Wednesday, September 27, 2006

THE ARCHITECT OF EVIL


Warning: This is a mock photo of Rove being taken to jail. In a legitimate government, war criminals should be put into prison. So why are Cheney, Rove and Bush allowed to roam free? Good Christians should know how corrupt their leaders are. It is immoral to support these people. Wake up.

Last night went to Teddi and Marci Winograd's Progressive Democrats event for James Moore, and heard him speak on his new book "The Architect" about Karl Rove. Bush is a puppet of Rove and Cheney, but Rove is the mastermind of manipulation. He was behind the amoral swiftboating of John Kerry. Imagine attacking a war hero for his strengths. Rove uses incredibly corrupt and devious tactics to win power. You won't believe some of the things he has done — and continues to do in the name of "democracy."

Also, the release of the National Intelligence Estimate, a compiled report from all 16 US intelligence agencies, states that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism around the world, against our trooops and against the U.S.

But WE KNEW THAT. Anyone who had a brain, knew that a military invasion of Iraq would create more terrorists, and actually create a hotbed of terrorists, inflaming more and more people against us.

First it was Weapons of Mass Destruction and that has been proven wrong. Then it was Iraq\Al Queada ties, and thats been also proven wrong. Finally, it was "to fight em there so we don't have to fight em here". And now, a report prepared by every US intelligence agency says thats a crock, and that the war in Iraq is actually increasing the number of terrorists instead of reducing it, something most of us knew and have been articulating for about a year now.

It's clear that no amount of clarity and no measure of facts will help this poor President come to grips with the reality of his failed policies and failed strategies. Only removal from office will help him to see it, and its time to talk impeachment. Mr Bush. Your 15 minutes are up.

188 comments:

  1. Worfeus he ain't leaving because he counts to ten then runs out of fingers, and can't untie his shoes hisself.............LOL

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just for tiny,

    Menendez Pulls Ahead 6 Points in New Jersey. Democrats Continue to Gain Momentum in Battle for Senate Control

    New Jersey had not been considered a key battleground state until fairly recently, when Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr. pulled neck and neck with Sen. Robert Menendez, causing Democrats to cringe. With the Democrats holding leads in at least five other critical states, the tight N.J. race gave new hope to GOP strategists hoping to see the party retain their majority. But a new Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll has Menendez running six points ahead of Kean. Adding insult to injury, the new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll shows President Bush with an all-time low 30% approval rating in the state, causing further dismay in the Kean campaign. This is not good news for Republicans.

    The Democrats need six seats to regain control of the Senate. In the latest polls, Claire McCaskill leads in Missouri; Jon Tester leads in Montana; Sheldon Whitehouse leads in Rhode Island; Sherrod Brown is pulling solidly ahead of Mike DeWine in Ohio; Bob Casey Jr. has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania; Harold Ford Jr. leads Bob Corker by 3% in Tennessee; and the Virginia campaign of George "Pork-eatin' N-word Macaca" Allen is imploding, with Jim Webb trailing now by just five points, way down from a solid double-digit lead.

    One heartbreaking doomsday scenario has the Dems successfully executing their strategy of winning six of the above seats but then losing N.J., thus blowing their chance of retaking the Senate. Which is why the new WSJ/Zogby poll is huge.

    Just weeks ago the thought of a Democrat victory in the Senate was all but a fantasy. With just 39 days left until the midterm elections, Republicans are now shaking in their boots over the very real prospect of losing control



    and BTW tiny, the latest VA poll has Webb abd allen even, thus Allen's seat, a supposedly "safe" race, is a toss up, all because of Allens faux pas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can anyone beleive Trent Lott though?

    They all look alike to me talking about Arabs. Lol.

    Priceless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And now our Congress has agreed that our government should be allowed to detain people indefinitely without access to charges or a court. In effect, they will be able to make any of us - ANY OF US - disappear for any reason they so choose. And they don't have to tell us or anyone else why.

    Is this how things are supposed to work in the "Land of the Free"? This is nothing short of unconscionable! We've sacrificed the very fabric of our republic? It's gone. How can people sleep at night knowing that our rights that have, for so long, been taken as a given are now gone? It's absolutely insane!

    Our constitution has been torn asunder, right before our very eyes. Every American should be up in arms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know what happened there Drewl. One minute John McCain is crying no torture, and the next minute he's saying, ok, lets just legalize it.

    The passing of the bill put our soldiers and Americans in far greater risk than not passing it.

    I wish they'd stop trying to keep me safe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Worfeus, I just wish they would STOP and GO home, remember they were all for term limits, well their terms are definitely UP. They cries 3 terms when they ran in 1994, and most have 12 years in power. Time they actually KEPT their word, and went back into the holes they crawled out of.

    They have VIOLATED both the spirit and words of their own contract on America.

    They have allowed the largest increase in the Federal debt since 1776, and have NO plan to resolve this looming fiscal disaster.

    They have turned their backs on oversight and the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering for it.

    By their OWN standards from 1994, they would not vote for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Throw the BUMS out.

    In 1994, the repugs ran on a theme they called contract with America.

    One of it's planks was TERM LIMITS.

    12 years total, six terms in the house was part of those limits, and THOSE six years are UP.

    They had two terms as a senator , which is also 12 years, and that time is UP.

    So lets keep these dishonest repugs who are running for re-election to their word, and help keep them honest, by;

    Throwing the BUMS out

    ReplyDelete
  8. Memo to the NY Times: Conservatism is Caused by Fighting It

    Has it always been this way? Has mainstream journalism always been so transparently agenda-driven as it is today? Probably. It’s just that we didn’t notice it until the rise of alternative media in the form of talk radio and blogs that began challenging our state religion of illiberal leftism.

    The question is again raised because of the fraudulent reporting of those slimese twins, the New York Times and the Washington Post, on the National Intelligence Estimate. Now that President Bush has declassified the document, we see that its overarching conclusion is the exact opposite of what the liberal media would have you believe.

    There’s plenty of good blogging on this story already (e.g., Dr. Sanity, Right Wing Nuthouse, American Thinker, et al), so there’s little I can add in that regard. As always, I will try to consider the cosmic implications.

    There is absolute truth and there is relative truth. Ironically, contrary to what most sophisticates will tell you, it is possible to know absolute truth absolutely. Being that truth is another matter, but knowing it is a human birthright. For example, we may know absolutely that reality is One, that appearance is not the same as reality, that the world is intelligible, and that human beings possess free will with which they may choose good or evil. This is the realm of perennial religious truth, which expresses metaphysical knowledge in sometimes mythological language accessible to virtually everyone.

    As I mentioned in my book, you might think of religion as the science of the Ultimate Subject, and science as the religion of the ultimate object. While we may possess objective knowledge of the ultimate subject--e.g., he is love-truth-beauty, or being-consciousness-bliss, or father-son-holy spirit--we can possess no similar knowledge of the relative world, where everything is tinged with human subjectivity. But “subjective” should not be confused with “arbitrary” or “untrue.”

    The philosophical tragedy of our day is that the postmodernists use this subjective opening--which is an inevitable artifact of our humaness--to come in with their wrecking ball and destroy the whole idea of objective truth, thus elevating relativity to an objective truth. In so doing, they promulgate the “false vertical” idea that there are absolutely no absolutes, a metaphysical absurdity if ever there was one. In other words, as soon as you say it is absolutely true that all knowledge is relative, you have disproved your own statement. You have actually acknowledged that humans may objectively know absolute truth.

    In order to understand the relative world, we must begin with an objectively true framework or paradigm that puts everything in its proper place and allows us to “see” what is important or significant. But the secular assault on religion has badly damaged the extraordinarly bountiful framework ("fruitfulness" being an aspect of truth) that guided western civilization for hundreds of years , only to replace it with their own thoroughly secularized pseudo-religion that we know of as “leftism.” (Memo to moonbats: I am not making the absurd suggestion that all leftists are somehow “bad people.” Rather, I am drawing out the implications of the leftist world view, implications that the average well-meaning leftist surely doesn’t even understand, much less approve of.)

    I have heard estimates from reputable members of the elite media that the typical newsroom probably tilts fifteen or twenty to one, liberal to conservative. But at the same time, virtually every one of them believes that they can see beyond their own biases and report the news “objectively.” One wonders what they would say if the situation were reversed, and all newsrooms, not to mention universities, had twenty times as many conservatives as leftists. Especially given their built-in victim mentality and sense of entitlement, there would be howls of indignation. There would be calls for civil rights investigations, ACLU lawsuits, boycotts.

    But because of their absurd philosophy, these leftists would see only a structural problem of “not enough liberals” instead of recognizing the truth that their own opinions, attitudes and perceptions are thoroughly colored by their own leftist assumptions. They would have to concede that “I see the world completely differently because I am a liberal,” and they would have to abandon their pretense of journalistic objectivity.

    This is why so few people trust the liberal media anymore, because they will not admit their biases. Whatever President Bush’s perceived level of trustworthiness, you can be sure that the MSM’s is significantly lower. And yet, the latter will arrogantly opine on the former, as if their opinions about Bush’s trustworthiness are trustworthy! If they were forthright, they'd say, "don't trust me on this, but I don't think Bush is very trustworthy."

    And this is why people flock to alternative sources of news such as talk radio, blogs, and Fox news--because they are transparent. I don’t pretend that I see the world through anything other than the lens of classical American liberalism. Viewed through that lens, the world is an entirely different place than it is when viewed through the lens of illiberal leftism. We literally see different things. We have different assumptions, different ideas about what is important, different values, different notions of good and evil, even entirely different ideas about fundamental causes.

    For example, the typical liberal unreflexively believes that “poverty causes crime” (thus the New York Times' clueless headline, "Crime Down Despite Rise in Prison Population") whereas I believe that bad values cause crime. The difference is that the typical liberal has never thought this through. They are generally quite naive about their beliefs, for the simple reason that they have never been challenged. They don’t experience the kind of constant cognitive friction that a conservative does, so they don’t even know how to argue or defend their ideas, which we saw with Clinton last Sunday.

    Liberals will typically say that Israeli policies somehow have something to do with Palestinian terror, while I believe that Palestinian terror is caused by their psychotic death cult theology. After all, there are no Christian Palestinian terrorists. They are just as “occupied” as Palestinian Muslims, and yet, it doesn’t occur to the Christians to strap on bombs with pieces of twisted metal and rat poison in order to kill and maim as many women and children as possible.

    You and I are not even able to entertain thoughts so evil. We cannot even go there. Under no circumstances whatsoever can we imagine decapitating an innocent journalist or murdering a baby. But could I waterboard a terrorist to stop a terror attack? In a hearbeat. I literally cannot understand the mind of the person who wouldn’t (or the truly "pro-torture" mind of someone who makes excuses for Palestinian terror, which is to essentially say that they would not rule out engaging in it themselves). Different values. Different world. If fighting Islamo-nazis means that more of them are willing to fight for the cause of evil, that's okay. There is a ready solution: kill them faster.

    If you unreflexively believe that poverty causes crime or that the cause of terror is fighting it, then all of your reporting is going to reflect those basic assumptions, something we constantly see in the liberal media. For them, these notions are simply “reality,” whereas the idea that bad values cause crime or an evil theology causes terror are “conservative” ideas. Neither point of view is absolutely true, but one is much more true.

    Thus, we should not be surprised when liberals take things out of context and distort reality to fit their peceptions. For them to say “the war on terror causes terrorists” is simply a cherished assumption dressed up as a conclusion. If you give it a moment’s thought, their whole world view is just so stupid. Would they ever report that terrorists are the cause of the American military that liberals so despise, and that if terrorists would only appease America, our military would stop trying to harm them? Or that Islamo-nazis have to stop their unwinnable war on the west, because it will only create more George Bushes and Tony Blairs and John Howards?

    Or that they themselves must stop mindlessly attacking conservatives, because it will just make us stronger?

    Personally, I hope they never figure out that last one.

    from Gagdad Bob at "One Cosmos"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hastert knew.

    From the the Washington Post:

    The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley’s GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some “contact” between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him “we’re taking care of it.”

    It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Breaking Point

    It was another bad week in Iraq. While bodies were piling up in the Baghdad morgue and the militia fighting steadily intensified, the Bush administration was hit with a rash of PR scandals that are bound to erode public support for the war. The worst of these is the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which was leaked to the New York Times and which stated that “the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the 9-11 attacks.”

    The NIE carries great weight because it represents the unanimous judgment of all 16 of the American intelligence agencies. The document’s findings cast doubt on the central tenet of the war on terror, that is, that terror originates from a radical ideology (Islamo-fascism) which fosters an irrational hatred for modernity, western-style democracy, and personal freedom. The NIE proves that the Bush-Blair theory of terror is hopelessly flawed and that violent jihad is actually fueled by occupation and injustice. Terrorism is a reaction to foreign policy. It has nothing to do with “hating our freedoms”. The NIE confirms this simple truism.

    The long-term effects of the report are impossible to calculate. The Bush agenda is predicated on the “Big Lie”, that we are under attack and that “We must fight them there, if we don’t want to fight them here.” The administration has manipulated the “perception of a threat” to justify its endless “preemptive” wars, curtailed civil liberties and enhanced powers of the executive. The NIE shows that the war on terror is a sham that only generates more violent extremism.

    The administration will now have to counter the report’s conclusions if it wants to revive support for the war on terror and continue its ongoing consolidation of power. We should anticipate another Karl Rove public relations campaign to reengage the public and perpetuate the global onslaught.

    More Dismal News

    The results from a number of polls appeared in last week’s news. In a University of Maryland survey the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that “71% of Iraqis want the US troops to leave within a year”. The poll also found that nearly 4 out of 5 Iraqis believe that the US military is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing” and that “60% of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces.” The survey shows that popular support for the occupation has continued to dwindle while hostility towards the American presence is growing beyond all expectation.

    In still another poll (Harris poll) showed that only 20% of Americans are “still confidant that US policies in Iraq will be successful”. Public support for the war is plummeting despite the enthusiastic efforts of the media and the political establishment.

