O’Hanlon attacks Greenwald’s ‘kind of journalism.’
By on Aug 14th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
O’Hanlon attacks Greenwald’s ‘kind of journalism.’
On NPR’s On Point today, a caller asked Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon to respond to Glenn Greenwald’s recent article which revealed O’Hanlon’s trip to Iraq had been choreographed by the Defense Department. “Well, I don’t have high regard for the kind of journalism that Mr. Greenwald has carried out here,” O’Hanlon said. “I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time rebutting Mr. Greenwald because he’s had frankly more time and more readership than he deserves.” Crooks and Liars has the audio.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
O’Hanlon doesn’t think well when he’s caught with his pants down. :D
August 14th, 2007 at 11:04 pm“O’Hanlon doesn’t think well when he’s caught with his pants down. ”
Hell, at this point, given the right wing’s penchant for illicit gay prostitutes, preachers and fake newsmen, the who goddamned nutosphere has aproblem once their pants are dwn.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:06 pmShorter O’Hanlon: “Greenwald is a poo-poo head.” (stomps feet and sniffs)
The maturity level of the pro-war crowd in all its glory.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:07 pmBush defenders always come unglued when shown they are full of it.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:10 pmJust checked the weather pics and storm in the gulf of Mexico is forming into a soon to be hurricane fast. It is well organized and rounded with outflowing convection. Maybe it will destroy Dubya’s ranch in Texas.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:17 pmWithout solutions, the Bush defenders can only tear others apart. This is their failing. They are reckless.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:18 pmI listened to O’Hanlon today and he really gave no reason for continuing that was worth one American life. His reason was, he was hoping things would get better.
Greenwald nailed him good and he did not contradict anything Greenwald said about his visit.
Pretty pathetic.
On the other hand Cordesman was brilliant. If you read between the lines of his interview. Iraq has to jump through about 7 impossible hoops between now and late Winter otherwise the US is just out of their mind for staying any longer.
Message, leave now before you really look stupid.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:24 pmO’Hanlon sounds mad that Greenwald cut through his crap and gave him away.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:30 pmO’Hanlon a war monger, is not in a position to criticize someone like Greenwald. O’Hanlon is a puppet for the neo-cons who want to push a policy that has failed in Iraq. They support a president who doesn’t have the support of the American people.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:30 pmO’Handjob is another right wing media whore. They are legion.
These “critics” were really cheerleaders for the Iraq debacle…
…complete with short skirts, tight sweaters, and shiny panties.
Media whos get paid extra to play dress-up,
August 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pmBy mentioning it, Greenwald has been legitimized. Oh, how foolish the GOP is.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:35 pmI wonder if O’Hanlon has regrets about the day he became a whore?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:36 pmTom3 — August 14, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
Hanlon appears to have supported war crimes with his cheerleading. How long will it be before you think he might be indicted for war crimes?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:36 pmHanlon appears to have jumped the shark.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:37 pmDo you think that Hanlon was at the meetings DoD General Counsel gave about rendition, illegal warfare, and other war crimes?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:38 pmBrookings indicators on Iraq are spiraling down. Why would Hanlon be optimistic about anything: The bad indicators of 2003 have only gotten worse. Is he delusional, or has Brookings taken a turn for the worse? [Not sure how that is possible, but perhaps it is.] Should Hanlon — just because of who he is — be indicated as a war criminal; or should there be something more?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:39 pmWonder how often Hanlon has met with the WH-OVP legal counsel to explalin away war crimes planning?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:40 pmO’Hanlon doesn’t have high regard for Greenwald’s “kind of journalism”. What kind of journalism is that, Mr. O’Hanlon? You mean the kind with facts and truth in it instead of political spin and propaganda?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:40 pm**yawn**
What? Is TP trying to bore trolls away?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:41 pmAw, it’s so touching. If you can’t answer the question, question the questioner and leave it at that. This is the only time I wish there were no cable. Back when there were only three channels, you really couldn’t afford to look like a moron, and you couldn’t get away with this ad hominem bullshit because people saw through it. Now it’s 24/7 news and no floodgates to keep back the hypocrisy. Sigh.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:42 pmIf Hanlon doesn’t like “Greenwald’s Journalism” does that mean Hanlon is against legal reviews, reviews of evidence, and discussion of rendition, war crimes, and other breaches of Geneva? I wonder how much Hanlong is paid to suppress evidence of war crimes; or has that e-mail been sent through the RNC; or was Hanlon on the receiving end of the NSA contractor e-mails.
Let’s see: Brookings had information; Brookings on is contract; Brookings wanders the halls of contractors; perhpas Brookings is, in fact, on the RNC email list which the telecoms have. YOu don’t think that Brookings is on the same e-mail list included with the MIT personnel involved with the NSA cryptography? Oh, the RNC would’t delete those they?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:42 pmHanlon appears to have a problem with defending the indefensible: Himself, his position, and the President’s war crimes. Is this what Hanlon intended; or does he have another excuse for being apparently complicit with illegal activity? As a close advisor to the President, did the Brookings Institutionand Hanlon have a central role in formulating the illegal actdivity; and how was this documented on the e-mails the RNC through were destroyed; but are still hosued in the NSA contractors?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:46 pmHow many times did the likes of Hanlon meet with the RNC officials connected with the VA Mail Box Mr. Mehlman used: Is Abramoff close or far away from Brookings?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:48 pmHanlon appears to have supported war crimes with his cheerleading. How long will it be before you think he might be indicted for war crimes?
Comment by Anon — August 14, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
———————————————————————
Flawless logic!
And anyone who writes an article against the current policy of the US is, in fact, working for terrorists.
Hey, Anon, how long do you think it will be before Soltz or [insert name of lib here] are thrown in GITMO for conspiring with the enemy?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:50 pmSo O’Hanlon does not have the time as he claims to respond or rebutt Greenwald,or simply he no answer to Greewald,after Greenwald had him exposed.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:51 pmSo O’Hanlon instead of responding he went after the ‘type of journalism’ Greenwald uses…!!
How much money does the RNC provide to Brookings and Hanlon — indirectdly through DoD/DoJ contractors — to apparently then have cycled back to the GOP. Does the Brookings Institution have a view on the “permantent” majority in Congress; how about Iraq; too many indicators to follow; or not enough time to discuss simpel things Greenwald likes to discuss: Rules of law, evidence, war crimes, Geneva. Makes Hanlon look as though he’s not interested in Geneva like Greenwald is. How many issues has Greenwald brought up about illegal war crimes that Hanlon would explain away as being “trivial” like Addington?
