it's a good reason to hate them.

i never voted before 2004, and of course there is the cliche about the lesser of two evils...

i voted in 2004, and 2006, because it's clear republicans are not the cliche, their evil is for real.
charley | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 9:38 am | #

And Glenn, now that the elections are over, and the worst recorded violence has taken place subsequent thereto, the odious Jawa Report breathlessly declares it as evidence that Democrats are already effective:

After the Democrats won in November, I wondered just how long it would take for their influence to see real world results....Contrary to the Lefties argument that our presence in Iraq creates more violence, the terrorist’s morale and appetite for the blood of innocents has only been heightened by the anticipation of a US withdrawal promised by Nancy Pelosi.
Good job Democrats. You've really turned things around for Iraq.
Mona | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 9:45 am | #

I wonder if anyone told the insurgents that the elections were over, and that they could tone this down a bit. Or maybe they saw how well it worked in 2006, and all they're doing is getting a head start on 2008...
ecclOneNine | 11.24.06 - 9:52 am | #

I always find it disingenuous when people who know what's going on in this country say they don't hate Bush.

What do you have to do to be worthy of hate?

Shouldn't you hate someone who causes hundreds of thousands of deaths on the merest of whims?

Shouldn't you hate someone who defiles what just might have been the greatest country on earth -- bringing in torture, theocracy, election fraud, abandonment of hurricane victims, and a massive transfer of wealth... to the most wealthy?
Vast Left | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:00 am | #

Glenn, I think "hate" is too strong a word for the circumstance you've described in your thesis. I distrust the Bush movement, not because they're composed of radical, authoritarian-loving conservatives, but because their actions since 9/11 have proven how untrustworthy and flatly dishonest the whole movement is (as you've eloquently pointed out in the past).

What I hate is what's been done to the people of Iraq in the good name of America -- a name that is no longer seen as good by our allies and friends around the world. Maybe it's because I have a 10-month-old baby boy and have become very protective and sensitive to issues regarding infants, but every time I see pictures of babies who have been killed as a result of coalition "collateral damage" (for example, in Fallujah), it makes me sick to my stomach.

I literally shake with rage that anyone could have a hand in snuffing out those least able to defend themselves. That kind of circumstance certainly makes me hate those responsible, and the hatred feels all the worse because of feeling of helplessness that accompanies it. Sure, we hope to eventually hold accountable those responsible, but meanwhile, the slaughtering of innocents goes on, unremarked and unimportant -- especially to the Bush movement followers you've described.

--Lou
Luis Bueno | 11.24.06 - 10:01 am | #

George Bush once said "I know how the world works". He does not know how a screwdriver works. He is clueless in Iraq, as are all the newly minted mideast experts who never been there, and don't know the territory (thank you Harold Hill).
lk | 11.24.06 - 10:14 am | #

One of my basic assumptions is that if a Bush administration official denies something, that thing can be assumed to be absolutely true.

Another is that a Bush administration official's first answer to any question is an evasion, an exaggeration or an outright lie.

Your selections serve only to prove my theorem.
UncommonSense | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:17 am | #

Next they'll start talking trash about the Iraqi government.
A government that lies is no longer legitimate.
Maude
Maude | 11.24.06 - 10:17 am | #

GG...
"Everything they accuse others of doing -- exploiting national security for domestic political gain, being 'unserious' about war matters, playing games with the mission of the troops -- is what they do as transparently as possible."

Exactly. I think Bush hates us for our freedom. I hate Bush for trying to take my freedom away from me.
druidbros | 11.24.06 - 10:22 am | #

There are very few politicians in Washington, or elsewhere for that matter, who would not use a human's death to further their own political career.

That being said, Bush and the PNAC crowd take it to a higher, more despicable level than anyone. And their sick-ass supporters just lap it up, especially the "pundits."

--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:22 am | #

Glenn said "Why I hate..."
-------------

Your title here plays right into the greasy talking points of the worst elements of the right.

Hate implies irrationality--it's more effective to keep it out of the picture when you're ripping apart their posturing.
Mark | 11.24.06 - 10:23 am | #

As a sign of our narcisism, we think that a country that has almost no electricity and it's citizens have to defend their very lives on a daily basis, would have even a clue as to what goes on thousands of miles away in our country.

Most people who live here who have electricity and access to the media all day long and who are not defending their very existence every day do not know whats going on in this country, let alone a country thousands of miles away.
cathy | 11.24.06 - 10:25 am | #

Another thing is this ... you can just about guarantee that Bush will come out soon and insinuate (or flat out claim) that THIS escalation of violence is a result of Democrats winning on Nov. 7. And no one in the MSM will call him on it.


--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:25 am | #

Bushco is "a little tough" on the terra-ists. Except the one that killed 3000 Amedicans.

BTW, the latest spike in violence is actually part of the War on Christmas.
HeavyJ | 11.24.06 - 10:26 am | #

I humbly disagree with your closing point. The worst thing is all those people, killing and dying, for reasons other than what our corrupt, grasping "leaders" tell us.

Other people are nothing to our sociopathic president. They don't exist except as props. The notion that they have hopes, dreams, and all-too-fragile lives simply doesn't register. I would say they're like chess pieces to him, except that I'm pretty sure he can't play chess worth a damn. Maybe parcheesi pieces or cribbage pegs. Or schoolyard marbles.

Bush and his cohorts have screwed up the Middle East for decades to come, and I fear they're going to get away with it.
filkertom | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:33 am | #

Also a good reason to hate the passive (at best) stenographer corp who call themselves the press.
Justin | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:40 am | #

Two excellent articles have appeared online recently which help illuminate the defective machinery behind the curtain of this administration's lies.

One, by Austin Bramwell in The American Conservative, cited by Digby, details very eloquently what happens to a conservative who tries to talk some sense to the Limbaugh faction.

The other, by Mark Danner, is to be published in the December 21st edition of the New York Review of Books, and has appeared online at TomDispatch.com and in Salon. Called The War of the Imagination, it is the clearest exposition I've seen so far of how the contradictions within the Bush administration managed to turn our entire country into a brutal, purposeless, idiot in just three years of athletic wishful thinking.

The good news is that Glenn has not been alone, that even on the right there are deep misgivings about this dangerous nonsense. Even more encouraging is the possibility that Bush's adventurism may discredit the conventional wisdom of America's latter-day mission of manifest destiny altogether.

The bad news, of course, is that GWB and his enablers are without shame. If we want them to stop, we're going to have to be the ones to stop them.
William Timberman | 11.24.06 - 10:42 am | #

Some posters here wish Glenn wouldn't say "hate." How about loathe, despise, contemn, . . .

Personally, I don't think Glenn should be explaining why he hates the Bush administration. Maybe hate is this year's "love that dare not speak its name." I'm sure there are millions of cold and timid souls who just can't admit to themselves that the loathesome person they see on the news is really President of the United States. The burden of proof should be on them -- how can you NOT hate the Bush administration?

I'm proud to say that the first time I saw Bush as presidential prospect, in 1999, I instantly despised the man. (I'm told that among us children of mean drunks, instant and accurate assessment of disordered personalities is a survival skill; in any event, I've learned to listen to my instincts. I'm rarely wrong.) I sent money to McCain during the GOP primaries; my first political contributions ever. I can't think of anything I've learned since that has made me doubt that initial gut reaction.
Stuart Eugene Thiel | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:45 am | #

As I've said before...I don't hate Dubya *beyond all reason* - I only HATE him Within All Reasons...as there are SOOOoooo Many to Choose from.

This is (IS) the most despicable, horrid, evil, despostic, lying regime of a Government ever suffered by the American public in decades. But I do Believe we WILL get through it and beyond it and BACK to the values so many of us Cherished before they were tatnished and defaced by the bAdmin.

(And I'm only sorry good Ole Ted Olsen wasn't literally *with* his wife at the end...since I hold him partially responsible for much of this Horror and Unconstitutionalism he argued for in the first place.)
KarenMcL | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:47 am | #

The most dangerous men in the world are men who believe their own bullshit. That is the Bush Administration in a nut shell. They want their position to be true so badly they put out one piece of B.S. after another hoping the next one turns out to justify their actions. It is not so much that they are lying to us as it is they are lying to themselves.
People who lie to you are less dangerous than these guys because they know what the truth is. These guys have long since lost their grasp on the truth.
Dan | 11.24.06 - 10:50 am | #

"All the increased violence in Iraq was just about the midterm election, not a sign of a spiraling civil war.

Once the elections are over, it will all subside, because it's only about that."

No one made any such claims. No one said "All" the increased violence was about the election. And no said, "it will all subside".

Furthermore, it is beyond contention that the terrorists were happy the Democrats won. Many of them said so explicitly - whereas I have not seen a single quote of a terrorist leader lamenting the Republican loss.

This post reeks of desperation to find something else to condemn the Bush administration.
Michael Smith | 11.24.06 - 10:55 am | #

Your title here plays right into the greasy talking points of the worst elements of the right.

I don't write for strategic purposes or based on how it will affect the "right." I write what I think. And I think that the Bush administration and their followers are completely devoid of any integrity and are willing to lie without limits in the most destructive ways. That is contemptuous, and I have no reason not to say so.

I don't think I engaged in some emotional, irrational rant. I documented what the basis is for my statements. The idea that our political dialogue has to be free of passion or even strong emotion is not one I accept. I am not David Broder and I'm not trying to be.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.24.06 - 10:55 am | #

Hate implies irrationality--it's more effective to keep it out of the picture when you're ripping apart their posturing.

No, actually, hate does not imply irrationality. I would say that an absence of hatred in the face of this conduct is what is irrational.

I'm not sure where the idea emerged that the only way to be "rational" is to be free of strong emotions - either be Mr. Spock or some out-of-control hysteric. I don't agree with that. I think rational assessments can lead to strong emotions - including hatred - and I documented why I think it's just in this case.

I didn't say I harbor hatred for any particular indiviudals, only for the political movement and the tactics it uses. Why would I possibly go out of my way to refrain from saying so?
Glenn Greenwald | 11.24.06 - 10:57 am | #

Glenn: I am not David Broder and I'm not trying to be.

1) You've succeeded admirably in not being DB.

2) Thank God.

3) Thank you also.
William Timberman | 11.24.06 - 11:00 am | #

Furthermore, it is beyond contention that the terrorists were happy the Democrats won. Many of them said so explicitly

Right. Because if a Terrorist says something, it is true.

It's the Baghdad Bob foreign policy - listen to the boastful rantings of thugish lunatics and take them to be literally true and then act accordingly.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.24.06 - 11:00 am | #

Stuart:

Well said. Very well said.
William Timberman | 11.24.06 - 11:02 am | #

This is refreshing to see Glenn actually reveal explicitly his feelings about the Bush administration. Very often he has used stinging criticism of their actions, and the implication of his personal opinion is there, but here we have it spelled out, with an explicit case of why.

I'm waiting for the first use of the term "Bush Hatred Syndrome" or some such, but Glenn's hatred (like ours) is based on very rational premises. We're hating the sinner for his sins.

He will go down as the President who accomplished nothing worthy. The Anti-midas.

I'm tempted to compare Nixon favourably to the guy, and I'm having a hard time believing anyone could be worse than that pathological scumbag.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 11:03 am | #

No one made any such claims. No one said "All" the increased violence was about the election. And no said, "it will all subside".

Furthermore, it is beyond contention that the terrorists were happy the Democrats won. Many of them said so explicitly - whereas I have not seen a single quote of a terrorist leader lamenting the Republican loss.

Uhh, if the upswing in violence is attributed to an attempt to sway the election, then it necessarily implies the violence will subside after it. No one has to say "sales will go down after Christmas" explicitly, but we know they will because sales went up because of Christmas.

Just because you say "it is beyond contention" doesn't make it so.

One can easily posit that the "terrorists" make any such statements as part of propogandic exercises or counter-intelligence mind-fuckery. They could just be lies. Or some could honestly believe they have a better chance with the democrats.

If so, so what? Does a terrorist's beliefs about which party will aid his cause more convince you that is so? If the terrorists did advocate voting Republican, am I to believe you'd vote for Democrats?

You know, Republicans whine about every picture of a dead baby or screaming mother from their many unnecessary wars as part of organized propoganda campaigns by America's enemies. So we know that you believe the enemy is sophisticated enough to use deceptive tactics to manipulate public opinion. So is it so beyond the reach of your imagination that terrorists would say they support democrats in order to actually support the Republicans?

Note, I don't say they're doing that, becuase I don't know and I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to pretend I'm sure what the terrorists prefer and to say the opposite of that must be the best answer.

Your arguments are vacuous, specious and flagrantly dishonest, sir. You should be ashamed to base your positions on such crumbling mediocrity and obvious falsehood. That's the worst part in this, I know you can't possibly be dumb enough to believe these positions, yet we have to play this game because your true reasons for supporting Republicans are something else.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 11:14 am | #

Glenn, you overlooked the obvious! The post US election violence is not the continuation of the pre-election violence, which was intended to influence our elections. The pre-election campaign was a big success, and has been retired. It's success emboldened them to think even bigger.

What we've been seeing since our election is a new campaign altogether. Like our own politicians, since the election they've begun their next campaign, influencing our 2008 election! The increased violence in these early stages of that campaign is obviously aimed at influencing the pre-primary selection of potential Presidential candidates.

I can only assume that over the next two years they will continue stepping up their level of violence, specifically to send a message to American voters. It's important to remember that no matter how much the level of violence continues escalating, the reasons behind it are to influence American voters in 2008. It has nothing to do with internal Iraqi issues, and most assuredly does not indicate civil war has broken out. We must continue standing strong and fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here!
stvwlf | 11.24.06 - 11:17 am | #

Glenn, you overlooked the obvious! The post US election violence is not the continuation of the pre-election violence, which was intended to influence our elections. The pre-election campaign was a big success, and has been retired. It's success emboldened them to think even bigger.

Also, remember that the insurgents/Terrorists are angry because they favored Jack Murtha over Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader, so a lot of this has to do with retribution over that.

Plus, they really want Alcee Hastings as Intelligence Chair instead of Jane Harman and a lot of this is about influencing Pelosi's choice - by making violence in Iraq really bad, she's more inclined to select the anti-war Hastings over the pro-war Harman.

