit obscenely from war?
Did you?
October 9th, 2006 at 10:41 pmWe are discussing the current administration and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
Thats impossible to do without relating back to shrubs daddy, because that is who helped to build him up so HE could be knocked down.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:44 pm301 – initiating a war for the purpose of regime change is a violation of international law.
Comment by Briseadh+na+Faire
I agree BNF
October 9th, 2006 at 10:45 pmIs wittle W. having a tantrum? Awwwww… in’t that special…
October 9th, 2006 at 10:46 pm#306 do you think the Iraqi people were worth liberating?
I did. But, recently, I have begun to have my doubts. Here is what I wrote back on September 22, 2006 (Nod to Barfly for providing this quote in his tribute to me):
I am in fact greatly saddened and disappointed but what I see going on in Iraq today and I freely admit there may be no way to stop the Muslim-on-Muslim carnage going on in Iraq right now. It is a tragedy. The United States and its Coalition partners, by deposing the monstrous Saddam Hussein, provided the Iraqi people with a golden opportunity to create a modern, tolerant democratic society. Tragically, it appears the Iraqis are squandering this opportunity. Rather than creating a decent, civilized society for themselves and their children, they appear to be indulging in ancient tribal and ethnic divisions. In the run up to liberation, many of my liberal or “progressive†friends argued that democracitizing Iraq was impossible because the Arab-Muslim world was incapable of forming such a society. I, on the other hand, believed that given the opportunity, the Iraqi people would embrace freedom and tolerance. Perhaps I was wrong and my progressive friends correct. I am not yet sure. When I see the daily Iraqi-on-Iraqi, Muslim-on-Muslim carnage, I am pessimistic. When I see millions of Iraqis go to the polls to participate in the democratic process, I am hopeful. But lately my pessimism outweighs my optimism. Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 10:46 pmOh, BUT I AM talking about Saddam and his appeasers, your party.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:49 pmI didn’t post on this site when the current War started, I do know what I said when it started in 2003, and it is very much like your post here Exley.
Only the ‘liberals’ said it before the war in Iraq ever started
You should listen to your ’students’ Exley.
Democracy does not come out of the end of a gun.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:55 pmSo Exley, you answered the 1st question. Now, with that as context, please address the rest.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:59 pm#311…I also did not post on this site before the liberation of Iraq in early 2003.
Only the ‘liberals’ said it before the war in Iraq ever started
You should listen to your ’students’ Exley.
I acknowledge that in my posting. As I have said here many times before (including above), I am questioning the wisdom of liberating Iraq more and more each day. It clearly has not worked out the way I and many other conservatives had hoped.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:03 pmJay Do you honestly believe that the invasion of Iraq was executed “to spread freedom and democracy?â€
Absolutely. Indeed, it was one of the main reasons I supported the toppling of Saddam. President Bush referenced the goal of democracitization
October 9th, 2006 at 11:06 pmLiberation was about the last thing the Bushies intended, unless you include liberating the people of Iraq from their only natural resource. A curse to live on all of that oil….to be sure.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:09 pm#312
Absolutely. Indeed, it was one of the main reasons I supported the toppling of Saddam…As President Bush stated many times in the months leading up to liberation, it was hoped that a democratic Iraq can serve as an example to other nations in the Muslim world.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:10 pm314.
sucker.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:10 pmGeorge,
October 9th, 2006 at 11:11 pmI’m going to clue you in. I didn’t need a book to know how incompetent this administration is. The facts are there for all to see.
#305 Jay Do you know that, if you don’t count the decidedly difficult to extract and convert tar sands in Canada, Iraq possesses the world’s 2nd largest proven supply of oil?
I do not know that to be true. If it is, I still question its relevance.
People who argue this was a war for oil have still yet to explain how that makes economic sense. Was the war fought to acquire vast reserves of oil for the American government without the necessity of payment and thereby drive down the price of oil? How that benefits the “Big Oil” companies is beyond me…Moreover, the new Iraqi constitution keeps Iraq’s oil reserve the patrimony of the Iraqi people. Moreover, many posters here are always quick to claim that the U.S. is willing to deal with unsavory regimes in order to maintain its supply of oil. If this is the case, then why wouldn’t the United States have simply made a deal with the unsavory Saddam Hussein in the years after the first Persian Gulf War?