Is it the position of Hanlon — like Gonzalez and Addington — that Greenwald’s discussion of Geneva is “quaint”? That might be of interest to the war crimes prosecutors. Perhaps this was the vivew of Brookings given to the OVP and President. weren’t those deliberation inputs supposed to have been kept confidential; or did Addinton not tell you about the 32 CFR 2800 requirements the OVP was upposed to follow. Didn’t Brookings get the memo, Hanlon? DoD GC sent the memo: Had a briefing. WH Couhnsel got it. DIdn’t you? Not on the mailing/distro list; or did they cut off Brooking Access to the file transfer systems between DoJ and EOP-OVP? Ouch, Hanlon.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:51 pmclipse — August 14, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
You’ll have to ask the German war crimes prosecutor: CIA has plenty of information on that. Their friends are running to the EU to share the apparent war crimes invformation Greenwald is discussing, but Hanlon says he’s not interested in.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:52 pmFour suicide bombings kill 175 in Iraq
August 14th, 2007 at 11:53 pmWouldn’t it be a shame if Brookings was, in fact, aware of war crimes evidence; but now that Greenwald is talkinga bout it, Hanlon apparently wants to suppress it? That could be another war crime. Is this the message Hanlon wants to send to the world: That Brookings and Hanlon are not interetsed in ending illegal warfare; and that it is “OK” to suppress evidence of war crimes, which Greenwald doesn’t want to do?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pmJuan C — August 14, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
What does this have to do with Hanlon; or is it another smokescreen?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:55 pmIt looks as though Hanlon is reacting to some very important information Greenwald appears to have about the President’s illegal activity. Why would Brookings react so strongly to something Congress has said isn’t worth “putting on” the table? Do you think that Brooking’s alleged complicity with war crimes should be examined; or is it, like IBM’s alleged upport of the Nazis, something we should not pay attention to, Toto?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:57 pmis there a war crimes indictment with Hanlon’s name written on it? Surprising how the US government has “no time” to deal with war crimes; but Hanlon has “time” to go after Greenwald who apparently knows alot about the law. Oh, it’s all so confusing for Hanlon isn’t. “What to do: Do we end illegal warfare; or do we keep going?” No answer from Hanlon, just smear Greenwald for raising war crimes issues.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:58 pmHow much infromation do you think Rove transferred from the NSA intercepts — the stuff intercepted from overseas — and was provided to Brookings via the “political” briefings? Was Brookings on the DoD distribution list for the Iraqi media messages? How’s that connection with AT&T media messaging, Brookings?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:59 pmHey, Anon, how long do you think it will be before Soltz or [insert name of lib here] are thrown in GITMO for conspiring with the enemy?
Comment by clipse — August 14, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
Ironic, considering Osama is a friend of Bush that he won’t catch, and our policies are helping terrorism and Al Qaeda.
More projection from the resident republican terrorist sympathizer…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:00 amComment by Anon
None. Another question?
August 15th, 2007 at 12:01 am“What does this have to do with Hanlon; or is it another smokescreen?”
Comment by Anon
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
August 15th, 2007 at 12:01 am“derrr… because of the war? Do ya think?”
Comment by clipse
Which was O’Hanlon; the dog or the pony?
I’m betting pony.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:03 amNot to Bill Clinton.
Comment by clipse
Still can’t get your mind out of Clinton’s crotch after all these years?
What a perve…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:05 amderrr… because of the war? Do ya think?
Comment by clipse
What war? The civil war the US admin never wanted to name?
The war Congress never declared?
August 15th, 2007 at 12:07 amYeah, sure, take your pick, whatever.
Comment by clipse
Exactly. It doesnt matter to stupid people.
It has never mattered them anyway. Some way to reconcile life frustrations…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:11 amThe only reason I come here is to expose all of the lies that TP trys to spread. Comment by clipse — August 15, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Well Jake/Michael – considering the lies that are posted here come from you and your wingnut, you’re the problem, not the solution!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:13 am“When you visit friends in another state or country that you are not familiar with, don’t you rely on your friends to show you around?”
Comment by clipse
In kevlar jackets, and with lots of “friends” around, on rooftops, with sniper rifles.
Yup; why, just last week, I had to do a recon patrol down to 7/11 for Pepsi, and I almost “pacified” the pakistani behind the counter, for telling me there were no Twinkies left for sale.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:13 amSo what?
It’s not like Greenwald uncovered some hidden secret.
When you visit friends in another state or country that you are not familiar with, don’t you rely on your friends to show you around?
Comment by clipse — August 15, 2007 @ 12:07 am
It was hidden from the MSM, because they all reported a LIE!
Then again, OHanlon was happy to report the lie himself – typical of you lying wingnuts.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:14 amO’hanlon is just reporting the truth and greenwald is too weak to take it, he just wants to cut and hide, he’ll know satan
Comment by gods warrior — August 15, 2007 @ 12:03 am
Pure projection. OHanlon is a lying propagandist, that shills himself as a ‘war-critic’, when he’s a vocal cheerleader.
As usual, you wingnuts are nothing but a pack of pathetic liars!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:15 amYup; why, just last week, I had to do a recon patrol down to 7/11 for Pepsi, and I almost “pacified†the pakistani behind the counter, for telling me there were no Twinkies left for sale.
Comment by barfly
Thanks for that big laugh.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:15 amYou’re welcome Juan – now, watch your back!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:16 amHi Juan, I’m home. Goodnight. :)
August 15th, 2007 at 12:16 amWhen you visit friends in another state or country that you are not familiar with, don’t you rely on your friends to show you around?
Comment by clipse — August 15, 2007 @ 12:07 am
only if you’re a sissypants repuke moron, like you. hey, have fun starting god’s own blog, and rescuing your poor, poor, put-upon president from those nasty reporters who want to ask questions! how heartless and evil of them! save him, clipse, you and gods worrier!
pathetic whiners. give us back an adult in charge instead of these pathetic deserters and crybabies.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:18 amThe Dems authorized the war when they controlled the senate.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano
I have nothing against that statement.
Hi Juan, I’m home. Goodnight. :)
August 15th, 2007 at 12:20 amComment by Zooey
Finally!! Hope you get some rest!! :)
Take care.
“I’ve heard some horror stories about some who have found themselves in the same situation. I am glad that you were able to keep you cool.”
Comment by clipse
No problem. I just called in a couple of squads of Blackwater Jacks, and we appropriated the Wing Dings instead.
Shopping is hell…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:21 amUmmm… everyone knew that he was planning the trip with the military. Comment by clipse — August 15, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Yet in typical arrogant wingnut fashion he was willing to shill a propaganda story, and thought no one would call him out on it. You criminal republicans sure have the chutpahs!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:22 amThe Dems authorized the war when they controlled the senate.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Liar.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:23 amSupport for the surge is up 10%. We need to keep this PR campaign up. Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:21 am
PR? BAHAHA, PROPAGANDA, you little nazi liar! No wonder you have a ‘fascist’ name!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:23 am28%ers are such a pathetic bunch of morons.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:23 am“Ummm… everyone knew that he was planning the trip with the military.”
Comment by clipse
Especially the military.
He was conducted to cherry-picked sites, and didn’t admit it in the op-ed.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:24 amThe cigar went into Monica’s crotch.
