I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
1st.
BILLIONAIRES BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT
>>>READ IT AT DAILYBLURB.BLOGSPOT.COM
First I want to say - We can certain put to rest the concept that anyone in the Bush Administration ever tell sth truth when they can tell a good lie
Off to The Hague with the lot of them.
The New York Times
Killings Surge in Iraq, and Doctors See a Procession of Misery
By ALEX BERENSON
Before the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, seven or eight bodies arrived each day at the Baghdad morgue. Now the average number is 20 to 25
She was just...guessing.
oh, I don't think they worry about whether their lies qualify as 'good' - just get it out there, Fox & friends will massage it into the daily screed. Besides, anyone who questions the WH line is probably French and a terrorist-loving traitor anyway.
What's really distressing is that any reporter with a telephone and minimal effort could have blown the tubes out of the water.
Shit, most of us here in the blogosphere knew this was bullshit when Bush and Co. first wheeled out. WTF is wrong with our media?
This is, however, an example of Condi Rice actually DOING her job, which is to lie for the Bush Administration.
There were press reports of this before the war. The Feds asked people at Oak Rudge and Livermore, designers of centrifuges intended for isotope separation - actual experts - who said no and were ignored. I would guess that this was because aluminum is a suboptimal material (strength-to-weight ratio is not high) and because the tube walls were too thick (radial stresses cause failure).
So, why did the Administration lie? Why were they so enthused about invading Iraq? Were we a West Bank shy of a load? Too many dicks, not enough pencil sharpeners?
Shouldn't the Senate/House democratic leaders and especially Sen. Kerry begin calling out the Bush administration for not only "not planning for the peace" but outright lying in laying out the case for war? Thank goodness the NY Times is trying, however late, to do their job as journalists in covering the Iraq fiasco.
Silly me! Of course this is the reason why Bush is against the International Criminal Court! He knew beforehand that he'd end up there otherwise. /bangs head in wall/
Who has been held accountable for these fabrications?
Is it possible the American voters will hold noone accountable?
If so, the rest of the ciivlized world should tell us to kiss its ass.
They really don't need our nazi ass's anyway.
thanks, Atrios, definitely worth a post.
Reading through more of this article, Tenet is getting much of the blame... (well, we relied on Tenet's opinion! how can you blame us!)
Also, the article's concluding paragraphs bitch-slap Powell:
"In making the case that the tubes were for centrifuges, Mr. Powell made claims that his own intelligence experts had told him were not accurate. Mr. Powell, for example, asserted to the Security Council that the tubes were manufactured to a tolerance "that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets."
Yet in a memo written two days earlier, Mr. Powell's intelligence experts had specifically cautioned him about those very same words. "In fact,'' they explained, "the most comparable U.S. system is a tactical rocket - the U.S. Mark 66 air-launched 70-millimeter rocket - that uses the same, high-grade (7075-T6) aluminum, and that has specifications with similar tolerances.''
In the end, Mr. Powell put his personal prestige and reputation behind the C.I.A.'s tube theory.
"When we came to the aluminum tubes," Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said in an interview, "the secretary listened to the discussion of the various views among intelligence agencies, and reflected those issues in his presentation. Since his task at the U.N. was to present the views of the United States, he went with the overall judgment of the intelligence community as reflected by the director of central intelligence."
As Mr. Powell summed it up for the United Nations, "People will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind these illicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program: the ability to produce fissile material."
Deep into the article there's a line which Judy "It Could Happen" Tenuta fans would love... Regarding whether or not these anodized tubes of the wrong dimensions could somehow be converted to use for uranium enrichment,
"Yes, it was theoretically possible, but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to 'turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac.'"
Mary McCarthy left us a simple guide to knowing when Condi is lying: Every word she says is a lie, including "and" and "the."
Who among us has not lied about aluminum tubes?
Jeebus, Jeff Gerth?
Who amoung us has not lied about a mushroom cloud?
In honor of "They just make this sh*t up day," Drudge has this "NYT KERRY HEALTH: X-RAYS SHOW METAL SHRAPNEL FROM WAR; CANCER-FREE; HIV-... DEVELOPING..
Oh yeah, like Bush has pre-senile dementia or something.
YIKES! among
And I love this part, on the balanced POVs that were sent out:
"They did not state what Energy Department experts had noted - that many common industrial items, even aluminum cans, were made to specifications as good or better than the tubes sought by Iraq."
What's so imminent about a mushroom cloud anyway?
Within a generation, political science and public policy students will be assigned a text book on the decision-making process that led to this war.
The current classic text is Philip Zelikow's account of presidential leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That account tells us that we are really lucky things didn't go from bad to worse to the unthinkable; but it clearly shows that Kennedy prized differing opinions and wasn't content with groupthink. This is how he could tell Curtis LeMay to fuck off with his appeasment talk, and could go with a creative, peaceful and effective solution to the crisis.
In the next generation's text, students will see that this bunch of morons was not even trying to get an accurate account of the real threat posed by the Saddam regime. They just wanted to blow things up. And for this they will be held accountable as failures.
mmmmm mushrooms and Rice...
"there is little evidence the Bush administration purposely tried to deceive Americans and other world leaders about the threat posed by the alleged weapons..."
I misparsed Don Gonyea's Friday morning debate report as saying essentially this. Really pissed me off.
I'm glad I listened to it again before I had the chance to email NPR.
Excuse my effrontery, but isn't it a bit late for the NYT to be reporting this?
Where I am in the article, group think doesn't seem to have been the problem re the conclusions on the tubes. It's more that the CIA held greater sway in the reports than DOE did -- yet it was DOE which does the centrifuge work for the govt. Rather than group think, it seems as if it was issue of *ignoring* dissenting voices. (Group think is different phenomenon, more like complacency in response to majority opinions.)
I KNEW that at the time that the "anodized tubes for uranium centrifuges" was BULLSHIT.
How much you wanna bet that Kerry will still be using dumb talking points about outsourced jobs instead of hitting Bush on misleading America about Iraq?
What is Colin Powell's future?
Hey, Rice, I got your tube. Hanging.
