Sampson Lied Under Oath: ‘Had In Mind’ Plan To Replace U.S. Attorneys With Loyal Bushies
Sampson Lied Under Oath: ‘Had In Mind’ Plan To Replace U.S. Attorneys With Loyal Bushies
On March 29, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Kyle Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he had no replacements in mind before the Justice Department fired the U.S. attorneys in Dec. 2006:
SCHUMER: Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. Attorneys before they were asked to resign on December 7th, 2006.
SAMPSON: I personally did not. On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.
But a new e-mail released to the House Judiciary Committee shows that on Jan. 9, 2006 — a year before the prosecutors were fired — Sampson recommended replacements for almost every one of the U.S. attorneys on the administration’s hit list, suggesting that these prosecutors were fired to make way for partisan loyalists.
One of the suggested replacements who has received relatively little attention is Rachel Brand, whom Sampson recommended to take the place of Margaret Chiara as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Michigan. Brand has been the Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy (OLP) since June 2005. She helped push through the Bush administration’s controversial Supreme Court nominees, and ran the “murder boards” for Alito, Miers, and Roberts. Brand was also a member of the right-wing Federalist Society, which appears to be a consideration for all U.S. attorney candidates.
At Brand’s May 2005 nomination hearing, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) raised concerns that Brand was too inexperienced and unqualified to be Assistant Attorney General for OLP:
Unfortunately, it appears she brings very little depth of experience to a position that is instrumental in setting out DOJ priorities and recommending new judges. By way of comparison, Eleanor Acheson, President Clinton’s nominee for the same position, had practiced law for 19 years prior to her appointment, and Viet Dinh, President Bush’s first nominee to head OLP was a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who had published several scholarly articles and op-eds and had held several congressional positions by the time of his appointments.
It is unlikely that less than a year working at the Justice Department had suddenly made Brand qualified to be a U.S. attorney.
(TPMmuckraker has more.)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
This is like appointing someone with jakes level of intelligence to be a manager at McDonalds…..
April 13th, 2007 at 5:39 pm“Lied” or just forgot?
April 13th, 2007 at 5:40 pmif i stepped into a position like kyle sampson’s (or karl rove’s), i would be humbled by what i would consider to be a sacred obligation to serve my country in the most upstanding, ethical, squeakiest clean way possible, to serve as nothing less than a paragon of virtue that would bring honor to me, my boss, and my country… every single day, i would be cognizant that i was not there to serve anything other than the common good, and all that i did must meet that end…
one of the things foremost in my mind would be that everything i did and said would be part of the historical record, potentially available and open at any time to public scrutiny, something i would consider right and appropriate for someone serving as a steward of the public trust… i would be almost obsessive about making sure that that i was upfront, honest, and completely transparent right from the moment i first set foot in my office… i guess that’s just me…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
April 13th, 2007 at 5:41 pmOr, it could be like someone of Clinton’s level on intelligence disecting what the meaning of “is” is.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:43 pmPeople please have a read @ this link:
Drum Beat 41307
Then look at the responses for a while. Keep in mind that oil has jumped $2.00 since yesterday! Then post what you think!
April 13th, 2007 at 5:43 pmVery good. Keep Sampson on Americans’ TV screens. He’s exactly the pouty, fat white face we want to hang on the Republican party (not that it’s hard to do).
April 13th, 2007 at 5:43 pm.
For more on Sampson, the missing RNC emails and DOJ document dumps as well as the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
April 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
send sampson to jail…martha stewart had to do time for lying…so should this scum
April 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pmComment by profmarcus — April 13, 2007 @ 5:41 pm That almost sounds like Bush’s election platform! LOL I’m teasing you.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pmJust like the little republiclones they sent to Iraq. Are you anti-choice? Did you vote for Dear Leader? Does your daddy have lots of money to donate to the Cause? And then wonder what went wrong. I agree profmarcus - I take it personally because they are ruining my country.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:47 pmTime to start prosecution of Sampson. I’m fairly sure of Sampson thinks that he will be spending time in prison if he lies for his boss and Bush, he’ll flip quicker than you can say “jack rabbit”.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pmBack to Clinton eh? You people are sooooooo pathetic!
April 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pmYes, indeed, Saywho - I’m terribly worried about my second home and which of my multiple vehicles I’ll drive to work today to confound the riff-faff. And well, heaven forbid they have time to hunt for the safe. Dude, in my house they could hunt forever - only one house, only one car, no safe - maybe I should join the raging mob?
April 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pmIsn’t Rachel Brand a Regent Univ. grad??
April 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pmSomeone who would commit perjury working in the Justice Dept. Who could ever imagine such a thing? Oh, wait, right, he was Gonzales’ Chief of Staff.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pmbut…but…but…Clinton!
April 13th, 2007 at 6:01 pmIs Minnesota’s embattled US Attorney Paulose on any of these latest documents in the latest “dump?”
April 13th, 2007 at 6:01 pmWho needs qualifications for employment within Bush&Co?
No one - only loyalists need apply.
Why does anyone need to tell the truth within Bush&Co?
No one does - they cover for one another.
Why do these questions even have to be asked?
Because of Bush&Co.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:03 pm‘Forgot’ is not an excuse.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:05 pmClinton has an IQ of 182 Jake, Bush IQ 91……take that numb nuts.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:09 pm“Lied†or just forgot?
Comment by Jake
Well he didn’t say forgot did he now Jake?
He didn’t say I don’t recall now did he Jake?
He didn’t say I plead the 5th now did he Jake?
He didn’t sau I misremembered now did he Jake?
he said I DID NOT.
If you are a lawyer or law student [maybe even an IRI shill] you might want to look for another career.
What is is?
Jake he meant; What is…..is. [What happened happened]
Is Jake silly? What is…….is. [What is silly is silly]
And I think you mean dissembling not dissecting.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:09 pmHey people, let’s keep in mind the political importance of the Federalist Society. A bullshit twisting of what Madison had in mind of what this country should REPRESENT!!! Not what it should be in the minds of a few who found a way to twist Madisons words to fit their agenda. Jim Madison would demand that they were drawn and quartered. AND He disagreed with that, but “Thus unto tyrants..”
