The New Blogosphere Controversy

This made me laugh:

The bitter Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut erupted in fresh controversy Wednesday over a doctored photo of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) in blackface that was posted by a blogger who has been an influential promoter of challenger Ned Lamont.

Lieberman angrily demanded that Lamont denounce the action and sever all ties with Jane Hamsher, the founder of the Web log Firedoglake, who posted the photo on another blog, HuffingtonPost.com. She travels with the campaign along with other bloggers. She is not on the campaign staff but has actively promoted Lamont’s candidacy and helped raise money for him through her blog.

The photo, showing former president Bill Clinton in dark glasses and Lieberman in blackface, appeared early Wednesday, accompanied by a dispatch attacking Lieberman, his supporters and some news organizations. There was no mention of the photo in the dispatch, and the photo later was removed. But the two campaigns heatedly traded charges as the day progressed.

I think we are now to the point where activists on either side of the political aisle can be an impediment to campaigns. While many of you support whatever vicious attacks you launch against the political enemy, the mainstream of the country doesn’t really look at the grenade-chuckers in both parties very favorably. It is not surprising that Jane is the center of thiscontroversy, as I have noted before (amidst being shout down, her entire schtick is that she is a ‘fighting Dem’ who has built her entire audience around making inflammatory comments.

On a side note, I wonder why the party that worked so hard to move towards racial equality now has so many residents that jump on the chance to do overt race-baiting every chance they get. This is, to my knowledge, the second or third time liberal bloggers have been involved in a “black face” controversy involving an election.

BTW- Do I get special bonus points for writing this whole post without using the phrase the “Jane Hamsher’s of the left.”






397 replies
  1. 1
    Steve says:

    You almost got bonus points, John, but then you blew it.

  2. 2
    Andrew says:

    Man, I stopped looking at FDL a while ago, but I popped in to see the comments on her apology post. Wow. What morons. The Jane Hamsher-ites of the left are a bunch of useless, suck up yes men.

  3. 3
    Par R says:

    I thought her “non-apology apology” was quite good.

  4. 4
    demimondian says:

    I hope that Lamont throws her off the train. It’s the smart thing to do.

    I don’t know the answer to your question about equality and race-baiting, John, and it intrigues me as well. It seems utterly bizarre to me that the Dems, who’ve spent so much effort trying to make things better on so many fronts would then stub their toes so badly with the labor unions, gay men and lesbians, and the like. Does “the left wing elite” genuinely believe that we own those votes?

  5. 5
    Tom says:

    The roar of condemnation from Jesse L. Jackson and Al Sharpton is deafening.

  6. 6
    Punchy says:

    While many of you support whatever vicious attacks you launch against the political enemy, the mainstream of the country doesn’t really look at the grenade-chuckers in both parties very favorably.

    That may just be the biggest strawman in the history of Men of Straw.

    I wonder why the party that worked so hard to move towards racial equality now has so many residents that jump on the chance to do overt race-baiting every chance they get. This is, to my knowledge, the second or third time liberal bloggers

    Googled, I found that the estimate of between 60-100 MILLION blogs on The Internets. Let’s see…3 of 60 MILLION is 0.000005%. Jesus, what an idiotic statement. You’ve outdone yourself this time.

  7. 7
    Nutcutter says:

    the mainstream of the country doesn’t really look at the grenade-chuckers in both parties very favorably.

    The “mainstream of the country” doesn’t pay that much attention to this stuff.

    Most people are not as obsessively self-referential as those of us who inhabit the blahsphere.

  8. 8
    Nutcutter says:

    That may just be the biggest strawman in the history of Men of Straw.

    Let’s get a ruling from Alfalfa Darrell, their king.

  9. 9
    Par R says:

    The NUT is probably right when he opines that the mainstream doesn’t pay much attention to this sort of stuff. However, events like this do offer up opportunities such as the following from Ace:

    “Jane Hamsher is a drooling imbecile with the all the common sense and political savvy of a deer chigger.”

  10. 10
    Mr Furious says:

    Just as I wouldn’t ask George Bush to “denounce” Ann Coulter, it is ridiculous to demand Lamont “denounce” Hamsher.

    What Hamsher did is fucking stupid. By all accounts Lamont is more than holding his own, and the primary is in a week. Why stir up some bullshit that could only possibly help Lieberman? No one that reads firedoglake needs help forming an opinion on Lieberman. And no one that doesn’t know who to vote for is going to your blog, Jane. Putting Joe in blackface had only one possible outcome , and it is unfolding now. Nice fucking work.

    What Lieberman is doing is more offensive to me, implying that Lamont has anything to do with this, has control over Hamsher or that Hamsher represents him is straight-up dishonest. More reason why he deserves to go.

  11. 11
    Jack Roy says:

    Dude, John, you can’t use an apostraphe like that! Whatever bonus points you might have had coming are forfeited. [/grammarnazi]

    I don’t think this tar-by-association is exactly new. Think of, say, the NAACP and the American Communist Party. So I wouldn’t have said we are only now to the point that…. This is a lamentable aspect of American politics that’s endemic, or at least has been around a long time. It’s intellectually dishonest and vapid, but that’s never been a disqualifier for a political tactic.

    But, ahem, if I were inclined to engage in a little bit of it myself, I might criticize certain conservative bloggers who got kind of preachy about Online Integrity but haven’t had much to say about certain other conservative bloggers who have been a little naughty recently. And I’m not even talking about Jeff Goldstein.

  12. 12
    srv says:

    I’m still trying to figure out who the hell Deb Frisch is and why I should care. Maybe it’s because Tim didn’t write something furious about it.

  13. 13
    Jim Allen says:

    On a side note, I wonder why the party that worked so hard to move towards racial equality now has so many residents that jump on the chance to do overt race-baiting every chance they get.

    What’s your point? That we are still trying to catch up with your party in that department? Freely admitted, then — we have one hell of a long way to go before we do as much overt race-baiting as your side. For samples, you need only check out your good friend Darrell in “The New Patriotism”.

  14. 14
    Mr Furious says:

    Steve Gilliard does shit like this all the time too. Stupid.

    Putting Dick Cheney in Yul Brynner-face? Brilliant.

  15. 15
    Par R says:

    Jack Roy, another would-be blogger trolling for hits.

  16. 16
    feral1 says:

    Hamsher made a mistake with the graphic. She has quickly admitted her misktake and is moving on. The fact is she and Christy Smith have created a hugely successful blog with FDL, that is actually having an impact on U.S. politics by energizing a community of activists that put their money and time where the ideals are.

  17. 17
    Mr Furious says:

    This made me laugh

    The fact that Jane Hamsher is caught up in this makes me think you did more than laugh…

    Ahem.

  18. 18
    SeesThroughIt says:

    The lesson? Hardcore partisans are stewpit.

  19. 19
    GOP4Me says:

    Let’s get a ruling from Alfalfa Darrell, their king

    Don’t poke fun, those Straw-Men vote. How else do you think he got into the Senate?

  20. 20
    Par R says:

    Ned Lamont and his campaign haven’t exactly covered themselves with glory in the way in which they have handled this, denying that Hamsher had anything to do with their campaign, etc. Here, for example, is what a local Connecticut paper had to say about a recent campaign appearance by Lamont:

    “Lamont arrived with an entourage: His wife, Annie; their campaign driver, Marc Bradley; a blogger, Jane Hamsher; and Bill Hillsman, the creator of his offbeat ads, one of which was played weeks earlier on `The Colbert Report.'”

    Additionally, Hamsher has acknowledged directing television commercials and ads for the Lamont campaign.

  21. 21
    Krista says:

    John’s drunk on schadenfreudenberry wine.

  22. 22

    Interesting that Michelle Malkin is working for the Liberman campaign.

    That’s where this “controversy” originated at, the Malkin blog.

    What with Lieberman hiring College Republicans to campaign for him in CT, and Malkin and the other wingnutters campaigning for him. You really do have to question. Is Joe a Republican, or is he a Democrat?

  23. 23
    Geek, Esq. says:

    Forget the offensiveness. How fucking stupid is she? This reminds me of the flap with Gilliard and Tim Kaine.

  24. 24

    Oh, and I don’t know what Hamsher was thinking. The picture is stupid. Not stupid from a political oops sense, but it’s just a dumb picture that’s not even funny or anything.

    Meanwhile in real news… Conrad Burns up in Montana has been telling out of state fire fighters to fuck off.

  25. 25

    Actually, the big complaint from Malkin, and I notice it is being played here for us by her puppy Par R, is that Hamsher is listened to by these campaigns.

    Have you ever heard of a Republican campaign listening to a nutter blog? When has Malkin been called to find out her opinion? Never.

    It’s interesting, because it’s obvious that they are jealous of this relationship.

  26. 26
    neil says:

    I think there have been a lot of chances to whip out the minstrel-gear a lot more tempting than this one. It sort of game out of left field.

  27. 27
    Blue Neponset says:

    I am done defending Jane Hamsher. I am sure she isn’t a racist but she is as stupid as stupid can get. What kind of an idiot gives ammo like this to the John Coles and Leon Wolfs of the Right*? My answer…a wickied big idiot with blonde hair.

    *I actually like John and Leon but they both seem to have it out for Jane and I wanted to use the “of the” Right comment.

  28. 28
    Andrew says:

    What kind of an idiot gives ammo like this to the John Coles and Leon Wolfs of the Right*? My answer…a wickied big idiot with blonde hair.

    Careful, that’s DougJ’s imaginary girlfriend you’re talking about.

  29. 29
    D. Mason says:

    The picture is stupid. Not stupid from a political oops sense, but it’s just a dumb picture that’s not even funny or anything.

    That’s what I thought when I saw it. What was going on in that womans head that made her decide that was a good idea? On any level. If it had been rip roaring hilarious then I could see how she might err on the side of comedy. And I would probably even agree with her decision.

    Also, I would like to know exactly what message the image was meant to convey. Or even what message she thought she was sending with it. Generally speaking, I just don’t get it.

  30. 30
    Nutcutter says:

    You really do have to question. Is Joe a Republican, or is he a Democrat?

    Yes.

    But mainly, he’s a Liebocrat. His main interest is in maintaining his membership in the exclusive club. Petty things like party, or even country, pale by comparison to his self interest.

  31. 31
    Sirkowski says:

    Great, John Cole has gone PC now…

  32. 32
    VidaLoca says:

    TOSteve —

    When has Malkin been called to find out her opinion? Never.

    Doesn’t Malkin appear from time to time on Fox News? (I ask out of ignorance, I don’t watch FN).

    My only point about this, if it’s true, is that Malkin plays a different role than Jane Hamsher seeks to play; I realize that your original point may have been more narrowly addressed toward political campaigns.

  33. 33

    If this ends up costing Lamont the victory (and it’s exactly the sort of thing veteran sleazeball Holy Joe will jump all over) I think John will throw a victory parade.

  34. 34
    Steve says:

    Forget the offensiveness. How fucking stupid is she? This reminds me of the flap with Gilliard and Tim Kaine.

    Yeah, but setting aside the whole question of whether it’s different because Gilliard is black, an important difference is that Gilliard had zero to do with the Kaine campaign (Kaine just happened to be running an ad on his blog) and the offensive image related to an entirely different race in another state. It just so happened that the timing was bad for Kaine, but it’s not like Gilliard should have realized he’d be making Kaine’s life difficult by showing it. Of course, he scotched that later when he made a big scene by calling Kaine a coward, etc.

    With Hamsher, you get the double whammy, because she should have realized BOTH that it was a totally inappropriate image and that it was a politically stupid thing to do. I don’t think she is a stupid person but there doesn’t seem to be much of a filtering process between her brain and her mouth, a phenomenon aided in part by her cheerleading echo chamber that she creates by deleting opposing viewpoints.

    I thought Lieberman’s attempt to insinuate that Lamont is a racist was complete hackery, but it takes a special kind of stupid to believe THIS was the way to hit back.

  35. 35
    DougJ says:

    While many of you support whatever vicious attacks you launch against the political enemy, the mainstream of the country doesn’t really look at the grenade-chuckers in both parties very favorably.

    You know nothing about politics, obviously. The grenade-chuckers serve a very useful purpose — why else would all the ones on the right be on some form of wingnut welfare?

  36. 36
    tBone says:

    I wonder why the party blog that worked so hard to move towards racial equality non-partisanship now has so many residents a blogger that jumps on the chance to do overt race lefty-baiting every chance they he gets.

    There, that’s better.

    Still, I agree it was a stupid and offensive move by Hamsher. Really, what the hell was she thinking?

  37. 37
    DougJ says:

    And that whole controversey’s really hurting the Lamont campaign — he’s on 13 points up in the polls know.

    For the record, I’m for grenade-throwing on both sides of the aisle. I don’t like it when those on the right smear war heros’ war records or advocate genocide against arabs, but if the crux of what they’re saying is true, then I say let it rip.

  38. 38
    John S. says:

    Wow.

    What few post we see from Cole as of late are of such stunning caliber. I mean, with all that’s going on in the world right now, I can see that one would only see fit to comment about the Steelers, tax evaders and Lieberman in black face.

    Oh, that’s right…this is Balloon Juice – home of Hot Air
    and Ill-Informed Banter. Sorry, John. I see you’re just keeping it real and taking this blog back to its old school roots.

  39. 39
    DougJ says:

    Sorry for the barrage, but I do hate these ginned up controversies. Remember the Trent Lott-Strom Thurmond one? That’s what made the video doctor the head of the Senate. That way madness lies.

  40. 40
    Jim Allen says:

    The grenade-chuckers serve a very useful purpose—why else would all the ones on the right be on some form of wingnut welfare?

    Careful. Doug. John is very sensitive to cracks about Pajamas Media.

  41. 41

    WAIT WAIT! Via TPM… Comedy Gold for the day! Screw you and your Jane Hamshers of the left… we’ve got The National Review!

    The Mark Levin Blog on National Review

    I want to congratulate the attorneys who work with me at Landmark Legal Foundation for tenaciously pursuing the untold story of the systematic abuse of American MPs by the al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. It took us a full year to bring this stunning information to light, but the truth is now out.

    THE TRUTH IS OUT! PRISONERS HELD AT GUANTANAMO HAVE BEEN TORTURING THE PRISON GUARDS!

    Mark Levin has collected evidence of Al Qaeda prisoners singing Russian prison tunes in three part harmony.

  42. 42

    You know nothing about politics, obviously. The grenade-chuckers serve a very useful purpose—why else would all the ones on the right be on some form of wingnut welfare?

    The interesting thing about Mellon-Scaife is he doesn’t go around broadcasting that he gives money to Malkin, etc.

    Another one is the Stalinist David Koch.

  43. 43
    Ancient Purple says:

    Sometimes, I wonder if Mr. Cole saves up these things so that he can use them to justify why, after all his hand-wringing, he voted for the GOP anyway.

    Just wondering.

  44. 44
    Slide says:

    Lamont 54%
    Lieberman 41%

    Methinks Jane and her fellow liberal bloggers are not such an impediment to Lamont’s campaign.

  45. 45
  46. 46
    Slide says:

    Sometimes, I wonder if Mr. Cole saves up these things so that he can use them to justify why, after all his hand-wringing, he voted for the GOP anyway.

    nah.. John is just still smarting from the thumping Jane gave him here on his own blog a few months back.

  47. 47

    TOS is late to the party.

    Oh man. I stopped reading that thread the fifth time Darrell accused Hezbollah of faking the Canan bombing.

  48. 48
    DougJ says:

    This topic bores me. I have a better one: you all saw the Vanity Fair article on what really happened with NORAD on 911. Does anyone have Woodward’s book about 911 and its aftermath? I don’t know the title — it’s something like “How George Bush Saved America” or “George Bush’s Taint: Sweet Like Honey”.

    It would be interesting to compare the lies Woodward repeated in the context of what we now know happened (complete chaos).

  49. 49
    Andrew says:

    While many of you support whatever vicious attacks you launch against the political enemy, the mainstream of the country doesn’t really look at the grenade-chuckers in both parties very favorably.

    Come on guys, Cole is doing a great moderate-center spoof here. Give him some credit.

  50. 50
    tBone says:

    “George Bush’s Taint: Sweet Like Honey”.

    If you’re allergic to honey, you hate freedom.

  51. 51
    tBone says:

    Oh man. I stopped reading that thread the fifth time Darrell accused Hezbollah of faking the Canan bombing.

    Don’t stop reading yet, you’re missing out on some prime comedy there. It got really good towards the end.

  52. 52
    SeesThroughIt says:

    John’s drunk on schadenfreudenberry wine.

    Well, to be fair, it is both delicious and powerful.

    Meanwhile, that Mark Levin piece is both absurd and hilarious.

  53. 53

    Read a satirical critique of the battle being waged amongst Democrats in the Lieberman v. Lamont Senate race coined “The Hatfield’s & McCoy’s”…here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  54. 54
    Nutcutter says:

    John’s drunk on schadenfreudenberry wine.