OT but i've noticed a change in drudge's tone towards kerry in the two days since the debates, like talking about shrapnel embedded in kerry legs and accurately reporting that kerry is accusing bush of prioritizing tax cuts over security. it's almost like drudge was impressed by kerry on thursday. or maybe i'm just wearing some of those rose colored lenses...
And this stuff about BushCo lying is actually true...even though Jeff Gerth's name is on the NYT byline.
The Great Principles of Modern Conservatism
1) Use of force in international relations is always the first and preferred option, as long as the adversary is weak and defenseless.
2) Careful planning, the use of realistic assumptions, and the commitment of adequate resources is for wimps, sissies and girly-men. Real men just wing it, and let others worry about picking up the pieces.
3) A lie is quick, neat and easy, whereas the truth tends to be messy, complicated, and often embarrassing. Therefore, lying is always better.
4) It's always best to stubbornly cling to a failed and discredited policy rather than change course and appear weak and indecisive.
5) Rather than engaging in negotiations, give-and-take, and consensus-building, it's always preferable to steamroller over erstwhile friends and foes alike, and do exactly as you please without regard to the consequences.
6) The highest calling of government service is to make sure that those who already have much get even more. Everyone else can go Cheney themselves.
7) Any worthy goal of Conservatism that can be achieved by lawful means is all well and good; but if that's not possible, it should still be pursued by any and all means available.
Dissent and freedom of expression are cornerstones of democratic societies, and should be encouraged except when they're exercised irresponsibly. Such as, being in any way critical of Conservatism or its practitioners. Then, you become a subversive mother.
9) In time of war, anything other than slavish and unquestioning support of all aspects of the Conservative agenda represents prima facie evidence of anti-Americanism, if not out and out treason.
10) If you disagree with any of the above principles, and are not now sitting in a cell in Guantanamo - don't worry, you will be soon enough.
Have I left anything out?
..
The TIMES is not in the business of printing its reporters' opinions. You'll find that stuff on the OpEd pages.
Reporters report facts. The facts were, the Administration told us these tubes were for nuclear weapons. We got everyone's middle initials correct and reported that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.
We did our proper job.
Case closed.
If you have any questions about this, just write to me. I will have my faithful companion Arthur the Laughing Cow Bovino send you the Bedbug Letter, and assure you that you are being taken very seriously indeed.
(Indeed, you are very seriously being taken. God, I love the TIMES and my paycheck!)
What is Colin Powell's future
Shame. Disgrace. Disappointment.
OT - On the debate again, very briefly, a public apology to my best redneck democrat friend who I also happen to be married to.
About 40 minutes in Thursday night, my husband said, "This is why Andy wouldn't give Barney the bullets." I smiled or something; I was too busy celebrating to appreciate the analogy.
This morning I read Tom Shales in a WaPo column: "One longtime political observer -- among the friends canvassed by this critic -- was more irreverent about the debate and how the two debaters came off: "It was Andy Griffith meets Barney Fife," he said, with Kerry in the Griffith role -- solid, sanguine, sensible -- and Bush as the nervous Fife."
Ok, sweetheart, I get it now. Mea culpa.
Andy Griffith and Barney Fife. It's perfect.
There were press reports of this before the war. The Feds asked people at Oak Rudge and Livermore, designers of centrifuges intended for isotope separation - actual experts - who said no and were ignored.
It was worse.
They were OVERRULED and TOLD TO "SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN" by a political flunky appointed to head the DOE.
I would guess that this was because aluminum is a suboptimal material (strength-to-weight ratio is not high) and because the tube walls were too thick (radial stresses cause failure).
Correct. Also they were anodized, i.e. had a coating of aluminiumoxide, which made them unsuitable for enrichment.
The Energy Department team concluded it was "unlikely that anyone'' could build a centrifuge site capable of producing significant amounts of enriched uranium "based on these tubes.'' One analyst summed it up this way: the tubes were so poorly suited for centrifuges, he told Senate investigators, that if Iraq truly wanted to use them this way, "we should just give them the tubes.''
"But Saddam was a threat! Really he was! And I mean that sincerely. My fingers aren't crossed behind my back either."
Bastards. All of them.
I really thing that appropriate punishment for "Mo" would be to make her stop dressing like an extra in an old Cyndi Lauper video. She's trying to get out in public and raise her profile but criminy, I check the calendar everytime she shows up to see if it's the end of October.
Seriously, we need to support Atrios, Somerby, Kos and the other blogs which are rapidly replacing the newspaper as sources for the truth. If we don't chip in and support advertisers, candidates and buy more books and music through their click-throughs, we'll find Rupert and Fox, or Viacom or one of the old triad buying these sites in order to protect their dinosaurs.
Mo, Brit, Wolf and the rest are beginning to realize they are becoming irrelevant to the informed voter. It is in their interest to disparage and denigrate the blogs. At the moment, our insurgent in the traditional media happens to be Jon Stewart, who should be praised and lionized as the Digerati Che. Heroes come from the strangest places.
Now we get this story from the NYT. Here in my small backwater town in southeast Louisiana, I knew that it was doubtful that the tubes were for nuclear purposes. Our national security is in the hands of this woman, and we depend on the likes of the NYT to report to us. We are in a bad way.
...forgot to close the tag! D'oh!
Gerth is trying to avoid hell.
Frank,
Group think is related to ignoring dissenting voices.
It is group think in this instance that the view held by our government's own experts had to be dismissed because it was a given that we had to invade.
The invasion of Iraq was, in the aftermath of 9/11, the administation's holy grail, and if you did not hold this view (or at least not object to strongly with it) you were excluded.
If the administration were not afflicted with group think, there would have been robust arguments about who was correct in their assessment. Dissenting voices would have been brought in to make their case.
The depressing thing, to me, about this is not so much that our government lies to us.
It's that the people who are telling us that our government is lying to us are only willing to do so anonymously.
If this story is true, it should be able to be backed up with official memos. And if so, Dr. Rice and Mr. Powell should be impeached and removed from office.
But that's not going to happen if people just speak up anonymously.