October 9th, 2006 at 11:18 pm#305
Did you know that the neocon insiders that now control U.S. foreign policy had been drawing up plans to overthrow Hussein’s regime since well before he started to entertain the idea of flipping from dollars to euros?
Jay, Regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the United States in 1998 when the U.S. Senate unanimously passed (as in both Democrats and Republicans), the House overwhelmingly passed in a bipartisan vote, and President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Did you know that both Powell and Rice are on record as saying that the Hussein regime was “boxed in†and “not a threat†as recently as 2001?
Indeed, I am. But then September 11 took place and many of the assumption we held about our national security prior to that date had to be re-evaluated. What was an acceptable security risk on September 10, 2001 was not acceptable on September 12, 2001. Historical context is important when discussing these matters.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:27 pm#305, Were you aware of the fact that Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz et al. have direct ties to both big oil and corporations that profit obscenely from war?
Claims of war-profiteering and war waged to serve business interests is an argument made by critics of every U.S. war since the Revolution…
October 9th, 2006 at 11:31 pmIt’s not about Big Oil possessing Iraq’s oil, it’s about having the power to control how much of it reaches market and when. It’s about controlling the price. Often, it benefits Exxon/Mobil et al. to have less oil in the pipeline to drive up hhe cost.
Was the price driven up? Mission accomplished. Cha-ching. Now if you don’t mind, I don’t suffer fools well. moving on.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:32 pm#322, So, Jay, your argument is that the war was fought so that “Big Oil” would have access to more oil but supply lless to the market in an scheme to drive up prices? And how would that work exactly? And aren’t people claiming that the price of oil has increased because of the instability created by the insurgency in Iraq?
October 9th, 2006 at 11:39 pm#294 : You see, (fill in blank), R.W. Reagan was a C-grade movie actor from Hollywood in the 50’s, which is why he was never qualified to hold a position on the Santa Monica school board, let alone POTUS. We sober and erudite types on the right don’t tolerate “entertainment” or “media” types infringing on our super-secret club of really smart, highly educated types who have devoted their entire lives to the virtually monastic study of complex geopolitical issues. We on the right know better than to take heed of glib assertions thrown around by people who know how to read cue cards better than they know the tribal history of the nomads of the Caucasus Mountains.
Little pot and kettle problem there, huh chachi?
Also, kudos re: #320, for being so brave as to admit that 9/11 turned you yella – way to hand one to the bad guys, Ex!
October 9th, 2006 at 11:44 pm320,
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as justification for Bush’s War is improper. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 mentions nothing about invading a sovereign country for the purpose of regime change. You should read Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 before you use it to support a war of aggression on a sovereign nation.
Again, invading a sovereign nation for the purpose of regime change violates international law. To suggest that Clinton so advocated is a flat out LIE.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:10 am#320 The Hussein regime did not need to be re-evaluated after 9/11 because there was no connection between 9/11 and Hussein.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:15 amBnF…Please point out what part of this statement is inaccurate: “Regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the United States in 1998 when the U.S. Senate unanimously passed (as in both Democrats and Republicans), the House overwhelmingly passed in a bipartisan vote, and President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.”
October 10th, 2006 at 12:18 amThe 1998 Act that supported “regime change” SAID NOTHING ABOUT INVADING IRAQ!
October 10th, 2006 at 12:23 am330: you’re use of the quoted statement to support regime change by invading a sovereign country is inaccurate.
Yet you persist. Hence I challenge you (once again) to put your vast wisdom of International Law to good use and show us all where, in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:27 amThe 1998 Act supports groups opposed to Hussein only. Bush twisted the 1998 Act in order to justify invading Iraq. Bush has done this with every act and every treaty. Regime change starts at home.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:28 amy, BnF, ’cause “regime change”=”invasion and ongoing bloody occupation”….everyone who took “honors international studies collquium 480″ at UofC knows that…(”hmph! of intellectual indignation)…..yours in a mistakenly condescending fashion, Exley
October 10th, 2006 at 12:28 amBy the way, the phrase “regime change” is not found in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:29 amAh, the benefits of promoting democracy blindly……….