April 13th, 2007 at 6:09 pmLooks like Kyle Sampson’s in some deep dookie now! Guess lying under oath means PERJURY - pure and simple. I hope he enjoys wearing orange jumpsuits!
April 13th, 2007 at 6:16 pmWell…Well, um, ur, see, look, the fact is that……….see is is…must.make.up.little.lies.must.ignore.list.must.respond.spin.turd.polish….B B BB…But but…
I got nothing but Clinton for the billionth time. I am so lame -Comment by Jake
April 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pmFrom the official transcript, it’s clear that Sampson committed perjury.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:18 pmOr, it could be like someone of Clinton’s level on intelligence disecting what the meaning of “is†is. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Says the person of your intellect that dissects (spelling Jake) the meaning of ‘intelligence’. Someone as st*pid as you, is in no position to comment on the intelligence of others.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:18 pmI believe that, in reviewing some of Sampson’s mannerisms during the hearing, he realized that he was lying. Before it was over, he acted as though he wanted to crawl out of the room. He realized that he had committed perjury and I was wondering why he suddenly looked visibly shaken at about midpoint in the hearing.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:19 pmThis level of internal corruption is far too deep for them to cover their lies with more lies and cover-ups and then attempt to cover their tracks. They’re clearly in way over their heads and the house of cards is tumbling down around them.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pmHave these clowns found a loophole in the Constitution, or something? It seems easy enough: We control the Executive, and we’ll simply refuse to execute in matters pertaining to our own individual and conspiritorial criminality. What’s Congress gonna’ do? They can’t execute. We win.
Time to get the pitchfork ready.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:25 pm“Lied†or just forgot?
Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Ironic how all of your attacks on *librul* politicians always claims a godlike knowledge they have “lied”, but you never feel that way about Republicans. So much for that *delusion*, you’re an *independent*. You’re partisan republican hack Jake, why must you always lie about *everything*, including your party affiliation? Is that how you reach those *values* voters? Being a cowardly liar, and hypocrite?
Nice job, Haggard. Tell me, how much do you pay for your meth and man wh*res?
April 13th, 2007 at 6:27 pmClinton has an IQ of 182 Jake, Bush IQ 91……take that numb nuts.
Comment by Buck Fush
Bush IQ 91 my @$$!! You sure you didn’t transpose those numbers (19)??
April 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm#
“Lied†or just forgot?
Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Given the overall ramifications of what they were striving to do, and the apparent coordination between the DoJ and the White House, I am leaning towards the idea that Sampson didn’t forget. Besides Reagan pretty much used up the I forgot excuse during the Iran-Contra Affair.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:41 pmFor the record, if Sampson is ever convicted of perjury, or even admits to lying like Clinton did, then we’ll talk. Keep up the show trials, however, since it worked so well when the GOP impeached Clinton. And, you guys wonder why Goodling took the 5th?!
April 13th, 2007 at 6:41 pmOK. Do something then. (crickets) I thought so.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:44 pmOr, it could be like someone of Clinton’s level on intelligence disecting what the meaning of “is†is.
Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
So now you are questioning Bill Clinton’s intelligence. You do know what a Rhodes Scholar is don’t you moron. With all the lies this administration has been caught telling you are bothering us with a blow job.
Go look up George Sr.’s sordid sex life that Dems didn’t confront him on. That’s what Democrats get for being respectful to a Republican. F**ked.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:44 pmEverybody here know Bill had relations with Monica. He gets a big attaboy from us. You want to pull out that bullshit take it to Red State or where ever other uptight, neocon, losers hang out.
For the record, if Sampson is ever convicted of perjury, or even admits to lying like Clinton did, then we’ll talk. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Clinton didn’t lie, and what does his testimony about his personal life have to do with running the government again? You lunatics really need to get over your Clinton Sex life obsessions. You don’t seem to give a sh*t about corruption and treasonous acts by this administration, but you continue to *smear* Clinton with falsehoods.
Keep up the show trials, however, since it worked so well when the GOP impeached Clinton. And, you guys wonder why Goodling took the 5th?! Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Show trials, you mean like the impeachment of Clinton over an affair, while this administration lies to go to war, destroys a whole CIA operation to cover up their lies, etc, .etc,. etc?
You’re an idiot, the reason Goodling took the Fifth, is why the Fifth exists - to avoid INCRIMINATING ONES SELF WHEN A CRIME WAS COMMITTED! St*pid idiot *ssh*le.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pmJake, Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, you’re a “Road” scholar, as in fitting a redneck truck-driver.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pmI stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one time….does that qualify me to be a U.S. Attorney?
April 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pmI stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one time….does that qualify me to be a U.S. Attorney? Comment by kelso — April 13, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Jake claims to be an attorney - apparently the qualifications are quite low if your a GOP partisan. I hear they even admit Trailer Park U. grads (otherwise known as Christian Universities).
April 13th, 2007 at 6:52 pmBut, but, but.
Sampson had no replacement slotted for, say, San Diego. That replacement candidate could just as well have ended up in Phoenix. So, see, Sampson didn’t lie under oath. It is not Sampson’s fault that the question was asked wrongly. This makes one long for the days when all we had to worry about was what the meaning of “is” is.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:57 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
If I had a degree from Falwell’s ‘university’ my employer would laugh at me and I’d have to quit my job for making the false claim that I had a college degree.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:58 pmJakeoff: Le Jurat Non Curat Lex. Which are my feelings about you being a lawyer. (Sorry, but there will be no translation).
April 13th, 2007 at 7:00 pmJake,
April 13th, 2007 at 7:02 pmAre you working the graveyard shift at the Git and Go/Laundry/Flea Market, this week-end,or next week-end? If you are, give me a call,I’d like to see if you want to trade shifts?
jake hates America
April 13th, 2007 at 7:08 pmjake hates the Constitution
jake hates the Bill of Rights
jake hates the teachings of Christ
jake hates everything this country stands for
As do his fellow criminal republican liars, one and all
I think this may be the same email I referenced last week in this post.
And given all the news it’s getting now, I think it should get the guy who mentioned it first some more news - it’s an amazing story (Ft. Worth Weekly).