I do appreciate if people click the ads. And, no, I'm not encouraging people to just click them . I know it's easy to tune them out, but occasionally there are ads for things you might actually be interested in.
Hecate - you beat me to it. Powell's future includes sitting on a couch and asking himself repeatedly how he could have been stupid enough to let a bunch of insane white men convince him that he was anything other than their pawn.
This claim that Bush had noble aims but was mislead by faulty CIA intelligence is becoming more common. David Brooks overnight NYT column had the same thrust and I sent him the following letter (not that I expect him to actually read it.)
_______
In your latest column about Bush and Kerry you write:
Bush launched a pre-emptive war even though his intelligence community was incompetent.
Sorry David...this will not fly. Bush has clearly ignored professional intelligence he didn't agree with (and continues to do so as witness the recent CIA assessment that any likely outcome in Iraq as of July was at best a LONG period of severe instability and at worst a civil war and his dismissal of that finding as "just guessing.")
He ignored pre-9/11intelligence warnings that Al Queda wanted to destroy buildings using aircraft, his Defense Secretary and neo-con buddies created a back door Intelligence unit in the Pentagon to go around the CIA professionals and produce findings which buttressed their own goals, they over inflated claims about WMD despite repeated CIA warnings that their claims weren't backed by the facts as known at the time, and they deep-sixed the Iraq Project -- a State Department program, before the war, to try and predict possible outcomes of a military victory over Saddam and establish programs to deal with them. In retrospect nearly all of the project's findings proved to be prescient.
A NY Times story recently found that the State Department's intelligence group, in general, was far more accurate in its assessment of the situation in Iraq before the war, but Rumsfeld and Defense always viewed State as a bunch of namby pambys and did everything they could to undercut them. Jay Garner tells of being ordered by Rumsfeld to fire an advisor he had just hired. Turns out the advisor was one of the lead authors of the Iraq Project, and an expert on the country whom Garner had hired because he knew he needed informed guidance in his new post about a country he knew little about. Rumsfeld told him the order had come from higher up the chain and the clear inference was that it came from Cheney. The guy was dumped and soon thereafter so was Garner.
One could go on and on but it is clear that the fault, dear Brutus, was not with the intelligence, but the laser focus of the President and his advisors on a military invasion of Iraq in the face of all common sense and reason. In the process we have stretched our military resources so badly that if some other conflict opens up elsewhere in the world, we would be hard pressed to deal with it, we have run up the largest debt in our nation's history, we have destroyed traditional alliances and today have very few "friends" willing to stand with us, and we have virtually destroyed America's image worldwide as a promoter of freedom and democracy and replaced it with one in which America is seen as a bully, intent on controlling oil interests and trying to destroy Islam.
Jeff Gerth co-wrote this article. . . .
This is my favorite article on the intelligence that took us to Iraq and killed 1,060 innocent, Americans. If the information in this article is true, Bush and his entire administration should be prosecuted. This is also the information that the Senate Intelligence Comm. is not allowed to make public until after the election.
http://www.intelmessages.org/Mes...es_04/
7816.html
Much of the aluminum tube story was told several months ago by Wapo.
But this NYT account focuses anew on the roles played by Cheney/Rice/Powell/Bush to manipulate the evidence.
Two crucial events. In Aug 2002, a highlevel superstar scientist group was empaneled to resolve the dispute between CIA analysts (who said the tubes were for nuclear and Energy Dept scientists (who said the tubes were for rockets).
Only first formal meeting took place; substantive meetings scheduled in Au/Sept 2002 did not take place because Cheney had already publicly speaking about Saddam's nuclear ambitions. So the issue was never resolved. The nuclear section of the NIE put together for Congress
in Oct 2002 was severely defective and
any serious reader would have known then.
Another crucial event. In Jan 2003, CIA analyst ("Joe") presented US case to IAEA in Vienna and he was pretty much laughed out of the room. IAEA told the UN that the tubes were for rockets in late Jan, 2003. Following week, Powell presented his case.
So there were several signposts on the way to the war, with severe warnings that no nuclear dev was going on in Iraq.
Hope Edwards asks Cheney about the questions raised by this report.
Could that be the reason NYT published it today/tomorrow?
Am I crazy or is Drudge hinting that Kerry has HIV. His site currently reads: "NYT Kerry Robust Health: X-Rays Show Metal Shrapnel from War; Cancer-Free; HIV- .... Developing..."
I have been watiing for him to do something to distract from the debate results.
Ignoring dissenting voices -- After Thursday, it's clear what kind of response a dissently voice would have received from the brownshirt in chief.
Powell's future includes sitting on a couch and asking himself repeatedly how he could have been stupid enough to let a bunch of insane white men convince him that he was anything other than their pawn.
Tena,
You are so right. Colin has about 28 days to redeem himself by resigning loudly and publicly and buying time on all major networks to explain why. Otherwise, watch for him to become a bitter old man who hates President Obama worse than anyone else in the world.
Another good man lost in Iraq -- see link below.
As painful as it is to do so, let's have fun with Fox Liars. Go vote.
Am I crazy or is Drudge hinting that Kerry has HIV. His site currently reads: "NYT Kerry Robust Health: X-Rays Show Metal Shrapnel from War; Cancer-Free; HIV- .... Developing..."
CNN has been running "health issues and the US presidency" for some time now.
What is Colin Powell's future?
Ever since Powell's presentation to the UN, I've been thinking that his story would be the perfect subject for a classic (Greek?) tragedy. He had a failure of courage--wasn't willing to pay the price and take the risks to run for the presidency himself, so he settled for being Secretary of State for Bush.
And the price for his cowardice has been his total (slow and painful to watch) debasement and betrayal of everything worthwhile that he ever stood for.
I wouldn't have voted for him--I'm a Democrat and have been all of my life. And I don't know what a Powell presidency would have been like--if he'd run and been elected--but I have a hard time imagining that it would have been the appalling, unmitigated disaster that the Bush presidency has been.
Perhaps he would have given a little thought to the "Powell doctrine" before rushing to war, for example.
ecoast,
yeah, I like the timing.
However, Kerry shouldn't make too much of this. Leave it up to surrogates to remind people of W's rush to war, but let Kerry focus on setting a course for the future.
