Woot- I Am A Bush Hater

Since I somehow made the mistake of starting to read Hugh Hewitt again and commented twice about his nonsense, I might as well continue on with another post. Today, I am mentioned by name:

I am not surprised that the Bush haters like Sullivan and Cole are outraged that General Petraeus would be interviewed by an admirer of the president, or that the anti-war extremists like Greenwald, Yglesias and the others cannot disguise their contempt for the military (though they think their attack on General Petraeus’ integrity won’t identify them as anti-military.)

I’m not surprised that new media journalists producing interviews of a sort far superior to what MSM serves up in one minute sound bytes excites the anger of folks who prefer their defeatist agendas advanced by a dominant MSM. They don’t want the Beltway-Manhattan media elites to lose their monopoly on “important” interviews as that means instead of Democratic journalists like Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos and Chris Matthews asking defeat-slanted questions, new media outlets will step in and allow serious people to make extended arguments about the stakes in Iraq and the state of the various battles in the broader war on terror.

Dear Hugh- I don’t hate Bush. I voted for him twice (votes I now deeply, deeply regret), and I hate what he has done to this country, I hate his incompetence, I hate that he has let propagandists such as yourself take the lead in designing and pushing policy, I hate that he has lost or is losing not one, but two wars, I hate that he has politicized (more accurately, allowed his lackeys to politicize) everything from NASA to the FDA to the Pentagon to a level that would have made Hugh scream out in rage were the President’s last name Clinton. I hate all of those things.

But for all that, I still don’t hate Bush. I think he is a small, shallow, feeble-minded man, whose “resolve” you cherish is merely the result of a man incapable of thinking on the spot and changing course. While he is ultimately responsible for anything that has been done during his tenure, I am of the opinion that he is little more than a puppet.

So, Hugh, I don’t hate him. In fact, I almost feel sorry for him. This will go down as the most incompetent and morally compromised administration in history, and when those history books look back, they will not refer to this sorry period as the “Cole administration,” nor will they refer to it as the “Hewitt administration,” despite the fact that so very many of your bad ideas have, in fact, been instituted (and usually not because they reflect or represent your ‘deep’ principles, but because you felt there was some sort of immediate political/electoral gain to be seized). History will dub this sorry era as the Bush Administration.

Regardless, even if I DID in fact hate Bush, none of that deflects from what happened and what people are upset about regarding Petraeus’s appearance on your show. It is simply, incontrovertibly, inappropriate for Gen. Petraeus to appear on higly partisan talk shows during a period in time in which he is supposed to be providing the military his apolitical leadership and judgement. The fact that he would, in fact, choose to appear on what amounts to a poor man’s Rush Limbaugh calls his ability to be impartial, apolitical, and honest with the American people into question.

That, Mr. Hewitt, is why many of us are thoroughly and appropriately outraged. Our kids are dying, we are making what appears to be little or no progress in Iraq, and the architect of our wartime strategy (in which the goalposts are bing moved yet again) is playing footsie and passing on vague talking points on the radio with a party hack who honestly believes that the three worst things in the world are the liberal media, Democrats, and Osama bin Laden, and in that order.

BTW- Still think Harriet Meiers would be an AWESOME Supreme Court justice?






293 replies
  1. 1
    Doubting Thomas says:

    Remind me not get on your bad side, John.

    Kudos and thanks for reminding me why this is my favorite political blog.

  2. 2
    Rusty Shackleford says:

    Spot on.

  3. 3
    norbizness says:

    If you dislike the supremely disingenuous interviewer chosen by partisan PR hacks to interview an overtly political general chosen by Bush for his malleability of views concerning the success of a surge, you hate the troops, the schools painted by the troops, and the kittens rescued from trees and then painted by the troops.

  4. 4
    craigie says:

    Nice one.

    I’m going to try to fit all that on a bumper sticker – I really think it says what needs saying.

  5. 5
    Jake says:

    Let us reflect on a time when a “new media journalist” asked victory slanted questions:

    WO: And following…let me ask you. Are you enthusiastic enough to put on a uniform and go?

    HH: No. I’m a civilian.

    WO: Okay, but we can recruit you.

    HH: I’m 51, General.

    WO: And I don’t see all these war hawks that want to…none of them have been in a war, and they don’t want to go.

    HH: Well, General, are you advocating that only uniformed military should have opinions on this?

    WO: No, you can have an opinion, but if you…you can’t start telling me that you’re going to just pay no attention to what people like myself say.

    I wonder if his fluff session with Petraeus helped soothe the burn.

  6. 6
    Dreggas says:

    Beat Him like a red headed step-child.

  7. 7
    jon says:

    Damn, that’ll leave a mark. Actually it probably won’t, which is the sad part.

  8. 8
    Krista says:

    As a red-headed step-child, I disapprove of the simile. I do, however, think that John just dished out a righteous and (highly entertaining) smackdown.

    Nicely done, Professor Cole.

  9. 9
    Davebo says:

    Wow JC! Just Wow!

  10. 10
    jg says:

    You don’t have to respond to ‘hate Bush’. They aren’t saying it because they think its true. They’re saying it so the base needs a reason to dismiss all you say and BDS is a valid reason for dismissal. You think anyone who isn’t already on your side gives a shit about any of the words you wrote in your defense? A trusted partisan source has labeled you, you’re done.

  11. 11
    jg says:

    They’re saying it so the base needs a reason to dismiss

    They’re saying it BECAUSE the base….

  12. 12
    Wilfred says:

    It is simply, incontrovertibly, inappropriate for Gen. Petraeus to appear on higly partisan talk shows during a period in time in which he is supposed to be providing the military his apolitical leadership and judgement.

    Yup. Only a right-wing ideologue would think differently. I wonder what the officer corps has to say about such things.

  13. 13
    slammin' sammy says:

    you voted for Bush twice? None of your belated vitriol will ever make up for the inestimable and irreparable damage you and everyone else who voted for this buffoon has done to our nation. You are little more than a deathbed confession. Be proud: you helped destroy America.

  14. 14
    in canaduh says:

    i hate him

  15. 15
    Mike P says:

    I would give this post 4 stars if I could.

    Well done, John.

  16. 16
    Jackmormon says:

    Poor man’s Rush Limbaugh…

    That’s gotta smart.

  17. 17
    Davebo says:

    Well, Cheney will “temporarily take over” control at the White House while Bush gets his colonoscopy.

    Go ahead, run with it.

  18. 18
    Andrew says:

    Okay, why the fuck don’t you hate Bush?

    Seriously, does he have to murder puppies in front of you?

  19. 19
    Dreggas says:

    Davebo Says:

    Well, Cheney will “temporarily take over” control at the White House while Bush gets his colonoscopy.

    Go ahead, run with it.

    Who wants to bet there will be “complications”?

  20. 20
    aliceandbob says:

    Haven’t you been paying attention, Andrew? Everyone knows we’re in a War on Terriers.

  21. 21
    jg says:

    Can Bush declare executive privilege and declare the ’08 presidential vote invalid?

  22. 22
    Angry Engineer says:

    In the two-odd years that I’ve been visiting Balloon Juice, this is the best post yet. Nicely stated – and yet, by not mentioning Hewitt’s hacktacular “Painting the Map Red”, you’ve left plenty of material for a sequel.

  23. 23
    jenniebee says:

    If you don’t hate him now, would learning that he’s ordered the Justice Dept and the US Atty for DC not to pursue Contempt of Congress charges against his aides tip the balance?

    Cause, um, that’s what he’s done.

  24. 24
    Shinobi says:

    I don’t understand why we let the “loyalists” (which is what I’m going to call them from now on lest they continue to besmirch the word Republican… which I wasn’t really sure could be further besmirched, but you get the idea…)

    Why do we let the loyalists marginalize us by calling us “Bush Haters” why does our hatred, for for me, it is truly hatred, somehow invalidate our opinions? Lest we forget that these are probably the same people whose bloodpressure rises as the mere mention of the name Clinton? Does hating a politician somehow remove one’s ability to reason?

    Perhaps the reason Bush Hatred is so relevant to the loyalists is because they cannot look beyond their feelings to reason and see right and wrong. Maybe they are all so trapped by their own self righteousness that they cannot understand that some people might exist who are not?

    I do not care if my conclusions fit into predefined definitions, all I care is that the methods and the logic with which I reach them are sound. And, I hate Bush. But, if he did something and did it well, I would apply my logic and my methods and admit that what he did was good. Can the loyalists say the same about Clinton?

  25. 25
    scarshapedstar says:

    But for all that, I still don’t hate Bush. I think he is a small, shallow, feeble-minded man

    Ah… I’m gonna stick with “hate.”

    In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?” I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them”, he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?'” “What was her answer?” I wonder. “‘Please,'” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “‘don’t kill me.'” I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

  26. 26
    Cain says:

    Andrew,

    I think it’s a worse insult to be pitied than to be hated.

    I don’t hate Bush either, I hold him in contempt though. His legacy is going to be one of incompetence, partisan hackery, and malfeasance. What a wonderful legacy. You should pity him. The poor fucker.

    cain

  27. 27
    Davebo says:

    I can’t decide who I hate more, George W. Bush or the SCUM! that thinks orange juice is just for breakfast.

  28. 28
    Cassidy says:

    Uh oh…JC didn’t mention how much he hates torture, despises killing civilians, and loathes trans fat. This could mar an otherwise fine post for the uber-liberals.

  29. 29
    Dreggas says:

    jg Says:

    Can Bush declare executive privilege and declare the ‘08 presidential vote invalid?

    He’s working on it, he’s already laid the groundwork to declare martial law, has declared that no one in his admin can be prosecuted and has claimed the authority to be able to seize anyones assets at any time because of his perception that they are somehow “aiding the enemy”. Further in getting Habeus revoked and being able to declare anyone, at any time, an enemy combatant he has given himself the power to imprison people without charge.

  30. 30
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Can Bush declare executive privilege and declare the ‘08 presidential vote invalid?

    Now that’s a great idea! Somebody call up Gonzalez and Yoo and get them to work drafting the legal rationale!

    Also: Fantastic post, John.

  31. 31
    SheRa says:

    The only quibble I have with this excellent post is that to call Hewitt the poor man’s Rush is to insult poor people, who in general have much better taste than that.

  32. 32
    reid says:

    I understand your instinct is to deny hating Bush, but really, unless your philosophy is to not hate anyone, why WOULDN’T you hate him? It seems perfectly reasonable given the man’s qualities, his position, and what he’s done. Don’t fall for the excuse that he’s feeble-minded; he’s surely of average intelligence and is (or should be) aware of his actions. From everything I’ve read, he’s intellectually lazy, bullying, stubborn…. What’s not to dislike? As if Hewitt and others like him didn’t irrationally hate Clinton in the ’90s!

  33. 33
    chopper says:

    jesus, john, why are you so shrill?

  34. 34
    tBone says:

    Poor man’s Rush Limbaugh…
    That’s gotta smart.

    Actually Hugh is probably masturbating furiously at the thought of being compared to Limbaugh, whatever the context.

    Everyone knows we’re in a War on Terriers.

    They’re biting us over here so we don’t fight them over there.

  35. 35
    John Cole says:

    Uh oh…JC didn’t mention how much he hates torture, despises killing civilians, and loathes trans fat. This could mar an otherwise fine post for the uber-liberals.

    Well I do hate all of those things, but what I don’t understand is why trans-fats are lumped in there. Sure, the right wing has lots of reasons to love torture, since they have promoted a policy of torture for years now. Sure, they like killing civilians- after all, most civilians in Iraq aren’t Christian real people anyway.

    But trans-fat? Why would anyone defend trans-fat. It is no good for you, can easily be replaced by the real thing, and here is the important part-

    THE REAL THING TASTES BETTER. By severals orders of magnitude.

  36. 36
    Rick says:

    Don’t you worry, I hate him enough to cover for everyone who’s ever posted on this site.

  37. 37
    Cassidy says:

    Just wanted to get you on record as not excusing those things. New thread, new day…you never know with that crowd what the expiration date is on not liking bad things.

    What’s the purpose of hating the man? Seriously, reserve hatred for someone who’s monstrously evil. Hating someone because they have a different mindset is a only falling into the same whole that the Conservatives went into in the 80’s and 90’s.

  38. 38
    ran says:

    Good god, a moderate guy like Yglesias who initially supported this Iraq clusterfuck is an “antiwar extremist” in Hewitts dim brain? WTF?

  39. 39
    Mr Furious says:

    Take it all back, John, he meant Juan Cole…

    ;-)

    You just put on a clinic. Very nicely done. too bad nothing gets through to those assholes. And if it did, they couldn’t allow it to cahnge anything—they are just like their hero.

  40. 40
    tBone says:

    Uh oh…JC didn’t mention how much he hates torture, despises killing civilians, and loathes trans fat.

    He didn’t repudiate the practice of smashing kittens with sledgehammers, either. Obviously he is objectively pro-kitten-smashing.

  41. 41
    Mr Furious says:

    What’s the purpose of hating the man?

    Purpose? I don’t know…It feels better?

    Seriously, the emotions stirred up by thinking about what that POS-POTUS has done to this country adds up to something greater than just anger and/or disgust. Hate ends up being a logical and unavoidable conclusion. At least for me.

    I HATE that motherfucker.

  42. 42
    canuckistani says:

    Ahhh, the sweet crunch of boot on nuts. Well spoke, John.

  43. 43
    Cassidy says:

    He didn’t repudiate the practice of smashing kittens with sledgehammers, either. Obviously he is objectively pro-kitten-smashing.

    Or weasel stomping. Is JC a “Weasel Stomping Day” advocate? Someone alert PETA!

  44. 44
    ran says:

    so he’s not “monstrously evil” eh Cassidy?

    I mean the guy only lied us into an illegal war of aggression and thus is personally responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, just to mention the most egregious of his many despicable outrages.

    How high is your bar for monstrously evil then?

  45. 45
    The Other Andrew says:

    Great post, John.

    I like how HH mentioned the “media elites.” Nevermind that that’s obviously ridiculous (if we had a remotely balanced media, selling the war would’ve been a much more difficult task), but, this is a common debate trick used by our favorite lunatics. On any issue where the public is against them, they focus on “elites” (real or otherwise) that are connected to the issue, who are held up as examples of extremism. Instead of confronting the fact that the public has given up on the war, they go after Michael Moore or George Soros. This is another way of enabling the faux populism/”We’re real Americans like you!” myth.

  46. 46
    Jake says:

    Well, Cheney will “temporarily take over” control at the White House while Bush gets his colonoscopy.

    How will they get the scope around his head?

  47. 47
    Tsulagi says:

    Good post.

    It is simply, incontrovertibly, inappropriate for Gen. Petraeus to appear on higly partisan talk shows during a period in time in which he is supposed to be providing the military his apolitical leadership and judgement.

    Yep. Just as the short bus brigades hate that separation of church and state thingy, they hate the separation of the military and politics. They’re real smart like that.

    BTW- Still think Harriet Meiers would be an AWESOME Supreme Court justice?

    You’re asking that question to someone who thinks Multiple Choice Mitt would make a simply fabulous president with the First Dog strapped to the top of the presidential limousine?

  48. 48
    Cassidy says:

    I HATE that motherfucker.

    That’s a lot of mental energy to expend over a sad and useless man-child.

  49. 49
    The Other Andrew says:

    And, I don’t hate Bush because he has a different mindset. The fundies have that particular market cornered. I hate him because his actions have resulted in bad consequences for many, many people. Unnecessarily dead US troops and Iraqi civilians, a destablized Middle East, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for it all…

  50. 50
    Cassidy says:

    How high is your bar for monstrously evil then?

    I’m gonna go with Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Jefferey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler and his inner group, The various tribes of Darfur, etc.

    Bush isn’t evil. He doesn’t have horns and slaughter innocent virgins to his “Dark Lord” (Cheney). He’s just a narrow minded, dogmatic, stubbornly obtuse (much like the modern liberal) caricature of a Republican. Wrong and evil are two different things.

    And stop with “murdering thousands of Innocent iraqis” meme. There was nothing murderous about it. Unfortunate..sure. Avoidable…sure. Murderous…a little heavy on the hyperbole.

  51. 51
    demimondian says:

    Jeebus, Dreggas, do me a favor — stick to the facts. They’re bad enough — the tinfoil hattery about “no one in his administration can be prosecuted” is BS.

    What Gonzales released was a memo ordering USA’s to not prosecute contempt of congress cases resulting from invocations of executive privilege. You know what? That’s not bad law, but *good* law. Executive privilege is intrinsically political, and USA’s need to be insulated from that. Congress has an appropriate response — loosening and broadening the handling of inherent contempt, which is the appropriate tool to use in a political case.

  52. 52
    Vlad says:

    Good for you, John.

  53. 53
    Rome Again says:

    What’s the purpose of hating the man? Seriously, reserve hatred for someone who’s monstrously evil.

    Define monstrously evil. Oh, I know, same tactics, only named Clinton.

  54. 54
    jg says:

    Cassidy Says:

    I HATE that motherfucker.

    That’s a lot of mental energy to expend over a sad and useless man-child.

    It takes very little mental enegy to hate someone. Liking someone takes effort.

  55. 55
    demimondian says:

    Of course, the current president *isn’t* Bush, but is, in fact, Cheney. But don’t let facts like that get in your way, Cassidy.

  56. 56
    Andrew says:

    Bush isn’t evil. He doesn’t have horns and slaughter innocent virgins to his “Dark Lord” (Cheney). He’s just a narrow minded, dogmatic, stubbornly obtuse (much like the modern liberal) caricature of a Republican. Wrong and evil are two different things.