Iran thanks you, GWB. The Mullah’s now have more influence than ever.
Seriously, boys: Haven’t we been over the take out Saddam arguments ad nauseum. There is no sense discussing now.
Anyone with a rational mind knows we were duped into that war. Any other thought is irrational. No one really has a good solution to leave Iraq whole and stable either. That’s right – NO ONE. DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE.
Any further discussion is pointless. There is no new data or tact or strategy. It has alllllllllllll been argued. There are none left to convince; the sides are drawn up. Maybe if a space alien landed on the planet, you may have another to convince……so drop it.
Gawd! I imagine some here would try to convince the brick wall.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:33 amAgain, BnF, I ask you to point out what part of this statement is inaccurate:
“Regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the United States in 1998 when the U.S. Senate unanimously passed (as in both Democrats and Republicans), the House overwhelmingly passed in a bipartisan vote, and President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.â€
October 10th, 2006 at 12:36 amTHE IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998
SEC. 3 SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
October 10th, 2006 at 12:42 amYour use of the quoted statement to support regime change by Bush’s invasion of a sovereign country is inaccurate.
You can repeat the post all you want. But your support of international war crimes will not diminish. Clinton did not invade a sovereign country for the purpose of regime change. You are saying (now) that you support Bush because he invaded a sovereign country in order to bring about a regime change. You support an international war crime.
Will you stand as a co-conspirator in the murder of 100,000 innocent children, women and men for your support of such crimes? Can you even begin to comprehend the innocent blood now on your hands?
October 10th, 2006 at 12:47 amThe 1998 Act supported regime change but said NOTHING ABOUT SUPPORTING AN INVASION OF IRAQ FOR CRISSAKES!!
October 10th, 2006 at 12:48 am“The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.”
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
October 10th, 2006 at 12:51 amSection 4 of the Act does not provide authorization for the invasion of a sovereign country:
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
October 10th, 2006 at 12:56 am(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
“The United States is committed to providing the best damn death squads money can buy”
October 10th, 2006 at 12:57 amOr something like that…
340, 341….Gentlemen….Read Jay’s words carefully and then read my response equally carefully.
JAY: Did you know that the neocon insiders that now control U.S. foreign policy had been drawing up plans to overthrow Hussein’s regime since well before he started to entertain the idea of flipping from dollars to euros?
Note that nowhere in his question does Jay refernce the use of miliary force or invasion. He simply mentions overthrowing Husseun’s regime:
EXLEY: “Regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the United States in 1998 when the U.S. Senate unanimously passed (as in both Democrats and Republicans), the House overwhelmingly passed in a bipartisan vote, and President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.â€
Note that nowhere do I write that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 authorized the use of U.S. military force in achieving regime change in Iraq.
Again, please read more carefully…More lawyerly, if you will.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:59 amMore lawyerly:
Jay Do you honestly believe that the invasion of Iraq was executed “to spread freedom and democracy?â€
Absolutely. Indeed, it was one of the main reasons I supported the toppling of Saddam. President Bush referenced the goal of democracitization
Comment by Exley — October 9, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
#312
Absolutely. Indeed, it was one of the main reasons I supported the toppling of Saddam…As President Bush stated many times in the months leading up to liberation, it was hoped that a democratic Iraq can serve as an example to other nations in the Muslim world.
Comment by Exley — October 9, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
YOU SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGIME CHANGE (TOPPLING SADDAM). YOU SUPPORTED AN INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIME.
I told you not to play word games with me. If this were a war crimes tribunal you would be found guilty by your own admissions. Would you still be so smug when standing for sentencing?
