June 30, 2005

Bad Misdirection

Misdirection is the most fundamental of stage magic arts. When you want to accomplish something that you don't want the audience to see or understand, you distract their attention elsewhere.

It was something that GWB thoroughly mastered in his first four years. Using misdirection to draw the public's attention away from his failure to find bin Laden, he and his Neocons used Iraq in what Jon Stewart correctly referred to as "Operation: Re-elect Bush." To draw the public's attention away from the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US, he managed to say "9/11" and "Saddam" in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked. Misdirection. He waved his right hand widely and sweepingly and drew America's attention away from his true motivations neatly tucked in his other hand. And it worked.

But now we're into bad misdirection. Because his recent speech could have been delivered a year ago, as if the ongoing war (it's not an insurgency; it's a war. Let's call it what it is) hadn't happened. As if dead Americans weren't piling up like cordwood, and weren't going to be doing so for the foreseeable future. Now the problem is that instead of being distracted by the deftly moving right hand, people are starting to say, "Wait...what's he got in his left hand?" Bush's response? A speech that basically shouts, "Look at my right hand! See? Right hand, over here! Look at it, look at it!" His attempts to link 9/11 and Iraq yet again, at a time when more and more Americans are starting to realize that there is no link, are more pathetically obvious than ever before. His manipulation of a shell-shocked America and his naked politicizing of the terrorist strike at the WTC by using it to support a long-standing Neocon war initiative remains one of the most ugly moments in recent presidential history. I think it ironic that Democrats get slammed for invoking Nazi Germany while Bush and his pals continue to invoke 9/11 to support everything from a flag burning amendment to an unnecessary war.

The absolute lowpoint was the following:

"Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq."

Am I the only one who finds this a hoot? What the hell has the world come to when we consider this: The credibility of the President of the United States is so non-existent, that if we won't take his word for it that the Iraq war was a necessary strike against terrorism, certainly we'll take the word of a murdering sociopath with the blood of three thousand Americans on his hands. Yes, that's right, kids: George W. Bush apparently believes that the words of Osama bin Laden have more street cred than his own.

Bush will always have his apologists, of course. Those who embrace the oldest rationalization of all, namely that the ends justifies the means. Karl Rove can try to shift blame to the Democrats all he wants. But the trickery is becoming more obvious, the misdirection more obvious, and the curtain more frayed.

Most people can quote Lincoln saying "It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." But what is less known is the sentence right before that: "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem."

Presto.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at June 30, 2005 11:15 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: BBayliss at June 30, 2005 12:05 PM

Another example of... dare I say it...


Bush SUCKS!!!


Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 12:06 PM

And here I always credited that saying to P.T. Barnum.

I've never once thought that Bush had any concern over the esteem/respect of his fellow citizens. I'm damn certain he doesn't give a rip about mine. It's the Three Card Monty administration, and slowly but surely people are walking away from the card table.

Posted by: BBayliss at June 30, 2005 12:08 PM

you said it K-nuck!

Posted by: Peter David at June 30, 2005 12:12 PM

"And here I always credited that saying to P.T. Barnum."

See what you learn hanging around here?

Barnum's best known quote was, "There's a sucker born every minute." As will be proven when the sucker shows up to contribute to this thread, oh, probably any time now.

PAD

Posted by: Chuck May at June 30, 2005 12:18 PM

...and things will likely get worse when they are forced to re-instate the draft. I'm more than draftable age, but my wife - and my students - are not. Argh.

Posted by: Dave Drier at June 30, 2005 12:22 PM

Very nicely put, PAD, as usual. And no suckers have posted yet. But wait, who's that entering the big tent...? 3,2,1...

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2005 12:23 PM

Peter and anyone else who cares to comment, I have to ask a hypothetical here. Since I'm a moderate Republican disappointed in a lot of his own party these days, I wonder how soon there's going to come a time when a Republican leader might be able to unite the country again. Foregoing the frontrunners on the Democratic side, would there be any Republican you'd consider voting for for president in 2008? Conversely, who do you think might emerge from the Democratic party as an aisle-bridging candidate? I guess I ask because I wonder how much people are still able to separate individual members of the parties from the parties themselves.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 30, 2005 12:25 PM

As far as Bush being the one linking 9/11 and Iraq...well...

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq:

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations ...

From the October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized the president to go to war. Supported by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid,John Edwards, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, among others.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 30, 2005 12:27 PM

Jason,

I think that McCain would be able to do it. It's not for nothing that Kerry wanted him (and I think that a Kerry/McCain ticket might have had an easy victory, though such things are hard to know).

Posted by: James Carter at June 30, 2005 12:32 PM

I an growing increasingly dissastisfied with both parties. It seems that as one party gets more extreme, so does the other (case in point, the Antebellum period in our history) I would not be at all surprised to see a powerful third party emerge, similar to how the Republicans emerged to counteract the Whig/Democrat split back in the 1850's. The only Rebublican I would vote for? Colin Powell. I would like to see him run. I can't think of all that many Democrats I would vote for. Hillary looks like the front-runner, and she scares me. Maybe McCain could do it. Personally, I say it's time to break out the Washington clones.

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2005 12:33 PM

I doubt a split party ticket is very possible, especially if both members want the big chair at one point. Whoever sucked it up and took a split party vice-president ticket just to get into the White House would run the risk of alienating their own party for future campaigns. They'd have to do a hellaciously great job as VP to overcome that and would consequently have to implicitly trust that guy running for president would give them the power and space to keep their name alive.

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2005 12:36 PM

My bad. Should have said "guy/gal," not just guy.

And I think that while the parties are at their most extreme right now, you'll find it actually tougher for a third party to take root. They're enforcing party discipline as much as possible, and many folks are still feeling burned over the Green Party 2000 campaign.

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2005 12:38 PM

Then again, I'd concede that voter dissatisfaction could definitely start a grassroots movement an opportunistic politician might try to take advantage of.

Posted by: Rat at June 30, 2005 12:41 PM

Al Qaeda types have gotten help in Iraq. It's a documented fact. The Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Hussein. (Sorry, I won't call him by his first name for a lot of reasons) But you know what? No matter what the ultimate result of our invasion, the fact remains that the focus was taken OFF the biggest bad guys out there. Sure, there are still people after Bin Laden, but Bush, instead presenting this country as pursuing those responsible and justice, has shown the rest of the planet that America is an easily distracted large bully with attention deficit disorder. A lot of people are now calling for the complete withdrawal of troops. THIS IS A HUGE MISTAKE. If our guys get pulled out now, Iraq will be worse off than they were before. We're committed now. We have to see this through.

As to Bush's credibility...far as I'm concerned there hasn't been any to lose. Whoever has the job next is going to have a hell of a lot of work to do to re-establish the belief in the government domestically, let alone abroad.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 30, 2005 12:44 PM

Jason,

Personally, I agree--a third party seems awfully unlikely, although it is quite possible that one could take enough away from one of the majors to throw the election (Ralph Nader, anyone?).

I could see a liberal "Take the troops out now" party forming if Hillary seems too hawkish on Iraq but I doubt that they would amount to much. I can far more easily imagine Republicans losing votes to a third party that is focussed on immigration reform (actually, I could see a good amount of the Democrat base going for this as well, but I think that the Republicans would be hurt the most.).

Since I would just as soon see lots and lots of immigrants coming in, this does not plase me but there you are. If Hillary, or any other Democrat could manage to straddle the issue succesfully, advocate immigration controls while not offending minorite supporters, they would probably have a very easy victory.

Posted by: BBayliss at June 30, 2005 12:48 PM

Jason: I agree with Bill and James. Depending on the other candidates, I may be willing to vote for McClain and/or Powell.

Rat: Don't just say it's a documented fact. Please say where those facts are documented, otherwise it's just your opinion that you are trying to pass off as fact.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at June 30, 2005 12:53 PM

He was just following Rove's lead, taking off on that "when 9/11 happened, liberals did this and that" asinine remark from last week. The Repubs under Rove's guidance have been very successful at politicizing 9/11 for their own aims, which include misdirection from Bush's falling poll numbers, the growing disaster in Iraq, etc. etc.

Posted by: Mitch at June 30, 2005 12:54 PM

Regardless of whether there was a link between Al Qaida and Iraq at the beginning of the war, the U.S. coalition is fighting Al Qaida in Iraq right now.

I think it's preferable that Al Qaida terrorists are occupied with fighting the U.S. military in Iraq, instead of launching attacks within the U.S. against civilians. I think is the point that Bush was trying to make with his speech when he was linking the current war in Iraq with 9/11.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 30, 2005 12:56 PM

From the October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized the president to go to war. Supported by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid,John Edwards, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, among others.

Supported by every Republican who now claims that they are against the war as well.

Neither side is free from guilt.

But it's Bush that made the insinuations so many times that people believe he actually did say Saddam was behind 9/11.

So, Bush has nobody to blame but himself, because that's what he wanted people to believe.

Bush has fed us so many different flavors of bullshit that none of us have any taste buds left.

Posted by: Howard at June 30, 2005 12:57 PM

Salman Pak: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

Now, of course, the person being interviewed by no less a respectable organization than PBS's Frontline, would be a terrorist. And, according to PAD's somewhat stumbling statement, one should infer that his "street cred" is either higher than the President's, or nonexistent.

We also know that Hussein did have WMDs, because he used them on the Kurds. We now know they're not in Iraq, but we don't know where they went (although we seem to have found them headed out of Iraq toward Syria, Jordan and other points.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at June 30, 2005 12:59 PM

As a registered Democrat, I must say that if McCain had gotten the Republican nomination in either 2000 or 2004, I'd have voted for him. He seems to at least be able to find a principled stand (even if other people disagree with the principles involved) and hold it, unlike certain sitting Presidents (not naming names here, of course) who are driven more by pseudo-Texan machismo and insecurity over the fact that they spent childhood vacations in Massachusetts rather than ropin' dogies out on the open range, than any sort of principles.

Powell, not so much - I may not agree with Eisenhower's position in his tiff with Truman during Korea, but at least he didn't knuckle under to what he thought was a stupid idea. Powell stood for a while against plainly bad military planning, then went with the flow, rather than pushing until something gave...

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 01:00 PM

It would take a remarkable candidate with a veritable assload of money to mount a legitimate third party candidacy. Perot had the right idea (in terms of funding it himself), but the whole "I'm a fucking lunatic" thing sort of brought him down. I am actually very concerned for the Republican party, as it used to be the party of moderates like Eisenhower and is now the party of extremists. I'd love to say the Democrats have been hijacked by extremists, but we haven't. What we've been hijacked by are a bunch of suckasses who want to play along with the hopes of extending their careers in elective office. I'm tired of it.

I'd like to post the words of Eisenhower, as they were incredibly prophetic (much like his comment on the military/industrial complex, and this is coming from someone who does not think Eisenhower was a particularly useful president):

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - Eisenhower, 1952

Sadly, he's wrong on one account. Their number is no longer negligible.

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2005 01:01 PM

What I find interesting about the Rove remarks is that on the balance, I think the story's been a no-winner for both parties. Those on both extremes found it energizing because they felt either agreement or offense, and in the wake of the Durbin remarks, those in the middle just kind of throw their hands up and wonder what the hell's wrong with all of our leaders.

Posted by: Bobb at June 30, 2005 01:02 PM

While there may very well be Al Quaeda members opposing US troops in Iraq, it's my understanding that the majority of the insurgent forces are Baathists, Nationalists, and Shi'ites (along with as many as 40 other groups).

There's a bigger coalition of Iraqi/Middle East groups fighting against the US than there are fighting with us. And while we're off figthing a war against insurgents, Al Quaeda leaders are free to train more terrorists, and make more plans like 9/11.

Maybe Osama is playing the misdirection card on Bush...."look, over there, in Iraq....look at all those terrorists. Go get 'em, boy, go get em."

Meanwhile, Osama goes around recruiting more and more future terrorists in the unpatrolled areas of the Middle East.

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2005 01:07 PM

Knuckles, I think there's extremists in both parties. I just think the Republicans have lucked out with a complimentary set of extremists, while the Democrats unfortunately seem to have run roughshod over a very divergent group of smaller groups. I think the Democrats have been nailed on the lack of ideas thing because they have to work much harder at a platform that covers their bases. They have ideas, but they just can't agree on what they are.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 01:15 PM

Howard: Clearly you missed the point of the statement. The implication of Bush's statement is pretty goddam transparent: Since clearly nothing he (Bush) has said or claimed seems to be being bought by the American public if you look at the polls, he is turning to the words of Osama bin Laden to try and make his case. In other words, "If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Osama bin Laden!" And yes, I find that amusingly ironic (but not in a "rain on your wedding day" kind of way).

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 01:17 PM

From the October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized the president to go to war. Supported by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid,John Edwards, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, among others.

And your point is? Whether these individuals were hoodwinked by Bush's "fixed around the issue" intelligence or simply jumped on the bandwagon to avoid being tagged as unpatriotic does nothing to mitigate Bush's actions. As commander-in-chief, he bears the ultimate responsibility for the decision to send our troops into Iraq based on bogus intelligence and without a clear plan on how to run the occupation once Saddam's government had been deposed.

We also know that Hussein did have WMDs, because he used them on the Kurds.

That was during the 1980s and, of course, St. Ron's administration (including Dick and Rummy) did everything they could to downplay the significance of it at the time. Since then, nothing. He didn't use them in the first Gulf War and he didn't use them during Bush's invasion. Not a shred of credible evidence has been found to support that there were any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq in March of 2003.

We now know they're not in Iraq, but we don't know where they went (although we seem to have found them headed out of Iraq toward Syria, Jordan and other points.

The idea that the WMD's were shipped to another country is completely unsubstatiated and the official intelligence report found no credibility to it. The fact is, with the exception of mustard gas, any chemical or biological weapons that Saddam had acquired (such as the ones Dick sold him) in the 1980s would have long since degraded anyway.

Of course, if Bush's poll numbers continue to slide, I have no doubt that we'll hear so sabre rattling towards Syria sometime in 2006.

As for a republican I would consider voting for in 2008, either McCain or Powell could earn my vote if they presented a plan for getting the Iraqi military back on its feet, or at least its knees, and enable them to secure their country for themselves.

Of course, neither man has any respect from the military neocon faction that controls the GOP today, so their odds of getting the nomination are about the same as mine.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 30, 2005 01:17 PM

Supported by every Republican who now claims that they are against the war as well.

Er, well, ok, but my point had nothing to do with opposition to the war.

Perot had the right idea (in terms of funding it himself), but the whole "I'm a fucking lunatic" thing sort of brought him down.

LOL. Yeah, that can be a major probalem on the national scene. I'm sort of amazed how totally Perot vanished from the picture after Gore handed him his ass during their NAFTA debate (the one time I thought that Gore actually had what it took to be president).

Meanwhile, Osama goes around recruiting more and more future terrorists in the unpatrolled areas of the Middle East.

I tend to think he's less of a player than Zarchawi (sp?) at this point. It would be great to catch him for the sheer vengefull justice of it all but there are probably people who would be better targets from a tactical sense.

