God Bless Betty Ford and R.I.P. Gerald, who seems to be speaking from the grave with his shocking post-mortem tape. I adore Betty, and have always liked Gerald Ford for his humility and integrity. More on the Ford tape below.
I am thrilled that John Edwards has thrown his hat into the ring! He is such an honest, hard-working all-American patriot and visionary with real solutions for America. I love both Edwards and Gore. Obama and Hilary are equally qualified, but Edwards or Gore have a better chance of winning.
Breaking News: A new Associated Press poll has Bush as the NUMBER ONE VILLAN OF 2006. One out of four Americans chose Bush.
AP's Poll the breakdown; Biggest Villain 2006
Bush.......25%
Bin Laden..8%
Saddam.....6%
Pres. of Iran..5%
Dictator of Korea..2%
Satan.......1%
From Clif: "Bush is worse than Saddam, Kim Il Jung, Ahmadinejad, Bin forgotten, and EVEN Satan."
I just watched Chris Matthews interview David Gergen on Gerald Ford's stunning admission that the Bush administration made a catastrophic mistake in invading Iraq under the guise of routing out "weapons of mass destruction." Ford's taped interview was released upon his death; he would not allow it to be released while he was alive. He really sounds disgusted by the neocons.
Gergen said that there is a big difference between a true Republican -- and a neo conservative like Rumsfield and Cheney, who both played prominent roles in Ford's administration. Gergen said that everyone has noticed an astonishing change in Dick Cheney; he is not the man he was. It almost sounded as if he was saying Cheney has been posssessed by some demon. He did say "Once Cheney was made CEO of Haliburton, maybe he acquired CEO-itis." In any case, it was not a compliment. The implication is that Cheney and the Bush neocons have taken the country down a very dark path, fueled by greed and fear.
Gerald Ford and his courageous wife Betty are true heroes of mine. Betty Ford's honesty in admitting her alcoholism, and establishing the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage has helped countless people admit their own helplessness in this devastating disease.
I am posting Step 11 shortly. My favorite step.
Christmas wrap up: In our house, I do all the cooking, baking and housework — so it's not easy keeping up with the blog. Right before Christmas I scrubbed the house from top to toe, getting behind every piece of furniture and literally washing the woodwork by hand. My sweet husband strung icicle lights all around the house and then proceeded to accidentally hose down the boxes of kids' gifts which were hidden on our side porch. After I calmed down, we went to Costco to use the gift certificate my mom and Chuck sent us. WE LOVE YOU GUYS! My sister hung out all day on Christmas and helped the kids put their gifts together. We are so blessed to have each other. We are one of the few houses in our neighborhood with Christmas lights. My son is going to 6 Barmitzvahs this year; I wish we, as Protestants, had this ritual for our boys on the verge-of-manhood.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
LYDIA CORNELL: AFI Best Actress Nominee, People's Choice Award winner; Actor, Writer, Director, Producer; woman and children advocate; teen mentor, comedienne, talk show host, inspirational pubic speaker best known for her starring role on ABC's "Too Close for Comfort" as TV legend Ted Knight's daughter 'Sara'; HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, and over 250 shows, episodes and movies worldwide. Turns tragedy into comedy, life-saving issues for women and equal pay for equal work...
The only complaint I have with Gerald Fords quote is the fact he allowed it to remain Hidden for TWO years, we might have had the national discussion we had THIS year back in 2004 with a much better outcome to that election, and a much better place in regards to the Iraqi War at this point.
ReplyDeleteHey Lydia, I just asked Clif earlier about his daughter, how do your kids feel about the Bush Administration or the war in Iraq, I feel kids have a keen sense of who is good and who is evil and was just curious?
ReplyDeleteBut at least IT is out in the public for all to see, which might make the escalation in Iraq a bit harder for the Idiot in Chief.
ReplyDeleteEscalation is what they are talking about, sending in More US troops which means MORE fighting and More deaths, and more US families getting a flag draped coffin instead of their loved one back.
Bob Gates ain't gonna like this ONE bit;
ReplyDeleteAP: Many U.S. Troops in Iraq Oppose Escalation
BAGHDAD Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say a surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.
President Bush is considering increasing the number of troops in Iraq and embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi units. White House advisers have indicated Bush will announce his new plan for the war before his State of the Union address Jan. 23.
In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.
Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.
But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line.
Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, said the situation had gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis.
"I don't know what could help at this point," said Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colo. "What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."
Based in Fort Lewis, Wash., the battalion is part of the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division. Deployed in June, its men were moved to Baghdad from Mosul in late November to relieve another Stryker battalion that had reached the end of its tour.
"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim, a native of Canton, Ohio, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."
Capt. Matt James, commander of the battalion's Company B, was careful in how he described the unit's impact since arriving in Baghdad.
"The idea in calling us in was to make things better here, but it's very complicated and complex," he said.
But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect. "The more guys we have training the Iraqi army the better," he said. "I would like to see a surge there."
During a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi army, said that instead of sending more U.S. soldiers, Washington should focus on furnishing his men with better equipment.
"We are hoping 2007 will be the year of supplies," he said.
Some in the 5th Battalion don't think training will ever get the Iraqi forces up to American standards.
"They're never going to be as effective as us," said 1st Lt. Sean McCaffrey, 24, of Shelton, Conn. "They don't have enough training or equipment or expertise."
McCaffrey does support a temporary surge in troop numbers, however, arguing that flooding Baghdad with more soldiers could "crush enemy forces all over the city instead of just pushing them from one area to another."
Pfc. Richard Grieco said it's hard to see how daily missions in Baghdad make a difference.
"If there's a plan to sweep through Baghdad and clear it, (more troops) could make a difference," said the 19-year-old from Slidell, La. "But if we just dump troops in here like we've been doing, it's just going to make for more targets."
Sgt. James Simons, 24, of Tacoma, Wash., said Baghdad is so dangerous that U.S. forces spend much of their time in combat instead of training Iraqis.
"Baghdad is still like it was at the start of the war. We still have to knock out insurgents because things are too dangerous for us to train the Iraqis," he said.
Staff Sgt. Anthony Handly disagreed, saying Baghdad has made improvements many Americans aren't aware of.
"People think everything is so bad and so violent, but it's really not," said Handly, 30, of Bellingham, Wash. "A lot of people are getting jobs they didn't have before and they're doing it on their own. We just provide a stabilizing effect."
Staff Sgt. Lee Knapp, 28, of Mobile, Ala., also supported a temporary troop surge, saying it could keep morale up by reducing the need to extend units past the Army's standard tour of one year in Iraq.
"It could help alleviate some stress on the smaller units," he said. "It could help Baghdad, but things are already getting better."
Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.
A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it."
*******************************************
Oops when they ain't minding the troops for some stupid photo op, those troops go all honest on them.
Mike - For over 2 years my kids have watched me go into apoplectic shock everytime Bush comes on TV. They've seen me kick the TV and shout at it, and they usually walk out of the room or tune me out. My husband does too. He's into sports and is just now waking up to the repercussions of Bush admin/war criminals.
ReplyDeleteMy kids are into saving the planet, but unfortunately my little one likes the violent video games which is too militant.
They do bring home Bush jokes from school. I am ashamed that anyone has to degrad the office of the president. It's truly a shame, but imagine if Hitler were in power -- we'd have to rise up against him.
Clif - I agree with you. Why didn't Ford come out with this before he died?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it has more impact now.
ReplyDeleteIn 2004 when he said it, it might have Tipped that election, and gotten us out of the mess a few years before we are gonna get out NOW.
ReplyDeleteIt might have. But back then the momentum was with the right Clif. They'd probably just have labled him turncoat and moved on.
ReplyDeleteI wished the same thing, that he had let it go then, but there has always been a standing unwritten rule that a former President doesn't criticize a sitting President. Since President Ford was old school, I imagine he felt this was the honorable thing to do.
And considering the absolute landslide of the Bush administration into the crapper over the last 3 or 4 months, I have to admit, at the risk of sounding goulish, that it couldn't have come out at a better time.