And it's also important that they position themselves for the 2008 primaries, which are right around the corner. So a lot of the violence in Anbar and in the Baghdad suburbs is probably an effort to get Barack Obama into the race, whom the insurgents really like, as the anti-Hillary.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.24.06 - 11:21 am | #

Michael Smith, you are a bloodthirsty craven idiot and I hate you. There I feel better all ready...
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 11:23 am | #

I think that it is a big mistake to assume that the freedom fighters/insurgents/would be dictators in Iraq are unaware of the elections in the US, and are unwilling to try to influence it.

As is often the case in war, wanting to influence something, and being able to influence something are two different things. The success of those fighting the US in Iraq in manipulating the elections seems to be minimal. Events on the ground – the growing civil war – seem to be overtaking everything else.

In the conversations I've had with Muslims, the consensus view is that Bush and Bin Laden need each other. I think that it was Emanuel Goldstein that served the same purpose in 1984 as Bin Laden does today.

That leads to the second point. It is not clear who is being favoured. Probably different factions would potentially favour different candidates. Those who want the US to go away so they can try to piece together their shattered lives might favour a Democratic government who seems to be somewhat more likely to try to negotiate peace.

Those interested in defeating the Christian and Jewish devils in a holy Muslim crusade might prefer a Republican government. In order to further the crusade a visible threatening evil enemy is necessary. An enemy who actually tries to make peace is the last thing desired for a crusade. Those terrorists who support the Republican government would need to appeal to their base – a base that probably does not support the Republican government, and at some level does not want their sons and daughters murdered. Under such circumstances, one can not take at face value any declaration of support by terrorists for an American political party.

That leads to a third point – it is extremely unclear what action those on the ground in Iraq could do to swing an election one way or another. The Republican Party would claim a decrease in violence means their plan is working and you should support them, just as they have claimed that an increase in violence means that the resistance wants the Democrats to win.

As far as the Republican party engaging in actions – effectively the same actions they accuse the Iraqi resistance of using to try to manipulate the elections: Welcome to democracy. All democratic parties engage in hypocritical manipulation in order to try to portray themselves in a good light – especially just before an election. I would like to think that what the Republicans are doing is above and beyond the call of duty, but I am not at all sure that it is.

The classical method has been massive financial give aways just before an election. In Canada it is known as an Election Budget. This is not that much different – except for the large number of dead bodies it generates. Rather than give always, the coin is fear. The phrase "Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" – or it is "The Corrupt seek power, and the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power"… never mind.

That there seems to be little commentary in the MSM other than the Republican Party line seems to provide little hope that the number of dead Iraqis and the amount of hatred for all Americans, and Muslim support for Bin Laden will lessen in the near future.
edwin | 11.24.06 - 11:27 am | #

From Michael Smith 10:55 am:

This post reeks of desperation to find something else to condemn the Bush administration.

That virtually implies there are a multitude of reasons to actively hate the current Administration, doesn't it?

Let's be honest here: this collection of clowns has yet to do anything even remotely praiseworthy or worthwhile. They've managed to break our army, drain our moral authority, destroy our international standing, and left our country more vulnerable than any other point in history this side of July 4, 1776.

Shall we go on to discuss the current fiscal and trade deficits? The growing disparities in wages between income groups?

In the meantime, perhaps you should appraise yourself of the vacuousness of your crowd these days. Bramwell's recent article would be a start:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/200...1_20/ cover.html
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.24.06 - 11:28 am | #

There are very few politicians in Washington, or elsewhere for that matter, who would not use a human's death to further their own political career.

I dislike this level of cynicism about elected leaders. It isn't warranted, and impossible to prove.

There is a certain amount of righteous skepiticism to which we should direct at politicians, but the outright assumption of malfeasance of all is destructive.

To those that wonder where all the JFK's, RFK's and other inspiring idealists, I counter: They likely exist, but nowadays we just assume they are all lying and trying to exploit us with rhetoric we assume they don't believe.

Glenn did write about this somewhat, when he discussed the morally empty pundits who believe in nothing and therefore assume that all the politicians they discuss feel the same, which leads them to believe Feingold's censure resolution is only a cynical move to position himself for 2008 and whatnot.

Not everyone is machiavellian, and the belief they all are is only helpful to the most sociopathic candidates, ie. the current Republican party.

After all, if one believes "they're all crooks" then you may as well vote for the party that will lower your taxes. Belief in the greater good, and societal betterment requires believing in decent and respectable leaders who are for the most part honest and good.

The lens of exploitive greedy and selfishness through which we have become accustomed to viewing all politicians is as bad or worse than the naive and overly trusting lens we had viewed them in the past.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 11:40 am | #

On a serious note, what you're pointing out in your post is so blatantly obvious, except to mouth breathing cretinous true believing morons like Michael Smith, that even the anesthetized and propagandized American electorate recognized it for the pure fabricated bullshit it was and put the Democrats in control of BOTH houses of Congress. Let the senile drooling draft dodger Cheney and the increasingly dazed 'boy president' keep this line up and the Republicans will fulfill my greatest dream of being the Whigs of the 21st Century! Facile tools like Smith can parade their mendacity for all to see but that dog don't hunt anymore. They are doing the 'reality based' community a service by illustrating the depth of immorality they will sink to in an attempt to prop up their failed dreams of the New American Century. Too bad 300,000 Iraqis have died because of this 'therapeutic violence.' These people are a bloody stain on our great nation and we will be paying a steep price for their sins for many years to come.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 11:43 am | #

A well done article and right on. These neo-cons are now more dangerous than ever as the leadership of the Democrats are bought and paid for just as the Republicans are, this Democrat vs. Republican false matrix of politics as if they really are against each other has grown old to many people out here where us peasants live.
Gabe Gabriel | 11.24.06 - 11:47 am | #

The cited statements about violence in Iraq increasing because of the freedom fighters wish to see the Democrats get control of Congress is just one more proof --- as if we needed any more --- that for the Bush regime politics reign supreme. There are no national interests, only the personal interests of politics resulting in power and wealth which rulers can gain by manipulating everything against their opponents. Notice, the repugnants die not say we are doing very well in Iraq, they did not address the obvious matter of concern that, even if the election was the motive for the violence, the freedom fighters are factually capable of increasing the violence in Iraq at will. No, they made a false, spiteful accusation against Democrats, implying the repugnants are above criticism.

Dick Cheney is cracked.
Quentin | 11.24.06 - 11:48 am | #

Hate implies irrationality. . . .
Mark

A baseless assumption. Hate and rage are only irrational when directed at a surrogate. (See Arendt.) Is Bush a surrogate for Bush? No. So hatred of him is not irrational.
Baldie McEagle | 11.24.06 - 11:49 am | #

I think your hate is well founded. A few more examples of their un-American behavior:

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday. "That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."

MILWAUKEE - Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Democratic leaders aren't doing enough to fight terrorism and said Americans must "reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies."

Speaking of Democrats, Boehner told reporters, "I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.

"The House Democrat Leader does not understand that our fight for freedom does not just happen on the battlefield but also on the floor of the House of Representatives. It should come as no surprise that the Democrats in the House put their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America." - Denny Hastert

Democrats Would Let Terrorists Free - RNC headline

In an interview with North Dakota radio host Scott Hennen, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that “it would be logical” that terrorist groups are ramping up violence in Iraq and elsewhere to give liberals a boost in November’s election.

Early voters in the heart of the heated race to succeed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay were greeted Wednesday with red and white signs that read: "Want more illegals? Vote Democrat" and "Encourage Terrorists. Vote Democrat."

Bush listed several key anti-terrorism measures opposed by Democrats, noting that when it came to eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, detaining them or trying them, members of that party "just say no."

Democrats "must think it's OK to respond after we're attacked. I believe we've got to do everything to prevent the attacks in the first place," Mr. Bush told 5,000 cheering supporters packed into a regional park building in this small town 60 miles north of Denver.

BECK: And the Republican -- Democratic Party has not seemed to me to give anything to vote for. They've had a lot to vote against. Are they repeating the same tactics that they have done for the last couple of elections?

SNOW: Yeah, I mean, you know, I guess you could call them the party of hecklers this year. Yeah, it's interesting, because here you've got key issues. You've got the war in Iraq and the larger war on terror, and every time the president proposes something, they say, "No, we don't want to do that. We don't want to pay for the war. We don't want the Patriot Act. We don't want the terrorist surveillance. We don't want military commissions. But, by golly, we can do it better."

This post reeks of desperation to find something else to condemn the Bush administration.
Michael Smith

Heh.
Baldie McEagle | 11.24.06 - 11:52 am | #

Glenn said: "I'm not sure where the idea emerged that the only way to be "rational" is to be free of strong emotions - either be Mr. Spock or some out-of-control hysteric."
---------------
I'm not sure either; I certainly never said nor implied it.

Passion yes. Hatred no.

What I'm saying is if you truly hate someone--if you're proud of the fact and enjoy and revel in it--then your credibility in criticizing them plummets. There's always a sacrifice to be made for giving in to ones worst impulses.

Just my opinion, but I think it's extremely important to have a credible Glenn Greenwald fighting these battles that you fight so well.
Mark | 11.24.06 - 11:52 am | #

Mark-these guys have caused the deaths of 100s of thousands of living breathing human beings, the great majority of whom were non-combatants. If you'd rather passionately disagree with their policies than hate them that is your right. Me I'm with Glenn. I hate them. And I don't think that undermines my position because they've earned my hatred. Heck sometimes I still dream of digging up Nixon just so I can punch him in the nose...
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:03 pm | #

Okay, here's THE THING about the whole meme they're trying to create is that it simply doesn't make sense to any reasonable person.

If we take it as an assumption that the Republicans are "the party of adults", and that they are "strong on security" and will "protect Americans", then surely any uptick in violence will drive voters to the Republicans as they are the ones who will "protect" them. That's been the whole Republican game: "They are violent, we will protect you." And the "terrorists" know that the American public, a large proportion of them, are ruled by fear, and violence will make them more fearful, and so vote Republican (so the "logic" goes).

Why have the Republicans gone off this message?

Mostly, it's just to be able to put "Democrat" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.

Guaranteed, if the violence level had gone DOWN, the Republicans would have claimed credit for their policies and said that's why people should vote (R).

Of course, the corollary is that if the violence goes UP (which it did and is doing), then that would logically expose the Republicans for being mistaken and incompetent. But logic has nothing to do with. If the violence level goes down, Republicans are great, if the violence level goes up, Democrats are bad.

These guys wiggling around like rats in a trap. Nothing they say (or do) makes any coherent sense whatsoever, except when viewed as a way to keep power.
Hairhead | 11.24.06 - 12:11 pm | #

Mark,

There's fine line, but I for one resent seeing people I respect, who have done an excellent job cataloguing the faults of the Bush administration, then turn around and say "bush is a decent enough guy" or some such.

At a certain point, the rational and human thing to do is to hate these people. To hate what they have done and what they represent.

We can forgive a certain amount of wrong behaviour and bad policy decisions and still see the person as basically decent with their heart in the right place. I don't see that as being possible with the Bush administration any more.

They personally no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt, because there is no doubt they are actually bad people anymore. It isn't just a disconnected series of bad decisions that come from being badly informed or other forgiveable human flaws.

They. Are. Despicable.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:14 pm | #

Hi Les

Funny you should mention Milhouse--he's a textbook case of how hatred can corrode and destroy its host.

It's a base instinct man, a luxury and an indulgence that invariably costs too much.

Just my view, that's all.
Mark | 11.24.06 - 12:17 pm | #

I hope people will begin calling Hot Talk and asking Scott Hennen of WDAY who represented to Cheney that he had a "Pentagon source that tells me there are websites out there that they've just recently translated that actually refer to the election and ask for an up-tick in violence to try and influence the election" to share the URLs of the websites.
notanumber | 11.24.06 - 12:18 pm | #

It was irrational to hate Hitler? Or Stalin?
lysias | 11.24.06 - 12:20 pm | #

I hate them. There's every reason to hate them. And I'm proud that I hate them. It means I love my country and I hate those who would destroy it - those who ARE destroying it.
r€nato | 11.24.06 - 12:20 pm | #

From Mark at 11:52am:

What I'm saying is if you truly hate someone--if you're proud of the fact and enjoy and revel in it--then your credibility in criticizing them plummets. There's always a sacrifice to be made for giving in to ones worst impulses.

I don't see Glenn or anyone here 'enjoying' or 'reveling' in their expressed hatred of the current Administration or the President. For myself, I find it a truly sad commentary of our country that our highest elected official and his staff have so debased both the Office and our country's ideals that no other emotion is adequate or deserved by the Administration.

One would find it easier to be sympathetic to the stated goals and ideology of Nazi Germany than one does the Bush Administration.

Just my opinion, but I think it's extremely important to have a credible Glenn Greenwald fighting these battles that you fight so well.

If anything, the fact Glenn and others are up front about their hatred and the reasons for it vastly improve their creditability; at the very least they're honest there. Its the weasels at the Nation Review and other bastions of 'conservativism', anxious as they are now to dump Bush now that he's damaged goods, who have shown an utter lack of creditability.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.24.06 - 12:23 pm | #

i've said it before, i'll say it again

fuck the GOP, it's apologists, and enablers

it's not that your conservative, it's not that your a republican, it's that you allow all the shit that has happened and continue to happen and blame michael moore and teh gays for all the things wrong in the world

warrentless wiretaps are ok, but the wrath is to the people who told us about it
death by torture is ok, but the wrath is to the people who told us about it
war profiteering to the tune of billions is ok, but the wrath is to the people who told us about it
the use of depleted uranium is ok, but the wrath is to the people who told us about it

fuck them all
tofubo | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:25 pm | #

Another example of why Unclaimed Territory has nudged its way onto my already over-populated must read every damned day list.
And good for Glenn to use the "H-word" in his headline here. If an individual is the sum of his actions, and you hate what these folks "have done" to this country, then ergo you hate the individual. Not too strong a word at all. Straight forward and blunt - exactly the kind of language I believe we all wish more Dems would adopt. For ref. look back at the highly charged Dean run in 2004.
These guys have been throwing up such a dense fog of lies for the last 25 years or so that blunt language is our best defense.
skylab | 11.24.06 - 12:26 pm | #

What's so impressive about the terrorists and the insurgents and the Shiites and the Sunnis who yearn so for the inevitable caliphate that will stretch from Spain to Pluto and beyond is that even as they fight amongst themselves, they have time to sit down and figure out how to influence our politics here.
The Heretik | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:27 pm | #

Great post, Glenn.

I, too, thought of Cheney's pre-election statements on the level of violence being related to our elections, when I have picked up newspapers after the election, only to read the violence in Iraq is still increasing.

The insurgents must know that Americans are holding elections again in two years. I won't be surprised if the violence continued to escalate through 2008!