April 13th, 2007 at 7:08 pmNo you won’t you lying sack of liquid crap.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:09 pmDidn’t Sampson testify that there was no documentation or charts or notes about the reasons potential USAs were to be fired? I believe Sen Schumer asked him this during his first round of testimony. From the charts in the documents released today it seems he may have committed perjury on this issue too
April 13th, 2007 at 7:09 pmFor the record, I never claimed to be an attorney and I don’t hate America, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the teachings of Christ. I am registered Independent though.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:15 pmAnd it still doesn’t mean jack sh!t. You registration has nothing to do with the positions and ideologies you spew.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pmOf course not. But that statement is fundamentally (irony noted) based on the premise that Bush and the GOP want the Gov. to work, and work well. When one’s core political philosophy it that the Gov. is the problem and hence the enemy, it only follows that you place hacks with a similar philosophy in place to raze Gov. to the ground from within when you are elected to the most powerful position in the Government.
When Grover Norquist and crew say what they say, believe them.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:25 pmProve it. Almost everything you defend and agitate for says that you do.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:28 pmFor the record, I never claimed to be an attorney and I don’t hate America, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the teachings of Christ. I am registered Independent though. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
1) You claimed to be an attorney on Washington Monthly, have you decided to change your ‘cover’ story? You also claimed to be a Veteran, but plagiarized someone else’s bio in claiming it.
2) You do hate the constitution, you’ve demonstrated it repeated in your stands on secularism, habeas corpus, presidential super powers, etc.
3) You are UNAMERICAN, because you hate our secular, reasoning traditions, and believe that a religious theocracy like the one we escaped from should rule the country. You also promote acts of violence, colonialism, oppression of minorities, terrorism and bigotry - all acts that are unamerican.
4) You are against the bill of rights, you’ve repeatedly made stands against them here.
5) You aren’t a follower of the teachings of ‘Jesus’, but your ‘Christ’ might be the anti-Christ. Jesus taught love, compassion, honesty, he forbade divorce, he reached out to the lesser of us, he told people that they should give up ALL of their earthly wealth, he stood for peace instead of war, he was nothing like you, and you do not follow his teachings.
6) You *claim* to be a registered independent, but so do most partisan republicans when they blog. You’re a dishonest individual, and a proven liar, why wouldn’t you lie about this as well.
All in all JakeOff, we know more about you, than you do about yourself. How sad for you, and your pathetic loser existence.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:28 pmAnd it still doesn’t mean jack sh!t. You registration has nothing to do with the positions and ideologies you spew. Comment by Spudge_Boy — April 13, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Yeah, OReilly *claims* to be a registered independent as well. What a *joke* both of these hacks are. There’s nothing *independent* about them.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:29 pmMaybe he was banking on the emails never having to be produced and/or could be eaten by Dana Percino’s home-work dieting IT dogs.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:32 pmI’ve been looking for a transcript of his testimony (Sampson’s). Anyone know where I can find it?
April 13th, 2007 at 7:35 pmNo, I hope he fears wearing one enough to start spilling his guts about what his former boss, Rove and Bush, et al did.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pmlestatdelc:
I’m not sure exactly how I can prove a negative, for instance, if I’ve never posted at Washington Monthly, how am I supposed to prove that? Maybe if you have a specific question directed towards why you think I hate America?
PrgrsvArchitect:
I will try to find you a link.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:41 pmhttp://media.washingtonpost.com/ wp-srv/ politics/ documents/ sampson_transcript032907.html
April 13th, 2007 at 7:42 pmTaking the 5th means you first have to be testifying in a criminal proceeding, and are in danger of incriminating yourself in criminal wrong-doing by answering a question under oath. So are you admitting that Goodling would, if she wasn’t committing perjury, exposing herself to self-incrimination on a criminal matter were she to testify under oath?
April 13th, 2007 at 7:43 pm“It is unlikely that less than a year working at the Justice Department had suddenly made Brand qualified to be a U.S. attorney.”
Almost as unlikely that Hillary Clinton, the big fish in the small Rose Law Firm pond was named a top “100 Lawyer in the Nation” - but stranger things have happened….
April 13th, 2007 at 7:44 pmI’ve tried multiple .gov sites, but lastest hearing transcripts available are from Jan ‘07
April 13th, 2007 at 7:45 pmthanks Jake… i’ll look thru it and see if I can back up my memory
April 13th, 2007 at 7:49 pmAs poiinted out by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — April 13, 2007 @ 7:28 pm your past views you have expressed demonstrate amply that you do in fact hate the basic philosophical cornerstones of our national founding. Be it the tortured distortions of our Constitution which Bush and crew use to justify actions you support. And your “prove a negative” line is fraudulent. You can prove you embrace what Jesus preached, by demonstrating your commitment to ending war, ending wealth to help the poor, outlawing divorce, and loving your fellow human beings (even non-heterosexual ones) which Jesus never said a single word against BTW.
You could prove you commitment to country, Christianity and honesty by advocating for things like helping the poor, not the rich (i.e. Bush’s haves and have mores), advocating for ending the war, not supporting those who launched it and refuse to end it (i.e. Bush).
April 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pmOh looky our other crazy a$$ed pretend lawyer showed up to spew bullsh!t.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:52 pmAlmost as unlikely that Hillary Clinton, the big fish in the small Rose Law Firm pond was named a top “100 Lawyer in the Nation†- but stranger things have happened…. Comment by valiant venus — April 13, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Or more unlikely, you the FAKE LAWYERETTE being named the top anything, except top st*pidest c*nt!
April 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pmOh looky our other crazy a$$ed pretend lawyer showed up to spew bullsh!t. Comment by Spudge_Boy — April 13, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Yeah, poor lawyerETTE is just dying now that everyone knows she’s a single, lonely, bitter 23 year old Anorexic, and not the lawyerETTE she pretends to be. No wonder her legal ‘expertise’ was so much of a case for amusement! She read a couple of Ann Coulter books, and thinks she’s a lawyer - bahahah, that’s like reading a couple of Haggard books, and thinking you’re straight!
