The NY Times reports:
An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon at close range before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker. […]
At least a dozen more people were killed in the attack.
CNN reports that President Bush condemned the attack from his ranch in Crawford, and that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has called an emergency cabinet meeting. A State Department spokesman said the administration “certainly” condemned the attack on the rally, adding, “It demonstrates that there are still those in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance democracy.”
UPDATE: The Washington Wire has more.
bush is the peace president, of course he condemned it…. snark.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:16 am“It demonstrates that there are still those in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance democracy.â€
Namely, the dictator Musharraf.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:16 amhmmm… who would wanna kill her?
December 27th, 2007 at 10:20 amAnd this is the reaction from Bushco? Any sympathy for Bhutto?
Hell no! Anything that happens is an opportunity to make a political statement. Where is the humanity, a slight break in the our side/your side bullshit? I can’t imagine any other President who wouldn’t lead with a statement of sorrow or loss. Not these sick bastards.
Fck these evil pigs.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:20 am“Your pakistani ‘democracy’ is what we are worried about right now…oh, and sorry. Don’t forget stem cells are evil. So is Iran” - W and the state dept.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:24 amNow we know why Musharraf lifted emergency rule: he planned to eliminate his only significant political opposition. And this is our ally in the fraudulent “War on Terror.”
Apparently, cowards run in packs…
December 27th, 2007 at 10:26 amHave we blamed Iran for this yet?
December 27th, 2007 at 10:27 amstewarjt
I wouldn’t be so sure it was Musharraf - the timing is wrong for him to do it, and all killing her is going to do is lead Pakistan further down the road to a civil war in a nuclear power. This, is going to be the first time such a war will be waged I think.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:27 amThe bottom line is that Pakistan should have been Iraq.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:33 amWar is Peace. Or something like that…
December 27th, 2007 at 10:34 amAl Queida has retreated to Pakistan, where they are more effectively getting at targets. Pakistan should invite in US troops to help eliminate that threat.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:36 am#8. Please don’t attribute positions to me that I haven’t taken. Spelling it out, my point is that Musharraf is a dictator and no supporter of democracy. How could he be?
Beyond that, at this point, only those directly involved could possibly know who assassinated former PM Bhutto.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:37 amThe bottom line is that Pakistan should have been Iraq.
Comment by lefty — December 27, 2007 @ 10:33 am
I don’t know about that. Instead of a civil war among multiple factions in a country with two major ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups in a country of 26 million, we would have started a civil war among multiple factions in a country with seven major ethnic and linguistic groups in a country of 161 million.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:39 amAl Queida has retreated to Pakistan, where they are more effectively getting at targets. Pakistan should invite in US troops to help eliminate that threat.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 10:36 am
U.S. special forces are already working with tribal leaders and the Pakistani military in the FATA.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:43 amThere has never been nor will there ever be any place for the DEMOCARCY in the Islamic, Moslem world!!
December 27th, 2007 at 10:47 amThere has never been nor will there ever be any place for the DEMOCARCY in the Islamic, Moslem world!!
Comment by mima — December 27, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Obviously you’ve never met any Muslims.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:48 amPeople, let us all bow our heads and thank what ever deity you hold dear, that President Bush is in power to protect us from these type of terrorist threats.
Amen.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:49 amSo, when does the US begin spreading freedom and good will courtesy of Lockheed Martin in Pakistan?
December 27th, 2007 at 10:50 amstewarjt
Point taken and I appologise for reading more into what you wrote than you meant.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:51 amComment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 10:49 am
ROTFL!!!
December 27th, 2007 at 10:52 amPeople, let us all bow our heads and thank what ever deity you hold dear, that President Bush is in power to protect us from these type of terrorist threats.
Amen.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Diebold is a deity?
December 27th, 2007 at 10:54 amWe want to ‘advance democracy’ . . . and ‘bring free elections to others’ . . . or . . . ‘we only want peace’ . . . ‘we only kill because we want peace’ . .
So, you see, if my reasons are nothing but goodness, I am justified in killing
December 27th, 2007 at 10:56 amthousands and bombing other countries. It makes it all okay.
‘I . . . am . . . . The Decider’ !!
Tragedy. Matthew’s New Testament warning applies to Bush’s War on Terror and the thugs he favors:
Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit…every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. ”
The fruit of Bush’s wars: suffering and death.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:59 amMusharraf, a guy Bush couldn’t name when he was running for President, the man who gained his reputation by playing chicken with nukes and India, who both hosted US troops and hid OBL, who invited back and then blew up the political competition, who is both general and President of a country whose constitutional powers are on a short leash…
I have a hard time thinking this guy was less of a threat to the US & the world than Hussein. But that’s my opinion
December 27th, 2007 at 11:00 amUgh, old lady Hill’reh is breathing like Darth Vader into the microphone. That must be the sound that Bubba enjoys, if / when he ever rides her.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:01 amLeave it to the traitor cut and run coward left nut libs to always put down George Bush no matter what tragedy occurs!
December 27th, 2007 at 11:05 amPeople, let us all bow our heads and thank what ever deity you hold dear, that President Bush is in power to protect us from these type of terrorist threats.
Amen.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Except that this wasn’t a terrorist threat — it was a political assassination. You know — the thing with a specific target instead of random carnage as terrorist attacks are noted for.
As far as Bush keeping me safe from terrorist threats, terrorist attacks, and even being caught in the crossfire of a political assassination — I don’t feel safer with him in office. Despite his claims of spreading good will, he has angered large portions of the world against us, he has exhausted military resources fighting a war that never needed to be fought by us, and his protection of the homefront has consisted of spying on Americans more than tightening up security surrounding people and cargo entering this country.