Bill’s the perv, because his wife was right down the hall.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Yeah, sure. Whatever, Gannon. At least Clinton didn’t betray his ‘values’ party’s hypocrisy like all of those gay prostitute sleepovers Bush had…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:24 amOr a chickenhawker like you who avoided military service, meth man.Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Chickenhawks are pro-war but don’t fight – idiot! That would be YOU!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:25 amYou should hear Pelosi’s war-stories from her shopping trips in Damascus. Comment by Eazy-P — August 15, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Well someone has to shop for the emperor, since has no clothes…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:26 amCome on TP, your censors are getting to be a bunch of Puritans. Gods warrior is a drunken idiot and I was just funnin with him.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:27 amKasinca is a 3%er. One of the remaining few who still approves of the Democrat congress’ handling of Iraq. Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:25 am
The Congress has given bush what he asked for, do you blame everyone? Not even you wingnuts approve of their giving you wingnuts what you ask for!
The Congress, and the Democrats in Congress still have greater approval rating than Republicans as a party though! Loser!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:27 amOr a chickenhawker like you who avoided military service, meth man.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:24
Hey moron, the chickenhawks are the supporters of the war. Name twenty neo-conservatives who ever served in the military. Can’t do it because the chickenhawks are all chickenshit, warmongering 28% cowards marching behind the drunken AWOL chickenshit in the White House. The chief thug of the crime family has always been a chicknenhawk unwilling to suffer the peril he wills upon others. Go away little brain.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:27 amClinton betrayed the law by committing perjury.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:27 am
He was cleared of that ‘crime’, but thanks for reminded everyone why Republican Fascists don’t respect the law.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:30 amOr you with respect to Afghanistan.
Ronjazz is a chickenhawker because he works at KFC, and he abuses meth.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Lay off the meth, you’re seeing things again bubba.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:30 amso un american to censore people based on the opinion,
Comment by gods warrior — August 15, 2007 @ 12:30 am
That’s the standard practice on every republican site. Glad that you agree that you’re unamerican.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:31 amWhat are talking about, dude? This thread is about Greenwald’s lies. Comment by Pac — August 15, 2007 @ 12:31 am
More wingnut delusions. Must be a new shipment of meth from GOP central command.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:32 amGreenwald speaks truth and the lying thug neo-cons cannot prove anything he daid wrong…they do as they always do, attack the messenger.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:33 amRonjazz is a chickenhawker because he works at KFC, and he abuses meth.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano
Oh, another Norbert Weiner is visiting us. Debate is over, folks.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:33 am“Hey, if you were visiting Rome would you write an article in which you make a point of saying that you didn’t go into the boring suburbs or visit some tourist trap?”
Yeah, contrary to it’s name, ethnic cleansing can be quite messy, and distasteful to witness. Better to stay on the lit streets, with a military contingent.
What was that old joke about the drunk, who loses his glasses next to a dark alley – and then walks over to look for them by the lamppost, because “the light’s better over here?”
August 15th, 2007 at 12:35 amYea, Ohanlon doesn’t have a high regard for “THAT” kind of journalism.
He prefers the pre-arranged staged kind.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:37 amComment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano
Pinhead Patterico?
Now there’s an accurate source, P!
N’yuk, n’yuk, n’yuk…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:39 amIraq is now the #2 “failed state” in the world, only Sudan is worse. One million more violent deaths since March 2003 than normal. One in
eight Iraqi children die before the age of five. One in four Afghan children. Four million Iraqi refugees. About 50% unemployment. Electricity one hour a day in Baghdad when temperature is over 120F. Queue 24 hours for gasoline. Majority of Iraqis approve of attacks on US troops. 75% of Iraqis oppose the oil that is being forced on them.
Clinton did NOT commit perjury. Link or you are a liar.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:41 amor george looney….as he cashes his million dollar paycheck and undermines the troops.
Comment by gods warrior
Go change your Underoos.
You smell like ass!
Again!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:42 am“Attacks are down 50% in Iraq. Gen. Petraious is going to report in September that the surge has been a huge success.”
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano
Ah, yes, that’s why the Sunnis have all withdrawn from the Iraqi government.
The sweet smell of success…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:44 amGen. Petraious is going to report in September that the surge has been a huge success.
Comment by “Sonny”
If he wants to keep his job—then he must. If you tell the truth, you get fired.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:46 am“why do you lower the discourse to petty insults rather than the issues”
Comment by gods warrior
Because I’m only here to puncture self-inflated nobodies like you…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:46 amFar be it from me to get back on the topic but; the real issue is that O’Hanlon, and the media, described him as an “opponent of the war” who “now sees amazing progress”. O’Hanlon has now changed his tune and admitted he’s a “war supporter” and always has been. Since he misrepresented himself I find his opinions suspect.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:46 am“It’s good to flush out the seperatists.”
Comment by diPlomat
Who were democratically elected – yup, this is going to be just the tipping point that turns Iraq into Democracyland.
I’m sold.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:50 am“…the seperatists.”
“…you prople”
“…the elecion”
It’s good to sort out those that can’t spell too!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:51 am“The Lib media misrepresented him as a “war critic†(a title that he never used).”
Comment by diPlomat
So Fox is now a part of the “Lib media?”
They did it, as well.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:52 am“you can blog too. but we ony have a year to get the truth out about our President on the internet aainst all the liberal lies.
Comment by gods warrior”
Hey that’s a great idea. There’s only one problem with it. Not many of the 26% have an internet connection or know how to use a computer. But, hey, it’s worth a try.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:52 am“Umm… the US is preventing the ethnic cleansing.
Comment by Jim Jones “
Oh, I get it. There was ethnic cleansing going on in Iraq and that’s why we invaded them and no occupy their country. What is that, reason number 732?
August 15th, 2007 at 12:54 amUmmm… everyone knew that he was planning the trip with the military.
Comment by clipse — August 15, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Ummm…everyone knew he was a cheap whore for the
August 15th, 2007 at 12:54 amGOP, lies are his currency. Greenwald rightly and accurately called him on his lies, he admitted them, and now Greenwald’s the bad guy? No wonder you worship at the shit-stained toilet of George Bush, the biggest traitor since Benedict Arnold. Not one military member should obey the orders of a deserter. Mass desertion should be the order of the day, and Bush would have nothing to say about it, being the original deserter. there is nothing to win in iraq except more ill-gotten billions of taxpaye money for fat, white, already-rich traitors, who will invest it in China and Russia and everywhere but America. Your hatred for your country should bring you to the Hague alongside the Deserter-In-Chief and his gang of mass-murdering thieves.
“Almost every major media outlet has characterized O’Hanlan as a sharp critic of the Iraq war.
He’s a liberal and Brookings is a liberal thinktank.
Comment by “Sonny Red” Indelicato “
And you, sir, are an idiot. But, that’s a job requirement to be a Republican troll, so I guess it’s a given.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:55 amYeah, and they left on their own accord. They were free to go.
What’s your point?
Comment by Jim Jones
It should be quite obvious. The escalation is doomed to failure, because the political element is in shambles.
What’s your point?
August 15th, 2007 at 12:55 amIn fact, he did assume the mantle of “war critic” in several interviews. I believe some of them were on Fox.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:56 amOf course.
