Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Jay Rockefeller, still politicizing intelligence [Karl]

The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt renders a valuable service by wading through last week’s Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report which ostensibly flogs the “Bush Lied” theme, but in fact reports that Pres. Bush’s statements on Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, chemical weapons, biological weapons, production capability and mobile laboratories, weapons of mass destruction overall, ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda were all substantiated by the available intelligence:

The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held.

The Iraq Survey Group has made plain what Saddam’s intentions were, and they were not good.

Hiatt, while noting that Rockefeller himself called Saddam’s Iraq an “imminent” threat, does not mention that politicizing the investigation of prewar intelligence has been Rockefeller’s plan since 2003.  Hiatt also correctly observes that dwelling on political attacks distracts from the failure of the intelligence agnecies upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied.

Politicizing the investigation of prewar intelligence has already contibuted to the creation of a badly flawed National Intelligence Estimate of Iran’s nuclear program.  How flawed?  Flawed enough that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was “skeptical” of its “generous” assumptions.  Flawed enough that it was widely discredited within three months of its issuance:

By March 3, 2008, the New York Times reported that the NIE — or the NIE as reported by the media — had been essentially disavowed by director of national intelligence Mike McConnell (nominally the NIE’s aithor), foreign policy heavyweights like Henry Kissinger and James R. Schlesinger, officials at our nuclear laboratories, and our Western allies, notably France. 

Indeed, the IAEA now believes Iran — before suspending its work nearly five years ago — may have made real progress toward designing a deadly weapon.  And Iran is still enriching uranium, which is the most difficult part of the process.  Even developing nations have joined in support of the IAEA’s attempt to get Iran to clarify intelligence alleging that it secretly researched ways of making atom bombs.  But people like Rockefeller, by politicizing the intelligence debate, have undercut the sort of threats regarding Iran that would make diplomacy and sanctions more effective.

——–

Related: The New York Sun has more nuance from the Senate report missing from the establishment media coverage.

229 Replies to “Jay Rockefeller, still politicizing intelligence [Karl]”

  1. JD says:

    This is fairly a routine practice for the Leftists. Whenever they are squawking about someone else politicizing the intelligence, it is a pretty safe bet that they are the ones doing so. It is like they pre-emptively denounce somebody else for something they are about to do.

  2. alppuccino says:

    Your billion dollar reality TV idea:

    Congress members take oral IQ tests live on TV.

    Start with that doofus Rockefeller. He’d be sweating like a page boy on Barney Frank orientation day.

  3. Roboc says:

    I wonder what will be missed this time while we’re playing political football with our intelligence?

  4. Rob Crawford says:

    Doesn’t matter. The fanatics (hi, sashal!) have the idea fixed in their minds. The reality won’t penetrate, and they’ll just add those bringing these facts out to their list to go through ritual denunciation.

  5. Disclosure: In spring of 2003, I thought that in a few years we’d be nursing along a fledgling Iraqi democracy, organizing hazmat teams to neutralize Saddam’s WMD stockpiles, and turning the diplomatic screws on the mullahocracy in Iran. I didn’t think we’d be 1 for 3 on those, and also arguing about the tiny type in intelligence committee reports.

    In brief, I still believe the Iraq war is right, but I can’t honestly claim that it is self-evidently right.

  6. The Lost Dog says:

    Jay Fucking Rockefeeler??

    How cool would it be to have so much money that you never had to lift a finger unless you felt like it?

    Stupid rich fucking heir babies.

    “Well, I’VE never had to work for anything, but let me tell you how it’s done.”

    I am watching Cavuto at the moment, and O!’s economic advisor is explaining why O! should be grabbing private sector money. “Because they, unlike ObamaLamaDingDong are greedy capitalists”

    What the fuck is happening here? I am actually beginning to be fearful of these socialist morons.

  7. The Lost Dog says:

    And, yes. “Rockefeeler”. Because he feels your pain through his unlimited bank account!

  8. It’s too bad that no one really pays attention to this stuff…

    The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt renders a valuable service by wading through last week’s Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report which ostensibly flogs the “Bush Lied” theme, but in fact reports that Pres. Bush’s statements on Iraq’s nuclear we…

  9. The Lost Dog says:

    And, who the hell is Ed Brill?

    Anybody know? I haven’t seen his byline anywhere around here – yet.

  10. Karl says:

    TSI,

    I think a lot of people who supported the invasion agree with you, and arguably we’re two of three (there’s a reason Iran would prefer a chat O!).

    I would add that your list excludes a few things: Saddam, Chemical Ali, etc. brought to justice; a freely elected government; Libya intimidated into giving up WMDs; Syrians scared out of Lebanon (though Hezbollah remains); AQI largely defeated, while AQ’s stock sinks every bit as low or lower in the region than that of the US, to name but a few.

    I’m sure you know all that and are just saying you thought we’d be further along. Me too, but I think that’s true of most major ground wars. The enemy gets a vote.

  11. The Lost Dog says:

    Karl,

    Here’s the real deal.

    Bush could give every poor person in the US a million dollars and THEY WOULD STILL HATE HIS GUTS!

    O! is as dumb as a box of rocks, but he is black (sorta), and socialist. As far as the drive bys are concerned, that fulfills his need for a resume.

    “FUCK AMERICA”, says Keith Uberidiot. And with one hundred thousand viewers, his view holds sway with the drive-bys.

  12. Ron Burgundy says:

    Yes, Karl, electing a Shia fundamentalist government in Iraq has been a fantastic foreign policy coup….for Iran, but thanks for the clarification.

    Meanwhile, Rockerfeller’s instinct to politicize intelligence seems to have abandoned him in the FISA/telecom immunity realm, where I believe you found him to be a hero of “protecting America” by protecting AT&T.

    I guess when one is complaining about historical mistakes, one is a liar. But,when one is proposing future mistakes, one is a hero. Who knew your moral code was so flexible?

    Or is it that you care as little about our civil rights as you do the loss of Iraqi lives (see House testimony from Iraqi legislators complaining about our destruction of their country)? Could you let us know in a future post about where you draw the line on the damage “the War on Terror” inflicts? Clearly, not innocent Iraqis, certainly not American’s Constitutional right….where, oh where, do you draw the line?

    Dangerous “radical” Barrack Obama and his scary…errr, associations, perhaps?

  13. Neo says:

    Once again we get an intelligence work product that is tainted by the summary, which is totally wrong. Given the MSM won’t actually read the whole thing unless the summary has only good news, now the good news is lost on a sorry summary delivered by the chairmen of the committee.

    Jay Rockefeller is one sorry SOB.

  14. alppuccino says:

    What’d they do to you Ron? Waterboarding? Fuck with your bank account?

    I’d sue.

  15. Bravo Romeo Delta says:

    Ron,

    You stated “Shia fundamentalist government in Iraq”. I’m uncertain why you mean by that – or rather, what you think you mean by that. Could you please explain?

    Thanks,

    BRD

  16. sashal says:

    Oh, Ron, the voice in the moral desert

  17. Bravo Romeo Delta says:

    So who is this Ed Brill guy, anyways?

  18. Karl says:

    The Iraqi government keeps voting for the US to stay. Actions speak louder than words, which is a lesson one would expect to elude Ron Burgundy. But at least Ron, by choice of handle, chose to flag to all that he is a buffoon.

  19. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    Or is it that you care as little about our civil rights as you do the loss of Iraqi lives (see House testimony from Iraqi legislators complaining about our destruction of their country)?

    – This from the gaggle that would have sat by and watched another half million die in the Hussein rape rooms while they “negotiated”, and gave Saddam all the time he needed to actually gather WMD’s.

    …and I’m still waiting 5 years later for a single citizen to name me a right he has lost, unless you think you have a right to short lines at the airport. Then again, why not. The Left can pull rights out of their collectivist asses faster than the speed on light.

    – Just the same, notice the Narrative(tm) morphing. Pay attention, because you’re going to see a lot of that as conditions in Iraq continue to improve.

    – When things work out in Iraq, at some point in the future you won’t be able to find a SecProgg in the country who ever uttered a negative word about the Democratization in that country.

    – The Lefturd memmory hole…Its whats for dinner!

  20. sashal says:

    at some point in the future things work out everywhere, including Viet Nam.
    Did those people have to die? Hunter?
    Fuck no. They did not….

  21. Karl says:

    at some point in the future things work out everywhere, including Viet Nam.

    You don’t know many Vietnamese-Americans, I’m guessing. You can only hope those pw regulars who do miss that bit of idiocy.

  22. sashal says:

    and your point?if we did not get there, things would work out without so many casualties in the lesser time.

  23. sashal says:

    “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”-from the report.

  24. Karl says:

    You obviously have no frickin’ clue what happened there before the US got there or after the US left. I’m deliberately keeping my reply short out of restraint. Others may be far less restrained.

  25. Karl says:

    sashal, all of the conclusions I note in the post are from the report. In fact, if you follow the links there, you will get one piece in which I note the general rule that most people never bother to read past the executive summary of reports like this, or the IPCC report. So the propaganda goes right up front, the reality goes in the back.

  26. Karl says:

    For that matter, your logic is essentially that of pacifism. Not to mention an attitude that would probably still have you under the thumb of the Soviets, had it prevailed here in the 1980s.

