Not My Bag, Baby

Tough times for the GOP:

Senate Republicans, scrambling to head off GOP defections to a resolution opposing President Bush’s war policy, are considering their own resolution demanding benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq and possibly a new diplomatic effort to end the war, senators said yesterday.

Senators from both parties began preparing for a showdown with President Bush over his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, although that showdown may be pushed back to the week of Feb. 5. Two rival camps opposed to the additional troop deployments continued to dicker over the wording of a resolution expressing the Senate’s opposition, while GOP leaders and White House loyalists plotted a response.

Evidently the party has become fractured, rudderless and terrified of the war from which they can’t seem to get unstuck. “Scared spitless,” in the words of Sen. John Thune. For some reason I keep thinking of Austin Powers.

It’s hard to feel sorry for the GOP. They fought like hell to own this war and fought even harder to stifle adult supervision. Given how Rove’s Republicans cynically manipulated every aspect of this war for political gain it seems perfectly, inescapably appropriate to watch them suffer exactly the fate that they hoped to inflict on the hated Democrat party.

Reflect a bit more on the inept decisionmaking that led to the GOP’s sorry state. I can understand that many on the right thought that war was a good idea, even necessary. I can also get why a particularly craven group of leaders would try to tie the war to their own political fate. Hey, if everything came out as advertised (by, cough, Chalabi) the GOP-as-Churchill and Dems-as-Chamberlain narrative practically writes itself. Politicizing war is revolting, craven, practically subhuman, but a respectable decision when it comes to looking out for your tribe.

What baffles me is that once the GOP owned the war lock stock and barrel, someone (say, Pat Roberts) thought it would be a good idea to kill off the faintest hint of oversight. In free market terms that’s the same as a business sinking its resources and reputation into a project and then taking off to Maui for a few months while the contractor does his thing unsupervised. That suggests an awful lot of confidence in the contractor, n’est-ce pas? It suggests that Republicans considered their leader practically infallible, incapable of the quotidian failures that characterize ordinary humans, not unlike the leader cult barbs (Dear Leader etc) half-jokingly brought up by lefties like me. After all, assuming that the GOP Congress were rational beings with some vestigial interest in their political future, what other explanation makes any sense?

In fact, the endless Christmas morning that is the Scooter Libby trial shows that top ranks might have acted in their own interest if not for relentless pressure from the office of Dick Cheney. That provides an excuse of sorts for the Congressional leadership, after all Cheney has shot people for less. What about the rest of the party? It must have occurred to the rank-and file rightwingers that hitching their wagon to a war and then killing accountability was a recipe for trouble. Or maybe it didn’t occur to them at all. For Republicans who don’t have darth Cheney as an alibi it seems to me that we’re right back to either an infallible Leader complex or else not enough wattage to see the conflict.

The Libby schadenfreud-a-rama has left me feeling charitable, so here’s some free advice for the next generation of Republicans. Responsible oversight does more than just uncover occasional political embarrassments. It also makes sure that the things you try to do actually work. That helps because when you try something that fails you look bad. Keep that in mind while you’re trying to stem the hemorrhage in ’08.






285 replies
  1. 1
    Eural says:

    Mike Myers – the Nostradamus of the 21st century? He cleverly hides his prophetic visions behind the facade of purile toilet-humor! Who knew?

    I shall now review the entire “Austin Powers” triology to extract its real hidden inner meaning for our nation in this our of need! Perhaps I can play Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” simultaneously to further unlock its Da Vinci-esque meanings!!

    Tim you are genius!

  2. 2

    BTW…

    Speculation Iran was behind attack last week

    The attack where men disguised as US forces made it through checkpoints and took out US soldiers. Well, apparently the soldiers didn’t die defending themselves, they were kidnapped and taken away… they were found 25 miles away dead.

    Now with Bush out there ratcheting up rhetoric about Iranians operating inside Iraq… this is leading to speculation.

  3. 3

    The Iranian thing pisses me off. I’m all for going after Iran, if they are attacking our soldiers.

    But it seems to me evidence that this whol clusterfuck is falling apart.

  4. 4
    bpower says:

    “purile toilet-humor” ? That’s classic British humour my friend.

  5. 5
    Andrew says:

    The Iranian thing pisses me off. I’m all for going after Iran, if they are attacking our soldiers.

    Put the Pony Corps on alert!

  6. 6
    Zifnab says:

    Didn’t you hear? The Iraqi ponies were kidnapped and smuggled off to Iran and Syria while Defeatocrats were supporting the enemy. Only a valient charge of the Light Brigade will reclaim them. Quickly, Decider Bush, act before its to late.

    Nuke Mecca!

  7. 7
    RWB says:

    Your point about the lack of oversight for self-interested purposes was interesting. There are several possibilities here.

    1. This is the downside of total party discipline. For a long time, DeLay kept his team in line. So it would have been difficult for one or a group of Congressmen to buck that discipline. The mechanisms of control created and nurtured by DeLay were too strong.

    2. The gamble on success. It was not unreasonable at the beginning of the war to imagine that it would be a success. (In hindsight, this seems like an absurd and naive belief, but it was a belief that a lot of people had.) Therefore, politically, if you believe the war will be a success in 2002 or 2003 or even 2004, it is a reasonable strategy to always support it and portray any attempt at oversight (by the Democrats or the press) as counter-productive if not treasonous. The problem is that over time, no matter how good your facade is, you may end up having doubts. Hence the mea culpas we see now.

    The first scenario was unavoidable. Republicans owed the machine and were kept in line by it. The second scenario, well, one wishes thre had been a few more brave Republicans who asked hard questions, even at the risk of being called an appeaser or worse by members of their own party. Oh well–their party has paid (and likely will continue to pay) the price for its timidity in the face of authority.

  8. 8
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    One thing about the Bush admin and itsd minions, when it comes to lying they are very consistent.

    BAGHDAD, Iraq – Contrary to public statements by the U.S. military, four US soldiers did not die repelling a sneak attack at the governor’s office in the Shiite holy city of Karbala last week. New information obtained by the AP shows they were abducted and found dead or dying as far as 25 miles away.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16826151/

    Guess they figured the truth might overshadow Georgie’s SOTU speech? Or maybe it wass just from habit ..

  9. 9
    Pb says:

    The Iranian thing pisses me off. I’m all for going after Iran, if they are attacking our soldiers.

    Because, you know, all Iranian citizens and/or terrorists are actually also agents of the government of Iran. In fact, that’s the exact same reason why we immediately went after Saudi Arabia in the wake of 9/11! Oh, wait…

  10. 10
    Ned Raggett says:

    Then again you can be like Bernard Kerik and decide now’s a good time just to leave the country:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00597.html

  11. 11
    TenguPhule says:

    The Ponies are in Iran!

    Ready the Commander’s bulging codpiece!

    *Fap**Fap*Fap*,/b> /Darrell

  12. 12
    Frank says:

    Poor Naive Tim,

    I am sorry I have to tell you this, but matters are much much worse than you suppose. The whole point of the war was to let contractors have the run of the treasury. Using it to cow the Democrats was just a side benefit in getting this turkey sold.

    The Repugnant party knows that they can count on the press to help sell whatever lie they concoct to blame Democrats for the loss of the war, in the long run that is even better for them than winning. The Repugnants never cared about winning, or America or anything except 1 stealing everything they can, and 2 arranging matters so that they can steal more in the future.

  13. 13
    Krista says:

    Jesus wept

    Pelosi says she asked Bush why he thought this “surge” would work when two others have failed. The president’s response: “Because I told them it had to.”

  14. 14
    TenguPhule says:

    I’m all for going after Iran, if they are attacking our soldiers.

    Comrade Bush welcomes you with open arms and upthrust rod.

    Lot of groups able to do it, no proof yet as to who.

  15. 15
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Pelosi says she asked Bush why he thought this “surge” would work when two others have failed. The president’s response: “Because I told them it had to.”

    Better response given by Pelosi:

    Why didn’t you tell them that the other two times?

    Zing!!!

  16. 16
    pharniel says:

    seriously. time to start treson trials for the contractors, execute them and split the siezed assets up amongst the wounded soldiers and veterans.
    Figure that’s got to be a couple billion split amongst at most, what 250k?

    pretty sure we can buy some serious good will with that one.

  17. 17
    RSA says:

    Very good points, Tim F., about the Republicans owning this war. I’m thinking of a House vote as recent as last June on a non-binding resolution that the U.S. will win the war on terror, and that, by the way, setting a timeline for redeployment is not in the national interest. As the Post puts it:

    Democrats denounced the resolution as “political gamesmanship aimed at providing ammunition to use against them in November’s midterm elections. They argued that the intent was to force lawmakers who oppose Bush’s Iraq war policy to effectively cast a vote against winning the war on terrorism if they wanted to register their objections.”

    Republicans made this bed; let’s see them sleep in under it.

  18. 18
    Jake says:

    In fact, the endless Christmas Fitzmas morning that is the Scooter Libby trial.

    Couldn’t resist.

    …top ranks might have acted in their own interest if not for relentless pressure from the office of Dick Cheney. That provides an excuse of sorts for the Congressional leadership.

    MoonBat Conspiracy Corner:

    Despite the ravings from the Washington Times and Faux News, Barak Osama is not a stealth IslamoCommie trained to infiltrate US politics, become President of the United States and then launch tactical nuclear strikes at NY, DC, LA, etc. This story has been debunked, repeatedly but Faux keeps running it? Why?

    To distract us from the truth: Dick Cheney is the stealth IslamoCommie. Through his meat puppet he has gotten this country embroiled in a two wars in the ME (and maybe a third in Somalia). At the current rate of use our army will soon be in worse shape than a sheep at a convention of lonely shepherds. This will pave the way for Dick’s masters. Think I’m mad? Why do you think he had to rush out to Saudi Arabia a couple of months ago? His programming was starting to slip!

  19. 19

    Because, you know, all Iranian citizens and/or terrorists are actually also agents of the government of Iran.

    there’s a difference between invading a country to “liberate the people from the government”, and a country declaring war on us by attacking our soldiers, and the response and responsibility of the country involved.

  20. 20
    Zifnab says:

    there’s a difference between invading a country to “liberate the people from the government”, and a country declaring war on us by attacking our soldiers, and the response and responsibility of the country involved.

    That’s deep.

  21. 21
    TenguPhule says:

    and a country declaring war on us by attacking our soldiers, and the response and responsibility of the country involved.

    And maybe we’d even have a case if Bush hadn’t decided to run Black Ops in Iranian territory.

    But if Iran did sponser this operation, they’ll have used so many cutouts that it will probably be impossible to prove.

  22. 22
    Pb says:

    a country declaring war on us by attacking our soldiers

    Let me know when that happens. Or are you saying that we already effectively declared war on Iran?

    In interviews, two senior administration officials separately compared the Tehran government to the Nazis and the Guard to the “SS.” They also referred to Guard members as “terrorists.” Such a formal designation could turn Iran’s military into a target of what Bush calls a “war on terror,” with its members potentially held as enemy combatants or in secret CIA detention.

  23. 23
    Zifnab says:

    Can you label an entry nation an “enemy combatant”?

    Do “Articles of War” actually mean a flipping thing, or should the Founding Fathers just go out and pound sand?

    How many cruise missles can you fire at a sovereign nation before you can credibly claim “Oops, we hit Mecca by mistake”?

    When did Hussien Osama Baraknikov stop beating his gay wife?

    These questions and more, coming up, on FAUX!

  24. 24
    Jake says:

    Can you label an entry nation an “enemy combatant”?

    Yes

    Do “Articles of War” actually mean a flipping thing, or should the Founding Fathers just go out and pound sand?

    No. Yes.

    How many cruise missles can you fire at a sovereign nation before you can credibly claim “Oops, we hit Mecca by mistake”?

    12 (one for each apostle).

    When did Hussien Osama Baraknikov stop beating his gay wife?

    I think you mean wives. Haven’t you heard about his harem? He’s practicing for the 72 virgins.

  25. 25
    Eural says:

    “purile toilet-humor” ? That’s classic British humour my friend.

    Hey – I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it! :)

  26. 26
    TenguPhule says:

    when you try something that fails you look bad.

    Tim, this is a feature, not a bug, for the Republican party.

    Being wrong leads to medals, pay raises and more media time.

    It’s like being a CEO, only not as lucrative.

  27. 27
    feral1 says:

    You know I don’t think it was that all of the war supporters had such faith in the Bush Administration. I think they had faith in the US military’s ability to do just about anything.

    It is impossible for many Republicans/conservatives to be even minimally realistic about the military’s limitations or the limits of armed force in general.

  28. 28
    TenguPhule says:

    Also not in the GOP bag, balanced budgets

    Any bets as to when Redstate will start screeching about it?

  29. 29

    Lord this is fun.

    Sort of like the guy in Once More with Feeling, tap dancing faster, and faster until finally. Whoosh.

    Now that’s entertainment.

  30. 30
    Jess says:

    The penis-enlarger analogy is perfect–I think that’s exactly why so many were so quick to support this war after the humiliation of 9/11 and the destruction of those enormous, phallic towers, despite all the rational reasons to think twice.

  31. 31
    Steve says:

    Speculation Iran was behind attack last week

    The bolded word is one which hasn’t received enough attention in this thread, and I hate to see my good friends arguing.

    Laura Rozen engaged in the same sort of speculation, actually. But it’s all based on the mere observation that Iran would have motive to retaliate against us at this particular moment. There’s no actual, you know, evidence.

    There are plenty of folks in the administration who would undoubtedly love to find ironclad evidence of Iranian-sponsored violence against our troops. Lord knows, whenever someone finds a shell casing with “Made in Iran” stamped on it, a hue and cry erupts throughout the right-wing blogosphere.

    But although Darrell repeatedly assures us that Iran is sending terrorists and armaments pouring across the border, there just doesn’t seem to be that much evidence turning up. Despite the fact that we have a clear incentive to find such evidence, if it exists. It’s perplexing.

  32. 32
    BARRASSO says:

    Since the republican party as a whole have turned to using the word Democrat instead of Democratic party, can the Dems please start calling them the Republicants, and if that just happens to sound like Republi-cunts that is just a coincidence. And in no way should that intimate that I have anything against cunts, my great great grandmother was a cunt in the old west.

  33. 33
    TenguPhule says:

    But although Darrell repeatedly assures us that Iran is sending terrorists and armaments pouring across the border, there just doesn’t seem to be that much evidence turning up.

    And the irony, what they have turned up is that the Iranians are helping the Iraqis nominally on *our* side.

  34. 34
    Steve says:

    And the irony, what they have turned up is that the Iranians are helping the Iraqis nominally on our side.

    That’s a rather good point. We’ve turned Iraq over to a Shia-controlled government, which of course wants to break bread with their Shiite brothers in Iran. And within the Shiite majority, the only significant anti-Iran voice seems to be… al-Sadr and his fundamentalist goons.

    gg, as the kids say.

  35. 35
  36. 36

    As to why the Congressional GOP completely abandoned oversight, I’d say it was a perfect storm of hubris, partisanship, and weak-minded leadership.

    If you view politics as nothing more than a competition for power between parties, then why would you ever criticize or scrutinize your popular party leader?