Libs run the whole MSM.
Comment by Jim Jones
There ain’t no such beast. Next, you’ll be extolling on the fantasy “Islamofascists.”
August 15th, 2007 at 12:58 amThis war belongs to Bush. He started this unnecessary war of choice. It has nothing to do with terrorism. This war will be his failed legacy. It is a testament to his incompetence. He can’t blame the democrats for the mess in Iraq. Bush alone bears responsibility for the failed surge.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:00 amdont understand why you prople dont want a success here, we can surge to victory, our government is just been trying to help and rebuild and hold, and the iraqis are better off now, so why hate us winning, just because defeatocrats lost the elecion to a real leader?
Comment by gods warrior — August 15, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Which Iraqis are better off? the 650,000 dead ones, or the 2 million wandering the desert without homes or income? Or the ones with one hour of electricity a day? Or the ones trapped in their homes with no electricity or running water? Or the 175 blown up today? Bush is not a leader, he is a coward. He has led nothing, he has even turned the war over to a flunky. He is a thief, lower than Al Qaeda, less character and courage than Bin Laden, more dangerous to the USA than the Taliban. And y8ou, as a sniveling, unquestioning fellator of Bush, are not even an American any more. You’re just a pig waiting for slop from your vicious, fascist masters.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:03 am“We went to Iraq to take out Saddam because he was violating UN resolutions. We are there now to prevent a pan-Muslim blood-bath and the ethnic cleansing that accompanies it.”
Comment by diP-set
Your guys made the political calculation before the ‘02 midterms to push for invasion, even though dems were trying to push it off until after the election. Your party won, and now you’re stuck with the failed policy you rode in on. Suck it up, little soldier, and prepare to pay for that ‘02 strong-arming. You guys will be lucky to even be a political party after the next election.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:03 amI can give you more if needed.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:04 am“so why hate us winning, just because defeatocrats lost the elecion to a real leader?”
Comment by gods warrior
The White Man’s Burden, given a new makeover.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:05 amIraq had no WMDs. Bush lied to Congress when he said Saddam tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. Wilson exposed this lie and 16 words were removed from the SOTU speech. Iraq has no connection to terrorism or the attacks of 9-11.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:06 am“This isn’t about partisan politics. This is about doing the right thing.”
Comment by t.i.P.
Baloney.
Doing the right thing is something unknown to republicans – there is always a political payoff.
If you wanted to do the right thing, why did you guys arm terrorists and dictators? Did you really think there would be no blowback?
August 15th, 2007 at 1:08 amSaddam would have been in violation of the UN resolution if he did not allow weapons inspectors back in, did not get rid of WMD, and did not account for past WMD. But, he did, he did, and he did. That is why the Security Council was 4-11 opposed to the invasion. The congressional authority was to go through the UN. Bush didn’t. We pulled out when it became clear what the Security Council vote would be (even forgetting about a Big Five veto). Remember, we had them bugged.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:09 am“genocide will devastate them.”
Comment by Anon — August 15, 2007 @
Like the stuff their experiencing now is just a little roughhousing…
August 15th, 2007 at 1:09 am“No. Try to keep up, liberal.
We went to Iraq to take out Saddam because he was violating UN resolutions. We are there now to prevent a pan-Muslim blood-bath and the ethnic cleansing that accompanies it.
Comment by diP-set”
No, try to keep up idiot. We went to Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction that could fly across the ocean and kill us all. Saddam was not violating UN resolutions. The UN weapons investigators were on the ground the day that Bush announced on TV that Saddam had kicked them out of the country.
Try to use a little brain matter (what little you have) and read what Scott Ritter has to say on the subject. He was there, he knows the truth.
But, Republicans are incapable of dealing with truths because it hurts too much, so they lie to themselves until they actually start believing their lies.
You do this very well.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:10 am“The Brits confirmed the attempt, and so did the Senate Intel committee.”
No.
The republican-written appendice did, but not the actual report.
Try again.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:12 amDems follow polls; they don’t lead.
Comment by “Sonny”
Unfortunately, they don’t follow polls well enough because 71% of Americans (including 42% of Republicans) want us completely out of Iraq by April 2008. And 66% want universal single-payer healthcare.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:12 am“I can’t believe you are turning this into something political!”
Comment by P
Save the faux outrage, P. If you cared that much you’d enlist.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:14 amDoes anyone have a count on “p’s” personalities? I’m thinking that he would prove an interesting case for clinical psychologists. Maybe one for the record books.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:14 am“and the iraqis are better off now, “
I’m willing to bet that the Iraqi’s would not agree with you. With Saddam they had reliable electricity, fresh water, hospitals, schools, and enough food. You know, all those basics that we need to survive. They have none of that now. So, please tell me how they are better off. Oh, I forgot to mention, they are being subjugated by the country that invaded them. I know that’s a pretty big word, so here’s the definition:
sub·ju·gate
–verb (used with object), -gat·ed, -gat·ing.
1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
That pretty much describes what we have done and are continuing to do to the people still living in Iraq.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:15 amWe went to Iraq to take out Saddam because he was violating UN resolutions. We are there now to prevent a pan-Muslim blood-bath and the ethnic cleansing that accompanies it.
Comment by diP-set — August 15, 2007 @ 12:57 am
Both wrong. We went to kill Saddam and steal his oil, and in doing so we SET OFF a Pan-Muslim bloodbath and the ethnic cleansing that accompanied it, which we are joining.
“When the General reports major gains in Iraq, even the Dems are going to have to start supporting the surge. Dems follow polls; they don’t lead.
Comment by “Sonny Red” Indelicato — August 15, 2007 @ 12:57 am”
When the general lies to the American public, and he most certainly will, or lose his job and his pension, even the dems are going to have to start impeachment proceedings. Dems follow the Constitution; they don’t use it to wipe themselves like Bush does.
“Almost every major media outlet has characterized O’Hanlan as a sharp critic of the Iraq war.
He’s a liberal and Brookings is a liberal thinktank.
Comment by “Sonny Red” Indelicato — August 15, 2007 @ 12:53 am”
This is the liberal media that has no credibility, right? And O’Hanlon’s own words of yesterday that he was a war supporter are, what, the liberal media again? And O’hanlon’s admission that the war was a disaster and that he is a staunch Bush conservative? Liberal media?
You’re done. p, caught red-handed and flat-footed in your own lies and treason. Pawned. Owned. Exposed for a fraud, a liar, an America-hater. You might as well leave, your posts will be passed over like a turd on the sidewalk that only the likes of you will stop to pick up for a later snack. You are now the official TP laughingstock, the benchmark for wingnut insanity. Congratulations, you have sunk to Rove’s level, and even he has run away. Time for you to go as well, and take the stench of desperation and treason with you.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:16 amAnd I KNOW that we have to stay in Iraq so as to save the lives of billions of Iraqis.
Comment by LIKE A PIMP!
Take a pill, P. There aren’t billions of Iraqis.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:17 am“right on, we cant leave those people, genocide will devastate them.