I think Edwards can do a good job with this in his debate by putting it in the context that their authorization votes in the fall of '02 were to authorize the use of force only if necessary and as a last resort, but not as an excuse to rush to war without a clear reason as to why and without a plan for the peace.
To me that reads as HIV(negative)
Has a woman ever before been put on trial for war crimes?
If not, she would make an excellent candidate to be the first.
Hey, if Gerth wrote it it should be worth at least an 8-year, 78 million dollar investigation. Nyet.
Didn't I see a Flash movie with a Monty Pythonesque side to it, that suggested the exact same thing. and wasn't that shortly after Boosh and Blair made their respective speeches?
For Powell's (and Rumsfeld's) future: See "The Fog of War" with Robert McNamara.
I am a mechanical engineer and here are my comments regarding the technical aspects of this article:
- first of all, it's hard to understand if the tolerances involved were .001 or .0001 (one thousandth or one ten thousandth of an inch, for example). The .001 specs are pretty normal for many manufactured items, and as such, do not mean very much. So, if the specs called for .001, that could not be used to draw any conclusions as to what the tubes were for. If the specs called for .0001, I would say that I would say they were for rocket parts (again, I have to speculate as to the design) because the tolerances involved in the aerodynamics would be more critical.
- aluminium is a bad material for both uses. Although it is light and strong it is badly suited for both purposes. For rocket tubes, it has a tendency to ignite at temps over 600deg. Titanium might be a better choice, and although much heavier, can withstand the tensile stresses much better. No special alloy of Titanium would be required. For centrifuges, aluminium would probably be better suited, although I am not too familiar with the temperatures involved.
- if the specs called for 3.3 mm and the wall thickness was measured at 1.1 mm, then it's certain that there was a foul-up or that there was no real need of specs to begin with.
- any engineer, unlike this joker who was so certain as to the purpose of the tubes, has to have some sort of agenda, because, frankly, none of the evidence presented here is conclusive for a case of intended use as uranium enrichment centrifuge tubes.
And, let me add, it's sad to hear that someone in my profession was so blind-sided by his own arrogance that he was a major cause of a war where tens of thousands were killed. I don't know how this guy sleeps at night.
I'm trying to watch a football game and post. dissently, sheesh. Clear I can't do both.
Am I crazy or is Drudge hinting that Kerry has HIV. His site currently reads: "NYT Kerry Robust Health: X-Rays Show Metal Shrapnel from War; Cancer-Free; HIV- .... Developing..
Let us kill this right away, pls.
Over at dKOs, someone pointed out
HIV- means HIV Negative. not HIVdash.
HIV descriptions are given as HIV+ or
HIV-.
This is just Drudge's way of being truthful but cleverly (for him) deceiptful.
My mother (may she rest in peace) used to speak of "the sins that cry out to heaven." That phrase has rattled around my mind throughout this entire administration. These people say that they believe in God. I wonder how they plan to meet their God face to face. Somehow I don't think, "oops, sorry, my bad" will cut it.
HenryC: I don't read Drudge's teaser as suggesting anything except that Kerry's health is, indeed, "robust." The "HIV-" is, almost certainly, shorthand for "HIV negative" -- meaning that the report he's referring to says that Kerry was tested for HIV and found NOT to have it.
(And who among us does not love the suspense of waiting for the results of an HIV test?)
off-topic, but of interest:
have you seen this great bloomberg story on frank luntz's focus group analysis of the debates?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/
...=top_world_news
in his small sample of undecideds, kerry won 89% to 11%. and the intangibles were just as good.
more on my analysis of it here:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/2...0/
02.html#a1325
The point is why are you defending Hussein? Why aren't you glad that the murdering dictator is gone? Would you rather endure the truth, have the american people refuse to go to war, Hussein be left in charge, and in less than 5 years he would have a nuke and then we'd never be able to get rid of him? What would happen to Israel once both Iraq and Iran had nukes? Do you think that nations with fanatical rulers like these two would rely on caution, or would they blackmail the world in order to get their goals of Israel's destruction satisfied?
They could demand Israel's removal. The jews banished from the middle east, and if we said no. They could cut off all the oil. If we tried to go in they could nuke our approaching forces. We on the other hand would chose not to go in, and rather than invest in alternative fuels would end up sending the economy into a massive depression.
Then we'd had to rely on cleaner fuels, the dependence on foreign oil would decrease. And we'd deprive the terrorist sponsoring nations of their billions in oil money.
Is that what you want.
Speaking of tubes,if Rice was'nt the nations oldest virgin we'd have to tie hers.
nice post, Kate
In case anybody is wondering, that last sentence was supposed to be the punch line.
MYOB'
.
Is Powell hanging in there for his son? How would he live with shame thru the rest of his life? He atleast doen't look senile.
It is wonderful that Saddam is locked up, but it would be so much more wonderful for this country if Osama Bin Laden were dead or captured. If I'm not mistaken, Bin Laden is the one who attacked the US on Sept.11
I wish we had a President that could walk and chew gum at the same time.
mishimishi, I read that the specs for the Zippe centrifuge were 1.1 mm, specs for the rockets 3.3 mm and that the tubes themselves exactly matched the specs for the rockets the Iraqis were currently using/building. Also, the US has used the same 7075-T6 aluminum and that the Iraqi specs were based on the Italian Medusa. Just sayin.
...the debate and how the two debaters came off: "It was Andy Griffith meets Barney Fife,"...
"This is why Andy wouldn't give Barney the bullets."
heh, heh, exactly.
Bush supporter/MYOB,
you got the troll thing down pretty well!
Very nice, but I don’t think the Liar stuff is going anyplace, that was the last debate.
.............
All the pundits and commentators are earnestly signalling Unka Karl to ha, ha, ha, change course Puh-leeze.
..............
It’s right there in all the commentary, if Bushie sticks to this line, he is already in the pitty pit pits.
................
I think they are earnestly signalling with all their demure earnestness to try the Novakula ploy, bless their hearts.
.............