ReplyDeleteI mean, lots of old school southerners remember Ford as a likable, intelligent and generous President who was a steady and calm voice of reason during a national crisis. (and yes, impeachment is a national crisis, and to have done it over something as stupid as not admitting to a blow job was criminal).
Those old school southern conservatives heard President Ford, whom they respect, saying essentially Bush is an idiot and Cheney is a nut.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it was the FIRST story on every network evening news channel tonight. It clearly wasn't planned, but all three networks felt it was important breaking news.
Glad they did.
I'll be honest with you, listening to those tapes gave me goosepimples.
ReplyDeleteIt was almost like President Ford was literally speaking to us from the other side.
Worfeus remember how close that election was, and the NEWS would have derailed Rove's machine for at least a few cycles, and the swift boaters would have had problems attacking Ford, because he was still liked for what he did, it could have thrown BUSH ET AL off their game, and opened a larger opening in their armor which the MSM might have questioned.
ReplyDeleteThats true Clif, and it certainly would have had an impact.
ReplyDeleteWould it have one us the elections? Maybe. But the diebolds were in play there I think, so it would have to really have moved lots of people. And since the war was relatively new, changing the hardliners minds back then may not have worked.
But now?
Now when you can't turn on the news without hearing someone talking about how bad Bush sucks. Even tough conservatives like Joe Scarborough just DUMP on him every night. They see now what a bill of goods he sold them, and the walls are tumbling in. The sky is falling is the new motto for Bush, and there isn't a newscaster out there other than the shills at Fox fake news that side with him.
I remember back when Andrew Sullivan first turned around, and reversed on supporting Bush or the war. I was flabbergasted. Just a year earlier he was on Real Time with Bill Maher tauting his praises for Bush's hardline strategy. Then suddenly, there he was, railing on him.
Well thats the scene now times a million. I can't find one newscaster that doesn't scowl a little at the mention of Bush's name. So many revelations, the recent elections, the right wingers abandoning ship, now at least it may bring the troops home.
I agree with you that it would have been better if it came out then IF it had stopped us from going in, in the first place, but like I always say, better late to the party, than never.
But we are on the same page.
Worfeus I'll know Bush is done when the drug addicted gasbag or pipe cleaner with hair turns on HIM.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny Joe Scarborough has a clip with an image of BOTH Bush and Saddam with the question the biggest villain.
ReplyDeleteBush got 25% Bin laden 8% Saddam less than that, Bush even out polled Satan...........................LOL
I am just so amazed at hearing it now, right after his death. It is so strong. So much impact. It technically is the last words of a dying man. He intended them to be read after his death, so they are literally his last words.
ReplyDeleteA persons last words are considered by most courts and most shrinks to be the most truthful words a person will ever speak.
I just find it really powerful that these words came out now, when they did. I am glad Bob Woodward didn't wait. Normally he would have waited until well after his funeral, maybe years and then release them in a book.
He obviously felt that they needed to be said.
Joe Scarborough just asked Josh Green if its literally BUSH AGAINST THE WORLD?.
ReplyDeleteGreen said "Yes".
I remember Scarborough harping For Bush on election night 204.
ReplyDeletehe giggled like a school girl about Bush back then, and NOW the tables have turned on Bush, Joey boy is attacking Bush;
I guess your right Worfeus better late to the party than never, but assclowns like Scarborough should have to do some penitence, like report the truth from 2001 to 2005 when they spewed propaganda for Bush ET AL.
Clif, watch Condie Rice on the Bush video today from Crawdad.
ReplyDeleteShe was standing right behind him.
Watch her squirm.
She is clearly a person in raging turmoil.
I bet she abandons Bush soon.
ReplyDeleteWatch.
Did you see that poll Scarborough put up?
ReplyDeleteA new Associated Press poll has Bush as the NUMBER ONE VILLAN OF 2006.
Satan got a better rating than Bush, lol.
ReplyDeletenobody in America supports this (troop)surge other than George Bush, and 12 percent of the population
ReplyDeleteJoe Scarborough
Crazy huh Clif?
ReplyDeleteWho'dve thunk a year ago that we'd see Scarborough saying that?
You're right about his punishment though, but lets wait till AFTER we get this mess cleaned up, lol.
We don't want to scare the switchhitters off.
I don't think she can Clif.
ReplyDeleteShe'd be the laughing stock.
Not that she already isn't, but she'd lose her entire base.
All 6 of them.
AP's Poll the breakdown;
ReplyDeleteBiggest Villain 2006
Bush.......25%
Bin Laden..8%
Saddam.....6%
Pres of Iran..5%
Dictator of Korea..2%
Satan.......1%
Bush is worse than Saddam, Kim Il Jung, Ahmadinejad, Bin forgotten, and EVEN Satan.
Bet Dead eye is pissed Bush is seen as worse than he is even now.
Dead Eye didn't make the list, it must suck for him considering HOW hard he has worked at being the worst villain
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJust think Clif.
ReplyDeleteWhen we first came in this Blog, and when Lydia first started it, we were the miniorty. At least according to Diebold.
Now were an "ultra" majority.
It only took 6 years.
ReplyDelete:|
Worfeus actually IT only took TWO years, two years of Bush thinking he was invincible after he actually won an election.
ReplyDeleteWell, I was talking about how since 911 we've been the "traitors".
ReplyDeleteI've felt that way since then. Not like a traitor mind you, but like everyone thought I was a traitor. Many of my friends were Bush supporters, (in fact, most of them) and some of my family members. I was called "weak" by a niece, and she said that we needed to "fight" the Iraqis to show the world we're strong.
I just laughed. I couldn't believe her parents, one being a sibling of mine, were that stupid.
Now, practically everyone I know has changed their tunes, and suddenly, what I was telling them all along is now gospel.
Go figure.
Clif said...
ReplyDeleteDead Eye didn't make the list,
Sure he did.
He got 1 percent of the vote.
Worfeus i have had a bit less problem with that because I ask people to explain to me in MILITARY Terms what we are fighting in Iraq, how we will win a fourth generation war against a people who have never been defeated like that in the last century, when even Churchill gave up in Iraq, but not against Hitler, when we did not have the troops needed, and did not have enough troops or a real plan for victory especially after Dumsfeld ignorant press conference about the looting, at that point I knew we had LOST control.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm reading that right...
ReplyDeleteLydia said...
ReplyDeleteMy son has been invited to 6 Barmitzvahs; I wish, as Protestants, we had this ritual for our kids on the verge-of-manhood.
Hmmm....ok.
But if you start pushing for a Bris then I'm outa here.
:D
From Tom Paine
ReplyDeleteThe Christian story begins simply: A child is given, a son. He grows up to be a teacher, sage, healer and prophet. He gains a large following. To many he is a divine savior; to the rich and powerful he is an enemy. They put him to death in brutal fashion, befitting his humble beginnings in peasant Galilee and his birth in a stall thick with the raw odor of animals.
Toward the end of his life, Jesus preached in the Temple to large crowds, reaching the height of his power. There he told the parable that likely sealed his fate. He said there was a man who created a prosperous vineyard and then rented it to some tenants while he went away on a journey. At harvest time, the owner of vineyard sent a servant to collect a portion from the tenants, but they beat the servant and sent him away empty-handed. Another servant came, and they struck him on the head. Another they killed. Finally, the owner sent his own son to collect the back payments. “They will respect my son,” he thought. But when the tenants saw the son, and knew him to be the heir, they saw their chance to take full possession of the harvest. And so they killed the son, thinking now they would owe nothing from the vineyard to anyone.
The listeners understood the symbolism: God, of course, is the owner of the vineyard, and the vineyard is Israel or the covenant, or, more broadly, the whole creation. It is all that God entrusts to the leaders of his people. And what is in question is their stewardship of this bounty.
In the parable, the “tenants” are the leaders of Israel. They hoard the fruits of the vineyard for themselves, instead of sharing the fruits as the covenant teaches, according to God’s holy purposes. And the holiest of God’s purposes, ancient tradition taught, is helping the poor, and the fatherless, and the widow, and the stranger—all who do not have the resources to live in a manner befitting their dignity as creatures made in God’s image, as children of God.
