And if Pelosi wasn't bad enough, check out what Reid is up to...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp

Speaking from experience, this comes as no great shock considering the source: an SF liberal.

My God it's embarrassing to see Wizbang scramble for anything like this post. I realize the devastation of last Nov. 7 was horrific and fatal to the consevative movement but to make your crying and pillow biting public is just so sad.

An excellent example of "shoot the messenger," doc. Don't pay any attention to the facts stated, just hurl the hyperbole.

I would be interested to read your principled distinction between Yugoslavia and Iraq.

drlava,
I was hoping the republicans would not descend to the level the dems have maintained for sooooo long, the crying, the whining, the sniveling, etc. Perhaps your type could allow the republicans a SHORT time of wallowing in the gutter you owned...believe me, the republicans will rebound quickly.

Wow drlava's statement didn't have anything really to do with the post. In fact it so meaninglessly generic, I wonder the trolls are using bots now?

jpm, it's even more ironic with the homophobic "pillow-biting" reference. I thought they were the side of tolerance and acceptance and embracing diversity?

J.

But look how effectively the thread is hijacked!

The dems have nothing. The exit polls for Nov.7 says corruption was the first issue in their motivation to vote. Iraq was number four. Spin away dims. Frankly, I am enjoying this time. The dems will have to lead, but the poll driven party will not know how. You need principles. ww

I must say that for all those of you who almost daily complain(ed) about the so-called Bush Derangement Syndrome, you must have gone out in the cold and caught Pelosi Derangement Syndrome.

The first rule of politics is that when you have nothing to offer call someone names. Many of you are artful practitioners.

You holler she is a hypocrite while practicing it yourself. Well done.

P.S. I forgot. Now let the name calling begin.

H

From your "Carebear" citation: "The majority of the Democrats display their hypocrisy daily, when Clinton started a fight then everything was a-ok. Bush does it, against an actual threat to our country (ie...Afghanistan & Iraq rather then Kosovo), he is vilified by the hypocrites"

Anyone who still affirms that Iraq was or ever had been a threat to the US is either a warmongerer or an abject fool.

That "Carebear" citation is beyond belief, but one can always count on the Wizchoir to sing on cue.

Anyone who still affirms that Iraq was or ever had been a threat to the US is either a warmongerer or an abject fool.

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. Your post has truly been enlightening. That has to be one of the most compelling arguments I've seen made on the topic.

Hugh,

P.S. I forgot. Now let the name calling begin.

Now that you made a new year's resolution to not engage in name calling, it's safe to call you names and see if you can live up to that resolution.

Hugh you are late sometimes and early other times. Sometimes you're verbose but other times you're cryptic. Sometimes your interesting and other times you're boring. I guess that makes you a hypocrite, at least by leftist standards.

Ok, we got your request out of the way.

The first rule of politics is that when you have nothing to offer call someone names. Many of you are artful practitioners.

This is learned behavior and conservative posters on Wizbang have had many leftist troll comments to learn from. I generally try to avoid name calling on a personal basis, (except when asked to do so), because your statement above is mostly true.

I am hearing relentless chants about higher payroll taxes, stem cell research, higher minimum wages, raising taxes etc. etc. from these clueless Dimwits. Aren't they just wonderful? Saviors of the people. I've yet to hear what their foriegn policy is. Actually I've not heard anything they are planning to insure the security of the country without which nothing else matters.
Further, leave the economy alone. It sure is a lot better than back in 2000.

aRepukelican,

Anyone who still affirms that Iraq was or ever had been a threat to the US is either a warmongerer or an abject fool.

Your statement above doesn't include the most important case, which is that Saddam would likely have become a serious threat to the US had he been left in power. Those who don't see that are either ignorant or blind fools.

But of course, Mac, you are so right; and, if one waits long enough, pigs will likely fly as well.

Keep on singing....

aRepukelican

But of course, Mac, you are so right; and, if one waits long enough, pigs will likely fly as well.

So which are you; ignorant or a blind fool?

Anyone who still affirms that Iraq was or ever had been a threat to the US is either a warmongerer or an abject fool

Is this revisionist history writing or the lack of a short-term memory?

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Even Nancy the warmonger and abject fool weighed in........