Greg Thielmann is the man to ask...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain577975.shtml
It seems unhappiness is just a thing called Joe
He's got a frown that makes the sources all say "no"
He's got a way that makes the State Department sigh
When they know little Joe's, passing by
Sometimes Defense is gloomey when the true is bared
But then Condi lies and it's Christmas everywhere
Trouble's fly away and life is easy go
"Does Gwen love me good, that's all I need to know"
Seems like unhappiness, is just a thing called Joe
Little Joe,
Little Joe
now why would someone like Powell want to back up his own employee when instead he can out himself as a loser?
Who among us does not love phony wars?
I think they are also earnestly signalling to go ahead and do the October Surprise, they are practically rolling on the floor for it.
...............
.
...............
Please, please, do it now, it’s October already, please let’s talk about UBL, maybe it will jog Unka Karl’s memory.
..................
"(And who among us does not love the suspense of waiting for the results of an HIV test?)"
Drudge -- who's serostatus has been the subject of considerable speculation.
Bush supporter
Saddam had no WMD, why because last time he tried we bomb the facilities from the Air. I believe Israel did the same. The inspectors afterall were doing their job and it worked. Something was taken its toll on Saddam and his focus was not on WMD anymore. He just pretended he had them so no one would f**ck with him.
His sons taking over some time in future would of been some concern for the USA. His sons would of been more likely to work with terrorists. But if we developed a good CIA intel, put the money and sources there, then I believe we could of taken either Saddam or his sons out by air without boots on the ground, mission accomplished , no US casualties. We were afraid if we did this that the new government would not be to our liking. No forethought to invading Iraq was put forward by this asshole Bush administration.
meme, Bush supporter's post was a parody of a troll.
"Very convinced, but not very convincing." -Greg Thielmann on "Joe"
That's the neoconservatives in a nutshell.
meme,
you just argued with a non-existant troll. MYOB was playing a funny!
oh! It was still fun releasing my anger.
Of course, one wonders how she kept her job following such colossal national security failures.
I have a question of a different sort. Bush really tried to advance his security credentials, at one point using his Missile Defense initiative. Kerry didn't bite, but it seems to me there's a real opening here. I mean we're spending what, 100 billion on an unproven system when the treat is terrorist dirty bombs, or suitcase bombs?
Meanwhile, the president argues there's not enough money for homeland security. Didn't he say, "Where's the money going to come from for these programs?" in response to Kerry's point on homeland security? My recommendation. Use the same "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" rhetoric.
Here's my ad:
"The president is spending 100 billion on missile defense while his national security advisor warns of terrorists smuggling nuclear bombs into our cities. Yet when I say we should spend more to protect our ports, planes and nuclear plants, the president say there isn't enough money. Once again, he's fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once again, American lives are put at risk.”
"America needs a president who can react to real threats before the become disasters."
Watcha think?
LOL-at myself, thanks MYOB
oh! It was still fun releasing my anger.- meme
And we enjoyed it- you get troll patrol next shift.
Oops! I forgot the best part.
"I'm John Kerry and I approved this ad."
No Imag
okay I was duped. But I needed the laugh, glad you enjoyed it as well.
meme, you are so polite! When I release my anger, things get a little nasty!
Marquis de Sade: It hurts so much I like it! Give me more, and spank me while you are at it, you sadist!
Marquis de Sade, very good stuff, post it on Kerry's site.
It reads even better when spelled correctly
meme, I got a big kick out of it. You're still on for troll duty? Right?
I have a lingering question from the debates...
so did W make a mistake in judging Putin's soul or not? I couldn't tell from his answer. Presidents should speak clearly and say what they mean.
off topic but worth noticing: in the comments on the "going upriver" post, jimvijay has linked to Roger Ebert's review. Rog takes on the Smear Boat Liars for Bush- the review probably ought to be on the editorial page of the papers in which it will appear, but it could do some real good back in the entertainment section.
This Just In Coming Up: CNN will now discuss if electronic voting is more secure than paper ballots with a month left in the presidential campaign.
Drudge -- who's serostatus has been the subject of considerable speculation.
David Ehrenstein
I think he has HIV that's why he's so bitter and mad at the world--Annthax, too. Not that everybody gets like that but some definately do.
Well, look on the bright side. The kids reading the Leftish blogs, reading about the subterranean quality of our national press, will find themselves drawn to journalism, in an attempt to show the grownups how it's really done.
</cockeyed optimist>
Leave it to the world's most respected news organization, CNN, to report on something in a timely fashion- just like the NYT. /sarcasm
no imag,
I'll be on the lookout.
we need to be jumping on this "global test" distortion Bush is now pushing.
This is the kind of word twist that plays into one of Bush's core messages about Kerry, and is giving him the opportunity to extend and expand on his criticism that Kerry will look for global concensus before "defending America".
This, of course, is patently untrue, and the only way Bush can make his claim is by distorting a few of Kerry's words. Here's what Kerry really said:
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Marquis - you naughty man, but enough of that - I was jumping up and down yelling about missile defense and a suitcase nuke the other night during the debate when the Shrub was dumb enough to bring it up. His inconsistencies about what the threats to this country really are and how to address them, need to be hammered on. He stood there in the Rose Garden and talked about how safe and strong the country is. But he campaigns relentlessly on the idea that there are dangerous terrorists and regimes everywhere and he is all that stands between us and destruction. Now which is it? Has he made us safer, or not. ? - Rhetorical question, of course. Someone needs to ask it.
Yikes, someone posted this Karen Kwiatkowski article at Kos. Some zingers:
High level incompetence seems to be the natural sea-state of our militarized foreign policy, launching forth with the proud Guardsman George W. Bush at the helm and Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney as navigator.
...
Leadership matters, all right. Competence, intelligence, humility, and devoted consistent brutal honesty means lives saved, objectives met. It produces everyday demonstrations of courage at all levels that inspire and motivate. Leadership improves recruitment and retention in an all volunteer military, and makes that military both awesomely fierce and awesomely proud. Leadership preserves the Constitution and strengthens the Republic.
Leadership does matter. The Bush/Cheney campaign should be ashamed of itself.
