DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga offered a stirring defense of the progressive blogosphere. Read the full speech here.
UPDATE: Watch it:
Below is a key snippet:
[Before the blogosphere arose,] people like me could spend hours talking about politics, but it mattered little in the greater scheme of things. Then technology changed everything.
Whether it was blogs, or podcasting, or social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, or MoveOn, or YouTube, people quickly adopted myriad communication technologies emerging from the web and turned them to political purposes. Millions did so.
And while individually we were still nobodies, together, we became … somebody. A very important somebody. And that makes some people very uncomfortable.
Like David Broder. Joe Klein. Robert Novak. Bill O’Reilly
Echoing what so many of his colleagues think, Bill Kristol on Fox News was outraged that anyone would take us seriously. He called me a, ” left-wing blogger who was not respectable three or four years ago.”
And he was right. In their world, I wasn’t “respectable”. None of us were. As our good friend Atrios likes to say, We weren’t “very serious people.”
You see, we weren’t stupid and gullible enough to fall for the administration’s lies on Iraq.
Those “respectable” people couldn’t stop praising Bush for being “bold,” and “resolute”. They fueled what has now become the biggest foreign policy debacle in American history.
They told us to capitulate to Republicans on Iraq in 2002 and 2004.
Democrats listened… and lost.
They said us crazy bloggers were pushing the party to the left, and that our increasing influence would doom Democrats to electoral defeat in 2006 and beyond.
David Brooks in The NY Times wrote in 2005 that thanks to bloggers — those rabid flying venomous sheep - Democrats would be sure to carry just Berkeley for decades to come.
Many Democrats nodded along in agreement.
Did we listen? No.
In 2006, those respectable people said Democrats couldn’t win unless they continued cheerleading that war.
Did we listen? (No) We weren’t that stupid.
The respectable people said that electing Howard Dean chair of the Democratic Party would doom us to perpetual minority status.
Did we listen? (No)
They said that we had to privatize social security.
Did we listen? (No)
They told us we should fear “San Francisco Liberal” Nancy Pelosi.
Did we listen? (No)
They said there was nothing nefarious about the outing of Valerie Plame.
Did we listen? (No)
They said targeting Joe Lieberman would cost us the Senate.
Did we listen? (No)
No we didn’t listen. Of course not.
And then in 2006, we won.
Blogger Oliver Willis recently put it perfectly: “I used to believe that a lot of these people were just talking over my head, their discourse too lofty for a regular guy like myself. But that isn’t true.
They’re just stupid.”
However, it looks like having won the House and the Senate for the Democratic Party didn’t quite result in the change of politics that was intended. ( see thread below)
August 5th, 2007 at 11:40 am“However, it looks like having won the House and the Senate for the Democratic Party didn’t quite result in the change of politics that was intended.”
It takes more than one victorious battle to win a war.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:48 amI, too, agree that Oliver Willis put it perfectly.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:49 amWe regular people think; we see through the smoke; we are not the stupid ones.
You’ve got to be careful when calling the cheerleaders of the Bush administration “stupid”. They’re not. Or not necessarily.
The reason for their existence is to help push policies that enhance and expand the economic and political power of the ruling classes, no matter the cost to the average American, or the damage done to the peoples of other countries -like Iraq.
To achieve this goal they will berate critics, mislead their audience, confuse, and muddy the issues; they will also flat-out lie if they must. They need to do this in order to mislead the public into supporting criminal policies, such as invading a country that poses no threat, or continuing an occupation that is basically an oil grab.
They are not stupid. They just hope we are.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:50 amThe fundamental reality about freedom of the press is that you do not have freedom of the press unless you control a press. The television broadcast media is controlled by 6 corporate conglomorates and the situation with radio and the print media is not much better. Therefore only a small number of corporations have freedom of the press in those media. It is only on the Internet that ordianary people have genuine freedom of the press. That is why it is so crucially important to preserve net neutrality so that the corporations cannot take this freeom away from the people also.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:52 amYou’re right, Gregor, they aren’t stupid, just evil…
August 5th, 2007 at 11:53 amCaptain Video, I fully agree. The struggle hasn’t ended. Nancy Pelosi said something along the lines of “there’s a new Congress in town..” aimed at your President. Maybe Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid and others should accept that there’s a new and highly informed and highly networked electorate in town, so they’ll finally start thinking and acting along the voters’ wishes.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:57 amThe stupid ones are those who believe the baloney; who don’t challenge their favorite pundits to ferret out the truth; who vote for someone because they believe the hype and/or who is a candidate appears to be someone you’d like to *have a beer with.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:57 am*People actually said that out loud - they advertise their own gullibility and stupidity.
Pelosi is not a liberal, she is a Bush/Neocon enabler.
Taking Impeachment off the table was only the beginning for her Bush enabling, as we now see.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:01 pmAnd when word of the infuriating Dem cave in to W bin Laden regarding FISA came out late Tuesday night, this should have been the ONLY issue at the YKos conference
Obviously, those worthless DINO’s and W lackeys who couldn’t wait to rape our Constitution rather than be accused, absurdly, of “being soft on terrorism” don’t fear their own party’s leadership-Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel-or the “netroots” supposedly represented by Daily Kos, et al
The libroots have been ignored in favor of the Dems numerical minority Blue Dogs, it’s about time the Blue Dogs got put out of everyone’s political misery by getting their asses out of office with the next elections
If Cindy Sheehan actually does run against Pelosi, I’m tossing a few dollars her way, maybe a good rebuke from us libs is about the only thing that will get Pelosi to tell the Blue Dogs to take a hike
August 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pmKos officially supports the Democratice party, though. And the Democratic party just took away all of your privacy rights yesterday.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:16 pmVery well said, Markos.