    Well, shit, we haven’t had a right wing concern troll ’round these parts for quite a while.

    I have to say that I’m not particularly impressed by this character, ever since D. Broder and others have producing some decent, moderate spoofery. Worst of all, “Cassidy” is pretty boring, so I suggest trashing it and starting someone new.

  57. 57
    Rome Again says:

    I’m gonna go with Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Jefferey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler and his inner group, The various tribes of Darfur, etc.

    Non political citizens who had sexual dysfunction, killed several people as a result of that dysfunction and were executed are monstrously evil. Those who take power out of the hands of Americans and give themselves dictatorially based power with no oversight are heavenly angels by comparison.

    Priceless!

    By the way, I didn’t see Timothy McVeigh on that list, why is he missing? Or did you shave your head for him?

  58. 58
    Dreggas says:

    demimondian Says:

    Jeebus, Dreggas, do me a favor—stick to the facts. They’re bad enough—the tinfoil hattery about “no one in his administration can be prosecuted” is BS.

    What Gonzales released was a memo ordering USA’s to not prosecute contempt of congress cases resulting from invocations of executive privilege. You know what? That’s not bad law, but good law. Executive privilege is intrinsically political, and USA’s need to be insulated from that. Congress has an appropriate response—loosening and broadening the handling of inherent contempt, which is the appropriate tool to use in a political case.

    It’s not even law demi, it’s based on a memo written during the Reagan years which was never validated by the courts since the EPA backed down in the end. try reading the whole thing. This isn’t tin-foil hat shit anymore, I wish it was.

  59. 59
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    All I can say is this is an excellent post John, thank you.

    I agree, Bush is a puppet. In addition, Cheney is the puppetmaster. I knew that when I first saw Bush challenged in a press conference. When asked a question he is not prepared for, he gets this ‘deer in the headlights’ look, his eyes kinda glaze over, and he mumbles some line that does not answer the question that put him on the spot.

    He is a shell of a man, with nothing of substance inside. A mannequin that imitates a human…

  60. 60
    ran says:

    So he’s not responsible for anything that followed from his utterly unnecesary war of aggression against a country that was NO THREAT TO US whatsoever? That he knew goddamn well was no threat to us before he initiated his war of choice in order not to “liberate Iraqis” or “promote democracy” or any of that laughable horsehit for the rubes but in order to control Iraq’s oil via permanent bases? A war in which upwards of a million Iraqis are dead, millions more maimed and displaced?

    You must be a fucking Republican. I got your hyperbole right here asshole.

  61. 61
    jenniebee says:

    Anybody read Krugman today? He mentioned this piece written by Petraeus six weeks before the 2004 election. Looks like it was optimistic to expect anything other than this sort of thing from him.

    To demimondian: I’m agog at your reasoning there. There has always been an assumption of prosecutorial independence. The WH is trying to blow that smoke up everybody’s asses right now, but the idea that a president can order one part of the executive to stop investigating or not to prosecute another branch… that’s what got Nixon kicked to the curb. If the chief executive can declare that what he orders done is de facto non-prosecuatable, that’s an act of tyranny, pure and simple.

  62. 62
    Rome Again says:

    You must be a fucking Republican. I got your hyperbole right here asshole.

    You MUST be talking to Cassidy. Yeah, he’s not fooling me either.

    ::points at Cassidy and laughs:: “You’re a Democrat, right, bwahahahahahahahaha!”

  63. 63
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    With the new Republican ‘Blog Warriors’‘Rent A Troll’ service, every time I see a Cassidy the first thought is going to be ‘paid shill for the party’. My second thought will probably be ‘a waste of good oxygen’.

  64. 64
    Cassidy says:

    Of course, the current president isn’t Bush, but is, in fact, Cheney. But don’t let facts like that get in your way, Cassidy.

    Ummmm…Bush is the POTUS, whether you like it or not. He may be a puppet of many interests, but he is still the POTUS. How would you say that isn’t fact?

    Define monstrously evil. Oh, I know, same tactics, only named Clinton.

    I like Clinton. First POTUS I voted for. Admittedly I was more naively liberal in those days, but over all a very good POTUS.

    By the way, I didn’t see Timothy McVeigh on that list, why is he missing? Or did you shave your head for him?

    He’s covered by the etc. Any terrorist, especially domestic, is evil.

    I keep my hair short, due to military regulations, but I don’t like shaving my head. It’s very uncomfortable in the field.

    we haven’t had a right wing concern troll

    Lol…I’m nowhere near “right wing”. I’m just not a liberal sheep either. I’m a lifelong Democrat, who’s mature enough to judge each issue on its merit and not the MoveOn email of the day.

    So he’s not responsible for anything that followed from his utterly unnecesary war…

    I didn’t say that. As the man who “pulled the trigger”, he is ultimately responsible for the loss of life, especially that of my fellow Soldiers. I just questioned your use of the term “murder”. That implies a crime of homicide. You can speak ill of the man and his policies all you want…I’ll join you. But to accuse him of committing crimes only weakens your position from reasoned opposition to raving lunatic.

    …any of that laughable horsehit for the rubes but in order to control Iraq’s oil via permanent bases?

    The whole “blood for oil” meme doesn’t help either. Do me a favor, will ya? Keep your uber-liberal conspiracy theories to yourself around election time. I’d really like to see a Democrat be elected as POTUS and this kind of hysterical rhetoric doesn’t help.

  65. 65
    Dreggas says:

    Good ol Hoekstra wants to see those who revealed the secret prisons put in prison

  66. 66
    Jake says:

    I should have said before I began the snark: Excellent rebuttal of Who Spewitt, I only disagree with this –

    While he is ultimately responsible for anything that has been done during his tenure, I am of the opinion that he is little more than a puppet.

    You’re falling for defense No. 581 of the common or garden addict. “Sure I ran over those school kids, but I don’t know any better, I’m just a drunk. Anyway the bartender is the one who gave me all of those drinks.”

    Substitute Iraq for school kids and the people who voted Bush for the bartender, slap a cocky smirk on it and you’ve got George W. Bush.

    Of course, if someone can point to some aspect of this man’s adult life that doesn’t reek of irresponsible, callous dickhead, I’ll reconsider my statement. So far all I’ve seen is a bastard who knows he’ll never have to take the blame for anything he does because someone other sucker will always clean up his messes. Meanwhile, he’ll snigger off to his next disaster because people are stupid enough to keep putting him in charge of things.

    Heh.

  67. 67
    Dreggas says:

    O/T but worth it:

    The Democratic aid has confirmed to ABC News that Kerry said, “There once was a man named Vitter / Who vowed that he wasn’t a quitter / But with stories of women / And all of his sinnin’ / He knows his career’s in the — oh, nevermind.”

    Kerry at a fund raiser this weekend, funny shit

  68. 68
    Cassidy says:

    ::points at Cassidy and laughs:: “You’re a Democrat, right, bwahahahahahahahaha!”

    Like I said, I’m just not a liberal. It’s a sad day for the party when those distinctions have to be made. Sadder still that you all get pandered to by the same politicians I plan to vote for.

    But hey, keep marginalizing yourselves into the same hole port-a-shitter the Pro-Life crowd is in. The sooner we get you all out of the debate, the sooner we can actually have rational debates about public policy. The only difference between you all and the guys who blew up abortion clinics is that the majority of you are afraid of guns.

  69. 69
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:

    But hey, keep marginalizing yourselves into the same hole port-a-shitter the Pro-Life crowd is in. The sooner we get you all out of the debate, the sooner we can actually have rational debates about public policy. The only difference between you all and the guys who blew up abortion clinics is that the majority of you are afraid of guns.

    Not heaping on here because, really, I can see your points and such even while hating this administration as I do. However I would beg to differ with the bolded part. Perhaps some uber-libs are afraid of guns…I however am not and I’m pretty freaking liberal.

  70. 70
    Jake says:

    “immediately cease his spurious claims of CIA cooperation that threaten to tarnish the reputation of the hardworking men and women of the CIA.”

    Please tell me Hoekstra was OUTRAGED by the outing of Valerie Plame.

    Now, who do I have to blow to get some better spoofs/trolls in here?

  71. 71
    Pooh says:

    What does John Cole tell a Hugh Hewiit with two black eyes?

    Nothing, he already done told him twice.

  72. 72
    jg says:

    Any terrorist, especially domestic, is evil.

    No they’re not. That’s lazy thinking soldier. Know your enemy, don’t assume you know his motivations or that those motivations can be dismissed as irrelevant to the plan for VICTORY.

    Bush may be POTUS but don’t even try to say he’s in charge.

  73. 73
    Rome Again says:

    Lol…I’m nowhere near “right wing”.

    If you think you’re getting anywhere with this line of crap, I’m here to tell you that you aren’t.

  74. 74
    akaoni says:

    The whole “blood for oil” meme doesn’t help either. Do me a favor, will ya? Keep your uber-liberal conspiracy theories to yourself around election time. I’d really like to see a Democrat be elected as POTUS and this kind of hysterical rhetoric doesn’t help.

    Yup, it’s a concern troll all right. While the “no blood for oil” meme is flawed in its simplicity, it’s closer to the truth than the WMD or democratizing Iraq memes ever were. It’s hardly an “uber-liberal conspiracy theory.” Sadly, it reflects only a piece of the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq, namely: expanding the United States’ ability to extend and use military force in the Middle East. Iraq was first and formost a place for the US to set up military bases so that it could control the Middle East, and by extension control it’s oil (the most important resource there). Troops are meant to be there and remain there, permanent bases have been and are being constructed. First and last the invasion of Iraq was about the extension of US power, plain and simple. There’s your uber-liberal conspiracy theory.

  75. 75
    Rome Again says:

    Any terrorist, especially domestic, is evil.

    How about G. Bush? D. Cheney? P. Wolfowitz? D. Rumsfeld (retired)? C. Rice? I. Libby (removed)? S. Hadley?… (this list could go on and on and on)

    They are creating executive government where they are not held accountable for anything they do or say, and they are domestic… they are terrorizing the people in this nation who realize they are overstepping their normal boundaries. Why do you not include them?

  76. 76
    srv says:

    It must be sad for Hugh when he can’t even imagine becoming as respectable as Peggy Noonan.

  77. 77
    Cassidy says:

    However I would beg to differ with the bolded part. Perhaps some uber-libs are afraid of guns…I however am not and I’m pretty freaking liberal.

    You’re right, it’s a broad brush, with enough exceptions to say it’s innaccurate. But I’m also a beleiver in that most generalizations are grounded in truth. You get what you pay for.

    Bush may be POTUS but don’t even try to say he’s in charge.

    That’s not what was said. I’d generally agree with that statement. What was said though, is this:

    Of course, the current president isn’t Bush, but is, in fact, Cheney. But don’t let facts like that get in your way, Cassidy.

    That statement is so obviously wrong, it’s amazing it was said in a public forum.

    No they’re not. That’s lazy thinking soldier. Know your enemy, don’t assume you know his motivations or that those motivations can be dismissed as irrelevant to the plan for VICTORY.

    I don’t need to know his motivations. Understanding them is essential sure, but once you cross that line from intellectual opposition to violent action, based on a dogmatic ideology, you’re justifications no longer matter. Personally, I’m gonna put them in the evil file. I gives a damn what the motivations are. Undertanding the enemy only matters for long term change. But in the short term, as in defeating them in combat, it doesn’t really matter.

  78. 78
    jrg says:

    Just read as much of Hewitt’s BS as I could stomach. What a gasbag.

    Hewitt sounds a bit like BillO railing against Kos. The internet has commoditized discourse and these guys cannot stand it, so they fight like hell to make the ‘net appear as the “fringe opposing view”, as if there was something other than a microphone separating Hewitt or BillO from irrelevancy.

    This little nugget is a real gem:

    Allowing the know-nothing, anti-intellectual fringe to block the flow of information to the American public via invective, slander and scorn that would be to keep the best, most compelling testimony from the public at a time when they need it most.

    As if liberals are the flat-earthers. As if “slander and scorn” has not replaced substance in right-wing discourse since the ‘90s. As if his ilk has been correct about anything since 2003.

  79. 79
    jg says:

    The sooner we get you all out of the debate, the sooner we can actually have rational debates about public policy.

    You’re not a democrat if you think people need to be removed from a debate. Republicans pick and choose the people who are ‘serious’ in order to stay on message. Democrats represent everyone, even people you don’t like (and yet the right says they are the christian party, weird).

  80. 80
    Dreggas says:

    Now, who do I have to blow to get some better spoofs/trolls in here?

    uh was that meant for me? LOL!

  81. 81
    Cassidy says:

    f you think you’re getting anywhere with this line of crap, I’m here to tell you that you aren’t.

    Only in your fantasy world could I be considered a “right wing” individual. That’s the problem with extremist politics. Anyone who doesn’t fit your dogmatic world-view is automatically your opposite.

    it’s closer to the truth than the WMD or democratizing Iraq memes ever were. It’s hardly an “uber-liberal conspiracy theory.”

    I’m with you on the first two. There was so much trumped up crap for this invasion, and then when things turned out to be false, the meme kept changing. The only person who know why we really invaded Iraq is Bush himself. Good luck on that little bit of psychology. I don’t need to know the real reason to determine it was a stupid move.

    But, the war for oil theory is so inherently flawed, it’s ridiculous. First and foremost, for a man so undeniably stupid, as many of you all suggest, how could he possibly have a complex motivation for this? I mean, good god, you guys can come up with something a little more rational than that. Seriously, do you really think such fantastic hysterics will get you anywhere? Just look at the last election.

  82. 82
    ran says:

    Ok Cassidy, we’re not for there for the oil eh?

    Ever hear of Peak Oil? I assure you the Cheney administation has.

    Then tell my why you believe we invaded, and why you believe we’re still there. There of course weren’t any WMDs, and Saddam’s dead, and the Iraqis have had elections.

    So why are we still there shooting and bombing and walling up the place and imprisoning thousands of Iraqis without charge? Why is the Bush administration pushing so hard to force this Oil Law down the Iraqi’s throat if “blood for oil” is just an “uber-liberal” conspiracy theory? Why did they guard the Oil Ministry while they watched the Iraqis pick every thing else clean?

    Seriously, why did we invade, and why are we apparently planning to stay forever? And would we do either if Iraq wasn’t “floating on a sea of oil” to quote Wolfowitz?

  83. 83
    BFR says:

    I hate that he has let propagandists such as yourself take the lead in designing and pushing policy

    Hear hear. I think it’s an under-reported outrage that the administration is outsourcing military planning to wingnuts like Kristol.

  84. 84
    Tsulagi says:

    Now, who do I have to blow to get some better spoofs/trolls in here?

    TZ?

    Sorry, that fruit was lying just a little too low…lol

  85. 85
    jg says:

    The whole “blood for oil” meme doesn’t help either. Do me a favor, will ya? Keep your uber-liberal conspiracy theories to yourself around election time

    Right. Because we would be massively concerned with the well being of Saudis, Iraqis and Iranians if they weren’t sitting on an ocean of oil.

    I gives a damn what the motivations are. Undertanding the enemy only matters for long term change.

    What idiot is thinking about anything other than long term change? You think its more important to focus on killing people who want to die?!!

  86. 86
    Punchy says:

    Can Bush declare Executive privilege Order and declare the ‘08 presidential vote invalid?

    Fixed.

    But I’m serious. Can he? He just issued one that allows him to freeze any and all assests he feels like. So why not an EO on this….or immigration….or really, anything?

  87. 87
    Cassidy says:

    You’re not a democrat if you think people need to be removed from a debate. Republicans pick and choose the people who are ‘serious’ in order to stay on message. Democrats represent everyone, even people you don’t like (and yet the right says they are the christian party, weird).

    The irony is hillarious.

    Seriously, I’m not a Democrat because I want the overly emotional hysterics of the far left to be kept quiet, so that a reasoned debate of ideas can happen, resulting in intelligent, rational representatives?

    Just curious, what stances would I have to take to “qualify” as a Democrat. This should be good…

  88. 88
    Nash says:

    It’s scary.

    Other than the “voted for, twice” part, this describes me perfectly. But the remainder basically describes the arc of my own thinking.

    And although I tend to also agree with this:

    I hate that he has politicized (more accurately, allowed his lackeys to politicize)

    isn’t that in the end a distinction without a difference? In Black’s FDR bio and from other sources, I note that it’s becoming de rigueur to consider Harding a basically honorable guy who surrounded himself with crooks. But isn’t it entirely proper to hold The Decider responsible for whatever “flavor” of people he puts around himself?

    After all, if you hire a hitman to do your killing for you, aren’t you the hitman’s equivalent?

  89. 89
    Hugh Hewitt says:

    Go crawl back into your hole, you stupid left-wing shithead. And don’t bother us anymore. You have to have an IQ over 50 to correspond with us. You don’t qualify, you stupid shit.

  90. 90
    Dreggas says:

    But, the war for oil theory is so inherently flawed, it’s ridiculous. First and foremost, for a man so undeniably stupid, as many of you all suggest, how could he possibly have a complex motivation for this? I mean, good god, you guys can come up with something a little more rational than that. Seriously, do you really think such fantastic hysterics will get you anywhere? Just look at the last election.

    Uh, gee, perhaps the fact that the one’s railing most for war with Iraq were the Dick Cheney’s? I mean besides the fact that it’s made Halliburton et. al. richer there’s little other reason for this war now that all the other “reasons” have been shown to be smoke blown up our collective asses. Further our only real interest in the middle east, historically and with the exception of Israel, has been oil. This is not some grand conspiracy theory it’s a known fact.