Give me a break. It was readily available public knowledge well before March 2003 that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for uranium enrichment centrifuges, and were probably rocket bodies.
It might have been a good idea for the NYWT to mention this a long time ago.
Hey, this is hard work, get over it.
"Speaking of tubes,if Rice was'nt the nations oldest virgin we'd have to tie hers."
Rice a virgin? I thought she was doing W. (sorry, hope no one was eating)
These days the Drudge Report is written primarily by a character named Andrew Breitbart.
I expect that La Drudge is too busy taking the latest clinical trials to do much work.
My favorite remark right after the debate was by Mike McCurry to ABC or NBC (I forgot). Referring to Kerry, he said,:
"You just saw the 44th President of the United States on the stage tonight."
What a confident group and for good reason too
Yeah, seattlebird, I saw Smirky triumphantly spouting his misrepresentation of Kerry's remark in front of his adoring fans yesterday.
What an idiot. The man can't speak English well, nor does he understand it when spoken by a competent speaker.
My favorite remark right after the debate was by Mike McCurry to ABC or NBC (I forgot). Referring to Kerry, he said,:
"You just saw the 44th President of the United States on the stage tonight."
What a confident group and for good reason too
smarty Jones
I thought it was interesting that Bush mentioned Checks and balances in response to the Putin question.
my first thought was that the problem with this gov't was that we lacked checks and balances with a domination of Repub majority.
Bush would have used his veto power, had we had a Democratic majority in the Senate and he would of been shitting in his pants.
Condi-lie-za lies, Powell lies to serve his master, this is news? A little late for the thousands dead and maimed, the $billions flushed down the Irat-hole, and the trashed US reputation.
I've got a question. Why would the Times release this story now? Is it because they see the tides are turning? Do they think there is a chance Kerry will be elected President?
Otherwise, watch for him to become a bitter old man who hates President Obama worse than
anyone else in the world.
Hecate | Email | Homepage | 10.02.04 - 3:09 pm | #
Watch for it? Hell, I'm counting on it.
Tena: His inconsistencies about what the threats to this country really are and how to address them, need to be hammered on.
Well, the thing about the suggestion to use Kerry's "Wrong war, wrong place" theme is how well it seems to resonate with this incosistancy.
It wouldn't be an expensive ad to assemble. The footage of Rice making the mushroom cloud (fear mongering) statement. Some debate footage/audio. A Kerry voice over, and some graphics to reinforce the point.
OMG I can't read that whole thing, it's very long. Dammit Joe, I'm a journalist!
I've got a question. Why would the Times release this story now? Is it because they see the tides are turning? Do they think there is a chance Kerry will be elected President?
Simone, at Kos, offered this:
Perhaps this means that the ban imposed on all journalism interogating the record of the Bush Administration has been lifted? Or does the Times, now in the midst of a first-amendment battle with John Ashcroft (protecting phone records and sources of reporters including Judith Miller), feel a renewed sense of journalistic vigor?
Then again, the Putin thing is another opening. I don't know how you make it resonate with a current theme, but Bush is wide open given the footage of him saying how he looked into his soul. Yet another "mixed message" maybe?
Interesting that Bush bases his total civil rights campaign on Colon Pool and Condolisa Wheat. Does anyone remember that one.
By the way, this is hard work.
The Bush campaign is really studying hard on Edwards debates including some of his trial experience with closing arguments. When Cheney and Edwards debate Tuesday night, Cheney wont make the same mistakes Bush made and Cheney will be trying to make up for Bush's poor performance.
so did W make a mistake in judging Putin's soul or not?
no, he saw clearly, and he liked what he saw, let's call it a plan.
I wonder how they plan to meet their God face to face. Somehow I don't think, "oops, sorry, my bad" will cut it.
Kate
For the true Believers among them, actually, it does. There is no theoretical limit to the number of times a Sinner can aclnowledge his sins and get another chance. Now, if I was gonna design a Heavenly Reward And Punishment System , by Golly, that's the way I'd do it.
If these schmucks wrote the baseball rules, batters would get 2 balls & 6 strikes...untill the other side came to bat.
Watcha think?
Marquis de Sade | Email | Homepage | 10.02.04 - 3:45 pm | #
it's very good and the primary reason i'm voting.
de Sade - works for me. Everyone in the media keeps saying Bush is consistent, Bush is steadfast. In fact, he isn't. He doesn't have real policies, so he has to memorize what he's told are his policies and there are lots of inconsistencies in the things he has been saying. Just put up comparison footage of him saying: "Amurka is strong and safe because I'm killing Iraqis by the thousands," and "Terrorists terrorists terrorists, squawk," and let people sort it out for themselves.
The only reason no one says Bush is inconsistent is because basically he doesn't do anything. He hasn't vetoed any bills in 4 years, except perhaps 1, IIRC. He doesn't vote on legislation - so where does one go for examples of consistency/inconsistency, but his statements and his actions. Put up film clips of his saying he was giving a gazillion dollars to fight AIDS and let's see the facts on what exactly he has done. For god's sake, would someone resurrect "Mars, bitches," from the SOTU and let's see what he's actually done towards this insane idea, which is nothing. It would be a very simple matter to show what an empty suit the pissant little lying son of a bitch really is. And an empty head.
Incognito: Cheney wont make the same mistakes Bush made.
I'm concerned about the VP debate. I think the trap they'll try to set will start with policy issues. Cheney is very good on them, and Edwards has shown some weakness on it in the past, although that was two years ago.
Edwards has tried big cases against big firms. If there's anything he can do, it's speak to issues in front of an audience, and convincingly.
The debates are somewhat different though. He doesn't want to let Cheney use policy catch him without an answer because Cheney will use that opening to paint him as a Dan Quail pretty boy.
Good for Cheney and so fucking what?
He isn't the first one to use that idea - think big time trial lawyers don't study their opposition? Think Edwards' people don't know that?
Pah. People think Cheney is smart, but they don't like him personally. Edwards is not only smart, he's very likable.
I can't wait.
Liar, liar pants on fire
Condi lied
NOW can we fire her?
