 |
||||
|
|
June 09, 2006Of Zarqawi and ContextAn easy defense for one under attack is to claim that his or her words were taken out of context. Usually this is a dodge resorted to when one cannot bear to apologize or admit error. But in today's lesson, students, let me present a true example of a conservative commentator who engaged in reckless abandonment of context. It just so happens to involve me. Ben Johnson, the managing editor of right-wing David Horowitz's FrontPage.com, was peeved by yesterday's posting below regarding the demise of Abu Musab Zarqawi. He wrote, David Corn at The Nation charges President Bush with inventing Zarqawi threat--and insists Bush played into al-Qaeda's hands by killing him. "[T]he two people most satisfied by Zarqawi's death," he writes, "are Osama bin Laden and his number-two Ayman al-Zawahiri, for now they have been spared a competitor for attention and handed a martyr." He surmised Zarqawi's "death is welcomed--but it remains part of a larger and tragic story of miscalculation." He then lays out the Left's current wisdom on the bombing: "Bush did not mention that it was his invasion of Iraq that fully allied Zarqawi with al-Qaeda. Prior to the war, terrorism experts considered Zarqawi more of a rival than a partner. And he did not mention that four years ago--before Zarqawi had become a major terrorist figure and before he had become responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands)--the Bush White House chose not to take him out when it could [in summer 2002]....The administration put off attacking Zarqawi because it wanted to invade Iraq." Corn makes two mutually exclusive arguments: that Zarqawi was not "fully allied" with Osama bin Laden before the Iraq invasion...and that the president needlessly allowed him to inflict "hundreds (if not thousands)" of deaths on innocent Iraqis, and Americans, to secure an American occupation. If only I spoke for the Left. But--actually--neither I nor the Left want that. But notice the sly hand at work above. In discussing what the Zarqawi death might mean to al Qaeda, I was quoting Bruce Hoffman, a well-known terrorism expert at the Rand Corporation (hardly a bastion of the Left). But to have noted that would have diluted Johnson's point about Lefty wackiness. And when I mentioned that the White House had thrice turned down Pentagon plans to bomb Zarqawi's camp in 2002, I was quoting (and linking to) an NBC News report from 2004. Johnson left that out as well. If he has a problem, it's with NBC News. Is the report wrong? Were NBC News' military sources speaking inaccurately when they said that the White House turned down their request to strike Zarqawi because it would interfere with its plans to promote a war with Iraq? Johnson does write: It is true the White House turned down plans to bomb Ansar in the summer of 2002--because State Department officials long drew no connection between Zarqawi and al-Qaeda. Like the Left (including Corn), Foggy Bottom analysts concluded the two were unaffiliated parties. By the time they connected the dots, a strike would have been too risky and virtually impossible to secure diplomatically. How odd. Bush failed to act because of those namby-pamby Foggy Bottom dwellers in 2002. But then the president disregarded their concerns when it came to an invasion of Iraq? By the way, after Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi as evidence of the "sinister nexus" between al Qaeda and Baghdad in his speech to the UN Security Council in February 2003, terrorism experts noted that this assertion was far from proven. But, as I wrote at the time, Powell had made a good case for bombing Zarqawi (because Zarqawi seemed a danger on his own)--not for invading Iraq. Yet, as the NBC News report noted, Bush put invading Iraq ahead of taking out Zarqawi. And what happened after that is no secret. I did not charge that Bush "invented" the Zarqawi threat. I noted that Bush had ignored it in pursuit of a war in Iraq. That should not be too hard a context for the Horowitzers to grasp. You've been quite critical of the latest quarterly report by the Defense Department to Congress on the situation in Iraq. Why so? We are seeing a pattern in which we have never had realistic reporting to Congress. But this quarterly report has really failed to address the issues in ways which border on deception. Can you summarize your criticism? I think everybody needs to understand we are talking about a sixty-page document. Parts of it deal with the president's strategy, and there is some useful material mixed in with problems that range from sloppy editing to massive omissions and conceptual failures. But essentially, you can break down its failures into four parts. The first is political. The report argues that there is political success because there have been elections, and the Iraqis have finally been able to agree on a government. It does not address any of the political problems with any realism, it does not talk about the fact that the elections showed that Iraq was polarized along ethnic or sectarian lines, or seriously address the risk of a major civil war. The second is economic. The report provides an analysis of the economy that does not track with other U.S. estimates. It makes no sense in basic econometric terms, provides a misleading picture of "success" in a country with 20 to 40 percent unemployment, and does not address any of the massive problems in the U.S. aid effort and the U.S. use of Iraqi funds. It essentially talks about an economy in Iraq which does not exist. The third is analysis of the threat. There are some useful aspects of the analysis, dealing with trends in the insurgency. But the report so badly downplays the growing risk of sectarian and ethnic conflict that it produces a totally misleading picture of the threat, and this is compounded by a use of poll data which it does not explain or validate. It uses cherry-picked polling results, some of which contradict each other in terms of other tables or text. Finally, there is the analysis of progress in developing Iraqi forces. The report does provide some useful data on Iraqi force development, and there has been progress. But the report exaggerates this progress. It does not provide any picture of the level of continued U.S. support necessary to bring this program to success. Finally, at a time when the militias, the police, and the various protection services have reached a crisis point, and where there is truly a major question of whether Iraq is moving toward civil war, the report dodges around all of the problems and simply does not give either Congress or the American people anything approaching a realistic picture.... So you're saying the situation is deteriorating in Iraq? One of the great problems here is that the police and the security services, the militias, crime, local security forces, and action forces all have divided along sectarian and ethnic lines. They are, in general, corrupt, and they lack the kind of leadership and training that is needed. There is nothing convincing to say things are getting better, and it is very possible that the political situation could become paralyzed or divided, and if so, then this deterioration along sectarian and ethic lines, coupled to problems with the police and militias, could confront us with something far worse than exists today. I do not want to be pessimistic about this. I think the fact is, however, we need to assess these risks, and we need to assess them honestly if we are going to organize the kind of U.S. effort that has the highest possibility of preventing civil conflict and that kind of victory for the insurgency.... An obvious conclusion would be that the Pentagon report was done for political reasons to try to make things look better than they are in Iraq with elections coming up in November for Congress. One wonders. It certainly spins things in a very favorable way in many areas. But the truth of the matter is that it is simply incompetent. It shows a lack of concern for detail, for the facts, [for] addressing the issues that really need to be addressed. That is one of the most discouraging aspects of it. This is a highly partisan environment. There are really bitter and increasingly polarized debates in Congress, among the American people, and in the media over what is happening there. People really need to know the facts, they need to know the risks, and they need to know what level of commitment is needed. It simply is a failure in basic analytic integrity. I look forward to the Horowitz gang accusing CSIS of spreading the misguided criticism of the Left. Posted by David Corn at June 9, 2006 11:55 AM | ||
Comments
I'm first. ME ME ME
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 11:59 AM
Mr. David Corn,
Another great post!
It is a good thing that some on the wacky right take issue with your work. That means you are making too much sense to be ignored. Even better, one might assume your work is rattling their monkey-cage(s)!
Thanks
Kirk
Posted by: capt at June 9, 2006 12:02 PM
I was listening to the Diane Rehm show and a comment was made that Zarqawi became a big player when Colin Lapdog Powell mentioned his name at the U.N. Nazi America does invent bogeymen and bring them to great heights in the world of terrorism. You can tell that Nazi Americans eat up this shit by their shit eating grins.
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 12:18 PM
1
I'm first. ME ME ME
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 11:59 AM
Even a clock . . .
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 12:18 PM
If only I spoke for the Left. But--actually--neither I nor the Left want that.
that's a shame because the left and yourself are perfect for each other.
But notice the sly hand at work above.
please. there is more slyness in a single one of your fingers than in all of johnson/horowitz' rag put together.
thank you for allowing us to post whatever we want all this time - now i am taking my squares and going home -
everybody: stock up on food and other necessities while you still can! adio, jha.
Posted by: 没有飞机 at June 9, 2006 12:20 PM
Who Cares About Facts Any More?
Not Thomas Sowell
"Among the historical facts is that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a "separation of church and state," despite how often that phrase has been repeated in the media, in politics, and even in courts of law."
Search the Constitution for the phrase "wireless wiretapping," "net neutrality" or "snuff films" and you'll get the same empty result. Centuries of legal precedent have undone some of the work of the Constitution's authors. Obviously the Conservatives long for the good ol' days when only rich white men voted and blacks were only three-fifths of a man as the Constitution explicitly stated.
"President Bush...has repeatedly been depicted as such a mental lightweight"
"I think war is a dangerous place."
—Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003
"The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production."
—Washington, D.C., Nov. 27, 2002
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
—Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002
"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here."
—Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002
"Do you have blacks, too?"
—To Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001
"We've tripled the amount of money—I believe it's from $50 million up to $195 million available."
—Lima, Peru, March 23, 2002
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."
—Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000
Where Mr. Bush is involved, the stupidity paradigm is in full effect.
"The grand political fallacy of the age is that the Republicans are the party of wealth"
isn't diminished in the least by the fact that poor people are duped into voting for him. The slow death of the middle class, the tax cuts for billionaires and the corporatist agenda prove that Republicans only take care of the wealthy and their wealth.
"It has become axiomatic in the liberal media that big-money donors give most of that big money to the Republicans."
No. It has become axiomatic in the courts across the nation (and in the court of public opinion) that big-money donors give money to Republicans in exchange for political favors. That investigations into Republican bribe-taking overshadow investigations into Democrats by a 10 to 1 ratio is evidently a "fact" that leads conservatives to take heart that "Democrats do it too."
"Racism" is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans."
Pointing to the acts of Democrats 50 to 100 years ago won't change that fact. It doesn't make the support of 10% of blacks (and 30 to 40% of Hispanics) any more or less important. It won't change the Grand Ol' Lynching Party's Xenophobic legislative agenda one bit. It won't make Mr. Bush's appointments any more diverse than Mr. Clinton's. Wait, does that make Sowell a liar, or is he just misinformed? Another one of those human mushrooms -- kept in the dark and fed shit all day.
"But who cares about facts any more?"
Posted by: Hapless misinformation service at June 8, 2006 06:22 PM
It's on in Germany baybeee! La pelota rueda.
Posted by: Pandemoniac at June 9, 2006 12:24 PM
I'd respectfully echo the sentiments I heard James Carroll make recently, while discussing his new book, "House of War."
Carroll's opinion, one which I share, is that the whole notion of "War on Terror" is a fallacy to begin with, that 9/11 was a crime to which the perpetrators have not yet been brought to justice. He reminded the audience that when George Bush demanded of the Taliban that they turn over Osama Bin Laden, they (Taliban) asked for the evidence of his (OBL) involvement. Bush responded by invading.
Seen through this prism, (and leaving behind my interpretation of Carroll and speaking for myself) looking at 9/11 as changing the world as we knew it, and as the causus belli for military strikes wherever George Bush choses, we find ourselves embracing the concepts of targeted assasinations, pre-emptive and preventative air power assualts, and military invasions.
These actions fall under the rubric of the principle of exclusivity, for surely, if Iran tried a pre-emptive strike against George Bush, or maybe just a targeted assasination, these same people who embrace these concepts would be screaming to holy hell and back.
Zarqawi's demise will probably do little in the larger Iraqi context, but consider, wouldn't it have been the larger coup if the new Iraqi police force would have brought him in alive, even if they had used significant U.S. support?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 12:24 PM
NOTABLE QUOTES
The Fight for Honest Monetary Weights and Measures (Honest Money) is not a new fight. It was fought, and won, several times in the last century. In particular, ordinary people have always supported honest monetary weights and measures and always opposed fiat money, a.k.a. paper money. Set forth below are some quotations from some more famous personalities who expressed thoughts on the money issue. Also included are some revealing quotations from official publications, such as those published by the Federal Reserve.
More HERE
*****end of clip*****
I know, always with the quotes. You will find the quotes in the linked piece interesting to say the least.
capt
Posted by: capt at June 9, 2006 12:24 PM
The three stooges think this was a good week for the Republicans. Mr. Bush is still lying to them. Mr. Bush's Energy Crisis still puts our future in danger. Health care is still a mess. We don't have to worry about terrorists hating us for our freedoms. The beauty of the Conservative response is that there's no internal resistance to the argument. It's empty in there.
By Pande Ass
_______________________________________________
Someone is in denial!!!! The whole fucking world knows this was a good week for republicans. Even some of your Corn-nut groupies aren't in such denial as you my friend!
The lastest analysis of the CA primaries was that the Democrats couldn't even motivate there own base to go to the polls. If you have a party that stands for nothing and has no new ideas why bother.
Someday you will wake up from this nighmare of denial, Pande, and realize that you are defending the indefensible.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:24 PM
O Reilly at #1
Quit frigging spoofing as me- David has warned you about spoofing dickhead!
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:26 PM
The whole fucking world knows this was a good week for republicans. - lbh
Imagine for a moment the gall to claim the knowledge of what the whole eff'n world knows. Fuck, I don't even know what I know, No, no, I'm wrong.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 12:35 PM
Moral of the story:
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
Confucius
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 12:39 PM
The lastest analysis of the CA primaries was that the Democrats couldn't even motivate there own base to go to the polls. - lbh
By whom?
Anyway, in the San Diego primary, R's outspent D's two to one. The GOPher's did hold the seat, but by a margin that in now way reflects the make-up of the district. San Diego is a long way from San Fransico in more ways than geography.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 12:40 PM
Imagine for a moment the gall to claim the knowledge of what the whole eff'n world knows. Fuck, I don't even know what I know, No, no, I'm wrong.
BY RS
Robert, dude if you would lay off the weed this wouldn't be a problem! He he
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:42 PM
Anyway, in the San Diego primary, R's outspent D's two to one. The GOPher's did hold the seat, but by a margin that in now way reflects the make-up of the district. San Diego is a long way from San Fransico in more ways than geography.
By RS
Nice spin!
What happened to the culture of corruption scandal that was going to be a shoe in for the Dems? I guess they actually need an agenda now. Hope it's not too late for you lefties. We always appreciate a good fight, but this one doesn't even look close.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:47 PM
San Diego is a long way from San Fransico in more ways than geography.
By RS
You can say that again! You have to be homosexual, trans-gender, bi-sexual or just a freak to live in San Fran.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:50 PM
Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites
New Scientist has discovered that Pentagon's National Security Agency, which specialises in eavesdropping and code-breaking, is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in internet technology - specifically the forthcoming "semantic web" championed by the web standards organisation W3C - to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals.
Americans are still reeling from last month's revelations that the NSA has been logging phone calls since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The Congressional Research Service, which advises the US legislature, says phone companies that surrendered call records may have acted illegally. However, the White House insists that the terrorist threat makes existing wire-tapping legislation out of date and is urging Congress not to investigate the NSA's action.
More HERE
*****end of clip*****
"Social Networking Websites"
Could they be talking about blogs? The funny thing is the trolls will be included as part of our "network."
capt
Posted by: capt at June 9, 2006 12:53 PM
She said "I know what it's like to be dead.
I know what it is to be sad"
And she's making me feel like I've never been born.
I said "Who put all those things in your head?
Things that make me feel that I'm mad
And you're making me feel like I've never been born."
She said "you don't understand what I said"
I said "No, no, no, you're wrong"
When I was a boy everything was right
Everything was right
I said "Even though you know what you know
I know that I'm ready to leave
'Cause you're making me feel like I've never been born."
She said "you don't understand what I said"
I said "No, no, no, you're wrong"
When I was a boy everything was right
Everything was right
I said "Even though you know what you know
I know that I'm ready to leave
'Cause you're making me feel like I've never been born."
She said , she said "I know what it's like to be dead"
("I know what it's like to be dead")
I know what it is to be sad...
******************************************
If I were consuming, that would be a pretty decent argument that cannabis didn't adversly effect mental clarity and memory, judging by the arguments I can muster.
I'm not saying. But, I do argue that the prohibition against cannabis is criminal as it deprives persons of their liberty for an action which neither breaks bones or picks pockets.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 12:54 PM
A source high inside the federal government has informed me that the FBI has the DNA of the dead man claimed to be Zarqawi. The source wondered how the FBI had Zarqawi's original DNA. There is growing suspicion that our Nazi government is randomly collecting DNA from various sources and giving these sources 15 minutes of fame as high ranking terrorists to be used for political reasons.
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 12:55 PM
Gerald, Zarqawi was probably on the govt. payroll. OBL was.
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 01:02 PM
On the Diane Rehm show Tony Blakely said that the government is concerned about domestic American terrorists. Does this mean that if Hitler Bush looks into our eyes, he can determine whether or not we are terrorists and thrown into jail as enemy combatants? We are a fascist state!!!!!
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 01:03 PM
Hi all,
From a previous thread, Barbara states:
"Hajji,
AIDS can be transferred through breathing or from touching a door handle. I am not a brainiac about such illnesses, but I do know that."
***Not unless that door handle has bodily fluids on it. HIV is transmitted through DIRECT CONTACT of a mucous membrane or the bloodstream with a bodily fluid containing HIV, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluid, preseminal fluid and breast milk.[2][3] This transmission can come in the form of: (anal or vaginal) sex; blood transfusion; contaminated needles; exchange between mother and infant during pregnancy, childbirth, or breastfeeding; or other exposure to one of the above bodily fluids.
Peace.
Posted by: Say What? at June 9, 2006 01:04 PM
#20 DEN, you are probably right!
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 01:05 PM
I really don't understand why anyone who is not a rabid right wing nutcase pays any attention to David Horowitz. He's never changed over the years. He started out as a rabid left wing propagandist and now he's a rabid right wing propagandist. Horowitz found that right wing propaganda pays better. I would think that you have better things to do, David, than respond to Horowitz or what ever other right wing nut comments on your "communist America hating" tendancies.
Posted by: Ian Kaplan at June 9, 2006 01:11 PM
By Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 09 June 2006
In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
- Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister during World War II
Propaganda is when the Western corporate media tries to influence public opinion in favor of the Iraq War by consistently tampering with truth and distorting reality. It is to be expected. And it is to be recognized for what it is. On occasions when the media does its job responsibly and reports events like the November 19, 2005, Haditha Massacre, it must also be willing and able to anticipate and counter propaganda campaigns that will inevitably follow. It is to be expected that the responsible members of the media fraternity will stick to their guns and not join the propagandists.
This piece is a summary of five most commonly deployed crisis management propaganda tactics which the State and Media combine that we can expect to see in relation to the Haditha Massacre. Listed in a loose chronological order of their deployment, the tactics are: Delay, Distract, Discredit, Spotlight and Scapegoat. Each of the five public relations campaigns will here be discussed in the context of the Haditha Massacre.
more.
************************
How quickly some can be reduced to:
but, but, but, Butt Monkeys. I've no desire to, and will not continue in that vein.
Sad it is that the posts I put the most into, such as #7, are ignored by the rah rah right, but, personal attacks and innuendo are administered ad infinitum.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 01:13 PM
Most of you are probably aware that Muslims are called to prayer five times per day. You may not be aware that the Nazis are called to shout it out six times per day, THE GLORY OF HITLER BUSH IS MAN FULLY AND TOTALLY DEAD.
Mattie Stepanek may never be declared a canonized saint but if you want to read the written words of an undeclared saint, please take some time to read his books on Heartsongs.
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 01:28 PM
Robert, they couldn't have brought him in alive, can't have him spilling his guts about what is really going on. I'm waiting to hear about saddam's deteriorating health and subsequent suicide before the trial is over, just like milosevic. Dead men, even tyrants, tell no tales.
Posted by: Saladin at June 9, 2006 01:30 PM
"Zarqawi's demise will probably do little in the larger Iraqi context, but consider, wouldn't it have been the larger coup if the new Iraqi police force would have brought him in alive, even if they had used significant U.S. support?"
Robert S.@#7
I agree Robert. Zarqawi is only a drop in the bucket of swill. The real question is another "what really happened". How do you take a hit from 2-500lb. bombs and maintain your good looks? Must have been the deflector shields.
More mysteries fewer answers.
Do not let the parasites on the blog deflect your attention or influence posts. Inside their pointy little heads is a worm needing dirt.
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 01:36 PM
Say What,
Barbara amended her statement a couple posts later to: "....CAN't be transferred through breathing or from touching a door handle..."
but was still missing the point...
-T
Posted by: Hajji at June 9, 2006 01:47 PM
Cardinal Sees New Threats to Life in the Americas
In Message Sent in Pope's Name
VATICAN CITY, JUNE 8, 2006 (Zenit.org).- In a message sent in Benedict XVI's name to the Organization of American States, the Vatican secretary of state warned against the new threats to human life in the Western Hemisphere.
Cardinal Angelo Sodano's message was presented to the OAS' General Assembly, which closed Tuesday in Santo Domingo, in the Dominican Republic.
The message focused on "the dignity of the human person, the absolute value of human life from conception until its natural end."
"The American continent has a tradition of respect for life which is now being threatened by the pressure of currents foreign to its nature," Cardinal Sodano stated.
In several countries of Latin America, pressure groups are promoting the legalization of abortion, even though in most of those nations the constitutions defend human life in all its phases.
In the area of safeguarding the dignity of the human person, Cardinal Sodano said that it is also "a priority to favor the conditions that will decrease violence in its diverse forms: terrorism, attacks against innocent civilians, kidnappings, threats, drug trafficking."
The letter also asked the representatives of the 34 countries of the OAS to promote the family, "based on marriage."
Plea for the family
"To promote the family is an essential task for the development of society of the whole continent," the Vatican secretary of state wrote. "The family is the place of learning, of knowledge, of basic formation of the future protagonist of social life.
"That is why the family is the first entity that states must protect and promote. The role carried out by parents is fundamental and cannot be substituted by the state or another institution which is a necessary and very beneficial complement, but which does not replace the primordial role of parents whose competence it also is to choose the type of education they want for their children."
Cardinal Sodano added: "The family cannot carry out its mission properly if it does not have the minimal material conditions to do so."
In this context, he lamented "the persistence, at times aggravated, of poverty and the increase in inequality between the richest and the poorest."
"It is not just about distributing more adequately what there is, but of improving the conditions of production and of seeking new ways of development in peace and harmony for all," the Vatican official suggested, proposing the social doctrine of the Church as an indispensable ally to this end.
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 01:49 PM
The lack of knowledge (often by willful ignorance) is directly related to the stigma held by so many against patients with AIDS.
Such unfounded fear/hate is undoubtably doing more to supress research and prevention by governments around the world.
Posted by: Hajji at June 9, 2006 01:51 PM
Yes, well, Bless its Pointy Little Head.
Well, from the pictures I saw, it looked to be rebar reinforced concrete construction. Not being a munitions specialist, I do not have the ability to predict the damage inflicted to a body within such a construction. Also, the photo did not show the body, only the head and upper torso.
What Really Happened? And do the Dead tell tales? Are they Tall Tales?
Did the bodies of the victims of Haditha tell tales? Did those in the mass graves that were attributed to the Saddam regime? Did they tell of our participation in Saddam's ascention to and maintanence of power?
Tales of the Great Rum Runners - Robert Hunter
Here is a taste of the great rum runners
Ships that sailed the velvet harbor
Crews that broke the jugs and poured your blood
Like flowing rum upon the sand
Sinking down, down, down
Upon the sand, upon the sea
Upon the hills of liquid green
They rise to fall, they rise again
Their dreams tattered sails in the wind
Here is a wail of a lone flute playing
Those not hanged, by time were slain
Here is a cup of blood and tears
Here is the wail of a hundred years
Going down, down, down
Upon the sand, upon the sea
Upon the hills of liquid green
They rise to fall, they rise again
Their dreams tattered sails in the wind
Overnight they turned to water
No blood rang when they went to slaughter
Tears were few, though sighs were heavy
Bones were stacked in the main library
Turning down, down, down
Till their dreams are touching ground
Rising up like gentle rain
They turn to rise and fall again
Running round and changing faces
Marking time and keeping paces
Ducking down awhile to die
Their faces melt to barren sky
After all the trial and fury
They spared the judge and hanged the jury
No one asked the reason why
Sentence passed they turned to die
Turning down, down, down
Till their dreams are touching ground
Rising up like gentle rain
They turn to rise and fall again
Their dreams tattered sails in the wind
Here is fire and bloody slaughter
Written on the leaves of water
Here is a ship with all hands singing
Here is a dock with dark men swinging
Down, down, down
Upon the sand, upon the sea
Upon the hills of liquid green
They rise to fall, they rise again
Their dreams tattered sails in the wind
****************************************
[...]There is a leadership deficit in the armed forces of the United States today, and it begins with the commander in chief, President George W. Bush, and his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld. It extends to the entire U.S. Congress and onto the senior leadership of the uniformed armed services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
All of these individuals and organizations set a standard of carefree indifference to the rule of law when they ordered, or gave consent to, the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were mute when the president and his secretary of defense waived the Geneva Convention when it came to so-called "terrorists" and "unlawful combatants." They forgot that many who fought for the United States during the American Revolution would be classified as terrorists or unlawful combatants using the standards set forth by the Bush administration. [...] And in waiving American adherence to the rule of law in general, and the law of war in particular, American leadership, civilian and military, set a standard of indifference that was far too easily replicated by the men and women under them. This is why we had Bagram, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. And this is why we have Haditha.
- Scott Ritter
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 01:55 PM
David Gilmore has a new CD and on XM #40 now with Artist Confidential.
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 02:03 PM
A formatting request: Have you considered placing quoted material in plain text with quotes rather than ital? James Wolcott's blog works this way, and it makes it much easier to read while still distinguishing his material from quotes. I'm much more inclined to read his quoted material than yours, solely because of formatting.
Posted by: Jason Dewees at June 9, 2006 02:08 PM
Is there some reason, David, why the comments to your blog seem to be more irrational than those to, say, thewashingtonnote.com? I've always regarded you as a careful journalist, but your blog seems to attract extremes from both the left and the right.
Posted by: Ian Kaplan at June 9, 2006 02:11 PM
Robert @ 14
"Anyway, in the San Diego primary, R's outspent D's two to one. The GOPher's did hold the seat, but by a margin that in now way reflects the make-up of the district. San Diego is a long way from San Fransico in more ways than geography."
Actually, Robert, the percentage of the vote the woman received was almost exactly the percentage that Al Gore and John Kerry received. Look it up.
Posted by: Factchecker at June 9, 2006 02:15 PM
FatChunker,
While what YOU said may well be true... It has nothing to do with what you quoted Robert as writing.
Comprehension is important, Boyd!
Posted by: Hajji at June 9, 2006 02:18 PM
Mr. Kaplan
This started as the Bushlies.com site. This can attract many who, as documented in the Downing Street Memos and other evidence, agree with that proposition.
It can also attract a number who disagree with that proposition.
You haven't stated precisely what you call irrational, but one is given to suspect that you find an intensly partisan approach as irrational.
For myself, I find the deliberate dismissal of fact to be irrational. And argue to the fullest.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 02:20 PM
I actually enjoy the italics. Too lazy to do it myself, though. Without the italics, another color, smaller font or squeezed margin might work.
Doesn't really make it any more or less "readable" to me,though.
Posted by: Hajji at June 9, 2006 02:22 PM
David,
From the American Thinker:
"[Corn's] theme was helped along by a story circulated by NBC News that prior to the war, the Bush Administration failed to attack and kill the terrorist mastermind:
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didnÕ´ do it, said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
The story points out that the military had drawn up strike plans 3 different times to take out ZarqawiÕ³ lab but was blocked each time by a White House who believed that any military action would undercut their efforts to build a coalition to take out Saddam's whole rotten regime.
Still spinning furiously, the left advanced the theory that Bush's rush to war prevented us from killing Zarqawi in 2002. Leaving aside the notion that killing the terrorist at his lab would have been any more successful than President Clinton's efforts to kill Osama Bin Laden by bombing his training camp in Afghanistan, one notices the flip-flop by the left immediately; if Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how is it possible that we missed anyone? And if he did indeed have ties to terrorist groups, doesn't that justify the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq?
If I were you, I wouldn't say any of that too loudly in the presence of a liberal. His head is likely to explode."
David - an answer, please?
Posted by: factchecker at June 9, 2006 02:22 PM
#37,
Alas, miscomprehension is stock in trade.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 02:26 PM
Ian, Whats not to love about this site? If you get to see the extreme right and left in action (both of which are readily available on this blog), then you can check you're own middle-of-the-road approach against those extremes. And it's also useful for pulling up when you're sitting around with your friends and laughing, "check out this moron, bro". And to be honest, the left extreme here leaves links which at least gives you the chance to make your own decision, but the right just runs their mouth....entertainment all the way around! For FREE!
Posted by: citizen x at June 9, 2006 02:26 PM
Dear Mr. Corn,
Thank you for pointing out yet another of the tactical errors that the we have come to expect from the Bush Administration. The death of Zarquawi should have been treated as a minor news item. The president foolishly elevated his status in the world of islamic extremism by giving him the honor of a presidential news briefing. His death should have been reported by a colonel, not a general, not Rumsfeld, and especially not the President of the United States.
Posted by: True Patriot at June 9, 2006 02:30 PM
Hajji,
Children, when they are infants, often have a hard time pronouncing people's names, ergo the bastardization of such in their language.
Hajji, are you a child, or just childish?
As far as what Robert said or didn't say, let's let him respond.
Posted by: factchecker at June 9, 2006 02:31 PM
I think this is bullshyt...
Actually, Robert, the percentage of the vote the woman received was almost exactly the percentage that Al Gore and John Kerry received. Look it up.
Seems I remember them saying that district has 50,000 more registered repugs than dems. I also remember reading that bush won that district by 20+points, so a 5-pt win by the new repug doesn't bode well at all for the GOP.
Posted by: Alan at June 9, 2006 02:42 PM
Factchecker, try not to fall off your high horse, you might blunt your pointy little head.
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 02:42 PM
"Look it up."
Posted by: Factless at June 9, 2006 02:15 PM
Look it up? From someone who calls himself "factchecker." Indeed, irony lives and breathes in the conservative movement.
Busby lost by fewer than 5,000 votes in a district where no Democrat has come within 50,000 votes of winning since the district was gerrymandered following the 2000 census and where Republicans had 50,000 more voters registered than Dems.
Did you find anything on the Gorelick memo? I'm still waiting.
"but, personal attacks and innuendo are administered ad infinitum."
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 9, 2006 01:13 PM
Isn't it sad? That's what has become of the Conservative movement. The state of the Republic, the advancement of the middle and lower class, the perpetual investigation - arrest - conviction of the Republican leaders, the jihadi playground in Iraq ... none of these things matter to Conservatives. They're happy with the lies, talking points and criminal class that their party relies on.
This is why I actually enjoy having the 3 stooges around One lies, one cries and the other can't tell fact from fiction. The rest of us just get to giggle and guffaw over the tripe these conservative ignoramuses post.
Germany scores big and gets by the Ticos 4-2. The German defense was horrible. The Costa Rican defense was worse.
Posted by: Pandemoniac at June 9, 2006 02:42 PM
Seems like I remember bush's win margin was 23 pts. The article was noting that an 18-pt difference now (23 minus 5) is lookin' baaaaad! for the torturin' party.
look that up factboy
Posted by: Alan at June 9, 2006 02:51 PM
FartChoker,
"O come now, Child of JesseÕs family tree, and save us from our enemies..."
Is masturbation "inner" child abuse?
Posted by: Hajji at June 9, 2006 02:53 PM
Bilderberg-bound filmmaker held at airport
Laura Payton Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Canadian authorities detained an American activist filmmaker at the Ottawa airport late Wednesday night, confiscating his passport, camera equipment and most of his belongings.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada agents stopped Alex Jones, whose films include Martial Law 9/11: The Rise of the Police State, and questioned him for nearly four hours before letting him go with only one change of clothes and telling him to return Thursday morning.
It's really chilling, like a police state, said Mr. Jones of his detention.
Mr. Jones and his crew, camera operators Ryan Schlickeisen and Aaron Dykes, travelled to Canada to film a documentary about the Bilderberg group, a secretive group of former politicians and business leaders who are meeting in Ottawa this week.
Ah yes the long arm of the right wing extends to the north. Bildabug Bastards!
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 03:06 PM
"Still spinning furiously, the left advanced the theory that Bush's rush to war prevented us from killing Zarqawi in 2002."
Straw man humpitation from the right. Again? With Kirma being in the semi-autonomous region of Iraq controlled by the Kurds and protected by a no-fly zone. There wasn't much to stop the bombing. Remember how bombing sorties ramped up right before the war? No really. Look it up. LOL.
Leaving aside the notion that killing the terrorist at his lab would have been any more successful than President Clinton's efforts to kill Osama Bin Laden by bombing his training camp in Afghanistan, one notices the flip-flop by the left immediately"
Nope. People on the left were merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the right in claiming that Big Dawg blundered by trying to bomb a camel tent in Afghanistan. If Al-Zarqawi was the terrorist mastermind that the White House made him out to be; he should have been a prime target. If he wasn't, it was all hype. But don't try to explain that to Conservatives. Hypocrisy is all the rage in the Grand Orangejumpsuit Party.
"if Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how is it possible that we missed anyone? And if he did indeed have ties to terrorist groups, doesn't that justify the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq?"
Posted by: factless at June 9, 2006 02:22 PM
"Terrorists" operating in a zone where Saddam had no pop, without any cooperation from him is a sign of his "ties to terrorists?" By that logic he had ties to the mullahs in Iran.
And if the hype about Zarqawi was BS, well, that's OK too; because according to the GOP, lies help them sleep at night.
Posted by: Pandemoniac at June 9, 2006 03:09 PM
Someone is in denial!!!!
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:24 PM
One more exclamation point and I'll start to believe his assertions.
Someday you will wake up from this nighmare of denial
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:24 PM
Ah, thank you Dr. Freud. Ah, the proverbial nightmare of denial. I'm having a nightmare, no I'm not. This is a nightmare:I dont know if I'm in denial or if I'm not. I thought I was having a nightmare but I'm probably in denial that I'm not. I'm having a delightful dream. . .or am I just in denial that I'm having a nightmare. Either I am in denial or its just a river in Egypt.
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 03:14 PM
Quit frigging spoofing as me- David has warned you about spoofing dickhead!
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:26 PM
I don't consider you a dickhead. I think you're asshole but if you prefer dickhead, I'll go with that.
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 03:17 PM
And to be honest, the left extreme here leaves links which at least gives you the chance to make your own decision, but the right just runs their mouth....
Posted by: citizen x at June 9, 2006 02:26 PM
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 03:24 PM
This is why I actually enjoy having the 3 stooges around One lies, one cries and the other can't tell fact from fiction.
LBH, Happy and Fatcheker. Am I right? If so, do I win the FIFA soccer ball signed by the captain of the Brazialian soccer team?
Germany scores big and gets by the Ticos 4-2. The German defense was horrible. The Costa Rican defense was worse.
Much of the game was controlled by the German team in their offensive end. Do you see some chicnks in the armor Pande?
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 03:30 PM
Having a bad day?
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 03:53 PM
Someone is in denial!!!!
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 12:24 PM
One more exclamation point and I'll start to believe his assertions.
By O Rielly
!
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 03:57 PM
LBH, Happy and Fatcheker. Am I right? If so, do I win the FIFA soccer ball signed by the captain of the Brazialian soccer team?
By
No but I'm sure the pres. of Iran would love to sign your little soccer ball in recogintion of all the support you corn-nuts give terrorists!
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 04:02 PM
Pande writes:
This is why I actually enjoy having the 3 stooges around One lies, one cries and the other can't tell fact from fiction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Better to be one of the three stooges than one of the broke back mountain boys, like Pande &
O Reilly. One's a giver and one's a receiver, but they both know it's wrong. Which one are you Pande?
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 04:07 PM
Is there some reason, David, why the comments to your blog seem to be more irrational than those to, say, thewashingtonnote.com ?
oh as if! a lame attempt at promotion of a site that gets an average of 1 comment per thread.
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 04:08 PM
More about Alex Jones,
Alex Jones and his team were detained by Canadian immigration on orders of the Bilderberg Group for a 15 hour nightmare of interrogation, accusations and threats of arrests in anticipation of the conference in Ottawa which starts today.
The group was detained at 11:45pm last night and only released after 2pm today.
Customs openly told Alex as soon as they brought him into custody that the Bilderberg Group was aware of his arrival and that this was the reason for his detainment. All three members of the team were instantly detained despite going through different immigration desks.
More here
Maybe they think no one knows they run the entire world or something. Why would they have any reason to fear being discovered for the evil empire they are?Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 04:08 PM
If homophobia was a crime you'd be convicted pillowbiter.
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 04:10 PM
If homophobia was a crime you'd be convicted pillowbiter.
By O Relly
Sorry dude, but you freak me out talking about my asshole and dickhead in the same sentence.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 04:17 PM
Corn-nut spin machine on CA vote: We lost, but we won, because we lost~~~~~Huh?
If you ever had to wonder about why so many people think the Democratic Party has gone completely insane, look no further than the California spin machine insanity!
After losing to Republican Brian Bilbray in California to replace the criminally convicted "Duke Cunningham," liberal Democrat Francine Busby said:
"We've sent a message that there are no safe seats" ... Americans "really want change."
In spite of the media talking heads trying to help spin this LOSS into a "win," let's take a good, close look at the psychotic Democratic Party. Somehow the Democratic Party has become so completely perverted, almost deranged in their thinking, that a loss is now a win.
And let's take a close look at the background of what SHOULD have actually been an "easy" win for Ms. Busby and the Democratic Party:
1. Former (R) Duke Cunningham was criminally convicted and had to leave his seat.
2. Ms. Busby, the beloved hope of the Democratic Party, attempted to play the "culture of corruption" card against her opponent.
3. Her platform also included the typical Democrat marketing spin to take more of what is yours and expand government through more taxation.
4. Ms. Busby, and the Democratic Party's
Ms. Busby, like so many other Democrats, is wishy-washy at best on securing America's borders from illegal immigration.
This was contrasted with a clear message from Busby's Republican challenger Bilbray. He stood on reducing government, reducing taxes and securing the borders.
Bilbray had a number of obstacles to overcome: the conviction of Cunningham; liberal California politics; Busby's call for Illegal Alien Vote fraud; the Democratic Party support: and the National Media machine hyping the race, the win is an AMAZING harbinger of things to come.
Posted by: LBH` at June 9, 2006 04:33 PM
Way back when....I read newspapers and magazines knowing that there was a bias. That was understood. But I assumed that with that bias came clear and honest facts. I took it for granted that the dishonesty came from perhaps omitting a fact. I also remember feeling that if a journalist was dishonest in his craft his credentials were mud.
With people like Ben Johnson and David Horowitz it's a game. They don't understand the seriousness of the business. I NEED real news. I NEED honest answers. I NEED to know that the more conservative readers get real news and honest answers. I don't mind the bias but I do mind the dishonesty.
And then we have O'Shilly and Ann Coulter. People in this country consider them journalists. All they're doing is spreading lies, manipulated facts, distortions, cruel warped justifications and talking points from a fanatic group of bent, power hungry, money grabbing losers. Because these fanatics are tainting everything they have been given the power to touch we are all damaged by it.
Thank you Ben Johnson and David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Bill O'shilly, Hannity, John Gibson and all the rest of you freaks.
Honest debate is part of democracy. This fanatical wing is grinding that part of democracy into pulp. That is their job. They love doing it because it's making them rich in the process. Ann Coulter doesn't care what she says as long as it sells books and keeps her agenda alive. The minute this message starts to smell so much the public can't tolarate it the gig is up. The con is over. Curtains down.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 04:39 PM
You can always tell when LBH cuts and pastes (and without attribution, I might add) because the misspellings and poor grammar magically disappear.
Posted by: Don at June 9, 2006 04:49 PM
LBH,
You are disgusting. Your comments are intended to do one of two things. 1. You come here to do nothing more than relieve your latent tendencies. or 2. You can't compete in an honest intelligent way so you bring the blog down to your level. I might add, I can't even describe what your level is. It would be too insulting to human or animal to connect anyone or anything to you in anyway. Post political your BS if you want but keep your sexual comments to yourself.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 04:52 PM
DEN, are you going to see Alex in LA? Being harrassed by the bilderberg goon squad makes me more determined then ever, assuming of course that he can get past LAX!
Posted by: Saladin at June 9, 2006 04:54 PM
It takes more then LBH to bring the blog down to that level.
Posted by: Saladin at June 9, 2006 04:55 PM
Jeanne, what you and I are witnessing is profound lack of personal honor in the government, press, and people. Without honor there is no trust, without trust we have what is happening today.
Can you trust the press to report fairly and accurately? Can you trust the government to work diligently to protect citizens interests? Can you trust anyone you do not personally know?
We are the frogs in the frypan, slowly the lies are turned up bit by bit, pretty soon everything you were taught about trust is gone and you are left what you see today.
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 04:58 PM
The traditional media are reading your blogs. The politicians and their staff are reading your comments and your diaires. They hear you, they hear us.
.......dailykos.com
indeed? it doesn't matter what any mcmedia politico thinks to him/herself as they see/hear what john Q really feels and wants. it is only what that mcmedia politico presents or ignores that matters.
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 05:01 PM
Per the Bilbray/Busby buzz.
the Democrats improved their turnout but did not win the election, however.
Aren't they both going to be running again in 6 months?
If Busby wins, will the Bushbots get all "doom and gloom" about the results?
Considering Busby's votes cost around $37/per versus Bilbray's at $74/per the Democrats proved once again that they are more frugal than the Republicans.
They can be better trusted to handle the nation's financial matters as the Republicans are now the party of spend and spend more.
Posted by: Turdblossom at June 9, 2006 05:08 PM
Sal, I wo'nt be able to get loose from work to see him. Ever wonder why there are no terrorist attacks at the Bilderbug conventions. I heard Zaraqi was scratched off the list of attendees at the last minute.
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 05:10 PM
DEN, I never wonder why terrorists don't attack themselves, that would defeat the purpose, right? ;-)
Posted by: Saladin at June 9, 2006 05:14 PM
TB, both parties have proven quite conclusively that they can't even balance their own checkbook much less a national budget. Saying the dems are better is not saying anything at all!
Posted by: Saladin at June 9, 2006 05:17 PM
framed portraits! get your framed portraits here!
he looks remarkably well groomed for a dead terrorist. ha ha!
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 05:17 PM
#76
Especially one who had 2 500 pound bombs fall on him. This reminds me of the photos of the bad boys in the old west.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 05:23 PM
BREAKING NEWS:
It was not a tip that led them to Zarqawi, he applied for retirement benefits at the ministry of retired terrorists and left his address.
HA!
capt
Posted by: capt at June 9, 2006 05:25 PM
Sal--agreed they both have scumbags in them.
One just more so than the other by a wide margin, the same one who used to tout fiscal responsibility yet spends our money like drunken sailors.
No offense meant to the drunken sailors.
Posted by: Turdblossom at June 9, 2006 05:28 PM
Ok, this is going to piss off the youth. It's going to get ugly. They will never ever trust government again.
Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites
"I AM continually shocked and appalled at the details people voluntarily post online about themselves." So says Jon Callas, chief security officer at PGP, a Silicon Valley-based maker of encryption software. He is far from alone in noticing that fast-growing social networking websites such as MySpace and Friendster are a snoop's dream.
New Scientist has discovered that Pentagon's National Security Agency, which specialises in eavesdropping and code-breaking, is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in internet technology - specifically the forthcoming "semantic web" championed by the web standards organisation W3C - to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals.
....By adding online social networking data to its phone analyses, the NSA could connect people at deeper levels, through shared activities, such as taking flying lessons. Typically, online social networking sites ask members to enter details of their immediate and extended circles of friends, whose blogs they might follow. People often list other facets of their personality including political, sexual, entertainment, media and sporting preferences too. Some go much further, and a few have lost their jobs by publicly describing drinking and drug-taking exploits. Young people have even been barred from the orthodox religious colleges that they are enrolled in for revealing online that they are gay.
"You should always assume anything you write online is stapled to your resume. People don't realise you get Googled just to get a job interview these days," says Callas.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 05:35 PM
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CNN) -- -- As I stood talking into a camera on a remote airstrip in Kandahar, a Predator drone circled the sky, putting me into its sights with its high-precision cameras -- and just a trigger away from being turned into the charred remains of a Hellfire missile.
About 8,000 miles away, someone at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada could look at me through the Predator's zoom lens and determine whether I should live or die. I could not see the Predator or hear it, but I could imagine how it must feel in the control box at Nellis when a high-value target is in their sights.
Wicked weapons indeed, no place to hide from the infra-red technology. Welcome to the nightmare called Predator. More Big Brother stuff here.
Posted by: DEN at June 9, 2006 05:37 PM
effin ha!
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 05:38 PM
This could get Dems a lot of votes for House seats.
Murtha plans run for Majority Leader
Now anti-war veteran Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has announced that he intends to run against current Minority Whip Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader if the Democrats win the House this fall, Roll Call is reporting.
Excerpts from the Roll Call story follow:
It has long been assumed that Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) would simply move up to Majority Leader under a Democratic majority, with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) claiming the Speaker's gavel. Hoyer and Pelosi waged a bitter leadership fight in 2001, which Pelosi won by a 23-vote margin.
Murtha is one of Pelosi's top allies in the House, one of the architects of her 2001 victory over Hoyer. Earlier this week, Hoyer publicly pledged his loyalty to Pelosi, saying that he wants her to lead the Democrats whether they win or lose this fall.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 05:40 PM
i meant effin ha! 78
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 05:41 PM
Surely no one party has failed us, both fail all of us, sorely. Could Bush and Kerry really be the best this country has to offer?
The houses can posture and pose but the end result speaks to failure of representation all around (War, Patriot Act, etc.)
The has been a complete disconnect between the people and our so called representatives. They cannot simultaneously represent the people and protect their positions, line their pockets, and run their re-election campaign.
The system has them in a compromising position where the only right thing is political survival - the truth political suicide.
Getting corporate money out of politics would be a good start but they have influence to keep influence. They bought it fair and square and will not give it up no matter how bad is might be for the whole country. Profit has no loyalties and no pride. Profit cannot compete with other amoral corporations by being moral.
UGH
capt
Posted by: capt at June 9, 2006 05:48 PM
"Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion -- and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion ... while Truth again reverts to a new minority.": -- Soren Kierkegaard - (1813-1855) Danish philosopher
=
"Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone.": - John Quincy Adams - (1767-1848) 6th US President
===
Thanks ICH Newsletter!
Posted by: capt at June 9, 2006 05:54 PM
#85
Capt,
I was thinking the same thing. We have to demand good candidates. And that means getting involved. People need to find out who their candidates are and be there at their caucus. They need to be there to meet the candidates at gatherings and ask questions. Demand accountability. If the candidates know the citizens are paying attention they will be mindful of that. Especially after this next election. This election isn't just going to be about who loses but also who wins. There are going to be people elected to congress who are going to demand more of their government. They are not going to be lapdogs. The people elected will know they have a mission. I see good things.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 05:58 PM
The fact is that most of the posters here just hate it when America has any success. For you to win, America has to lose.
You would rather see the terrorists succeed than for George Bush and America to win.
Every liberal qualifies his endorsement with, "...Zarqawi..success, but...".
How about from just one of you, "We don't know what this will portend, but the killing of this butcher is a great thing for America and Iraq." Actually, Pandemoniac did say that yesterday before his evil side kicked in.
Again, I'm sure Julius and Ethel thought they were patriots, too, just like you folks do.
Hey, did you notice that "traitor" is almost a perfect anagram for "patriot"?
Posted by: factchecker at June 9, 2006 06:13 PM
and i have no doubt that wallace and ladmo thought they were checking facts as well.
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 06:15 PM
The Nazi American Way
Dear Cornposters:
This is the sixth Gerald Doctrine. This doctrine tries to compile the essence and manifest destiny of Nazi America that is now totally complete. I have divided this doctrine into three parts, Nazi America, bushianity, and conclusion.
Nazi America
Here are the fourteen characteristics that are necessary for a Nazi nation. America currently possesses all fourteen characteristics.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections
There should be no doubt in anyway in the people's minds that America is a fascist nation. Rapidly the self-implosion and destruction of America are starting to take hold. America is no longer America but she is now called Nazi America.
Bushianity
Bushianity is Nazi America's religion. Nazi America has turned her back on Christianity and she has embraced the eight pillars of bushianity. These eight pillars of faith are hatred, murders, torture, war crimes, corruption, decadence, greed, and lies. Nazi America is completely under the control of bushianity.
Conclusion
I have concluded that Nazi America is a very evil and a very vile nation.
Sincerely,
Gerald
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 06:16 PM
BREAKING NEWS:
It was not a tip that led them to Zarqawi, he applied for retirement benefits at the ministry of retired terrorists and left his address.
By Capt
~~~~~~~~~~
He should have applied at the DNC for benefits and could have avoided this.
Ha!
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 06:19 PM
If Busby wins, will the Bushbots get all "doom and gloom" about the results?
Considering Busby's votes cost around $37/per versus Bilbray's at $74/per the Democrats proved once again that they are more frugal than the Republicans.
They can be better trusted to handle the nation's financial matters as the Republicans are now the party of spend and spend more.
By Turdblossom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Considering that Bugsby was caught on tape soliciting illegal aliens for votes in exchange for free benefits, of course this would be less expensive. Duh!
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 06:24 PM
American Soldiers
2,788 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush and his lies.
18,500+ American soldiers have been maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush and his evil lies.
45,000+ American soldiers are suffering from PTSD.
Over 350,000+ Iraqis have been killed in Iraq since Bush declared shock and awe bombings on March 19, 2003.
Contamination from depleted uranium may have affected 125,000+ American soldiers and several million Iraqis.
Are you feeling more safe and secure with Bush in the WH and Cheney as his chief hatchet man overseeing Nazi America and her citizens?
Our military men and women are used as cannon fodder for a terrorist Nazi American government.
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, AND NEITHER DO WE. George W. Bush, August 5, 2005
Rigged elections doom American democracy. American soldiers are being killed and maimed TO PROMOTE A NAZI AMERICAN STATE.
Henry Kissinger says that military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.
Nazi America is a mirror image of Hitler Bush.
Nazi Americans continually justify sin.
Nazi Americans are accomplices with Bush for his murders and war crimes.
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 06:25 PM
LBH,
You are disgusting.
By Jeanne
I love you too honey buckets.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 06:30 PM
Does anyone know when the reinstatement of the military draft will commence?
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 06:30 PM
The 3 stooges and their 3 most prominent traits: lies, hypocrisy and failure.
Let's start with failure:
The long-standing Republican drive to permanently abolish the federal estate tax came up short in the Senate on Thursday, the latest in a string of defeats for key elements of the GOP agenda. [...]
Last month, a Republican-sponsored bill to limit jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits failed in the Senate. On Wednesday, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- a key priority for social conservatives, who are influential within the GOP -- was blocked. Similarly, a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning is expected to be debated -- and then shunted aside -- later this month.
"The conservative base will appreciate the fact that we are trying," Lott said.
Awww, how cute! Whether it's Frist or Lott, the conservatives, who are in the majority, just can't get the job done.
Let's move on to hypocrisy:
"English-language visitors to www.ricksantorum.com encountered a home page filled with concern about the "amnesty-ridden proposal" the U.S. Senate adopted to deal with illegal immigration."
"But a section of the site for Spanish readers made no mention of amnesty in its discourse on immigration. Nor did it refer to "rewarding criminal behavior" of illegal immigrants, as the English version did."
There's a special GOP cocktail for ya': a little dishonesty sprinkled in with the hypocrisy. Whatever happened to the "English only" proposition? Oh, that's right, first they need to nominate a Preznit who speaks the English language as well and as fluently as we Latinos do.
How bout some lies from the moral values crowd?
Coulter's new book about liberals being Godless, well, it turns out she's not the good Christian that she claims to be.
More lies from the right. Catapulting propaganda straight from the Mooney Times.
Let's throw in a new trait just for Clueless since he's in rare form today: Wacko numbskull.
Republican Ney has fallen into a loony funk. He flipped out on the media.
But if there's one thing you can always count on from the borrow and spend Conservatives, its the steady flow of cash from the special interest groups.
Sorry for the typos and flippy links. I'm typing left-handed with a sleeping baby in my arms.
Posted by: Pandemoniac at June 9, 2006 06:34 PM
How about from just one of you, "We don't know what this will portend, but the killing of this butcher is a great thing for America and Iraq."
hmmm. i dont know what this will portend, but the PR value of the killing of this butcher doesnt seem to be working out as well as heroic bushco would like to pretend. sorry thats as close as i can get to what you asked for.
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 06:34 PM
David,
In your very first counterpunch to Ben Johnson, you remind us all that "In discussing what the Zarqawi death might mean to al Qaeda, I was quoting Bruce Hoffman, a well-known terrorism expert at the Rand Corporation (hardly a bastion of the Left)."
So you did! And Mr. Johnson did seem to have used "sly hand". But, but, but.....Let's think about this more closely.......
When you (presumably) and I quote/cut-n-paste someone, it is usually in a For or Against context. Clearly, you were in the `For' camp as far as Bruce's saying Osama and al-Zawahiri "...have been spared a competitor for attention and handed a martyr..."
Because of Hoffman's (Right wing) Rand Corp. ties, you used a much more discreet bit of "sly hand" to quote him saying what you wanted to say all along!
Anyway, I don't mean to be harsh (on you) since most people will use this kind of (totally legitimate) tactic; and most of the time, will get away with it! Similarly, Ben Johnson's transgression (on this one) is rather minor even if he didn't specifically identify where you were leveraging your "wackiness" from.
Posted by: Happy enjoys Wackiness at June 9, 2006 06:34 PM
From Paul Craig Roberts' article, War Criminal Nation
Bush supporters dismiss anyone who tells them the truth as a traitor. Bush supporters are as dependent on propaganda as substance abusers are on drugs and alcohol. Try weaning Bush supporters from the obvious lies that are the basis of this administration, and they will call you every name in the book.
They are proud to be Americans. Lies and war crimes are an American right.
And you had better shut up or those Haliburton-built concentration camps will be your new home.
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 06:35 PM
95- Does anyone know when the reinstatement of the military draft will commence?
not until after iran terrorizes us with a treacherous false-flag terror attack.
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 06:37 PM
Jeanne,
#87
"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." ~ Jay Leno (1950 - )
capt
Posted by: capt at June 9, 2006 06:42 PM
#96
You know what's really scary? When these Republicans get ass kicked out of congress they're going to become lobbyists.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 06:44 PM
#98
Market's down.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 06:47 PM
Pande still opines his cornfusion:
I know we lost, but a loss is a win, isn't it?
I'd watch out attacking Ann Coulter like that she might might just bitch slap you out of that progressive denial train you've been aboard.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 06:48 PM
I declare LBH the funniest on the Corn Blog!
We know Cornuts can't admit it but LBH is The King! Long live the King!
Nunya, are you out there? Join us, we've got room for lots more wackiness; especailly on weekends when new threads are NOT assured!
Posted by: Happy to Laugh at June 9, 2006 06:51 PM
Yo Pande,
since you brought it up about special interest groups, how about your buddies at MoveOn that got turned down for spreading lies?
Jun 8, 10:58 PM EDT
Ohio Cable Network Pulls MoveOn.org Ad
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A TV station and a cable network are refusing to run an ad sponsored by a liberal activist group that targets Republican U.S. Rep. Deborah Pryce because of questions about material the group provided to back up the ad's claims.
The group MoveOn.org is spending $300,000 on ads targeting Pryce and other lawmakers. The ads say they accepted thousands of dollars in donations from defense contractors and then "opposed penalties for contractors like Halliburton who overcharged the military in Iraq."
Tom Griesdorn, president and general manager of WBNS-TV, said the station didn't air the ad because its attorneys "did not feel comfortable with the documentation provided by Moveon.org," he said.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 06:53 PM
Yo Pande,
kind of reminds you of Dan Rather doesn't it?
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 06:54 PM
103
#98 Market's down.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 06:47 PM
=========================================
Yeah, BBFFJW (Big Bad First Full June Week)!!!!
I'm getting itchy to commit my $ Reserves! But, a busy week prevented me from strategizing! Maybe I'll just load up on 4-Qs' next week. Sorry, james, can't buy 4-Squares in volume!
Posted by: Happy in Party Mood at June 9, 2006 06:58 PM
From Paul Craig Roberts' article, The Evil Is In Our Government
Wasn't it evil for the US to bomb Iraq for a decade and to embargo medicines for children? When US Secretary of State M. Albright was asked if she thought an embargo that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was justified, she replied, "yes."