I thank God for keeping us safe in spite of Bush, and I will be even more thankful when Bush is at last out of power.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am#27, missmolly,
Benezir had promised to deal with the areas of Pakistan controlled by Al Quieda, and since it appeared that she would win the election for Prime Minister, Al Quieda took her out. Btw, only Al Quieda uses suicide bombers.
Musharrif would have no need to kill Benezir, since he was elected President, and had stepped down as General.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:08 amI am wondering, do you imagine if some political rival was blown up in Tehran, how the media would be chanting war songs?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:08 amMushy doesn’t need a state of emergency to eliminate his opposition.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:08 amLet’s just hope Bush/Cheney aren’t taking notes…
Hey, Jason, maybe Hill’reh did it…right?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:11 amThis is Pakistan’s 9-11 moment, except that nobody’s surprised, I think.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 amPeople, let us all bow our heads and thank what ever deity you hold dear, that President Bush is in power to protect us from these type of terrorist threats.
Amen.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Actually, I will thank God that MURDERERS like Bush and Musharraf and Hussein and Osama (all Bush family business associates)
and Cheney, etc.,
will be BROUGHT TO JUDGEMENT by the Almighty God, who SEES the EVIL that these “men” do.
Thank you for you MERCY and JUSTICE, God!!
Amen.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 am#31, Juan,
Go back to hiding behind women’s skirts, and don’t worry, real men are out there protecting the women who are protecting you.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:16 amLeave it to the traitor cut and run coward left nut libs to always put down George Bush no matter what tragedy occurs!
Comment by John Kerry — December 27, 2007 @ 11:05 am
That’s because MURDERER Bush is a COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA and an AWOL coward LIAR who deserves to be in Gitmo
for his TREASON. Just like you RapeubliNazis….
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 27th, 2007 at 11:17 amPlease Lord, on this day grant me one wish, that little Georgie can see the effects of all the evil that Satan, working through him has wrought. Perhaps the pitiful fck could work back in your graces if he spent the rest of his life begging for mercy from the families of the dead soldiers who died for his ego.
For this littlest of prayers I do ask you.
P.S. Have the incubus Hendler stick his tongue in a light socket and rearrange those stray currents flashing through the temporal lobes. That is one sick puppy, that one.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am“Who could have ever predicted”? - Dr. Rice.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:17 amJason M. Hendler seems much harder to spell than Hillary but check me out. I can do it! The thing with spelling is to practice the words you have difficulty with
December 27th, 2007 at 11:21 amComment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Actually suicide attacks are common to a lot of groups in world history - even getting a favourable mention in the Bible - and are common to a lot of world terrorist organisations now.
AQ is not the only group that uses it.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am#39, Bruce,
I said suicide “bomber”. Of course, suicide missions are common, as seen in the Kamikazi’s crashing their planes into US ships.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:27 amBush, Cheney, Rummy, and the rest are hardly “men”.
They are WEASEL-like little COWARDS who LIE, BULLY and MURDER.
They WILL be BURNING IN HELL, along with MORON and TRAITOR Ronald Reagan, for ETERNITY.
Soon.
Not “men”.
Just COXUCKER punk TRAITORS to the USA and COWARDS.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 27th, 2007 at 11:27 amJason M. Hendler
So are suicide bombings. Hamas, the Ba’ath party, the Tamil Tigers heck the Kamikaze attacks you mentioned all used suicide bombings - and are all different in aims, policies and structure, to AQ.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:31 am#42, Bruce,
The emphasis being that Musharrif wouldn’t use such a tactic, only the local terrorist group, Al Quieda.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:33 amBenezir had promised to deal with the areas of Pakistan controlled by Al Quieda, and since it appeared that she would win the election for Prime Minister, Al Quieda took her out. Btw, only Al Quieda uses suicide bombers.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Odd but none of the sources I have seen yet have made any such claim. Are you gazing at your mystical orb again. Usually when one makes a conjecture, they avoid stating it as fact.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:34 amThe emphasis being that Musharrif wouldn’t use such a tactic, only the local terrorist group, Al Quieda.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
So why is Al Qaeda trying to help Musharrif?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:37 amMy main question is this: if a link is found between this attack and Musharrif’s government, will we then finally stop funding him?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:39 amPakistan should invite in US troops to help eliminate that threat.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 10:36 am
As long as you are the standard bearer in the front ranks, JH, I’m with you on this one.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:42 amThe emphasis being that Musharrif wouldn’t use such a tactic, only the local terrorist group, Al Quieda.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Would he use such a tactic? No. Would he encourage the security detail protecting Bhutto to step aside and allow a guy on a motorcycle to get close enough to Bhutto to shoot her twice at close range and then detonate explosives? Maybe. Nothing is off the table just yet.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amRIP, Benazir Bhutto…
She had to die; she upset the CBC (Corrupt Boys’ Club)…
Just another day in our BFF Musharrif’s Pakistan. Military coups, martial law, imprisonment and assassination of the opposition…but hey, they’re our “staunch ally” in the War On Terrah.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:49 am#27, missmolly,
Benezir had promised to deal with the areas of Pakistan controlled by Al Quieda, and since it appeared that she would win the election for Prime Minister, Al Quieda took her out. Btw, only Al Quieda uses suicide bombers.
