« Quote Of The Day - Nanny State Edition | Main | Moonbat Democrats Against the War »

Daily Kos' "purge" missed a few barking moonbats

A while ago, Kos over at Daily Kos decided to "clean house" and get rid of a some of the slightly more insane barking moonbats that have taken up residence there.

Apparently he missed a few (and it's understandable, there being such a high percentage), because one of Charles' readers over at Little Green Footballs spotted this little gem.

I started to read some of this dip's so-called "investigation" and "reasoning" about how Karl Rove was behind the forged Texas Air National Guard memos that brought down Dan Rather, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. The one thing that convinced me that it could NOT have been a GOP sting was this simple observation:

It is an incredibly poor plan that relies on the utter incompetence and stupidity of your opponent to succeed, and an incredibly stupid person who would put forth such a plan.

The TANG forgeries were so badly, flagrantly fake that they should have been dismissed within minutes by anyone with the slightest clue. And they were -- not a single one of the experts CBS called upon would give them the slightest hint of authenticity or respectability. But instead of being warned off by them, CBS (apparently blinded by their own political biases and lust for glory) ran with them anyway -- and ended up devastating their own credibility instead.

Further, the source of the documents was a guy with a long-standing loathing of George W. Bush and a history of mental problems. That's not saying that he couldn't have come up with legitimate documents, but it certainly should have led to anything he came up with getting extra scrutiny.

Karl Rove is many things, but he's simply not THAT stupid. By all rights, those TANG memos should have been recognized as fakes within minutes of their arrival by fax. And no amount of "spin" can turn those memos into some incredible Rovian conspiracy.

But for just a moment, let's pretend that Rove did, indeed, engineer the whole thing. Who in their right mind would fire him? If he could pull that off, for God's sake LET him run things! If he's willing and able to do that kind of thing to CBS, imagine what he could do with, say, North Korea? China? The United Nations? (Dare I say it?) France?

Nah. Nobody short of Satan could pull off that kind of a coup, and for all the things Rove's been accused of doing and being, I haven't seen THAT one.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Daily Kos' "purge" missed a few barking moonbats:

» NIF linked with High Sheikh of Pork

» The Great Satan linked with That's right Karl Rove Is Satan

» Ace of Spades HQ linked with Watchin' The Internet Detectives

Comments (126)

Let the site that has comme... (Below threshold)

Let the site that has comments and no moonbats/wingnuts cast the first stone. Perusing some of the Plame/Wilson conspiracy theories in comments here, this site ain't it.

They hate Rove because he i... (Below threshold)
Leftism = Slave Morality:

They hate Rove because he is good at what he does. He is better than them at politics, which makes them Sacred Victims in the Leftist theology.

Rove for CIA. If he could k... (Below threshold)

Rove for CIA. If he could keep track of all these conspiracies and manage to succeed in discrediting CBS and other networks with not only plausible deniability but zero blowback, he should take over the CIA and begin operations against al Qaeda, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia post haste.

They don't hate Rove becaus... (Below threshold)

They don't hate Rove because he's good at politics, they hate Rove because just when you think he can't sink any lower into the mud he trots out something more disgraceful.

Ann Richards is a lesbo.
John McCain has an illegitimate black baby.
Max Cleland stands with Bin Laden.
John Kerry lied his way to high decoration in Vietnam.
Mission Accomplished.


There was a quote from the ... (Below threshold)

There was a quote from the book Fletch that I stumbled across last night that would have been perfect regarding the TANG memoes:

"I must follow the journalistic instinct of being skeptical of everything until I personally have proved it true."

I wonder if Dan Rather could get all the way through that without choking.

Maybe if he read it off of a prompter and had a flask of whiskey in him.

<a href="http://www.google.... (Below threshold)
Um, interesting. I never h... (Below threshold)

Um, interesting. I never heard any of that, JmaR. Maybe you're projecting.

Rove has always seemed to m... (Below threshold)

Rove has always seemed to me to be part of a hatred.

Consider what would be the "best" anti-POTUS attacks:

1) too dumb to be fit for POTUS,
2) too Machiavellian to be fit for POTUS, and
3) too in bed with Big Biz.

Note that #s 1 and 2 cannot both be true. Since they began with #1, anti-Bush types cannot switch to #2. Also, all efforts to seriously pin #3 on POTUS have failed.


- Continue #1 on Bush (ignore Kerry grades),
- Use Rove as target for #2, and
- Use Cheney as target for #3.

joe,ummm....what h... (Below threshold)


ummm....what haven't you heard of? Maybe I can project a little light on the topic for you.

Well, for starters, Max Cle... (Below threshold)

Well, for starters, Max Cleland hasn't done a whole lot of standing since he dropped the grenade.

Hmmm."John Kerry l... (Below threshold)


"John Kerry lied his way to high decoration in Vietnam."

Actually this one is true.

Frankly if Rove were 1/20th as much of a mastermind as the liberals/democrats believe him to be then I figure we've got a couple years before we're all kowtowing to the Emperor of the Earth Rove.

This whole nonsense is just liberals/democrats screwing up entirely on their own, and then casting about to blame someone else because accepting blame for their own mistakes would make them less intellectually superior don'tchaknow.

i.e. same old schtick.

Ann Richards: ... (Below threshold)
Hey ed,Actually, n... (Below threshold)

Hey ed,

Actually, no that's just another rightwing lie.

"Liberals/democrats screwing up on their own"? Good Lord you people are fucked up.


Your joke would have been funny if a. there was any truth to it and b. you're supposed to be great "supporters" of our troops. How to cheapen a veteran. So Rove is not just a skillful political operative for you he's also a mentor/

Democrats' intense need to ... (Below threshold)

Democrats' intense need to "get" Karl Rove always is like them trying to shoot down the moon because it's just too bright at night.

I, too, tried reading a few of those links (KOS) and found myself wondering, to the effect, that, well, EVERYone has human foibles in their past (if not present) and if you really, really try hard enough, you can manage to get Kevin Bacon responsible for the planet Mars.

We could discuss 'till Dooms Day -- and I'm sure liberals will be still trying on that very momentous occasion -- all the many possibilities and misperceptions, fears and projections upon Karl Rove, for starters (don't even get me started on Bush, as to the liberal accusations), but because there's never any resolution or understanding by liberals about nearly anything that's conclusive to the rest of us -- or at least reasonably acceptable, understandable -- and since KOS (and it looks like, also, Yahoo on their message boards) foots the bill for all the barking, at this point, I'd say go ahead and let them (bark, on KOS and Yahoo Message Boards) but, I sometimes worry about people in other countries who read the content and think it (KOS, etc. noise) represents the average American.

To those readers, it does not.

Yeah, it is a strange sort ... (Below threshold)

Yeah, it is a strange sort of argument. It reminds me of the "Bush knows where Bin-Laden is hiding" conspiracy that was popular on the left during the election. I never understood why that was supposed to persuade me to vote against Bush. Heck, if he knew that then he's doing even better than I expected.

But, you know, one thing he... (Below threshold)

But, you know, one thing here that can disprove one of those points over there on KOS...as someone who is supposedly a member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, I've never heard before reading on KOS a minute ago that former Texas Governor Ann Richards was supposedly "a lesbian."

I mean, just never heard that. It's realistically possible, is my point, but unless I'd read KOS, I'd never have known that Republicans (and Rove, it's alleged over there) somehow brought about her end because she was a lesbian.

IF she's a lesbian - or WAS, and somehow today is no longer, whatever - then she only has the voting majority of Texas to blame for her dethronage because they wouldn't need Karl Rove to tell them to get her out of office, is my point, not in Texas, not Texas voters.

If she isn't, wasn't, well, then, no worries, she still has the voters to blame for her loss of office. Either way, trying to make Rove responsible for that based upon an alleged LIBERAL scandalising another liberal about her sexuality, supposed sexuality and/or rumored sexuality...it seems that they can blame everyone but themselves. Again it proves that liberals are the own worse enemies, and it usually involves cruel gossip used in pugalism among their own.

I got about halfway through... (Below threshold)

I got about halfway through it before I got tired of reading. Seems to be a lot of "he said, she said" going on in that post.

Oh, and I really liked the comparision of the Plame case to Watergate. That was a nice touch.

JmaR...so, you'd rather not... (Below threshold)

JmaR...so, you'd rather not even know, is that what you're suggesting?

I mean, Karl Rove accomplished all that, so you/KOSbats allege, and yet the point is, what? That it's a crime that he (allegedly, supposedly) brought that information forward, while it'd been best to leave it unsaid, undiscussed?

The reasoning escapes me. As to Kerry, it's been proven by many people and a lot of paperwork that he did, in fact, "manufacture" most of his history...at least, it's history he wrote himself, and not autobiographically. If he'd just opted to author an autobiography and not attempted to make his fantasy fiction fact, he'd have had a far better chance of being taken seriously.

He DID require a Presidential pardon, after all, just to be sworn into the Senate. Another of Jimmy Carter's caves to communism.

Interesting to note that it... (Below threshold)

Interesting to note that it took liberal JmaR all of two comments within which to arrive at pejoratives and the use of the word, "f***" in some capacity, in reference to everyone else.

Ahhh, there's the bark.

S, I've been posting here f... (Below threshold)

S, I've been posting here for some time and I have used the f-bomb on one and maybe two occasions. Sometimes it just needs to be said as long as it's not gratuitous, it adds emphasis, so cut me a little slack on that....I mean Dick Cheney launched one at a Senator on the Senate floor :)

As for your other comments in regard to Rove and his "history" I can only ask this: have you even seen the Aflac commercial with the duck in the barber shop with Yogi Berra? The frustrated noise the duck makes as he listens to Yogi babble nonsensically...that was me as I read your last post.

I, too, tried reading a ... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

I, too, tried reading a few of those links (KOS) and found myself wondering, to the effect, that, well, EVERYone has human foibles in their past (if not present) and if you really, really try hard enough, you can manage to get Kevin Bacon responsible for the planet Mars.

Of course, -S- is someone who can read drivel like "The Pink Swastika" and consider it to be the unquestioned, scholarly truth. It just goes to show that people can believe any stupid theory as long as it agrees with their preconceived notions.

Re: JmaR's "proof links"</p... (Below threshold)

Re: JmaR's "proof links"

Ann Richards: First and foremost, it's an opinion piece. Beyond that, though, the author quoted someone who accused Rove of being behind a campaign that portrayed Richards as too tolerant of gays, a fact that wasn't established through investigation.