    That is just a great, great line.

  55. 55
    Nutcutter says:

    Read a satirical critique of the battle being waged

    Okay, there’s a minute of my life I can never have back.

    This, from your article:

    I don’t get why the bulk of the progressive netroots feels they need to devote the lions share of their time and effort participating in this one race

    No other line in the piece need be read. That one is succinct. You don’t, indeed, get it.

  56. 56
    tBone says:

    John’s drunk on schadenfreudenberry wine.

    That is just a great, great line.

    If you get drunk on schadenfreudenberry wine, does someone else get the hangover?

  57. 57
    bobzilla says:

    In possibly related news, firedoglake.com appears to be offline at the moment, although it could be my internet connection from work…

  58. 58
    srv says:

    Generals think there might be a civil war

    Go figure. You can’t pay these guys enough:

    Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel, “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.” He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

    “Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other,” Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome.

    I really don’t remember love being a requirement before the invasion. Perhaps someone could send me the NRO or PNAC link on that.

    Alas, we brought them freedom(tm), but we couldn’t bring them the love(R).

  59. 59
    SeesThroughIt says:

    but we couldn’t bring them the love®.

    That’s because we couldn’t negotiate a love-rental price structure with Hallmark.

  60. 60
    VidaLoca says:

    but we couldn’t bring them the love®.

    You can’t get love on a cost-plus no-bid contract.

  61. 61
    Darrell says:

    Oh man. I stopped reading that thread the fifth time Darrell accused Hezbollah of faking the Canan bombing.

    Except I never said such thing. I said “let’s wait” until the facts come in, as Hezbollah is not the most reliable news source… whereas leftwingnut extremists like Steve were comparing that measured wait-and-see reaction with “9/11 was a government conspiracy” type moonbats whom he says populate DKos.

    Regarding the topic of this thread, did everyone catch how Lamont lied his fucking ass off telling a news reporter “I don’t know anything about the blogs”, when Jane Hamsher directed campaign commercials for him and did campaign fundraising.. Then it turns out Lamont was photgraphed posing with Kos, and Lamont has his his own blog too..

    “B-b-b-but I don’t know anything about blogs”… “you gotta believe me!”

  62. 62
    tBone says:

    Generals think there might be a civil war

    I bet they have books coming out. Stupid unhinged Leftist whackjobs.

  63. 63
    jg says:

    BTW- Do I get special bonus points for writing this whole post without using the phrase the “Jane Hamsher’s of the left.”

    You only get points because this time Jane Hamsher is actually who you are talking about.

    as I have noted before (amidst being shout down, her entire schtick is that she is a ‘fighting Dem’ who has built her entire audience around making inflammatory comments.

    Oh is that the point you were making then?

    She did something stupid and apologized. At least John is the bigger man here and isn’t just looking for a gotcha to Jane after their last dust up.

  64. 64
    Darrell says:

    Meanwhile, liberals will continue to ignore this news coming out of Iran.. or they will Blame Bush(TM)

    TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, state-media reported.

    The ahole met with Hugo Chavez a day or two back too, probably trying to engineer Cuban missile crisis II. I think the leftists solution to blame Bush is a real bedrock foundation for our foreign policy, wouldn’t you agree?

  65. 65
    tBone says:

    Regarding the topic of this thread, did everyone catch how Lamont lied his fucking ass off telling a news reporter

    The news reporter who delivered this mangled quote, you mean?

    “I don’t know anything about the blogs, I’m not responsible for those, I have no comment on ’em – she raised money for your campaign…Independent blogs, I can’t say anything about it.”

    That’s one of the worst-written news articles I’ve ever seen. Someone should tell the writer that an article != unedited transcription of hastily-scribbled notes.

  66. 66
    Pooh says:

    I don’t begrudge John the chance to take a good clean shot at Jane – this is NFL football, play to the whistle, Jane.

    And moving beyond the facile ‘oh John is just trolling’ response and you’ll find there is a lot of truth to what John is saying. There are many positions which I would find pretty compelling if I didn’t find the advocates of those positions to be on average pretty loathsome. FWIW, I think John, in general, takes it to ridiculous extremes (“I’d vote for him a third time just to piss the M00nb4tz off!”)

  67. 67
    Darrell says:

    FWIW, I think John, in general, takes it to ridiculous extremes (“I’d vote for him a third time just to piss the M00nb4tz off!”)

    Well, in the context of the moonbat comments which provoked that reaction, there was nothing “extreme” at all about John’s reaction.

  68. 68
    John S. says:

    At least John is the bigger man here and isn’t just looking for a gotcha to Jane after their last dust up.

    Indeed.

    I’m working on a “Blogger Ethics” primer, based on John’s blogging. So far I have determined:

    – Jane Hamshers of the left are controversial when they Photoshop people
    – Jeff Goldsteins of the right are witty when they cockslap people

    I think it’s going to be a bestseller.

  69. 69
    Ancient Purple says:

    Wow, Darrell. I see you are learning your tricks from Powerline. Let’s read the whole quote from Lamont:

    “I don’t know anything about the blogs, I’m not responsible for those, I have no comment on ’em – she raised money for your campaign…Independent blogs, I can’t say anything about it.”

    Quite different when read in context.

    Next up: Darrell insists Rep. Dingel never condemned Hezbollah.

  70. 70
    srv says:

    Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. – Golda Meir

    There will be no peace in the region until Arabs love their children more than they hate us. – Israel’s Ambassador to the US, 7/27

    Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other. – General Pace, 8/3.

    It’s all about love(R). Who would have thought Democracy(tm) was easy, but love(R) was so hard?

  71. 71
    Ancient Purple says:

    Darrell spews:

    TEHRAN, Iran (AP)—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, state-media reported.

    This is news? Ahmadinejad says this on a daily basis and has been since taking office.

    Wow, you truly are one of the most ignorant people on the planet, Darrell.

  72. 72
    John S. says:

    From the desk of Confucious:

    If Darrell keeps screaming about lefties and nobody cares, does he make a sound?

  73. 73
    Steve says:

    leftwingnut extremists like Steve

    That’s me, baby! The most extremistest lefty ever!

    were comparing that measured wait-and-see reaction with “9/11 was a government conspiracy” type moonbats

    And that’s you! “Measured wait-and-see reaction” Darrell!

    And in fact, my entire POINT was that the 9/11 idiots use the exact same passive-aggressive phrasing as you employed… “oh, we just want to see a full investigation” “we’re just noting these inconsistencies that should be explored” and my favorite “oh, so you’re saying those guys would never lie about anything?”

    Regarding the topic of this thread, did everyone catch how Lamont lied his fucking ass off telling a news reporter “I don’t know anything about the blogs”, when Jane Hamsher directed campaign commercials for him and did campaign fundraising..

    It’s amazing how a few days before every election, you guys always find something to take completely out of context. Yeah, like, remember how John Kerry said terrorism was just a nuisance?

    In context, it’s obvious that Lamont was saying he had no idea what people are writing on the blogs and has no control over them, not that he had never heard of this strange entity called a “blog.” But I encourage you to run with your interpretation. That will really get voters to the polls… “Ned Lamont lied when he said he had never heard of a blog!” Yeah, you really have a silver bullet there.

  74. 74
    jg says:

    I think the leftists solution to blame Bush is a real bedrock foundation for our foreign policy, wouldn’t you agree?

    But Bush has been in charge for 6 years and his action have contributed to the current situation. I think the neocon solution of acting like everybody but Bush is to blame is a real bedrock foundation for our foreign policy.

    The problem is that you hear the left criticise Bush and think the left feels Bush is entirely to blame and the only one to blame. The real issue is he has had a hand in this and since he’s our leader he’s the one we criticise because we want him to do differently. He can maybe fix this if he would stop believeing he should stay the course and let history judge him. But he won’t and you guys on the right won’t let any real criticism reach him, its all blown off as lefty mouth breathing. YOU are the problem.

  75. 75
    John Steven says:

    Why did the WaPo article not even mention the impetus for the doctored photo – Lieberman’s race-baiting flyers being distributed at black churches? The article completely leaves out the context behind what happened.

  76. 76
    Darrell says:

    Quite different when read in context.

    Not at all, as he clearly stated “I don’t know anything about the blogs”.. this, when he was working hand in hand with Jane Hamsher and Markos “screw them” Moulitsos, or at a minimum, actively courting their support. What’s more, he has his own fucking blog, yet he’s lying his ass off about his familiarity with blogs

  77. 77
    Pooh says:

    If Darrell keeps screaming about lefties and nobody cares, does he make a sound?

    I imagine it’s sounds similar to a large balloon with a small leak…

  78. 78
    Darrell says:

    The problem is that you hear the left criticise Bush and think the left feels Bush is entirely to blame and the only one to blame

    Tell us then, what are, and what were the liberal recommendations in dealing with Iran, and N. Korea for that matter, besides appeasement?

  79. 79
    Perry Como says:

    did everyone catch how Lamont Arab lied his fucking ass off

    Fixed that for you.

  80. 80
    Steve says:

    Meanwhile, liberals will continue to ignore this news coming out of Iran.. or they will Blame Bush™

    I trust Bush to come up with the right plan for Iran… because everything he’s touched in the Middle East has turned to gold so far, that’s for sure.

    TEHRAN, Iran (AP)—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, state-media reported.

    This was the lead-in to a CNN story which Darrell linked. Compare the CNN headline with the Reuters headline (h/t Andrew Sullivan) for the exact same story:

    CNN: “Iranian president: Destroy Israel”

    Reuters: “Iran Leads Islamic Nations in Demanding End to Mideast War”

    The actual quote?

    “Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,” Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site Thursday.

    I report, you decide. Heh.

  81. 81
    srv says:

    I think the leftists solution to blame Bush is a real bedrock foundation for our foreign policy, wouldn’t you agree?

    There’s just no way that Bush statements like “Axis-of-Evil” or screwing the pooch in Iraq could have possibly had any impact on Iranian or North Korean policies. Anyone who thinks that must just be totally crazy. Everything happening in the Bush terms is happening in a vacuum. It is the only explanation that could possibly be valid.

  82. 82
    jg says:

    Tell us then, what are, and what were the liberal recommendations in dealing with Iran, and N. Korea for that matter, besides appeasement?

    Sorry. Won’t particpate in your thread jack. Even if I thought you were serious and not looking for a new jackalope to chase I wouldn’t bother. I’m not qualified to discuss it. Suffice it to say that N. Korea was disarmed, the nuke material was locked up and secured by UN inspectors. This was negotiated while gettting a blowjob in the oval office. Not bad huh?

  83. 83
    John S. says:

    Darrell-

    Tell us then, what are, and what were the conservative recommendations in dealing with Iran, and N. Korea for that matter, besides wars without sufficient planning that we cannot win?

  84. 84
    Pooh says:

    besides appeasement

    Amazing how the seasons change but the calendar stays stuck at 1939…

  85. 85
    Darrell says:

    Our fair and balanced media. The same Iran story I linked to upthread, had the title in the NY Times, “Iran Leads Islamic Nations in Demanding End to Mideast War”, ignoring the real story quoted “Although the main cure (to the situation) is the elimination of the Zionist regime

    The President of Iran (again) calls for the elimination of Israel, but the NY Times headline reads that Iran is leading the charge in bringing an end to the war. Unbelievable, until you begin to understand how detached from reality most liberals truly are.

  86. 86
    Ancient Purple says:

    Not at all, as he clearly stated “I don’t know anything about the blogs”.. this, when he was working hand in hand with Jane Hamsher and Markos “screw them” Moulitsos, or at a minimum, actively courting their support. What’s more, he has his own fucking blog, yet he’s lying his ass off about his familiarity with blogs

    And Darrell continues to peddle a falsehood by taking the quote out of context.

    For his next trick, Darrell morphs into Powerline and smears Rep. Dingel.

    Popcorn is available at the concession stand.

  87. 87
    Sherard says:

    Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. – Golda Meir

    There will be no peace in the region until Arabs love their children more than they hate us. – Israel’s Ambassador to the US, 7/27

    Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other. – General Pace, 8/3.

    Hey srv – this would be mildly amusing / ironic, if it weren’t so awfully sad, pathetic, and true, and hadn’t been that way for 50 years. What’s truly disturbing is that you see those 3 comments as amusing and not sad.

  88. 88
    Perry Como says:

    Tell us then, what are, and what were the conservative recommendations in dealing with Iran, and N. Korea for that matter, besides wars without sufficient planning that we cannot win?

    He won’t answer. There is no plan to deal with Iran and North Korea. Darrell will sputter on for 20 or 30 posts about appeasement and ignore any point you bring up about the Bush administration flat out ignoring that there’s even a problem.

    And some how, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will be Clinton’s fault.

  89. 89
    Steve says:

    The ahole met with Hugo Chavez a day or two back too, probably trying to engineer Cuban missile crisis II.

    There seems to be a lot of factual support for this suggestion… we should probably nuke both of them just to be sure.

  90. 90
    Darrell says:

    Suffice it to say that N. Korea was disarmed, the nuke material was locked up and secured by UN inspectors. This was negotiated while gettting a blowjob in the oval office. Not bad huh?

    Yeah, Clinton’s trust in the N. Koreans was a real “success” by liberal standards, huh? Keep telling yourself that the N. Koreans didn’t really play Clinton for a dupe while forging ahead with their nuclear program. Such a ‘reality based’ perspective

  91. 91
    Darrell says:

    John S. Says:

    Darrell-

    Tell us then, what are, and what were the conservative recommendations in dealing with Iran, and N. Korea for that matter, besides wars without sufficient planning that we cannot win?

    John, it’s never a good idea to take military action, or the credible threat of it, off the table as you suggest. Our enemies understandably see that as a sign of weakness and act (or don’t act) accordingly.

  92. 92
    Ancient Purple says:

    Yeah, Clinton’s trust in the N. Koreans was a real “success” by liberal standards, huh? Keep telling yourself that the N. Koreans didn’t really play Clinton for a dupe while forging ahead with their nuclear program. Such a ‘reality based’ perspective and don’t forget that Clinton’s lack of planning led to 9/11

    Fixed that for you, Darrell.

  93. 93
    jg says:

    Keep telling yourself that the N. Koreans didn’t really play Clinton for a dupe while forging ahead with their nuclear program. Such a ‘reality based’ perspective

    Keep telling yourself that N. Korea wasn’t getting exactly what they wanted, exactly what a backwards ass country expects when it agrees to forgo nuke processing, until Bush labelled them an axis of evil. You can’t deny that until then NK had nuke material but not nukes. Now they have nukes and you blame Clinton. And you say I have a loose grip on reality?

    N. Korea wanted respect, Clinton gave them respect. Thats what nukes do for a country, they give you a seat at the big boys table.

  94. 94
    Pooh says:

    What is the Senator’s plan for North Korea? If there is none, will the Senator yield?

  95. 95
    Perry Como says:

    I think Bush’s strategy with North Korea has been brilliant. Talk tough and do absolutely nothing while North Korea churns out the fissile material for nukes. Brilliant!

  96. 96
    John S. says:

    John, it’s never a good idea to take military action…blah, blah, blah, non-answer

    Answer the fucking question.

    What is the conservative plan for dealing with Iran and North Korea?

    Try not to hand us some more of your mealy-mouthed bullshit.

  97. 97
    SeesThroughIt says:

    And some how, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will be Clinton’s fault.

    Well, duh. He got a blowjob! While in office! While actually in the Oval Office! Of course it’s Clinton’s fault! Anything even remotely negative that happens under Republican rule for at least the next 20 years is, by definition, Clinton’s fault. Clueless moonbat. Why can’t you love America enough to hate its ex-President and blame him for everything?

  98. 98
    Darrell says:

    Keep telling yourself that N. Korea wasn’t getting exactly what they wanted, exactly what a backwards ass country expects when it agrees to forgo nuke processing, until Bush labelled them an axis of evil.

    You see, this is the problem with liberals – even now, after it’s been made clear that N. Korea broke their promises, they still cling to belief that N. Korea had foregone their nuclear ambitions.

    Only after Bush labeled them part of the axis of evil, did they “suddenly” change. N. Korea may want respect, but the reality is, they’re untrustworthy and batshit crazy

  99. 99
    Pooh says:

    Darrell, showing his usual comprehension skills, gets from point A:

    besides wars without sufficient planning that we cannot win

    to B:

    it’s never a good idea to take military action, or the credible threat of it, off the table as you suggest.

    How credible is our military threat right now, big D? Oh you mean dropping nukes! That’s sure to win friends. Good thinking, Slim.

  100. 100
    jaime says:

    John, it’s never a good idea to take military action, or the credible threat of it, off the table as you suggest. Our enemies understandably see that as a sign of weakness and act (or don’t act) accordingly.

    Darrell’s strategy for victory…at Civ 4.