Comment by Anon”
Anyone here have any idea when this new talking point came out? I’m thinking it was about a week ago. Isn’t it funny how all of a sudden we can’t leave because if we do it will result in genocide.
They have run out of arguments and this seems to be their last shot.
Sorry guys, we’re not buying it and I doubt that the remainder of the American public is buying it.
They are fed up and done with Iraq. We won the war and lost the occupation. But that makes sense since there is no way to “win” an occupation.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:17 am“barfly, Ted Stevens would drub you over, you’d beg for him to let you up, then you’d swallow.”
Comment by rightISright
When P starts masturbating over Ted Stevens, it’s time to call it a night. I hope you (and your hand) get lucky.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:20 amTry reading this again. I can only say it for you. I cannot comprehend it for you!:
…Saddam WOULD HAVE been in violation of the UN resolution IF he did not allow weapons inspectors back in, did not get rid of WMD, and did not account for past WMD.
BUT, HE DID, HE DID, AND HE DID.
That is why the Security Council was 4-11 opposed to the invasion. The congressional authority was to go through the UN. An invasion is a violation of international law unless it goes through the Security Council.
Bush DID NOT. We pulled out when it became clear what the Security Council vote would be (even forgetting about a Big Five veto). Remember, we had them bugged.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:27 amI am, in fact, a lib. And I KNOW that we have to stay in Iraq so as to save the lives of billions of Iraqis.
Comment by LIKE A PIMP! — August 15, 2007 @ 1:15 am
In fact, you are a liar and an idiot. ther are no billions of Iraqis, and every day we stay, hundreds more die. the problem is, Americans are dying as well, and Americans are being blamed for this disaster, as we should be.
That number has dropped by 10%, and support for the surge has gained 10%. You are using old polls, “Keith.â€
Comment by Willie Glasses — August 15, 2007 @ 1:16 am
You are a liar as well, along with the administrations pollsters. Some people think the surge may be working, but these same people still want us out as soon as possible. people not quite as stupid as you know that the surge is too little too late, too limited and a PR stunt, like Bush’s kidnapping of sailors for a photo op with his biggest lie “Mission Accomplished”. You are using imaginary polls. It’s all you have left, because all of the facts and logic are comlletely against you. You are arguing from emotion and frustration, like first-graders, only less capably. Your leaders overreached, even kristol admitted as much last night. Your leaders screwed up badly, even Kristol admiited that last night. Kristol said Bush and Betrayus aren’ to be trusted last night. where does that leave you? Out in the cold, holding the bag. Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. resorting to lies, lowering yourselves to treason, all to follow a deserter. Shame on you.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:28 amComment by Dr. Dog — August 15, 2007 @ 1:29 am
I am not your personal tudor, asswipe.
Try a source of information better than Fox News.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:32 amNo WMDs were found in Iraq. Bush twisted the intelligence to make a false case for going to war. He lied to Congress. No yellow cake uranium was bought from Niger. The intelligence was made to fit the policy. The 16 words are no longer part of the Congressional record.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:33 amThe CIA sent Wilson to Niger not Plame. There is no connection between Saddam and bin Laden. In fact bin Laden hated Saddam.
If we leave, the Iraqis will be massacred.
Comment by Dr. Dog — August 15, 2007 @ 1:32 am
And that’s different from today how, exactly? idiot.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:34 amBin Laden hated Saddam for not standing up to us. Bin Laden hated the US and blamed Saddam for taking weapons from Rumsfeld. None of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis. The NIE says that al Qaeda (which is based in Afghanistan not Iraq) is back to its original strength since before 9-11. There was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq before Bush went in.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:38 amBill’s the perv, because his wife was right down the hall.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:20 am
His wife got over it but you can’t. Jealousy will kill you kid.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:41 amBush let bin Laden go at Tora Bora. He never sent in the reinforcements to take him out. He outsourced the job to inept Afghan warlords who let bin Laden go. Al Qaeda is back to its original strength. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or al Qaeda. Al Qaeda in Iraq has no known connection to bin Laden other than sympathy for the same ideology. They don’t share funds or logistics.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:43 amSupport for the surge is up 10%. We need to keep this PR campaign up.
Comment by “Sonny Black” Napolitano — August 15, 2007 @ 12:21 am
Neocons don’t care how many soldiers or innocent Iraqis die each day. All you pigs care about is having your spin machines spew the right PR to the masses. Sick f*cks.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:43 amWhoa… quite the troll infestation.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:44 amThere are more terrorists in the world today than before we went into Iraq (NIE). We are less safe today than we were before we went into Iraq. Our occupation in Iraq is used as a recruiting tool by the the insurgents. Most Iraqis want us out. American people want us out. Afghanistan is the real war on terror not Iraq. Bush shut down the CIA unit meant to find bin Laden. We were safer under Clinton than under Bush.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:46 amOh so THIS is where Jake D went.
Hi Jake!
:D
How “r” ya?
August 15th, 2007 at 1:47 amJake Red.
Links please. Links or you are lying.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:48 amDems think it is ok to cheat on your wife.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 1:44 am
You’re damned right, Sonny Red. Dole, Gingrich, Rudi… oops! My bad… they’re all GOOPers. Well, I’ll keep looking…
August 15th, 2007 at 1:48 amDems think it is ok to cheat on your wife.
Comment by Sonny D — August 15, 2007 @ 1:44 am
No.
Dems just think its ok to cheat on YOUR wife.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:49 amThe surge was supposed to provide Maliki enough room to make political concessions according to Bush. No political progress has been made. There is no oil law. Al Sadr is stronger than ever. Shiia militias have not been disbanded. Violence has spread to northern Iraq. Sunnis have left the Cabinet. Parliament is on vacation as soldiers continue to die. The surge has failed.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:49 amOhanlon was paid through back channels from the Bush administration to come out and push the war in Iraq, and fan the flames for war with Iran.
Cheney is most likely the spearhead. (and the Dickhead).
Bush is just digging their pit deeper with this crap.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:51 amClinton used an intern for cheap sex with his wife down the hall.
Comment by Sonny inbRed — August 15, 2007 @ 1:50 am
No.
If you look at the offical transcripts from the Starr report, you’ll see that the intern used Clinton for cheap sex, with his wife down the hall.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:52 amOhanlon was paid through back channels from the Bush administration
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Liar.
Comment by Sonny cornfed — August 15, 2007 @ 1:51 am
Prove it.
LINK or admit you’re lying.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:53 amClinton used an intern for cheap sex with his wife down the hall.
Comment by Sonny inbRed — August 15, 2007 @ 1:50 am
Not true. But bush used the male hooker as a fake reporter, among other things. Fact is stranger than fiction, especially when perverted republicans are around.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:54 amThe GOPers all married those women.
Clinton used an intern for cheap sex with his wife down the hall.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 1:50 am
At the time the GOOPers were having the affairs, they certainly were not married, so you’re claiming “marriage” somehow absolved the GOOPers doesn’t make sense.