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 01:22 PM

What I find interesting about the Rove remarks is that on the balance, I think the story's been a no-winner for both parties. Those on both extremes found it energizing because they felt either agreement or offense, and in the wake of the Durbin remarks, those in the middle just kind of throw their hands up and wonder what the hell's wrong with all of our leaders.

Update: Rick Santorum still hasn't apologized for comparing the filibuster to Hitler's invasion of France.

Posted by: Bobb at June 30, 2005 01:23 PM

My thoughts on Zarchawi are that he is a trusted Bin Laden commander, sent to Iraq as part of the misdirection campaign. Maybe he really is acting as a leader of the insurgent efforts...but he's just focused on distracting the US military. Which he's doing very, very well. It's like Zarchawi is the bright, shiny penny that distracts the simple of mind, while the dull, dirty, and unimpressive looking silver dollar sits on the ground unnoticed.

Which isn't really a great analogy, 'cause I can't explain how the silver dollar is going around recruiting an army of terrorists...darn...

Posted by: cal at June 30, 2005 01:24 PM

Jason & Bill: At this time, I think I could root for McCain, at least waiting to see what I object to. But at the same time I worry because twenty years ago, being from Wyoming, I thought at the time I could live with Cheney in the White House. It took awhile but I've changed my mind on that one.

Yes leading Democrats signed on to the resolution to go to war. The were being subjected to the same arm waiving and misdirection that the rest of the country were. Being a member of one party or the other does not provide a magic filter that allows anyone to recognize the unpolished truth of the evidence the other side is presenting.

I have a friend who is strongly in the democrat camp who fears the next election will be Condi vs. Hillary. He doesn't seem pleased at the prospect.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 01:32 PM

Hillary will get her ass handed to her. I have nothing but admiration for her, but the level of hatred directed at her by most of the right (and a chunk of middle America) is unbelievable. That, and her continued insistence that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea will hurt her on the left. Badly.

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 01:32 PM

Perot put in a good effort, but he came across as paranoid loon. He made the mistake of taking Bush I's political attacks personally and it cost him. What's sad is that the Reform Party had a decent chance building itself into a lasting moderate third party even after he had left the scene. Unfortunately, Pat Buchanen hijacked it and made it into a paranoid isolationist nutjob party. That pretty much guaranteed it would die. I mean, when people started looking for Perot to come back as the voice of sanity, you know the party's in trouble.

I really don't see any third party on the horizon with any hope of getting the numbers Perot had in 1992. The Greens are probably the closest, but they're so far to the left that if they do start pulling in real numbers, they'll just push the Democrats back to the center, which will help them and hurt the GOP.

Posted by: edhopper at June 30, 2005 01:33 PM

As Bob Herbert reminds us in todays NY Times; About 1500 american casualites ago our fearless leader thumped his chest and told the insurgents to "Bring it on!"
It seems they listened.
Two questions- Should the Iraqi people thank Bush for turning their country into the central battleground in the war on terror?
Second, if we are "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here", and we want to turn over the military side of this to an Iraqi force. Does that mean that ultimately we will be relying on the Iraqis to keep our country safe?

Posted by: Jordan D. White at June 30, 2005 01:36 PM

I would also say that McCain looks like the best shot for winning my liberal vote as far as the republicans go.

As for what Democrat do I think could possibly bridge the gap? Personally, I would like to see General Wesley Clark run. I think he would stand a decent chance of getting some red votes.

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 01:38 PM

I have a friend who is strongly in the democrat camp who fears the next election will be Condi vs. Hillary. He doesn't seem pleased at the prospect.

Your friend should cheer for it. That match up would favor Hillary simply on the telegenic basis alone. Everytime I see Condi on TV, she always looks like she just smelled someone cut a massive fart.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 01:49 PM

Jordan: In my opinion, Wes Clark is the best Democrat in the public eye. Fuck the red vote, I want the best candidate running (and I feel that most Americans want the same). A John McCain v. Wes Clark campaign would be one of the most exciting matchups I can imagine. Two men of great intellect and integrity facing off over what they feel is best for the nation AND the world, rather than what is best for their bank accounts.

I was the county chair of his campaign in Washington (which didn't mean squat, really, as it was totally a volunteer and catch as catch can campaign), but it was very invigorating. Of course, it was also incredibly deflating to watch people hopping on the John Kerry bandwagon when I was pretty goddam certain he had no chance. Clark in '08 would be a dream come true for this man (As a matter of fact, I have a Wes Clark bobblehead on my desk at home, right next to my melmac bust of JFK).

Posted by: Michael Brunner at June 30, 2005 01:58 PM

We also know that Hussein did have WMDs, because he used them on the Kurds. We now know they're not in Iraq ...

And we were supposed to believe that Saddam had the weapons, used them, and still has them to use against us.

Also, as for him shipping them out of the country, we're supposed to believe that he stockpiled these weapons to use against us, and then shipped them away when we massed on his borders to invade. Does that even make ANY sense?

--------------------------

Maybe Osama is playing the misdirection card on Bush...."look, over there, in Iraq....look at all those terrorists. Go get 'em, boy, go get em."

Actually, it's Bush playing this game.

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 02:11 PM

Also, as for him shipping them out of the country, we're supposed to believe that he stockpiled these weapons to use against us, and then shipped them away when we massed on his borders to invade. Does that even make ANY sense?

Apparently it does a Bush supporter. I guess since the alternative is admitting they were wrong, they'd rather believe that Saddam would hand over the one thing that might have given him a chance to hold our forces at bay to another country. That's akin to if the US military were to suddenly hand control of our nukes to Mexico just as the Russians were launching a first strike on us.

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2005 02:27 PM

The interesting thing to me about 2008: if Hillary becomes the Democratic Presidential candidate and someone like McCain gets the Republican nod, would the GOP ticket add a woman as the VP, either because it was someone qualified for the job or as part of a sinister right wing conspiracy, to deflate the support of women Hillary would likely get? Think about it; 2008's probably one of the best chances we've had yet to have a woman in either the highest or second highest office in our government. I don't know how much of a chance, but better than what we've had so far.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 02:32 PM

If the DLC still holds any pull at all on the national level (and I'm thinking with Dean in the driver's seat, they do not) then Hillary will be the nominee. If they do not (pleasegodplease), someone like Clark or Tom Warner or Brian Schweitzer (whom I truly hope does NOT run) might have a chance. The Dems need someone from outside the leadership core to be their candidate. And if Edwards gets the goddam nomination, I refuse to vote.

Posted by: Bobb at June 30, 2005 02:34 PM

"Maybe Osama is playing the misdirection card on Bush...."look, over there, in Iraq....look at all those terrorists. Go get 'em, boy, go get em."

Actually, it's Bush playing this game."

()

See, I don't know that Bush is playing that particular misdirection game. If you take this administration at their word (more the fool you, if you do) then they are pursuing Al Queada by staging their war in Iraq. But there's no good information as to how much of the unsurgent force is comprised of terrorists, and how much of it is just plain regular Iraqis fighting for their notion of country. But there's just enough Al Queada presence to make it seem like we're fighting against terrorists.

I think it's all a big feint, and Bush has totally fallen for it. Which is Very Bad News, because the purpose of a feint is to ennable you to strike at your enemy in a vulnerable location.

Or, I could be totally wrong, and Bush knows damn well there's little terrorist presence in Iraq, but doesn't care, because his goal all along was to destroy Saddam.

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 02:38 PM

Let's see. We knew Al Qaida was operating along the Afghan-Pakistan border where we already had our military in place, so let's invade another country hundreds of miles away and lure them there to take the fight to the terrorists.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Posted by: Bobb at June 30, 2005 02:41 PM

Den, maybe the terrorists didn't get Bush's invite?

You know, the one that said "Rumble, Iraq. Be there or be square. Losers."

Posted by: John Preston at June 30, 2005 02:43 PM

I would vote for Richard Lugar, the Republican Senator, in addition to McCain. Lugar's the smartest-sounding politician I've ever seen speak, more authoritative and genuine on policy than McCain or Clinton, who can be awfully good. After swinging the US over to support of Aquino after viewing elections in the Philipines, he was punished by the far right for attempting to put together similar support for change in South Africa, losing his senate chairmanship to Jesse Helms. In the '96 election he took out Phil Gramm (kind of a proto-Dick Cheney) by calling the Senator out on the character issues Gramm wished to apply against the Democrats. He was a mayor, and a farmer.

Alas, Lugar is too old to run now.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 30, 2005 02:43 PM

Not a shred of credible evidence has been found to support that there were any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq in March of 2003.

And just as important, it was Bush's claim that Saddam had them NOW and he would use them NOW.

Not 15-20 years ago when, as stated, some of his Administration worked for Reagan and Just Didn't Give A Damn.

As for a republican I would consider voting for in 2008, either McCain or Powell could earn my vote if they presented a plan for getting the Iraqi military back on its feet, or at least its knees, and enable them to secure their country for themselves.

I agree. However, I think Powell has lost not only alot of my respect (because he worked for Bush), but alot of respect from everybody because, well, he worked for Bush and he's the fall-guy that had to tell all the bs to the UN.

I tend to think he's less of a player than Zarchawi (sp?) at this point

Only because:
A) Zarqawi is in the center of the action in Iraq - where he wouldn't be at all if not for our invasion, btw.
B) The Administration has said that they no longer care about bin Laden.

Either way, by design or by sheer stupidity, our attention has been diverted away from bin Laden, who should have been and remained our #1 priority after 9/11.

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 02:48 PM

Was that the hidden meaning behind "Bring it on", Bobb?

Posted by: Paul1963 at June 30, 2005 02:49 PM

I would be delighted to see a Clark-vs-McCain election in 2008. Both of them have impressed me with their intelligence and their strength of character in the past.

Paul

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 02:51 PM

Dick Lugar is one of the few remaining "not John McCain" Republicans in Washington that still appears to have integrity. Chuck Hagel as well.

Posted by: James Carter at June 30, 2005 02:56 PM

"That, and her continued insistence that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea will hurt her on the left."

IMO, AN (stress an) invasion of Iraq to take down Saddam was a good thing. I mean, this guy is the first dictator since Pol Pot or Stalin who can really be compared to Hitler, what with the whole genocide thing. I think we did the right thing, for the wrong reasons (oil, revenge Daddy Bush) and that it is takin' way to freaking long. Pity, a competent guy could have gotten us out by now. Or at least in another year.

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 02:57 PM

Hmm, a Clark v. McCain race would be interesting. We could have two experienced and principled individuals seriously debating the issues facing the country without resorting to slanderous accusations about what each of them were doing 40 years ago or trying to paint each other as a dangerous radical that wants to destroy America from within.

The media would hate it.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 30, 2005 03:01 PM

Peter David: The absolute lowpoint was the following: "Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq." Am I the only one who finds this a hoot? What the hell has the world come to when we consider this: The credibility of the President of the United States is so non-existent, that if we won't take his word for it that the Iraq war was a necessary strike against terrorism, certainly we'll take the word of a murdering sociopath with the blood of three thousand Americans on his hands. Yes, that's right, kids: George W. Bush apparently believes that the words of Osama bin Laden have more street cred than his own.
Luigi Novi: I noticed that right as he said it. I noticed that if someone were to criticize him for alleging again that Iraq was involved in 9/11, an apologist could say that Bush didn’t say that, but merely that Iraq was a front in the war, thus evading the issue with vagueness. Similarly questionable was his citing bin Laden’s words, which does not, of course, prove that Iraq was connected to 9/11, but merely shows that bin Laden is responding to the war the Bush has brought to Iraq.

Posted by: BBayliss at June 30, 2005 03:04 PM

K-Nuck. What about George Voinovich?

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 03:05 PM

I don't think Saddam is the only dicator since Pol Pot to compare to Hitler. There have been others, starting with Milosovic, Qaddafi, Idi Amin, whoever was in charge of the genocide in Rowanda, etc.

The question though is, is it the job of the United States to decide which rulers are worthy to remain in power and which ones should be deposed? Furthermore, is it worth the price we're paying in lives and resources to do it? I say no to both.

Side note: I read today that experts are predicting gas will creep up to $3.00 a gallon soon. Gee, if we're going to go to war over oil, you'd think we should be getting a break at the pump by now. Maybe ExxonMobile will cut us in after the summer vacation season.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 03:12 PM

BB: If these assheads don't like him, then I figure he's someone I might like.

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/DailyFile/ad_targeting_voinovich/

Posted by: Peter David at June 30, 2005 03:14 PM

I'd vote for Arnold Vinick. Now, granted, he's a fictional candidate. Then again...aren't they all?

Seriously, I'd likewise consider either Powell or McCain, depending upon who the Democratic candidate was.

PAD

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 03:35 PM

I'd have to think long and hard about supporting Powell.

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 03:42 PM

While Powell did compromise himself by submitting to a badly planned out war, you have to keep in mind that he wasn't one of Bush II's military advisors. He was the Secretary of State and his job was purely diplomatic. Now, granted his efforts in that regard were stymied by things like Rummy sneering at "old Europe" but he did his best at a job that neocons have nothing but contempt for and tried to undermine at every turn. And he had the integrity to leave when it was clear that no one there was listening to him anyway.

I believe that if he were sitting in Oval Office, he'd be free to run things based on his personal convictions rather than just go along with the "agenda."

Posted by: spyderqueen at June 30, 2005 03:44 PM

Jordan D. White
I would also say that McCain looks like the best shot for winning my liberal vote as far as the republicans go.

Which is amusing because he's the closest thing to a true conservative we have left.


/damn Neo-cons ruining it for everyone

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 03:50 PM

http://www.dembloggers.com/

Wes Clark in his first appearance as a Fox analyst. And he does quite well.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 03:56 PM

Jordan: It seems that you are making the assumption that Democrats think true conservatism is a bad thing. I, for one, do not. McCain, Voinovich, Hagel, Lugar: all Goldwater Republicans, and all men I would vote for, given the opportunity.

Posted by: R. Maheras at June 30, 2005 04:07 PM

Okay, PAD, now that you have your rant out of your system, if you were sworn in as President of the United States tomorrow, what would YOU do about Iraq?

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 04:32 PM

PAD: “...Iraq was not a threat to the US.”

Long before the war started, America was maintaining a “no-fly” zone in Iraq that was being challenged repeatedly by Sadaam. Please explain to me how someone shooting missles at American pilots in American planes is not a threat. Do you hate our pilots that much?


PAD: “[Bush] managed to say "9/11" and "Saddam" in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”

Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror.


PAD: “ ‘Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: ‘This Third World War is raging’ in Iraq." Am I the only one who finds this a hoot?”

Yes. The whole war is just a gosh darn laugh riot!


PAD: “Karl Rove can try to shift blame to the Democrats all he wants.”

If you are referring to Rove’s recent speech, he mentioned LIBERALS, not Democrats. Are you admitting you are a liberal?


PAD: Most people can quote Lincoln: "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.’ Presto.”