April 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pmI’m not sure exactly how I can prove a negative, for instance, if I’ve never posted at Washington Monthly, how am I supposed to prove that? Maybe if you have a specific question directed towards why you think I hate America? PrgrsvArchitect: I will try to find you a link. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Sorry, but you gave yourself away with your fixation on that blog. You were booted, and you carry a grudge. Sorry troll, but you’re just a st*pid little liar.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:56 pmYou’re welcome, PrgrsvArchitect.
lestatdelc:
I am not “admitting that Goodling would, if she wasn’t committing perjury, exposing herself to self-incrimination on a criminal matter were she to testify under oath” — I’m saying that the show trials give her little other choice — are you saying she cannot legally take the Fifth Amendment before Congress just because it’s not (yet) a criminal case?
You will have to give me some specific post (does asking the above questions for providing a transcript to PrgrsvArchitect when asked = hating America?). Do you think FDR or Truman were “peacemakers”? Did God approve of their wars?
April 13th, 2007 at 7:58 pmFDR and Truman didn’t START wars based upon LIES about WMD, and then attack a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Bush DID, and OWNS his quagmire.
And BIN LADEN IS STILL FREE 5 1/2 years later…
Jake NEVER replied to MY question:
WHY did Bush and Cheney REFUSE TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH to the 9/11 commission???
That is, WHY did they REFUSE TO SWEAR TO GOD TO TELL THE TRUTH
about 9/11, the Bin Ladens and the SAUDI TERRORIST FINANCIERS???
MY answer: Because they are UNAMERICAN coxuckers and TRAITORS to the USA…
Come on, “hake”!!! BRING IT ON!!!
April 13th, 2007 at 8:17 pmI am not “admitting that Goodling would, if she wasn’t committing perjury, exposing herself to self-incrimination on a criminal matter were she to testify under oath†— I’m saying that the show trials give her little other choice — are you saying she cannot legally take the Fifth Amendment before Congress just because it’s not (yet) a criminal case? Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
If she did nothing wrong, there’s no reason to take the Fifth. So no, you’re wrong, and a liar.
You will have to give me some specific post (does asking the above questions for providing a transcript to PrgrsvArchitect when asked = hating America?). Do you think FDR or Truman were “peacemakers� Did God approve of their wars? Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Yes, because both tried to produce peace, before they went to war. Unlike Bush, that went to war, when peace was an option.
Were you always a terrorist Jake, or did 9/11 just make you so mad you wanted to get even and you *became* a terrorist? Because I bet you’ve always had terrorist tendencies.
You can understand why so many Iraqis want to kill us I bet though, considering that a few words from the NYTimes makes you want to blow up their building. Imagine if people (well meaning or otherwise) dropped bombs on your house and killed your relatives. Wouldn’t you want to kill them?
Poor thing, you claim you were in military intel, but you don’t seem to have even a tiny bit of ‘intel’ yourself. I’m guessing it was your grandpa that was in intel. You’re a st*pid lost little 12 year old boy, trying to pretend to be your hero grandpa, aren’t you loser boy?
April 13th, 2007 at 8:18 pmNo, I am saying that you cannot invoke the 5th as legitimate grounds to refuse to appear before Congress or a court. You have to appear and be asked questions under oath that would expose you to self-incriminating yourself to criminal charges in order to properly invoke your 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Huh?
I think FDR and Truman were former Presidents of the United States, and on balance effective ones.
According to Jesus (whom you claim to belive in and follow his teachings), god doesn’t approve of war since he is claimed to “bless” those who seek to end war. Period. But since I don’t ascribe to your religious doctrine, or claim to speak for, to, or even accept the existence of said supernatural being (you do) the question put to me is worthless.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:19 pmNewly released USA charts = Perjury?
(emphasis mine)
From Sampson’s testimony March 29, 2007
http://media.washingtonpost.com/ wp-srv/ politics/ documents/ sampson_transcript032907.html
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 04/ 13/ federalist-attorneys/
Thanks for Jake for the transcript link
April 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm“hake” is the next Timothy McVeigh waiting to happen.
The Clinton-haters and the RushMORONS were so incited to “don’t trust the governement” and “states rights”, the result was OKC in 1995.
OF course, NOW that Bush was in power, all that was quietly shelved for:
“TRUST Big Brother” and “Federal over states”.
All in the name of “security”.
And of course Bush and Cheney REFUSED TO SWEAR TO GOD TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE 9/11 commission.
But TERRORISTS like “hake” are HYPOCRITES….
April 13th, 2007 at 8:39 pmYES! I DO believe that “God,” the Creator, The Big Bang, whoever or ‘whatever” made us all, DID approve of FDR’s and Truman’s fighting the Anti-Christ(Hitler, etcetera) and other Fas$cistic DEMONS who caused and committed World War two, with its 78 million dead HUMAN BEINGS(27-30 million on the Russian Eastern front alone, killed off by the germans and other fascist “European” invaders of the soviet union), wherein the combined ALLIED POWERS, saved human CIVILIZATION.
But “God,” Doth NOT AT ALL, “approve” of “King” GW BUS$H’s WAR for BOOTY, and WAR PROFITEERS$$, and for IRAQI OIL WELLS$$ “Uber Alles,” in -against the Now, FORMERLY SECULAR(Saddam was a mortal ENEMY of Al Queda and all Islamic extremists) IRAQ, under Saddam Hussein, REAGAN/BUS$$H One’s formerly Close, tacit ALLY!
*And, BEFORE you stick in this$ War profiteers$ and national Rightis$t “NEWS$” media and “elected” White house LIE, Ansar al-Islam and Al ZARQHAWI’s Al Queda camps WERE deep inside KURDISH Territory, way out of reach of SADDAM’s GOVT., near the Iranian Border area, and CHENEY-BUS$H etcetera, REFUSED to attack that dagerous group’s Camps in that area under the control of the US, etcetera’s “NORTHERN NO-FLY ZONE,” from mid-late 2002 onwards, to give a “back-up” reason further down the road for the IRAQ INVAS$ION and OCCUPATION, ie this “Mortal enemy” that our “Elected” “Leaders$” left TOTALLY UNMOLESTED for a year and longer leading up to the 3/19/2003 Invas$ion! NO! “God” doth NOT approve of GW BUS$h’s war in-upon the poor people of the already WAR-EXHAUSTED Land of IRAQ.