    Karl Rove was talking about creating a Thousand Years of GOP Dominance. The level of intellectual discource in the GOP leadership rarely, if ever, went beyond Rovian talking points and Fox News spin. Any unpleasant fact could conveniently be dismissed as the sort of thing the Liberal MSM would report.

    Plus, in the 1990s, the GOP, driven by Clinton hatred, acquiesced to Delay-led party unanimity.

    So there was this allegiance to the GOP, built not on any particular view of proper governance, but on hatred for teh liberals, sustained not by any empiricism or philosophy, but taunting sloganeering.

  37. 37

    “Because it has to.”

    Wow.

    So, we’re being led by a degenerate gambler who just put his last $500 on the Washington Generals because “it has to work” this time.

    Except it’s the lives of a few hundred thousand Americans and almost oall Iraqis and the stabiliity of the whole goddamn region we’re talking about here, all governed solely and entirely by the decider decion-maker’s wishful thinking. That’s super.

  38. 38
    mclaren says:

    Virtually all the comments seem to ignore Cole’s post and concentrate instead of the Iraq/Iran situation.

    So time to return to the topic.

    John Cole continues to show admirable honesty by slamming the Repubs for their dishonesty and incompetence. We need to recognize very clearly, however, that these are not two different bad traits. They are linked. Dishonesty typically leads to incompetence, and incompetence usually leads to dishonesty. The Repubs had to be dishonest _because_ they were incompetent. And the Repubs’ dishonesty in turn _led_ to *more* incompetence.

    It’s simple. If you lie all the time, it’s hard to get reliable facts because you’re living in a fantasyland made of lies. Withotu facts, you can’t correct your errors, so when you screw up and lie, you continue to screw up because you don’t have access to valid info to correct your course.

    Likewise, if you screw up al lthe time, the easiest and simplest way to fix it is to lie about it. So people who constantly lie are usually screwups who can’t get the job done.

    The really significant point here, though, is one that John Cole and all the Repubs never acknowledge.

    The tradition of lying linked with screwups began in the Republican party with Ronald Reagan.

    If you want to find out where this crazily stupid trend of lying to cover up screwups and then screwing up even more because you’re submerged in lies came from in the first place, it came from the maladministration of the man who co-starred with a chimpanzee — Ronald “Pathological Liar and World-Class Screwup” Reagan.

    “There was no arms for hostage deal.” — Ronald Reagan, 1986
    “There was an arms for hostage deal.” — Ronald Reagan, 1987

    Reagan lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied. Bonzo the chimp’s co-star did vritually nothing but lie throughout his entire 8-year-long maladminstration. He lied when he said his tax cuts on the rich would spur economic growth, he lied when he said welfare was in financial trouble because welfare queens were driving cadillacs down to the department of social services office to pick up their lucrative checks, Reagan lied when he said forest fires produce more pollution than all factories in history, Reagan lied when he said the Soviet Union was buildling up his armed forced, Reagan lied when he said trickle-down economics would help the poor, Reagan lied when he claimed he had been to Bitberg, Reagan lied and lied and lied and lied and lied…and then when Reagan stopped lying for a minute to take a sip of water, he put his glass down and then lied and lied and lied some more.

    Bonzo’s co-star lied all the time because he was grossly incompetent fool who couldn’t even remember the names of his kids, much less balance the federal budget or keep straight in his head where Lebanon was a world map or whether the Soviet economy was growing or collapsing. Reagan lied because he was grossly incompetent. How do you cover up if you’re an inept fool? You lie.

    The guy’s only accomlpishment in his life involved co-starring in a comedy film with a chimpanzee. Common sense tells you that when you put someone like that in the Oval Office, he’s going to screwup, and then to save his ass, he’ll lie about it.

    Bonzo’s co-star lied so msoothly and so charmingly that the deluded gullible Republicans preferred his lies to the truth. And that led the Repubs down the fatal path they’re on today.

    Today, the entire Republican party has converted wholesale to the Reagan philosoophy: “You don’t need to get it done if you can get it spun.”

    In short, Bonzo’s co-star showed the Republican party that image is more improtant than reality. Why bother to actually accomplish anything, Reagan showed the Republicans, when you can just lie about it?

    Reagan’s economic policies sent America straight into the toilet and filled the streets with homeless people. Solution? Just lie about it! Tell everyone that the economy is taking off like a rocket and run ads claiming “It’s morning in America”!

    Reagan’s military buildup nearly started a nuclear war on half a dozen occasions and produced a bunch of overpriced defective weaponry that never actually worked. Solution? Just lie about it! Tell everyone you won the Cold War when all the eivdence shows you actually _prolonged_ it because the Soviet Union was collapsing economically and militarily anyway!

    Reagan’s appointment of inept fundamentalist Christian fools throughout the government led to disastrous corruption and a seemingly endless string of indictments and eventually (in the case of Ed Meese) obscene grafitti in the Department of Justice hallways by federal employees disgusted with all the corruption and incompetence. Solution? Just lie about it! Claim you’re returning morality to America isntead of wasting DOJ resources on insane prosecutions of 7/11 owners for carrying Playboy and Penthouse!

    The modern Republican party has run off the road straight into a ditch for one reason, and one reason only. Ronald Reagan. They followed Reagan’s playbook and it led them into total disaster. Everything disaster that today destroys the Republican party sstarted with the catastrophically foolish and insanely dishonesty policies of Ronald “Pathological Liar and GRossly Incompetent Fool” Reagan.

    Just look at the evidence. Which maladministration started te practice of “gaming” the news with photo ops and slanted editorials? Reagan, not the current drunk-driving C student in the White House!

    Which maladminsitration started the practice of violating the law and had to be sued in court to enforce federal laws? Reagan (whose EPA constantly violated federal clean air and water regs until it was finally sued into followed the law), not the current drunk-driving C student in the White House!

    Which maladministration started the deadly spree of wild deficit spending with no regard for financial reality, and then lied about it and lied about it and lied about it? Reagan! Not the current imbecile in the Oval Office!

    Which maladministration started the fatal practice of a vast military buildup that led us into a giant quagmire? Reagan (in Beirut), not the current fool infesting the White House!

    In every single case, all the lethal imbecilities and dishonesties and gross ineptitudes started with Reagan. Bonzo’s the chimp’s co-star was the pattern which Republicans foolishly and disastrously siezed upon as a model for their politics. And now all the chickens are coming home to roost.

    When you look at the current arrogant incompetent criminals in the White House, the similarities to the crew of arrogant incompetent criminals who infested the Reagan White House are positively eerie. Just compare:

    John Cole writes
    “What baffles me is that once the GOP owned the war lock stock and barrel, someone (say, Pat Roberts) thought it would be a good idea to kill off the faintest hint of oversight. In free market terms that’s the same as a business sinking its resources and reputation into a project and then taking off to Maui for a few months while the contractor does his thing unsupervised. That suggests an awful lot of confidence in the contractor, at the very least. It suggests that Republicans considered their leader practically infallible, incapable of the quotidian failures that characterize ordinary humans, not unlike the leader cult barbs (Dear Leader etc) half-jokingly brought up by lefties like me. After all, assuming that the GOP Congress were rational beings with some vestigial interest in their political future, what other explanation makes any sense?”

    Nwo compare with 1983:
    “What baffles me is that once the GOP owned disastrous tax cuts for the rich stock and barrel, someone (say, Pat Roberts) thought it would be a good idea to kill off the faintest hint of oversight. In free market terms that’s the same as a business sinking its resources and reputation into a project and then taking off to Maui for a few months while the contractor does his thing unsupervised. That suggests an awful lot of confidence in the contractor, at the very least. It suggests that Republicans considered their leader [Ronald Reagan] practically infallible, incapable of the quotidian failures that characterize ordinary humans, not unlike the leader cult barbs (Dear Leader etc) half-jokingly brought up by lefties like me. After all, assuming that the GOP Congress were rational beings with some vestigial interest in their political future, what other explanation makes any sense?”

    What’s so breathtakingly tragic about this entire situation is that the Repubs even now, even today, _still_ kneel in mindless adoration of their hollow clay-footed idol, Ronald Reagan, even though it’s precisely his incompetent dishonesty and criminality that has brought the GOP to the point of destruction today.

    If the current political hecatombs continue, there won’t BE a Republican party in another 2 years. And this is the legacy of Bonzo’s co-star. He taught his party the wrong lesso — that if you lie smoothly and charmingly enough, reality doesn’t matter. Bonzo’s co-star taught us that it doesn’t matter if interest rates skyrocket to 20% and the streets fill with homeless people and the unemployment rat shoots up above 10%…as long as you fill the airwaves with commercials assuring us that it’s Morning In America and sing happy music and laugh, everything’s fine.

    Bonzo’s co-star taught us that it doesn’t matter if you promise to cut taxes and then preside over the largest tax increase in history — all you have to do is lie and call it a “revenue enhancement,” and everything’s dandy.

    The modern Republican party is guilty of nothing more than obseerving the behavior of their hollow graven idol Ronald Reagan and imitating his behavior, step by step, exactly. Reagan lied and lied and lied, and the modern GOP just carried that a little farther. Bonzo’s co-star made the mistake (in Republican eyes) of admitting (after he lied and said there was no Iran/Contra violation of the constitution) that, yes, there actually WAS s huge vilation of the constitution, and Reagan was responsible. The modern GOP merely concluded that once you start lying, best to keep on lying. Reaganism carried to its logical conclusion. Even when they’re caught losing a disastrously mismanaged war, just tell everyone it’s an optical illusion and it isn’t happening and everything going great. “Let Reagan be Reagan.” The big problem with Reaganism wasn’t the ignorant incompetent liar in the White House, it was all those little men around him who stopped him from lying when it got so bad everyone was laughing outright.

    So there we are. Repubs like John COle have _still_ not renounced their fatally foolish and lethal love affair with the incompetent liar Ronald Reagan. And that’s what’s going to continue draggint he Repubs down, right into total politcal destruction, if they keep it up. I get the strong feeling from reading right-wing wahckosphere blogs like Powerline and Little Green Footballs that the big push on the right now is to “find someone like Reagan.” Yup, they want to go back to the wellsrping of idiocy, the sourceof the folly, the original infestion that has now turned into a life-threatening suppurating oozing case of political gangrene.

    Yes, the Repubs seem to agree among themselves, we need someone _more like Ronald Reagan_!

    Apparently they don’t realize that the whole reason the Republican party is circling the bowl as the suction draws them down is precisely BECAUSE they have followed the political rescptions of Bonzo the chimp’s co-star to the letter. To wit: [1] substance doesn’t matter, only style, so you don’t need skills or a policy or even common sense; [2] when your lack of siills and a rational policy and your lack of common sense reads to an endless series of screw-ups, just lie about it; [3] keep lying about it no matter how grossly obvious it becomes to everyone that you’re not only lying, you’re a senile crackpot totally divorced from reality.

    People today speculate about brain damage or premature senility when they talk about the bizarre behavior of the drunk-driving C student in the White House. But he’s not senile. He’s not senile. And he’s not brain-damaged.

    He’s just acting _exactly like_ Ronald Reagan, only a little more so. The drunk-driving C student is carrying “Let Reagan be Reagan” to its logical conclusion.

  39. 39
    Pb says:

    Well, if there are Iranian terrorists out there, there’s always the question–are they our Iranian terrorists?

    “We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.

    “These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said. “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”

  40. 40
    tBone says:

    The tradition of lying linked with screwups began in the Republican party with Ronald Reagan.

    The Ghost of Nixon takes issue with this claim.

    Oh, and Al Maviva, if you’re out there . . . you’ve just been upstaged.

  41. 41
    TenguPhule says:

    mclaren,

    Please note that Tim F. is not John Cole. He was never on the Kool Aid to begin with.

    But we are all Dougj. :p

  42. 42
    mclaren says:

    My mistake. You’re entirely correct, I didn’t even notice the “Tim F.” byline on that post. I was 100% dead wrong about that. Thank you for correcting my obvious and foolish error.

    As for Richard Nixon, well…I refuse to defend Nixon, but the fact remains he was different from Bonzo’s co-star or the current drunk-driving C student in the White House. Nixon actually accomplished a few things while he was in office. For instance, Nixon (whatever else you may say about him) actually did make the diplocatic opening with China. Can anyone honestly claim that Nixon screwed that up?

    Most of us would probably also agree that it’s a good thing that the EPA exists. Guess what? The EPA began operation in 1970, when it was started under Richard Nixon. I could cite other examples, but you get the idea.

    Shocking as it sounds, Richard Nixon would today qualify as a moderate Democrat as far as most of his policies were concerned. Indeed, Nixon would be savagely attacked today by the wackosphere (LGF, powerline, Atlas Shrugged, etc.) for his unacceptable “liberalism” and his “hatred of the free market” and his allegedly “commie pinko leanings” especially when he instituted those wage-price controls. Such is the extreme unction of politics in America today.

    Yes, Nixon was a sociopathic criminal and a compulsive pathological liar. There’s a difference, though. Nixon was an intelligent and, when he put his mind to it, competent sociopathic criminal and compulsive pathological liar.

    Reagan and the current drunk-driving C student in the White House are not only sociopaths and compusive pathological liars, they were grossly inept fools. Nixon was neither grossly inept nor a fool. That’s what made him so dangerous.

  43. 43
    Mike says:

    I disagree about Bushco being incompetent. This is something I posted quite a while ago on DKos.

    What many people do not seem to understand is that Bushco is doing EXACTLY what they intend, which is to destroy the government in all but name by the time they leave. They are in fact frightenly competent at their real goal.

    There are so many truly incompetent people and cronies in the bureacracy that the truly well meaning people who do work in government cannot keep the system working.

    They are destroying the essential trust, “The consent of the governed”, in the government by its citizens without which the government can do nothing to stem the corporations rapacious greed and urge to control what they can.

    You can see it in the poll results where people grade both parties as equally bad on corruption and trustworthiness. Sure those polls are slanted by the corporate-owned media, but just talking to people on both sides of the spectrum will illustrate the point that people are nearly at the point where they simply do not trust the govt to do ANYTHING right. Not even national defense now. No Nation-Building either, not even here in the “homeland”.

    I wish I could say that the Democrats coming into power now will fix it, but there are so many corporate lickspittles among them and the fact that they totally cooperated with the Rethugs in redistricting where the politicians pick the voters instead of the voters picking them has brought me to the point that I no longer have confidence that enough good people can take over now at the verge and stop it.

    When they are all gone, their corporate buddies will take them in and the government will be powerless to stop them, no matter who is in charge of the government. Deregulation has worked so well for the corporations. There are no tools left for the government to do anything to go after them or recover their ill-gotten gains, and even when there are, the Republemmings and Democraps have reduced the penalties to the point of the cost of doing business, and even when that happens, the corporations lawyers fight it out and end up not paying anyways.

    Actually, as I write this, I realize I must go further. When Democrats did not stand up with McCain, Warner, and Graham to stop TORTURE, and then some even voted for it (including McCain), I say that was the moment in history when the feeding tube was pulled from Democracy’s body. It is truly over now, as all future Presidents will claim this power in law, if not in fact.