This post, and others made by you, contain lies -- so I agree. You’ll never regain the respect and esteem of those who read the lies you post here. Abrakadabra.

P.S. BUSH SUCKS

Posted by: Herb at June 30, 2005 04:38 PM

"Foregoing the frontrunners on the Democratic side, would there be any Republican you'd consider voting for for president in 2008?"

McCain, in a heartbeat.

As for Karl Rove - did anyone else enjoy the "American Dad!" take on him as much as I did?

PAD: was is a coincidence that you and Priest basically posted the same article about an hour apart? ;)

Posted by: Jerry at June 30, 2005 04:50 PM

I could vote McCain. Maybe even Warner (we have two)from here in VA (it's about time we show all you other states, again, what makes a great Pres.)


Bill, I see the point you're making with the above points but would have to disagree. I don't think that the wording in that resolution really shows anything other then what Bush wanted in print at the time. I would point out from that time:

1) There was a lot of debate about the wording and the scope of power being given to Bush under this thing and a few others on the floor.

2) The first response of the Bush team, the R's that strongly supported it and of the conservative press (Fox, Rush, Savage, Etc.) was to attack the patriotism "in a time of war" of anyone who questioned it or objected to any part of what Bush wanted.

I would think that the quote you posted shows not that we had solid facts about Iraq, al Qaida and 9/11 but rather we had a large number of political cowards in office at the time. They should have stuck to their guns at the time and not caved to the threat of voter backlash. Many more of them would have a better leg to stand on now had they done so.

I loved Bush's "frontline" comment. How the hell does a mind like that work?

"The mess I made that wasn't a mess before of the nature that I made it now justifies why we needed to go in and make the mess in the first place to stop the mess we didn't have when I said we had the mess to clean up to prevent the mess that was ther but really wasn't."

You can't agrue with Bush. Back him into a corner and he just changes the concept of his entire POV on a dime. Doesn't seem to matter that it often is at odds with the POV he held seconds before.


Torture Questions?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm

Posted by: David K. M. Klaus at June 30, 2005 05:17 PM


Jason wrote:


> I wonder how soon there's going to come a
> time when a Republican leader might be
> able to unite the country again. Foregoing
> the frontrunners on the Democratic side,
> would there be any Republican you'd
> consider voting for for president in 2008?


Arnold Vinick.

Posted by: dave golbitz at June 30, 2005 05:20 PM

Thank you, Peter. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: Rob Staeger at June 30, 2005 05:43 PM

Allright, who farted?

Oh, my mistake. It's just more bullshit from X-ray.

Posted by: Mark Patterson at June 30, 2005 05:46 PM

Ah. I was wondering how long it would take X-Ray to show up. (I lost...I had him showing up by response #20...who had #63 in the pool?)


Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 05:52 PM

I did! I did!

Ok, actually, I didn't. I had him in the 40's, but I figured it was worth a shot.

Posted by: Chris Grillo at June 30, 2005 06:00 PM

Allright, who farted?

Oh, my mistake. It's just more bullshit from X-ray.

This time his post was decent and a little less derogatory. Anyone care to debate his points and see if his responses continue in this vein?

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 06:14 PM

"PAD: “...Iraq was not a threat to the US.”

Long before the war started, America was maintaining a “no-fly” zone in Iraq that was being challenged repeatedly by Sadaam. Please explain to me how someone shooting missles at American pilots in American planes is not a threat. Do you hate our pilots that much?"

Huh. Iraqi nationals shooting at planes that they feel are violating their national airspace. Hard to figure that one. And was that a threat to America? No. It was a threat to the pilots.

There, I took the easy one.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 30, 2005 06:15 PM

How the hell does a mind like that work?

I dunno, but I'm sure medical experts are just as stumped. ;)

Posted by: James Carter at June 30, 2005 06:24 PM

"If you are referring to Rove’s recent speech, he mentioned LIBERALS, not Democrats. Are you admitting you are a liberal?"

Most liberals are Democrats, and many Democrats are Liberal. Many people consider them almost interchangeable. And what in heaven's name is wrong with being liberal?

"Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror."

Mr. David agrees. Bush never has come right out and said it. He has insinuated it though. Many times. And one of the worst traits of humanity is that we tend to believe insinuations. It is morally deplorable to insinuate that Iraq was helping the terrorists. There is no link, and to hint at one is simply attempting to mislead the people. Presidents who try that don't do so hot. ever hear of Nixon?

On another note, I compliment you on your polite response, and actually adressing issues. If all of your posts are like the first two-thirds of this one (well maybe a little more polite) you will soon be a welcome member of this little community.

Anyone want the ones on Osama or PAD?

Posted by: TheOtherBlogger at June 30, 2005 06:33 PM

Seriously, I'd likewise consider either Powell or McCain, depending upon who the Democratic candidate was.

I voted for McCain in the Republican primary in 2000. However, there's no way he'll win the nomination in 2008. He's alienated the base of the party by being part of the "Gang of 14" that kept the "nuclear option" from being used on judicial nominations. He's alienated the libertarian wing of the party with his spearheading campaign finance reform. It's earned him a great reputation for being the "maverick", but he's got trust issues with both sides of the party.

Also, given PAD's passion for free speech issues, I'm surprised he'd support McCain for much of anything. :)

Posted by: BrakYeller at June 30, 2005 06:54 PM

I think a lot of McCain's appeal to Democrats comes from the fact that, while I may disagree with him on some political issues, he's offering up real arguments rather than vague assertions to back his positions. There's a recognizable strength of character to him, something sorely lacking in Bush II (anyone notice how, during the majority of his speech earlier this week, he had this look on his face that said "I know I'm feeding you bullshit, but would you please believe it, anyway? Pretty please?" Man, how I'd love to play him in a poker game...).

McCain's record, strength of character, and the notion that he wouldn't rush to mudslinging as quickly as the rest of the Republican noms of 2000 did are some of the reasons I cast my ballot for him, before 'coronation politics' gave the nom to Bush II. It's a shame this nation continually slaps away any attempt to front a genuine 'uniter' of a candidate, preferring to remain insular and polarized.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 06:55 PM

"Huh. Iraqi nationals shooting at planes that they feel are violating their national airspace. Hard to figure that one.

Huh. Violating a treaty they signed at the end of the first Gulf War. Hard to figure that one.

And was that a threat to America? No. It was a threat to the pilots."

Exactly! It was THEIR fault for flying in those stupid planes with our stupid flag on them!

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 06:58 PM

By the way, all you McCain lovers, if he ever WAS elected, you'd discover to your horror that he's just as conservative as Bush, who he supported in the last election. Wow, your big hero McCain must be really stupid to have supported the evil Bush-Hitler.

As we all know ....

BUSH SUCKS.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 07:05 PM

"Exactly! It was THEIR fault for flying in those stupid planes with our stupid flag on them!"

Not the point. It wasn't a threat to America. It was a threat to the pilots.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 07:05 PM

Bush never has come right out and said it. He has insinuated it though. Many times ... There is no link, and to hint at one is simply attempting to mislead the people.

If you're done making up stuff, here's what Bush actually said, and years ago:

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

-- Geogre W. Bush, September 18, 2003

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

(I'll be waiting for you all to apologize.)

Posted by: Robert Fuller at June 30, 2005 07:06 PM

What is it with conservatives and so-called "liberal lies"? They're so concerned with lying that they mistake statements of opinion and belief as lies. How exactly does Peter lie, I wonder?

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 07:07 PM

"Not the point. It wasn't a threat to America. It was a threat to the pilots."
--------

A threat to American pilots flying American planes on an American mission (even if you personally don't approve of that mission) IS a threat to America.

Please come back when you understand how the defense system of this country works.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 07:10 PM

How exactly does Peter lie, I wonder?

I'll explain it again....

PAD said: “...Iraq was not a threat to the US.”

Yet long before the war started, America was maintaining a “no-fly” zone in Iraq that was being challenged repeatedly by Sadaam. Shooting missles at American pilots in American planes IS a threat. Therein lies the lie.

PAD also said: “[Bush] managed to say "9/11" and "Saddam" in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”

But Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror. Therein lies the lie.

Understand now?

Posted by: Michael Brunner at June 30, 2005 07:28 PM

http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/

Posted by: Deano at June 30, 2005 07:34 PM

Havent read everyone's posts but i will try to hit the highlights.
Who would I vote for
McCain,Powell (with reservations ).My ideal candidate David Palmer from 24.The man takes no crap,is educated,well spoken ,thinks before he acts and can help save the world in 24 hours.
Ya know I would even consider Lex Luthor,I mean hey stem cell research would be funded under him and probably perfected.
While Bush may or may not have connected 9/11 and Iraq it was definitely implied and Cheney kept doing his "we know stuff you dont that we cant reveal so you cant prove us wrong "tactic.
Question :Why is it we dont care about Osama anymore??More to the point what was that about a week ago where we know where he is but dont want to go into Pakistan to get him because we dont want to upset them???I mean what happened to wanted dead or alive Pardner?

Posted by: Peter David at June 30, 2005 07:35 PM

"Okay, PAD, now that you have your rant out of your system, if you were sworn in as President of the United States tomorrow, what would YOU do about Iraq?"

Gather an assortment of the best non-Neocon minds the country has to offer, sit down in a large room with them, and say, "Give me the best scenario as to how to get America the hell out of there within twelve months."

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at June 30, 2005 07:37 PM

Owsley...sorry, Priest...posted the same concept? I had no idea. Who posted it first?

PAD

PS--Guys...why bother responding to the sucker?

Posted by: Charlie Griefer at June 30, 2005 08:07 PM

>sigh

while i'm sure it won't take me long to regret responding to the troll...


PAD also said: “[Bush] managed to say "9/11" and "Saddam" in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”

But Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror. Therein lies the lie.

I fail to see where PAD said that Bush said that. PAD said that Bush mentioned "9/11" and "Saddam" many times in the same breath...but nowhere (that I can find) does he say that Bush ever said the two were directly linked.

So sorry, I don't understand now. Would you care to show the actual quote where Peter explicitly stated that Bush said that? Or would you just like to go ahead and attack me?

Posted by: Charlie Griefer at June 30, 2005 08:09 PM

whoops...there should have been 2 italicized lines in my post above.

for the sake of clarity:


PAD also said: “[Bush] managed to say "9/11" and "Saddam" in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”

But Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror. Therein lies the lie.

I fail to see where PAD said that Bush said that. PAD said that Bush mentioned "9/11" and "Saddam" many times in the same breath...but nowhere (that I can find) does he say that Bush ever said the two were directly linked.

So sorry, I don't understand now. Would you care to show the actual quote where Peter explicitly stated that Bush said that? Or would you just like to go ahead and attack me?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 30, 2005 08:35 PM

Hillary will get her ass handed to her. I have nothing but admiration for her, but the level of hatred directed at her by most of the right (and a chunk of middle America) is unbelievable. That, and her continued insistence that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea will hurt her on the left. Badly.

I really disagree, at least with the latter argument. Hillary is beloved by most of those on the left--it's no accident that she can raise more money in a weekend than most candidates can raise in a month. How can she be beaten? By someone being MORE to the left than she is perceived to be? By being a Lieberman type? Barring something unforeseen, I don't see how the nomination can be denied her, assuming she runs.

I also think that she is not at all as unelectable as you do but an awful lot of democrats i know think she is so I may be wrong about that...but I don't see much evidence to support it. It just seems to be a feeling they have. It may well be that this will work to her advantage, set the expectations low so that when she polls better than expected she will get a huge boost.

Update: Rick Santorum still hasn't apologized for comparing the filibuster to Hitler's invasion of France.

Didn't we already go over this? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-20-filibuster_x.htm?csp=34. He apologized back in May.

Stop saying that about Santorum. I think he's an idiot and would prefer not to keep defending him. The guy says something stupid every 3 or 4 days, there should be plenty of legit material to use.

Personally, I would like to see General Wesley Clark run. I think he would stand a decent chance of getting some red votes.

I didn't think he was too impressive last time but he is pretty smart and may well have learned a lot from the experience. Possible VP candidate with Hillary? Might negate the "a woman candidate is soft on defense" issue (although Hillary all by herself should negate that idea).

Also, as for him shipping them out of the country, we're supposed to believe that he stockpiled these weapons to use against us, and then shipped them away when we massed on his borders to invade.

Not that I think the scenario likely but we ARE talking about the military genius who shipped much of his air force to his hated enemy Iran and buried some of the rest (rendering them useless). Hannibal he ain't.

I find some of the support for McCain and Powell surprising. If Bush truly "lied" about Iraq it was Powell who was usually the mouthpiece. And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he'd be just considered another "Neocon".

Posted by: Herb at June 30, 2005 08:41 PM

"Priest...posted the same concept? I had no idea. Who posted it first?"

The timestamp on Priest's article is 12:16 PM, but I don't know if that's relevant to my timezone (EDT) or his (MDT?). All I know is that they both hit my RSS reader at the same time. ;)

Posted by: Allen Smith at June 30, 2005 08:47 PM

So, let me get this straight, X-Ray: it makes more sense for American soldiers to be killed every day, almost 1800 now, as a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq, then it does to have occasional shots fired at jets flying in the no-fly zone in Iraq? When the terrorists who attacked the US were in Afghanistan? Bush's dad, who is a lot smarter than G. W. Bush, declined to go into Iraq even though there was just as much reason to do so as now. The reason the elder Bush didn't go into Iraq is that he didn't see a way out. Bush Jr., a failure at everything until he was elected governor, just wanted to one-up daddy.

Posted by: Jerry at June 30, 2005 08:52 PM

A few highlights (or lowlights) covering the names of the adminastration people who spun to create a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Plus a few extra Bush lies thrown in to round out the meal.


CBS Evening News September 4, 2002. David Martin reported:

"Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."


November 1, 2002:

"After first exaggerating and then downplaying allegations of a supposed partnership between al Qaeda and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Bush and other administration officials--including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer--are again claiming that there is a link between Hussein and al Qaeda. But, intelligence officials have not yet found any proof to back these allegations, despite efforts to do so, according to the Washington Post. Former CIA agents say that there is no evidence a "partnership" emerged from known contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi officials in the 1990s. Bush has also tried to galvanize support for a war against Iraq by charging that Hussein's government offered medical treatment to a senior al-Qaeda leader. However, intercepted telephone communications "did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.""


Washington Post Monday 29 September

"Cheney brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February."

When Bush announced the end of hostilities in Iraq in his May 1 photo op aboard the USS Lincoln, he said of the defeated Iraqi regime: "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda." While a Saddam Hussein/Osama bin Laden connection was one of the administration's early justifications for going to war, it has produced no evidence to demonstrate any true links existed.


June 15, 2003 edition of NBC's Meet the Press: Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks.

From the transcript:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

"For Bush, Facts Are Malleable" (10/22/02)

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank noted two dubious Bush claims about Iraq: his citing of a United Nations International Atomic Energy report alleging that Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon; and that Iraq maintained a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used, in Bush's words, "for missions targeting the United States."