    Conveniently we also have a president who always lived in the shadow of his brother and wanted to one up daddy. That was in the cards when he got into the office. Anyone who didn’t think that this jackass wouldn’t find a reason to go after saddam back in ’00 was fooling themselves.

    By invading Iraq we have put ourselves in the heart of the ME and on top of some pretty hefty oil reserves. If things had gone the flowers and candy route we would probably have bases in Iraq permanently in order to act should the flow of oil ever be threatened (and to take out Iran most likely).

    If we were really there to “spread freedom and democracy” we would be setting our sights on the rest of our “allies” in the region. That would include Saudi Arabia, the UAE and even Kuwait, all of which are autocratic and while there has been some injection of “freedom” into their societies, they are still oppressive regimes.

    There are very few rationales left for our continued presence in Iraq, setting up a free government is not one of them.

  91. 91
    Cassidy says:

    hen tell my why you believe we invaded, and why you believe we’re still there. There of course weren’t any WMDs, and Saddam’s dead, and the Iraqis have had elections.

    I honestly couldn’t tell you. Maybe it was childish revenge for targeting Daddy. Maybe it’s because he convinced himself in some sort of conservative fairy land that Saddam was all that embodies evil. I don’t know. I do agree that the WMD’s and democracy reasons were bunk. Like I said earlier, the only person who really knows why we did it is Bush himself.

    So why are we still there shooting and bombing…

    That one’s easy. This Administration has a pathological need to not be wrong. So they are willing to sacrifice the lvies of a few thousand servicemen and women to be right. I find it as sickening as you do.

    Why is the Bush administration pushing so hard to force this Oil Law down the Iraqi’s throat…

    Because the only way, in their mind, to salvage anything from this war is to start getting the oil to pay for it. Secondly, if they get the oil going, they are less beholden to Congress regarding war funds.

    Because we would be massively concerned with the well being of…

    I don’t beleive anyone is concerned with their well-being.

    What idiot is thinking about anything other than long term change? You think its more important to focus on killing people who want to die?!!

    Well for one, nothing that is happenning right now is focusing on long term change in the ME. Segments of the culture breed ahte and resentment for western nations. To combat terrorism in the long term, you must fight its source, which is not a military action.

    As for the one’s who have allready crossed that line? Absolutely…kill them all. Once they have decided that they are willing to die for their cause, the only cure is to hastne them towards that objective. There is no rehabilitation.

  92. 92
    Rome Again says:

    Just curious, what stances would I have to take to “qualify” as a Democrat. This should be good…

    Better yet, why don’t you tell us what makes you believe you’re a Democrat?

  93. 93
    jg says:

    But, the war for oil theory is so inherently flawed, it’s ridiculous. First and foremost, for a man so undeniably stupid, as many of you all suggest, how could he possibly have a complex motivation for this? I mean, good god, you guys can come up with something a little more rational than that.

    So you assume the left thinks Bush came up with the idea on his own and since he’s so stupid he couldn’t possily have done that so you dismiss the idea that the war is about oil? Seriously? You’re whole reasoning for saying ‘war for oil’ is bogus is because of a strawman you invented?

    Let me help you out. No one thinks Bush came up with the idea of knocking over Saddam in order to ensure US friendly oil companies get the contracts to work Iraqs oil fields.

  94. 94
    Rome Again says:

    TZ?

    Sorry, that fruit was lying just a little too low…lol

    Go for it. I won’t mind!

  95. 95
    Rome Again says:

    Because the only way, in their mind, to salvage anything from this war is to start getting the oil to pay for it. Secondly, if they get the oil going, they are less beholden to Congress regarding war funds.

    Yeah, how’s that working out for them?

    Uhhh… we have OIL MEN in the WH and you think they couldn’t possibly go to war for oil? RIGHT! BTW just because they screwed it up doesn’t mean they didn’t try.

  96. 96
    capelza says:

    But hey, keep marginalizing yourselves into the same hole port-a-shitter the Pro-Life crowd is in. The sooner we get you all out of the debate, the sooner we can actually have rational debates about public policy. The only difference between you all and the guys who blew up abortion clinics is that the majority of you are afraid of guns.

    I got lots of guns! I’m a liberal. Most of the liberals I know personally have guns. Who are thse people that folks like you keep talking about? Being for a sane gun control policy (why does a waiting period freak people out so?) does not make one afraid of guns.

    Great post John!

  97. 97
    jrg says:

    But, the war for oil theory is so inherently flawed, it’s ridiculous. First and foremost, for a man so undeniably stupid, as many of you all suggest, how could he possibly have a complex motivation for this?

    Bush and Cheney are both former oil men (with significant interests in the industry). Oil money was cited in the run-up to the war as an incentive (we almost never hear about it now, though). The pacific front in WWII was fought largely over access to oil. The Iraq invasion of Kuwait was “justified” by Saddam’s assertion that Kuwait was drilling sideways into Iraqi fields. We have not taken military action in Darfur because there is no oil there.

    I mean, good god, you guys can come up with something a little more rational than that. Seriously, do you really think such fantastic hysterics will get you anywhere? Just look at the last election.

    I agree with you, here. There is no point pushing this narrative without hard evidence, even if common sense dictates otherwise.

  98. 98
    jg says:

    What idiot is thinking about anything other than long term change? You think its more important to focus on killing people who want to die?!!

    Well for one, nothing that is happenning right now is focusing on long term change in the ME. Segments of the culture breed ahte and resentment for western nations.

    No shit what’s happening isn’t about long term change but its supposd to be.

    To combat terrorism in the long term, you must fight its source, which is not a military action.

    that’s what I said

  99. 99
    Cassidy says:

    I mean besides the fact that it’s made Halliburton et. al. richer…

    Private contractors always get richer in war. That’s unavoidable.

    I would be willig to consider that the oil was an ancillary reason, such as…”…and we can control the oil, too.”, but I don’t beleive for one second that was “the big grand reason”, any more than I beleive that they actually beleived Saddam was an imminent threat.

    Further our only real interest in the middle east, historically and with the exception of Israel, has been oil.

    My personal belief is that they really do believe that their actions will have some sort of peaceful effect in the ME, despite facts to the contrary. That’s why I have such a disdain for extremist politics. It enable the “believer” to convince themselves that the fantasies in their head are able to be made true, by any means necessary.

  100. 100
    Tsulagi says:

    Go for it. I won’t mind!

    Well, Rome, if that was directed at me, you need to redirect your acceptance to Jake. Believe he was the one seeking to be a blow-er. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. So we agree. ;)

  101. 101
    Rome Again says:

    My personal belief is that they really do believe that their actions will have some sort of peaceful effect in the ME

    War begets peace? Do you have any idea how diametrically opposed the two are?

  102. 102
    Cassidy says:

    Better yet, why don’t you tell us what makes you believe you’re a Democrat?

    Uh uh…you don’t get off that easy. You (all) have made the challenge. Now step up…or admit you’re making irrational assumptions based on your own prejudices. You just can’t stand the idea that someone doesn’t believe as you do.

    Being for a sane gun control policy…

    I’m not against a sane gun control policy. But I have yet to see a sane one presented. Background checks are perfectly rational, but any law that assumes the guilt of an innocent civilian is in direct violation of our justice system. Secondly, the 2nd Amendment is an inalienable right. It is not the position of the gov’t to grant “rights” as privileges, but instead to protect those rights. But that’s another argument for another day.

  103. 103
    Cassidy says:

    War begets peace? Do you have any idea how diametrically opposed the two are?

    They are not as opposed as you think. War is one way, albeit not the best, of creating peace. Mind you I didn’t say I beleive this, just my thoughts on their motivations.

  104. 104
    Andrew says:

    The only difference between you all and the guys who blew up abortion clinics is that the majority of you are afraid of guns.

    Actually, I love guns. It’s that I’m afraid of being chased around by little zombie fetuses. Those fuckers can scurry, and they can hide in lunch boxes and under laundry. I tell you what, an abortion clinic is the last place I’d visit during a zombie outbreak.

  105. 105
    Dreggas says:

    My personal belief is that they really do believe that their actions will have some sort of peaceful effect in the ME, despite facts to the contrary. That’s why I have such a disdain for extremist politics. It enable the “believer” to convince themselves that the fantasies in their head are able to be made true, by any means necessary.

    Oh make no mistake, bush has a messianic complex and is deluded by his religion, of that there is no doubt. Bush however is nothing more than a tool. He’s the “face” man, the one who is out there putting on the folksy spin and all that other bullshit.

    Controlling the oil in Iraq is no ancillary reason, nor is it “fantasy”. All wars within the middle east not involving Israel were wars for Oil. Hitler and Mussolini wanted it during WWII. We wanted it during the cold war. We want it today.

    While bush might “believe” he’ll have an effect that only history will appreciate, those behind the scene’s run better. Just as another bit of fuel for the oil fire, it’s worth noting that as Sec Def under Bush I Cheney was against going into Iraq after liberating Kuwait. Years later as times change he’s suddenly for it? C’mon, 9/11 didn’t change things that much.

    The problem with those who think this wasn’t about Oil with a lot of other fluff thrown in is that if it were all about oil it would be a cheap and petty reason for war, yet this is a cheap and petty president. Being asked to fight and die in DEFENSE of one’s country is one thing, being asked to fight and die to get your country access to more oil is another.

    Yes these men are that petty and yes that is their rationale. Bush might believe it but none of the rest do for a second, they’re the cold hard intelligence and logic to bush’s delusional faith. It’s just that fate has an odd way of bitch-slapping those who think they can truly control it.

  106. 106
    Cassidy says:

    All wars within the middle east not involving Israel were wars for Oil.

    Strategic targets are not the same as reasons. That’s why I say ancillary. The reasons are most likely unfathomable to rational people, but I am willing to consider that the oil was an afterthought of the mental justifications.

    Hitler and Mussolini wanted the oil because they knew that they would be FUBAR without it. Their whole military strategy rested on mechanized/motorized forces.

  107. 107
    BFR says:

    Hitler and Mussolini wanted the oil because they knew that they would be FUBAR without it. Their whole military strategy rested on mechanized/motorized forces.

    Seriously though, how are we any different? Not only our military but our civilian society is massively dependent on petroleum.

  108. 108
    Punchy says:

    Secondly, the 2nd Amendment is an inalienable right.

    Oh fucking Christ at a strip club! This is the dumbest shit evah spoken by The Gun Nuts. The Framers wrote this into the Consty at a time when you could very easily be eaten by a bear in your backyard, and had just fought a war for their lives. To suggest that the Framers, by including Amendment Deuce, wanted every single person to own a Glock-9 and be allowed to buy one regardless of how many people they’ve raped with it in the past is such a fucking joke.

    They wanted to retain the right for militias, in case foreign powers should attack. Not for the sole purpose of having fucking retards on crack buying Gats with hollow-points. If you cant buy antibiotics without a note from a doc, you shouldn’t be able to buy a piece without a checkup from Uncle Sam.

  109. 109
    zmulls says:

    It’s not oil qua oil — it’s that oil = power and the thinking is that the US should not allow unstable rulers and regions to hold that power over it. It’s the threat of geostrategic blackmail that drives the neocons to “protect the oil source” (and the profit motive is just a sweetener).

    Dismissing the neocon cabal as a bunch of Snidely Whiplashes rubbing their hands together and cackling about how much loot they can get trivializes the problem.

    There’s no secret to the real rationales behind the drive to Iraq. Just read the late 90’s Project for a new American Century papers. America is the force for good in the world, and we must protect Israel. The Middle East is ungovernable and unstable. We have a moral responsibility to get involved and kick some serious butt, the way America is destined to do. We should start with that bastard Saddam for a host of reasons (a- he deserves it, b- we should have done it with the first Gulf War, and c- he’s easy to take down).

    The plan, as I saw it, was to take Saddam down, lock down that country and there we are. Smack dab in the middle. Bordering Iran and keeping them nervous, in a position to help the forces of democracy take hold there. A safe supply of oil at favorable prices, with a friendly regime. A permanent military presence in proximity to Israel — to protect Israel and threaten anyone who gets out of line. To be able to get a “peace” deal and enforce it. To keep Russia and Europe from getting there first.

    If you look at it through that lens, it all makes sense. They were going to look for an excuse to “do Iraq” one way or another, and 9/11 gave them more than they dreamed in terms of cover and support, not to mention the implicit suppression of dissent for a few years.

    Why do you think they are building those massive bases in Iraq?

    Obviously I disagree with this worldview, but I have to start any analysis with understanding why they thought it was a good idea. They don’t *think* of themselves as villains — they think of themselves as patriots, heroes — doing what has to be done to preserve the United States.

    They’re loony, but they’re rational within their twisted worldview…

  110. 110
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:

    Strategic targets are not the same as reasons. That’s why I say ancillary. The reasons are most likely unfathomable to rational people, but I am willing to consider that the oil was an afterthought of the mental justifications.

    Hitler and Mussolini wanted the oil because they knew that they would be FUBAR without it. Their whole military strategy rested on mechanized/motorized forces.

    And while we might not get all of our oil from the ME we’d be FUBAR without it as well. Just look at what the Pentagon has been looking into with regard to future wars. They will be fought, not over territory but over natural resources, notably fresh water, Oil is a dwindling natural resource. Strategically it makes sense to try and take it before the next guy.

    Also by your own reasoning it’s a silly reason which is why other justifications were needed. If bush had said we’re invading X country for their natural resources it would never have gone over. We needed alterior motives and the use of 9/11 along with the spectre of WMD was enough to push the country into this madness (even though many did disagree with it). This is why there is no plan B in Iraq and why we must always “stay the course” there. It’s why we will have a veritable fortress for an embassy there and why there will be, contrary to what they would say, permanent bases in Iraq unless we seriously change direction.

    You may believe these people somehow had “lofty goals” but having followed them over 6 years and their cheap tricks used to maintain power and basically destroy this country I do not. Hell I didn’t believe that we went there for oil either, at least initially. Now, however there is little to no reason other than that. Even the “oil bill” that we keep trying to get the Iraqi’s to pass opens the Iraqi oil fields to our oil companies. It’s a freaking benchmark, it’s not about sharing the wealth it’s about getting Shell etc. in there and drilling.

  111. 111
    akaoni says:

    I think both Cassidy and Dreggas are missing the point from opposite ends of the spectrum. Saying that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil is mistaking a means for an end. As I noted above, invading Iraq was one piece in a larger strategy to increase US power and allow the United States to dominate the world from a military and economic stand point. Iraq is of vital stragegic importance because of it’s proximity to the largest oil reserves in the world. But that’s not the end. Maintaining access (and beating the Russians and Chinese to it) ensures that the United States remains the world hyperpower. Come on, this is the entire raison de’ etre of the PNAC crowd. First and last this war was about power, plain and simple.

  112. 112
    Tax Analyst says:

    Uh oh…JC didn’t mention how much he hates torture, despises killing civilians, and loathes trans fat. This could mar an otherwise fine post for the uber-liberals.

    Teh Terrerwrist’s Hate US becuz we know that Trans-Fat is bad for us.

    So I think if you DON’T Hate Trans-Fat you might be a Terrerwrist Sympathizer.

    Seriously, excellent post, JC, I even understand not hating Bush, although I personally am not that evolved, so I just have to continue to hate that ignorant, uber-partisanistic, lying, cheating, dishonest, condescending, smirking, death-mongering, divisive Son-Of-A-Bitch who has put us in a deep, deep hole, strolls over to it daily and pisses down on upon us and then implies we are un-patriotic and defeatist if we complain about it…although that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be a great fellow to suck pork rinds or pretzels or whatever with, if I liked pork rinds and/or pretzels, which I don’t. Seriously.

    Oh, did I forget to mention how badly he’s undermining our Constitution and corrupting every area of our government he touches?

    It’s OK if you don’t hate Bush, though, ’cause I’m sure a lot of us hate him enough to cover for your share.

  113. 113
    akaoni says:

    zmulls beat me to the punch and expressed it more eloquently to boot…

  114. 114
    jenniebee says:

    I used to be dismissive of the “blood for oil” as overly simplistic as well; it was Gore’s The Assault on Reason that changed my mind. He laid out a pretty damning case for the idea that profiting off of Iraq’s oil (not necessarily controlling it directly, but if US companies get the contracts for extracting it, supplying the equipment to do so, processing it, shipping it, and distributing it, does it really matter that The People of Iraq™ get a cut for the original ownership of the oil?) was at least as high a priority for the PNAC crowd as westernizing Muslims at swordpoint and making the world safe for Israel.

    Really, the arguments for oil not having played a major part in their decision to take the lives of (at the very least) thousands of people really only amount to “they just wouldn’t.” What can one say in response to that, except that those in this administration who do still possess a moral compass have been horribly affected by their colleagues’ personal magnetism.

  115. 115
    Andrew says:

    To suggest that the Framers, by including Amendment Deuce, wanted every single person to own a Glock-9 and be allowed to buy one regardless of how many people they’ve raped with it in the past is such a fucking joke.

    I agree completely. Glocks suck. Americans have an inalienable right to carry 1911s.