And it's ALL OUR FAULT!
Right Fools | 11.24.06 - 12:30 pm | #

When we generate subpeonas it should be Because THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have a right to know.

When it's a money issue insert"TAXPAYER".

It's time to turn their "frames"
around on them. Don't like oversight?

Why do you people hate the Constitution? Why do you dispise America?

And to quote that great political philosopher, Bruce Lee:

"Not anger, EMOTIONAL CONTENT."
flint | 11.24.06 - 12:33 pm | #

The idea that increased violence would benefit Democrats was insane to start with. Violence produces fear and to paraphrase Yoda, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to voting Republican. (And voting Republican does indeed lead to suffering, if enough people do it.)

Heightened violence can only be an attempt to keep REPUBLICANS in office, because the terrorists are quite satisfied with the incompetence of the enemies they have.

Unless, of course, it has nothing to do with our elections at all and some people are just being arrogant self-involved idiots. Could that be possible?
Chris | 11.24.06 - 12:55 pm | #

Mark, your description of our hate as a base instinct denies the inhumanity of Bush and Cheney's actions. Rather than degrading ones credibility hatred of inhuman people is the proper reaction. I gave up your kind of thinking a long time ago and my politics are more effective for it. The hatred I had for the regime in South Africa inspired me to help bring it down. Nixon was a sociopath. His actions had nothing to do with being a 'hater.' Get down off your high horse. Your continued sniping leads me to believe you aren't really seeking to bolster people taking action against these creeps, you're trying to undermine it.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:59 pm | #

lysias | 11.24.06 - 12:20 pm | #

Lysiais makes a good point here. Would it be wrong or damaging to credibility to harbor hatred of Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot? Of course not. The implication that bearing hatred to such a hateful group as the "movement conservatives" or the Bush regime as a whole, is somehow discrediting does a disservice to the patriotism of the people (here Glenn) who express these views. For someone who loves America and all the things America has traditionally stood for (at least overtly) a group of people that seem to be doing their best to tear down these things deserves nothing more, or less, than hatred.

I hate what Bush and his followers have done to our country, our discourse, or military, and finally our citizens. Who among us is not less than we were in 2000? By any measure my thoughts have become more unhappy on almost a daily basis since the current administration took power in 2000, should I not hate them for that? Shouldn't we all?
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 1:01 pm | #

Thank you Glenn for your continued outstanding work. I read your post regularly. I had been considering making a donation for some time, especially after your post (about two months ago?) requesting support to keep this blog going. Today, I made a donation. Thank you again.

I admit that I, like others, have had a defeatist attitude about overcoming the idiots that are in the Bush administration and the other idiots that are Bush-followers or Bush-apologists. No longer! We can and will get rid of these idiots - and we can and will hold them accountable for their despicable actions.

Thanks Glenn.
Frank Quinn | 11.24.06 - 1:01 pm | #

God, I love this website: Such smart original posts, followed by a high proportion of smart responses with the ongoing contributions of Original Poster. Thanks, Glenn!!!

Like almost everything else that's gone badly the last 6 years, I hold MSM responsible to some degree. I believe that the way they've used the term "Bush-hater" has almost always had a connotation of irrationality. If I was as smart and knowledgeable as many here, I'd have more specific evidence to back this up, but MSM references have always struck me as a way of marginalizing the 'bush-haters' and thereby discrediting any of the arguments the 'haters' may be trying to make, and thereby allowing MSM to remain biased.
gerbear | 11.24.06 - 1:03 pm | #

So gerbear, might we say that Mark's discomfort with the base irrational 'hatred' so rampant in this thread "plays right into the greasy talking points of the worst elements of the right?" Hmmmmmm..... methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:09 pm | #

Fantastic post Glenn.

More even than this administration, I hate the current state of the American Media, who once would have never allowed anyone to make such despicable claims in the run-up to an election. Imagine Walter Crinkite's reaction in the 60's if some politco had made such claims before an election. Those watching would have immediately recognized that the politico had said something WAY out of bounds, and the rest of the media would have made sure this particular slimeball attack died out of the duscourse.

Rupert Murdoch and those like him has changed American Media into the freakshow we now witness on all FOX channels, and his success in getting the rubes to watch has allowed the rest of the media to follow him into the toilet.

Rush Limbaugh and the other rightwing wacknuts have done everything in their power to remove rationality from our poltical discourse, as rationality is the one thing that cancels out their insidious mockery of common sense.

I remember the movie Network, and the frightening direction it foreshadowed in our popular culture. I would never have believed it would actually turn out worse than that movie predicted. But here we are.

There are just enough idiots like Michael Smith out there to allow the vultures like Murdoch to turn our discourse into the freakshow it's become.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:11 pm | #

Another great post and conversation. Got me to thinking about when a man is worth hating. When does he rise to the level that it's worth investing your hate in him?

I've watched Bush closely since he won governorship of my state behind a thug named Rove. I've concluded that he's a small, hollow, man. If you pick him up and shake him, he rattles. His professional life has been spent offering facades--to small oil companies, to a baseball club, to a state, and finally to a hijacked political party.

Sorry, he's just not worth it.
casual observer | 11.24.06 - 1:14 pm | #

Great post, good discusssion;

I'd like to praise the disctinctions made early in the posting by Lou ("what I hate is what's being done in Iraq") and Glenn ("I don't harbour hatred for any particular individual, only the policies etc."). It is much too easy to let the anger that we feel for public men, most of whom none of us have ever been in the same room with, translate into a hatred for the thousands and thousands of people who support them, most of whom we also have never met, and whose lives cannot be reduced to their political beliefs, however odious. The simplifying clarity that hatred seems to bring with its adrenaline is often a distortion. We understand the violence done to the truth when some pundit or AP wire refers to a crowd of angry Palestinians as 'terrorists'. Deplore the policies, judge men by their actions; but I believe that most forms of hatred are corrosive to those who posess them.
quinto | 11.24.06 - 1:16 pm | #

Instead of hating and criticizing America's leaders you should spend more time hating the insurgency's leaders. After all, it's no conincidence that they chose Thanksgiving, the slowest news day in America, to pull off their largest, most cruel attack yet.
Laer | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:26 pm | #

And as a matter of fact, it's actually the Republicans who've done more for the terrorists than anybody else. Al-Quaida have benefitted beyond their wildest imaginings from the idiotic flailings of the Bush administration. Anybody who actually thinks Osama Bin Laden wants anything but more of the same from America has no grasp of the realities of this war.

Dems would have been much more justified in claiming the terrorists wanted the Republicans to retain control. It still would have been slimy, but more realistic than the claims made by the Bush administration otherwise.

The fact is we can't make any realistic assumptions based on the claims the terrorists make in the media for propaganda purposes. If they claim they want one party to win, it's a far more realsitic assumption that they really want the opposite to happen. Are the Republicans like Michael Smith dumb enough to assume the terrorists would give their real opinions to the media, thinking Americans would take advice from them?

The facts are that Bush policies have benefitted the terrorists beyond their wildest dreams. The best assumption would be they want more of the same. The last thing they want is America to start behaving rationally to the terrorist threat. A Republican victory would have guaranteed more of the irrational flailings that have marked Republican terrorism policy so far.

I hope the Dems start to use their brains for policy decisions, instead of the guts Bush uses to create the fingerpaint policy he so favors.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:29 pm | #

"hey chose Thanksgiving, the slowest news day in America, to pull off their largest, most cruel attack yet."

They watch american politics so closely they failed to notice the midterms concluded weeks before Thanksgiving.
Semanticleo | 11.24.06 - 1:30 pm | #

Laer | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:26 pm | #

One problem with your construct here. This latest and "largest, most cruel attack yet," has like most of the insurgent attacks killed mainly Iraqis. Unfortunate though this may be it doesn't affect America or Americans more than it affects the Iraqis. The policies and irrational, irresponsible rhetoric of "movement concervatism" affect MY life, MY country every day. Most often to the negative. Yes I agree that the insurgents are hateful, despicable people that kill innocents, but they cannot destroy America, only America can.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 1:31 pm | #

Shiites burn six Sunni worshippers alive
QAIS AL-BASHIR
Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

The savage revenge attack for Thursday's slaying of 215 people in the Shiite Sadr City slum occurred as members of the Mahdi Army militia burned four mosques, and several homes while killing an unknown number of Sunni residents in the once-mixed Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad.

Gunmen loyal to radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr began taking over the neighborhood this summer and most of its Sunni residents already had fled.

Hey it's OK. Those Shiite militiamen were only celebrating Nancy Pelosi's promotion to Speaker of the House. That's because everything that happens in the Middle East is really about American politics. In fact, everything that happens everywhere is really about American politics! Aucune dehors American politics!

Is this what it's like to be a postmodernist? Or is this what it's like to be a GOP troll hunched over their computer munching Cheetos?
Is there a difference?
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 1:32 pm | #

Is there a difference?
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 1:32 pm | #

Yes, postmodernsists probably know what to believe before Rush tells them, GOP trolls don't.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 1:34 pm | #

I Wrote:

There are very few politicians in Washington, or elsewhere for that matter, who would not use a human's death to further their own political career.

Dan D. wrote:

I dislike this level of cynicism about elected leaders. It isn't warranted, and impossible to prove.

There is a certain amount of righteous skepiticism to which we should direct at politicians, but the outright assumption of malfeasance of all is destructive.

Not all, just most. And romantacism aside, I believe it's idealist in itself to look back at JFK and RFK as great idealists.

I do concede your point, however - to a point. Being hopeful is good, but we pay these people - in a variety of ways. At this point, I consider them all criminals until proven otherwise.

Things have ben too good, too long in the U.S. for anyone to come along that has true strong feelings of service. I really believe that the vast majority of those that get involved in politics do so to enrich themselves, or at least, they eventually turn that way after a career of service.

Honestly, I think the system is more or less broken, and I think the best and the brightest of Americans wouldn't get involved in the sleazy, horrifyingly corrupt world of national politics if someone had a gun to their kids' head.

Personally, I think politicians need to be held to higher standards then the average citizen. I think they should be punished fiercely for their misdeeds.

As this will never happen, I think the most likely way we'll see real leaders arise is if the nation goes into a depression or something of the sort.

It's not so much that I oppose your line of thinking, mind you. It's more that I see the term "defeatist" more as "realist."

--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:34 pm | #

I've been extremely angry at Bush and the right wing over the past five years.

I think it's a good exercise to examine the causes of that anger, and to do what I can to free myself from it.

I too loathe George Bush and his supporters. I loathe the superstition and the materialistic attitudes that parade as righteousness.

To the extent that I hate Bush and his followers (and I think I do hate them), I am unhappy with my spiritual development.
Nick | 11.24.06 - 1:39 pm | #

postmodernists probably know what to believe before Rush tells them, GOP trolls don't.

I stand corrected. But it does say something about American self-absorption that some of us can interpret everything from terrorist attacks to tectonic plate shifts in terms of Who's Gonna Win The Next Election.

But then Ptolemy(fl. 120 CE)was right, wasn't he? America really is the center of the universe.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 1:42 pm | #

quinto,

I agree. These folks are clearly guilty of every despicable crime against public discourse which Glenn accuses them of. If the use of the term hatred is a purely metaphorical one, it's hard to disagree that it's appropriate, in the sense that hatred indicates the ultimate rejection of behavior which itself is grossly manipulative in emotional terms.

Still, in its literal sense, hatred is a self-indulgence which no one can afford, even leaving aside the corrosive effect it has not only on the one who nurtures it in himself, but also on those of good will who are forced to bear witness to it.
William Timberman | 11.24.06 - 1:49 pm | #

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry (head of Operation Rescue*) - Fort Wayne, Ind., 8/16/93)

*- Operation Rescue is a pro-life group founded by Randall Terry in the late 1980s.

All this talkin' 'bout hate made me think of this quote. Somewhat OT but I coudln't resist.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 1:55 pm | #

After all, it's no conincidence that they chose Thanksgiving, the slowest news day in America, to pull off their largest, most cruel attack yet.

I get it!
If we celebrate Thanksgiving, the terrorists win!
And oh yes, if we hold free elections they also win.

All these years I've been suspecting that there's something wrong with holding free elections and celebrating Thanksgiving. Now I know.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 1:59 pm | #

After all, it's no conincidence that they chose Thanksgiving, the slowest news day in America, to pull off their largest, most cruel attack yet.
Laer | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:26 pm | #

This is a joke right? Like this:

Terrorist #1: So it's agreed; we strike on November 23.
Terrorist #2: Why the 23rd?
#1: It's Thanksgiving in America, you lunkhead.
#2: I don't get it. What is this "Thanksgiving"?
Terrorist #3: It's a day of 'giving thanks' to a higher power for the bounty of the year's harvest.
#2: A-ha! I get it now! The Americans will reap a 'harvest' of blood! Ha ha-ha-ha!
#1: No, you idiot. Thanksgiving is a 'slow news day'. It's our chance to get on the tee vee.
Adam C | 11.24.06 - 2:06 pm | #

Yes the terrorsts intentionally picked the day when we'd all be transfixed in front of the television watching giant, gas-filled cartoon characters (insted of only the 30 million of us that watch Rush Limbaugh) to commence with their bloodiest attack yet.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 2:07 pm | #

The wisest policy after 9/11 would have been to diminish Al-Quaida in the eyes of the world by not over-reacting to the threat they posed. Al-Quaida never have been more than a modest threat to the world, certainly nothing near the threat posed by the USSR, or any country with an actual military.

A real leader would have made sure we didn't grant Osama's wishes to be designated the Greatest Threat to America in Its History. Bush did more to give power to OBL and Al-Quaida than anything they could have done for themselves.

Of course that was Cheney and PNAC's vision, that a Real Threat could be manufactured to scare Americans into letting the Neocons play their hand. So instead of a rational terrorism policy, where we would have concentrated on securing borders and ports etc, and sent the best elements of our Intellignece Services to the task of catching OBL, we did everything possible to make Osama's dreams for America come true than.

Think about what Osama would want for us. We now have less of the freedom they supposedly hate, so that's a win for them. We designated OBL, Great Leader of Islam, instead of making him out to be a punkass thug--another big win for the terrorists. We created a quagmire in Iraq, so anyone who wants to kill Americans has a place to go do so--Osama's biggest wish. We now have far more people who do in fact want to kill Americans, so Osama wins there too. I could go on and on.

Bush gave the terrorists almost everything they could have dreamed of.

A serious leader would have done things very differently.