And as for Bill, at least it wasn’t male pages, or diapers, for that matter.
Boys will be boys, huh?
August 15th, 2007 at 1:54 amEverybody had a turn with Bartlebee’s wife.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 1:51 am
That might hurt more if I was married.
:|
Of course, I was once engaged.
To your mom.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:54 amWell, we weren’t really engaged.
I just told her that so she’d swallow.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:55 amProbus, the next post you put up better have links at the end of it. Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 1:50 am
Make wild claims that are known to be false, and demand others post links. Yep, another republican lunatic has arrived. More likely it’s the same republican lunatic with just another name. This kind of crazy is rarer than a straight catholic priest!
August 15th, 2007 at 1:55 amProve it.
LINK or admit you are lying.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 1:55 am
Projection, BORING!
August 15th, 2007 at 1:56 amI don’t know why she didn’t like doing that though.
Your dad seemed to love it.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:56 amIn fact, you might be my son, er…..sonny.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:57 amThe GOPers all married those women.
Clinton used an intern for cheap sex with his wife down the hall.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 1:50 am
Clinton? That describes Rudy and Gingrich, but no Clinton.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:58 am:|
In retrospect, I probably should have paid for that abortion.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:58 amBartlebee is the poster boy for legalized abortion.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 1:57 am
Another hypocritical republican – surprise!
August 15th, 2007 at 1:59 amMaliki promised he would make the progress once the surge began. Didn’t happened. We were told once the Iraqi forces were trained, they would stand up so our guys could stand down. Hasn’t happened.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:59 amProjection. Boring!
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Mr. Pee has wet himself again.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:59 amProjection.
Comment by Sonny boy? — August 15, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Projection? No, I didn’t get any movies of it.
But I do have some stills.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:00 amThey are not being massacred now, methman.
Comment by Dr. Dog — August 15, 2007 @ 1:36 am
175 massacred today, ballbreath. You grow ever more stupid and unAmerican with every lie and every excuse for that sick, cocaine-addled, dry-drunk deserter you fellate. Fact-free, becuse facts lean left, and there’s no denying it. too bad for you, LOSER.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:00 amNo. Your dad loves what you do to him sexually.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:00 am
Republicans accusing others of sexual perversion. Projection. HOW BORING….
August 15th, 2007 at 2:01 amNational Geographic took em till they figured out your mom wasn’t really a pygmy.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:01 amLink or it’s a lie.
Your choice.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:02 am
Like you decide choices? BAHAHAA, another delusional chickenhawk, too balless to serve, yet posturing to pretend they have them. BORING!!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:03 amYour dad loves what you do to him sexually.
Comment by Sonny inbRed — August 15, 2007 @ 2:00 am
See and thats why the show failed.
You guys really aren’t gifted in the wit department.
:|
Or the wits dept either for that matter.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:04 amMaliki was supposed to let Sunnis into the government. Sunnis have left the Cabinet. Bush can no longer control Maliki, he couldn’t even stop him from going to Iran.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:04 amSonny Red, the color of republican dingleberries.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:05 amWell, if repeating “projection, how boring” all night is all you’ve got, I’ve got better things to do.
I’ll be back when they send in a troll that doesn’t suck as badly as you.
See you in the funny papers fritz.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:06 amBush couldn’t even stop parliament from taking a vacation while American troops and Iraqis continue to die everyday. He has himself taken a vacation as our troops continue to die everyday.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:06 amYour choice.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:02 am
i’m not your mother. She’s the one looking for your tiny dick with her magnifying glass. Look it up, you lazy inbred retard.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:06 amtest
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:06 am
You fail as always, dingleberry.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:07 amlink provided:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=WCNC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
August 15th, 2007 at 2:08 amLiar.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Yep, you’re a liar. That’s the only truth you’ve posted.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:09 amProjection. How boring.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:10 am
We all agree, your projection is boring, as are you senseless, unfounded unsubstantiated propaganda… You think we haven’t heard your wingnut bullsh’t a thousand times before?
August 15th, 2007 at 2:11 amp is in permanent meltdown, denial has taken over as its main condition. what a useless, antiamerican piece of crap. time to flush him. bye p, you’re swirling the bowl. enjoy your lifelong irrelevance, and the Dem majority as well.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:12 amPete, where does it show US troops did that as Ronjazz/Meth alleged?
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:11 am
In the headline. HEHE, whoever said you were stupid was being generous – methhead!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:12 amHypocrite.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:11 am
Yes you are.
Look in the mirror.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:12 am
Yes you should, but won’t.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:13 amp is in permanent meltdown, denial has taken over as its main condition. what a useless, antiamerican piece of crap. time to flush him. bye p, you’re swirling the bowl. enjoy your lifelong irrelevance, and the Dem majority as well. Comment by ronjazz — August 15, 2007 @ 2:12 am
To be fair, he was melted down before he killed his ex-girlfriend. It’s not exclusively a republican meltdown.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:14 amRonjazz made no such allegation.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:15 amProjection. How boring. Go join the military, coward.\
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:13 am
Says the chickenhawk. More boring projection. I’ve had t’rds smarter than you that I’ve sh’t. ZZZZzzzzz….
August 15th, 2007 at 2:15 amRonjazz made no such allegation.
Comment by pete — August 15, 2007 @ 2:15 am
Mr. P is a complete schizoid – that’s why he murdered his ex-girlfriend. She really is dead…
August 15th, 2007 at 2:16 amYes he did.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:16 am
Altered reality, paranoid, ’sshole behavior. Yep another strung out republican methhead.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:17 amSays the chickenhawk too stupid to shit in the toilet.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:17 am
ZZZzzzz Poor retard doesn’t know the definition of Chickenhawks. Pathetic… Nor can he read.
Mr. Pee. the murdering psycho.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:18 amSays the chickenhawk too stupid to shit in the toilet.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:17 am
The toilet is exactly where you are! sh’t for brains.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:19 amProjection. How boring.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:18 am
Yes, but you have no life but be annoying, since you have no b’lls to go fight…
August 15th, 2007 at 2:19 amYou.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:19 am
That would be an accusation, not a definition. Poor linguistically challenged little dingleberry.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:20 amHypocrite.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:19 am
Yep, you are…
That’s why you are so compelled to answer me!
You are my slave! Answer my posts slave!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:21 amRonjazz made no such allegation.
Comment by pete — August 15, 2007 @ 2:15 am
pete, he is deep into his imaginary world, where people actually listen to his crap. the loss of rove and three wars has destroyed his id, and his original personality has been altered by a weird form of post-traumatic stress disorder that comes over the socially inept. he’s also somewhat retarded mentally and emotionally, leaving him unable to cope with the realities of parental rejection and societal shunning. In a just (non-republican) world, treatment would be readily available, or a decent long-term hospital, but now he is left to cope with the rejection of his family and society in general without professional help. he still is a worthless piece of turd, but it may not be entirely his fault. he comes here for attention, no matter how negative, and we, being kind liberals, give it to him. i’m not sure it will ever have any effect on him, however, as he is very far gone.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:21 amSays the guy who shit all over himself and is throwing it.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:20 am
That’s you.