  116. 116
    Dreggas says:

    akaoni Says:

    I think both Cassidy and Dreggas are missing the point from opposite ends of the spectrum. Saying that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil is mistaking a means for an end. As I noted above, invading Iraq was one piece in a larger strategy to increase US power and allow the United States to dominate the world from a military and economic stand point. Iraq is of vital stragegic importance because of it’s proximity to the largest oil reserves in the world. But that’s not the end. Maintaining access (and beating the Russians and Chinese to it) ensures that the United States remains the world hyperpower. Come on, this is the entire raison de’ etre of the PNAC crowd. First and last this war was about power, plain and simple.

    At the bottom of everything lies power and the attainment thereof. In this case power lies in controlling the oil. Perhaps Oil is a simple reason and a front for the real reason (power) but it’s the only one WRT to the reason why we are still there and one that is not so nearly as nebulous as the concept of “power”.

  117. 117
    Dreggas says:

    Andrew Says:

    To suggest that the Framers, by including Amendment Deuce, wanted every single person to own a Glock-9 and be allowed to buy one regardless of how many people they’ve raped with it in the past is such a fucking joke.

    I agree completely. Glocks suck. Americans have an inalienable right to carry 1911s.

    Personally I like my heavier caliber rifles such as my 30.06, my shotguns and even a decently tricked out SKS or Dragonov (used to be able to get those in NY).

  118. 118
    Jake says:

    Now this is more like it:

    Seriously, I’m not a Democrat because I want the overly emotional hysterics of the far left to be kept quiet, so that a reasoned debate of ideas can happen, resulting in intelligent, rational representatives?

    Ah yes. Reasonable debate can’t take place while unreasonable people are squawking. Great. What else?

    War is one way, albeit not the best, of creating peace.

    Mmmm. I guess this is all right. A little too easy to rebut.

  119. 119
    jenniebee says:

    not to mention the implicit suppression of dissent for a few years.

    Why do you think they are building those massive bases in Iraq?

    Good post, zmulls, this is the only part I’d take issue with. Judging by the PNAC documents, the pre-war conferences, the protection of the oil ministry (and nothing else) during the initial occupation, and the stuff Bremer was doing during his tenure, there is no way they were looking at multi-year dissent suppression as a positive good. By now, there was supposed to have been an Iraqi economic miracle, a laissez-faire playground for robber barons, with oil money paying back the costs of conquering Iraq and funding an assault on Syria and Iran. Things have, as Petraeus would say, gone way off plan…

  120. 120
    tBone says:

    The only difference between you all and the guys who blew up abortion clinics is that the majority of you are afraid of guns.

    Might want to put down the broad brush. Plenty of the lefties here are quite comfortable with guns, and even (gasp) own one or two or twelve.

    All of the talk about the “ultra liberals” here suggest you a) haven’t really been paying attention or b) wouldn’t know a real ultra-lib if he dressed you up in a hemp Che Guevara outfit and gay married you on a Satanic altar of freshly-aborted fetuses.

    It’s a motley crew here, with political beliefs that don’t fit in a neat little Far-Left™ box. You’ll keep getting flamed and called a concern troll if you don’t target your rhetoric a little more narrowly.

  121. 121
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    a party hack who honestly believes that the three worst things in the world are the liberal media, Democrats, and Osama bin Laden, and in that order.

    I bow in reverence.

  122. 122
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    This Cassidy is really a piece (of what, I will let you fill in the blanks). He hits the wingnut points softly in trying to cover up the fact that he is only pretending to be a Democrat. Subtle, but not subtle enough. Cassidy probably sits at the keyboard feeling gleeful that he is spreading discord among the opponents of the right.

    The gun rights fixation is a good clue. Any real liberal knows that liberals do own guns. I would say that it mirrors the wingnuts though. The further left you go, the less gun happy they are. The further right you go, the more gun loving they are. And those of us in the middle either own guns or can care less about those law abiding citizens who do.

    You should have been at my home yesterday Cassidy. A good liberal friend of mine came to town to visit, and he is going shooting at the range today with his nephew. He had a small armory with him, and they were beautiful weapons to behold. I do not own any guns now, but when we get our property in the county you can bet I will. I was raised in a liberal home of hunters, and I grew up handling weapons.

    I notice that Cassidy thinks they are a Dem, and then dismisses liberals out of hand. But not a mention of the other side and the extremists they hold dear.

    This kind of trolling is only going to catch suckers. My BS detector is screaming every time I point it at a Cassidy post.

    Paid troll is my bet…

  123. 123
    RSA says:

    They wanted to retain the right for militias, in case foreign powers should attack. Not for the sole purpose of having fucking retards on crack buying Gats with hollow-points.

    The real patriots are building fertilizer bombs and chemical weapons in their unfinished basements training compounds; you can’t depend on small arms for protection against an invading army.

  124. 124
    Tsulagi says:

    Americans have an inalienable right to carry 1911s.

    Got that right. Nothing more reliable, or quintessentially American. Far better than a pansy ass 9mm.

  125. 125
    Punchy says:

    and making the world safe for Israel.

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that the NeoClowns really–deep down inside–dont give two fucks about Israel if they have Iraq. Israel is a ally in the middle of a shitbox of unrest and tons of wealth. It serves as a reliable source of agression to make sure those uppity sand negros don’t start bullying around others.

    But if we can stage our own bases in Iraq, why the fuck does the U.S. need Israel, strategically? Why must we continue to give them gazillions in military aid and support if we can carpet bomb the turbans ourselves?

    I submit that this Neocon “love for Israel” was all smoke-and-mirrors, out-of-convience type bullshit. Now that we own a huge chunk of sand ourselves, our need for Israel is gone, and so is that “love” they pretended to extend…

  126. 126
    Cassidy says:

    It’s a motley crew here, with political beliefs that don’t fit in a neat little Far-Left™ box. You’ll keep getting flamed and called a concern troll if you don’t target your rhetoric a little more narrowly.

    I’ve ben visiting here for a few years now. I’m pretty comfortable in my assessement. What strikes me as interesting is that the majority of you, would trip all over one another to help a homeless person, scream about dying children, or some other such bunk, just to prove you’re a “good liberal”. Yet, when faced with someone who doesn’t beleive as you do and delves into the masturbatory group-think, you release such hatred and aggression. You’re no better than the filth that populates “God Hates Fags”. And you’re only a few step removed from the end point of any other extremist group.

    notice that Cassidy thinks they are a Dem, and then dismisses liberals out of hand. But not a mention of the other side and the extremists they hold dear.

    Interesting theory. So the only way to establish my bona fides is to atack the other side first, even though it is completely off-topic? Amusing bit of illogic.

    Any real liberal knows that liberals do own guns.

    The irony is hilarious. The best part is that I’ve said several times I’m not a liberal. Liberal does not equal democrat, as Conservative does not equal Republican.

    The gun rights fixation is a good clue.

    Who’s fixated? You? I simply have an opinion, based upon the Constitution and what it says. That, first and foremost, is the basis for my opinions. But I won’t go any further, because I’m still waiting to see what the “benchmark” for a democrat is. You (all) are so convinced that I’m not, so please “enlighten” me. I’m still waiting.

    Cassidy probably sits at the keyboard feeling gleeful that he is spreading discord among the opponents of the right.

    No, but I am highly amused at the hypocricy and the lack of any coherent or rational opinions.

  127. 127
    Jake says:

    Holy shit, I think it’s Darrell!

    What strikes me as interesting is that the majority of you, would trip all over one another to help a homeless person, scream about dying children, or some other such bunk, just to prove you’re a “good liberal”. Yet, when faced with someone who doesn’t beleive as you do and delves into the masturbatory group-think, you release such hatred and aggression. You’re no better than the filth that populates “God Hates Fags”.

    Did he have trouble with I before E?

    If not, I love the dismissal of dying children and the homeless as “bunk.”

    Maybe I won’t have to blow anyone after all.

  128. 128
    Cassidy says:

    Personally I like my heavier caliber rifles such as my 30.06, my shotguns and even a decently tricked out SKS or Dragonov

    I really like my M-4. While not the best in anything, it is certainly the most flexible, modular platform in th emilitary arsenal.

    And my Colt Commander….45 ACP goodness.

    He hits the wingnut points

    I wasn’t aware that disagreeing with the war and disliking Bush and his policies were now conservative talking points. You really do live in a surreal world.

  129. 129
    Cassidy says:

    If not, I love the dismissal of dying children and the homeless as “bunk.”

    As topics themselves, no. But you’re false pretense of goodness, just to prove your “comapssion” is bunk.

  130. 130
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    I think the point of the war was to get hold of the oil reserves, and to position the military so that Bush Cheney could easily invade Iran and have a perfect staging area to do it from. I think they believed that once they toppled Saddam, it would be all flowers and candy for us. Then we would ‘free’ the people of Iran (remember the Shah?) and cement our hold on the middle east (and the oil reserves there). If they could have done this successfully, it (in their minds) would have projected to the rest of the world that America is not to be messed with. And we sure would have a lot of oil to play with too.

    Right now, they are trying to salvage the situation, and to do so they need to savage the dissenters. One way to do it is to portray the dissenters as unpatriotic and enablers of the enemy. All that is left now is for the administration to start shutting down or blocking web sites and arresting dissenters as traitors for giving material aid and comfort to the enemy. That is the next logical step.

    All it will take is one more 9-11, and we may wake up to a dictatorship with Cheney/Bush at the helm. It does not take a tin-foil hat to see this, history is replete with examples of this happening. When governments are in trouble, they like to find an enemy to focus the populace on. Someone to blame all of their problems on.

    The Grand Illusion Distraction… (ok, same thing)

  131. 131
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    I guess Cassidy tripped my Darrell filter, all I am seeing now is ‘blah, blah, blah, I like pie, blah, blah…..’ when they post.

    Oh well, at least I know I am not missing anything of substance.

  132. 132
    Cassidy says:

    I still don’t see how you can say oil was the target. That’s way too pedestrian for their grand fantasies. As a strategic target, sure, but that was pointed out above. To say it was the end resul, though, has no rational reason behind it.

    Right now, they are trying to salvage the situation, and to do so they need to savage the dissenters. One way to do it is to portray the dissenters as unpatriotic and enablers of the enemy. All that is left now is for the administration to start shutting down or blocking web sites and arresting dissenters as traitors for giving material aid and comfort to the enemy. That is the next logical step.

    That’s a little too heavy on the paranoia for me. Plus they don’t need to savage the dissenters when the left does it by themselves; see last election. As long as the uber-liberals continue to shout hysterically at the top of their lungs, and the Democrats let them, all the right has to do is sat back and watch the party implode…much like the Republicans of late.

    …we may wake up to a dictatorship with Cheney/Bush at the helm.

    Would never happen.

  133. 133
    Zifnab says:

    What strikes me as interesting is that the majority of you, would trip all over one another to help a homeless person, scream about dying children, or some other such bunk, just to prove you’re a “good liberal”. Yet, when faced with someone who doesn’t beleive as you do and delves into the masturbatory group-think, you release such hatred and aggression. You’re no better than the filth that populates “God Hates Fags”.

    First off, I hate the homeless because they don’t recycle, dying children are only dying because they didn’t accept Jesus into their hearts, and if you’re calling homelessness and dead children “bunk”, I think that’s the understatement of the century. It’s a total load of crap. Everyone knows the hobo is a myth perpetuated by the nanny-state to wrest powers from good God-fearing Americans.

    Secondly, I’m in complete agreement with you on the bit about group think. We are all mindless drones to the rule of the mighty John-Tim-F-Cole who’s words are unto the sacred texts of scripture as revealed by the good Lord whom I clutch to my bossom each night. If you are not also in lockstep agreement, be patient. You will be assimulated.

    And finally, God does hate Fags. How else do you explain Hurricane Katrina, the Second World War, or Vanilla Ice? You can’t. All praise his name. Amen.

  134. 134
    Cassidy says:

    You’re not a democrat if you think people need to be removed from a debate. Republicans pick and choose the people who are ‘serious’ in order to stay on message. Democrats represent everyone, even people you don’t like (and yet the right says they are the christian party, weird).

    At least we now know that ConservativelyLiberal is definately not a Democrat…according to the criteria that has been established so far.

  135. 135
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:

    I’ve ben visiting here for a few years now. I’m pretty comfortable in my assessement. What strikes me as interesting is that the majority of you, would trip all over one another to help a homeless person, scream about dying children, or some other such bunk, just to prove you’re a “good liberal”. Yet, when faced with someone who doesn’t beleive as you do and delves into the masturbatory group-think, you release such hatred and aggression. You’re no better than the filth that populates “God Hates Fags”. And you’re only a few step removed from the end point of any other extremist group.

    Once again I would call bullshit. With a few exceptions I don’t think many on this site would do that (trip over themselves to help some homeless guy just to prove they are “liberal”).

    As for the masturbatory group think, if you truly believe in the masturbatory group think then I have little time for it. If you go there trying to understand just why there are so many hairy palms (metaphorically speaking) that’s another story.

  136. 136
    Cain says:

    I submit that this Neocon “love for Israel” was all smoke-and-mirrors, out-of-convience type bullshit. Now that we own a huge chunk of sand ourselves, our need for Israel is gone, and so is that “love” they pretended to extend…

    Don’t forget, it’s also to control those Rapture loving christians.

  137. 137
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:
    I really like my M-4. While not the best in anything, it is certainly the most flexible, modular platform in the military arsenal.

    And my Colt Commander….45 ACP goodness.

    the M-4 is pretty good and the rail system does allow for decent modification, hell anything is an improvement on the M-16. I still prefer range and power over capacity and the speed at which rounds can be put down range.

  138. 138
    akaoni says:

    I still don’t see how you can say oil was the target. That’s way too pedestrian for their grand fantasies. As a strategic target, sure, but that was pointed out above. To say it was the end resul, though, has no rational reason behind it.

    Mis-define the opponent’s argument, then disagree with it. Ignore anything that doesn’t fit the meme you’re trying to disprove. Well played sir! You’ve certainly earned your salary today.

  139. 139
    Dreggas says:

    Vanilla Ice?

    God had nothing to do with that one. That’s all a result of the librul music industry.

  140. 140
    Punchy says:

    gay married you on a Satanic altar of freshly-aborted fetuses.

    What about a straight marriage on an alter of aborted gay fetuses? Can I get one on Ebay? Can I send one to my illegalIslamofacistatheisticslutwhorenecrophiliac for her analversary?

  141. 141
    Jake says:

    As topics themselves, no. But you’re false pretense of goodness, just to prove your “comapssion” is bunk.

    A fairly Darrell-ish dodge, but it still lacks a certain something. No wait, who was that a couple of weeks ago? Redhawk? Redhand? Redbarchetta? S/he had spelling issues too.

    Anyway, David or Butch’s attempt has too rapidly devolved into hysterical accusations of hysteria. A good spoof/troll can keep it up for hours before taking that route.

    I hereby re-extend my offer.

  142. 142
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Really, all you need to know about Hewitt was pointed out earlier this year by the New Yorker when it described his tenure as the first head of the Nixon Library — during which (unlike all its later heads) he announced that no “anti-Nixon” reporter or political scientist would be allowed access to the Administration’s records, including Woodward or Bernstein.

  143. 143
    Dreggas says:

    I still don’t see how you can say oil was the target. That’s way too pedestrian for their grand fantasies. As a strategic target, sure, but that was pointed out above. To say it was the end resul, though, has no rational reason behind it.

    You think the people in charge of this shit are rational?

  144. 144
    Cassidy says:

    With a few exceptions I don’t think many on this site would do that (trip over themselves to help some homeless guy just to prove they are “liberal”).

    Well that would involve doing something other than bitching and moaning about ChimpyMcHaliburtonWarforOilCheney. I see where you’re going with that.

    Like I said before, I just don’t like extremists political stances. Uber-liberal dogma is not that far removed from Socialist (and dare I say Naziish) practices. And just for ConservativelyLiberal, because we all know that you can’t have a debate without attacking the other side….it’s as equally dangerous as the moral utopia Conservatives get giddy about in their wet dreams.

    The problem I see here, as an example of the modern Democratic party, is that the same thing is happening to my party, that I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Republicans go through. When the hysterical extremists make up the loudest voices, then the party itself will implode, thus rendering control in the hands of people who should not be in pwoer.

  145. 145
    LITBMueller says:

    I’m not against a sane gun control policy. But I have yet to see a sane one presented…Secondly, the 2nd Amendment is an inalienable right…

    Thing is…the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal government. So, if a state constitution has a different or no gun-related provision at all, then that state can pass whatever gun law it wants. Better yet, a city or town that has a home rule charter or enough autonomy from their state’s gov’t can also pass whatever gun laws they want that don’t violate any state law or state constitutional provisions.

    The NRA has done a great job in creating that Pavlovian response to guns: 2nd Amend. = inalienable right! It doesn’t. Only Congress is prevented from violating the 2nd.

    That being said, I still think a $1,000 tax on bullets would go a long way towards helping the problem. Because, you may have a “right” to own a gun, but you ain’t got no right to NOT having the shit taxed outta ya when you go to buy a box of bullets!

  146. 146
    Cassidy says:

    You think the people in charge of this shit are rational?

    Surely not. But the people who had to execute the plan (or lack thereof) were. Quite a few good commanders have been through that country. You’re only focusing on a few.

    Mis-define the opponent’s argument, then disagree with it. Ignore anything that doesn’t fit the meme you’re trying to disprove.

    Misdefine how? I see a lot of posts arguing that this was a war for oil and I disagree with that.

  147. 147
    tBone says:

    What strikes me as interesting is that the majority of you, would trip all over one another to help a homeless person, scream about dying children, or some other such bunk, just to prove you’re a “good liberal”. Yet, when faced with someone who doesn’t beleive as you do and delves into the masturbatory group-think, you release such hatred and aggression. You’re no better than the filth that populates “God Hates Fags”. And you’re only a few step removed from the end point of any other extremist group.