World opinion at the time would have allowed us carte blanche in asking other countries to help bring Al-Quaida down. If we'd maintained the moral high ground, Al-Quaida's recruitment strategies would have been severely diminished, and we would have been in a position to use the power to threaten that the 1st Gulf War created for America (in the eyes of the world,) to frighten even Iran away from harboring terrorists. Here again I could go on and on about wise policy decisions we could have made. Now it's too late, and our options are limited by Bush's ridiculous choices.

It might be Bush's greatest sin against America that he very nearly destroyed our military--to the point where we no longer have the capabiltiy of threatening another country and being taken seriously. Bush has managed to do so much damge to our military that we now don't even have the capability of responding to a real threat to our security, should one appear. Everything that Bush 41 accomplished in the 1st Gulf War was undone by the boy-king. Thank god Americans now realize Democrats are more caopable of running the military and the GWOT than Republicans. (At least these Republicans--the FOXNews/Rush Limbaugh/Bart/Scooter/ chickenhawk variety) This alone should get him impeached. It certainly will make him History's Biggest Idiot POTUS.

There are so many ways in which a smart leader could have responded that would have steered us away from the Worst Foreign Policy Disaster in American History, that by now it should be obvious to everyone that we need to change our course in the GWOT entirely. Of course we now will be stuck with the damage Bush has done, and we will never be able to go back to the way things might have been, but we certainly can start to cut our losses.

It's almost impossible to have made worse decisions than Bush made in the aftermath of 9/11. Unless you count starting a "nukular" war on the rest of mankind. But Bush has 2 years left, so don't count it out.

God I hate these assholes.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:07 pm | #

Bush Derangement Syndrome, personified. You are SUCH a twit, Greenwald.
Buck | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:11 pm | #

Instead of hating and criticizing America's leaders you should spend more time hating the insurgency's leaders.
Laer


This has been our policy all the way. If we want to have any hope of retaining control, we have to force Americans to keep up this attitude. As long as we keep Americans focused on hating terrorists, they'll never be able to focus their energy on ousting our stupd asses.

Keep up the campaign there laer.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:14 pm | #

re: "After all, it's no conincidence that they chose Thanksgiving..."
--------

They hate us for our turkeys?

Guess it makes as much sense as all the other reasons for the war.
Mark | 11.24.06 - 2:17 pm | #

Still, in its literal sense, hatred is a self-indulgence which no one can afford, even leaving aside the corrosive effect it has not only on the one who nurtures it in himself, but also on those of good will who are forced to bear witness to it.
William Timberman

Of course you are right in this.

You are the conscience of UT.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:20 pm | #

You're all wrong.It's not the elections or Thanksgiving driving the violence in Iraq.My sources inform me that the increased carnage is an attempt to influence the NCAA football polls.Apparently Iraqis have strong feelings about a Michigan-Ohio State rematch in the BCS.Their confidence is buoyed by their past success in effecting the outcome of American Idol.
AnonE.Mouse | 11.24.06 - 2:21 pm | #

It's official, the entire lot of you have run off the trolley tracks into a huge hate-fest. The unhinging of the left is complete.

As someone else put it, this is irrational at best and certainly not the actions of people that want to lead. Actually, this is pretty much the verbal equivalent of the sectrarian violence in Iraq.

If you are going to hate anyone that speculated increasing violence was due to Democrat appeasements, then I guess we'll have to hate anyone accusing Bush-Cheney for the Plame leak, or Katrina problems due to Democrat malfeasance.

Happy now? I hope so becasue it seems that winning control of Congress has NOT made you folks any more pleasant, or for that matter more responsible.
This post is representative of Democrat thought for the last six years.... no practical engagement, just naysaying and disassociation.

Let's see how far hate gets you in the real world. You can become the Muslims of the American body politic, attacking all "infidels" who must be hated and disposed of.
shooter242 | 11.24.06 - 2:30 pm | #

Bush Derangement Syndrome, personified. You are SUCH a twit, Greenwald.

The Republicans' entire party platform is nothing but a string of "derangement syndromes". From gays to terrorists to illegal immigrants to Democrats, their whole plan consists of nothing but a never-ending string of boogeymen that can be dragged out and waved in their followers' faces to whip them into a frenzy of fear and hatred and persuade them to stampede to the polls. But when they are actually elected, they are utterly incapable of governing, and the result is this disastrous and bloody quagmire we are now bogged down in. Let's hope that the adults are now back in charge.
Ebonmuse | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:34 pm | #

armagednoutahere:

Now my ears are truly red. I thank you for the kind words, but the truth is that conscience arises out of the community. Alone, we aren't much; fortunately being alone is an illusion. The truth is the truth, however often we need to be reminded of it. In this instance, Glenn has found our voice for us; it does us no dishonor to recognize him for that, but true revelation lies in the recognition that we are many.
William Timberman | 11.24.06 - 2:36 pm | #

No sin at all in hating those who are ruining America.
Bat Guano | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:37 pm | #

>>Let's see how far hate gets you in the real world.

If history is to be believed, that will be 12 years control of Congress.
Marta | 11.24.06 - 2:41 pm | #

"Yes the terrorsts intentionally picked the day when we'd all be transfixed in front of the television watching giant, gas-filled cartoon characters..."

Wait--the primaries haven't started yet, have they?
casual observer | 11.24.06 - 2:44 pm | #

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/200...1_20/ cover.html
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.24.06 - 11:28 am | #

This article is brilliant. Do read it.
ither | 11.24.06 - 3:02 pm | #

This is the same bunch that orchestrated nationwide bogus accusations of voter fraud by Democrats, even as they were pulling all kinds of documented shenanigans all over the country.
Here in Washington State, there are countless clueless Republicans who still believe our present Governor stole the election in '04 because she pursued a recount process clearly outlined by law. But the clueless hordes, who check in with their ocnservative pundits daily to collect the latest talking points, "learned" that because the recount changed the outcome, Gregoire had to have cheated. Yes, they really believe that. And a lot of them are clearly bitter toward the Democrats. Even though every step of the process was overseen by observers of each party, and even though not a single shred of evidence--not a single one-supported their outrageous accusations, Republicans were all over the media landscape, making dark allegations against the "cheating" Dems.
So, now, we have a deeper divide in the state, based on wholly false accusations, courtesy of the local Republicans.
Thanks a lot, assholes.
just driving by | 11.24.06 - 3:03 pm | #

Let's see how far hate gets you in the real world. You can become the Muslims of the American body politic, attacking all "infidels" who must be hated and disposed of.
shooter242 | 11.24.06 - 2:30 pm | #

Whatever made you think we wanted to become what Republicans already are? Maybe its time for one of those famous Dobson change what you are camps, I suspect three or four years won't be enough though.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 3:07 pm | #

hatred is a self-indulgence which no one can afford -- W.T.

Perhaps I have led a charmed life or perhaps because I have felt others' hatred toward me (I'm not the nicest person), I have never really hated anyone. From the first I read of the so-called BDS, I have thought that it had a large projection component.

Don't get me wrong. When I read the headline in my local paper this morning -- cited above by Barton Keyes -- the first thing I thought of was what the hell has the Bush administration been doing to stop this? Bush pardons turkeys, Cheney rumors swirl, parades go on, mall parking lots are full, dingdongs worry about some comic's meltdown. This situation angers me. Bush cultists whine that there's only bad news. They want either happy talk or yet another way to excuse their hateful beliefs and speech.

I wanted to respond to some other commenters -- but I strayed off topic here -- I'll try again in a bit.
michilines | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 3:17 pm | #

In some ways they deserve to be hated because they themselves are so hateful.
clark | 11.24.06 - 3:17 pm | #

Ahmen brotha Glenn

The real irony is that all the talk about terrorists trying to influence elections is pure psyops designed to influence our elections by the U.S. government and then catapulted into the mainstream by the right. They are so good at parroting propaganda.

There is no sin in hating that which is hatable. Let the hate for fascism flow.
Paul XQ previously Paul | 11.24.06 - 3:26 pm | #

crap -- imagine a closed tag there, please -- my apologies.
michilines | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 3:29 pm | #

To those that believe we are suffering "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - please list all the great accomplishments of the Bush Administration to which we never give any credit for, thus demonstrating our irrational and unbalanced opinions of them.

I will provide ample space for you to list them here: []

Thank you.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 3:35 pm | #

just driving by,

Oh yeah, you mean all the dead voters who they always seem to [i]know[/i] voted Democratic. I mean, if a person is dead, and someone has impersonated them at the polls because their name is still on the voters list, then it must have been democrats doing it right?

It's a chain of reason so strong so as to be almost a truism. Because it's impossible Republicans might ever engage in such tactics.

It's all part of the muddy-waters strategy. Mention florida in 2000, and they counter with Illinois in 1960, as if that someone proves anything.

And mention Diebold problems, and they'll counter with these never proven claims of dead voters voting.

To which I always wonder: At least we know the CEO of Diebold is a Republican, quoted as promising Ohio's votes for Bush. At least we know Katherine Harris is a Republican, and so is Jeb Bush. We have motive and opportunity. By what basis are they so sure that the dead-voter fraud is widely used, and predominantly or solely used by democrats? Seems just as likely both parties would engage in like mad, or that, of course Republicans do it and simply project onto Democrats.

Not only does it muddy the waters of debate, but it also provides justification in the minds of republican voters for instances where the Republicans are actually caught engaging in electoral fraud - they're just forced to counteract all the democratic fraud!
Dan D | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 3:41 pm | #

Keep in mind what Glenn actually wrote: I hate, rather than dislike, the Bush movement.
He's very careful with words, and he usually means both exactly and only what he says.

Buck | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:11 pm | # and shooter242 | 11.24.06 - 2:30 pm | # are intent on misrepresenting what he said, and shifting the entire comments thread to reflect their interpretations of his words.

At least once a week, even without reading political blogs, I encounter some public excrescence of the "Bush movement" that provokes a mild, passing frisson of rage. Last week, it was finding that a radio station I used to listen to had switched format to RW talk and Fox radio News without any prior announcement to their listenership. This week, I had the opportunity to listen to a relative pontificate after Thanksgiving dinner about how social liberalism is damaging America. He was quoting from that morning's sermon, at the Catholic church he attended much less frequently when he was still young enough to misbehave. Since I've been around long enough to have seen (and remember) his life's trajectory I can't take his current rightwing piety as seriously as he does. His present righteousness coincides too closely with the end of his youth, and his ability to enjoy most of the wrongful acts he now speaks against. (and yes he did enjoy quite a few of them.)
I can't equate these reactions with hatred. When the anger becomes too great I usually make some sort of commitment to work for the "other side" -- the side of civic duty, community, the real America, rather than the flag-wrapped cardboard image these sorryassed jokers love to present as apple-pie true.
That my anger doesn't rise to a pitch of hatred is likely not all that good a thing, however. I believe it is probably right to hate this cultlike political movement.
Fluffy | 11.24.06 - 3:49 pm | #

Don't forget Mark Steyn, who wrote this in his Chicago Sun-Times column right after the election:

They reasoned that if you could subject Americans to the drip-drip-drip of remorseless water torture in the deserts of Mesopotamia -- a couple of deaths here, a market bombing there, cars burning, smoke over the city on the evening news, day after day after day, and ratcheted up a notch or two for the weeks before the election -- you could grind down enough of the electorate and persuade them to vote like Spaniards, without even realizing it.
Nathan | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 3:53 pm | #

I have to say that this corresponds to my general perception of how the US media perceives any international event. It's not just viewed through the prism of "so how does this affect the US?" - which would be rational if parochial - there's the basic assumption that every event is intended to *influence* the US, as if everything anybody anywhere did or said was done with the intent of having some influence on the US, because, well, what else matters? Who else is listening?

So whenever there's a statement by the Iranian government, say, it's evaluated as if it was aimed at the US public, as opposed to, oh, I don't know, being for Iranians and perhaps in some lesser part the population of the Middle East. The idea that people may be saying things for the benefit of those around them and not actually give two hoots what Americans think is just... unthinkable!

In this context, Cheney et al playing up to it is just what you'd expect. If they *didn't* they would be frustrating the expectations of the media and that's not good; you have to give them something they understand.
fridgemagnet | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 4:04 pm | #

It's official, the entire lot of you have run off the trolley tracks into a huge hate-fest. The unhinging of the left is complete.

This is all nonsequitur. Meaningless. But this is what passes for ratioanl thought in your world, so its not surprising you post it unaware of how ridiculous it makes you look.

As someone else put it, this is irrational at best and certainly not the actions of people that want to lead. Actually, this is pretty much the verbal equivalent of the sectrarian violence in Iraq.

You don't even attempt to ground anything you say in reality, or justify saying it with any facts. Just RW propaganda machine white noise. In terms of any actual meaning in your words it would be like saying "this pretty much the verbal equvalent of the Mississippi delta on a Sunday morning, and a goat boy with no arms."

If you are going to hate anyone that speculated increasing violence was due to Democrat appeasements, then I guess we'll have to hate anyone accusing Bush-Cheney for the Plame leak, or Katrina problems due to Democrat malfeasance.

More claims with no reasons for there being made. Just blind loyalty to your cult. This is nonsensical blather. By your logic I guess we'll also now have to hate everyone who said the fruitbats love the weather.

Happy now? I hope so becasue it seems that winning control of Congress has NOT made you folks any more pleasant, or for that matter more responsible.
This post is representative of Democrat thought for the last six years.... no practical engagement, just naysaying and disassociation.

By "more pleasant" you mean "more willing to say ridiculous things like I say," and by "more responsible" you just mean "less responsibe." By "no practical engagement" you don't mean anything, and by "naysaying and disassociation" you mean "telling the truth about Bush."

Let's see how far hate gets you in the real world. You can become the Muslims of the American body politic, attacking all "infidels" who must be hated and disposed of.
shooter242

As has been pointed out many times, this is simply Republican doctrine, now projected onto your enemies as a fault. And you have no sense of irony in saying things like this. It's you RW cultists who've made your whole platform the hating of one enemy after another. You make no distinction between the terrorists who must be hated and defeated, and you poltical opponents who are exactly like the terrorists and must be treated the same way. Nevermind that the groups you hate now compose the vast majority of Americans. Between gays, immigrants, liberals, democrats, minorities, and anybody else who disagrees with Rush Limbaugh and you his loyal dittoheads, you hate more than 2/3 of the American population. And of the third or less you don't hate utterly, most of them don't agree with you far right wacko extremists who repeat whatever you're told by FOXNews.