John McCain: Another opinion piece that never mentioned Rove, and only offered speculation that Republicans were behind the alleged "smear campaign" involving push polling, and cites an email from BJU's president.

Cleland: Essentially Cleland's rant in response to ads that called attention to the fact that Cleland voted against establishing the Department of Homeland Security. The ad was sponsored by Cleland's opponent's campaign. Again, Rove isn't mentioned.

Gee, JmaR, you sure went to a lot of trouble to prove absolutely nothing.

Here, have another glass of Kool-Aid. It helps the crow go down.

Why the desperate need to p... (Below threshold)

Why the desperate need to protect Rove?

Have we officially shifted from being pro-war to merely more anti-anti-war than the next?

JmaR - I followed ... (Below threshold)

JmaR -

I followed the links that you provided. I'm not going to offer you "Kool-Aid" (as another did above), but I would like to ask if you have any more substantive, on-point links than those. Although one did amuse me with a Machiavelli - Rove reference (see my apparently precognitive post above ;-) ), I hope that you can offer others that offer support to you position.

As for your original three above, the first seemed to me to hand-waving whining and the other two did not even mention Rove at all. (If the latter two did, I missed it in two readings each.)

Look, I have read a number ... (Below threshold)

Look, I have read a number of investigative journalistic articles on Karl Rove. The over the top smear is his signature, Republicans know this. How can his defenders play so loose with reality on this one. He was fired from Bush 41's campaign for leaking to Bob Novak for Christ's sake!


The left has been blaming i... (Below threshold)

The left has been blaming it's own inability to nominate an electable candidate on Rove for so long it's downright funny. They're even blaming Ann Richards loss on Rove, I'm from Texas and I can tell you that ignorant ho lost because she's an ignorant ho, she nailed the lid on her election coffin when she said the voters weren't smart enough to decide one way or the other on concealed carry laws and promised to veto the referendum. No matter which side you were on on that one she told you that lacked the intelligence to decide. Vetoing a referendum is the stupidest thing any politician can do and only a lefty is stupid enough to try it. Nobody cared if she was a lesbian, nobody cares now, that whole story is the left's excuse for having a candiate that couldn't win once she opened her mouth and let the people know what she thought of them, which is what all lefties in office think of voters. They assume that since a few people like JmaR and jYt need a nanny state to survive that we all need one. Why is the people that believe so strongly in Darwin are the very last ones that want to see it applied? Could it be that they know they can't survive due to the fact they are mentally unfit?

Let me know if you recogniz... (Below threshold)

Let me know if you recognize a pattern with this guy.

I've been trying to figure ... (Below threshold)

I've been trying to figure out a way to plant the following conspiracy theory onto Kos or DU...

"When Sandra Day O'Connor announced her resignation on July 1, Rove saw his opportunity. He called up Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine and released him from his obligation to protect his sources. Just five days later, Cooper revealed the bombshell Rove had tried so hard to hide... but now that bombshell was part of Rove's brilliant plot to complete everything the radical right had worked so hard to achieve.

"Only a man with an ego the size of Rove's would have dared to throw HIMSELF to the media wolves in order to gut Roe v. Wade--and only Rove would have dared to think he could BOTH get himself through the ensuing media firestorm and sneak a radical right judge past a distracted media in the process. Yet he may have succeeded..."

bullwinkle, take a deep bre... (Below threshold)

bullwinkle, take a deep breath and get off the ledge man. I hate to be the one to break you the bad news, but it looks like the blue states are nannying the red states so who's fooling who? Kepp sucking off that teat baby:

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid (please note the red state/blue state divide):

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

JmaR -On your addi... (Below threshold)

JmaR -

On your additional links, I've had to quit after two. Those are l-o-n-g articles (at least the first two were) but I may be able to get to the others later.

Both of the ones I did read seemed to be admiring and whining at the same time - an impressive feat in of itself!

I was impressed that they whined over some historical demands for recounts by Republicans and then, in the same article, seemed to complain about the Supreme Court of the US forcing recount limits on Bush v Gore. I wonder what the author's views would have been on the recent Washington State election, where the recounts kept being pushed by Democrats and then, once the Democratic candidate got ahead, discouraged and fought against them therafter?

I do agree that the first two articles seem to deify or devilify (not sure that last one is a verb, "demonize" seems inadequate) Rove, but most admiringly. There is a sly veiled accusation or two of wrongdoing, but all of those that I was aboe to spot seemed quite carefully cloaked in legal-distancing phrasing. ("There were rumors" or "Some said" or stuff akin to that) I'd guess that the authors rightly feared lawsuits and legal counterattacks, and so couched their dirty stuff with legal advisers as editors.

So, I agree that the first two new links:

- praise Rove for political acuity,
- state that in rough-and-tumble elections, he seems to have emerged the victor well more often than the loser, and
- made hear-say level, carefully veiled accusations of possible wrongdoing.

I think you are asserting the last of the above three to be proven facts. The first two of those articles did not make such any such asertions, let alone offer any proof. They simply quoted someone(s) as saying bad things had been done, and then the articles tried to leave non-actionable inferences available to the readers that SURELY those things did happen and OBVIOUSLY it had to have been Rove.

(Inferences only, though, and weakly done at that. To do more would have been to solicit an invitation to court. If they'd had any shred of proof, they'd have done more. The inference that I draw is that they had no evidence.)

Tell me, possibly save me the time, do the other links do any more than make legally-careful vague posturings? If so, which one?

Karl Rove is an alien...fro... (Below threshold)

Karl Rove is an alien...from Mars....yeah...that's right. And I'll bet that there is a link to some website somewhere proving it.

jim, I appreciate the civil... (Below threshold)

jim, I appreciate the civility.

While there may be not be enough documented evidence to convict Rove in a court of law, there is certainly enough anecdotal evidence to connect the dots. How many reports of the same patterns of smear can this guy leave in his wake before you'll concede that he's taken the art of the political smear to new heights? Among his formidable strengths is his ability to cover his tracks. In fact, he's earned himself the distinction of having a phrase coined in his honor: The Hand of Rove. If a political opponent got smeared something ugly while running against a Rove client, who do you think did the deed?

I thinks it's weasely not to concede that this guy is a slimeball. He is, and he's a danger to this country for a number of reasons. What more can I say?

bullwinkle writes:... (Below threshold)

bullwinkle writes:

They assume that since a few people like JmaR and jYt need a nanny state to survive that we all need one.

Why does not believing in the conspiracy theories put forth on this site about Plamegate mean I need or support a nanny state? As I've said before, I think that this is all a hugely overblown issue, but the conspiracy theories put forth in WizBang's comments section are really over the top. If Jay Tea wants to lampoon crazies (an the KOS poster certainly qualifies), he really doesn't need to go to other boards. He just needs to read a few of the comments right here.

Looks like more examples of... (Below threshold)

Looks like more examples of liberal dishonesty, either JmaR doesn't know the difference between a donor state and a nanny state or he thinks we don't. Nice try, but still dishonest, still liberal, and still stupid. Then jYt tries to convince us that he's not a liberal or that liberals don't want a nanny state. Another nice try, both pathetic attempts might fly on Kos, why don't you two take it over there?

Jeez -- now, refusing to be... (Below threshold)

Jeez -- now, refusing to believe in a Rove-masterminded conspiracy -- to do what, tell the truth in order to put the news in its proper perspective? -- is "believing conspiracy theories."

War is peace. Love is hate.

It appears to me that Kos, ... (Below threshold)
OC Chuck:

It appears to me that Kos, DU, jYt, and JmaR watch too many movies or read too many mystery novels.

JmaR-Civility is g... (Below threshold)


Civility is good. And I thank you, in return.

Note, though, that repeating accusations (even if they vary) w/o evidence should not be construed as proof. Instead, maybe it should suggest two possibilities:

1) Rove is a black-hearted ultra uber genius who has evaded hundreds or thousands of Democrat-sponsored (and some Republican-sponsored) attempts to out him or prove him guilty of illegal deeds, because he has always known what to do and what not to do in a CSI-level investigation-rich environment, and has always been able to either do everything alone or to always have folk who will never rat on him for advantage or cash (and how deep are Kerry's and Soros' pockets?), or

2) Rove is not guilty of the accusations of illegal acts.

Occam's Razor would seem to suggest #2, I would opine.

bullwinkle,The nan... (Below threshold)


The nanny that I know is a caretaker. I think the red states sucking off the blue state tax dollar teat metaphor applies just fine. And if it's ok with the Wizbang webmasters, I'm gonna hang out with you for a while, I like antlers.

jim,Just one more ... (Below threshold)


Just one more article if you have time. It's short but pertinent premise "just because it's legal doesn't make it right" applies here.


RE: JmaR's post (July 25, 2... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's post (July 25, 2005 03:27 PM)

Look, I have read a number of investigative journalistic articles on Karl Rove... He was fired from Bush 41's campaign for leaking to Bob Novak for Christ's sake!

Without getting into the bunking or debunking of your list, didn't we at least cover this allegation already?
Josh Marshall Admits Defeat
July 16, 2005

JmaR, how many of the state... (Below threshold)

JmaR, how many of the states on that list have low populations and high amounts of federal land and military bases? New Mexico has both, plus it's soon to be the dump the for nuclear waste for everyone else. If hosting things like national parks that are open to everyone and military bases that protect everyone is somehow "on the teat" that's news to me and probably to a lot of the residents of those states. Maybe we can camp some soldiers out in your front yard and dump some waste in back, then open your house to anyone with the permit money to pitch a tent and build a campfire in your living room. You're still pretending to not know the difference between a nanny state and donor states, still dishonest, nothing ever changes. Liberalism is dishonesty, and you're a prime example of that. Your parents didn't stress the truth thing with you, did they?

plus it's soon to be the... (Below threshold)

plus it's soon to be the dump the for nuclear waste for everyone else.

No, that's Nevada.

RE: JmaR's post about Fed d... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's post about Fed dollars and the nanny state (July 25, 2005 03:45 PM)

Could you post the link to source data?

Actually, data like this can be misleading. A more enlightening analysis might be regionally adjusted per capita input to regionally adjusted per capita output over a specified interval of time. Or any other number of ways at evaluating the data. These gross listings are often too fraught with generalizations to indicate much. It's but a snap shot and one of many to evaluate relative wealth in or out of some defined demographic. The data may very well be accurate... but data may be parsed in innumerable ways.