    Ironically, a “leak” from the Pentagon revealed that the Lincoln Group (which was the focus of an earlier investigation for planting “pro-occupation” stories in Iraqi newspapers) was just awarded another $6 million contract. According to the Kansas City Star, “The Washington-based group won a two year contract to monitor a number of English and Arabic media outlets and produce public relations products such as talking points or speeches for US forces in Iraq”.

    The administration continues to (cynically) believe that their well-paid propagandists can prevail in the “hearts and minds” campaign by creating patriotic sound bytes and poignant anecdotes about devoted soldiers performing their duties. What’s needed, however, is a dramatic change of policy. The country is increasingly disillusioned with Iraq and is looking for signs of progress or a firm date for withdrawal. Rumsfeld’s scribes at the Lincoln Group will have no luck trying to rekindle the confidence they have already squandered. All of the prime indicators are now pointed in the opposite direction and a full 63% of the American people now feel that the war was a “mistake”.

    Managing Perceptions of the ongoing War

    In a fascinating article by Eric Boehlert, “The Press downplays Iraq during the Campaign Season. Again” the author shows how the media either “covers” or “doesn’t cover” the war depending on how close we are to the elections:

    “Fact: In the 10 weeks prior to Election Day in 2004, the war in Iraq was the most reported story on the weekly news programs just twice, according to the media research of Andrew Tyndall. But immediately following Bush’s reelection, the war in Iraq instantly became the most covered story on the nightly news programs—for 7 weeks in a row.”

    Boehlert also shows how the media has steadily reduced its coverage of the war to maintain the rapidly diminishing support:

    “In 2003 ABC, NBC, and CBS nightly newscasts, on average, devoted 388 minutes each month to covering Iraq…By 2005, that monthly tally had decreased by more than 50%---to 166 minutes each month. Today, unless there is a dramatic late-September surge in coverage, the Big Three nightly newscasts will end up the month having devoted a total of 40 minutes to Iraq, or less than 15% of their airtime.”

    15% less than 2003! And, Iraq continues to be the main issue on people’s minds going into the election season.

    These figures tell the “hidden” story of Iraq. They expose how the mainstream media intentionally reduces its coverage to maintain support for the war. The figures fail to show, however, the omissions and diversions that the media provides on an hourly basis. The American people are prevented from seeing flag-draped coffins, disgruntled GIs, or the vast devastation caused by military occupation. Televised coverage is carefully limited to fashion a misleading narrative of sectarian warfare, which suggests that the main problem is “Iraqi killing Iraqi”. The real problem is US occupation, a fact that is unavoidably evident in every survey conducted in Iraq.

    When we consider relentless maneuverings of the media, it is gratifying to see that Americans are finally beginning to recognize the truth behind the imagery. Fortunately, there are limits to the effectiveness of propaganda regardless of how adroitly it is employed.

    Stretched to the Brink

    In other news of the week, the Congressional Research Service announced that the “total cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and enhanced security at military bases since September 11, 2001, could reach $549 billion this year. The White House Office of Management and Budget estimated that the war will cost $110 billion for fiscal year 2007” (McClatchy Newspapers)

    More than a half trillion dollars in 3 years.

    Iraq is devouring resources at an unprecedented pace and producing nothing in return. There’s no more “happy talk” from officials in the Bush administration about how “Iraq will pay for itself” through oil revenues as Paul Wolfowitz foolishly stated prior to the invasion. Iraq has become a black-hole swallowing up boatloads of cash that otherwise would have been earmarked for education, health care, infrastructure and security. The war is bankrupting the nation while grooming the next generation’s terrorists. This is the very definition of failure.

    The Iraqi mission is not only over-budget but overextended. The cracks and fissures in the military are quickly becoming gaping holes. The Army and Marines are trying to find creative ways to put more boots on the ground, but their only option is to increase deployments to the theatre. Some of the troops are presently on their 4th tour of duty and it is likely that even more of the National Guard will be called up, leaving the country vulnerable to terrorist attack or natural disaster.

    The Washington Times reports that “The increased demand for troops comes at a time when military analysts say it is stressed to the breaking point….Non-deployed combat brigades are experiencing low-readiness ratings due mostly to lack of usable weapons and equipment. The wear and tear in Iraq is ruining M1A1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvees and other equipment at such a fast pace that the Army has neither the money nor the industrial base to replace them.”

    The military is in a shambles and headed for a calamity.

    America’s enemies should be thrilled that Don Rumsfeld is still overseeing all operations in Iraq. His incompetence is only matched by his astonishing inability to learn from his mistakes. It’s plain that America will not prevail with Rumsfeld in command.

    Overextended, over-budget and mismanaged. The war in Iraq is foundering and the war on terror has been exposed as a fraud. (the NIE report)

    How much worse can it get?

    There is no good news from Iraq. It’s all bad. The magnitude of America’s defeat is becoming clearer and clearer with each passing day. Rumsfeld’s cheery propaganda campaign has fallen on hard times and will have no effect on the wars’ final outcome. The problem is the policy; it is untenable and will require a thorough overhaul.

    We should expect to see dramatic changes following the elections. The Iraq Survey Group, steered by committee-chair and Bush family friend James Baker, will release their findings right after the November balloting. Judging by their guarded comments, big changes are ahead. Perhaps, the troops will move to the perimeter and let the Iraqis kill each other in a full-blown civil war.

    Whatever transpires, the first phase of the Iraqi fiasco is nearly over. The Bush administration will be compelled to protect its interests while limiting the exposure of its troops. They may choose to minimize their activities to bombing raids and counter-insurgency operations, further destroying the threadbare fabric of Iraqi society.

    Security is not important. Lives are not important. Only oil and the people it enriches are important.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The only GOOD news for the GOP in the Foley story, Kathrine Harris is NO longer the MOST hated repug in Florida, just the second most hated repug in florida.

    ReplyDelete
  12. House GOP Leadership knew about Foley almost a year ago, let Foley remain in House leadership, let him remain as chair of House sex offender caucus



    UPDATE: Foley's "instant message" communications with yet another underage boy, circa 2003, have now been posted by ABC. They are horrendous. I cannot believe that Denny Hastert knew about Foley using the Net to chat-up underage boys a year ago and DID NOTHING (you'll recall that the email conversations we posted earlier were around the time of Hurricane Katrina last year).

    Tell me why Denny Hastert shouldn't be forced to immediately resign. They left your kids with this man AFTER they knew what he was doing. They let him stay in the GOP leadership. They let him remain the chair of the child sex offender caucus. Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The repugs KNEW they had a member who was emailing underage pages and DID Nothing, they are as culpable as the Catholic bishops who enabled the priests in the catholic church, but they HAD a oath to protect the constitution from PEOPLE like rep Foley(R) and FAILED there as bad as Bush has failed in Iraq.

    The GOP the party of failures.

    ReplyDelete
  14. They thought they were untouchable


    After all the despicable things Republicans in the House of Representatives have done in recent years, it’s sad to think it may have taken something like this to bring them down a peg or two. What was Foley thinking? Sending out sexually suggestive messages to underage House pages — by e-mail!!! Is there any mode of communication more likely to be uncovered, shared and ultimately widely disseminated?

    And what were GOP congressional leaders thinking when, at best, they intentionally overlooked the problem, or, at worst, engaged in a full-blown cover-up?

    Actually, there’s very little mystery to it: It’s the same pattern that keeps popping up in the similarly brazen escapades in the Jack Abramoff scandal: They thought they were untouchable. And why wouldn’t they? They had it all, absolute control over every aspect of the federal government; there was nothing on the landscape but friendly faces, always ready to clean up any unfortunate messes (this is in no way intended to impugn the integrity of the professional staff at the Justice Department or other federal investigative agencies, such as the FBI).

    But that was before: Some scandals, by the nature of things, don’t clean up very easily. And this one isn’t going away until every rock is turned over and every pebble is dusted.

    I can only imagine what scum we’re going to find.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brent Budowsky -- Derelictions Of Duty: How George Bush Has Disrespected Commanders and Hurt Our Troops

    George W. Bush has now made one of the most appalling speeches in presidential history, comparing himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman and making charges against his opponents that should not be dignified by repeating.

    It is time to set the record straight. Those who President Bush was really attacking were his commanders, his former Secretary of State, leaders of the NATO alliance among many others who have warned him of dangers and urged him to change course.

    Time and time again, itemized in detail below, George Bush has shown contempt for his commanders, disrespected their advice, demeaned them publicly and privately, and taken action after action that directly harmed the safety of our troops and caused great damage to the mission and our national security.

    In the Washington Post of September 26 I was both honored and outraged to read four full pages of American heroes lost in action in Iraq.

    Honored because these young men and women, many of them 18 to 21 years of age, black, white, hispanic, asian, are truly the best that America has to offer. There are not words to fully express the honor they bring in the long line of American patriots, from the days of the Continental Army until every next morning in the America they defend for us.

    Outraged because these American heroes deserved a damn sight better than they have gotten from the politicians in Washington and the nation that celebrates its tax cuts and housing bubbles while their blood is shed in the sands of the Middle East

    What we have witnessed on a massive scale is a dereliction of duty of unparalleled proportion, from those who sent these young men and women to war, where they heroically did their duty, while politicians used them as cannon fodder for partisanship while committing derelictions of duty that did them great harm.

    On issue after issue our hyper-partisan president has abused both the chain of command and his trust as commander in chief.

    Congress should conduct televised public hearings, now, that would bring every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, every commander of the Iraq mission, and a significant number of enlisted men and women who have served in Iraq, to testify publicly and fully about what they truly believe about what should be done now.

    They should be put under oath, not to question their truthfulness, but to protect them from any more abusive pressure or misrepresentation from civilians in the Administration or Congress.

    And if Congress and our President can agree on any one thing, they should award a special and subtantial hardship bonus to every man and woman who has served in Iraq and in the cases of those who have left us, to their families who honor them, and make us proud to be their neighbors and fellow patriots.

    It high time we end this abuse of command influence, these attempts by the President and Secretary of Defense to ignore the advice of commanders, and to threaten or intimidate them into not speaking out, and then to publicly misrepresent their views.

    I dare any Republican, I dare any conservative, I dare any neoconservative to put their name on paper and challenge any one of these blunt and true assertions:

    This whole Iraq venture began when our commanders presented a war plan that would have required 400,000 troops.

    I challenge the President and his partisans:

    Is it not true that our commanders were bullied, beaten down and rudely and unprofessionally treated to force them into a war plan that they believed had far too troops for the mission?

    Did our commanders not despise the shameful, unethical, and abusive treatment of General Eric Shinseki when he tried to warn us and was treated with ridicule and abuse by the neocons and our President?

    Did it not do real damage for morale when General Shinseki was forced into early retirement while George Tenet and others who failed were given the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

    Did not our commanders repeatedly, time and again throughout this venture, advise against inadequate troop strength, then be ordered to stop advocating what they believe is right, and read in the newspapers our President promising, falsely, that he always gives the commanders the troop levels they believe they need?

    Do you not admit that at the very beginning of this unfortunate venture, grave damage was done to this mission by ignorant words and ignorant policies by a smirking President and arrogant Secretary of Defense when they spoke of Old Europe, when they made snide and condescending comments about NATO, when they guaranteed that this mission would never have the support that President George Herbert Walker Bush, who they also demeaned in the media at that time, achieved for the first Gulf War.

    Do you not now admit with humble apologies you committed a grave injustice, and did real harm to our troops, when those with zero combat experience insulted a long list of retired generals as "armchair generals", when they spoke truth to power, and in fact spoke for a majority of active duty generals, despite false statements by ideologues and partisans to the contrary.

    Did not our commanders warn against the failure to provide equipment that was so extreme and so dangerous that the Marine Corps pathologist found that up to 70% of our casualties were preventable, meaning their serious injuries and deaths were not caused by their mistakes, or the enemy's success, but by derelictions of duty on a massive scale by those who sent them to war but disrespected the advice of commanders.

    Is it not true that our commanders time and again sought help, which was denied, to provide body armor, fortified vehicles, helmets, bandages and other equipment that civilian officials failed to provide, despite repeated, and false, claims that they always gave the commanders what those commanders sought. Did our commanders not unanimously and aggressively oppose the use of torture which they unanimously and aggressively believe creates danger for our troops, tarnishes our reputation around the world, creates new terrorists and violates cardinal rules of war that they hold sacred?

    Is it not 100% true that the torture practices advocated by this President directly disrespect two centuries of good advice and military ethics and directly violate the advice and good judgment of commanders today?

    Is it not true that our commanders were repeatedly and aggressively subject to abusive interference, and pressure from civilians that would be grounds for court martial, if it did not come from the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense?

    Is it not true that every commander is appalled and sickened by proposals to cut spending for brain injuries for wounded troops?

    Is it not true that commanders and enlisted men are disgusted that civilian leaders have allowed a situation to continue that almost 20% of active duty troops face such extreme financial hardship they are forced to pay predatory lenders interest rates from 300% to nearly 800%?

    Do you not confess that it is an unpardonable dereliction of duty that this is ever allowed to happen, to even one man or woman who wears the uniform of our country?

    Is it not true that commanders were disgusted and appalled that they were ordered to never again say our leaders needed a post war plan for Iraq, and privately disgusted that they were threatened and bullied and told they would be fired by those who started a war with too few troops, and continued an occupation with too much too corruption, and then demeaned the commanders who proposed a plan?

    Is it not true that our commanders were appalled by the misuse and misrepresentation of intelligence that is so essential in deciding whether to wage war, and how conduct it, once it begins?

    Do you deny that our commanders urgently requested reinforcements at Tora Bora when we could have killed Bin Laden and were outraged when the cavalry did not come to finish the kill, but were sent to Iraq instead by a President who always claimed, falsely, that he followed his commanders advice and now claims, falsely, that his political opponents offer nothing but cut and run which he, himself, did at Tora Bora?