  27. sashal says:

    O’K have at it;
    Even for someone who has been carrying the Bush administration’s water for the past several years, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt’s attempt to spin the conclusions of the Phase II report on prewar intelligence is pretty astonishing.

    In defending the administration’s misrepresentation of intelligence in making their case for the Iraq war — and, by extension, his own paper’s decision to support that war — Hiatt does with the report what the Bush administration did with the intelligence: Cherry picks statements supportive of his argument while neglecting qualifying or disconfirming information.

    Hiatt quotes the report’s conclusion that, on Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, the president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.” The report continues, however, that the administration “did not convey substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.” Why did Fred leave that part out? And why does he do this throughout the item?

    Hiatt:

    On weapons of mass destruction overall…? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

    The report continues:

    …though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves.

    Hiatt:

    Statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

    The report continues:

    However, policymakers’ statements did not accurately convey the intelligence of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of Al Qa’ida.[…]

    Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State that Iraq and Al Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided Al Qa’ida with weapons training, were no substantiated by the intelligence.

    Contrary to Hiatt’s suggestion that the body of the report actually contradicts its summary — a favorite neocon tactic, as they know most people won’t bother to read the body of the report (Unfortunately for Fred, I’m paid to do this) — the report’s findings clearly support Committee Chairman Rockefeller’s statement that, “in making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”

    The bottom line is that members of the Bush administration stated as fact many things which were, at best, only suggested by intelligence. They did this in order to gin up public support for a war which they had already decided was going to happen, regardless. One can claim, I suppose, that the administration’s determination to go to war was made in good faith, but one simply cannot claim this about the administration’s public arguments for that war.

    The wonk room

  28. sashal says:

    karl, to your #25.
    DID WE HAVE TO GO THERE?

  29. B Moe says:

    if we did not get there, things would work out without so many casualties in the lesser time.

    Bullshit. You have no way of knowing this, and have yet to put forth any kind of rational reason for expecting such.

    The bottom line is that members of the Bush administration stated as fact many things which were, at best, only suggested by intelligence.

    More bullshit. They presented nothing as fact, it was all clearly intelligence estimates. If you and you buddies are too stupid to understand what that means, it ain’t our problem.

  30. Rusty says:

    #29
    Do you mean the US or the Soviets? Considering what happened after the Kennedy led act that removed funding from SVN, I’d say, yeah. For the US anyway, I heard that the soviets lost a lot of Mig pilots.

  31. cranky-d says:

    I suggest that those commenters who don’t like it here can just take their collective balls and go home.

    Seriously. Leave. Now.

    And don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Or, better yet, please do.

  32. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – sashal. I’m going to take you at your word, and that word is the usual “made for the public” bullshit that was pushed on the American electorate, but doesn’t happen to have a fucking thing to do with the “real” reasons or purpose of VietNam, any more than the gaggle of underground Marxists, and their adoring hippie-Bots, had any real effect, pro or con, on that war.

    – If you really gave a fuck you would have dug in deep and discovered the real things that led up to it, why we were there, and why we were finally able to leave. I’ve posted it elsewhere on PW. I’m not going to repeat it all. Just know anyone that parrots the Lefts version of things look the total fool by those that were there through that whole period, from the Eisenhower days through the mid 70’s.

    – Other than that, have at it. Moron.

  33. sashal says:

    B Moe, same way you do not know this either.
    But thousands of Americns would have been alive…
    “they presented nothing as fact”
    They started the war being in doubt.

    hahahah.
    THose 4000 killed were the result of the decision taken in doubt. But go ahead, war anyway…
    All, who supported it were very doubtful about the intelligence too. Another hahah at you.
    I will not call you stupid B.Moe ,but I’l call you willfully ignorant…

  34. sashal says:

    Without calling your moron, hunter.
    Same question to you as to Karl.
    Did we have to go there?

  35. B Moe says:

    They started the war being in doubt.

    hahahah.
    THose 4000 killed were the result of the decision taken in doubt. But go ahead, war anyway…
    All, who supported it were very doubtful about the intelligence too. Another hahah at you.

    There is a considerable amount of space between very doubtful and fact, sashal. If you don’t understand that then go take some more English lessons before trying to debate here. If you do, then fuck off you lying sack of shit.

  36. sashal says:

    who is lying sack of shit the majority of the country finally knows , no thank to you pathetic partisan apologist

  37. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Yes. I will answer you in one short paragraph, the rest you dig up yourself if you’re really interested in facts, and not just pushing an anti-American rant.

    – Look up the history of MAD, and start with the program begun by Eisenhower, supported fully by Kennedy, and carried through to completion in the mid 70’s by the State Department. that will answer all your questions. Look for the beginnings of the “stopping the creeping spread of world-wide communism” program, coupled with MAD.

    – Except for Kennedy’s blunder in starting the Cuban missile crisis, and the fact it took us three years longer than we hoped for, it was a success.

  38. Great Banana says:

    Sashal,

    because you are too stupid to understand this, I’ll explain it to you. We don’t have to go anywhere at anytime. Hell, we don’t even HAVE to defend our own shores if we don’t want to.

    So, does that answer your idiot question? We also did not need to go to Europe in WWII. we did not need to go to Japan, although that was a stronger argument since they actually attacked us.

    We did not need to go to Bosnia, or Somalia. Hell, I do not even HAVE to get out of bed tomorrow.

    However, we were right to go to Vietnam, we were actually winnnin the war, and the left’s victory at causing a defeat for the U.S. and making sure that millions of vietnamese died after we left is something they will pay for in the afterlife.

    We did not NEED to fight the cold war. Indeed, the left wanted desperately not to compete with the USSR at all, and tried to fight Reagan on it.

    We do not need to spend Billions and Billions now on aid to foreign countries. We do not NEED to re-distribute my hard earned money to lazy ass people who refuse to work. I don’t need my taxes increased to give the stupid and lazy free health care.

    I don’t need my taxes increased to pay health care and education costs for illegal mexican immigrants fleeing the socialist paradise of Mexico. there’s a great example of left policy. A country with all of the same natural resources, in fact more, than the U.S., but b/c it is ruled by leftist policy and economic theory, it is an abject failure.

    So, in all, we don’t NEED to do anything. Sometimes we make decisions that are the right thing to do and is in our national interest. I wouldn’t expect you to understand it b/c it is not about confiscating other people’s wealth to redistribute and is not about lying to gain power.

  39. sashal says:

    thanks, hunter.
    I appreciated the civilized manner displayed in your reply.
    I will look into the info you supplied

  40. B Moe says:

    the majority of the country finally knows

    Show me the lie, sashal, or shut the fuck up. The point of the post was while the Senate Committee said Bush lied in the summary, there was in fact no such instances in the body of the report. If you can find such an instance and show us, then do so. Otherwise quit fucking spamming your ridiculous bullshit.

    Just because someone says Bush lied don’t make it so, unless you are a pathetic partisan apologist.

  41. Karl says:

    sashal

    re: #25, where did I go?

    also:

    Hiatt does with the report what the Bush administration did with the intelligence: Cherry picks statements supportive of his argument while neglecting qualifying or disconfirming information.

    It’s Rockefeller who is doing this. He knows — as you apparently refuse to understand — that the intell process of the time was based on the consensus of the intell community. What the Admin. based its statements on was that consensus. Do I really have to link to the Cheney-hating, Rumsfeld-hating Larry Wilkerson on this again?

    Put another way: Carl Ford, from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, thought there was hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam’s regime. That was “disconfirming” or “qualifying” information Bush didn’t use and Rockefeller does not care to address.

  42. Civilis says:

    Did we have to go into Iraq now? No.

    That being said, eventually we would have had to go into the Middle East. The longer we would have waited, the more US casualties we would take in doing so, or the more innocent bystanders would die.

    We could also have done something about the middle east earlier, at which point the casualties on both sides would have been less. But past presidents, Democrat and Republican, found excuses to push the thing further down the road.

    Likewise, once Saddam was dead, we didn’t have to stay. But if we had pulled out, we’d again need to be back there in the future, in a worse situation. Better to fix it now.

  43. Karl says:

    Oh, sashal is referring to “going” to Iraq. Well, Jay Rockefeller — in whom you are reposing such great trust today — saw the intell and thought Saddam was an “imminent” threat, which is further than Bush ever went. Indeed, Bush argued specifically that Iraq was not an imminent threat — that was really the crux of the whole dispute over launching a pre-emptive war. So from Bush’s perspective, we did not have to go to Iraq and said as much. Rockefeller, otoh, hyped the threat as “imminent” and now complains about Bush’s position? Please.

  44. sashal says:

    Banana, I will tell you something about myself.
    And to others who will read.
    I grew up in totalitarian country, and liberalism was always a thing I aspired for, I aspired for it in the 70-80th, I started to believe in it when Gorbachev opened up USSR for the new ideas, I continued to support it when I stood in the pickets and the barricades in that august of 91, when was the coup attempted from the communists( I was mighty scared facing the tanks and soldiers, but somehow the idea of defending the new just started fresh life without the oppression, the closeness of others thousands of people believeng in the same overcame that fear ).
    When all was sold down the drain and the last hope for liberalism died I left.
    Do you think I would have appreciated the foreign interference in that fateful August?
    I would not. We made our own decisions then and we would have taken our own consequences.
    I am not against the wars when they are justified and called for, like WWII( we were attacked by the allies, Germany was an ally of Japan, our participation was right and just), same with Afghanistan.( I reserve my judgement on Viet Nam, I will check Hunter’s info etc,)
    So don’t patronize me about freedoms,( I do agree with you on taxes and our freedoms here), I fought for them….
    did you?