You forgot to put in a "heh" anywhere at all in this post, however inappropriately. You're slipping.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 4:04 pm | #

From shooter242 at 2:30pm:

It's official, the entire lot of you have run off the trolley tracks into a huge hate-fest. The unhinging of the left is complete.

This is only the third or fourth time you've stated this. Must be tiring, being wrong all the time.

As someone else put it, this is irrational at best and certainly not the actions of people that want to lead. Actually, this is pretty much the verbal equivalent of the sectrarian violence in Iraq.

An insulting and ignorant position to take, but not unexpected from someone who has never been under fire in combat nor capable of understanding the world beyond the myths his tribal shamans tell.

If you are going to hate anyone that speculated increasing violence was due to Democrat appeasements, then I guess we'll have to hate anyone accusing Bush-Cheney for the Plame leak, or Katrina problems due to Democrat malfeasance.

Considering it was the White House who leaked information about Mrs. Wilson's NOC, and the fact it is the Republicans who have shown they have no capacity to run anything never mind a government? As to the ongoing violence in Iraq, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the history of the region before blaming anyone.

Happy now?

Not until your head is on a platter, no.

I hope so becasue it seems that winning control of Congress has NOT made you folks any more pleasant, or for that matter more responsible.

I'd call this 'damming with faint praise' coming from you, unpleasant little creature that you are.

This post is representative of Democrat thought for the last six years.... no practical engagement, just naysaying and disassociation.

Whereas the Republican administration of the government has been representative of what? Beyond stupidity, corruption, hubris, and willful destruction that is.

Let's see how far hate gets you in the real world.

We need only look at you and yours to know that.

You can become the Muslims of the American body politic, attacking all "infidels" who must be hated and disposed of.

Thanks, but we'll leave that to you and your Neo-Know-Nothings. It seems to be all you're good at or useful for.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.24.06 - 4:10 pm | #

As someone else put it, this is irrational at best and certainly not the actions of people that want to lead. Actually, this is pretty much the verbal equivalent of the sectrarian violence in Iraq.

I've got an idea!
Let's do the verbal equivalent of soaking shooter in kerosene and setting him on fire! Always wanted to see a crispy troll!

I was getting tired of all that Peggy Noonan "civility and grace" shit anyway.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 4:14 pm | #

Between gays, immigrants, liberals, democrats, minorities, and anybody else who disagrees with Rush Limbaugh and you his loyal dittoheads, you hate more than 2/3 of the American population.

Bingo. That's pretty much the best working definition of Trolldom: someone who professes to love America while hating the guts of most of the American people.
The sort of attitude best expressed by St. Jerry Falwell the day after 9/11 when he said New Yorkers had it coming.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 4:19 pm | #

".....the purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives. As such, there must always be sufficient truth to be credible."

That is exactly what we have going on here with this "the terrorists want" meme. The MSM and the right, ever the patsies for a good psyops program, just eat it up.

One question to be asked is, "Why are you so concerned with what the terrorists want? Does it ever cross your mind that you are playing right into their game?"
Paul XQ previously Paul | 11.24.06 - 4:26 pm | #

The sort of attitude best expressed by St. Jerry Falwell the day after 9/11 when he said New Yorkers had it coming.

Or Pat Robertson when when said that Katrina was a punishment from god for abortion.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 4:28 pm | #

The sort of attitude best expressed by St. Jerry Falwell the day after 9/11 when he said New Yorkers had it coming.

Or Pat Robertson when when said that Katrina was a punishment from god for abortion.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 4:28 pm | #

Still, in its literal sense, hatred is a self-indulgence which no one can afford,

Least of all because it intrudes on the nasty but necessary business of figuring out how to demolish one's adversaries--whether those adversaries be terrorists or trolls.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 4:34 pm | #

"probably an effort to get Barack Obama into the race"

Yeah, what kind of name is that anyway? Is this guy even an American? I'm from Illinois and I don't remember him when I was growing up. I think we should do a serious background check. I've heard he likes to fly airplanes a lot and can frequently be found in airports.
Shared Humanity | 11.24.06 - 4:41 pm | #

After all, it's no conincidence that they chose Thanksgiving, the slowest news day in America, to pull off their largest, most cruel attack yet.


Yes, but it has failed; nothing like some bloodfilled mayhem...and that Turkey suddenly tastes devine...for us sociopaths that is. For the rest of you...just a whiny bunch of leftists...you probably eat only free range turkey.
Shared Humanity | 11.24.06 - 4:47 pm | #

I think a lot of voters felt the same way: angry and fed up with the incompetence, arrogance and divisiveness of the Bush administration.

Now it's up to the Dems to mete out punishment and reform. That's why *I* voted for them. Both are essential. Unfortunately, Feingold's latest statements (he believes the President committed impeachable offenses but does not support impeachment) do not bode well for the either.
Dem-agog | 11.24.06 - 4:47 pm | #

They hate us for our Turkey.
Shared Humanity | 11.24.06 - 4:48 pm | #

"probably an effort to get Barack Obama into the race"
Yeah, what kind of name is that anyway? Is this guy even an American?

Don't worry, I've already seen the inevitable "Barack Osama" reference on this very website. No need to speculate on who contributed that little gem.

Heh, to coin a phrase.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 4:57 pm | #

Isn't it fair to say that that's the very definition of the mindset of a cultist?

It might also be fair to say that that's the very definition of the mindset of a sociopathic liar.

Furthermore, it is beyond contention that the terrorists were happy the Democrats won. Many of them said so explicitly - whereas I have not seen a single quote of a terrorist leader lamenting the Republican loss...

Michael Smith, I have not seen a single quote of a non-terrorist leader lamenting the Republican loss, either. Make of that what you will.

Furthermore, nothing of the drivel you have posted here is 'beyond contention,' because you have supplied no evidence.

You have brought nothing of value to this discussion, and I devoutly hope that you have gone on your way lamenting.
Gentlewoman | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 5:02 pm | #

Glenn said in his update:

"Nobody glorifies the power of the Islamic Terrorists more than Bush followers do."

This is typical and repetitive of the Bushco cult.

It's most consistent manifestation is the dippy TV "expert," opining that, if the US leaves Iraq, "al Quaeda will take control."

The US cannot control Iraq with a field army, an air force, private mercenaries, satellite and drone intel, battle tanks and heavy weapons, heavy bribes, teeming prisons, and Iraqi security forces.

But, no doubt, if we leave, al Quaeda will have the immediate and effective capacity to "control" Iraq.
MD | 11.24.06 - 5:05 pm | #

And how do they explain the record-breaking violence taking place now that the election is over?!
Publicus | 11.24.06 - 5:07 pm | #

They're not cultists because they don't believe what they say.

They are aristocrats. Not cultists. They believe they need to say whatever nonsense will fool the public (proles) into supporting them. If this means reversing themselves, making shit up, manipulating propaganda, etc., so be it.

The masses are asses. The government is evil. Therefore it's jungle politics -- savagery wins the day and get as much $$$ as you can before the whole thing falls apart.

But Glenn, for you to think they actually believe their nonsense about terrorists loving democrats is where you're wrong. They're simply expressing incoherent rage in whatver convenient verbal form arises. Logic is besides the point. It isn't necessary for them to believe what they say so much as it is their hope that YOU will believe what they say.
JM | 11.24.06 - 5:08 pm | #

Read this article about the conservative movement's Orwellian tendencies...

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/200...1_20/ cover.html
Champ Kind | 11.24.06 - 5:15 pm | #

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" actually better describes the mentality of the followers of the Bush cult.
lysias | 11.24.06 - 5:15 pm | #

I remember Teddy Roosevelt's comments about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Today the repub's motto is "scream loudly because I have a small Dick".

All we can do is fight back by discrediting the lies, but the real truth is when will these bastards walk the walk. They love to talk the talk, but we know their judgement day is coming. God knows the darkness in their hearts and souls. Life is only a dot (or comma?) in the line called eternity. Follow the path you believe to be the truth and for what God wanted you to do and your reward will be in eternity. Remember the eternity of the lying liars will be a personal Hell.
character first | 11.24.06 - 5:17 pm | #

Plenty of Hitler's assistants may have been cynical opportunists who just went along for the ride without believing in the movement's claims.

That didn't stop the Hitler cult from being a cult.
lysias | 11.24.06 - 5:19 pm | #

you could grind down enough of the electorate and persuade them to vote like Spaniards, without even realizing it.
Nathan | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 3:53 pm

And so it came to pass.
shooter242 | 11.24.06 - 5:45 pm | #

character first | 11.24.06 - 5:17 pm | #

While I have no doubt that their "judgement" from "God" would be terrible, provided God is still around and indulging in those things, I would rather their "day of judgement" came in a courtroom at the hands of a jury.
Call me petty, but I'd like to see some earthly punishment rather than wait to see if they get it in the afterlife.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 5:55 pm | #

It's all so simple - Democrats create more terrorists.
daleyrocks | 11.24.06 - 6:00 pm | #

I really don't know what I'm talking about. I am a troll and should be treated as such.

Bush Rules!
Michael Smith | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 6:03 pm | #

If someone has already said this, I missed it, but Glenn must have forgotten to point out that, had the Repugs won the election, the postelection spike in violence in Baghdad undoubtedly would have been read as a sign of desperation now that the insurgents realized their days were numbered---that the tough-talking-and-acting Repugs had received a new mandate from the People to destroy them. When Repugs are in power, enemy successes are a sign of our success; when the Dems approach, enemy successes are a sign of our failure.

I'm reminded of the king (was it Croesus?) who asked an oracle to read the signs before a battle. The oracle replied that "a great empire would be destroyed" and the king stupidly assumed the victory would be his. (Presumably he was too accustomed to hearing only good news from his advisers and had no idea how to interpret advice from someone he did not control.)

I always thought the king was too stupid for the story to be credible. But who does the king remind you of?
Baldie McEagle | 11.24.06 - 6:10 pm | #

I personally created 4 terrorists today by thinking bad thoughts. Stop me before I kill again!
Baldie McEagle | 11.24.06 - 6:11 pm | #

I don't really "hate" the Bush fascists: that would require too much energy. I *despise* them. I think that's the right word.
Nathanael Nerode | 11.24.06 - 6:16 pm | #

It's all so simple - Democrats create more terrorists.
daleyrocks

You mean like Timothy McVeigh, and David Koresh, and Tom Metzger and Bill Pierce and Hal Turner and Richard Butler and James Kopp and Ted Bundy and priests who abuse kids and..

Those goddamn librul democrats!
Dem-agog | 11.24.06 - 6:18 pm | #

There's no emotional involvement needed to despise them, you see. You just look at their persistent record of evil and realize that the world would be better off if they'd never existed. You can feel sorry for them, because they are so evil and they don't even realize it. You despise them. It's not "hate".
Nathanael Nerode | 11.24.06 - 6:18 pm | #

And how do they explain the record-breaking violence taking place now that the election is over?!
Publicus

That's easy.
The insurgents were so happy about the election results--the Dems winning and so on--that they decided to do some record-breaking violence.

Oh yes, and they also picked Thanksgiving to set off the car bombs in Sadr City.

And the Shias picked today to torch the six Sunnis leaving the mosque because it's the start of the Christmas shopping season here in the US of A.

I can hardly wait to see what they'll do on Super Bowl Sunday.

And what might happen during March Madness just boggles the mind.

[insert Woody Woodpecker-type laugh here]
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 6:25 pm | #

I wonder if Bush's great empire, like Croesus's, will end up being destroyed.
lysias | 11.24.06 - 6:27 pm | #

What great empire? Four square miles in the middle of Baghdad? The Green Zone? Alexander the Great would have pissed his pants laughing.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 6:32 pm | #

scooter,at dinner yesterday,after our turkey lost both drumsticks and a wing,I asked 'Does this turkey remind anyone else of Max Cleland?'.No one laughed.They just don't know funny like you do.
AnonE.Mouse | 11.24.06 - 6:34 pm | #

Barton - I think the Shias blew it torching those Sunnis today as you described it. They haven't mastered the art of Car-B-Cuing the way the Muslims in France have.
daleyrocks | 11.24.06 - 6:53 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 6:00pm:

It's all so simple - Democrats create more terrorists.

No, I'd say your crowd has the market cornered on that service.

Thanks for that, by the way. You've ensured peace and prosperity for the arms industry for the next ten generations.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.24.06 - 6:57 pm | #

I long stopped getting exercised at your polemics Glenn. The sad truth is it is the Islamofascists that want to take away your freedoms in fact your very life.

Hate is a very strong word and while it is impossible to know if GWB would ever use such a word when talking about you, it is impossible to consider he would ever do so publicly.

If GWB was such a big bad boogey man why does he allow you the freedom to say what you say?

Why does he allow you back in the country time and time again?

Why aren't you thrown into GITMO and tortured?

Obviously your rants ring hollow and your logic pathetically flawed.

It is you who are the radical. It is you who has your judgement clouded by your emotions, and your fundamentalist beliefs.

It is you who is incapable of a reasoned debate who must resort to ad hominem attacks. All done of course under protection of the US constitution, hundreds of thousands of men and women willing to serve in harms way, and the president you hate.

As for the current violence in Iraq, no doubt it continues to get worse.

Did the bad guys want the Democrats to win? Maybe maybe not. They have certainly claimed that be one of their goals both before and after our elections.

It is the Democratic leadership, and activists like you who continue to call for the US to pull out of Iraq. It is you and your allies who try to use the violence to support your arguments against the war.

Regardless of the terrorists / insurgents / sectarian motivations the effect the violence continues to have on you, and your allies is indisputable.
The ugly american | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 7:04 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 6:53pm:

Barton - I think the Shias blew it torching those Sunnis today as you described it. They haven't mastered the art of Car-B-Cuing the way the Muslims in France have.

Its called "terrorism", daleyrocks.

Get used to it.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.24.06 - 7:06 pm | #

We can look back ("Bush cultists, etc.") or we can look forward.

Nobody has been more sympathetic to the plight of the Iraqi people than I because it's my nature to care about all living creatures including animals. I especially like animals because they are innocent of the type of volitional depravity which characterizes so much of human action.

Being an American citizen, however, my allegiance is first and foremost to this country.

Based upon stories like the one below, I would say that unless we get out of Iraq immediately and put those dollars to work shoring up the security of our borders (not taking away the civil liberties of our own citizens), the American government will have betrayed its citizens, betrayed its military, and threatened the survival of this country.