    Ooooo-kay then. Darrell Sock Puppet confirmed.

  148. 148
    Dreggas says:

    The problem I see here, as an example of the modern Democratic party, is that the same thing is happening to my party, that I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Republicans go through. When the hysterical extremists make up the loudest voices, then the party itself will implode, thus rendering control in the hands of people who should not be in pwoer.

    Uh…the “Modern” democratic party is not made up of “extremists” actually we do quite well at keeping the children from driving the bus unlike the “Modern” republican party which has allowed the children to drive the bus right off the cliff. If it is as bad as you seem to think then Michael Moore should be speaker of the house and Cindy Sheehan senate majority leader (shudder). However it’s not the case. Hell even the least sane of our presidential contenders is more sane than the sanest of the republican side.

  149. 149
    Cassidy says:

    Thing is…the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal government. So, if a state constitution has a different or no gun-related provision at all, then that state can pass whatever gun law it wants. Better yet, a city or town that has a home rule charter or enough autonomy from their state’s gov’t can also pass whatever gun laws they want that don’t violate any state law or state constitutional provisions.

    Ummm, no…The Constitution prettymuch trumps states.

    Personally, I’m not against communities deciding they aren’t okay with guns. I’m a firm believer in that people should be able to vote for what they want. While I would disagree with the decision on a Constitutional basis, as the courts wold as well, my personal response would be to not live in an area that wasn’t willing to allow me to exercise my rights. If it’s not guns, it would be something else and that’s a little to “nanny-state” for my taste.

  150. 150
    Cassidy says:

    Hell even the least sane of our presidential contenders is more sane than the sanest of the republican side.

    Ahem…Kucinich…

    Yeah but for how long? The party is going straight down the hall into the same toilet that the Conservative Christians shit the Republicans into. This scenario has been done allready.

  151. 151
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:

    Surely not. But the people who had to execute the plan (or lack thereof) were. Quite a few good commanders have been through that country. You’re only focusing on a few

    Which ones? The way I see it the rational ones got thrown overboard time and again. Only those who played the Admin’s tune stayed around.

  152. 152
    Cassidy says:

    then Michael Moore should be speaker of the house and Cindy Sheehan senate majority leader

    Someone here just creamed their pants. Be careful what you dismiss as impossible.

  153. 153
    tBone says:

    Uber-liberal dogma is not that far removed from Socialist (and dare I say Naziish) practices.

    Playing the Nazi card so early is a sign of spooftile dysfunction. You should get that checked out.

  154. 154
    Rome Again says:

    I wasn’t aware that disagreeing with the war and disliking Bush and his policies were now conservative talking points. You really do live in a surreal world.

    You don’t disagree with this war, or you wouldn’t be asking me (a 45 year old woman) to join it the other night, for crissakes.

    GTFO, you troll. You are NOT even nearly believeable.

  155. 155
    Media Glutton says:

    The Definitive Cole Smackdown (TM). Bravo good sir.

  156. 156
    Andrew says:

    Someone here just creamed their pants. Be careful what you dismiss as impossible.

    You know why we don’t like you?

    Because you’re a dick.

  157. 157
    tBone says:

    You know why we don’t like you?

    Because you’re a dick.

    Stop releasing your hatred and aggression, you masturbatory group-thinker.

  158. 158
    Zifnab says:

    Because you’re a dick.

    The way he clutches his hand cannon at night, you can be confident its not a very big one. I think Cassidy has about six or seven posts in here detailing why he cares less about Constitutional Rights to bare arms and more about stroking his… er… ego, by waxing his death spitter in view of the hippie liberal neighbors.

  159. 159
    caustics says:

    I still don’t see how you can say oil was the target.

    Occam’s razor for one. It is the sole distinction for that region as opposed to another dozen or so other nations where genocide is rampant and our response is ‘hey, whaddaya gonna do – internal conflict, none of our buisness’.

  160. 160
    Tsulagi says:

    the M-4 is pretty good and the rail system does allow for decent modification, hell anything is an improvement on the M-16

    The M4 needs a new upper receiver. Even keeping it properly cleaned, too often the M4 goes tits up in an environment like Iraq jamming at inappropriate times. HK makes a much better receiver design for that weapon.

  161. 161
    Zifnab says:

    Even keeping it properly cleaned, too often [sic] goes tits up in an environment like Iraq jamming at inappropriate times.

    That’s what SHE said!

  162. 162
    Jake says:

    Someone here just creamed their pants.

    We really didn’t need to know that about you, Cass. Now go clean up.

  163. 163
    Cassidy says:

    You don’t disagree with this war, or you wouldn’t be asking me (a 45 year old woman) to join it the other night, for crissakes.

    No, I was pointing out the fallacy of your argument. The “either you are with us or against us” rational beihnd your argument was scarily close to this current Administrations.

    Playing the Nazi card so early

    It’s the logical path of extreme leftism. I’m sorry if facts bother you.

    Because you’re a dick.

    Where does this fit into the compassionate liberal guidelines? And …your point? Most people find honesty disconcerting. You are not alone.

    Caustics- Like I said, I don’t see it. Especialy not enough to hysterically wail about, as some people here have done. But that’s just my personal opinion. Unlike some of the “compassionate liberals” here, I’m not gonna insult you for having an opinion that differs from mine.

    The M4 needs a new upper receiver. Even keeping it properly cleaned, too often the M4 goes tits up in an environment like Iraq jamming at inappropriate times. HK makes a much better receiver design for that weapon.

    The H&K carbine is a thing of beauty. I really wish that we could get them handed down to the whole Army. I have to disagree with the cleaning part, though. As long as you keep the weapon well maintenanced, it wil work. You just have to do it every day. Mine never jammed once.

  164. 164
    Tim F. says:

    Cassidy, it surprises me that you cannot see the irony in your tendency to view everybody who disagrees with you as irrational. War opponents must be dirty hippie blood-for-oil ANSWER activists, liberals want to regulate guns because they’re afraid of them, ultra-libs (meaning, apparently, everyone here) are weepy homeless-hugging fakes.

    I think that the people who pile on you with gratuitous name-calling are acting like shits, but they also irritate me because they’re clearly wrong. I know exactly what kind of Democrat you are. Here in PA we call them Labor Democrats. Bob Casey is one, Jim Webb (to some degree) is another. Rather than that nonsense, the problem is that your generalizations show that you have just as hard a time viewing opponents as rational as everyone else. Having read this site since what, the early pleistocene you must be aware that more people here than just John only stopped voting Republican around Schiavo. Honestly, calling this particular group a homogenous band of ultra-libs, like we’re Pandagon or something, is a laugh line. It’s hardly unusual here that I’ve worked on campaigns both Republican and Democratic.

    Don’t read me wrong. I’ve been at this for long enough to know that some people really ain’t rational. Some of them even comment here occationally. But just disagreeing with you onsomething about which you happen to care deeply doesn’t make it so.

  165. 165
    Punchy says:

    That being said, I still think a $1,000 tax on bullets would go a long way towards helping the problem. Because, you may have a “right” to own a gun, but you ain’t got no right to NOT having the shit taxed outta ya when you go to buy a box of bullets!

    Uh…yeah…but Chris Rock beat you to this by…I dunno…ten years?

  166. 166
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:

    Hell even the least sane of our presidential contenders is more sane than the sanest of the republican side.

    Ahem…Kucinich…

    Yeah but for how long? The party is going straight down the hall into the same toilet that the Conservative Christians shit the Republicans into. This scenario has been done allready.

    He’s a candidate? Even if he is it’s a toss-up.

    As for where the dems are going? Let me see, gun control was declared dead by that so scary liberal Howard Dean. We are working to undo the damage done by this president, have pretty much declared that we’re the party of individual freedom and civil liberties and will most likely not involve the country in wars of choice based on false intelligence. Oh and we’ll get Osama. Real radical toilet flushing agenda there.

    What are the republicans offering? A camera in every bedroom to protect us from sex, vilification of someone based on their sexual orientation and pretty much a return to an era called the dark ages for a reason. Oh and we’ll “stay on offense” whatever that means these days. They tout Gitmo, torture, rendition and everything done by the so-called GOP with the backing of people who really believe they will be magically whisked away one day to be with the great spaghetti monster in the sky.

    Now I ask which one is going down the toilet?

  167. 167
    John S. says:

    It’s the logical path of extreme leftism.

    I’m sorry, are you claiming that the trajectory of extreme leftism leads to Nazism?

    If so, you had better check any standard political spectrum.

  168. 168
    Dreggas says:

    The H&K carbine is a thing of beauty. I really wish that we could get them handed down to the whole Army. I have to disagree with the cleaning part, though. As long as you keep the weapon well maintenanced, it wil work. You just have to do it every day. Mine never jammed once.

    The H&K is truly a marvel, far better than the OICW they were trying to get up and running, just the utility of it makes it practically a “swiss army” rifle.

  169. 169
    Zifnab says:

    I’ve been at this for long enough to know that some people really ain’t rational. Some of them even comment here occationally frequently.

    :-p Hey, we irrationals have feelings too! Just because I’m not the dividend of a pair of non-terminating, non-repeating decimal numbers doesn’t mean my posts count less. *sniff*

  170. 170
    Cassidy says:

    To be honest Tim, I dont. All I’ve really done here is use the same absurd logic that has increasingly become a part of this comments section. The only reason I got into it, besides being the silent reader, was the anti-military comments. But even further than that, I don’t care for the same attitudes that have permeated the Republican party for so long. And here I am seeing them in my fellow Democrats, and all I can think is, “God, please let them be 28%ers, because we can’t stand to have the Conservatives take back control”.

    I’ve enjoyed reading this site for quite some time…long before Schaivo. I’ve also watched with great interest John’s transformation. What I ahven’t enjoyed is the deviation from reasoned debate that used to take place here. Unfortunately, all the Conservatives got shouted out as “wingnuts” and the uber-lefties have increasingly become more vocal. It trivializes the topic and only perpetuates the “dirty hippy” image that moderate America has of the Democratic Party. We are our own worst enemy. But like I said, this scenario has been done. Unfortunately, very few learned the lesson.

    As far as the ultra left beleifs. No they aren’t rational. They are as irrational as the Pro-Lifers and Limbaugh set. Why? Because they go warp speed past reality into fantasy land: “If the world was ideal…”. It doesn’t work that way. Period. The world is not a black and white place.

  171. 171
    John S. says:

    As far as the ultra left beleifs. No they aren’t rational.

    I’m curious…what do you consider to be ultra-left beliefs?

  172. 172
    Chad N. Freude says:

    I’ve been away from the The Greatest Blog Ever for a few days and have been trying to catch up today (not easy; this is a very verbose group). As usual, I have a few semirandom comments. First, let’s talk about Cassidy.

    I’ve always thought that my comments here were smug, but then I encountered Cassidy, and I find myself bowing at the feet of the SmugMaster™.

    C’s political opinions are certainly defensible, and for the most part he defends them well. Whether I agree or not, I can at least find the arguments and consider them. But I have a problem — maybe it’s just me — with the sneering tone of the personal remarks and the sneering ad hominem insults, which are awfully reminiscent of the right-wingers who come here to sneer (and incidentally satisfy masochistic urges). C’s sneers are decoys to entrap people who disagree with him into shouting matches where quick-triggered shouts of “Oh, yeah?” and “You’re another!” overcome the reasoned debate he so earnestly advocates, and I think he provokes these responses not to make any real point, but rather because he gets pleasure from watching other people being what he considers foolish.

    It would help the discussion if C would define his use of “Democrat”, “liberal”, and especially the odious “ultra-liberal”. The last appears to be some sociopolitical belief system, but I don’t know what beliefs it includes. I can’t tell whether I’m a liberal, an ultra-liberal, or something else, like, say, a libertarian. The way he conflates these terms makes it difficult to carry on a debate, or even a conversation, because it enables him to play “Gotcha” when a responder relies on an unstated interpretation of one of these terms to bolster a point.

    Message to group: Stop biting.

  173. 173
    ChristieS says:

    “Well, Cheney will “temporarily take over” control at the White House while Bush gets his colonoscopy.”

    How will they get the scope around his head?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! potd, here , folks. POTD.

  174. 174
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:

    To be honest Tim, I dont. All I’ve really done here is use the same absurd logic that has increasingly become a part of this comments section. The only reason I got into it, besides being the silent reader, was the anti-military comments. But even further than that, I don’t care for the same attitudes that have permeated the Republican party for so long. And here I am seeing them in my fellow Democrats, and all I can think is, “God, please let them be 28%ers, because we can’t stand to have the Conservatives take back control”.

    Anti Military comments? Oh you mean in the thread the other day where the guy in question got thoroughly bitch slapped by a good portion of the commentariat here for being so disingenuous…yeah we’re far left alright.

    I’ve enjoyed reading this site for quite some time…long before Schaivo. I’ve also watched with great interest John’s transformation. What I ahven’t enjoyed is the deviation from reasoned debate that used to take place here. Unfortunately, all the Conservatives got shouted out as “wingnuts” and the uber-lefties have increasingly become more vocal. It trivializes the topic and only perpetuates the “dirty hippy” image that moderate America has of the Democratic Party. We are our own worst enemy. But like I said, this scenario has been done. Unfortunately, very few learned the lesson.

    This image you speak of is perpetuated more by idiot republicans and the MSM. The ones I see being “shouted out” are wing-nuts and not worthy of the label Conservative.

    As far as the ultra left beleifs. No they aren’t rational. They are as irrational as the Pro-Lifers and Limbaugh set. Why? Because they go warp speed past reality into fantasy land: “If the world was ideal…”. It doesn’t work that way. Period. The world is not a black and white place.

    Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Last I looked very few here spoke much of “Utopia” we’re far too cynical to even try. A semblance of “Normal” would be nice. Methinks thou dost project too much.

  175. 175
    Jake says:

    Cassidy, it surprises me that you cannot see the irony in your tendency to view everybody who disagrees with you as irrational.

    Why? In my experience this is the hallmark of the quieter type of extremist. They don’t all hurl blood and spittle. Some of them sit back, stroke their chins thoughtfully and sigh: “Of course you would say that, you’re not rational.” Sort of like saying a woman who is angry must be suffering from PMS. Or a Democrat who speaks out against Bush is suffering from BDS.

    Yawn.

  176. 176
    Chad N. Freude says:

    unlike the “Modern” republican party which has allowed the children snoflake babies to drive the bus right off the cliff

    Fixed.

  177. 177
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Playing the Nazi card so early

    It’s the logical path of extreme leftism. I’m sorry if facts bother you.

    Godwin’s Law in action. And here I always thought that extreme leftism (whatever that is) logically led to communism.

  178. 178
    Tim F. says:

    You’re killing me, cassidy. I followed you for two paragraphs, until…

    As far as the ultra left beleifs. No they aren’t rational.

    If both of us make the same point, can we call it settled? You just underlined the primary irony of your commenting, the idea that everybody who deviates from you by some set degree must, a priori, not be rational.

    You need to explain by what basis you can possibly complain about the rightwing commenters being driven away. To illustrate my point, picture a meter stick where, politically speaking, you sit at 50 centimeters (being military, metric shouldn’t bother you). Everybody above, say, 70 cm and below 30 cm is, by your estimation, irrational. In between you have 40 cm of people who must be rational because their opinions fall within 20 cm of your own.

    Now picture citizen B living at the 30 cm mark, the edge of rationality by your standard. Going by your standard, person B see you as the rightward fringe of rationality and everybody to the right of you as crazy. In order to treat even a single rightward commenter as a human capable of rational thought person B would have to adopt stricter standards of discourse than you impose on yourself.

    IMV it is never fair for someone to ask people to live up to higher standards than they do themselves.

  179. 179
    Tim F. says:

    let’s try that sentence again:

    …Going by your standard, you live on the fringe of person B’s rationality grid and everybody to the right of you is automatically crazy. …

  180. 180
    caustics says:

    The H&K carbine is a thing of beauty. I really wish that we could get them handed down to the whole Army. I have to disagree with the cleaning part, though. As long as you keep the weapon well maintenanced, it wil work. You just have to do it every day. Mine never jammed once.

    I could say the same about the AK-47. Plus it looks uber-sexy when one is going for that sullen, disaffected, Hate-America urban-guerrilla look.

  181. 181
    Dreggas says:

    Chad N. Freude Says:

    unlike the “Modern” republican party which has allowed the children snoflake babies to drive the bus right off the cliff

    Fixed.

    yeah, that’s a good one LOL.

  182. 182
    Chad N. Freude says:

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that the NeoClowns really—deep down inside—dont give two fucks about Israel

    Many/most of the most influential neo-Cons are Jewish, from families that watched relatives and co-religionists go to the gas chambers and who worked to establish a homeland for the Jews. These guys really do love Israel. The only problem is that their love is modeled on the love of Norman Bates for his mom.

  183. 183
    Chad N. Freude says:

    masturbatory group-think

    What’s wrong with thinking about group masturbation?

  184. 184
    Cassidy says:

    No, Jake, personally I consider myself a moderate. But that’s a fairly un-committal term, so I’ll go with Constitutionalist. I beleive that the foundation for any rational belief system lies in The Constitution. The freedom of speech (no matter what you’re saying), gun ownership, freedom of the press, freedom to make decisions about one’s own medical procedures (abortion), etc. are rights that should be protected and not granted.