  45. William says:

    QUESTION:
    Who are you going to believe, someone who puts his hand on the Bible and testifies under oath, or someone like Karl Rove and the other Bushies who run from accountability when subpoenaed – like cockroaches from the light?

    Scotty McClellan will testify under oath June 20.

  46. sashal says:

    O’K , Karl. It is Rockefeller’s fault.
    sigh

  47. Karl says:

    …and letting Europe take the consequences for its actions after WWII would have worked out just peachy, just as it did after WWI. And not supporting the Poles, the Afghans, the Nicaraguans, etc. would have worked wonders also.

    sashal, I respect your personal history, but you would have had no chance to fight for your freedoms, but for the fact that Reagan put the screws to the USSR economically, diplomatically and militarily (both by spending on defense and supporting the aforementioned groups). And the line you put out here is the same line I heard through the 1980s from those who wanted to stop it from happening.

  48. B Moe says:

    So don’t patronize me about freedoms,( I do agree with you on taxes and our freedoms here), I fought for them….
    did you?

    Fucking A, sash! Absolute moral authority and chickenhawk combined! Nicely done! Now find a lie presented as fact, so far all you have shown is differing opinions.

  49. William says:

    QUESTION:
    Who are you going to believe, GW Bush who says that he doesn’t know Jack Abramoff when a report comes out today that says they met at least 6 times …. or the Bushie authoprtarians that say “Bush didn’t lie”?

  50. Karl says:

    William,

    Enjoy exploring Al Capone’s vault.

  51. Karl says:

    QUESTION:

    Is William going to try to derail the thread with questions irrelevant to the topic?

  52. sashal says:

    Karl, I already told you, and not once, Reagan is me favorite president, and the “screws” are fine. I am all for that. And I argued here on this board for that.
    I am arguing against direct military intervention and you know that..

  53. Gray says:

    Do you think I would have appreciated the foreign interference in that fateful August?
    I would not.

    You ungrateful shitguy: it was forty years of ‘foreign interference’ that led to that moment!

    I trained to kill “Godless Commies” for 8 years to make that moment possible. My father was drafted for the Korean War and then worked in nuclear weapons for 27 years to make that moment possible. When he retired, in ’91, in his speach he said: “We have brought the Russian Bear to its knees. My job here is done.”

    We didn’t have to go there either, but we were sick of us, and you, living in fear of your insane commie leaders.

    “Containment” means “living in fear”. It’s unamerican.

  54. B Moe says:

    I am arguing against direct military intervention and you know that..

    No, you are accusing Bush of lying, and us of being ignorant dupes. Do you have any real evidence yet, or are you just going to try to keep on changing the subject?

    And William, dearest, I have had my picture taken with an assload of folks I don’t know.

  55. Gray says:

    “speech”, or maybe “spee-otch”, bee-otch.

  56. Civilis says:

    Sashal, would France and Britain going to war against Germany on their own terms in 1938 to enforce the treaty of Versailles and put a stop to German militarization have been a good thing?

  57. Karl says:

    sashal,

    I know you are talking about direct military intervention.

    I also know you have provided no argument as to why that is different from the proxy wars RR ran all through the 1980s. I would have preferred that route w/ Iraq, but the fact is that Bush41 and Clinton screwed over the Shia and the Kurds on that score and lost their trust.

  58. LionDude says:

    By the same token, sash, shouldn’t have the contradicting intelligence minority dissent also be presented with the intelligence majority opinion at the time (that Saddam had chemical/biological weapons, WMD)? You see, it works both ways. This isn’t a “lie” about intelligence, my good sash, it was a judgement call by the administration and Congress based on the majority intelligence opinion at the time. Framing it as a “lie” makes you as dishonest as Senator Jay “imminent threat” Rockefeller (and our fellow moonbat guest “William”) having the chutzpah to attempt to cover up his own congressional record remarks and votes along with his Democrat buddies. If you’re questioning the 2002 judgment based on post liberation intelligence, well how nice it must be to have such wisdom several years after the fact.

  59. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – MAD stopped the madmen of your regime cold sashal, (madmen from my ancestry as well I’m sad to say), but being a part of the design team may have given me a certain amount of absolution, and it sure felt good.

    – We in the Industry grumbled about the moon landing thing, feeling the idea behind it, to drive the CCCP to even over extend more than just the arms race was a crap shoot, and the money and resources might have gotten the Boomer fleet outfitted that much sooner, and saved a lot of American lives. But I won’t argue that. Whats done is done. To bad the Left insured the death of 2 million more innocents. Min was about to sue for peace after TET, but by then the public had been brainwashed by the Liberal Press, and Nixon was to stupid and preoccupied with his dumb ass “enemies list”, and in any event, had no clue about the program. It was finished IN SPITE of the assholes in Washington. Thank God. With MAD in place, the Communists/Marxists, none of the -ists, ever advanced a single inch in the world.

  60. […] Protein Wisdom – Jay Rockefeller, still politicizing intelligence [Karl] […]

  61. Gray says:

    There wouldn’t have even been a 9/11 if the Soviets hadn’t invaded Afghanistan.

    And weren’t all those tanks, guns, SCUDs and bullets Saddam used Russian?

  62. sashal says:

    Karl, I am not so sure about proxy wars, which ones in particular you are talking about.
    I contrary to many statements from the left in USA, think that USA did well when they decided to help Afghanistan resistance.
    Was there anything else?
    I do not mind the support,and materials USA supplied to the resistance and other sources fighting the oppression and/or communist regimes throughout the world.
    Hunter, thanks again, i understand…your position, mine is not much different, nuance is in necessity and goals of the hot wars( not cold wars -here we are in complete agreement) we seem to disagree about..
    To Gray, nobody talks to me in that tone….
    LionDude, your politeness is appreciated. You wanted it to be about judgement call. Fine…
    Civillis, no doubt in mine mind it would have been better if Britain and France would have prevented Germany from its global ambitions in 1938. I don’t think they were ready at that time , militarily, that’s why the shameful Munich agreement happened as a buying time thing.

  63. SteveG says:

    sashal

    I think it is a Presidents job to filter through intelligence information and make a decision. There will be conflicting, substantive reports that. It’d be impossible, not to mention disconcerting to find that all of the intelligence was unanimous, because people in the intelligence community are supposed to run contrary scenarios and reports.
    So the President and Senate digested all the information pro and con and came to roughly the same conclusions. The President then made his decision realizing that you can’t endlessly weigh pros and cons.

    The administration:
    “did not convey substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.”
    That is a long way from a “lie”, particularly when those “substantial disagreements” were conveyed to the Senate Commitee Rockefeller sits on.
    The President laid out the information he’d decided to trust his decision upon and it is telling that Rockefeller and his fellow Democrats did not counter the administration vigorously at that point in time and instead agreed with him.

    Rockefeller now trots out all the “con” arguments… particularly the ones that in hindsight have turned out to be right.
    OK
    But where was the “con” argument for WMD’s?
    Everyone from Bill Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry to Jay Rockefeller himself had been convinced for years before Bush arrived that Saddam had them.
    By Rockefellers reasoning, Bush has every right to blame them for feeding him bad intel… after all he took their belief, acted on it and came up empty. Bush turned Iraq upside down looking for what Clinton/Gore/Rockefeller described as undisputed fact.
    Bush should send Clinton a card that says:
    “Nice job on the intel community re: WMD’s.
    Fuck you,
    George”

  64. SteveG says:

    I wrote:
    “There will be conflicting, substantive reports that.”

    What I meant to write was:
    There will be conflicting, substantive reports within that decision making process.

  65. Topsecretk9 says:

    Who are you going to believe, GW Bush who says that he doesn’t know Jack Abramoff when a report comes out today that says they met at least 6 times …. or the Bushie authoprtarians that say “Bush didn’t lie”?

    Hmmmmm. You know this kinda logic does nothing to help Michelle and her children and the house they live in

  66. JD says:

    sashal – Better Half says you are a fuckin’ moron and that type of “thinking” resulted in many deaths in her family, and millions throughout the region.

  67. sashal says:

    Steveg,
    o’k, let’s say that Bush and his advisers honestly believed in WMD story in Iraq( can’t say it about neocons-remember what Perle said about the need to sell the war?). Anyway, let’s say that Bush is an honest guy.
    What the fuck was the rush to not let inspectors finish their job?

  68. kelly says:

    Abramoff? Really? Has a kind of yesterday feel to it.

    Doubtlessly, I’m sure you have no problem whatsoever with Rezko, William? Just a tangential relationship? Nothing to see here. Move along.

    Dick.

  69. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – If I gave a fuck I’d have to say that the worst WMD that Saddam actually had was the withholding of OFF funds that were ment to feed and give medical aid to his people.

    – But WMD’s persee’. Not relevant. Just ankle biting on the part of the Left because its the only thing they cab find to pick at Bush over.

    – The real truth is had Bush failed to act, Hussein would have been given endless time while the Left “negotiated”, and at some point its probable he would have aquired some. then you’d have seen an even worse situation by a long shot, and it would have meant many more thousands, maybe even millions, that would have died. Just like if we had Left instead of holding firm the bloodbath would have been layed at the doorstep of the Left, just as it was in VietNam (Pol Pot).

    – Every time the Left manages to roadblock in a way that supports a dictator, many more people end up dead. Cuba, the jewel of shame in the Lefts crown, would have been a bloodbath too but we hung over Castro and stopped him from doing a lot of things he would have otherwise, and we did it in spite of the Left.

  70. sashal says:

    JD, I respect your wife’s opinion, who are we to argue with the better halves.
    Anyway, you may tell her, that in my opinion with that type “thinking” she is so mad about, there would have been less deaths in her family.
    In my opinion of course… And tell her, that my family endured similar treatment in the early 30th -50th

  71. sashal says:

    so, hunter #70.
    The only course in dealing with Saddam you saw in military intervention.
    I got it….
    Now I apologize , but I have to leave.
    Will be back later…….

  72. Karl says:

    sashal,

    Nicaragua, for starters. The Dems took Ortega’s side and passed dubious laws like the Boland amendment, hoped to impeach Reagan over Iran-contra.

  73. Pablo says:

    What the fuck was the rush to not let inspectors finish their job?

    See UN Sec Res 1441 and Saddam’s subsequent material breach thereof. 12 years is no rush.

  74. MayBee says:

    What would have happened after the inspectors “finished” their jobs? And about how long do we think it would have taken?

  75. Civilis says:

    Civillis, no doubt in mine mind it would have been better if Britain and France would have prevented Germany from its global ambitions in 1938. I don’t think they were ready at that time , militarily, that’s why the shameful Munich agreement happened as a buying time thing.

    There is no right or wrong answer here. It’s a ahistorical what-if scenario, and a silly one at that.

    But what I get from this is that you agree that, at least in certain cases, a war that is unnecessary now may be better than a necessary war later. It doesn’t mean that this logic applies to the real world in Iraq, you obviously believe otherwise. But I sincerely believe if the US didn’t go into Iraq in 2002, we would have to invade somewhere in the Middle East, or everywhere in the Middle East, at a later date. The various countries and non-national groups in the Middle East were not going to just back down and stop attacking the US and its allies. There is nothing aside from military intervention and the credible threat of further intervention that will prevent one of the powers from escalating this to using WMD.

    What the fuck was the rush to not let inspectors finish their job?

    The longer the wait, the more time Saddam has to prepare. The more time Saddam has to prepare, the more dead Americans and Iraqis.

  76. daleyrocks says:

    sashal – I don’t know about you, but I was enjoying the heck out the 12 years out of the U.N. telling Iraq STOP or we’ll say STOP again. It really put some power behind enforcing international treaties and those supranational organizations liberals adore.

  77. B Moe says:

    What the fuck was the rush to not let inspectors finish their job?

    *beats head against desk as penance for engaging sashal in the first place*

  78. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Its really the height of willful ignorance to go down this path.

    – Bush41 didn’t finish the job, and coupled with Clintons hesitation to act, it all “comes home to roost” in 9/11. And don’t give me any of that shit about “al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq”. when ever it suits them the Left likes to do this disconnect thing, where everything is taken in isolation. More self-serving bullshit.

    – Bin Laden wanted to fight the US on Husseins side. In fact he says himself he got disowned by his own royal family because he fought US basing in Saudi during Desert storm. He moved to the Sudan and started planning his attacks on the US. so spare me the nonsensical disassociation of these thugs. They will all gladly kill Americans, and suspend their differences while they do it. Anyone that argues otherwise is trying to blow smoke up peoples ass, and of course you have to wonder what their motives are for defending the Wahhabists.

  79. What kind of moron thinks that over 10 years is a rush to do anything?

  80. JD says:

    Father-in-law thinks people like sashal are dangerous. Their family did not have to die, but the peacenik anti-war people removed the political will to keep fighting a war we were winning. Sound familiar?

  81. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Dunderheads abound, or as some have taken to calling then in a sort of rebirth of the American revolutionary war, “cooperheads”.

    – I will beat them back as long as I am able, or my keyboard gets laryngitis, whichever.

  82. Sdferr says:

    You go BBH. (And I mean it, no joking around.)

    Sashal doesn’t seem dangerous. He’s such a sweet quasi-pacifisty sort of fella, who’s he gonna hurt?

  83. MayBee says:

    at some point in the future things work out everywhere, including Viet Nam.

    What might “not working out” look like?
    It looks to me like the definition of ‘work out’ is the people that survive eventually repopulate an area.

  84. Merovign says:

    # Comment by B Moe on 6/9 @ 6:34 pm #

    *beats head against desk as penance for engaging sashal in the first place*

    Class, pay attention.

  85. Bravo Romeo Delta says:

    Sashal is absolutely right – things are more peaceful in Rwanda these days.

    Yet the poor fellows think they are safe! They think that the war is over! Only the dead have seen the end of war. George Santayana, Soliloquies in England, Soliloquy #25

  86. William says:

    And William, dearest, I have had my picture taken with an assload of folks I don’t know.
    B Moe, Do those same people that you ‘don’t know’ raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for you, influence your appointments, and joke and make comments about your kids? You are a fucking denialist… how stupid do you think the public is? As stupid as you?

  87. What the fuck was the rush to not let inspectors finish their job?

    There was obviously no rush, pre-9/11. But once it was shown that a dozen jihadists could strike our homeland without being detected, our perceived margin of safety narrowed considerably. It narrowed, that is, if you don’t believe that the big bad uber-hegemon deserved those 3,000 murders….

  88. Mikey NTH says:

    I met George W. Bush once, and if he doesn’t remember me, I’ll…I’ll…I wouldn’t be surprised in the least.

  89. Mikey NTH says:

    #70 BBH

    – The real truth is had Bush failed to act, Hussein would have been given endless time while the Left “negotiated”, and at some point its probable he would have aquired some.

    Sort of like how letting the IAEA and the Europeans negotiate with Iran has produced such concrete results.

  90. Gray says:

    To Gray, nobody talks to me in that tone….

    Meaning: “I have no answer.”

    My family alone broke our asses during the Cold War soldiering and engineering so that you could be free to come over here and shit on us for “military intervention”?

    I’ve earned the right to speak to you in any tone I wish, shitguy.

  91. RC says:

    Sashal,

    Not to Minimize the efforts of the folk that lived under and fought totalitarianism but they did it from the inside and had little knowledge of what those of us that were fighting it on the outside were doing. Before you shoot off your mouth one more time you would be well advised to study MUCH more recent history, economics and politics because pretty much everything you think you know is wrong and is based on the critical analysis and depth of thought of the average 11 year old.

  92. Mikey NTH says:

    Let us suppose the inspectors finished their job and certified Iraq as ‘WMD Free’. Then what? Knowing Saddam Hussein and the Baath regime, what would happen once he was off the leash?

    Care to wager a guess?

    I would wager that Sweden has the resources to go nuclear if they wanted to, but the nature of the Swedish government is such that they won’t and no one around them has to fear that, or fear them much if they had them. That is the difference.

    Here’s another one – as president of the United States, responsible for the safety of this nation, and other allied nations – do you trust in the forbearance of Saddam Hussein, or if you have the power to do something, do you do it before he has a nuke or afterwards?

    Everything is so easy when you don’t have to make the decisions.

  93. Mikey NTH says:

    BBH – Copperheads were US Civil War. Loyalists, or Tories, were American Revolution. Otherwise, right on.

  94. Gray says:

    I can only hope to live long enough to see the free Afghans, Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims of all types protest and bitch about “military intervention” when the Earth has to fight the fucking Martians.

    Oh well, scratch a Russian and you wound a Tartar, right Sashal?

  95. B Moe says:

    … how stupid do you think the public is?

    Stupid enough to nominate Barrack Obama and John McCain as Presidential candidates, but what does that have to do with the truth of your assertions? Bush, or Obama, McCain or any other politician, gets their picture taken with thousands of people, many of them are donors. They don’t know most of them.

  96. JD says:

    William seems to be intent on proving the depth of his asshattery in as few posts as possible.

  97. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Damn Mikey – you’re absolutely right….”teh dunderheadedness” must be catching.

  98. cynn says:

    Thanks for your faith in the American public, BMoe! Nice to know your contempt extends to the people who are sending family to fight your disgusting “war.”

  99. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    CONTEMPTIST!

  100. Mikey NTH says:

    Do you got anything to contribute to the discussion…
    Oh, wait – it’s just cynn. Nothing there but anger. Should get that looked into – an excess of black bile isn’t healthy.

  101. Mikey NTH says:

    BBH – It can be hard keeping all of these guys straight.
    (Though IIRC family history, some of my ancestors moved from New York to Ontario for their health – after that little disagreement in the late eighteenth century.)

  102. Gray says:

    Thanks for your faith in the American public, BMoe! Nice to know your contempt extends to the people who are sending family to fight your disgusting “war.”

    Hmmmm. The set that contains both “Obama Supporters” and “Those sending family to fight your disgusting war” is a very small set indeed.

    And Hmmmmm again: why would “war” get “scare quotes”. It is a war. In what way is this “war” and not war itself? But nevermind that.

    BMoe may have actually offended 2 or 3 people. But I appreciate the service of those Obama-supporting military families, nonetheless. All both of them.

    (Just to forestall the inevitable comment: Yes, I am military. So was my dad. Barack al Hussein terrifies me….)

  103. cynn says:

    OOH, you said black bile. Go flagellate yourself.

  104. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – I have no excuse for that sort of bone headed mistake. Moms side of the family goes back to Henry Clay at least. I certainly should know My tories from my whigs from my carpetbaggers. Dealing, day after day with these kitchen table guttersnips is taxing. But like Lisa says, most fun you can have without sex candy.

  105. cynn says:

    Grey: It is not a delclared war as I understand it. Stop with the march on Rome shit already.

  106. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Yes. But even so cynn, I suspect you wouoldn’t call it a legitimate war unless the goat herders dropped a nuke on Newark.

  107. Gray says:

    Grey: It is not a delclared war as I understand it.

    It is declared: congress gave the president power to use military force against Saddam (after reading the same intelligence briefs the executive branch and military did). Your understanding is faulty.

  108. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – I’m still waiting for the economic effects to kick in from all that oil we went into Iraq to steal. Must just be slow in arriving.

  109. cynn says:

    bbh: neither you nor I have the fucking power to decide what war is. It’s granted by congress. If my neighbor’s dog keeps shitting in my yard, I can’t blast it unless there’s a formal act of war. And there’s not.

  110. B Moe says:

    Thanks for your faith in the American public, BMoe! Nice to know your contempt extends to the people who are sending family to fight your disgusting “war.”

    What the hell are you talking about?

    If my neighbor’s dog keeps shitting in my yard, I can’t blast it unless there’s a formal act of war.

    Uh… never mind. It really doesn’t matter.

  111. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Yes. Its granted by Congress. And it was. I can source you any number of Videos showing the entire parade of Democratic leaders from Dean to Hillery to Kerry to Kennedy to almost any leader you can name, calling Iraq an “imminent threat, and danger”. The fact that those same Dems have convenient memory’s changes nothing.

    – Damn videos really screw up the Lefts Narrative(tm) at times.

  112. cynn says:

    Grey: Authorization to use military force is like giving a learner’s permit to a 15 year old. I guess in this case, it was appropriate.

  113. Gray says:

    bbh: neither you nor I have the fucking power to decide what war is. It’s granted by congress.

    Yes, and they granted, by vote, the president the authority to use force against Saddam in support of UN Resolution 1444.

    If my neighbor’s dog keeps shitting in my yard, I can’t blast it unless there’s a formal act of war.

    In my state you can. Non-agricultural animals are fair game if they are a nuisance on your property. Not all the personal is political: we aren’t Maoists!

  114. daleyrocks says:

    cynn – What do you see as the difference between a declaration of war and an authorization to use military force? Apart from affecting some treaties, what the fuck difference is there apart from semantics, you twit?

  115. Gray says:

    Grey: Authorization to use military force is like giving a learner’s permit to a 15 year old.

    No, an authorization to use force by congress is specified in the Constitution–and reserved to the Federal Gov. Learner’s permists are governed by state statute. Any state could give 15 y/os permits.

    It doesn’t matter how you feel. It is a declared war and proceeding to an agreeable conclusion. What’s the problem?

  116. cynn says:

    The dog analogy was pretty goofy, but I’m pissed at my neighbors right now. No reason to do anything other than what I might be authorized to do. Which leads me to wonder about the permanent presence there.

  117. B Moe says:

    What’s the problem?

    She is pissed y’all won’t bomb her neighbor’s dog.

  118. B Moe says:

    Get a shovel and fling the dog shit upside their house, cynn. Porches and windows have maximum strategic effect. Don’t let their problems become your problems.

  119. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Authorization to use military force is exactly what it says cynn. Authorization to use military force, and you had it right before, we don’t get to use our opinions in the matter. You don’t like it, move to Venezuala. They let one guy do it, no Congress necessary.

    – The Dems had a hard deal. They knew that it would be crazy to let Saddam continue until he became an even greater threat, so they had to vote to authorize, but they did it as mealy mouthed as they could to placate the hard Left in their base. What they hate about Bush is he double crossed them and used the power they gave him as CIC. How dare he.

    – Sounds pretty immature cynn.

  120. Gray says:

    She is pissed y’all won’t bomb her neighbor’s dog.

    With the new Fire Control computers and a GPS guided small-diameter bomb, I’ll bet I could–and leave her, and her neighbors’ houses standing.

  121. daleyrocks says:

    Jimmy Carter killed his neighbor’s cat with a shotgun for hanging around his bird feeder. Just blast the fucker and say you were acting presidential.

  122. Goalposts says:

    Grey: Authorization to use military force is like giving a learner’s permit to a 15 year old

    Even I thought I was too heavy for this!

  123. cynn says:

    Gray: Guess I was cloudy on the distinctions. I foolishly thought an authorization to use military force applied to a specific, one-time event clearly defined by time and place. A declaration of war would be a declaration of ongong hostilities between stated opponents, with clear grievances and hopefully, theaters of operations. But that’s just my stupid high school civics understanding. You all know infinitely more.

  124. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – The dog must have been from Tel Aviv.

  125. Pablo says:

    Commander in Chief? Student driver? Same same.

  126. By the time 9/11 happened, the UN was moving toward lifting the sanctions on Saddam Hussein. that’s all he was waiting for.

  127. SteveG says:

    “selling the war” is always going to be necessary whether it is Darfur or China.
    The language sounds craven, but the reality is that the public has to buy into the use of force.
    Part of the work of waging war is projecting the vision adroitly.

    I don’t think the UN inspectors are held in high esteem by most western intelligence agencies… even the Jordanian and Egyptian agencies are skeptical of them

  128. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Definately the cat was.

  129. cynn says:

    Pablo: Amen. Now you guys pick up the dogshit and we’re even.

  130. Gray says:

    I foolishly thought an authorization to use military force applied to a specific, one-time event clearly defined by time and place.

    No. Once Congress gives authority to use force, their Constutional power is of the purse strings–they can always vote to quit funding the war. So far they’ve not.

    A declaration of war would be a declaration of ongong hostilities between stated opponents, with clear grievances and hopefully, theaters of operations.

    That’s precisely what they gave the president to overthrow Saddam in Iraq and to wage war in Afghanistan.

    The Executive branch still holds the charge ‘to protect Americans at home and abroad’, but only as funded by Congress.

  131. Mikey NTH says:

    You don’t understand much about wars, do you cynn? That question was answered by the US Supreme Court after the Undeclared Naval War with France, the ‘XYZ Affair’.

    Is a formal declaration of war necessary for a legal state of war to exist?

    No. This question was addressed in The Eliza, 4 US 37, 40 (1800). In that case the US was at war with France, an undeclared naval war. Justice Washington stated that contention by force between nations is a public war. If there is a formal declaration, then it is a solemn and perfect war in that every citizen of the nation is authorized to commit hostilities against all members of the other nation. “But hostilities may subsist between two nations more confined in its nature and extent; being limited as to places, persons, and things; and this is more properly termed imperfect war; because not solemn, and because those who are authorized to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no farther than the extent of their commission. Still, however, it is public war, because it is an external contention by force, between some of the members of the two nations, authorized by the legitimate powers.” (A public war is between two nations, as opposed to a civil war).

    A declaration of war is the equivalent of sending your visiting card to your enemy on his butler’s silver salver challenging him to a duel. You really don’t see much of that, mostly its two guys insulting each other until one throws a punch (or one guy sucker punching another).

    Got it? Congress, under its enumerated (plenary) power to declare war can chose just how much war is declared, from full and formal to much more limited.

  132. Mikey NTH says:

    Here is a defintion of ‘plenary’.

    Are there any restrictions on Congress’ power to declare war?

    No. Congress’ power to declare war is plenary – full, entire, complete, absolute, perfect. Ullman v US, 350 US 433, 436 (1956) [overruled on other grounds].

  133. Gray says:

    Still, however, it is public war, because it is an external contention by force, between some of the members of the two nations, authorized by the legitimate powers.”

    Well, that’s exactly where we are again here.

    The tricky part is when we are waging war, as we are now, against a diffuse enemy who crosses borders, but is no less Nationalistic in creed and united action.

    But we’ve actually walked that line pretty carefully in the War on Terror–securing agreements with other nations before we pursue our enemies.

    4th Generation warfare is entirely Constutional, but too complicated for the limited minds of the bumper-sticker lefties.

  134. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – cynn. Theres a reason I live in a pet-free zone. Can you figure out why. I know you can do it. Any pet that is caught on the premises is taken directly past go to the pound, or shot, which ever is more convenient. Goldfish don’t shit on the lawn, so they don’t count.

    – I allow my son to grow butterflies. They don’t generally shit on the lawn either.

  135. cynn says:

    My point stands; we are no more at war with a nation than we have the right or occasion to declare such a war.

  136. B Moe says:

    4th Generation warfare is entirely Constutional, but too complicated for the limited minds of the bumper-sticker lefties.

    Nah, man, those guys are the deep thinkers, the vanguard leading us to the New Way. Just ask nishfong.

  137. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – I know cynn. Your point stands. We should have sent the NY-PD.

  138. cynn says:

    We have not been particularly careful, in my opinion. We have flown under the razor wire. We don’t care, because we don’t have to.

  139. Gray says:

    My point stands; we are no more at war with a nation than we have the right or occasion to declare such a war.

    The federal gov has no ‘right’ to declare any war, only the power to. Only citizens have Rights.

    It is entirely Constitutional to use force in an ‘imperfect public war’ (see Mikey’s post) against any group who means us harm. The US has done it several times before.

    Your point is nonsense.

  140. cynn says:

    Bmoe, what is your link please. I would like to know more about this generational warfare crap. More importantly, I would like my daughter to know, since she is likely the one to have to save your ass.

  141. Mikey NTH says:

    Again, Gray the authorization of force was legal. Now we are dealing with what Justice Washington would likely have described as brigands or pirates. Since they do not owe allegiance to any of the contesting parties they are beyond the pale and may be attacked as enemies of all humanity.

    The Geneva Conventions support this as those who are to be treated as enemy soldiers must wear a badge that identifies them.

    BTW – ‘The Eliza’ dealt with a US flagged ship captured by a French privateer, and then captured by a US privateer. The US privateer wanted to sell the ship and cargo, the original owners objected, basing their objection that since the US was not in a declared war with France, Congress could not license privateers. So the ship was recaptured by friends and should be returned to the original owners. The Supreme Court disagreed, it was lawful for Congress to license privateers in an undeclared war, so the privateer now could auction the ship and cargo.

    If Congress authorizes hostilities, then hostilities there are. And that case is over two hundred years old and has not been overturned. A long-standing interpretation, and solid precedence.

  142. Mikey NTH says:

    You have my cites, cynn. Find authority to refute them. Your druthers count as nothing otherwise.

  143. Gray says:

    We have not been particularly careful, in my opinion. We have flown under the razor wire.

    No. Prior to hostilities, we diplomatically asked that Afghanistan give up bin Laden and the Taliban to us and we asked that Saddam comply fully with UN Resolution 1444.

    We further diplomatically secured agreements with Pakistan and the new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq to continue to pursue the Taliban and Baathist elements.

    Congress agreed and continues to fund the war.

    What’s your beef?

  144. Gray says:

    Again, Gray the authorization of force was legal. Now we are dealing with what Justice Washington would likely have described as brigands or pirates. Since they do not owe allegiance to any of the contesting parties they are beyond the pale and may be attacked as enemies of all humanity.

    The Geneva Conventions support this as those who are to be treated as enemy soldiers must wear a badge that identifies them.

    I couldn’t have put it better. I attempted to amplify your point ham-handedly.

  145. Mikey NTH says:

    BTW – Gray, I was not ragging on you, I was building on your comment for greater clarification.
    I just wanted to emphasize what I said.

  146. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Hey guys. When we get attacked, if the other side doesn’t have big tricked out flags and stuff, and proper uniforms, we should use the “Clinton imperative” – Declare a city statute has been broken and enforce a police action.

  147. cynn says:

    We’re dealing with pirates now? Have you guys gone off into Sin City mode? My God, I am in the presence of giants.

  148. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    My God, I am in the presence of giants.

    – Thanks cynn, but you’re still not getting my bud.

  149. Gray says:

    We’re dealing with pirates now?

    Actually, yes: Brigands and Pirates. The Constitution was written during days when they were a threat to US Citizens and Interests.

    A nation that can’t protect its citizens and interests is no nation at all.

    You want to be protected from Islamic Brigands and Pirates.

  150. cynn says:

    Great. Thanks to you bigots, I get my beauty sleep!

  151. Mikey NTH says:

    We’re dealing with pirates now?

    Legally speaking, yes. Non-state actors who attack the citizens and military of a state are nomore than brigands or pirates; legally speaking they are brigands or prirates, and under the Geneva conventions (and under international law) they recieve no protection. Those who are to receive protection must carry a badge identifying them as military of a hostile power.

    Sweet Jeebus! Do you think the time you live in is unique? Do you think the same thing has not been seen over the centuries?

    Please Read Glenn Tucker’s ‘Dawn Like Thunder; the Barbary Wars and the Birth of the US Navy’. You can get it on Amazon, I’ll wager. Read some history, for Lightworker’s sake!

  152. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – I think we had it wrong. Its not because we wouldn’t bomb her neighbors dog. Its because we wouldn’t nuke her Pirates parrot.

  153. Gray says:

    The Geneva Conventions support this as those who are to be treated as enemy soldiers must wear a badge that identifies them.

    Yep. My “Geneva Convention Identification Card” (Military ID in short) has me as Category II. You can take me prisoner, but you have to render aid, not behead me and not put me on a show-trial.

    No ID card? No uniform? Game on!

    Except we are so damned nice that we put the pirates and brigands we catch in Guantanamo or, horrors!, make naked pyramids out of them before giving them a nice halal meal and sending them on to blow us up again.

    There would be no International Leftist outcry if we had executed them on the battlefield in perfect accordance with The Geneva Gonventions….

  154. cynn says:

    Grey: You cannot be serious!

  155. William says:

    35 Articles of Impeachment have just been introduced in the House against GW Bush

  156. Mikey NTH says:

    Oh, on the right of Congress to delcare war?

    So, a legal war can exist without a formal declaration, and the US can declare war and wage war whenever it wants, and on whomever it wants, for whatever reasons, be it for good cause, bad cause, mistake, or just sheer “oh what the hell, it’s Tuesday, let’s invade someone”, and it is always perfectly legal to do so, and international law isn’t a method that can declare such an act illegal?

    Exactly. Going to war is a political question, and courts avoid those like most men avoid radium-lined underpants. Moral questions? Again, take that up with the deity/supreme being/personal guru of your choice. Oh, I’m sure that a bunch of nations could get together and get the world court to rule that it is illegal for the USA to go to war, but what French Army is going to be able to enforce that judgment? And anyway, it wouldn’t be a decision under US law, no matter what Justice Ginsberg says (and she’s on Father Time’s list anyway), as it would be an attempt to abrogate one of Congress’ enumerated powers.

  157. Gray says:

    Great. Thanks to you bigots, I get my beauty sleep!

    = Got Nothing.

    I am a bigot against stateless brigands and pirates who attack the US without declaring war or attempting a diplomatic agreement!

  158. cynn says:

    Gray, Honest to God, you are one of those people I would like to sit down with (in a secure public venue of course) and freely discuss our differnces. Just a ramble.

  159. Gray says:

    Grey: You cannot be serious!

    I am serious when it comes to The Law of Land Warfare and The Geneva Conventions from which it is derived.

  160. Mikey NTH says:

    And removing an enumerated power requires the US Constitution to be amended. So you are stuck, cynn. Legally speaking, the Iraq Campaign is perfectly legal.

  161. Karl says:

    #156: Get back to us when it goes to trial.

  162. Gray says:

    Honest to God, you are one of those people I would like to sit down with (in a secure public venue of course) and freely discuss our differnces. Just a ramble.

    Thank you. I would like to discuss those things with you as well. Hey, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution–that doesn’t include breaking it in any way.

    My conscience is clear on the US actions in this current war. Our only fault is in being too nice.

  163. Karl says:

    cynn,

    Have you missed that we have a commenter here by the handle “Spies, Brigands and Pirates?”

    Yes, we can!

  164. B Moe says:

    Aircraft hijacking (also known as skyjacking and aircraft piracy) is the take over of an aircraft, by a person or group, usually armed. In most cases the pilot is forced to fly according to the orders of the hijackers. Sometimes the hijackers fly the planes themselves, as believed to have occurred in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking

    It is piracy cynn. Recognized by the UN even.

  165. Gray says:

    35 Articles of Impeachment have just been introduced in the House against GW Bush

    So fucking what. On what grounds?

  166. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – And so are reprisals, but that gets into a whole ‘nother body of international law, and I don’t want to get you started again cynn. Maybe you could take the usual Lefturd approach in dealing with this dogs turds. Tell your neighbor you want to “negotiate” keeping his dogs shit off your lawn. Report back to us how that works out for you.

  167. cynn says:

    Look, it’s academic whether or nor the Iraq shit is legal or not. It’s real. I refuse to call it a war because it’s not one. It nevertheless exists, it’s shit, and it’s real.

  168. Mikey NTH says:

    Gray – as a member of the USCGAUX I am Geneva Convention category IV. The card says it is ‘Geneva Conventions Identification Card – Form 2650A’. And yes, I had to fill out an SF86.

  169. B Moe says:

    Kucinich and other liberal Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), have sought the removal of the current administration, arguing that Bush and Cheney have lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the “War on Terror” following the 9/11 attacks.

    If I were McCain I would be shoveling money under the table to try to get Kucinich to keep pushing this hard until November. Fucking hilarious.

  170. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    “35 Articles of Impeachment have just been introduced in the House against GW Bush”

    – Yes, well, they can’t get anay legislation passed, si they decided a circle jerk would be the next best thing.

  171. B Moe says:

    I refuse to call it a war because it’s not one.

    omgTRUTH TO POWER!!1!!!!!!11

  172. Gray says:

    Look, it’s academic whether or nor the Iraq shit is legal or not. It’s real. I refuse to call it a war because it’s not one. It nevertheless exists, it’s shit, and it’s real.

    It is a war.
    It is entirely legal.
    It is shitty, as all wars are;
    and fighting it keeps you safe in your bed.

  173. Mikey NTH says:

    It isn’t academic, cynn. It has been decided by the courts years ago – see my cites and refute them if you can – your druthers are not relevant to that question. Like your getting to an appointment on time is not relevant to the cop giving you a speeding ticket.

    It is a war according to the the US Constitution and an over two hundred year old non-overturned US Supreme Court decision. Deal with that reality first.

  174. Gray says:

    as a member of the USCGAUX I am Geneva Convention category IV

    Interesting! You guys are great: keeping our waterways safe and defended is a good use of my tax dollars. All commerce would end without it.

  175. Sdferr says:

    The war is not only legal, it is just and prudent. It may even prove to be a Hegelian World Historical event. We’ll have to wait and see on that one, but it’s got a shot.

  176. Mikey NTH says:

    Actually, cynn, I think your frustration is based on not acknowledging reality and then trying to work with what is their. Otherwise you are running head on into a brick wall. You can declare all you want that 2+2=5; but it doesn’t make it so.

    Wishing doesn’t make it so; most humans figure that out in elementary school. What’s your excuse?

  177. Mikey NTH says:

    Well, as a uniformed civilian volunter (unpaid) I cannot assist with law enforcement or military missions; but assist people in trouble and patrol? We can do that.

    And thanks for the kudos, Gray. As I told JD, I can run for a long time on an unearned compliment.

  178. Gray says:

    Nighty night. I’ll check the thread in the morning.

    How I love to see a brute display of US civics and history knowledge….

  179. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Kucinich, what a tool. Hes so far around the bend he even scares the nutroots. One of these days they’re going to lock him up for the publics safety.

    – Pe;osi is probably going to make one public statement showing “party unity through insanity”, and then hide uner her desk. Reid will say something about “Finally seeing some justice done”, and then go back to his real estate deals.

  180. cynn says:

    This so-called war doesn’t keep me safe at night. It’s the 7 or 8 assholes with car alarms that disrupt my sleep. I’m about as afraid of these spooks as I am afraid of Grey taking me up on my offer to get together. Boo! It’s manufactured fear, and it’s manipulation. The minute Obama or McCain tries to flip that fuckin’ switch, they’re out.

  181. Gray says:

    Well, as a uniformed civilian volunter (unpaid) I cannot assist with law enforcement or military missions; but assist people in trouble and patrol? We can do that.

    (‘K last post) You keep it safe and, if federalized or requested under color of authority, you’ll defend it too. I’ve got a good friend retired from the CG and he’s fired more righteous rounds in anger than most guys I know in the army! But he admits to never actually rescuing anyone, hah….

  182. Sdferr says:

    Mikey, BBH, et alia, you might want to check out this conversation between Will Wilkinson and Jon Haidt at bloggingheads on the Foundations of Morality. It hits on almost every underlying problem in the moral controversies in the Provocateurism series and some that show up in other threads as well. http://tinyurl.com/5ckln3

  183. B Moe says:

    This is very grave, indeed. It seem, Kucinich has found out that Bush’s speechwriters were secretly writing speeches for him. I’m serious.

  184. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – If you’re thinking about Iran cynn, the going odds are up a bit to 100:1 against. On the other hand, the odds of the Mullacracy collapsing is 5:1 for in the next 10 years. If Iraq stabilizes much more, those odds will go up sharply. That should let you sleep a little better tonight. But I’m still not snuffing your neighbors dog for you.

  185. cynn says:

    So following your syntax, Bush’s speechwriters have been writing speeches for Bush? Astounding. Mount the presses, as they say.

  186. Mikey NTH says:

    I’ll look in on that after nighty-night time Sdferr.

    Thanks for the link.

    Gray – a funny story. Once we were assisting a sailing regatta on the Detroit River. At the end the boats dropped canvas an motored to moorings. One turned to a buoy, which marked a sandbar. Sure enough, they got stuck. We radioed it into the station and were told to watch. We did. Another boat asked what we were going to do, and we told them our orders. “They could sink!” “Sir, they can’t sink, they’re already on the bottom!”

    That little bit of honesty didn’t go over well.

  187. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – Thanks for the heads up Sdferr.

  188. This is very grave, indeed. It seem, Kucinich has found out that Bush’s speechwriters were secretly writing speeches for him. I’m serious.

    did you find the text somewheres B Moe?

  189. Mikey NTH says:

    I’m about as afraid of these spooks as I am afraid of Grey taking me up on my offer to get together. Boo! It’s manufactured fear, and it’s manipulation. The minute Obama or McCain tries to flip that fuckin’ switch, they’re out.

    That comment is so wrong on so many levels that I don’t know where to begin. Spooks? Manufactured fear? Obama or McCain flipping a switch? Gray taking you up on an offer you made?

    Perhaps you need some counseling, cynn?

  190. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – I can see the NYT headline in the morning:

    “Kucinich uncovers secret speechwriting ring in White House”

    – House to investigate rumors of widespread paper smuggling in Capital –

  191. cynn says:

    Let me poll my fellow lefties and we’ll report back.

  192. thor says:

    cynn’s so fine there’s no telling where the money went.

    She’s simply …

  193. js says:

    Jay Rockefeller is a hack now and has been a hack for many years. He visited Iraq with a number of members of the Senate Intel Committee, including Carl Levin, to visit the Iraq Survey Group. A nontrivial number of us were witnesses to it. He was briefed on what was found by the ISG, including chemical weapons and a government with the intention and actionable plans to develop an operational nuke program, and then promptly lied about it. Those guys are lying bags of pus. Not that I feel strongly about it, or anything.

  194. thor says:

    For want of a chuckle, I’m counting the days until Dan Collins’ return.

  195. Goalposts says:

    BBH

    I’m thinking there is some honey potness involved in these hearings. I’d had the feeling that this has been agitated from the right side and Mrs. Off The Table knows if they do the jig is up. The essence is Saint Fitzmas was complicit in this or was massively incompetent or he’ll have to explain how no actual law was violated.

  196. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    AP wire service – Washington DC. 7/9/08. Investigators in the House of Representatives announced they will be forming a subcommittee to follow up on the resent letters of Impeachment issued to President Bush today. Insiders said that Dennis Kucinich(D) OH, is a co-author of the submission, triggered by the discovery of a dozen or more speechwriters held captive in a sub-chamber beneath the ready room in the White House. Three different goverment higher ups, Bush, VP Dick Cheney, and former Bush political strategist, Karl Rove. All were named in the indictments. Subpoenas are expected to be issued to the trio early tomorrow.

    – Sources close to the investigation have leaked few details of the results of the 7 year long investigative efforts, but some details have come to light. The victims were allegedly kept captive for 6 to 8 hours at a time, out of contact with friends and family, fed limited food consisting of prodigious amounts of twinkies and gallons of mountain dew, and tortured by water foot-boarding, a technique where the subject is forced to stand for hours, barefoot, and ankle deep, in vats of line flavored Jello. The sources say these acts of illegal coercion were used to inhumanely force the writers to churn out speeches and press releases for the President and VP to give at rose garden gatherings. The ACLU issued a terse statement saying simply “See, we told you those guys were a bunch of animals”. The International Red Cross has requested visitation with the group, all presemtly recovering at a nearby Chesapeake resort spot, to check into any possible infractions of the Geneva Conventions, citing Bush speech writing as on the list of cruel and unusual punishment recognized by the Hague. All three defendants are expected to take the fifth and plead Executive privilege, but Representative Wexler, another author to the letters, talked to our reporter briefly concerning the case. “Its taken a long time but we finally nailed those sleezy bastards”. The punishment for speechwriting enslavement can go as high as 3 to 5 months on a Cheney hunting trip…..more to follow…

  197. Topsecretk9 says:

    Congress agreed and continues to fund the war.

    What’s your beef?

    No shit. All the little thorbians just can’t quite come to grips with the fact that their precocious Democrat congress writes the check, No war without congress signing the checks sweetie pies.

  198. The Lost Dog says:

    Comment by sashal on 6/9 @ 3:27 pm #

    at some point in the future things work out everywhere, including Viet Nam.
    Did those people have to die? Hunter?
    Fuck no. They did not….

    Well, guess what, Sashal?

    If it weren’t for the MSM and idiots like you, we had won that war. North Vietnam got their asses kicked, and have subsequently admitted so.

    Without whining pussies like you, the war in Vietnam would have come out quite differently, and two million people would have died. Yeah. But fuck them, eh, genius? If we walk away from Iraq, Cambodia is going to look like a picnic, and this country will be finished – forever. The Iraqis are finally beginning to trust our word, so now would be a good time to stick a boot up their asses, right?

    You are a fucking moron. But, let me add, you are a fucking moron who FEELS the pain of those people who live in your mind.

    So now, you and your “sensitive” allies want to cut our legs off in Iraq, too. Forget the fact that the Iraqis are coming together from the bottom up, WE CAN STILL SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY!

    So, redouble your efforts, and maybe that piece of shit John Murtha will give you a fantastic blow job for saving his rotten, foul, stinking bacon.

    I know. I know. It takes balls to claim defeat in the face of victory.

    Go have another bong hit, loop-o.

  199. The Lost Dog says:

    Oops! Two million people would have NOT died.

    Sorry. Sometimes I just get angry at wuss ninnies.

  200. injustice prevails says:

    MSNBC – June 9 2008

    KEITH OLBERMANN’S COUNTDOWN
    SCOTT MCCLELLAN, Former White House Press secretary

    Olbermann talks to former Press secretary Scott McClellan who will testify next week before a House committee about the Iraq War Intel.