(and her smirky boss too)
"In the next generation's text, students will see that this bunch of morons was not even trying to get an accurate account of the real threat posed by the Saddam regime. They just wanted to blow things up. And for this they will be held accountable as failures."
Disagree. American history as told in the schools is rife with narcissist aggrandizement of the actions and outcomes of the nation...directly leading to, and cause of the repugnant American arrogance so pervasive today and which causes some 50% of the population to support the idiot boy-king in all his glorious incompetence making the world a far more unsafe place than it was 4 years ago. Nearly void in the common history lessons is any critical discussion of the massive inhumanity fomented by the nation such as the genocide of 10 million Native Americans; the use of nuclear weapons on civilian populations; murderous working conditions of the industrial revolution; the experimentation on humans in chemical and biological weapons research; and massive destruction of the environment in pursuit of corporate greed.
The Bushliar’s excellent Iraqi adventure is more likely to be written in history books (at least by American authors) as the deposing of a vicious dangerous dictator and a gallant effort to save the Middle East by spreading democracy than the lies, deceptions, and corruption that are its truth. The tragedy of Iraq will be swept under the rug with so much other American filth.
If Americans only tried a little truth and practiced a little humility once in a while, instead of the constant droning bluster, the nation (and the world) could be a far better place.
-
Tena: It would be a very simple matter to show what an empty suit the pissant little lying son of a bitch really is. And an empty head.
Now Tena, trust the Marquis (actually the Chinese cum Roddenberry cum Montalban, or vice versa Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Edwards will eat Cheney's lunch...Do you think mega-miilionaire trial lawyers who have kicked other mega-millionaire trial lawyers collective asses can't bone-up for a simple debate with a crusty old criminal with a bad heart (in more ways than one)..."policy" difficult for Edwards- are you serious?!? Even if Cheney tries to sneak up on him with some bullshit, Edwards is not going to adjust his refrain? This guy is a pro and Cheney is not used to anybody questioning him. He'll be used to it when the rhetorical 2x4 hits him between his beady, fat, empty eyes next week. Cheney might collapse on stage.
Condiliar telling lies, please please say it isn't so. I know she doesn't lie, you all better stop saying she does.... bwaaahhh hahaha
"so did W make a mistake in judging Putin's soul or not?"
I'd say he saw his political soul-mate.
.
justfred - "I'd say he saw his political soul-mate."
That would be one of the funniest comments I've ever read if it wasn't simultaneously one of the most frighteningly true things I've ever read.
Brash: Do you think mega-millionaire trial lawyers can't bone-up for a simple debate with a crusty old criminal with a bad heart (in more ways than one)..."policy" difficult for Edwards- are you serious?!?
I'd refer you to his Meet The Press (at least I think it was MTP) appearance of a couple of years ago. They'll attack on minutiae because you can't know every detail. If they succeed, they'll use it to suggest the danger of inexperience at a time of war. I think he's vunerable there, but I'm sure he's being prepped for it.
My opinions only.
On one side, you have a team whose leader, and only technical person, is someone with a bachelor's degree in M.E. from the powerhouse engineering program at the University of Kentucky, who once upon a time did some maintenance work on centrifuges. This team says that tubes were clearly intended to be used in nuclear centrifuges.
On the other side, you have a team of distinguished Ph.D.'s, some of whom have been involved in the actual design of nuclear centrifuges, and who are regarded as among the top experts worldwide in the area. This team asserts that would be deep problems with employing the tubes in centrifuges.
Which team do you believe?
Why, in the Bush WH, the first team, of course. The second team probably believes we're descended from monkeys -- we're going to listen to them?
my money is on edwards, but one must not forget, the medias money is on bush.
Well our best weapon in the VP debate is Cheney himself. The curled lip, then Strangelove glare, all work against him, particularly if the rebuttal unconsciously draws attention to it.
Drawing people's attention to facial expressions unconsciously is asking a bit much for a live, prime time, televised debate to the world. Edwards can be very smooth though. And as a successful lawyer, he could very well counter with a staggering rebuttal. Let us pray 
so now after helping to enable the on-going tragedy of monumentally historic portions that is Iraq, the NY Times finds the wherewithal to publish the truth that was easily available prior to the onslaught of the tragedy...and on the front page no less. What is this alternative American universe they call Bushworld?
Well, de Sade, if there is one thing a highly successful trial lawyer can do it is to think on his or her feet. Quickly. And respond. It's a requirement.
Edwards is hungry. Cheney is just Cheney.
Just occurs to me, OT.
Isn't it a bit ironic that Bush would hold for creationism? He, of all people, finds it hard to believe that we might be close relatives of chimpanzees?
OT but i've noticed a change in drudge's tone towards kerry in the two days since the debates, like talking about shrapnel embedded in kerry legs and accurately reporting that kerry is accusing bush of prioritizing tax cuts over security. it's almost like drudge was impressed by kerry on thursday. or maybe i'm just wearing some of those rose colored lenses...
sometimes that Scarborro(sp) guy has the same effect on me and does that creepy brownshirt thing they know libs fall for everytime- fake evenhandedness then they sucker punch ya. so keep vigilant!
Quote from the Times article:
As a result, the vice president was not simply a passive recipient of intelligence analysis. He was known as a man who asked hard, skeptical questions, a man who paid attention to detail. "In my office I have a picture of John Adams, the first vice president," Mr. Cheney said in one of his first speeches as vice president. "Adams liked to say, 'The facts are stubborn things.' Whatever the issue, we are going to deal with facts and show a decent regard for other points of view."
LOL!!! John Edwards has GOT to snap BigTimeDick's ass with this wet towel!!!
<Conventional Wisdom>
If Dick Cheney manages to get through that debate without eating a newborn on live television, he will have won decisively.
</Conventional Wisdom>
Sort of a variant on the "if Nero can get on stage next to Kerry without wetting himself..."
If Dick Cheney manages to get through that debate without eating a newborn on live television, he will have won decisively.
You say this mockingly, but I think this will be more difficult for Cheney than you make it seem.
Carpbasman: You say this mockingly, but I think this will be more difficult for Cheney than you make it seem.
Let's hope so.
old Counterpunch headline-
"Cheney's Secret: He's Dumb."