    Do you dispute that from day one commanders urged a far more visionary and serious effort for reconstruction of Afghanistan and warned, correctly, that if this were not forthcoming, which it was not, that the Taliban would come back, and the war lords and drug lords would triumph, which they have?

    Do you not admit that our commanders were appalled that Republican operatives and Republican contributors were chosen for lucrative Iraq Reconstruction projects that saw at least $10 billion wasted, stolen and lost?

    Do you not confess that our troops were gravely hurt by stolen money in corrupt contracts and crony deals, when that money should have gone to protect our troops, and help Iraqis who's hearts and minds we need to win?

    Do you not admit that our commanders are appalled by scandal and negligence so rampant that the Iraqi police academy will have to be torn apart because urine and feces drip down on recruits, while corruption runs rampant among Iraqi police where many do not do their jobs, others shoot to kill Americans, and our troops suffer casualties doing the jobs that Iraqi police have refused to do, for all these years of the misbegotten venture?

    Do you not confess that our commanders are appalled that Iraqi politicians are unwilling and unable to deal with murdering militias, who have stepped into the void created by the failure of Iraq police to stand up, and who spend half their time committing sectarian murder against each other, and the other half planning the murder of American troops?

    Do you believe it serves democracy, our commanders or our troops when more than 60% of Iraqis support the killing of American troops, and more than 70% want our troops to leave within range of a year? Do you question my assertion that time and time again, on issue after issue, at great cost to the mission and the troops, commanders faced political pressure and abuse, and were threatened not to speak their minds, while civilian leaders put on their American flag pins and went to their 4 of July picnics and stated, falsely, shamefully, that the commanders agree with every decision the civilians made, and get everything they privately ask for?

    Is it not true today, that our commanders believe we need more American and NATO forces in Afghanistan?

    Is it not true today, that our commanders will be forced to even greater distortions of troop rotations in Iraq, and that if the status quo continues unabated, some of the ten year old children we see on playgrounds today, will someday serve in Iraq based on the "stay the course" contingency plans that remain active today?

    Do you not admit that the Senate Intelligence Committee report that you want covered up until after the election will countless false statements by high level officials who failed to tell the truth, about what was in the true interest of our troops?

    Do you not agree that because of the stresses and distortions of our global force structures from this misbegotten and mismanaged venture our commanders believe there are major dangers in trouble spots around the world, that we could be unable to address under current conditions?

    Do you concede that our current Chief of Staff of the Army is courageously resisting political pressures and refusing to support a budget he believes is bogus, and is fighting with honor for what he believes our troops in fact need?

    Do you not admit that our commanders are asking for far more money than you have told the public, to replace outworn and often destroyed equipment that must urgently be replaced to protect the security of the Nation, and maintain a credible military deterrent, around the world.

    Do you not accept the incontrovertible fact that our entire American intelligence community believes that the current Iraq war strategy is creating new terrorists, more terrorists, and great dangers and that our commanders have long been fighting like hell for policies that address political, diplomatic, economic and humanitarian issues that have been so devastatingly neglected by civilian leaders, over the objection of our commanders?

    Do you not agree that our commanders are deeply offended by the spectacle of the leader of one our major "allies", Pakistan, making a deal that gives sanctuary to terrorists in parts of his nation, and then comes to Washington, and refuses to answer questions, because he has a book deal with his publisher, which takes priority over American lives?

    Do you admit that the commanders and officer corps who have long advocated more effective reconstruction for Afghanistan are disgusted to see a Presidential dinner where leaders of two of our most important "allies" insult and demean each other, while our President sits at the table between them, five years after 9-11, looking like a pitiful and helpless spectator?

    And do you not confess and admit that our commanders are appalled that ideologues run to talk shows and political speeches, and blow the winds of war from the lips of those who have done enough damage to our military for a lifetime, who have no experience in war themselves, but talk of a new war here, and a new war there, as though war is a dinner party discussion, or cheap talk show talk?

    Do you not admit that it would be better for our commanders, for our troops, for our security if our entire nation was asked to contribute to whatever war effort we undertake together?

    Do you not agree is it shameful that 1% of our country makes close to 100% of the sacrifice, that some are asked to die in Arabia while others guzzle gas in their cars, that some give their lives and limbs for our country while others enjoy tax cuts, discuss housing bubbles, and watch oil executives pocket hundreds of millions of dollars of personal wealth?

    I am madder than hell because on issue after issue, the commanders have been right, the civilians have been wrong, the commanders have been ignored or disrespected, while the civilians use the troops as partisan weapons, then fail to provide the troops what they need, an inexcusable dereliction.

    I dare any conservative, I dare any Republican, I dare any neoconservative to put pen to paper, and stand up with honor, and put your name and reputation behind it, and tell me which of these assertions you claim is not true.

    Therefore: to initiate the long overdue debate and end these shameful derelictions of duty, Congress should call nationally televised hearings that would bring our Joint Chiefs of Staff, our commanders and representative enlisted men and women to public testimony to tell the country what they really believe.

    With no more political influence, no more spin and no more pressure, no more partisan abuse and no more threats, no more lies and no more speeches by our president that demean the presidency, and divide the Nation, and further endanger the troops, and further alienate and anger the free world.

    Now with the intelligence estimate made public for all the world to see, we know the facts they truly believe. With a new book coming out by Bob Woodward, which will add to the tales of misrepresentation, failure and abuse. With a country that hungers for leadership and for integrity and honor in Washington, let us end this dereliction of duty that has gone on, for far too long, at too great a cost, with too much blood, with too many dead, with too much damage done to our country.

    We owe a debt to every man and woman who has ever served our country, to every man and woman who serves anywhere in the world today, and to every man and woman who will ever serve as guardian of our freedom to be the best that we can be ourselves, and to be the best that we can be, for them.

    We must not be remembered as a generation that fell to dereliction, we should aspire to be a generation that will pay the price to reach for greatness, to leave the young who follow us, the world that they deserve.

    Brent Budowsky

    ReplyDelete
  16. Operation Ignore


    Booby:


    It describes how, on July 10, 2001, CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters "to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. The mass of fragments made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately."

    Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser. "For months," Woodward writes, "Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy... that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden.... Tenet and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.

    "Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming....

    "But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the intelligence, asking: Could it all be a grand deception? "

    Woodward describes the meeting, and the two officials' plea that the U.S. "needed to take action that moment -- covert, military, whatever -- to thwart bin Laden."

    The result? "Tenet and Black felt they were not getting though to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies."

    "Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long....



    I've long believed that the My Pet Goat moment had a simple explanation. For perhaps the first time in his life George Bush, just for a moment, felt a tiny bit of personal responsibility for something that went horribly wrong under his watch. It was not a nice feeling. They were warned, strongly, and they did nothing. Absolutely nothing.


    Heckuva job.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well ABC did their little attempt to hand Bill Clinton all the blame for 9-11. TOO bad they did not know Bob Woodard was writing a BOOK about how bad Bush ET AL were really doing. Makes their movie A "work of fiction" now doesn't it?

    I guess the real question is WHO you gonna believe: the ABC hack who is a buddy of Rush Limpman, or an award winning respected author KNOWN for his impeccable research and note taking AS the events are unfolding? Somebody who does not ask partisan attack dogs YEARS later for what they remember. (Or can spin for a attack piece).

    ReplyDelete
  18. From the NYT;

    In Bob Woodward’s highly anticipated new book, “State of Denial,” President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. It’s a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in “Bush at War,” his 2002 book, which depicted the president — in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed — as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the “vision thing” his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Same Link;

    As this new book’s title indicates, Mr. Woodward now sees Mr. Bush as a president who lives in a state of willful denial about the worsening situation in Iraq, a president who insists he won’t withdraw troops, even “if Laura and Barney are the only ones who support me.” (Barney is Mr. Bush’s Scottish terrier.) Mr. Woodward draws an equally scathing portrait of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who comes off as a bully and control freak who is reluctant to assume responsibility for his department’s failures, and who has surrounded himself with yes men and created a system that bleached out “strong, forceful military advice.” Mr. Rumsfeld remains wedded to his plan to conduct the war in Iraq with a lighter, faster force (reflecting his idée fixe of “transforming” the military), even as the situation there continues to deteriorate.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Same Link;

    Mr. Woodward reports that after the 2004 election Andrew H. Card Jr., then White House chief of staff, pressed for Mr. Rumsfeld’s ouster (he recommended former Secretary of State James A. Baker III as a replacement), and that Laura Bush shared his concern, worrying that Mr. Rumsfeld was hurting her husband’s reputation. Vice President Dick Cheney, however, persuaded Mr. Bush to stay the course with Mr. Cheney’s old friend Mr. Rumsfeld, arguing that any change might be perceived as an expression of doubt and hesitation on the war. Other members of the administration also come off poorly. Gen. Richard B. Myers is depicted as a weak chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who routinely capitulated to the will of Mr. Rumsfeld and who rarely offered an independent opinion. Former C.I.A. director George J. Tenet is described as believing that the war against Iraq was a terrible mistake, but never expressing his feelings to the president. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who appears in this volume primarily in her former role as national security adviser) is depicted as a presidential enabler, ineffectual at her job of coordinating interagency strategy and planning.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Same link;

    For instance, Mr. Woodward writes that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice to warn her of mounting intelligence about an impending terrorist attack, but came away feeling they’d been given “the brush-off” — a revealing encounter, given Ms. Rice’s recent comments, rebutting former President Bill Clinton’s allegations that the Bush administration had failed to pursue counterterrorism measures aggressively before 9/11.

    As depicted by Mr. Woodward, this is an administration in which virtually no one will speak truth to power, an administration in which the traditional policy-making process involving methodical analysis and debate is routinely subverted. He notes that experts — who recommended higher troop levels in Iraq, warned about the consequences of disbanding the Iraqi Army or worried about the lack of postwar planning— were continually ignored by the White House and Pentagon leadership, or themselves failed, out of cowardice or blind loyalty, to press insistently their case for an altered course in the war.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Same link;

    Mr. Woodward describes the administration’s management of the war as being improvisatory and ad hoc, like a pickup basketball game, and argues that it continually tried to give the public a rosy picture of the war in Iraq (while accusing the press of accentuating the negative), even as its own intelligence was pointing to a rising number of attacks against American forces and an upward spiral of violence. A secret February 2005 report by Philip D. Zelikow, a State Department counselor, found that “Iraq remains a failed state shadowed by constant violence and undergoing revolutionary political change” and concluded that the American effort there suffered because it lacked a comprehensive, unified policy.

    Startlingly little of this overall picture is new, of course. Mr. Woodward’s portrait of Mr. Bush as a prisoner of his own certitude owes a serious debt to a 2004 article in The New York Times Magazine by the veteran reporter Ron Suskind, just as his portrait of the Pentagon’s incompetent management of the war and occupation owes a serious debt to “Fiasco,” the Washington Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks’s devastating account of the war, published this summer. Other disclosures recapitulate information contained in books and articles by other journalists and former administration insiders.

    But if much of “State of Denial” simply ratifies the larger outline of the Bush administration’s bungled handling of the war as laid out by other reporters, Mr. Woodward does flesh out that narrative with new illustrations and some telling details that enrich the reader’s understanding of the inner workings of this administration at this critical moment.

    ReplyDelete
  23. same link;

    He reports, for instance, that the Vietnam-era Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger “had a powerful, largely invisible influence on the foreign policy of the Bush administration,” urging President Bush and Vice President Cheney to stick it out. According to Mr. Woodward, Mr. Kissinger gave the former Bush adviser and speechwriter Michael Gerson his so-called 1969 salted peanut memo, which warned President Richard M. Nixon that “withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public; the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded.”

    As with Mr. Woodward’s earlier books, many of his interviews were conducted on background, though, from the point of view of particular passages, it’s often easy for the reader to figure out just who his sources were. In some cases he recreates conversations seemingly based on interviews with only one of the participants. The former Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Mr. Card, Mr. Tenet, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser (to Bush senior), appear to be among the author’s primary sources.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Same link;

    Whereas Mr. Woodward has tended in the past to stand apart from his narrative, rarely pausing to analyze or assess the copious material he has gathered, he is more of an active agent in this volume — perhaps in a kind of belated mea culpa for his earlier positive portrayals of the administration. In particular, he inserts himself into interviews with Mr. Rumsfeld — clearly annoyed, even appalled, by the Pentagon chief’s cavalier language and reluctance to assume responsibility for his department’s failures.

    Mr. Woodward reports that when he told Mr. Rumsfeld that the number of insurgent attacks was going up, the defense secretary replied that they’re now “categorizing more things as attacks.” Mr. Woodward quotes Mr. Rumsfeld as saying, “A random round can be an attack and all the way up to killing 50 people someplace. So you’ve got a whole fruit bowl of different things — a banana and an apple and an orange.”

    Mr. Woodward adds: “I was speechless. Even with the loosest and most careless use of language and analogy, I did not understand how the secretary of defense would compare insurgent attacks to a ‘fruit bowl,’ a metaphor that stripped them of all urgency and emotion. The official categories in the classified reports that Rumsfeld regularly received were the lethal I.E.D.’s, standoff attacks with mortars and close engagements such as ambushes.”