The former terrible tyrant ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is on trial for killing 150 people. The US government murdered 500,000 Iraqi children prior to Bush's invasion. When the US government murders people, whether Serbs, Branch Davidians at Waco, or Iraqi women and children, it is "collateral damage." But we put Saddam Hussein on trial for putting down rebellions.
Gentle reader, do you believe that the Bush Regime will not shoot you down in the streets if you have a rebellion?
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 07:00 PM
Congressional Conservatives Quietly Strip Provision That Prohibited Permanent Bases In Iraq
Reuters reports that conservatives are quietly backtracking from their earlier stance against permanent base construction in Iraq:
Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.
As ThinkProgress noted last month, the Senate acted to unanimously pass an amendment to the supplemental spending bill that clearly stated that none of the appropriated funds should be used for permanent base construction. In March, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) wrote on ThinkProgress that the House had unanimously accepted her amendment prohibiting permanent base construction.
....It appears that conservatives caved to pressure from the administration.
--------------
The Iraqis really want to know that American forces are going to be there permenantly. Bad plan. Bad.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 07:00 PM
Oh, that's right, first they need to nominate a Preznit who speaks the English language as well and as fluently as we Latinos do.
By Pande
OK, lie number 2000 now from Pande. "as fluently as we Latinos do"
If only I had a dollar for every Latino customer I've turned away because they couldn't speak English.
I wish the hell you Latinos could speak English then every time I called an 800# I wouldn't be asked to push 1 for English or 2 for Spanish.
Talk about clueless-
Dude, slow that denial train down, it's a going a little to fast for ya.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 07:06 PM
gop.com
Posted by: still here? at June 9, 2006 07:07 PM
A Great Article To Read
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 07:08 PM
GOrPS.agh is an agh website for GOrPS or GOP who go around smelling girls' bicycle seats.
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 07:12 PM
Specter's Blanket Amnesty on the NSA scandal
The Republicans fall all over themselves when the word amnesty is used so I wonder how they will take this news. That's a joke and so is Specter. He's got his rubber stamp ready to go.
Anyone involved in the current secret NSA spying program without a court order would be given blanket Amnesty.-very courageous Senator Specter. Why would they need amnesty if what they are doing is legal?--It boggles what's left of my mind.
link
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 07:18 PM
John McCain gives al-Qaeda strategic advice
MCCAIN: I think that it will remove a very important propaganda tool, a person who has probably served as a real effective recruiter. But, Larry, I want to caution if I were the al Qaeda people right now I would be planning a lot of attacks in the next few days and weeks to show that his removal really didn't affect them but it does affect them. It's very important. And, I think it can give us some hope for progress, which I think we have to make and are making.
Thanks for encouraging al Qaeda to begin killing more people.
Link
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 07:20 PM
New Constitutional Amendments
Dear Cornposters:
This is the fifth Gerald Doctrine. I will discuss new constitutional amendments. We have heard talk about constitutional amendments for a gay marriage ban and the burning of the American flag.
I do not oppose new constitutional amendments. In fact I propose three new amendments.
I favor a new constitutional amendment that would protect marriage and family life by seeing to it that marriages and families have the financial resources to help make their lives viable. We can help marriages and families with no federal income taxes for a family income of $100,000 or less. Deductions for social security would still be necessary.
I also favor a new constitutional amendment for universal health care.
And, I also favor a new constitutional amendment for universal dental care.
I oppose constitutional amendments for the banning of gay marriages and flag burning.
On a personal note it does upset me that anyone would burn the American flag. However as I study our nation's history, I no longer have the NOT MY NATION SYNDROME. There are too many Americans who believe that our devil incarnate nation is good, holy, and saintly. When we study the History of the United States of America, we will soon realize that America is the most evil, vile, and corrupt nation in the world. The devil incarnate nation is a very evil nation. I cannot help but believe that we are a psycho nation.
Since we are such an evil nation, I can understand why some people would burn the American flag, shit on the flag, and wipe their ass with the flag.
Sincerely,
Gerald
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 07:21 PM
A new low -- the Senate seeks to "pardon" the President for past lawbreaking
by Glenn Greenwald
Observing and commenting on the behavior of Arlen Specter is one of the most unpleasant obligations a person can have, but for anyone following the NSA eavesdropping scandal specifically, and the Bush administration's abuses of executive power generally, it is a necessary evil. The principal reason that the Bush administration has been able to impose its radical theories of lawbreaking on the country is because Congress, with an unseemly eagerness, has permitted itself to be humiliated over and over by an administration which does not hide its contempt for the notion that Congress has any role to play in limiting and checking the executive branch. And few people have more vividly illustrated that institutional debasement than Arlen Specter, who, along with Pat Roberts, has done more than anyone else to ensure that Congress completely relinquishes its constitutional powers to the President.
TEXT
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 07:22 PM
I oppose gay marriages but we cannot dictate morality. People have a free will and they will be held accountable for their actions and behavior.
Bush and his Nazi regime will not be given amnesty for their murders and war crimes. They will be held accountable before a higher power.
Posted by: Gerald at June 9, 2006 07:26 PM
They will be held accountable before a higher power.
By Gerald
As will we all my friend.
Posted by: LBH at June 9, 2006 07:30 PM
When can I read more about LBH's nightmare train of denial?
LBH is a menace to the English language. He like Saddam, the butcher of Bagdad, should be hunted down and killed. Petition your representative to force Rumsfeld to put a $2 bounty on his head.
Wanted Dead of Alive:Boyd the butcher of English.
Posted by: O'Reilly at June 9, 2006 07:31 PM
C'm on, cornposters! How are you going to break 500 this weekend if'n you'll don't post more?
Posted by: David B. Benson at June 9, 2006 07:42 PM
Power Grab
1. During the presidency of George W. Bush, the White House has made an unprecedented reach for power. It has systematically attempted to defy, control, or threaten the institutions that could challenge it: Congress, the courts, and the press. It has attempted to upset the balance of power among the three branches of government provided for in the Constitution; but its most aggressive and consistent assaults have been against the legislative branch: Bush has time and again said that he feels free to carry out a law as he sees fit, not as Congress wrote it. Through secrecy and contemptuous treatment of Congress, the Bush White House has made the executive branch less accountable than at any time in modern American history. And because of the complaisance of Congress, it has largely succeeded in its efforts.
This power grab has received little attention because it has been carried out largely in obscurity. The press took little notice until Bush, on January 5 of this year, after signing a bill containing the McCain amendment, which placed prohibitions on torture, quietly filed a separate pronouncement, a "signing statement," that he would interpret the bill as he wished. In fact Bush had been issuing such signing statements since the outset of his administration. The Constitution distinguishes between the power of the Congress and that of the president by stating that Congress shall "make all laws" and the president shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush claims the power to execute the laws as he interprets them, ignoring congressional intent.
Grover Norquist, a principal organizer of the conservative movement who is close to the Bush White House and usually supports its policies, says, "If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to mean that the president can do anything he wants and can ignore the laws you don't have a constitution: you have a king." He adds, "They're not trying to change the law; they're saying that they're above the law and in the case of the NSA wiretaps they break it." A few members of Congress recognize the implications of what Bush is doing and are willing to speak openly about it. Dianne Feinstein, Democratic senator from California, talks of a "very broad effort" being made "to increase the power of the executive." Chuck Hagel, Republican senator from Nebraska, says:
There's a very clear pattern of aggressively asserting executive power, and the Congress has essentially been complicit in letting him do it. The key is that Bush has a Republican Congress; of course if it was a Clinton presidency we'd be holding hearings.
Posted by: Jeanne at June 9, 2006 07:59 PM
From article above.
2. It is under the authority of his powers as commander in chief that Bush asserted the right to keep nearly five hundred "enemy combatants" in detention in Guant?namo, of whom only ten were charged with a crime. Most were handed over by Afghan bounty hunters who were paid by the US to turn in Arabs. Bush has also asserted the same authority in dealing with numerous bills passed by Congress, most spectacularly in his treatment of the McCain amendment banning "cruel, inhuman or degraded treatment" of POWs. In his signing statement, Bush said:
The executive branch shall construe [the torture provision] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judiciary....
...Another egregious use of the signing statements occurred when Bush said in March that, in interpreting the bill reauthorizing the Patriot Act, he would ignore the requirement that the president report t