    The framers tried really hard to stop this experiment from going astray and they were so brilliant in that task that it did well for almost two hundred years before it went too far. They could not stop a COMPLETELY INTENTIONAL attempt to literally break the system forever. Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex, and it has now performed the slowest motion coup in history.

  44. 44
    Rome Again says:

    Perhaps I can play Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” simultaneously to further unlock its Da Vinci-esque meanings!!

    Hmmmm, I thought I was the only person who noticed this, guess not.

  45. 45
    ThymeZone says:

    Perhaps I can play Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” simultaneously to further unlock its Da Vinci-esque meanings!!

    I just enjoyed it for the music and theatrics. It had Da Vinci-esque meanings?

    In the old days (when I was buying Pink Floyd vinyl) you could spin the records backward and get all those secret messages.

    Now what do we do?

  46. 46
    Rome Again says:

    Link: Speculation Iran was behind attack last week

    Gulf of Tonkin moment perhaps?

  47. 47
    Rome Again says:

    Didn’t you hear? The Iraqi ponies were kidnapped and smuggled off to Iran and Syria while Defeatocrats were supporting the enemy. Only a valient charge of the Light Brigade will reclaim them. Quickly, Decider Bush, act before its to late.

    Nuke Mecca!

    I think that’s his ultimate plan (well, besides bringing Jesus back to save hateful Christians, I mean). It’s his desire to “save the world”. What do they say about those people?

  48. 48
    Rome Again says:

    I just enjoyed it for the music and theatrics. It had Da Vinci-esque meanings?

    In the old days (when I was buying Pink Floyd vinyl) you could spin the records backward and get all those secret messages.

    Now what do we do?

    There will be no spinning of vinyl backwards, that’s forbidden, Jebus is coming!

  49. 49
    ThymeZone says:

    The tradition of lying linked with screwups began in the Republican party with Ronald Reagan with civilization.

    Hey, close, but no cigar.

  50. 50
    Rome Again says:

    The first scenario was unavoidable. Republicans owed the machine and were kept in line by it. The second scenario, well, one wishes thre had been a few more brave Republicans who asked hard questions, even at the risk of being called an appeaser or worse by members of their own party. Oh well—their party has paid (and likely will continue to pay) the price for its timidity in the face of authority.

    I myself would have just liked to have seen a few Republicans say “hey, this is costing an awful lot”.

  51. 51
    Rome Again says:

    TZ, after all, we are only another form of parasite on this world, if you really think about it. I would have to agree, that kind of thing happened LONG before the GOP.

  52. 52
    ThymeZone says:

    Jebus is coming!

    Film at 11?

  53. 53
    Rome Again says:

    Film at 11?

    11:30, he’s a little late, news has been pre-empted until after the big game.

  54. 54
    Rome Again says:

    What many people do not seem to understand is that Bushco is doing EXACTLY what they intend, which is to destroy the government in all but name by the time they leave. They are in fact frightenly competent at their real goal.

    Grover Norquist’s dream come true, but actually admitting it is like saying you’re a conspiracy theorist.

    Ever notice why no one ever mentions PNAC on teevee? I heard Charlie Rangel mention it once, bout fell out of my chair, and then he never mentioned it again.

  55. 55
    ThymeZone says:

    Pelosi says she asked Bush why he thought this “surge” would work when two others have failed. The president’s response: “Because I told them it had to.”

    From “The Adventures of President ZuZu?”

    This week:
    ZuZu: “Paste it, daddy! Paste it!”

    George Bailey: “Okay, sweetie. Okay.”

    { fixes petals }

  56. 56
    Rome Again says:

    Despite the ravings from the Washington Times and Faux News, Barak Osama is not a stealth IslamoCommie trained to infiltrate US politics, become President of the United States and then launch tactical nuclear strikes at NY, DC, LA, etc. This story has been debunked, repeatedly but Faux keeps running it? Why?

    Uh, because they orgasm at the prospect of demonizing people? Just a guess.

  57. 57
    ThymeZone says:

    We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
    — From the PNAC Statement of Principles

    { voice of Bugs Bunny }

    So, ah, how we doin’ so fah?

  58. 58
    Rome Again says:

    So there we are. Repubs like John COle have still not renounced their fatally foolish and lethal love affair with the incompetent liar Ronald Reagan. And that’s what’s going to continue draggint he Repubs down, right into total politcal destruction, if they keep it up. I get the strong feeling from reading right-wing wahckosphere blogs like Powerline and Little Green Footballs that the big push on the right now is to “find someone like Reagan.” Yup, they want to go back to the wellsrping of idiocy, the sourceof the folly, the original infestion that has now turned into a life-threatening suppurating oozing case of political gangrene.

    Yeah John, it’s YOUR fault (kidding, I always wanted to say that. Don’t hit me)

    Yes, the Repubs seem to agree among themselves, we need someone more like Ronald Reagan!

    I was just saying the other day, “wouldn’t another president with Alzheimers be an improvement?”

  59. 59
    ThymeZone says:

    The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
    PNAC blatheroolia.

    Am I the only one around here who thinks that this idea is evil?

    George HW Bush, 1991: “Saddam Hussein is the reincarnation of Hitler.”

    Uh, yeah. Let’s start looking for Gobbaloons behind every despot in the fucking world.

  60. 60
    Rome Again says:

    But we are all Dougj. :p

    Eye Yam? DougJ is BORG? Have I been assimilated?

  61. 61
    ThymeZone says:

    They laughed when I pulled out my Zodiac Driving Manual.

    Leos, the best drivers. Well, if that don’t beat all.

  62. 62
    Rome Again says:

    Am I the only one around here who thinks that this idea is evil?

    George HW Bush, 1991: “Saddam Hussein is the reincarnation of Hitler.”

    Uh, yeah. Let’s start looking for Gobbaloons behind every despot in the fucking world.

    Funny you should mention that TZ, I used to work in hurricane relief here in FL for an engineering firm. One of the engineers got friendly with me, so I shared the PNAC info with him, he said “I think that’s a great idea”. I never spoke to him again.

  63. 63
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    I have been enjoying the Scooter trial, and I have not enjoyed myself like this for years now. I think more will come out as Fitzgerald squeezes the actors in this play, one at a time. I have to admit that I was disappointed at the limited scope of what Fitzgerald was up to, but I have to say that there is more to this than even I thought. Maybe there is a method to his madness…

    IMO, the Repubs screwed up in cutting the Dems out of the process and their keeping the ‘ball’ to themselves. While I am enjoying watching the Repubs dangling at the end of the rope while the Dems get a chance to run the show, I hope that the Dems eventually bring the reasonable Repubs (yes, there are a few out there) back into the show.

    I do not agree with Hagel on social issues, but I have to say that he has stood his ground and has been proven right. That shot of him taking the other Senators to task about the ‘surge’ was priceless, and I think the line about ‘then go sell shoes’ will be a line that will be remembered for some time. He is still a bit too conservative on social issues for my taste, but if I could trust him to keep those values out of governing, I think I could support him if he ran for Prez. That would take some assurance from him, for sure.

    Either way, I can’t wait for next week and the resumption of the Scooter trial. I hear Ari is up next week, and I want to hear what he and the other players in this sad sack of an administration have to say during the trial.

    Bush is a failure, he has been a failure all of his life. Every single business venture he has been in has failed, but since he was bailed out by Daddy or his buddies/supporters, he thinks he has been successful. He is nothing more than a hollow shell of a person, a puppet for the puppetmasters. Cheney has been running the show for some time now, that much is clear. Heck, Cheney chose himself for the veep, and he has had his hands on the strings for years now.

    I agree with Mike, I think their intent was to destroy our government all in the name of enrichening themselves and their cronies. And the Repubs sat on their hands and let it happen. Watching the disarray in the party has been fun, to say the least. At least it is compared to the hell we have been subjected to for the last six years. Now the wheels are coming off, and pretty soon it will be a free for all in each person distancing themselves from the other. Hopefully they will start to turn on each other and we will learn more about what was really going on behind the scenes.

    Hey Scooter! Having fun yet? I sure am! If we brought our men and women home, and then impeached the top crook and his dummy, we would wake up to President Pelosi for the rest of the term. While I am not a huge fan of hers, just seeing the expressions on the faces of leading Repubs when their worst nightmare came true would be worth it to me.

  64. 64
    Rome Again says:

    IMO, the Repubs screwed up in cutting the Dems out of the process and their keeping the ‘ball’ to themselves. While I am enjoying watching the Repubs dangling at the end of the rope while the Dems get a chance to run the show, I hope that the Dems eventually bring the reasonable Repubs (yes, there are a few out there) back into the show.

    CL, that’s the only way we’re really going to accomplish anything.

  65. 65
    ThymeZone says:

    Are we as a nation safer for having invaded Iraq? Was the decision to remove Saddam from power after 9-11 a step forward in the war on terror, or not? The answer is yes.

    Is the answer absolutely, yes? Of course not

    The Further Blatherings of the PNAC.

    I feel safer already.

    Not absolutely safer, but safer. Somehow. Sort of.

    They should rename it PNACS — Project for the New American Crock of Shit.

  66. 66
    Rome Again says:

    Cheney has been running the show for some time now, that much is clear. Heck, Cheney chose himself for the veep, and he has had his hands on the strings for years now.

    Except when Bush is in question/answer mode. He has screwed that up a few times. I keep thinking how great it would be if one day he would just come out and say “I’m not the president, I only play one on tv”. LOL

    I know, not logical, but I can dream, can’t I?

  67. 67
    stickler says:

    Oh, the inevitable questions.

    Gulf of Tonkin moment perhaps?

    No! The Gulf of Tonkin was a ginned-up, two-bit ruse.

    However, I’ve just been informed that an attack on a Coalition radio transmission tower at al-Gleiwitz (near the Iranian border) has been foiled. Half a dozen men in Iranian Army uniforms were killed. CNN is showing pictures of their bodies right now!

    The President is expected to go on the teevee at 8AM to announce that “since 5:30 this morning, bullets are being answered with bullets! The Axis of Evil will be destroyed!” Or something like that.

    The gall of those sinister Iranians knows no bounds!

  68. 68
    Pb says:

    I myself would have just liked to have seen a few Republicans say “hey, this is costing an awful lot”.

    They didn’t care when Reagan was President. They didn’t care when Bush was President. They did care when Clinton was President–but only because he was President. So why the hell would they care now? They have never been against frivolously borrowing or wasting other people’s money, provided that they’re the only ones who get to do it.

  69. 69
    rachel says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    They laughed when I pulled out my Zodiac Driving Manual.

    Leos, the best drivers. Well, if that don’t beat all.

    That’s BS; I’m a Leo, and I’m one of the worst drivers I know.

  70. 70
    Rome Again says:

    They didn’t care when Reagan was President. They didn’t care when Bush was President. They did care when Clinton was President—but only because he was President. So why the hell would they care now? They have never been against frivolously borrowing or wasting other people’s money, provided that they’re the only ones who get to do it.

    IOKIYAR and INOKIYAD? I like mine: ISOKIYAI (It’s sometimes okay if you are independent).

  71. 71
    Rome Again says:

    That’s BS; I’m a Leo, and I’m one of the worst drivers I know.

    Depends on which calendar you use. You may not be so much Leo as something else. There are multiple calendars that try to explain the concept.

  72. 72
    jake says:

    Robert Gates has hopped on the Disagreement is Bad Bandwagon. Which is of course drawn by a dozen pretty ponies.

    I predict the President will call on Congress to start a Brain Trust. Members of Congress will hand over their brains to The [Wrong] Decision Maker and will trust him to give them back when he leaves office.

  73. 73
    rachel says:

    Members of Congress will hand over their brains to The [Wrong] Decision Maker and will trust him to give them back when he leaves office.

    Their balls werent enough?

  74. 74

    While I am enjoying watching the Repubs dangling at the end of the rope while the Dems get a chance to run the show, I hope that the Dems eventually bring the reasonable Repubs (yes, there are a few out there) back into the show.

    There are no bad Democrats.

    There are no good Republicans.

    Fuck Chuck Hagel. Our job is to help the Republicans destroy him so he can be replaced by a Democrat.

    Period.

  75. 75
    Andrew says:

    Fuck Chuck Hagel. Our job is to help the Republicans destroy him so he can be replaced by a Democrat.

    Just convince him to run for President. Done and done.

  76. 76

    Speaking of that “cool” Republican Chuck Hagel, it appears he thinks the minimum wage is a bad idea.

    http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/.....nimum.html

    What’s that you say? Your shocked that a Republican can say cool things yet still be an asshole opposed to progressive ideas?

    Why I’ll bet you still think John McCain is a really nice guy who would be just dandy over Hillary Clinton, don’t you.

    God what suckers.

    Just like the Democratic shitheads who bought George Bush’s bullshit hook, line and sinker in 2000 because Al Gore wasn’t the type of guy you’d have a beer with.

  77. 77
    tBone says:

    God what suckers.

    Maybe we think Hagel is a useful person to have on our side in the Iraq debate, even if we don’t agree with him on other issues. Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

    Pubicans are the ones who are supposed to deal in black and white, remember? Let’s show a little lefty nuance here.

  78. 78
    tBone says:

    Fuck Chuck Hagel. Our job is to help the Republicans destroy him so he can be replaced by a Democrat.

    BTW, we don’t need to do anything to help Republicans destroy him. He’s doing a fine job of that all by himself. If he runs for Senate again (which I doubt), he’s going to have an uphill road to get reelected. Nebraska ‘pubs hate him for speaking out against the Pony Parade.

  79. 79
    Andrew says:

    Let’s try and Darrell the thread…

    Getting rid of the minimum wage is a great idea. It’s just a subsidy for high school kids. We need a Friedman-esque negative income tax for the poor instead.

  80. 80
    Darrell says:

    It’s hard to feel sorry for the GOP. They fought like hell to own this war and fought even harder to stifle adult supervision.

    In other words, Monday morning quarterbacking over mistakes made makes Tim and his merry band of moonbats talkin’ “Truth to power”. If your claims over spurning of ‘adult supervision’ is anything else besided pure partisan hackery, then please lay out the case for what ‘collosal’ mistakes could have been forseen, and spell out specifically which ‘adult supervision’ the Bush admin has spurned (Murtha’s 2005 call for a 6 month pullout scramble does not count as ‘adult’ alternative ideas). Saddam and sons were removed from power, Al Queda in Iraq has faced catestrophic defeats there, but at the same tim, the sectarian violence was greater than expected. That’s the situation

    Given how Rove’s Republicans cynically manipulated every aspect of this war for political gain

    100% pure moonbat talking point, agreed upon by all the giggling groupies who post here. Pathetic

  81. 81
    Darrell says:

    But although Darrell repeatedly assures us that Iran is sending terrorists and armaments pouring across the border, there just doesn’t seem to be that much evidence turning up

    Steve is the same gullible lib who tells us that with over 100,000 US troops in Europe and several times that in the US, that we don’t have any troops “to spare” to send to Iraq. Regarding my “controversial” statement that Iran is sending terrorists and arms into Iraq, well, given that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, what a surprise newsflash that they would send arms to Iraq

    IRAN HAS SENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND WEAPONS TO IRAQ IN 2006

    Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

    Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

  82. 82
    Sherard says:

    WHAT.EVER. Holy unbelievable blathering. It just never ends on this train wreck site.