    ReplyDelete
  25. Same Link;

    Earlier in the volume, in a section describing the former Iraq administrator Jay Garner’s reluctance to tell the president about the mistakes he saw the Pentagon making in Iraq, Mr. Woodward writes: “It was only one example of a visitor to the Oval Office not telling the president the whole story or the truth. Likewise, in these moments where Bush had someone from the field there in the chair beside him, he did not press, did not try to open the door himself and ask what the visitor had seen and thought. The whole atmosphere too often resembled a royal court, with Cheney and Rice in attendance, some upbeat stories, exaggerated good news and a good time had by all.” Were the war in Iraq not a real war that has resulted in more than 2,700 American military casualties and more than 56,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, the picture of the Bush administration that emerges from this book might resemble a farce. It’s like something out of “The Daily Show” or a “Saturday Night Live” sketch, with Freudian Bush family dramas and high-school-like rivalries between cabinet members who refuse to look at one another at meetings being played out on the world stage.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Same link;

    There’s the president, who once said, “I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy,” deciding that he’s going to remake the Middle East and alter the course of American foreign policy. There’s his father, former President George Herbert Walker Bush (who went to war against the same country a decade ago), worrying about the wisdom of another war but reluctant to offer his opinions to his son because he believes in the principle of “let him be himself.” There’s the president’s national security adviser whining to him that the defense secretary won’t return her phone calls. And there’s the president and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, trading fart jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Same link;

    Mr. Woodward suggests that Mr. Rumsfeld decided to make the Iraq war plan “his personal project” after seeing a rival agency, the C.I.A., step up to run operations in Afghanistan (when it became clear that the Pentagon was unprepared for a quick invasion of that country, right after 9/11). And he suggests that President Bush chose Mr. Rumsfeld as his defense secretary, in part, because he knew his father mistrusted Mr. Rumsfeld, and the younger Bush wanted to prove his father wrong.

    Many of the people in this book seem not only dismayed but also flummoxed by some of President Bush’s decisions. Mr. Woodward quotes Laura Bush as telling Andrew Card that she doesn’t understand why her husband isn’t upset about Mr. Rumsfeld and the uproar over his handling of the war . And he quotes Mr. Armitage as telling former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that he’s baffled by President Bush’s reluctance to make adjustments in his conduct of the war.

    “Has he thought this through?” Mr. Armitage asks. “What the president says in effect is, We’ve got to press on in honor of the memory of those who have fallen. Another way to say that is we’ve got to have more men fall to honor the memories of those who have already fallen.”

    ReplyDelete
  28. I've said it before and I'll say it again Clif.

    The only way this President has to honor the sacrifice of our troops, is to sacrifice more troops.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You should've heard Murtha yesterday, talking about the Bush administration "sitting on their fat assess sending these boys out to die".

    I think Murtha wants to kick Bush's ass.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well worfeus, the reichwingnuts tried their path to 9-11, too bad for them Woodward was writing Bush's half of the screen play IN DETAIL.

    This combined with Con. Foley's emails and the GOP's knowledge for almost a year there was a problem and DOING nothing about it, might just send the GOP packing for a couple of election cycles.

    There is little the repugs got left but rallying the ever shrinking base.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Whats amazing Clif is the White House is busy "refuting" Woodwards book.

    On CNN this morning I heard that the White House is coming out with "5 Myths of the Woodward Book".

    Funny. You'd think they'd have better things to do with their time, considering we are "at war" and all.

    Like they keep telling us over and over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Woodward?

    Bahhh

    Bahhhhhhh

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anyone who likes George Bush is a traitor and is un-American.

    I am serious. Anyone who continues to defend this president's policies or thinks he is right, sane, moral or good — needs serious mental help.

    THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL: BUSH IS A DANGER TO AMERICA. And he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost. He reacted to a terrorist attack with a full-scale military invasion, thereby letting the terrorists define the word "war."

    When he met one of the 911 widows on her anniversary which happened to fall on Sept. 11, all he said to her was: Ouch, "A double whammy."

    What kind of people could elect a moron just because he spoke "their redneck language and looked like he'd be fun to drink beer with at a barbeque?" Is it really okay to elect as president a man who had never been outside the USA? A man so uneducated and downright stupid he faked his way through college and airforce training and went AWOL?

    He has taken away all the good will this country had around the world. When everyone hates you, you had better realize that where there's smoke there's fire. WE CAN AND MUST IMPEACH THIS WAR CRIMINAL.

    BUSH has single-handedly turned our beautiful country into a non-democratic empire.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Lydia Cornell said...
    Anyone who likes George Bush is a traitor and is un-American.


    Lol.

    They're not gonna like that.

    Thats their name for us, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Worfeus, they still do not get it. Image is no longer enough, after their failures in Katrina, Harriet Meirs, The port fiasco, The RTOTAL fiasco Iraq has become, the re-emergence of the Taliban, the morons in the White House, think a counter accusation against Woodard will change these meme's that Americans SEE. It will not change the facts, which Woodard's book explains how it all HAPPENED.

    and with Con Foley's scandal undercutting Hastert and Bohenor right now, they are not there to offer support.

    This weekend is gonna haunt the GOP for a while, each end of Pennsylvania avenue took a BAD hit against the GOP operatives who control it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Whats amazing Clif is there is sooooooo much bad news, Trent Lott just kinda skated out of his most recent racial slur against Arabs and the Iraqi people.

    Any other time, a US Senator stating unequivocably, "THEY ALL LOOK ALIKE TO ME" would have dominated the news cycles for weeks.

    But we haven't heard too much about it, probably because the White House is busy manipulating the news like I've never seen before.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Imagine.

    THEY ALL LOOK ALIKE TO ME.

    Lott is as racist as they come.

    ReplyDelete
  38. That would be the correct response, but the repugs have shown time after time PARTY always comes FIRST. Before reporting a pedophile who just happens to be a repug congressman. Before the Troops, before the constitution. Before ALL. and after November 7th, there will not be enough Democrats in the senate to convict, and you know there will be only 1 or 2 repug votes.

    But NOW I think the impeachment hearings should be held to finally out this corrupt criminal administration for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well after all Lott was not saying anything as bad as George Allen, and Lott is not in danger of losing his seat.

    SO many dumb repugs and only so many reporters to explain it. The Sunday shows tomorrow are going to be interesting.

    But after 60 minutes Sunday night with Bob Woodard, and Larry king Monday night with Bob Woodard, things will get interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I don't know.

    Macacca is bad, but so is "they all look alike to me"

    That has been a long time racial slur, usually pointed towards Asians or Middle Easterners, Asians in my dads day.

    I think he should lose his seat for saying such a stupid thing.

    ReplyDelete
  41. They all look alike to me too...baaaaahhhh

    bahhhhhhhhhhh

    ReplyDelete
  42. But Lott is never gonna get evicted from Mississippi, after all he made the quote about voting for Strom Thurmand when he ran a openly racist campaign in 1948, and GOT re-elected. In Va, right now that looks like allen's actions and statements might be enough for him to get a election day pink slip.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You're most likely right Clif.

    I just wish you we'rent in this instance.

    ReplyDelete
  44. About Lott's Lot that is.

    As for our boy Allen?

    He's a rube.

    If he wins then the elections here are fixed. No one I talk to likes him, and we have soooo many minorities who vote it would take a miracle (or a diebold) to get him in.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Well the truth about the Georgia 2002 race is coming OUT where Diebold employee admits to inserting special code into machines.

    ReplyDelete
  46. If that really does come out in the MSM, then people are going to go nuts.

    I don't think Americans, even those in the midwest, will tolerate KNOWING their elections were stolen.

    ReplyDelete
  47. all they have said is that code was inserted, which was not reported to State offiucials, and was NOT certified.

    ReplyDelete
  48. More about Woodards Book:

    Woodward quotes Iraq war commander Gen. John Abizaid telling two retired generals in 2005, “We’ve got to get the [expletive] out.” In March 2006, Abizaid visited Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and “indicated he wanted to speak frankly. According to Murtha, Abizaid raised his hand for emphasis, held his thumb and forefinger a quarter of an inch from each other and said, ‘We’re that far apart.’”

    In February 2005, two weeks after Condi Rice became secretary of state, her top aide Phillip Zelikow “presented her with a 15-page, single-spaced secret memo” summing up his fact-finding trip to Iraq. “At this point Iraq remains a failed state shadowed by constant violence and undergoing revolutionary political change,” Zelikow wrote.

    Woodward writes, in those moments “where Bush had someone from the field there in the chair beside him [in the Oval Office], he did not press, did not try to open the door himself and ask what the visitor had seen and thought. The whole atmosphere too often resembled a royal court, with Cheney and Rice in attendance, some upbeat stories, exaggerated good news and a good time had by all.”

    In a seven-page memo in July 2004, a “longtime friend” of Donald Rumsfeld, Steve Herbits, described Rumsfeld’s “style of operation”: “Indecisive, contrary to popular image. Would not accept that some people in some areas were smarter than he. . . . Trusts very few people. Very, very cautious. Rubber glove syndrome — a tendency not to leave his fingerprints on decisions.”

    “Woodward said he pushed repeatedly to interview Bush,” Howie Kurtz writes. “But White House counselor Dan Bartlett and national security adviser Stephen Hadley, after a period of cooperation, told him an interview was unlikely and then stopped returning his calls,” which Woodward attributes “to Bush’s declining popularity.”

    ReplyDelete
  49. Worfeus the next one is from Larry Johnson's Blog No Quarter and I think you will agree he has something that will GROW on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Are you a Republican?

    I once considered myself a Republican. In light of the record of the Bush Administration and the Republican controlled congress, I can no longer claim to be a Republican. Now we have George “AWOL” Bush and his sidekick, Dick “Five-Deferment” Cheney calling Democrats who question their failed Iraq strategy, “cut and runners”.

    Meet Tammy Duckworth, Democratic candidate for Congress from Illinois and combat veteran. Tammy lost both legs in a helicopter crash. Hearing the charge that she wanted to cut and run, Tammy said:

    "Well, I didn't cut and run, Mr. President. Like so many others, I proudly fought and sacrificed,; Duckworth said. "My helicopter was shot down long after you proclaimed 'mission accomplished."


    Ask yourself the following questions and decide, “Are you a Republican?” (and my apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

    If you enjoy shoplifting while working at the White House, you might be a Republican.

    You may not recognize Claude Allen's name, but you've probably seen his face in photos, a little off to the side, a few steps away from the president. As George W. Bush's top domestic-policy adviser, Allen stuck close to the boss. He was Bush's frequent companion on Air Force One, and helped stage-manage issues like Social Security and education. A born-again Christian (his wife home-schools their four kids) and credentialed conservative (he got his start as an aide to Sen. Jesse Helms), the 45-year-old lawyer was regarded as a man on his way up in Republican politics. Party leaders, always on the lookout for conservative black candidates, pegged Allen as a future congressman or senator.
    (Note: Allen pled guilty in September 2006--

    If you enjoy soliciting teenagers and children for sex over the internet, you might be a Republican:

    Congressman Mark Foley. Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned yesterday after the exposure of several sexually suggestive messages he sent to underage boys. Mr. Foley, a Florida Republican and chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus, led efforts to overhaul sex-offender laws, apologized in a brief statement that did not mention the electronic correspondence with the former congressional pages.

    Randall Casseday. Metropolitan Police today charged the director of human resources at The Washington Times with one count of attempting to entice a minor on the Internet. Randall Casseday, 53, was arrested at 9:45 p.m. yesterday in the 1300 block of Brentwood Road NE, where police said he had arranged to meet who he thought was a 13-year-old girl. He had actually exchanged Internet messages and photographs with a male police officer posing as a girl.

    Brian J. Doyle. The deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was arrested Tuesday for using the Internet to seduce what he thought was a teenage girl, authorities said. Brian J. Doyle, 55, was arrested in Maryland where he lives on charges of use of a computer to seduce a child and transmission of harmful material to a minor. The charges were issued out of Polk County Fla.

    If you enjoy sending other people’s children to war while your kids go to college and hang out in bars, you might be a Republican

    On August 2, day two of the summer terror scare, Jenna and Barbara Bush had to go to midtown. . . .Later, Miller invited the whole group, about a dozen of them by now, back to his loft farther down Bond Street, where they drank wine that someone had brought from their dad’s wine cellar. The party continued till 3 a.m. or so, which made it kind of an early night for the twins, who have been known to shut down meatpacking-district clubs like the tiny, exclusive Bungalow 8. Once, at that club, Jenna saw Joey co-star Jennifer Coolidge and a few friends in a banquette across the way. “I loved you in Legally Blonde 2,” gushed Jenna (Coolidge played Reese Witherspoon’s hairdresser confidante).

    If you start a war in Iraq while lying to the American people that Saddam was tied to Osama Bin Laden, you might be a Republican.


    If you failed to complete your own National Guard service and your Vice President received five deferments to avoid service in Vietnam, but accuse political opponents who challenge your failed foreign policy in Iraq of being cowards, you might be a Republican.

    If you call dark skinned people Macacas and Niggers, you might be a Republican.

    If you ignore intelligence community warnings that Bin Laden is determined to strike inside the United States, you might be a Republican.

    If you follow policies that squander a budget surplus and create an $8.5 trillion dollar budget deficit, you might be a Republican.

    If you expose the identity of an undercover CIA officer in charge of tracking down Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, you might be a Republican.

    If you believe the President should be entitled to jail, without recourse to Habeus Corpus, anyone he decides is a threat, you might be a Republican.


    After careful consideration, I realize that I lack the moral bankruptcy, cowardice, and fiscal recklessness to call my self a Republican. I've decided, I am an American.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "I don't think Americans, even those in the midwest,..."

    I suppose we all "look alike" to you?

    ReplyDelete
  52. There is a difference though,

    We prosecute OUR sexual predators.

    YOU guys defend and make excuses for their actions and make them party heroes.

    ReplyDelete
  53. excuse me dolt, but sex between two consenting adults is not being a sexual predator, while stalking and molesting children, (one of the few things you incompetent repugs actually show an aptitude for) is being a sexual predator, but then if you losers werent so sexually frustrated and were able to get sex without paying for it maybe so many of you you wouldnt stalk or molest children.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Voltaire said...


    I suppose we all "look alike" to you?


    Come to think of it......

    ReplyDelete
  55. On the predator thing though I don't see how you draw any comparison to child molestation and hot steamy sex between two consenting adults.

    Could it be you haven't yet had sex, and therefore are unsure how to compare the two?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I would've let Monica polish my knob too.

    Guess you're above all that, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Drewl said "And now our Congress has agreed that our government should be allowed to detain people indefinitely without access to charges or a court. In effect, they will be able to make any of us - ANY OF US - disappear for any reason they so choose. And they don't have to tell us or anyone else why.