Musharrif would have no need to kill Benezir, since he was elected President, and had stepped down as General.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Just because I said it was a political assassination doesn’t mean I’m saying Musharref was responsible, nor should that be inferred in any way. We don’t know who was responsible for the assassination. Even if it WAS Al Qaeda (and they are certainly on the short list of suspects), it was still a political assassination — not a terrorist attack (unless they conducted a terrorist attack at the rally for whatever reason and Bhutto just “happened” to be one of the victims). All signs thus far indicate that Bhutto was the target.
As far as your claim that “only Al Qaeda uses suicide bombers” — that’s incorrect. People and groups who have carried out suicide bombings include Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Islamic Dawa Party, the Ba’ath Party, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. And more groups spring up all the time — not to mention individuals acting on their own.
Granted, many of these groups have no dog in the fight in Pakistan and are unlikely suspects. But the use of suicide bombing goes way beyond Al Qaeda, and the fact that a suicide bomber conducted the assassination doesn’t prove anything.
I’m sure more info will be coming out as to responsibility in the near future. Al Qaeda does have a fairly good track record of claiming responsibility for their hits.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:53 amBesides, Jason - Ms. Bhutto was SHOT TWICE - once in the chest and once in the neck - before the suicide bomber blew himself up. This was not a random suicide bombing.
This was an assassination, and Benazir Bhutto was the target.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:56 amMy prayers go out to Bhutto, her family and all of Pakistan.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:57 amTwo key paragraphs so far:
A party security adviser said Bhutto was shot in the neck and chest as she got into her vehicle, then the gunman blew himself up. No group has claimed responsibility.
Security had been tight, with hundreds of riot police manning security checkpoints with metal detectors around what was Bhutto’s first campaign rally since returning from exile two months ago.
So how does a gunman with explosives strapped on get past security checkpoints with metal detectors?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amGo back to hiding behind women’s skirts, and don’t worry, real men are out there protecting the women who are protecting you.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
You’re so cute when you’re stupid. As I like to say “Ignorance should hurt so more people would know when they need a cure.”
December 27th, 2007 at 12:02 pmMusharrif would have no need to kill Benezir, since he was elected President, and had stepped down as General.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
I woildn’t be so quick to rule him out. If she was organizing rallies against him she was still a threat. Whether he saw her as a threat to position or not he still quite likely saw her as a threat to stability.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pmGo back to hiding behind women’s skirts, and don’t worry, real men are out there protecting the women who are protecting you.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Yet you are not “out there”… hmm…
December 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pmmissmolly
December 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pmOf course, one of the left nut libs’ favorite talking points is that “he has angered large portions of the world against us” and of course you are just repeating this insane idea. So, for all of us who aren’t privy to your inside information, it would be great if you could please be specific about this and give us all good, concrete evidence as to what part of the world is against us and why and maybe a comparison with those countries’ views about us BEFORE George Bush!
I’m sure we will all be eagerly awaiting the answer.
President Bush. If this assasination was done by AQ then it does lay at your feet. You have not been as forceful, or diligent in eliminating AQ. You have allowed them to fester like a boil in Pakistan.
If the assasination wasn’t done by AQ, but by the current leaders in Pakistan then you have to come out more forceful than you have in the past. This is a direct attack on a chance at democracy.
If the president believes any of the words he says, we have to be ramping up for a full invasion of Pakistan.
This is not what I wish. Rather what Bush has preached about democracy and those who attempt to destroy it.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pmThe emphasis being that Musharrif wouldn’t use such a tactic, only the local terrorist group, Al Quieda.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
You do know how Musharrif came to power, right?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pmEven if it WAS Al Qaeda (and they are certainly on the short list of suspects), it was still a political assassination — not a terrorist attack (unless they conducted a terrorist attack at the rally for whatever reason and Bhutto just “happened†to be one of the victims). All signs thus far indicate that Bhutto was the target.
Comment by missmolly — December 27, 2007 @ 11:53 am
It depends how you define terrorism. I define a terrorist attack as an act of politically-motivated violence aimed at civilians and carried out by a non-state agent. By this definition, a political assassination, particularly one that kils 20 bystanders, would certainly be an example of terrorism. Terrorist attacks may seem random to us, but they’re really not - they are meticulously planned and calculated events with goals of destabilization, retaliation, or influencing decisions.
That having been said, I think it’s premature to immediately point to al-Qa’ida as the prime suspect. Bhutto made many enemies during her tenure as Prime Minister, and there are plenty of Pakistanis who would not have wanted her back in power.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pmYou do know how Musharrif came to power, right?
Comment by mark — December 27, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Something about an unpaid electric bill, I recall.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:13 pmWith Bush supporting her, there is little doubt that the worldwide hatred of George Bush may have added fuel to their anger. Bush’s endorsement or support is “radioactive” as we all know.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pmAl Qaeda Al Schmaeda! The attribution of this to AQ is simply to fuel Bush’s war on terror! Just like 911, within a day Bushitco was proclaiming it to be the work of AQ. Hah, I say!
December 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pmIsn’t someone drawing up Jason Hendler’s military enlistment papers as we type? Thought I heard that.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pmgood, concrete evidence as to what part of the world is against us and why and maybe a comparison with those countries’ views about us BEFORE George Bush!
I’m sure we will all be eagerly awaiting the answer.
Comment by John Kerry — December 27, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
We thought Clinton was a womanizer and that the whole Lewinsky affair was a stupid idea. But he was OK. And he’s no angel; the bombing of a pharmaceutical company in Africa because they said it was a terrorist hideout felt a lot like a “Wag the dog” situation. And the deaths of many iraqi children due to the imposed sanctions should rest on his conscience as well.