These assertions they were dubious, if not outrigt wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to even come close to reaching the United States and that there was no such report by the IAEA.

Bush had Powell and others play heavily on the disclosure of Iraq's pre-war unconventional weapons programs by defector Hussein Kamel to support the claim that Iraq was just floating in WMDs. Funny, but he failed to tell anyone to point out that Kamel had also said that all those weapons had been destroyed.


Bushes Pre-War (by days) speach:
George W. Bush, March 17:


"Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."

March 18, New York Times:
"Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out" by Michael Gordon.

"Even if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, as President Bush demanded, allied forces plan to move north into Iraqi territory, American officials said today."


Bush lies. And in Texas, they tell 'em bigger.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at June 30, 2005 09:03 PM

Here's Bush's statements about timetables:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

Very different from what he says today. You know what this means?

HE'S A FLIP-FLOPPER !!!

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at June 30, 2005 09:08 PM

"And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he'd be just considered another 'Neocon'."

Except that neo-cons are called that because they are anything but "conservative". Their worldview and plans tend to be radical indeed, calling for massive government intervention in private lives, and the use of the US military to engender social change overseas (you know, exactly the sort of thing Clinton was excoriated for in Kosovo). In what wise, for instance, could the invasion of Iraq be considered conservative? It was a radical rethinking of what our armed forces should do - a proper conservative would have used them only to attack someone who had attacked our nation first (remember Afghanistan, and the Taliban "government"'s endorsement of that bin Laden fella?).

I don't know that I'd agree with much of McCain's personal philosophies, but at least I could be pretty sure he wouldn't want to amend the Constitution to enshrine his particular prejudices in unassailable law...

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 09:14 PM

"A threat to American pilots flying American planes on an American mission (even if you personally don't approve of that mission) IS a threat to America."

Few problems with that statement:

1) This was actually a joint NATO mission involving the US, France and the UK (WHAT?!?!?! FRANCE?!?!?!? Those froggy bastard traitors!).

2) Military missions over hostile territory involve an assumption of getting fucking shot at. It's a no-fly zone, not a no-shoot zone. The no-fly zone was intended to protect the Kurds from Iraqi airstrikes, not to prevent the Iraqi military from protecting what they felt was their sovereign territory.

Get back to me when you understand the concept of a military.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 09:16 PM

Bush lies. And in Texas, they tell 'em bigger.

The CBS Evening News and NY Times are proven liars (Jayson Blair/Rathergate), and "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem," then they cannot be believed ever again! Right? Or does that only apply to the evil Bush-Hitler?

If he's such a LAIR, then why not post a Bush "lie" that's NOT based on "reporting" from the untrustworthy CBS Evening News and NY Times?

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 09:20 PM

This was actually a joint NATO mission involving the US, France and the UK

So what?

Military missions over hostile territory involve an assumption of getting fucking shot at.

Just because they involve an "assumption of getting fucking shot" doesn't mean we should simply accept it when our planes ARE attacked. It's called fighting back.

Get back to me when you understand the concept of anything.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 09:22 PM

PAD: "Gather an assortment of the best non-Neocon minds the country has to offer, sit down in a large room with them, and say, "Give me the best scenario as to how to get America the hell out of there within twelve months."
---------

Like most current Democrats, Peter David has no solutions of his own whatsoever.

All he knows is that the other side SUCKS!

No matter what they're doing, they just SUCK!

Classic. Also funny.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 09:29 PM

'Just because they involve an "assumption of getting fucking shot" doesn't mean we should simply accept it when our planes ARE attacked. It's called fighting back.'

Ah. Kind of like what the Iraqi's were doing, no?

You're fun, X-Ray. Kind of like a puppy. That likes to get kicked.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 09:29 PM

"So what?"

You implied that it was solely an American mission. You lied.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at June 30, 2005 09:30 PM

Like most current Democrats, Peter David has no solutions of his own whatsoever.

1) It's more of a plan than bush has

2) Do YOU have a solution?

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 09:32 PM

'Just because they involve an "assumption of getting fucking shot" doesn't mean we should simply accept it when our planes ARE attacked. It's called fighting back.'

And you're right. If the Americans were getting shot at, they had all the right in the world to shoot back. Invading the country (again) and under false pretenses this time is a completely different issue. Iraq shooting at American planes is not a threat to American domestic security. It may be constituted a threat to American military security in the Middle East, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 09:33 PM

NOTHING is a plan?

I support Bush, that's my plan.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at June 30, 2005 09:40 PM

Bill said:

"I find some of the support for McCain and Powell surprising. If Bush truly "lied" about Iraq it was Powell who was usually the mouthpiece. And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he'd be just considered another "Neocon"."

I also think of McCain - not necessarily as a Republican whom I could vote for for president, but at least as one I could live with, and perhaps even like as president. Speaking for myself at least, and perhaps explaining some of the others' thoughts ....

John McCain is one of the very few (VERY few) Republicans (as in "elected officials/leaders," not "people registered in the party") whom I actually respect. (For the record, the Democrat list dwindles these days, too ....) He actually seems as though he has integrity, principals to which he adheres - though he did admit to caving and allowing negative campaigning in one of his state primaries against Bush. But, he apologized for it, admiting that it was a mistake, and one which he regretted - unlike many modern Republicans, who seem to revel in smear campaigns. And, also unlike much of the Republican heirarchy, he doesn't seem as though he'd be in it just for the power. Granted, one has to have great ambition and even ego to want to be President of the United States, but unlike some candidates - from both parties, I'm willing to concede - he doesn't seem as though he would want to be President just to ensure the reign of his party over the country.

However, between the remarks about his conservatism, and the fact that EVERY Democrat or Democrat-leaning person on here (since the question was "whom from the opposite party could you vote for ...", I'm making this assuption of the "McCain" people) seems to come up with McCain, I do start to wonder. Has McCain been mentioned so many times as an acceptable candidate/admirable Republican that we just think "he must be okay," without thoroughly thinking it through for oursleves? I would have to thoroughly investigate McCain's stance on issues important to me if I ever considered voting for him; and, honestly, a Democratic candidate would probably have to be incompetant, holding several stances in opposition to my beliefs, and/or evil, and his/her Republican opponent would have to be an excellent candidate, in agreement with me on all important issues, and thoroughly out from the thumb of the far right and ultra-evangelical wings of their party for me to even consider voting for a Republican presidential candidate, based on my perception of the agenda, ideology, and spirit of the modern Republican Party leadership.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 09:42 PM

All I can say is that I hope no one ever attacks someone near and dear to you people.

What if someone attacked your mother?

While she was screaming, you'd be giving a monologue on how we must understand the attacker's motivations.

And as she bled to death, you'd be calling for restraint in dealing with the person who beat your mother to death.

Later, you'd blame someone else for not protecting her, and curse evil America for letting it happen.

Posted by: Brin Peters at June 30, 2005 09:42 PM

As to the quesiton which Republican could you vote for. As a person living in Indiana, Lugar would be a no. The guy has been no help to this state in years and he helped get a non-resident elected governor. Yes our governor did not have any residence in IN until after he was elected an no one decided to question him on it or stop him from running.

McCain I would have had no problem voting for before 2002, now though he suffers from the same thing as Powell in my opinion. They have bent over and taken it up the rear from Bush, selling out their integrity and intelligence in supporting Bush. Rove is the one who started all types of malicious rumors during the 2000 race on McCain like he was gay and whatever else. And since then McCain has been nothing more than a whore for their machine.

Powell the same way, I don't care if he stood up for sense behind the scenes, he still went in front of the world and lied willingly.

Maybe if Rudy ran I'd vote for him, but he's made a few comments that make me even question him.

Posted by: Deano at June 30, 2005 09:52 PM

"The CBS Evening News and NY Times are proven liars (Jayson Blair/Rathergate),"
Unlike Fox News who always tells the truth!
(thats sarcasm for those playing at home)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 30, 2005 09:54 PM

Lest we forget that it wasn't Iraq that attacked us on 9/11, here's something else that will make X-Ray pissy and cause him to change subjects once again (since, you know, he does that every time he's proven wrong):

We learned a lesson September the 11th, and that is, our nation is vulnerable to attack. The best way to secure America is to get the enemy before they get us, and that's what's happening in Iraq.
-- Bush from Crawford, Texas, Aug. 8, 2003

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 30, 2005 10:03 PM

He actually seems as though he has integrity, principals to which he adheres -

Not that it did him alot of good (or Kerry for that matter), but he's a former member of the military. That can do alot for you if you don't go and do something stupid.

I still can't believe the total disregard and disrespect that some Republicans have shown (and gotten away with) toward those such as McCain and Kerry, regardless of what their records show.

Because, at the very least, these guys actually served their county, in a war, overseas.

Unlike that lot in the Bush Administration.

So, I think that's perhaps one major reason why I would give thumbs up to McCain or Powell.

Posted by: JamesLynch at June 30, 2005 10:12 PM

This is a desperate tactic by Bush, replacing facts (no exit plan, mission far from accomplished) with an appeal to the sentiment of 9/11 (which happened on Bush's watch, BTW) while ignoring the numerous probes that found no link between Hussein and Bin Laden. (Just like before, Bush's people made sure Bush doesn't directly connect them but uses both in as many sentences as possible, so people remember "Iraq... Bin Laden; Iraq... Bin Laden"). So when this appeal fails, as polls already show it failing, the next step is...

GAY MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS WANT TROOPS BACK FROM IRAQ

Under mounting pressure to declare a timetable for leaving Iraq, and increasing American casualties, President Bush stated that only gay marriage supporters want to leave Iraq. "Our soldiers have been fighting bravely, effectively, and heterosexually," said Bush, "and these corrupters of family values want the soldiers back stateside to have their wicked way with them. We must remain in Iraq to protect the country, and protect the asses of our brave men and women (mainly men) from those who would destroy family values, weaken the sacred institution of marriage, and attack this Christian nation (thereisnosuchthingasaseparationofchurchandstate). Remember: Every time a soldier takes it in the ass, the terrorists win. God bless, and good night."

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 10:12 PM

Unlike Fox News who always tells the truth!
(thats sarcasm for those playing at home)

Those playing at home would like you to site a SPECIFIC instance of Fox News telling a lie.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 10:15 PM

"here's something else that will make X-Ray pissy and cause him to change subjects once again ... 'We learned a lesson September the 11th, and that is, our nation is vulnerable to attack. The best way to secure America is to get the enemy before they get us, and that's what's happening in Iraq.' -- Bush"

Why should that make me pissy?

Sadaam WAS an enemy of this country, and he SHOULD have been overthrown.

>>>>>dramatic lightining flash

Posted by: Jerry at June 30, 2005 10:15 PM

Bush promises new evidence on Iraq
President adds to case against Saddam, outlines domestic plans

By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2003 - President Bush promised to reveal new evidence about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s intransigence Tuesday night as he sought to strike a delicate balance in his State of the Union address between Saddam’s “utter contempt” for world opinion and the public’s unease over the stagnant economy.

......

And finally, he said, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida.”

***************************************

Rewriting History
In his debate with John Edwards, Dick Cheney had a brand-new version of the events that led to war

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 4:32 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004

Cheney’s claims about an “established relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda were always a principal part of the administration’s case for war, cited by Powell at the United Nations and, most forcefully, by Cheney in numerous speeches and TV interviews before and after the invasion. But it is also a contention that has been seriously undermined by a series of recent U.S. government reports, including the September 11 Commission report, which concluded there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Another is a recent CIA analysis, disclosed for the first time this week, raising questions about whether Jordanian terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, had been harbored by Saddam’s regime before the war.

Cheney said last night that Zarqawi, who once ran a terror camp in Afghanistan with loose links to Al Qaeda, had “migrated to Baghdad” after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and “set up shop” there, overseeing a “poisons facility” at Kurmal, in northern Iraq.

In fact, U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi went first to Iran—a country that many officials have long believed had far more consequential relationships with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, than Saddam’s regime. And while the new CIA report confirms that Zarqawi unquestionably did later move to Baghdad—and received medical treatment there before the war— there is still no hard evidence on whether he was being supported or assisted by Saddam’s regime.


***********************************************

Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties.
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
*********************************************

Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 6:06 PM EDT (2206 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.


"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, but the nature and extent of those contacts is a matter of dispute.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."
*************************************************

Rice: Iraq Providing Shelter, Chemical Weapons Help to Al Qaeda
Thursday, September 26, 2002
Fox News:

WASHINGTON — President Bush's national security adviser has alleged a connection between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terror master Usama bin Laden that many had thought impossible to back up.

And Condoleezza Rice also insisted she could back up her assertion with proof.

Rice on Wednesday accused Saddam's regime of sheltering members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network in Baghdad and helping bin Laden's operatives in developing chemical weapons
************************************************

BBC News, March 19, 2002; "US says Iraq linked to al-Qaeda:

We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time," Rice said.
**************************************************
And Bush sends somebody else out to fall on the sword for him......

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says
Chief weapons inspector reportedly about to quit

NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:11 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2004
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

Powell, speaking at a news conference at the State Department, stressed that he was still certain that Iraq had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force, and he sharply disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.
*************************************************

I think that about covers it and then some. My last post on the subject before I get kicked off for overloading the server. :)

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 10:21 PM

That covers exactly nothing.

I hate to ask you to use your OWN brain, but would you mind simply expressing, briefly, what the hell you are trying to say?

Don't bother, let me do it FOR you...

BUSH SUCKS!

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 10:26 PM

*************************************************
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:11 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2004
WASHINGTON - "Jerry" admitted today that he lives in fear of being thrown off the internet for violating international law. Jerry likes to half-quote people, and to invent half-truths. "I think that about covers it and then some," Jerry agrees. Jerry promises his recent rant is his "last post on the subject before I get kicked off." BUSH SUCKS!!
*************************************************
*************************************************

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 10:27 PM

Didn't we already go over this? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-20-filibuster_x.htm?csp=34. He apologized back in May.

"I meant no offense." You call that an apology? Bullshit. You know what's missing from his "apology"? Words like "sorry."

Stop saying that about Santorum. I think he's an idiot and would prefer not to keep defending him.

Then stop defending him.


The guy says something stupid every 3 or 4 days, there should be plenty of legit material to use.

Hey, I have to live with this asshole representing me in the Senate, which is now doubly bad what with Specter having one foot in the grave. I'm not going to let up until Casey Jr. kicks his ass in 2006.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 10:31 PM

"I support Bush, that's my plan."

Well, that's turned out swimmingly so far...

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 10:32 PM

And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he'd be just considered another 'Neocon'.

No, McCain is a real conservative who actually believes in a balanced budget, unlike neocons like Karl "deficits don't matter" Rove. I don't agree with everything McCain believes in, but I get the impression that he says that he believes. And when he works on a problem, he puts concrete ideas on the table instead of vague talk like "I think about Iraq everyday." Gee, I'm glad you think about it.

Posted by: Jerry at June 30, 2005 10:43 PM

"PAD also said: “[Bush] managed to say "9/11" and "Saddam" in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked.”