I still have huge issues with Democrats right now, especially on the impeachment issue, but I think Markos was talking more about the power of the people and the blogosphere.
Maybe we weren’t “very serious people” at some point, but we see what’s going on in this country — we’ve been seeing for years — and we’re making noise and putting a fight, which is what we’re supposed to do.
We do all this in an unconventional manner, and that scares the shit out of the mainstream because they don’t understand it. And you know what? That’s exactly what they need right now — a wake up call.
I anticipate a shitstorm lead by Bill O’Reilly, and it’s going to be fantastic. :)
August 5th, 2007 at 12:18 pmWhen are you people going to realize that we use you to marganalize your causes to the general public. The vast majority of Americans don’t know what Kos is or care. We call you the Far Left and belittle you with great effectiveness. You’re a prop, little more.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm[Before the blogosphere arose,] people like me could spend hours talking about politics, but it mattered little in the greater scheme of things.
Jeez… this jerk sounds just like one of you Typical Smug Lefties.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pmThey told us we should fear “San Francisco Drag-queen†Nancy Pelosi.
Did we listen? (No)
August 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm————————————————————————————-
HEyOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
I
August 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pmKooze is a doucher!
August 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pmTypical Smug Lefties.
Comment by Konservo
Off with his head!
It’s not like he’s actually using it…
August 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pmOnce again Mr. P shows up with the intent of destroying the thread and absolutely nothing of value to say, which I take as an indication that he is fully aware there is no point in putting lipstick on the pig that the Bush administration has become.
Why he would even bother posting anything at all puzzles me. Must get lonely spending the whole Sunday in his mom’s basement.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pmI love me, I’m back and I’m just as idiotic.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:46 pmSmug lefties? Pot, meet kettle.
If you can’t make a cogent point, then STFU.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmKonservo is an AAAAAASSSSSSHooooooOOOOOOOLLEEEE!
August 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pmWhat I don’t get is the number of middle class Americans who vote against their own self-interest. They actually think that they are inherently better than everyone else, and that they “earned” their middle class status. Their grandparents would spank them. Once the S hits the F, and it certainly will, they will do exactly what the Nazis before them did: dress like those they tried to destroy and hide among them.
Cowards all.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pmok, some democrats got elected. what do we do next to make less of them pathetic, gutless, spineless jellyfish?
August 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm“You see, we weren’t stupid and gullible enough to fall for the administration’s lies on Iraq.”
Liberals never said anything about WMD not being in Iraq until well after the invasion. Hindsight is 50/50.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pmKos is right about the blogosphere. The “powers that be” did not know how to control it completely, and the people found a way to use it to their advantage and to start sharing ideas and opinions in ways not possible before (at so little cost; yes, we could all theoretically buy an ad on the back page of the NYT, but who among us has the money to do that?).
I agree with doro that the 2006 elections did not bring about the change we had all hoped for, but I also agree with Captain Video’s response that it takes more than one battle victory to win a war (though I am not terribly fond of war metaphors.) I prefer to think of it more as minds that took decades to be be made up won;t necessarily be changed over night.)
I also agree with Marie in that the big mistake they make is thinking of us as stupid. We are not stupid, we are just being delierately misinformed by both the politicans and the media.
Gregor ios roght, too, but I would add that it was, I believe, John Suart Mill who said something like, “While it is true that not all conservative people are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” Those are the “cheerleaders” who mindlessly continue to support the Bush Misadministration in all its illegality because they believe the nonsense that the constitution isn’t enough. They believe Bush when he says that his first job is to protect the American People. he is wrong, of course. his “first job” is to protect the constitution, and he has been trying to do one end-around after another of it to get his way (or Cheney’s way, if you prefer.)
And yes, Marie, picking a president based on who you would like to have a beer with is a poor criterion for choosing leadership. Personally, I would like to see our president abstain from alcohol douring his (or her) term of office. You wouldn’t want to learn years later that the military action a president took was due in some small way to the effects of alcohol, would you?
And Zooey’s analysis is correct - they fear the blogosphere because they don’t understand it and what it can do, but more because, so far, they can’t control it (which is why they don’t want net neutrality). And I would be interested in O’Reilly’s take on it, but only if he admits he read my song about him.
And Konservo’s comment certainly has more of an air of smugness to it than anything Kos said.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pm“And then in 2006, we won.”
No you didn’t. You elected a congress that gives Bush whatever the hell he wants.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmKos’ prefered candidate, Ned Lamont, got his ass handed to him.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmLiberals never said anything about WMD not being in Iraq until well after the invasion. Hindsight is 50/50.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
That’s bullshit. I never believed Iraq had WMD, and was willing to let the inspectors do their work. I said it to anyone who would listen, and many who didn’t want to hear it.
I think you’ll find most of the non-troll commenters on TP felt the same way.
Just because you are a gullible sheep, doesn’t mean everyone is.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pmPelosi is not a liberal, she is a Bush/Neocon enabler.
Taking Impeachment off the table was only the beginning for her Bush enabling, as we now see.