Last time I looked WIPP is ... (Below threshold)

Last time I looked WIPP is in New Mexico, and it's been operating since 1999. Yucca Mountain is still only proposed, WIPP exists.

McGehee and OC Chuck,... (Below threshold)

McGehee and OC Chuck,

Perhaps you missed where I said I thought the whole Rove mess was overblown. I think that nothing will come of this whole mess from either side. Not much of a mystery novel plot in my beliefs, I'm afraid.

When I speak of conspiracy theories on this site with regards to the Rove/Plame/Wilson debacle, I'm referring to posts like this, mainly by BR:

Hi Kev, have you read any of the 20 or so threads already existing at Wizbang since 7/2/05 on the Plame Affair while you were away on vacation? It's game, set and match for Bush - the culprits are in the CIA, State Dept., MSM and Dem party, and Wilson. What we're being given now in the media is the last frantic attempts to CYA, and a lot of asses too.

There are so many indications that Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury have seriously been investigating a RICO-size cabal, sending counter-intelligence experts into the CIA to conduct their investigations into the anti-Bush faction there. It goes all the way back to the Feb 02 Niger fake docs described by Wilson, then denying he ever saw any fake docs, then caught in the lie by the Senate Committee Investigation on Iraq. Wilson was the weak link that pulled down whole joint-Humpty Dumpty cabal.

I stopped posting when it became so obvious, but some of my links and many other commenters' like AnonymousDrivel, etc. are contained in the wizbang archives.


If you'd like to explain how this is no crackpot conspiracy theory, I'm all ears. If not, I don't understand the objection to my comments. Posters here at Wizbang use the forums to publish their crazy conspiracy theories, too. If you have open comments, it happens.


Perhaps the above will also clarify my conspiracy objection to you, but I kind of doubt it? What was the post I made in this or any thread that convinced you that I'm a liberal, #1, and especially, interested in a nanny state, #2? Having read a few of your other posts, I realize that jumping to conclusions trumps logic for you, but still, I'd like some insight

Here you go AD:<a ... (Below threshold)

Here you go AD:


bullwinkle, if you weren't so angry and irrational all the time I bet I could learn something from you. Try playing nice for a while, you may wind up with more friends when all is said and done.....oh I almost forgot, I'm a lying traitor and if you didn't curse my very existence you might be "consorting with the enemy". Hey, I'll try harder next time, meanwhile, read another Sean Hannity book and pop a quaalude.

One reason the Blue states ... (Below threshold)

One reason the Blue states "contribute" so much money is because they are where population centers are and that's where big corps operate. A good bit of that money comes from - wait for it - EVIL corporations. Kinda ironic, huh?

I have friends JmaR, lots o... (Below threshold)

I have friends JmaR, lots of friends. I limit them to decent people, no liberals allowed, but I guess when I said decent people that was pretty clear. I don't tolerate liars, and I sure don't want them for friends or associates. I sure don't want a friend that doesn't know the difference between a nanny stae and a donor state, I have to deal with enough morons in business. Perhaps if you attempted to practice honesty you might have some friends, it's worth a try. BTW, I've never read a Hannity book and don't expect to, I hardly need any reminders of the dishonesty of the left with people like you intent on reminding of it every time I read the comments here.

I have no idea what "the Pi... (Below threshold)

I have no idea what "the Pink Swastika" is and can assure anyone, including moonbats barking here who have little association with reason, that I've never read whatever the heck it is and don't even understand the garbage reference as to me reading whatever.

So far, the whole benchmark about anyone being of whatever is entirely in the realm of the lunatic left, who seems to be eating well on one another, to their own kinds' demise. Another example of how the left just pitters away with no semblance of taste, consideration or morality.

I'm still of the opinion that Ann Richards lost her Governor-chair because Texas voters wanted someone else. The Left comes along and cries "homosexuality, victim" and just look at the nonsense then devoted to it. As I also wrote, I'm glad that KOS foots the bill so most the rest of us don't have to deal with the nonsense in comments about these non-issues.

About Rove, and ducks, I like Karl Rove, I like ducks and I'm proud to be associated with both or either. I *guess* that's the point of the whatever by whomever barking on the thread earlier. I mean, who can ever really know what they bark at.

Here: Karl Rove!

Ice cream!

Fourth of July!

Military heroes!

That should keep some on this thread barking a while longer, but I really could care less at this point what you bark at or why. I worry that you bark. And that you appear so entirely cruel in such a cavalier manner with other humans who are total strangers to you that it reveals a real absence os social conscience.

I've seen so much of this among liberals and they always think ~it's someone else~. Surprise, it isn't. It's you.

JmaR...I don't know what yo... (Below threshold)

JmaR...I don't know what you posting here for whatever amount of time and your wan reversion to the use of calling "us people" here "fuc**s" has to do with anything (as in, it doesn't), but, what I've decided is you're suffering from arrested development and a lot of resentment. Most people do who resort to using obviously offensive pejoratives to and about people in the present tense, it's a form of a threatened person trying to wave weapons around, thus, "you people are all f***s" and such.

And, by the way, Cheney didn't use a permutation of that word ("f***) as a name calling, pejorative type dis about anyone. In other words, Cheney used it in a "go flipoff" statement, not a "you people are f**k**s" as you did...different thing entirely.

But, ho hum, why not just throw food around your desk instead? I mean, it's the same sort of gesture, and it'd save some of us having to scroll past your comments.

RE: jYt's post about conspi... (Below threshold)

RE: jYt's post about conspiracies (July 25, 2005 06:25 PM)

Well, you name dropped so I have to chime in. Wow, this is getting old. Bring back summer sharks and high-speed car chases.

I've posted opinions that fundamentally focus on Wilson, Plame, and various reporters. LCJohnson was a latecomer to the debate and a sidenote at this point. Rove is a partisan. Wilson is a partisan and has proven untrustworthy. Understanding his role in attacking the administration is critical in putting together this jigsaw puzzle whether it is a couple or hundreds of pieces. To deny that the play by Wilson, Shumer, various media, etc. is not political in nature is idiocy. I'd like to know all of the motivations of the different actors.

From my very first post weeks ago I stated that this was speculation and wildly conspiratorial. Read the links and the rationale, or don't... but don't ignore that I stated it to be speculative. It's an exercise with limited data but an exercise in fun nonetheless. Some or all of it may be valid. Some or all of it may be invalid. Take it or leave it, but the referenced papers were not written by me and one of the central ones is from Wilson himself (Vanity Fair). The logic and some dot-connecting is, and who doesn't like puzzles?

I'll say it again since some need a recap on every thread - I hope Fitzgerald does what he needs to do to document the entire play and cast of characters however large or small... in a legal manner and without any subsequent leaking or disclosure. All of this sideshow on blogs, press, radio, or TV is the hyperactive din of debate and has zero bearing on the SP research. I'll rephrase - none of this has any bearing. As well it shouldn't.

Do I hear a siren? Oh, please, please, please, please...

I laughed aloud when I got ... (Below threshold)

I laughed aloud when I got to JmaR referring to "investigative reports" on Karl Rove...to include VANITY FAIR!

JmaR writes: "I apprecaite... (Below threshold)

JmaR writes: "I apprecaite the civility."

No, you don't.

-S- said,Not to... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

-S- said,

Not to overlook homosexuality, which was among the founding inspirations for the actual nazis, given that the founder of their political movement was a "homosexual activist" right out of Berlin's homosexual "golden age."

This is an accusation straight from "The Pink Swastika". Of course, assuming you even know the material source of your bizarre accusations is clearly giving you too much credit. You probably just picked this belief up on a blog somewhere or saw it on a TV talk show and took it as truth, without even bothering to examine the source.

If I'm wrong about your sources, please let me know the basis for your belief and we'll see how well it stands up to scrutiny. Please, please, please try to make this case instead of just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Is that a reference to Roeh... (Below threshold)

Is that a reference to Roehm, killed on the "night of the Long Knives"?

Joe,Not at all, th... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:


Not at all, that is certainly a well established portion of history that Roehm was homosexual and killed by the Nazis as part of the "night of Long Knives". The Pink Swastika theorizes that homosexuality pervaded the Nazi party to the highest offices long after Roehm was in his grave.

bullwinkle said:"I... (Below threshold)

bullwinkle said:

"I sure don't want a friend that doesn't know the difference between a nanny stae and a donor state,"

...neither do I, oh the horror :) To be honest, I had never heard the term "nanny state", so calling me a liar is just you spewing your anti-leftist hysteria before you have all the facts. My guess is that "nanny state" is another cute nickname created by the right wing propaganda machine (along with "death tax" and "partial-birth abortion" et al) to further spin you into believing that evil Communist liberals want to steal your tax dollars so that they can sit at home with their illegitimate children, eat McDonald's french fries and bark at the moon.

What you and S ("Aflac" in my best duck voice) need to understand is that your preconceived notions about liberals are ridiculous. I work my ass off just as I'm sure you do, I tuck my babies in at night, I pay my taxes (sure it sucks...but it's about all AMERICANS doing well), pay my bills on time, and pray that we all stay healthy. I'm just a regular guy that would prefer to see my tax dollars spent on making this country a better place for everyone by investing in healthcare and education and huge enterprising public projects (like finding alternative sources of energy or repairing our roads and bridges). I don't want big corporations to be hampered by regulations but I do expect the government to make sure that they're not gaming the system out of paying their taxes or making sure that it's not feasible to offshore 100's of thousands of jobs. A free market can be an amazingly successful system but it cannot be allowed to infiltrate the halls of power and it cannot be allowed to spiral out of control. I want our military to be unmatched but I expect that our leaders will excercise its power only when it is absolutely necessary and never based on lies and bogus intelligence. I understand that there are evil people that need to be destroyed but I have a problem with nonchalance toward "collateral" damage. I just can't get past Iraq and how the Bush folks conflated 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. If you had been paying attention up to that point you knew it was a lie. When the Iraq invasion drumbeat started I smelled a rat immediately. It was bogus and you can smear all the lipstick you want on that pig but at the end of the day it's stgill just ugly.

Pardon the rant.

Steven, Would you ... (Below threshold)


Would you please post a link to where -S- said this? I can't find it.

"long-standing loathing of ... (Below threshold)

"long-standing loathing of George W. Bush and a history of mental problems"

pretty accurate description of any moonbat

Brian,Sure thing, ... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:


Sure thing, my man.