When he finished the story, Jesus asked the people what the owner of the vineyard will do when he comes back. “He will kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others,” Jesus tells them. In the Gospel of Matthew, the people themselves answered: “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
Political dynasties fall from negligent stewardship. One thinks of the upward redistribution called “tax relief”; of the Iraq invasion sold as critical to the “War on Terror"; of rising poverty, inequality, crime, debt, and foreclosure as America spews its bounty on war and a military so muscle-bound it is like Gulliver. It would be hard to imagine a more catastrophic failure of stewardship, certainly in the biblical sense of helping the poor and allocating resources for the health of society. Once upon a time these errant stewards boasted of restoring a culture of integrity to politics. They became instead an axis of corruption, joining corporate power to political ideology to religious self-righteousness.
Second part of Tom Paine's article
ReplyDeleteThe story is told of the devil and a companion walking along the streets. The companion saw a man reach down and pick up the truth from the sidewalk. "You're finished," the companion said to the devil. "I just saw that man pick up the truth from the street, and that means you are finished." The devil smiled and answered, "Don't worry. He's a human, and in 15 minutes he will have turned the truth into a concept and no one will know what it is."
From theories stubbornly followed in defiance of truth on the street comes ruin. Laissez-faire was never a good idea; in practice it is ruinous.
This is the season to recall Walt Whitman. He wrote in Democratic Vistas, around 1870:
The true gravitation-hold of liberalism in the United States will be a more universal ownership of property, general homesteads, general comfort—a vast, intertwining reticulation of wealth. As the human frame, or, indeed, any object in this manifold universe, is best kept together by the simple miracle of its own cohesion, and the necessity, exercise and profit thereof, so a great and varied nationality, occupying millions of square miles, were firmest held and knit by the principle of the safety and endurance of the aggregate of its middling property owners.
How prophetic to see anything like that in the aftermath of the Civil War, in which Whitman had volunteered as a nurse. But in a time of great upheaval, countered by popular mobilization after mobilization, the great poet’s took hold in the people's imagination. Whitman’s liberalism had neither the cultural elitism of those identified with the term on the left, nor the laissez-faire extremism of the free-market “liberals” on the right. Liberalism meant “the safety and endurance of the aggregate of middling property owners.” Its consummation was the New Deal social compact we inherited from five presidents and from substantial voting majorities for a generation after the Great Depression, and the result was the prospect of a fair and just society—a cohesion—that truly made us a democratic people.
Equality is not an objective that can be achieved but it is a goal worth fighting for. A more equal society would bring us closer to the “self-evident truth” of our common humanity. I remember the early 1960s, when for a season one could imagine progress among the races, a nation finally accepting immigrants for their value not only to the economy but to our collective identity, a people sniffing the prospect of progress. One could look at the person who is different in some particular way—skin color, language, religion—without feeling fear. America, so long the exploiter of the black, red, brown, and yellow, was feeling its oats; we were on our way to becoming the land of opportunity, at last. Now inequality—especially between wealth and worker—has opened like an unbridgeable chasm.
Ronald Reagan once described a particular man he knew who was good steward of resources in the biblical sense. “This is a man,” Reagan said, “who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who worked in the stores.”
That man was Barry Goldwater, a businessman before he entered politics. It’s incredible how far we have deviated from even the most conservative understanding of social responsibility. For a generation now Goldwater’s children have done everything they could to destroy the social compact between workers and employers, and to discredit, defame, and even destroy anyone who said their course was wrong. Principled conservatism was turned into an ideological caricature whose cardinal tenet was of taxation as a form of theft, or, as the libertarian icon Robert Nozick called it, “force labor.” What has happened to us that such anti-democratic ideas could become a governing theory?
Part three of Tom Paine's article.
ReplyDeleteOf course it’s hard to grasp what really motivated this movement. Many of the new conservative elites profess devotion to the needs of ordinary people, in contrast with some of their counterparts a hundred years ago who were often Social Darwinists, and couldn’t have been more convinced that a vast chasm between the rich and poor is the natural state of things. But after 30 years of conservative revival and a dramatic return of the discredited “voodoo economics” of the 1980s under George W. Bush, it’s reasonable to follow the old biblical proverb that says by their fruits you shall know them. By that realistic standard, I think the Nobel Laureate economist Robert Solow’s analysis sums it up well: What it’s all about, he simply said, is “the redistribution of wealth in favor of the wealthy and of power in favor of the powerful."
I grew up in East Texas, in a county that once had more slaves than any other in Texas. It is impossible to forget that as the slave power grew in the South and King Cotton catapulted the new nation into the global marketplace, the whole politics of the country was infected with a rule of property that did not—indeed could not—distinguish the ownership of things from the ownership of human beings. Drawing from the Hebrew prophets and the Book of Revelation, the abolitionists simply said this: the rule of law has become moral anarchy. God’s light clarified that the rule of law had become moral anarchy.
Something was wrong in the very foundation of things, and so the foundation had to be rebuilt on sounder principles. But no mere parchment of words divulged the principles that ultimately preserved the union. They were written in blood—thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dead Americans. And so by untold sacrifice the rule of law was righted to exclude human property. Then, of course, the slave power simply rejected the rule of law and established rule by terror. The feudal south became the fascist south. It did happen here, to answer Sinclair Lewis’s famous riddle of the 1930s.
What is finally at the root of these reactionary forces that have so disturbed the social fabric and threatened to undo the republic? If a $4 billion dollar investment in chattel labor was worth the price of civil war and 600,000 dead in 1860, is it really any wonder that the richest Americans would not suffer for too long a political consensus that pushed their share of national income down by a third, and held it there—about at the level of their counterparts in “socialist” Europe—for a generation? Make no mistake about it, from the days of the American Liberty League in 1936 (the group Franklin Roosevelt had in mind with his crowd-pleasing battle cry, “I welcome their hatred!”) they never gave up on returning to their former glory. They just failed to do it. Ordinary people had powerful institutions and laws on their side that thwarted them—unions, churches, and, yes, government programs that were ratified by large majorities decade after decade.
The scale of the disorder in our national priorities right now is truly staggering; it approaches moral anarchy. Alexander Hamilton, the conservative genius of the financial class, warned this could happen. Speaking to the New York State legislature in 1788, he said:
As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as others.
Conservatives who revere the founding fathers tend to stress the last point—that there is nothing to be done about this "common misfortune." It is up to the rest of us, who see the founding fathers not as gods but as inspired although flawed human beings—the hand that scribbled "All men are created equal" also stroked the breasts and thighs of a slave woman, whom he considered his property—to take on "the tendency of things " to "depart from the republican standard," and hold our country to its highest, and most humane, ideals.
As stewards of democracy, we, too, have a covenant—with one another.
The same AP poll has Bush at the top for "greatest hero"
ReplyDeleteYou forgot about that.
Conveniently.
Mike, since you think the Iraqis were so much better off under the iron thumb of Saddam's dictatorship, why don't we just adopt Saddam's form of government, now that you are reform minded.
ReplyDeleteNo halfwit Texan, Since it is YOU and your hero GWB that support and condone torture, spying on ALL of our citizens and imprisonment without Habeous Corpus, due process or standard rules of evidence, where the accuser is judge jury and exectutioner.
ReplyDeleteIt Is Clear that YOU and your brainwashed ilk support iron thimbed dictatorship and i'm clearly and forcefully opposed to it...............pay more attention my reading challenged friend and maybe you can keep up more.
Also if you are saying the Iraqi's are better off under GWB why dont you ask them, there are many polls that clearly show the Iraqi's want us out of their country and prefer Saddams rule to the Anarchy, chaos and slaughter created by the Idiot in Chief, also I believe 2 million Iraqi's out of a population of 35 million have fled the country because things are so bad, just left their homes and family and fled, that would be roughly equivalent to 17.5 million Americans just up and fleeing our Country, souds more like a disasterous nightmare than a rousing success to me Troll Tex, but please keep spinning and slinging the Neo Con BS, it only shows how dumb, deluded and ignorant you reallu are.
BTW Troll Tex, is Ken Mehlman a good man?
ReplyDeleteWill GWB go down in history as a GREAT president along the Lines of FDR, Lincoln and Truman?