    Bush has 2 years to finish the job in Iraq. Period. End of discussion. For all the bloviating over this pansy ass non-binding resolution, only the fringe lunatics in Congress have the balls to either 1) de-fund the war, or 2) re-write the war’s authorization. Meaning, neither will happen. Thereby meaning, this war will be fought as the Commander-in-Chief sees fit until the position is no longer occupied by George W. Bush. You self-delusional lefties can carp and whine all you want but those are the facts of the situation. Bush has 23+ months to finish this war and it is crystal clear that is exactly how Bush sees it.

    And for proof that this is how it will go down, the Northeast Epicenter of anti-war, Boston, has mustered a WHOPPING 300 protesters to go to Washington. 300. The shrieks and howls of the blogosphere is nothing more than a lot of hot air. Outside of all your gobsmacking disgust, the war to the vast majority of the country is “unpopular”. But that lack of popularity is not going to end the war. Sorry to disappoint you fools, but you can face reality, or you can continue the daily idiotic diatribes just like this one.

    The sad thing is, for all your self-professed disgust, it has become nothing more than white noise. Bush has tuned it out. You can hate the evil man for it all you want, but it doesn’t change things.

    Personally, I would suggest, as usual, some actual “plans”, “ideas”, or “alternatives”. As sad as anything else, from the linked article, even as excerpted by Tim clearly indicates that the only party thinking of such far-out concepts is STILL the Republicans. Ah, it is to laugh.

    Enjoy the hate and bile because the actual “results” of all your insanity are non-existent. Maybe you will claim victory in 2008 if a Republican loses the presidential election, but all you dopes really care about is Iraq, and by then, Bush will have wrapped it up and that election will have little if any effect on Iraq. Twenty three months. Remember that number. You will collectively have no effect on Iraq for that time. Face it.

  83. 83
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Newsweek’s post-SOTU poll is in, and it shows Georgie B’s approval falling to 30%. And 58% say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over.

    Nice speech, Georgie!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16...../newsweek/

  84. 84
    Sherard says:

    Hey Darrell, welcome to the party. Try not to get any moonbat infected spittal on you.

    That anyone would actually deny the material influence of Iran on this war is hysterically laughable. Better don those tinfoil hats, folks. Wouldn’t want the Bushco mind control rays to infect your miniscule minds. ABC news, bastion of Republican support. Must be, if they are spewing such vile propaganda! ROTFLMAO

  85. 85
    Sherard says:

    Good thing, too, Paddy. Since, as I posted just above you, the war isn’t governed by popularity polls. LOL

  86. 86
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Sherard – Yeah, but you didn’t do too well at the polls last November, right? You know, the ones that really count?

    “LOL!”

  87. 87
    Darrell says:

    That anyone would actually deny the material influence of Iran on this war is hysterically laughable

    It’s pathetic really, but Steve and most of the other libs posting here are so wedded to dogma that they deny any and all facts which conflict with the narrative that they’re pushing. So they spout nonsense about how there is little or no evidence of Iran meddling in Iraq. Incredible, but it’s a good example of how much koolaid the moonbats are willing to drink

  88. 88
    Rusty Shackleford says:

    Sherard Says:

    Hey Darrell, welcome to the party. Try not to get any moonbat infected spittal on you.

    Hey everybody, look! Sherard and Darrell are sniffing each other’s bum! Aren’t they just the most adorable bum sniffers you’ve ever seen?

  89. 89
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Iran’s influence has increased markedly throughout Georgie’s misguided Iraq adventure. It is probably the greatest consequence of his military failures there. And as soon as our troops pull out Tehran will be more than pleased to fill the vacuum we leave behind.

    I just hope they have the decency to thank us for taking so much trouble dealing with their Sunni problem.

  90. 90
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    I wonder if Darrell or She-Rod would care to explain why the GOP’s leading candidate for president in 2008 is a transvestite?

    http://video.google.com/videop.....#038;hl=en

  91. 91
  92. 92
    The Other Andrew says:

    Darrell, Sherard–I know this goes against your pre-approved narrative, but you have to keep in mind that it’s not just us “moonbats” that are against your little empire-building experiment. I know you like to act like we’re some fringe group, but the majority of America agrees with us, which includes many conservatives. What is it, 25% of your own party that thinks going to war was a bad idea?

    You don’t need to worry about us, guys. You need to worry about dissent on your own side of the ideological spectrum. Chuck Hagel, Pat Buchanan, all the Republicans that said they doubted the surge would work but voted against the non-binding resolution anyway, that guy from Oregon who described the war as criminal, bloggers like Andrew Sullivan and our own John Cole, the strangely anti-Iraq-war Tucker Carlson, the list goes on and on. We should make a list of all the conservatives that have turned on Bush, actually, just so we can throw it in your face every time you try this “Only moonbats are against the war! Wahhh!” stunt.

  93. 93
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, Sherard—I know this goes against your pre-approved narrative, but you have to keep in mind that it’s not just us “moonbats” that are against your little empire-building experiment

    Have I written anything to suggest otherwise? Has Sherard?

    I believe, as evidenced by the 2004 election in which not only was Bush re-elected, but near unprecedented midterm gains in the Senate and the House for Repubs, including the voting out of Bush’s most vocal critic at the time (Senate minority leader Daschle) indicates that the public was for continuation of the Iraq war at that time. After 4 years, people now are reasonably asking themselves if the cost in lives and money is worth continuing at the current pace. I think it’s a fair question worthy of debate.

    But that isn’t what I (or Sherard) posted about, is it? I know you libs like your caricatured strawmen, because that’s all you’ve got, but please do try and respond to the points actually being made.

  94. 94
    ThymeZone says:

    I think it’s a fair question worthy of debate.

    Your insulting fucked up Irony of the Day.

    Worthy of debate? Nothing is debatable as long as you are around. You shit on every debate. You harangue, change the subject, lie, sing spuds when you have no facts, lump all your adversaries together into common dismissive insults. You shit on whatever moves, whatever doesn’t sing the song of the Limbaugh or the Mehlman or the righty blog talking points you got today. You haven’t had an original thought in your whole fucking life. You can’t make a proper argument.

    WTF? Worthy of fucking debate? GET OUTTA HERE YOU LYING SACK.

  95. 95
    ThymeZone says:

    Are you getting my point, Darrell?

    Are ya?

  96. 96
    Darrell says:

    Your insulting fucked up Irony of the Day.

    Worthy of debate? Nothing is debatable as long as you are around. You shit on every debate. You harangue, change the subject, lie

    The irony is no doubt lost on you, you petulant jackass.

  97. 97
    ThymeZone says:

    Ya think, Darrell? Wanna take a vote on it?

    Go ahead, call for the vote.

  98. 98
    ThymeZone says:

    After 4 years, people now are reasonably asking themselves if the cost in lives and money is worth continuing at the current pace. I think it’s a fair question worthy of debate.

    Call for the vote, Darrell.

    After FOUR YEARS? Four years during which you haven’t tolerated any such questions, have shit on every questioner, have tried to shut down every such discussion, have insulted every person everywhere who dared to have a different view than the official one coming from this fucked, lying self-interested president and his elves.

    Don’t talk as if you just got here. We already know you.

    What have you been doing for 4 years? What questions did you fucking ask?

  99. 99
    Darrell says:

    every person everywhere who dared to have a different view than the official one coming from this fucked, lying self-interested president and his elves.

    Why don’t you take all your righteous anger and your mental illness to another thread?

  100. 100
    ThymeZone says:

    Why don’t you get the hell outta here? Nobody wants to hear your bullshit, in case you haven’t been paying attention the last two years.

  101. 101
    ThymeZone says:

    Call for the vote, Darrell. You go, and I stay, or I go and you stay.

    Call for the goddammed vote. I dare you.

  102. 102
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Darrell – Does Rudy make a hot woman or what? Think he’s got the sass and the ass to take on the terrorists?

  103. 103

    […] I heartily recommend their two posts, here and here. And Tim F. has a funny Austin Powers add-on. Most fitting for our macho right… […]

  104. 104
    ThymeZone says:

    Come on, Darrell. You believe in democracy, don’t you?

    For the day, week, month, or year, I don’t care.

    You, or me. Call for the vote.

    Go ahead.

    The purple finger is good enough for Iraq, right? Then it’s good enough for BJ.

    Let’s go. Call for a vote.

  105. 105
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Uh oh. The Ancient McCain is flip-flopping on Iraq!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDKfii6YFiM

  106. 106
    ThymeZone says:

    The Ancient McCain is flip-flopping on Iraq!

    Couple things you need to remember, always remember, about McCain.

    One, he is a whore, the biggest whore in American politics today. I’m a lifelong Arizonan, I know this guy, trust me.

    Two, he will say and do ANYTHING that advances his political fortunes. And by anything, I mean, anything.

    Three, he will let himself be buttfucked by George Bush just for the physical pleasure of it, which I have heard about but have no personal knowledge of. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But my point is that if I were betting money, I’d wager that Bush has put this anti-Cheney message into McCain’s ear during a recent buttfuck, and that’s where it’s coming from.

    What you are hearing, then, is the whispers of McCain being buttfucked by George Bush. Hear it and be chastened.

  107. 107
    jake says:

    Why don’t you take all your righteous anger and your mental illness to another thread?

    Irony O.D.! Irony O.D.!!

  108. 108
    Darrell says:

    But my point is that if I were betting money, I’d wager that Bush has put this anti-Cheney message into McCain’s ear during a recent buttfuck, and that’s where it’s coming from.

    What you are hearing, then, is the whispers of McCain being buttfucked by George Bush.

    Deep thoughts from the political left.

  109. 109
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    I don’t recall seeing a righteous anger and mental illness thread this morning.

    Is it a holiday?

  110. 110
    Mike says:

    And yet another thread gone to hell…..

  111. 111
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Darrell – Did the Rudy video give you a boner?

  112. 112
    ThymeZone says:

    Darrell – Did the Rudy video give you a boner?

    ROTFLMAO.

    ( Please put fifty dollars on YES for me ).

  113. 113
    ThymeZone says:

    And yet another thread gone to hell…..

    Darrell delenda est.

    Just gettin warmed up, don’t touch that dial.

  114. 114
    AkaDad says:

    ABC news, bastion of Republican support

    At least he got one thing right.

    Those that are thinking about voting for a Repub in the next election should be reminded that one more “Conservative” Supreme Court judge means roe v wade will get overturned and sent back to the States. Women will become criminals in some southern states.

    Just sayin’

  115. 115
    Darrell says:

    one more “Conservative” Supreme Court judge means roe v wade will get overturned and sent back to the States. Women will become criminals in some southern states.

    AkaDad?

  116. 116
    ThymeZone says:

    Those that are thinking about voting for a Repub in the next election

    I think those particular 8 people are at a “Keep the Mexicans Out of Houston” rally today with Darrell.

    After they march, they’ll go and get some barbeque.

  117. 117
    Tim F. says:

    Looks to me like Darrell and Sherard fall under the category of ‘too dim to spot the contradiction.’ Unless I’m wrong and one of you two fought bitterly for Congress to use its oversight powers. But I’m not wrong, am I? My money says that you both still think that Congressional oversight is a bad idea.

    Feel free to frame it as folks like me rooting for failure or whatever pleases you. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression that you also thought that the insurgency was just about over last year, and again the year before that. Last throes, &c. You still believe in phantom WMD programs and nonexistent connections to anti-American terrorism. Correct? If you don’t believe that the media exaggerates the problems in Iraq I will gladly admit to being shocked.

    So sure, condemn away. Given your record on this war so far I can’t come up with any better reason to think that I’m on the right track.

  118. 118
    Tim F. says:

    On a separate point, some of you are acting more over-the-top than the people you’re responding to. By a wide margin in some cases. This isn’t one of those threads where I will edit anybody’s comments but I will point out that you’re not doing your own “side” any favors.

  119. 119
    jake says:

    Two, he will say and do ANYTHING that advances his political fortunes. And by anything, I mean, anything.

    Gods please don’t let there be photos. Gods PLEASE don’t let there be photos.

  120. 120
    chopper says:

    In other words, Monday morning quarterbacking over mistakes made makes Tim and his merry band of moonbats talkin’ “Truth to power”

    and the defense is on the field. let’s see how this goes…

    WHAT.EVER. Holy unbelievable blathering

    ooh, sherard starts with the old standby, the “WHAT.EVER.” notably used by spoiled 13-year-olds everywhere. good start.

    The irony is no doubt lost on you, you petulant jackass.

    and the first tantrum of the day goes to darrell.

    seriously folks, it was a nice try, but against great minds like this we have no chance. while their ‘defense’ of this war is about as attractive as a biscuit with two shits stuffed inside, i think we just need to give up now. with those two minds at work, who knows what kind of massive screw-ups they can excuse. the sky is truly the limit.

  121. 121
    ThymeZone says:

    On a separate point, some of you are acting more over-the-top than the people you’re responding to

    You know, Tim, you talk as if these threads live in a vacuum. As if people haven’t been taking the same crap from, say, Darrell, for years.

    And it really isn’t kosher to sit back and let somebody like Darrell crap up your comments section, and then criticize the other commenters for doing what they think they need to do in order to deal with.

    If you guys would deal with it in the proper way, there wouldn’t be a damned problem. That’s my opinion.

  122. 122
    Darrell says:

    My money says that you both still think that Congressional oversight is a bad idea

    I can’t speak for Sherard, but I don’t think any right-leaning non-spoof poster on BJ has ever suggested that congressional oversight on Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) was not appropriate. I’m not sure where you’re coming from on that one, other than a gratuitous launching of a strawman into the discussion.

    Feel free to frame it as folks like me rooting for failure or whatever pleases you. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression that you also thought that the insurgency was just about over last year, and again the year before that. Last throes

    Last year I didn’t think the insurgency was just about over. I will admit to underestimating the amount of sectarian violence from the get-go. I do think many on the left react with glee when bad things happen in Iraq.

    You still believe in phantom WMD programs and nonexistent connections to anti-American terrorism. Correct?

    “Phantom” WMD programs? As Duelfer and Kay reports made clear, Saddam definitely kept his WMD programs intact. Tim, has the koolaid you’re drinking been so tainted that you’re now denying that Saddam had WMD “programs”? Perhaps you’ll next deny that Saddam ever had WMDs. That’s on the same level of tinfoil hat moonbattery as Steve’s assertion that Iran isn’t/wasn’t sending arms into Iraq. Or do you believe that one too?

    Given your record on this war so far

    What part of my “record” are you referring to?

  123. 123
    Darrell says:

    And it really isn’t kosher to sit back and let somebody like Darrell crap up your comments section, and then criticize the other commenters for doing what they think they need to do in order to deal with.

    Here is TZ, “doing what he needs to do” to deal with it:

    coming from this fucked, lying self-interested president and his elves.

    What you are hearing, then, is the whispers of McCain being buttfucked by George Bush

    Truth to power baby!

  124. 124
    ThymeZone says:

    Call for the vote, Darrell. You versus me.

    Go ahead, you fucking coward.