It's close to the top of her big comment in this thread. Note the "occultism as well -- another classic sign this is based on the Pink Swastika, whether she knows it or not.

JmaR,Thanks for th... (Below threshold)


Thanks for the link. I tried to find the source file from that blog but it didn't exist at the link provided. I found a more comprehensive dataset from the original source:

Federal Taxing and Spending by State, 1981-2003, December 31, 2004

State ranking fluctuates a good bit. I scanned the data from the first 20 or so states and decided it was a data set that was going to take more time than I had to review it in any worthwhile manner. Gross observations didn't reveal a discernable pattern to me. Most assuredly there are many factors contributing to ranking not the least of which are such things as who is on the Senate Appropriations Committee and other such appointments to distribute monies.

I'm not sure I put too much credence in the Red State/Blue State aspect of this though there may exist a direct correlation. I'm just too lazy to figure it out. But, for the right price, I may give it a shot...

www.taxfoundation.org has lots of good tax data. If you're into that sort of thing, you might want to check it out again. I'll assume you already have.

I think it tends to follow ... (Below threshold)

I think it tends to follow the typical need for the Left to have a boogeyman that they can lay all of their failures upon, someone they can point to as the enemy and then attack with all their might. Especially, given their longstanding history of not being able to own up to their failures.

Before Rove it was Newt Gingrich, his success with the Contract With America just highlighted the ineptitude of the modern Democratic party and exposed the Clinton administrations first two years for what they were, a horrible failure. Newt’s strong leadership in the House, his ability to stay on message, his grasp of history and understanding of its impact on the future made it all the more apparent that the Democrats had ruined the country with their decades of rule.

So the Dems turned their spin machine on, they called in all their markers in the press, they unleashed a smear machine that Rove only wishes he could. There is nothing more threatening to a political career it seems as a press corps with their DNC talking points in hand. I Love how the left screeches about the "echo chamber" when all I ever read at sites like Kos, and Democratic Underground are the same old debunked talking points, the same old “Karl Rove Is Satan” crap.

Prior to Newt it was Reagan. The mastery at which a Republican wielded the bully pulpit in the face of an overwhelming Democrat majority, his ability to blunt Tip O'Neill and Teddy Kennedy, his ability to sway Blue Dog Dems into his corner on numerous issues once again exposed the left as bankrupt of ideas, of having no optimism or plans for the future.

It’s when a Republican is successful in his politicking, that the Dems realize that their party and their platform has little to offer the nation anymore. The ones who are smart realize that the days of their parties rule are long over, at least for the foreseeable future, it is this harsh realization that causes them to lash out, to crank up the boogeyman, and to self destruct over and over again.

Wow, when the Republican pa... (Below threshold)

Wow, when the Republican party is in charge everyone who doesnt agree with them is a commy or leftist. Hm Joe, you say Max Cleland dropped that grenade himself? I dont think they award metals for that, by the way has anyone in your family server in combat? Probably not. And i myself am a real Texan born and raised not a pretend Texan like that drug store cowboy in the White House. Now the whispers about Ann Richards started during her campaign against Dubya. Soon after McCain trounced him in New Hampshire the black baby whispers about McCain started. See a similarity here? Of course Rove will not say he was behind it. But having lived in this great state i will never forget when he was campaign manager for Bill Clements and claimed he found a bug in his office to offset his candidate getting trounced in a debate. All the newspapers ran with it, but they all left out the main part, the bug could not transmit beyond 15 feet and had a battery life of less than 10 hours. Sound like a real bang up job to me. Since i have been alive the 2 greatest scandals were Watergate and Iran Contra. Both by Republican presidents. You remember Iran contra dont you? Let me refresh you, after our citizens were held for over 400 days in an Iranian prison the Reagan administration decides to play both fences and sell arms to Iran (the same people who held our folks hostage) while selling to Iraq at the same time. That money was then funelled thru Manuel Noriega (remember him, his country was invaded by George I, see a pattern here) which was used to fund the Nicaraguan Contras who overthrew a democratically elected government and led to the deaths of over 300,000 innocent Nicaraguans. So dont preach to me about how commited to war your are. Your own President while having his own opportunity to server his country didnt. That is the bottom line. So next time your at the Vietname Wall (Which im sure you dont visit) think about my uncle who was a poor kid serving his country and lost his life, because he wasnt a Senators son and didnt have to see combat.

"Americanfirst:" 1... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:


1) Max Cleland WAS injured by a grenade that was dropped. But while many believe it was is own grenade, the Army determined that another soldier had dropped it. Cleland was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for his conduct before the incident with the grenade. Buthe did not receive the Purple Heart, because his injuries were not combat-related. Sources: here, here, and here.

2) "Bush I" (I prefer "Bush Sr." or "Bush 41") invaded Panama after Noriega declared war on the United States and US Servicemen were being attacked. Noriega was hoping to see what happened if he "declared a war, and nobody came." That didn't happen.

I could go on, but I need to complete some original material for this site.


Your prefer Bush Sr. That i... (Below threshold)

Your prefer Bush Sr. That is laughable. Once again you miss the point. The man served in combat, yours didnt. Where did Noriega declare war on our soliders? Ft. Clayton which is in Panama was never attacked. So let me ask, why are Right wingers so high on war but wont serve?

Noriega declaring war on th... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Noriega declaring war on the US: here and here.

And as far as the "chickenhawk" idiocy you're spouting, I would point out that in 1992 and 1996 a man who had done everything he could to avoid wearing his nation's uniform defeated decorated war heroes. John Kerry himself said at the time that Viet Nam service was irrelevant. He was right then, and it's still true today -- despite his recent conversion when its relevance suddenly played in his favor.

Besides, Bush himself repeatedly said that Kerry's service was greater than his own. But I thought (along with a majority of Americans) that what the two men had done in the following 30 years was far more relevant, and kicked Kerry's ass to the curb.

I favor "Bush Sr." or "Bush 41" because it distinguishes the two President Bushes without the dynastic implications of "Bush I" and "Bush II" that you seem to favor. There was no "rightful heir" element.


What they did the following... (Below threshold)

What they did the following 30 years was more relevant? See you forget im from Texas, i have seen what Dubya has not acomplished. He had a failed buisness. He was a 1% owner of a baseball team and the only reason they put him out front was because his daddy was president. Think of this scenario, you are the Queen of England and you go to the White House to meet the President. At the dinner his son comes to your table and plops his cowboy boots on the table, introduces himself and informs you that he is the blacksheep of his family and wants to know who the blacksheep in your family is. Then 10 years later you meet him again and he is the President. Pretty scary stuff.

And I'm from New Hampshire,... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

And I'm from New Hampshire, right next to Kerry. I routinely hear more about him (and Kennedy) than my own Senators. He's done exactly ONE THING of note in his Senate career -- the BCCI investigation. Over the last couple of years, he almost never bothered to even show up for work -- but still collected the paychecks.

On the other hand, Bush had done (in my opinion) a decent job as President over the past four years. I thought it over, and I figured four more years of Bush was infinitely preferable to taking a gamble on John Kerry.

Or are you still re-fighting the 2000 election? Here's a little hint -- that was settled almost five years ago.
Get over it, and get over yourself.


Nope im not refighting the ... (Below threshold)

Nope im not refighting the election. Actually i was for McCain. I just dont see what is so appealing about Dubya. I cant understand how you can back a man that attacks a country that did not attack us and has not brought to justice the people that caused this. I applaud you honesty though. Unfortunetally i have nothing to get over.

"Didn't attack us?" Maybe y... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

"Didn't attack us?" Maybe you didn't notice that, buried under the 14 UN Resolutions Saddam repeatedly violated, was his repeatedly firing on US aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zones. Or his attempt to assassinate Bush 41 during a state visit to Kuwait.

Let's not forget his long-standing support for terrorism. He was funding suicide bombers in Israel. He had ties to Al Qaeda. (Not to 9/11 directly, but that was more likely a matter of operational security than a concern that Saddam might not approve of it.) He let terrorist groups run training camps in Iraq. He had used Weapons of Mass Destruction both against Iran and his own people, and was refusing to demonstrate that he no longer possessed them -- in violation of the agreement he signed ending the first Gulf War.

No, he didn't "attack us" as in attack the United States directly. But he was a menace to others.

So, are you saying that as long as he only kills dark-skinned people, it's none of our business? That innocent Kurds, Iraqis, and Israelis don't really count?

Or are you saying we should have let him continue to pile up money from the Oil From Food scam and re-develop his WMDs and actually USE them before we stop him?

Condoleezza Rice said it best: waiting for the smoking gun is not a good idea when that smoking gun could be a US city.

And let's not forget the huge push to end the sanctions back before 9/11, when they were "causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi babies." Saddam was getting damned close to getting the sanctions lifted (or, at least relaxed) through such propaganda and the bribes from the Oil For Food scam until 9/11 happened.


With that, I'm going to Mov... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

With that, I'm going to MoveOn. I've just written three new pieces that'll go up at various times today, and arguing with you has worn out its entertainment value. I'm simply repeating points I've made several times before.


You mean the same weapons w... (Below threshold)

You mean the same weapons we sold him in the 80's and help get him taken of the Terroist list. Im not advocating what he did, but we did not invade Iraq for humanitary reasons. And show me this link to al-queda, your just trying to pile it on to make your warmongering seem civil. There are other countries that do the same, one 90 miles off our shore. We dont seem to be doing anything about that dictator. Or how about Haiti? Same place John Ashcroft said Al-queda was trying to sneak into. Are we protecting their citizens who are rounded up in the middle of the night and killed simply because of who they support. Your surely are repeating the same worthless points that everyon on the right repeats. You have no entertainment value because your bring nothing to the table other that the same old cliches i see on T.V. So try and be original next time. And oh by the way, i see you never argued the Iran Contra thing. I wonder why......

We were way, WAY down on th... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

We were way, WAY down on the list of weapons suppliers to Iraq -- around 1% of total arms sales from 1973-1990. Leading the list are the USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Or didn't you notice that nearly all the stuff we blew up in the Gulf Wars was French or Soviet?

Also ahead of us on that list: Brazil, Egypt, Denmark, Romania, and Libya.

And ABC did an extensive report on the Saddam-Al Qaeda links back in 1999. See here. But that was before it was a matter of choosing between Bush and the bad guys, so it probably doesn't count to you. All that seemed to become irrelevant once Bush got into office.

"Never argued the Iran Contra thing?" Well, for one, it ended long before I started blogging. For another, I'm on record for blasting Oliver North over it.