Whatever happened up to this point in Iraq, happened. There will be plenty of time for historians of all stripes to discuss and analyze each facet of the history. Yet the bald truth is, and everyone knows it, the Congress of the United States has no intention of getting out of Iraq. Newspeak will dominate the airwaves, lies right and lies left, but while all the newpspeakers are positioning themselves, we will still be in Iraq.

I cannot think of any greater betrayal of our military than to place them in an environment where they are surrounded by a bunch of inhumane warring savages. If we stay, it's only a matter of time before we are going to have to be reading about our own troops being burned alive. If nobody ever enlisted to defend this country again it would be perfectly understandable considering the criminal way in which the Republicans and the Democrats are willing to allow those who enlist to defend this country to stay in a situation like present day Iraq.

If an immoral draft were then re-instituted to recruit fiercely resistant citizens to serve the maniacal imperial bloodthirst of our government-run-amok, the result would be almost unimaginable.

New savage twist to violence in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Revenge-seeking militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left Friday prayers and burned them alive with kerosene in a savage new twist to the brutality shaking the Iraqi capital a day after suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 people in Baghdad's main Shiite district.

Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday's assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia or subsequent attacks that killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same neighborhood, the volatile Hurriyah district in northwest Baghdad, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein.

Most of the thousands of dead bodies that have been found dumped across Baghdad and other cities in central Iraq in recent months have been of victims who were tortured and then shot to death, according to police. The suspected militia killers often have used electric drills on their captives' bodies before killing them. The bodies are frequently decapitated.

But burning victims alive introduced a new method of brutality that was likely to be reciprocated by the other sect as the Shiites and Sunnis continue killing one another in unprecedented numbers.

The gruesome attack, which came despite a curfew in Baghdad, capped a day in which at least 87 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence across Iraq.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.24.06 - 7:11 pm | #

---

From the ugly american at 7:04pm:

I long stopped getting exercised at your polemics Glenn.

Right around the time you decided on a "12-pack a day" diet, I'll wager. Your beer-gut reached its ideal weight yet?

The sad truth is it is the Islamofascists that want to take away your freedoms in fact your very life.

You realize that makes no real sense, don't you?

If GWB was such a big bad boogey man why does he allow you the freedom to say what you say?

Why does he allow you back in the country time and time again?

Why aren't you thrown into GITMO and tortured?

Worthy questions, all.

Remind me again why Glenn allows you continue to harrass him in this way?

Obviously your rants ring hollow and your logic pathetically flawed.

In what way? Pray, explain.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.24.06 - 7:17 pm | #

If GWB was such a big bad boogey man why does he allow you the freedom to say what you say?

Why does he allow you back in the country time and time again?

Gee, and all this time I thought freedom of speech and travel were rights guaranteed by the Constitution and not some graciously-bestowed gift from an Almighty Ruler.

But of course Bush said in a recent radio address that we should be grateful for having an election in wartime. As if an election was something in his power to grant or withold.

But I guess that's the difference between us, eh? I hold to this anachronistic pre-9/11 belief in inalienable political and civil liberties.

You don't.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 7:26 pm | #

shooter242 | 11.24.06 - 2:30 pm | #

Let's see how far hate gets you in the real world. You can become the Muslims of the American body politic, attacking all "infidels" who must be hated and disposed of.

Who wants to be like you? Hating your country, yourselves, and the world.
Moses | 11.24.06 - 7:30 pm | #

Merriam's on-line dictionary gives (for "hate"):

a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b : extreme dislike or antipathy

I can't say I have fear (except in the abstract sense, (except that I fear for my country if these yahoos aren't restrained.) Nor do I have a sense of injury, personally, (except to my country's image, military, constitution.)

However, if the issue is extreme dislike or antipathy, I can only say "guilty as charged." In spades. For the reasons Glenn elucidates, plus a couple more (their unrelenting attack on science, for example.)

If this provides the "mind of a republican voter" (an oxymoronic concept that is amply illustrated by the comment, above, by Ugly American) an excuse for something, that's too bad. Even if there were such a thing as "mind of a republican voter", I'm sure it's already totally consumed with voting the way the terrorists "don't want" to worry about voting in a manner to thwart our wishes.

And by the way, Ugly, I'm not going to detail all the things wrong with your comment, but one thing really amused me: You complain that the opponents of war "use the violence" to argue against the war. It occurs to me that war, without the violence, would be a lot less objectionable. Unfortunately, there seems to be a catch somewhere, there. See if you can figure it out.
Charles | 11.24.06 - 7:36 pm | #

I only hate the incompetent but charismatic man who promises that he will become superior once he is leader but then turns out to be a buffoon and then blames everyone else for his incompetency.

Sometimes I am happy I only drive cab.
the egyptian magician | 11.24.06 - 7:51 pm | #

The vast scope of ignorance and fear-based hatred that emanates so effortlessly from rightist shills such as "Shooter" is insipid in a stratospheric arc of inanity.

To wit:

"Let's see how far hate gets you in the real world. You can become the Muslims of the American body politic, attacking all "infidels" who must be hated and disposed of."

Dissecting this screed shows how easily frightened this "Shooter" fellow is, when he's not just bald-faced lying about Clinton, or running to hide under his bunk bed in debilitating fear of "muslims".

You see, son..."muslims" are not attacking "all infidels", despite this pathologically delusional fear you have, engendered no doubt by the rantings of a hillbilly heroin addict like Rush Limbaugh and his loving acolyte Sean Hannity, two icons of truth that you slavishly listen to religiously.

No, you see...there are some misguided adherents of virtually every religion who kill in the name of God or a "cause"...(Rudolph...McVeigh, etc.). Damning all muslims as killers of the infidels, as you have so stupidly done only shows how marginalized you are, and will continue to be, as a poster to be considered even slightly seriously.

Next thing you know, you'll say Sandy Berger's a felon, and that Clinton's a perjurer.

Heh.
angrypoodle | 11.24.06 - 7:52 pm | #

Next thing you know, I'll say that impeaching Clinton for lying about a blow job emboldened the terrorists!

In fact, I just did.
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 8:01 pm | #

There is no news in the fact that the Bush/Cheney Administration are liars.

There is, however, much news in the fact that despite the prognostications of Mr Greenwald and many of his readers and commenters, the supposed sea-changing Democrats who won control in the recent election are completely, utterly uninterested in taking the Bush/Cheney Admin people to task for anything they've done wrong.

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/ a...2feingold21.txt

Apparently, to Messrs Dean, Feingold et alia, it would be too embarrassing to the nation to hold impeachment hearings, and therefore there will be no challenge to the Bush/Cheney Admin during the remaining 2 years of their tenure.

As reported by long-time Washingtonian Sam Smith, (whose insights rarely are wrong),

Fortunately, Rep. John Conyers, who'll likely head the House Judiciary Committee, isn't impressed: "We need to put aside any thought of anger or payback. Instead we need to focus on identifying and correcting abuses and pass legislation which serves the interests of the American people. . . I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table."

http://prorev.com/2006/11/victor...place-to- go.htm

Moreover, the same "progressive" Democrats led by Messrs Dean and Feingold et alia are in no hurry whatever to get out of Iraq or reduce our involvement in anyway.

http://www.tompaine.com/ articles...aq_chimeras.php

I'm sure that's what everyone wanted from a Dem-controled Congress, right? More of the same?

Humble pie is now being served at your local Reality Depot. Line up, Dem apologists. Would you like yours mit schlag?
Paul Behrer | 11.24.06 - 8:29 pm | #

I see that despite Glenn's recent admonition that people must stick to one handle for posting, Dorita/angry poodle is back to her Sybillian multiple posting under pretense of different personages.
Paul Behrer | 11.24.06 - 8:33 pm | #

Yes, it is the definition of the mindset of a cultist.

And no. The mainstream media won't call them on it. As long as they want access to "senior U.S. government officials", they will continue to dole out the B.S. and propaganda of the administration.

While they refuse to call a lie by this administration "a lie" (excellent article by Eric Alterman in this weeks The Nation.), they will continue to bemoan the vituperative vitriol of those angry left-wing bloggers.

Then again, the mainstream media is losing their power to influence public opinion almost as quickly as the Bush administration is losing their power to influence anything.
starwheel | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 8:34 pm | #

I ain't "Dorita", Paul.

So, after seeing your clinician who'll help you attenuate the dosage of the psychotropics you're ingesting, that have led you to believe that my posts are that of someone else...you can then beseech that well paid professional to direct you towards a different hallucinogen that will minimize your nonsensical dissappointment in Democrats, who are indeed politicians who just happen to agree with progressives more than the dark siders.

Of course, we all "want it now", however, realism does rear its ugly head indignantly for those of us based in reality.
angrypoodle | 11.24.06 - 8:45 pm | #

Humble pie is now being served at your local Reality Depot. Line up, Dem apologists. Would you like yours mit schlag?
Paul Behrer

These things take time, Paul. As you damn well know if you remember anything from before 1980.
Baldie McEagle | 11.24.06 - 9:36 pm | #

Humble pie is now being served at your local Reality Depot. Line up, Dem apologists. Would you like yours mit schlag?
Paul Behrer

These things take time, Paul. As you damn well know if you remember anything from before 1980.
Baldie McEagle | 11.24.06 - 9:36 pm | #

What's your point, Behrer? Because whatever it is, it's not original or new. It's getting really boring, too. If you want a third party, you have to change the rules. The law says we can only have two. That's Duverger's law, so deal with it.
LWM | 11.24.06 - 9:47 pm | #

Paul Behrer | 11.24.06 - 8:29 pm | #

Moreover, the same "progressive" Democrats led by Messrs Dean and Feingold et alia are in no hurry whatever to get out of Iraq or reduce our involvement in anyway.

http://www.tompaine.com/ articles...aq_chimeras.php

I'm sure that's what everyone wanted from a Dem-controled Congress, right? More of the same?

Humble pie is now being served at your local Reality Depot. Line up, Dem apologists. Would you like yours mit schlag?


Why don't you point out which part of the Constitution allows the Congress to withdraw the troops? Spend as much time as you like, preferably forever, to research the question.
Moses | 11.24.06 - 9:51 pm | #

Paul Behrer's comment reminds me of Glenn's post from a few days back about the DC pundits who are falling all over themselves to declare the new Democratic Congress a failure before they've even taken office. Tell you what, Paul, if in a year or so there's been no progress made, then you'll have every right to come back and point that out.
Ebonmuse | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 9:58 pm | #

Clearly the answer to all this violence, which is clearly an attempt to influence our election process over here, is not to have any more elections.

I mean, sometimes you have to give away freedom in return for protection, and no one could protect us better than Bush, right?

Don't think *HE* isn't thinking along these lines at any rate. He's a megalomaniac.
Chuck | 11.24.06 - 10:02 pm | #

Paul Behrer | 11.24.06 - 8:29 pm |

IMHO, impeachment cannot be part of the immediate agenda opening the new Congress. We don't know what Waxman, Conyers and others will find during their committee hearings. They might discover corruption and malfeasance so heinous as to demand impeachment. Maybe they will be stonewalled to a stalemate. Unless you have a time machine that can take you out to 2008 and back, you simply do not know and neither does anyone else. It is too early for humble pie. Jeebus, the election was only a couple of weeks ago.
jman | 11.24.06 - 10:05 pm | #

Paul, sweetie, I'm dorita.
michilines | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:22 pm | #

Since NOT ONE SINGLE thing that the neo-con PNAC-GOP schemers proved to be true---repeat, NOTHING---you would kind of think that would deligitmize anything they say in reagrds to foreign policy, no?

I mean, they got everything 100% wrong...Why exactly does anyone put any credence into anything they say about anything beyond their children's little league games?

-
Volvo Liberal | 11.24.06 - 10:26 pm | #

Yes, these Bush followers are cultists...not only in defining dems but in most evertyhing...the WH talking points are they state supported mantras...and they all follow them...amazing
Mary | 11.24.06 - 10:34 pm | #

Have you seen Mark Kleiman's explanation?
Lis Riba | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:40 pm | #

the election was only a couple of weeks ago.

Yes, and Nancy Pelosi still hasn't parted the Red Sea.

I'm really really disappointed.

Bitterly disappointed...
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 10:43 pm | #

Just caught The Day After on the SciFi Channel. First time I've seen it since it came out in the early 80s. It holds up pretty well.

Interesting to note that when it was first aired there was a great hullabuloo among the righties that the movie would weaken the country's will to carry on the Cold War and stand up to the Evil Empire.

The sequel is well-known. As every schoolchild knows, the US lost the Cold War, the Hammer & Sickle waves above the Capitol, and we're all speaking Russian.

Something to ponder the next time some troll starts yammering about how the exercise of civil or political liberties "weakens our will" or "gives aid and comfort to our enemies".
Barton Keyes | 11.24.06 - 10:53 pm | #

You guys fail to realize that what the neocons predicted came true. ;If the Democrats take over Congress, the terrorists will be dancing in the streets."

What a dance it is!
ronhohn | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 10:54 pm | #

OMG. I checked out some of the links above. OMG.

You know what the ultimate irony is? The MSM have won and the blogosphere has been screwed and that's because the blogosphere is just as stupid as the MSM but not, as of yet, as craftily corrupt. But they are getting there fast.

I include myself among the idiots in the blogosphere who thought anything was really going to change and who listened to, and believed in people like Dean, Conyers, and Feingold.

“I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense,” Feingold said rushing out the door to take care of the enormously important business of setting up a new fish and wildlife something so more people can kill more animals. He only paused to say how much he thought of his good friend, John McCain and to hold out hope he'll run for VP.

Jesus Christ.

Rangel has been a leading proponent of the war on drugs which has killed more young blacks than died in either Iraq or Vietnam. In fact, as a public policies go, it's been one of the most deadly for young black males since the end of slavery. And it also was the proving ground for the Patriot Act and similar abominations.

Nice work, Charlie. How much did you pocket for destroying all those lives?

I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table." --Conyers.

WHAT?????????????????????????????????

I didn't see anything about Dean in the above links, but at this point I would believe anything about anyone....almost. Thank god not everyone.

(Re: Iraq. GET OUT NOW. Then every oxymoronic think tank in the universe can invite those pillars of wisdom, Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day O'Conner, to weigh in and they can all decide what to do AFTER WE GET OUT TOMORROW. You don't have to sit in the boiling soup to discuss how to improve its taste.)


Bush's Only Real Victory
He vanquished American liberty
by Paul Craig Roberts

George Orwell warned us, but what American would have expected that in the opening years of the 21st century the United States would become a country in which lies and deception by the president and vice president were the basis for a foreign policy of war and aggression, and in which indefinite detention without charges, torture, and spying on citizens without warrants have displaced the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution?