October 10th, 2006 at 1:10 am#347, BnF, I accept your retraction of your erroneous claim that I said the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 called for the use of U.S. military force to achieve regime change in Iraq.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:13 am348, a retraction was not given, therefore you accept nothing.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:21 am“….it was hoped that a democratic Iraq can serve as an example to other nations in the Muslim world.” This simplistic outlook is exactly what is wrong with conservatives. They justify invading other countries because we’re the good guys and we know what’s best for everyone else. The only forethought conservatives put into invading Iraq was that we would be greeted as liberators. Conservatives only think about what they’re doing after the fact…after they have caused irreparable harm and their recklessness has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:21 am#350, Actually, BnF, by retreating from your now-discredited assertion that I said that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 authorized the use of U.S. military force to achieve regime change in Iraq, you have indeed conceded the point and retracted your baseless accusation.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:29 am356,
No where did I make the assertion that you said the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 authorized the use of U.S. military force to achieve regime change in Iraq.
You cannot discredit an assertion which was never made.
I have not conceeded a point, nor have I retracted anything. I have, however, made a very special wish on your behalf. You really should learn more about shamanism and witchcraft before you go around putting words in other people’s mouths. It could come back to haunt you someday.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:48 amIllegal war, stolen status
ignorant president guiding the way
sometimes I don’t know what to say
the whole globe mad at us
a war with a cost we should not pay
who will guide us from darkness to day
our soldiers dying, EVERY SINGLE DAY
October 10th, 2006 at 1:50 am———————
http://www.getsomejosh.com
It rarely ever does Exley
October 10th, 2006 at 2:45 amThe radical right always says if we pullout it will be chaos and a haven for terrorist and I always ask myself WTF is it now!?!?!?!?
October 10th, 2006 at 3:04 amI have taught you (not to mention Barfly, Spudge, Bruce Gorton, et al) that torture methods “applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine.†I taught you on the other thread that despite ThinkProgress’ deception, candidate George W. Bush discussed North Korea a great deal of the time in 2000.
Yes, I have you a great deal….You’re welcome!
Comment by Exley — October 9, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
You are definitely screwy, 0-6, and punch drunk as well from the constant beatings. Are you masochistic? It would appear so. I can understand why you do this on the computer, though; you’d get your ass kicked for real if you tried this blatant lying in person. So keep acting the fool, and I’ll keep ripping you a new one, little one
October 10th, 2006 at 3:57 amThe aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.
October 10th, 2006 at 7:04 am[...] At former aides who helped Bob Woodward paint a lurid portrait of a dysfunctional, chaotic administration in his new book, “State of Denial.” The NY Daily News reports, “In the obsessively private Bush clan, talking out of school is the ultimate act of disloyalty, and Bush feels betrayed from withinread more | digg story [...]
October 10th, 2006 at 7:22 amThinkProgress and Community,
Keith Olbermann’s report on “The Murder of Habeus Corpus” has been postponed until tonight. This would be a good opportunity for TP to produce their own article on this subject. In fact, I think it would be great if we could hear Keith say, “For an excellent report on this subject, I encourage everyone to check out ThinkProgress.org.” In contrast, I think it would be a sad day indeed if TP continued to ignore this issue. It is important. It is very important.
If you don’t have the right to go into court to say your rights have been violated, then you have no rights.
Have a good day, everyone. I may be back tomorrow.
October 10th, 2006 at 7:34 am#365,
October 10th, 2006 at 10:59 amHey Barfly…You were up late! …Well, Ahab, it is my pleasure to beyour teacher and explain some history, politics, and foreign policy to you. No need to thank me.
#359, Read your posting#328….And then read your posting 359 again.
Okay? I accept your apology and retraction.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:13 amExley
I do not see your point in your argument against BnF, in fact what I actually see is a smug idiot trying to use the Chewbacca defence.
Now unless you are willing to either, 1: Make sense, or 2: Admit that you are lying, then I am left with only this conclusion, you are delusional and not worth discussing anything with.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:22 amExley, you should learn how to read. Apparently that art escapes you.
Bruce, I agree with your latter assessment.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:30 am#372, Well, Bruce, I will try to explain this to you….slowly.