Says the coward who never served.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:20 am
Also you.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:21 amYou are a chickenhawk.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:21 am
Dance puppet, dance!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:22 amYou are a chickenhawk.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:21 am
Dance puppet, dance puppet!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:22 amSays the guy who can’t stop responding to my posts.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:22 am
Dance puppet, dance!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:23 amRonjazz just took another hit of meth. He’s ready to go all night.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:23 am
Dance puppet, dance!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:23 amOHanlonsHemorrhoid says while dancing like a turd. Projection. Boring.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:23 am
Dance puppet, dance! Can’t help yourself, no self control!!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:24 amSays the guy on meth who can’t stop dancing. Methhead.
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:25 am
Dance puppet, dance!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:26 amDance puppet, dance!
Comment by Sonny Red — August 15, 2007 @ 2:26 am
Dance puppet, dance!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:27 amsee, pete, watch him beg for attention, dancing like a monkey on a string. it is a minor case, because of how little he offers society, but bears some interest, because there are many others like him, who have never served their country and are tortured by theri cowardice, and so lash out at those of us who knowingly reject the murderous policies of a drunken deserter, confident in our superior intellect and reasoning capabilities, while sonny-p-dog is merely afraid to enlist, and can make no logical rational for his cowardice. the medical community is divided as to whether the cowardice is a family trait or a result of sexual molestation by his dachsund.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:28 amI use meth with Ronjazz.
Comment by OHanlonsHemorrhoid — August 15, 2007 @ 2:28 am
Hi-jacking my name, the ultimate act of a desperate puppet! Dance, coward, dance!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:29 amRonjazz, I concur with your diagnoses. I just figured it might distract the poor soul, from it’s pain, to read about the gory deaths of “filthy Arabs”; kind of a bedtime story for sociopaths. Alas, I should have let him drink his warm milk first. Apparently he had enough energy left to concoct another falsehood.
I, however, have had my warm milk so, I’m off to bed. I’ll leave the rescue efforts in your capable hands.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:29 amsee, pete, watch him beg for attention, dancing like a monkey on a string. Comment by ronjazz — August 15, 2007 @ 2:28 am
Yeah, ironic isn’t it? What a little puppet. Doesn’t get the irony that his whole life is being a puppet!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:30 amThe Iraq war, was a war of choice. There was no national security threat from Saddam as he had no WMDs. Bush lied to us for this he should be impeached and convicted in Congress. As should Cheney.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:33 amanother manifestation of p’s condition is the assuming of the names of his intellectual superiors in his posts; it gives him some comfort to feel, ever so briefly, that he is an equal with other humans. pure delusion, of course, but understandable, given the very low mental prowess brought about by living in excessive fear of islamofascists every day. there may also be a physical manifestation caused by the wearing of piss-soaked women’s panties for days at a time, but the trade-off is that he feels closer to his mother, and thus can be a little more controllable. he also projects social interaction with his superiors, usually involving the use of drugs or some kind of perverted sexual act. this is taken from his real-life encounters as a male prostitute, and rapidly confuses his boundaries between reality and fantasy. his career in prostitution came to an end when he couldn’t figure out a way to carry that many quarters home.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:36 am“Without solutions, the Bush detractors can only tear others apart. This is their failing. They are reckless.
Comment by Anon — August 14, 2007 @ 11:18 pm”
I fixed your statement for you. And you are welcome.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:36 amI fixed your statement for you. And you are welcome.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 15, 2007 @ 2:36 am
You mean you created partisan hack bullsh’t. Typical
August 15th, 2007 at 2:40 amronjazz’s wierd rants seem drug induced.\
Comment by Dr. Dog — August 15, 2007 @ 2:37 am
Well you do seem like the expert on drug induced rants. So that explains the projection,
Seek help for that, man.
Comment by Dr. Dog — August 15, 2007 @ 2:38 am
Gay sex isn’t a disease, but homophobia is. More republican projection. BORING!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:41 am“Without solutions, the Bush detractors can only tear others apart. This is their failing. They are reckless.
Now, this is a fine example of delusionary action. bigfoot, who shares a bench with p, thinks that the fact that Bush detrators tear others apart is a failing, has himself failed to complete the connection that the liberals are tearing apart the rightwing structure of lies and treason. he sees it as reckless because it is of immediate threat to him and his artificial worldview, without which he is just a lost drifter, without friends or respect. this is a somewhat different manifestation of the same fear and shame brought about by the combined threats of islamofascists and abusive dachsunds, manifesting itself in delusions of adequacy. a sad case, with no hope.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:43 amOne of the oldest courtroom tricks in the trade. If you’re a defense attorney whose client doesn’t have a case, you avoid the facts, and instead, personally attack the witness. Put more simply, you attack the messenger rather than the message.
Completely predictable.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:44 amhideous trolls
August 15th, 2007 at 2:54 amAll I do is repeat back what the conserative says. I don’t think at all. I’m like a parrot but only more stupid.
Comment by OHanlonsHemorrhoid — August 15, 2007 @ 2:51 am
Ah, hijacking, the act of terrorists and republicans – sorry for the redundant adjectives.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:55 amRepublican parrots, accusing others of parroting, while posting talking points!!!! Ah the irony!!
It will of course be lost on the brain-dead parrot!
August 15th, 2007 at 2:58 amTrolls
When the republicans can’t pay you any longer will you go back to flip’n – burgers not homes?
August 15th, 2007 at 3:02 amOh so your going to steal someones identity and go back to being a male prostitute?
August 15th, 2007 at 3:22 amWhat do the pay you for acting like a fool here?
August 15th, 2007 at 3:24 amReally. How much do they pay you to come to this site and be disruptive by posting under other poster’s names?
August 15th, 2007 at 3:30 amReally. How much do they pay you to come to this site and be disruptive by posting under other poster’s names?
August 15th, 2007 at 3:43 amI’m serious. How much do they pay you to come to this site and be disruptive by posting under other poster’s names?
August 15th, 2007 at 3:44 amTROLL ALERT!! TROLL ALERT!!
The trolls are out of control!!
August 15th, 2007 at 4:19 amThe trolls are out of control!!
Comment by troll alert
It is just one. He will be banned again. Lets not make a great deal out of that frustrated moron.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:18 amThe heinous troll is not old enough to be married, much less act like an adult, have a work history, or graduate from high school.
Remember the internet allows 12 year olds to try and act like and engage with adults. The reason it acts like the screaming child in the room is for attention.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:21 amUS set to declare Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group
Bush administration set to officially blacklist the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, US officials say.
what next Iranaians declare Bushes Blackwater republican guard terrorist group
August 15th, 2007 at 7:24 amBush’s lethal legacy: more executions
August 15th, 2007 at 7:24 amThe US already kills more of its prisoners than almost any other country. Now the White House plans to cut the right of appeal of death row inmates…
Just read about 120 posts before it got annoying:
Rightwing trolls, here is an idea, why don’t you actually go check up the facts for yourselves, rather then relying on your favourite fantasies to supply them for you?