Or, to paraphrase Pope Benedict’s words on this past Easter Sunday(The Date of the resurrection of Joshua, ‘Jesus” Christ, ie the “Prince, of PEACE,” that i try to follow), “This DAILY HUMAN SLAUGHTER IN IRAQ, must end!”
April 13th, 2007 at 8:39 pmlestatdelc:
You didn’t answer whether you think FDR or Truman were “peacemakersâ€, interesting. That question is not worthless, as I can at least gauge where (or if) you draw any lines on the matter of peace or war. As for God approving of their wars, I don’t know either — however, Jesus did not claim to “bless†those who seek to end war — He said “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Sometimes, unfortunately, the only way to make peace is with war. You and I will have to agree to disagree on that.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pmPrgrsvArchitect:
I don’t see any perjury in the bolded selection. Next?
April 13th, 2007 at 8:48 pmWhat is wrong with you people? I’ve told you over and over what Clinton did, and you just don’t care. Now you are going to crucify all these sweet young girls but you thought what Clinton did with that Jew tramp was just fine! Who’s the hypocrite now?
April 13th, 2007 at 8:48 pmBush and Cheney are COXUCKER punk TRAITORS to the USA.
Who will BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY for their MURDEROUS ways.
OTHERS who will go there: Rummy, Condi, Perino, Gonzales, “hake”.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pmI don’t think they exist. They were lists that I kept and marked up and then threw away and a new list,
April 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm“If” Jake is an attorney, then ALL his clients are going to jail!
Jake, if YOU are gonna lie…At least try to sound convincing! Dayum!!!
Stay on point! You can’t win a case by quoting Mark Twain!
Clinton is HISTORY! Gone…Over…Done…
Now slowly…
SAMPSON………LIED………..UNDER OATH….
Now, go and read your book…because whoever is teaching you (if that is even the truth) ONCE AGAIN demonstrates that BUSH has also mucked up the educational system!!!
Geez…WILL THEY EVER LEARN???
April 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pmWhat is wrong with you people? I’ve told you over and over what Clinton did, and you just don’t care. Now you are going to crucify all these sweet young girls but you thought what Clinton did with that Jew tramp was just fine! Who’s the hypocrite now?
Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Uhhh…Your word means squat!!!
He’s been impeached and is free to do whatever he wants…
By a MORAL authority, he is guilty to his wife and their marriage…To the law, he is NOT GUILTY os any significant crime that would qualify him for jail!!!
Now SAMPSON…
I have it…YOU can defend him!!! Now that would be a comedy worth seeing!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
April 13th, 2007 at 8:54 pmSo, the fake Jake returns.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:55 pmIt’s really a lot simpler than invoking sky-pixies. People committing genocide and global war must be stopped. Claiming to be a follower of Jesus who said that war is bad and opposing war will get you into heaven, then advocating for war, and against peace, is basic and simple to spot hypocrisy (another big no-no according to Christian doctrine). So when some jack-off named Jake spouts bullshit that he is a good Christian and he ascribes to Christian doctrine and belief, it is so glaring false a claim by jake, that he is lying and full of shit.
Wether the merits of going to war against Japan and Germany in WWII are enough to make war the only viable option, is not the question, and any rational person (myself included) can answer unequivocally yes it was the correct thing to do.
No sky-pixies, supernatural beings, or hypocritical lying about about following christian doctrine required. But then I am not the one claiming to be a Christian and defending preemptive wars against third-rate, de-fanged despots we previously supported (Iraq) against wars against other nations (i.e. Iran) in order to secure oil contracts and get the “twofer” of using it as a political club to bludgeon the electorate and the other political party with, in the mistaken belief it was a key to permanent majority status while wielding unprecedented power. Add in that you and your circle of friends, supporters and families members will get even more obscenely rich (what did Jesus say about wealth, heaven and ca,els and needle eyes again?) and you suddenly hit Bush’s infamous “trifecta”.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:59 pmYou didn’t answer whether you think FDR or Truman were “peacemakersâ€, interesting. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Yes, FDR avoided the war until it was brought to our doorstep. Truman made peace with Korea instead of fighting a bloody prolonged war.
For someone that claims to be in ‘intel’, you’re remarkably ‘un-intel’.
That question is not worthless, as I can at least gauge where (or if) you draw any lines on the matter of peace or war. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
It’s the line that was drawn against Hitler - or didn’t you learn that in your McCarthy 101 NAZI classes. Pre-emptive wars put you in the loser side - and prove you are not a peacemaker. This is the problem the middle east has with Israel as well.
As for God approving of their wars, I don’t know either — however, Jesus did not claim to “bless†those who seek to end war — He said “Blessed are the peacemakers.†Sometimes, unfortunately, the only way to make peace is with war. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
That’s the answer of a sociopath. When you start the war, you aren’t a peacemaker, you’re a warmaker. Idiot.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on that.Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Also the mark of a Republican sociopath that’s been cornered with reality. Instead of admitting you were proven wrong by a superior intellect, you cowardly retreat to the ‘we have to agree to disagree’, that’s the hallmark of the O’Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of the little losers club you belong to.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:04 pmPrgrsvArchitect: I don’t see any perjury in the bolded selection. Next? Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
We can add blind, to your already listed traits of “st*pid”, bigoted and mentally insane.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pmYou are Jake. You see, we don’t care about consenting adults getting r giving blow-jobs, be they Jewish, gentile, or atheist. We do however care about destroying the impartiality of our justice system in order for a bunch of warmonger, greedy, power-mad kleptocrats, who want to shred the principles of our Constitution and wipe their asses with it.
You see, you defending that which is demonstratively un-American (i.e. shitting on the Constitution), against our nations long-term viability and interests (again un-American), starting wars (unchristian) and lying about how you go about flouting the Constitution and our laws (both unchristian AND un-American) is what you are being called out over.
If you are really a veteran of the military as you claim, did you swear an oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic?
April 13th, 2007 at 9:06 pmOh, and Jake, we must never forget *coward* fringe religious terrorist. That is you, first and foremost. The man that ‘agrees to disagree’ that ‘war’ is moral from his perspective.