  101. 101
    DougJ says:

    Jane Hamshers of the left are controversial when they Photoshop people – Jeff Goldsteins of the right are witty when they cockslap people

    And Jeff also photo-shopped the cheetoh stains off said cock in many of his website’s pictures.

  102. 102
    jg says:

    Anything even remotely negative that happens under Republican rule for at least the next 20 years is, by definition, Clinton’s fault.

    It kind of is but there’s blame for the republicans too. According to Ben Stein lots of bad shit happened in souteast asia because impeachment hamstrung Nixon. (Yes he actually said that). I guess the same could be said of Clinton. If he wasn’t impeached he might have done more agaisnt OBL in the 90’s, we might not be here now. See how disuptive sex not for the purpose of procreation can be?

  103. 103
    Darrell says:

    Answer the fucking question.

    What is the conservative plan for dealing with Iran and North Korea?

    With N. Korea, “chimp” Bush has the rightwingnut crazy idea that China, a key enabler of N. Korea, might want to avoid a nuclear war in their back yard, prevailing winds being what they are… Bush has this batshit insane idea, that China ‘might’ be key in pressuring N. Korea to put a lid on their nuclear program and missile testing. I have my doubts, but it’s a better solution than the direct one-on-one negotiations being advocated by liberals.

    But if China’s pressure doesn’t work, any aggressive military action on the part of N. Korea will have to be responded to militarily IMO. Fortunately, we have S. Korea, as well as Japan and Australia in the region available to shoulder some of the burden

  104. 104
    Steve says:

    John, it’s never a good idea to take military action, or the credible threat of it, off the table as you suggest. Our enemies understandably see that as a sign of weakness and act (or don’t act) accordingly.

    Conversely, constantly rattling the sabers simply helps hardliners get elected and solidify their power by exploiting anti-American sentiment.

    Bush has a credibility problem in that, because of Iraq, he can’t open his mouth without the people of the world hearing an implied threat of war. It’s too late now to start building bridges. Hopefully the next President, Republican or Democrat, can restore some of the lost trust, because we simply can’t solve the problems of this new age without cooperation from the world community.

  105. 105
    jg says:

    You see, this is the problem with liberals – even now, after it’s been made clear that N. Korea broke their promises, they still cling to belief that N. Korea had foregone their nuclear ambitions.

    Only after Bush labeled them part of the axis of evil, did they “suddenly” change. N. Korea may want respect, but the reality is, they’re untrustworthy and batshit crazy

    You say they broke their promise but you don’t say why or when. You blame it on Clinton but he did his job, he got NK to stop processing. All the shit with N. Korea happened after Bush took office and was a reaction to his policies. You can’t blame Clinton anymore. Even if you say he only appeased what the fuck had Bush done that was better. NK has built weapons on his watch and you let him shirk responsibilty by blaming his predecessor. Wow.

    Een if youtake the position that Clinton could have done more or simply appeased hoping the next guy would do better, the next guy hasn’t, and that ain’t Clintons fault. Its not Clintons fault how badly Bush handled the situation he was left with.

  106. 106
    Kimmitt says:

    See how disuptive sex not for the purpose of procreation can be?

    QOTD.

    Anyways, I had really kind of hoped that Cole would play against type and ignore this thing — or at least say something interesting about it. Ah, well.

  107. 107
    srv says:

    Hey srv – this would be mildly amusing / ironic, if it weren’t so awfully sad, pathetic, and true, and hadn’t been that way for 50 years. What’s truly disturbing is that you see those 3 comments as amusing and not sad.

    Sherard, I suggest you try a little prayer and introspection while wiping that blackface off.

  108. 108
    Darrell says:

    Bush has a credibility problem in that, because of Iraq, he can’t open his mouth without the people of the world hearing an implied threat of war. It’s too late now to start building bridges

    The Europeans then, who so vocally opposed Bush in Iraq, and who are Iran’s largest trading partner, should have credibility in “building bridges” with Iran. How’s their brige building been working out there? Or do you blame Bush for that too.

  109. 109
    Par R says:

    This whole Jane Hamsher ruckus arose when she attempted to take the edge and spotlight off Lamont’s hypocrisy about finally resigning from a country club with a questionable past. If you read the WaPo, among other papers, you will recall that Lamont belonged to a Connecticut club suspected of racism and antisemitism in its membership decisions. He only quit the club when he became a politician.

    Now, as Ace put it, “…this is not necessarily a disqualifying factor; Lord knows many politicians have had country-club problems. But it is an issue that has to be responded to seriously.” Instead, Hamsher puts up that outrageous photoshopped picture.

  110. 110
    LITBMueller says:

    John, it’s never a good idea to take military action, or the credible threat of it, off the table as you suggest. Our enemies understandably see that as a sign of weakness and act (or don’t act) accordingly.

    Apparently, our enemies are the Klingons.

  111. 111
    jg says:

    The Europeans then, who so vocally opposed Bush in Iraq, and who are Iran’s largest trading partner, should have credibility in “building bridges” with Iran. How’s their brige building been working out there? Or do you blame Bush for that too.

    No chance that Iran can’t afford to listen to Europe because Iran knows Europe doesn’t have any control over Bushs actions?

  112. 112
    Darrell says:

    jg, Clinton/Albright policy with N. Korea was a mistake. You were the one who raised it as an example of Clinton’s “success”, and I merely pointed out the obvious.

    Clinton agreed to provide them with two light water nuclear reactors for chrissakes. Then what was it, 2 years later N. Korea was lobbing missiles over Japan? Get a grip on reality man

  113. 113
    Perry Como says:

    I have my doubts, but it’s a better solution than the direct one-on-one negotiations being advocated by liberals.

    How’s that working out? North Korea stop enriching material yet? Stopped building missiles? Stopped firing those missiles into the Sea of Japan? Is North Korea less of a threat now?

  114. 114
    jg says:

    Our enemies understandably see that as a sign of weakness and act (or don’t act) accordingly.

    Some might take it as a sign of progress. Could you seriously have a good faith negotiation with someone who is more powerful than you and won’t rule out kicking your ass if you don’t do what they want?

  115. 115
    Darrell says:

    How’s that working out? North Korea stop enriching material yet? Stopped building missiles? Stopped firing those missiles into the Sea of Japan? Is North Korea less of a threat now?

    Well at least we know what they’re up to, instead of pretending that N. Korea was “contained”. Seems they were firing off missiles in the 1990’s under clinton too.

    Tell us Perry, what would you have the US do differently with Korea?

  116. 116
    jg says:

    jg, Clinton/Albright policy with N. Korea was a mistake. You were the one who raised it as an example of Clinton’s “success”, and I merely pointed out the obvious.

    Clinton agreed to provide them with two light water nuclear reactors for chrissakes. Then what was it, 2 years later N. Korea was lobbing missiles over Japan? Get a grip on reality man

    It was a success. They stopped processing nuclear material. I never said Clinton stopped them from testing missile technology.

    Key point you keep ignoring. They stopeed processing nuclear material until Bush came along.

  117. 117
    jg says:

    Anyone got a gun. We’ve let this jackaolpe roam free for a half hour, thats long enough. Someone Cheney it.

  118. 118
    srv says:

    Bush has this batshit insane idea, that China ‘might’ be key in pressuring N. Korea to put a lid on their nuclear program and missile testing. I have my doubts, but it’s a better solution than the direct one-on-one negotiations being advocated by liberals.

    Yes, it makes no sense to negotiate with the actual country at hand. And like Hezbollah/etc, N. Korea is just an actor for another state… right.

  119. 119
    Faux News says:

    Hey srv – this would be mildly amusing / ironic, if it weren’t so awfully sad, pathetic, and true, and hadn’t been that way for 50 years. What’s truly disturbing is that you see those 3 comments as amusing and not sad.

    Amusing? No.

    Pollyannish and sanctimonious? Yes.

  120. 120
    Steve says:

    The Europeans then, who so vocally opposed Bush in Iraq, and who are Iran’s largest trading partner, should have credibility in “building bridges” with Iran. How’s their brige building been working out there? Or do you blame Bush for that too.

    Well, there was the plan to provide Iran with enriched uranium for nuclear power so that it wouldn’t have an excuse to enrich uranium itself… a plan that was ridiculed as dangerously irresponsible by the Bush campaign when Kerry brought it up. Then after the election, guess what, Bush decided it was a good idea after all.

    But it seems to have worked out… I only wish Bush hadn’t delayed U.S. approval of this idea for political reasons, pretending it was a terrible idea when it wasn’t.

  121. 121
    Darrell says:

    It was a success. They stopped processing nuclear material

    Clinton provided the N. Korean with nuclear reactors which can produce nuclear bombs, at a cost of billions to US taxpayers along with almost a billion dollars a yr. in free oil shipments to help finance their operations. N. Korea did not stop pursuing their nuclear weapons program under Clinton. I’m not sure what your point is.

  122. 122
    Perry Como says:

    Tell us Perry, what would you have the US do differently with Korea?

    Absolutely nothing. Like I said, Bush’s name-calling-foreign-policy is brilliant. Bush utters phrases like “axis of evil” and North Korea keeps producing nuclear material. It’s cunning.

  123. 123
    srv says:

    Anyone got a gun. We’ve let this jackaolpe roam free for a half hour, thats long enough. Someone Cheney it.

    This silver bullet will never wear out:

    It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.
    Sen. John Cornyn

  124. 124
    Punchy says:

    But if China’s pressure doesn’t work, any aggressive military action on the part of N. Korea will have to be responded to militarily IMO. Fortunately, we have S. Korea, as well as Japan and Australia in the region available to shoulder some of the burden

    Darrell–

    What military are you planning on using? Would you advocate taking troops out of Iraq–most assuredly putting that country into full-out civil war–for this N. Korea attack? Next, what if–and there’s plenty of good reason to believe they dont–those countries don’t want to participate? Does the US attempt this strike alone?

    The prob with your plan, and every righty’s plan, is that they use this blanket statement “we’ll use our military”, as if an additional 200K troops will just magically appear out of nowhere. Unless you wish to destroy whatever progress is happening in Iraq, one CANNOT attack N. Korea (or Iran, FWIW). Comments?

  125. 125
    jg says:

    Clinton provided the N. Korean with nuclear reactors which can produce nuclear bombs, at a cost of billions to US taxpayers along with almost a billion dollars a yr. in free oil shipments to help finance their operations. N. Korea did not stop pursuing their nuclear weapons program under Clinton. I’m not sure what your point is.

    More revisionist history put forth by the Ministry of Truth.

  126. 126
    Pooh says:

    With N. Korea, “chimp” Bush has the rightwingnut crazy idea that China, a key enabler of N. Korea, might want to avoid a nuclear war in their back yard, prevailing winds being what they are… Bush has this batshit insane idea, that China ‘might’ be key in pressuring N. Korea to put a lid on their nuclear program and missile testing. I have my doubts, but it’s a better solution than the direct one-on-one negotiations being advocated by liberals.

    So W. is in favor of appeasement? Why does the president hate America?

  127. 127
    John S. says:

    Darrell’s conservative solution to N. Korea:

    But if China’s pressure doesn’t work, any aggressive military action on the part of N. Korea will have to be responded to militarily IMO. Fortunately, we have S. Korea, as well as Japan and Australia in the region available to shoulder some of the burden.

    So we let China – North Korea’s ally – do all the leg work for us. If it fails, we convince Japan and Australia to go to war with us on North Korea.

    BRILLIANT!

    Now how about part two, what is the conservative solution to dealing with Iran?

  128. 128
    Darrell says:

    But it seems to have worked out

    Steve, let us examine your definition of having “worked out”. From the article:

    It remained unclear, though, whether Iran would entirely give up enrichment at home, a top demand of the West, or whether the joint venture would complement Iran’s existing enrichment program.

    ..Iran has vowed it would never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

    So in other words, the Bush admin. agreed to such a program, if and only if the Iranians would submit to a veriable dismantling of their own uranium enrichment program.. which they have not done.

    But according to you, the main problem was the Bush administration’s “delay” in considering this option, which otherwise would have been a wonderful solution except for the minor detail about Iran’s vow to never abandon their own nuclear ambitions. You really believe that’s a ‘reality based’ solution?

  129. 129
    srv says:

    Now how about part two, what is the conservative solution to dealing with Iran?

    The Box Turtles will take care of Iran.

  130. 130
    Darrell says:

    Like I said, Bush’s name-calling-foreign-policy is brilliant. Bush utters phrases like “axis of evil” and North Korea keeps producing nuclear material. It’s cunning.

    Because if Bush hadn’t called them names, their nuclear program would still be “contained”, right? I think that’s a really shrewd, intelligent position for you to hold.

    Jimmah Carter, posting under Perry Como’s alias

  131. 131
    Zifnab says:

    Clinton provided the N. Korean with nuclear reactors which can produce nuclear bombs, at a cost of billions to US taxpayers along with almost a billion dollars a yr. in free oil shipments to help finance their operations. N. Korea did not stop pursuing their nuclear weapons program under Clinton. I’m not sure what your point is.

    Seriously, that’s news to me and I’d love to see a link. From what I understood, the only foreign aid we offered N. Korea was in the form of food and oil. What’s more, I was under the impression that our two biggest charity cases sucking from the American teet are Isreal and Turkey (at $3 billion and $1 billion respectively), both vital to American military interests in the Middle East and both with a number of military bases as part of the deal.

    That Clinton ever gave nuclear reactors to N. Korea, much less $1 billion worth of aid is something I’d like to see in print.

  132. 132
    Krista says:

    The prob with your plan, and every righty’s plan, is that they use this blanket statement “we’ll use our military”, as if an additional 200K troops will just magically appear out of nowhere. Unless you wish to destroy whatever progress is happening in Iraq, one CANNOT attack N. Korea (or Iran, FWIW). Comments?

    Well, there’s always the draft. I’m sure that, given Darrell’s enthusiasm for war, he’d be all for it. There might be that little problem of Americans rioting in the streets about it, but that’s nothing a little tear gas can’t solve.

  133. 133
    Perry Como says:

    what is the conservative solution to dealing with Iran?

    The same way they deal with North Korea:

    “You guys are a bunch of poopy heads!”

    Strong. Smart. Savvy.

  134. 134
    srv says:

    The Axis-of-Darrells will no doubt try to confuse y’all about the NK weapons pre-Axis of Evil.

    Plutonium stocks

    Note that almost all of this activity happened on George Sr’s watch.

  135. 135
    jg says:

    Because if Bush hadn’t called them names, their nuclear program would still be “contained”, right? I think that’s a really shrewd, intelligent position for you to hold.

    So Bush’s talk that they are a world evil had nothing to do with them arming themselves? Especially after we invaded one of the three countries on the same list? You can ignore that possibility and at the sametime insult other peoples intelligence?

  136. 136
    Darrell says:

    That Clinton ever gave nuclear reactors to N. Korea, much less $1 billion worth of aid is something I’d like to see in print.

    Here you go:

    The Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was signed on October 21, 1994 between North Korea (DPRK) and the United States. The agreement largely broke-down by 2003. The main provisions of the agreement are:

    DPRK’s graphite-moderated nuclear power plants, which could easily produce weapons grade plutonium, would be replaced with light water reactor (LWR) power plants by a target date of 2003.
    Oil for heating and electricity production would be provided while DPRK’s reactors were shut down, until completion of the first LWR power unit.

    ..It is reported that US President Bill Clinton’s officials agreed to the plan only because they thought that the North Korean government would collapse before the nuclear power project was completed

    Oops, looks like that prediction wasn’t so ‘reality based’

  137. 137
    Perry Como says:

    Seriously, that’s news to me and I’d love to see a link.

    The agreement was in 2000, iirc. Guess who was on the board of the company selling the reactors to North Korea?

    :drumroll:

    Donald Rumsfeld!

    What Darrell doesn’t mention is that it is difficult to use light water reactors for weapons grade enrichment. But we all know the best solution is to call people names. The “North Korea smells like cat breath!” school of foreign policy.

  138. 138
    John S. says:

    The same way they deal with North Korea:

    So, by transitive axiom, the conservative plan for dealing with Iran is:

    But if Saudi Arabia’s pressure doesn’t work, any aggressive military action on the part of Iran will have to be responded to militarily IMO. Fortunately, we have Iraq, as well as Israel and Afghanistan in the region available to shoulder some of the burden.

    Is this correct, Senator?

  139. 139
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Now how about part two, what is the conservative solution to dealing with Iran?

    Send in a couple squads of troops. They topple the government. The Iranian people, overjoyed that we have come to liberate them, will take it from there.

  140. 140
    Darrell says:

    Well, there’s always the draft. I’m sure that, given Darrell’s enthusiasm for war, he’d be all for it. There might be that little problem of Americans rioting in the streets about it, but that’s nothing a little tear gas can’t solve.

    Well Krista, other than rioting in the streets over the possibility of a military response to N. Korea, really what is your idea? Please tell us. Because if we do nothing, the North Koreans continue to develop and perfect nuclear weapons, with the additional threat of them selling nuclear weapons and technology to our enemies in order to raise money.

  141. 141
    Perry Como says:

    The Iranian people, overjoyed that we have come to liberate them, will take it from there.

    Candy and flowers. Don’t discount the power of candy and flowers.

    bbiab with some fun information about Bush, Khan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. You’ll love this bit of foreign policy genius, Darrell.

  142. 142
    srv says:

    Oops, looks like that prediction wasn’t so ‘reality based’

    Yes, we did not provide them the LWR reactors by 2003.

  143. 143
    Perry Como says:

    Because if we do nothing, the North Koreans continue to develop and perfect nuclear weapons, with the additional threat of them selling nuclear weapons and technology to our enemies in order to raise money.

    That’s why we need to stay the course. If we keep calling North Korea names, the country will eventually have a nervous breakdown and start crying. Brilliant!

  144. 144
    Darrell says:

    The agreement was in 2000, iirc. Guess who was on the board of the company selling the reactors to North Korea?

    :drumroll:

    Donald Rumsfeld!

    I believe that’s true. Bill Clinton and Jimmah Carter implemented the policy and told us that we could trust the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons aspirations.. so not to worry with building those light water reactors

  145. 145
    SeesThroughIt says:

    If we keep calling North Korea names, the country will eventually have a nervous breakdown and start crying. Brilliant!

    Don’t you think North Korea got fat? I mean, look at its cankles, for fuck’s sake! And it’s such a whore!

  146. 146
    Krista says:

    Well Krista, other than rioting in the streets over the possibility of a military response to N. Korea, really what is your idea? Please tell us. Because if we do nothing, the North Koreans continue to develop and perfect nuclear weapons, with the additional threat of them selling nuclear weapons and technology to our enemies in order to raise money.

    Do you honestly believe that those are the only options available? Military action, or nothing?

    Wow.

  147. 147
    Darrell says:

    If we keep calling North Korea names, the country will eventually have a nervous breakdown and start crying. Brilliant!

    Had we stayed the course, Bush never would have undone Bill Clinton’s ‘peace in our time’ agreement with the North Koreans, now would he have?

  148. 148
    Darrell says:

    Do you honestly believe that those are the only options available? Military action, or nothing?

    I’ll ask you a second time, what would you have us do? Can you answer the question? You see, diplomacy hasn’t been working out so effectively with the North Koreans? even under a Dem presidency

  149. 149
    Steve says:

    Is North Korea the same as Nazi Germany, or is it Iran, or is it Iraq or Syria? I can’t keep track of all these new Nazi Germanys.

  150. 150
    Pooh says:

    Because if we do nothing, the North Koreans continue to develop and perfect nuclear weapons,

    That’s a good point. Why are we doing nothing? Oh wait, agit-blogging for a new round of invasions is doing something. Keep up the good work on the front lines as you stand shoulder to shoulder with Ledeen.

  151. 151
    John S. says:

    When I correctly identified the conservative solution to North Korea and Iran as:

    Wars without sufficient planning that we cannot win.

    Darrell blustered and wailed, wailed and blustered. Then when pressed on what their solution is, he comes up with a brilliant three-step plan:

    1. Rely on a dubious “ally” to pressure them.
    2. Provided #1 fails, wage war with the help of regional allies.
    3. Problem solved!

    And it’s the Democrats who aren’t serious about these things and don’t have a real plan?

    LMAO

  152. 152
    demimondian says:

    Why are we doing nothing?

    We aren’t doing nothing. We’re considering putting pressure on China to think about putting pressure on North Korea to consider negotiating with third parties to not do what they’ve already successfully done.

    Why do you leftists continue to lie about The President’s Foreign Policy, Pooh.

  153. 153
    srv says:

    Had we stayed the course, Bush never would have undone Bill Clinton’s ‘peace in our time’ agreement with the North Koreans, now would he have?

    NK would have the plutonium weapons they developed in the early 90’s. But now they have 5-8 more from the EU processing. But that couldn’t possibly be to GW’s policies, because everything that happened since 2001 is in a vacuum.

  154. 154
    Perry Como says:

    So here’s some fun info…

    After Bush took office in 2001, a number of intelligence investigations were quashed. One involved AQ Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb. Why would the Bush administration stop an investigation of a Pakistani nuclear scientist? Saudi Arabia. The money trail led straight back to our Best Friends Forever.

    Fast forward 6 months or so and the Guardian gets wind of a story that Khan has been selling his wares to North Korea, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Poppycock!, says the Bush administration. Using the patented Head-In-The-Sand method of intelligence analysis, the Bush administration dismisses the report. Of course, if they hadn’t scuttled the investigation of Khan Labs, perhaps they would have had a back up source for the newspaper article. Like…intelligence.

    Now fast forward to early 2004 and Bush is shocked! that Khan had been selling nuclear bomb plans and materials to rogue nations (and BFF Saudi Arabia).

    That’s some brilliant work. Heckuva job Bushie!

  155. 155
    The Pirate says:

    Speaking as a liberal I can’t stand most lefty blogs that try to be funny because generally they have the combined comic chops of the Wayans Brothers, post-“In Living Color”. Apparently Jane thought this was some kind of edgy satire but in reality it just looks really fucking lame.

  156. 156
    The Pirate says:

    I would like to express my amazement that during the time I opened the comment box, took a dump, made myself a sandwich, wrote the comment and posted it this thread went from a discussion of the post to a bitter foreign policy argument. Will wonders never cease?

  157. 157
    Krista says:

    I’ll ask you a second time, what would you have us do? Can you answer the question? You see, diplomacy hasn’t been working out so effectively with the North Koreans? even under a Dem presidency

    Honestly? (I know how much you like honesty…)

    I’m not a political scientist. I’m not an expert on diplomacy. So this little English major from the Maritimes is not going to be able to cough up the winning solution to the North Korea problem. Sorry.

    I do, however, see that Americans tend to be growing more and more disillusioned with the conflicts in which the US is already involved. I also have heard several reports of peoples’ military stints being extended, which leads me to believe that you don’t have long lineups at the recruitment centers right now. That leads me to believe that your idea of a military solution to the North Korea issue might be tricky, due to lack of manpower.

    So, if the American government feels the same way that you do, but does not have enough people in the military to actually do more than a half-assed job of it, what’s the solution? Do you try to increase recruitment? Looks like that’s being attempted now, and is only having mediocre results. For a project as big as North Korea, it seems to me that if you want to do a proper job of it, and are having problems recruiting, the only other solution is the draft. And somehow, I really, really can’t see the American populace, already weary of war, taking the notion of a draft in good humour.

    So, you think that diplomacy hasn’t been working. Perhaps, perhaps not. I’m not well-versed enough to say. But, if you think that military force WOULD work, you’re going to need a lot of bite behind that bark. And right now, the bite’s lacking some teeth.

    And please, I’ll ask you not to get insulting with me in regards to this. I’m answering you honestly and in good faith, and if you want to have an actual discussion on the merits of diplomacy vs. military action, I’d be happy to participate. If you want to insult me, you might as well save your energy — I’m not interested in going down that road with you today.

  158. 158
    Darrell says:

    After Bush took office in 2001, a number of intelligence investigations were quashed. One involved AQ Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb. Why would the Bush administration stop an investigation of a Pakistani nuclear scientist? Saudi Arabia. The money trail led straight back to our Best Friends Forever

    Funny how you didn’t include any links to substantiate that Bush “quashed” these intelligence investigations to protect his good buddies the Saudis

    Hilarous to see you leftwingnuts are still spouting Michael Moore talking points.

  159. 159
    Krista says:

    The Pirate Says:

    I would like to express my amazement that during the time I opened the comment box, took a dump, made myself a sandwich, wrote the comment and posted it this thread went from a discussion of the post to a bitter foreign policy argument. Will wonders never cease?

    We’re like a family here — a lot of bitterness from previous arguments tends to spill over into new ones.

  160. 160
    LITBMueller says:

    Remember the good ole days, when the United States dealt with other countries they wanted to ease tensions with by signing treaties n’ stuff?

    Them were good ole days…

    The easy solution: the U.S. offers Iran a non-agression pact and immediate negotiations to begin normalization of trade relations in return for Iran abandoning its nuclear ambitions and support of Hezbollah.

    The same offer could even be made to Syria. Two birds, one stone.

    Has that been offered? Of course not. Because the administration’s hard on for “regime change” dictates that we have the E3 conduct talks. Will this work? Of course not: Iran is not developing nuclear technology because they are afraid they will be invaded by Europe – they are afraid they will be attacked by the US. Duh.

    Appeasement, my ass. That’s just smart, because war just ain’t all its cracked up to be.

  161. 161
    mrmobi says:

    Nutcutter:

    You really do have to question. Is Joe a Republican, or is he a Democrat?

    Yes.

    But mainly, he’s a Liebocrat.

    Gracias Nutman, I have been trying to figure out what the hell holy joe is. Marshall Wittman thinks he’s god incarnate.
    That was a pretty stupid thing that Jane did. It could end up making a difference in the race. For myself, I don’t have a dog in that hunt, except to say that anything which challenges the assumption that incumbents are more or less automatically re-elected is a good thing. Also, silly liberal scumbag that I am, I think the people actually get to choose who their senator is. Even if they occasionally read a blog. I must be a terrorist.

    Darrell: have you heard that Clinton was responsible for the attacks on 9/11? Yep, Tweetie said so on MSNBC. It must be true (even though he left office 9 months earlier). I’m disappointed that you haven’t been parroting this information. How he worked behind the scenes to suppress the evidence that an attack was being prepared. He did it all for blowjobs. Sick bastard.
    One more thing, Gruppenfuhrer. Which army are we going to use when we invade Iran? The one in your pants?

  162. 162
    Zifnab says:

    DPRK’s graphite-moderated nuclear power plants, which could easily produce weapons grade plutonium, would be replaced with light water reactor (LWR) power plants by a target date of 2003.

    I fail to see why this would be a problem. On the contrary, replacing North Korea’s bomb making reactors with non-bomb making reactors seems the epitomy of common sense.

    So far, the Bush response to North Korea has been “let China and Russia take the lead” and since China likes North Korea and Russia doesn’t feel overly threatened, the talks don’t go far. What’s more, after the Iraq Debacle, our President’s talks of disarmorment ring rather hollow. When a country doesn’t have WMDs we invade. When a country might have WMDs we talk about invading but generally drag our feet. When a country does have WMDs we let Russia and China handle it.

    Sounds to me like Kim Jong Il knows exactly what he’s doing. What’s more the Bush Doctrine seems to spell out to every foreign country the world over that if you want respect from the US, you better start building nukes. At this rate, I’m surprised Mexico hasn’t started going for the bomb.

  163. 163
    Perry Como says:

    Linky-poo

    Incidentally, on November 7, 2001, BBC TV and the Guardian of London reported that the Bush administration had thwarted investigations of Dr Khan.

    According to that report, the National Security Agency stymied the probe of Khan Research Laboratories. The Central Intelligence Agency and other agents could not investigate the spread of Islamic bombs through Pakistan because funding appeared to originate from Saudi Arabia.

  164. 164
    Darrell says:

    So, you think that diplomacy hasn’t been working.

    I think the disastrous results of diplomatic efforts with North Korea are pretty well out there for all to see. Beginning in the early 1990’s (and before?), the N. Koreans have been breaking their word. I’d like to see the left admit that with some countries, especially batshit dictatorships such as North Korea and Iran (“we must eliminate the Zionists”), that diplomacy not only isn’t the ‘miracle cure’, it can be downright harmful to our national security, as it buys time for our enemies to dig in and develop and sell more weapons. In the case of Iran, they sponsor terrorism around the globe.

    I am looking for some acknowledgement that diplomatic efforts with both North Korea and Iran have been failures, and that these failures are not the fault of George W. Bush. But I don’t see ANY on the left here willing to acknowledge this.

  165. 165
    Krista says:

    Darrell – okay. So I’ll put your question back to you. What should be done about North Korea? You feel that they cannot be negotiated with, and that diplomatic efforts have failed. Is the only alternative military action? Where will you get the resources for a project of that scope? And is there perhaps some unexplored option other than negotiations, war, or doing nothing?

  166. 166
    Perry Como says:

    it can be downright harmful to our national security, as it buys time for our enemies to dig in and develop and sell more weapons

    Whereas the policy of calling a country names and going “thhhhptt!” is Strong. Smart. Successful. Savvy. Sibilance. Sibilance.

  167. 167
    Nutcutter says:

    But I don’t see ANY on the left here willing to acknowledge this.

    Why would that be?

    Could it be that the man has fucked everything he’s touched for five and half years, and never takes responsibility for anything? Could it be because you do this phony Bush-does-no-wrong act in here all the time? Could it be because you display a dismissive and insulting attitude toward the posters here? Could it be that after five and half years, it might be time to start having some accountability and fewer excuses?

    Or could it be that you are posting in a place where nobody likes you, thinks you are horse’s ass, is sick of your bullshit and your act, and wouldn’t give you an inch of ground if your fucking life depended on it?

    What do you think, Darrell?

    Aw, never mind. Who cares what you think?

  168. 168
    Krista says:

    Forgot to ask:

    Where will you get the resources for a project of that scope?

    …without resorting to the draft?

  169. 169
    Darrell says:

    On the contrary, replacing North Korea’s bomb making reactors with non-bomb making reactors seems the epitomy of common sense

    Except North Korea never dismantled their previous nuclear weapons development. It was a one-sided deal. THAT is the point. Uncle sucker (US) helps them build nuclear facilities and gives them lots of free oil, and the North Koreans continue nuclear development behind our backs, breaking all their promises.

  170. 170
    John S. says:

    I am looking for some acknowledgement that diplomatic efforts with both North Korea and Iran have been failures, and that these failures are not the fault of George W. Bush. But I don’t see ANY on the left here willing to acknowledge this.

    I am looking for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but I don’t see ANY on the right willing to help.

  171. 171
    Pooh says:

    My question is why the Senator jackaloped a topic that was actually good for him. I mean he could actually point to the Jane Hamsher’s of John Cole’s fever dreams (Schadenfreudeberry wine will do that, buddy) and say “typical leftist m00b4tz kook” and be closer to correct than at any time than (without doing any research) the last 25 threads in which he has invaded.

  172. 172
    Nutcutter says:

    Bush’s Iraq Adventure Falling Apart

    C’mon Darrell, how about a post about how well things are going in Iraq today?

  173. 173
    demimondian says:

    Strong. Smart. Successful. Savvy. Sibilance. Sibilance.

    The technical name for that particular linguistic device is “assonance”. Appropriate alternative apprehensions of the word are left as an exercise for the reader.

  174. 174
    demimondian says:

    I am looking for some acknowledgement that diplomatic efforts with both North Korea and Iran have been failures, and that these failures are -not-completely the fault of George W. Bush _and his administration_.

    Fixed.

  175. 175
    jg says:

    and the North Koreans continue nuclear development behind our backs, breaking all their promises.

    Behind our backs? The old material was under seal, watched by the UN. When he broke the seal and started reprocessing it was very much out in the open and it all happened when Bush dropped the ball passed to him from Clinton. No matter how you feel about Clintons solution it was always a stopgap and Bush screwed the pooch when it was his turn to work the problem. Under Bush 1 N. Korea starts making nukes, Clinton stops this. Its going again under Bush 2 but its Clntons fault.

    A crying baby wanted a lollipop. Clinton at least gave him a pacifier, Bush says let him cry he’s evil anyway.

  176. 176
    Nutcutter says:

    >….Greenspan’s rather ham-handed effort to get [homeowners] to go for ARMs, is a sign not of the chairman’s own eccentricity or advanced age, but, instead, of the economy’s current unsteadiness. Greenspan knows, perhaps better than anyone, that this economy is perched nervously on top of a wobbly, Dr. Seuss-like tower. Our recovery is propped up by consumer spending, which is in turn propped up by mortgage refinancing, and if that refinancing dries up before more props can be put in, the whole edifice could fall. “Since long-term interest rates cannot fall low enough to facilitate another wave of fixed-rate refinancings, he is trying to encourage homeowners to refinance one last time: fixed to ARM,” Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital in Los Angeles told the San Francisco Chronicle.

    Greenspan recommended one last wave of refinancings, hoping against hope that things would turn out OK. If they didn’t, of course, we’d not only get a recession, but millions of people who took his advice would end up broke because they couldn’t afford the payments on their homes — payments that Greenspan of all people knew perfectly well were dead certain to rise.

    Kevin Drum.

    Andrea Mitchell’s husband, a lying, manipulative cocksucker who would stick it to the middle class to prop up his empire. Who knew that these powerful people would stoop to such things?

    Anyone? Hands?

  177. 177
    JDRhoades says:

    The “mainstream of the country” doesn’t pay that much attention to this stuff.

    Most people are not as obsessively self-referential as those of us who inhabit the blahsphere.

    Bingo. The only people who even know who Jane Hamsher or Deb Frisch are right here in blogland. And I doubt that a lot of the ones who do know even care. Frankly, I tend to just scroll right by blogger v. blogger pissing matches, whehther they be on the right or the left, and I don’t think I’m alone in this.

    Hamsher “influential?” Pfft. I read a lot of blogs. I myself blog. And until this fake-outrage fiesta *I* didn’t even know who the hell she was. And even now, all I know about this Frisch person is that she said something nasty to someone and everybody got their panties in a wad, which is pretty damn rich considering what the rest of the Internet is like.

  178. 178
    Perry Como says:

    The technical name for that particular linguistic device is “assonance”.

    Quite fitting name as it’s the perfect mic test for wingnut podcasting.

  179. 179
    jg says:

    I am looking for some acknowledgement that diplomatic efforts with both North Korea and Iran have been failures, and that these failures are not the fault of George W. Bush. But I don’t see ANY on the left here willing to acknowledge this.

    How could they be anyones else’s fault? He’s president now. He’s in charge. Those countries are reacting to his policies not a previous presidents. Just because we have had problems with these countries going back decades and administrations doesn’t in anyway change that they are acting now based on the situation as it is now. Clinton stopped being involved 6 years ago, its Bush now.

  180. 180
    Perry Como says:

    Who knew that these powerful people would stoop to such things?

    For being a Randian, Greespan loved him some money supply inflation.

  181. 181
    Darrell says:

    Is the only alternative military action? Where will you get the resources for a project of that scope? And is there perhaps some unexplored option other than negotiations, war, or doing nothing?

    Well, there comes a point after years of talk and carrots, that a ‘reality based’ person finally needs to acknowledge “this ain’t working”. I hope we can agree that there is a time for talk and a time for action. It’s not an either/or thing.

    Leftists have posted on this thread that China is North Korea’s “friend”. From what I’ve read, these leftists are wrong, in that China is fed up with supporting this particular friend. If China can be convinced to pull the plug on their support of North Korea, that would put a lot of pressure on N. Korea, as they are not self sufficient.

    If that doesn’t work, then I see no other alternative other than military response (do you?), the next time N. Korea lobs missiles over Japan or toward other neighbors. Maybe even a preemptive strike to destroy nuclear development facilities. We’ve got what, 20k troops on Korean soil now backed by several hundred thousand S. Korean troops with many more in reserves (military service is mandatory in S. Korea) + Japan + other regional allies.

    That would be the last choice, but not the worst outcome.

  182. 182
    Steve says:

    No matter how you feel about Clintons solution it was always a stopgap and Bush screwed the pooch when it was his turn to work the problem.

    One of the fundamental disagreements at work in this thread is whether stopgap measures are a “success” or a “failure.”

  183. 183
    Nutcutter says:

    In its lead story August 1, the Hebrew edition of Ha’aretz online reported that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) claim that Hezbollah missile launchers and Hezbollah fighters were in and around the building in Qana which they shelled early Sunday morning was false.

    Oddly, this article, which points to Israeli culpability and recklessness in what some are calling the IDF’s second massacre in Qana (the first was in 1996), has been largely ignored in the international press.

    According to the newspaper, the IDF “decided to attack houses in a specific radius of a place that was used in the past to launch missiles.” The article states that the tactic of choosing buildings as targets that are near areas from which rockets were launched in the past has been used before.

    Initially, Israeli military sources had reported that the deaths in Qana where caused not by the Israeli air attack early Sunday morning, but by an accidental explosion, many hours later, of Hezbollah ordnance that was stored inside the building. According to the Ha’aretz article, this is not true. Israeli Air Force sources have admitted, according to Ha’aretz, that the deaths in Qana where caused by the Israeli shelling. Between 30 and 60 deaths were reported as a result of the building collapse. Many bodies are still believed to be buried beneath the rubble.

    From the antiwar.com blog.

    Just like I said. Careful, “pinpoint” targeting aimed at avoiding civilian casualties? No. Careless, shotgun targeting done without regard to civilian casualties.

    Those motherfuckers have been lying to you all along.

    Killing children in their sleep, and then lying to you about it. It’s a nice picture, isn’t it?

  184. 184
    jg says:

    One of the fundamental disagreements at work in this thread is whether stopgap measures are a “success” or a “failure.”

    Both. Success if they get teh other party to stop doing something. Failure if someone later drops the ball and everything reverts back to previous state.

  185. 185
    Perry Como says:

    One of the fundamental disagreements at work in this thread is whether stopgap measures are a “success” or a “failure.”

    And despite that, I think we can all agree that name calling is the best course of action. North Korea walks funny!

  186. 186
    JDRhoades says:

    One of the fundamental disagreements at work in this thread is whether stopgap measures are a “success” or a “failure.”

    As the American Duct Tape Council tells us: All solutions are temporary anyway.

  187. 187
    Perry Como says:

    Now that I think about, we should make Jeff Goldstein the ambassador to North Korea. After a few days of cock slapping and naughty place touching, North Korea will be begging to dismantle their nuclear weapons.

  188. 188
    jg says:

    If China can be convinced to pull the plug on their support of North Korea, that would put a lot of pressure on N. Korea, as they are not self sufficient.

    If N. Korea collapses or we invade, they will be an enormous refugee movement from N. Korea into China. China doesn’t want that. China’s ‘friend of foe’ status wrt N. Korea is fluid.

  189. 189
    Nutcutter says:

    Growing “Threat” of Civil War in Iraq?

    I think what they mean is, a growing threat that the news media will start calling it a civil war, which it has been for some time now.

    Especially, a threat that this could happen well before election day.

  190. 190
    Cyrus says:

    The Pirate Says:
    I would like to express my amazement that during the time I opened the comment box, took a dump, made myself a sandwich, wrote the comment and posted it this thread went from a discussion of the post to a bitter foreign policy argument. Will wonders never cease?

    Clearly, you’re new here. :)

    The Pirate Says:
    Speaking as a liberal I can’t stand most lefty blogs that try to be funny because generally they have the combined comic chops of the Wayans Brothers, post-”In Living Color”. Apparently Jane thought this was some kind of edgy satire but in reality it just looks really fucking lame.

    Ahhh, I take that as a challenge. The linked Norbizness post was the funniest damn thing I’ve seen in months.

  191. 191
    JDRhoades says:

    Israeli Air Force sources have admitted, according to Ha’aretz, that the deaths in Qana where caused by the Israeli shelling.

    Damn that liberal Israeli Air Force!

  192. 192
    Nutcutter says:

    “We can persevere in Iraq, or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home,” said Mr. Rumsfeld

    Don Rumsfeld is now taking his talking points from Darrell.

  193. 193
    Darrell says:

    The old material was under seal, watched by the UN

    I know that some of the material was under seal, I don’t know how much. The North Koreans had already successfully done enrichment in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. But N. Korea was moving full steam with the missile launch delivery systems development and testing, as well as acquiring uranium enrichment equipment. I believe they also had underground development and enrichment facicilities not ‘under seal’, but I’d have to look that up to verify sources.

  194. 194
    Krista says:

    Well, there comes a point after years of talk and carrots, that a ‘reality based’ person finally needs to acknowledge “this ain’t working”. I hope we can agree that there is a time for talk and a time for action. It’s not an either/or thing.

    I do agree that there is a time for talk and a time for action. My major concern is that there may be those who are eager for action, but who are:

    1. being overly optimistic when laying their plans for action.
    2. not fully thinking through the possible consequences of action.

    When talking “action”, we’re talking about warfare. And if more American soldiers are going to risk dying, then they deserve a hell of a lot better than some half-assed, overly optimistic plan.

    Leftists have posted on this thread that China is North Korea’s “friend”. From what I’ve read, these leftists are wrong, in that China is fed up with supporting this particular friend. If China can be convinced to pull the plug on their support of North Korea, that would put a lot of pressure on N. Korea, as they are not self sufficient.

    That’s a big gamble. Is China fed up enough for such a dramatic move? There’s a big difference between being fed up with an ally and severing the relationship with them. Being fed up costs nothing. Severing the relationship — that’s a pretty large leap, IMHO.

    (Can someone please tell me why, everytime I write IMHO, I always want to write IHOP instead? Is it an obsession with pancakes?)

  195. 195
    Nutcutter says:

    this thread went from a discussion of the post to a bitter foreign policy argument.

    A foreign policy argument in which Bill Clinton is the main figure.

  196. 196
    srv says:

    The technical name for that particular linguistic device is “assonance”.

    No, cognitive assonance.

  197. 197
    JDRhoades says:

    I think what they mean is, a growing threat that the news media will start calling it a civil war, which it has been for some time now.

    More like a gang war, actually. As far as I can tell, there’s no organized objective. Everybody’s just whacking everybody else for revenge or just for being with the wrong crew.

  198. 198
    Nutcutter says:

    General Pace sounded the same theme: “Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation.”

    Translation: If you get sick of our bullshit after five years, and stop believing every lie we tell you, then we’ll blame you when the thing fails. We’re Republicans, that’s what we do.

  199. 199
    Darrell says:

    Israeli Air Force sources have admitted, according to Ha’aretz, that the deaths in Qana where caused by the Israeli shelling.

    Damn that liberal Israeli Air Force!

    Do you have a link? Because as of 2 days ago, IAF and IDF said this:

    It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

    The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

    The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike

  200. 200
    Perry Como says:

    Is it an obsession with pancakes?

    On bunnies!

  201. 201
    JDRhoades says:

    General Pace sounded the same theme: “Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation.”

    Translation: If you get sick of our bullshit after five years, and stop believing every lie we tell you, then we’ll blame you when the thing fails. We’re Republicans, that’s what we do.

    Hey, it worked after Vietnam.

  202. 202
    Punchy says:

    I would like to express my amazement that during the time I opened the comment box, took a dump, made myself a sandwich, wrote the comment and posted it this thread went from a discussion of the post to a bitter foreign policy argument.

    For reasons I cannot possibly explain, I find this comment to ba absolutely hilarious. I’m having problems typing I’m laughing so much…

  203. 203
    jg says:

    The North Koreans had already successfully done enrichment in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. But N. Korea was moving full steam with the missile launch delivery systems development and testing, as well as acquiring uranium enrichment equipment. I believe they also had underground development and enrichment facicilities not ‘under seal’, but I’d have to look that up to verify sources.

    You’re describing the game. That’s Kims way of staying in power, feeding his people, keeping someone from knocking him off. We know its a game. We used to send really smart people overseas to play it. Then we ‘elected’ Bush and he called game over. We don’t play anymore. We don’t recognize the needs and wants of other countries anymore. Our way or highway. No more diplomacy, just ultimatums. All the factors that led N. Korea to pursue nuclear technology still exist but we act like they don’t and pretend the most unlikely one is real and we can’t negotiate with someone who is evil.

  204. 204
    Steve says:

    Darrell Says:

    Israeli Air Force sources have admitted, according to Ha’aretz, that the deaths in Qana where caused by the Israeli shelling.

    Damn that liberal Israeli Air Force!

    Do you have a link? Because as of 2 days ago, IAF and IDF said this:

    It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

    The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

    The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike

    I’m not sure you understand you are talking about two entirely different things.

  205. 205
    Punchy says:

    humour

    DAMN YOU KRISTA!! Cease with the “u”s!!!

  206. 206
    Punchy says:

    Dammit! I meant “o”s…I’m a dumbass.

  207. 207
    Krista says:

    I would like to express my amazement that during the time I opened the comment box, took a dump, washed my hands, made myself a sandwich, wrote the comment and posted it this thread went from a discussion of the post to a bitter foreign policy argument.

    You omitted that for the sake of brevity, right?

    Right?

  208. 208
    Pooh says:

    Well, now that this thread has been Senatorial Darrelled into foreign polic land, I give you your secratary of defense:

    I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words, and you’d have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been excessively optimistic.

    Such a kidder…

  209. 209
    Darrell says:

    I’m not sure you understand you are talking about two entirely different things.

    I probably don’t.. which is why I asked for a link.

  210. 210
    Krista says:

    DAMN YOU KRISTA!! Cease with the “u”s

    /blows a raspberry at Punchy

  211. 211
    Darrell says:

    You omitted that for the sake of brevity, right?

    Yuk! but good observation. Why don’t bathroom doors all have ‘Push’ exits where you don’t have to touch the door? .. as 1/2 the people don’t wash before grabbing the handle and leaving

  212. 212
    Jim Allen says:

    Dammit! I meant “o”s…I’m a dumbass.

    You think the word is “humur”?

    You were not a dumbass the first time.

    The second time, however…..

  213. 213
    Jim Allen says:

    Oh, and Krista, Punchy’s right. It’s time you threw off those froofy British affectations. You drive on the right, you “sked-jool” your time, and you have your own beer. Let’s cut that cord completely, eh?

  214. 214

    I heard that it was The Easter Bunny’s fault.

  215. 215
    mrmobi says:

    Translation: If you get sick of our bullshit after five years, and stop believing every lie we tell you, then we’ll blame you when the thing fails. We’re Republicans, that’s what we do.

    PPgz, that’s good! Isn’t it amazing how the language being used by Administration figures sounds like Viet Nam era language? I’m going to have to go back and look up some quotes, ’cause this is like deja vu all over again.
    You can all rest easy now, because I have the solution to the whole middle-east problem. We just nuke ’em!

    Do like Randy Newman:

    Asia’s crowded,

    Europe’s too old.

    Africa is far to hot,

    and Canada’s too cold. (sorry Krista)

    South America stole our name.

    Let’s drop the big one,
    there’ll be no one left to blame us.

    Darrell, you are kidding about a war with North Korea, right? Because the last one went so well. It would be like Iraq, but with nukes, and with millions dead. Right up your alley, Gruppenfuhrer.

  216. 216
    Punchy says:

    You think the word is “humur”?

    You were not a dumbass the first time.

    The second time, however…..

    I posted, then corrected, then realized I need to re-correct the correction, as it was incorrect, but not wanting to jack the thread, I decided the correct thing was to accept my dumbass insult and go take a dump. Then wash my hands.

  217. 217
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, you are kidding about a war with North Korea, right?

    I think we should tell the North Koreans in no uncertain terms that like you leftists suggest, military action on our part is completely off the table no matter what they do.

    If North Korea launches nuclear missiles at Japan or into Seoul we can send them a stern letter, and with any luck, we could also get the UN to issue a condemnation over the ‘cycle of violence’ in that region. That’ll show ’em

  218. 218
    Steve says:

    I guess I was wrong that no one enjoys being bombed.

    Some of the long range rockets that were fired at Israel Wednesday noon landed across the Green Line, in the West Bank. The rockets fell near the Palestinian village of Pqua, in the Jenin area…

    Palestinian witnesses in the Jenin area, who noticed the rocket parts which fell between Beit Shean and Afula, said the rocket appeared to have fallen in the Gilboa area.

    A Fatah activist from Jenin added that the rocket hit was heard clearly around the city, and a spark and a flame were also clearly seen.

    The Fatah member related that local residents cheered when they heard the rocket fall and saw the resulting flames. “Even if it were to fall on our heads, it wouldn’t have spoiled our joy. All of us here are praying for Hizbullah’s success and victory,” he said.

  219. 219
    Nutcutter says:

    think we should tell the North Koreans in no uncertain terms that like you leftists suggest, military action on our part is completely off the table

    Now that is some serious assonance.

  220. 220
    Perry Como says:

    How’s that working out? North Korea stop enriching material yet? Stopped building missiles? Stopped firing those missiles into the Sea of Japan? Is North Korea less of a threat now?

  221. 221
    jg says:

    I think we should tell the North Koreans in no uncertain terms that like you leftists suggest, military action on our part is completely off the table no matter what they do.

    What military options? We can’t invade, our forces are busy, S. Korea doesn’t want war and China doesn’t want all of the norths refugees. We can’t nuke’em because we’d essentially be nuking all of Korea and part of China. The only option we have is diplomacy, string Kim along until he dies or an option for removal becomes viable. You don’t turn your back on him. Thats not how grown ups handle a situation.

  222. 222
    Pb says:

    I think we should tell the North Koreans in no uncertain terms that like you leftists suggest, military action on our part is completely off the table no matter what they do.

    Well at least that would make it official–that has more or less been Bush’s North Korea policy since at least 2002.

  223. 223
    Nutcutter says:

    I guess I was wrong that no one enjoys being bombed.

    Some profoundly crazy people over there. Remember when we were shocked that people would get dressed up and board a plane for the purpose of committing mass suicide for some fanatical cause?

    Is anyone still shocked? Does anyone really doubt that there are plenty-o-people on both sides over there who would gladly watch the world go up in flames if they thought that their nemesis would get singed.

    Now that I think of it, that describes Darrell, too.

  224. 224
    Pb says:

    jg,

    You don’t turn your back on him. Thats not how grown ups handle a situation.

    I’ve identified the flaw in your reasoning.

  225. 225
    Perry Como says:

    The only option we have is diplomacy, string Kim along until he dies or an option for removal becomes viable.

    We need to stay the course with North Korea. By calling North Korea mean names, we will break its will. Look at how much of a success the Bush policy has been. In 2000, North Korea was world power that had the Korean peninsula teetering on the edge of war. In 2006, thanks to President Bush, North Korea no longer has any nuclear weapons, ICBMs, and pretty much just has tea parties all afternoon.

    Brilliant!

  226. 226
    Punchy says:

    What military options? We can’t invade, our forces are busy,

    Darrell absolutely refuses to acknowledge this point. He refuses to answer it, refuses to admit it…just coninues, as ALL RIGHTIES DO, to keep repeating, parrot-style, “we’ll use our military”, as if we have an additional 500K guys in fatigues just standing around with guns on their shoulders bored to tears….

    Come on Darrell, for the love of CHRIST, answer this: where will you find the 2-300K troops needed to take N. Korea? Where do they come from?

    If you cannot answer this, then you’re argument is a crock.

  227. 227
    jg says:

    Remember when we were shocked that people would get dressed up and board a plane for the purpose of committing mass suicide for some fanatical cause?

    No.

    Pb Says:

    jg,

    You don’t turn your back on him. Thats not how grown ups handle a situation.

    I’ve identified the flaw in your reasoning.

    Ssshhhhh! Leading a horse to water.

  228. 228
    Richard 23 says:

    Par R mumbled to himself:

    …such as the following from Ace….

    Now, as Ace put it…

    OK, I’ll bite. Who are you talking about? Ace-Hole? Ace Frehley? Your big brother?

    And why do I care? What did Scooter and Billy have to say?

  229. 229
    Darrell says:

    Come on Darrell, for the love of CHRIST, answer this: where will you find the 2-300K troops needed to take N. Korea? Where do they come from?

    If you cannot answer this, then you’re argument is a crock.

    I guess you’re not aware that the S. Korean army has over 500,000 troops alone, not counting those in the SK air force and navy or US forces on SK soil right now.

    I’m not saying that military strikes are necessarily the best option now, but it’s stupid as hell to do what you leftists are doing in ridiculing the very possibility of military action against N. Korea.

  230. 230
    Steve says:

    Six years of the Bush Administration, and somehow, everything that’s wrong with the North Korea situation is still Clinton’s fault. If we gave him a third term, do you suppose he would ever be assigned responsibiity for anything? How about a fourth term?

    Eighteen years of Republican presidents in the last quarter-century – soon to be 20 out of 28 years – but they still blame things on Jimmy Carter. Ah, the party of personal responsibility.

  231. 231
    JDRhoades says:

    Come on Darrell, for the love of CHRIST, answer this: where will you find the 2-300K troops needed to take N. Korea? Where do they come from?

    As with Iran, “military option” here is wingnut code for “use of nuclear weapons.”

    And the rest of the world, including the nuclear capable Chinese, Russians, and Pakistanis will sit down and applaud us as the radioactive clouds drift on the wind…

  232. 232
    Darrell says:

    Six years of the Bush Administration, and somehow, everything that’s wrong with the North Korea situation is still Clinton’s fault

    If you re-read the thread, the subject of Bill Clinton was first raised by leftist “jg” in a post lecturing us on the “success” of Clinton’s policies in N. Korea.

    If you guys don’t want to talk about Clinton, then stop bringing him up yourselves.

  233. 233
    JDRhoades says:

    I guess you’re not aware that the S. Korean army has over 500,000 troops alone, not counting those in the SK air force and navy or US forces on SK soil right now.

    I guess you’re not aware that those troops are under South Korean command, not ours. And last I checked, South Korea isn’t as eager as you are to fight to the last Korean.

  234. 234
    jg says:

    If we gave him a third term,

    What do you mean ‘if’? We can’t change presidents if we’re at war, and we will be at war, thats what they do.

  235. 235
    Perry Como says:

    As with Iran, “military option” here is wingnut code for “use of nuclear weapons.”

    I think it’s actually code for, “I’m running out of cheetos, I’ll be right back.”

  236. 236
    John S. says:

    I guess you’re not aware that the S. Korean army has over 500,000 troops alone, not counting those in the SK air force and navy or US forces on SK soil right now.

    I guess you’re not aware that S. Korea isn’t going to send their troops into N. Korea unless a nuke actually is fired. The ginned up hystrionics of the Bush adminsistration aren’t enough to goad them into open warfare with a country that – up until recently – they had hoped to have some sort of reconciliation with. You do realize that there are a lot of families that span BOTH countries, right?

    But I know it is doesn’t matter…all Darrell hears from the voices in his head is WAR WAR WAR (with people other than myself doing the dying).

  237. 237
    Perry Como says:

    If you re-read the thread, the subject of Bill Clinton was first raised by leftist “jg” in a post lecturing us on the “success” of Clinton’s policies in N. Korea.

    You’re right Darrell. We should be talking about the successes of Bush’s policies with North Korea. I’ll yield the floor to the Senator.

  238. 238
    jg says:

    If you re-read the thread, the subject of Bill Clinton was first raised by leftist “jg” in a post lecturing us on the “success” of Clinton’s policies in N. Korea.

    No I didn’t. You mentioned N. Korea, I responded that Bush fucked that up and away you went from there.

    Your post:

    Darrell Says:

    The problem is that you hear the left criticise Bush and think the left feels Bush is entirely to blame and the only one to blame

    Tell us then, what are, and what were the liberal recommendations in dealing with Iran, and N. Korea for that matter, besides appeasement?

    And I’m not a leftist. Voted for one democrat in my whole life.

  239. 239
    Darrell says:

    And I’m not a leftist. Voted for one democrat in my whole life.

    Noted, but you repeatedly take leftist positions on these threads. And on this one, singing the praises of Bill Clinton’s “success” with North Korea.

  240. 240
    Helene Curtis says:

    “BTW- Do I get special bonus points for writing this whole post without using the phrase the ‘Jane Hamsher’s of the left.’”

    No, shut up. Can’t you find anything less trivial to yammer about? And by the way, plurals don’t get apostrophes.

  241. 241
    Steve says:

    If you re-read the thread, the subject of Bill Clinton was first raised by leftist “jg” in a post lecturing us on the “success” of Clinton’s policies in N. Korea.

    Who brought up Jimmy Carter, by the way? Just curious.

    The Republicans have had total control in this country for years. At some point you’re going to have to take responsibility for the results of their policy.

    By the way, don’t you guys think John Ashcroft blaming 9/11 on Jamie Gorelick was possibly the most successful jackalope of all time?

  242. 242
    JDRhoades says:

    By the way, don’t you guys think John Ashcroft blaming 9/11 on Jamie Gorelick was possibly the most successful jackalope of all time?

    One of many “WTF?” moments in Ashcroft’s testimony.

    “Did the AG just say he couldn’t do something because an AAG in the Clinton Administration said he couldn’t? Wow, those guys really WERE powerful…”

  243. 243
    jg says:

    Noted, but you repeatedly take leftist positions on these threads. And on this one, singing the praises of Bill Clinton’s “success” with North Korea.

    I don’t take leftist positions, I thake moderate positions, you can’t tell the difference. And I wasn’t singing prasies I was refuting your contention that Clinton, not Bush, is to blame for the current situation in N. Korea.

  244. 244
    Perry Como says:

    I’m still waiting for the list of Bush policy successes with North Korea, Senator.

  245. 245
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    I guess you’re not aware that the S. Korean army has over 500,000 troops alone, not counting those in the SK air force and navy or US forces on SK soil right now.

    I’m not saying that military strikes are necessarily the best option now, but it’s stupid as hell to do what you leftists are doing in ridiculing the very possibility of military action against N. Korea.

    One problem with this reasoning is the fact that Seoul is approximately 40 miles from the NK-SK demilitarized zone. The conventional artillery that the NK’s have on their side of the DMZ is more than capable of reducing Seoul to rubble in short order (and it’s been that way for years) — which is one of the reasons that SK has for a long time taken the position of attempting to work out some kind of a rapproachment with NK. In other words NK has SK by the short hairs; Seoul is essentially a hostage to the NK’s.

  246. 246
    Punchy says:

    I guess you’re not aware that the S. Korean army has over 500,000 troops alone, not counting those in the SK air force and navy or US forces on SK soil right now.

    I’m not saying that military strikes are necessarily the best option now, but it’s stupid as hell to do what you leftists are doing in ridiculing the very possibility of military action against N. Korea.

    It’s Official. You’re as dishonest as they come. We CLEARLY don’t have the military units to fight–something you STILL WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE. Yet you STILL say “it’s stupid to take the military option off the table”. WTF?

    You know, I can THREATEN to buy a Ferrari, but if I don’t have the money, does the salesman take me seriously? I could threaten to buy Microsoft, but if I don’t have the money, will Gates talk to me? So how the FUCK do you sit there and CONTINUE to claim “oh, well…we should still consider the military option” when there aint no friggin’ soliders to have????

    And nice South Korea reference. Ya know, Germany’s got an army. So does France. I bet Sri Lanka’s got some guys with killer aim and a handful of slingshots. But they dont want war. So quit trying to pretend they’ll jump to the front lines.

  247. 247
    JDRhoades says:

    I’m still waiting for the list of Bush policy successes with North Korea, Senator.

    BE patient. History will vindicate him. Besides, if we just keep showing everybody how crazy-mean we can be, Kim will knuckle under real soon now.

  248. 248
    Darrell says:

    In other words NK has SK by the short hairs; Seoul is essentially a hostage to the NK’s.

    As usual, you lefties lack balance and perspective. If N. Korea ever got into a shootout with SK, Kim Il Jung would be dead or out of power in weeks, and everybody knows it.. especially him.

    It’s bullshit to assert, as you have done, that NK holds all, or even most of the cards.

  249. 249
    Richard 23 says:

    I’m still waiting for the list of Bush policy successes with North Korea, Senator.

    I’ll yield the balance of my time.

  250. 250
    JDRhoades says:

    As usual, you lefties lack balance and perspective.

    And as usual, you wingnuts lack any connection with reality.

  251. 251
    The Easter Bunny says:

    Is it an obsession with pancakes?

    On bunnies!

    I heard that it was The Easter Bunny’s fault.

    I’m up to my tail in moose guts, trying to save you bitches from the Maple Menace, and this is the thanks I get?

    Fuck it. I’m selling my JDPM (Joint Directed Peep Munitions) technology to Kim Jong II. Choke on that candy, mofos!

  252. 252
    Darrell says:

    You know, I can THREATEN to buy a Ferrari, but if I don’t have the money, does the salesman take me seriously?

    He might if your daddy gave you the money and/or guaranteed the car loan.

    Who the hell ever said that we would have to fight North Korea all by ourselves? And you guys consider yourselves to be the reality based community, right?

  253. 253
    Darrell says:

    Besides, if we just keep showing everybody how crazy-mean we can be, Kim will knuckle under real soon now.

    I think it better to instead send him a stern letter of condemnation next time he test fires missiles outside his borders. Or offer to build him some more nuclear reactors as did one unnamed Dem administration.

    Those are the deep thinking leftist strategies which will make us safe.

  254. 254
    tBone says:

    Who the hell ever said that we would have to fight North Korea all by ourselves?

    He’s right. Let’s not forget Poland.

  255. 255
    JDRhoades says:

    Who the hell ever said that we would have to fight North Korea all by ourselves? And you guys consider yourselves to be the reality based community, right?

    Right. Which is why we don’t imagine a horde of imaginary allies ready and willing to attack NK at our command.

  256. 256
    JDRhoades says:

    He’s right. Let’s not forget Poland.

    We’ll always have Poland. Except when we don’t.

  257. 257
    jg says:

    As usual, you lefties lack balance and perspective. If N. Korea ever got into a shootout with SK, Kim Il Jung would be dead or out of power in weeks, and everybody knows it.. especially him.

    Who the hell ever said that we would have to fight North Korea all by ourselves? And you guys consider yourselves to be the reality based community, right?

  258. 258
    Richard 23 says:

    Fuck yielding my time if Darrell’s just going to fart nonsense.

    You know, I can THREATEN to buy a Ferrari, but if I don’t have the money, does the salesman take me seriously?

    He might if your daddy gave you the money….

    Have you learned to read yet double D? How stupid are you?

  259. 259
    JDRhoades says:

    Those are the deep thinking leftist strategies which will make us safe.

    As opposed to the simple minded Bush strategy that’s kept Korea from developing nukes and firing missiles?

  260. 260
    JDRhoades says:

    Have you learned to read yet double D? How stupid are you?

    There’s a well with no bottom.

  261. 261
    Perry Como says:

    Still waiting for that list of Bush successes in North Korea…

  262. 262
    Darrell says:

    As opposed to the simple minded Bush strategy that’s kept Korea from developing nukes and firing missiles?

    As I asked upthread, can you leftist simpletons come up with any concrete ideas on what we should be doing differently in N. Korea and Iran? ..other than Blame Bush(TM)?

  263. 263
    jg says:

    I think it better to instead send him a stern letter of condemnation next time he test fires missiles outside his borders.

    As opposed to doing what?

    Or offer to build him some more nuclear reactors as did one unnamed Dem administration.

    As opposed to doing what?
    BTW the nuke reactors you mentioned were non weapons grade.

  264. 264
    Perry Como says:

    As I asked upthread, can you rightist jackalope chuckers come up with any concrete successes with our current policy with North Korea? …other than Clinton Was Worse(TM)?

  265. 265
    Richard 23 says:

    Double D,

    As I asked upthread, can you leftist simpletons come up with any concrete ideas on what we should be doing differently in N. Korea and Iran? ..other than Blame Bush™?

    How about Blame Klintoon™?

  266. 266
    jg says:

    As I asked upthread, can you leftist simpletons come up with any concrete ideas on what we should be doing differently in N. Korea and Iran? ..other than Blame Bush™?

    Exactly what was done under the last president, diplomacy. Play the game. We get what we want (nukes under control) and he gets what he wants (food and oil or just a lollipop who cares).

  267. 267
    John S. says:

    As I asked upthread, can you leftist simpletons come up with any concrete ideas on what we should be doing differently in N. Korea and Iran?

    Why bother, Darrell?

    You’ve got it all figured out.

    Solution to North Korea: WAR.

    Solution to Iran: WAR.

    We’ll just fight wars with everyone as a means to resolving conflict from now on. Where we will get the money and troops obviously doesn’t register on your radar. You prefer the Republican/Underpants Gnome model for foreign policy:

    1. War
    3. Problem Solved

    It’s working out REALLY well in the theaters where it has been applied so far, don’t you think?

  268. 268
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell says:

    Who the hell ever said that we would have to fight North Korea all by ourselves?

    No one that I can see said that we would have to fight NK on our own. Maybe there are some countries willing to join us.

    Now… Who the hell said that they actuall would join us in our “Excellent Adventure Part 2: The Korean caper”?

    No one that I can see.

    So… the rational thing to do is to assume we are likely to be on own. Cuz it sure is stupid as hell can assume anyone is with us that hasn’t said they would be. Therefore… any plans that call for troops from counties that haven’t said they are sending such troops are utter crap. (which is why I suspect this actually IS the Bush administration “plan”.)

    And that, Darrell, is called… REALITY. (like it or not)

  269. 269
    Darrell says:

    We get what we want (nukes under control) and he gets what he wants (food and oil or just a lollipop who cares).

    Someone has seized control of jg’s keyboard. I don’t agree with anything you’ve written, but at least you’re making some semi-coherent arguments.

    I don’t think payoffs to batshit crazy megalomaniacs are likely to work. Kim wants the power and influence that only nukes can give him. Steve posted an article several days back about how NK refused to return to China a train which was used to rail in aid. That, in my view, is evidence of lunacy. And unfortunately, batshit crazies usually understand only force, not nuanced diplomacy.

  270. 270
    DougJ says:

    The trouble is Clinton didn’t have the guts to do what needs to be done, his relativistic moral sense made him too much of a coward to start killing Arab men at random, as J-Pod suggests.

    Make no mistake: we will only win the war on terror via genocide. If you can’t admit that, you’re mealy-mouthed wind-surfing liberal who has no place holding elected office.

  271. 271
    Perry Como says:

    “Bush’s policy has been a success because…”
    “North Korea has been dealt with successfully because…”
    “Here’s a list of the ways Bush’s North Korea policy is working…”

    Come on Senator, just fill in the blanks. Be Strong. Smart. Reality Based.

  272. 272
    John S. says:

    And unfortunately, batshit crazies usually understand only force, not nuanced diplomacy.

    Darrell unintentionally speaks the truth!

    He thought he was referring only to North Korea, but the rest of us realize that this statement also applies to him and the hawks of the Bush administration.

  273. 273
    Darrell says:

    Solution to North Korea: WAR.

    ..It’s working out REALLY well in the theaters where it has been applied so far, don’t you think?

    WWI (worked really well), WWII Japan and Germany (worked really, really well), Balkans (worked well), Afghanistan (successful so far), Iraq (too early to say)

    Give war a chance, libs. It’s got a decent track record

  274. 274
    Darrell says:

    He thought he was referring only to North Korea, but the rest of us realize that this statement also applies to him and the hawks of the Bush administration.

    And that’s why you noble reality based libs need to seize control of this country by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, just like in lib fav movie ‘V for Vendetta’. I say run with it.

  275. 275
    Richard 23 says:

    WWI worked really well all right. Killed a lot of people for a great cause. What was that about again?

  276. 276
    DougJ says:

    WWI (worked really well),

    That is, without a doubt, the most insane thing I have ever heard in my life. WWI was, quite possibly, the greatest and most unnecessary catastrophe in human history. You’d have a hard time finding a historian, liberal or conservative, who would disagree with me there.

  277. 277
    Perry Como says:

    Darrell, it’s a simple question. Just list the ways that Bush’s policy with North Korea has been a success.

    Reason 1)
    2)
    3)

    etc. Serious. Smart. Strong.

  278. 278
    DougJ says:

    Darrell: I’m going to give you a chance to take back what you said about WWI before piling on some more. I don’t think you meant it.

  279. 279
    Darrell says:

    WWI was, quite possibly, the greatest and most unnecessary catastrophe in human history.

    You could say the same about WWII.

  280. 280
    jg says:

    And unfortunately, batshit crazies usually understand only force, not nuanced diplomacy.

    Batshit crazy people don’t respond in predictable ways. You have no idea how he’ll respond to force, the worst case scenerio is unacceptable and just as likely as the best case since the person is a lunatic so why would you choose this tactic?

    Give war a chance, libs. It’s got a decent track record

    Have you read 1984?

  281. 281
    DougJ says:

    You could say the same about WWII.

    No, you fucking moron — WWII had to be fought to stop Hitler.

    WWI was fought because…essentially because the arisocracy of western europe went off its rocker.

  282. 282
    Steve says:

    Iraq (too early to say)

    Oh man!

  283. 283
    DougJ says:

    Darrell — as I’ve said, you’re not a complete idiot, so go back and read a bit about WWI. Otherwise I’m going to have to refer to your comment that “WWI worked really well” in all future correspondance with you.

  284. 284
    Darrell says:

    Libs, instead of seizing on 1 insignificant point (disagreement over WWI), concede the FACT that WAR often ends up accomplishing better results, which never could have been achieved without war.

    War has a decent track record, yet you halfwits are pretending it’s always worse than the alternatives.

    But as usual, feel free to gloss over the larger important point while focusing on insignificant details

  285. 285
    jg says:

    Libs, instead of seizing on 1 insignificant point (disagreement over WWI), concede the FACT that WAR often ends up accomplishing better results, which never could have been achieved without war.

    War has a decent track record, yet you halfwits are pretending it’s always worse than the alternatives.

    But as usual, feel free to gloss over the larger important point while focusing on insignificant details

    1984? Have you read it?

  286. 286
    Darrell says:

    No, you fucking moron—WWII had to be fought to stop Hitler.

    talk about “fucking moron” you idiot, France and England had every opportunity to nip Hitler in the bud before creating a worldwide-scale war. Not that it has anything to do with the larger point, but please feel free to obsess over insignificant details.

  287. 287
    DougJ says:

    Darrell, no, take back what you said about WWI or remain branded a lunatic.

  288. 288
    Perry Como says:

    Darrell, that list? Just rattle of the successes of Bush’s North Korean policy. Should be easy.

  289. 289
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    As usual, you lefties lack balance and perspective. If N. Korea ever got into a shootout with SK, Kim Il Jung would be dead or out of power in weeks, and everybody knows it.. especially him.

    It’s bullshit to assert, as you have done, that NK holds all, or even most of the cards.

    The NK’s don’t need to hold all of the cards. They only need to hold enough of the cards to make it seem to the SK’s that getting into a shooting match would be a really, really dumb idea. Which they do.

    Who the hell ever said that we would have to fight North Korea all by ourselves?

    Which is why you might not want to count on those 500,000 SK troops you were figuring into your plan.

  290. 290
    jg says:

    Libs, instead of seizing on 1 insignificant point (disagreement over WWI),

    and then the kettle called the pot black! Get it. LOL

  291. 291
    Darrell says:

    1984? Have you read it?

    No, not a big George Orwell fan. What’s your point?

  292. 292
    Punchy says:

    you’re mealy-mouthed wind-surfing liberal

    Why do you have to go doggin on wind-surfing for? And what the hell is “mealy-mouthed” mean?

  293. 293
    Perry Como says:

    Ahh, the honesty of Bush supporters. Discuss what a failure Clinton was then when asked a simple question about Bush, avoid, avoid, avoid. Sleek. Smooth. Jackalopish.

  294. 294
    Krista says:

    War has a decent track record, yet you halfwits are pretending it’s always worse than the alternatives.

    Regardless, that doesn’t mean that war should be entered into lightly. I won’t speak for the rest of the halfwits here, but this halfwit is very concerned that historically, the decision to go to war has been made by those who will not be risking their own lives in said war. There have been cases of war being very effective. And I think that WWII was very much justified. Because it works well in some situations, however, does not make it a one-size-fits-all answer. Each situation has to be evaluated on its own merits, and even though politicians often say that “war is a last resort” for the sole purpose of appeasing the masses, I truly believe that war really should be a last resort, only to be used with great thought and consideration put towards the consequences.

  295. 295
    DougJ says:

    Darrell really sounds like a spoof today. Between thinking WWI was a success and not being familiar with 1984, I’m starting to wonder.

  296. 296
    chriskoz says:

    Wasn’t WW1 the “war to end all wars” (or was that WW2 I can never remember) That seems to have worked wonderfully. Nope… no war after that.

    Hmmm… I wonder if there could be any other wars that we can look at that didn’t make Darrell’s list. I’m sure they would hold true to his “It’s got a decent track record” statement. I’d hate to think he was cherry picking his wars to make a bullshit point. (And some really lame cherry picking at that. Hey Darrell, leave the rotten cherries on the ground alone)

    But then, what’s the point? Any war that didn’t fit the mold is no doubt an Arab lie.

  297. 297
    Steve says:

    What’s funny is that Darrell didn’t even list the Gulf War, which I would certainly include on a list of successes.

  298. 298
  299. 299
    Evilbeard says:

    I’m not saying that military strikes are necessarily the best option now, but it’s stupid as hell to do what you leftists are doing in ridiculing the very possibility of military action against N. Korea

    Being realistic is now “stupid as hell?” It’s no secret that the US does not have the forces to commit to war unless we’re talking about invading something the size of Rhode Island.

    Pretending that isn’t true has no chance of fooling anyone.

  300. 300
    Richard 23 says:

    Darrell thinks WWI was every bit as worthwhile as WWII.
    He hasn’t bothered to read 1984 while Bush reality apes Orwell.

    The Senator is a Spoof or a complete sociopathic nightmare.

  301. 301
    Krista says:

    Perry Como Says:

    A recent Darrell sighting.

    Cute little buggers, aren’t they? No wonder they’re so distracting.

  302. 302
    Punchy says:

    concede the FACT that WAR often ends up accomplishing better results, which never could have been achieved without war.

    Yes, like Vietnam. Just think of all that crappy-ass foliage that’d still be there…all tangly and green and animal-ous…if it wasn’t for our Agent Orange.

    And just think of how busy our VA hospitals would be today if said Agent hadn’t cancer’ed-off so many soliders years later.

    So we got tree-less forests and some biz for the funeral homes…I’ll give Darrell props for that comment.

  303. 303
    Darrell says:

    Regardless, that doesn’t mean that war should be entered into lightly

    No one has suggested otherwise, and I’d appreciate it if you would be a little more careful with making accusations like that unless you have evidence to back up your assertion that anyone is taking the possibility of war “lightly”

    Because it works well in some situations, however, does not make it a one-size-fits-all answer

    I think the comments in this thread demonstrate that many on the left feel war should NEVER be an option. That mindset IMO is detached from reality

    I truly believe that war really should be a last resort, only to be used with great thought and consideration put towards the consequences

    In case you don’t know, most every ‘war mongering’ Republican would probably agree 100% with that statement.

  304. 304
    VidaLoca says:

    No, not a big George Orwell fan. What’s your point?

    Orwell was a socialist. That’s what they used to call moonbats back in the day. Case closed.

    Darrell, c’mon. Seriously. World War I?

  305. 305
    jg says:

    Darrell Says:

    1984? Have you read it?

    No, not a big George Orwell fan. What’s your point?

    I’m thinking you should read it. I think it might give you a different perspective on the issues you support. Not saying you won’t still support them but you might get a better understanding of the larger picture involved.

    Freedom is slavery
    Ignorance is strength
    War is peace

  306. 306
    Richard 23 says:

    But to be fair, Darrell’s “Give War a Chance” makes a lot of sense. There haven’t been enough successful wars lately. Let’s keep starting new conflagrations until we get it right.

  307. 307
    Perry Como says:

    What happens when you ask Darrell to list the successes of Bush’s North Korean policies?

    Run, Darrell, run!

  308. 308
    jg says:

    In case you don’t know, most every ‘war mongering’ Republican would probably agree 100% with that statement.

    Nice use of made up stats. 72.58% of the commenters here would agree with me.

  309. 309
    Steve says:

    I think the comments in this thread demonstrate that many on the left feel war should NEVER be an option.

    Show of hands.

    How many think WWII was a mistake?

    How many think invading Afghanistan was a mistake?

    For that matter, how many think the Gulf War was a mistake? I’m just trying to get some hands here, people.

  310. 310
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    In case you don’t know, most every ‘war mongering’ Republican would probably agree 100% with that statement.

    Orwell aside then, have you read Bill Kristol?

  311. 311
    jg says:

    What happens when you ask Darrell to list the successes of Bush’s North Korean policies?

    He can’t answer because its a trick question. No way Bush has more than one policy so your question is moot.

  312. 312
  313. 313
    GOP4Me says:

    Darrell thinks WWI was every bit as worthwhile as WWII.

    Well, WWI DID deprive Germany of its overseas colonies. Think about how bad WWII would’ve been if Hitler had had his hands on those!

    WWI also sparked the invention of the tank, without which victory in WWII would’ve been impossible. It also trained many of our greatest generals, who led us to victory in WWII. Plus, it killed 2 million Germans, few of whom managed to successfully produce children to fight in WWII.

    WWI accomplished the goal of making WWII easier to fight and win. WWII accomplished the goal of letting us fight WWIII with the Russkies on German territory instead of on our own backyard. WWIII accomplished the goal of letting us fight WWIV in Afghanistan and Iraq and the other Cold War playgrounds, setting up flypaper there so we didn’t have to set it up here.

    And WWIV is distracting the Canadians, so that when we conquer them in WWV, we can catch them with their pants down. If the Mexicans intervene, we’ll conquer them, too. If not, they’ll have to wait until WWVI for their comeuppance.

    You see, it’s all a seamless web of victory, with the long-term goal clearly in mind.

  314. 314
    Darrell says:

    Being realistic is now “stupid as hell?” It’s no secret that the US does not have the forces to commit to war unless we’re talking about invading something the size of Rhode Island

    If North Korea fires off more missiles, what do you think we should do? Call the UN? Please tell us your solution.

    Call me crazy, but I don’t think we should sit on our hands and do nothing, non-action which permits an openly hostile batshit crazy govt. like N. Korea to perfect missiles carrying nuclear payload, which could hit us or our allies. Yet, most leftwingnuts (Krista excepted) scream at ANY possibility of military action.

    I think you lefties need to make that position the centerpiece of your foreign policy platform in the midterm elections. Tell the electorate that under NO circumstances can we respond militarily to N. Korea. No matter what. The electorate will see the noble truth you are speaking and rally behind your message of peace. Make sure you tell everybody how you feel on this issue.

  315. 315
  316. 316
    Krista says:

    Regardless, that doesn’t mean that war should be entered into lightly

    No one has suggested otherwise, and I’d appreciate it if you would be a little more careful with making accusations like that unless you have evidence to back up your assertion that anyone is taking the possibility of war “lightly”

    Don’t start.

    That was an accusation of nothing. It was a statement, pure and simple, that war should not be entered into lightly. And, if you want to believe that all Republican politicians are so noble as to truly take that statement to heart, then I admire your lack of cynicism. I, for one, don’t believe that ANY politician, Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, takes the possibility of war anywhere near as seriously as they should, and certainly not as seriously as those who will actually have to go out and risk their lives in a war.

  317. 317
    Darrell says:

    What happens when you ask Darrell to list the successes of Bush’s North Korean policies?

    Prior to the Bush admin, our N. Korea foreign policy was “see no evil, hear no evil”. North Korea was plowing ahead with their nuke program throughout the 90’s, and doing so virtually unchallenged.. in fact, we were actually aiding and financing them.

    At least now we an administration which is not pretending that North Korea is, or was, a “success”.

  318. 318
    jg says:

    Darrell Says:

    What happens when you ask Darrell to list the successes of Bush’s North Korean policies?

    Prior to the Bush admin, our N. Korea foreign policy was “see no evil, hear no evil”. North Korea was plowing ahead with their nuke program throughout the 90’s, and doing so virtually unchallenged.. in fact, we were actually aiding and financing them.

    At least now we an administration which is not pretending that North Korea is, or was, a “success”.

    Dude, seriously you have to read 1984.

  319. 319
    Krista says:

    Show of hands.

    How many think WWII was a mistake?

    Nope

    How many think invading Afghanistan was a mistake?

    Nope. Would have been nice if you guys had stuck around, though.

    For that matter, how many think the Gulf War was a mistake? I’m just trying to get some hands here, people.

    Nope yet again.

  320. 320
    Perry Como says:

    At least now we an administration which is not pretending that North Korea is, or was, a “success”.

    So Bush’s success in dealing with North Korea is realizing that we are having no success in dealing with North Korea.

    Awesome.

  321. 321
    Darrell says:

    I, for one, don’t believe that ANY politician, Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, takes the possibility of war anywhere near as seriously as they should

    Some don’t. But going to war, even when it’s the right thing to do, is not often a politically successful idea.. ask Winston Churchill, who got tossed out by voters right after WWII.

    For that reason, I believe most politicians are usually hesitant to advocate military action. That’s not always the case of course, but I think it’s typically so.

  322. 322
    jg says:

    At least now we an administration which is not pretending that North Korea is, or was, a “success”.

    What are they pretending?

  323. 323
    Punchy says:

    And WWIV is distracting the Canadians, so that when we conquer them in WWV, we can catch them with their pants down.

    I have yet to see a Canadian save Avril that I’d like to catch with their pants down.

    Call me crazy, but I don’t think we should sit on our hands and do nothing,

    Ok, Darrell. I call Uncle. Give us YOUR plan. You’ve so dogged us for being clueless…we all want to hear your plan. And if it contains the phrase “military attack”, please, please tell us who’s military and where the soliders are coming from.

    I’m all ears. Shoot.

  324. 324
    jg says:

    For that reason, I believe most politicians are usually hesitant to advocate military action.

    And may God forgive him if he’s a democrat because he’s about to get hit with a FOX News lead right wing shitstorm.

  325. 325
    Krista says:

    I have yet to see a Canadian save Avril that I’d like to catch with their pants down

    You obviously don’t watch Battlestar Galactica, do you? Check out Tricia Helfer and Grace Park. Both lovely as can be.

  326. 326
    DougJ says:

    I have yet to see a Canadian save Avril that I’d like to catch with their pants down.

    I was just up in Canada and I was actually struck by how attractive the women were. Seriously.

  327. 327
    Krista says:

    DougJ – I hear they have really nice racks.

  328. 328
    Perry Como says:

    When I was a kid we had a family of squirrels that moved into our attic. We attempted to lure them out with food, but they would just take the food then go back into the attic. So we stopped trying to lure them out with food.

    My dad said we won the fight. See, even though the squirrels were still in the attic, we knew that luring them out with food hadn’t worked when we tried it. And knowing that trying to lure them out hadn’t worked was a victory. So we just ignored them ’cause we had already won.

    I wonder what ever happened to those squirrels?

  329. 329
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    I think you lefties need to make that position the centerpiece of your foreign policy platform in the midterm elections. Tell the electorate that under NO circumstances can we respond militarily to N. Korea. No matter what. The electorate will see the noble truth you are speaking and rally behind your message of peace. Make sure you tell everybody how you feel on this issue.