    Is this how things are supposed to work in the "Land of the Free"? This is nothing short of unconscionable! We've sacrificed the very fabric of our republic? It's gone. How can people sleep at night knowing that our rights that have, for so long, been taken as a given are now gone? It's absolutely insane!

    Our constitution has been torn asunder, right before our very eyes. Every American should be up in arms."

    Excellent post Drewl, its truly shocking how deep the roots of fascism run, but I have a feeling we are going to take our country back from these evil dictators who are enemies of freedom and democracy and that we will decome a democracy again.

    ReplyDelete
  58. yeah Dolt the difference is you guys are liars and hippocrites, didnt your boy Mark Foly say he get this..........a strong opponent of sexual predators and child molestor's BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you fools make it almost too easy to rip you to shreds.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL: BUSH IS A DANGER TO AMERICA. And he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost."

    Yeah, ISLAM bears NO responsibility and had absolutely NOTHING to do with any deaths...

    "What kind of people could elect a moron just because he spoke "their redneck language and looked like he'd be fun to drink beer with at a barbeque?"

    Yes, EVERYONE between California and New England is a "redneck".

    And really, wouldn't it be better to have a New England elitist snob who's never worked a day in his life and can't relate to yours running the country?


    "A man so uneducated and downright stupid he faked his way through college and airforce training and went AWOL?"

    As I recall, he got better grades than Kerry. BTW, what college did YOU attend and how were YOUR grades?

    How come we never talk about Kerry not showing up for the Maryland Ready Reserves? Why didn't he get an honorable discharge until 1992?


    "...where there's smoke there's fire."

    Really? Even regarding the accusations against you personally as well?

    ReplyDelete
  60. "...sex between two consenting adults is not being a sexual predator..."

    Really Mike? Even if one holds the most powerful office in the world, one is an inexperienced intern and there's a 30 year plus age difference?

    The feminazis disagree when it's a Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Like I said Mikey, WE punish ours.

    You guys pat yours on the back and make them stars.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dolt said;

    And really, wouldn't it be better to have a New England elitist snob who's never worked a day in his life and can't relate to yours running the country?

    George HW Bush..born in Mass.

    George W Bush born in nConn.

    both went to Yale, and W went to Harvard.

    Good call Dolty Boy.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dolty, That is the reason except for the repug minions, the people in Texas refer to the Idiot as all hat and NO CATTLE!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dolt said "Really Mike? Even if one holds the most powerful office in the world, one is an inexperienced intern and there's a 30 year plus age difference?

    The feminazis disagree when it's a Republican."

    there you go rewriting history again, but then history and facts were never your kinds strong suit or very kind to you. Clinton wasnt pressuring Monica, Monica was pressuring Clinton both for a job and for sex.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Well that may be true Cliffy, but Dubya grew up in Midland and Houston.

    Don't really care about his dad. He was too much of a "statesman" and "deal maker".

    I don't like compromisers, especially in leaders...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Okay Cliff, Im convinced. All your finger pointing, spam, and name calling has convinced me beyond doubt that repubs are insane lunatics.

    With that out of the way, may I ask what amount of love or show of force will liberals use to make the trains run on time thus changing the worlds violent history with eternal bliss? Examples please!

    Whats the perfect plan that makes you loathe repubs so heavily? And, what will you do differently that will change the endless circle of neverending conflict thus producing results to make repubs bow their heads in shame forever?


    How much love=money are you willing to allocate?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dolt said "Yeah, ISLAM bears NO responsibility and had absolutely NOTHING to do with any deaths..."

    Islam isnt our Country, dolt, we need to clean up our own backyard before we worry about someone elses, and cleaning up doesnt include murder, torture, imprisonment without due process, if its wrong if they do it, its wrong if we do it also.......but then you hippocrites love a double standard.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Dolt said "And really, wouldn't it be better to have a New England elitist snob who's never worked a day in his life and can't relate to yours running the country?"

    Better than a texas elitist snob who's never worked a day in his life and can't relate to yours running the country?" because he's incompetent and evil.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dolty Boy said...

    Well that may be true Cliffy, but Dubya grew up in Midland and Houston.

    As the son of a rich oil man, who was rising in the power structure of the repug party.

    He relied on Daddy's friends to get his ass out of the messes he got in, THAT is your hero son.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Dolt said "As I recall, he got better grades than Kerry. BTW, what college did YOU attend and how were YOUR grades?"

    I will GUARENTEE YOU my grades were SUBSTANTIALLY higher than that incompetent halfwit!!!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dolt "How come we never talk about Kerry not showing up for the Maryland Ready Reserves? Why didn't he get an honorable discharge until 1992?"

    At least Kerry knows what an honorable discharge is, you pedophiles and child molestors think you need to troll the Internet searching for minors for an honorable discharge.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Mike I do not care what anybody else says, your 2:59 post IS funny.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "if its wrong if they do it, its wrong if we do it..."

    WRONG! There is NO equivalence.

    An action taken in the ATTACK of innocents is NOT equal to an action taken in DEFENSE of innocents.

    And this is WHY it DOES NOT reduce us to their level. It's because of WHO we are as a people.

    Our history of defending the innocent and weak.

    Their history of murder, rape and destruction of the innocent and weak.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Lol.

    Mike said "Honorable Discharge".

    LMFAO.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Voltaire said;

    An action taken in the ATTACK of innocents is NOT equal to an action taken in DEFENSE of innocents.


    Yea? Is that what you call it? Defense of the innocents?

    So when we bomb a schoolyard in Bagdad, we're really "defending" them.

    Cool.

    Now I see.

    ReplyDelete
  76. So according to the oldest and most respected Medical Journal in the world, we've "defended" over 100,000 innocents so far, and we're still counting.

    So why does everybody hate us then?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dolty Boy said;

    Our history of defending the innocent and weak.

    Right son, just do not tell,

    The American Indian,

    The slaves,

    People of Iran 1953,

    People of Chile 1973,

    People of Vietnam 1954-1975,

    African Americans who lived between 1863 and 1965,

    Immigrants of any era,

    People of Nicaragra 1980-1986

    People of Hondarus 1980-1986

    among others.........Many others.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Maybe they don't get the fact that when they get clobbered by a missle, that the missile was actually "defending" them?

    We need to explain it to them again I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "THAT is your hero son..."

    Like I keep telling you Cliffy, he's not necessarily my "hero".

    I just don't think he's "evil".

    I think he's a guy trying to do a damn difficult job in what he truly believes is the best for the country.
    I strongly DISAGREE with many of his policies, which I think is legitimate. But I don't think he's "evil", therefore until I do you will think he's my "hero".

    I also note that all of you "judge not" types have progressed from simply judging a persons actions to now claiming to "know" what is in ones soul.

    Stepping on Jesus'es toes there ain't cha?

    ReplyDelete
  80. The history you keep claiming son has been disneyised, and is no more true than the path to 9-11

    ReplyDelete
  81. See guys, its simple.

    Its not that we're killed 100,000 people, or imprisoned another 50,000, wounded about half a million and displaced millions from their homes.

    Its that they are misinterpreting our meaning.

    We're "defending" them.

    Even when we kill them.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Dolty Boy said;

    I also note that all of you "judge not" types have progressed from simply judging a persons actions to now claiming to "know" what is in ones soul.

    Not what I posted son. I posted Bush grew up with wealthg and POWER around him, and used daddy and daddy's friends to bail him out, those ARE facts not judgements, thus you project too much.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Voltaire said;

    I think he's a guy trying to do a damn difficult job

    Difficult indeed.

    I imagine I for one would be overwhelmed by a job where I was expected to take 22 vacations a year.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "So when we bomb a schoolyard in Bagdad, we're really "defending" them."

    Do you REALLY see no difference in attacking terrorists who HIDE among the innocent, and PURPOSEFULLY TARGETING the innocent?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Dolt said"WRONG! There is NO equivalence.

    An action taken in the ATTACK of innocents is NOT equal to an action taken in DEFENSE of innocents.

    And this is WHY it DOES NOT reduce us to their level. It's because of WHO we are as a people.

    Our history of defending the innocent and weak.

    Their history of murder, rape and destruction of the innocent and weak."

    Sure you dont want to rethink this one genius, dont you think the Iraqi's view the bombing of innocent civillians, collateral dammage, accidental shoots, not to mention the torture of innocent people falsely imprisoned as attacks on the innocent?

    defending the innocent and weak how is saying convert or face torture or death defending the weak. and how exactly are we defending the weak, occupying their country against their will and imprisoning, torturing bombing and murdering innocent civvilians doesnt seem like a great way to defend them champ.

    If you look at what we have done over there, we have a history of history of murder, rape and destruction of the innocent and weak as well, and we are the mightiest nation on earth, so if you are calling us week, thats riddiculous as well.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I got it Volt.

    Our new slogan could be, "defending them over there so we don't have to defend them over here".

    Hows that?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Can I work at the White House now?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Voltaire said;

    Do you REALLY see no difference in attacking terrorists who HIDE among the innocent, and PURPOSEFULLY TARGETING the innocent?

    Hmmmm...

    Define terrorist.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Cliff said


    "People of Vietnam 1954-1975,"


    I think you would be more happy in a world of communism under the belief their political brainwashing of peasents is one of free choice and will.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Defending the weak and innocent LOL........thats kinda like Mark Foly being "STRONGLY AGAINST" child molestors and sexual predators isnt it..........CAN YOU SAU LYING HIPPOCRITES BOYS AND GIRLS!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Just as I thought.....libs to stupid and cowardly to answer my 2:51 pm post.

    All talk and no action. Will they ever clean the cheeto dust from their belly-buttons?

    ReplyDelete
  92. "The history you keep claiming son has been disneyised, and is no more true than the path to 9-11"

    Well gee Cliffy, I guess if we could just elect ONE liberal that'd make it all different now wouldn't it?

    And if our country is SOOOOO damnned "evil" WHY did you even join the military in first place?

    Why did you let your daughter?

    Hell, why do you even still LIVE here?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Dolty Boy said;

    I think he's a guy trying to do a damn difficult job in what he truly believes is the best for the country.

    Not putting enough troops into tora bora when they were REQUESTED directaly to Bush, and allowing osama to escape is the best interests of the country?

    Ignoring Osama until he actually attacks, even after Bushg was told Bin Laden WAS responsible for the Cole Bombing is in the bets interests of the country?

    Cutting military asets from the fight against Osama and the Taliban and running to attack a country which had NOTHING to do with 9-11 is in the best interests of the country?

    Ignoring the worst Hurricane in the Gulf Coasts history, while a major qamerican city is flooded and many people drowned is in the bets interests of the country?

    Allowing the Bin Laden family members to leave the country the day after 9-11 is in the best interests of the country?

    GET real FOOLE!

    ReplyDelete
  94. Dont worry Volt....these morons are only good at pointing fingers....have no agenda.


    Keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
  95. your irrelevant and not even worth answering johnny troll.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Hmmmm...

    Define terrorist."


    Just as I thought. You can't.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Dolty Boy said;

    Hell, why do you even still LIVE here?

    Because it is MY country too, son. and I will defernd it's principles from all enemies both foriegn, and domestic. people who are willing to throw away the constitution just because they got scared, people LIKE YOU foole.

    ReplyDelete
  98. BTW, anyone see that halfwit fool Rusty spewing BS that interest rates are at 25 year lows when they have increased 500%, you fools make it too easy, its like shooting sitting ducks.

    ReplyDelete
  99. And your a loser Mike....seriously!!!

    ReplyDelete
  100. Somone said...

    With that out of the way, may I ask what amount of love or show of force will liberals use to make the trains run on time thus changing the worlds


    Hmmm....

    I wasn't aware that the United States was responsible for every country in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  101. THEY are not scared Clif, they are power mad megalomaniacs, they are just using the fear tactics to manipulate the masses to seize and maintain power, your giving them WAY TOO MUCH benefit of the doubt if you actually think they are afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I dismiiss the writings of an individual who pretends to care on a global scale yet says "who cares" on a small scale??????????????????????

    ABSOLUTE PHONY!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  103. I dismiss liars hippocrites and trolls!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Someone said;

    Examples please!



    Well gee, I don't know.

    We did pretty good whooping the Japanese and the Germans in WW2 under a liberal President, FDR.

    And lets see. I do believe theres just a few leftist countries out there where the "trains run on time".

    Venuzaula is doing pretty good from what I hear. And Finlands "ant-military" state hasn't hurt them too much.

    Holland was doing ok for a while there. And I hear Switzerland, who avoids all war, has done fairly well for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Nope. I just don't see the argument for the mighty war machine steamrolling foward to impose its doctrines and dogmas on whatever country is "lucky" enough to be "liberated" by it.

    ReplyDelete
  106. As for our "liberating" Iraq, one question.

    Who invited us?

    ReplyDelete
  107. No, I think my dad is right. Calling what we are doing in Iraq a "liberation" is an insult to every US soldier who fought, bled and or died while Liberating Europe from the illegally occupying Nazi war machine.

    An insult of the highest order.

    ReplyDelete
  108. When you "liberate" someone, they usually aren't shooting at you.


    :|

    ReplyDelete
  109. Meat Filled Carcass said

    "Switzerland, who avoids all war, has done fairly well for itself."

    Vague answer....whats the plan?

    Remember, someone has to play innocent!

    ReplyDelete
  110. "Because it is MY country too, son. and I will defernd it's principles from all enemies both foriegn, and domestic. people who are willing to throw away the constitution just because they got scared, people LIKE YOU foole."

    WHY Cliffy?

    I see you trying to defend it against perceived domestic enemies, but I don't believe you've even ATTEMPTED it against REAL foreign ones.

    Over the past year or so, you've posted articles some real and some alledged regarding our numerous and total wrong doing in EVERY foreign war we've fought.

    What does the Constitution or the priciples MEAN to you if this country is so damn bad?

    WHY is it "your" country too?

    List 10 things that make this a great country...