But Bush has never said the two were directly linked, except that they were both fronts in the war on terror. Therein lies the lie."
**************************************
"If he's such a LAIR, then why not post a Bush "lie" that's NOT based on "reporting" from the untrustworthy CBS Evening News and NY Times?"


Your statements, X. Now you have two posts full of Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. saying, in their on words, everything they could to link Saddam, Iraq, 9/11 and Bin Laden into one lump for the American people. And sited sources that even include Fox News. But, when faced with facts, you change your stand as fast as Bush, shut your eyes to the facts and dodge the issue at hand.

To continue to argue the point that Bush and crew did not do this and to continue to call PAD or any of us liars for pointing out a fact shows only that you are and idiot or a liar. Or maybe both.


PAD:

"PS--Guys...why bother responding to the sucker?"

Sorry. Went a whole week on the "no feeding the troll" rule. I got weak. I guess I just have a soft spot for dumb animals and the braindead. I'll see if I can go for at least two weeks this time but they're just so damned cute when they look up at you from the blog with those brainless but sure of themselves looks in their eyes. You just wanna throw 'em a crumb and watch 'em run headfirst into the wall. Oh well.


Posted by: John at June 30, 2005 10:45 PM

Those Democrats who think Hillary is unelectable are probably the same Democrats who thought Dean was unelectable, and felt Kerry was a better choice. A lot of moderate Republicans I've talked to actually respected Dean, and might have considered voting for him as opposed to Kerry. Passion means a lot to people. In some ways, to some voters, it doesn't matter what the candidate believes, as long as it sounds like they truly believe it, and aren't just saying what the polls tell them to say.

Hillary will get out the LIberal vote. Those who hate her with a passion are mostly conservatives who wouldn't be voting for her anyway.

I suspect the hatred of Bush among Liberals is no different than the hatred of Hillary among Conservatives. But Bush still won.

The key will be the moderates. The fact that Hillary supports the war in Iraq won't lose the Liberals. (Who are they going to vote for? Don't tell me Nader. Not after suffering 8 years of Bush.) It might get her a few moderates.

Posted by: BrakYeller at June 30, 2005 10:52 PM

I think I've figured it out... bear with me... our new thickheaded friend is secretly W. himself, trolling on the internet.

Think about it: when confronted with evidence, he either prevaricates, streches the truth to encompass his terms, or ignores it completely. When asked a direct question, he answers with a complete dodge or a condescending remark. And he's clearly mastered the "I know you are but what am I" school of 'debate', such as it is.

Seriously, gang, why are any of you wasting your time with this windbag? There's no chance in hell you'll change his mind, an even smaller chance that he'll change any of your minds, and he's yet to bring anything substantive to any discussion on any thread (unless you consider namecalling, clouding the issue, or belittling remarks 'substantive'). He's not open to anything anyone has to say except for what comes out of his own mouth, and it seems clear to me that he's only here to stir the pot to his own ends. Why bother sinking to his level?

I mean, outside the whole 'kicking a puppy' thing, what's the appeal?

Posted by: David Bjorlin at June 30, 2005 10:57 PM

PAD wrote: I'd vote for Arnold Vinick. Now, granted, he's a fictional candidate. Then again...aren't they all?

By the same token, if there were real Jed Bartletts running the opposition, I would be a Democrat.

Seriously, I'd likewise consider either Powell or McCain, depending upon who the Democratic candidate was.

Bush was actually my third choice in 2000-- I preferred Liddy Dole and John McCain. (What I really wanted was a Dole-Powell ticket and for the Dems to run two southern white guys again. I think it would have been amusing.) Unfortunately I tend not to really have a choice to make after about February of each election year, because the few Democrats I actually admire crash and burn -- Tsongas, Lieberman-- and by the time North Carolina's primary rolls around, my vote is moot anyway. By the time the general electoin rolls around, I'm usually left with a Democrat I can't stand and a Republican whom I didn't get to help pick, but whose views match mine better than any Democrat to win a nomination in my lifetime. That's still enough for me to have a strong preference, but it's suboptimal.

Posted by: BrakYeller at June 30, 2005 10:59 PM

Bill M: "And McCain is very very conservative. If he were anyone else I think he'd be just considered another 'Neocon'."

Like Den says, "I don't agree with everything McCain believes in, but I get the impression that he says that he believes." Sure, McCain is very conservative. To my mind, he's more of a paleoconservative, which while being enough of a different political stripe than mine to count, is still a hell of a lot closer to my political views than any of the neocons currently running things.

Plus, there's the whole "he actually served in 'Nam, and got paid for his troubles by ending up a P.O.W." thing. A far cry from Bush II's 'military service,' I might point out. If anybody has a right to the cowboy machismo agenda that Bush is trying to push, it's McCain. Hell, McCain may have pushed us to Iraq, too, but I'd bet real money he would've had a bona-fide exit strategy in place before committing the country to that path. I'd also be willing to bet he wouldn't be as mamby-pamby-mushmouthed as Bush is being about it, either.

Posted by: James Carter at June 30, 2005 11:06 PM

TO THE TROLL KNOW AS X-RAY:

Here is what Gonzo has to say about your precious war:

"If we get chased out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, that will be the fifth consecutive Third-world country with no hint of a Navy or an Air Force to have whipped us in the past 40 years." Hunter Thompson

"It is hard to ignore the prima facie dumbness that got us bogged down in this nasty war in the first place. This is not going to be like Daddy's War, old sport. He actually won, and he still got run out of the White House nine months later.. . The whole thing sucks. It was wrong from the start, and it is getting wronger by the hour."

so true.

Posted by: indestructibleman at June 30, 2005 11:08 PM

i'd like to point out, to anyone with liberal or even moderate tendencies who would consider voting for McCain, that in a 1999 interview he stated that he'd like to see Scalia as Chief Justice.

the guy has more integrity than 95% of politicians, but i couldn't vote for him unless the opposition was truly awful.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 11:09 PM

"Those Democrats who think Hillary is unelectable are probably the same Democrats who thought Dean was unelectable, and felt Kerry was a better choice. A lot of moderate Republicans I've talked to actually respected Dean, and might have considered voting for him as opposed to Kerry. Passion means a lot to people. In some ways, to some voters, it doesn't matter what the candidate believes, as long as it sounds like they truly believe it, and aren't just saying what the polls tell them to say.

Hillary will get out the LIberal vote. Those who hate her with a passion are mostly conservatives who wouldn't be voting for her anyway. "

You (to quote GW) misunderestimate the raw hatred that is still out there for Hillary amongst not just the right, but in the center as well. Not the political junkie center, but the center that only pays cursory attention to politics and only has memories of Hillary being too vocal as first lady, and Bill playing hide the salami with way too many unattractive broads.

I think Hillary is a great candidate, but you also underestimate some of the hatred for her on the left as well. Remember she was, and is, a very vocal supporter of the war in Iraq. She lost a lot of liberals that were already disenchanted with the Clinton adminstration once she did that.

I thought Dean was unelectable simply because he didn't have the charisma to appeal to middle America. I liked his willingness to kick the shit out of anyone and everyone, but I can see how that wouldn't appeal to some. That said, I would have FAR preferred him as a candidate over Kerry.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 11:10 PM

"If we get chased out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, that will be the fifth consecutive Third-world country with no hint of a Navy or an Air Force to have whipped us in the past 40 years." -Hunter Thompson

James, that's not true. We kicked total ass in Grenada...

Posted by: BrakYeller at June 30, 2005 11:12 PM

Hey! You forgot Panama!

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 30, 2005 11:13 PM

"I meant no offense." You call that an apology? Bullshit. You know what's missing from his "apology"? Words like "sorry."
I agree it's a piss poor apology but that's pretty much what passes for apologies these days. Durbin's was equally pathetic but I think people should just accept it and move on and if it was good enough for Durbin it's good enough for Santorum. Jeeze, THERE would be a choice from hell, imagine if those two idiots ran.

Stop saying that about Santorum. I think he's an idiot and would prefer not to keep defending him.

Then stop defending him.

Um, no. At least not from what I see as unfair attacks, which only serve to weaken the EFFECTIVE attacks against him. I'll be glad to see Santorum removed from the Senate and the leadership of the REpublicans, so I'd rather not see the Democrats blow it. Again.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 11:17 PM

Here's a fun little example of Fox lying. Is it a big lie? Not really. But it's like the old saw regarding "a thousand tiny cuts..." This is off a very pro-liberal website, so I'll just get that out in the open.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410070008

"Hume defended Cheney with lie about Kerry weapons-system cuts

FOX News Channel managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume bolstered a deceptive Bush-Cheney '04 campaign attack on Senator John Kerry's voting record on military spending by drawing a false distinction between Kerry's Senate votes to cut military spending and Vice President Dick Cheney's proposals to cut spending during his time as President George H.W. Bush's defense secretary. Hume claimed that while Kerry voted for cuts during the Cold War, Cheney proposed similar cuts only "at a much later stage" after "the Berlin Wall had fallen and the world was a different place." In fact, the votes that Republicans have used to malign Kerry's voting record (often misleadingly and with the assistance of conservative pundits, as Media Matters for America has documented) occurred after the Cold War ended, and during or after Cheney's tenure as defense secretary.

On the October 6 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio national political correspondent and FOX News Channel political contributor Mara Liasson questioned the effectiveness of President George W. Bush attacking Kerry's voting record on military spending. She suggested that to fend off attacks, Kerry can point out that "when Cheney was the secretary of defense, he wanted to cut some of the same systems." Hume suggested a possible Cheney response, but his proposed response was false:

LIASSON: I think the "global test" is potentially much more damaging to Kerry than the record in the Senate ... for which he's had plenty of time to come up with an answer about -- he can say that when Cheney was the secretary of defense, he wanted to cut some of the same systems.

[...]

HUME: Yes. But that -- Cheney, I suppose, would argue with that, "Look, that was at a much later stage. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the world was a different place."

As Media Matters for America has previously explained, the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign's claims (for example, in a February 22 Republican National Committee research brief and a Bush-Cheney '04 television ad released April 26) that Kerry has repeatedly voted against important weapons systems rely overwhelmingly on Kerry's votes against Pentagon appropriation or authorization bills in 1990, 1995, and 1996. The Berlin Wall fell in November 1989. Cheney was secretary of defense from March 1989 to January 1993.

And regardless of the chronology of the votes, the attack on Kerry for allegedly voting against "weapons systems" is grossly misleading. MMFA has previously noted that according to Annenberg Political Fact Check, "Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996 ... were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate."

— G.W."

Posted by: Den at June 30, 2005 11:17 PM

Durbin actually said the words, "I'm sorry."

Besides, as I said before, he was actually comparing apples to apples, while Santorum was comparing apples to orangutans.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 11:23 PM

Brak: Man, my bad. That was a total military triumph.

And as to the whole 'puppy kicking' thing: What can I say, I'm weak.

Posted by: Christine at June 30, 2005 11:29 PM

X-ray wrote: "Sadaam WAS an enemy of this country, and he SHOULD have been overthrown."

At the risk of sounding like a smart-ass, which is not my intent, if we attempted to overthrow all of our "enemies" we'd be the worse for wear. It's only a matter of time when the school yard bully (US if we go attacking all "enemies") will get beaten up by the other kids ganging together.

How many countries do you think are wondering "Are we next?" and "Maybe we should attack the US before they get us" It's not a very comforting thought. As a New Yorker, I am not looking forward to any other "premptive strikes" from those that think we are the enemy.

I don't think you'd find many fans of SH here, and I do think Iraq will be better off without him. But the time to do that was back when Bush Sr. was in office and we had ALL of our allies with us.

Unfortunately, the way "junior" handled it cause more hard feelings with other countries... including our allies. Not exactly the wisest course of actions, especially if we want to be welcome in the playground...

Posted by: James Carter at June 30, 2005 11:30 PM

James, that's not true. We kicked total ass in Grenada...


wow. The only remaining Military Hyper-power kicked the butts of people who thought the ox-cart was a technological masterpiece.

And it is still a good quote.

There are a whole lot more here.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hunter_S._Thompson

I vote we all refer to Bush as "The Child-president" from now on. See if we can give X-ray a stroke.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at June 30, 2005 11:37 PM

I vote we all refer to Bush as "The Child-president" from now on. See if we can give X-ray a stroke.

How about the boy emperor? I've seen this one used in various places.

As for the puppy/x-ray comparisons, I think he's more like a puppy chasing it's tail: He goes around in circles, accomplishes nothing, gets laughed at, and keeps repeating the entire process.

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 11:39 PM

Don't be so hasty, James. Have you ever seen a pissed off ox?

And you're right, it is a damn fine quote.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 11:40 PM

I would post something in response, but I just had a stroke.

>>>>>dramatic stroke-having!

Posted by: Knuckles at June 30, 2005 11:40 PM

"As for the puppy/x-ray comparisons, I think he's more like a puppy chasing it's tail: He goes around in circles, accomplishes nothing, gets laughed at, and keeps repeating the entire process."

Right. And then you kick him.

Posted by: James Carter at June 30, 2005 11:44 PM

"Don't be so hasty, James. Have you ever seen a pissed off ox?"

"Right. And then you kick him."

Knuckles,

I like the way you think. A lot.

Posted by: X-Ray at June 30, 2005 11:44 PM

Before my stroke renders me unable to speak, I would like to note that Peter David has issued a plea to ignore me ... the 15th time he has responded to me since declaring he was "donne with me." (Yes, I am counting.) Thank you to those who ignored this plea, namely everyone!

>>>dramatic stroke-inducing lightining flash!

Posted by: TheOtherBlogger at July 1, 2005 12:26 AM

indestructibleman,

Who would you like as Chief Justice? Look at the recent decisions such as Kelo where the liberal wing of the court decided that it was okay for cities to use eminent domain for economic reasons. I hope your city doesn't want to build a mall or sports stadium in your area any time soon.

A lot of attention got paid to the conflicting 10 Commandments decisions, but Kelo is one of the most dangerous to come down in a while. None of those Justices should be made Chief, either.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 12:35 AM

So when this appeal fails, as polls already show it failing, the next step is...

Actually, there was an article on Yahoo earlier today that quoted a Republican Congressman blaming Democrats and the media for our "losing" the war in Iraq and continue failure to meet recruiting goals, that it's helping the terrorists.

To which, I say, Bush did that all on his own by wanting to invade Iraq in the first place.

And then, following in step with Bush, the Congressman suggested that it would be great if more kids signed up for the military. (Just as long as it isn't his kids.)

A lot of moderate Republicans I've talked to actually respected Dean,

It must be the radical Republicans then that are the ones jumping for joy that Dean would even consider running again, because they (the radicals) automatically assume he can't win.

But then, as you say, passion brings out alot in people, and I think alot of people on both sides have forgotten that, particularly with Dean.

I think Hillary is a great candidate, but you also underestimate some of the hatred for her on the left as well. Remember she was, and is, a very vocal supporter of the war in Iraq. She lost a lot of liberals that were already disenchanted with the Clinton adminstration once she did that.