In response to a question from Jay, which incorrectly stated that regime change in Iraq only became the policy of the U.S. during the current administration, I pointed out that he was incorrect and that in fact the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 unanimously passed in the Senate, overwhelmingly approved in the House, and signed by President Bill Clinton (who was a Democrat, for your information) made it the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq … Nowhere did I say, nor was the point raised, that the Iraq Liberation Act authroized the use of U.S. military force in Iraq.
BnF erroneously (and possibly dishonestly) claimed that I had asserted that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 had indeed authorized the use of military force to acheive the policy objectives laid out in the Act. BnF also falsely claimed that I had the Iraq Liberation Act had authorized the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
As an even cursory review of the original exchange between Jay and myself on the issue of regime change indisputably shows, BnF was wrong and likely deliberately misrepresented what I had written.
I hope this clears up your rather considerable confusion, Bruce.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:41 amBnF was wrong and likely deliberately misrepresented what I had written.
I hope this clears up your rather considerable confusion, Bruce.
Comment by Exley
Thar she blows! To the boats!
Exley is pathologically incapable of telling the truth. I thought that would be obvious to everyone by now. He’s a rhetorical weeble, incapable of ever admitting error (as I showed in the Exley Files).
October 10th, 2006 at 12:31 pmReading through the whole thing again with specific attention to Jay’s post.
Read that sentence again Exley. Your argument, in response to that was to bring up the Iraqi Liberation act of 1998. In that context you were using the Iraqi Liberation Act in order to justify the planning behind the invasion of Iraq.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:33 pm#378….Bruce. I don’t see how you arrive at that conclusion. Jay was talking about regime change in Iraq and saying that such policy and plans were solely the work of the “neocons” that are now in the Bush administration. I pointed out that regime change in Iraq becamse the policy of the U.S. during the Clinton administration after a unanimous Senate vote and overwhelming House vote. Neither Jay nor I mentioned the means by which regime change was to be brought about (whether by aid to indigenous freedom fighters in Iraq as envisioned by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 or the direct use oif U.S. military force as took place in ealry 2003).
The onlt thing being discussed by Jay and me was the policy of regime change…Not the methods.
That is where BnF got confused.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pm330. #320 The Hussein regime did not need to be re-evaluated after 9/11 because there was no connection between 9/11 and Hussein.
Comment by Republicans Are The Fear And Smear Party — October 10, 2006 @ 12:15 am
331. BnF…Please point out what part of this statement is inaccurate: “Regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the United States in 1998 when the U.S. Senate unanimously passed (as in both Democrats and Republicans), the House overwhelmingly passed in a bipartisan vote, and President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.â€
Hopefully that came out right. Anyway, if your original intent was as you have stated…
Why didn’t you just tell Briseadh na Faire right then and there that he had misconstrued your meaning? Oh yeah, because he hadn’t.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pmExley
No, Jay was saying that the Neocons had been planning to overthrow the Iraqi Government from before they even came into power. He didn’t actually say anything about what anybody else was planning or not planning.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:48 pmAnd as a PS: Overthrow has a distinctly military ring to it, and implies active involvement in deposing the current government by violent means. Regime change on the other hand can be as peaceful as a presidential election.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:51 pmWhy didn’t you just tell Briseadh na Faire right then and there that he had misconstrued your meaning?
Actually, Bruce, by having BnF re-read what I had written I was pointing out that he was comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. He was talking about the use of U.S. military force while Jay and I were discussing regime change as policy. I figured BnF woukld be able to figure out his mistake for himself.
When BnF refused (intentionally or not) to acknowledge his mistake, I did indeed take him by the hand and walk him through his error at 12:59 a.m in Posting#345. You can take a look at #345 above.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pm#381, Jay’s question implied that the removal of Saddam was a distinctly “neocon” idea, that no one else had considered until the arrival of the Bush II administration in 2001. By referencing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States, I was simply showing via a historical reference that Jay’s implications was not correct.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:00 pmExley has hijacked this comment forum. I’m leaving. Recommend same for others.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pmMy question implied nothing. I was stating facts. Regime change as a policy doesn’t require the use of military force, there are a number of ways to foment regime change. Clinton and the PNAC signatories disagreed on the method, which by the way was one of the primary reasons they did everything in their power to destroy him, in my opinion (oh and also the fact that he wanted to raise taxes on the uber-wealthy…but I digress).