Enough of this crap. You're not worth being late to work over.


Hmmmm.1. "We were ... (Below threshold)


1. "We were way, WAY down on the list of weapons suppliers to Iraq -- around 1% of total arms sales from 1973-1990. Leading the list are the USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Or didn't you notice that nearly all the stuff we blew up in the Gulf Wars was French or Soviet?"

Actually most of what American companies sold to Iraq were "dual use" equipment. Items that were specifically ear-marked for civilian use, but could be modified to military uses.

To those that don't know, this includes a great many things such as mills, lathes and chemical cookers.

[email protected] AmericaFir... (Below threshold)


@ AmericaFirst

"You mean the same weapons we sold him in the 80's and help get him taken of the Terroist list."

Ok "AmericaFirst". Identify and specifically list the "weapons" America sold to Iraq.

I have yet to find the liberal that is capable of the basic research in the first place, let alone successfully determine the items involved.

Always a first time though, "AmericaFirst".

[email protected] Jay Tea</p... (Below threshold)


@ Jay Tea

"No, he didn't "attack us" as in attack the United States directly. But he was a menace to others."

The whole point behind a sovereign state supporting terrorists is the level of deniability offered. I'm frankly amazed at how difficult it is for many liberals to understand this concept. So with Iraq supporting terrorist groups, there's no practical reason for Iraq to attack America directly. To do so would elminate the purpose behind supporting terrorist groups in the first place.

Logic is a bitch.

Steve, I've read the first ... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Steve, I've read the first several chapters of "The Pink Swastika," and those chapters seemed fairly well sourced and not at all unreasonable. I don't know if it devolves in later chapters or not, so if you come out with some "Freemasonry - Illuminati - UFOs - Mafia - CIA - Elvis" garbage and try to pin it on me you're barking at the wrong moon.

Steven Wiser wrote:
Note the "occultism as well -- another classic sign this is based on the Pink Swastika, whether she knows it or not.

If you're trying to say that the Nazi leaders weren't occultists, then maybe you can set a large contingent of historians straight with your vast knowledge of the subject matter.

Which begs another question. Why are you so adamant about defending the Nazis from some sort of slander?

ed,You're right, l... (Below threshold)


You're right, logic is a bitch.

Saudi Arabia has much more obvious ties to terrorism (Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers for starters).
Saudi Arabia has an atrocious record when it comes to human rights, torture and brutality.
Yet Bush holds hands and skips through the tulips with the Saudi Royals.
Why are conservatives so blind to their hypocrisy?

Here's <a href="http://www.... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Here's better material on Nazi occultism. I grabbed the quickest link I could get on the first go-round. There's plenty more, but I don't have time to do research for someone who's probably going to call me a liar anyway.

JmaR -I checked ba... (Below threshold)

JmaR -

I checked back here and did go to that last url you provided. The article contained a great mass of allegations, but no facts or evidence that I could identify. Even the allegations were carefully phrased to minimize the risk of litigation. For example:

"... he is not a genius ... He's a pig .... It doesn't take a genius to insinuate that your opponent's wife is a drug addict ...."

The delinking of statements allows readers to draw inferences if they want to, but the author does not represent as fact that Rove did any of the things named in the insinuations. The article nowhere - that I could identify - asserts that the author has evidence to support any of the statements made.

I confess, though, that I may have missed claims of evidence, or read over them. I found the text painful to read, due to its stridency and foul claims. I say "foul" because it name calls and offers insult w/o offerings of evidence. IMVHO, the greater the calumny, the greater the burden of evidence needed to support it. I saw zero evidence.

In fact, the author seemed to be committing in public print re Rove the very sins and deeds that he was asserting that Rove had done in secret.

I'm generally an agnostic on a lot of stuff political but, let me tell you, if I had to chose sides, I think I'd prefer the one that that author is NOT on w/o even needing to look at the other side.

JmaR wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

JmaR wrote:
Saudi Arabia has much more obvious ties to terrorism (Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers for starters).
Saudi Arabia has an atrocious record when it comes to human rights, torture and brutality.
Yet Bush holds hands and skips through the tulips with the Saudi Royals.

Why are conservatives so blind to their hypocrisy?

So you would be happy with Dubya if he ordered an invasion into Saudi Arabia tomorrow? Well no, of course not, because you're the hypocrite.

Let's take a peek into the alternate universe where Bush invades Saudi Arabia. You would then complain that:

Bush is doing it for the oil!

Bush is doing it for the Jews! Or neocons if you prefer the leftist codeword.

Bush as a Xian fundie hates Muslims and wants to kill them all!

Bush is a racist and wants all brown people to die!

That's why I love you lefty ducktalkers. You try to win by throwing true logic out of the window and embrace the cognitive dissonance of taking every position on an issue. All you really accomplish is making yourselves look like addled schmucks.

It is an incredibly poor... (Below threshold)

It is an incredibly poor plan that relies on the utter incompetence and stupidity of your opponent to succeed

Actually, I think it's pretty frickin' brilliant.

'Scuse me if anyone already said that - 79 comments?!? Somebody must have stirred up the... um, nevermind.

And JmaR, I liked your rant - but you must be pretty disappointed if you pay taxes so all Americans can do well. Maybe if you worked harder and paid more taxes...

Sue,I have little ... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:


I have little problem with the linkage of occultism to the Nazis. Occultism was in vogue in Germany during this period, and certainly a number of their hierarchy were interested in this peculiar pasttime. I was merely pointing out that the combination of focusing on homosexuality and occultism as joint themes was the exclusive purview of "The Pink Swastika" and thus it was reasonable to assume from -S-'s comments that it or a work directly derived from it was the source of her dubious belief that "homosexuality ... was among the founding inspirations for the actual nazis".

As far as the sourcing in "The Pink Swastika", Please refer to the thread I linked to before. In it I show several examples where the authors are simply duplicitous in their sourcing. Just listing a lot of items in the bibliography and noting them doesn't mean good scholarship.

Thanks for your response. I hope this clears up my position. I'm not quite sure how I've been defending the Nazis with my points; I'm really just interested in accurate, instead of revisionist history.

Sue,The point is n... (Below threshold)


The point is not how I'd respond to Bush invading Saudi Arabia tomorrow but the fact that it was wrong to invade Iraq yesterday. The supporters of Bush and his war in Iraq parrot all of the rightwing talking points regarding the reasons we needed to invade and the three that I hear most often are "Iraq posed a clear and imminent threat to our national security"...a now obvious lie....but it was that damn CIA! "Saddam had ties to terrorism" (of course it started out as ties to Al Qaeda but once that lie was exposed the reason shifted...just like the entire rationale for the war) and "we libertaed millions of oppressed Iraqis from a murderous dictator". If this is the criteria for a preemptive strike on a sovereign nation, Saudi Arabia applies in spades.

It's ALL ABOUT OIL, you just haven't figured that out yet.

Neocons, to me , has nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with the signatures on the Project for a New American Century. And you call lefties conspiratorial.

I've never bought into the Holy War storyline, but I think "the base" eats it up.

So YOU made a list of points, attributed them to me, and then accused me of throwing logic out the window? Okeeedokeee.

tee bee,I think th... (Below threshold)

tee bee,

I think that old cliche about a rising tide lifting all boats is appropriate. What's so bad about that? So what if you're boat is bigger than mine of vice-versa.....it's about a commonwealth, not socialism but that oh so Christian value of reaching out to those that may be less fortunate than you and me. If that less fortunate someone is not making an honest effort.....fuck em, pull the rug out from under them.

A guy I work with got laid off last week but they're gicing him a short grace period before his last day (risky I know) and he's got kids ready to head to college, big mortgage, etc. Middle aged guy and likely to have a VERY tough time finding a job that'll pay him what he's been getting paid for years. He won't be able to make ends meet. This happens thousands of times every month now for obvious reasons and what did Congress do? They took away the option of filing bankruptcy as a last resort. Chilling.

JmaR wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

JmaR wrote:
The point is not how I'd respond to Bush invading Saudi Arabia tomorrow but the fact that it was wrong to invade Iraq yesterday.

Of course. You first advocate action on Saudi Arabia, but then back off now and say it's all about Iraq.

The point is you're being very disingenuous. The excuse you use is that you are refuting "talking points" but you are doing so with other talking points.

The question you'll never answer: when is it permissible for the U.S. to make war on another country?

"Iraq posed a clear and imminent threat to our national security"...a now obvious lie....

Bush never said that. Read for yourself.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

"Saddam had ties to terrorism" (of course it started out as ties to Al Qaeda but once that lie was exposed the reason shifted...just like the entire rationale for the war)

Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda and practically every other mover and shaker in the terrorist world. What source would you like me to quote from to prove this? I have several "mainstream media" sources I can link to; just pick your poison. One of them even has video of Osama Bin Laden practically confessing his ties to Iraq.

Same thing applies for WMD. Pick your MSM poison.

It's ALL ABOUT OIL, you just haven't figured that out yet.

If that's the case, I wished they'd steal more of it, because my minivan is costing me a damned fortune.

Your quaint little contention doesn't quite explain why we stay friendly with the Israelis or why we haven't obliterated the House of Saud yet. Cutting ties with Israel or blasting the Saudis to smithereens would be the two logical ways to secure all of the oil we'd need for the next century.

It's be kind of stupid to rebuild all of that infrastructure for the Iraqis as well, if all Bush wants is oil. He and his man Rove aren't exactly Blofield material when it comes to being evil overlords.

Come to think of it, if it was all about the oil, all we needed to do was to emulate France, Germany, and Russia - pay off Hussein with money and/or weapons in exchange for all of the sweet sweet crude. No muss, no fuss, and we get oil. Well, no muss and fuss except for the women and children being fed into industrial paper shredders and whatnot. But you have no problem with that, I'm sure. What do they matter to you, they're just stupid desert monkeys, yes?

Sue, I think I'm in love. I... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Sue, I think I'm in love. If I ever take a vacation, I'm gonna ask Kevin if you can fill in for me. Damn, you said it all, and you said it perfectly.


Sue,I no longer ha... (Below threshold)


I no longer haver the energy. Utterly delusional is the only way I can describe you and your ilk. This country is fucked.

Jay Tea,

What you're not on vacation now?

RE: JmaR's post (July 26, 2... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's post (July 26, 2005 11:58 AM)

It's ALL ABOUT OIL, you just haven't figured that out yet.