The point is why are you defending Hussein? Why aren't you glad that the murdering dictator is gone?
What's the fucking point of taking Hussein out when the odds are that the murdering dictator is either going to be replaced by another murdering dictator (as it stands now, Iraq's current prime minister Allawi is a former terrorist and murderer) or the country will end up in civil war, or both? At present, the best case scenario for how things will turn out is that Allawi will end up being Saddam-lite and Iraq will be marginally stable. Sorry, but that result was not worth the lives of over a thousand soldiers, the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and several hundred billion dollars.
Edwards is hungry. Cheney is just Cheney.
Hey, I am hungry too. I haven't had many souls yet today.
The point is why are you defending Hussein? Why aren't you glad that the murdering dictator is gone?
1-Let's say someone objects to fighting Hitler by leveling Europe with nuclear weapons--is that defending Hitler?
2-Hussein exists because GHW Bush's new aggressive neo-con CIA wanted him to in the seventies.
3-Hussein is a dictator because Bush and the American government in general wanted him to be that.
4-Hussein was murderous because Bush, Reagan and the American government in general wanted him to be that. Neo-con elements our government encouraged him to do everything these same people are horrified by now that there is nothing that can be done about them and then rewarded him when they were recently over.
5-Hussein's American-sponsored crimes happened decades ago, and we are ignoring current monstrosities so that we can cry and moan about a crime of ours with a 20-30-year vintage.
6-Back when something could be done about it, it was the Left "that supports Hussein", the Left "that never talks about anyone but Israel", the Left "that also never talks about anyone but China", that was the only voice talking about that as something other than a triumph for democracy.
What we have encapsulated in that one lie about Leftists being Baathists is a pathological liar, perhaps incapable of any functional concept of truth, accusing the only people who objected to certain crimes of being guilty of things he took every step to endorse. We have a man who has started a fire and is now accusing the fire department of being secret arsonists.
Get real here. Talk down what Edwards will do.
Though they had been half-heartedly talking up Kerry as a skilled debater, the Bushies made the classic pre-debate mistake of predicting that Kerry couldnt complete a thought in two minutes. He did and they paid; paid even bigger because they had lowered expectations for Kerry.
Yeah, what Peter said.
That's what doing. I'm lowering expectations.
thanks for the recap of all the known lies from this administration that anyone who did a little bit of research into knew about prior to the war, nyt.
"what is powell's future?"
that is something that pisses me off. he will be fine. there will be no consequences. he will probably be in the cabinet next time the republicans take over.
"what is powell's future?"
that is something that pisses me off. he will be fine. there will be no consequences.
And really, who cares about this f-ing Tom? He sold his political career to the highest bidder; as someone who formerly deeply respected Powell, now I say good riddance.
"The second team probably believes we're descended from monkeys"
If you doubted that before the release of the Bush Debate Photos, with a single glance you can put your doubts to rest.
gn, it won't be "good riddance" though. he will be back. they all will be. except georgie. he probably won't be invited back. he will probably get invited to lots of poker games though. i'd play him except he probably cheats.
what?
what
huh
Condaleeza Rice? She's still alive?
When the campaign gets serious masta' jus' sends the house negros out to chop cotton and keeps them outta sight.
If W steals the election -- he can't win -- all the darkies will be gone because there's no longer any reason to keep them around for further window dressing.
Believe me, the Condaleeza Rice and Colon Powell stories won't have a happy ending.
Imagine the shitloads these scumbags would be shoveling if they thought they could get away with it. Of course they do think that, but imagine there were no atrios, kos, josh et al. Thanks to you guys, hopefully the end isn't nigh.
By the way, Olaf Glad and Big don't let the scum poison you. In the end we're going to win, and your good sense and keen humor are reason enough for anyone to drop by to read the comnents here.
Where in the world is Condi Rice?
Certainly mistaken. Arguably incompetent. But lies? Why would the Administration tell a lie knowing that the truth would almost certainly come out before the next Presidential election? Bush didn't need "tubes" or any other such questionable specific to get approval for war. Indeed, they made some of these statements after getting the Senate's authorization.
The NYT investigative report revealing 1) what Bushco knew and
2) when they knew it
SHOULD be the red meat of every Sunday morning news show and dominate the news for weeks to come. It may not, but it is as if the Tonkin Gulf truth were revealed BEFORE the election. This story leaves little doubt and no hiding place for Bush & Co. that their motives were to go to Iraq by any means necessary. If you work among the faithful, habitual GOP voters who are not reading, not thinking, and simply voting out of a (VERY) dated attachment to the GOP of, when, 1960? 1972? it's time to let them know that it's over. Their party has been completely co-opted by the most venal, lying, ends-justify-the-means frauds that have ever held elective office. I know many such GOP voters. They don't think, they are FAR from being well-informed, but sadly, they proudly march to the polls and vote. It's time to show them this article. It's time for that truth to resonate everywhere - this administration will lie to win. And the soldiers they feel we liberals are "not supporting" are dying for a lie. Talk to your neighbors, folks. They may not read newspapers.
And a long-term editor (Slate, Post, USNWR) just told an audience on BookTV (CSPAN2, 10/2/04) that it was just peachy that the NYT is now available on a daily basis to readers on the west coast, too.
This was advanced as an argument that journalism is getting better than ever, despite what doomsayers write. The occasion was a panel discussion (?) of the ideas raised in "Killed", a new book from David Wallis.
The book sounds okay, but the panel was ineffective. Rick Gillespie from Reason, playing Ann Coulter (all sophistry, all the time), derailed the discussion and not even the amazingly young but intelligent Ben Court (?) from Free Press could put things back on track.
Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.
I have an old T-shirt with the following: "They must think I'm a mushroom, because they keep me in the dark and feed us bullsh*t."
Oddly, if mushroom clouds do sprout in these United States, it will be in large part due to El Busho and a compliant media keeping us in the dark and feeding us bullsh*t.
It would be nice if the Sunday talk shows talked about how this article destroys El Busho's "blame the CIA's group-think" alibi - but they'll be too busy discussing more important topics. Things like Kerry's tie color...
test
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