Yet, I don't doubt that if she ran, she would get the nomination and the Republicans would be left with "Oh shit".

I also don't doubt that, if Bill Clinton could run again in 2008, the Republicans might not even make an effort, knowing that they wouldn't win.

People on both sides may hate some of the stuff Clinton did, but most would still vote him back in office. And I think most of the same group would do the same for Hillary.

Posted by: mike weber at July 1, 2005 12:50 AM

Pad said:

Most people can quote Lincoln saying "It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." But what is less known is the sentence right before that: "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem."

Except, according to recent revelations, he may well not have said that; it's another of those incorrect attributions (Like "I do not agree with what you say, but..." is attributed to Voltaire).

However, Spike Milligan once said (this was in the LBJ years, i think) "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, which is just about long enough to get elected President of the United States."

Posted by: L. David Wheeler at July 1, 2005 01:17 AM

Nuggets for X-Ray:

1. I'm probably just obtuse (I'm having fun with that one, thanks), but when has PAD directly addressed you in the past two or so weeks? I might be missing something, but I don't think he's addressed you since the whole "exponential" nonsense. He's spoken ABOUT you to other people a dozen or so times -- advising people to ignore you, as you note -- but that's not the same as "responding" to you.
So I suggest you're mistaken. Note: I'm not calling you a liar. Two different things.

2. You seem to have missed Craig Reis' point, as to why he figured you'd be "pissy." You've said that President Bush has made no correlation between Iraq and al-Qaeda/9-11 other than as twin fronts in the war on terror. But Mr. Ries posted an excerpt from a speech in which he appears to have done just that. Any rate, PAD's original point, if I recall correctly, wasn't that Bush was DIRECTLY linking the two, but that he creates the perception that they're linked by mentioning them in almost the same breath. Every now and then we see polls come out that show a substantial percentage of the populace are under the impression Iraq was at least partially responsible for 9-11. Where are they getting that from if not from the president's insinuations?

3. "I support Bush. That's my plan." Hey, if you believe his approach is the best one for the situation, I can respect that. My question, though: Do you support him blindly? Do you ever question ANY of his approaches? I hope I'd never be obtuse enough to blindly support ANY political leader, Democrat or Republican -- the best way to view polticians is with a heaping helping of skepticism. I always thought that actual "conservatives" -- which I've been accused of being from time to time, which is occasionally correct depending on the issue -- believed the same thing.

4. Weird thing is, you've made one or two good points this whole go-round. Too bad you have to ruin it by adding offensive, ad-hominem stuff like "Do you hate our pilots that much?" To paraphrase a famous refrain: Classic. But not that funny.

Posted by: Nivek at July 1, 2005 01:26 AM

Oh, look, he's chasing his tail again! Poor stupid Dog, he doesn't realise it's attached till he bites it.
Stop it, stupid! *kick*

Hey, I like this, kick the dumb puppy!

Posted by: Peter David at July 1, 2005 01:29 AM

"Except, according to recent revelations, he may well not have said that; it's another of those incorrect attributions (Like "I do not agree with what you say, but..." is attributed to Voltaire)."

The Voltaire one I knew about. That it was not Voltaire who said it but instead a woman who wrote a major work ABOUT Voltaire. She summarized his opinions on free speech by stating that Voltaire's attitude was such that he would have disagreed with what you had to say, but fought to the death for your right to say it. And somehow the phrase became ascribed to Voltaire himself even though he never actually phrased his sentiments in that way.

But my Bartlett's...which, admittedly, is a few years old...attributes the "All of the people" quote to Lincoln. Or, more specifically, a book about Lincoln published in 1904. So if you've got specific new info, I'd be interested to see it.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at July 1, 2005 01:46 AM

Here's another interesting quote, author anonymous:

"Historians, it is said, fall into one of three categories:
Those who lie.
Those who are mistaken.
Those who do not know."

I'd say presidents fall into that category as well...and Bush into all three.

PAD

Posted by: X-Ray at July 1, 2005 01:52 AM

Nuggets for L. David Wheeler:

1.PAD ... He's spoken ABOUT you to other people a dozen or so times ... but that's not the same as "responding" to you.

Yes it is. Absent my posts, there would be no need for such "non-responses."

2. Mr. Ries posted an excerpt from a speech in which he appears to have done just that.

"APPEARS" is the right word!

A substantial percentage of the populace are under the impression Iraq was at least partially responsible for 9-11. Where are they getting that from if not from the president's insinuations?

Perhaps they are (gasp) thinking for themselves.

3. Do you support [Bush] blindly?

No. I disagree with some of the things he's done.

4. Weird thing is, you've made one or two good points this whole go-round. Too bad you have to ruin it by adding offensive, ad-hominem stuff like "Do you hate our pilots that much?" To paraphrase a famous refrain: Classic. But not that funny.

To the contrary, it's QUITE funny! I enjoy lambasting our host, who is too haughty to respond to me directly, but who has responded to me obliquely at least 15 times so far!

Posted by: X-Ray at July 1, 2005 01:53 AM

"Historians, it is said, fall into one of three categories:
Those who lie.
Those who are mistaken.
Those who do not know."

I'd say PAD falls into the first category.

Posted by: Robert Fuller at July 1, 2005 02:05 AM

"Understand now?"

Oh, I understand. I understand that your whole argument rests upon shouting "liar, liar pants on fire," when in fact you don't understand what it means to tell a lie.

Posted by: X-Ray at July 1, 2005 02:12 AM

Christine: If we attempted to overthrow all of our "enemies" we'd be the worse for wear."

If you attempt to get rid of every bit last of dirt in your house, you'd be the worse for wear. So why do you bother vacuuming all the time?

It's only a matter of time when the school yard bully will get beaten up by the other kids ganging together.

Nonsense. The world is not about to attack us, and the world is not a schoolyard.

How many countries do you think are wondering "Are we next?"

Hopefully, ALL of them -- if they wish us harm!

I don't think you'd find many fans of SH here, and I do think Iraq will be better off without him. But the time to do that was back when Bush Sr. was in office and we had ALL of our allies with us.

Yes. I'm sure that back then, you were DEMANDING that we enter Baghdad and oust Sadaam. Right Christine? Were you demanding that?

Unfortunately, the way "junior" handled it cause more hard feelings with other countries.

You mean Germany and France, who loved the money Sadaam was bribing them with, and didn't care a bit about the people of Iraq? They hate us? Too bad -- for them.

Not exactly the wisest course of actions, especially if we want to be welcome in the playground.

There would BE no "playground" without us. And you are exactly wrong -- it IS the wisest course of action.

Posted by: X-Ray at July 1, 2005 02:13 AM

To Robert Fuller:

"Liar, liar pants on fire!"
"Liar, liar pants on fire!"
"Liar, liar pants on fire!"

Love, X-Ray

P.S. What does it mean to tell a lie?

Posted by: X-Ray at July 1, 2005 02:15 AM

Michael Brunner: "I vote we all refer to Bush as "The Child-president" from now on."

You got it!

THE CHILD PRESIDENT SUCKS!

Posted by: James Tichy at July 1, 2005 02:57 AM

he connection between the Iraq war and September 11 was made explicit in the text of the Congressional resolution that authorized military action in Iraq.

Some excerpts:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Note that the resolution puts the Iraq war in the context of September 11 without saying that Iraq was involved in those attacks; it recites what was indisputably true--that Iraq harbored members of al Qaeda.

a) Ansar al Islam, an al Qaeda branch, manufactured ricin for use in attacks on Europe.
b) Saddam hosted al Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahiri, in the 1990s.
c) Saddam harbored, and put on a government pension, one of the few perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing who escaped apprehension.
d) Saddam harbored Abu Nidal, once the world's most famous terrorist, until, for reasons that remain mysterious, Saddam apparently had him murdered shortly before the war began.
e) Saddam harbored Abu Abbas, organizer of the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in 1984; Abbas was captured in Iraq during the first days of the war.
e) Zarqawi, the world's most deadly terrorist, fled Afghanistan when the Taliban fell at the end of 2001 and went to Iraq. Why? Because he knew that terrorists were welcome under Saddam.
f) From Iraq, Zarqawi organized the murder of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan.
g) From Iraq, Zarqawi organized and financed a chemical weapons attack on Jordan that could have killed tens of thousands. The perpetrators of that scheme are now on trial in Jordan.
h) Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers to encourage terrorist attacks against Israel.

Yet the Democrats now claim that it is unconscionable for President Bush to link our military action in Iraq to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. What the Democrats really mean is that it is unconscionable for Bush to keep mentioning an issue that has cost them back-to-back elections because they can't convince the public they are sufficiently serious about it.

One would think that administration critics like Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer would remember what was in the resolution, since they voted for it. I can understand why it would be convenient for the Democrats to forget that the resolution that authorized the Iraq war specifically and repeatedly linked the rationale for that war to the September 11 attacks. It is not so clear why mainstream reporters and commentators are so willing to share the Democrats' amnesia.

Posted by: James Tichy at July 1, 2005 03:12 AM

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 1, 2005 03:31 AM

"You can't agrue with Bush. Back him into a corner and he just changes the concept of his entire POV on a dime. Doesn't seem to matter that it often is at odds with the POV he held seconds before."

In that respect he's a lot like our ex-and thoroughly loathed-Prime Minister, Lyin' Brian Mulroney who once held a press conference and, when questioned by a reporter about something he'd just said, first denied having said it, then said it again.

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 1, 2005 03:36 AM

"We kicked total ass in Grenada..."

Ah yes, the military campaign which was voted [in a documentary on such blunders] the worst military blunder in history because, although it was deemed a success by the administration, had more screwups than one could count and, worst of all, even more so than the Iraq thing, had no reason for having taken place to begin with. Ostensibly a 'rescue mission', this came as a surprise to those being 'rescued' as they later confided they'd been perfectly all right, in no danger whatsoever, imminent or otherwise, until the 'rescuers' came storming in, guns drawn.

Posted by: The StarWolf at July 1, 2005 03:39 AM

Hillary has one thing going against her.

A politician is a creature of ambition, especially those vying for higher office. But some wear it better than others. Hillary's blatant lust for power won't sit well with some people. After all, the only reason she didn't split from Bill and tolerated his infidelities was that she'd probably have had to leave the White House, something she'd rather die than do. And there are people who are unpleasantly aware of this. They do recall the old saw about those who seek power over their fellow men should under no account be allowed near it.

Posted by: Christine at July 1, 2005 06:05 AM

Well, this will be my last response to X-ray as reading the vowel-less posts are making my eyes cross

To answer what I think your question was - Yes, at the time, I did want Sr (and our allies) to remove Saddam from power.

If they had done, I believe -rightly or wrongly- that we wouldn't be in the fine mess we are now.
But then again, you'll probably say that I am "xctly wrng" again! LOL

Adios X-Ray.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 08:30 AM

'"We kicked total ass in Grenada..."

Ah yes, the military campaign which was voted [in a documentary on such blunders] the worst military blunder in history because, although it was deemed a success by the administration, had more screwups than one could count and, worst of all, even more so than the Iraq thing, had no reason for having taken place to begin with. Ostensibly a 'rescue mission', this came as a surprise to those being 'rescued' as they later confided they'd been perfectly all right, in no danger whatsoever, imminent or otherwise, until the 'rescuers' came storming in, guns drawn.'

Wolf: I do trust you realize I was being completely tongue in cheek about our grand military success on the Caribbean island paradise (and notorious hangout for Communist ne'er do wells that like to capture med students and hold them hostage, yet do it so subtly none of them actually realize they are being held hostage) known as Grenada.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 09:30 AM

What the Democrats really mean is that it is unconscionable for Bush to keep mentioning an issue that has cost them back-to-back elections because they can't convince the public they are sufficiently serious about it.

Oh give me a break. This war was built with bricks of lies, and Bush is the bricklayer.

I think the public are sufficiently stupid enough to believe anything Bush says, even when he's lying through his teeth.

Hillary's blatant lust for power won't sit well with some people.

No, it probably won't.

Bush's blatant lust for power (and destruction) didn't sit well with over 55 million voters this past November either.

Posted by: Den at July 1, 2005 09:53 AM

What I find interesting with the Bush supporters, here and elsewhere, is that they alternate between telling us that Bush never said that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and insisting that there was indeed a link between his government and the terrorists behind 9/11.

Can't you guys at least come up with a consistent story?

Posted by: Robbnn at July 1, 2005 09:56 AM

A smattering of thoughts:

I used to hope Hillary would run because I didn't think she'd have a chance of getting elected (and I'm utterly horrified at the thought of her getting elected). I still think she's unelectable, largely because nothing will mobilize the right like Hillary running. Further, I don't think she would have any more hope of taking a Southern state than Kerry did.

This is the only site I've seen where Hillary is touted as a good candidate.

Kerry didn't beat Bush. Honestly, gang, if y'all don't have someone who could beat Bush, that speaks loads about your party.

I am a conservative, but not a Republican. I like Powell and would vote for him under any party. The closest person I'd vote for as a Democrat (and I wouldn't ever vote for Democrat) was Leiberman.

The South is the key to a Democratic victory, so it amazes me that the Dems are so intent on alienating the South on every issue.

We're in Iraq. It happened, Iraq is better for it (we may not be) but all this fussing about how we got there is honestly history's subject, not ours at this time. Ours is to do everything we can to win and get out. I miss the days of a united front, but I guess with the partisan divide that will never happen again.

As for X-Ray, either ban him or give him back his vowels, because he's more annoying this way than before.

Posted by: garym at July 1, 2005 09:58 AM

It wasn't Barnum who said "There's a sucker born every minute." See this link.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at July 1, 2005 10:10 AM

So I suggest you're mistaken. Note: I'm not calling you a liar. Two different things.

I am. X-Ray is a liar.

Mchl Brnnr: " vt w ll rfr t Bsh s "Th Chld-prsdnt" frm nw n."

I didn't say that. I suggested boy emperor. Someone else suggested child president. YOU'RE TWISTING WORDS!! YOU'RE A LIAR!!

BTW X-Ray - are you okay? You sound like you're speaking with a mouth full of marbles.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at July 1, 2005 10:27 AM

So I suggest you're mistaken. Note: I'm not calling you a liar.

I am. He's a LIAR!

Mchl Brnnr: " vt w ll rfr t Bsh s "Th Chld-prsdnt" frm nw n."

I didn't say that. I suggested 'boy emperor'. You're twisting words! YOU'RE A LIAR !!!

BTW, are you okay x-ray? You sound like you're speaking with a mouth full of marbles.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at July 1, 2005 10:54 AM

Sorry about the double post. I got 'internal server error' and tried reposting.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 10:54 AM

Kerry didn't beat Bush. Honestly, gang, if y'all don't have someone who could beat Bush, that speaks loads about your party.

Thankfully, the Democrats don't believe in the "Karl Rove School of Propoganda".

In other, very sad news, Sandra Day O'Connor has just announced her retirement from the Supreme Court.

I'm willing to place bets that within days of Bush's nominations being announced, the "nuclear option" is mentioned by Republicans.