    But I also believe in personal responsibility: if you want to smoke, go ahead as I do, but don’t expect the state to pay for your healthcare, if you are unemployed, make yourself employable, etc. Essentially, stop expecting the gov’t to step in and fix problems for you. The more you allow the gov’t to intrude into a personal life, the more it will.

    Unfortunately, many tenets of the modern Democratic Party is to beleive the state will fix things. Universal Healthcare! Wellfare! Legislating gas prices! etc., etc., etc. It will never cease to amaze me just how much like the Conservatives Liberals have become, just using the different side of the coin.

    Or a Democrat who speaks out against Bush is suffering from BDS.

    The problem is that too many uber-leftists are speaking and not enough Democrats.

    Thank you Chad for the comliment. I’ve been called many things, but smug is a new one.

    This image you speak of is perpetuated more by idiot republicans and the MSM. The ones I see being “shouted out” are wing-nuts and not worthy of the label Conservative.

    There used to be a fair number of Conservatives that came in here regularly. That used to be the appeal of this blog was the exchange of ideas between those who were not to politically bent. Even at John’s most Republican moments, he wasn’t a lockstep Conservative and attracted the same. But that has long since passed, leaving you with devout wingnuts and their liberal bretheren.

  185. 185
    Chad N. Freude says:

    you can’t have a debate without attacking the other side

    Actually you can. You can’t have a debate without attacking the other side’s arguments. The problem is a failure to see the difference.

  186. 186
    Jake says:

    Seriously, reserve hatred for someone who’s monstrously evil. Hating someone because they have a different mindset is a only falling into the same whole [sic] that the Conservatives went into in the 80’s and 90’s.

    So invading a country is really like a fashion statement:

    “I just thought Iraq went perfectly with these shoes!”

    And I guess things like Habeus Corpus … well their “quaint,” so it’s no surprise Bush wants to clear out those silly old things. I mean they’re almost 300 years old!

    Heh.

  187. 187
    Tim F. says:

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that the NeoClowns really—deep down inside—dont give two fucks about Israel

    Like Chad said, that statement is bogus. Neocons are nuts about Israel, although in their own special love-him-and-pet-him-and-name-him-george sort of way. So are the evangelicals, but only because they want to get their armaggeddon on already. The sooner Jews bulldoze the Dome, build a Temple, start a war and die in fire the sooner the Savior will show up with ultra-rare pez dispensers for everybody.

  188. 188
    Jake says:

    Seriously, reserve hatred for someone who’s monstrously evil. Hating someone because they have a different mindset is a only falling into the same whole [sic] that the Conservatives went into in the 80’s and 90’s.

    So invading a country is really like a fashion statement:

    “I just thought Iraq went perfectly with these shoes!”

    And I guess things like Habeus Corpus … well they’re “quaint,” so it’s no surprise Bush wants to clear out those silly old things. I mean they’re almost 300 years old!

    Heh.

  189. 189
    Chad N. Freude says:

    “I just thought Iraq went perfectly with these shoes!”

    Saddam Wears Prada.

  190. 190
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Actually you can. You can’t have a debate without attacking the other side’s arguments. The problem is a failure to see the difference.

    Snap!

  191. 191
    Cassidy says:

    Time, to me, the far left and far right are the same thing, just wearing different sheep.

    The way I see it, there is no logical or ethical difference in wanting to ban abortion or wanting to take away a person’s right to own guns. Both defy the rights of relatively intelligent adults to make a decision for themselves. Delving to far into either extreme, allows said person to make mental leaps of justification to take away another person’s rights. It doesn’t matter waht the belief system is, the moment it starts deciding that a few people are betetr suited to make decisions for the whole, it has lost its credibility and rationality. It immediately stops being able to incorporate rational thought.

    Also, the war thing. Most people here would agree that the war was retarded and completely unnecessary. Okay good…same page so far. Then it starts with the “blood for oil” and whatnot. Injecting irrational, emotional hysteria into a sound position only weakens your side. A neo-con wets himsefl everytime he here’s that because the facts are simple…you can’t prove that assertion, therefore relegating it to an easily debunked theory and perpetuating the loony liberal stereotype.

  192. 192
    Cassidy says:

    Sorry…Tim, to me, etc.

  193. 193
    Dreggas says:

    Unfortunately, many tenets of the modern Democratic Party is to beleive the state will fix things. Universal Healthcare! Wellfare! Legislating gas prices! etc., etc., etc. It will never cease to amaze me just how much like the Conservatives Liberals have become, just using the different side of the coin.

    You know something. I used to hate the idea of universal healthcare. Then I got into the work force and worked at several places changing healthcare constantly, going from a place where my meds etc. were covered to other places where they weren’t or weren’t covered to the extent they had been and this is in corporate America. Further I’ve worked the shit jobs that don’t offer healthcare. Honestly, dealing with the entire mess and being bent over by the current for profit healthcare and pharmaceutical companies I support, at the very least, regulation of the Healthcare and pharmaceutical industry. Why? Because capitalist society or not, it’s utter bullshit when companies decide what medicine or procedures I need based on their profit margin. Further it’s bullshit that my Doctor, in order to actually make a living under the current system, needs to have a revolving door for patients rather than being able to spend time getting to the bottom of things with each patient.

    Welfare, in case you haven’t noticed, hasn’t been a real issue since the 90’s nor has it been one that anyone who’s even half serious has talked about expanding. Hell it was a Democrat that introduced Welfare reform much to the chagrin of others and for the most part it’s worked. The real welfare system nowadays is the corporate welfare and farm welfare that is catered to by the republicans in order to get votes and keep the money rolling in.

    As for legislating gas prices. Again this is a case where capitalism has gone awry and needs to be tempered. Exxon et al are posting record profits while the average working stiff is having to put a lot of money into their tank each and every week (just try having to HAVE a mini-van because your wife is in a wheelchair and watch that money disappear).

    Any more strawmen I can unstuff?

  194. 194
    Cassidy says:

    I could say the same about the AK-47.

    I don’t really care for 7.62 battle rifles. Just not my thing.

    Actually you can. You can’t have a debate without attacking the other side’s arguments. The problem is a failure to see the difference.

    Snap!

    Taken out of context, but go ahead.

  195. 195
    caustics says:

    There used to be a fair number of Conservatives that came in here regularly.

    You mean like, Moe Lane, Thomas etc? I can’t speak for John, but as far as I know those gentlemen are still welcome to comment here.

    Try going on Redstate these days and see where an ‘exchange of ideas’ gets you.

  196. 196
    Jake says:

    [sorry about the stutter up there]

    No, Jake, personally I consider myself a moderate. But that’s a fairly un-committal term, so I’ll go with Constitutionalist.

    Let me assume you’re serious and ask you this:

    After your sweeping statements about irrational uber-liberals suffering from hysterics, why should I give any credence to where you place yourself on the political spectrum?

    You’re an extremist or you’re a spoof.

  197. 197
    Cassidy says:

    You know something. I used to hate the idea of universal healthcare. Then I got into the work force and worked at several places changing healthcare constantly, going from a place where my meds etc. were covered to other places where they weren’t or weren’t covered to the extent they had been and this is in corporate America. Further I’ve worked the shit jobs that don’t offer healthcare. Honestly, dealing with the entire mess and being bent over by the current for profit healthcare and pharmaceutical companies I support, at the very least, regulation of the Healthcare and pharmaceutical industry. Why? Because capitalist society or not, it’s utter bullshit when companies decide what medicine or procedures I need based on their profit margin. Further it’s bullshit that my Doctor, in order to actually make a living under the current system, needs to have a revolving door for patients rather than being able to spend time getting to the bottom of things with each patient.

    I never said the current systme was ideal. But it is fixable. But the all encomapssing Universal Healthcare meme, isn’t the answer. Just because you changed jobs, doesn’t mean soemone else should be denied the right to maek a profit.

    Welfare, in case you haven’t noticed, hasn’t been a real issue since the 90’s nor has it been one that anyone who’s even half serious has talked about expanding. Hell it was a Democrat that introduced Welfare reform much to the chagrin of others and for the most part it’s worked. The real welfare system nowadays is the corporate welfare and farm welfare that is catered to by the republicans in order to get votes and keep the money rolling in.

    It’s all bullshit in my opinion. Wellfare, without and end state means nothing other than free money to someone.

    As for legislating gas prices. Again this is a case where capitalism has gone awry and needs to be tempered. Exxon et al are posting record profits while the average working stiff is having to put a lot of money into their tank each and every week (just try having to HAVE a mini-van because your wife is in a wheelchair and watch that money disappear).

    Supply and demand. and you have illustrated the principle problem behind modern liberalism: “How dare they make a profit”. Heaven forbid we find alternative fuels, or people start riding bikes. Heaven forbid someone make a profit at providing a product. I pay just as much in gas as you do. But instead of whining about it, I take measures to be more economical. Gov’t regulations don’t fix anything.

    Any more strawmen I can unstuff?

    Cute…but keep trying.

  198. 198
    Dreggas says:

    Also, the war thing. Most people here would agree that the war was retarded and completely unnecessary. Okay good…same page so far. Then it starts with the “blood for oil” and whatnot. Injecting irrational, emotional hysteria into a sound position only weakens your side. A neo-con wets himsefl everytime he here’s that because the facts are simple…you can’t prove that assertion, therefore relegating it to an easily debunked theory and perpetuating the loony liberal stereotype.

    Reading back through everything I’ve written on this, I fail to see where I resorted to any of this so-called emotional hysteria…

  199. 199
    Rome Again says:

    Saddam Wears Prada.

    Not anymore. He deadman now!

    [I might add, thanks to Bush Jr. taking care of that mess for Daddy’sake]

  200. 200
    Rome Again says:

    No, Jake, personally I consider myself a moderate

    It’s very rare that people DON’T consider themselves a moderate. It is human nature to think there are people crazier than you on both sides of the fence. It isn’t always so.

    If everyone were moderate, we’d all be…. (wait for it) ROBOTS!

  201. 201
    Dreggas says:

    I never said the current systme was ideal. But it is fixable. But the all encomapssing Universal Healthcare meme, isn’t the answer. Just because you changed jobs, doesn’t mean soemone else should be denied the right to maek a profit.

    Oh yes, sounds very similar to the same arguments used by companies at the turn of the century to justify child labor and unhealthy work environments etc.

    I never said someone shouldn’t make a profit, however with the amount of money spent in healthcare at each place should I not expect the same level and quality of care? But to save a buck each company chooses from a myriad of plans offered by other companies who are also out to make a buck with little interest in the customer, namely me. There’s no whining here, this is plain incontrovertable fact.

    It’s all bullshit in my opinion. Wellfare, without and end state means nothing other than free money to someone.

    Well having lived on the streets and at one point having had the choice between food stamps and starving I swallowed my pride, took the food stamps, and worked my way back out of the gutter. Want more people off welfare? Raise the minimum wage to where it pays better than welfare does. Granted there is always that small percent of the population that is too damn lazy to go work but that is manageable if the government has its eye on the ball.

    Supply and demand. and you have illustrated the principle problem behind modern liberalism: “How dare they make a profit”. Heaven forbid we find alternative fuels, or people start riding bikes. Heaven forbid someone make a profit at providing a product. I pay just as much in gas as you do. But instead of whining about it, I take measures to be more economical. Gov’t regulations don’t fix anything.

    Like I said, I have no problem with them making a profit, however they tend to be pretty freaking shady in how they do it. For example rather than spending the money to put new refineries online because they might have to actually make sure they aren’t going to destroy the environment they keep putting duct tape on shit. If you honestly believe the oil companies are truly benevolent and are in no way manipulating the markets I have some ocean front property in arizona for ya.

    As for government regulation not working at all. Do I really need to list areas where it does work, or at least did before this catastrofuck of an administration? Labor laws for one, environmental laws for another, consumer protection laws for a third. Sorry I don’t trust corporations to self-regulate, they have shown throughout history to do a piss poor job of it.

  202. 202
    Tim F. says:

    Cassidy, neither of your replies answers my criticism in the least. You plainly consider people whose opinions fall outside of your personal comfort band to be irrational, hysterical and other pejoratives that exclude rational thought. You cannot simultaneously express this attitude and complain about other people who do the same. By disqualifying others from the rational world you also, by your own rules, disqualify yourself.

  203. 203
    tBone says:

    Time, to me, the far left and far right are the same thing, just wearing different sheep.

    I agree completely. Where we part ways is your belief that the majority of commenters here are far left. Come on. No one who’s ever waded through the DU forums could make that claim with a straight face.

    If you really believe the things you’ve professed here, we’re not that far apart politically. Does that make you an irrational uber-lib?

  204. 204
    ran says:

    Let’s recap Cassidy:

    You agree Shrubco was lying through their teeth about their stated motives for this bullshit vanity war, but you don’t believe the only remaining reason that makes any sense (and several posters since have patiently explained just how much sense it makes) could be what it’s all about.

    You think psycho civilians who murder a handful of people are far more monstrous than a guy who lies (you agree he lied) us into a totally unnecessary (and thus unjust) war in which upwards of a million people are dead and multiple millions more have had their lives destroyed in a variety of tragic ways. A guy who insists the slaughter and destroying of lives and complete waste of blood and treasure must continue so that he never has to admit he’s screwed the pooch. You think it a little harsh, a little hyperbolic to call this guy a mass murderer or a war criminal for starting said war.

    That about right?

  205. 205
    Rome Again says:

    You don’t disagree with this war, or you wouldn’t be asking me (a 45 year old woman) to join it the other night, for crissakes.

    No, I was pointing out the fallacy of your argument. The “either you are with us or against us” rational beihnd your argument was scarily close to this current Administrations.

    You cannot expect me to go die for a war I don’t believe in. I got an idea, you believe in this war, why don’t YOU die for it? Then I can stop rubbing my sore eyes.

  206. 206
    Zifnab says:

    Try going on Redstate these days and see where an ‘exchange of ideas’ gets you.

    Banned. Twice.

    You cannot expect me to go die for a war I don’t believe in. I got an idea, you believe in this war, why don’t YOU die for it? Then I can stop rubbing my sore eyes.

    Always my favorite neo-chicken argument. “We shouldn’t have to be soldiers to support the war. But you should have to be a soldier to oppose it. Also, I hope when you do go, you get shot, stupid liberal. That’ll teach you to love terr’rists.”

    And finally, Cassidy, give this “ultra-liberals are just as bad as ultra-conservatives” line a rest. Simply splitting the difference of the current ideological spectrum does not put you in the “middle ground”. Universal Healthcare isn’t a crazy fringe issue to the majority of Americans. Background checks for gun licenses aren’t signs of a new Nazi Soviet regime in the States. Al Sharpton might be as shrill as Bill Kristol, but at least Sharpton never condoned slaughtering millions of people in the name of national security. Put down the kool-aid and wake up. John Kerry is not on some far flung opposite side of the political spectrum from John McCain. They’re not both wrong simply because they sit on opposite sides of the aisle. The middle ground, as we once knew it a decade ago, happens to sit where the majority party sits right now, not because liberals are “more correct” but because conservatives dove off the deep end and started swimming for the opposite shore.

  207. 207
    jg says:

    So the blood for oil argument shouldn’t be used when discussing the retarded reasons we were given for the war because its easily dismissed by wingnuts and the brain dead asswipes who listen to them? Wow. That’s some drop dead pure awesome logic right there.

  208. 208
    Cassidy says:

    You agree Shrubco was lying through their teeth about their stated motives for this bullshit vanity war, but you don’t believe the only remaining reason that makes any sense (and several posters since have patiently explained just how much sense it makes) could be what it’s all about.

    It’s not the only reason left. In your dogmatic mindframe, it’s what you’ve deduced, but an objective look will reveal otherwise.

    You think psycho civilians who murder a handful of people are far more monstrous than a guy who lies (you agree he lied) us into a totally unnecessary (and thus unjust) war in which upwards of a million people are dead and multiple millions more have had their lives destroyed in a variety of tragic ways. A guy who insists the slaughter and destroying of lives and complete waste of blood and treasure must continue so that he never has to admit he’s screwed the pooch. You think it a little harsh, a little hyperbolic to call this guy a mass murderer or a war criminal for starting said war.

    Tbone, this exactly what I’m talking about. Fact: Bush is an asshole. Fantasy: Bush is a war criminal.

    got an idea, you believe in this war, why don’t YOU die for it?

    I would expect that a 45 y/o could read better than you have. Go find where I said I supported this war. I dare you. And, while I was lucky, I do have some friends that are dead, so go fuck yourself. You should be ashamed of what you just said. Disgusting. Is this that “compassion” you were described as earlier. You’re no better than Gingrich.

    Another example Tbone.

    Always my favorite neo-chicken argument. “We shouldn’t have to be soldiers to support the war. But you should have to be a soldier to oppose it. Also, I hope when you do go, you get shot, stupid liberal. That’ll teach you to love terr’rists.”

    Don’t trust everything you read from some emotionally hysterical leftist who can’t read. Actually go read what i said, and you’ll see that you’re assumptions are wrong. personally, I think every Republican who pushed for this war should have to serve, but we’re a volunteer Arny and that is that.

    And finally, Cassidy, give this “ultra-liberals are just as bad as ultra-conservatives” line a rest.

    Truth hurts. I’m sorry you feel that way.

    So the blood for oil argument shouldn’t be used when discussing the retarded reasons we were given for the war because its easily dismissed by wingnuts and the brain dead asswipes who listen to them?

    No it shouldn’t be used because it’s an assertion that is not based in any kind of fact. Now you can create scenarios where it is viable; some have been mentioned here. But in the end, it’s a non-argument. It can’t be proved, so move on.

    Now personally, I just don’t believe it. I may believe that people like Bush and Cheney are this capable of disregarding the lives of American Soldiers for oil, but I’ve seen nothing that makes me consider this “the answer”. It simply doesn’t work.

    Tim, I don’t know how to explain it any other way. To me, there is a middle ground…a very large middle ground…with reasonable foundations for political and social beliefs. Now, I may not agree with a persons various stances, but I can respect the rationale that led there. But, when rationale is replaced by dogma, it no longer stands against any kind of logical scrutiny.

  209. 209

    […] I cannot improve on its eloquence.   […]

  210. 210
    hilzoy says:

    John:

    Megadittoes.

  211. 211
    ran says:

    Ok, so he can start a war of choice based on a pack of lies with a country that was and is no threat to us whatsoever and get a million people killed in the ensuing and ongoing bloodbath but he’s not a war criminal why? Because he meant well? What?

  212. 212
    Rome Again says:

    I would expect that a 45 y/o could read better than you have. Go find where I said I supported this war. I dare you. And, while I was lucky, I do have some friends that are dead, so go fuck yourself. You should be ashamed of what you just said. Disgusting. Is this that “compassion” you were described as earlier. You’re no better than Gingrich.

    Oh, so you were asking me to go fight in a war I don’t believe in because you don’t believe in it either? You’re screwy troll.

  213. 213
    ran says:

    From a wiki on war crimes:

    Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime.

  214. 214
    Otto Man says:

    Ahhh, the sweet crunch of boot on nuts. Well spoke, John.

    Hewitt would need nuts for that metaphor to work.

    But yes, well played.

  215. 215
    dmbeaster says:

    Cassidy:

    Also, the war thing. Most people here would agree that the war was retarded and completely unnecessary. Okay good…same page so far. Then it starts with the “blood for oil” and whatnot.

    The most plausible root motivation for the war was the desire to project American power into the Middle East and use military power to influence events to the advantage of American policy. There is only one reason why we are doing that in that corner of the world.

    Oil.

    “blood for oil” may be an overly simplistic way of expressing this concept, and perhaps many who express it don’t see it with the nuance expressed above. But it still makes perfect sense.

    Rather than get snide about it, please give a plausible explanation as to why oil is not an extremely important root cause for this war.

  216. 216
    Psycheout says:

    Congratulations, John. At Blogs 4 Brownback, we received a nomination for the coveted Malkin Award. So we can only imagine your excitement.

  217. 217
    The Other Andrew says:

    How many unnecessary wars have “ultra-liberals” started, Cassidy?

    And, does John teach summer classes? I’m thinking that the Darrell 2.0 challenge was “Invent a Lieberman Democrat!”

  218. 218
    Cassidy says:

    Tim, you don’t have to go any further than this comment thread to see exactly what I’m saying.

    Rome…you’re really being obtuse. Go back and read again..slowly this time.

    Ran..same. Cut the hyperbole. It got old a few years ago.

    DM…as I’ve said before, I don’t believe it. Could I be wrong, sure. Under normal circumstances, I would even agree with what you said. But, this administration and it’s die hard followers, have lost themselves in a psuedo-religious dreamland and the starting a war for oil tihng doesn’t fit into their displayed mindset.

  219. 219
    Chad N. Freude says:

    … attacking the other side…
    Taken out of context, but go ahead.

    I thought it was plain language, like the Second Amendment, but go ahead.

  220. 220
    Rome Again says:

    Rome…you’re really being obtuse. Go back and read again..slowly this time.

    Fuck off troll. I have nothing else to say to you, ever!

  221. 221
    Becca says:

    How a smart guy like you could not have seen this train wreck of an administration coming bewilders me.

    Nonetheless, it was quite exhilarating to read your response to Howdy, er Hewit.

  222. 222
    ran says:

    Cassidy:

    nice non-response moron.

    now put on a long thin dunce cap and go stand in the corner and think about how tomorrow you’re gonna be a better, more convincing troll.

  223. 223
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Supply and demand [gasoline pricing].

    And most certainly not oligopolistic or monopolistic pricing.

  224. 224
    Cassidy says:

    Such compassionate liberalism…lol. How long before you nutjobs are burning crosses in people’s yards.

  225. 225
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Saddam Wears Prada.

    Not anymore.

    Do you suppose Meryl Streep will play him in the movie?

  226. 226
    Cassidy says:

    nice non-response moron.

    Oooohhhhh…such a witty retort. Did you learn that at the Young Republican gatherings.

  227. 227
    Cassidy says:

    I thought it was plain language, like the Second Amendment, but go ahead.

    You thought wrong. If you would go back and actually reead what I wrote, you’d see different.

  228. 228
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Just because you changed jobs, doesn’t mean soemone else a gatekeeper whose only function is to intervene between the patient and the health care provider should be denied the right to maek a profit.

    Fixed.

  229. 229
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Al Sharpton might be as shrill as Bill Kristol, but at least Sharpton never condoned slaughtering millions of people in the name of national security.

    Nor has Bill Kristol ever made false accusations of rape against a public official.

    I detest Kristol, but I think Sharpton is a really poor choice for this comparison.

  230. 230
    Chad N. Freude says:

    If you would go back and actually reead what I wrote, you’d see different.

    I will if you agree to go back and read what the Framers wrote in the Second Amendment.

  231. 231
    jg says:

    DM…as I’ve said before, I don’t believe it. Could I be wrong, sure.

    You don’t believe it. Fine. Everyone else should shut up about it and its an extremist position? Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over?

    Why is the rapture a more plausible explanation than the economic one?

  232. 232
    jg says:

    Cassidy Says:
    Fact: Bush is an asshole. Fantasy: Bush is a war criminal.

    I usually label the one that can be proven as the fact but what do I know.

  233. 233
    Cassidy says:

    I will if you agree to go back and read what the Framers wrote in the Second Amendment.

    I’m not the one quoting out of context or trying to interject what I think they might have meant. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.

    its an extremist position?

    Yes, it is an extremist position, just like calling Bush a war criminal. No proof. No facts to support it. Screaming it loudly doesn’t make it right. All that does is give the Republicans more fuel.

    Fuck off troll. I have nothing else to say to you, ever!

    Must be PMSing…

  234. 234
    Cassidy says:

    I usually label the one that can be proven as the fact but what do I know.

    Prove it.

  235. 235
    chopper says:

    the ‘war for oil’ thing always worried me as well. part of the reason is, i can’t really disprove it.

    i mean, half the shit we’ve pulled off in the mid east in the past 50 years has ultimately revolved around access to cheap energy. hell, half the shit that ME countries do to each other has to do with access to energy. but still, it worries me a lot to think that we’d turn around and reduce ourselves to the same foreign policy we had in the 50’s only more blatant. i still don’t believe it. it would just make me so damn ashamed to be an american.

    although every so often i wake up at night thinking that the WH heard about an impending drop in available cheap-ass oil (the secret energy task force!) and decided to be proactive about it. makes me feel like a tin-foil hatter, but these days it’s a hard feeling to ignore.

  236. 236
    jg says:

    No proof.

    There’s plenty of proof. You don’t know about it because you’re too busy telling people you don’t believe there’s proof therefore its extremist.

  237. 237
    Chad N. Freude says:

    ran Says: [Regarding whether Bush can be considered a war criminal]

    From a wiki on war crimes:

    Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime.

    Cassidy responds:

    Ran.. same. Cut the hyperbole. It got old a few years ago.

    [Not clear, but apparently “same” = “you’re really being obtuse. Go back and read again..slowly this time.”]

    Truly, reasoned debate.
    When I said C defends his arguments well, I was thinking of a somewhat higher standard. Although calling the Nuremberg Principles hyperbole has some entertainment value.

  238. 238
    chopper says:

    The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.

    not really. the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government, and even then it includes that stuff about a well-regulated militia.

    gun ownership is definitely *not* an inalienable right.

  239. 239
    Chad N. Freude says:

    I’m not the one quoting out of context or trying to interject what I think they might have meant. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Is the well-regulated militia part pretty clear? Is quoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” without that clause not quoting out of context? (I know, you didn’t do that, but the defenders of the right of unrestricted gun ownership [with no criminal record checks, etc.] almost invariably do.) Do you believe that persons who are not members of a well-regulated militia have a right to keep and bear arms? Have I interjected what I think they might have met into this post?

  240. 240
    Rome Again says:

    Must be PMSing…

    Ya think? Perhaps I just think you’re an ass.

  241. 241
    Cassidy says:

    There’s plenty of proof. You don’t know about it because you’re too busy telling people you don’t believe there’s proof therefore its extremist.

    Oh well then…that criminal trial that’s about to start should be fun. Wait a minute…there is no trial…and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Heh, go figure…you’re wrong.

    Chad, the people are the militia in question.

  242. 242
    Cassidy says:

    Ya think? Perhaps I just think you’re an ass.

    You’re compassion is leaking…

  243. 243
    rachel says:

    John Cole:
    But for all that, I still don’t hate Bush. I think he is a small, shallow, feeble-minded man, whose “resolve” you cherish is merely the result of a man incapable of thinking on the spot and changing course. While he is ultimately responsible for anything that has been done during his tenure, I am of the opinion that he is little more than a puppet.

    John, I agree that he’s basically small, shallow and all the rest… But he chose to be a puppet, and he’s chosen to do morally wrong things: suspending habeas corpus, permitting inhumane interrogation techniques, interfering in the Schiavo affair, neglecting the Gulf Coast before, during and after Katrina etc, etc, etc, and while he’s all those things have been done under his watch, he’s slept soundly every night and taken long vacations in the summer. If he’s not fit to be despised, I don’t know who is.

  244. 244
    jake says:

    Rather than get snide about it, please give a plausible explanation as to why oil is not an extremely important root cause for this war.

    You’re missing the beauty of the Always More Reasonable Than Thou position.

    He disagrees with the theory, therefore the theory (and whoever believes the theory) is irrational and so does not warrant rebuttal. It would be like arguing with a man who thinks his best friend is an invisible chicken.

    As an added bonus, this attitude requires very little work and allows one to automatically reject any data that conflicts with the established world view. One might say such people live in self-constructed bubbles. Sort of like … what’s that guy’s name?

    I forget.

  245. 245
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Chad, the people are the militia in question.

    That’s a relief. Who regulates them or, if you prefer, what is the regulating agency? Are the regulations published? How do we determine how well regulated the militia is?

  246. 246
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Cassidy –

    I dimly recall asking some questions that don’t seem to be answered by “the people are the militia in question.”

    In case you overlooked them, they were:

    Is the well-regulated militia part pretty clear? Is quoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” without that clause not quoting out of context? (I know, you didn’t do that, but the defenders of the right of unrestricted gun ownership [with no criminal record checks, etc.] almost invariably do.) Do you believe that persons who are not members of a well-regulated militia have a right to keep and bear arms? Have I interjected what I think they might have met into this post?

    Do you have answers for them?

  247. 247
    scarshapedstar says:

    Ummmm…Bush is the POTUS, whether you like it or not. He may be a puppet of many interests, but he is still the POTUS. How would you say that isn’t fact?

    Um… because 2000 was a fucking coup d’etat? Supported, I’ll admit, by about 49% of the country and the entire news media. But a coup nonetheless.

  248. 248
    Rome Again says:

    You’re compassion is leaking…

    My compassion? What makes you think you are deserving of my compassion? People who are turned into victims and taken advantage are the people who earn my compassion.

    No one ever said I had to like you, or have compassion for you, so fuck off already.

  249. 249
    r€nato says:

    I’ll say it, then.

    I fucking hate Bush.

  250. 250
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    RA, you are 45? Geez, you are just a kid! ;)

    What I find interesting about people like Cassidy is that most people state an opinion and hold it. They disagree with others to varying degrees, but after a bit of back and forth they basically leave it at that. To me, that is the normal discourse on a board like this.

    People like Cassidy seem to have to take great pains to disprove every single remark that does not meet their standards, no matter how minute. In doing so, they slowly drag the discourse down and eventually wear it out.

    People like him and Darrell only like to bait and reel them in. I think they take contrarian stands because it somehow gives them some kind of pleasure that they do not otherwise get in life. Maybe it is attention, maybe they just like to twist people around.

    That is why I quit talking to Darrell, and now that Cassidy has tripped my Darrell filter I guess he really has little of substance to say. Arguing for the sake of arguing, or as someone said above, attacking the person, not the position they hold, does not make for productive conversations.

    Who knows, maybe one day Cassidy will say something that will switch off my Darrell filter. After the exchanges here though, I doubt it. I guess we will see. ;)

  251. 251
    Cassidy says:

    Um… because 2000 was a fucking coup d’etat?

    Tbone, Tim…do you really need any more proof?

    No one ever said I had to like you, or have compassion for you, so fuck off already.

    Now you’re hemorrhaging! Please get that looked at before you go into shock. Unlike you, I don’t wish other people dead because they don’t agree with me. It’s okay. I don’t mind being better than you.

    ike to bait and reel them in.

    Guilty pleasure, I admit. It is fun to watch people wail and gnash their teeth, because they are challenged with alternate viewpoints.

    seem to have to take great pains to disprove every single remark that does not meet their standards,

    I’m just an honest guy. I call a spade a spade and try to do my part. What’s sad is that all these supposed moderates on this site are so dogmatically entrenched, that you can’t have a debate with someone of a differing viewpoint without being insulting or dismissive. Really makes you wonder where the “intellectual elite” meme came from. They got it half right anyway.

  252. 252

    […] 7/21/2007 “The Poor Man’s Rush Limbaugh”Posted by: MichaelJoh Cole delivers a nicely written takedown of partisan hack, Hugh Hewitt: Dear Hugh- I don’t hate Bush. I voted for him twice (votes I now deeply, deeply regret), and I hate what he has done to this country, I hate his incompetence, I hate that he has let propagandists such as yourself take the lead in designing and pushing policy, I hate that he has lost or is losing not one, but two wars, I hate that he has politicized (more accurately, allowed his lackeys to politicize) everything from NASA to the FDA to the Pentagon to a level that would have made Hugh scream out in rage were the President’s last name Clinton. I hate all of those things. […] […]

  253. 253
    Rome Again says:

    It’s okay. I don’t mind being better than you.

    Get over yourself little man.

  254. 254
    chopper says:

    It’s okay. I don’t mind being better than you.

    man, earlier i thought you were making some cogent points and some decent arguments, and were taking a bit too much hell for em.

    now i think you’re just an insufferable, smug man-child posting from your parents’ basement pretending to be some hardcore soldier-type.

  255. 255
    Cassidy says:

    now i think you’re just an insufferable, smug man-child posting from your parents’ basement pretending to be some hardcore soldier-type.

    Lol…you would be thinking wrong. I’m a professional soldier, posting from my own home. I wouldn’t call myself “hard core”. I’m hard when I need to be. Being in the medical profession, you also have to be able to be compassionate.

    And in the end, what you think doesn’t matter. I’m secure enough in my own qualities to not require validation from other people.

  256. 256
    Leo says:

    If anyone is interested in the actual state of the law regarding application of the Second Amendment to the states, here is a quick summary:

    The Second Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, applies only to the federal government. That’s been the law ever since the courts first considered the question.

    However, in the Warren-court era the courts used the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to “incorporate” some of the rights from the first ten Amendments against the states. The theory was that certain rights were fundamental to a free society. Most of the rights in the Bill of Rights were incorporated this way, including the First Amendment. However, the Second Amendment was never incorporated.

    The Warren-court era is now over. Judges don’t talk about whether new rights should be incorporated into the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments anymore – it smacks of judicial activism. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to see how the Second Amendment could be incorporated.

    In other words, if you went to a federal judge today to challenge a state law restricting your right to keep and bear arms, you would almost certainly lose. The door is still open for a revival of “incorporation” style reasoning, by which the 2nd Amendment might be applied to the states. I just wouldn’t hold my breath.

  257. 257
    jake says:

    I’m hard when I need to be.

    Yeah, people swear by Ciallis but I heard the side effects are a bitch.

  258. 258
    PK says:

    You voted for him twice! Why the second time? I guess the saying “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” was written just for you.

  259. 259
    Cain says:

    I wish you people would stop feeding Cassidy. He’s so obviously got all of you in a lather.

    I can take a contrary just fine, buddy. What we can do without is the barbs you throw in your sentences while making your cogent points. The barbs are set up such that the other person would react to them emotionally. It’s a dumb technique and I fail to see what it’s purpose is other than to amuse yourself at other people’s expense. I grant you that people have been throwing things at you without backing them up with links or evidence of their position. But I suspect even if they did, you’re not coming across as someone who would consider them. (eg oh, that’s a far left site)

    I don’t know anybody here who is a “far left” liberal. Frankly, I don’t think they exist. Things are so fucked up at the moment that I think most people are just fine going back to pre 2000 days. It’s like talking about planning to go swimming when you’re lost in the woods with no food. We’re off track and we need to get back on track.

    cain

  260. 260
    Cassidy says:

    We’re off track and we need to get back on track.

    Exactly…and that’s what I’ve been saying. The “Impeach Bush” and “Blood for Oil” and “War Criminal mantra’s are nothing but overly emotional distractions from the real task: getting a good, moderate Democrat in office to start unfucking the last 8 years.