Then you got Bush, and the Iraq war, and the “you’re either with us or we’ll kick your ass” frat boy mentality, with the US Military to be used whenever he felt like it, with a beer in one hand and a finger on the Big Red button all the time. Zero responsibility, zero accountability, posturing all the time in order to feel as important as Daddy Bush. Invading countries and then never caring about the consequences.
We’d rather had Dan Quayle as President than li’l Bush.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pmWe’d rather had Dan Quayle as President than li’l Bush.
Comment by Luis M — December 27, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Sorry… that should have been “We’d rather you had Dan Quayle as President than li’l Bush.”
December 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pmmissmolly
Of course, one of the left nut libs’ favorite talking points is that “he has angered large portions of the world against us†and of course you are just repeating this insane idea. So, for all of us who aren’t privy to your inside information, it would be great if you could please be specific about this and give us all good, concrete evidence as to what part of the world is against us and why and maybe a comparison with those countries’ views about us BEFORE George Bush!
I’m sure we will all be eagerly awaiting the answer.
Comment by John Kerry
OMG, where have you been for the last 4 years.
Here’s some evidence for you:
http://www.iht.com/ articles/ 2006/ 06/ 13/ news/ pew1.php
“The ebbing of positive views of the United States coincides with a spike in feeling that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. This perception was shared by majorities in 10 of the countries surveyed, including Britain, where 60 percent said the world had become more dangerous since Saddam Hussein’s removal from power in 2003.”
And some more:
http://www.forbes.com/ 2007/ 08/ 22/ bush-anti-americanism-cx_0823oxfordanalytica.html
“European and world views of the United States and President George Bush have dramatically worsened since 2000; the trend has intensified since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.”
I could continue to post articles like this all day. There have literally been hundreds of articles covering hundreds of polls showing a rise in anti-american sentiment world-wide since the invasion of Iraq over the last 4 years. It’s a fact. Deal with it.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pmThat having been said, I think it’s premature to immediately point to al-Qa’ida as the prime suspect. Bhutto made many enemies during her tenure as Prime Minister, and there are plenty of Pakistanis who would not have wanted her back in power.
hum…
Who would have access to breach security and wouldn’t want to see her party come to power in an election?
the military perhaps?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pmThis reminds me very much of the Philippines in the early 1980’s. However the assassination of Aquino was much more blatant than Bhutto’s. In either situation the popular exile returns home to challenge the unpopular strongman and they meet their doom at the assassins hand. In the Philippines things turned out fairly well after mr Marcos left power, lets see what happens n Pakistan.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pmJust like 911, within a day Bushitco was proclaiming it to be the work of AQ. Hah, I say!
Comment by Veritas — December 27, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Not according to Richard Clarke. Within a day, Bushitco was saying “who the heck is Al Qa’ida? Never heard of them. Is there any way we can connect this with Iraq?”
December 27th, 2007 at 12:24 pmI am so glad, that the US military has a plan to deal with the danger of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pmComment by John Kerry — December 27, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Getting specific about the world’s opinion against us:
When planes flew into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11/01, we received an outpouring of sympathy and support from the rest of the world. European nations, African nations, Asian nations, Middle Eastern nations — the world mourned our tragedy with us. I don’t think there was a place in the world that didn’t participate in the goodwill fest toward us at that time.
Bush enjoyed a huge spike in his popularity ratings immediately following 9/11 — both from Americans and from around the world. He maintained this popularity as he vowed to “get Osama bin Laden” and bring him to justice.
His popularity started taking hits when he was attempting to get his plan to invade Iraq greenlighted by the UN Security Council. It went further south when, failing to get his green light, he invaded anyway. As the U.S. occupation of Iraq has dragged on, opinion toward Bush and American around the world has deteriorated.
And it’s not just Iraq. Global warming has been another hot button issue that the rest of the world cares about. Bush isn’t scoring any points on that one.
Here are a few links that show the deterioration of Bush’s popularity — and these links vary in age.
http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/41.htm
http://pewglobal.org/ reports/ display.php?PageID=801
http://www.pbs.org/ now/ shows/ 314/ opinions-of-us.html
As far as which parts? Well, let’s see. We’re not very popular in Great Britain because of the Iraq war (although they probably took that out more on Blair). We’re not very popular in the rest of Europe because of the Iraq war AND global warming. We’ve never been all that popular in the Middle East because of our support for Israel, and it has eroded even further as we’ve created a fertile breeding ground for terrorists there. We’re definitely not popular in Iran for obvious reasons. China likes lending us money, only because they’re going to clean up when our economy collapses.
Israel still likes us. And so, apparently, does Albania.
I notice you also want me to play the “Clinton did it too” game. Unfortunately, I cannot find any world polls that go back over seven years to his presidency. I also think that’s irrelevant to my point — Bush had the support of the world right after 9/11 and he squandered it.
However, you are invited to produce your own evidence. Please show me how loved Bush is around the world. Albania doesn’t count.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pmOkay, who the hell gave Jason Misogynist Hendler an Energy drink? He’s posting nonsense at an unusually fast pace today.
Christmas that good for you, bud?
Rest in Peace, Benazir, rest in peace.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pmOur prayers for your family.
missmolly,
I don’t subscribe to the myth that the world hates America. For a time, the governments of Germany and France were negative towards America, until the citizens replaced those leaders with pro-American candidates - Merkel and Sarkozy. That leaves Putin, in Russia, who is supplying Iran with a missle defense system, most likely because Russia lost all their investments in Iraq, when the US invaded, so they want to protect their new investments in Iran.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pmIt depends how you define terrorism.