If anyone had predicted that the election of George W. Bush to the presidency would result in an American police state and illegal wars of aggression, he would have been dismissed as a lunatic.

What American ever would have thought that any U.S. president and attorney general would defend torture or that a Republican Congress would pass a bill legalizing torture by the executive branch and exempting the executive branch from the Geneva Conventions?

What American ever would have expected the U.S. Congress to accept the president's claim that he is above the law?

What American could have imagined that if such crimes and travesties occurred, nothing would be done about them and that the media and opposition party would be largely silent?

Except for a few columnists, who are denounced by "conservatives" as traitors for defending the Bill of Rights, the defense of U.S. civil liberty has been limited to the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. The few federal judges who have refused to genuflect before the Bush police state are denounced by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a "grave threat" to U.S. security. Vice President Richard Cheney called a federal judge's ruling against the Bush regime's illegal and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance program "an indefensible act of judicial overreaching"......

American liberties are the result of an 800-year struggle by the English people to make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of government. For centuries English-speaking peoples have understood that governments cannot be trusted with unaccountable power. If the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary to tie down a very weak and limited central government with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, these protections are certainly more necessary now that our government has grown in size, scope, and power beyond the imagination of the Founding Fathers.

Americans have forgot that we need protection from government more than we need protection from criminals. Once we cut down civil liberty so that police may better pursue criminals and terrorists, where do we stand when government turns on us?...

The answer is that we stand naked, unprotected by law. It is an act of the utmost ignorance and stupidity to assume that only criminals and terrorists will stand unprotected....

Americans should be roused to fury that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Cheney have condemned the defense of American civil liberty as "a grave threat to U.S. security." This blatant use of an orchestrated and propagandistic fear to create a "national security" wedge against the Bill of Rights is an impeachable offense.
.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.24.06 - 10:59 pm | #

---

EWO - Does Paul Craig Roberts live in the United States or is he making these laughable observations from afar.

If he lives in the U.S. is he under heavy medication? If not, what is his excuse for such a distorted view of reality?
daleyrocks | 11.24.06 - 11:46 pm | #

I don't know where these far left commentators are coming from. They cropped up here and at Digby's about 1 month before the congressional election.

I think it's a republican ratfucking operation designed to reduce the effectiveness of liberal blogs by jamming the comments section with their outrageousness and the replies it demands.

Clever and evil.
Northern Observer | 11.25.06 - 12:03 am | #

daleyrocks,

From Wikipedia:
Paul Craig Roberts is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creator's Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College. He is considered to be a Reagan conservative.

daleyrocks,
Your accusation is powerful, so powerful that I must ask you, why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Jim Montague formerly known as "brainfaht"
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 12:09 am | #

Jim, D-Rocks will eventually tire of swinging his heavy claymore in that wasteland from which all but he have fled. In the meantime, some pity for the army of one. Let him serve as he wishes -- an object lesson for all those, like anonymoose, who still believe that dominion springs from will alone.
William Timberman | 11.25.06 - 12:19 am | #

daleyrocks,

I respect WT's counsel. I appreciate that you come here and face the hordes, it must be a difficult task at times. But I must know, did anything of that article sound even a bit reasonable to you?
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 12:30 am | #

If GWB was such a big bad boogey man why does he allow you the freedom to say what you say?

Why does he allow you back in the country time and time again?

Why aren't you thrown into GITMO and tortured?

Obviously your rants ring hollow and your logic pathetically flawed.

The ugly american - 11.24.06 - 7:04 pm

Was Bush crowned emperor and I missed the newsflash? Silly me for having thought our rights were derived from the Constitution and not blessings granted us by "His Royal Pantload" as your questions seem to imply.

Oh that "W" in his great glory and beneficence allows me to speak freely, travel and not be subject to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture... wait, scratch that last one.
Underpants Gnome #1 | 11.25.06 - 12:30 am | #

Jim - Nice try. He's a freaking academic with some government experience who has gone totally over the edge. He's a 9/11 Truther for cripes sakes.

What is his definition of an American police state or Bush police state. That he even uses such terms makes me question his sanity.

"Although his criticisms of Bush often seem to align him with the political left, Roberts continues to praise Ronald Reagan and to endorse many of Reagan's policies, arguing that "true conservatives" were the "first victims" of the neoconized Bush administration [2]. He has said that many supporters of George W. Bush "are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters."[3]"


He's a nutjob, plain and simple.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 12:37 am | #

Daleyrocks,

So tell me your opinion of neocons. Do you feel they have served their country, or do you feel they miscalculated on Iraq. If they did, what is your idea for a solution?
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 12:45 am | #

Jim - We cross posted. Based on the excerpts put up by EWO, the paragraph about the development of English law sounded OK. The rest just sounds like lunatic ravings. We don't live in a police state. Bush doesn't hold himself above the law. The administration doesn't condone torture. The ACLU actually distorts the Constitution instead of defending it. This guy may be a fiscal conservative, but that's it. He's certifiable.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 12:47 am | #

D-Rocks: He has said that many supporters of George W. Bush "are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters."

Well, he may be on to something there, doncha think? I mean it was only a few hours ago that ole anonymoose was lecturing us on the first principles of fascism -- or is he one of those right-deviationists y'all find so embarrassing these days?
William Timberman | 11.25.06 - 12:48 am | #

And come to think of it D-Rocks, I wonder if you'd consider an ex-director of the National Review to be a nutjob as well. I haven't heard you hold forth on Bramwell's piece yet....
William Timberman | 11.25.06 - 12:53 am | #

Dang you're naive, Glenn. 2008 is jest two years away. And this uptick is just the first result of the democratic win. Just imagine how bad it will be if the dems get the presidency in 2008.
rb | 11.25.06 - 12:56 am | #

"shooter242" doesn't bother to read:

It's official, the entire lot of you have run off the trolley tracks into a huge hate-fest. The unhinging of the left is complete.

As someone else put it, this is irrational at best....

After lots of people explained why hatred is just the right emotion concerning the saguinary slimeballs in the maladministration.... They explained the rational bases for this hatred. "shooter242" ignores that. Must be nice to be a brain-dead Dubya-butt-sucker ... if you happen to be a Dubya-butt-sucker in the first place, that is.

Want my opinion? I have nothing but contempt and loathing for those that have enabled Cheney, Dubya, and the rest of the crew. Call it hatred f you want; I care nothing for the terminology as long as you acknoweldge the reasons for this opinion. I detest dishonesty, and I can come to no other conclusion as to the character of those that continue to defend the maladministration. Even the stoopid and uninformed are catching on; those that are left are simply of despicable character.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 1:11 am | #

Michael Smith spreading falsehoods.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/20...006/ 070306.html

"“At the five o’clock meeting, [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: ‘Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President.’”

McLaughlin’s comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table. Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, suggested that the al-Qaeda founder may have come to Bush’s aid because bin-Laden felt threatened by the rise in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; bin-Laden might have thought his leadership would be diminished if Bush lost the White House and their “eye-to-eye struggle” ended.

But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush’s policies – including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.

“Certainly,” the CIA’s Miscik said, “he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years,” according to Suskind’s account of the meeting."


but of course CIA is inferior to a handful of pharmaceutical lobbyists (Rumsfeld's only real job) and former interns, and stovepiping is the only way to go when you're plotting global destabilization without a parachute.
Marion Delgado | 11.25.06 - 1:13 am | #

"daleyrocks":

"Although his criticisms of Bush often seem to align him with the political left, Roberts continues to praise Ronald Reagan and to endorse many of Reagan's policies, arguing that "true conservatives" were the "first victims" of the neoconized Bush administration [2]. He has said that many supporters of George W. Bush "are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters."[3]"

He's a nutjob, plain and simple.

You misspelled "Mr. Obvious Man".

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 1:29 am | #

The criminal gang known as "the administration" are constitutionally incapable of uttering anything that is not false. Every word out of their mouths is a lie including "and" and "the". What I don't understand is that you just noticed?
purvis ames | 11.25.06 - 1:44 am | #

Hate is a very strong word and while it is impossible to know if GWB would ever use such a word when talking about you, it is impossible to consider he would ever do so publicly.
-The ugly american - 11.24.06 - 7:04 pm

Hmmm...let's see, I remember "terrorist sympathiser" who "wants the terrorists to win" and "wants the terrorists to destroy America" but no, I don't recall him ever using the word "hate" when referring to me and 50,000,000 of my friends, which was nice on his part.
Underpants Gnome #1 | 11.25.06 - 1:48 am | #

Hate is a very strong word and while it is impossible to know if GWB would ever use such a word when talking about you, it is impossible to consider he would ever do so publicly.
-The ugly american - 11.24.06 - 7:04 pm

Hmmm...let's see, I remember "terrorist sympathiser" who "wants the terrorists to win" and "wants the terrorists to destroy America" but no, I don't recall him ever using the word "hate" when referring to me and 50,000,000 of my friends, which was nice on his part.
Underpants Gnome #1 | 11.25.06 - 1:48 am | #

"Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.
Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty."

This is the ninth Conservative principle of a list of ten. I do not know the source, it is not me.
daleyrocks, shooter, rb, Paul Behrer, I'm sure the rest of us need some reconciling of this precept.
Is there a wholesale disconnect in your party, are you willing to admit to the double speaking rubbish of Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News?
I'd like for at least one honest Conservative to explain how their party got hijacked, without the never ending apology you seemed dedicate to memorize and proselytize.


Jim Montague formerly known as "brainfaht"
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 1:52 am | #

Heads we win, tails you lose. I'm pretty sure I picked that trick up in 4th grade. Guess that tells you were the media are.
Erin M | 11.25.06 - 3:05 am | #

West Virginia pundit Don Surber, who believes in making a "Big Tent" for Republican porn stars, has discovered that the middle east is just like Indochina all over again:

Friday, November 24, 2006
Dem victory brings chaos to Iraq
... I am not blaming Democrats. I blame the 31 million Americans who have given up after less than 4 years. They may not eat cheese, but they are surrender monkeys ...
... It always amazes me, but no longer surprises, how the “peaceniks” always wind up creating more chaos, more deaths and more misery. The American pullout in Vietnam led not to peace, but to the fall of Saigon and the killing fields of Cambodia, where evil men killed 2 million people.
DonSurber | 11/24/2006 05:39:00 PM

Glenn, I hope some days you sit back after writing and then reading the comments you've stimulated and know that you have done something beautiful and unique to our technology and our times.

I don't agree with 'hate' in itself, as an end point for myself, at least. Rage, yes, and horror and emotional nausea, fear and profound grief all have their place for me and I suspect, others.

If, by some miracle, your heart has not broken enough, go to mwcnews.net and watch the video 'no bravery' listed on the left sidebar.

I deeply appreciate your honesty and the candid nature of the commentors here. These words and thoughts are literally history itself, unfolding.

So thanks, eh?
Emily | 11.25.06 - 4:03 am | #

Thanks for the link, sysprog. I never heard of her before and I don't think too many others have either. Curious. I would hope that Glenn would take time out from exposing the neocon pundits and do a week's worth of posts on L aur IE My L ro IE.

If she was the one behind the AIE's theories, you have to wonder who it was that was behind her? There's been a lot written about Judith Miller, her co-author of Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf. How come we haven't heard more about Laurie Mylorie, the person who seems to have originated and sold the whole myth?

Would I be surprised if it was she who even put that idea in Bush and Rumsfeld's heads? No.

From your link:
Armchair Provocateur
Laurie Mylroie: The Neocons' favorite conspiracy theorist.

....Until this point, there was nothing controversial about Mylroie's career. This would change with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the first act of international terrorism within the United States, which would launch Mylroie on a quixotic quest to prove that Saddam's regime was the most important source of terrorism directed against this country. She laid out her case in Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, a book published by AEI in 2000 which makes it clear that Mylroie and the neocon hawks worked hand in glove to push her theory that Iraq was behind the '93 Trade Center bombing.....

Ideas do not appear out of nowhere, so how is it that key members of the Bush administration believed that Iraq had been so deeply involved in terrorism directed at U.S. targets for many years? For that we must turn to Mylroie's Study of Revenge, which posits that Iraq was behind the first Trade Center attack, a theory that is risible as hundreds of national security and law enforcement professionals combed through the evidence of the '93 bombing, certainly looking, amongst other things, for such a connection, and found no evidence. But Mylroie claims to have discovered something that everyone else missed: the mastermind of the plot, a man generally known by one of his many aliases, "Ramzi Yousef," was an Iraqi intelligence agent who some time after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 assumed the identity of a Pakistani named Abdul Basit whose family lived there. This was a deduction which she reached following an examination of Basit's passport records and her discovery that Yousef and Basit were four inches different in height. On this wafer-thin foundation she builds her case that Yousef must have therefore been an Iraqi agent given access to Basit's passport following the Iraq occupation. However, U.S. investigators say that "Yousef" and Basit are in fact one and the same person, and that the man Mylroie describes as an Iraqi agent is in fact a Pakistani with ties to al Qaeda....
Eyes Wide Open | 11.25.06 - 4:23 am | #

---

Why don't you point out which part of the Constitution allows the Congress to withdraw the troops?

Moses, am I wrong in thinking you know full well this is not the point?

Nobody is saying Congress can withdraw the troops. People, including me, are saying they can defund the war and they can forcefully argue that the troops should be withdrawn immediately instead of hiding behind all this newspeak "redeployment" and "phased withdrawal" doubletalk.

The same with the Patriot Act, etc. You have to make the "bad guys" fight to retain their illicit "profits". You cannot cede them by default just because the bad guys are still on the loose and you think it's in your best interests to get along with them now as you position yourself for 2008.

Daleyrocks, actually I am surprised that you take that position about Paul Craig Roberts who is hardly a crackpot or a righty turned leftist but a courageous and patriotic American much like the Founders.

I don't think he is not saying we have a Police State here now. He is saying that the Constitution has built in protections against one and as we let those protections slip away, we are moving significantly in the direction of a police state.

It is the job of people who can see ahead without their vision being clouded by partisan passions to warn others of an iceberg ahead.

I am curious about your motives and your affiliations, daleyrocks, and am reminded of this article I just read today:

The Ivy League Dissects the Neocon Cabal.