We're wandering off the beaten path but it might be appropriate since it remains a contentious issue. Let's agree for the sake of argument that all of this is about oil and oil alone. I'd like to pose a hypothetical with some revisionist history and get your response.

Let's say that the U.S. was totally self-sufficient for its energy sources - no international oil dependencies because alternative sources were available and abundant. Because of that energy independency, we did not need to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs since, well, they were all about the oil. So Hussein, the Hitler wannabe, expands the empire as he stated was his purpose in life. He takes Kuwait. The U.S. does nothing. Why should it? Oil is the only concern and we don't need it. (I won't even address the U.N.'s positions since they are a neutered puppy without the U.S.) Hussein takes Saudi Arabia. The U.S. does nothing. Hussein takes Syria (not for oil but for regional reinforcement of Baathist Sunnis). The U.S. does nothing. Finally, Hussein takes on Iran... and wins. Should the U.S. care yet? We still don't need their oil.

It's a simple scenario with intentional brevity and assumption; nevertheless, I pose the question because that is not an entirely unlikely evolution. Hussein, a psychopath with even more psychopathic sons, would have had a regional reign of terror unseen since the Nazis. Presumably, we wouldn't have cared since we were playing the isolationist game and were well capable of staying warm in our cozy, well-heated homes.

I think the U.S. did the right thing in the Gulf War, but we failed to complete the mission. Desert Storm was the necessary conclusion to that war and I don't care how many ways the intent of our action is presented, misrepresented, reworded, or rephrased. If politics requires some sort of politically correct and contemporaneous emphasis, then let it be. Saddam was a threat to the region and would have been to the world even if you remove the oil component from the equation. Eradicating his regime was absolutely necessary and if the rationale was that he violated the law by spitting on the street or speeding, then that was enough justification for me (intentional hyperbole alert). We learned that passivity in the face of such men invites horrors of historic proportion. Certainly we don't want to repeat that history so soon after it was created. At least give us a few hundred years to forget before we repeat the mistake.

Now, if you want to question the ethic (or law) of sending soldiers on a mission off of domestic soil to serve as the world's "policemen", then that would be a responsible consideration. Nonetheless, such a mission would have been for our own self-preservation despite the fact that the threat was not imminent or the battlefield local. We'd have learned from past mistakes that certain leaders cannot be allowed to retain power. Hussein (and his sons) were such beasts.

Oh Jay Tea, you're too swee... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Oh Jay Tea, you're too sweet. I don't think I could handle that pressure. I do enjoy knocking around the trolls, though. :)

JmaR, I'm sorry to hear abo... (Below threshold)

JmaR, I'm sorry to hear about your friend, but there are many options for someone with experience - it may take time and a lot of creativity and drive.

I agree with the rising tide analogy, but I think it rises higher and stays that way on free-market principles, not on forced taxation, which I view as legislated theft. Economic statistics demonstrate how higher taxes slow down cycles, as I recall. Your friend, for example, needs a job. A handout will be meager and won't buy him much time before the guys come for his couch and TV. And if his community hadn't been hogtied with taxation, they'd have a great deal more Christian charity to share with him.

My original point was that there's never enough when it comes to tax dole, because there never can be enough; it merely weakens the rest of us along with the businesses that we need to thrive in order to make a living and have anything left over for charity, all in the name of caring for the needy whom it never manages to adequately accommodate.

Drivel,A thoughtfu... (Below threshold)


A thoughtful, well-argued, and intelligent post. You and a few others are the sole reason I continue to come back in here for daily abuse. There are a handful of conservatives at Wizbang that are smart, open-minded and worth hearing from. That said....

The fact that at this stage in the game our leadership has not sufficiently addressed how we continue once oil becomes too expensive to sustain our economic growth is cause for alarm. America does not continue without oil. I understand that it is vital to our survival as a productive, capitalistic society and protecting our access to that critical resource and its flow is U.S. policy, has been for decades. When Bush 41 went to war on Iraq for trying to annex Kuwait, I understood and accepted the fact that such a decision was intended to prevent the destabilization of the Middle East and the oil markets as well as keep Hussein's regime from accumulating too much power. At least that administration was honest about its intentions. The fact is that Hussein and his regime was so weakened by the Gulf War and the years of sanctions that followed (I'm not referring to what he may have skimmed from the Oil for Food Program but specifically about his military capacity) that both Condi Rice and Colin Powell stated publicly in 2001 that Iraq was not a threat and that they were essentially contained. I may have posted this link before but I'll do it again. This link is the first one I plucked from the list, it's available from multiple sources with video:


When I assert that its ALL ABOUT OIL, I'm referring not simply to the tangible resource that gets pumped from the ground but all of its underpinnings as a global commodity as well. The importance of the currency that's used as it changes hands and the power that accompanies its distribution. Nobody understands the importance of oil better than the members of the current adminstration.

Now, assuming that oil was not a part of the equation and all else is equal, an attempt by Saddam Hussein or any rogue dictator to go off half-cocked and start invading neighbors is simply not plausible if the UN charter is to be honored by the Great Powers that have signed on. This is exactly the lesson that Hitler taught us and it is exactly why an international body that imposes a global code of justice is not only essential but it's been effective since its inception. Only recently has the UN been eviscerated by the likes of John Bolton (or fill in your favorite neocon here) as it stands to hold the US accountable to the very ideals that prompted us to sign on.

In short, the scenario that you describe (Iraq running amok), under the current world order and in light of the history that forged that order would never have been allowed, oil or no oil.

JmaR,You are very ... (Below threshold)


You are very kind but you give me waaay to much credit. There are quite a few bright minds around here and I am often humbled by their insight. Yeah, it's a rough and tumble environment but generally fair... at least moreso than some of the fringe like KOS or OW (aka the- blog-whose-name-we-cannot-say). It's good to have you around so that we may practice our acerbic prose. ;)

I checked out the link and noted the dates of those "Hussein-in-the- box" statements:

Colin Powell in Cairo February 24, 2001
Condoleeza Rice, July 2001

Said during the old paradigm where terrorism didn't effect us quite so much. Under the new environment, we had to be concerned that rogue elements financed by Hussein could be proxy warriors. Chemicals and biologicals were something that could more readily be concealed and delivered. Nuclear was a concern particularly in view of our failings (more specifically the IAEA) in detecting the concealed nuke programs in North Korea and Libya. (I don't recall where we were with Iran at the time.)

We both acknowledge the importance of oil and its influence on policy - not necessarily the impact on policy but that it is a powerful force of it. So let's continue past the oil as stimulant.

Your faith in the U.N. is much stronger than mine since I view it as a modern League of Nations. There were members of the U.N. that desired trade with Hussein for arms and oil (remember under our scenario that the U.S. wouldn't need it but other nations would). While we might not flinch and stay true to the U.N. mission, China, France, and Germany sure would not have been reliable. Russia would have applied pressure as well to let Hussein have his take. So, in essence, key members of the Security Council could have vetoed anything the U.S. or the Brits might have proposed. Other nations outside the region would have wanted trade and if allowing Hussein to expand his territory would have provided for them cheaper product, they would not have intervened. Recall that France and Russia, among others, actively challenged U.S. efforts to maintain the embargos. They were complicit in Oil-For-Food and other illegal trade. They were antagonists not because they were concerned about the livelihoods of Arabs but because they had claims on trade and oilfields.

I am almost certain that we would have repeated WWII despite our better judgement. Greed is like that and unless the fear is acute, weaker nations (and greedy ones with a false sense of security) tend to fold. That is what Hussein assumed would happen prior to the Gulf War.

I guess a redefinition of the scenario would be what is the impact of U.S. involvement if it didn't need oil versus the concomitant scenarios of certain other nations a) needing oil or b) not needing oil. But that is more speculation than I want to tackle in this thread. Maybe some other day.

Drivel,We'll have ... (Below threshold)


We'll have to agree to disagree on the U.N. and its effectiveness. I'm of the opinion that if the hawks in our midst (Cheney, Bolton, Feith, Woolsey, Perle et al.) weren't working so hard to undermine the U.N.'s credibility, our relationships with Chirac, Schroeder and Putin wouldn't be so contentious. The argument that any one of their countries were enmeshed more deeply with Iraq's dirty oil dealings post Gulf War than the U.S is hard for me to believe. We had our mitts in that oven too.

Seems to me that the PNAC crew was desperate to get their stated goal of U.S. global hegemony off the ground as soon as the principals were put back into positions to do so. The U.N. is an obstacle that they knew would have to be dealt with in order to achieve their goals, and unfortunately for all of us it appears that the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court, in their world, falls into that same category.

American involvement in Oil... (Below threshold)

American involvement in Oil-for-Food program from Houston Chronicle, FoxNews and the UK Guardian. So please, enough of the conspiracy theories regarding France, Russia and China and how they were reluctant to go after Saddam because they were reaping huge benefits in under the table deals. It's another lie.




Ok ed, here is your list:</... (Below threshold)

Ok ed, here is your list:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs Ð which oversees American exports policy Ð reveal that the US, under the successiveÊadministrationsÊof Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr,sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis,which damages mAjor organs,and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Here is the link you can check it out yourself:

<a href="http://www.iic-off... (Below threshold)

Comparison of Estimates of Illicit Iraqi Income During United Nations Sanctions

So let's do some math.

Conservative rounding from the report:
Total Estimated Illicit Iraqi Income - ~ US$ 10,000,000,000
Total Alleged Illicit from US (Bayoil) ~ US$ 37,000,000

Balance Unaccounted Illicit Income ~ US$ 9,963,000,000

Now who do you suppose is responsible for that slight differential? Which countries do you figure are buying all of that illegal oil to account for those huge kickbacks? Not that I don't want Bayoil to be punished if they violated the OFF or trade sanctions, but don't you think the relative participation by the U.S. is rather trivial? And are not the responsible parties being brought into court for the violations?

Now might be a good time to present once again our dependence on Iraqi oil.
Petroleum Imports by Country of Origin, 1960-2003

Thousand Barrels per Day
'91 - 0
'92 - 0
'93 - 0
'94 - 0
'95 - 0 (April '95 - OFF established)
'96 - 1 (December '96 - OFF begins)
'97 - 89
'98 - 336
'99 - 725
'00 - 620
'01 - 795 (peak production/pre-conflict)

You'll notice that U.S. dependence on Iraqi oil is relatively small. It peaked during the last year of OFF at ~6.7% of total imported crude [full production in "stable" Iraq] but the U.S. went without Iraqi oil for several years. The U.S. did not import any oil prior to OFF and the amount of oil from illegal export during OFF was insignificant compared to the gross violations that transpired. It would seem that U.S. mitts were pretty small.

Now, who was to have the most direct access to Hussein's oil? There are many links to this but here is the quickest one I could find:
Oil Out of Iraq - Clarence Y.H. Lo

Their Oil, Their Decision
Although U.S. companies are clear in their desire to invest and obtain oil in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, with all his faults, nevertheless leads the internationally recognized and sovereign government of Iraq. Hussein gets to make the decision about who invests in his country and who gets the oil. Given the way the United States has treated his country, should it surprise us that his first choice is Russia, followed by France and China?

The largely French oil company Total Fina Elf has signed contracts with Iraq to develop the Majnoon oil field, which has reserves of 25 billion barrels. Lukoil, a Russian company, has a $4-billion contract dating from 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Quirna field. The biggest plum was pulled in 2002, when Russia and Iraq agreed to a 10-year, $40-billion plan for economic cooperation, encompassing projects in the oil, gas, petrochemical, transport and other industries, including the development of 49 oil fields.

If the current government of Iraq stays in power, the signed contracts will be implemented. If the UN inspectors find that Hussein has complied with Security Council resolutions, the sanctions on Iraq will be lifted and Russian companies will invest, obtain oil and profits out of Iraq, to the chagrin of Bush, Cheney and Rice.

The only way to change the oil flow is to get rid of the regime that made the contracts. If the U.S. invasion of Iraq is successful in toppling Hussein, the administration has a plan for the military occupation of Iraq. A U.S. military commander will govern Iraq for a year or more and would maintain the oil fields. There would be $1.5 billion worth of work to rehabilitate Iraqi oil fields, and companies like Halliburton are in the best position to gain the business, according to a Deutsche Bank report.

When the U.S. military finally turns over control to an Iraqi civilian government, the Iraqi National Congress (INC) is likely to play a leading role. The INC has emphasized that they will not be bound by the agreements with Russia, France or China to develop oil fields. Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, favors a U.S.-led consortium to take charge of the Iraqi oil industry. Chalabi says "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," according to the Washington Post.

My main point from this excerpt is that Hussein already made promises/contracts to France and Russia to develop massive territories of underdevloped oil fields. Now who had a financial incentive to maintain the status quo? And do you think France and Russia were still concerned about the lives of those Kurds and Shia under Hussein's rule? Hardly.

But keep trying to sell the idea that the evil U.S. just had to have Iraqi oil and would stop at nothing to get it. And don't bother with the "we went war for its cheap oil" claptrap. That's been debunked so many times to be ignorable.

Why is accountabilit... (Below threshold)

Why is accountability and the truth always portrayed as "blaming America" or "hating America"? Republicans are supposed to be champions of responsibility...why is the truth so hard to handle? The storyline that points the finger at China, France, Russia et al for making dirty deals with Saddam is incomplete unless we look in the mirror. The U.S. government shared a good deal of the responsibility for enforcing the rules of this particular game. By many accounts, we didn't do a very good job and I would consider that "mitts in the oven" as well.

The opposing storyline (and it was confirmed in the Senate investigation) is that U.S. involvement ran much deeper than your data reports:

A Senate investigation found that the US government turned a blind eye to millions of dollars of Iraq sanctions busting. The report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52 per cent of kickbacks paid to Saddam's regime in return for sales of cheap oil under the UN's food for oil program - more than the rest of the world put together.

And then there's this.


So once again we have two realities. I choose to believe the one that makes the most sense based on what I've watched unfold over the last 5 years.

Drivel,BTW, as for... (Below threshold)


BTW, as for the U.S. stopping at nothing when it comes to Iraqi oil.....the proof is in the pudding. Did we stop at nothing to invade Iraq or not? I never claimed we went to war for Iraq's "cheap" oil, besides it can't be cheap when a major pipeline gets blown up twice a month. That would be called "backfiring". Good job George.

RE: JmaR's posts (July 27, ... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's posts (July 27, 2005 10:58 AM and July 27, 2005 11:14 AM)

Why is accountability and the truth always portrayed as "blaming America" or "hating America"? Republicans are supposed to be champions of responsibility...why is the truth so hard to handle? The storyline that points the finger at China, France, Russia et al for making dirty deals with Saddam is incomplete unless we look in the mirror. The U.S. government shared a good deal of the responsibility for enforcing the rules of this particular game. By many accounts, we didn't do a very good job and I would consider that "mitts in the oven" as well.

It's the relativism that is disturbing. So far one American company has been proven to have been illegally trading oil. It was investigated and the culprits penalized. It is NOT U.S. policy and the trade data I presented showed that the U.S. set policy on what and what not to allow and followed through. That you link a comment from Annan via a BBC headline stating "US and UK blamed for oil scandal" carries no weight with me. I'll excerpt the lead paragraphs:

The US and Britain are partly to blame for the scandal enveloping the UN oil-for-food programme, Secretary General Kofi Annan has said.

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein made billions of dollars smuggling oil in defiance of sanctions policed by the US and Britain, the UN chief said.

Here's a guy heading the U.N. who has been a failure in the administration of operations and ethics of those under his charge, if not himself personally, and he has the gall to blame the U.S. and Britain because they didn't catch the cheaters? This fish stinks at the head. That's like a drug lord accusing the police of being derelict in statutes/morality because they failed to catch all of the drug runners. Don't forget he has a good bit of incentive to deflect any attention he can away from his poor performance. His family is hip deep in the cesspool.

The U.S. was always being challenged to drop the sanctions completely by damn near everyone, and now you are suggesting (as is Annan via that BBC report) that the U.S. was irresponsible and should have used the available forces in the region to intercept/inspect every truck crossing the border into and out of Jordan and Turkey (and I presume elsewhere)? Where was Annan, as top-dog, in rounding up that coalition of active partners to subsidize such a task with funds, hardware, and personnel? I guess I missed him on his soapbox pleading to place soldiers on the lands of sovereign states to perform that duty. Yes, more foreign American troops to interdict trade in Syria, Jordan, and Turkey would have gone over real well. Meanwhile, the U.S. was pretty busy trying to keep the arms from proliferating and fighting to keep the no-fly zones operational. We can't even seal our own borders much less those of Iraq.

I need a link to that Senate investigation. I'd be hard pressed to believe that American companies knowingly purchased illegal oil. The facts do not bear that out except for the singular exception trumpeted as the all encompassing equalizer that the U.S. was as equally complicit in illegal trade as the rest of the industrialized world. That just did not happen and to perpetuate that myth is dangerous. I am not afraid of the investigation and encourage its completion. You, however, exaggerate U.S. involvement in the abuses and that is dubious.

The argument inevitably leads to the "blood-for-oil" meme and my comment was preemptory. We stopped at nothing for self-preservation by the removal of a beastly regime. We did not stop at nothing for oil no matter how that sentence gets reparsed. "Cheap" oil gets waved about repeatedly as the Bush "regime's" incentive for action when anyone with a brain knows it would have been much cheaper (short term and in the foreseeable future) to let Hussein drill away. But I'm stopping here since I said previously that this has been debunked ad nauseum. The data illustrates that U.S. policy was proper, legal, and hardly dependent on Iraqi oil. The U.N. and the previously mentioned countries cannot make such claims.

So the war's all about oil,... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

So the war's all about oil, but it's not all about oil?

It's only about Iraq's oil, that we could have gotten in a much easier fashion if we'd done what this one oil company in Texas did back during the Clinton administration?

What planet are you receiving these transmissions from?

JmaR wrote:
So once again we have two realities. I choose to believe the one that makes the most sense based on what I've watched unfold over the last 5 years.

It's not surprising that you stuck your head squarely in your ass just when GWB got elected. I guess you only feel safe when a President is ejaculating on girls not much older than his daughter while selling military secrets to the Red Chinese and studiously ignoring terrorism.

Sue,Are you sure y... (Below threshold)


Are you sure you're not just disappointed Slick Willy didn't bust his nut onto your dress....or possibly somewhere more intimate? I mean, maybe it'd wind up in the Smithsonian.

Ugh. I don't like rapists. ... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Ugh. I don't like rapists. It would figure that such a misogynistic piece of rancid rapist filth would be your hero.

You got so turned on by thinking about Billy Jeff's weiner that you forgot what the topic was. Karl Rove. How did we get so far away from that, JmaR?

Sue, we report you decide.<... (Below threshold)

Sue, we report you decide.

War, Death and Destruction
Record Debt
9/11, Terrorism and Fear
Fundamentalist Crusaders influencing policy
Destruction of church/state separation
Domestic Divisiveness
Propaganda, Lies and a Supine Media
Environmental Disaster
Death of Democracy

Relative Peace
Prosperity, Massive Surplus
A Brain
A Blowjob

The Republicans are destroying this country, I hope you're proud.

JmaR wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

JmaR wrote:
Relative Peace

First WTC attack - Feb 29, 1993
Attempted assassination of GHW Bush in Kuwait by Iraqi agents - April 14, 1993
U.S. troops fighting in Somalia - October-December 1993
Two U.S. diplomats gunned down in Pakistan - March 8, 1995
Oklahoma City bombing - April 19, 1995
Khobar Towers bombing - June 25, 1996
U.S. bombs Iraq for treaty violations - September 3, 1996
U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed - August 7, 1998
U.S. bombs Iraq for WMD violations - December 16, 1998
U.S. military operations in Bosnia - 1999-2000
U.S.S. Cole attack off the coast of Yemen - October 12, 2000

This doesn't even begin to include the various kidnappings and attacks against individual U.S. citizens during that same time period.

Nor does it include the TWA Flight 800 explosion on July 17, 1996, even though it probably should.

This is just for the first tidbit of stupidity you posted. Getting into the failures of the Clinton economy would take too long for one night's research; I'll just leave you with "dot com bubble burst" as food for thought.

Good night and sleep tight.

Sue,If you want to... (Below threshold)


If you want to go ahead and add up the death tolls and the injuries (overall carnage) under each President I think you'll be embarassed (and Dubya still has plenty more time to spread his joy across the world). If you only want to do so for U.S. soldiers I think you'll be horrified.

It's not even close. You support the warmongers and the chickenhawks, not me. You're delusional and disgraceful.

Clinton:<a href="htt... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:


Not a rapist

You idolize a rapist and adulterer, and you have the nerve to call me disgraceful. Why do you hate women so much? What inadequacy are you compensating for?