Oh, I forgot, part of being on the rightwing is liking being lied to.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:41 amRent, Download “Iraq for sale The war profiteers” Oh yeah, thats a Robert Greenwald film……Awesome!
“Shut up and Sing” awesome as well. Natalie says it again for those who could not hear her the first time.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:03 amWho cares what the discredited O’Hanlon says about anybody?
Why pay atttention to him? Try ignoring the ignoramous, its good for your digestion.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:13 am“More time and readership than he deserves”
Much like your D.O.D. arranged media tour? Oh yes, everyone who writes an editorial on the iraq occupation instantly gets to go on 10+ TV appearances within 48 hours of publication to spit out their propaganda.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:58 am“Well, I don’t have high regard for the kind of journalism that Mr. Greenwald has carried out here,†O’Hanlon said. “I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time rebutting Mr. Greenwald because he’s had frankly more time and more readership than he deserves.â€
In other words, Greenwald was spot-on: O’Reil –er, I mean O’Hanlon is a willing tool for the warmongering propagandists, and has admitted he’s been a supporter of the war from the start.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pmclipse — August 14, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
In the Preident’s universe, anyone who occupies the same planet as anyone else is a suspect. If you’re not happy with the guilt by association, tell your GOP legal counsel to turn over the e-mails; and stop hiding evidence Congress wants related to WH counsel complicity with rendition, illegal warfare, and prisoner abuse.
Nobody made the GOP leadership do this; but they would rather spend time updating wikis than complying with the law. If you do not like being associated with alleged war criminals, stop working with the GOP. Simple as that. Your President is a war criminal.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:47 pmAttacking Greenwald shows that O’Hanlon is defeated. Greenwald is probably the best, highest quality writer on the Internet.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:47 pm120. Your “quote” appers to have been maliciously and recklesly fabricated. The first use of the words in the quote are your quote, not before.
This has been fabricated:
It appears the only way you can “argue” is if you point to illusory things.
- Where is the time quote?
- Why are you fabricating quotes?
- What is your goal of attributing made up quotes to a particular person?
the answers do not look good for you: It appears your “argument” about Greenwald and the others issues on this board cannot be supported unless you mislead people. Let the world see: this is your fabrication. Your responsibility. And your choice to mislead. Nobody made you do this.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:51 pmTake a look at 24. The original comments were about the Hanldon-Brookings attention on Greenwald. the issue was simple: Rather than respond to Greenwal’s concerns about war crimes and others issues on illegal Bush Conduct, Brookings and others like Hanlon appear to want to change the subject.
What we do know is OVP did receive briefings; and that DoD General Counsel did provide briefings on rendition to the WH Counsel. It remains to be understood why Brookings would avoid the issue of civilian policy advisor complicitywith war crimes; and others issues Greenwald raised.
Let’s turn to the absurd discussion. Note the following: Despite Hanlon failing to discuss war crimes issues, the subsequent question is never answered: What role did Brookings and other civilian policy advisors have in implementing rendition, prisoner abuse, and other illegal war crimez? o answer.
Now, look at the following interchange, and notice: Despite Hanlson-Brookings not responding to Greenwald’s concerns with illegal war crimes, and prisoner abuse, Hanlon is changing the subject. But not closely, rather than respond to taht question, the “great leap” is whether a question about Hanon’s diversion is or is not something elsel”
Note the diversion: The issue is changing from Hanlon’s diversino from war crimes; to whether — a question about that diversion — “means” that Hanlon is or isn’t a terrorist.
Stunning. What a convoluted logic line. Again, the issue is Greenwald has well raised questions about the illegal warfare; and no where does Hanlon address Greenwald’s reasonable concerns. Rather than respond to those questions about Hanlon-Brookings apparent complicity with war crimes planning, the issue changes to “how dare you pretend that supporting illegal warfare is terrorism” [or some other convoluted logic.]
Time for the public to ak: Do you want the retarded people like the President and GOP running the country; or do you want people who are going to comply with the law; or those who, when caught, are going to take their punishment?
This leadership refuses to be accoutnable, but wants to use convoluted logic to avoid responsibility. Multiple errors. Greenwald is well raising questions about war crimes which Hanlon and Brookings refuse to admit are valid questions. We can only wonder why Hanlon and Brookings refuse to discuss the war crimes issues; or what role they may have played in advising the President on prisoner abuse, illegal warfare, and expanded illegal spying. Hanlong won’t discuss these issues; he’ll only blame Greenwald for daring to raise the legal issues. Not looking good for Brookings or Hanlon.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pm125 is an example of a comment that relies on a fabricated quote; and there’s been no fact checking on that quote.
See 257 on the details of the fabrication.
125 is churning a fabrication. Watch out everyone.
- 125, why aren’t you checking the quote before you copy it?
- Why are you adding words to the fabricaed quote?
- What is your intention of changing a farication into something else?
You have no credibility.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:04 pm221. Another fabrication and deliberate effort to mislead. This is arguably reckless.
The poster changed the words to communicate the wrong, incorect, invalid, and contradictory meaning. Why do you embrass yourself?
Here is the original quote at 6:
Note the word “Bush defenders” at 6. That’s the original intent: Hanlon’s only option — as a Bush defender — is to avoid the issues, attack Greenwald, and ignore the war crimes issues. This is valid: “Without solutions, the Bush defenders can only tear others apart.
Now consider the follow-up fabrication, which totally ignore the meaning of the quote, changing “defender” to “detractors”:
Speak for yourself. If you want to fabricate quotes, take responsibilty for that.
The ‘rewrite” has changed the focuse from Hanlon’s diversions, and refuses to accept that the Bush defenders are doing what Hanlon is doing: Ignoring war crimes issues, and fabricating things. That’s not a legal defense, especially when war crimes prosecutors realize that this is the “only” defense possible.
How many times has Greenwald raised the issues of War Crimes? Hanlon won’t talk about that. How many times has Greenwald raised the issues of impeachable offenses? Hanlon is silent on that, can only go after Greenwald. FISA violatoins? Again, Hanlon can only complain about Greenwald. Illegal prisoner abuse? Hanlon blames Greenwald for correctly reporting the legal issues.
if you want answers why is anyone bothering to interview Hanlon or anyone from Brookings? Greenwald’s got the right questions. War crimes prosecutors will have to present the answers to the tribunal. It appears Hanlon and Brookings are part of a smokscreen away from Greenwald’s valid questions over illegal activity.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:13 pm“that kind of journalism”… you mean the type where they look logically at a situation and ask hard questions, and then write about it?
unlike that kind of “academic” “investigation” that you performed where you go on a junket paid for, arranged, monitored, and choreographed by politicos, THEN don’t disclose those facts to your readers… you must be talking about YOUR type of propaganda.
the problem for you, mr o’hanlon, is that people see the difference and prefer the former over the blather you spout…
it sucks to be exposed, huh?
August 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pm