Comment by toasterhead — December 27, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
You’re right — and by your definition, this incident could certainly qualify.
I believe I was making a differentiation between terrorist acts and political assassinations as a response to one of the trolls claiming that Bush had kept us safe from “terrorist threats” like this one.
Could a suicide bomber pull off a political assassination in this country? Possibly. However, I doubt that the Secret Service (who are pretty good at their job) would allow a bomber to get close enough to do any damage to a political figure under their protection. But I don’t credit Bush for the excellence of our Secret Service — they’ve been very good at their job since before Dubya came into the White House.
Even so — there have been political assassinations in this country before, and there could be again.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmMr. Hendler, whether you yourself subscribe to the “myth” the world hates us your ignoring the evidence provided by missmolly. Quit with the theoretical nukes in Iran and focus on the very real nukes in Pakistan for a bit.
Fance and Germany like us more than our dear partner in this “War on Terror” Pakistan.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pmI don’t subscribe to the myth that the world hates America.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I’d just like to point out that the world consists of more than Germany, France, and Russia. Furthermore, countries are composed of more than just their leaders — as we found out with Tony Blair.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pmOH, the media is all over the Bhutto assassination.
They must be happy another bomb made it to the news so people don’t lose its well-built sense of paranoia and fear.
BTW, Jason, tough talking in the tubes makes you look like a real man…yeah.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pmWell, it looks like the terrorists (Busch, Cheney, Musharraf) finally got her.
∞
December 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pmBhutto’s is on the hands of Bush, Cheney , and their Pakistani puppet Musharraf.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pmmissmolly,
I don’t subscribe to the myth that the world hates America.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
So Jason, me and missmolly both post several links to polls demonstrating our view is based on fact and research, and you reply with opinion, backed by no evidence, no links, and you think you’re convincing anyone of anything?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pm#83, DigDung,
No, I show you even better evidence in the form of election results - the two most important countries in continental Europe, both of whom have significant Arab minority population, are now aligned with the US. Libs love polls, but hate election results.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:04 pm#80, Juan,
Even on a blog, you come across as a pussy, go back to recommending the posts of the women who fight for you.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pmEven on a blog, you come across as a pussy, go back to recommending the posts of the women who fight for you.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Writes the great big man. When do you deploy overseas, Jason?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pmPeople, let us all bow our heads and thank what ever deity you hold dear, that President Bush is in power to protect us from these type of terrorist threats.
Amen.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 10:49 am
So one of Jason’s sockpuppets is daryll too?
Hmmm….
December 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pmExplains alot.
No, I show you even better evidence in the form of election results - the two most important countries in continental Europe, both of whom have significant Arab minority population, are now aligned with the US. Libs love polls, but hate election results.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Do you seriously believe that two countries in Europe are representative of “the world”? Or that their elections were somehow a referendum on the US?
Jesus, you don’t even try to make sense.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:07 pmNo, I show you even better evidence in the form of election results - the two most important countries in continental Europe, both of whom have significant Arab minority population, are now aligned with the US. Libs love polls, but hate election results.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Oh, please. Right-wing candidates narrowly winning elections does not necessarily translate to feelings about U.S. foreign policy. People in France and Germany have plenty of internal issues to base their vote on.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:07 pmSo one of Jason’s sockpuppets is daryll too?
Hmmm….
Explains alot.
Comment by Wayne — December 27, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
I thought Darryl was getting his beans buttered on the gay beach in Rio. The wonders of the Internet.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pmEven on a blog, you come across as a pussy, go back to recommending the posts of the women who fight for you.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Why are you so threatened by women? You really should seek therapy before you hurt someone.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pmEven on a blog, you come across as a pussy, go back to recommending the posts of the women who fight for you.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
That’s rich. YOU calling ANYONE ELSE a pussy.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pmReal men post comments like this?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:10 pmComment by alpuz3 — December 27, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Jason is terrified of women.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:11 pmI thought Darryl was getting his beans buttered on the gay beach in Rio. The wonders of the Internet.
Comment by gummitch — December 27, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Daryll was going to protest in South Africa too, when they legalized Gay Marriage. LMAO
December 27th, 2007 at 1:11 pm#89, toasterhead,
No doubt, France’s alternative was a socialist woman, which is your preference, but not a very popular choice, even in the most communist nation Western Europe has to offer.
As I said, you are quoting leaders of these nations, not their populations, whose true feelings are reflected in their election results.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:11 pmSorry for that blinding flash of the obvious…
December 27th, 2007 at 1:11 pmMr. Hendler, how many US troops should be sent into Pakistan? We have to give democracy a chance and we can’t let Nukes get into the wrong hands. 10,000, 50,000 or more? What will the Ivy League Cowboy do?
And if you want this to devolve into an insult contet then just continue with your tripe against other posters.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:12 pmWell, I hate to say this, but the world doesn’t hate America (whatever that means), it is US Foreign policies that we are against…
This and this.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:12 pm#94, Zooey,
That’s it, jump in there on Juanita’s behalf, ’cause he can’t fight for himself. Get used to him tugging on your skirt, if you even own one.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:13 pm#98, hellinabucket,
We wouldn’t necessarily have to send in troops, just use artillery and airpower to soften targets in Pakistan, then Musharrif can send in his own troops to mop up.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pmEven on a blog, you come across as a pussy, go back to recommending the posts of the women who fight for you.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
I see…mommy wasn’t much around, right?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm#103, juanita,
No surprise that you still use the term “mommy”, which reinforces your girlish demeanor.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pmNo doubt, France’s alternative was a socialist woman, which is your preference,…..