  125. 125
    ThymeZone says:

    Gods please don’t let there be photos. Gods PLEASE don’t let there be photos.

    Well, there are photos of Bush with McCain in a bear hug.

    Just visualize that with McCain turned the other way.

  126. 126
    Perry Como says:

    Tim F. Says:

    On a separate point, some of you are acting more over-the-top than the people you’re responding to. By a wide margin in some cases.

    If the stupid knob is turned up to 10 sometimes the only answer is to crank it to 11:

    Truth to power.
    Strong. Smart.
    It’s who they are.
    Don’t you see how extreme that is?

    etc. etc.

  127. 127
    ThymeZone says:

    We’ve got protests today across the country, a president whose approval ratings are headed for the 20’s, and overwhelming opposition to the conduct of this war …. and a guy sitting here, who has never tolerated any “debate,” saying that the issue of the war is a “fair question worthy of debate.” A debate he has never been able to engage in, or even watch quietly from the sidelines without trying to queer it.

    And blog owners who decry the resulting contratemps, and tut tut over who is doing their “side” favors.

    Welcome to bizarroworld.

    Welcome to Darrellworld.

  128. 128
    Jonathan says:

    Darrrell and Sherard:

    What do you think of Rumsfeld threatening to fire anyone on his planning staff who even dared mention planning for phase 4 or the occupation phase of the Iraq invasion?

    Scheid said the planners continued to try “to write what was called Phase 4,” or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

    Even if the troops didn’t stay, “at least we have to plan for it,” Scheid said.

    “I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that,” Scheid said. “We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

    “He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war.”

    –Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11

  129. 129
    Darrell says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    Call for the vote, Darrell. You versus me.

    Go ahead, you fucking coward

    That’s the equivalent of calling for a vote between steak or tofu at a Houston BBQ.

  130. 130

    Maybe we think Hagel is a useful person to have on our side in the Iraq debate, even if we don’t agree with him on other issues. Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

    And so you do what the Republicans do. When you are next to him on comitte praise hi bi-partisanship and use his support. Then you go out and viciously attack him during his next campaign for doing just that.

    The goal is not to work with him and keep him in power. The goal is to work with him as long as you have to then replace him with a Democrat.

    There are no bad Democrats.

    There are no good Republicans.

    Period.

  131. 131
    srv says:

    Bush has 23+ months to finish this war and it is crystal clear that is exactly how Bush sees it.

    Sorry to disappoint you fools, but you can face reality, or you can continue the daily idiotic diatribes just like this one.

    Personally, I would suggest, as usual, some actual “plans”, “ideas”, or “alternatives”.

    Darrells multiple personalities at least do not occur within the same post. Sherard (who was against troop increases before he was for them) tells us we don’t matter because it’s all up to the ‘decider’, but then suggests we come up with ‘alternatives’.

    and by then, Bush will have wrapped it up

    Do us all a favor and hold your breath on that one.

  132. 132
    Darrell says:

    Darrrell and Sherard:

    What do you think

    I think you’re an obsessed whackjob who obsessively follows me from thread to thread demanding answers to the same completely-off-topic questions, while railing over the ‘terrorist’ Jews in Israel.

  133. 133
    Mike says:

    Tim, why is it that you and John allow Darrell and Sherard to shit on everyone here and make most of threads go to hell? Do you honestly think it passes as “debate”?

    Seriously, I want to know what the reason is. The only thing I can think of is that you want to keep him as an example because he adds no real positive value I can find. I don’t think anyone here wants an echo chamber (except for them), but I have been reading BJ for some time and echo chamber is definitely not how I would describe it with the excellent contributions by the regulars here who often disagree, but civilly, at least until they show up and start spewing.

  134. 134
    Darrell says:

    There are no bad Democrats.

    There are no good Republicans.

    Period

    You know, for all the accusations coming from the left accusing Repubs of putting “party before country”, can there be any honest doubt which side is most guilty of that tendency? Projection, thy name is liberalism

  135. 135
    Mike says:

    I think you’re an obsessed whackjob who obsessively follows me from thread to thread demanding answers to the same completely-off-topic questions, while railing over the ‘terrorist’ Jews in Israel.

    This is a definite candidate for Ironic-Post-Of-The-Year. Too funny.

    OK, maybe that is a good enough reason to keep him. Although I now have to clean my monitor.

  136. 136
    Darrell says:

    Mike Says:

    Tim, why is it that you and John allow Darrell and Sherard to shit on everyone here and make most of threads go to hell?

    Mike, Tim made it clear which side was most guilty of “shitting” on the threads. If you’d ever loosen up that tinfoil hat of yours, you’d see the same thing too.

  137. 137
    chopper says:

    “Phantom” WMD programs? As Duelfer and Kay reports made clear, Saddam definitely kept his WMD programs intact.

    don’t you mean ‘WMD-related program activities’?

  138. 138
    srv says:

    Seriously, I want to know what the reason is.

    They’re cowards. They think they need some minimum attraction to the Fluffersphere(tm) for page counts.

  139. 139
    Richard 23 says:

    I do think many on the left react with glee when bad things happen in Iraq.

    Well, I think you’re wrong. So how about your proof about these many that react with glee. It should be easy. Many and glee should be a snap to demonstrate.

    Hint: many is more than a few. probably more than several.

    Take your time.

  140. 140
    chopper says:

    Mike, Tim made it clear which side was most guilty of “shitting” on the threads

    what the hell are you talking about? tim said “some of you are acting more over-the-top than the people you’re responding to” in this thread. ask tim who he thinks shits on threads more, you and your ilk or TZ and his. go on.

    projection, thy name is darrell.

  141. 141
    srv says:

    I do think many on the left react with glee when bad things happen in Iraq

    You really are mentally ill. I suspect many of your coworkers would agree with us.

  142. 142
    chopper says:

    unfortunately, darrell doesn’t actually get paid to sit in his parent’s basement eating cheetohs. so he has no coworkers.

  143. 143
    Darrell says:

    Well, I think you’re wrong. So how about your proof about these many that react with glee. It should be easy

    Are you saying that it’s not commonplace for leftists on this site and others to post links to IEDs killing soldiers or bombs exploding in markets, followed by a “thanks Bush” type of comment?

    Just a few days ago, I read the poster “Jonathan” say that since the military voted for Bush, then if they got killed in combat, that’s ok, it’s just Darwin’s law going into effect. Of course, there were all those DU posts in 2004 saying that the number of deaths needs to increase to guarantee a Kerry victory.

    It’s also behavior like this and this kind of thing that has played out across the country.

    From Nation magazine editor and mainstream TV talking head Katrina Vanden Heuval:

    ‘I was in Washington yesterday at the rally and at the Conyers hearings. And since I laid a heavy statement on you last week, I just wanted to make a correction. It’s finally over. My despair is over. Something has happened these last ten days that has revived the antiwar issue. It has to do with public opinion polls and casualties and Republicans like Walter Jones and more Democrats standing up. I won’t say how optimistic I am. But something is coming together—you can feel it.’

    Tell me that’s she’s not gleeful over ‘casualties’. There’s much more, of course, but I don’t see much sense trying to convince someone who fervently believes

    There are no bad Democrats.

    There are no good Republicans.

    Period

  144. 144
    Darrell says:

    tim said “some of you are acting more over-the-top than the people you’re responding to” in this thread. ask tim who he thinks shits on threads more, you and your ilk or TZ and his. go on.

    I’d ask him, but srv and others would just label him a “coward” again.

  145. 145
    ThymeZone says:

    That’s the equivalent of calling for a vote

    In other words, you’d lose, asshole.

  146. 146
    Darrell says:

    In other words, you’d lose, asshole

    That’s right Mr. Tofu

  147. 147
    jake says:

    Just visualize that with McCain turned the other way.

    Aaaaaargh!

    [Removes portions of brain dedicated to imagination with spoon.]

    Whew! That’s better … Oh no, wait. Suddenly … Darrell & Sheherezahd make sense, and … I have an insatiable craving for ponies and pie!

    Aw FUCK.

  148. 148
    Jonathan says:

    I think you’re an obsessed whackjob who obsessively follows me from thread to thread demanding answers to the same completely-off-topic questions, while railing over the ‘terrorist’ Jews in Israel.

    Why is it off topic, Darrell? We _are_ discussing the war in Iraq, and how the war was started and planned for has a lot to do with how it has progressed. You appear not to care that Rumsfeld deliberately set out to lose the occupation before it ever started.

    Menachem Begin did order the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, much in the manner of Osama bin Laden ordering the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

    The facts are quite clear, why do you hide from them Darrell?

    Here is some interesting info about Yitzhak Shamir

    In 1935 he came to the Palestine and in the same year changed his family name to Shamir. He joined the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an underground Jewish militia organization directed against the British control of Palestine and inspired by the views of Vladimir Jabotinsky. When the Irgun split in 1940, Shamir sided with the most militant faction, headed by Avraham Stern. In secret contacts with German representatives at Beirut the group offered to open up a military front against the British in the Middle East in return for the expulsion of the Jewish population of Europe to Palestine (Heller, 1995, pp. 85-86).

    [edit] Assasination of British and U.N. Officials
    In 1941 Shamir was imprisoned by British authorities. After Stern was killed by the British in 1942, Shamir escaped from the detention camp and became one of the three leaders of the group in 1943, reforming it as “Lehi”. During his tenure, the Lehi was responsible for the 1944 assassination of Britain’s minister of state for the Middle East, Lord Moyne; an assassination attempt against Harold MacMichael, the High Commissioner of the Palestine in the same year (Kushner, 2002, p. 348), and the 1948 assassination of the United Nations representative in the Middle East, Count Folke Bernadotte who was seen by Shamir and his collaborators as an anti-Zionist and “an obvious agent of the British enemy” (Gazi, 2002, p. 32).

    Shamir and his fellow underground fighters greatly admired the Irish Republicans and sought to emulate their anti-British struggle. Shamir himself took the nickname “Michael” for Michael Collins.

    The lurkers are noticing your refusal to engage on these subjects, Darrell.

  149. 149
    tBone says:

    You know, for all the accusations coming from the left accusing Repubs of putting “party before country”, can there be any honest doubt which side is most guilty of that tendency?

    I don’t agree with Richard that there are “no good Republicans.” In case you didn’t notice, though, Richard is one poster, not a component of the Liberal Hive Mind that exists in your imagination.

    Projection, thy name is liberalism

    Nah, this one’s too easy.

  150. 150
    srv says:

    Darrell demonstrates that he does not understand the word ‘glee’. That’s OK, because we’ve already determined he doesn’t know what ‘here’ means either.

  151. 151
    Jonathan says:

    Are you saying that it’s not commonplace for leftists on this site and others to post links to IEDs killing soldiers or bombs exploding in markets, followed by a “thanks Bush” type of comment?

    Who put the troops there to be killed?

    Who neglected to plan for the occupation phase of the Iraq invasion?

  152. 152
    tBone says:

    Tell me that’s she’s not gleeful over ‘casualties’.

    OK – she’s not gleeful over casualties, Senator Corky McPielover. She’s optimistic that we’re going to change course on the war because of all the factors she mentioned. In Darrelland I guess that means she’s throwing a parade every time a soldier gets killed in the line of duty.

  153. 153
    Mike says:

    Tim? John?

    Bueller? Bueller?

  154. 154
    Darrell says:

    OK – she’s not gleeful over casualties, Senator Corky McPielover. She’s optimistic that we’re going to change course on the war because of all the factors she mentioned

    Bullshit, she’s not just optimistic, she’s bubbling with excitement over those “factors”, factors which include troop casualties for chrissakes.

  155. 155
    Jonathan says:

    Just a few days ago, I read the poster “Jonathan” say that since the military voted for Bush, then if they got killed in combat, that’s ok, it’s just Darwin’s law going into effect.

    And no one has yet shown why it is morally incorrect to give people that which they clearly have asked for.

    The military voted for Bush as a group.

    The military supports Bush’s strategy as a group.

    If members of the military die in support of that strategy, then that is what they wanted.

    To desire the ends is to desire the means.

    I used to be a troop Darrell, USMC 69-71.

    When did you serve?

  156. 156
    tBone says:

    Bullshit, she’s not just optimistic, she’s bubbling with excitement over those “factors”, factors which include troop casualties for chrissakes.

    Yeah, obviously troop casualties get her totally hot. Any reasonable person would read that quote that way.

    In lieu of posting a response, how about you write it down on a piece of paper, fold it into razor corners, and shove it up your dumb fucking ass? Sideways. Thanks.

  157. 157
    ThymeZone says:

    ask tim who he thinks shits on threads more, you and your ilk or TZ and his

    Of course Darrell has the edge here, since his shit doesn’t stink.

  158. 158
    Jonathan says:

    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue… In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

  159. 159
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    7 more U.S. military people killed in Iraq today.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16839573/

  160. 160
    Darrell says:

    Paddy O’Shea Says:

    7 more U.S. military people killed in Iraq today.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16839573/

    And no one has yet shown why it is morally incorrect to give people that which they clearly have asked for.

    The military voted for Bush as a group.

    The military supports Bush’s strategy as a group.

    If members of the military die in support of that strategy, then that is what they wanted

    Cases in point. You don’t have to look far to find many other similar examples.

  161. 161
    ThymeZone says:

    Cases in point.

    In what point?

    Are you going to argue that the 80 percent who supported the bullshit turned into the 80 percent who oppose it, because they suddenly turned into bloodthirsty assholes? That the vast majority of Americans are stupid, and evil?

    Fuck you, Darrell.

    This game has been over for two years. The fact that John is foolish enough to let you post here, notwithstanding.

  162. 162
    chopper says:

    Are you saying that it’s not commonplace for leftists on this site and others to post links to IEDs killing soldiers or bombs exploding in markets, followed by a “thanks Bush” type of comment?

    that isn’t glee. that’s ‘pissed off sarcasm’.

    I’d ask him, but srv and others would just label him a “coward” again.

    speaking of cowardice, backing away from a simple challenge is just that. go on, darrell, ask him.

  163. 163
    chopper says:

    Bullshit, she’s not just optimistic, she’s bubbling with excitement over those “factors”, factors which include troop casualties for chrissakes

    maybe if you drank a case of whisky before reading her, yeah.

  164. 164
    ThymeZone says:

    You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq’s civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works.

    Maureen Down wrote this about Dick Cheney, but who does it remind us of here at BJ?

    Some mealy mouthed, lying jerk who now says that all those things he has been wrong about all this time are “valid questions for debate?”

  165. 165
    Darrell says:

    Are you going to argue that the 80 percent who supported the bullshit turned into the 80 percent who oppose it, because they suddenly turned into bloodthirsty assholes?

    No I don’t. Despite claims of moral superiority, I believe many on the left really do react with glee to bad news coming out of Iraq. They hate Bush so much, that anything bad which hurts Bush, is “good” news to them. It’s not that most want troops to die per se, it’s just that they’re willing to root for ANYTHING which hurts Bush and/or helps their ‘side’ politically. Here is an admittedly extreme manifestation of that mindset. Paddy’s and Jonathan’s attitudes are less extreme, but still callous. Just as it was callous for leftists to cheer Michael Moore’s characterization of terrorists as “minutemen”

    In the first couple of years of the Iraq war, I remember reading a number of media reports whining over the fact that Americans seemed “unmoved” by troop casualties evidenced by their support of the war. Oh that liberal media

  166. 166
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Examples of what, Darrell? Reporting the victims of Bush’s calamity in Iraq is somehow offensive to you?