...Professor Norton distinguishes between the students of Straussianism who are simply academics who are interested in Strauss’s philosophy, and the "lesser Straussians" who regard themselves as "a chosen set of initiates into a hidden teaching." Harry Jaffa and his cabal of perpetually politicking mimickers fall into this latter category. "The West Coast Straussians," as she calls them, "are prone to zealous partisanship in politics and the academy," and "the dominant figure among [them] is Harry Jaffa . . ." Regarded as "vehement and ideological," Jaffa’s battle cry is that "the salvation of the West," if it is to come, "must come from the Republican Party." These Republican Party sycophants, writes Norton, frequently pick fights with more genuine conservatives, and especially libertarians, such as "the followers of . . . Frederick Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Willmoore Kendall."....

[Although Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and hardly a conservative and from what I can tell a good majority of her present day followers are pretty close to insane, it does seem, from what I have read these last months on frontpagemag.com and other Republican sites of that ilk that PCR has become a leading example of the category of people with whom the neocon cabal most likes to pick fights with....]
.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.25.06 - 5:54 am | #

---

Brainfart....
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 1:52 am

This is the ninth Conservative principle of a list of ten. I do not know the source, it is not me.
daleyrocks, shooter, rb, Paul Behrer, I'm sure the rest of us need some reconciling of this precept.

If so, it's only because you don't know principled behavior when you see it. Perhaps you' ve noticed that unlike the last few elections, there has been no hue and cry, throwing of tantrums and general childishness around the outcomes of the current election. Rather than blame everyone but themselves, there is a general reassessment of conservative principles within the party. A reassessment to which you are not invited.

Indeed it's hard to tell from yours and Glenn's posts that the Democrats have control of Congress. It seems that this aspect of your post is coming to fruition.....

It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

In further fact, this paroxym of bile from the left in general reinforces my belief that liberals are incapable of happiness.

I'd like for at least one honest Conservative to explain how their party got hijacked, without the never ending apology you seemed dedicate to memorize and proselytize.

I think you'd be better off tending to your own garden and warding off men of low character from the the Congressional leadership. Heh.
shooter242 | 11.25.06 - 7:56 am | #

EWO - Recheck the piece you posted. He talks about a Bush police state, meaning today. Do you think we are living in a police state? Do you think 9/11 Truthers are rational?

Mylroie gets a bunch of space in Corn and IsiKoff's book Hubris as an FYI.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 8:07 am | #

Rather than blame everyone but themselves, there is a general reassessment of conservative principles within the party.

Fixing the typo: "there is a general reassessment of talking points, memes, slogans, smears, cliches, nostrums and fear-mongering hype within the party."

Principles? Nah.
Barton Keyes | 11.25.06 - 8:29 am | #

Can I just weigh in for the 47th time and re-iterate how important it is to understand that everything the Republicans say about us is in fact true about them: they can't control their spending urges; they want to intervene in the minutae of our lives; they hate ordinary Americans; they love large government; they aren't serious about security, etc., etc., etc.

And let's not forget that the bottom line when their inconsistencies are exposed: they are consciously lying. When they say that Iraq is an imminent threat, they know it's false. When they say liberals want the terrorists to win, they know it's false.

Finally, let's remember that their predictions of evils certain to ensue if they don't get their way are always wrong: raise the minimum wage and lose jobs; balance the budget and cause a recession; end segregation and start unending violence between the races; and now, leave Iraq and unleash untold carnage.

They only speak the truth when they are accusing us. They've just got the direction pointing the wrong way. I think it's called "projection."
Jim Pharo | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 9:18 am | #

Glenn...you say: "I didn't say I harbor hatred for any particular indiviudals, only for the political movement and the tactics it uses. Why would I possibly go out of my way to refrain from saying so?"

WHY is it impermissible (if indeed it is) to Hate only the policies and not the individuals responsible for these policies? Why can't one hate BOTH? In tandem?

It's seem quite irrational to divorce the Man (Bush) as some innocent bystander to the harm, lies, murder, torture and deaths he has caused worldwide precisely because of policies HE HAS PERSONALLY ENDORSED.

If there were such a thing a a Personification of EVIL...I'm sorry but it comes in such a form as this Congenital Slacker Devoid of all Real Compassion and Deluded by His Own Sense of Grandeur of the Position he Holds. He may not intend to be evil, or think he's doing evil...but how can one separate out the evil of his actions and the evil of his policies and the knowing LIES he tells to cover them up? And why must I separate them in order to speak *legitimately* about how hateful both HE and his Policies are?

What is de-legitimate about personal hatred under these circumstances? I'd really like to know!
KarenMcL | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 9:41 am | #

From daleyrocks at 8:07am:

EWO - Recheck the piece you posted. He talks about a Bush police state, meaning today. Do you think we are living in a police state?

Do you think the Germans thought they were living in one back in 1934? Or 1935?

1936?

1940?

1942?
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.25.06 - 9:51 am | #

It's interesting that all the Admin/Repblican talking points on the 'terrorists' or Iraq are aimed at influencing actions (or stopping actions) by AMERICANS, and in reality have nothing to do with countering terrorists or winning in Iraq.

Nor are these pronouncements informative, although often couched as though they were.

Other than Glenn's example to influence American voting, how about these chestnuts:

'Setting a timeline will just embolden the terrorists'.

Meaning we'll shoot down any Americans who propose one, not meaning anything that affects the actual situation (incidentally, I find 'embolden' a strange word--it has a Victorian ring to it. I don't think prior to Iraq I ever heard anyone use it in actual conversation).

And this is as if the 'terrorists' are shy and retiring types now!

'If we set a deadline, the terrorists will just lay low, waiting for us to leave'.

If this is the case, maybe we should do it. After all, I'm sure the Iraqi people could use a 6-month break from the madness going on now.

It's ironic that these people seem to indicate they are all-knowing in the psychology of terrrorism/insurgency. If so, then why haven't they figured out a way to outfox them yet? Why do things steadily get worse?

I think we are at the point where everybody sees through this nonsense.
twit | 11.25.06 - 9:55 am | #

From shooter242 at 7:56am:

If so, it's only because you don't know principled behavior when you see it.

Considering we haven't seen it for the last, oh, six years? Its only notable by its absence.

Indeed it's hard to tell from yours and Glenn's posts that the Democrats have control of Congress.

I suggest you consult the returns of the election some three weeks ago. Empirical reality is kind of hard to deny (though you are making an excellent go of it).

It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands.

Something your man in the White House, vacuous as he is, demonstrates on a daily basis (when he isn't utterly sauced, that is).

http://www.newstatesman.com/200611130015

In further fact, this paroxym of bile from the left in general reinforces my belief that liberals are incapable of happiness.

Whereas the paroxym of raw hatred from the right reinforces the demonstrated fact that 'conservatives' are incapable of anything but hate.

I'd like for at least one honest Conservative to explain how their party got hijacked, without the never ending apology you seemed dedicate to memorize and proselytize.

As would I, but I know better than to expect the impossible.

I think you'd be better off tending to your own garden and warding off men of low character from the the Congressional leadership.

And you yours. Do let us know when you've put your rabid dogs out of our misery, will you?

Heh.

My condolences on your impending death. Kuru is incurable.
shooter242 | 11.25.06 - 7:56 am | #
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.25.06 - 10:07 am | #

Using the neo-con logic, one would think the insurgents in Iraq would have sought to influence the 2004 presidential election, but if one were to take a look at attack statistics compiled here.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr.../etc/ graph.html
...one would draw the conclusion that there were no correlations between presidential electioneering by insurgents.
Russ | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 10:15 am | #

KarenMcL | 11.25.06 - 9:41 am
Glenn...you say: "I didn't say I harbor hatred for any particular indiviudals, only for the political movement and the tactics it uses. Why would I possibly go out of my way to refrain from saying so?"
WHY is it impermissible (if indeed it is) to Hate only the policies and not the individuals responsible for these policies? Why can't one hate BOTH? In tandem?
What is de-legitimate about personal hatred under these circumstances? I'd really like to know!

Have no fear. Being the "party of hate" falls right into place nicely. Glenn can protest all he likes but his illustrations of the Bush movement were from individuals. Lawyers can semantic their way out of potential pitfalls, but bias always surfaces. This particular protestation is in some ways like Michael Richards saying "Someof my best friends are black!" You go right ahead and hate away. Hate. Hate. Hate.

If there were such a thing a a Personification of EVIL...I'm sorry but it comes in such a form as this Congenital Slacker Devoid of all Real Compassion and Deluded by His Own Sense of Grandeur of the Position he Holds. He may not intend to be evil, or think he's doing evil...but how can one separate out the evil of his actions and the evil of his policies and the knowing LIES he tells to cover them up? And why must I separate them in order to speak *legitimately* about how hateful both HE and his Policies are?

This is interesting....The ends have condemned the means. That would make every bad result, the logical end to prior malicious intent. Kind of like the way early religion blamed the sun, moon, and attending lesser God's responsible for the fates and fourtunes of we, mere mortals. It's official folks. Bush has the power of a God, and is responsible for every evil visited upon the world.

OTOH Democratic victories have given the go ahead to civil war. The various factions are now confident of no American reprisals, and enjoy withdrawal of American support from the Iraqi Government. Let the slaughter continue! It fits nicely with the hate meme doesn't it?
shooter242 | 11.25.06 - 10:45 am | #

Was I fooled by an internet hoax?

Don Surber http://thumbsnap.com/v/yF7QHcV5.jpg

may actually be a thumb puppet http://thumbsnap.com/v/Fq4PPzkl.jpg
sysprog | 11.25.06 - 10:55 am | #

From shooter242 at 10:45am:

This is interesting....The ends have condemned the means.

Considering both the 'ends' and 'means' are reprehensible in the extreme? Condemnation is the least of your concerns.

OTOH Democratic victories have given the go ahead to civil war.

That's presupposing the many factions battling throughout Iraq actually give a damn about the midterms.

Pray, show us your evidence of this.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.25.06 - 11:07 am | #

Shooter, your notion of causality is cracked, as is much else in your reasoning. Hidden in your condemnation -- but not very well hidden -- is the assertion that the Iraqis have no existence of their own absent the virtuous acts of good white folks like yourself.

It's often been noted here that you're a fool. This is why. Your arrogance -- and your ignorance, needless to say -- are most evident when you yourself are not aware enough of them to make even a token attempt to conceal them from those you're attempting to persuade.

You need to find other amusements.
William Timberman | 11.25.06 - 11:07 am | #

If the Bush movement were a person I'm sure we could come up with an easy psychiatric diagnosis to explain the obviously paranoid fixation that anything that happens anywhere in the world is directed at affecting them and their standing in our nation. Hence the patently psychotic belief that the people who are blowing things up in Iraq are cognizant of their circumstances, i.e. US electoral politics, and actively working against them. I nominate;

e·go·ma·ni·a, n.
1) Extreme appreciation or preoccupation with the self.
2) An intense and irresistible love for yourself and concern for your own needs.
3) Psychologically abnormal egotism.
4) The quality or state of being extremely egocentric.

Seems to me that's it in a nutshell (to coin a phrase.) The great thing is that reduced back to the personal sphere this diagnosis is equally applicable to the trolls who post here!

Me? I'm just sittin' here deranged and hateful...
.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 11:11 am | #

I don't write for strategic purposes or based on how it will affect the "right." I write what I think.

That is one of the reasons why your blog is so good and valuable. Writing for some strategic purpose would be similar to voters allowing the terrorists' opinions on anything to determine our actions. We should all do what we feel is right. I don't consult Osama before I vote; it's interesting that Bush cultists feel that need.

I hate this Administrations' policies, too. My only solace is knowing, without a doubt, that for the rest of my life, Bush will be held up as the worst leader in our nation's history-- not in the history of the world, as Randy Newman (of the prescient "Political Science") has recently musically pointed out:

http://www.undergroundbee.com/20...wman- songs.html

... but in the history of this country, he's been the worst. I see a future where that fact is confirmed over and over and over again-- most forcefully whenever it comes time to pay the taxes necessary to recover from this idiotic war. I look forward to the abuse that will be piled on Bush and his ilk, and to investigations that will uncover their malfeasance, and to successful prosecutions. I lick my lips in anticipation of their ignoble demise-- it's that kind of hatred I feel.
Susan | 11.25.06 - 11:28 am | #

Wow. That was really well said.

This type of analysis, on a daily basis, is the only way to unravel their patterns of self-deception (if the violence increases, it's because of the Democrats... if the economy does well under a Republican president, it's because of the Republican president. if the economy does well under a Democrat president, it's because of the Republicans in Congress).

Bushists (and most Conservatives) are child-like in many ways. Children often need to be "forced" to learn something that they are incapable of learning on their own.

The analysis in this article combined with consistently dismissive mocking and humiliation from the likes of the Daily Show, etc. is what FORCES Bushists to finally understand.

I think that's the key. We need to realize that respectful dialogue can never win over cult members. Unvarnished, harsh truth is the only thing that can.
Ramon Backwards | 11.25.06 - 11:37 am | #

shooter242,

I researched the source of the quote I posted, and it came from Russell Kirk, as written in "The Politics of Prudence."

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ t...principles.html

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Uh, trash that concept, not happening in this government.

Someone from your side should check on Russell Kirk, and turn him back over when you get a chance.

Okay shooter,comparing the classic concepts of Conservatism to this modern society you and your ilk have erected, its evident that you are anything but "Conservative". Please reveal what you are, because first and foremost if we are to believe Russell Kirk, then you and your party are at the very least double dealing hypocrites more possibly Totalitarians.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 11:55 am | #

It is interesting that so many assume the terrorists want to help the Democrats. My own theory, held since late 2004, is that they want to help Bush and his ilk stay in power as long as possible, since this offers proof positive that America really is the Great Satan and deserves to be the target of Jihad. Before the two "elections" of Bush to office, as well as at key times when his popularity appeared in danger of sinking, we saw new video statements released by Osama to stir up fear in the American electorate. At the time I thought "Why do they want to incite fear in people just before our election when it would seem to go against their self interest?" Since then it has become clear that re-electing Bush, who has played into their hands in every possible way, raising their popularity and recruiting success to the highest conceivable level, is EXACTLY what they wanted to accomplish. Bush has been basically a dream come true for their cause, with his jack-booted but incompetent war resulting in a bloody civil war and at least 300,000 dead Iraqis as well as removing Saddam and creating mass chaos in the region. Bush's unhelpful response after the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon is another example. I am not the first by any means to point out how Bush has unwittingly helped the cause of Al Qaida, but it is surprising that one now hears so little about it in discussions of this subject.
LR
LR | 11.25.06 - 12:08 pm | #

Iokanaan in the Well - