From The Sunday Times:
The movement to impeach President George W Bush over the war on terror began with a few tatty bumper stickers on the back of battered old Volvos and slogans such as “Bush lied, people died†on far-left websites. But as Democrat hopes rise of gaining control of Congress this autumn, dreams of impeaching Bush are no longer confined to the political fringe.
A poll last week found that voters, by 50% to 37%, would prefer the Democrats to win control of Congress. If Bush’s opponents find themselves in a position of power, the temptation to humiliate him is likely to be irresistible.
Just exactly how telling is this last bit? Well, the suggestion here is that—though they know somewhere deep down that “humiliating” the man who is currently working to bring democracy to Iraq and has engaged forcefuly in a global war against Islamic extremism (though not forcefully enough for the tastes of some, particularly on the right) would undermine the entire campaign, reduce the influence the US has with moderate Muslims we’re hoping to win over to the idea of representative democracy and personal freedoms no-longer tethered to fundamentalist interpretations of Koranic law, and embolden the terrorists (who noted as part of their strategy a desire to fracture our electorate and delegitimize US power), Democrats nevertheless simply won’t be able to help themselves, so anxious are they to punish George Bush and those who voted for him.
In short, they’re to be forgiven for actions that are likely to diminish all of our successes in the war against al Qaeda because, well, they are vindictive children who haven’t had power in so long that they should be allowed to have a little bit of meanspirited and pointed fun and Bushco’s expense.
And this is the loyal opposition?
Plenty of his Senate colleagues ducked for cover, fearful of alienating either party activists or swing voters. The eavesdropping issue is one of the few hot-button topics where Bush has public support. One leading supporter of Hillary Clinton acknowledged ruefully: “It’s hard to beat the argument, ‘If Al-Qaeda is on the line, we want to be listening’.â€Â
Clinton, the party’s presidential frontrunner, hid last week from reporters who wanted to question her on the censure motion while she was attending a Democrat lunch at the Senate. Most Democrats would rather keep their options open on impeachment than pronounce one way or another.
Republicans are practically begging them to “bring it on†in the hope that the chatter will tar their opponents as loony leftists who care nothing for national security. “This is such a gift,†said Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing radio chat show host.
For demoralised conservatives, the issue is a call to arms for the mid-term congressional elections. “Impeachment, coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House right now,†Paul Weyrich, a top conservative organiser, warned in an e-mail newsletter to supporters.
“With impeachment on the horizon maybe, just maybe, conservatives would not stay at home after all,†Weyrich wrote.
Let’s hope so. Because if a House takeover by Democrats leads to a series of grandstanding show trials against Bush—even as the war in Iraq and elsewhere is ongoing—the negative repercussions are likely to be enormous in the long run; the US is the last westernized country with the military capability to fight a major war; if they are hamstrung and shown to be feckless and unwilling to see their obligations through, the first casualty will be Europe, who—lacking both the will and the means to fight back against creeping Islamic fundamentalism—will almost assuredly be forced to make concessions they might otherwise not make.
If few senior Democrats are calling publicly for Bush to be placed in the dock, plenty are flirting with the idea. One of them is Al Gore, the defeated 2000 presidential candidate, who is increasingly talked up as a serious anti-war contender at the next election.
Gore said recently that Bush’s “unlawful†eavesdropping was part of a larger pattern of “seeming indifference†to the American constitution, which could well be an impeachable offence.
John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee, was overheard in an Irish bar on Capitol Hill talking about how satisfying it would be to impeach Bush if Congress went Democrat. He was just having a laugh, his spokeswoman rushed to explain: “Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Donald Rumsfeld.â€Â
But then she turned serious: “How are the same Republicans, who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair, going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?â€Â
…Well, at least her tone turned serious. Unfortunately, the continued proferring of the meme that Bush “misled the country into war” shows just how unserious these people are about anything other than regaining power and using it to punish those who dared presume to keep them out of power.
That they’ve been able to gull many Americans into believing that their policies (which, let’s face it, who the hell knows what they are, exactly, except “whatever Bush says, argue the opposite”) will make us safer and more economically stable at home—something that, intuitively, at least, I would say emboldening the enemy, disappointing allies, raising taxes, restricting global trade by attacking “outsourcing” (which has been a net positive for the US), and adding more and more layers of government regulation to everything from health care to the dissemination of information (see: the push to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”) is likely to have the exact opposite effects—is a testament to their dogged repetition of the message, and testament to the power of the traditional media to drive the public opinions of those who are only casual followers of the news.
Which is what the Democrats count on. In fact, we could see the electorate swing toward Democrats in the House just so they can get a break from the relentless media negativity—though I should hope that when push comes to shove, the Independents an Republicans (with whom I disagree and have disagreed on a number of important issues, but whom I continue to think are the only ones ambitious enough to truly implement strategies that will positively affect both our security and our foreign policy) will forgive their overspending, often sanctimonious representatives and get out and vote in November, recognizing as they must that a surrender of the House to liberal Democrats could be devastating in both the short term and long term interests of the United States and its allies, particularly as the threat from Iran grows.
(h/t Allah)
I think perjury has become reflexive for Democrats.
Jeff… “the continued proferring of the meme that Bush “misled the country into war†shows just how unserious these people are…”
Jeff, you got that right. He didn’t mislead the country into war. He lied the country into war. It is totally unserious to use weasel words like “misled” when he flat-out lied.
Oh, those mushroom clouds. Oh, those sixteen words.
Oh, shove it.
At least the leading Democrats have the courage of their convictions…
Run! Hide! Someone might ask a question about this!
That’s quite the blog you have there, tristero:
“U.S. BARS ROBERT FISK FROM ENTERING”
Bull.
It’s truly astonishing that the left still brings up the “16 words” as if this proved that Boooooshhhh LIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEDDD!!!!!!!
They’re so sophisticated and soooo not parochial like the right. I mean they travel, and understand foreign cultures, and yet, and yet, they can’t be bothered to read what the Brits themselves have said about their own intelligence estimates.
Long after Iraq has a prime minister named after W., twits like the above poster will be dottering around the nursing home—that’s if they don’t get their way and institute euthenasia—yelling 16 words!!!! BOOOOOSSSSHHHHH LIIIIEEEEDDDD!
Tristero has got to be an joke: The “sixteen” words—attributed carefully to Britain and NOT disputed on factual grounds by the CIA (do a search for Stephen Hayes here to get the full story); the “lied” meme based entirely upon an intentional and recalcitrant refusal to understand how intelligence works, and from the kinds of consensus reports the President draws upon…
It’s like he just wants to cite the same discredited shit over and over, hoping it will stick.
Hmmm. Maybe I should have included something about that tactic in my post.
Oh, wait…
Anyway, tristero is beginning to show he has nothing to offer. Keeping him around at this point is a luxury I’m not sure I’m interested in. But we’ll see.
Off to Wal-Mart now to buy some NEAT diaper pail refills!
I disagree with Jeff.
Were the Dems to take back the House and proceed with a series of show trials to impeach Bush, they’d completely dissolve as a viable party by 2008.
Does anybody think that the Dems have the kind of party unity and/or discipline needed to pull off an impeachment vote?
I don’t.
A country that impeaches two Presidents in a row. Does that sound kinda unstable to anyone else?
What could the next President possibly bring to the table to reverse this little trend?
that the sunday times thinks the game is about humiliation?
They’re brits. They’re cool with booing their dear leader while he’s speaking.
So, actus, how about addressing what the “loyal opposition” is saying, rather than British political tradition? Does Kerry’s spokesperson’s remarks indicate a deep level of serious thought and majestic reverence for the Constitution? Feh.
But this is a quote for a brit paper. Who’s the opposition here that used the word ‘humiliated?’ Jeff’s responding to a brit paper as if it were the actual words of a democrat.
And this is the power of the blogs?
Uh, actus, the “loyal opposition” part was from Jeff, not the Brits. The indented parts are quotes from other sources, see?
Hillary? She’d be qualified by her ability to earn 10,000% interest in a fiscal year.
Goldstein on the Democrats:
Are you kidding me? The Democrats have very successfully allayed the public’s fears on the issue of their sympathizing with that strange outburst of neo-nativism during the Dubai ports event. That was genuine, thoughtful, and not at all contrived, Goldstein, and I’d have you know it. According to [some polls], protecting our ports is the number one security issue that Democrats can secretly hope fails so as to demonstrate their prophetic gift.
The next time one of the Democratic Senators threatens to filibuster, I would recommend for their reading list a report to the American People of all the various industries, services, and parts of our domestic infrastructure that are already owned and administered by foreign companies. That alone should take a day.
Jeff,
You nailed it with regrd to the mainstream media when you said,
I couldn’t agree more with your statement above.
It has long been my opinion that though the blogosphere has helped us bypass them as the only gatekeeperes of information and shapers of public opinion, the MSM is far from dead. Most people still get most if not all of their information from only MSM sources.
While I agree that if the democrats are back in the majority in wither or both houses in 2006, it will be bad for our country. I think that our foreign policy vis a vis Iraq and Iran will not change that much. I think, or at least hope that even the democrats, or at least the few responsible adults left in the democrat party realize that a unilateral withdrawl would be a major catastrophe.
The hard work in Iraq has been done and though there is much left to do, the democrats could ride it home and tell a gullable public that it was due to their superior ‘policies.’ If the democrats get the White House in 2008, I’ll bet you a case of Guiness that you’ll see an immediate change in the media tone of coverage. Just as in the 90’s, after Clinton was elected, the issues of poverty, joblessness and the economy ‘disappeared’ until Bush was elected.
Regarding Iran, unless I have seriously overestimated the democrats, which is entirely possible, even they realize that Iran under this regieme and preferably under any regieme, must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea are the two major threats on the world stage at this time IMHO.
However, where I think that the democrats will be a real disaster is domestically. In the economic and social spheres.
Their protectionist policies will hurt us badly in the short and long term. Social engineering and political correctness will run amok in our society and if unchecked, the damage would be almost irreparable.
I don’t say this as some kind of social conservative. I’m far from it. I have my disagreements with aspects of the republican platform. However, the Republicans get it with respect to the War on Terror. I think that the democrats, despite their rhetoric to the contrary understand it also. Or at least I hope they do.
The democrats however have moved so far to the left on social and economic issues that a democratic congress and especially if coupled with a democratic administration would lead us down the road to accelerated economic decline.
But I do not think that the democrats will regain either house in 2006 or the presidency in 2008. They’re trying to get the spin built up early because they know that they will have to have it. The only way they can win is if the republicans and independents stay home. I don’t think it’s goin to happen. There is too much at stake.
Let’s hope so. Because if a House takeover by Democrats leads to a series of grandstanding show trials against Bushâ€â€even as the war in Iraq and elsewhere is ongoingâ€â€the negative repercussions are likely to be enormous in the long run; the US is the last westernized country with the military capability to fight a major war; if they are hamstrung and shown to be feckless and unwilling to see their obligations through, the first casualty will be Europe, whoâ€â€lacking both the will and the means to fight back against creeping Islamic fundamentalismâ€â€will almost assuredly be forced to make concessions they might otherwise not make.
You are quite correct. Such actions will have repercussions not only for now but also far into the future.
Some say that the reason some Europeans are upset that we went into Iraq is because they would mean less troops to defend Europe. As much as Europe hates America and attacks its military, it would fight tooth and nail to prevent us from pulling out of Europe. (“Pulling out of Europe” – insert obvious sexuality-related comment here.)
I would go so far as to say that America is the last Westernized state that remains quite devoted to liberal Western values, whereas European and Europeanized states (I suppose this would include Canada) are slipping dangerously into relativistic ideas and policies, which, they are now beginning to see, cripples them rather than empowers them.
If America loses its resolve to act internationally, the current international state system will be greatly threatened and may even unravel, which will result in a very bloody and violent contest for dominance and control among power centers. America – especially its military – is what keeps the world together. Of course, once the new battle for supremacy breaks out one can kiss globalization away. Globalization is only possible because of the relative stability and security a stable international state system offers as well as the prevailing values of the hegemon. I doubt any other hegemon would be so lenient.
It bothers me that Americans fail to see what crucial role America plays in the international state system: if they did, perhaps they would be less wont to tear down America and its necessary involvement overseas. It is somewhat understandable for foreign states or alliances to oppose or attack America: they’re jealous, they want more, they wish to be the hegemon, they can’t understand the international state system and what role various states play in them, etc. Americans need to be aware of this.
Regarding Democrat grandstanding against Bush: this is absolutely and utterl ridiculous. Bush has done more than any president to secure America’s national security. The future will prove him right. Those who insist on cooperating with foreign powers or institutions grossly misunderstand foreign powers and institutions and ascribe to them honorable motives were they don’t exist. Hawkish politicians are more aware of how precarious our world is.
The meme that Bush lied is utterly untenable by me. I challenge anyone who believes or states this to prove beyond any doubt that Bush deliberately lied. Prove it. Show me the evidence. Otherwise, shut up.
(Strange, is it not, that the very people who accuse Bush et al. of fascism, oppression, and domestic silencing are the same ones who repeatedly air unsubstantiated allegations against Bush et al.? If Bush et al. were fascist, oppressive, and silencing domestic opposition, would not their critics be unable to proclaim their allegations? Frankly, it seems all I hear in the media is criticism.)
The sad truth of the matter is that the best reason to vote GOP is the Democrat party.
The GOP means well and all, but its suffering from a moribund domestic policy and all the fall out that comes naturally from fighting a largely shadow war with two open “hot” fronts.
If it weren’t for the fact that the Left is bat shit crazy, there might be a real possibility of change this November. But because Dean, Pelosi and Reid are all fucking insane with hatred for Bush and totally reliant on the Atrios-es of the world for grass roots organizing, fundraising and get-out-the-vote, they will fail again.
I’m actually getting tired of winning like this. It’s nice, as a partisan, for “my side” to win the elections, but it makes our policies flabby and ill-defined and makes the back benchers liable to turn to graft and petty corruption. We need a non-nutso opposition, but I don’t see that beginning to take shape until 2008 at the earliest.
I know. What was the brits was the bolded part he was referring to when he said ‘loyal opposition.’
Muslihoon
Yes.
Um, no actus. He’s referring to the Democrats. While “Bush’s opponents” may include some Brits, I don’t think any of them are likely to be in a position to impeach him any time in the near future.
“Loyal opposition” may be a term that originated in the UK, but lots of us use it (snarkily) to refer to the Dems.
As described by the sunday times. and the particular description, the particular way they are described? Its telling.
Are you being intentionally dense here, actus? Pay special attention to the bolded word here:
Got it?
I did. He’s talking about the humiliation angle. The telling angle given by the sunday times, which he gets to piggyback on.
A country that impeaches two Presidents in a row. Does that sound kinda unstable to anyone else?
There’s a difference, though:Clinton deserved to be impeached. I reject any comparison between the Clinton impeachment and the sham censure/impeachment being floated by Foolsgld the rest of the far left.
Clinton was impeached for lying in an attempt to keep himself safe from a lawsuit. If Bush is impeached, it will be for keeping the country safe from terrorists.
marianna- clever.
God, it’s like arguing with a telephone pole. A really, really retarded telephone pole.
The Democrats can’t be serious about foreign policy. They have all they can handle dreaming up ways to spend the taxpayers’ money to buy votes.
But where’s the paranoia? Aren’t the Democrats supposed to be saying that Rove is going to pull Bin Laden out of the trunk of his car to deflect all this?
Well, one good example of how Democrat foreign policy doesn’t work out is the Oslo Peace Accords. Many thought Clinton was about to usher in the Messianic age, of peace and goodwill and tranquility. Nope. Hawks and realists realized the Accords wouldn’t survive, and indeed they did not. After a lull in violence (a hudnah of sorts, perhaps?), in came another “spontaneous” intifadah (with signs it was quite organized) and out went the Accords.
The one thing Israel did that really affected the peace process was unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip. It also revealed how Israel was serious about peace – serious enough to make territorial sacrifices and to consider unilateral actions – and how the Palestinians still had some way to go to get there.
Now remember, if things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta’ get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. ‘Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is.
Don’t trust the people who brought you Waco.
JW et al
Peter Jackson  Oh, they’re way paaaaaast paranoid. There’s just gotta be a pony in there this time, there’s just gotta be!
The assumption being that if Bush is impeached President Cheney will pull right out of Iraq?
That’s the whole point, Franklin. The Democrats have absolutely no coherent position other than being against whatever they think Bush is for, regardless of the hypocrisy necessary to maintain that meme.
Instead of growing up, they are becoming more juvenile by the hour. The self-destruction will become more evident when the Democrats have to start adopting positions as national candidates. The 2008 Presidential campaign is going to be hilarious.
Says it all,
Reading this thread two things occured to me: since Clinton got away with perjury in a case concerning multiple cases of sexual harassment and misconduct two prominent conservatives, Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, have been convicted and/or charged with perjury in cases were no other crime was alleged…and it also seems actus has thoroughly embraced the some people = straw man meme.
Wasn’t there already a grandstanding show trial for Bush? Something in D.C. about a year ago with a bunch of goofy lawmakers playing “den Haag?” All non-binding of course, but lots of truth spoken to power.
I want to say it was in the House. Am I crazy? What was this?
Hmmm.
@ actus
No actus, Jeff was being extremely sarcastic.
It has nothing to do with humiliation or even Bush. It’s a rant against the endless push by the MSM to shelter Democrats from the consequences of their words and actions. It’s a spear of irony thrust at Democrats who seem to prefer power politics over national security.
It’s sarcasm actus.
Hmmm.
Valerie Plame investigation by the House.
Hmmm.
Personally what I’m seeing is an increasing divide amongst the Democratic party along Moderate/Left and Ultra-Left ideological lines. Since the target date for everyone is Nov 2008 it’s unlikely that any incipient struggle within the Demoratic party would be delayed until that time, or past it.
Instead I think this struggle has to be played out long before then. If one faction or another wins heavily in Nov 2006, that’ll pretty much decide the issue of dominance for 2008. So the struggle has to be for the 2006 election cycle as a precusor to the 2008.
I figure we’ll start seeing a major push by the Ultra-Left in the Democratic party to discredit, derail campaigns or simply drive people out of the running for positions in the 2006 election cycle where an Ultra-Left candidate is available.
A prime example of one of the first casualties of this intra-Democrat dominance struggle is Paul Hackett. In this case the victory goes to the Moderate/Left, but largely because the Ultra-Left isn’t quite aware yet that there is a struggle taking place.
It’ll turn into a major political civil war by the beginning of summer when the schools and colleges go on summer vacation.
My two shekels.
Right. Piggybacking on something from teh sunday times. So MSM.
I think perjury has become reflexive for Democrats.
You forget, the Left asserts that there is no such thing as objective truth. If there is no truth, there can be no perjury.
actus is being his usual, trollish, obstuse, and idiotic self. Ignore him—he’s barely worth the pixels.
All talk of Eurabia is pure and utter nonsense. There is more support for the idea that Vietnamerica has capitulated to south east asian influence.
It’s hype. Give it up.
Care to give any evidence that “Vietnamerica has capitulated to south east asian influence,” especially given that immigration patterns show that Muslim influence in European countries with liberal immigration policies and multiculturalist attitudes has become a real problem? I’m thinking that the Muslim-driven protests about the Mohammed cartoons and the riots in Paris suburbs over the last year are a little bit more alarming than Vietnamese protests and riots over…what, exactly now here in the States?
The “sixteen†wordsâ€â€attributed carefully to Britain and NOT disputed on factual grounds by the CIA
CIA director George Tenet has issued a statement saying his agency should have prevented false claims about Iraqi nuclear fuel procurement from getting into a major speech by President Bush in the run-up to the war. The text of the statement follows:
Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the president’s State of the Union speech.
These 16 words [referring to the alleged nuclear procurement] should never have been included in the text written for the president
**********
[ed ‘s addition: From the WS’s Stephen Hayes, whom I earlier told those interested in continuing with this canard to reference:
the man who is currently working to bring democracy to Iraq and has engaged forcefuly in a global war against Islamic extremism
Pres. Fredo has created MORE terrorists:
Thirty new terrorist organizations have emerged since the September 11, 2001, attacks, outpacing U.S. efforts to crush the threat, said Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon’s deputy director for the war on terrorism. “We are not killing them faster than they are being created,” Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060301-113323-8165r.htm
[ed – The idea that “al qaeda” was the only organization we were going to be fighting is silly; of course there are going to be splinter groups forming; and as for the war taking decades to resolve—that’s pretty standard, isn’t it? Fits in with that “hard work” and “long hard slog” language from the President and Rumsfeld, et al.]
Pres. Fredo has created MORE terrorists:
Thirty new terrorist organizations have emerged since the September 11,
Wow!!
I hadn’t thought of that. We are idiots. The most successful terrorist attack on American soil in history, and if we had just ignored terrorism, terrorism would have gone the way of the horse and buggy. Because as everyone knows, the natural order of things is that if someone does something successfully, it will cease to exist, because – you know, that’s been done already.
But if you try to punish and prevent, more people will risk death to get their 72 raisins.
I get it now Steve J. Thank you!!!
Get us out of the war on terror immediately. Let’s put up our 30 foot fence around our country, (the eskimos and polynesians will have to fend for themselves) and let’s get back to the American way of life – not pissing anybody off and taking care of our own business. Maybe now we’ll all pay a fair price for consumer electronics. Quadruple!!! Who needs HD TV? Read a fuckin’ book, would ya?
You are a goddam genius Steve J. Steve J. for Chief!!! I’m letting my armpit hair grow as we speak. And I’ve renamed my huge matted pubic bush “Steve J”.
I’m at peace.
…unserious these people are about anything other than regaining power and using it to punish those who dared presume to keep them out of power.
Actually, I think you sum it all up perfectly here.
They still haven’t gotten over the Gore loss and Kerry loss. The mother of all meme.
Yes yes of course
we must push back the islamofacists before they take our rights away…the islamofacists will turn us into a 8th century theocratic state where law is made from from holy texts and not the constitution..
OOOOPS…. sorry…For a second there I was describing the Bush Administration.
( Hey warmonger, send me your address and i will send you a link to an Army recruiter. You can go fight this war you so wwant.)
[ed’s note – howsabout you send me YOUR address, and then we can get to work on you quitting YOUR job to protest the war full-time. Get you on the bus with Cindy! Incidentally, you’re posting on a site where a lot of veterans and current military comment. I expect when they tell you to do something, you’ll do it, right? Because what you are advocating is that foreign policy can only be run by soldiers and former soldiers—no one else can offer a valid opinion on the wisdom of the war (except, of course, the dissenters, who are by their very nature brave and patriotic). So the first time a vet here tells you to shut the fuck up, you’d better be prepared to drop and do 100 pushups.
Oh, and the Bush bringing back the 8th century theocratic state? Forget for a moment that the Constitution stands in the way of that. Point out to me the section in the Saudi Constitutions that— oh, wait…
Christ, what a fucking tool]
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you implying a causal relationship?
That if Iraq had not been invaded that these groups simply would not have “emerged”? Or their members not have joined up with other pre-existing terrorist groups? You think Afghanistan (the invasion of which y’all on the Left claim to have supported) didn’t piss them off too?
You know that’s stupid, right?
For some reason I’m picturing Tom Cruise hanging from the ceiling in the White House speechwriter’s office with a bottle of Super Secret Untraceable White-Out.
And there’s the chickenhawk meme reappearing, right on schedule. Everybody do a shot.
alppuccino, I swear if you ever write anything like that again, I’ll hunt you down and prophylactically dip you right to your chin in Nair. Just because now I’ll have those words rattling around in my head all day.
TW: friends don’t do that
Hey Maccabee …
I’m aware of quite a few veterans of the current war who say exactly what Jeff says each and every single day … want them to send you their uniforms so you spit on them?
PS: For your information, you’ll find no mention of Partial Birth Abortion in the Constitution of the United States.
“The “sixteen†wordsâ€â€attributed carefully to Britain”
Clinton correctly defining the word “is”: LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
Bush’s disclaimer about British intelligence: Jesus himself would have put it the same way.
Makes perfect sense, Jeff…
[ed’s note – not sure about Jesus, but are you denying that the words were attributed to British intelligence? Or that they still believe it? Or that people in US intel believed it?
I realize you’re just trying to take cheap shots, but c’mon. Try a bit harder, will you?]
These 16 words [referring to the alleged nuclear procurement] should never have been included in the text written for the president
So what? Everyone though he was trying go get nuclear weapons. Everyone thought he was a threat.
After we were attacked on 911, we were presented with a choice: continue with the failed policies that led to 911 or take a bolder choice. President Bush chose the latter and we have not been attacked since. You can wring your hands all you want to about WMD and yellow cake and the like, but in the final analysis the whole world thought Saddam was a threat.
Even bedwetters like you thought we should confront him. You guys just didn’t have the guts to do it.
After we were attacked on 911, we were presented with a choice: continue with the failed policies that led to 911 or take a bolder choice. President Bush chose the latter and we have not been attacked since.
Are you willing to state that if we hadn’t attacked Iraq, we would have been attacked by terrorists?
Here’s my favorite thought experiment, though. Imagine, if you will, President Al Gore reads that fateful PDB and asks the FBI to look into this threat of terrorists flying planes. The woman who described a hijacker as “the kind of guy who would fly a plane into the World Trade Center” is not ignored and subsequently fired (Heckuva job on that one, by the way. That woman deserved a medal, not a pink slip.) Instead, the hijackers are deported and 9/11 goes by uneventfully. We never invade Iraq.
Would you describe this hypothetical America as more or less safe than the one we have today?
Maccabee,
Last recruiter I dealt with was 21 years ago…heh. Since I am already in, and have already fought (and probably will again) do you have a more nuanced position to take vis a vis me?
alppuccino, I swear if you ever write anything like that again, I’ll hunt you down and prophylactically dip you right to your chin in Nair. Just because now I’ll have those words rattling around in my head all day.
Look dude, I’m sorry for the nasty visual. But I once shaved my ass on a dare and every time I bent over to dry my feet off, my wife said it looked like Ted Kennedy slurping a 2-olive martini. I’ve since had the surgery.
Does that help clear your mind?
They should really adopt the principled Republican approach—sending voters checks for $300 with a formal reminder in the same envelope that it came to them from George W. Bush.
I got way more than $300 of my hard-earned money back from George.
No wonder you’re pissed Marc.
Well, so did I, but this idiotic attitude that the Democrats are “buying votes” with government spending while the Republicans aren’t with tax cut giveaways is ridiculous. Both sides make base appeals to the voters’ wallets.
You can pat yourself on the back about your hard-earned money all you want, but there are some things for which taxes are needed. Grown-ups realize this. Republicans don’t.
That’s not fair. Clinton did send a flyer:
My Top-Ten Lines to Guarantee Head on the First Date
My favorite: “I’m thinking of adding a new cabinet position. How would you like to be Secretary of my Balls?”
Suave.
You can pat yourself on the back about your hard-earned money all you want, but there are some things for which taxes are needed. Grown-ups realize this. Republicans don’t.
Pardon my childishness for needing my money to feed, house, and clothe my family. Democrats are known for sacrificing their own comforts to provide for the less fortunate. Just look at Kerry’s donations on his tax return. Bad example. Okay, look at Edward Kenn… no. Okay, I give. Who are these grown-ups of which you speak?
Marianna,
Your argument is circular. Everyone thought that because the Bush administration coerced the intel they wanted and then ignored every disclaimer in their mad rush to fire up their Asian land war.
they lied and the fact that you and the folks you kowtow to believed the lies doesn’t make that an intelligent position.
Oh, and being lecture by the likes of Goldstein about show trials patriotism is like being lectured by Bill Clinton on the topic of marital fidelity, or Bill Bennett on morality. Or Rush on drug trafficers.
And your proof of this is, what, exactly?
Boy, Jeff, you stirred up the nest with this post. There are a bunch more spittle-flecked monitors out there this morning.
Dexter – you ignore the fact that Clinton himself thought that Hussein had WMD, as did every intelligence agency on the planet during the 90’s.
A little reminder for you timeline-impaired folks out there – Bush was governor of Texas at this time. A bit hard to blame this on him. But I’m sure you’ll find a way.
TV (Harry)
Hey, Marc, if Dems can make a friggin’ political living spreading around the sweet, sweet federal moolah, than turn about is fair play. It’s called politics. Quit whining.
Savvy conservatives should note that leftists who bother to frequent these boards continue their time-honored tradition of seeing politics only through the prism of George W. Bush. He’s so far up in their heads, he can look through their eyeballs. Pathetic.
That sure was some “rush” to war in Iraq, wasn’t it? What with all the endless debating and speeches and warnings, ad infinitum. Some have speculated that Saddam moved some of his WMD out of country and finalized plans for a guerilla war against US forces (we now call this the “insurgency”) knowing that he could not possibly hope to win a land war with his regular army.
Yeah, some friggin’ “rush” to war.
Dammit, Jeff, have you been conducting show trials again?
Beautiful! Speaking Logic to (Their) Trvth. Love it.
(About Theodore of Massachussetts and Other Things, you’re also the funniest son of a bitch on the internets, alppuccino, no disrespect to our host, natcherly. Talked to my dad last nite [unlike moi, an IQ of 169, coupla English and music majors, author, etc.] and we continue to hypothesize about why the left has no fucking sense of humor; absolutely no sense of irony. Hell, actuse is a barn-burner compared to the Atrios freaks…)
Let’s axe Marc to put some brackets around dole, shall we? Adults get this owed-by-the-state thing, ‘cept adults understand budgets and Constitutions too, eh Marc? You go right ahead and have a go at that one, ‘k?
Fred, forget it with the war history. You can post a dictionary of real history and these moonbat pathologicals just ignore it. Words have no meaning when you’re a liar.
All that matters is The Rush to War. See how that just rolls off their forked tongues?
Speaking of which, when did NPR turn into the Michael Moore Network? I missed that one but I’m guessing about mid 2002? Help me out here, folks.
I’m sorry, are you implying that Republicans somehow understand budgets?
How’s that record deficit working for you? It must be nice to be able to raise the debt ceiling to $9 trillion and just keep on burning through more and more money, and passing on more and more debt to our children. Communist China now owns about 10% of our debt, but you people just keep running up the tab and whistling past the graveyard. Very grown-up of you.
Others may have alppuccio’s olives seared into their memories but I have that asshole Kerry sidling up to the cameras and promising every human between the borders free medical seared into mine, Marc. I’m funny that way—I tend to see people like that as criminally socialistic, kinda like Hillary: A Socialist and a criminal. And a Democrat.
Is that what you’ve come to, Marc?
You get busy parsing that one into shape, adult.
Thanks for playing, Marc. You’re such a good little constitutionalist, aren’t you?
The problem you now have, Mister KoolAid, is telling me where I defended Big Brother? Or Bush? Or his trainwreck of an entitlement budget? Or 50 years of creeping socialism?
Waiting.
6Gun:
How right you are on the history tip. I’m done.
Oh, and ain’t it rich watching leftists tell us that they’ll manage the federal budget better? Shee-it, the GOP has bungled the job, sure, but the prospect of leftists democrats doing it? Uh, no. Thanks, anyway, Pelosi.
Here’s a little help for our entitlement-minded friends. (Note that it’s not from a rightwing site. Cause appearances so matter when you’re a moonbat.)
Dontcha love those entitlements.
Keep believing kids. When W is standing behind you and you feel something wet on your leg, it’s raining. Really.
Hysterical in every sense of the word.
The Bush Administration either lied or was incompetent. It’s one or the other because the REALITY is that Iraq had no WMD and thus was not a threat.
So which is it Sparky?
The Bush Administration in their push for for a war they thought would be easy to win lied to get it thinking that no one would mind if it all worked out (and they’d have been right) or they were so incompetent, screwed up the intel and now are stuck in an unnecessary quagmire.
Yes, yes, we all hate America and want to be ruled by bin Laden but that doesn’t change the fact that the Bush Administration insisted on several occasions that there were WMD and that now we know, thousands of dead and billions of dollars later, that there were none to be found.
So you’re defending a liar or an idiot and I find that facinating.
and if we had just ignored terrorism
Only a profoundly ignorant person would use this hypothetical.
Geez, is Actus here again?
…
If not, who shit in the kitchen?
Others may have alppuccio’s olives seared into their memories
Another item checked off the “Things to Accomplish Before Death” list.
6Gun,
Thanks for the humor-props. My theory as to why Marc and those of his stripe are unable to be funny:
When’s the last time you’ve seen one of these knobs make fun of himself. C’mon Marc. You must have something strange, ironic, humorous about yourself. Man-boobs? Severe gas? A wicked comb-over?
Notice how our esteemed host is ready, willing and able to make himself the target of humor. Whereas those Leftist “humor” blogs are like
“Refucklicans suck!” —leftfordead
“Refucklicans! Good one LFD!! They do suck!! It’s funny because it’s true!! Oh my sides!!” —lonelylefty
It’s only a theory.
I keep hearing rumors that it was the esteemed Jay Rockefeller (Chair, Senate Int. Com.) who tipped off the Syrians about our impending invasion of Iraq. Perhaps that’s PRECISELY why we found no wmd’s–they were slipped off to Syria. Question their patriotism now?
salvage says:
I know nothing of the sort. How do you know it? Because John Kerry told you?
Are you implying a causal relationship?
That if Iraq had not been invaded that these groups simply would not have “emerged�
YES
http://tinyurl.com/blaa8
WASHINGTON—New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank—both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States—have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.
Everyone though he was trying go get nuclear weapons.
Our State Dept, France and Russia didn’t think so.
France and Russia were on the take. Our State Dept.? Don’t ask me.
Thatcher also had serious reservations about Pres. Fredo’s immoral war:
Thatcher reveals her doubts over basis for Iraq war By Andrew Grice
Published: 14 October 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article319542.ece
Yesterday’s Washington Post reported that when asked whether she would have invaded Iraq given the intelligence at the time, Lady Thatcher replied: “I was a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof – and then you check, recheck and check again.”
She added: “The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return.”
BTW, lefties…
Were Kerry, Both Clintons, Gore, Pelosi, Levin Daschle, Albright, Kennedy, Byrd, Rockefeller and Bob Graham liars, or incompetent?
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
tw: Meet your leaders.
and if we had just ignored terrorism
Only a profoundly ignorant person would use this hypothetical.
Damn SteveJ!
I name my hairy bean bag after you and that’s what you choose to pull out of my comment.
And yet you are comfortable in living the hypothetical: “if you fight terrorism, all you do is create terrorism”
..
~~
..
Nope. Still awake.
I think salvage got in all of the Kos talking points. Let’s see…lied, incompetent, not a threat, stupid, quagmire, idiot, liar.
And s/he reminds us that this is the REALITY! I guess as seen from the eyes of the “reality based community.”
And s/he finds it absolutely “fascinating” that we wingnuts do not see the REALITY.
Ignoring that which you disagree with does not make that which you embrace REAL, salvage. It just makes you and your comments dismissable.
I know you don’t Pablo but from what I understand admiting it is the first step to recovery.
And yet you are comfortable in living the hypothetical: “if you fight terrorism, all you do is create terrorismâ€Â
This is a stupid remark. The issue is about HOW to fight Islamic terrorism.
we wingnuts do not see the REALITY.
Correct. The first step of 12.
salvage, you’re not nearly clever enough for witty repartee. Why don’t you try the questions? They’re fresh this morning, just for you.
Who would have suspected that Al Gore was be a Bushie?
tw: indeed. Heh.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Please, please, pleeeeeze, tell us HOW to do it. We really want to know. You have already told us HOW NOT to do it….so please enlighten us with your perfect, can’t fail, non-contingent, excellent plan on HOW to fight Islamic terrorism.
Some of the old memes are getting rusty folks. Iraqi documents are being translated already that show that Saddam informed his generals much to their dismay that they would not have any WMD’s to fight with 2 months before we invaded!!
Its beginning to look like their were no WMD’s at all and that we can end our speculations about where they are and what happened to them!
Perhaps the leftoids can also stop calling Bush a liar when it becomes apparent that Saddam hoodwinked the whole world including his generals that they had them!
Sorry to spoil your fun.
Yes, it’s entirely stupid and unsupportable. So why do leftists keep parrotting it, Steve J?
Please, please, pleeeeeze, tell us HOW to do it. [fight terrorism]
What is the GOP plan?
“Profoundly ignorant, stupid”. You injure me sir. But I echo rls and defer to your genius.
How should we fight islamic terrorism?