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
I believe Jason here is a real live gynaphobic.
Gynophobia is the clinical term for the Fear of women
December 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pmWe wouldn’t necessarily have to send in troops, just use artillery and airpower to soften targets in Pakistan, then Musharrif can send in his own troops to mop up.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Good strategy - who wouldn’t love mopping up the rubble left in their country after airstrikes by a foreign military power?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThat’s it, jump in there on Juanita’s behalf, ’cause he can’t fight for himself. Get used to him tugging on your skirt, if you even own one.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
We’re still waiting to hear about your deployment, Jason. Or do you have some misogynist comment to make to me?
You’re in absolutely no position to criticize anyone else’s masculinity as long as you’re cowering at home under the bed while exhorting others to fight your wars.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:18 pmThat’s it, jump in there on Juanita’s behalf, ’cause he can’t fight for himself. Get used to him tugging on your skirt, if you even own one.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
That’s your fear, Jason, no one else’s. Does it scare you that I don’t wear skirts? If you were AHLF the man any of the liberal men on this blog are, you’d be secure enough in your own manhood that you wouldn’t have to deride women or question the manhood of other men.
You are quite pitiful.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:18 pmDon’t worry, Jason, all those patents you have hide the fact you can’t get it up.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pm#107, Zooey,
Are you referring to the liberal men that you and other women have to fight for? I guess if you like to wear pants and defend liberal men, then you’ve come to the right blog.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pmAs I said, you are quoting leaders of these nations, not their populations, whose true feelings are reflected in their election results.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Ah, yes. Just like the United States’ true feelings were reflected when Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI guess if you like to wear pants and defend liberal men, then you’ve come to the right blog.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
You are one sick little boy.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI guess if you like to wear pants and defend liberal men, then you’ve come to the right blog.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
ThinkProgress’ new motto: No Shoes, No Pants, NO PROBLEM!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pmdigdug: “So why is Al Qaeda trying to help Musharrif?”
I’m sure they appreciate the fact that he has allowed them to flourish in the western territories and not arrested or killed bin Laden. I’m sure they took notice when Bhutto said she would not allow them to operate out of Pakistan.
It is not to blame Bush for her assasination to point out that Bush backed Musharif and not Bhutto. But it is relevant to question the Bush administration’s strange set of values by which they run their foreign policy. Their biggest friends in the Muslim world are Pakistan, who continues to provide safe harbor for al Qaeda and bin Laden and Saudi Arabia who produces by far the most terrorists who kill our own troops in Iraq.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pmWell, enough of the man afraid of getting recruited.
In any event like this, one has to wonder, who benefits from it?
Al-Qaeda, very likely.
Musharraf, likely as well.
Pakistan opposition.
But the ones that get more benefits are the fascist-like states like Turkey, US, Russia, Pakistan, etc…they will be saying, like our women-troubled troll here, that the war on terror (sic) is not over, that the menace is there, nobody is safe, etc, etc. It is a very happy day for some, for sure.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#111, toasterhead,
Amazing how Gore couldn’t win during America’s greatest prosperity since the 1950’s and 1960’s, isn’t it? How bad must your policies be to lose? It wasn’t until 2004 that a presidential candidate won with a clear majority of the vote, since GHWB won in 1988.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pmAre you referring to the liberal men that you and other women have to fight for? I guess if you like to wear pants and defend liberal men, then you’ve come to the right blog.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
What does a woman’s clothing have to do with anything? In your view, if a woman arrives on a blog and agrees with a man, she’s “defending him.” Liberal men are secure enough to exist in the world on equal footing with women.
You’re ridiculous, as well as terrified. Seek help.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pmMaybe Jason Hendler or any of our other Bush supporters here would like to try and explain why Bush would back Mushariff, who allowed al Qaeda to operate out of Pakistan, but not Bhutto, who pledged to destroy al Qaeda in Pakistan. I’m sure anyone supporting Bush has a plausible explanation for that. Let’s have it.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pmAs I said, you are quoting leaders of these nations, not their populations, whose true feelings are reflected in their election results.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
What the F$#k? Quoting leaders is wrong, the population is right. Those who elected those leaders. So we can’t quote the people we elected but we can listen to the people who voted to put the elected into office. No wonder Jason is conflicted.
I’m guessing jason’s family tree doesn’t have any branches.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pmHendler: “How bad must your policies be to lose?”
He won. He won the popular vote and he would have gotten the most votes in Florida if the Supreme Court hadn’t interceded and preventing them from counting the votes. But, you know that already, bullshitter.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:31 pm#118, RCJR,
What makes you say that the US didn’t back Benezir Bhutto? The Bush administration was pressuring Musharrif to hold free elections, remove the state of marshall law (which led to Benezir’s death) and step down as General of the Army in order to be President.
That statement is just factually wrong.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pmThis and this.
Comment by Juan C. — December 27, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Thank you, thank you! I knew there was something out there comparing world opinion of the United States before 9/11 and now — I just didn’t know where it was.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pm#117, Zooey,
That’s it? Asking for clarifications and restatements? Not enough in my previous post for you to go on?
I must confess that I am disappointed.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pmEven on a blog, you come across as a pussy, go back to recommending the posts of the women who fight for you.