    Please let me know if you think that I take some pleasure in this disaster. I am always intrigued by the reasoning of insane persons such as yourself.

    Personally, I can’t understand how people like you can live with all this. So many good and innocent people killed because you and the politicians you worship were terribly wrong.

    Must be a terrible burden to you.

  167. 167
    ThymeZone says:

    Despite claims of moral superiority

    In the context of this war, I claim to be right, and to have been right for five years.

    Compare and contrast to your positions.

    The end.

  168. 168
    Mike says:

    This is a timeless quote by one of the greatest Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt.

    The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

    Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

    http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm

    He was a Republican, but today people like Darrell would denounce him as a “leftist”. Fortunately, the percentage of people like Darrell are down to the high 20’s/low 30’s depending on the poll. Which of course makes them all the more desperate.

  169. 169
  170. 170
    Darrell says:

    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong

    Mike, can you cite anyone who has made such an “announcement”?

  171. 171
    Davebo says:

    Yeah Darrell! It was a party! A celebration of death!

    Seems there are thousands of people across the country today celebrating death as well.

    OK, that’s an incredible stretch. But what the fuck else can you say? The vast majority of your countrymen think your a useless tool. Policies you cheered for have been thoroughly renounced by your fellow countrymen (no, not the Canadians Darrell).

    Hell, even your other brother Darrell won’t talk to you anymore.

    Leaving you with a sad pathetic existance spending saturday tilting at windmills.

    You’re right. You’ve gotta find someone, ANYONE to blame this on ASAP.

  172. 172
    jake says:

    I believe many on the left really do react with glee to bad news coming out of Iraq.

    Whereas we know all on the right behave with seemly solemnity.

    In recent years they’ve upped the ante on outrage by picketing the funerals of servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They argue that dead soldiers are God’s punishment on a society that permits homosexuality.

  173. 173
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Can there be any wonder that the support for this war and those who have led it are held in such disrepute by the American people?

    All you have to do is look to those last few still defending this administration to know where the real evil lies.

    Anybody any good at political cartooning? How about a picture of a cadaverous Darrell, death’s head cracked by a blood smeared and serpentine smile, sweeping the corpses of our American dead under a carpet?

    Certainly would be an accurate depiction of what it is he has presented here today.

  174. 174
    Davebo says:

    Actually it’s OK to criticize the president.

    So long as your willing to take responsibility for cheering on the terrorists and spitting on the troops.

    As to all the troops criticizing the president, I guess they’ll just have to drool on themselves.

  175. 175
    Richard 23 says:

    Thanks for trying Darrell, but you didn’t prove the glee and you didn’t provide examples of many. You’ve only tried to demonstrate that you think, which I find hard to believe.

    It seems to me these “many on the left” would be supporting the surge if they want more bad things to happen (ie, more troops casualties). But instead, they want them out of Iraq.

    So I suppose I could join you in kicking that strawman. People who are gleeful about bad things happening are flawed and sick.

    BTW, reporting casualties (what actually happened, eg, news) is not evidence of glee. It’s evidence of reporting the facts. Which you seem determined to spin like a mad tin foil hatter.

    I’d ask you to try harder, but I suspect you’re just being delusional or dishonest as hell. Either way, it’s not really worth my time.

  176. 176
    Darrell says:

    Policies you cheered for have been thoroughly renounced by your fellow countrymen

    Those same policies got a ringing endorsement in the 2004 elections, including increased number of Repubs in both Senate and Congress. Not sure how “thoroughly” these policies have been renounced by so many who once supported them. I’d say it’s more “we’ve been in Iraq long enough, time to let Iraqis take more responsibility”. But feel free to spin it anyway you want davebo

    Davebo Says:

    Yeah Darrell! It was a party! A celebration of death!

    Are you saying they weren’t smiling and happy? Is that your “reality based” interpretation?

  177. 177
    Darrell says:

    BTW, reporting casualties (what actually happened, eg, news) is not evidence of glee

    Paddy went around posting the ‘news’ (without comment or context) on multiple threads, not as part of any discussion, but as a callous swipe at Bush to benefit his side.. “see, look, more dead soldiers”.

    Are you seriously suggesting that Paddy merely wanted to keep us apprised of the news?

  178. 178
    Richard 23 says:

    Darrell, people united in a common cause of signalling their displeasure over a unnecessary war aren’t supposed to smile for the camera? Can you read their minds? Do you know what they’re thinking?

    Where’s your praise for all the people who weren’t smiling? I can’t imagine those photos were left out on purpose, were they?

    By the way, the count is over 3000 now. Don’t you have a more current link to demonstrate your bogus “point?”

  179. 179
    tBone says:

    Those same policies got a ringing endorsement in the 2004 elections, including increased number of Repubs in both Senate and Congress.

    Wow, that’s a great point. Or it would be, if it were still 2004. Maybe you just forgot to throw away your calendar from that year, huh, champ?

    Whereas we know all on the right behave with seemly solemnity.

    Much as it pains me to say it, jake, Phelps is a Democrat. I like to think of him as an embarassment to the entire human race, though.

  180. 180
    Rome Again says:

    No I don’t. Despite claims of moral superiority, I believe many on the left really do react with glee to bad news coming out of Iraq. They hate Bush so much, that anything bad which hurts Bush, is “good” news to them.

    Darrell, you need to have your meds upped. Nobody wants anyone to get killed. We just need people like you to be outraged (that’s the only way we’re going to get rid of this parasite administration) and having the acknowledgment that certain people will get outraged at the number of deaths brings us one step closer to ending all this shit. If you think for one moment that anyone here is celebrating the death of any American in this war (and that includes Katrina vanden Heuval and others of her ilk), then you’re just nuts. NUTS I tell ya! Up your meds. Perhaps you should call in to Rush Limbaugh and ask who he’s using for connections these days.

  181. 181
    ThymeZone says:

    Those same policies got a ringing endorsement in the 2004 elections

    Darrell, maybe you can find a blog where people sit around and relive the glory days of 2004.

    Maybe the people there wouldn’t realize what a complete asshole you are.

  182. 182
    jake says:

    If Phelps votes Dem he’s a DiNO:

    In Bill Clinton’s second presidential campaign, Phelps and the Westboro church also opposed Clinton and Gore because of the administration’s support for gay rights. The entire Westboro congregation picketed a 1997 inaugural ball,.[35] denouncing Gore as a “famous fag pimp.”[36] In 1998, Westboro picketed the funeral of Gore’s father, screaming vulgarities at Gore and telling him “your dad’s in Hell.”[36]

    Looks like a Radical Rightie, quacks like a Radical Rightie…

    OT immature humour corner:

    It was determined that Chief Beavers had been allowing Phelps and WBC protesters to commit crimes without arrest…

    [Snerk!]

  183. 183
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Darrell is offended by any reporting of our newly dead in Iraq.

    He’s afraid it might make Bush look bad.

  184. 184
    Rome Again says:

    Darrell, maybe you can find a blog where people sit around and relive the glory days of 2004.

    Hmmm, Darrell, do you have a FR account? Were you one of the posters during the SOTU speech that was counting the number of times Nancy Pelosi blinked and judging her style of clothing, or were you one of the few who actually were talking about policy and actually disagreeing with some of it? There were very few actually actually talking about policy, and most were very negative. FR has turned on itself methinks, and the result is that it won’t be more than a few months before that place implodes.

    Your side is filled with haters, why don’t you go chastise them Darrell?

  185. 185
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Any random reporter: “7 American soldiers died in Iraq today…”

    Darrell: “Oh my God! Are President Bush’s polls OK?”

  186. 186
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, you need to have your meds upped. Nobody wants anyone to get killed.

    Look, Joe Klein, an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning observes:

    But it’s possible to have been against the war and to hope for the best in Iraq. I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans who now oppose the war are praying for a turn for the better in Iraq. Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure. And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:

    Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad

    It would be interesting to know how many leftists could bring themselves to agree out loud with that statement

  187. 187
    Perry Como says:

    I think we should all take the time out to sign this pledge and stand by the President:

    If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

    Truth to power.

  188. 188
    Rome Again says:

    The entire Westboro congregation picketed…

    Say no more for that group, they’re just totally insane. People like them get away with the most god-awful shit, while people like me are branded terrorists for (sigh) trying to make people realize that the steering wheel is being operated by petulant children.

  189. 189
    Darrell says:

    Your side is filled with haters, why don’t you go chastise them Darrell?

    Rome, those who bitch about Pelosi’s style of clothing may be petty, but it doesn’t make them “filled with hate”.

  190. 190
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Honestly, I wish Iraq would immediately calm down so we could get our troops out of there. The various factions should get together and announce that they will stop fighting immediately so that they can rebuild the country and make life better for the people of Iraq.

    But will our troops actually leave? I don’t think so. To pull our people out would open up Iraq to the real consequence of Bush’s blunder, an Iranian occupation.

  191. 191
    ThymeZone says:

    those who bitch about Pelosi’s style of clothing may be petty

    You only say that because it’s the same style you wear.

  192. 192
    Rome Again says:

    Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.

    It’s simple Darrell, even though you haven’t been able to figure it out. Tell me your reaction to this statement:

    George W. Bush IS America (Do you believe that? I certainly don’t. I am rooting for George W. Bush’s failure because he’s an inept moron and we need to get him and his imperialistic ideologues OUT of the oval office. We are not hoping AMERICA fails. We’re actually trying to stop that from happening, but you’d never be able to understand that, would you?

    Go find a corner, it’s calling your name (oh, and there’s a little dunce hat sitting on the stool, how nice).

  193. 193
    ThymeZone says:

    But will our troops actually leave?

    Sure. I think Donny “Fuckhead” Rumsfeld said that we’d only be there maybe 15 years.

    Calm down.

  194. 194
    Rome Again says:

    Rome, those who bitch about Pelosi’s style of clothing may be petty, but it doesn’t make them “filled with hate”.

    Tell me another one. Yeah, they just LOVE the kind of people of whom they post the idea that scientific study proves that people who are blinking even when they are not talking are still lying. Yeah, right Darrell, tell me another one (and I’m not a major fan of Pelosi, so that’s not where I’m coming from here). Make excuses for the hate on your side Darrell, I always knew you were a hypocrit.

  195. 195
    ThymeZone says:

    But it’s possible to have been against the war and to hope for the best in Iraq. I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans who now oppose the war are praying for a turn for the better in Iraq. Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure. And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:

    Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad

    Joe Klein is a prick, a weasely little shit who thinks smoking the bones on both sides of an argument makes him a fair and balanced guy. It only makes him a cum-spitting bonesmoker.

    Klein’s entire premise here is a lie. It’s shit.

    It’s a lie for him to say that it’s “easy to assume that they are rooting for failure.” That’s simply a lie. Even if he believes it, which I seriously doubt, that just makes him a fucking fool, it doesn’t make him right. There is no reponsible or mainstream opposition to the war that is worthy of being called “rooting for failure.” Period. Any that actually does exist, and its existence has yet to be proven, is an exception that proves the rule.

    Further, Klein’s phony “oath” is just that — phony. Nobody has ever hoped for anything other than success over there. That’s not a reason to dampen criticism of what is going on. The people in charge have fucked up every single day of it for four years (five, if you count the runup) and are still doing so as we speak. We have no earthly reason to do ask anything other than that they stop it, stop it right now.

  196. 196
    jake says:

    Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.

    Translation: The voices! Why don’t they stop?

    Klien’s objections to Bush’s approach to Iraq echo the objections of every “leftist” I’ve ever spoken to or read. (I’ve yet to encounter a lefty who has said “I hope this goes wrong and everyone dies so Bush looks dumb!”) Does that make Joe a lefty? Perish the thought!

    So I don’t get it. It looks like Klein is saying only he has the special ability to think Bush is a fuck up while at the same time wishing that Iraq and settles down, the soldiers can achieve something we can call success and come home. This shoves everyone else into the category of being so stupid they can’t see Bush for what he is, or so evil they won’t be happy until all the soldiers are dead.

    If this is what Klein is arguing, what an arrogant shit head, fuck ‘im.

  197. 197
    tBone says:

    Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.

    I agree with that statement. I also agree with this statement:

    Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in giving me a pony.

    I think the chances of either coming true are roughly equal.

  198. 198
    Mike says:

    Joke Line…’nuff said…

  199. 199
    Rome Again says:

    By the way Darrell, this is the first time that I’ve seen you since I got my new hat (see it in the left corner of this post? It’s a color changing hat, if you look inside it changes color.) You should lift my hat and see what’s underneath.

  200. 200
    Darrell says:

    For me, it was this observation – most on the left cheered, embraced and defended Michael Moore’s ‘war for oil’ conspiracy theories, terrorists are ‘minutemen’ rhetoric and the rest of his wild-eyed assertions which really was an attempt to undermine the war effort. I don’t accept that most people making and supporting these assertions were engaging in patriotic, well meaning dissent. Neither were all those tens (hundreds?) of thousands of leftists protesting with BushHitler signs. There were many ways to oppose the war while pushing for it to be successful.

    Many Dems had principled opposition to the war, but many did not.

  201. 201
    Mike says:

    Most? Yet another slime job without a cite.

    “You can only protest in a manner I find acceptable”

    Thank you for proving my point above, I appreciate that.

  202. 202
    Richard 23 says:

    For me, it was this observation – most on the left cheered

    Goddamnit. Give your evidence of “most” and “cheered,” you dishonest halfwit! If your case is so strong why do you lie so often?

  203. 203
    Rome Again says:

    For me, it was this observation – most on the left cheered, embraced and defended Michael Moore’s ‘war for oil’ conspiracy theories

    That was no conspiracy theory Darrell. What happened at the energy meetings which occurred right after Dick Cheney took off as VP? You can’t say because that information isn’t available, correct?

    Let me give you a hint.

  204. 204
    jake says:

    Many Dems had principled opposition to the war, but many did not.

    I get it. You can’t oppose the war (or Bush) you have to oppose it (or him) unless it is done a way that doesn’t offend…anyone. Gotcha.

    …most on the left cheered, embraced and defended Michael Moore’s ‘war for oil’ conspiracy theories, terrorists are ‘minutemen’ rhetoric and the rest of his wild-eyed assertions which really was an attempt to undermine the war effort.

    News to me, but I won’t ask for stats that will define “most.” I’m also not sure how Moore could undermine the war effort. Does Bush sit up an night worrying about what Michale Moore thinks of his actions? Doubt it.

    Neither were all those tens (hundreds?) of thousands of leftists protesting with BushHitler signs.

    You’ll be relieved to know I didn’t see a single Bush/Hitler sign earlier today. I’m not saying there weren’t any, but tens of thousands, nuh uh.

  205. 205
    Rome Again says:

    And tell me Darrell, if someone landed on American shores, would you defend this country? And if you did, would you assume that you yourself were a terrorist?

    They are defending their country from imperialism (and you just can’t understand why America shouldn’t go around the world wiggling her little wand and changing everyone into people just like her, can you?)