    Whether or not those positions are true or false, is immaterial. They are unprovable and easily debunked positions that only give the Conservatives more ammunition to use. I would like to keep the approval rate at 28%, but the more hysterical the left gets, the more put off undecided voters are.

  261. 261
    Cassidy says:

    Something else to keep in mind: The first thread I came into did not start with me throwing barbs or anything. I simply presented an opinion that was differing from the mass of commenters here. So save your scorn for those who found themselves unable to listen to an opposing viewpoint. I’ll listen to another opinion all day long, but it requires more evidence than emotional anecdotes to convimce me your right.

    Ex: I believe the Iraqi poeple are largely lazy and that our mission willultimately fail due to their lack of will. That’s based on my experiences in Iraq. Now, I beleive my opinion carries more wait because of said experiences, but I don’t automatically expect compliance based on my stories. OTOH, calling Bush a war criminal doesn’t make it so. I disagree with this war as much as the next guy, but until there is a trial and a conviction, he is innocent of that accusation, and believing it doesn’t make it so.

  262. 262
    Cassidy says:

    typo…*weight

  263. 263
    Rome Again says:

    I’m secure enough in my own qualities to not require validation from other people.

    you forgot to add: “nor would I even listen if someone had any idea of where I might be able to improve myself”.

    It sure must be lonely at the top.

  264. 264
    Rome Again says:

    So save your scorn for those who found themselves unable to listen to an opposing viewpoint

    Your opposing viewpoint made no sense. In that thread, you told me that I should go fight in a war which I don’t believe in (a war that you later admitted you also don’t believe in) so I guess in a way, you’re right, I didn’t listen to your stupid opposing viewpoint, and I still won’t.

  265. 265
    Cassidy says:

    Oh that was well toward the end. My opposing viewpoint was in agreeing with Tim, in that you could understand the circumstances of young men losing ocntrol in a combat zone, without condoning their actions.

    Honestly, I have no interest in having you join the military. It takes more character and objectivity than you’ve displayed. I was only showing the absurdity of your logic about the aforementioned topic.

  266. 266
    Rome Again says:

    Honestly, I have no interest in having you join the military. It takes more character and objectivity than you’ve displayed. I was only showing the absurdity of your logic about the aforementioned topic.

    Well, we agree on something, I do not belong in the military, you are correct. I’d be uncontrollable, because I’m not one who believes in chains of command or adherence to codes of conduct. I’d just as soon turn around and shoot one of our own if I saw him/her abusing an innocent civilian and I would gladly deal with the consequences.

    You call rolling over and taking it in the ass character? Funny that!

  267. 267
    Cassidy says:

    Lacking in any kind of personal discipline is not a strong character trait.

    Chains of command are very useful in that the oppurtunities for resolving problems are limitless. Personally, I’d shoot an out of control Soldier as well, because they’re breaking the law.

    I’ve never taken anything in the ass think you. But I do live by a sense of honor that bounds me to complete my oaths, placing my word before my personal opinions.

  268. 268
    Rome Again says:

    Lacking in any kind of personal discipline is not a strong character trait.

    Who ever said anything about personal discipline? I have much personal discipline, it’s conventional discipline I lack, and I’m very proud to admit it.

    I’ve never taken anything in the ass think you. But I do live by a sense of honor that bounds me to complete my oaths, placing my word before my personal opinions.

    Honor? That’s not honor, that’s a feel good word you use to cover up the fact that you traveled across miles to kill people for a man who pays Risk on the big board. Your HONOR is a myth, sir. it’s a lie you tell yourself to make yourself feel better and sleep at night.

  269. 269
    Rome Again says:

    Which oath? The one you took to the Constitution of the US, or the one you took to Bushwar?

  270. 270
    Cassidy says:

    Well, I can’t admit to sleeping well, but that’s the PTSD. I raveled many miles with the willingness to kill because it’s my job. Your misconceptions about the people who make up the military is strikingly ignorant.

  271. 271
    Cassidy says:

    I didn’t take any oath to a “Bushwar”. I took this oath:

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    So, despite my disagreement with this war and it’s reason(s), as an honorable and professional Soldier, it is my duty to fullfill the oath of service I took. I made a promise. Honorable men keep their promises.

    And before you go into your war criminal hysterics, nothing has happenned that violates the powers and laws set forth in The Constitution.

  272. 272
    Rome Again says:

    So, despite my disagreement with this war and it’s reason(s), as an honorable and professional Soldier, it is my duty to fullfill the oath of service I took. I made a promise. Honorable men keep their promises.

    And before you go into your war criminal hysterics, nothing has happenned that violates the powers and laws set forth in The Constitution.

    Oh that’s right, because no matter how many times BushCo refuses to produce records, to answer subpoenas, to testify about wrongdoing, to sweep their dirty deeds under the rug, you accept that “nothing has happened that violates the powers and laws set forth in The Constitution”. Right. Telling yourself more lies to feel good about yourself, I see.

    Honorable men keep their promises? Uh, yeah, you go to fight a war that you don’t believe in because you keep your promises. Your mental health needs a screening. You sacrifice your beliefs and your own life to keep your mythical honor. No honor there, you are just a tool who is being used as cannon fodder for a war you don’t believe in, and foolishly so. You are just a tool who has been taught conventional discipline, and you take it in the ass happily. Not me!

  273. 273
    Cassidy says:

    Oh that’s right, because no matter how many times BushCo refuses to produce records, to answer subpoenas, to testify about wrongdoing, to sweep their dirty deeds under the rug, you accept that “nothing has happened that violates the powers and laws set forth in The Constitution”. Right. Telling yourself more lies to feel good about yourself, I see.

    Nope, I just speak in facts. until proof is otherwise presented and rightfully applied in our system of justice, they are still American citizens, entitled to being considered innocent until proven guilty.

    Honorable men keep their promises?

    Yes, we do. If your ethical system is so screwed that you can’t even comprehend the importance of keeping your word, then I feel sorry for the people around you. Are you a habitual liar to your friends and family?

    You sacrifice your beliefs and your own life…

    No, I’m mature enough to set aside my own selfish and petty ideals, in order to fulfill my oaths. I’m really starting to wonder if you’re parents instilled any values in you? You support lying as much as Bush does…the irony is disgusting.

    you take it in the ass happily

    You seem to have a fixation with that. I’ve been told that most chicks like it.

  274. 274
    Cassidy says:

    you take it in the ass happily

    You seem to have an unhealthy fixation with that. I’ve been told that most chicks like it.

    Fixed.

  275. 275
    scarshapedstar says:

    Postcount++;

  276. 276
    Tim F. says:

    Tbone, Tim…do you really need any more proof?

    Cassidy, you cannot prove a categorical statement by pointing to one example. As I have already said some people are plainly irrational, but that does not match what you said. You said that everyone who has opinions outside of your personal comfort band is irrational. Since I have opinions outside of your comfort band that plainly includes me.

    Can you support the idea that my ideas are irrationally held, hysterical or overemotional? I doubt it.

    Perhaps I should put a finer point on it – categorical statements are always wrong. Even that statement is wrong, but only rarely. Again with rare exceptions, arguing in the form of sweeping generalizations (your statement that “regulations are always bad” is another) betrays lazy and irresponsible thinkin. Independent of the content of your opinions, it is this rhetorical laziness that makes it hard to take you seriously.

  277. 277
    liberal says:

    Cassidy wrote,

    But the all encomapssing Universal Healthcare meme, isn’t the answer. Just because you changed jobs, doesn’t mean soemone else should be denied the right to maek a profit.

    Silly. It’s an empirical fact that health insurance is one of the things that can be done more cheaply by government than by the private sector.

    Wellfare, without and end state means nothing other than free money to someone.

    Yes, but it’s at least two orders of magnitude less than the free money guvmint gives to the rich.

    What free money, you say?

    Well, land rent—“land” meaning all natural resources as well as the value of urban parcels owing to their location, “rent” meaning the annual return—is probably 10–20% of GDP in the US.

    Landowners (unlike workers or capitalists) provide nothing of value in exchange for that return, because the land was already there. (Improvements like structures don’t count, because they’re capital, not land.)

    Finally, government grants title to land, and forces someone without that title to beg the landowner for access (in exchange for land rent).

    For an excellent in-depth discussion, see “Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?”

    Supply and demand. and you have illustrated the principle problem behind modern liberalism: “How dare they make a profit”.

    Nonsense.

    Most of it isn’t profit, but rather rent.

    First, with all the tax breaks and incentives that the fossil fuels industry receives, the mineral wealth of the US that rightfully belongs to all its inhabitants is basically being given away for free.

    Second, because of bottlenecks in refining capacity, there are large monopoly rents in the industry.

    I agree that price controls are silly. The correct remedy, rather is
    (a) start charging full value for extracted mineral wealth, and
    (b) create a government-owned company to break the bottleneck on refining.

    ((b) sounds like it’s offered by a terrible Socialist boogeyman, but it was cooked up by the Washington Post’s biz columnist Steven Pearlstein, who’s most definitely not a Socialist.)

    Of course, a lot of people don’t like real, vigorous, competitive capitalism, but rather want a welfare state that hands rents to wealthy people. Sounds like you’re in that camp.

  278. 278
    liberal says:

    Cassidy wrote,

    And before you go into your war criminal hysterics, nothing has happenned that violates the powers and laws set forth in The Constitution.

    Of course it did.

    Aggressive war—meaning, war waged for other than defensive reasons—is forbidden by international treaties to which the US is a signatory.

    The Constitution says that treaties are to be treated as the law of the land.

    Now, you can make reasonable claims that such international law isn’t really practicable, because there’s no way to enforce it.

    But you can’t argue that invasion and current occupation of Iraq are legal, and you can’t argue that you haven’t violated your oath to the Constitution. You might claim there are grounds for not abiding by law in this instance, but the plain fact is that you’re not.

  279. 279
    grandpa john says:

    Geez you people here don’t remember the old addage

    “Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk”

    now go take a bath and wash the cassiday smell off

  280. 280
    Cassidy says:

    Of course, a lot of people don’t like real, vigorous, competitive capitalism, but rather want a welfare state that hands rents to wealthy people. Sounds like you’re in that camp.

    I’m all for competitive capitalism. I’m not for gov’t interference to give someone a handicap.

    But you can’t argue that invasion and current occupation of Iraq are legal, and you can’t argue that you haven’t violated your oath to the Constitution. You might claim there are grounds for not abiding by law in this instance, but the plain fact is that you’re not.

    Uh, yes I can. The Commander in Chief has the power to send American troops into a conflict. My oath to the Constitution also includes obeying the orders of the Officers appointed over me and the POTUS. You must have skipped that part in your attempt to say “gotcha”. Try again, though.

  281. 281
    louisms says:

    Hannah Arendt could have been talking about Bush when she described what she called “the banality of evil”. It’s not hatred of humanity that moves Bush to act as he does, but the absence of imagination. He simply doesn’t perceive the human and moral dimensions of his actions. His brain doesn’t work that way. And, like so many conservatives, he has nothing but disdain for those whose thought processes do contain a moral element, those who possess the capacity to incorporate true moral values into their thinking. He’s morally autistic.

  282. 282
    Cassidy says:

    Personal opinion only, but I’d say it’s the other way. He’s so convinced of his moral “rightness” that he can’t comprehend the realistic consequences of his actions.

  283. 283
    Rome Again says:

    Personal opinion only, but I’d say it’s the other way. He’s so convinced of his moral “rightness” that he can’t comprehend the realistic consequences of his actions.

    What is your opinion of his moral “rightness”?

  284. 284
    Cassidy says:

    As I’ve said before, in other words, any policy action based on extreme rhetoric is bad governance. Extreme belief systems rely more on faith, emotionalism, and blind devotion to some sort of cause. It disregards facts when convenient and lies when necessary. The actions taken are a means to an end, that does not take into account the actual purpose of governing: to represent the will of the people.

    This is why I hold so much disdain for the far left. The far right has always been reprehensible in its treatment of the people. The far left, though, in my mind is worse, because it takes a political and social doctrine which really does mean well and perverts it into something just as dangerous as the far right. The left has not learned the lessons of history and are doomed to repeat them before the democrats can fix what the neo-cons have done.

  285. 285
    Cassidy says:

    Short version: Dogmatic beleif systems are great for stump speeches bad make for bad policy. Iraq, being a perfect example.

  286. 286
    Rome Again says:

    This is why I hold so much disdain for the far left. The far right has always been reprehensible in its treatment of the people. The far left, though, in my mind is worse, because it takes a political and social doctrine which really does mean well and perverts it into something just as dangerous as the far right. The left has not learned the lessons of history and are doomed to repeat them before the democrats can fix what the neo-cons have done.

    The FAR LEFT does nothing of the sort. The Left does have humanitarian goals and is having trouble implementing them (when have they really had the chance to do so since this war starte?).

    You are telling me that the FAR LEFT has good ideas and is just too mealy-mouthed to actually follow through with them and that makes them more disdainful to you? That makes you more FAR LEFT than anyone here.

  287. 287
    Rome Again says:

    Short version: Dogmatic beleif systems are great for stump speeches bad make for bad policy. Iraq, being a perfect example.

    and what would you have them do differently? You still believe this war has a purpose, so I’m really interested in how you differentiate yourself in this respect.

  288. 288
    Cassidy says:

    NO, I said the far left is falling into the same trap as the far right. In the end, it will be the ruin of the party as shrieking hysterics overtake reasonable debate. The left has not learned the lessons the Republicans have painfully learned. This time, though, the general public won’t stand for the same thing, different party; the unfortunate conclusion being the republicans regaining power before the Democrats can fix things.

    You still believe this war has a purpose,…

    ONce again, you continue to misread anything I say. My saying I believe in my purpose as a Soldier is not the same as saying this war has purpose. You are making way too many assumptions. Secondly, I’ve made it pretty clear how I feel about this war on several occasions. What you don’t like is that I have the belief in honor that says my oaths are more important than my feelings.

  289. 289
    Rome Again says:

    ONce again, you continue to misread anything I say. My saying I believe in my purpose as a Soldier is not the same as saying this war has purpose. You are making way too many assumptions.

    So now you say you believe this war doesn’t have purpose but you still insist that soldiers should be there fighting it? You can’t have it both ways.

    I don’t misread anything you say, you present double sided arguments all over the place here.

    I offered you little green plastic soldiers for Christmas, take them, and play with your honor all you like. I’d rather you keep your honor away from the lives of innocent Iraqis.

  290. 290
    Rome Again says:

    Okay Cassidy, answer this:

    At what point do you decide that the Constitution that you took an oath to is under attack by your own government? Where is the power of the executive branch that Bush is pushing written in that Constitution you’re supposed to uphold and protect?

    Your oath is broken, and you will never admit it.

  291. 291

    Cassidy = Darrell

  292. 292
    Cassidy says:

    So now you say you believe this war doesn’t have purpose but you still insist that soldiers should be there fighting it? You can’t have it both ways.

    Should…shouldn’t…mealy-mouthed semantics. The reality is we are there fighting, so we should fight to win.

    innocent Iraqis

    Good Luck finding one.

    Your oath is broken, and you will never admit it.

    No it isn’t and it makes no sense to argue with someone who believes lying is an okay thing to do. Your so-called compassion and “principles” lack any sort of commitment to honesty or loyalty. You aren’t worthy of anything more than scorn.

    you present double sided arguments all over the place here.

    Again, simply not true. I just don’t fall into the extreme side of either side and it bothers you to not be agreed with.

  293. 293
    Rome Again says:

    Should…shouldn’t…mealy-mouthed semantics. The reality is we are there fighting, so we should fight to win.

    Not if this war was created based on falsehoods, no. We have no business being. We were wrong to go in and the sooner we get out the better. Where are the stockpiles of WMD?

    innocent Iraqis

    Good Luck finding one.

    I could argue the same about Americans. No one is more innocent than the other. Iraqi women and children are killed on a daily basis, are you stating they deserve such treatment?

    Your oath is broken, and you will never admit it.

    No it isn’t and it makes no sense to argue with someone who believes lying is an okay thing to do. Your so-called compassion and “principles” lack any sort of commitment to honesty or loyalty. You aren’t worthy of anything more than scorn.

    Oh, I see… you can’t tell me why you don’t believe your oath is still intact despite the questioning of constitutional powers we have recently endured by the executive office, you just attack my character and that’s that. Your ignorance is amazing.

    you present double sided arguments all over the place here.

    Again, simply not true. I just don’t fall into the extreme side of either side and it bothers you to not be agreed with.

    Wrong, I welcome disagreement. What I don’t welcome is someone telling me that they don’t believe in this war but tell me reasons why they still support the continuance of it. This is a double sided argument that you have made. Either you agree the war is something we should have perpetrated on the Iraqis or you don’t, you can’t have it both ways. As far as I can tell (from your comments above) you believe we should be there and finish the job, so how can you say you don’t agree with this war?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] 7/21/2007 “The Poor Man’s Rush Limbaugh”Posted by: MichaelJoh Cole delivers a nicely written takedown of partisan hack, Hugh Hewitt: Dear Hugh- I don’t hate Bush. I voted for him twice (votes I now deeply, deeply regret), and I hate what he has done to this country, I hate his incompetence, I hate that he has let propagandists such as yourself take the lead in designing and pushing policy, I hate that he has lost or is losing not one, but two wars, I hate that he has politicized (more accurately, allowed his lackeys to politicize) everything from NASA to the FDA to the Pentagon to a level that would have made Hugh scream out in rage were the President’s last name Clinton. I hate all of those things. […] […]

  2. […] I cannot improve on its eloquence.   […]

Comments are closed.