Do You think lil Geoegie looked as foolish in the flight suit as Mikey Dukakis riding around in that tank.
Do You support the mission accomplished banner and the little victory speech king Georgie spewed before our real casualties even began, and would YOU do it over again?
What do you think of your boy RUMMY stubbornly and arrogantly refusing to plan for keeping the peace and dealing with an insurgency, do you feel Rummy is/was incompetent?
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike said: "Will GWB go down in history as a GREAT president along the Lines of FDR, Lincoln and Truman?"
ReplyDeleteFunny that you mention Truman. He left office with a public approval rating of 22% and is now "a great president" according you.
ugh no "I" never said Truman was a great president, I think he was a decent president but I only brought him up because YOU did last week.
ReplyDeleteThere you go being a dishonest and putting words in my mouth, Truman was great in the fact that he supported accountability and personal responsibility and he is remembered as a great president because he was the ONLY president, make that the only world leader ever to choose to drop a nuclear bomb on another country.
But just because you are president during a war or choose to drop a nuke on another country doesnt make you a great leader, particularly if you are the person that started the war in the first place.
In my view History annoits far to many great presidents, there were many decent presisents, few great ones and few terrible presidents but as fat as GWB goes he is head and shoulders the worst EVER........................at least hes best at something.
Man, when people think your 25 times more evil than Satan...
ReplyDeleteBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Clif, Lydia,
ReplyDeleteFord (apparently at the White House request) asked Woodward to embargo the interview until after his death, or Bush leaving office, whichever came first.
Hey Carl notice how the Halfwit from Texas didnt respond to my 8:35AM post at all, the little troll didnt touch it with a 10 foot pole.
ReplyDeleteMike, what did you expect? I think he's gotten so frustrated with the fact that we catch his idiocies every moment that he posts and runs, like a little coward.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention 400% more evil than a man soon to be executed for War Crimes and crimes against humanity.....................that doesnt bode well for our little Dictator in Chief or is it the "DECIDER" LMAO :D
ReplyDeleteHm. Bush was chosen hero of the year based strictly on the Republican votes...there's a shock!
ReplyDeleteBunch of mentally incompetent jerkwads ought to be pulling taffy, not voting levers...
Edwards in the race...that's going to complicate things for me, because I backed Edwards in 2004. Of course, he makes Hillary far more palatable to the center of the country, which is a good thing...
ReplyDeleteMike said: "Will GWB go down in history as a GREAT president along the Lines of FDR, Lincoln and Truman?"
ReplyDeleteSure sounds like you are saying Truman is great or near-great. Now he is only decent? Make up your mind.
I said go down in history as great along the lines of...........................I NEVER said "I" thought he was great you need to work on that reading comprehension and take your ADHD medication foolish texan, you ALWAYS read and interpret what YOU WANT rather than reality.
ReplyDeletesee if your not intelligent enough to discern the difference between me saying go down in history as great and "I" think he's great then there is no hope that you have a functioning brain cell Troll Tex.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer Gore or Edwards to Hillary, Carl.
ReplyDeleteTroll Tex if you would spend more time on honest debate instead of focusing on semantics and trying to twist peoples words you wouldnt look like such a fool.
ReplyDeleteTex, as always, yer fulla shit:
ReplyDelete"Three Presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt—are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Usually ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining "top 10" ranks are often rounded out by Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and James K. Polk. In recent polls, James Monroe, James Madison, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan have sometimes been ranked in the "top 10".
Ranking at the bottom of most polls are Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. In recent public polls, George W. Bush has been ranked low"
You know Larry, I wouldnt mind seeing edwards or Obama be Gore's VP!
ReplyDeleteMike, it seemed to me that you were ATTEMPTING to enumerate a list of our best presidents, and that Truman was in that hallowed pantheon that you just mentioned. And now you've downgraded him to just "decent."
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, use your own words, tell me, where does Truman rank in terms of presidential greatness.
Truman was a decent man like Gerald Ford or most of our presidents for that matter.
ReplyDeleteTt said "Mike, it seemed to me that you were ATTEMPTING to enumerate a list of our best presidents, and that Truman was in that hallowed pantheon that you just mentioned. And now you've downgraded him to just "decent.""
ReplyDeleteugh no as I said I was merely regurgitating a few names you threw out last week, as i said before dropping a nuke on someone or being president during a war doesnt make you great, its what you accomplish and your character and integrity that make you great.
I'm betting that, as we approach the 2050s, Bill Clinton will vault into the top 20: unparalleled prosperity without a single war fought, for eight years despite an inflammatory and hostile Congress, and he managed to make some signal changes in American society.
ReplyDeleteHe'll go down as one of the greatest ever.
Edwards-Obama
ReplyDeleteEdwards-Hilary
Gore-Edwards
Which ticket can beat McCain?
I don't think Gore's going to run, Mike, and my sense is Edwards can't win outside of some southern states. He does eliminate Barak Obama as a credible candidate for much of the primary season.
ReplyDeleteLydia
ReplyDeleteAny of them :-)
Well out of those choices I like Gore/Edwards, but Gore/Obama would be nice also.
ReplyDeleteI think that McCain made a critical error in tying himself so closely to the Bush campaign in 2004. He's going to pay a heavy price, not in the general election, but that godawful picture of him hugging Bush will run like Lamont rode the Lieberman kiss to victory.
ReplyDeleteChuck Hagel is my guess.
Larry, my top 3 presidents would be FDR, Lincoln and Clinton!
ReplyDeleteTiny the Blog Idiot doesn't WANT to admit Harry Truman did several things which were unpopular at the time like integrate the US Military, which allowed the civil rights of the suppressed minority to be opened up to the same rights the majority already had.
ReplyDeleteBush played ON the fears and discrimination of the extreme right.
Truman did not. Truman worked so MORE people had full civil rights, Bush the OPPOSITE.
Truman said the BUCK STOPS HERE, bush tries to pass the busk, even to getting US troops killed instead of accepting responsibility for the fiasco he CREATED.
Truman worked WITH US Allies to start the process to contain the Soviet Union, and was willing to ask to US people to SACRIFICE , even for YEARS to keep both the soviets in check, and the war as LOW as possible, Bush went to WAR as fast as he could. Bush even LIED to get the war he wanted in 1998, and allowed the members of PNAC who were in HIS administration to break the rules to get the war they called for in 1998.
Truman held people accountable, even replacing Macarthur, when he was not following US policy, Bush ignores responsibility even rewarding people WHO failed in their responsibilities.
NO Tiny the blog Idiot, george bush is NO Harry Truman and his legacy is never gonna RISE like Truman's did because Truman was working for the good of the American people NOW the gutless repugnant rich assclowns like YOU.
GWB will be the worst President EVER for a LONG LONG TIME.
Deal with it Gutless.
Good points, Clif. Truman did do some unpopular things, but he left office with his head held high, and history proved him right.
ReplyDeleteHistory was against Bush from the moment he set eyes on invading Iraq, because the history of Iraq, hell the history of South Asia, shows that invasion fails the invader, miserably.
So Bush truly is a miserable failure!
Lydia said;
ReplyDeleteWhich ticket can beat McCain?
Lydia you left ONE ticket combination out;
Gore-Obama.
Gore already won the popular Vote with a loser like lieberman on the Ticket, with a DYNAMIC campaigner like Obama as his VP Gore would crush the reichwingnut the GOP is gonna chose this time.
Another milestone in the Global Warming saga, we did NOT need, but were to ignorant and greedy to avoid;
ReplyDeleteAncient ice shelf breaks free in Canadian Arctic
Breakaway may 'signal the onset of accelerated change,' researchers say
A giant ice shelf has snapped free from an island south of the North Pole, scientists said Thursday, citing climate change as a “major” reason for the event.
The Ayles Ice Shelf — all 41 square miles of it — broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 500 miles south of the North Pole in the Canadian Arctic.
Looks like the Polar bear is gonna be like our canary in the coal mine after all.
Worf said "Well, I was talking about how since 911 we've been the "traitors".