    We went into Iraq, we invaded another country, that does not make those who are trying to keep their country out of American hands (or American oil interests) terrorists. You buy the spin, how considerate of you.

  206. 206
    ThymeZone says:

    Christ almighty. 2004, and Michael Moore again.

    This blog is apparently a Wayback machine as long as Darrell is here.

  207. 207
    chopper says:

    Are you saying they weren’t smiling and happy? Is that your “reality based” interpretation?

    jeez, i’ve seen smiling faces at anti-abortion marches. i guess all those right-wingers just loooove to see ‘lil babies getting aborted. what a bunch of sickos.

  208. 208
    chopper says:

    Goddamnit. Give your evidence of “most” and “cheered,” you dishonest halfwit! If your case is so strong why do you lie so often?

    forget about it. darrell made his mind up long ago that ‘the left’ just wants to see american soldiers killed. anything he’s seen since that point has been folded, spindled and mutilated so as to fit into that narrative. it’s like clinton-hating. actually, it’s a form of denial.

  209. 209
    rachel says:

    Darrell is being stupid again? I’m shocked, just sho–

    No, I’m not. What does surprise me, though, is how much I’m beginning to enjoy the way he squirms away from facts the way Dracula cringes away from sunlight (Thank you, Jonathon.), and the way he presents vague and irrelevant BS as if it supported him (Yeah, those people at the link he put up had are totally having fun.)

    (golfclaps for Darrell)

  210. 210
    mrmobi says:

    I don’t accept that most people making and supporting these assertions were engaging in patriotic, well meaning dissent.

    Well, Gruppenfuhrer Darrell, we are so sorry!

    In this country there are all kinds of dissent. Some of it is not well-meaning. Some of us have grown tired of watching our country become the nation which renders innocent people to be tortured. It makes us cranky. We hate sitting by while a former alcoholic dim bulb, elected by the Supreme Court, trashes the things which make us most proud to be Americans.

    Some of us even have the temerity to smile while we are commemorating some new and unfortunate milestone caused by the pathetic, incompetent bunch of shit-birds now in charge. To you, this means we are not “well-meaning.” Well, la de dah.

    But I must point out to you, that you are speaking about a huge majority of the American public, when you use terms like “leftists scum.” The vast majority of American now recognize that Chimpy McFlightsuit is not qualified to do this job.

    I think I speak for many here when I say we are sick to death of your authoritarian, Neo-Nazi, war-mongering, racist, insipid nonsense. I’d be very happy to see your kind of hateful, amoral politics consigned to the trash heap, along with you.

  211. 211
    tBone says:

    This blog is apparently a Wayback machine as long as Darrell is here.

    Ah, 2004. Balloon Juice was still a rightie blog, Republicans continued their electoral dominance, and a majority of America still supported the war in Iraq. It’s Darrell’s Happy Place. Now that the terrorists have won, can you blame him for wanting to spend most of his time there?

  212. 212
    demimondian says:

    No, Darrell didn’t make up his mind that the left was anti-American; he didn’t even make up the story. Like all the best propagandists, he knows that the truth of a tale isn’t what matters, but rather its acceptance — and, to spread acceptance, he only needs to create debate. Once smoething is debatable, it’s no longer transparently false.

    That, by the way, John, is why you should ban him: hot because he’s obnoxious or loathsome, but rather because he’s using the comments section of the blog to support his form of the _dochschlosslegende_, whether or not it’s the truth.

  213. 213
    mrmobi says:

    Ah, 2004. Balloon Juice was still a rightie blog,

    Right you are, TBone. When I first started lurking here a couple of years ago, there were actually some on the right who you could have a reasoned debate with. I respect John Cole, and I hope that his party will come to its’ senses. America will be a better place with a Republican Party that breaks it’s ties to Christianists and veers toward a Barry Goldwater conservatism.

    Here at BJ, we’re stuck with the Wayback Machine rejects.

  214. 214
    Rome Again says:

    Right you are, TBone. When I first started lurking here a couple of years ago, there were actually some on the right who you could have a reasoned debate with. I respect John Cole, and I hope that his party will come to its’ senses. America will be a better place with a Republican Party that breaks it’s ties to Christianists and veers toward a Barry Goldwater conservatism.

    I’m not sure it’s John’s party anymore. Seems I remember him saying just recently that he’d thoroughly given up on the GOP.

    Many of us have been here to watch the transformation progress. I know I have, and I know TZ has. I’m sure there are quite a few others here who have been watching in amazement. What I can’t see is why Darrell and his cohorts can’t figure out what John has figured out (unless there are some paid propagandists here) since John lays out all the reasons for this change very well. John thoroughly spells out what made him rethink the GOP party line. I’m beginning to think Darrell only has pudding between his ears.

  215. 215
    Rome Again says:

    I want to make clear what I meant by “change”. John didn’t change, his party did. Apparently it’s a change that the Darrells of the world welcome.

  216. 216
    Rome Again says:

    Sorry, I lied:

    I’m beginning to think Darrell only has pudding between his ears.

    “Beginning to think” is an expression, and I realize I lied there. I’ve been thinking that for a long time. Just to clear the record.

  217. 217
    ThymeZone says:

    What I can’t see is why Darrell and his cohorts can’t figure out what John has figured out

    My theory ….

    1) John is a social liberal. Darrell is not, as near as we can tell (he has not actual ideology, no definable world view).

    2) For Darrell, it’s about hating lefties, not ideology. He really doesn’t care about anything except crapping on lefties. He’d gladly burn the world down to prove a point against lefties.

    3) John, on the other hand, is principled. Neither party is all that fine a pinnacle of principle, but the Repubs have gone so far off the deep end that John has to oppose them or violate his own princples.

  218. 218
    Rome Again says:

    1) John is a social liberal. Darrell is not, as near as we can tell (he has not actual ideology, no definable world view).

    Gosh, that must be a miserable, meaningless existence. How sad.

    2) For Darrell, it’s about hating lefties, not ideology. He really doesn’t care about anything except crapping on lefties. He’d gladly burn the world down to prove a point against lefties.

    So Darrell is a terrorist?

  219. 219
    ThymeZone says:

    So Darrell is a terrorist?

    More of a tourist, I think. He travels around in the world of ideas, collecting winshield decals.

  220. 220
    RSA says:

    My theory is that deadend Bush/Cheney supporters are closet authoritarians who have convinced themselves that we’re in a battle of civilizations (though they’re perfectly happy to let others fight it for them), and that following a leader who promises to do something, even a leader as demonstrably incompetent as Bush, is preferable to the uncertainty of not having someone they can take orders from (or political opinions, at least).

    Harsh? Well, after watching Cheney claim on CNN that the biggest threat in our current situation with Iraq is that the American people may not have the stomach for war, I have to think that I’m not that far off. Certainly Cheney sees himself in the role of the authority. What else should I think about his eager supporters?

  221. 221
  222. 222
    Rome Again says:

    Harsh? Well, after watching Cheney claim on CNN that the biggest threat in our current situation with Iraq is that the American people may not have the stomach for war, I have to think that I’m not that far off. Certainly Cheney sees himself in the role of the authority. What else should I think about his eager supporters?

    Earth to Cheney: Your “new Pearl Harbor incident” didn’t work. The American public doesn’t buy it. You failed! HAHAHAHAHA!

  223. 223
    tBone says:

    More of a tourist, I think. He travels around in the world of ideas, collecting winshield decals squished bugs off windshields.

    And then he brings them here and parades them around proudly. Nothing wrong with these bugs, they’re perfectly good bugs, you must be a dishonest leftist scumbag whackjob if you can’t see what fine specimens of buggitude these are.

    OK, I think I may have strained something reaching for that metaphor.

  224. 224
    ThymeZone says:

    I think I may have strained something reaching for that metaphor.

    Probably a hammy.

    Anyway, Darrell collects idea stickers, since he has never had an actual idea or thought of his own.

    If you took his computer and AM radio away, his brain would slow down and start singing “Daisy, daisy” like the HAL9000.

  225. 225
    Mike says:

    I am amazed he didn’t reply afterwards. Maybe he realized, somewhat like Wile Coyote, that he had caught himself in a Mobius loop of a contradiction and imploded. One can dream anyways….

  226. 226
    Tim F. says:

    Guys, I don’t have time to threadsit today so I will briefly touch on two points that have come up.

    Darrell, it will honestly shock me if you think that Congressional oversight is and was a good idea. By that I mean compelled testimony by administration and DoD officials, occasionally hostile questioning and embarrassing, occasionally politically damaging secrets revealed.

    This would have revealed, for example, (1) that Chalabi’s intel shop was less reliable than a used Yugo, and (2)that the Pentagon depended entirely on Chalabi’s bogus outfit when it refused to plan for any sort of postwar operation. This is disturbing information, to say the least, and likely would have steered us towards a vastly more effective operation if we had known and cared before the war began. But it also would be embarrassing to politically powerful neocons and for that reason the right opposed the very idea of it as baseless scandalmongering. Let’s try another keyword: Halliburton. If your first reflex was not to think of Cheney derangement syndrome and dismiss I will again be impressed. Yet we somehow dumped billions upon billions into contracts that produced no measurable result.

    About the WMD claims, I cannot believe that you cite those two sources as if they help you. Iraq had no programs and it had no stockpiles that posed any danger. I can’t think of a less interesting thing to do than go around this with you one more time.

  227. 227
    Richard 23 says:

    Paddy, I could’ve lived forever without that. At least he wasn’t depicted licking her armpit.

    Damn. No more.

    Just for that, you have to read Something Awful’s perusal of poop and furry forums.

    I’d recommend them to Darrell, but, yecchh. He probably posts there.

  228. 228
    Richard 23 says:

    Let’s try another keyword: Halliburton. If your first reflex was not to think of Cheney derangement syndrome and dismiss I will again be impressed.

    Let me save you some time, Tim.

    What other corporation has the experience and can-do and know-how that Halliburton does? It’s not necessarily a coincidence that Cheney was CEO. He knows about how to run a business. How ‘reality based’ of you to cite yet another wackjob leftist talking point.

    How’d I do?

  229. 229
    jake says:

    I’m beginning to think Darrell only has pudding between his ears.

    Jeeze thanks. I happen to like pudding. Or at least I DID.

    Just for that, you have to read Something Awful’s perusal of poop and furry forums.

    I hereby move that Richard 23 be stripped naked tied to Ann Coulter’s bed for mentioning Furries. Perhaps I’m not a full-fledged LeftyPervMoonieBatter but there is something w-r-o-n-g with people who fuck animals, even stuffed ones.

    There’s a pun in there somewhere but I ain’t lookin’ for it!

  230. 230
    tBone says:

    How’d I do?

    I’ve noticed a tendency among many/most Leftists on this site to constantly pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on how ‘superior’ they are. All you have to do is look at Richard23’s posts in this thread. ‘Reality-based’ community indeed.

  231. 231
    Tim F. says:

    Mike,

    As per our comments policy we will ban anybody who uses vulgar sexism, racism or real-life threats. When someone crosses that line they’re gone as you no doubt have seen. Darrell simply hasn’t crossed that line. No doubt he would be gone if John and I loosened up the comments policy to include personal abuse, cursing, obtuseness and acting like a general chowderhead. Darrell would be quickly gone, and so would any number of those calling for his head.

    For me fairness isn’t a factor. It doesn’t really bother me when an opponent acts like a jerk, in fact it feels pretty good. Loutish behavior by an opponent tells me that I’m probably on the right track. Conversely when a compatriot misbehaves it reflects on me, if only by association. Hence why I plan to give misbehaving Democrats less slack than I gave Republicans.

    At any rate I’m not acting like a moderator here. Nobody will get censored or banned. Consider it friendly advice on how not to lose an argument by forfeit.

  232. 232
    Mike says:

    Tim,

    You misunderstand me. I was not asking for Darrell to be banned or even warned. I simply wanted to know why you put up with his antics, which you have answered. Thank you.

    I generally ignore him, but you must admit, no one can screw up a good thread like he can. And he seems to be the most prolific poster here, apparently believing quantity more than makes up for quality.

  233. 233
    Mike says:

    And I don’t believe I have lost an argument with his dumb ass yet. ;) Or ever will.

  234. 234
    Punchy says:

    Seriously, I want to know what the reason is.

    Bra and Panties Publishing won’t allow a lefty site on their payroll. It’s only a matter of time before Mr. Cole gets his warning letter concerning his recent conversion. With Darrell and Sherard and their ilk on board, it keeps the paychecks forthcoming.

  235. 235
    Punchy says:

    there were all those DU posts in 2004

    Wow…just…wow. Bringing up examples from THREE YEARS ago. Relevant and insightful, I’m sure.

  236. 236
    Pb says:

    Michael Moore’s ‘war for oil’ conspiracy theories

    Don’t you mean George W. Bush’s ‘war for oil’ conspiracy theories?

    terrorists are ‘minutemen’ rhetoric

    Or perhaps minutemen are ‘terrorists’?

  237. 237
    Mike says:

    Perhaps he meant Prime Minister al-Maliki’s new plan, Operation Imposing Law.

  238. 238
    demimondian says:

    Tim — you assume that I expect Darrell to be banned. I don’t. I don’t even think he’s worth banning. The problem is that I also don’t know any other way to deal with someone who has the property that engaging him in debate serves to validate his lies.

  239. 239
    Richard 23 says:

    Great post, tBone. If only I could pat you on the back!

  240. 240
    Mike says:

    Well, it is not like anyone really engages Darrell in debate. A shouting match is more like it. And he is really just doing it for some bizarre form of self-gratification since he never is honest enough to admit when someone takes his talking points down. He just posts more lies and believes he has won again.

  241. 241
    ThymeZone says:

    Great post, tBone. If only I could pat you on the back filet!

  242. 242
    jake says:

    He just posts more lies and believes he has won again.

    More proof for my hypothesis that Darrell is Bush.

  243. 243
    tBone says:

    Great post, tBone.

    I was just following your lead. And then ThymeZone came in with a good meat joke. Damn, we’re awesome.

  244. 244
    tBone says:

    Great post, tBone.

    I was just following your lead. And then ThymeZone came in with a good meat joke. Damn, we’re awesome.

  245. 245
    TenguPhule says:

    In other words, Monday morning quarterbacking over mistakes made makes Tim and his merry band of moonbats talkin’ “Truth to power”.

    And with that Darrell should earn his long overdue ban from John Cole.

    Break out the beer!

  246. 246
    TenguPhule says:

    That anyone would actually deny the material influence of Iran on this war is hysterically laughable.

    Only problem is, it’s to the Iraqis nominally on the American’s side.

    Oops. Sherad got creampied again.

  247. 247
    TenguPhule says:

    Have I written anything to suggest otherwise? Has Sherard?

    Yes and yes.

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

  248. 248
    TenguPhule says:

    If your claims over spurning of ‘adult supervision’ is anything else besided pure partisan hackery, then please lay out the case for what ‘collosal’ mistakes could have been forseen, and spell out specifically which ‘adult supervision’ the Bush admin has spurned

    Firing the Iraq army. Calling everyone who disagreed a traitor. Psy-Ops operations that promised what they knew the US couldn’t deliver. Authorization for Torture. Letting the looting go on unchecked. Making it obvious through their preparations for the invasion that 1) they didn’t believe their own lies abour WMD or 2) they figured sending troops in without NBC equipment was a good idea. Moving the goalposts for Saddam, first he had to let inspectors in, then he had to prove a negative, then he had to leave in exile….