Jake, you follow the path of Satan (according to your mythology), how sad for you. You are destined for a life of bitter disappointments and continued feeling of failure and inadequacies. Those aren’t the illusions Jake, your morality is the illusion.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:07 pmTime to use the jake brake .
April 13th, 2007 at 9:17 pmDefending the indefensible by a classic act of deflection ,is no argument at all.If perjury is a crime and Kyle Samson Perjured himself ,he’s a criminal by any standard of law.
What FDR and Truman have to do with a man lying to congress about the Reichwing stacking of the federal court system with ideologues is any bodies quess .
What Clintons indiscretions have to do with making an end run around our system of government thru the patriot act ,inorder to consolidate power ,which Alberto Gonzales said he would never do ,is a non starter.
The Clintons have already had their day in court ,now it’s the Bush administrations turn Jake and it isn’t looking good for them by all appearances. Clinton lied about a foolish personal matter ,Bush co.is lying about the unwarranted deaths of 3/4 of a million people ,and countless grave violations of constitutional and international laws !
You find those situations comparable ?
SHAME !
shes pretty hot for being a traitor.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:18 pmMr hack,just another deflection .While your looking at her face you can’t see what her hands are doing .Which way did they go george ?
April 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pmlestatdelc:
The 2nd Jake on April 13, 2007 @ 8:48 pm was someone else posted under my Name.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pmNo it isn’t interesting. It is irrelevant.
YOU Jake, are the one making the claims about YOU being a Christian, I am simply showing that you are full of shit on that score (just like you are full of shit about being someone who doesn’t hate America since you defend those who shred and spit on the very foundations of our Constitution, i.e. Bush and crew).
This isn’t about FDR or Truman, but what YOU claim to be. You support warmongers. You support liars. You support those who seek to subvert and upend our Constitution. Which, if you were really a military veteran which you often claim you are, you swore an oath to defend.
So bringing FDR and Truman into this is wagging your dick at other people in order to change the subject, which is YOU being a hypocrite, un-American liar who also embraces the exact opposite of your claimed religious beliefs call upon YOU to follow. Not hitting your enemies, rejecting violence in all its forms, (i.e. Jesus advocating pacifism in case you are too stupid to get that). Opposing the accumulation of wealth. Helping the poor. Opposing war. Advocating for peace. These are things YOU must do if you even wish to have the pretense of following your proclaimed religious creed.
This isn’t about FDR, Truman, or even me not being a Christian. It is about YOU Jake and the staggering hypocrisy and profound bullshit which, if you take the religious creed you claim to embrace at face-value, you are about as “Christian” as Usama ibn Ladin.
Sure it is. And I explained in detail (twice now) exactly why YOU posing that question to me is worthless.
Not it doesn’t It does nothing of the sort. It gauges how much of a christian you and I are. You claim to be one and are not. I follow christian doctrine more, and am publicly and vociferously not a Christian (I am an atheist).
THAT Jake, is what is telling. That some godless atheist liberal like myself defends the Constitution, the principles of our nation, and more closely conforms to what YOUR religion’s proclaim you must follow.
ROFLMAO.
More twisted up is down bullshit Jake. Only apostate liars and jack-offs can twist the Sermon on the mount as being a rationale for preemptive war or justifications that some wars ok.
No. Your bible and the clear reading and intent of the Sermon on the mount disagrees with YOU Jake. It says nothing about my views on when or how application of military arms are justified or legitimate. But you see, as I have said before and say again, I am not the one claiming to ascribe to the no war religious creed which is explicitly what Jesus is attributed as teaching.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pmFor the record, anyone who is going to testify, under oath, to the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, needs to prepare their testimony beforehand. Anyone testifying should have their facts right, and their testimony should be impeccable.
Pretending that someone “forgot” something during a testimony is to admit incompetence, at least.
Sampson was called to testify before the Senate but wasn’t thorough in the preparation of his testimony? He forgot he ever wrote emails one year before the firings recommending replacements?
Sampson is either incompetent or a liar. Given the Bush administration’s track record when it comes to hiring help, I’d say it is very likely Sampson is both.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pmFor the record, only an incompetent and/or a liar would stand by someone who is either an incompetent and/or a liar, and try to find excuses for the lack of competency in the Bush administration.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pmIf you think having chin-sex with someone who has a chin bigger than Jay Leno does it for ya… maybe. (wry grin)
But hey, if she does it for ya, who am I to argue.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pmWell, have a good weekend one and all, even you Jake while you defend the domestic enemies of our Constitution and those who launch wars, kill people, lie and amass almost unimaginable wealth while parading themselves around as moral Christians (just like your fake Christianity it seems).
I am off for the weekend to spend time with my kids.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:37 pmlestatdelc: The 2nd Jake on April 13, 2007 @ 8:48 pm was someone else posted under my Name. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
And at this Helen Keller moment, no one gives a dam you lying piece of terrorist sh*t. Anyone like you that calls for deliberate acts of Terrorism on american soil is beyond redemption.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:37 pmVVGFU,
Can you link to where Jake threatened the NY Times? I know Coulter did, but did Jake state it here in the postings?
If so, this DEFINITELY constitutes a TERRORIST THREAT by Jake,
See ya in hell (’cause I’ll be THERE)
Mr. Bush
April 13th, 2007 at 9:55 pmPresident of the Unamerican Nazis, not REAL Americans
Mr. Bush Goes To Hell:
The post you’re interested in can be found here, in the ‘muddy the coverage’ thread. The text of the post follows:
April 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pmIf this is true, then the plot thickens for him!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://osiSpeaks.org
April 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pmSometimes, unfortunately, the only way to make peace is with war. You and I will have to agree to disagree on that.
Comment by Jake
Yet peace came before war. It had too. You never seem to stop and think about that. Cain killed Able. Before there was peace and now we have war.
War never creates peace it is destruction of peace. Peace does not come from war it comes from people who tire of war. Vietnam war did not bring peace, it made people hate war and they said we don’t want war anymore. Then along comes some more people who say war is peace. Yet there was peace before the war.
Peace is not something that comes from war Jake.