    OLBERMANN:

    Do you know if there was a deliberate conscious effort by the white house
    to mislead the public about the Iraq war

    MCCLELLAN:

    I DO NOT THINK IT WAS A DELIBERATE CONSCIOUS EFFORT
    [by the white house] TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC

    I DO NOT THINK THERE WAS SOME [white house] CONSPIRACY
    TO MISLEAD, I DO NOT THINK YOU HAD A BUNCH OF PEOPLE SITTING AROUND PLANNING IN SOME SINISTER WAY TO MISLEAD

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25068864#25068864

  201. Rob Crawford says:

    OK
    But where was the “con” argument for WMD’s?
    Everyone from Bill Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry to Jay Rockefeller himself had been convinced for years before Bush arrived that Saddam had them.

    Saddam’s regime itself believed they had them. There was a chemical release order given as US troops closed on Baghdad.

    It’s hard to say anyone lied when the other guys thought the same thing.

  202. Rob Crawford says:

    A declaration of war would be a declaration of ongong hostilities between stated opponents, with clear grievances and hopefully, theaters of operations.

    Dig up the declarations of war from WWII, and find the bit where it authorizes FDR to invade North Africa, Burma, and to send troops to Norway.

    (The last was planned, but AFAIK, not done. Look up the “First Special Services Force” for the details.)

  203. B Moe says:

    did you find the text somewheres B Moe?

    The video is on Williams site, maggie.
    http://loosetncanon.blogspot.com/
    Definitely worth a look.

  204. Slartibartfast says:

    Kucinich, what a tool. Hes so far around the bend he even scares the nutroots. One of these days they’re going to lock him up for the publics safety.

    This is such a HUGE breaking story that it’s nowhere on CNN or NYT’s front pages. It’s just as big, and just as justified, as Kucinich’s near-mythical anti-mind-control legislation.

    Actually, I could only find this, which doesn’t state that Kucinich has introduced legislation; only that he’s considering it. Which has probably been true for a few years, now.

  205. Rob Crawford says:

    We’re dealing with pirates now? Have you guys gone off into Sin City mode? My God, I am in the presence of giants.

    Technically, yes. They’re unlawful combatants, unprotected by any treaty or law. Pirates were (are?) subject to summary execution; so are terrorists.

    I wish I had the cite for it now, but I read once that the Romans had two sets of “laws of war”. One was for wars against states and tribes — it involved treaties, ransoms, etc. The other was for wars against pirates. It had none of that; pirates weren’t fought to an agreement, they were exterminated.

  206. Slartibartfast says:

    Kucinich, what a tool. Hes so far around the bend he even scares the nutroots. One of these days they’re going to lock him up for the publics safety.

    This is such a HUGE breaking story that it’s nowhere on CNN or NYT’s front pages. It’s just as big, and just as justified, as Kucinich’s near-mythical anti-mind-control legislation.

    Actually, I could only find an AP article that doesn’t state that Kucinich has introduced legislation; only that he’s considering it. Which has probably been true for a few years, now.

  207. Cowboy says:

    cynn:

    When I lost my job 3 years ago, my kids and I joked around that I could become an assassin. As they pointed out, I am heavily armed, a marksman of sorts, and from one of my favorite movies, “I have a certain moral flexibility.”

    I suggested that I could run discounts on Democrats and Protestants (I kid about the Protestants, really!). But even I won’t shoot your neighbor’s dog.

    …call me, however, if your neighbor’s cat begins misbehaving. Next week, I’m running a two-for-one feline special.

  208. Victor. says:

    Karl,

    Your post on this could have benefited from a focused look at what the report had to say about what George Tenet was telling congress in late 2002 and early 2003.

    The report includes several quotes from Tenet’s congressional testimony, covering all the hot topics. It’s important for people to understand that what the President was saying only reiterated the on record, public statements of his chief intelligence officer.

  209. Ron Burgundy says:

    #

    Comment by Karl on 6/9 @ 3:20 pm #

    The Iraqi government keeps voting for the US to stay. Actions speak louder than words, which is a lesson one would expect to elude Ron Burgundy. But at least Ron, by choice of handle, chose to flag to all that he is a buffoon.

    Whereas you choose to do prove your bufoonery with childish insults and reactionary politics. I win.

    By the way, karl, the Diem brothers opted for us to stay in South Vietnam too…maybe Maliki learned the lesson the Kenndys taught the Diems?

    As for “JD”, if your wife misses Vietnam so much, why is she is here? One would think she’d be grateful for the impetus to come here. Now, she can do the INVADING! Isn’t that what numerous PW commenters say about blacks coming over as slaves? They should be glad?

    JD, I don’t know you, but your wife is (by default) the better half.

  210. Mikey NTH says:

    Isn’t that what numerous PW commenters say about blacks coming over as slaves? They should be glad?

    First I’ve heard of that. It must be wonderful to only debate the people that populate your own head, Ron – you know what they are going to say before they do and you can attribute anything to them.

    I bet when you sleep you get to be a Viking.

  211. JD says:

    As for “JD”, if your wife misses Vietnam so much, why is she is here? One would think she’d be grateful for the impetus to come here. Now, she can do the INVADING! Isn’t that what numerous PW commenters say about blacks coming over as slaves? They should be glad?

    JD, I don’t know you, but your wife is (by default) the better half.

    I just noticed this glorious fuckheadedness.

    Ron Burgundy – She does miss VietNam, but misses her dead family members even more. She has gone back, to visit. Only problem is that only two family members lived through the genocide that occurred after we walked away. So, they visit the graves of the family members that were not fortunate enough to have been airlifted off of the roof of the US embassy prior to the killings starting. Having been given not only the chance to live, but to do so in the greatest country ever on the face of this planet, they have adopted America as their home, and have chosen to succeed, rather than be a bitch ass whining asshat like yourself.

    As for your slaves garbage, quit arguing with the voices in your head.

    SSo far, you have proven to be a mendoucheous disingenuous and dishonest troll. There is always room for improvement, though you show no signs of a desire to do so.

    And yes, she is the Better Half. No argument there.

  212. MayBee says:

    Stay classy, Ron Burgundy.

  213. JD says:

    Ron Jeremy has more class leaking out the tip of his crank than Ron Burgundy.

  214. Pablo says:

    Ron Burgundy may, in fact, be dripping out of Ron Jeremy’s crank. IJS.

  215. JD says:

    I just went back and re-read Ron Burgundy’s money shot of asshattery, and realized that it was one of the most classless, baseless attacks that I have seen in some time. Brava, fucker.

  216. Education Guy says:

    Yes, it was wrong for the US to invade Vietnam, but the communist “help” from China and USSR which allowed for the people to evolve their feelings on government (at the point of a gun) is something that should never, ever be discussed. Likewise, the behavior of the communists after they won shall never be considered, nor shall the plans greater worldwide socialism had for colonies future utopian workers paradises.

    Do you see how easy it is to come to consensus?

  217. JD says:

    Consensus at the end of a gun is easy, isn’t it Education Guy? Just ask the Iraqis who voted for Saddam @ 97%.

  218. MayBee says:

    Your answer was perfect, JD.

  219. Education Guy says:

    It really is JD. Also, many people would be shocked how quickly a parent can be shown the light of reason when the screams of their children are used as motivational tools.

  220. JD says:

    Thanks, MayBee. Which one?

    Education Guy – I bet I could be persuaded to vote for Baracky under similar circumstances.

  221. Karl says:

    Ron is full of hopeyness and changitude. And ad hominem, with a lack of irony. Pretty much the standard.

  222. JD says:

    Karl @ 22 – I did not miss that tidbit of idiocy, nor did I miss the fact that sashal was praising this gerbil caver as moral voice of reason.

  223. Education Guy says:

    JD – I’d say that’s a safe bet. Same here.

    It’s a true story, BTW. I worked with a Vietnam ex-pat who lived under the glorious advocates of the people. He’s the best one handed programmer I ever met. The story does have a happy ending, as it turns out that his father was properly motivated to toe the party line.

  224. JD says:

    Amazing how that party line produces such incredible approval ratings. Bush should take lessons from the Commies.

  225. BJTex says:

    Well, Ron Burgundy, now that you’ve proven yourself to be a racist (JD’s Better Half) and mortally clueless (commentators here saying that blacks should have been grateful to be slaves?) and having established yourself as a founding member of the Classless Turdlet Society (h/t Jeff G.) which numbers amongst its membership such luminaries as timmah, alphie and heet, perhaps you could follow up with, oh, I don’t know, a rant about McCain getting undeserved disability or how the US Government created HIV to kill of blacks or 9/11 was an inside job or any number of other lunacies and delusions so beloved of the hard, barking fascistic left.

    Until then, please, in all sincerity, kindly and sweetly fuck off.

  226. JD says:

    I condemn myself for the thoughts and words floating around in my head. Ron Burgundy really pissed me off.

  227. JD says:

    But Barack Obama will cleanse my soul, I will see the light, and all will be well.

  228. JD says:

    Ron Burgundy – You are a coward, and a small pathetic boy.

  229. Mikey NTH says:

    JD – he really isn’t worth your time or consideration. In fact, if this were the early ninteenth century, I do not think he would be worthy of you calling him out. Let him rave, he is nothing and your attention grants him more regard than he is worth.

Comments are closed.