Republicans appointed a spe... (Below threshold)

Republicans appointed a special prosecutor and spent the equivalent of the GDP of several small nations to nail Clinton and all they got was a silly blowjob. If he was guilty of rape, he'd be doing time. Unlike the Rove investigation, they've already concluded the Bill Clinton investigations and rape, like all the other phony smears that never stood up to scrutiny, never happened. Sorry Suzie.

War criminal

I never claimed to "idolize" Clinton....that was you just making shit up, in typical wingnut fashion. However, next to Dubya, Richard Nixon looks like a petty criminal. We won't even make the comparison between Clinton and Bush.....even true conservatives would have to admit that's no contest. Keep clinging to the rapist lie though, makes you seem even more ridiculous.

Why do you hate the truth so much? Why do you hate democracy so much?

Your hero Bush has reached an all-time low in approval ratings......your circle of delusional nitwits is shrinking fast. Yikes!

Posted by: JmaR list (July ... (Below threshold)

Posted by: JmaR list (July 27, 2005 09:49 PM)

C'mon, JmaR. Now this is just silly. Broad, inaccurate generalizations, selective/cherry picked inclusions (debatable or not), non-contextual declarations, and extensive omissions does not a serious argument of administrations make. It would take many pages to discuss your points and, clearly, few have such time. The random insertion of some ridiculous talking points does not advance your argument.

RE: JmaR's post (July 28, 2... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's post (July 28, 2005 09:59 AM)

War criminal

That's it. This thread has frayed. And you have gone off the deep end. JmaR, this is moonbat material.

Yeah, AD, he lost the argum... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Yeah, AD, he lost the argument quite a few posts ago when he refused to take me up on my offer of evidence and resorted to ad hominem instead. Typical barking moonbat tactics - if your opponent offers overwhelming evidence, go for one or a combination of the following:

1) Ad hominem
2) Move the goalposts
3) Change the subject

You see how far JmaR strayed from the subject of Karl Rove and when I nailed him down on the "Bush lied people died" meme he gave up and called me names.

Drivel,To be hones... (Below threshold)


To be honest, I was stooping to Sue's level, she only seems to understand nastiness, name-calling and generalizations. However I stand by every claim and you can call me whatever you like, it doesn't change the truth.

On a more serious note and in regard to our earlier debate about "It's about the oil", Bob Herbert makes my point exactly in today's column:


Sue,Once again, yo... (Below threshold)


Once again, you won the argument in your own bubble world. Come on out when you're ready to deal with reality. There is far too much evidence to change my opinion.

War Criminal

Sorry Drivel, sometimes you gotta call it what it is. I plan on continuing to do just that.

I, for one, blame JmaR's in... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

I, for one, blame JmaR's inability to stay on topic and adherence to leftist talking points on Karl Rove and his diabolical mind control rays.

That's why they're really anxious to get the space shuttle working again. Rove ordered NASA to fix the dead spots in mind ray signal coverage.

Quick, JmaR, put a wet towel over your head!

Sue,While you cont... (Below threshold)


While you continue to either lie or be deceived, your country is dying. Sad is the human being that is blinded by their political ideology, dangerous is the human being that cannot see the truth. I find you the most loathesome of characters.

Bob Herbert, like <a href="... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Bob Herbert, like many other reporters at the New York Times, has problems with the truth.

He bleats the same old tired memes that you and thousands of other deceived hivedwellers do:

Blood for Oil
Bush Lied People Died

I wonder how much his salary is. I could be rolling in money. I could ask the NYT to hire me for half of Herbert's pay, then just do what he does - rewrite emails from the DNC mailing lists and submit them as my own.

Sue,I think you've... (Below threshold)


I think you've got all of them correct except the JOOOOOS! part. That I do not understand. Can you fill me in on this particular rightwing talking point, sincerely, I have no idea what the signifigance is? Why does the right always trot out anti-semitism?

RE: JmaR's post (July 28, 2... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's post (July 28, 2005 10:22 AM)

An Op-Ed from the NYTimes!?

Heck, why not just direct me to The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel or the DNC's Howard Dean?

Excerpt the facts of interest and maybe we'll go from there.

I would take Dean over any ... (Below threshold)

I would take Dean over any of today's Democrats with the possible exception of Barbara Boxer, so that gives you an idea of where I stand. When politicians speak the truth, the Republicans must destroy them (although I consider the Dems that have chastised Dean as directly working against democracy as well). The right has put much effort behind smearing Dean and painting him as a nutjob but it's just another smear job. The "scream" was incredibly overblown and we saw it on TV almost as much as we saw the diversionary stories of Michael Jackson, Missing in Aruba, Runaway Bride, etc. when FAR MORE SERIOUS issues are being ignored. Liberal media my ass.

Dean has balls and he's not afraid to call a liar a liar and a fraud a fraud. As far as your fearless leaders are concerned he (like the U.N.) is an impediment to their goals and he must be destroyed. He's not the most eloquent guy for sure but that may be what I like about him most. We don't need Democarts that blather, pander and enable the Republican destruction of our country, we need truth tellers. I emailed Dean and told him to keep on truckin but to watch his back, he's a prime candidate to be "disappeared". Maybe he thinks I'm nuts, but his opponents don't screw around. Call me what you like, but I passionately stand behind my words.

Drivel,As for the ... (Below threshold)


As for the NY Times editorial page, it's one of the few places in the mainstream media where you can find the truth. Disprove Herbert's claims. Disprove Krugman's claims. Your proof to the contrary will be no less on the fringes as you claim mine to be.

I tried to come in here and keep things clean but Sue had to drag it into the mud, so let the mud fly. Claim victory all day but you won't see any quit from my side.

Where did I get the "JOOOOO... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Where did I get the "JOOOOOOS!" and implication of anti-semitism from? From Bob Herbert's own words, of course. Excerpt from the article you linked, JmaR:

The neoconservatives were beating the war drums on Iraq as far back as the late 1990's.

Iraq was supposed to be a first step. Iran was also in the neoconservatives' sights. The neocons envisaged U.S. control of the region (and its oil), to be followed inevitably by the realization of their ultimate dream, a global American empire.

The war may be going badly, but the primary consideration is that there is still a tremendous amount of oil at stake, the second-largest reserves on the planet. And neocon fantasies aside, the global competition for the planet's finite oil reserves intensifies by the hour.

Herbert, like his liberal pundit brethren, would never get caught actually using the word "Jew" in reference to a cabal of powerful men with surnames like Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, and Podhoretz who supposedly want to take over the world and are using Svengali-like control over a WASP figurehead to do so.

"Neoconservative" sounds much less anti-semitic than "Jew," don't you think?

JmaR wrote:... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

JmaR wrote:

I tried to come in here and keep things clean but Sue had to drag it into the mud, so let the mud fly.

Here's the first "dragging" that occurred in the exchange between you and me.

I would take Dean over any of today's Democrats with the possible exception of Barbara Boxer, so that gives you an idea of where I stand.

Holy shit.

Never mind, you win. My parents told me never to argue with fanatics.

RE: JmaR's post (July 28, 2... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's post (July 28, 2005 02:03 PM)

Dean's "scream" was entertaining and a foolish political misstep... nothing more. The Dean nuttiness that concerns me may be most exemplified by the following:

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is..." [7/23/05 - H. Dean speaking the College Democrats of America - CNSNews]

Um, maybe Mr. Dean would like disclose to his audience that it was the "left-wing" (Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy) that supported this abomination of eminent domain abuse and not the "right" one. Or that Mr. Bush had not appointed any of these justices to the court. See, it's these huge misstatements (or outright lie in this case) that concern me. His rants are well-documented and this is just one of many. I'd rather not stray anymore about Dean. He is a caricature of politics gone bad despite any merit he might have earned at the state level. I was not a constituent of his so I don't know if he has always been a lightening rod or if the attention has muddled his message.

Dean will not be "disappeared". He is one of the Right's most powerful assets. I wish his bullhorn was bigger.

Incidentally, who do you think my "fearless leaders" are? I don't support people. I support policy. There is a difference though one votes for the messenger. I am an equal opportunity critic.

Sue,As I wrote ear... (Below threshold)


As I wrote earlier, the neoconservatives are the signatories on the PNAC mission statement. Who the hell cares if they're Jewish, Cambodian or smurfs. They openly advocate using the U.S.'s military might to project global hegemony. These are their words not mine and this was long before 9/11. The fact that most of them are Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Repeat....NOTHING. Your camp has spun another beauty here, but whatever lights your candle babe.

How is making the claim that Iraq was about oil dragging the discourse in the mud? Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. It certainly wasn't an attack on you. Lighten up there Francis, your guilt is showing.

Just a minute there AD, one... (Below threshold)

Just a minute there AD, one man's liberal is another man's conservative and visa-versa. Three of the five Justices that you mention who voted in favor of eminent domain recently were Republican appointed and that is a fact. Once Roberts gets apporved it'll be 7 of 9 appointed by R's...we'll see how "activist" things get on the Supreme Court. BTW, I truly feel that the political discourse has been pulled so far to the right by the extremists in the Republican party that many of the public officials that would once have been considered "moderate" are now considered fringe left. The entire body politic has to be pushed back toward the rationale ceneter where compromise is possible.

So AD, are you telling me that there are policies
and positions on both side that you support? If that's true, or if there are policies from the current administration that you DO NOT support, I'd love (for the sake of truth and understanding) to know what they might be?

The appointees were expecte... (Below threshold)

The appointees were expected to be Right but turned out not to be in most of their decisions - hence their generally accepted pigeonholing to the left or right of center. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are considered the most strict Constitutionalists and in this day-and-age, that translates to "Right". O'Conner and Kennedy would be considered moderate with the "Left" filling out the ledger.

I disagree with your too-Right characterization. New law continues to be written from the bench IMO which is antithetical to the Constitution. Most law should remain at the State level except in the most explicit cases defined by the original Articles and its Amendments. De novo legislation is problematic.

Against current policies of the administration:
Border and Immigration
Trade (e.g. NAFTA, CAFTA)
Budget/Deficit (more of a Congressional issue than an Administrative one)
Expansion of Deism as policy motivator (this one has been generally acceptable but there have been missteps)
Energy policy modification inadequate

Those are huge issues off the top of my head. There most certainly are others. Except for trade issues, I do not see the Democratic (or other) party suggesting anything better; consequently, they won't get my support in the foreseeable future.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy