I Read The Powerline So You Don’t Have To

Today they are in a tiff because Ford had opinions on the Iraq War:

Ford told Woodward not to publish his views until after his death, but apparently said once he died they could be published at any time. It’s easy to understand the first part of the decision — why would Ford, at his age, want to participate in a contentious policy debate? But Ford has been criticized for not telling Woodward to wait until, say, the end of the Bush administration to reveal his views. Either Ford felt strongly enough about the matter that he wanted his opinion in the mix sooner rather than later (but not so soon that he would become embroiled in the debate) or he didn’t think things through very carefully.

JOHN adds: I would group this together with the Jeffrey Hart story Scott discusses below, under the heading “elderly apostates.” I find it interesting that many on the left who viewed Professor Hart’s work over his entire adult life with contempt, now cite him as a sort of sage when he criticizes President Bush. Likewise with Gerald Ford. Out of public life for a quarter-century and aged ninety, his views on the Iraq war are not especially noteworthy, except insofar as they can be used to discredit the present administration. If Ford had endorsed Bush’s Iraq policy in his interview with Bob Woodward, would we ever have heard about it? I doubt it.

Shorter Powerline: Ford’s opinions should be ignored, because, if in some alternate universe, he had favored the war, the liberal media would not have reported it.

Bill Bennett is also in a huff because Ford voicing his opinions was indecent:

Since “decency” seems to be the watchword of the day and the consensus modifier for Jerry Ford (a view with which I generally concur), may I nevertheless be permitted to ask this: just how decent, how courageous, is what Jerry Ford did with Bob Woodward? He slams Bush & Cheney to Woodward in 2004, but asks Woodward not to print the interview until he’s dead. If he felt so strongly about his words having a derogatory affect, how about telling Woodward not to run the interview until after Bush & Cheney are out of office? The effect of what Ford did is to protect himself, ensuring he can’t be asked by others about his critiques, ensuring that there can be no dialogue. The way Ford does it with Woodward, he doesn’t have to defend himself…he simply drops it into Bob Woodward’s tape recorder and let’s the bomb go off when fully out of range, himself. This is not courage, this is not decent.

Bennett then goes on to offer up some more “manly” options (paging the General, himself an 11 on the scale of manly), all of which are absurd. At any rate, the reason Ford did not speak out is because all of the aforementioned blowhards would have savaged him for not keeping his opinions to himself, as former President’s are ‘supposed to do’. I think we can all agree that had Ford come out against the war, these same knuckleheads would have called him Jimmy Carter Ford or the like.

As every day passes, it becomes clearer and clearer that the GOP needs to be destroyed, purged, and rebuilt from the ground up. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition, I say.






228 replies
  1. 1
    Zifnab says:

    Praise the lord and pass the ammunition, I say.

    Amen.

    I find it interesting that many on the left who viewed Professor Hart’s work over his entire adult life with contempt, now cite him as a sort of sage when he criticizes President Bush. Likewise with Gerald Ford. Out of public life for a quarter-century and aged ninety, his views on the Iraq war are not especially noteworthy, except insofar as they can be used to discredit the present administration.

    Shorter Powerline: “Conservative sources should not be used against conservatives to illustrate exactly how fair we’ve fallen off our high horses and lofty ideals. This is because liberals are not allowed to speak.”

  2. 2
    Darrell says:

    Bennett then goes on to offer up some more “manly” options (paging the General, himself an 11 on the scale of manly), all of which are absurd

    Ah yes, the utter absurdity

    The manly or more decent options are these: 1. Say it to Bush’s or Cheney’s face and allow them and us to engage the point while you’re around, or 2. Far more decently, say nothing critical of Bush will be on the record until his presidency is over. There’s a 3. Don’t say anything critical of George Bush to Bob Woodward at all.

    I agree with Bennett that it was a poor choice by Ford to handle it like that. He drops a stink bomb, and no one can engage his points without appearing to disparage someone who just died. Maybe he didn’t intend to be so chickenshit about it, but it was definitely a chickenshit move.

  3. 3
    ThymeZone says:

    Bill Bennett, the fat pompous fake lying piece of crap some people defended assiduously here not that long ago?

    The one who writes books and does a radio show and just happened to throw out a racially charged suggestion one day but meant nothing by it and anybody who said otherwise must be crazy or sick? You know, the guy whose speech is his livlihood and just happened to make up and broadcast an elaborate gaffe that was just a complete mistake and anyone who thought otherwise must just be nuts?

    That Bill Bennett?

    Oh, that Bill Bennett. Yes, the whole world cares what he thinks. He’s a very self-important man, and must be taken seriously. Except when he makes a huge ugly mistake, then he shouldn’t be taken seriously. Ha ha, get it?

    Ha ha ha.

  4. 4
    Myrtle Parker says:

    As every day passes, it becomes clearer and clearer that the GOP needs to be destroyed, purged, and rebuilt from the ground up. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition, I say.”

    No, thanks.

    The current GOP supporters and elected officials should be thrown out of office. And the GOP should be killed, yes, but it should stay dead and buried.

    I’d much rather see at least two or three parties replace what is now the GOP. We need more parties in this country.

  5. 5
    Steve says:

    These people long since gave up the pretense of having any rational defense of this administration’s policies. Any time someone criticizes the Bush Administration, the response is that they’re a partisan hack, they have a book to sell, they’re not decent enough to wait until Bush is out of office, whatever. Gee, why so reluctant to defend Bush’s foreign policy on the merits?

    It should be no surprise to anyone that Ford disagreed with the war, any more than it’s a surprise to hear it from Brent Scowcroft or anyone else from the old-school foreign policy apparatus. Those guys did a pretty good job with the Cold War, they’ve got an awful lot of experience. Yet somehow, on Planet Powerline, Gerald Ford ceases to be a seasoned Republican leader on national defense issues, as he was for over two decades in the House, and becomes just a doddering old man whose opinion no one much cares about. All for the capital offense of criticizing President Bush.

    In the alternate universe where Ford supported the Iraq war 100% – which is a silly hypothetical, since the whole POINT is that Republican foreign policy used to come from a different place altogether – I don’t know what the liberal media would have to say about it, but you can bet Powerline would have seen him as the wisest sage ever!

  6. 6
    ThymeZone says:

    The manly or more decent options are these: 1. Say it to Bush’s or Cheney’s face

    Oh right, you can’t criticize the government in this country unless you do it right to their faces.

    Every American knows that. Some crummy ex-president thinks the current president is wrong? LET HIM BE A MAN AND SAY IT TO HIS FUCKING FACE, right Darrell?

  7. 7
    Myrtle Parker says:

    John, what do you think of the Polar Bear’s predicament…?

    And even more importantly, what do you think of Jonah Goldberg’s solution for the Polar Bears?

    Jonah thinks we should just call Global Warming a lost cause and big artificial ice platforms for them. Or something.

  8. 8
    Zifnab says:

    2. Far more decently, say nothing critical of Bush will be on the record until his presidency is over. There’s a 3. Don’t say anything critical of George Bush to Bob Woodward at all.

    Shorter Bennett: “Shut up until after the ’08 elections or just shut up entirely.”

  9. 9
    Darrell says:

    What’s more, Ford advocated more sanctions on Iraq, as if all those palaces filled to the roof with cash weren’t proof positive enough that sanctions weren’t working worth a damn.

  10. 10
    ThymeZone says:

    as if all those palaces filled to the roof with cash weren’t proof positive enough that sanctions weren’t working worth a damn.

    As if cash in a palace was worth one fucking American life, you preposterous asshole.

  11. 11
    Steve says:

    Oh right, you can’t criticize the government in this country unless you do it right to their faces.

    That’s right. Surely you remember, for example, how Bill Bennett praised Cindy Sheehan for having the courage to confront the President directly.

    It’s not that you don’t have the right to criticize Republicans, mind you. It’s just that if you don’t do it precisely according to the rules of decency which we make up as we go along, your opinion is moot and you’re a chickenshit.

    Darrell’s really on a roll today, incidentally, isn’t he? John Kerry’s medals are a disgrace to every combat veteran who “really earned” their medals, and Gerald Ford was a chickenshit. But at least he’s not “extreme” like all the partisan lefty libs around here.

  12. 12
    Zifnab says:

    Dude. TZ, take a deep breath and step back, buddy.

  13. 13
    Darrell says:

    LET HIM BE A MAN AND SAY IT TO HIS FUCKING FACE, right Darrell?

    If he was going to drop a stink bomb like that, I think he should have been willing to take on the criticisms from his statements. I don’t see that this is such an “absurd” or controversial position.

  14. 14
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Hey Darrell,

    What’s more, Ford advocated more sanctions on Iraq, as if all those palaces filled to the roof with cash weren’t proof positive enough that sanctions weren’t working worth a damn.

    You know what the ostensible reason for those sanctions were, right?

    WMD

    Which we’ve conclusively proven Saddam didn’t have.

    Nor did he have any program for developing them.

    Reality says that the sanctions were working *perfectly*.

    Of course, reality has a known liberal bias. Right, Darrell?

  15. 15
    Sirkowski says:

    that sanctions weren’t working worth a damn.

    So… where are those WMDs?

  16. 16
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Darrell,

    If he was going to drop a stink bomb like that

    A stink bomb shared by the vast majority of the American people.

    Ford was just echoing the common feeling of the majority of the citizens of this country. Tough shit for you Darrell.

  17. 17
    Darrell says:

    WMD

    Which we’ve conclusively proven Saddam didn’t have

    Oh he had them all right. Hell, he had used them. Iraq had admitted to having tons of Vx and weaponized chems when inspectors were sent away in 1998. What happened to these KNOWN weapons is a mystery to this day.

  18. 18
    Darrell says:

    that sanctions weren’t working worth a damn.

    So… where are those WMDs?

    You tell me. Are you suggesting that sanctions caused them to disappear. Tell me, because I wantto know just how out there you really are.

  19. 19
    Myrtle Parker says:

    What happened to these KNOWN weapons is a mystery to this day.

    No it is not. They were destroyed. Ask Scott Ritter. The man who was proven entirely right about Iraq’s WMD.

  20. 20
    ThymeZone says:

    I don’t see that this is such an “absurd” or controversial position.

    What kind of American are you? You suck, man. You’re an embarassment.

  21. 21
    Zifnab says:

    I think KargoX over at Kos says it best:

    I beg your pardon, but I think that was a problem long before Ford’s comments became known. In fact, Ford’s comments were embargoed precisely because it was already impossible to have an honest dialogue about opposition to the war in this country before he ever made them.

    What does it say about the American political climate when a Republican ex-president — a 90+ year old man, by the way, who hasn’t been moving in DC circles for years — feels intimidated in expressing his views on the biggest and most important issue of the day?

    Yes, there’s a tradition of ex-presidents holding their tongues. And yes, Bennett is astute enough to recognize that the terms of Ford’s embargo are very pointedly not aimed at preserving that tradition. But if that wasn’t the point of the embargo, then what was it? Clearly if it wasn’t just outright fear, it was at least Ford’s anticipation — and one that’s obviously quite correct given this “administration’s” track record — of the headache of harrassment and smearing he’d be in for, for daring to express his doubts and opposition.

    ~link

  22. 22
    Darrell says:

    No it is not. They were destroyed. Ask Scott Ritter

    OK. Right after being sent out of Iraq in 1998, Ritter said

    Iraq is not nearly disarmed

    Any other questions?

  23. 23

    Hey, Darrell, please point me to any real document showing conclusively that Iraq still had functional weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 bunkum show?

    To put it more clearly: “Oh, yes, you like pie. Now, as to those WMDs in Iraq? And that yellowcake?”

  24. 24
    Darrell says:

    Obviously “Myrtle” isn’t particularly bright or well informed, but he/she is a consistently lib partisan hack.

  25. 25
    John Cole says:

    Gerlad Ford was an old man in failinig health who did notwish to be thrust into the limelight and villified/lionized in the twilight of his existence. He additionally chose, as he always did, to put country first, and did not go public with his reservations because he did not want to hurt the war effort at the time.

    He chose to let hisfeelings be known to Woodward, and he did so in the most delicate of terms. He didn’t use any of the adjectives these guys deserved, and decided after he was dead he didn’tcare. That some ofyou have chosen to attack his decency and to attempt to villify him posthumously is merely proving how prescient he was, understanding full well that the rabid mouthbreathers of the modern right can not withstand even the mildest of criticism.

    So back off Gerald Ford- he was a good man, and he was right. Besides, don’t you all have something more important to do? I heard John Kerry ate lunch alone in 2003. Someone post the picture, please.

  26. 26
    Inactivist says:

    Round-up of assorted libertarians opining on Gerald Ford

    Cato-at-Liberty’s Daniel Griswold praises Gerald Ford for having facilitated the transformation of the GOP away from isolationism and free-trade barriers and toward internationalism:

  27. 27
    John S. says:

    OK. Right after being sent out of Iraq in 1998, Ritter said

    LOL

    Golly, there’s only a time lapse of about five years between his statements then and his statements during the runup to war.

    I’m sure nothing changed in that period of time.

  28. 28
    Randy Paul says:

    I Read The Powerline So You Don’t Have To

    You are doing the Lord’s work.

  29. 29
    Steve says:

    What does it say about the American political climate when a Republican ex-president—a 90+ year old man, by the way, who hasn’t been moving in DC circles for years—feels intimidated in expressing his views on the biggest and most important issue of the day?

    I don’t think Gerald Ford felt “intimidated” in the least. I think he was well past the point in life where he was worried about losing his Powerline Gold Star, or whatever.

    I think it’s more the fact that this administration’s policy is so far out there, that has driven men like Ford to voice harsh criticism where otherwise they’d probably just be gentlemen and keep their differences private. I’m very confident Ford disagreed with any number of things that Reagan did, or that Clinton did. But I very much doubt he ticked off a list.

    Anyway, the Iraq comments may be the headline-grabber, but it’s obvious that Woodward didn’t spend hours upon hours with Ford getting his opinions on the Iraq war. They talked about any number of issues, and the conditions were simply that no excerpts be published until Woodward was ready to come out with his book, or until Ford was dead at which point he wouldn’t really care what Woodward decided to do. This was a million miles away from Ford saying “don’t tell anyone I oppose the Iraq war until after I’m dead” and it’s ludicrous to spin it that way.

    Gerald Ford was intimidated? Come on. This is a guy who sat across the table from Nixon and said he could no longer publicly support him. Is it anyone’s experience that as people become old and in ill health, they feel LESS free to speak their mind? Intimidation has zero to do with it.

  30. 30
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Ah, let’s look at what Scott has said more recently.

    We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.

    If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.

    [A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.

    All of which was born out by the *fact* that the United States did not find one iota of actionable WMD in Iraq.

    You can’t seem to face this one simple fact of reality Darrell –> Saddam did not have one working WMD when we invaded. Period.

    The sanctions worked.

  31. 31
    Dave says:

    and no one can engage his points without appearing to disparage someone who just died.

    If the right-wing scream machine could actually engage in a debate that might be one thing, but all I ever hear is questioning of patriotism and name calling when confronted with an opposing view.

  32. 32
    TenguPhule says:

    What happened to these KNOWN weapons is a mystery to this day.

    Shorter Darrell: The voices in my head tell me so!

    Shorter Darrell II: Ford was a good man until he opened his mouth against Bush, then he became a damned to hell liberal.

    Keep right on digging that hole, Darrell. With the help of you and yours Cole and Tim will be voting straight Democratic for years to come.

  33. 33
    TM Cleaver says:

    Bill Bennet, the living definition of the word Ignoranus (n.): A person who’s both stupid and an asshole (the Washington Post’s top winner for new words in its annual neologisms contest).

    And what he has to say is the perfect demonstration of the Dopeler effect (n.) The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

    In the end, he’s just another Rightie covered in Bozone (n.) The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating.

    The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future. I think Powerline is the planetary source of Bozone.

  34. 34
    Myrtle Parker says:

    and no one can engage his points without appearing to disparage someone who just died.

    Yah, that’ll stop them. Remember, the 9/11 widows were all greedy whores who should just keep their mouths shut instead of profiting from their husbands deaths by mouthing their worthless opinions about Dear Leader. Or something.

  35. 35
    TenguPhule says:

    Right after being sent out of Iraq in 1998, Ritter said

    Shorter Darrell: I have no concept of time.

    I almost pity the fool who must hunt back for quotes and graphs years out of date in order to defend his spooge.

    Almost.

  36. 36
    Zifnab says:

    Keep right on digging that hole, Darrell. With the help of you and yours Cole and Tim will be voting straight Democratic for years to come.

    Maybe that’s why John keeps him around. It’s like a string tied around your finger so you can be, like, “Oh yeah. That’s why I voted for Byrd.”

  37. 37
    Tsulagi says:

    Surprised Powerline put that much thought into it. They could have simply used their logic from the previous day saying since Ford didn’t have any recent photos of troops seeking autographs his opinions don’t carry near as much weight as those of O’Reilly.

    As for Bennett, Ford isn’t even in the ground yet and this manly man of the right reflexively goes ass up for Bush. He couldn’t just say “I respectfully disagree with Ford’s opinions.” Nope. The author of The Book of Virtues felt compelled to lecture a deceased president. What an asshole.

    I will say Woodward is an asshole too. He should have waited on publishing the interview until after Ford’s state funeral on Saturday. A few days wait wouldn’t have hurt, and Ford’s family could have had the service and remembrance without the Tards for Bush whining in the background.

    As every day passes, it becomes clearer and clearer that the GOP needs to be destroyed, purged, and rebuilt from the ground up. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition, I say.

    Yep.

  38. 38
    TM Cleaver says:

    Darrell: please allow me to congratulate you for your unceasing efforts to demonstrate in the being just what the meaning of the term Ignoranus is (an idiot and an asshole, simultaneously), as well as to show what too much exposure to the Dopeler Effect (The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly) will do to a person. Perhaps we should forgive you for doing so much Esplanade (To attempt an explanation while drunk)?

    You really do need to take a shower. You might be able to wash off some of the Bozone, but I doubt it.

  39. 39
    Dave says:

    What’s more, Ford advocated more sanctions on Iraq, as if all those palaces filled to the roof with cash weren’t proof positive enough that sanctions weren’t working worth a damn.

    Funny thing about those sanctions, eh? Preventing Saddam from possessing WMDs, destroying his current stash in 1991, etc.

  40. 40
    DoubtingThomas says:

    I heard John Kerry ate lunch alone in 2003. Someone post the picture, please.

    Gotta love that John!

    OK. Right after being sent out of Iraq in 1998, Ritter said

    Iraq is not nearly disarmed

    Any other questions?

    Gotta love that Darrell! Here’s what Ritter said 5 years later in 2003:

    There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

    We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.

    If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.

    [A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.

    Hey Darrell, we all know how to use the Google too!

  41. 41

    Let the smearing begin

    LET THE SMEARING BEGIN…. I wondered this morning whether Gerald Ford’s embargoed criticism of the Bush White House and the war in Iraq might affect the right’s praise of the former president this week. As it turns out, the blowback…

  42. 42
    mrmobi says:

    You can’t seem to face this one simple fact of reality Darrell—> Saddam did not have one working WMD when we invaded. Period.

    The sanctions worked.

    Well said, Myrtle. Darrell never met a fact he couldn’t obfuscate.

    It’s the Kool-aid. For some people, it creates an ability to see an alternate reality completely unsupported by available facts.

    In addition, some develop the ability to justify the murder of children because they are “the enemy.” Darrell is one brown shirt and one armband away from becoming his true self. He fits right in with the current administration.

    I wonder how many Americans would accept the option (if it were possible) that we go back in time and allow the sanctions to continue. Save thousands of our soldiers, prevent thousands of horrible, life-crushing injuries, and hundreds of thousands or Iraqi lives, not to mention the half-a-trillion shekels we’ve squandered over there, instead of searching for WMDs that don’t exist.

    If only it were possible.

  43. 43
    DougJ says:

    Speaking of crazy right-wing blogs, check this out:

    NAIROBI, Kenya, Dec. 27 — Ethiopian-backed forces continued to beat back Islamist fighters in Somalia today, advancing to within 15 miles of Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital,

    Splendid! And when you get there, please feel free to level the entire piss hole of a “city”, then cover it in gasoline and set it on fire. And don’t bother being too meticulous about killing the inhabitants first. Let them crackle, hiss and sizzle while the rest of us laugh ourselves silly.

    …as diplomatic pressure increased for the Ethiopians to pull out.

    As is always the case whenever the followers of Mohammed the Pedophile are getting butchered. I’d suggest strapping the diplomats to the outside of your tanks, then finding a nearby building to run over. Or, better still, strap them to the exhaust grill. Nothing smells quite as wonderful as a set of striped pants on fire while the worthless bag of skin inside screams himself to death.

  44. 44
    Dave says:

    I almost pity the fool who must hunt back for quotes and graphs years out of date in order to defend his spooge.

    I don’t he and his ilk are slowly destroying this country, and smiling while doing it. Thankfully they are finally marginalizing themselves.

  45. 45

    Maybe he didn’t intend to be so chickenshit about it, but it was definitely a chickenshit move.

    Maybe he was just trying to adhere to the old adage that former presidents shouldn’t criticize sitting ones while still alive. But what we mustn’t ever, ever do, is give the benefit of the doubt to a decent man, dead or alive.

  46. 46
    nongeophysical Dennis says:

    Wow DOugJ,

    That was a truly repulsive stomach churning blog–how do you stand it long enough to link to it?

    I think that guy is probably homicidal.

  47. 47
    mrmobi says:

    Let them crackle, hiss and sizzle while the rest of us laugh ourselves silly.

    Foreign policy for sociopaths. DougJ, I actually went over there, you bastard! I gotta go take a shower or something.

    I’m sure Darrell will be along soon explaining how incinerating Somali children is ok, because they are the spawn of terrorists. It’s really not an extreme position, you know. Leftist scum.

  48. 48
    dd says:

    Two years ago, when Ford was interviewed about Iraq, he probably thought that he would still be alive when the war ended. If this is correct, then he was being a loyal American not to criticize while the war was on, or at least a loyal Republican, and current criticisms are misplaced.

  49. 49
    nongeophysical Dennis says:

    Oops
    DOugJ,DougJ

    I type goodly!

  50. 50
    Zifnab says:

    But what we mustn’t ever, ever do, is give the benefit of the doubt to a decent man, dead or alive.

    But you should lay off Duke Cunningham, because all the negative reporting has made it so hard for him and his family.

  51. 51
    Darrell says:

    Maybe he was just trying to adhere to the old adage that former presidents shouldn’t criticize sitting ones while still alive.

    That damn sure never stopped Clinton, did it? Can’t have it both ways hypocrites.

  52. 52
    Darrell says:

    The sanctions worked.

    Beyond pathetic

  53. 53

    That damn sure never stopped Clinton, did it? Can’t have it both ways hypocrites.

    This has what, exactly, to do with Gerald Ford, beyond the fact that they are both former presidents? What does one person’s not adhering to a tradition have to do with another person’s doing so?

    In what alternate universe am I responsible for what a former president from my political party says? And how, without any evidence that I crowed whatever it was he is supposed to have said from the rooftops, does that make my admonition to you less valid or turn me into a hypocrite?

    I don’t ask for much, Darrell, just adherence to some basic rules of logic and argumentation. They’ll make you seem smarter and more eloquent, I promise.

  54. 54
    ThymeZone says:

    Beyond pathetic

    Yeah, maybe you can do some schtick about looking for the weapons under your sofa cushions like Bush did. It was a good laugh, while people were dying for the effort to find them.

    Ha ha ha, right Darrell? Funny stuff, like you.

  55. 55
    Steve says:

    I will say Woodward is an asshole too. He should have waited on publishing the interview until after Ford’s state funeral on Saturday. A few days wait wouldn’t have hurt, and Ford’s family could have had the service and remembrance without the Tards for Bush whining in the background.

    Yeah, I think I agree with this. Although arguing over an actual current event is surely preferable to endless debates over whether he should have pardoned Nixon.

  56. 56
    Shabbazz says:

    I don’t ask for much, Darrell, just adherence to some basic rules of logic and argumentation.

    Darrell and the rest of the dead-enders don’t deal in logic. They’re all Truthiness all the time.

    “Saying ‘Clinton Did It’ just feeeels right!”

  57. 57
    RobR says:

    Maybe he didn’t intend to be so chickenshit about it, but it was definitely a chickenshit move.

    As opposed to the courage it takes to speak ill of a dead man who can’t defend himself.

    Why must you fuck a dead man, Darrell? You Goddamned chickenshit necrophiliac ghoul.

    PS. John: Please don’t tell Bob Woodward I feel this way about Darrell until after I am dead. Thank you.

  58. 58
    Darrell says:

    That some ofyou have chosen to attack his decency and to attempt to villify him posthumously is merely proving how prescient he was,

    John, what you are characterizing as “attacks”, are actually pretty tame criticism, proving my point that Ford knew his criticisms (sanctions were working!) couldn’t be answered, even in the mildest of terms without people like you accusing them of “villifying” the man so soon after his death.

  59. 59
    Darrell says:

    Why must you fuck a dead man, Darrell? You Goddamned chickenshit necrophiliac ghoul.

    So many on the left are truly freaks

  60. 60
    Andrei says:

    Did I miss something? I thought the Dems won the election. Why on earth are you guys bothering to respond to Darrell at all any more these days? It’s obvious he’s in the minority now, whether he wants to believe it or not. Can we please end his 15 minutes already?

  61. 61
    TenguPhule says:

    John, what you are characterizing as “attacks”, are actually pretty tame criticism, proving my point that Ford knew his criticisms (sanctions were working!) couldn’t be answered, even in the mildest of terms without people like you accusing them of “villifying” the man so soon after his death.

    Shorter Darrell: Stop calling me on my bullshit!

    ‘pretty tame criticism’? If that’s Darrell’s idea of what those words mean then he needs a large cup of STFU when he tries to accuse someone else of being ‘rabidly anti-Bush’.

  62. 62

    Darrell and the rest of the dead-enders don’t deal in logic. They’re all Truthiness all the time.

    Here’s an interesting question: What is it about modern conservatives that makes this so. It’s a pattern that can be seen everywhere – Townhall, National Review Online’s The Corner, commenters like Darrell or that a-hole at TNR, and especially the Right Wing Blogatariat. These people span a wide age-range, from Baby Boomers (Townhall) to my generation (The Corner and bloggers, late twenties early thirties) to younger (Darrell). It can’t be the quality of education – I went to school with the likes of The Corner’s bloggers and yet I can hold a logically coherent argument.

    What is it about “true believers” that short-circuits basic logic and argumentation? And what is it about modern conservatism that seems to lend itself more commonly to these traits (which is not to exclude the far-Left, which frequently exhibits the same behavior)?

  63. 63
    TenguPhule says:

    Why on earth are you guys bothering to respond to Darrell at all any more these days?

    Because he helps innoculate John and Tim from the GOP zombiebrains-plague.

  64. 64
    Steve says:

    Yeah, “normal” people think it’s pretty tame to call a recently-dead guy “chickenshit,” as opposed to what us extremist libs think. That’s why people like Darrell are the mainstream in this country, as conclusively established by the recent election results.

  65. 65
    Someone says:

    Why haven’t you enlisted yet, Darrell?

  66. 66
    Darrell says:

    What is it about “true believers” that short-circuits basic logic and argumentation?

    You mean the true believers who went from “Saddam probably has WMDs but sanctions are working” to “Saddam never had WMDs”. I think those kind of people are sooo firmly grounded in reality.

  67. 67
    Darrell says:

    Yeah, “normal” people think it’s pretty tame to call a recently-dead guy “chickenshit,”

    I knew you all would truncate my post. I would have bet a large sum of money on it. So predicable. But you’re a big “fan of the truth”, right Steve?

  68. 68
    TenguPhule says:

    I think those kind of people are sooo firmly grounded in reality.

    Shorter Darrell: Changing your mind based on new evidence is only for liberal pussies!

    Darrell is really in poor form today, even for him.

  69. 69
    TenguPhule says:

    I knew you all would truncate my post.

    Shorter Darrell: Stop hitting me, mean people!

  70. 70
    Darrell says:

    Hey, but what do I know? I’m only a “Goddamned chickenshit necrophiliac ghoul who fucks dead people.

  71. 71
    TenguPhule says:

    Darrell says: Hey, but what do I know?

    Absolutely nothing. This has been another edition of obvious answers to simple questions.

  72. 72
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Hey, but what do I know? I’m only a “Goddamned chickenshit necrophiliac ghoul who fucks dead people.”

    Poor dear. At least admitting you have a problem is a good first step.

  73. 73

    How is Ford saying “I wouldn’t have done that”, criticism?

    All Ford is doing is highlighting a difference between himself and Bush.

    What if Ford had said of Reagan “I would not have let the Soviet Union collapse.” Would we be berating Ford for daring to criticize Reagan?

    No, whether the statement is treated as good or bad, is not because of the content, but rather the context. If Ford had said of Clinton “I would not have balanced the budget”, the right wing would be cheering him today.

    The rightwing reaction to this just demonstrates how pathetic they are.

  74. 74
    Steve says:

    I knew you all would truncate my post. I would have bet a large sum of money on it. So predicable. But you’re a big “fan of the truth”, right Steve?

    I sure am. I would have bet big money that you’d want to back away from calling President Ford chickenshit, but too bad, your words are right there in black and white for everyone to see. You want to whine about being taken out of context, fine, but good luck getting anyone to buy it.

  75. 75
    Steve says:

    What if Ford had said of Reagan “I would not have let the Soviet Union collapse.” Would we be berating Ford for daring to criticize Reagan?

    Ford would have done better than Reagan. He wouldn’t have even let the Soviet Union dominate Eastern Europe!

  76. 76

    You mean the true believers who went from “Saddam probably has WMDs but sanctions are working” to “Saddam never had WMDs”. I think those kind of people are sooo firmly grounded in reality.

    You mean people who believed one thing and then, when the evidence contradicted their belief accordingly changed it? Those people are precisely the opposite of what I’m talking about. You, however, are exactly it. Read some Eric Hoffer and then go shoot yourself.

    I knew you all would truncate my post.

    Darrell, calling someone an unintentional chickenshit is still calling them a chickenshit. The qualifier means something between jack and shit.

    I’m only a “Goddamned chickenshit necrophiliac ghoul who fucks dead people.

    Shorter Darrell: I’m only Darrell. (BTW, necrophiliac already states that you have sex with dead people. Your label is redundant, and therefore diminshes your rhetorical impact. See what I mean about basic rules of argumentation and composition?)

  77. 77
    Zifnab says:

    Here’s an interesting question: What is it about modern conservatives that makes this so. It’s a pattern that can be seen everywhere – Townhall, National Review Online’s The Corner, commenters like Darrell or that a-hole at TNR, and especially the Right Wing Blogatariat. These people span a wide age-range, from Baby Boomers (Townhall) to my generation (The Corner and bloggers, late twenties early thirties) to younger (Darrell).

    Imagine you are absolutely, positively, provenly wrong. All the time. About shit that matters. Everything you say or support is absolute horseshit and your house of ideals is crashing down around your ears.

    Building a new house is hard. Especially after being sold on the old one, which the salesman (Limbaugh, Gingrich, Rove, take your pick) promised on his mother’s grave would last forever and always look good. What’s worse, it really did look like this house was going to stand the test of time. 30 years ago, when you’re neighbor’s house was rife with leaks and hemoraging cash, your house looked new and shiny. 15 years ago, people flocked to your house for parties, because it was the most happening place to be. 5 years ago it was rated the best house on the block and even the neighbors were keeping it up. And that termite damage (chewing up all your money) is always so hard to catch until its too late.

    That’s a nasty fall from grace.

  78. 78
    Myrtle Parker says:

    “Ford would have done better than Reagan.”

    Oh damn! Now you’ve done it. Darrell, please don’t hurt him. Darrell, put the knife down. Put the knife down Darrell! YEeeeeeeeeearrrrrrrghHHHHHHH!

  79. 79
    grh says:

    Darrell:

    Iraq had admitted to having tons of Vx and weaponized chems when inspectors were sent away in 1998.

    Wow, that’s stupid. I really have to give the right wing credit for filling the heads of its dumbass followers with this kind of preposterous crap — I mean, you don’t even have to know anything about Iraq to understand that couldn’t possibly be right just on the face of it.

    They really do a great job of conning credulous sheep like Darrell. Of course, he wants to be conned, but still.

  80. 80
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Imagine you are absolutely, positively, provenly wrong. All the time. About shit that matters. Everything you say or support is absolute horseshit and your house of ideals is crashing down around your ears.

    So, basically Darrell is taking advice from Shaggy. No matter how much reality barks in his face he just says, “It wasn’t me.”

    (Yo’, man) Yo’
    (Open up, man) What do you want, man?
    (My girl just caught me) You let her catch you?
    (I don’t know how I let this happen) With who?
    (The girl next door, you know) Man
    (I don’t know what to do) Say it wasn’t you
    (Alright)

    […]

    But she caught me on the counter (It wasn’t me)
    Saw me bangin’ on the sofa (It wasn’t me)
    I even had her in the shower (It wasn’t me)
    She even caught me on camera (It wasn’t me)

    She saw the marks on my shoulder (It wasn’t me)
    Heard the words that I told her (It wasn’t me)
    Heard the scream get louder (It wasn’t me)
    She stayed until it was over

    That’s basically the mindset of your average Bush supporter at this point.

  81. 81
    Steve says:

    You mean people who believed one thing and then, when the evidence contradicted their belief accordingly changed it?

    No, he means people who believe “Saddam never had WMDs.” We regulars recognize this as the same strawman he dredges up every time we have this argument.

    I don’t know a single human being who believes that Saddam never had WMDs. What would they claim he gassed the Kurds with? Really toxic farts?

  82. 82
    John D. says:

    I don’t know a single human being who believes that Saddam never had WMDs. What would they claim he gassed the Kurds with? Really toxic farts?

    Have you ever *had* humus? It’s not out of the realm of possibility.

  83. 83
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Shorter Darrell: It wasn’t me!

  84. 84
    sglover says:

    You guys really need to ostracize that fuckwit Darrell. The guy’s a troll, and not worth responding to. A sustained campaign of ignoring him might not shut him up as soon as one might like, but eventually even he will get bored and toddle off to do….. whatever the hell the marginally employable do. In the meantime, please, just scroll past the moron’s remarks. Discipline, folks, discipline.

  85. 85
    Myrtle Parker says:

    I don’t know a single human being who believes that Saddam never had WMDs.

    Don’t forget where Saddam acquired those WMD’s he used to gas the kurds!

  86. 86
    RSA says:

    Bennett:

    You’re a former President Mr. Ford, show a little more decency to the incumbent who is in a very, very tough place and trying to do the right thing.

    Isn’t it interesting that the “most decent” things Ford could have done did not involve disagreeing with Bush in public? Even if Ford thought Bush was completely in the wrong in this situation. Among conservatives, is it ever decent to publicly disagree with Bush? I do not think they know what that word means.

  87. 87
    ImJohnGalt says:

    I see there are a few new people here (Myrtle, James F Elliot). Welcome to the comments! Much like the rookie hockey player has to carry the equipment to the bus, you’ve been hazed by engaging Darrell. Trial by fire, I’d say.

    A reminder to everyone. If you run FireFox as your browser, you can install the Greasemonkey add-on, and change every post by Darrell into a simple paen to pie using the Antitroll script.

    At any rate, nice to see some new voices here. Wishing everyone a prosperous, healthy, and happy New Year.

  88. 88
    Darrell says:

    Among conservatives, is it ever decent to publicly disagree with Bush? I do not think they know what that word means.

    That’s why you NEVER read conservatives criticize Bush over his spending, over immigration, or even his handling of the WOT. You just can’t find it. It’s like searching for the land of Oz.. or a Rethuglican who isn’t a racist.

  89. 89
    Darrell says:

    ImJohnGalt Says:

    I see there are a few new people here (Myrtle

    I believe “Myrtle” is either the former GOP4ME or DougJ.

  90. 90
    Darrell says:

    Among conservatives, is it ever decent to publicly disagree with Bush? I do not think they know what that word means.

    RSA, in the past, you’ve chided you for referring to you as a “leftist”. I think it’s damn clear now that you’re not only a leftist, but a leftist hack.

  91. 91
    TenguPhule says:

    That’s why you NEVER read conservatives criticize Bush over his spending, over immigration, or even his handling of the WOT.

    Of course not, because as soon as they do, you and yours label them as mutant-commie-liberals.

    Friend Computer is disappointed with you. Please report to your disintergration pad.

  92. 92
    Pooh says:

    I don’t ask for much, Darrell, just adherence to some basic rules of logic and argumentation.

    Yet you ask too much…

    The funny (ok, not ha-ha funny) thing is that even with the pie filter enabled, I’m not missing anything, as the Darrell playbook is both thin and predictable.

  93. 93
    TenguPhule says:

    I think it’s damn clear now that you’re not only a leftist, but a leftist hack.

    Shorter Darrell: Stop using facts and resort to mudslinging like me!

  94. 94
    Myrtle Parker says:

    I believe “Myrtle” is either the former GOP4ME or DougJ.

    Ahh, interesting. And what informs this belief? Or did you just _pull_it_out_of_your_ass_ like every other half-baked crap comment you spew?

  95. 95
    Steve says:

    Isn’t it interesting that the “most decent” things Ford could have done did not involve disagreeing with Bush in public? Even if Ford thought Bush was completely in the wrong in this situation. Among conservatives, is it ever decent to publicly disagree with Bush? I do not think they know what that word means.

    Of course, Ford DIDN’T publicly disagree with Bush, back when it could have made any difference. How many people have we heard from over the last several years who had major, major doubts about the war, but held their tongue and left the impression that only Michael Moore and assorted hippies opposed the war?

    In part, it serves to remind you that the national atmosphere was not exactly tolerant of dissent at that particular moment. In part, it suggests that while many people may have disagreed with the decision, they probably never imagined it was so completely and fundamentally wrong.

    For example, when Gerald Ford heard one administration official after another proclaim, “We KNOW Saddam has WMDs” (not “we know he had them in the past,” but “we know he has them right now”), he probably assumed, gee, these people must know what they’re talking about!

    As for the subject of conservative dissent, Darrell will be along shortly to point out that conservatives are routinely permitted to criticize Bush from the right, thus demonstrating how open to dissent they are. There’s no limit to how liberal you can accuse Bush of being when he screws up.

  96. 96
    TenguPhule says:

    Or did you just pull it_out_of_your_ass_ like every other half-baked crap comment you spew?

    Yes he did.

    This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

  97. 97
  98. 98
    CaseyL says:

    The name of this post is “I Read The Powerline So You Don’t Have To,” and John, I truly do appreciate your suiting up in the hazmat thingie and going in like that.

    But you know what would be even better than reading PW to spare us the necessity (and the full-body decontam afterwards!)?

    Banning Darrell. Honest to God.

    He has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. He isn’t even amusing. He’s the blog equivalent of a drunken frat boy showing up, vomiting into the potted petunias, and then saying it’s your fault for putting them on your porch.

    Please, John. I implore you: ban Darrell permanently.

  99. 99
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Regarding Bennett: It was his own thesis advisor, John Silber, who said that Bennett had “a mind like a bowl of chili — composed almost entirely of beans and mush.” His plaintive plea that Ford shouldn’t have disagreed at all with poor old Dubya, simply because Dubya was TRYING to do the right thing, is merely the latest demonstration of that fact. (The most recent previous one was his furious attack in National Review on the Iraq Study Group for ignoring the testimony of the “generals in the field” that we were winning — which, of course, is true only because Bush instantly cans any general in the field who implies we AREN’T winning — and for “failing to leave the Green Zone and see how well we’re doing in the rest of Iraq”, which the Group failed to do precisely because the military men in the Green Zone told them it was far too dangerous for them to try to enter any other part of Iraq.

  100. 100
    Darrell says:

    Ahh, interesting. And what informs this belief?

    You post in a very similar style to them..Gop4Me and DougJ routinely post with aliases. Also, you link to a spoof site “Jesus’ General” , lending further credence to the suggestion that you are a former poster now spoofing under a new name. That is what informs this belief.

  101. 101
    Zifnab says:

    For example, when Gerald Ford heard one administration official after another proclaim, “We KNOW Saddam has WMDs” (not “we know he had them in the past,” but “we know he has them right now”), he probably assumed, gee, these people must know what they’re talking about!

    What’s more unforgivable is the General or Admiral or Air Captain Commander (whatever the Airforce calls their top brass) who heard “We absolutely know they’ve got WMDs” and didn’t say anything. When Joe Wilson came out saying Saddam didn’t buy yellowcake, there should have been a line around the block of officals backing him up, verifying his account, and debunking any other outright falsehoods the Bush Admin was pimping. But because of “national security” or “loyalty to the commanding officer” or simple “decency” our country went charging in blind thinking exactly what Ford was thinking. And we committed acts that made our nation less secure, undermined the loyalty every soldier had to his commanders, and definitely wasn’t decent.

    Where were the extra few good men to stand up and say what it seems everyone in the know knew at the time – “There are no ponies in Iraq.”

  102. 102
    Darrell says:

    Banning Darrell. Honest to God.

    He has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. He isn’t even amusing

    Ever count the number of posters who weigh in with nothing but 100% personal attacks on me? Hey, on the bright side, at least you didn’t call me a “Goddamned chickenshit necrophiliac ghoul”.

    How about banning posters like “Ted”, “CaseyL”, and “RobR”, who only post with personal attacks?

  103. 103
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Also, you link to a spoof site “Jesus’ General” , lending further credence to the suggestion that you are a former poster now spoofing under a new name.

    There you go folks. This is what passes for ‘logic’ and ‘evidence’ on the right these days.

  104. 104
    Darrell says:

    I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen GOP4Me or DougJ link to that “Jesus’ General” spoof site before. What a coincidence that Myrtle does the same.

  105. 105
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Hilarious.

  106. 106
    Cyrus says:

    A post criticizing PowerLine, the second comment is from Darrell, and so far it’s averaging one comment every two minutes. (“So far” = around 3:55 when I loaded the page; I won’t bother reloading it before commenting because I’d never keep up). In a sane Internet I’d be surprised, but somehow, I’m not.

    I agree with Bennett that it was a poor choice by Ford to handle it like that. He drops a stink bomb, and no one can engage his points without appearing to disparage someone who just died [emphasis mine]. Maybe he didn’t intend to be so chickenshit about it, but it was definitely a chickenshit move.

    Darrell, if you and kindred spirits like Bennett don’t know how to engage someone’s points without calling him a chickenshit without saying it’s a chickenshit move (oh, I’m so sorry about confusing those two completely different actions), I don’t see how that’s Ford’s fault.

    Ford said that he understands wanting to free people but thinks it should be secondary to national security. You don’t have to agree with that, but if you honestly — hah! — believe that constitutes a “stink bomb,” you must be quite the fainting violet. Ford said he personally would not have gone to war, but if you have any thoughts about that other than personal insults for him, you haven’t voiced them yet.

    Engage his points? I won’t say you have never, ever done so in your life, but that isn’t your usual way of doing business, and sure as hell wasn’t your first reaction right here in this thread, Darrell.

  107. 107
    Dave says:

    The sanctions worked.

    Beyond pathetic

    What’s pathetic? That your argument (such that it was) was smacked down so roundly? That you were wrong and can’t admit it? That you don’t exist in any accepted form of reality? Your miserable angry sad excuse for a life?

  108. 108
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Darrell, you do know that John himself linked to that very same ‘spoof’ site in this very post that you are commenting on… you know that, right?

    Right??

    Does this mean in your mind I’m actually John Cole you idiot?

    Hilarious.

  109. 109
    TenguPhule says:

    I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen GOP4Me or DougJ link to that “Jesus’ General” spoof site before. What a coincidence that Myrtle does the same.

    With detective skills like that, no wonder Darrell still believes he can find the Iran nukes that don’t exist.

  110. 110
    TenguPhule says:

    What’s pathetic? That your argument (such that it was) was smacked down so roundly? That you were wrong and can’t admit it? That you don’t exist in any accepted form of reality? Your miserable angry sad excuse for a life?

    Darrell’s Irony of the Day, folks.

  111. 111
    Darrell says:

    Myrtle Parker Says:

    Darrell, you do know that John himself linked to that very same ‘spoof’ site in this very post that you are commenting on… you know that, right?

    Right??

    No I didn’t know that. I guess that proves I’m an idiot, huh?

    You still sound like GOP4Me

  112. 112
    TenguPhule says:

    Darrell says: I guess that proves I’m an idiot, huh?

    Yes.

    This has been another edition of obvious answers to simple questions.

  113. 113
    Myrtle Parker says:

    I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen GOP4Me or DougJ link to that “Jesus’ General” spoof site before. What a coincidence that Myrtle does the same.

    Yah. What a coincidence that John himself linked to that “Jesus’ General” spoof site in this very blog posting.

    Ok, I admit it. I’m actually John spoofing as Myrtle. I’m also GOP4ME and DougJ (whoever they are) too. In fact, Darrell, you don’t know how far down the rabbit hole this conspiracy goes! Every comment on this thread (other than your own idiotic ignorant crap) is me. What’s more, I’m actually the General. That’s right, you’ve got it all backwards. Jesus General is the real site and this site is the spoof!! HAHHHaaaaa hHHaaaaa

    BTW, my real name is Jerome Armstrong.

    You are such an idiot.

  114. 114
    Steve says:

    Maybe scs is spoofing as Darrell today.

    Seriously, I thought the ‘everyone is DougJ’ schtick was trademarked. Apparently there are franchises available.

  115. 115
    Darrell says:

    The sanctions worked.

    Beyond pathetic

    What’s pathetic? That your argument (such that it was) was smacked down so roundly?

    Oh I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that the “sanctions weren’t working” argument had been ‘smacked down’, especially with all those palaces Saddam built stuffed to their ceilings with cash. I thought even the ‘reality based’ community was aware of grand canyon sized holes in the sanctions. Hell, Oil for food scandal!

    But now that you mention it, I probably should put some ice on that smacking you intellectual giants gave me. Ouch!

  116. 116
    Zifnab says:

    BTW, my real name is Jerome Armstrong Sparticus.

  117. 117
    TenguPhule says:

    I wasn’t aware that the “sanctions weren’t working” argument had been ‘smacked down’

    That’s because you’re still six years behind the rest of us. *Containment* worked, sanctions were a *part* of that containment. You are trying to dishonestly confuse the two in hopes that others will wind up equally confused.

  118. 118
    Darrell says:

    What’s more, I’m actually the General. That’s right, you’ve got it all backwards. Jesus General is the real site and this site is the spoof!! HAHHHaaaaa hHHaaaaa

    BTW, my real name is Jerome Armstrong.

    You are such an idiot.

    Translation: “They’re Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haa”

  119. 119
    Myrtle Parker says:

    Zifnab Says:

    BTW, my real name is Jerome Armstrong Sparticus.

    December 28th, 2006 at 4:41 pm

    I am Zifnab.

  120. 120
    Zifnab says:

    We are Marshall

  121. 121
    RSA says:

    RSA, in the past, you’ve chided you for referring to you as a “leftist”. I think it’s damn clear now that you’re not only a leftist, but a leftist hack.

    Sorry, I should have been more specific and written “movement conservatives”. And Steve raises an excellent point: the issues that most movement conservatives criticize Bush for are mainly ideological–immigration, spending, the war on terror. Bush isn’t punitive enough on illegal immigrants, he spends too much, he isn’t nuking Iraq and Iran. Basically, he just isn’t conservative enough. Few conservatives aside from John Cole are willing to criticize Bush for pure incompetence, which he has amply demonstrated.

  122. 122
  123. 123
    Shabbazz says:

    I guess that proves I’m an idiot, huh?

    No, your long run of hackery did that long before today’s meltdown.

    especially with all those palaces Saddam built stuffed to their ceilings with cash.

    Here, all this time, I thought the policy of containment addressed prohibited weapons — weapons that posed such an immediate and direct threat to our very own country that we needed to start an international war NOW-GODDAMNIT-NOW! I had no idea that we started this war over palaces full of cash. Learn something new every day, I suppose.

    Of course, my father-in-law told me that we didn’t start the war at all — Saddam did. Now THAT’S comedy!

    I think all the calls for banning Darrell are way off base. He is, single handedly, doing his best to steer the Republican bus further and further into the wilderness of irrelevancy! And God Bless him for that! Keep up the good work, my friend!

  124. 124

    RSA, in the past, you’ve chided you for referring to you as a “leftist”. I think it’s damn clear now that you’re not only a leftist, but a leftist hack.

    Darrell, do you really know what a leftist is? (This is fun when I don’t have work to do.) I mean, do you really know what distinguishes a leftist from a liberal, or what distinguishes modern liberalism from classical liberalism and what distinguishes classical liberalism from conservatism? Or, for that matter what distinguishes neoconservatism and modern conservatism from classic conservatism? Do you know what a Tory and a Whig were? These are all crucial things to know before A) commenting on politics and B) throwing around phrases like “leftist” as a vituperative.

  125. 125
    Darrell says:

    Here, all this time, I thought the policy of containment addressed prohibited weapons

    Well then, you should acknowledge that you thought wrong. Sanctions also included supposed control on Iraqi oil and finances, aka the Oil for Food program. As we know now, those sanctions didn’t work so well.

  126. 126
    Steve says:

    And Steve raises an excellent point: the issues that most movement conservatives criticize Bush for are mainly ideological—immigration, spending, the war on terror. Bush isn’t punitive enough on illegal immigrants, he spends too much, he isn’t nuking Iraq and Iran. Basically, he just isn’t conservative enough.

    Why thank you, my friend. At moments like this, it’s worth remembering that even Reagan was viciously attacked by the Right for going soft and negotiating with the USSR. Saint Ronnie himself wasn’t conservative enough for these people. It’s not a new development.

  127. 127

    Well then, you should acknowledge that you thought wrong. Sanctions also included supposed control on Iraqi oil and finances, aka the Oil for Food program. As we know now, those sanctions didn’t work so well.

    Oddly enough, Darrell’s got himself a point there. The sanctions didn’t exactly do right by the Iraqi people. However, he’s a brain-dead idiot if he thinks they didn’t also work exactly as intended in containing Iraq’s WMD programs. So it’s another wash. With bleach. And that shit burns.

  128. 128
    Darrell says:

    Sorry, I should have been more specific and written “movement conservatives”. And Steve raises an excellent point: the issues that most movement conservatives criticize Bush for are mainly ideological—immigration, spending, the war on terror. Bush isn’t punitive enough on illegal immigrants, he spends too much, he isn’t nuking Iraq and Iran. Basically, he just isn’t conservative enough

    That’s right, but it doesn’t explain away your earlier assertion that conservatives, movement conservatives or otherwise, are unwilling to disagree with Bush.. That assertion, was, and is, a crock of sh*t. Here is what you wrote:

    Even if Ford thought Bush was completely in the wrong in this situation. Among conservatives, is it ever decent to publicly disagree with Bush? I do not think they know what that word means.

    I think that knee jerk characterization of conservatives demonstrates that you’re a leftist.. the kind who goes around claiming to be a ‘moderate’, but spends all his time slamming only one side.

  129. 129
    Davebo says:

    especially with all those palaces Saddam built stuffed to their ceilings with cash.

    Bill Gates is crapping his pants about now. What with all those Franklins of mass destruction he’s got lying around.

  130. 130
    Steve says:

    What Ford actually said:

    “I don’t think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly,” he said, “I don’t think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.”

    What Darrell said:

    What’s more, Ford advocated more sanctions on Iraq, as if all those palaces filled to the roof with cash weren’t proof positive enough that sanctions weren’t working worth a damn.

    Something else Darrell said:

    I knew you all would truncate my post. I would have bet a large sum of money on it. So predicable. But you’re a big “fan of the truth”, right Steve?

    Truncating Darrell’s posts: leftist dishonesty. Truncating President Ford’s quotes: good, honest debate.

  131. 131
    Darrell says:

    However, he’s a brain-dead idiot if he thinks they didn’t also work exactly as intended in containing Iraq’s WMD programs

    Saddam had tons of unaccounted for Vx and chem weapons when inspectors were sent packing in 1998. Those weapons are to this very day, unaccounted for, and sanctions didn’t have a damn thing to do with it.

    For all we know, Saddam hid or moved them.. or set up “dual use” facilities which could be quickly converted into WMD manufacturing. The dual use setup was the conclusion of both Duelfer and Kay reports.

    The alternative explanation, given everything we know now, seems more than a bit far fetched.. That Saddam had turned over a new leaf and given up on his long held WMD ambitions (your position), which pretty much contradicts all the information reported by Duelfer and Kay..

    But I don’t expect you to deal with questions like these.. the answers fly in the face of your dogma.

  132. 132
    Zifnab says:

    Not just a leftist, a pinko-communist-liberal-hippie-peacenik-aethist-ho-mo-sexual. Back in the day, we had a list for you people. Actually, we had several lists. Also, we had ropes and trees.

    God damnit I miss the 50s.

  133. 133

    Well then, you should acknowledge that you thought wrong. Sanctions also included supposed control on Iraqi oil and finances, aka the Oil for Food program. As we know now, those sanctions didn’t work so well.

    The purpose of the Sanctions were to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining materials necessary to reconstitute his military, and in particularly any WMDs.

    What evidence do you have to show they failed in their purpose?

  134. 134
    Darrell says:

    Steve, are you seriously going to argue that Ford’s idea to have “maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.”

    is significantly different than my characterization? which was

    What’s more, Ford advocated more sanctions on Iraq,

    I see them as identical, and I believe most rational people would agree that they are identical.. whereas your truncation of my quote on the other hand was a dishonest attempt to change meaning.

  135. 135
    RSA says:

    I think that knee jerk characterization of conservatives demonstrates that you’re a leftist.. the kind who goes around claiming to be a ‘moderate’, but spends all his time slamming only one side.

    Jesus, Darrell, it was an overgeneralization: I freely admit it. It was literally wrong. Instead of saying, “Conservatives don’t think public disagreement with Bush is decent,” I should have said, “Many prominent conservatives are sycophantic, lying weasels, and it’s hard for me to think of exceptions.”

    As for the “leftist” issue, I object to the label mainly because of rightwing rhetoric that lumps together liberals with socialists and communists. Further, I don’t claim to be a moderate while slamming one side; I’m an unapologetic liberal, slamming your side when I think it’s appropriate.

  136. 136
    Zifnab says:

    “maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.”

    Seems to imply either continuing with the current system of sanctions and restriction, altering the existing sanctions system into a more preferably model, or finding another solution comparable to the sanctions program (that would be the “whatever” bit). You’ll notice in the list “Shock And Awe”, “Regime Change”, and “Kill Saddam” were never mentioned.

    What’s more, Ford advocated more sanctions on Iraq,

    Implies “Let’s regulate, but more and more often!”

    I see them as identical, and I believe most rational people would agree that they are identical.

    Implies, “You’re all stupid and everyone who isn’t you would agree with me under these or any other circumstances so KMBA!” Which seems to me is in the wrong thread.

  137. 137
    Darrell says:

    The purpose of the Sanctions were to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining materials necessary to reconstitute his military, and in particularly any WMDs.

    What evidence do you have to show they failed in their purpose?

    Duelfer Report, for one

    Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

    The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development

    By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support.

    Any other questions TOS?

  138. 138
    Shabbazz says:

    Here, all this time, I thought the policy of containment addressed prohibited weapons

    Well then, you should acknowledge that you thought wrong. Sanctions also included supposed control on Iraqi oil and finances, aka the Oil for Food program. As we know now, those sanctions didn’t work so well.

    Jesus-H-Christ-on-a-Rubber-Crutch. You’re going to “Semantics Fantasy Land” again, are you.

    The policy of containment was put in place to prevent Saddam from acquiring and building prohibited weapons. Sanctions were used as a method by which to achieve the policy of containment. The goal is containment — the methodology is sanctions.

    While it’s true that sanctions were not perfect and there were clearly problems, as there are with *any* complex international policy, the goal of containment was achieved. Saddam did not have a massive stockpile of prohibited weapons as we falsely assumed (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary).

    Ergo, the policy of containment, which specifically addressed the prevention of prohibited weapons, worked.

    But never-mind all that! Pedal to the metal! Drive that bus a little further on down the line! Go, man go!

  139. 139
    Darrell says:

    Zifnab, Ford advocated “maximized efforts” with regards to sanctions. I believe most people believe “maximize efforts” is the same as “advocating more sanctions”.

    So many of you weak minded leftists grasping at any thin reed you can find, no matter how dishonest. This example proves it.

  140. 140
    Perry Como says:

    Oh he had them all right. Hell, he had used them. Iraq had admitted to having tons of Vx and weaponized chems when inspectors were sent away in 1998. What happened to these KNOWN weapons is a mystery to this day.

    Oh I had an Atari 2600. Hell, I played it. I admitted to playing Circus Atari and Warlords when my friends came over in 1986. What happened to that KNOWN Atari 2600 is a mystery to this day.

  141. 141
    Darrell says:

    While it’s true that sanctions were not perfect and there were clearly problems, as there are with any complex international policy, the goal of containment was achieved

    Stupid is as stupid does I suppose.

  142. 142
    Steve says:

    Zifnab, Ford advocated “maximized efforts” with regards to sanctions.

    The fact that Darrell believes he is making a true statement here speaks volumes.

  143. 143
    Darrell says:

    Oh I had an Atari 2600. Hell, I played it. I admitted to playing Circus Atari and Warlords when my friends came over in 1986. What happened to that KNOWN Atari 2600 is a mystery to this day.

    I think that is such a brilliant and well thought out analogy Perry.

    Tell us, were you also required by terms of surrender to account for missing Ataris? Missing Ataris which you had used to kill thousands with in past years?

  144. 144
    Darrell says:

    Steve Says:

    Zifnab, Ford advocated “maximized efforts” with regards to sanctions.

    The fact that Darrell believes he is making a true statement here speaks volumes.

    Care to elaborate Steve? Maximize efforts (with regards to sanctions) = increase sanctions is what I said. I think it’s dishonest as hell of you to assert that I changed the meaning of Ford’s quote. But then again, you’re the same ahole who dishonestly truncated my quote earlier in order to deliberately change meaning.

  145. 145
    Shabbazz says:

    the goal of containment was achieved. Saddam did not have a massive stockpile of prohibited weapons

    Stupid is as stupid does I suppose.

    Show me the massive stockpiles of prohibited weapons that prove otherwise. Until then, your condescending inane ramblings aren’t worth the electrons they’re written with.

    “But saying ‘nuh-uhhh’ just feeeeeels right!”

  146. 146
    TenguPhule says:

    Those weapons are to this very day, unaccounted for, and sanctions didn’t have a damn thing to do with it.

    For all we know, Saddam hid or moved them.. or set up “dual use” facilities which could be quickly converted into WMD manufacturing.

    Shorter Darrell: I don’t care what the facts are. I am a true believer!

    Saddam had zilch. What wasn’t destroyed or degraded to the point of impotence was *NEVER* *THERE* because Iraq’s military had greedy little people taking money and hiding it in the accounting. Like the Pentagon’s budget, but on a smaller and more corrupt level.

    As for the ‘dual use’, yeah pesticides are a chemical poison. Guess what, that’s their primary function. To kill bugs.

  147. 147
    TenguPhule says:

    Tell us, were you also required by terms of surrender to account for missing Ataris? Missing Ataris which you had used to kill thousands with in past years?

    And after denying that the 2003 UN inspections found nothing, Darrell will then proceed to claim that Iraq had perfect recordkeeping surpassing that of any American agency and the fact that they couldn’t place everything in a matter of hours was a grave deliberate breach inviting war upon Iraq.

  148. 148
    Darrell says:

    Show me the massive stockpiles of prohibited weapons that prove otherwise

    Let me refresh your memory. You claimed

    the goal of containment was achieved

    Duelfer and Kay reports say otherwise. So do all those grandiose palaces strewn across Iraq.

  149. 149
    TenguPhule says:

    Duelfer and Kay reports say otherwise. So do all those grandiose palaces strewn across Iraq.

    Shorter Darrell: Up is down. And I count money as a WMD now.

  150. 150
    Zifnab says:

    Zifnab, Ford advocated “maximized efforts” with regards to sanctions. I believe most people believe “maximize efforts” is the same as “advocating more sanctions”.

    As has already been addressed, sanctions seemed to work (Saddam lacked WMDs), but continued to present problems. Namely, it was difficult to verify that the sanctions were, in fact, working (without a full-on invasion) and the people of Iraq were suffering socially and physically because of said sanctions.

    Thus “maximizing efforts” on the sanctions would not necessarily involve adding new sanctions. Rather it would involve modifying existing sanctions, replacing existing sanctions, perhaps even lifting sanctions, to accommodate these secondary objectives.

    Again, this goes back to the point that sanctions were working as intended. They just weren’t perfect yet. Ford recognized this. Clearly, Bush choose not to.

  151. 151
    Shabbazz says:

    “Hello Wall! How’d things go for you today?”

  152. 152
    Zifnab says:

    Like the Pentagon’s budget, but on a smaller and more corrupt level.

    Fixed.

  153. 153
    Steve says:

    Care to elaborate Steve? Maximize efforts (with regards to sanctions) = increase sanctions is what I said. I think it’s dishonest as hell of you to assert that I changed the meaning of Ford’s quote. But then again, you’re the same ahole who dishonestly truncated my quote earlier in order to deliberately change meaning.

    Of course you think I’m dishonest. If you ever felt otherwise, I’d start to worry.

  154. 154
    Darrell says:

    Again, this goes back to the point that sanctions were working as intended. They just weren’t perfect yet

    yeah, they weren’t quite “perfect” yet.. kinda like the Chernobyl wasn’t quite perfect either. Once again, from Duelfer

    The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development

    What part of sanctions weren’t working don’t you understand? And are you morons going to continue to argue in seriousness that the sanctions are what caused Saddam’s unaccounted for WMDs to disappear? Too stupid for words really..

  155. 155
    Darrell says:

    The fact that Darrell believes he is making a true statement here speaks volumes.

    Why don’t you explain why I’m wrong then with regards to that statement? seriously, go ahead..

  156. 156
    TenguPhule says:

    And are you morons going to continue to argue in seriousness that the sanctions are what caused Saddam’s unaccounted for WMDs to disappear?

    Shorter Darrell: I can’t tell the difference between containment and sanctions.

    Darrell, you’re backtracking to parsing words into false arguments now. You just can’t seem to wrap your small mind around the fact that the containment strategy worked, which is a completely different thing from sanctions that were part of the overall strategy but not the main reason why Iraq’s weapons were destroyed/rotted away.

  157. 157
    John S. says:

    Damn, did someone let Mrs. Smith in here or something?

    Because I have never seen so much pie!

  158. 158
    Steve says:

    Why don’t you explain why I’m wrong then with regards to that statement? seriously, go ahead..

    Nah, I know you never give an inch, and everyone else already agrees with me thanks to their ability to understand plain English. I’m through with you for today, it wasn’t one of your better performances.

    Cue Darrell: “Your refusal to go back and forth endlessly with me is an admission that you have no argument!” Yeah, whatever…

  159. 159
    Shabbazz says:

    I can’t tell the difference between containment and sanctions.

    Sanctions = containment = Oil For Food

    Liberals = leftists = communists = Democrats = the enemy

    Sunnis = Shiites = Kurds = Iraqis

    Hammas = Al Qaeda = The Insurgency = Hezbullah = the enemy (different enemy)

    Black != White

    Truthiness > Truth

  160. 160
    Perry Como says:

    Missing Ataris which you had used to kill thousands with in past years?

    It wouldn’t be a stretch to say the number of pixel guys I killed in Circus Atari was within the realm of genocide. I’m just trying to up the seriousness of the discussion to your level.

  161. 161
    Fledermaus says:

    Shabbazz don’t forget

    WMD = money and palaces

    Sounds like a good case for invading Donald Trump.

  162. 162

    …you’re a leftist…

    Darrell, please elaborate on what you mean by “leftist.” I’m honestly curious. What political and social beliefs constitute “leftism?”

    That Saddam had turned over a new leaf and given up on his long held WMD ambitions (your position), which pretty much contradicts all the information reported by Duelfer and Kay..

    Darrell, I’ll thank you not to attribute a position to me which you have no evidence of my holding (“Containment appears to have worked” is a far cry from “Saddam had warm and fuzzy feelings all over!”). That’s called a strawman, and if you’re going to accuse others of using them, you should learn to recognize when you’re using them. Otherwise, you’re being dishonest.

    You’re selectively quoting from the Duelfer and Kay reports. Both found that Iraq had no viable weapons program, but had every intention of reconstituting them at the first opportunity. What Duelfer did find was that Saddam himself may not have known this – his subordinates kept their famously volatile leader in the dark in order to keep their skins. Further, Duelfer went so far as to speculate that had Saddam known, he could never have complied with UN/US demands to come clean because doing so would have admitted to Iran, Shi’ite rebels, and the Kurds that they no longer posessed their chief deterrents. Duelfer further concluded that reports of “known” VX gas were incidences of those mendacious subordinates inflating their weapons stockpiles to please the glorious leader.

    Do you have anything else, Mr. Lying Liarpants?

  163. 163
    Darrell says:

    Nah, I know you never give an inch, and everyone else already agrees with me thanks to their ability to understand plain English.

    Priceless

  164. 164
    Pooh says:

    We are Marshall

    POTD in the sub-thread of the day.

    We Are Pooh.

    (As a quick quiz, to how many here is that a Star Trek TNG ref., and to how many is it a Spidey ref? Speaking of, the trailers for SM3 = FREAKIN AWESOME. We are fanboi.)

  165. 165
  166. 166
    TenguPhule says:

    They were *seven*.

  167. 167
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, please elaborate on what you mean by “leftist.” I’m honestly curious

    These borrowed phrases are a decent summary of what I mean. You know you’re a leftist if:

    -You think President Bush lied to the nation, but his predecessor did not.

    -You support racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity, but oppose the adoption of non-discriminatory hiring practices to ensure ideological diversity on university faculties.

    -You believe George Bush “stole” either presidential election

    -You believe all or most conservatives are racist, but do not think minorities can ever succeed without affirmative action.

    -You believe that George Bush is a ‘war criminal’

    -You believe evangelical Christians are destroying America, but feel less threatened by radical Islam.

    -You believe the right to an abortion is written in the Constitution, but disagree with the right to bear arms

    -You have a bumper sticker on your car saying “Hate is not a family value”

    -You can’t decide which is worse: the Patriot Act or the Patriot Missile.

    – You’ve harassed military recruiters on campus

    – You believe it’s proven fact that man-made effluents are the primary cause of global warming

    – You believe Digby or Jane Hamsher are ‘insightful’

  168. 168
    TenguPhule says:

    You have a bumper sticker on your car saying “Hate is not a family value”

    Shorter Darrell: Hate is a good old fashioned family value.

  169. 169
    TenguPhule says:

    You believe that George Bush is a ‘war criminal’

    Shorter Darrell II: Evidence be damned!

  170. 170
    TenguPhule says:

    You think President Bush lied to the nation, but his predecessor did not.

    As opposed to those of us who think both lied, but only one of them keeps getting other people killed because he refuses to deal in reality instead of empty slogans.

    It’s almost sad how cardboard cutout Darrell’s perceptions are.

  171. 171
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, I’ll thank you not to attribute a position to me which you have no evidence of my holding (“Containment appears to have worked” is a far cry from “Saddam had warm and fuzzy feelings all over!”). That’s called a strawman

    Strawman = claims that I ever said you believed “Saddam had warm and fuzzy feelings all over”

    You’re selectively quoting from the Duelfer and Kay reports

    No I didn’t. I quoted from the “key findings” section. Like I said, I knew you wouldn’t deal with these hard questions, because they fly in the face of your dogma

    Duelfer further concluded that reports of “known” VX gas were incidences of those mendacious subordinates inflating their weapons stockpiles to please the glorious leader.

    Cite? Iraq admitted to UNSCOM that they had 3.9 tons of Vx. UNSCOM suspectd they had much more. But then inspectors got shown the door..

  172. 172
    ThymeZone says:

    It’s almost sad how cardboard cutout Darrell’s perceptions are, considering that he is the official mascot of Ballon-Juice.

    We report, you deride.

  173. 173
    TenguPhule says:

    Iraq admitted to UNSCOM that they had 3.9 tons of Vx. UNSCOM suspectd they had much more. But then inspectors got shown the door..by Bush who refused to believe what the UN inspectors were telling the world, no viable WMDs discovered.

    Trying to peddle bullshit is bad, trying to peddle out of date bullshit that even your dear leader can’t even claim anymore is truly pathetic. Every one of your false ‘claims’ has been disproven *repeatedly*, no viable WMDs, no working programs, just a paper tiger that was trying to keep regional enemies guessing in order to stave off attacks.

  174. 174
    John Cole says:

    These borrowed phrases are a decent summary of what I mean. You know you’re a leftist if:

    -You think President Bush lied to the nation, but his predecessor did not.

    Nope. I think they were both liars. Clinton lied about a blow job (and other things), Bush’s lies are too legion to count.

    You support racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity, but oppose the adoption of nondiscriminatory hiring practices to ensure ideological diversity on university faculties.

    Nope.

    -You believe George Bush “stole” either presidential election

    Nope.

    -You believe all or most conservatives are racist, but do not think minorities can ever succeed without affirmative action.

    I think many of what you call conservative are bona fide racists, bigots, and homophobes (and you can throw in xenophobe). But I only need to look at their connections to sketchy racist organizations and speeches to discern that. I don’t think all conservatives are that way, but only an idiot would deny the relationship and the fact that the same rhetoric the segregationist used against blacks is now being used against homosxuals. And you can sure bet Darrell would defend that.

    -You believe that George Bush is a ‘war criminal’

    I believe Bush is an incompetent war President who allowed his administration to be filled to the brim with people who have no respect for the law, no allegiance to common sense, and who systematically enabled torture and created the situation at Abu Ghraib.

    -You believe evangelical Christians are destroying America, but feel less threatened by radical Islam.

    I believe the radical elements within both would destroy America if given a chance, which is why I despise them both. You, for some reason, excuse one of the two and want to annhilate the other. I have no clue why.

    -You believe the right to an abortion is written in the Constitution, but disagree with the right to bear arms

    Nope. I do believe in a right to privacy and that a man’s home is his castle, though. You believe a man’s home (and his email, mail, phone records, bank records, library checkout, and anything else, for that matter) are Bush’s castle- just so long as he wails about the terrorists first.

    -You have a bumper sticker on your car saying “Hate is not a family value”

    Are you saying it is?

    -You can’t decide which is worse: the Patriot Act or the Patriot Missile.

    Both have turned out to be pretty awful.

    – You’ve harassed military recruiters on campus

    I served longer than you, dipshit.

    – You believe it’s proven fact that man-made effluents are the primary cause of global warming

    Man made and fossil fuels, but, yes.

    – You believe Digby or Jane Hamsher are ‘insightful’

    Digby yes, hamsher, no.

    So, Darrell- Am I a leftist?

  175. 175
    Shabbazz says:

    But then inspectors got shown the door..

    In 2003, the UN inspectors were shown the door — BY THE US of A!

    What was that you were saying about not believing anything that violates your dogma?

    BTW — the fact that you regurgitate cartoon-character e-mail forwards to demonstrate your understanding of liberalism is a riot! Well done!

  176. 176
    John S. says:

    Let’s see if bizarro Darrell leftism yields “rightism”:

    These borrowed phrases are a decent summary of what I mean. You know you’re a rightist if:

    – You think President Bush has carried this nation “forward”, but his predecessor did not.

    – You believe all or most liberals are racist, but do not think minorities can ever succeed with affirmative action.

    – You believe Islaamists are bent on destroying America, but do not feel this country is threatened by radical evangelical Christians.

    – You have a bumper sticker on your car saying “Jesus Votes Republican”

    – You can’t decide which is better: the Patriot Act or the Patriot Missile.

    – You’ve harassed war protesters on campus

    – You believe it’s proven fact that man-made effluents have little to no effect on global warming

    – You believe Confederate Yankee or Jonah Goldberg are ‘insightful’

  177. 177
    TenguPhule says:

    Brave Sir Darrell ran away, ran away.

    Sound of coconut shells riding off

  178. 178
    Darrell says:

    I think many of what you call conservative are bona fide racists, bigots, and homophobes

    Define what you’re calling “many” conservatives. ballpark

    You believe a man’s home (and his email, mail, phone records, bank records, library checkout, and anything else, for that matter) are Bush’s castle-

    John Cole loves to debate with caricatures of conservatives, so he attributes extreme positions to smear large swaths of conservatives, just like he did with his “conservatives are racist” smears. So much easier that way, than debating the positions of actual, or typical conservative positions.

    I served longer than you, dipshit.

    Great response John. I’m sure that one will really ‘play to the crowd’

  179. 179
    RSA says:

    It’s almost sad how cardboard cutout Darrell’s perceptions are, considering that he is the official mascot of Ballon-Juice.

    John doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid, but isn’t it hitting below the belt to imply that he’s now French?

  180. 180
    TenguPhule says:

    Shorter Darrell: Nitpick! Obvious Distraction! Projection!! Attempt to compensate for being a sad little man!

  181. 181
    Shabbazz says:

    John Cole loves to debate with caricatures of conservatives, so he attributes extreme positions to smear large swaths of conservatives, just like he did with his “conservatives are racist” smears.

    No, I think he loves to point out that you have no idea what a conservative is — that you are a Republican, not a conservative. Hence the line “I think many of *what you call conservative* are bona fide racists, bigots, and homophobes”.

    But that’s just my take. I would not attempt to speak for John as he does a fine job of that himself.

  182. 182
    John Cole says:

    John Cole loves to debate with caricatures of conservatives, so he attributes extreme positions to smear large swaths of conservatives, just like he did with his “conservatives are racist” smears. So much easier that way, than debating the positions of actual, or typical conservative positions.

    Show me where you once objected to Bush’s oversteps regarding domestic surveillance, ‘tough’ interrogation practices, etc., and I will partially retract that statement.

    Hell, I will make it even easier. Don;t even show me where you objected to his actions- just show me a thread wherre you didn’t defend them.

  183. 183
    TenguPhule says:

    Pull up a bag of popcorn, ThymeZone.

    I think you’re about to get a belated Christmas present.

  184. 184
    John Cole says:

    FYI- It isn’t a smear when you call a racist a racist.

  185. 185
    Pooh says:

    And pie filter – off: this might be good.

  186. 186
    Pooh says:

    FYI- It isn’t a smear when you call a racist a racist.

    Not so subtle distinction between ad hominem attacks and the ad hominem fallacy, eh Tim?

  187. 187
    ThymeZone says:

    Popcorn butter — check.

    Flaming hot potato chips — check.

    Cokes and crushed ice — check.

    Boston Baked Beans and Red Vines — check.

    Snickers with almonds — check.

    Okay, let ‘er rip.

  188. 188
    John S. says:

    Paging Dr. Freud…Darrell has a case of zee projection:

    Darrell loves to debate with caricatures of liberals, so he attributes extreme positions to smear large swaths of liberals, just like he did with his “[insert leftist comment here]” smears. So much easier that way, than debating the positions of actual, or typical liberals positions.

    Fascinating.

  189. 189
    Steve says:

    I thought the point was that “leftist” has an actual meaning that bears no relationship to the random way in which Darrell throws it around. On Planet Darrell, if you believe the Executive Branch is bound by FISA, you’re in the same category as a Marxist who wants to nationalize all means of production. This sort of “thinking” is how Tim becomes one of the most extreme bloggers on the Internet.

    What I find ironic is that Bush is supposedly a wishy-washy liberal who has betrayed the conservative movement in all sorts of ways, and yet many of the definitions of “leftism” are based solely on whether you dislike Bush. Brent Scowcroft might be the ultimate leftist.

  190. 190
    Pooh says:

    If I may put my amateur psychologist hat on for a moment, it’s far easier for an unreflective person to define themselves in terms of what they are against as of in terms of what they are for. I might suggest that many on the hard right aren’t in favor of any particular administration initiative as much as they are against those Damned Fucking Hippies. In a vacuum, I suspect that Darrell would position himself in direct opposition to TZ on an issue where he didn’t really have an a priori opinion, and would do so without any systematic consideration of the merits of any position.

    And this is why “leftist” must be a infinitely expandable term, because his dislike is content-free.

  191. 191
    ImJohnGalt says:

    especially with all those palaces Saddam built stuffed to their ceilings with cash.

    I had no idea that Saddam was the basis for Scrooge McDuck.

  192. 192
    Shabbazz says:

    I had no idea that Saddam was the basis for Scrooge McDuck.

    Me either! The last I heard, he was Hitler! But that was only after he was our Ally! And that was after he gassed his own people! But then he was Hitler! Now he’s McDuck and Ahmadinejad is Hitler!

    Why it’s almost as though the wheels of this entire rediculous public charade are starting to spin out of control — and that the only people willing to defend this recursive ball of lies are the cartoon characters masquarading as “conservatives” who will say and do anything to avoid admitting that they were (and are) wrong on matters of grave repercussion!

    Thank you Colbert. Thank you Darrell. A more perfect example of Truth through Satire can not be found!

    “The times they are a changin’!”

    How’s that for leftist?

  193. 193
    Darrell says:

    John Cole Says:

    FYI- It isn’t a smear when you call a racist a racist.

    I asked once… you refused to answer. I’ll ask once more John, when you write

    I think many of what you call conservative are bona fide racists, bigots, and homophobes

    Would you define what you consider to be “many” conservatives? 50% 35%? A ballpark estimate on your park will do.

    Show me where you once objected to Bush’s oversteps regarding domestic surveillance, ‘tough’ interrogation practices, etc., and I will partially retract that statement.

    Show me once, where you have ever engaged me in a debate over Bush’s “oversteps” on domestic surveillance? In that area, I think Bush is on solid ground. And given the number of threads/posts I’ve commented on this issue, how honest of you to swoop in with such generalizations now. Of course, much easier for you to take cheap shots from the sidelines (“I served longer than you, dipshit”).

    I see what you’re doing – pick one or two narrow areas which I am in agreement with Bush, areas which you have previously not disagreed with me, at least in 9+ months on those issues, and then try and paint me as a Bush lackey. Brilliant

    John Cole Says:

    FYI- It isn’t a smear when you call a racist a racist.

    Ok then, have the balls to say in plain english how many, what percentage of conservatives you believe are “racist” ? Because truth is, without answering that, you’re nothing but a cheap smear merchant with a stick up his ass.

    Also, since you’ve leveled the racist smear on conservatives, how about an ounce of honest acknowledgment on your part that the ONLY times you’ve had to delete racist comments on this site, was only when leftists made repeated racist attacks on Michelle Malkin. You’ve never had to do the same with conservative commenters here making similar racist statements, have you? Why do you think that is?

  194. 194
    ThymeZone says:

    Would you define what you consider to be “many” conservatives? 50% 35%

    This is like being in the Twilight Zone. Here’s a guy who slings modifiers like a wet dog slings water off its back, who throws the puff-up words at the drop of a hat, who relies on vague “most people” and “from everything I’ve read” bullshit right and left to throw a smokescreen around the endless torrent of horsecrap he posts, who never answers pointed questions or provides facts to support his outlandish claims …. insisting that somebody else be precise or back up a claim.

    What’s the deal? One set of rules for Darrell, and another for everybody else around here? How does this work? Where do we apply for the Darrellicious Free Pass that allows us to post any crap that pops into our heads and never be held accountable for it?

  195. 195
    Krista says:

    I think many of what you call conservative are bona fide racists, bigots, and homophobes

    Would you define what you consider to be “many” conservatives? 50% 35%? A ballpark estimate on your park will do.

    You’re missing a very important distinction, Darrell. He didn’t say that many conservatives are racist. He said that many of what YOU WOULD CALL conservatives are bona fide racists, bigots and homophobes. You’ve repeatedly used the “leftist” label on many people here who hold centrist or conservative viewpoints, solely because they disagreed with you on something. So, by sheer process of elimination, the only people that YOU would call conservatives are those who share your viewpoints — viewpoints which on more than one occasion could be easily viewed as prejudiced.

  196. 196
    John Cole says:

    More than zero, less than 100%.

    I will use the same rules for sccuracy that the administration used for WMD.

  197. 197
    John Cole says:

    Krista- Don’t even bother. It doesn’t matter what I said, it matters what he THINKS I said.

    Personally, I am about to go insult him on the movie thread.

  198. 198
    ThymeZone says:

    Fine, if there isn’t going to be anything to bitch about, then I guess I am going to bed early.

    I resent this scheme to get rid of me by taking away all of my complaints.

    UNFAIR TO CRANKY OLD MEN.

  199. 199
    Krista says:

    Krista- Don’t even bother. It doesn’t matter what I said, it matters what he THINKS I said.

    I know, I know. I don’t know why I bother, but maybe the cockeyed optimist in me thinks that someday, somehow, a spark of logic might penetrate.

    Personally, I am about to go insult him on the movie thread.

    I’ll be right there. That sounds like just the refreshment I need after a long day clearing land. (My first time using a chainsaw — holy shit, was it fun!)

  200. 200
    Zifnab says:

    -You believe George Bush “stole” either presidential election

    How did Bush NOT steal the election? Answer that!

  201. 201

    So can we call you “Ms. Bush Clearer” now, Krista?

  202. 202
    John Cole says:

    So can we call you “Ms. Bush Clearer” now, Krista?

    There are so many improper jokes I could make right now that I am just going to go to bed.

  203. 203
    craigie says:

    – You believe it’s proven fact that man-made effluents are the primary cause of global warming

    Honestly, I don’t get this. In what way is this a political question? Why do holocaust climate change deniers think that worrying about the future of the planet is some kind of marker for gay lefty thinking? Do these people have a secret spaceship, just waiting for the day when the Earth is uninhabitable? Is that why they just don’t care?

    Seriously, what’s the deal?

  204. 204
    Geo. says:

    nixon,s handpicked dummy.

  205. 205
    RSA says:

    Seriously, what’s the deal?

    I’ve wondered about this, too. My best guess is that two factors are at work. First, addressing global warming will require collective action, which would be an arrow through the heart of the libertarian-leaning wing as well as anathema to conservative isolationists and go-it-aloners. Second, the very idea of humans contributing to global warming seems offensive to religious conservatives, possibly because it suggests we aren’t being good stewards of the Earth.

    On the other hand, it could be they’re all fucking idiots.

  206. 206
    Zifnab says:

    Honestly, I don’t get this. In what way is this a political question? Why do holocaust climate change deniers think that worrying about the future of the planet is some kind of marker for gay lefty thinking?

    This one isn’t so hard. The solution to the global warming crisis will involve business regulations. That means more money going towards government fines and/or building improvements, and less towards fat end-of-year bonuses to factor managers and company execs.

    Solving global warning will cost money. And Republicans are cheap.

  207. 207
    ThymeZone says:

    I disagree. I think it has to do with fear of science and process. Righties hate anything that depends on process, anything which might threaten there emotion-based worldview. They resent the tyrrany and authority of science and jurisprudence. I truly believe that they know that process destroys their own authority in the long run, and therefore they rage against it and anyone who supports it.

    That’s also why they love politics, because politics is theater, and theater is the perfect medium for their insane bullshit.

  208. 208
    ThymeZone says:

    threaten their, not there

    Jesus.

  209. 209
    RobR says:

    How about banning posters like “Ted”, “CaseyL”, and “RobR”, who only post with personal attacks?

    Ah. So you call a dead man who can’t respond to your opinion a “chickenshit” for not presenting his opinions about the administration to their faces.

    I respond to your “reasoned analysis” of calling a deceased former President of the United States a chickenshit by calling you a chickenshit necophiliac ghoul to your face. I play by your rules, and I should be silenced. Got it.

    Maybe it’s the use of strong language you object to. Okay. I can understand that. Nobody likes to be insulted over their beliefs. That said, you besmirched the memory of a dead man to further your own political position. You fucked him over when he couldn’t defend himself. So I thought “Chickenshit,” “necrophiliac” and “ghoul” to be more appropriate than, say, “kook”, “whackjob” or “unbalanced.”

    But I suppose you’re right. I’ll try to be more polite when debating you in the future, fuckface.

  210. 210
    Zifnab says:

    Righties hate anything that depends on process, anything which might threaten there emotion-based worldview.

    I’ll agree Righties don’t like things they can’t control. Torture, wiretapping, and military invasions are all signs of a regime who wants to force things their way. Science can’t be blackmailed or intimidated or coerced into doing what the Republicans want, so they’ve got no use for it unless it already agrees with them.

    But I think the Clinton proceedings and the midnight votes prove that Republicans do love process and order when they can control it. Tom DeLay will swear to his dieing breath that his money laundering wasn’t fair or nice or equal, but it was legal to the letter of the law. Likewise, redistricting shows a group of people who embrace the system so long as they can gerrymander it to suit their whims.

    Even Intelligent Design is an attempt to jury-rig science to get what you want.

  211. 211
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Righties hate anything that depends on process, anything which might threaten there emotion-based worldview.

    All of them? How honest of you. If not, then what percent? WHAT PERCENT, LOONS?!?!1

  212. 212
    ThymeZone says:

    But I think the Clinton proceedings and the midnight votes prove that Republicans do love process and order when they can control it. Tom DeLay will swear to his dieing breath that his money laundering wasn’t fair or nice or equal, but it was legal to the letter of the law. Likewise, redistricting shows a group of people who embrace the system so long as they can gerrymander it to suit their whims.

    Good point.

    A little hypocrisy in the service of Geezus is a ticket to heaven.

  213. 213
    ThymeZone says:

    what percent? WHAT PERCENT

    Well, using Darrell as the sample …. around 150%, I’d say.

  214. 214
    chopper says:

    pollution is in economics a ‘negative externality’. its an infinity in the equation, a place where the market divided by zero. one of those things that libertarians like to sweep under the rug, but they can’t. and it drives ’em bonkers.

  215. 215
    Steve says:

    But see, in libertarian utopia, we’d have multiple Earths. And you’d be able to choose whether to live on the Earth with pollution controls, or the Earth with rampant pollution but cheaper consumer goods or whatever. And gradually, the Earth that doesn’t get chosen by the free market is going to die out, everyone will resettle on the other Earth, and that’s the beauty of free-market principles at work!

  216. 216
    RSA says:

    Don’t you love it? And in the end, everyone who dies has the satisfaction of not having been coerced into their deathbed.

  217. 217
    Sirkowski says:

    ***UPDATE***
    The photo and this Kerry story is a hoax!

  218. 218
    craigie says:

    And gradually, the Earth that doesn’t get chosen by the free market is going to die out, everyone will resettle on the other Earth, and that’s the beauty of free-market principles at work!

    That post is a thing of beauty. I’m convinced now!

  219. 219
    Krista says:

    So can we call you “Ms. Bush Clearer” now, Krista?

    No.

  220. 220
    Darrell says:

    I respond to your “reasoned analysis” of calling a deceased former President of the United States a chickenshit by calling you a chickenshit necophiliac ghoul to your face

    No, no you didn’t, or you would have had your buck teeth knocked down your throat. You called me names over the internet, not to “my face”. I understand that often times the mentally ill cannot make distinctions between what’s ‘real life’, and what’s not.

  221. 221
    Darrell says:

    Why do holocaust climate change deniers think that worrying about the future of the planet is some kind of marker for gay lefty thinking?

    You should know you’re on the wrong side when you start making Nazi comparisons in order to make your ‘point’. But nice strawman. No one challenges that climate is occurring and has occured since the beginning of earth. The question is, what effect does man have on this climate change. I cited a 2006 national academy of sciences article yesterday in which scientists from several countries are openly grappling that very question. The causes of global climate change are FAR from being well established.

    What is it about liberals, that makes them so much in denial to this scientific reality. You are pursuing your dogma, not science.. all the while lying your asses off that it’s scientifically proven, when it’s not!

  222. 222
    Darrell says:

    You’ve repeatedly used the “leftist” label on many people here who hold centrist or conservative viewpoints, solely because they disagreed with you on something.

    It’s pretty rare that I have mislabeled someone. Last time a poster disagreed with me calling him a leftist was “RSA”, who just yesterday was forced to admit that he was not a moderate or conservative, but an unabashed liberal. What bothers me, is that leftists (especially compared to conservatives) have a decided tendency to call themselves “moderates”, even when they are in fact far leftwingnut. I find this tendency to be dishonest. Own up to who you are and what you believe in.

    John was just engaging in his favorite technique of smearing without basis (“many” conservatives are racist!), just as he grossly mischaracterized Powerline’s reasonable comments on Gerald Ford as some type of over-the-top villification of Ford when it was nothing of the sort. Whereas, John cole himself has of late, been far more likely himself to engage in exactly that type of gross mischaracterization and smears that he accuses others of doing.

  223. 223
    TenguPhule says:

    No, no you didn’t, or you would have had your buck teeth knocked down your throat.

    Shorter Darrell: Please don’t hurt me.

    It’s pretty rare that I have mislabeled someone.

    Shorter Darrell II: I like to call people names.

    What bothers me, is that leftists (especially compared to conservatives) have a decided tendency to call themselves “moderates”, even when they are in fact far leftwingnut.

    Shorter Darrell III: If you’re not to the Right of Ashcroft, you’re a leftwing nut.

  224. 224
    TenguPhule says:

    The causes of global climate change are FAR from being well established.

    While the effects of human production and consumption on that global climate instability are fairly obvious.

    But such distinctions are beyond Darrell’s capacity.

  225. 225
    Darrell says:

    While the effects of human production and consumption on that global climate instability are fairly obvious

    “Obvious” to kool-aid drinkers like you maybe.. but not to atmospheric scientists working with the National Academy of Sciences who are researching causes of climate change:

    Hall and a group of colleagues in the United States, Great Britain and Italy recently published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    …Hall’s study is one of many that are looking at Arctic and Antarctic regions in an effort to understand global climate change and how human activity is affecting natural cyclical changes in the Earth’s climate.

    “The climate does change,” she said. “We’d like to know what causes that natural variability, what triggers it.”

  226. 226

    […] adds: I would group this together with the Jeffrey Hart story Scott discusses below, under the heading “elderly apostates.” I find it interesting that many on the left who viewedHart’s work over his entire adult life with contempt, now cite him as a sort of sage when he criticizes President Bush. Likewise with Gerald Ford. Out of public life for a quarter-century andninety, his views on the Iraq war are not especially noteworthy, except insofar as they can be used to discredit the present administration. If Ford had endorsed Bush’s Iraq policy in hiswith Bob Woodward, would we ever have heard about it? I doubt it. I have to admit to some amusement at the attitude of the right. They’ve lost the debate on Iraq, and now they’re actingpetulent little children. Of course, that’s always been par for the course with the kids at Powerline. (via John Cole, who notes other opinions as well.)      […]

  227. 227
    Fledermaus says:

    Pooh:

    it’s far easier for an unreflective person to define themselves in terms of what they are against as of in terms of what they are for.

    I think the best explanation comes courtesy of Dave Barry:

    “Suppose you’re at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you’re drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you’ll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you’ll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You’ll be a WEALTH of information. You’ll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.”

  228. 228
    TenguPhule says:

    Hall, a *glacial* *geologist* at the University of Maine

    Oops, Darrell forgot to read his own article.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] adds: I would group this together with the Jeffrey Hart story Scott discusses below, under the heading “elderly apostates.” I find it interesting that many on the left who viewedHart’s work over his entire adult life with contempt, now cite him as a sort of sage when he criticizes President Bush. Likewise with Gerald Ford. Out of public life for a quarter-century andninety, his views on the Iraq war are not especially noteworthy, except insofar as they can be used to discredit the present administration. If Ford had endorsed Bush’s Iraq policy in hiswith Bob Woodward, would we ever have heard about it? I doubt it. I have to admit to some amusement at the attitude of the right. They’ve lost the debate on Iraq, and now they’re actingpetulent little children. Of course, that’s always been par for the course with the kids at Powerline. (via John Cole, who notes other opinions as well.)      […]

  2. Let the smearing begin

    LET THE SMEARING BEGIN…. I wondered this morning whether Gerald Ford’s embargoed criticism of the Bush White House and the war in Iraq might affect the right’s praise of the former president this week. As it turns out, the blowback…

  3. Inactivist says:

    Round-up of assorted libertarians opining on Gerald Ford

    Cato-at-Liberty’s Daniel Griswold praises Gerald Ford for having facilitated the transformation of the GOP away from isolationism and free-trade barriers and toward internationalism:

Comments are closed.