    We’ve danced this silly little dance before, Darrell. And you’re still completely wrong and using the same tired old bullshit that has been repeatedly disproved time and again.

  249. 249
    TenguPhule says:

    As Duelfer and Kay reports made clear, Saddam definitely kept his WMD programs intact. Tim, has the koolaid you’re drinking been so tainted that you’re now denying that Saddam had WMD “programs”?

    Of course this requires completely ignoring the updated reports filed *after* the 2003 inspections.

    Darrell is the same as the people who claim the Sun revolves around the Earth because the original reports said so.

    hat’s on the same level of tinfoil hat moonbattery as Steve’s assertion that Iran isn’t/wasn’t sending arms into Iraq. Or do you believe that one too?

    And your proof is? Iran is influencing Iraq, true enough. But not through guns. A stable Iraq is in their best interests and they’re nothing if not interested.

    Medical Care, Reliable Energy, Consumer Goods, Loans….all the stuff the US *FAILED* to do, Iran is providing to them instead.

    To the little minds who believe only in waving their little sticks around, there are no such things as carrots.

  250. 250
    TenguPhule says:

    I’d say it’s more “we’ve been in Iraq long enough, time to let Iraqis take more responsibility”.

    Shorter Darrell: Sure we broke in uninvited and fucked it all up. But you local bitches will just have to suck it up and fix it while giving me a handjob because this is all *your* fault, Ho.

  251. 251
    TenguPhule says:

    that with over 100,000 US troops in Europe and several times that in the US, that we don’t have any troops “to spare” to send to Iraq.

    Better tell those darn ‘liberuls’ at the Pentagon saying the same thing, Darrell.

    Our combat capable divisions are tapped out. Their equipment is in even worse shape. And all the shit slinging from Darrell isn’t going to change that.

    But keep on calling for Ponies, Armchair General of the Fighting Keyboarders Darrell.

  252. 252
    TenguPhule says:

    That anyone would actually deny the material influence of Iran on this war is hysterically laughable.

    Shorter Sherad: This is my Strawman. I call him George. I rub him and pet him and squeeze him.

  253. 253
    Rome Again says:

    Shorter Darrell: Sure we broke in uninvited and fucked it all up. But you local bitches will just have to suck it up and fix it while giving me a handjob because this is all your fault, Ho.

    Wow, what an analogy. You’re right TP, of course.

  254. 254
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    Richard23 – C’mon, you either like Bush or you don’t. There really isn’t a middle ground on this one.

  255. 255
    jake says:

    that with over 100,000 US troops in Europe and several times that in the US, that we don’t have any troops “to spare” to send to Iraq.

    But Bush has decided not to use them so I’m not sure why anyone keeps bringing them up. Is this a critique of the President? Get the nets, I see a moon bat!

  256. 256
    ThymeZone says:

    And then ThymeZone came in with a good meat joke

    It’s what I do.

    We have the chops.

  257. 257
    Mike says:

    Is this a critique of the President?

    More importantly, is it a Darrell-Approved critique of the President?

  258. 258
    ThymeZone says:

    Shorter Darrell: Sure we broke in uninvited and fucked it all up. But you local bitches will just have to suck it up and fix it while giving me a handjob because this is all your fault, Ho.

    I agree with Rome. This is a great summary.

    Darrell would add, of course:

    “Sure I have been wrong every step of the way, but that’s no reason why you don’t to swallow every morself of bullshit I put on your plate now. Uh, Ho.”

    I added that last part just as tribute to you, TP.

  259. 259
    ThymeZone says:

    “don’t have to”

  260. 260
    chopper says:

    terrorists are ‘minutemen’ rhetoric

    what, you channeling reagan again?

  261. 261
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, it will honestly shock me if you think that Congressional oversight is and was a good idea. By that I mean compelled testimony by administration and DoD officials, occasionally hostile questioning and embarrassing, occasionally politically damaging secrets revealed.

    It sounds like you’re trying to redefine the meaning of Congressional oversight rather than admit that you really were throwing out a strawman. I’ve learned long ago Tim that although you seem to be an easy going guy, you don’t have the integrity to admit when you’re wrong. Here is your entire comment earlier regarding congressional oversight

    My money says that you both still think that Congressional oversight is a bad idea.

    I called you on this bit of absurdity and now you’re moving goalposts. Dishonest on your part? You bet. But typical of how you and your side “debate”. Tell us Tim, in the context of Chalabi, where did Bush rebuff early (2002 – 2003)congressional attempts at holding more hearings on him? Were Jane Harman and other intelligence commitee Dems screaming for more hearings on him at the time? Cite them, because you have clearly suggested the Bush rebuffed congressional oversight specifically regarding Chalabi. Because if they weren’t, then what more, other than dishonestly throwing out strawmen, could you be talking about? Serious question.

    Let’s try another keyword: Halliburton. If your first reflex was not to think of Cheney derangement syndrome and dismiss I will again be impressed. Yet we somehow dumped billions upon billions into contracts that produced no measurable result.

    More vague idiocy. Here’s your game Tim. You throw out a term such as “congressional oversight”. I respond, based on what congressional oversight is widely understood (see wiki link above) to mean. Without the ability to respond to my argument, and lacking the integrity to admit when you’re wrong, you move the goalposts on the definition. Whatever..

    So given this demonstrated tendency on your part, what the hell are you talking about with Halliburton? Are you trying to push the idea that we went into Iraq to benefit Halliburton? Did you know that the US govt had in place no-bid cost+ contracts with Halliburton, contracts which Halliburton was awarded under the Clinton administration? What then, could be your “point”?

    About the WMD claims, I cannot believe that you cite those two sources as if they help you

    Duelfer report, Kay, and virtually every other data point out there says Saddam was keeping his WMD resources in place. The alternative theory (your theory) says that Saddam turned over a new leaf and gave up his decades-long WMD ambitions. You tell me, which of our positions is more “reality based”?

  262. 262
    Darrell says:

    And your proof is? Iran is influencing Iraq, true enough. But not through guns

    I love this.. I offer two links (there are many more) on Iran getting caught sending millions of dollar of arms and TengFool ignores them as if no links were provided. You are clearly only concerned with finding the truth, unless facts conflict with the narrative you’re pushing. This kind of dishonesty on the left is what constantly reinforces my position. No one, and no group that dishonest can be right about much else.

  263. 263
    Darrell says:

    Although I really believe Tim is being dishonest in his debate tactics on this thread for reasons stated, I do want to backpeddle on this characterization a little, as Tim did have the decency do a full BJ post retraction when it the National Parks story regarding religious fundamentalists he earlier posted on, turned out to be bogus. Gotta give him credit for that. I do wish he would be equally forthright in his other debating tactics.

  264. 264
    Tim F. says:

    Tell us Tim, in the context of Chalabi, where did Bush rebuff early (2002 – 2003)congressional attempts at holding more hearings on him? Were Jane Harman and other intelligence commitee Dems screaming for more hearings on him at the time?

    It often amazes me how you can read a post and miss the point. In what way did I say that Bush rebuffed Congressional requests for testimony? It’s funny how I don’t remember saying that he did. The point of two whole paragraphs of my post was that the GOP Congress desperately avoided asking. Citing Jane Harman is the strangest point of all. Do you understand now why she is not a Committee Chair? Think it over. And the Democrats, who had neither the power to subpoena nor call hearings, were hardly in any position to change anything. You are simply reiterating what I said without understanding the meaning.

    what the hell are you talking about with Halliburton? Are you trying to push the idea that we went into Iraq to benefit Halliburton?

    Missing the point again. You have, one could say, a demonstrated tendency to read what you want into somebody’s comment rather than what is actually there. I understand that it is much easier to reply to what you want to hear, but you can try a little harder in the future.

    So we went into Iraq and contracted with Halliburton. These thing happen in wars. So where did the money go? Billions went in and yet many of the projects went absolutely nowhere. The money just disappeared, the work was half done and completed projects, for example the notorious clinics, proved utterly useless. We had auditors in place, some of them actually interested in doing their job, but the White House stifled them and Congress ignored them. Maybe I’ll link it when I am less pressed for time. The point is that we would probably be in a better position today if the people who allocated the money invested more in making sure that it was spent responsibly.

  265. 265
    chopper says:

    I do wish he would be equally forthright in his other debating tactics.

    right, the guy for whom ‘debating’ is defined as ‘calling the other guy a shitstain’ is lecturing others on being forthright. this is rich.

  266. 266
    Darrell says:

    So we went into Iraq and contracted with Halliburton

    Actually it was a continuation of an already-in-place existing government contract with Halliburton which was awarded to them in the 1990’s. Your comment suggests they won the award after we went into Iraq. Also Tim, why didn’t you mention Halliburton’s role in Afghanstan? Please clarify.

    So where did the money go? Billions went in and yet many of the projects went absolutely nowhere

    Is this what they tell you to believe in the ‘reality based’ community? Because here in the real world, the government has a microscope up Halliburton’s ass with probably the most audited government contract in US history.

    On what basis are you suggesting that Halliburton has “lost” money with no explanation? Please cite, or admit that you simply made it up.

  267. 267
    Mike says:

    Because here in the real world, the government has a microscope up Halliburton’s ass with probably the most audited government contract in US history.

    That is almost as funny as this:

    I think you’re an obsessed whackjob who obsessively follows me from thread to thread demanding answers to the same completely-off-topic questions, while railing over the ‘terrorist’ Jews in Israel.

    2 excellent candidates for Ironic-Posts-Of-the-Year. Congratulations!!

  268. 268
    Darrell says:

    2 excellent candidates for Ironic-Posts-Of-the-Year. Congratulations!!

    And the winner is

    Mike Says:

    Tim, why is it that you and John allow Darrell and Sherard to shit on everyone here and make most of threads go to hell?

    Mike Says:

    Tim,

    You misunderstand me. I was not asking for Darrell to be banned or even warned

    I know you’re feeling stupid about right now Mike.. you should. You’re stupid, you’re an asshole, and you’re a hypocrite, as the above quotations clearly demonstrate.

  269. 269
    Mike says:

    And you have demonstrated that you have lost the argument…and that you don’t even recognize why. Thanks for proving my point yet again!!

  270. 270
    jake says:

    You’re stupid, you’re an asshole, and you’re a hypocrite, as the above quotations clearly demonstrate.

    Irony Ahoy!

  271. 271
    Darrell says:

    Mike Says:

    And you have demonstrated that you have lost the argument…and that you don’t even recognize why. Thanks for proving my point yet again!!

    Yeah Mike, you “win”

  272. 272
    Mike says:

    Yeah Mike, you “win”

    The really ironic part is that if you were to actually acknowledge that you are not ALWAYS RIGHT and that other people have valid points and do “win” sometimes, your points might actually gain some traction. But you invalidate your own points virtually every time because you will not give an inch, and then fall back to the insults. Quite ironic really.

  273. 273
    ThymeZone says:

    The irony is so thick here, it has shifted the Magnetic North Pole several degrees toward West Virginia.

  274. 274
    Mike says:

    Maybe I will go eat a nice thick juicy steak to make up for my iron(y) deficiency.

    Sorry TZ, that is the best I can come up with for now. I bow to your (and others) mastery. I am just a calf, as it were.

  275. 275
    ThymeZone says:

    Actually, I was responding the The Darrell, but you slipped a post in when I wasn’t looking. Always refresh the thread before posting! My bad!

  276. 276
    Mike says:

    No worries, it is all in good fun. West Virginia, is that where he is from? That could explain some things….

  277. 277
    ThymeZone says:

    West Virginia, is that where he is from?

    Well, John Cole is there, so I think of the blog as being in West Virginia. Actually, it runs up and down through those Intertubes somewhere …..

  278. 278
    TenguPhule says:

    Actually it was a continuation of an already-in-place existing government contract with Halliburton which was awarded to them in the 1990’s.

    Flat Out Lie. Halliburton was awarded No-Bid contracts specifically for the Iraq invasion and occupation.

    On what basis are you suggesting that Halliburton has “lost” money with no explanation?

    That their own employees blew the whistle on them, that the auditors investigating found hundreds of millions unaccounted for or billed under flat out fraud and yet the government kept on shoveling those contracts to them.

    Perhaps you should stop drinking that Halliburton approved Water, they leave the shit still in it.

  279. 279
    TenguPhule says:

    I offer two links (there are many more) on Iran getting caught sending millions of dollar of arms

    The US government *claims* Iran is smuggling weapons and their proof such that it is are the Iranian labels on some mines and shells which proves nothing. Or are you going to start accusing the US of being against the US for all the ‘made in America’ ordnance being used against American troops?

    Oddly enough both the Washington Times and the LA Times did some actual reporting and they’re both finding that the US government’s claims are *not* backed up by the facts…again. If you’ve been reading the threads you’ve seen my links. Iran is using the carrot to get Iraqi opinion on their side and it is working. The groups they support are the Iraqis that the US is supporting.

    Which leaves Darrell up Ass Creek with a broken paddle, no lube and Dick Cheney with a raging hard-on.

    You are clearly only concerned with finding the truth, unless facts conflict with the narrative you’re pushing.

    Darrell’s Irony of the Day IV(tm).

  280. 280
    Jonathan says:

    Remember this?

    Here’s how Republicans support the troops.

  281. 281
    TenguPhule says:

    Duelfer report, Kay, and virtually every other data point out there says Saddam was keeping his WMD resources in place back in 1998. But not during the inspections in 2003.

    Fixed for Darrell omissions.

  282. 282
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    Darrell Says:

    Can I have a corndog to go with my pony pie?

    Finally! I understood something Darrell said! People, I think Darrell enjoys taking any contrarian stance he can just to yank your chains for his own enjoyment. I don’t think he even believes anything that he says, he just says it to get a rise out of whoever he can. I do not even waste my time responding to him except to crack a joke at his expense. The fact that he ignores me tells me that it gets to him…lol! He can’t stand the fact that he will never get a rise out of me, not now, not ever.

    I do not feed the trolls, it is a waste of time to do so…

    Hey Darrell, if I give you a watermelon and a jar of Astroglide, will you go away? Please?

  283. 283
    Tony J says:

    Well, that’s the Pony Whisperer’s job description, isn’t it? It’s here to say the most offensive and outrageous things on the (usually correct) assumption that people on the ‘Left’ of an argument can’t just sit and watch hypocritical and dishonest BS being sprayed around without at least trying to stem the flow with, y’know, facts. Then it just cranks up the nonsense level to 11 and basks in the validation.

    Like you, I ignore it. I just wish more people on this site would do the same.

  284. 284
    Jonathan says:

    CL:

    Darrell ignores me too, and I’m not joking around.

    It doesn’t bother me though, I post with the lurkers in mind and they get the point.

  285. 285

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] I heartily recommend their two posts, here and here. And Tim F. has a funny Austin Powers add-on. Most fitting for our macho right… […]

Comments are closed.