    Well, the last President that decided that a strong military response to NK was just the ticket, got his ass handed to him.

    In 1952, Harry Truman saw his job approval rating fall to a mere 22% in the Gallup Poll. By then, Truman had become mired in the Korean War. Day after day, U.S. soldiers battled the North Koreans and Chinese for control of one small hill or another, without either side winning a decisive victory. Americans tired of Truman and felt he had no plan for resolving the conflict, and they turned to Dwight D. Eisenhower — especially after the World War Two general told voters, “I shall go to Korea.”

    Any of this sound familiar?

  330. 330
    DougJ says:

    I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and I think we need to renumber the world wars. Look at the Napoleonic wars — they ranged over three continents, four if you count the related wars in the United States (battle of 1812). That’s got to be a WWI, unless we think about throwing in one of the Punic Wars into the mix. If we’re caling the current conflict in the middle east as a world war, I think you’ve got to count one of the Punic Wars, too, the more I think about it, so how about this:

    WWI — The Second Punic War
    WWII — The Napoleonic Wars
    WWIII — WWI
    WWIV — WWII
    WWV — The cold war
    WWVI — The current conflict in the middle east.

    Does that sound about right to people? Anything else we need to add?

  331. 331
    Perry Como says:

    WWVII — The jackalope comeupance

  332. 332
    DougJ says:

    Krista, speaking of Canadian women, I have a question for you: I went out a few times with a Quebecois woman (who lives in the U.S. now) and I decided to stop calling her after she told me she was a member of the Bloc Quebecois. Was I right to do that? How crazy are they?

  333. 333
    Steve says:

    I decided to stop calling her after she told me she was a member of the Bloc Quebecois. Was I right to do that? How crazy are they?

    Was her name Jenny? Jenny from the Bloc?

  334. 334
    Krista says:

    Was she a member at the time, or was it that she had been a member at one point, but no longer is now?

  335. 335
    Perry Como says:

    Jenny from the Bloc?

    :smack:

  336. 336
    DougJ says:

    How long do we have to stick with the Roman numerals for? Is it like the Super Bowl?

    I was thinking about this — maybe it is better to consider the wars that happened before the advent of air travel (which made true world wars possible) like AFL and NFL championships from the 1960s prior to the beginning of the Super Bowl. But by that measure, I’m not sure WWI was a realy world war.

  337. 337
    jg says:

    Didn’t we kick Koreas ass all the way to the border with China? I thought we had them handled until China got involved, that’s when it became a stalemate.

  338. 338
    DougJ says:

    Was she a member at the time, or was it that she had been a member at one point, but no longer is now?

    Still was.

  339. 339
    Darrell says:

    and I decided to stop calling her after she told me she was a member of the Bloc Quebecois. Was I right to do that?

    Depends.. how big were her boobs? Was she fat?

  340. 340
    VidaLoca says:

    DougJ —

    Anything else we need to add?

    Don’t forget the 30 Years’ War, 100 Years’ War, War of the Roses. And if you’re going to count the current conflict in the middle east as WWVI then you should give a nod to the Crusades too, all four of them. In the more modern era, the Franco-Prussian War.

    Actually with all the fighting going on back and forth across their back yards, it’s no wonder that they’re all a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

  341. 341
    Krista says:

    Doug – still was? Yeah…I don’t blame you for ending it, but I’m a very biased source. Strangely, I don’t like people who are trying to tear my country apart.

  342. 342
    Darrell says:

    Was her name Jenny? Jenny from the Bloc?

    Sounds like Doug’s little Quebec French cherie may have been passed around from guy to guy like a box of bonbons

  343. 343
    DougJ says:

    Those are good questions, Darrell.

  344. 344
    Perry Como says:

    How long do we have to stick with the Roman numerals for? Is it like the Super Bowl?

    We could move to hexadecimal: WW0x0A

  345. 345
    DougJ says:

    Darrell, why would you start saying things like that? What the hell is your problem?

  346. 346
    Krista says:

    Was her name Jenny? Jenny from the Bloc?

    Sounds like Doug’s little Quebec French cherie may have been passed around from guy to guy like a box of bonbons

    That wasn’t nice.

    I don’t think you got the original joke, Darrell. Bloc Quebecois? Jenny from the Bloc? He doesn’t actually know Doug’s erstwhile girlfriend, he’s just making a funny.

  347. 347
    Steve says:

    Well, maybe I do. Do you have more than one Jenny in Canada?

  348. 348
    demimondian says:

    We could move to hexadecimal: WW0×0A

    I’m looking forward to WW0xDEADBEEF, myself.

  349. 349
    Punchy says:

    DougJ – I hear they have really nice racks.

    POTD candidate. Partially cuz it’s penned by a chick/woman/girl/covering all bases….

  350. 350
    chriskoz says:

    I forget…. was the last Korean war on Darrells list of wars with a “decent track record” or was it just an Arab lie.

    I noticed that Vietnam didn’t make the list, but that one was definitly an Arab lie.

  351. 351
    Perry Como says:

    Or even WW0xCAFEBABE, keeping with the Canadian theme.

  352. 352
    Steve says:

    I noticed that Vietnam didn’t make the list, but that one was definitly an Arab lie.

    I would have put Vietnam on the list of successes, since we would have won if it wasn’t for the libs. Alternatively, at least it’s in the “too soon to tell” category.

  353. 353
    John S. says:

    I think the comments in this thread demonstrate that many on the left feel war should NEVER be an option. That mindset IMO is detached from reality

    I would say the comments characterize how many SANE people are opposed to Darrell’s views. Because I think the comments in this thread demonstrate that Darrell feels war should ALWAYS be an option. And they should ALWAYS be the option you go to after “diplomacy” (China, you want to reign North Korea in, right?) fails. Which it will. Because you’re dealing with “those” people.

    That mindset IMHO is detached from reality.

  354. 354
    demimondian says:

    Or even WW0xCAFEBABE, keeping with the Canadian theme.

    Yeah, but you know, geeks, they wouldn’t know what to do with a pattern like that.

    Besides, it’d show up as WW0xBEBAFECA on a Sun or a PPC Mac, and then *no one* would know what to do with it.

  355. 355
    Darrell says:

    Jenny from the Bloc? He doesn’t actually know Doug’s erstwhile girlfriend, he’s just making a funny.

    You mean Steve doesn’t really know her? I’ve been duped?

    Steve Says:

    Well, maybe I do. Do you have more than one Jenny in Canada?

    Good point. After all, how many girls named Jenny could there be in Quebec who can speak French? My money’s riding on Steve having nailed Doug’s girlfriend.. which is the real reason she and Doug broke up.

  356. 356
    John S. says:

    Alternatively, at least it’s in the “too soon to tell” category.

    Yes, we need more “history” to pass before that situation can be judged accurately through the lens of a generation that comes much, much later. Preferably one that doesn’t co-exist with people that have a first-hand perspective to share.

  357. 357
    Steve says:

    I’ve only slept with 2 Canadian girls, neither of whom belonged to the Bloc Quebecois, so we can put that rumor to rest. Although they both had strong separatist tendencies, if you know what I mean.

  358. 358
    John S. says:

    Although they both had strong separatist tendencies, if you know what I mean.

    Of course they would.

    Separatists always go for extremists.

  359. 359
    John Cole says:

    Ok. The last comments are about sleeping with canadian girls. Does anyone care to tell me how we got there without me reading all 400 comments?

  360. 360
    Perry Como says:

    I’ve only slept with 2 Canadian girls

    Wow, you slept with all the women in Canada?

  361. 361
    Darrell says:

    Although they both had strong separatist tendencies, if you know what I mean

    I’m sure there was a clever joke there which went over my head.

  362. 362
    John S. says:

    Ok. The last comments are about sleeping with canadian girls. Does anyone care to tell me how we got there without me reading all 400 comments?

    Comments about the topic > Darrell > N.Korea/Iran > Foreign Policy > Wars > Canadian Girls

    Makes perfect sense.

  363. 363
    Steve says:

    Does anyone care to tell me how we got there without me reading all 400 comments?

    We went by way of North Korea and Iraq, like every other thread. Except this time we found an exit strategy, if you know what I mean.

  364. 364
    jg says:

    Am I the only one who knows Jenny from the Bloc is a J-Lo song?

  365. 365
    Darrell says:

    Ok. The last comments are about sleeping with canadian girls. Does anyone care to tell me how we got there without me reading all 400 comments?

    No good reason, just happened.

  366. 366
    Perry Como says:

    Comments about the topic > Darrell > N.Korea/Iran > Foreign Policy > Wars > Canadian Girls

    The comments section of BJ is a blog version of Exquisite Corpse.

  367. 367
    Steve says:

    I’m sure there was a clever joke there which went over my head.

    It’s possible. Here is an informative link on the subject.

  368. 368
    Nutcutter says:

    Ok, Darrell. I call Uncle. Give us YOUR plan.

    Darrell established a long time ago that he doesn’t actually have to have a plan for anything, or actually know anything, in order to talk trash about it.

    His job is to make righty noise. That’s what John pays him for. Page views. It’s all about the page views.

  369. 369
    jg says:

    Ok. The last comments are about sleeping with canadian girls. Does anyone care to tell me how we got there without me reading all 400 comments?

    I guess split personalities aren’t aware of each others actions.

  370. 370
    Steve says:

    Am I the only one who knows Jenny from the Bloc is a J-Lo song?

    If you were the only one, it would make my joke particularly baffling.

  371. 371
    Perry Como says:

    Tracing the thread back, it seems to have started with pantsless Canadians. Er, don’t ask.

  372. 372
    Steve says:

    His job is to make righty noise. That’s what John pays him for. Page views. It’s all about the page views.

    Thus enriching the coffers of his corporate masters, to be sure. Have they revolutionized the Internet yet?

  373. 373
    jg says:

    Steve Says:

    Am I the only one who knows Jenny from the Bloc is a J-Lo song?

    If you were the only one, it would make my joke particularly baffling.

    Why I didn’t write ‘only one but Steve’ is a mystery. Is a mistake like that enough to ruin my credibility in the eyes of the right wing blogoshere?

  374. 374
    Nutcutter says:

    TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel’s military yesterday concluded that the strike on a residential building in Qana, Lebanon, was the result of an intelligence failure: that the Jewish state’s air force did not know that civilians were in the building at the time.

    Israel has observed how successful the American approach is here. No WMDs in Iraq? Bad intelligence.

    Colossal fuckup? Bad intelligence.

    Thousands dead, America not safer? Bad intelligence.

    Children bombed in their sleep? Bad intelligence.

    Look, bad intelligence has always been a part of war. If you are going to take away bad intelligence, how are we going to defend ourselves? Do we have to stop and ask “Is this good intelligence?” every time we start a war or make an attack?

  375. 375
    Nutcutter says:

    Ok. The last comments are about sleeping with canadian girls

    At last, our dreams are coming true.

  376. 376
    demimondian says:

    The comments section of BJ is a blog version of Exquisite Corpse.

    Damn, now *that* is funny.

  377. 377
    Richard 23 says:

    Sorry for going offtopic on y’all but this is not a jackalope.

    Heat converts Bush ally Robertson on global warming

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said on Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States had converted him into a believer in global warming.

    The view put him at odds with fellow Republican President George W. Bush, who has benefited politically from Robertson’s backing and who has refused to embrace the concept of human-caused global warming.

    “We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels,” Robertson said on his “700 Club” broadcast. “It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air.”

    So all it took was a really hot day? What a freak. I hope this conversion lasts longer than a popsicle in the current heat wave.

  378. 378
    Nutcutter says:

    Just goes to show you what an idiot Robertson is. Global warming isn’t about a hot day. A hot day is weather. Climate and weather are just a little different.

    Of course, in order for the peabrains to understand the difference between climate and weather, they would have to learn about what global warming is really all about, so I guess that’s a good thing in its backward way. So let them think that a hot day is about global warming.

  379. 379
    Krista says:

    Ok. The last comments are about sleeping with canadian girls. Does anyone care to tell me how we got there without me reading all 400 comments?

    It’s very easy. GOP4Me mentioned that WWVI would be easy, because the Canadians would be caught with their pants down. Punchy said he’d like to see Avril with her pants down, I said that Canadian chicks have great racks, and it all went downhill from there.

    Just be happy we’re all being civil for once, dammit.

  380. 380

    Heat converts Bush ally Robertson on global warming

    Well that settles it. Global Warming is now a dead issue for Democrats, as none of us want to be associated with that freakshow.

  381. 381
    John S. says:

    TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel’s military yesterday concluded that the strike on a residential building in Qana, Lebanon, was the result of an intelligence failure: that the Jewish state’s air force did not know that civilians were in the building at the time.

    Darrell? Paul L.? Yoo hoo, anybody there?

    It was faked, right? Another Jenin?

  382. 382
    Punchy says:

    I see this headline:

    Heat converts Bush ally Robertson on global warming

    …and instantly pictured Shaq and Wade going over ocean temperature graphs and CO2 readings with the Good Preacher…

  383. 383
    Nutcutter says:

    Global Warming is now a dead issue for Democrats, as none of us want to be associated with that freakshow.

    Good point. Righties have power they don’t even know about.

    Obviously, they haven’t noticed their effect on the popularity of George Bush.

  384. 384
    chriskoz says:

    Obviously Israel’s military is now pushing Arab lies.

  385. 385
    Nutcutter says:

    Robertson’s new cable channel:

    The 700 Degree Club

  386. 386
    demimondian says:

    Global Warming is now a dead issue for Democrats, as none of us want to be associated with that freakshow.

    It may well be, even ignoring the idea of agreeing with Robertson about anything important. It depends on how fast the Republican party “gets the Gospel” on the issue — fast, and a powerful issue is diffused, slow, and the evangelical vote splits. I’m hoping for fast and sincere, myself. It would make the world a better place. Second to that, I’ll settle for slow. Fasst and insincere…not so much.

  387. 387
    Andrew says:

    My 2c:
    French Canadian chicks have very hot accents. During world war WW0xEBABEFAC (64bit power chip), I plan on occupying Montreal.

  388. 388
    DougJ says:

    Although they both had strong separatist tendencies, if you know what I mean.

    Ha ha ha ha! I like this joke.

  389. 389
    demimondian says:

    Although they both had strong separatist tendencies, if you know what I mean.

    Ha ha ha ha! I like this joke.

    Good. Can you explain it to me?

  390. 390
    demimondian says:

    Although they both had strong separatist tendencies, if you know what I mean.

    Ha ha ha ha! I like this joke.

    Good. Can you explain it to me?

  391. 391
    DougJ says:

    Good. Can you explain it to me?

    I’d rather not, but what two things do you think they might be separating?

    I feel like I’m in junior high here.

  392. 392
    Ned Raggett says:

    Haven’t checked in in a while.

    *scrolls through thread*

    Hm. So Jane Hamsher is a conniving wretch and Darrell is a strutting ignoramus, and neither conclusion is surprising. I do like the occasional reminder why I never joined a political party, actually.

    To John and Tim — keep up the good work and keep your sanity.

  393. 393

    Neat, the Lieberman plan of hiring Republicans to support his campaign has apparently been successful.

    Problem is, they’re acting like Republicans instead of Democrats and I’m not sure how this is going to help them in the primary.

  394. 394
    chopper says:

    As usual, you lefties lack balance and perspective. If N. Korea ever got into a shootout with SK, Kim Il Jung would be dead or out of power in weeks, and everybody knows it.. especially him.

    and as usual, you rightists lack a grasp of reality so you change the subject. these predictions of the aftermath of a war betwwen south and north korea is just wankery.

    the thing is, SK does not want to go to war with NK and will avoid it at all costs. even if the US gets a hard on to attack NK over its nuke program, SK will not want to be a part of that.

    so unless the US can somehow pull of some crazy move to convince SK to fight NK, which is unlikely, i don’t see the US attacking NK out of the blue with the aid of SK.

    for us, the ‘military option’ really isn’t on the table due to a lack of troops; the only way we’d be getting involved militarily is if a war started between the north and south on its own. we don’t run the SK army.

  395. 395
    John S. says:

    for us, the ‘military option’ really isn’t on the table due to a lack of troops

    You leftist kook.

    Advocating taking something off the table that isn’t even on the table to begin with…

    That’s why nobody will take you seriously on foreign policy!

  396. 396

    Around The Sphere August 5, 2006

    Our periodic linkfest offering you links from sites of VARYING opinions. Posts linked do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or the…

  397. 397

    […] “Apparently, our enemies are the Klingons.” —LITBMueller, in response to a threadjack on John Cole’s shadenfreude article […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] “Apparently, our enemies are the Klingons.” —LITBMueller, in response to a threadjack on John Cole’s shadenfreude article […]

  2. Around The Sphere August 5, 2006

    Our periodic linkfest offering you links from sites of VARYING opinions. Posts linked do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or the…

Comments are closed.