Comment by Wayne — August 5, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
——————————————————–
True, and B. Hussein Os/bama = neocon-black
August 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pm“I think you’ll find most of the non-troll commenters on TP felt the same way.”
TP wasn’t launched until 2005, well after the invasion. Your comment is obviously a lie. No liberal said Iraq didn’t have WMD before the invasion. They only used the comfort of hindsight well after it was launched.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmHey, numbnuts: You weren’t listening. It was being said everywhere.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmThat’s bullshit. I never believed Iraq had WMD, and was willing to let the inspectors do their work. I said it to anyone who would listen, and many who didn’t want to hear it.
I think you’ll find most of the non-troll commenters on TP felt the same way.
Just because you are a gullible sheep, doesn’t mean everyone is.
Comment by Zooey — August 5, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
——————————————-
No. That is bullsh!t!
Ha! Liberals… always looking to revise history!
August 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmHindsight is 50/50.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
I did. I was against the invasion before it happened. The case for invasion was falling apart as the Bush administration was putting it together.
WMD deployed in in 45 mins? False. Nigerian uranium? False. Meeting in Prague between Atta and a Hussein agent? False. Iraq’s unpiloted drones capable of spreading chemical & biological agents? False.
To make it all worse, the UN’s inspectors called US intelligence on Iraq’s WMD “garbage”. The Bush administration’s lies only fooled the misinformed, the gullible, or those who wanted to believe.
(It’s amazing that, this far into the game, I still have to repeat myself on these facts)
August 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmHey, numbnuts: You weren’t listening. It was being said everywhere.
Comment by Marcus Aruelius
Links, evidence, sources?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmTrue, and B. Hussein Os/bama = neocon-black
Comment by Konservo
Racist crap from mr. Pee…..
STFU, adults are talking.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pmKonservo is scared of Obama. How predictable. Clarence Thomas, and his fear and hatred of his own heritage, is a Black Neocon.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pmWMD deployed in in 45 mins? False. Nigerian uranium? False. Meeting in Prague between Atta and a Hussein agent? False. Iraq’s unpiloted drones capable of spreading chemical & biological agents? False.
————
You never said any of these things BEFORE the invasion, only well after.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pm“Konservo is scared of Obama.”
He’s 25 points behind Hillary. What’s to be scarred of?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pm“Racist crap from mr. Pee…..”
What’s racist about it?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pmLiberals never said anything about WMD not being in Iraq until well after the invasion. Hindsight is 50/50.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
A factually incorrect statement. We were being lied to from the beginning, as Sen Dick Durbin pointed out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5cHBkB_Q6g
Scott Ritter was sounding the alarm in Sep 2002 about the false WMD claims: http://www.time.com/ time/ nation/ article/ 0,8599,351165,00.html
People who on the left who listened to anyone other than the Bush Administration knew the WMD claims were not supported by the evidence.
And as for the nuclear capability, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General, IAEA, said in his report, “To conclude: we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s. ” Here is his report: http://www.un.org/ News/ dh/ iraq/ elbaradei27jan03.htm
To conclude, the statement you made that “Liberals never said anything about WMD not being in Iraq until well after the invasion,” is factually incorrect.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pm“You see, we weren’t stupid and gullible enough to fall for the administration’s lies on Iraq.â€
Liberals never said anything about WMD not being in Iraq until well after the invasion. Hindsight is 50/50.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Dumbass….
Are you having a “half glass empty” moment?
It’s ‘Hindsight is 20/20″
frikkin moron..
GO AWAY.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmNumbnuts: I don’t know if this site is archived, but you will find quite a number of people who saw through this scam from the very beginning, if it is. Do a search, and let us know what you find.
Don’t forget: Iraq couldn’t beat a bunch of Iranian teenagers armed only with sticks and headbands. I hope you’re a high school drop-out, cause if you’re not, we wasted our money.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmSTFU, adults are talking.
Comment by Wayne — August 5, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
——————————————————–
What?
What did I say?
I thought this was America!
August 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“Scott Ritter was sounding the alarm in Sep 2002 about the false WMD claims”
Unfortuantly, Ritter tried to solicit sex from a minor online. He’s not the most credible guy in the world.
In other words, you have no proof that liberals said there were no wmd in Iraq before the invasion. That’s what I thought.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmBoy, you’re hard-headed.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pm“Konservo is scared of Obama.â€
He’s 25 points behind Hillary. What’s to be scarred of?
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
scarred?
What, did she throw boiling oil on him?
Your mom’s calling you, BM from 3DHS. Daddy’s gone again and she ‘lonely’.
Go ‘help’ mommy.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pm“Numbnuts: I don’t know if this site is archived, but you will find quite a number of people who saw through this scam from the very beginning, if it is.”
Again, this blog wasn’t launched until ‘05, so anything that I would search would be hindsight, just as I have been arguing.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmHallo POPStar(TM)!!!
August 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmI hope you are doing well.
Did you do a search? No. So what do you do? Cast aspersions and throw up a straw man. What you think is apparently immutable. You refuse to be educated. You are intellectually dishonest. What about the Iraq/Iran war? Answer the question.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmScott Ritter’s own arrests for soliciting sex with two minor girls occurred in April, and again in June of 2001. The court records of these events were sealed until last week when the FBI obtained a court order un-sealing them to pursue their own charges against Ritter.
http://www.ropma.net/ritter.htm
August 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmShorter Assmark: “I refuse to investigate, therefore my initial assumptions are correct.”
Sounds like you’re a Gonzales protege.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pmHa! Liberals… always looking to revise history!
Comment by Konservo — August 5, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
You know, It was quite funny(ironic, hypocritical, etc, etc) listening to the REPUBLICANS say they didn’t trust Governors and Mayors to help with the Green Energy initiative establisjed through the new Energy bill….
what was that about right to privacy, small Federal goverment, and LOCAL governments taking on more responsibilities??
Oh, that’s right, we’re in a ‘post 9-11 world’ now.
I’d like a troll to explain what the NEW Republican values are, please.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:20 pmSo? What’s the price of tea in China?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:20 pmMarcus, don’t you love asking trolls to confront facts? I can almost hear their little heads a’popping on my end of the tube….
August 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmSo, why throw his name into this thread?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmI wish their heads popping was not a figure of speech.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pmThe blogs have made a world of difference. Without the blogs, Bush would still be a popular President. Tweety would still be getting good wood just thinking about his cod piece, and longing for day when he could go have a beer with him. Broder could be mouthing his spiel and all would just marvel about the dean of beltway pundits. I remember 1998 well. There were no blogs then, or maybe I had just not discovered them. The first two blogs l latched onto were run by Hesiod and Atrios. Hesiod quit, but Atrios didn’t. The world may not be more enlighten, but one little part of California is.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pmComment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
We could provide you with a very long list of similar aspersions against the president (he lied about his insider trading to the SEC, he lied about his drunk driving arrest), does that make him equally incredible?
What about what Senator Durbin said? What about Mohamed ElBaradei said? Care to refute those?
And, yes, Think Progress was started in Jan 2005 with a post about the president’s State of the Union Address (first thread here: http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 02/ 02/ lets-get-it-started/ ), and the comments even included an ad for sex toys in it. I guess that was before they actually started moderating the site. What? You mean they still don’t? Oh…
August 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm“Marcus, don’t you love asking trolls to confront facts?”
What fact did Marcus confront me with?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmThe fact that many people knew that there were no WMds in Iraq prior to the invasion. Are you freekin’ dense?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmQuit feeding the retards
August 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm“What about what Senator Durbin said? What about Mohamed ElBaradei said? Care to refute those?”
Durbin’s comments came after the invasion. He may have been against the war, but he never said Iraq didn’t have WMD.
Elbaradei never said there were no WMD in Iraq.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmWhat fact did Marcus confront me with?
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Those facts.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmThe fact that many people knew that there were no WMds in Iraq prior to the invasion. Are you freekin’ dense?
Comment by Marcus Aruelius
What liberal said there were no wmd in Iraq before the invasion?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmOooh. Kos convention - a convention that throws out those serve our country in a uniform and who happen to disagree with the left. Or how do you explain the fact that an Army Sergeant was thrown out for asking questions during a panel session?
Typical liberals. All high and mighty about freedom of speech, but when someone disagrees with you, you silence the dissent.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmYou haven’t confronted me with any facts, only strawmen.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmQuit feeding the retards
Comment by Texas Democrat — August 5, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
————————————————
So now the Dems are advocating starving the mentally handicapped.
You would make Hitler proud…
August 5th, 2007 at 1:31 pmSaddam couldn’t defeat the Iranians (even with our help). he was pinned-down by UN forces and confined to his little No Fly Zone. There was obviously nothing there. Lots of people understood this (I’m one, and you can’t seem to refute my assertions).
This war is and always was about oil. Are you that stupid, or is your trash simple party-line talking points?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:31 pmMe.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pmThe folks at Knight Ridder papers, which I believe has one of the largest circulations in the US, knew there were no WMD before the war. Frontline did a 1 hour special on it. There were plenty of people who knew there were no WMD in Iraq. They were largely ignored in haze of artificial patriotism.
I thought, at the time that there was WMD in Iraq. However, I had friends that told me, before the war, that this was not the case. To be perfectly honest…I was caught up in the artificial patriotism that one feels when they watch their military prepare for a campaign.
http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ newswar/ part1/ wmd.html
Sincerely,
August 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pmAnd, yes, Think Progress was started in Jan 2005 with a post about the president’s State of the Union Address
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
So how does that prove that liberals here said Iraq had no WMD before the invasion, as Marcus alleged?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmTisk Tisk, I’m never right about anything, but I’m waay more serious and respectable than you snotty little commenters.
You libs will never remove me from my throne at Fox News Corp.
Bwahahaha.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThe White House knew there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion, but they chose to ignore this fact because they were Hell-bent on deposing Saddam (for their own individual reasons).
http://www.smh.com.au/ news/ breaking-news/ white-house-knew-there-were-no-wmd-cia/ 2006/ 04/ 22/ 1145344306427.html
Instead, they chose to lie to the American people and drum up fake threats of the “final proof coming in the form of a mushroom cloud.” It was the nuclear threat, more than anything, that concerned Americans, and that threat was phonier than Jim Traficant’s hair.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pmIf your assertion was true, you would have been banned from TP long ago.
Got anything lucid? No? Then, S.T.F.U. and learn.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pmPS it wasn’t liberals that said there were no wmd. It was people doing reporting on weapons research. It was in fact non partisan work that they were doing. There work should refuted on its merits not on some artificial label.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pmWhat liberal said there were no wmd in Iraq before the invasion?
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Me.
Comment by Marcus Aruelius
Please provide the relevant links.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmAnyone know where the Smug-storm created by the Kos convention is heading right now?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmOne doesn’t. One points to the moral, legal, economic, policy, and ethical failures that riddle this administration like cancer, and says “Just like…”.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pmPS it wasn’t liberals that said there were no wmd.
Comment by ben
I know. None said anything until well after the invasion, when it was too late and only in hindsight.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pm#72: You’re right. TP is not a typical liberal site, I’ll give them that. Try doing this on DKos and you’re banned straight away.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pm#72: By the way, do you deny that an Army Sergeant was thrown out of a panel session?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmDont feed the retards
August 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pm#77 - I don’t think you read my first post when I discuss the folks who did say something before the war.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmthe comments even included an ad for sex toys in it. …
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — August 5, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
wow! is that STILL posted???
August 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmi remember that, and all the requests/demands
to have it removed… funny… kinda…
.
I’m fixin’ to link my foot and your ass.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pm“The White House knew there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion”
Even if true, no liberal Democrat exposed it before the invasion.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pmStraight to your house. What’s your address?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmDont feed the retards
Comment by Texas Democrat — August 5, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
————————————————
So now the Dems are advocating starving the mentally handicapped.
You would make Hitler proud…
August 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmSo, why did you post your drivel here? by your own contradiction, you now known to be a liar.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmSo how does that prove that liberals here said Iraq had no WMD before the invasion, as Marcus alleged?
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
I never said that liberals here ever said anything. You made that part up. But there were people saying the claims of WMD were false. And it turns out that some of those very people worked for the Bush Administration. But they were stifled from speaking up, and the official government position was a bed of lies. All Lies, and you damn well know it! It wasn’t that they were “mistaken” so much as they refused to believe anybody who didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear. Instead, they took the “intel” from sources like “Curveball” (known to be untrustworthy at the time, hence the secret name) and promoted them as hard indisputable facts.
You appear to operate from the assumption that the Bush Administration wants the truth to be known. That is a a false assumption, as the truth is the last thing they want to get out.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmBrassmask from 3DHS #84 -
I agree that more should have been done before the war, but I’m not sure what this has to with Liberal or Conservative. It seems we would have all benefited from not invading a country based on false or inaccurate information.
Sincerely,
August 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pmI’m fixin’ to link my foot and your ass.
Comment by Marcus Aruelius
You’re a real tough guy. I didn’t think you could back up your assertion. Should I inform TP of this threat?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pm#90
Inform? Pussy!
August 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pmStop or you’ll trip over your pathetic ego. No one owes you jack.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pm#87: I post here because I can, thanks to the unusual policy of the TP admins.
Lies, contradictions? I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve been consistent all the time. I never said “all liberals” crush dissent.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pmthe fact that an Army Sergeant was thrown out for asking questions during a panel session?
another “wow”… THAT story deserves to be told…
August 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmsurely there is a link, a reputable news source
reporting on this important story… not?
.
I know you won’t accept any sources I consider reliable, so I think I’ll just link to the pathetic cover-your-a$$ post on DKos.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/3940/86488
August 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmHow can Kos say that he won, when his handpicked candidate, Ned Lamont, got his ass handed to him by Lieberman? (I voted for Lieberman by the way).
August 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmDo you deny the underfunding of the VA? Do you deny the draft-dodging of your leaders? Do you deny the corruption and incompetence of your leaders? Do you deny that my soldiers in Iraq have been overextended and ill-equipped? Do you deny that the rethuglicans trashed war heroes John McCain and John Kerry? Do you deny the criminality of a preemptive strike?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pm#98: Yeah, and the netroots posterboy, Webb, voted to expand FISA. :) Pathetic.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pm#97: Uh. What does that have anything to do with the Kos convention debacle? Don’t change the subject.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmGo ahead, you Rethuglican pussy.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmanother “wowâ€â€¦ THAT story deserves to be told…
surely there is a link, a reputable news source
reporting on this important story… not?
.
Comment by katy
You really haven’t heard about the soldier that was kicked out of the Kos convention?
The lefty blogs are doing a good job keeping you guys ignorant, aren’t they?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmI didn’t change the subject. How freekin’ disingenuous.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThe lefty blogs are doing a good job keeping you guys ignorant, aren’t they?
Indeed. It wasn’t until just a moment ago, they posted a CYA story on DKos.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pm#98: Yeah, and the netroots posterboy, Webb, voted to expand FISA. :) Pathetic.
Comment by Boudin Bob
Temporarily expand, Bob.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pmPoliticians ignore bloggers at their PERIL!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
August 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pm98. #98:
You’re citing the posting you’re about to post?
Hahahahahahahahaha too funny man!
August 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pm#102: Sure you did. My question was: do you deny that an Army Sergeant was thrown out of the convention? You replied with off-topic screed about completely unrelated topics. Get a grip.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pmIt’s a violation of the TP terms of service to make threats, Marcus.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm108,
Pussy
August 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmIf this is true I would like to hear more about it can you provide a link?
Sincerely,
August 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmTemporarily expand, Bob.
Oh, in the same way as the PATRIOT act was meant to be?
I wonder why you libs never learn.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmI didn’t change the subject. How freekin’ disingenuous.
Comment by Marcus Aruelius
Yes you did, MarcASS. You diverted the post from the soldier being kicked out of the Kos convention, to healthcare. It was rather pathetic.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmTemporary is Washington speak for unlimited.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pmIf this is true I would like to hear more about it can you provide a link?
Sure.
http://pajamasmedia.com/ 2007/ 08/ soldier_censored_at_kos_conven.php
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/3940/86488
August 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pmFrom the Daily Kos: “Being an Army officer myself, I notice this kind of stuff immediately. My first thought was, “WTF is this guy doing? Has he lost his mind?” The thing is, every soldier knows that you don’t take part in politics while you’re in your uniform. It’s not only highly inappropriate—it’s also illegal.”
So Bob, you’re advocating that this soldier was OK wearing his uniform in a political forum, even though it is illegal?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pmMy question was: do you deny that an Army Sergeant was thrown out of the convention? You replied with off-topic screed about completely unrelated topics. Get a grip.
Comment by Boudin Bob — August 5, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Jon Stolz, a Captain in the reserve, recognized that the Army Sgt was violating the UCMJ by making political statements while in uniform! (They were quite clear on that to us in Basic Training; when you wear the uniform you represent the Service). He also recognized that allowing it could be seen as being compliant and could bring UCMJ charges upon himself.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pm“So Bob, you’re advocating that this soldier was OK wearing his uniform in a political forum, even though it is illegal?”
That’s his choice. Kos had no right to kick him out.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pmbarfly,
Recently an anti-war soldier was given a dishonorable discharge for attending an anti-war rally in uniform. The rules should apply no matter the venue.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pmMy apologies to Captain Jon Soltz for misspelling his name.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pmBwAhahAHAHahAHahHAhA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the links, Bob!!!
What a bunch of hypocrites!?!?!?!
- M r . P
August 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm35% is the new number of Registered Independent Voters, folks! I would expect this number to soar now with what the Dems did last evening in selling out the people to this czar.
35% is a significant number of people who are totally and utterly dissatisfied with what’s currently going on in our government - and we want change - real change this time - not the sycophantic smoke & mirrors type of change the Dems interpreted from the mandate of the 06 elections either. Those dems who voted to enable illegal spying (warrantless) will suffer the consequences of the loss of their precious seat in Congress AND the people now know precisely whom the shapeshifters are - Webb and Feinstein are the most remarkable in the group and they’ve now ‘over’ in terms of trust of the american people.
Don’t be absurd: Vote for a Third! The third party is becoming a reality whether people like it or not. Move over Dems and Repubs - you’re in for a very wild ride in 08 because the “I’s” are coming and will carry the day, one way or another.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pmJon Stolz, a Captain in the reserve, recognized that the Army Sgt was violating the UCMJ by making political statements while in uniform!
————-
This is a strawman. Ollie North wore his uniform while he was testifying. Kos censored an American solider.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pmThat’s his choice. Kos had no right to kick him out.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Do you advocate his arrest for breaking the UCMJ? Or do you endorse lawless behavior?
August 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm#123 is a strawman.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm“Kos had no right to kick him out.”
Read Wayne’s post, and apologize for your ignorance.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pmThat’s his choice. Kos had no right to kick him out.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Wrong on both counts! The Army soldier was wrong to do what he did in uniform, and as it was a private function, they could kick anybody they wanted to out. They were paying for the facilities and their use, they had the right to decide who could speak and who couldn’t.
When you pay for your own political gathering, you can decide which of us will be welcome and which won’t.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pmOllie North was, and is a punk. He attended a hearing he was summoned to as a part of his job RETARD.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pmThis is a strawman. Ollie North wore his uniform while he was testifying. Kos censored an American solider.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Wrong again. Col North was testifying before Congress on his role in the Iran-Contra affair, not attending a political fuinction. If you ever served in the military, you would understand the distinction. Either you never have, and therefore cannot speak from experience on the issue, or you have served, and are lying. Which is it?
August 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmLook at the Kos Kids and their absolute ignorance of the world in general….if you are a foreign fighter caught on the battle field trying to kill US soldiers and are caught and imprisoned….hey….just wright a poem and all is forgiven….what a bunch of idiots.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#123 is a strawman.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Look up the definition of strawman, you poor illiterate.
A strawman requires an assertion be made - I only asked a question, hence no strawman. Fox News does it all the time - I’m surprised you haven’t noticed.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:03 pmthanks for that link, bob…
um… did YOU read that story?
always good to have both sides, huh…
and always consider the source…
What Really Happened at the YearlyKos Military Panel
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/3940/86488
when i clicked on the video link at pjmedia, it crashed my safari…
August 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pmshould’ve known better…
There is no prohibition against speaking at political functions while in uniform. This is a lie. And a strawman.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pmLOL, that Kos guy is a real nut.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pm“Look at the Kos Kids and their absolute ignorance of the world in general”
Coming from someone who wet his pants over non-existent WMD’s, comments like that are to be expected…
August 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pm“When you pay for your own political gathering, you can decide which of us will be welcome and which won’t.”
Right you are, the conserv666atives have been doing this forever! Dubyas appearances are so staged I expect at any minute he’ll break into song ala Oklohoma! All people are hand picked, nobody is turned away because only the ‘right” people are ever let in.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pmLOL, that Kos guy is a real nut.
Comment by muckdog — August 5, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
————————————————————————
He sure is, muckdog, he sure is!
August 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pm“Col North was testifying before Congress on his role in the Iran-Contra affair, not attending a political fuinction.”
A committe hearing is a political function.
John Kerry and his band of misfits also spoke at antiwar political functions while in uniform.
Again, your assertion is a strawman.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmWayne A. Schneider,
The guy is obviously a right wing Christ666ian conserv666ative, of course he hasn’t served.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pm“When you pay for your own political gathering, you can decide which of us will be welcome and which won’t.â€
Yes, but Kos and the Dem presidential candiates who spoke there will pay a price for silencing a man in uniform.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pmAgain, your assertion is a strawman.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
And mine was not. Just so we’re straight on that.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pmA committe hearing is a political function.
No it’s not, it’s a legal function. I can see though how a republic666an could not tell the difference.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pmTITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, Chap 49 of the US Code spells out misc. prohibitions imposed on active duty military personnel. There is no prohibition against speaking at political functions while in uniform.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pmthe Dem presidential candiates who spoke there will pay a price for silencing a man in uniform.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS
Oh. please. This is a year and a half out - it’s ridiculous to assert this is anything but a small blip.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pmAnd mine was not. Just so we’re straight on that.
Comment by barfly
My bad.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pmI don’t know the code, but it seems to me that committee hearing is not a political rally. It is a government function. Of course if you are requested to appear to answer questions as to your position and your position is a member of the military then you would be allowed, perhaps even required by your superiors, to attend in uniform.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pmRetard,
“11002. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS
1. Implementing 10 U.S.C. 772, the President, by Executive Order 10554 of 18 August 1954, delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to prescribe regulations under which persons may wear the uniform. The following excerpts from DoD Directive 1334.1 of 11 August 1969 outline these regulations:
a. Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). The wearing of the uniform is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
(1) At any meeting or demonstration which is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which the Attorney General of the United States has designated, pursuant to E.O. 10450, as amended as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under The Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities…
August 5th, 2007 at 2:17 pmSure thing. Right. Uh huh. Now you can go away and not worry about us in here.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:17 pm#141 - Perhaps that is the problem with the current republican party. They cannot tell the difference between campaigning and governing.
Sincerely,
August 5th, 2007 at 2:19 pmYeah, thats what I thought
August 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pm“(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities…”
Comment by Texas Democrat —
BOOM!
[the sound of Brassmask’s argument imploding]
August 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmIt’s the campaign continuum.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmMan dont ya know he’s furiously Googling.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pmHey, try conservapedia.org I’m sure you’ll find some crackpot horesh*t there to support your ignorant arguments.
Liberals never said anything about WMD not being in Iraq until well after the invasion. Hindsight is 50/50.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Ha! Liberals… always looking to revise history!
Comment by Konservo — August 5, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You trolls are nuts! You are blind and deaf fools.
Zooey is exactly right at:
Comment by Zooey — August 5, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
There were plenty expert opinions insisting that the inspectors be given time to prove the assertion. But they were ignored and dismissed. (Bush told the inspectors to get out because the invasion was imminent: did you forget that?) We “liberals” were reading the experts and shouting to be heard — but media pundits, cheerleaders and liars were louder; accusing the rest of us as traitors, cowards and worse — turns out we have been vindicated - you were wrong. But we are taking no comfort in being right from the start; you guys have put us all in a HUGE mess, and someone smarter than the lot of you is going to have to pull us out of it if it is even possible.
How dare you come to TP and ridicule us when you have nothing!!
August 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pmYou have nothing but a lame, stupid man for president, with a sinister and conniving liar as VP, an incompetent AG who can only lie in a feeble attempt to cover up his incompetency and illegal advice to the White House.
You have nothing to brag about. You should feel humiliated.
Zooey, Walt, Wayne, and many, many others here were able to see through the bull-s* that you guys fell into. Now that you and your guys are all covered in manure, you are still calling us fools.
Take a look in the mirror, jerks; you’re still full of s**.
Yeah, this will definitely sink the dems chances next year.
**snerk!**
August 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pmComment by Marie — August 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Well said, Marie. Thank you.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pmBOOM!
[the sound of Brassmask’s argument imploding]
Comment by barfly
Not even close.
The rest of that sentence reads…
“when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn.”
It would not be drawn by one guy expressing his sole opinion. Obviously. Just like it wasn’t drawn when John Kerry made speeches at political functions against the war in his uniform. You misread the law and you misreprested it.
Again, this is a strawman to divert attention away from Kos censoring a military man in uniform, a no no during a time of war.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pmFor those who say we didn’t object until we had the advantage of hindsight — I have copies of numerous letters of mine printed in newspapers, Newsweek magazine, and news websites clearly stating my objection and basis for it.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pmIt’s the trolls who were stupid, blind and now stubborn.
“Zooey, Walt, Wayne, and many, many others here were able to see through the bull-s* that you guys fell into.”
Again, that is all just in hindsight, as this blog wasn’t launched until Jan, ‘05. There’s no evidence any of those people made those comments before the invasion, when it was most needed.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pmWrong again. Col North was testifying before Congress on his role in the Iran-Contra affair, not attending a political fuinction. If you ever served in the military, you would understand the distinction. Either you never have, and therefore cannot speak from experience on the issue, or you have served, and are lying. Which is it?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
He thinks Republicans are exempt from the rules and laws.
That and obviously he, BrassMask, has never served, since he does not understand.
(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities…
Comment by Texas Democrat
And Brassmask runs off for more talking points after having his argument decimated, lmao
August 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pmFor those who say we didn’t object until we had the advantage of hindsight — I have copies of numerous letters of mine printed in newspapers, Newsweek magazine, and news websites clearly stating my objection and basis for it.
———-
Maybe you were against the war. But you never said Saddam had no WMD before we invaded.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmLook at the Kos Kids and their absolute ignorance of the world in generalâ€
Coming from someone who wet his pants over non-existent WMD’s, comments like that are to be expected…
Comment by barfly — August 5, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Go ahead….take a poem to a terriorist there “barfly”……squash!
August 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmAnd then in 2006, we won
And in 2009 we will create more wars with the powers Bush gave us
August 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmComment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Your monicker here describes your hard head — you are unable to hear over the loud voices inside your head. TP was not launched before the war - but many of us were born before that date, stupid.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmWe were writing to the established media, we were screaming to be heard, but the brassheads like you wouldn’t hear.
(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities…
Comment by Texas Democrat
And Brassmask runs off for more talking points after having his argument decimated, lmao
Comment by Wayne
Texas Democrat left off the last line which was “when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn.”
The soldeir was speaking out against the Kos convention, which obvously doesn’t show officail sponsorship since he was speaking against it. This was also one man, expressing his sole opinion.
Texas Democrat left off that last line because he is a liar and a conartist.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmWe were writing to the established media, we were screaming to be heard, but the brassheads like you wouldn’t hear.
Comment by Marie
Again, you never stated before the war that Saddam didn’t have WMD, or you simply would provide proof.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmRetard,
The quote “when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn” refers to the sponsorship of the US military for the activity (political convention). It is not authorized because the military can not be seen as sponsoring any political idelogy.
You would know that if you served, it’s covered pretty early on in basic training you draft dodging chickensh*t chickenhawk tough guy wannabe.
Piss off retard.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pmAgain, you misread the law because you don’t understand it.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pmComment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
So, by your reasoning, the soldier couldn’t infer that the YearlyKos convention wasn’t politally motivated and it was okay for him to be there, at a politally motivated convention, in his uniform?
Watching the video, the Solider himself acknowledges he was “breaking the rules”.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pmOooh. Kos convention - a convention that throws out those serve our country in a uniform and who happen to disagree with the left. Or how do you explain the fact that an Army Sergeant was thrown out for asking questions during a panel session?
Typical liberals. All high and mighty about freedom of speech, but when someone disagrees with you, you silence the dissent.
Comment by Boudin Bob — August 5, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
What branch of the military did you serve with??? Please, do tell……
August 5th, 2007 at 2:49 pmAgain, you never stated before the war that Saddam didn’t have WMD, or you simply would provide proof.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Yes we did you stupid fu*k. We were all saying what a disaster it would be, but you mrons like to watch Fox News and not listen to dissenting opinions that aren’t in line with your republican talking points. We have been saying since before your head moron was given the presidency that he planned on invading Iraq and you fu*kers called us conspiracy nuts. Well fu*k you and the horse you rode in on. We were right and have been right all along. You people are wrong and have been wrong all along and by your post I can tell that you will continue to be wrong for a long time to come.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pmComment by Jeannie See
“So, by your reasoning, the soldier couldn’t infer that the YearlyKos convention wasn’t politally motivated and it was okay for him to be there, at a politally motivated convention, in his uniform?”
You’d have to ask him what he inferred.
“Watching the video, the Solider himself acknowledges he was “breaking the rulesâ€.”
Link?
August 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pmLiberals never said anything about WMD not being in Iraq until well after the invasion. Hindsight is 50/50.
Comment by Brassmask from 3DHS — August 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Ha! Liberals… always looking to revise history!
Comment by Konservo — August 5, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You trolls are nuts! You are blind and deaf fools.
Zooey is exactly right at:
Comment by Zooey — August 5, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
There were plenty expert opinions insisting that the inspectors be given time to prove the assertion. But they were ignored and dismissed. (Bush told the inspectors to get out because the invasion was imminent: did you forget that?) We “liberals†were reading the experts and shouting to be heard — but media pundits, cheerleaders and liars were louder; accusing the rest of us as traitors, cowards and worse — turns out we have been vindicated - you were wrong. But we are taking no comfort in being right from the start; you guys have put us all in a HUGE mess, and someone smarter than the lot of you is going to have to pull us out of it if it is even possible.
How dare you come to TP and ridicule us when you have nothing!!
You have nothing but a lame, stupid man for president, with a sinister and conniving liar as VP, an incompetent AG who can only lie in a feeble attempt to cover up his incompetency and illegal advice to the White House.
You have nothing to brag about. You should feel humiliated.
Zooey, Walt, Wayne, and many, many others here were able to see through the bull-s* that you guys fell into. Now that you and your guys are all covered in manure, you are still calling us fools.
Take a look in the mirror, jerks; you’re still full of s**.
Comment by Marie — August 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
******************************************************
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ha! Liberals… always looking to revise history!
————
————
August 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pmExactly right!!
My father was in the Air Force for 47 years and he would never attend a political function in his uniform because he always said it was against military laws to do so.
August 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pm