Peace is not something you hope for.
Like war peace is something you decide to do and you do it.
It is not some mystical thing that comes thru killing one another.
YOU MUST DO PEACE.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pmTMM:
Thanks for the link. Jake, you ARE a domestic terrorist. I hope the FBI is watching you while on earth.
See YOU in hell Jake,
Mr. Bush
April 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pmPresident of Unamerica Nazis, not REAL American
Peace is not something that comes from war Jake.
Peace is not something you hope for.
Like war peace is something you decide to do and you do it.
It is not some mystical thing that comes thru killing one another.
YOU MUST DO PEACE.
Comment by Zep Tepi
That is quite profound, Zep.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:00 pmFor the record, I believe FDR was a “peacemaker” even though he never lived to see the lasting peace between the U.S. and Japan / Germany (as you can see, lurkers, I don’t just defend Republicans). YMMV.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:16 pmI will have to agree that Ms. Brand has a large chin — was that Photoshopped, TP?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pmThat is quite profound, Zep.
Comment by Zooey
Thanks but Naw, I was thinking that if man had always warred then we would not of , could not of come to the point we are today. We would have destroyed ourselves a long time ago and the love of life is the reason that we have, even with war, come as far as we have.
Evil needs good whereas good does not need evil.
Anyway…
How are you tonite Zooey? We had some pretty big storms,rain, lightning and hail here tonite, calm now and getting cooler.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:19 pm#104 No, he is a very fair Steve Buscemi.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:19 pmFor the record, I believe FDR was a “peacemaker†even though he never lived to see the lasting peace between the U.S. and Japan / Germany (as you can see, lurkers, I don’t just defend Republicans). YMMV.
How is hundred of thousands of deaths, if not millions peace?
That war was fomented by hate and greed and you know it.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:21 pmEvil needs good whereas good does not need evil.
Anyway…
There you go again. :) It could be the wine talking, of course.
How are you tonite Zooey? We had some pretty big storms,rain, lightning and hail here tonite, calm now and getting cooler.
Comment by Zep Tepi
I love those kinds of storms, and I miss them. Storms are different in the Northwest. I’m well this evening, Zep, thanks. Spent the afternoon with friends, and the early evening with my parents. Told my dad Bill O’Reilly is an assh*le, and he didn’t get angry at me. That’s progress. :)
April 13th, 2007 at 11:26 pmGiven the BILLIONS who have lived in peace following WWII, FDR was a “peacemaker” — especially in the face of BILLIONS who could have been living under Hitler’s rule — anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” who has a question about that, please let me know.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pmTold my dad Bill O’Reilly is an assh*le, and he didn’t get angry at me. That’s progress. :)
Yupp was talking with stepfather and he had talked to one of his conservative friends who was angry with Dubya, in fact both of them were quite angry with Dubya..eventually they decided all politicians were no good. I had to agree and told them it was staged. Yeh, he said, like that Jerry Springer show, paid actors!!!
I laughed and had to agree. =)
Welp I gotta sign off for a bit (others here want to check email. )TTYL =)
April 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pm#110 Love the strawman.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:35 pmHitler wanted to rule the world and needed resources and so do your clash of civilazation buffoons Jake.
Greed, Hate and resources. Plus lets not forget how they fomented Japans entry into the war. The fact is, JAKE, Empire is war.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pmI can’t believe it. I’ve been gone for at least 12 hours, and Jake’s still here.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pmFor the record, anybody who brings up WWII in a thread about the firings of the US attorneys in this administration, as if it had any relevance whatsoever, can safely discarded as a dishonest hack, or as a room temperature IQ troll.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:00 amI can’t believe it. I’ve been gone for at least 12 hours, and Jake’s still here.
Comment by Zooey
The freek must be doing speed today.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:02 amHis troll droppings of stupidity are all over the threads. =P
The freek must be doing speed today.
His troll droppings of stupidity are all over the threads. =P
Comment by Wayne
Yeah, I just noticed that. I’m glad I missed that — for the record. :-)
April 14th, 2007 at 12:14 am#84 VVGFU wrote: “Truman made peace with Korea instead of fighting a bloody prolonged war.”
Incorrect, as usual.
The armistice that ended the Korean War was entered into in July, 1953 during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower. President Truman had been out of office since Jan. 20, 1953. Indeed, Eisenhower campaigned in 1952 on a platform that included a pledge to go to Korea to help bring about an end to the war there. U.S. forces had been fighting the North Korean invasion since 1950.
VVGFU again demonstrates a profound ignorance of history.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:10 amIncorrect, as usual. The armistice that ended the Korean War was entered into in July, 1953 during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower. President Truman had been out of office since Jan. 20, 1953. Indeed, Eisenhower campaigned in 1952 on a platform that included a pledge to go to Korea to help bring about an end to the war there. U.S. forces had been fighting the North Korean invasion since 1950.
VVGFU again demonstrates a profound ignorance of history.
Comment by Exley — April 14, 2007 @ 1:10 am
Yet the *CON* that supposedly served in Korea never picked this up.
Thanks for proving my point, that Jake is a fake.
You however remain as st*pid and feckless as always, ExLax.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:12 am#118 Hey, Ex, you bit on that one. Reread his post. It was sarcasm. All you did was prove that Jake is a toad. Thanks, not that any further proof was needed.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:15 amYour embarassment over your cloddish misstatement of history is palpable, VVGFU. I almost feel bad for you.Reas some history and maybe you will avoid humiliating yourself again.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:16 amJPark, While your attempted defense of VVGFU’s misstatement is admirable, it is unconvincing. It is very obvious that VVGFU did not know that the Korean War ended under President Eisenhower’s watch. There was no sarcasm intended on VVGFU’s part. It was simply a historical error.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:20 am#122 If you bought that about Truman that would you bought the idea that FDR waited for WWII when everybody knows it was just the opposite. That was how I read it. I could be wrong but I would have to hear it from VVGFU.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:23 amPlease excuse the horrible grammar in #123.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:29 amJPark,
VVGFU’s comments regarding FDR and World War II mean that Roosevelt did not have the U.S. fully enter that conflict until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Hence VVGFU’s “until it was brought to our doorstep” language. That is a historically defensible argument.