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Mac:

I appreciate the critque. :-) I think you're right on. Hopefully, I'm not too boring too often. I don't get the transition from all that to hypocrite though.

H

Jumpin joe....you oughta stop jumpin up & down as you try to keep up w/ the Wizchoir tune.

Doesn't matter who said what...the plain fact is that it was all wrong. A wrong Democrat doesn/t make up for a deliberately lying Prez or Veep, who, at the time of their statements, knew damn well, that they were cherry-picking the intelligence to railroad the American public into a war that they had intended from the day they stepped into office.

And, before you try to pick that assertion apart, then you are going to have to claim that Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke are lying through their teeth.

Hugh,

I don't get the transition from all that to hypocrite though.

I don't either, but I was using leftist standards. You know, the same standards that say being wrong about something is the same as telling a lie.

Anyway, reasoned debate, diversity of opinions, and humor are what makes Wizbang a great blog in my book. The more pure flaming in comments the less interesting those comments are regardless of who's being flamed.

"Doesn't matter who said what. . ."

The typical screech of a Democrat when they can't refute their own past.

The truth remains, asshat - when Maddy and Fancy Nancy and the Syphilitic Hillbilly talked about Iraq as a threat, you dropped to your knees and swallowed the talking points. When Clinton lied about mass graves in Serbia, you people screamed that we couldn't wait for the corrupt UN to act - we had to go in now! People were dying! When that horny hick bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan, you just shrugged your shoulders - hey, they're only little brown sand monkeys over there anyway.

"a deliberately lying Prez. . ."

Like "the troops will be home for Christmas" ?

Or "Elian will be happier in Cuba" ?

Or "They're abusing children in Waco" ?

Or "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" ?

FOAD, traitor. I know you people are creaming in your panties because at long last you can taste the blood of our soldiers as the war is lost, but let's not pretend you have clean hands in any of this.

Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)

Well, Saddam was already removed by then. Did the resolution also approve the brilliance of our Leaders, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, even as things started to fall apart in Iraq?

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

That vote looks pretty good right now, given the mess we're in - with too-few troops to sustain the last "surge" beyond six months.

Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)

You're in favor of anti-Muslim bigotry? Oh yeah, MIDDLE EASTERN MEN have been seen at the port of Miami! We're all gonna DIE!

Wage war on Terrorism, not on fellow Americans. (Sep 2001)

Didn't know you were in favor of waging war on fellow Americans.

Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

Yeah, that Kosovo thing was a bloodbath, all the troops that died, it's a real quagmire.

I agree Wizbang is one of my favorite sites, not just for the topics, although great, but the comments. Frequently spot on and some humorous. I do not pay any attention to the trolls who just want to spew hate and get off topic. They hate just to hate. They are the Rosie O'Donnells of the commentors. Just comment to incite. Very boring. Very elementary. ww

"Clearly, this is not a woman who votes based on what's right. She votes based on what Republicans do not want."

Quit contradicting yourself, Lorie.

A wrong Democrat doesn/t make up for a deliberately lying Prez or Veep

Thank you for clarifying the difference between Democrats simply being "wrong" about Iraq's WMD and President Bush saying the same thing almost verbatim being a "lie".

And all this time I thought the Democrats were just being hypocrites but it turns out they were just ignorant and President Bush is really an evil genius.

Again, my horizons are forever expanding here in the comment sections.

Thanks again....

~Peace Out~

From cmd..."FOAD, traitor. I know you people are creaming in your panties "

Are you watching, Kim? Just one of many examples of a Wizfool's forensics skill, not to mention polite discourse.

It seems strange for the "Prez or Veep" to deliberately lie about something apparently the Democrats were on the same page about.

I'm afraid I'll never understand the hopelessly enigmatic motivations of Evil Geniuses and their scheming cabal of warmongering abjectly foolish clones.

aRepukelican,

Doesn't matter who said what...the plain fact is that it was all wrong. A wrong Democrat doesn/t make up for a deliberately lying Prez or Veep, who, at the time of their statements, knew damn well, that they were cherry-picking the intelligence to railroad the American public into a war that they had intended from the day they stepped into office.

So, Bill Clinton must have been cherry-picking the intelligence too, because he's on record as saying he believe Saddam had WMD. Taking the word of Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke and ignoring Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Albright, and many more people who had access to the same intelligence Bush had is also cherry-picking. Once again you are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of.

Ignorance can be fixed, but it seems you're so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you can't accept that Saddam could ever have posed a threat to the U.S. That's really what Pelosi, Albright were talking about in 1998. It doesn't matter at all that Saddam didn't have WMD's on hand, because we now know he retained the capability of making them as soon as the UN sanctions were lifted. We also now know Saddam had so corrupted the UN and some member states of the Security Council that the sanctions would have likely been lifted by 2004 had Bush not acted when he did.

Saddam suffered his most humiliating defeat at the hands of the U.S. in the first Gulf war and he was a man known to seek revenge. A pissed-off Saddam in a nation free from UN sanctions and the ability to make WMDs is what we would now be facing had Bush not taken that butcher out when he did. It's obvious from your posts above that that possibility never crossed your mind aRepukelican. This nation is so lucky you and your ilk were not in charge of this nation's military at that critical juncture in history. That's really what the left is so afraid of; people realizing the threat Saddam would have become if not for the courage of Bush at a critical juncture in history.

aRepukelican,

I've often found that the best way to encourage polite discourse is to pick and post under an offensive name for the people in which you request said discourse.

You seem to be confused about many of the basics in life.

Mac

"This nation is so lucky you and your ilk were not in charge of this nation's military at that critical juncture in history"...in reference to taking Saddam out.

The plain fact is that the US is now in a hopeless Iraqi quagmire w/ no resolution in sight because an untutored fool fell under the sawy of the PNAC/neocon cabal, which had always hadthe ill-conceived scheme to remove Saddam in order to project American hegemony into the Middle East.

So this nation is now minus 3000+ Americans w/ another 22,000+ maimed for life and embroiled in a hopeless war thanks to a Texan Incompetent, who, with his experience in Foreign Affairs, couldn't even define the difference between the Rio Grande and a taco.

Heralder

Glad you commented on the user.

The Republicans bend over backwards to supplant the name of the Democratic Party w/ their ungrammatical substitution, apart from the fact that "Democratic" is the Party's chosen name, in an attempt, inspired in part by Gingrich & Frank Luntz, as a hateful way of demonstrating their contempt. And, as dutiful Pavlovians, the rest of the crowd drools the same.

Not only is Democrat Party NOT THE correct name, it reflects illiterate English usage.

Additionally, here on Wizbang, one continually encounters the use of "Dumbocrat, Dimocrat, Dummycrat" etc

Since you people refuse to use the proper name for the Democratic Party, I thought it only fitting to return the favor in the form of my user. I'll amend it when I see the end of the usage of the intended epithet, Democrat Party.

Jay T...hope you're reading this

aRepukelican:

hadthe ill-conceived scheme to remove Saddam in order to project American hegemony into the Middle East.

I was reading your post, doing my normal checklist;

1) hopeless Iraqi quagmire - check
2) American hegemony - check
3) neocon cabal - check
4) embroiled in a hopeless war - check
5) fool, Incompetent, untutored - check

...then I actually read the above quoted sentence. Explain to me, with your boundless and superior understanding, how we were to project our so-called hegemony by invading a place like Iraq?

Wouldn't we want to start with say, China? I mean, while we're exercising our expansionist warmongerging police state it would make sense to start somewhere, well, more impressive?

But, I seem to have been left off of the official conspiratorial Neocon Cabal (tm) mailing list...so I must admit I'm ignorant to the dark machinations of our idiot/genius president.

aRepukelican:

Thanks for the clarification!

Repukelican = Democrat

A word on semantics: Trying to confuse the argument, or cover your own hypocrasy by scraping obscure verbage over the conversation doesn't make you right or vindicate your usage.

My very simple point, I don't post as "aDimmycrat" then complain about the lack of polite discourse, conversly, nor should you.

Tear 'em a new asshole aRepublican. You're the only sane poster ON this insane message board.

I don't know why you bother though, you will never change the minds of these troglidykes. These people breed and the results are the Jeffrey Dahlmer's of this world.

But it's good to see you go

Yes, indeed, he sure is tearing us up...I can't stop laughing.

Thanks for the post. Please come back and try again...you'll win eventually.

All the bush-bot finger-pointing at Dem anti-Americanism would be more effective if W weren't such an Esau. Ever heard of Esau? The guy in Genesis who