*sigh*

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 11:03 AM

Kerry didn't beat Bush. Honestly, gang, if y'all don't have someone who could beat Bush, that speaks loads about your party.

Thankfully, the Democrats don't believe in the "Karl Rove School of Propoganda".

The South is the key to a Democratic victory, so it amazes me that the Dems are so intent on alienating the South on every issue.

Let's see: make sure they can wave the Confederate flag around, prayer in schools, Ten Commandments anywhere they want.

Yeah, I'd say that's just about alienating the South on every issue.

In other, very sad news, Sandra Day O'Connor has just announced her retirement from the Supreme Court.

I'm willing to place bets that within days of Bush's nominations being announced, the "nuclear option" is mentioned by Republicans.

*sigh*

Posted by: indestructibleman at July 1, 2005 11:07 AM

TheOtherBlogger,
no, i'm not sure who i would like to see as Chief Justice. i'll admit that i don't follow the court closely enough to have an informed opinion.

the KELO decision is very bad news for individual rights. i understand the need for imminent domain, but when it's extended to helping private business make a buck (like when the G.W. Bush owned Texas Rangers used imminent domain to get the land to build a privately owned stadium) that is certainly taking it too far.

all i know is that 99% of the time Scalia comes out vociferously on what i consider to be the wrong side of the decisions.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 11:10 AM

Whoops. Figured that the first one didn't go through with the error message too, and then I found something I wanted to add anyways. :)

Posted by: Sasha at July 1, 2005 11:27 AM

Huh, everyone was so sure that Renquist would step down that Justice O'Connor's decision seemed to be quite a surprise.

Now THAT'S misdirection! :)

But seriously, this is a godsend to the Bush camp. If Renquist had stepped down, I don't think there would have been a great hullaballo since his replacement would not have changed the balance of the SCOTUS. But with swing-vote moderate O'Connor being replaced, this becomes Karl Rove's wet dream. Not only will the inevitable partisan bickering and posturing energize the theocon base Bush and the GOP rely on, but it will also put the Iraq Conflict on the back burner, conveniently allowing the stench of it to lessen, allowing Bush to try and revive his sinking political capital.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 11:57 AM

"This is the only site I've seen where Hillary is touted as a good candidate."

Clearly you never visit sites like DailyKos.

"Kerry didn't beat Bush. Honestly, gang, if y'all don't have someone who could beat Bush, that speaks loads about your party."

Actually, the Democrats did have a candidate who could have beaten Bush, but they went for the name brand instead.

"I am a conservative, but not a Republican. I like Powell and would vote for him under any party. The closest person I'd vote for as a Democrat (and I wouldn't ever vote for Democrat) was Leiberman."

That is such a tired canard. So what are you? That's like me saying I'm a liberal, but not a Democrat. Sure, I could be a Green, but I like to win the occasional election (and fortunately, in Washington State, we do).

Posted by: R. Maheras at July 1, 2005 12:04 PM

PAD wrote: "Gather an assortment of the best non-Neocon minds the country has to offer, sit down in a large room with them, and say, "Give me the best scenario as to how to get America the hell out of there within twelve months."


Seems a bit optimistic to me, especially since, in another part of the world where we have had a far less-obvious strategic interest, namely South Korea, we've had tens of thousands of U.S. troops on hair-trigger alert for 55 years. Yet in the Middle East, whose oil is a foundation of not just our economy, but the rest of the world's, you want us to just turn our back and walk away? Doesn't make much sense to me.

By the way, if you stacked both combat and non-combat-related military deaths for the U.S. in South Korea against those in Iraq, South Korea would win by a landslide of Brobdingnagian proportions.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 12:14 PM

"By the way, if you stacked both combat and non-combat-related military deaths for the U.S. in South Korea against those in Iraq, South Korea would win by a landslide of Brobdingnagian proportions."

Why would you compare the two? Korea was a valid military action (poorly executed at the outset, to be sure, but valid). Iraq is not.

Posted by: bbayliss at July 1, 2005 12:20 PM

Brobdingnagian? Man. I had to go google that!


According to dictionary.com:
Brobdingnagian \brob-ding-NAG-ee-uhn\, adjective:
Of extraordinary size; gigantic; enormous.

The venture capital business has a size problem. A monstrous, staggering, stupefying one. Brobdingnagian even.
--Russ Mitchell, "Too Much Ventured Nothing Gained," Fortune, November 11, 2002

Any savvy dealer . . . will try to talk you up to one of the latest behemoths, which have bloated to such Brobdingnagian dimensions as to have entered the realm of the absurd.
--Jack Hitt, "The Hidden Life of SUVs," Mother Jones, July/August 1999

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 12:35 PM

"Korea was a valid military action (poorly executed at the outset, to be sure, but valid). Iraq is not."

How are they any different? Korea was an example of good ol' fashioned contaiment, with us moving in to stop a dictator from taking over his neighbor. That was Gulf War I. What we have here is a simple coup d'etat, with us overthrowing a genocidal maniac. I have said it before: the Iraqui war is ding the right thing for the wrong reason.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 12:41 PM

the Iraqui war is ding the right thing for the wrong reason.

The problem I have is that conservatives fail to admit that it was done for all the wrong reasons.

To them, it's all about the end result - which is, right now, alot of dead Americans and Iraqis, alot more terrorists, and not much else.

And even then, they fail to recognize that end result, right now, is pretty crappy.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 12:44 PM

"How are they any different? Korea was an example of good ol' fashioned contaiment, with us moving in to stop a dictator from taking over his neighbor. That was Gulf War I. What we have here is a simple coup d'etat, with us overthrowing a genocidal maniac. I have said it before: the Iraqui war is ding the right thing for the wrong reason."

Hugely different. Korea was an ally, invaded by a far superior military force from the North. Iraq was, well, just kind of sitting there after we didn't overthrow the dictator when we had just cause. I would argue that the Korean War was not, in fact, containment. It was recovery. Again, MacArthur attempted to conquer the whole of Korea, at which point the Chinese decided they'd had quite enough of his braggadocio.

The US really didn't have much choice in Korea. They could get involved, or just allow the NK troops to overrun the nation. However, if the US was to retain ANY validity in the eyes of it's allies, it needed to do something. So it did do something, and did it very badly at the outset. Now, I'd accept an argument that the wars themselves (in their essentially unwinnable nature) might be the same, but the reasons behind the military actions (and their justifications, or lack thereof, on the global stage) are completely different.

Posted by: Robbnn at July 1, 2005 01:06 PM

Knuckles,

I'm an independant who will vote for the candidate who best represents my ideals, win or lose. The Republicans seem to be dividing themselves - socially conservative, fiscally irresponsible.

I don't surf the web much, but I do talk to liberals every chance I get. The sites I do frequent trend toward liberalism but not to the extreme this site does.

What part of Washington? I spent my first thirty years in the Lake Washington area.

Craig,

Why can't we admit we're there for the wrong reasons? Dunno, maybe we believe that WMD was a good reason. He thought he had them, we thought he had them, everyone thought he had them... I just can't bring myself to believe we're there for petty reasons. I do believe there is a lot more to why we're there than we've been told. I think there is a bigger picture that I'm not privy to. Naive, yeah, probably, but I'd make the worst kind of president, so he gets some slack.

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 01:06 PM

"we didn't overthrow the dictator when we had just cause."


You could argue that bush is just fixing his pappy's mistakes. Like I said, Right war, wrong reasons. As opposed to overthrowing Saddam for being a genocidal maniac, we overthrew him A) for Oil, B) to make Bush look good for not catching Bin Laden, C) to make the Patriot Act go sown easier, and D) to finish what Pappy started.

As for Korea, that was an exercise in the Domino theory. We really should have let nature take its course there....now Hungary in'56 on the other hand..... Also, McArthurs invasion pissed off the Chinese, but they had been getting Russian support for quite some time. (Why D'ya think we were fighting MIG's?) It was another war by proxy, with us fighting the Russians through the Koreans. Iraq is a well justified Coup D'etat.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 01:08 PM

"Why can't we admit we're there for the wrong reasons? Dunno, maybe we believe that WMD was a good reason. He thought he had them, we thought he had them, everyone thought he had them... I just can't bring myself to believe we're there for petty reasons. I do believe there is a lot more to why we're there than we've been told. I think there is a bigger picture that I'm not privy to. Naive, yeah, probably, but I'd make the worst kind of president, so he gets some slack."

I sure as hell didn't think he had them. And to say Saddam thought he had them is rather suspect, in my opinion.

I live in Bremerton, across the Sound from Seattle.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 01:17 PM

"As for Korea, that was an exercise in the Domino theory. We really should have let nature take its course there....now Hungary in'56 on the other hand..... Also, McArthurs invasion pissed off the Chinese, but they had been getting Russian support for quite some time. (Why D'ya think we were fighting MIG's?) It was another war by proxy, with us fighting the Russians through the Koreans. Iraq is a well justified Coup D'etat."

I disagree. Korea was not an exercise in Domino Theory in the classic sense of the term. Vietnam, on the other hand, was. (Oddly enough, Vietnam was intended as a repudiation of containment, yet ended up being a classic example of why it worked as well as it did.) While the military advisors that Truman had at his side may have argued as such, he didn't view it as such. He viewed it as a necessary war to defend one of America's allies (whether it was worth it or not, is a completely seperate issue).

I also disagree that Iraq is a well-justified coup d'etat, because with that reasoning we should be invading Niger, Sudan, Syria, Egypt (hell, most of Africa really), a good chunk of the former Soviet Union, not to mention places like Colombia and Mexico.

Democracy and stabilization will never come from the pressures of the outside, it has to come from within. Iraq will fail because we are attempting to force American style democracy on a region that has NEVER in modern history known such a thing. Do I want it to fail? No. But the Golden Moment of the US to overthrow Saddam passed in 1991 when Bush I and Rollin' Colin Powell decided to stop their advance. I thought that was a mistake then, I think it's a mistake now. However, that doesn't justify this latest war.

Posted by: R. Maheras at July 1, 2005 01:33 PM

Knuckles wrote: "Hugely different. Korea was an ally, invaded by a far superior military force from the North. Iraq was, well, just kind of sitting there after we didn't overthrow the dictator when we had just cause. I would argue that the Korean War was not, in fact, containment. It was recovery."


The fighting stopped in Korea in 1953, but we have still had tens of thousands of troops there for the past 52 years (and I was one of them for a year in the late 1990s). If you calculated the total cost of our presence there, and the total combat and non-combat deaths in country since 1950, you just might rethink any "let's leave Iraq now" ideas you may have been entertaining. Like I said, at least our presence in the Middle East has a tangible strategic value to every man, woman and child in the U.S. (and the world, for that matter): Oil.

Is protecting our oil supply worth it? You may as well ask is it worth fighting for water, food and air, because after those three necessities, oil and natural gas are arguably the next most important resources this country needs to survive. Try to imagine one winter in the U.S. without any oil or natural gas. Try and imagine getting food processed and distributed nationwide without oil.

Perhaps someday, we will be able to, but right now, we can't. Politics aside, anyone who drives to an anti-war protest with a "No blood for oil" sign in his/her car is at worst, an idiot, and at best, a hypocrite.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 01:40 PM

Keep in mind, that I'm not one of those "Leave Iraq Now" people. That said, you are making the presumption that our access to the oil supply in the Middle East was ever in jeopardy. I am unwilling to do so, as I believe it's patently untrue. Any oil sanctions levied on Iraq were done so with the US's blessing (under the purview of Bush I). I would argue that it's in significantly greater jeopardy now than it was before.

Posted by: Den at July 1, 2005 02:02 PM

The fact is, we get more oil from Venzuela these days then we do the entire Middle East.

I am not part of the "no blood for oil" crowd, but I'm also not part of crowd that follows the Ann Coulter line of, "what's wrong with a war for oil? We need oil."

Like Knuckles, I don't believe that Saddam was ever a threat to our oil supply. I believe that the sanctions and no-fly zone enforcement had him effectively contained as a threat to our interests. And I don't believe it's out job to depose every murderous dictator in the world. We just don't have the resources to do it even if we wanted to.

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 02:21 PM

"making the presumption that our access to the oil supply in the Middle East was ever in jeopardy."

That takes a mind like Ann coulter to make THAT claim. as per the invasion...it could be argued that here, the ends justify the means. Sure we are invading a soverign nation for economic reasons, but, hell, we did get rid of Saddam!


"I also disagree that Iraq is a well-justified coup d'etat, because with that reasoning we should be invading Niger, Sudan, Syria, Egypt (hell, most of Africa really), a good chunk of the former Soviet Union, not to mention places like Colombia and Mexico."

soooooo....because we aren't going through egypt like Napoleon on speed means we are wrong for taking down a dictator? I mean, we went after Hitler, but not Franco, so that means WWII was an exercise in futility? Personally I am all for an international colition with a name like "The International Colition to Destroy All Dictators Who, Without Use Of Hyperbole, can be Compared to Hitler." Or ICDADWWUHCH for short. But that isn't going to happen....

and you don't think I'm all conservative do you?
I mean, I like Reagan and overthrowing dictators, but that doesn't make me a conservative...does it?


Posted by: Den at July 1, 2005 02:24 PM

Of course, the other thing we should be doing is investing in alternative sources of energy to wean us off our oil dependence. Right now, the emphasis is on gassified coal and renewed interest in nuclear power. Those may help us in our electrical needs, but except for in Back to the Future, we don't have any nuclear powered cars. And try running you Hummer on coal.

Gas is $2.19 a gallon here and I'm talking my wife into getting a Prius.

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 02:28 PM

"I also disagree that Iraq is a well-justified coup d'etat, because with that reasoning we should be invading Niger, Sudan, Syria, Egypt (hell, most of Africa really), a good chunk of the former Soviet Union, not to mention places like Colombia and Mexico."

First. I think that here, the ends DO justify the means....sure, we are there for the wrong reasons, but we did get rid of Saddam. Even a stupid squirrel finds an nut sometimes.

Second. Because we don't go through Egypt like (to quote a great movie) "Crap through a goose"
Taking down Saddam was wrong? I am all in favor of an international colition against dictators, but till that happens, we will take what we get.

And, Knuckles, you don't think I am some kinda conservative do you? I mean, I like Reagan, and I think getting rid of dictators is good, but that does not make me conservative. I hope.

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 02:32 PM

awwww HELL....I posted the same Idea....twice...sorry guys

Posted by: Jason at July 1, 2005 02:36 PM

Den, make sure you analyze the upfront cost versus long term savings on any hybrids you look at. I've seen data that it can take several years for the fuel savings to equal out the premium price you pay at the dealership. However, some states and I think the federal governments have incentives, maybe tax breaks, for buying alternative fuel vehicles.