Conversely, his claim that Truman “made peace with Korea” is completely and utterly incorrect.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:31 amJPark, While your attempted defense of VVGFU’s misstatement is admirable, it is unconvincing. It is very obvious that VVGFU did not know that the Korean War ended under President Eisenhower’s watch. There was no sarcasm intended on VVGFU’s part. It was simply a historical error.
Comment by Exley — April 14, 2007 @ 1:20 am
I wasn’t being sarcastic, I was baiting Jake. He claimed to be a Korean war veteran, yet he didn’t respond at all when I posted something clearly and blatantly (but believable to a 12 year old) of Truman ending the Korean war.
Yeah it was churlish on my part, I readily admit that. I’ve done the same thing to you. You don’t understand baiting either.
Then again, you don’t understand *much*.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:32 am#125 I read what he said as sarcastic with both statements being the opposite of what he really meant. VVGFU would have to clarify it.
By the way, are you defending Jake? Because I do have some respect for you and it would definitely be tested by doing something like that.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:33 am#124 JPark
No apologies necessary. It is Friday and it is late (At least here on the East Coast). Besides, your posting was quite understandable.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:34 amJPark, VVGFU’s comments regarding FDR and World War II mean that Roosevelt did not have the U.S. fully enter that conflict until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Hence VVGFU’s “until it was brought to our doorstep†language. That is a historically defensible argument.
Conversely, his claim that Truman “made peace with Korea†is completely and utterly incorrect. Comment by Exley — April 14, 2007 @ 1:31 am
I agree, yet Jake the supposed Korean veteran never noticed this…
Curious, isn’t it?
You, someone’s who’s command of history is spotty at best knew it, but a Korean veteran didn’t even take aim at my post, and did you notice, only responded to the FDR portion.
So there you have it, Jake the ‘Korean’ veteran - indeed.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:35 am#118 Hey, Ex, you bit on that one. Reread his post. It was sarcasm. All you did was prove that Jake is a toad. Thanks, not that any further proof was needed. Comment by JPark — April 14, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Exley is correct that my post was factually incorrect, but I did it to prove Jake was a liar. I knew any Korean vet would freak out at that kind of gross mischaracterization. I also knew that a young kid wouldn’t know sh*t about the conflict, and would probably not even catch my post. Jake didn’t. Jake is no Korean vet.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:37 am#127, JPark,
I was simply correcting VVGFU’s misstatement. It has nothing to do with defending “Jake” or any other poster. Just wanted to correct the historical record and (I must admit) highlight VVGFU’s error.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:39 amBy the way, are you defending Jake? Because I do have some respect for you and it would definitely be tested by doing something like that. Comment by JPark — April 14, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Because Exley is a partisan hack, who would prefer to defend Jake, the troll that just this morning said he’d like to see the NYTimes blown up, than to defend me or any of his fellow americans that aren’t terrorists.
Exley is a little creep, and an intellectually dishonest person that’s so bent on being ‘right’, that he freaks out when I rub his nose in his often stupendous levels of st*pidity and ignorance. He always pulls some b*llsh*t like he did earlier about ‘read history’, when most of the time his knowledge is based on some commentary b*llsh*t and not history itself.
Exley is a hateful, st*pid hack who hate me because I show him what an incompetent idiot (his biggest fear) that he really is.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:40 am#130 Ok, I thought you were taunting him with misstatements instead of baiting him with misstatements. The effect is the same.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:41 am“Exley is correct that my post was factually incorrect, but I did it to prove Jake was a liar. I knew any Korean vet would freak out at that kind of gross mischaracterization.”
Okay…I’ll take you at your word. Like I said to JPark, I have no stake in the conflict between you and Jake. I just saw a historical error and wanted to correct it.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:42 am#132 Eh, once in awhile he actually involves himself in an actual dialogue. Or he used to. I haven’t seen it in awhile. I hope he does it again instead of coming by once in awhile to crap on a thread.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:43 am#130 Ok, I thought you were taunting him with misstatements instead of baiting him with misstatements. The effect is the same. Comment by JPark — April 14, 2007 @ 1:41 am
Yep, funny how much the CONS don’t understand this…
April 14th, 2007 at 1:45 amOkay…I’ll take you at your word. Like I said to JPark, I have no stake in the conflict between you and Jake. I just saw a historical error and wanted to correct it. Comment by Exley — April 14, 2007 @ 1:42 am
You live in the New York are, and Jake wants to blow up the New York Times. I would think you would have a stake in it. But if you don’t care about wingnuts calling for domestic terrorism in NYC again, hey, I guess you don’t have a stake in it.
And I have no problem you pointed out the historical ‘error’, I prefer some con like you points it out actually. It just helps prove the point that Jake is a Fake.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:47 amWorst. Administration. Ever.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:51 amExley:
I have looked at the posts in question — since both JPark and VVGFU are on the “Ignore List” I hadn’t caught that error — my point about Truman being a “peacemaker” to other posters NOT on the “Ignore List” was actually directed at his decision to drop two A-bombs to end WWII. I was in the Army in Korea, and then Japan, until Ike took over — so much for them taunting or baiting me — thanks for your input.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:56 amP.S. — I also don’t want to blow up the New York Times.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:57 amVVGFU,
Like I said, I am not Jake’s or anyone else’s defender nor was my posting about the end of the Korean War intended to indicate such. I just now saw his comments about The New York Times. If those are his comments, they are pretty darn indefensible (I say “if” because there is always the possibility that such extreme statements come from a name-jacker looking to discredit someone).
So, again, despite your rather strong comments in posting #132, I will take you at your word that your misstatement about the end of the Korean War was some type of rhetorical “trap” for Jake.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:58 am#139 You really are fricking crazy.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:01 amI thought my Steve Buscemi comments were funny but every time Jake posts they become less funny and more disturbing.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:04 amIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†has a question how Truman could be a “peacemaker†given his decision to drop two A-bombs, let me know. I think anyone from the Greatest Generation would agree with me, but I’m always open to a reasonable counter-argument.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:13 amAt least no one can say I only post in 8-hour shifts anymore ; )