Exley (suffering fools against my better judgement), I read through the comments this afternoon and I think I was able to piece together your problem. You don’t process information objectively, you read something and then before you absorb it, your warped preconceived notions distort it. Somewhere between your eyes and your brain is a filter that strains the reality out and the brainwashed rightwing talking points in. That’s scary.
When you stop hearing what you want to hear and start looking objectively at the truth….oh, never mind.
October 10th, 2006 at 5:34 pmOh, and just to drive the point home regarding who truly drove the “regime change in Iraq” policy, please read the PNAC letter to Clinton from 1998 here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
..as always, don’t forget to read the names at the bottom!
October 10th, 2006 at 5:40 pmJay: “Regime change as a policy doesn’t require the use of military force”
Exactly! That is why when you wrote the it was solely the “necons” who are now in the Bush administration who advocated regime change in Iraq, you were incorrect, as I demonstrated by pointing out to you that regime change in Iraq became the official policy in the United States in 1998 during the Clinton administration.
I am glad I was able to educate you on this matter.
October 10th, 2006 at 5:42 pm[...] Kerry O’Brien interviewed DC journalist Bob Woodward last night, talking about Woodward’s new book, the one that is giving President Bush palpitations, and our Kez sure knew the siginificance of what Woodward has written in the book: KERRY O’BRIEN: Even though President Bush identified North Korea as part of an axis of evil, the truth is that for most of the Bush presidency his central focus has been on Iraq and the more that conflict has soured, the more the insurgency has grown and the casualties with it, the more it has come to dominate his time. Well, President Bush’s headache on Iraq has been wound up to a full-on migraine thanks to the latest book by perhaps America’s most respected and most impactive journalist, Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame. In Washington, no journalist gets access like Woodward and, with the scalp of one president, Richard Nixon, already on his belt, he’s turned his focus in devastating fashion on George W Bush. In his third, extremely well documented book on the Bush presidency, Woodward says in stark terms that George W and his most senior officials have deliberately misled Americans and the world on Iraq, claiming that they’ve turned the corner in the conflict when their own intelligence says it’s getting worse. The book is called A State of Denial and I spoke with Bob Woodward from our Washington studio earlier today. [...]
October 10th, 2006 at 6:52 pm388,
please point out in what post I stated that it was ’solely’ the neocons that did anything.
I also said ‘overthrow’ Hussein which means forceful removal, not regime change, which is far more open ended an idea.
Dude, you are incredibly full of shit.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:50 pm#388 But the neo-cons are the ones that used force for regime change. What is your point?
October 10th, 2006 at 9:53 pmBush needs an asskicking like no other. It might help with that arrogance of his.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:03 pm391, Jay,…Let’s look at what you wrote again:
Did you know that the neocon insiders that now control U.S. foreign policy had been drawing up plans to overthrow Hussein’s regime since well before he started to entertain the idea of flipping from dollars to euros?
As I pointed out and taught you, plans to overthrow Hussein’s regime extended back to at least 1998. That is why I educated you about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, by which the Clinton (D) administration made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. Thus, your question about “neocons” [sic] planning for regime change was not only irrelevant, but, given the context provided by the remainder of your questions in posting#306, based on a lack of understanding of the history of U.S. policy towards Iraq during the Clinton Administration.
I trust this posting — as well as the information I provided you regarding the heretofore-unknown-to-you Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 — has cleared up your confusion.
If you have any other questions about this topic — or any other matters of American history — please feel free to ask me.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:21 pm#392, JPark…Your statement is correct. But it is also irrelevant to the point raised by Jay’s question in posting #306. Jay was unaware of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I merely taught him about that piece of legislation, which made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States.