ReplyDeleteI've felt that way since then. Not like a traitor mind you, but like everyone thought I was a traitor. Many of my friends were Bush supporters, (in fact, most of them) and some of my family members. I was called "weak" by a niece, and she said that we needed to "fight" the Iraqis to show the world we're strong.
I just laughed. I couldn't believe her parents, one being a sibling of mine, were that stupid.
Now, practically everyone I know has changed their tunes, and suddenly, what I was telling them all along is now gospel.
Go figure."
When I went to Buffalo on the motorcycle this past May, I was appalled when I heard my best friend buying into the Rove/Neo Con lies and talking points, now he's an intelligent person, but he kept parroting the talking points that the democrats all want to raise taxes and steal from the rich, and we need to fight them over there and kill the terrorists to keep us safe, after a entire night of discussion, he saw how wrong he was, what really convinced him more than anything is the spying on Americans and Big Brother type police state GWB is creating, as he's always been more of a Libertarian than a repug and has ALWAYS valued personal freedoms and privacy very highly. He had no idea of the spying on Americans, secret prisons, torture, or all the lies and inconsistencies of GWB he bought into the rhetoric that liberals are weak.
While he is still more a republican than a liberal, he no longer supports GWB and voted Dem in the congressional election as did his neighbor, the tide is turning and thats what trolls like TT and FF hate they sense it and know they are losing.
They are the traitors and the small victories like I had enlightening my friend and his neighbor or your neice seeing the light help more than you would think, if I convince 5 people and they each convince 5 people it takes on a life of its own.
Course people Like Olberman or Lydia or the bigger blogs have a lot more influence than we do, but every little bit can make a difference, the last 4 years blogs were really the only form of truth out there as the MSM was playing dead or being utilized as a Neo Con Propaganda tool.
CNN is reporting the scaffold upon which Saddam is to be hanged is INSIDE he Green Zone.
ReplyDeleteI thought they"handed him Over to the Iraqi..."government"...but if they are gonna kill him inside the green zone won't MOST Iraqi's see that as an American operation after all?
And won't the rest of the world see the American hand pulling the puppet strings?
I think they've seen that all along Clif, but I do think your right that Saddam's death will incite violence, but the "DECIDER" doesnt care if more of our soldiers become targets and die, all he wants is his petty little victory that will feed his massive ego.
ReplyDeleteMike it is the image that "we" and the puppet Iraqi government say "we" handed Saddam OVER to them, but in actuality "we" moved him from the Baghdad airport prison he was held in, to the Green Zone which we control.
ReplyDeleteSaddam may have AN Iraqi standing next to him pretending to "guard" him, but inside the Green Zone, "we" are guarding the guards to carry out "their" mission.
The puppet master is still pulling the strings of it's puppet it created in Iraq.
Gore-Obama would be great.
ReplyDeleteClif, like you said before, what happens if the Iraqi's launch a massive attack on the Green Zone and the supply convoys, say they throw 500,000 people at it and overwhelm it before airpower can be a factor.
ReplyDeleteThat would be a great ticket, I think Gore/Obama could beat ANYthing the repugs could field!
ReplyDeleteBTW, Clif and Lydia, speaking of those convoys, I hope Marcus is ok, we havent heard from him in quite a while.
ReplyDeleteMike I have read elsewhere, the US military has been cracking down on bloggers who are in the military in Iraq, Hopefully that explains why Marcus is not posting here or on his blog.
ReplyDeleteAnd let me just say this about Ford, why do you think he held of till he was dead to release that tape condemning Bush and the Neo Cons, do you guys think he was threatened or blackmailed by Cheney or Rummy, he never struck me as the hard core blindly loyal partisan, and I cant figure why he would choose to not speak out against something he clearly opposed to protect those he strongly disagreed with for partisan reasons, it doesnt add up to me.
ReplyDeleteCracking down on just liberal blogers who oppose the war, or on ALL blogs?
ReplyDeleteMike with the killing of Saddam Hussein either today or tomorrow, the danger to all US Troops and civilians will definately go up.
ReplyDeleteThe Sunni Baathists who still back Saddam will probably want to exact revenge for his death, and the US military and civilians are prime targets.
As far as I know cracking down on Bloggers who are not approved.
ReplyDelete"Mike said...
ReplyDeleteClif, like you said before, what happens if the Iraqi's launch a massive attack on the Green Zone and the supply convoys, say they throw 500,000 people at it and overwhelm it before airpower can be a factor.
10:30 AM"
Mike, is this a Christmas fantasy of yours, you know, anything to make Bush look bad?
approved for what.........spewing the Neo Con propaganda?
ReplyDeleteThey realized too MUCH TRUTH was escaping their control through the blogs.
ReplyDeleteThe DOD under Dumsfeld started to spew propaganda in the Internet, even having people to go to blogs and invite people to go to military website for disinformation.
ReplyDeleteTiny might even be part of THAT, the gutless liar he is.
And TINY your a gutless liar THAT has been proven time and time again.
ReplyDeleteTalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteFunny that you mention Truman. He left office with a public approval rating of 22% and is now "a great president" according you.
I've got news for you slappy.
Dubya, is NO Harry Truman.
I'm sure TT is part of the DOD, i've stated that before, I even have evidence that the DOD accessed my computer when it was hacked.
ReplyDeleteAnd we all know that for some reason TT was quite interested in that, in fact he was downright fascinated.
ReplyDeletePiece of Crap said...
ReplyDeleteGetting 500,000 insurgents in one spot would be perfect.Drop a MOAB.....problem solved.
No.
Butchering half a million people is called "Genocide", and mass murder.
Dropping a 500 pound anvil on your head would be a problem solved.
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteThe same AP poll has Bush at the top for "greatest hero"
You forgot about that.
Conveniently.
No. Didn't forget about it.
According to AP Bush got a much smaller margin of votes, still putting him at the head of that list for best hero of 2006. Of course they also reported that those votes came strictly from republicans, and represents his current base.
Big deal.
Hey Prof Stupid, you drop a bomb on the insurgents storming the Green Zone, you kill our people too genius.................oh yeah I forgot you dont care if OUR soldiers die.
ReplyDeletewhats a matter Troll Tex, you got aweful quiet.
ReplyDeletePiece of Crap said...
ReplyDeleteAh worf....that yellow streak of yours keeps getting wider.
Well, I wouldn't worry about that too much. It's probably just a vitamin C deficiency or something.
You'll just have to open wider.
But don't choke yourself.
ReplyDeleteProf Keyasshole, why ain't you OVER there son?
ReplyDeleteIs there any war your won't run away from son? Is gutless a repug trait, because ALL of you seem to be GUTLESS boy.
How many days (hours?) after Saddam's death will we see conspiracy theories suggesting he's still alive.
ReplyDeleteWell son how long are you repugs gonna lie top the american people like you repuga have for the last quarter century son?
ReplyDeleteSeems Tiny had to check his computer to make sure he was tracking US not sending out too much info instead.
ReplyDeletePiece of Crap said...
ReplyDeleteNo worf,I believe you have a courage deficiency. The Surrender Monkey syndrome.
Well, whatever it is I'm sure its not contagious.
Don't let it stop you from swallowing.
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteHow many days (hours?) after Saddam's death will we see conspiracy theories suggesting he's still alive.
I don't know, but one things for sure. The White House wants him dead, particularly Cheney, really really bad.
They wanted him killed and quickly.
Which tells me there is more than a little swift justice going on here.
Someone doesn't want him around. My guess, is because of what he's got on his old pals, Rummy and Cheney.
As for what Hussien did to his people, I am not so sure that he did not do that under our direction.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, we sold him the stuff.
What's the matta dolty boy? no pretend son to defend you?
ReplyDeleteDolty boy IS mad again.
ReplyDeleteToo bad he was as gutless as Tiny was.
ReplyDeleteHussien might be guilty of crimes, he might have just been a puppet of the US, doing what we told him to do. When he rebelled, he had to be killed.
ReplyDeleteEither way, most of the information we have is after the fact, and the US played a strong role in releasing it. And even it is true, Dubya is guilty of far worse crimes. He has butchered hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, all to get one man.
And now they tell us, "it was worth it".
Piece of Crap said...