    I bet you can't.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Voltaire said;

    What does the Constitution or the priciples MEAN to you if this country is so damn bad?

    Well apparently they don't mean ANYTHING to you people, whose leader called the constitution "an interesting document", and the Geneva Conventions, which Americans have honored since 1957, "quaint".

    You're President craps on the Constitution daily, and you have the audacity to ask that question?

    who'dve thunk it?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Tell you what. Why don't you answer some of "our" questions for a while.

    I mean, you guys are great at asking them and all, but thats all you do in here so maybe it'd be nice for a change if you guys answered a few yourselves.

    Lets start with my 3:33 question.

    As for our "liberating" Iraq, one question.

    Who invited us?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......morons! Whats the liberal plan?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Cliff sure disappeared fast.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I see Kudlow and Cramer are here again.Mike the economic wizard last night said that interest rates in 2003 were 1% and had gone up 500% by 2005.Now this is a statement from an individual who,I'm just guessing here,has at least a high school education.Mike,you ignorant slut (thats from SNL circa 1975),the interest rate in 2003 was 4.25% from Jan. to July,then dropped to 4.00%.Mike,you need to stick to calling people names,or making up thoses cute little play on words...you know like Anny Tranny,Dumbsfeld,reichwing and so on.When you try to venture into deeper water you just drown yourself in stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Liberal plan for what?

    What is it about right wingers that makes them think that they can just make a bloody mess of everything, and then sit back and demand that liberals come up with some brilliant solutions to THEIR MESSES?

    What is it, in a republicans brain that tells him that after he screws up something beyond all recognition, that in order to let someone else take over, they have to immediately solve HIS MESS?

    If I'm carpooling with someone, and they get us hopelessly lost, I don't need to know the way home to take over the wheel.

    Once you're hopelessly lost, anyone OTHER than the idiot who got you lost in the first place, is going to be a better bet.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Again Cliff

    "People of Vietnam 1954-1975,"


    I think you would be more happy in a world of communism under the belief their political brainwashing of peasents is one of free choice and will.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Actually worf, Saddam did.

    He "invited" us by hindering weapons inspectors and refusing to give a complete account of his WMD's.

    The "liberation" part was just a side benefit.

    BTW, the question to Cliffy was rhetorical. I don't really expect him to be able to list a FULL 10 things...

    If he were to try, I'm sure he'd peter out somewhere around #6, and even those would be really simplistic and non-contentious...

    I don't expect him to actually be able to list them anymore than I expect you to actually be able to define what a "terrorist" is.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Dolty Boy said;

    I see you trying to defend it against perceived domestic enemies, but I don't believe you've even ATTEMPTED it against REAL foreign ones.

    Operation Desert Sheild, Operation Deserrt Storm, 17 Dec 1990- Jun 7 1991....13 years military service until I was medically discharged.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Again I say, Liberal plan for what?

    What is it about right wingers that makes them think that they can just make a bloody mess of everything, and then sit back and demand that liberals come up with some brilliant solutions to THEIR MESSES?

    What is it, in a republicans brain that tells him that after he screws up something beyond all recognition, that in order to let someone else take over, they have to immediately solve HIS MESS?

    If I'm carpooling with someone, and they get us hopelessly lost, I don't need to know the way home to take over the wheel.

    Once you're hopelessly lost, anyone OTHER than the idiot who got you lost in the first place, is going to be a better bet.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Useless Meat filled Carcass said

    "Once you're hopelessly lost, anyone OTHER than the idiot who got you lost in the first place, is going to be a better bet."

    Excellent excuse for NO PLAN!

    ReplyDelete
  122. Voltaire said...
    Actually worf, Saddam did.

    He "invited" us by hindering weapons inspectors and refusing to give a complete account of his WMD's


    LMAO.

    No genius. I said an INVITATION.

    You know.

    Like I am "asking" you to come over?

    Not "DARING" you to come over.

    "INVITING".

    Try again shorty .

    ReplyDelete
  123. Johnny,

    They don't have to go to Vietnam.

    They live here where they've already been brainwashed, and by their own free will as well.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Whats amazing is in the mind of a republican, they can call pain pleasure, simply by changing the name.

    They call a DARE an INVITATION, they call TORTURE "HAZING", they call INVASION "SPREADING DEMOCRACY".

    But at least theres enough who really see, they're just spreading BULLSHIT.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Cliff

    You never did answer my post from the mighty TT blog?


    Once again:

    Reafirming your point, does not disprove my repetitive point that the Vietnam War was the good intentions of the U.S to prevent the spread of communism throught the world.

    One MUST take into consideration a bitter Cold War, the fear of democractic isolation, and the Communist's strong desire to spread their political philosophy.

    Also, their is nothing illegal in the term "backed up". The U.S was simply not a signatory to the Geneva Accords; Diem could have easily ignored American influence. Not signing the Geneva Accord's was clearly the honorable intention of the U.S to politically combat Ho Chi Minh's effective brainwashing over his people, thus ensuring a communist victory.

    ReplyDelete
  126. "Operation Desert Sheild, Operation Deserrt Storm, 17 Dec 1990- Jun 7 1991....13 years military service until I was medically discharged."

    Yes Cliffy we know, we know.

    But the question remains... WHY?

    In ALL your posts on the topic, you have not found ONE war this country EVER engaged in that was the right or correct thing to do, or that was fought fairly by your own side.

    And wasn't it in the above service that you had your battlefield epiphany about a WW2 deserter?

    So WHY?

    ReplyDelete
  127. A republican thinks they have all the answers for everyone, and therefore, any words out of their mouth "CREATE" their truths.

    If they say it, like God, it is so.

    At least in their own little world.

    So it makes it impossible to debate them, because they just keep moving on. You point out that a DARE is NOT an INVITATION, (something one would hope every 3rd grader comprehends) and they simply continue on in their twisted delusion, convincing themselves that their evil is really good, and that murder is really freedom.

    All I can say to them is be careful. There is a God, and he sees what you are doing.

    And your calling evil good does not change it in his eyes one little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Volt said

    "They live here where they've already been brainwashed, and by their own free will as well."

    Excellent point Volt, however, I am not really impressed with the new decision to arrest anyone without proof.

    ReplyDelete
  129. 1. The constitution which you fooles HATE so much.

    2. The seperation of powers, which you clowns want to upsurp with the unitary executive.

    3. The freedom of speech...which you clowns want to silence.

    4. The middle class which you morons are destroying with you outsourcing for a few extra dollars.

    5. The beautiful land which you a$$wipes want to allow corporations to pollute at will.

    6. The diversity of all it's people which you fooles attack and decry, for not being "true Americans".

    7. The fact that real hero's Like Martin Luther King can rise here against Fooles like you.

    8. The fact that eventually great men like Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy come along when histroy needs a true great american, not the imposter we have NOW.

    9. The fact that the people will accept a burden like they did in the 30's and 40's to keep this country strong, unlike the fooles who lead it now and can not see that people love this country MORE than they do.

    10.The fact that in the end, the people of this country will place Bush on the same pile they put Nixon, McCarthy, Davis, Arnold, the KKK, alien sedition act, vietnam, the CIA and FBI crimes, Jim Crow, Robber Barons.

    that is MY list son, suck on it.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Interesting also Johnny, that WE treat our prisoners better than anyone who signed the damnned things anyway.

    We've NEVER fought a war with any country who ACTUALLY went by them.

    Yet these yahoos think that unless we unconditionally embrace Geneva our soldiers will be at risk.

    Maybe if we'd go by them, the terrorists will give our guys a local anesthesia or something before beheading them...

    ReplyDelete
  131. There are two types of people in the world according to Psychiatry.

    Neurotics and those with "Character Disorders".

    Neurotics think they are the problem, and always look within.

    Those with "Character Disorders" think everyone else is the problem, and always look without.

    Neurotics are invariably easier to treat than the opposite, as accepting individual fault is the first step in the healing process.

    Those with a character disorder however can be almost impossible to treat, because they will never examine themselves.


    As a country, liberals look within for our nations problems, and try to find solutions.

    Conservatives look to everyone else, and invaribly end up starting wars and never finding solutions.

    Liberals can admit we are not the perfect heroes.

    Conservative MUST believe we are, in order to do what they do.

    You can't argue with a conservative because of these facts.

    They want to start a war, you say no, it will go bad, they do it anyway, it goes bad, and instead of looking at themselves and their actions, they say, "SO, WHAT CAN YOU DO?".

    Never mind what "THEY DID" is a mess. Never mind they have slaughtered (oops, I mean "Defended") 100,000 people.

    All they can do is look without for flaw, never bothering to look, even for a moment, within.

    The fault dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves

    ReplyDelete
  132. Yes son, I realised the same thing most people around Eddie Slovak did, killing him was senseless, and unnecessary. But the Army bureaucracy was not going to stop something that had NO purpose at the time it was happening.

    BTW foole, The Revolution, Civil War, and both worlds wars were necessary. Korea was justified, but Vietnam was NOT because we created Diem's government in the 1050's and created SEATO to justify our militarised presence.

    Desert Storm was justified, as Saddam did attack, too bad Bush 41 did NOT have a better ambassador who could explain to Saddam we would not accept his attack. And FOOLE I am the one that is saying PULLING any military assets OUT of Afghanistan was WRONG, especially to attack Iraq, your the foole who wants to defend that boneheaded MOVE by Dumsfeld and Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Worf said "If I'm carpooling with someone, and they get us hopelessly lost, I don't need to know the way home to take over the wheel.

    Once you're hopelessly lost, anyone OTHER than the idiot who got you lost in the first place, is going to be a better bet."

    excellent point Worf, its the fools that have been in charge for 12 years and the fool in chief for 6 years that "SHOULD HAVE HAD A PLAN"

    but as for us on this blog, We have stated our plans to clean up the mess the corrupt incompetent evil fools made many times and all they do is point fingers and slander us, call us traitors and thump their chests and say they are right after years of incompetence. we have stated how we would fix things many times and it does not warrant repeating to an irrelevant insignificant blog troll, it can search through the posts if it wants to find our answers.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Only 16 percent of the Iraqi people (you know, the people we are "defending") want the US to stay through the end of the year.

    Another 10 percent want us to stay indefinatley.

    And the REST, a whopping 65 PERCENT, want us out NOW! TODAY! IMMEDIATELY!.


    Someone better tell them we're "defending" them.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Well thanks Clif.

    I WILL get back to you on that.

    Right now, I'm outta smokes, my favorite beverage and it's dinnertime...

    However in leaving I will say, I doubt if Lincoln or FDR were president today you'd be refering to them as "great".

    During their time in office they did many things which I'm sure you'd consider worse than Bush has done.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Mike said...

    but as for us on this blog, We have stated our plans to clean up the mess

    I know Mike, but in truth I am tired of the hubris of this game.

    These guys know what they're doing.

    They don't answer ANY of our real questions. When they do, they fabricate something, toss it out, and move on.

    Like calling an invitation a "DARE" then acting as if they answered my question.

    Its hubris to ask us what we would do as an answer to their own utter incompetence. They have made an utter mess of Iraq, and our international situation is a disaster.

    It is time for these guys to start answering some of our questions, and to start taking responsiblity for their failures.

    They won't I know, cause they can't. They are just too far gone.

    Like an addict, they need to "bottom out" before they can start coming back.

    In the meantime, God help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  137. No son they did not start an ILLEGAL war, and lie about it too boot. they have never even come close to Bush in that department. they did things when the country was ACTUALLY threatened, not a single horrible attack, and BLOEW the military response by under manning the military force responding, and pulling out assets early before the JOB was finished, phase 4 in military jargon. To attack a country they came into office with plans to attack.

    And both FDR and especially Lincoln FIRED incompetent fooles. DUMSFELD would NOT have lasted 6 months with Lincoln. He was NOT afraid of firing people who could NOT perform. McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, all found out the hard way.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Some communist just banned me through cookies......wonder who?

    Hmmmmm.....perhaps a blonde?

    ReplyDelete
  139. Worf said "Its hubris to ask us what we would do as an answer to their own utter incompetence. They have made an utter mess of Iraq, and our international situation is a disaster.

    It is time for these guys to start answering some of our questions, and to start taking responsiblity for their failures.

    They won't I know, cause they can't. They are just too far gone.

    Like an addict, they need to "bottom out" before they can start coming back."

    when your on, your on!! That was the EXACT point I was trying to make with my last post, THEY NEVER ANSWER our questions, then when WE ANSWER theirs they play their little troll game where 2 days later they ask the same question over again and claim we never answered them.

    They think they are cute playing dumb but the saddest thing of all is they are not playing, and like you i'm tired of the hubris if they want the answrer to a question they have asked a hundred times and we have probably answered 20 they can search for it or kiss my A$$!

    ReplyDelete
  140. Bible boy said

    "There are two types of people in the world according to Psychiatry."

    OMG....the exact science of psychology.....SHIVER!

    Let any serial killers loose lately?

    SCOFF.....

    ReplyDelete
  141. Ive always wondered why these type of doctors have the highest suicide rate in the world....LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  142. Volt said

    "I'm outta smokes"

    :|

    Truely a tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Someone said...
    Some communist just banned me through cookies......wonder who?


    Well if she did, it doens't seem to have hampered your posting any.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Mike said;

    they can search for it or kiss my A$$

    If those dollar signs mean your ass made of money they just might.

    ReplyDelete
  145. It's funny, we have a NEW sex scandal between a repug and 16 year old, a scandal the repugs are being charged with covering up, and not taking serious enough until after ABC outed the offender, and HE resigned. A scandal which in some ways Mirrors the Catholic Church scandals.

    And the trolls do NOT want to discuss it.

    A scandal whichg is getting HEADLINE attention.

    A scandal that had press releases like this;

    News from Congressman Dale E. Kildee Contact: Christopher Mansour, Chief of Staff for Congressman Kildee
    Congressman Dale Kildee (D-MI), the Democratic Member of the House Page Board, released the following statement today:

    "As the Democratic Member of the House Page Board, any statement by Mr. Reynolds or anyone else that the House Page Board ever investigated Mr. Foley is completely untrue.

    "I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House Page and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter.

    "The first and only meeting of the House Page Board on this matter occurred on Friday, September 29 at approximately 6 p.m., after the allegations about Mr. Foley had become public."


    And THIS;

    INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTER
    On Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.

    Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander

    In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker's Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.

    Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk's Office to discuss the matter.

    The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

    The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.

    The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.

    The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.

    Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office.

    Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.

    Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript

    No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.


    and nada from the trolls HERE, I guess this does not rise to the level of a Blow Job between a 22 year old Intern and 49 year old President.

    I mean the congressman was in his 40's and young man was 16.

    so it is nothing to a repug troll.

    ReplyDelete
  146. From Pat Lang's Blog

    Jim Webb, First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps
    Company D, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein.) FMF
    Date of Action: July 10, 1969

    "The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam. On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out. Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers. Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel. Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker. By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service."

    This is the man running against Senator Macaca.

    He was Secretary of ther NAVY under Reagan.

    And he is TIED with Senator Macaca in the polls.

    Doses not look good for senator Macaca.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Damn.

    Thats the stuff they make movies about Clif.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Yea Worf, the Movies the chicken hawks watch and dream of staring in, just NOT the reality Like Jim Webb lived.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I'm not a chickenhawk Clif. I'm just a chicken.

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  150. Well said, Lydia. Criminal Bush is indeed un-American, there's no doubt about that. Makes me ashamed to think that I lived in the same state where he's from (Texas), and having lived there is always good. ;)

    I stopped defending this guy looonnnggg time ago. I didn't elect the election-stealing a-clown in 2004, that's for sure.

    The bottom line is, folks, your leader is a menace; has cost this government billions of dollars which could've been used for other things, and he had the audacity to say "ouch, a double whammy" to one of the widows from the 9/11/01 attacks. Yes, the same guy who claimed HE saw the first plane hit while he was in FL, yet he never had a television in front of him when it happened.

    His military background is very shady.

    Ann Richards, god bless her soul, was right about one thing when he said Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

    Lydia, you hit it right on the money. Not only should Bush be impeached, but Cheney, Dumbsfeld and the rest of the crooked administration should be kicked out of office too.

    RD

    ReplyDelete
  151. From Juan Cole

    Security has deteriorated so badly in Iraq that Saudi Arabia has decided to build a 550-mile-long high-tech security fence. The Saudis are afraid that if Iraq has a hot civil war, Iraqis will try to flee as refugees to Saudi Arabia. They also are afraid that the nasty characters who blow up weddings and children buying ice cream will come to Saudi Arabia at some point. The Saudi security fence is a huge vote of no-confidence in the Iraq that Bush built. Let's put it this way. Americans think of the puritanical Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia as the most militant of the Muslims. Now, the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia are saying that they are afraid of the Iraqis. What does that tell you? Or what does it tell the American public that the Saudi government views Iraq rather the way the Israeli government views the Palestinians?

    ReplyDelete
  152. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."


    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Inaugural Address
    March 4, 1933

    The only thing we have is fear."


    George W. Bush
    Radio Address
    September 30, 2006

    GWB is NO FDR, and the war on terra is NO world war.

    ReplyDelete
  153. SPECIAL SAT. NEWS ANALYSIS: The Foley Follies

    It’s been a long 48 hours for the House Republican leadership. It all started when the media began reporting on the inappropriate email and instant message exchanges between now-ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and an underage teenager.

    Let’s first agree that what Foley did was wrong, predatory and possibly illegal. And the resulting decision by Foley to resign was not only appropriate, it may be the least of the punishment, depending on whether a criminal investigation is seriously pursued.

    But what’s given the House GOP leadership headaches today and possibly for the rest of the election cycle is the series of events that took place nearly a year ago when news of some initial questionable contact between an underage House page and Foley were first unearthed.

    The timeline of what Speaker Dennis Hastert knew and when he knew it, has seemed to change throughout the last 48 hours. Late 9/30 p.m., the Speaker’s office released a fairly detailed explanation of when Speaker’s office first learned of the complaint. (See below post). But the explanation doesn’t answer every question. [CHUCK TODD and JOHN MERCURIO]

    For instance, clearly, Foley’s actions raised enough alarm bells that a number of investigating actions were started late last year and in early spring. In addition, ABC News reports that the 16-year-old page had been warned to watch out for Foley, suggesting that the congressman's behavior was an open secret among the folks that ran the page program. If this is true, it implies Foley’s behavior was more systematic and known. If so, how many members of the House GOP Conference aware?

    Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) was concerned. As he raised the issue with a number of key folks, including the clerk and NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds.

    Reynolds was concerned enough that he made sure to alert Hastert. Now, Hastert, even today, doesn’t recall the conversation with Reynolds but doesn’t dispute Reynolds’ recall.

    What isn’t clear is why no one other the clerk of the House and GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), the member in charge of the Page program, directly spoke with Foley.

    More importantly, and this question may decide whether Republicans retain control of the House, how thorough was the investigation conducted by the clerk and Shimkus? What exactly did that "investigation" discover and/or conclude? It only took ABC News about a day to go from knowing nothing to knowing, well, too much about the contact Foley had with underage pages.

    Politically, how will this affect the Democratic effort to revive the "culture of corruption" mantra that had lost steam this summer?

    Let’s give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt. Then the worst the House GOP leadership is guilty of is a lack of curiosity and of maintaining a “culture of institutionalism” where members are always given the benefit of the doubt. But is the benefit of the doubt members are given the same standard the general public is held to under similar circumstances? And are voters really in the mood to give Congress anything close to a “benefit of the doubt?”

    Read carefully the details Hastert’s office released regarding how they investigated the allegation. Is it really the regular practice of the House GOP leadership staff to keep the Speaker out of the loop when it comes to questionable conduct by Members?

    Hastert is notoriously slow when encouraging a wounded member of his party to get going. From Tom DeLay to Bob Ney, Hastert never seems willing to push members into what needs to be done. Now, in all three recent cases (DeLay, Ney and Foley), the member eventually did the right thing -- but at a politically painful pace.

    Hastert, for better or worse, is an institutionalist. As the release below shows, he allows the system to work even when it appears the system doesn’t work very fast, and unfortunately for him, very well.

    A coach should know when a member of his team is in trouble. Hastert probably regrets that he didn’t speak directly to Foley and at least given Foley the chance to lie directly to his face.

    It’s important to note that when the House GOP leadership first apparently learned of something amiss with Foley and a page, the GOP leadership team was in flux. Roy Blunt was the acting Majority Leader fighting with John Boehner to keep the job permanently.

    Did the House GOP leadership vacuum that was created by DeLay’s departure lead to a situation where no one was calling the political shots? And did that sense of chaos create anxiety, preventing Republicans from taking the steps necessary to protect these underage pages?

    No doubt, every member of the House GOP leadership that knew of this Foley problem before this week regrets not pursuing a more thorough investigation. But isn’t the argument Democrats will now make when reviving the “culture of corruption” tagline (or even a “culture of arrogance of power” tagline) is that the House GOP leadership just doesn’t have the capacity or the intellectual curiosity to investigate questionable activity, whether it involves a member of their own caucus or more serious public policy concerns like the war in Iraq?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Josh Marshall's take on the "scandal";

    Early this evening I was starting to think that Foleygate might truly be the scandal that dare not speak its name. I don't mean whatever Mark Foley himself did. He's apologized, resigned and, I imagine, will soon face criminal indictment under laws he helped write. In a sense, that scandal has run its course. The scandal I'm talking about is the mix of cover-up and enabling that reached its way through the highest reaches of the House Republican leadership. Early this evening neither the Post nor the Times had devoted a story specifically to the contradictory stories coming out of the House leadership. Now, though, that seems to have changed.

    I've been at this blog racket for almost six years. And usually you've got to really pore over the details to find the inconsistencies and contradictions. So I'm not sure I've ever seen this big a train wreck where leaders at the highest eschelons of power repeatedly fib, contradict each other and change their stories so quickly. It's mendacity as performance art; you can see the story unravel in real time.

    Just consider, Denny Hastert has repeatedly said he didn't know anything about the Foley problem until Thursday. But two members of the leadership -- Boehner and Reynolds -- say no, they warned him about it months ago. Hastert got Boehner to recant; Reynolds is sticking to his guns.

    Rodney Alexander brought the matter to the Speaker's office. And Hastert's office tonight put out the results of a detailed internal review of what happened in which they revealed that no member of the House leadership -- not Hastert or Shimkus or the House Clerk -- had actually laid eyes on the emails in question.

    Only Hastert's office apparently didn't touch base with Rep. Shimkus, since as Hastert's crew was writing out their statement, Shimkus was offer giving an interview to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in which he described how he and the Clerk had read the emails.

    (ed.note: 2:19 AM, 10/1/06 ... What makes this even more comical is that, according to the AP "Shimkus, who avoided reporters for hours, worked out his statement with Speaker Dennis Hastert's office." Didn't seem to help.)

    So the centerpiece point of the Hastert statement this evening appears to have been a fabrication.

    It stood up for maybe three or four hours.

    At present, the Speaker is committed to portraying himself as a sort of Speaker Magoo. We're supposed to believe that pretty much everyone in the House GOP leadership knew about this but him.

    These fibs and turnabouts amount to a whole far larger than the sum of its parts. Even the most cynical politicians carefully vet their stories to assure that they cannot easily be contradicted by other credible personages. When you see Majority Leaders and Speakers and Committee chairs calling each other liars in public you know that the underlying story is very bad, that the system of coordination and hierarchy has broken down and that each player believes he's in a fight for his life.

    ReplyDelete
  155. So the VERY people who were the sycophants who did the white house's bidding to tear up the constitution, and gut Habeas Corpus, to make us SAFER, could even find the testicular fortitude to STOP a pedophile in their OWN party, when the evidence WAS presented. They DID not look into the situation at all, which would have allowed them to find out how bad the TRUTH really was, and stopped this GOP congressman's actions, months ago.

    INSTEAD they appear to have worried about how it would have affected their sycophantic attempts to retain control, so they tried to protect his seat. They appear to have wanted to hide it until HE got re-elected, and then Gov. Bush could have "appointed" his replacement. Thus refusing the VOTERS of Florida once again their RIGHTS to both truth and a free and open vote based on the truth.

    They have spent the last two days involved in SPIN and changing stories, to MAKE themselves look good. They HAVE learned NOTHING in the last year, or from previous scandals.

    They might just fall into the Nixon trap where the "cover-up" becomes the true crime. If Nixon had been HONEST in 1972-early 1973, he proly would have survived, just as if the house GOP leadership would have been honest and DONE THIEIR JOBS in the spring, they would have NO scandal right now.

    They have NOBODY to blame except themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  156. BTW worfeus, just as YOU predict, with the Foley mess engulfing the GOP leadership in congress, and Bob Woodward's Book coming out THIS weekend,

    Whoo-la...a "new" 6 year old al Quaeda tape we captured in afghanistan in 2001 just happened to surface.

    Duh..who is THAT stoopid? well the idiots who try to spin the news aka Rove's style.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Its like the White House has an Al Queada "NetFlix" account.

    ReplyDelete
  158. And the White House minions, are thankful that the repug congressional leadership is MORE dysfunctional, then even the they are.

    Foleygate, is trumping Woodwards book on this news cycle.

    It MUST suck to be a GOP operative and realise that the MSM has to choose which breaking scandal,

    a repug congressional pedophile,

    or the white house's ignoring pre 9-11 intel fro the CIA

    or the fact that Bush ET AL lied about their efforts in Iraq, and what they REALLY did there.

    ReplyDelete
  159. From Josh Marshall;

    Last Days of Pompeii Watch or Great Moments in CYA parody.

    From joint statement released today by Reps. Hastert (R-IL), Boehner (R-OH) and Blunt (R-MO) ...

    We have also asked for the creation of a toll-free telephone number for House Pages, parents, grandparents, and staff to confidentially report incidents of concern.

    I'm sure this will inspire a lot of confidence in the operation they're running, that the leaders of the House have set up a toll-free number for pages to report sexual advances by members of Congress.


    Wonder how they will SPIN the fact that while they are in charge, they NEED a toll free phone number, to have parents report unwanted advances from repug congressmen, on their underage children.

    The democrats NEED to run with this ONE.

    With the GOP in charge they NEED a tool free number to allow you to report illegal unwanted advances by GOP members. Because the GOP can not police their own

    Abramoff proves it,

    Cunningham proves it,

    Delay proves it, But

    worst of all FOLEYGATE proves it.

    ReplyDelete
  160. TPM Reader JA asks: "If the GOP can't even keep a bunch of 15 year olds safe, how can they keep America safe?"

    ReplyDelete
  161. Clif said;

    It MUST suck to be a GOP operative and realise that the MSM has to choose which breaking scandal,

    a repug congressional pedophile,

    or the white house's ignoring pre 9-11 intel fro the CIA

    or the fact that Bush ET AL lied about their efforts in Iraq, and what they REALLY did there.


    It's like a cornucopia of scandal.

    Pick a scandal, any scandal, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  162. From TP

    Reynolds accepted $100k from Foley in July.According to our Foley coverup timeline, Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) was informed of Foley’s actions towards House pages in February or March 2006. The New York Daily News reports:

    1) “Reynolds’s personal PAC, TOMPAC, wrote Foley a check for $5,000 on May 10, 2006.”

    2) “On July 27, 2006, the [National Republican Congressional Committee], which Reynolds chairs, accepted an unusually large contribution of $100,000 from Foley.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Lydia

    Could you please re-post that nice writing/analogy I seen this morning.....I really liked it.

    Thanx

    ReplyDelete
  164. Hmm..

    Now why would Johnny want Lydia to republish something?

    What could his motives be?

    We know he doesn't like sappy liberal stuff like that poem thing he's talking about, so why would he want her to republish?

    Hmmmmmm.........