Now, I grant you that perhaps, however unlikely, Jay did know of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, got confused and phrased his question incorrectly. Perhaps he MEANT to write that “neocon insiders that now control U.S. foreign policy had been drawing up plans to INVADE Iraq and overthrow Hussein’s regime THROUGH THE USE OF U.S. MILITARY FORCE since well before he started to entertain the idea of flipping from dollars to euros?”…However, that is not what he wrote. Based on what he did in fact write, I responded accordingly and correctly.
If Jay misstated his question, I would suggest that he re-submit his question with the correct phraseology.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:30 pmAgain, Exley, only the idiotic neo-cons made it a violent overthrow that has gotten us where? Defend your wing, Exley. How did we do?
October 10th, 2006 at 10:31 pm#395 I don’t know what Jay thought. However, I DO know what the neocons did. You are throwing up a smokescreen to try to paint the Democrats with the same brush as the Republicans. It doesn’t work.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:34 pm#397,
JPark, No, I am not….I am saying that both Democrats and Republicans agreed in 1998 that the goal of the United States should be to seek regime change in Iraq. Clearly, the means by which the Clinton and Bush II administrations sought regime change differed (Although let us not forgot that the Clinton administration came within figurative inches of invading Iraq in 1998).
October 10th, 2006 at 10:40 pm#398 I guess my comment was eaten. My question is what is your point? You are right that neither left nor right liked Hussein (it is refreshing to see a right wing guy not claim we loved him). But I think the left was much more realistic about it. Wait for an opening, maybe assasinate him, maybe drive him out by sanctions (granted, it was a long shot). But the guy was NO threat to us and it was illegal for us to invade. More importantly, it tied us down in a crappy country that we don’t give a damn about (except for the oil) and we have no freedom to do anything that might actually be good for us (like shutting down the genocide in the Sudan).
October 10th, 2006 at 11:15 pm#398,
Two things;
1) My only “point “was to correct a historical inaccuracy disseminated by Jay;
(2) I would disagree that Saddam was “NO” threat to us. While I have to agree that he was not as big a threat as I believed before liberation, he did pose a threat — Ties to terrorism, hiding WMD research activities, shooting at US/UK planes patrolling the “no-fly-zone”– (But again, I now question whether the threat he posed was proportionate to the actions taken to depose him)…But I am not sure why you say that “shutting down” the genocide in Sudan would do any more good for us than stopping Saddam’s genocidal reign in Iraq.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:26 pm#401 Come on Exley. Don’t be that way. Ties to terrorism? Do you mean against Israel or against the US? WMD? Why did Hans Blix and Scott Ritter mean so little? No fly zone? Who gives a damn. We have been playing cat and mouse over the DMZ for 50 years.
What I mean about the genocide in Sudan is that we would look like heros instead of imperial assholes (which it seems, we are). Tell me what we have gained in Iraq.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:33 pm#402, Ties to terrorism against us (See the 9/11 Commission Report); WMD? (See the Duelfer Report); No fly zone? That is a pretty cavalier answer, JPark. I am sure the pilots who were being fired upon as they patrolled the north and south of Iraq to protect Iraq’s Kurdish and Shiite populations would not be so quick to dismiss Saddam’s anti-aircraft activities.
As for your second point, you still have not explained why it would be more altruistic or “heroic” to stop the genocide in Sudan than it was to end Saddam’s genocidal regime.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:46 pm#403 What terrorism against us? Link it. WMD…yes, read the Duelfer report…and listen to the IAEA and the UN inspectors. Cavalier? How serious were these attacks? How many American pilots died? What threat was Saddam? He had a pathetic wiped out army, no navy, no air force, and no nukes. How is that a threat to us?
Well, let’s see…if we stopped the genocide in Darfur we would actually be doing something on a humanitarian scale instead of taking revenge for something that happened 20 years ago when Iraq was our buddies. What has Saddam done in the last 15 years (since the gulf war, which could have been avoided if we hadn’t told them it was ok for them to attack Kuwait) that would force us to attack them? And since we have attacked them what have we replaced Saddam with? Certainly nothing better.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:54 pm#405, JPark:
What terrorism against us? Link it.
9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean (R):
“What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy – but they were there.”
Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton, Democrat:
“I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor just said, we don’t have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.”
9/11 Commission RFeport:
“Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even
this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s]
intel[ligence service] is in bed with†Bin Ladin and would warn him that the
United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that
knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.â€135 Though told
also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred”
There’s more. JParak, but you get the point.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:03 am#403, JPark:
Some excerpts from Duelfer Report:
“There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted.”
“Based on an investigation of facilities, materials, and production outputs, ISG also judges that Iraq had a break-out capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard CW agent, but not nerve agents….
October 11th, 2006 at 12:09 amIraq retained the necessary basic chemicals to produce sulfur mustard on a large-scale, but probably did not have key precursors for nerve agent production. With the importation of key phosphorus based precursors, Iraq could have produced limited quantities of nerve agent as well. Mustard production could have started within days if the necessary precursor chemicals were co-located in a suitable production facility; otherwise production could have started within weeks.”
Exley, come on. I am not an idiot. You are not an idiot. You know that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein hated each other. Why are you trying to make something out of nothing? Doesn’t no operational relationship mean anything to you?
October 11th, 2006 at 12:15 am#407,
JPark, I am providing quotes from the 9/11 Commission Report. Do they mean nothing to you? Are they irrelevant?
October 11th, 2006 at 12:19 am[...] President Bush is ticked off big-time Think Progress, DC - Oct 9, 2006at former aides who helped Bob Woodward paint a lurid portrait of a dysfunctional, chaotic administration in his new book, State of Denial. The NY Daily … [...]
October 11th, 2006 at 12:22 amMore from the 9/11 Commission Report:
Richard Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that
Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National
Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin
Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.â€
Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah
October 11th, 2006 at 12:23 amOmar,
had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq,
wrote
Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be
“virtually
impossible†to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke
declared.134
JPark, You wrote: Well, let’s see…if we stopped the genocide in Darfur we would actually be doing something on a humanitarian scale
Fine…But why was our stopping the genocide in Iraq (As you know, Saddam is believed to have killed between 500,000 and 1 million people) not humanitarian or heroic? You yourself have acknowledged that Saddam was a briutal and murderous dictator.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:26 amIf any nation in the world deserves a nuclear strike, it is not Iran. Rather it is a dead tie between Uncle Stupid, and its Evil Twin, Izrael. Uncle Stupid has been sticking his big fat ugly nose into other countries business for the past 100 plus years, and it is about time that nose got smashed flat, and riped out of el stupido’s head! The Evil Twin kills arabs the way u and I kill ants. Exterminate both, and the world will be a better place for the remaining 6.2 billion people.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:30 pmYoo, 416 above, what business of uncle stupid’s was stopping violence inside iraq by saddom? You interventionist clowns need a good butt whippin, but unfortunately innocent young american men and women who are foolish enough to believe your patriotic bullshit are suffering that butt whippin’. I hope some of them are smart enough to return with their broken bodies to america and hunt down the wolf-a-bitches, libbie-sluts, abrahamsies, and other neo con scum, and give them and all of their families a similar butt kicking, out to say five degrees of relatedness.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:42 pmExley, where was the genocide in Iraq? Provide links please.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:43 pm#408 Yeah, no operational relationship DOES mean something.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:44 pm[...] President Bush is ticked off big-time Think Progress, DC - Oct 9, 2006at former aides who helped Bob Woodward paint a lurid portrait of a dysfunctional, chaotic administration in his new book, State of Denial. The NY Daily … [...]
October 12th, 2006 at 12:19 am[...] Page Summary: Maybe the chimp will order a teeny weeny little nuclear strike on Iran to show that he is still in charge. I mean, really we have had Foley for long enough, yes we get the point that the Republicans are perverts who shelter perverts, can we talk about something else now. The list of local and state Republican officials who were arrested and convicted of pedophilia or other sex crimes would choke even the most forgiving defense attorney. And as for the situation being worse now in Iraq than it was under ASaddam how do you think the Iraqi people like there freedom given to them by bushie.read more | digg story [...]
October 27th, 2006 at 3:47 am