ReplyDeleteWorf,you are just so damn witty....you always come up with these knee slappers.
Or in your case, chin slappers.
Looks like Bush is willing to gamble with US troops lives to keep Tariq Aziz from testifying in Saddam's latest trial, where Aziz told people he was going to expose the truth of what happened in the 1980's when V Bush's daddy and Reagan armed Saddam while he committed the crimes he was on trial for.
ReplyDeleteAnything to keep the truth from coming out.
It must SUCK for the repugs to have to cover up so much corruption ans criminal behavior.
ReplyDeleteBut they will fail in their criminal attempt to suppress the truth of Bush's daddy's criminal behavior.
ReplyDeleteJust like they have failed to lie about the WMD's and democracy in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteRepugs are such FAILURES they have to hold on to their bank accounts to feel like anything at all.
ReplyDeleteHey Dolt, you should stick to your stupid ignorant questions when using your sock puppet gimpy!
ReplyDeleteclif said...
ReplyDeleteLooks like Bush is willing to gamble with US troops lives to keep Tariq Aziz from testifying in Saddam's latest trial, where Aziz told people he was going to expose the truth of what happened in the 1980's when V Bush's daddy and Reagan armed Saddam while he committed the crimes he was on trial for.
Anything to keep the truth from coming out.
I really think Clif is on to something here. This so called "trial" and his execution has "Cover Up" written all over it.
I think this is EXACTLY what this is.
And if thats true, theres gonna be "hell" to pay.
Troll Tex said "Mike, since you think the Iraqis were so much better off under the iron thumb of Saddam's dictatorship, why don't we just adopt Saddam's form of government, now that you are reform minded."
ReplyDeleteNo halfwit Texan, Since it is YOU and your hero GWB that support and condone torture, spying on ALL of our citizens and imprisonment without Habeous Corpus, due process or standard rules of evidence, where the accuser is judge, jury and exectutioner.
It Is Clear that YOU and your brainwashed ilk support iron fisted dictatorship and i'm clearly and forcefully opposed to it...............pay more attention my reading challenged friend and maybe you can keep up more.
Also if you are saying the Iraqi's are better off under GWB why dont you ask them, there are many polls that clearly show the Iraqi's want us out of their country and prefer Saddams rule to the Anarchy, chaos and slaughter created by the Idiot in Chief, also I believe 2 million Iraqi's out of a population of 35 million have fled the country because things are so bad, just left their homes and family and fled, that would be roughly equivalent to 17.5 million Americans just up and fleeing our Country, souds more like a disasterous nightmare than a rousing success to me Troll Tex, but please keep spinning and slinging the Neo Con BS, it only shows how dumb, deluded and ignorant you really are.
Saddamn may be our best bet at reuniting the Iraqi people, and bringing order to the region.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we'd never allow that to happen.
Too much pride.
Talll Tale Telling Texan said...
ReplyDelete"Mike, since you think the Iraqis were so much better off under the iron thumb of Saddam's dictatorship, why don't we just adopt Saddam's form of government, now that you are reform minded."
Because we don't need that form of government Einstein.
The Iraqi people apparently do.
Worfeus the repugs are gonna rue the day they loose the white house again, because they will also have no power in congress, so what ever signing statements Bush has tried to HIDE the criminal behavior of Reagan, Bush 41 and the IDIOT, it all will be moot in 2009.
ReplyDeleteBecause the NEXT President can undo all Bush's cover up signing statements.
No wonder money IS so important to them, it is all they have to feel like they are worth something, their humanity is negotiable as long as they can get the money.
ReplyDeleteI know Mike, but this "trial" was a mockery of any justice system.
ReplyDeleteThe US pulled the strings and when we didn't like the way it was going, WE removed the judge and put in our own handpicked puppet who would rule the way we wanted.
It wasn't a trial. It was a sham.
And now we're going to publically HANG this man?
Do we honestly think hanging someone is going to win us ANY favor with anyone except those already on the payroll?
I don't think this is the "right" thing to do.
theres been one cover up after another, the trial was far from the only cover up GWB and his minions engaged in, I've said many times I think that the lies and corruption we are aware of are merely the tip of the iceberg.
ReplyDeleteAnd we would be astounded at all the cover ups and corruption that have actually taken place under the Bush Administration
But its certainly the Bush thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the US would allow the Iraqi government to "pardon" Saddam?
ReplyDeleteOr are the puppets limited to the wishes of the decider?
We are about to kill a man. A prisoner. We're going to kill him in an old, and gruesome way.
ReplyDeletePeople like the peices of shit in here who giggle with glee at this act are as evil as he ever was, and they are no where near the God they claim to worship.
I don't pretend to know the mind of God, but based on what his son taught when he was here, this is not what he would want us to do.
of course it was a sham, I wonder how GWB will feel at his trial, I wonder if he will feel that he DESERVES justice or if he will still feel that justice is irrelevant as long as the will of the NEW "DECIDER" is carried out.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if he will still stay the new president is above the Constitution and the law if his fate hangs in the balance?
I do not believe Jesus is in agreement with the decision that Bush ordered.
ReplyDeleteWe all know NOW Gerald Ford did not
ReplyDeleteA vast MAJORITY of the American people disagree with Bush's illegal war.
ReplyDeleteIt does not have the legitimacy of the UN or even the US policy previous to GWB's getting appointed President
ReplyDeleteThe war belongs to Bush and those who enabled him to violate the legal frame work which was used to convict the Nazi's and Milosovic, and NOW Saddam.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Bush fears a war crimes trial?
Dolty boy why don't YOU go to Baghdad and tell us all?
ReplyDeleteSince you pretend to be a prof and pretend to have a son, how about pretending to haver some balls for a while son?
ReplyDeleteclif said...
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the US would allow the Iraqi government to "pardon" Saddam?
Absolutely not.
Thats why this trial is such a sham. We "replaced" his judge, Abdullah al-Amiri, because we didn't like the way he was ruling, and it looked like Saddamn might have gotten a pardon, or at least life in prison.
But nothing short of death was good enough for the White House, so they ordered the judge replaced, with another puppet who'd toe their line just a little bit tighter.
Piece of Crap said...
ReplyDeleteDo you think they will put a hood over Saddams head?
What will his last meal be?
Will he ware his "Sunday go to meetin suit?"
Not sure. Why don't you head on over there and report back to us on it?
Of course, next time, try to spell "wear" correctly.
I wish we, as Protestants, had this ritual for our boys on the verge-of-manhood.
ReplyDeleteWe do. It's called "our first date"...
What I dont understand is how these repuf fools could think death is far harsher than life in prison, I know I would much rather be hanged or electrucuted than get life in prison.
ReplyDeleteLife in prison is a lifetime of suffering and a wasted life, while a quick death is the easy way out.
Prof. Chaos said...
ReplyDeleteThe Prof asks:
Do you think they will put a hood over Saddams head?
What will his last meal be?
Will he ware his "Sunday go to meetin suit?"
a) It's required by Iraqi law, shithead.
b) They've already announced what his last meal will be. Please keep up.
c) Who gives a fuck? I oppose capital punishment under any circumstance, but in particular here. I think they should throw him in one of his torture prisons and let all the surviving victims and family of the dead come and torture him.
But a blood-thirsty asshole like you would never think of real punishment. All you're about is vengeance because you're a coward, Professional Kayakass...
Prof you seem to know quite a bit about wearing hoods and hanging people.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question you should consider Dolty Boy;
ReplyDeleteWill Iraq Extradite Rumsfeld for Aiding and Abetting Saddam?
Saddam Hussein is guilty of crimes against humanity. He's killed thousands of his own people. His trial may have been less fair than we would like, but I hav e no trouble with the guilty verdict. As for the death penalty, I oppose it, but Iraqi law is not my specialty, and if their constitution and Justice system permits that penalty, so be it. They are, as we have been told many times, a sovereign government, so the least we can do is allow them to employ any penalty permitted by their laws.
However, no criminal of Saddam's stature commits his crimes alone. He has henchmen, sycophants, hangers-on and thugs to carry out his directives. And dictators who oppress and murder their own people in violation of international law often do so with the active assistance of foreign officials who provide these monsters access to the very weaponry and materials used to commit their horrid crimes.