    Oh well, I'm sure its nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Looks LIKE the REPUGS knew Five years ago about Foley and his pedophiliac ways. but they did not INVESTIGATE but instead:(from Talking points memo

    ABC, which has led the way on the Rep. Mark Foley story, now reporting that GOP congressional staff was warning pages about Foley five years ago:

    A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

    Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

    Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."


    And these clowns want us to believe they are good at anything concerning security, they can't even stop a pedophile inside their own ranks for at least FIVE YEARS.

    They can"warn" the yuong pages, BUT NOT investigate, and stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  166. No wonder the GOP is so anti-law enforcement in their approach to terrorism. This Scandal PROVES they SUCK at it Badly. and they can't imagine anybody else could be effective at it.

    ReplyDelete
  167. And with all the scandals in DC today, this can NOT be good news....

    British troops in secret truce with the Taliban


    BRITISH troops battling the Taliban are to withdraw from one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan after agreeing a secret deal with the local people.

    Over the past two months British soldiers have come under sustained attack defending a remote mud-walled government outpost in the town of Musa Qala in southern Afghanistan. Eight have been killed there.

    It has now been agreed the troops will quietly pull out of Musa Qala in return for the Taliban doing the same. The compound is one of four district government offices in the Helmand province that are being guarded by British troops.

    Although soldiers on the ground may welcome the agreement, it is likely to raise new questions about troop deployment. Last month Sir Richard Dannatt, the new head of the British Army, warned that soldiers in Afghanistan were fighting at the limit of their capacity and could only “just” cope with the demands.

    When British troops were first sent to Afghanistan it was hoped they would help kick-start the country’s reconstruction. But under pressure from President Hamid Karzai they were forced to defend Afghan government “district centres” at Musa Qala, Sangin, Nowzad and Kajaki.

    The move — opposed by Lieutenant-General David Richards, the Nato commander in Afghanistan — turned the four remote British bases into what Richards called “magnets” for the Taliban. All 16 of the British soldiers killed in action in southern Afghanistan have died at Musa Qala, Sangin or Nowzad.

    The soldiers risk sniper fire and full-scale assaults from experienced Taliban fighters who can then blend into the local population after each attack.

    The peace deal in Musa Qala was first mooted by representatives of the town’s 2,000-strong population. About 400 people living in the immediate area of the district centre compound have been forced to evacuate their homes, most of which have been destroyed in the fighting.

    Brigadier Ed Butler, the commander of the British taskforce, flew into Musa Qala 18 days ago, guarded only by his military police close-protection team, to attend a shura, or council of town elders, to negotiate a withdrawal.

    Butler was taken in a convoy to the shura in the desert southeast of Musa Qala where the carefully formulated proposals were made. The British commander said that he was prepared to back a “cessation of fighting” if they could guarantee that the Taliban would also leave.

    The deal — and the avoidance of the word ceasefire — allows both sides to disengage without losing face, an important aspect in the Afghan psyche. Polls suggest that 70% of the population are waiting to see whether Nato or the Taliban emerge as the dominant force before they decide which to back.

    Fighting in Afghanistan traditionally takes place in the summer and there are concerns that the Taliban could simply use the “cessation of fighting” to regroup and attack again next year. But there are clear signs of the commitment of the people of Musa Qala to the deal, with one Talib who stood out against it reportedly lynched by angry locals.

    “There is always a risk,” one officer said. “But if it works, it will provide a good template for the rest of Helmand. The people of Sangin are already saying they want a similar deal.”

    There is frustration among many British troops that they have been unable to help on reconstruction projects because they have been involved in intense fighting. An e-mail from one officer published this weekend said: “We are not having an effect on the average Afghan.

    “At the moment we are no better than the Taliban in their eyes, as all they can see is us moving into an area, blowing things up and leaving, which is very sad.”

    The Ministry of Defence announced this weekend that 10 British soldiers had been seriously injured in fighting in the last few days of August, bringing the total number of troops seriously injured in the country this year to 23.

    A total of 29 British servicemen have lost their lives in southern Afghanistan in the past two months, including 14 who died when their Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft crashed on September 2.

    A new poll published last week revealed a lack of public confidence over the deployment of troops in Afghanistan. According to the BBC poll, 53% of people opposed the use of British troops in the region.


    First the Pakistani Government signs a deal with the Taliban, and NOW the British?

    I thought you couldn't deal with the terrorists, didn't Georgie tell Tony? Or is this Tony's payback for the way he got treated at the G-8 sumit? Well at least it was NOT the French eh?

    ReplyDelete
  168. There is a country where Habeus Corpus for ANYONE labled a "terror suspect" is no longer in effect.

    Once labled a terror suspect, anyone, including US citizens, can be imprisoned, interrogated, tried and sentenced by a secret Military tribunal.

    They will have no legal rights to confront their accusers or even see evidence against them.

    They can be condemned on "hearsay" evidence and "secret" evidence that they or their lawyer cannot see, or even know what it is.

    A secret military tribunal will be held, where their only advocate will be appointed by, thats right, the same military that is imprisoning, interrogating and trying them.

    They can be sentenced to life imprison or even death based on hearsay, secret evidence and opinions of so called "experts", and the world will never hear a word about it.

    They can be condemned to death based on confessions and information extracted by,,,,,torture.

    Thats right. Torture.

    Their bodies can be discarded or buried in obscure graves, without friends or family ever knowing where they are.

    They will just sorta, disappear.

    What country in this modern world could something like this possibly happen you ask? China? Russia? Cambodia? North Korea maybe?

    No.

    The country that has adopted this new standard of justice and morality is none of these bastions of terror and non justice.

    This country is us. The U.S to be precise, in all its new glory as delivered by the hand of the Bush administration and their so called prosecution of the war on terror.

    God Bless America.

    ReplyDelete
  169. In the last 10 years we lost approximately 3500 Americans to terrorists.

    3500.

    During the same 10 year period, we lost more than a QUARTER OF A MILLION people to handgun deaths.

    250,000+


    Now, it doesn't take a math whiz to figure out, that terrorists only present a SMALL FRACTION of the threat to Americans.

    Yet no ones grabbing the guns.


    No ones freaking out about this.

    No one feels compelled to "change our Constitution" to "keep us safe".

    But if they did, they could save more than a Quarter of a Million Americans from horrible violent deaths.

    Only a complete idiot, and I do mean the stupidest and most lowly of morons, could percieve terrorism as a serious threat to American lives.

    Its not.

    Can some of us die from it?

    Sure.

    But many more of us die from many more things than do from this red herring.


    Bush is a liar, as is every worthless troll in here, who comes in to support this new brand of evil.

    America's greatest threat does not lie without, but within.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Yeah?

    Well fewer people died in Iraq than from handgun deaths here too.

    Why are you whining about that?

    ReplyDelete
  171. Worf said "There is a country where Habeus Corpus for ANYONE labled a "terror suspect" is no longer in effect.

    Once labled a terror suspect, anyone, including US citizens, can be imprisoned, interrogated, tried and sentenced by a secret Military tribunal.

    They will have no legal rights to confront their accusers or even see evidence against them.

    They can be condemned on "hearsay" evidence and "secret" evidence that they or their lawyer cannot see, or even know what it is.

    A secret military tribunal will be held, where their only advocate will be appointed by, thats right, the same military that is imprisoning, interrogating and trying them.

    They can be sentenced to life imprison or even death based on hearsay, secret evidence and opinions of so called "experts", and the world will never hear a word about it.

    They can be condemned to death based on confessions and information extracted by,,,,,torture.

    Thats right. Torture.

    Their bodies can be discarded or buried in obscure graves, without friends or family ever knowing where they are.

    They will just sorta, disappear.

    What country in this modern world could something like this possibly happen you ask? China? Russia? Cambodia? North Korea maybe?

    No.

    The country that has adopted this new standard of justice and morality is none of these bastions of terror and non justice.

    This country is us. The U.S to be precise, in all its new glory as delivered by the hand of the Bush administration and their so called prosecution of the war on terror.

    God Bless America."

    Worf, I said way back in January that what is going on is a classic power grab and that the fascist Neo Cons ruling our country would first asttempt to control the media and the masses access to information which the government will use to deceive, influence and manipulate the masses to help them in their quest for absolute power, I then said they would change our loves and dismantle our constitution and personal; freedoms albeit slowly at first to not alarm the masses or clue them into what is really going on, once all the laws are in place and the people in power have absolute power or close to it, powerful and influential voices of opposition and political opponents will start to disapear...........unfortunately I was far more right than I wanted to be, we have seen for years now that the MSM is in Bush's pocket and firmly controlled by the Reich Wing, and even more disturbing we have seen laws enacting to allow people to essentially disappear and be imprisoned indefinately with no due process, the government doesnt have to give the person a timely trial 9or day in court, doesnt have to present charges or evidence and doesnt have to let a trial of the persons peers edecide his fate, according to the Nazi's in power a "SECRET" military tribunal can decide a regular Americans fate with no public record, legal representation, or judicial oversight.

    THAT SCARES ME FAR MORE THAN ANY TERRORIST, in fact i'll the evil men that want to turn our country into a authoritarian police state reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 scare me far more than a rag tag band of rogue terrorist cells.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Certain ones on this blog remind me of

    "PEOPLE OF THE LIE" Human evil

    Along with Rove, Bush, Cheney and Coulter and now FOLEY!!

    A neo-con who is the deceiver, a child molestor. He was head of the committee to protect children from internet predators! See how they operate. This is the devil: the neocon "party."

    ReplyDelete
  173. Voltaire said...

    Well fewer people died in Iraq than from handgun deaths here too.

    Why are you whining about that?


    You're an idiot dude.

    Sorry, but you are.

    Go back and read my statement stupid.

    Where in it did I mention Iraq?

    Go back, in BOTH my statements stupid, and find where I mentioned Iraq.

    I am talking about our Constitutional rights, and America turning into a 3rd world police state, where due process is merely a passage in history, and anyone who speaks out against our government in a way that displeases them, can just "dissappear".

    Go back and read knucklehead, or don't bother talking to me.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Mike (who can read) said;

    THAT SCARES ME FAR MORE THAN ANY TERRORIST

    And well it should.

    The chances of getting killed by terrorists, based on the number of terrorist attacks in the last 10 years, are infintesimal.

    On the other hand, the chances of having your rights and freedoms taken away due to "FEAR OF TERRORISM", are growing higher and higher every day.

    In fact, we're already halfway there.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Evil gets a foothold through fear, more than any other way. It preys on our fear. It creates deception to propagate fear.

    Bush propagates fear.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Let me give you a little scenario based on Bush's new torture for terror bill.

    You're an outspoken but perhaps not visible opponent of the President, and you begin writing or speaking on a subject that the President, or someone in his staff, does not want you talking about.

    Heres what the new bill allows them to do in this situtation.

    Because of its wide sweeping generality, that is, the identification of "terrorists", under the new bill, someone behind the scenes could order you to be "rendered" from your own home.

    You're in your bed one night, and suddenly, before you know what happened, a loud bang, men in your room, then blackness, and some pain, and off you go.

    Of course the police are with the rendition team when they come to get you. Are the police in on it? Nope. Don't need to be. The new law gives them authority to do what they're doing, so a simple phone call from DHS or the Justice Dept, and walla. You get a police escort to the airport.

    When you wake up you're in a foreign prison, where you're tortured, both physically and psychologically, and once you confess to whatever it is they decided to accuse you of, they have you video tape a confession, which is subsequently used at your secret, closed door military tribunal, where you are summarily judged and sentenced to life in some secret prison, or even death.

    And thus a voice against the President is silenced, and no one knows anything about it, other than you are gone.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Now, idiots and party supporters like Dolt, will laugh, and say "bolderdash", or "poppycock".

    They may even say bullshit.

    But they will scoff nonetheless.

    But mankinds history does not scoff at this idea. On the contrary. Based on our history, in other words, based on fact, this is indeed a very real scenario, which has occured many times in world history.

    And therefore this is why laying the foundation for these scenarios to occur, is a bad, bad idea.

    A very bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  178. And this is why smart men, men much smarter than George W Bush, laid the foundations along time ago to avoid these pitfalls which are common in every industrialized society.

    And one by one, Mr Bush is breaking down those safeguards, and morphing our form of government slowly, but surely, from a democratic republic, to a more Roman form of heirarchy, where the Senate are mere figureheads and the real power is held by the emperor, his Pratorien and his military.

    Hail Caeser.

    ReplyDelete
  179. James Moore, author of "Bush's Brain" and The Architect" -- both books about Rove -- is on the "No-Fly Watchlist" and has been on this list for 8 months, but has no idea why.

    He's a white male, monogamous and happily married in a 30-year marriage and has never been done anything wrong in his life, except getting a couple of parking tickets.

    I heard him speak the other night and he said he has to go through hell, and is treated like a criminal every time he goes to the airport. Some trips he is not allowed to go through at all.

    This is Rove's doing he believes.

    Tell me we're not living in a fascist or communist state (Stalinesque.)

    THIS IS NOT AMERICA. We should be allowed to speak out against an evil and corrupt president and his administration without having our liberties taken away.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Or having the two twins hack into my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Its terrifying actually, yet its clear examples like this are milestones on our journey into becoming a police state.

    Terrifying.

    And that makes Bush a terrorist of the worst kind.

    The other kind just kill a few of us.

    This kind kills the soul of our entire country.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Well...Foley pulls a page out of Bob Neys post admittance playbook. He tries to claim he is an alcoholic, so I guess it was "OK?" because he seem to be hinting he was drunk?

    Still does NOT explain the GOP leadership's INACTION.

    The repugs try to explain their inaction by saying the emails were OVER FRIENDLY, yea and according to their logic...John Wayne Gacy was "just a clown".

    Or Ted Bundy was"just giving the females a ride".

    ReplyDelete
  183. JUST POSTED A NEW THREAD ON SOMETHING I AM DISGUSTED BY. The people we trust, the LAWMAKERS have so betrayed us, I am heartsick.

    ReplyDelete