As for alternative energy in general, I'd love to see a concerted research and deployment effort, but I honestly don't see it happening until every last drop of oil's been squeezed out of this planet. And as for the war for oil stuff, OPEC's stated that the prices are not their fault, as they're operating at peak production. They're pointing to a lack of refining capacity, which is either a fantastic marketing ploy by OPEC to keep prices high without being the bad guy or a very, very bad sign. Because think about it; what incentive does the oil-fuel complex have for increasing refinement capacity? That would require huge upfront investment for an effort to drive the price of their primary commodity down? I think we're looking at some bad times ahead.
On the other hand, if you've had a $4 20 oz. latte recently while bitching about the price of a $2-3 gallon of gas to a friend drinking a $3 cup of pumpkin spice coffee, you might wonder about perspective...

Posted by: Jason at July 1, 2005 02:38 PM

Hmm, that last post came off as completely directed at Den; I just meant the first part about hybrid vehicles to be for Den in particular. The rest was for everyone to have an issue with :-)

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 02:39 PM

"and you don't think I'm all conservative do you?
I mean, I like Reagan and overthrowing dictators, but that doesn't make me a conservative...does it?"

Not at all. You may well be, but it really doesn't matter that much to me. You're a good guy to dialogue with. That's all that really matters, you know?

"soooooo....because we aren't going through egypt like Napoleon on speed means we are wrong for taking down a dictator?"

Not at all. I simply find the argument that "well, he was an evil, wicked, mean, bad and nasty dictator" argument to be completely without merit. The world is FILLED with them. We just happened to go after the one that was sitting on top of a hugeass oil reserve. Let me make it clear that I do not think Bush went into Iraq because of the oil, I think that just made for a happy coincidence. What I do think is that the invasion occurred because Bush had to do something that looked like he was continuing the "War on Terror", and taking it to them overseas.

I think the US is wrong for taking down Saddam because they had no legitimate beef with him. Period. The reasons given for the invasion were complete fabrications, so the reasons have been changing over the years. Is it good Saddam is no longer in power? I would assume so, yes. However, I still think it was wrong.

I think the invasion of Afghanistan was completely valid on the international stage, as their government was actively hosting those who DID pose an immediate and dangerous domestic threat to the United States of America. Iraq did not. If there were terrorists in Iraq, they were most likely in Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq, and had no bearing on Saddam whatsoever.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 02:43 PM

Double post, James. Be patient, grasshopper, and ignore the internal server error message you are getting. The posts are getting sent to the DB, but for some reason the error is still being generated. As quickly as you can, take this error message from my hand...

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 02:45 PM

First. I think that here, the ends DO justify the means....sure, we are there for the wrong reasons, but we did get rid of Saddam. Even a stupid squirrel finds an nut sometimes.

So... stupidity makes right?

You can argue till you're blue in the face that we did the right thing, but we didn't go to Iraq to do the right thing.

That's Bush's argument NOW, but it wasn't THEN.

Bush argued that we needed to go to Iraq because a) Iraq was a terrorist nation (debatable), b) Saddam had WMD (based on questionable evidence), c) that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 even though it was never explicitely stated (but always insinuated and also completely false).

But these lies and false pretenses justify a war? No, they do not.

Saddam was contained. He did not have the capability to launch anything at us. The No-Fly Zones were effective - our going to Afghanistan didn't make Saddam think he wasn't being watched.

Unlike some other nations: Iran, North Korea, and others with dictators just as worthy of being toppled and far more capable of doing us harm than Iraq.

Yet, Saddam was most important.

Suddenly, diplomacy could work with these other nations, but not Iraq? Sounds like a case of revenge to me.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 02:45 PM

"As for alternative energy in general, I'd love to see a concerted research and deployment effort, but I honestly don't see it happening until every last drop of oil's been squeezed out of this planet. And as for the war for oil stuff, OPEC's stated that the prices are not their fault, as they're operating at peak production. They're pointing to a lack of refining capacity, which is either a fantastic marketing ploy by OPEC to keep prices high without being the bad guy or a very, very bad sign. Because think about it; what incentive does the oil-fuel complex have for increasing refinement capacity? That would require huge upfront investment for an effort to drive the price of their primary commodity down? I think we're looking at some bad times ahead."

Jason: Kevin Drum did some fascinating analysis of this last fall/summer (?) when the presidential campaign was in full swing. I'll see if I can find anything on the Washington Monthly website.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 02:46 PM

Craig: How in the H-E-Double Hockeysticks did I forget NK? Damn this job...

Posted by: Peter David at July 1, 2005 02:46 PM

"Brobdingnagian? Man. I had to go google that!"

I'm sure you got a Swift response.

PAD


Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 02:48 PM

"I'm sure you got a Swift response."

Man, that just isn't right.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 02:48 PM

Oh, and let's not forget: contracts for Halliburton, a total lack of planning, no exit strategy, continued sabre-rattling against other nations (ie, Iran) when we have way in hell of dealing with them while we're in Iraq, and plenty of evidence to suggest this was premeditated from the start and that 9/11 only provided a convenient excuse for invasion.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 02:50 PM

As Craig is stating so well, I just cannot accept the deposing of a dictator as an acceptable reason for an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation.

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 02:53 PM

"Sounds like a case of revenge to me."

Totally agree.
"D) to finish what Pappy started."

I will stick by my idea, that, Yes, our Child-President is changing his story, yes, we are there for all the wrong reasons, yes, there are more and (arguably) better dictators to take down, but at least we got rid of Saddam.


"others with dictators just as worthy of being toppled and far more capable of doing us harm than Iraq."

I refer you to my idea for ICDADWWUHCH. (and, no that is not a quote from X-ray.)

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 03:10 PM

Jason: Here's a link to a 5 part series that Kevin wrote on his blog, 'Political Animal' entitled "Peak Oil". Of course, it's a 5-part series like "Hitchhiker's Guide" is a trilogy. I think there's actually seven or eight installments. But it does make interesting reading.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006380.php

That link will take you to the the first article, then each article has a link to the next one in the series at the bottom. Also, if you go to the blog http://www.washingtonmonthly.com, scroll all the way down to the bottom where the search feature is and enter 'peak oil' (without the quotes, of course) all the links will come up, along with some other, older, material. This was written this year.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 03:14 PM

"I refer you to my idea for ICDADWWUHCH. (and, no that is not a quote from X-ray.)"

Couldn't be, man. It's got two vowels. If you said that in Wales, you'd get a pint of Brains SA, a sheep's spleen with balamic reduction and a pair of panties thrown on stage at a Tom Jones show.

By the way, if you've never seen TJ live, you haven't seen a real show.

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 03:21 PM

"panties thrown on stage at a Tom Jones show."

Actually, I am sure that I heard Bob Dylan say "ICDADWWUHCH" at his last show. Maybe he and Tom Jones should tour together.....

Posted by: Sasha at July 1, 2005 04:31 PM

[i]On the other hand, if you've had a $4 20 oz. latte recently while bitching about the price of a $2-3 gallon of gas to a friend drinking a $3 cup of pumpkin spice coffee, you might wonder about perspective...[/i]

Assuming you *had* to drink $3-4 dollar drinks regularly to survive economically, yeah I'd agree. But I don't. No one does. It's a luxury that people can (and do) do without if they have to.

This always struck me as a disingenuous argument. I can always forgo an already infrequent indulgence. I can't *not* buy gas on a regular basis because, without exaggeration, my life would screech to a stop. (I live in Florida and Florida is not a friendly place to live if you don’t have a car to move around.)

Now, if you’re wealthy, purchased a Hummer, drink gourmet coffee every day, and then bitched about the price of gas . . . well then you’re just clueless.

Posted by: Knuckles at July 1, 2005 04:33 PM

Washington Monthly

Posted by: Den at July 1, 2005 04:52 PM

On the other hand, if you've had a $4 20 oz. latte recently while bitching about the price of a $2-3 gallon of gas to a friend drinking a $3 cup of pumpkin spice coffee, you might wonder about perspective...

That one's easy. I don't drink coffee. I don't need coffee. I do, however, live in an area without decent mass transit and need to get to work everyday. So yeah, I will bitch about the price of gas going up.

Posted by: Jason at July 1, 2005 04:59 PM

Actually, I will give you part of that, Sasha; I hadn't thought about necessity versus luxury before, but there's always the option of public transportation or carpooling. I know some areas are better than others in that regard, though.

And all hope is not lost; it seems the domestic car companies are having to practically bankrupt themselves to keep people buying the gas hog SUVs and trucks now, which indicates to me that at least some people have gotten the message about necessity versus luxury. I grew up on a farm and even before the SUV craze hit, my dream car was a Chevy Blazer. But now? I got the standard four-banger in my Grand Am last fall and am happily enjoying at least mid-twenties mpg commuting every day. I'd never want to restrict what people can buy, but I do blame the Big 3 for essentially putting blinders on when a company like GM joyfully announced earlier this year that they were excited about upcoming developments in their product lines: several new options and improvements on their SUVs and trucks. I imagine their R&D are scrambling now...

Posted by: Jason at July 1, 2005 05:01 PM

And even crazier for a Republican to say? I think light trucks and SUV's should definitely have to meet the same emission standards as passenger cars. I know, I know... craziness...

Posted by: Jerry at July 1, 2005 05:04 PM

Bang on target, Sasha.

Well said and well scored.

Posted by: R. Maheras at July 1, 2005 05:06 PM

Den wrote: "Of course, the other thing we should be doing is investing in alternative sources of energy to wean us off our oil dependence."


I'm with you there. I'll be one of the first in line for a Hydrogen-powered car.

Posted by: Sasha at July 1, 2005 05:11 PM

I don't surf the web much, but I do talk to liberals every chance I get. The sites I do frequent trend toward liberalism but not to the extreme this site does.

And here's the crux.

Although I consider this site left wing certainly, would I call it extreme? Certainly not. Ted Rall would be, but to call PAD's politics an example of the extreme left is akin to calling Colin Powell an example of the extreme right.

Of course, extreme is in the eye of the beholder (there are people out there who consider W. to be a downright moderate).

Posted by: Jason at July 1, 2005 05:19 PM

Knuckles: Thanks for the link; very interesting reading. Still trying to absorb it, but it's scary when some of the stuff I say turns out to be true ;-)

Posted by: Sasha at July 1, 2005 05:48 PM

And even crazier for a Republican to say? I think light trucks and SUV's should definitely have to meet the same emission standards as passenger cars. I know, I know... craziness...

Not craziness, just common sense. :)

Crazy is letting your political affiation dictate your beliefs rather than having your beliefs dictate what your political affiation.

Sadly, there are many, many crazy people out there.

Posted by: Johnny C at July 1, 2005 08:11 PM

I just wish that people would step back into government who are generally interested in helping out the American people. Those people have been pushed out of Washington over the last few years, and have been replaced by people who want to further an agenda, and have been replaced by people who all think alike and share the same narrow minded view. The average american citizen has no voice in government anymore, now that the balance of power has been upset in the US government. People who want to help out the people in a position of power are too few these days.

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 08:51 PM

"there are people out there who consider W. to be a downright moderate)."

The Names you are looking for are Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.

"I just wish that people would step back into government who are generally interested in helping out the American people."

Who was the last president who honestly cared about anything to do with the American people except their vote? FDR? Johnson? No one recently. What we gotta do is use politicians. IF they say they will do something, they should be forced to do it. How come the NRA and assorted "Family Values" groups can get thousands of letters written in? Why don't us liberals do that? There is so little protest it isn't even funny. I mean with Vietnam, there were thousands of people protesting every day. Now? When was the last time you heard of a serious protest? *sigh* man, things sure have changed. There needs to be better organization in the Left wing...the right wing is used to it...they are all the militant types. The left wing could do worse then to borrow some of their tactics.

Posted by: T X-Ry at July 1, 2005 09:58 PM

www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

Iraq before the war is synonymous with Saddam. Some of these comments he made come before the war with Iraq. Therefore he and his administration have linked the two together, falsely. And I beleive they knew it was false when they did it...

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 10:13 PM

Of course, extreme is in the eye of the beholder (there are people out there who consider W. to be a downright moderate).

Most definately in the eye of the beholder, because I don't think Ted Rall is extreme in the least.

Now, Ann Coulter, over there on the right... the far right... the FAR far right... :)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 1, 2005 10:17 PM

*sigh* All this nice talk about McCain, and then has to go and say something stupid:

"I would also argue that if Saddam Hussein were left in power, weapons of mass destruction or no, he would be now, if he were in power, trying to acquire those weapons and use them. Eventually the sanctions were eroding," said Sen. John McCain on Fox News following the president's speech Tuesday at Fort Bragg.

Posted by: Mike Pawuk at July 1, 2005 10:38 PM

Well, it's been a while since I logged into PAD's site, and once again it's a blog with nothing but the same-old tired song of dance of Bush-bashing. Guess I really haven't missed much.

Hate him for all you like guys, but I think he's doing a good job. Different strokes, I guess.

Posted by: James Carter at July 1, 2005 11:40 PM

"All this nice talk about McCain, and then has to go and say something stupid:"

I saw that too, guess you beat me too it. Kinda sad. *Sigh* might as well pack up the McCain/Powell '08 buttons.

Posted by: AnthonyX at July 1, 2005 11:41 PM

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam’s intelligence agency’s efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990’s?

Mohammed Atta’s unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission’s dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department’s allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam’s henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam’s hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi’s choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam’s Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Posted by: TheOtherBlogger at July 2, 2005 07:49 AM

I think McCain's comments are pretty accurate. Remember, when Bush came into office, there was a lot of talk in the UN of removing sanctions. 9/11, combined with harsher rhetoric, put the "end the sanctions" movement on the back burner.

And I don't think it's a stretch to assume that if sanctions were removed, then Saddam would have started up weapons programs again.

Posted by: John Preston at July 4, 2005 10:47 AM

If tomorrow were 2008, Hilary Clinton would definitely run as would Mark Warner, John Edwards, Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson. Dean and Clark might run, too. Clinton would raise an awful lot of money and would have good staffpeople (her drain on staff may have cost Gore the White House in 2000). She'd be tough to beat in a primary situation.

She'd be a strange president. She's not as politically gifted as her husband, she tends to get flustered seeing policy work through congress, and I bet she'd have the Clinton-Gore disease of putting together a cabinet made of lightweight morons.

The three interesting Republican candidates are McCain, Giuliani and Jeb, who I will believe isn't running only after the election.

The Democrats would be better off right now had they run Howard Dean, although he probably would have finished with fewer electoral votes than Kerry.

Colin Powell has never wanted to be president.

Who is the lunatic posting in only consonants?

Posted by: James Carter at July 4, 2005 12:45 PM

"Who is the lunatic posting in only consonants?"

New guy? I refer you to the thread Disemvowelling, a.k.a. X-Ry Spcs.

Posted by: Zorro at March 2, 2006 12:15 PM

The vast majority of you are a bunch of selfish children who don't quite understand the complications of American politics. I am no politician but at least I realize that it takes a little bit more than a monkey in a suit to perform the role of president.

Oh, forget what I said... that's right. It's about oil, it's about Halliburton, it's about how Bush just doesn't like black people (Kanye West's words). Hell, GWB is the devil! RISE UP AMERICA, YOUR EYES HAVE BEEN COVERED!!

Hah, bunch of dull witted buffoons you are.