Case in point? Donald Rumsfeld:
Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. [...]
That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld. [...]
Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:
“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”
In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”
In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”
Now, as I previously stated, I am no expert in Iraqi law, but it seems to me that Mr. Rumsfeld and other former officials of the Reagan administration, with full knowledge of Saddam's murderous and thuggish tendencies, enabled him to purchase the very chemicals and helicopters that he would later use to massacre the Kurds living in Northern Iraq. Under the principles of American criminal law, they would be guilty, at the very least of negligent homicide when they allowed Saddam to acquire these weapons with full knowledge that he had previously massacred his own citizens.
Indeed, if I was a prosecutor I would be very tempted to charge Rumsfeld with first degree murder because he and his colleagues in the Reagan administration acted with a reckless and depraved indifference to human life when he enabled Saddam Hussein's regime to acquire the means to make and deploy chemical and other weapons to be used against innocent human beings. After all, Rumsfeld and other US officials had knowledge of Saddam's past slaughters of his own people, and yet they went ahead and allowed him to obtain advanced weapons of mass destruction. It seems likely to me that Iraqi law has provisions analogous to US law which would make aiding and abetting Saddam's criminal enterprise actionable.
I will shed no tears when Saddam Hussein dies, whether today, tomorrow and some unknown date in the future. But he should not be the only person who merits punishment for the crimes committed in his name. If the Iraqi government truly is a sovereign and independent regime which represents the will of the Iraqi people I pray that its legal system will file indictments and requests for extradition for Donald Rumsfeld and all other Americans who acted to aid and abet the crimes for which Saddam has been convicted.
Justice, whether in America or Iraq, should be blind to bias and prejudice against defendants charged with criminal acts, but neither it should not remain purposely ignorant of those who through their actions permitted such crimes to be committed in the first place. A man who fires the gun which kills another is a murderer, but so is the man who gives him that gun with full knowledge that his is likely to use it to commit murder. Donald Rumsfeld, and all those who enabled Saddam back in the 1980's to kill his own people should face the same legal process in Iraq that the now deposed and disgraced dictator was made to face.
And may God have mercy on their souls should they be found guilty for the actions they took which made those horrible massacres possible.
Yea, maybe they could use him as a test dummy for the gallows.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought...
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteHow many days (hours?) after Saddam's death will we see conspiracy theories suggesting he's still alive.
The right wing is the wing with the unbalanced minds...you tell us, Texasshole!
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteProf you seem to know quite a bit about wearing hoods and hanging people.
Every Thursday, around his mom's house.
TallTexan said...
ReplyDelete"Mike, since you think the Iraqis were so much better off under the iron thumb of Saddam's dictatorship, why don't we just adopt Saddam's form of government, now that you are reform minded."
I agree. Fewer people died under Saddam than when we invaded his country for no reason other than our own pocketbooks...
Carl said...
ReplyDeleteEvery Thursday, around his mom's house
Well that had to do something to entertain themseleves out there in the Ozarks.
The short bus didn't go out that far.
ReplyDeleteSo THAT'S why he was homeschooled!
ReplyDeleteThat and the school had a standing policy against animals in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteIn the Ozarks?
ReplyDeleteI thought the beasts taught.
Or at least the genetic mutations that come from first cousins mating...
In other words Worfeus your saying he couldn't bring his date to the prom?
ReplyDeleteSo mommy home schooled him and they had their own prom, date and all?
clif said...
ReplyDeleteSo mommy home schooled him and they had their own prom, date and all?
That would explain his son.
Clif said "In other words Worfeus your saying he couldn't bring his date to the prom?"
ReplyDeletewell technically he could bring his right hand or his sister with him to the prom.........actually he may have two right hands...................all the inbreeding you know.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteIn other words Worfeus your saying he couldn't bring his date to the prom?
He had to be tied up to the hitching post...
2996
ReplyDelete12-2006 107
The hanging of Saddam was NOT worth all this death of young Americans, no matter what Bush lies about.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteIn other words Worfeus your saying he couldn't bring his date to the prom?
Thats right.
Even in a dress the locals could still make out her curly little tail.
Year Deaths Wounded
ReplyDelete2003 486 2408
2004 848 8001
2005 846 5947
2006 816 5676
Total 2996 22032
Especially when you consider it has NOT gotten any better that last three and a half years......
Hm. HEY, KAYAKASS!
ReplyDeleteCan you play the banjo?
No Carl, I believe he plays the skin flute.
ReplyDelete"Carl said...
ReplyDeleteTallTexan said...
"Mike, since you think the Iraqis were so much better off under the iron thumb of Saddam's dictatorship, why don't we just adopt Saddam's form of government, now that you are reform minded."
I agree. Fewer people died under Saddam than when we invaded his country for no reason other than our own pocketbooks...
12:15 PM"
Wrong. In the Iran Iraq War, between 1-2 million people died, and Saddam killed more than 300,000 of his own people.
Absolutely it was NOT worth the cost.
ReplyDeleteNot in human lives. Not in money.
Not in equipment.
And not in our international standing.
The war in Iraq is why North Korea is testing Nukes.
The war in Iraq is why Iran is developing nukes.
The war in Iraq is why China and Russia formed a new Military alliance.
The war in Iraq is why everybody hates us.
Give it time TT, your hero GWB has allready seen close to 700,000 Iraqi's dead in a mere 3 1/2 years as a result of his Folly.
ReplyDeleteAnd TINY Saddam attacked Iran at the behest of Bush's daddy and Reagan son, they were complicit in that war gutless.
ReplyDeleteTT is correct, at least as far as we know. 300,000 of his own people were killed throughout his 25 year reign.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we've only been there a few years now.
Give us time.
At least Tiny is still the gutless blog idiot, showing his limited ability of doing anything with out the GOP talking points
ReplyDeleteTiny if IRAQ is such a meaningful war, why ain't your sorry butt checks there son?
ReplyDeleteTalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteWrong. In the Iran Iraq War, between 1-2 million people died, and Saddam killed more than 300,000 of his own people.
Wait...you're blaming Saddam for deaths in a war WE instigated?
Meanwhile, we've been responsible for the deaths of between 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqis, Texasshole....that's double what you claim Saddam had killed!
Oh that's right Tiny is GUTLESS I forgot.
ReplyDeleteWe've already killed or helped to kill over 100,000.
ReplyDeleteMaybe higher if some of the real estimates come out.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteTiny if IRAQ is such a meaningful war, why ain't your sorry butt checks there son?
One good reason is the Pentagon wants us to win.
Clif, of course he's gutless...he's a Republican!
ReplyDeleteI heard 650,000 and that was 3 months ago so i'm sure it would have to be close to 700,000 by now.
ReplyDelete100,000 is the BS repug estimate, the Lancet study and an Iraqi study estimated over 650,000 deaths and that was over 3 months ago.
ReplyDeleteMike, I think your estimate is probably closer to the truth than anything.
ReplyDeleteBut since the pentagon does not report on civillian deaths as a rule, and if they do it is offical policy of the Pentagon to underreport civillian casualties as well as US casualties for purposes of "public moral".
I think probably a million Iraqi's have been killed, give or take 100 grand.
As for US soldiers? Our official account is coming up on 3000, but wait till the facts start coming out in a few years.
That number is going to be more like 15,000 US troops dead.
Even the Iraqi puppet government is saying OVER 150,000
ReplyDeleteOnly the lying hacks who tried to sell Dumsfeld's lie even stick to the dishonest figure any more.
ReplyDeleteIdiots like TT think Bush will be remembered as a great man.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing they'll remember about bush, other than his stupidity, is that during his reign of terror, the blood flowed like wine.
BTW speaking of lying hacks, where did the gutless blog Idiot go?
ReplyDeleteI hope British Gary is not locked out.
ReplyDeleteEmail me Gary, here at this website.
Also, Marcus, we are wondering how you are.
If anyone has info on our soldiers like Marcus and Thomas Deane, please inform.
xo
John s Hopkins had it at 100,000 by 2004. Lancet has it at 600,000 based on interviews and estimates. There's some burial issue with body counts that precludes using that as an accurate count.