Comment by Jason Misogynist Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
So sayeth the man whose never even experienced a “tender trap”.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pmJason, your DSBU from a lack of partner is overriding your brain’s ability to form coherent thoughts.
But you do come across as macho and strong over the internet(s).
**cough** **cough** **ahemmm**
Never mind. Back to your room with Vasoline and Cinemax!
Amazing how Gore couldn’t win during America’s greatest prosperity since the 1950’s and 1960’s, isn’t it? How bad must your policies be to lose?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Gore won. the popular vote and the electoral vote, but lost 5-4 in the Supreme Court The mistake in Gore’s policy was not preventing state elections boards from being run by RNC operatives.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pmI must confess that I am disappointed.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
I can live with that.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm#124, DRxJ,
Define “tender trap” and DSBU. I suppose I can guess from context, but would rather ask.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pmDaryll was going to protest in South Africa too, when they legalized Gay Marriage. LMAO
Comment by Wayne — December 27, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
And for reasons totally unknown he is planning a hunger strike at the church on behalf of Mr. Huckabee.
In other news, Hendler needs some serious help with the Ladies!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pmDefine “tender trap†and DSBU. I suppose I can guess from context, but would rather ask.
Comment by Jason Misogynist. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:41 pm#126, Zooey,
Well, you’ve had so much practice coping with men’s disappointments in you, that I expect you would.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pmI thought Darryl was getting his beans buttered on the gay beach in Rio. The wonders of the Internet.
Comment by gummitch — December 27, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Has anybody heard from St D since his Rio extravaganza?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pmPerhaps my satirical newsstory was prescient?
What makes you say that the US didn’t back Benezir Bhutto? The Bush administration was pressuring Musharrif to hold free elections, remove the state of marshall law (which led to Benezir’s death) and step down as General of the Army in order to be President.
That statement is just factually wrong.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
They did verbaly “urge” him to remove marshall law, but they didn’t cut of the funding we send him did they? Hmmm… which one do YOU think sends a stronger message. My bet’s on the money…
December 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pmWell, you’ve had so much practice coping with men’s disappointments in you, that I expect you would.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
I’d like to see any evidence you have of this.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pmBibleboy: “What makes you say that the US didn’t back Benezir Bhutto?” “That statement is just factually wrong.”
As this article and many others points out, the Bush administration gave lip service to the idea of a political coalition in Pakistan based on a free election, but supported Mushariff because they felt that he represented their most cooperative ally. I agree that it’s a complex issue but Mushariff is Bush’s guy and yet he continues to allow al Qaeda to flourish and bin Laden to be free. In addition, he has lifted house arrest and given AQ Khan his freedom. Doesn’t that seem the least bit strange to you, bibleboy?
http://www.boston.com/ news/ world/ asia/ articles/ 2007/ 11/ 16/ bush_makes_effort_to_salvage_rule_by_musharraf/
December 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pm#132, DigDug,
US was funding Iraq, not Musharrif in particular. Moreover, that funding was the leverage we needed to force Musharrit to STEP DOWN as general and ALLOW Bhutto back into Pakistan to run for Prime Minister.
Again, you are just factually wrong.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:45 pmI’m sure they appreciate the fact that he has allowed them to flourish in the western territories and not arrested or killed bin Laden. I’m sure they took notice when Bhutto said she would not allow them to operate out of Pakistan.
It is not to blame Bush for her assasination to point out that Bush backed Musharif and not Bhutto. But it is relevant to question the Bush administration’s strange set of values by which they run their foreign policy. Their biggest friends in the Muslim world are Pakistan, who continues to provide safe harbor for al Qaeda and bin Laden and Saudi Arabia who produces by far the most terrorists who kill our own troops in Iraq.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
Awesome post Jack. That answers my question nicely. And I’d love to see Jason H. try to explain a more likely scenario…
December 27th, 2007 at 1:45 pm#133, Zooey,
Did you just retort, “Oh yeah, prove it?”
Ugh, this just isn’t fun anymore. Goodbye!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pmAgain, you are just factually wrong.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Putting the word “factually” in an opinion is ill advised
December 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pmre you referring to the liberal men that you and other women have to fight for? I guess if you like to wear pants and defend liberal men, then you’ve come to the right blog.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
FYI it was the ‘liberty’ men that fought against the British while Tories, such as you, wanted a King. Today you want chickenhawks posing as authoritarians to rule you. Your not for democrat, your a fascist.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pmHeh. Well, that worked. :-D
December 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pmUS was funding Iraq, not Musharrif in particular. Moreover, that funding was the leverage we needed to force Musharrit to STEP DOWN as general and ALLOW Bhutto back into Pakistan to run for Prime Minister.
Again, you are just factually wrong.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
If they had at any point actually threatened to withhold the funding you might have an arguement there, but they didn’t, did they?
And there’s no point trying to say I’m factially wrong when your counter arguement is purely opinion.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:48 pmComment by Zooey — December 27, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
You know what I like best about Liberal guys?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:48 pmComment by dbadass — December 27, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
I know what I like about liberal guys. What do you like?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pmComment by Zooey — December 27, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
In general they tend to understand it is better to come across humble rather than employ the arrogant dickwad approach
December 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pmHendler: “US was funding Iraq, not Musharrif in particular.”
According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration has given Pakistan over $10 billion in military aid since 9-11-2001. Since al Qaeda is still operating out of Pakistan and bin Laden is still alive and free, what have we gotten for that $10 billion?