ReplyDeleteWorfeus said:
ReplyDelete"The war in Iraq is why North Korea is testing Nukes.
The war in Iraq is why Iran is developing nukes.
The war in Iraq is why China and Russia formed a new Military alliance.
The war in Iraq is why everybody hates us."
BRILLIANT AND SADLY TRUE Worf!
Lydia,
ReplyDeleteGary said a few days ago that he was tired of the trolls, and wanted to find blogs where people discussed current issues, not issues from the Clinton years. You might find him at Eschaton or Americablog.
That sucks Carl.
ReplyDeleteI miss Gary.
Yeah Lydia Gary was fed up with the trolls and their slimy dishonest tactics, he read John Deans book and saw first hand what the repugs are all about.
ReplyDeleteIran is testing Nukes because Israel has them and is an enemy of Iran,
ReplyDeletePakistan has them and is an enemy of Iran,
Saudi Arabia is working QUIETLY on getting them, some report Pakistan has already sold a couple to the Saudis, and The Saudis are an enemy of Iran,
AND we attacked Iraq because they did NOT have them.
Worf, Me too. He had an unique perspective on things.
ReplyDeleteIt was cool too see his british perspective, it kinda gave the blog international scope.
ReplyDeleteHere is the WIKI article about the Saudis attempts to procure nuke weapons.......
ReplyDeleteSaudi Arabia - In 2003, members of the government stated that due to the worsening relations with the USA, Saudi Arabia was being forced to consider the development of nuclear weapons; however, so far they have denied that they are making any attempt to produce them. It has been rumoured that Pakistan has transferred several nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, but this is unconfirmed. In March 2006, the German magazine Cicero reported that Saudi Arabia had since 2003 received assistance from Pakistan to acquire nuclear missiles and warheads. Satellite photos allegedly reveal an underground city and nuclear silos with Ghauri rockets south of the capital Riyadh. Pakistan has denied aiding Saudi Arabia in any nuclear ambitions.
I wonder why George W Bush is NOT screeching about this, after all 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and no other country funded the 9-11 attack like the Saudis did.
Sauds and nukes...they'd probably borrow our planes to fly them.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course there are the Israeli's who have VIOLATED the nuclear non-proliferation treaty for YEARS with not question from Washington;
ReplyDeleteIsrael - Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program. Although Israel claims that the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona is a "research reactor," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986. Imagery analysts can identify weapon bunkers, mobile missile launchers, and launch sites in satellite photographs. It is believed to possess nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency, though unlike Iran, has never been referred to the United Nations Security Council. Israel is supected to have tested a nuclear weapon along with South Africa in 1979, but this has never been confirmed (see Vela Incident). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75-200 weapons.
On December 11, 2006, Prime Minister Olmert said, possibly unintentionally, that Iran aspires to possess nuclear weapons like US, France, Israel and Russia. Olmert's office later said that the quote was taken out of context, in other parts of the interview, Olmert refused to confirm or deny Israel's nuclear weapon status. "Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Olmert had meant to categorize the four nations as democracies to set them apart from Iran, and was not referring to their potential nuclear capabilities or aspirations"
I guess the same RULES do not apply to Israel as the rest of the world eh?
Nothing like being hypocritical eh TINY?
ReplyDeleteIsrael and the Saudis can have them with Bush's blessings , but Iran can not even have a nuclear reactor to produce electricity.
Kind of BLOWS a big hole in the screeching of the repugs about violations of UN sanctions and protocol eh tiny?
ReplyDeletethe US allows it when the US wants to, but enforces it when ti is politically convenient.
15 of 19, Clif. How hard would it be for Wahhabists to secure some of the Saudi weapons and blow up Dallas?
ReplyDeleteDecember 29, 2006, 1:00 a.m.
ReplyDeleteSpare Thoughts on Saddam
By William F. Buckley Jr.
Many data, historical and analytical, are being thrust at us, following the pronouncement of the death sentence on Saddam Hussein. What one might loosely call "the prosecution," anxious to defend this mite of justice handed down by the Iraqi court, reminds the world that it is incorrect to assume that the execution of Saddam can measure up to what Saddam did. Remember, we are told, the court ruled on only a single barbarity, namely the Dujail massacre.
That involved murdering about 150 Shiites. They were being punished for conspiring against Saddam. Most of them were, simply, shot. But not all. Some, we learned, were inserted into meat grinders. If the trial revealed what were Saddam's motives in this alternative means of execution, word of what they were has not got out. Most would think it naive even to ask. The idea — alternative means of execution — wasn't a scientific experiment: Execution by bullet, or by giant blades that tear bone and flesh apart — which is better? The idea, manifestly, was to exhibit the lengths to which Saddam was routinely prepared to go in order to discourage dissent.
We are reminded that there is no mathematically satisfying way to measure the life of Saddam up against all the lives he destroyed. As well suggest that an execution of Hitler or Stalin or Mao could ever have balanced the scales on what they had done. Capital punishment is exacted, in modern law, as punishment for taking a single life. Taking hundreds, thousands, millions of lives mocks the very idea of executable justice. But the symbol of Saddam on the gallows is a symbol of justice pursued, even if plenary satisfaction is not possible.
The date is not set, but we are advised that under Iraqi law, execution is required to take place not more than 30 days after the affirmation of the sentence. And so we pause to anticipate the cries against capital punishment. Thoughtful citizens, especially those dutifully inclined to listen to the teachings of the Christian church, acknowledge that to endorse the sentence on Saddam is to endorse the capital punishment decried by a very large school of ethicists and, indeed, by the pope himself.
Let's go ahead and acknowledge that taking a life, even under civil sanction, asserts an authority over human life not lightly assumed. In the arguments of the abolitionists — and that includes most Western governments and 110 percent of the world's professional ethicists — this is never justifiably done in cold blood.
A formal philosophical-moral manifesto, seeking to annul the authority of the Iraqi court, has not yet been enunciated, but it will be. So far we have only the meanderings of Ramsey Clark, routinely dismissed. In plain fact, only the U.S. Army could exercise the power to freeze Saddam's trap door, and this isn't going to happen.
What is going to happen is an outcry against capital punishment, and we are obliged to listen to what will be said and to weigh the arguments, even if we have wrestled with the dilemma before. But we are entitled, also, to satisfaction from what is about to happen.
For all that the Arab world seems crowded with young men who are prepared to blow themselves up provided they can simultaneously blow up other people, the indications are pretty clear that Saddam Hussein himself has no appetite to go to the gallows. His aggressive, contemptuous conduct during the trial, the scorn he has shown for the very idea of a tribunal that presumes to question his sacrosanct judgments, balances ironically with his claims to innocence. I didn't do it, and if I did I was entitled to do it. Saddam Hussein does not want to die on the gallows any more than the Nuremberg gang did.
But this is the point at which we are entitled to a measure of satisfaction precisely over what Saddam is going to experience. Even if it is prideful to take his life, it is something other than sinful to take satisfaction — pleasure, even — at its forfeit.
It was rumored, in 1946, that the hangman in Nuremberg adjusted the nooses of some of the condemned to magnify the pain of suffocation. Such sadism was not called for then and is not called for now. But if fornication is wrong, there is no denying that it can bring pleasure. The death of Saddam Hussein at rope's end brings a pleasure that is undeniable, and absolutely chaste in its provenance.
Carl the Saudi leadership is the wahhabists and they are those which rules both the country and fund its export to Pakistan where the jihadists use it to legitimize the attacks under the laws of Islam.
ReplyDeleteWith OUT the House of Saud funding them both the Wahhabists and jihadists would be poor screeching extremists sort of like David Koresh or David Duke.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteIran is testing Nukes because Israel has them and is an enemy of Iran,
I disagree.
Sure thats why they WANT them.
But the reason they're developing them now is because of Iraq.
Iraq showed them our ass, and now they know we are in no position to stop them.
Sure they WANT them because of Israel, but they're GETTING them because of the war in Iraq.
It is the OIL money from the House of Saud which fuels the whole machine of Sunni terrorism.
ReplyDelete