Try again, bibleboy.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pmYou want a goal Jason? The first recorded war, 2700 BC, was for empire and its been going on for nearly five thousand years now.
We have cured diseases, flown to the moon, done many great things.
But we still haven’t stopped war. WHY? Because we have fascist bigoted people that think might is right and that want an authoritarian to lead them because the world scares them. Osama, by the magic of the sparkle box, has morphed into 300 million Osamas [thru TV] and he now hides in every home, under every bed, scaring people like you into submission.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pmUS was funding Iraq, not Musharrif in particular. Moreover, that funding was the leverage we needed to force Musharrit to STEP DOWN as general and ALLOW Bhutto back into Pakistan to run for Prime Minister.
Again, you are just factually wrong.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Speaking of factual correctness, Pervez Musharraf is the president of Pakistan, not Iraq.
Do go on…
December 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pmIn general they tend to understand it is better to come across humble rather than employ the arrogant dickwad approach
Comment by dbadass — December 27, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Always a plus, dbadass.
And liberal men have less of a tendency to treat women like “things,” and are comfortable with women having an opinion that might not line up exactly with their own thinking.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pmBibleboy: “Ugh, this just isn’t fun anymore. Goodbye!”
On the way out don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya, dumbass.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pmAnd liberal men have less of a tendency to treat women like “things,†and are comfortable with women having an opinion that might not line up exactly with their own thinking.
Comment by Zooey — December 27, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Well that, and we’re really really really good in bed :-)
December 27th, 2007 at 1:55 pmBecause we realize it’s not about us, it’s about you!
And that scares the bejebus out of JMH!
And liberal men have less of a tendency to treat women like “things,†and are comfortable with women having an opinion that might not line up exactly with their own thinking.
Comment by Zooey — December 27, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
And pants. We’re comfortable with women having pants, whereas conservatives like Hendler seem to fear it.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pmdbadass & zooey: thank you.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pmWell that, and we’re really really really good in bed :-)
Because we realize it’s not about us, it’s about you!
And that scares the bejebus out of JMH!
Comment by DRxJ — December 27, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
I wasn’t going to go there, but since you brought it up — I agree. I won’t ask for proof. :-D
December 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pmAnd pants. We’re comfortable with women having pants, whereas conservatives like Hendler seem to fear it.
Comment by toasterhead — December 27, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
It’s so easy to scare these idiots.
Jeans — Boo!!
December 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmI’m sorry Hendlarious didn’t stay around, I was going to ask him to finish spelling, then define, this word - clit____
December 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pmdbadass & zooey: thank you.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — December 27, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Thank YOU, Colonel. :-)
Your insightful posts are always appreciated.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pmColonel, sir, Hendler appears to be a complete clusterfu(k, sir.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:02 pmI wasn’t going to go there, but since you brought it up — I agree. I won’t ask for proof. :-D
Comment by Zooey
Well, it is always better to see personally what the issue is about. :D
December 27th, 2007 at 2:02 pmI’m sorry Hendlarious didn’t stay around, I was going to ask him to finish spelling, then define, this word - clit____
Comment by RUCerious — December 27, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
First he has to discover it’s existence…
December 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pmWell, it is always better to see personally what the issue is about. :D
Comment by Juan C. — December 27, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
True, very true. But Mrs DRxJ would have a problem with that… :)
December 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmDid you just retort, “Oh yeah, prove it?â€
Ugh, this just isn’t fun anymore. Goodbye!
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
That’s all it takes to get rid of him? Amazing. All anyone had to say was “prove it!”. Since he’s clearly incapable of proving a damn thing, he melts away like the Wicked Witch.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmYour insightful posts are always appreciated.
Comment by Zooey — December 27, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
What she said!
December 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pmInteresting problem which faction of Pakistan’s Internal Security Service were complicit it in facilitating the assasination of Ms. Bhutto? Musharraf’s or Al Queda’s?
I guess Musharraf wins no matter what faction allowed it to happen.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:06 pm“I’m sure we will all be eagerly awaiting the answer.”
Comment by John Kerry — December 27, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Here, Jacka$$.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/ pipa/ articles/ international_security_bt/ 306.php?lb=brglm&pnt=306&nid=&id=&gclid=CLGU6tmUyZACFReQGgodnmdsVw
December 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pmJJ: “Interesting problem which faction of Pakistan’s Internal Security Service were complicit it in facilitating the assasination of Ms. Bhutto?”
The fact that ISS money partly financed some of the 9-11 attackers seems to have been flushed down the memory hole. Daniel Pearl was getting close to that story when he was murdered.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pmWell, it is always better to see personally what the issue is about. :D
Comment by Juan C. — December 27, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
True, very true. But Mrs DRxJ would have a problem with that… :)
Comment by Zooey — December 27, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Well, I could say that Mrs DRxJ and I have an open relationship…
December 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pmBut alas, that would be lying, and deceitful.
And we have enough of that here at TP with the troll infestation.
Hi there everyone. This is Jason’s mom and I feel compelled to defend my little boy’s misogynistic attitude.
You see, when Jason’s dad beat me up and left for the last time, I had no money and had to resort to the oldest profession to keep food on the table (and a little crack for Jason and me). Jason was so sweet, he would clean me up for the next client, if you catch my drift. I let him do it because he seemed to like it, and his little tongue was so gentle. Especially after some truck driver hit me from behind.
Maybe that will help you understand the psychosis you are dealing with when you see him post here. If I find the courage, I will have him committed, because I think he will be happier. Until then, please put up with his sh*t.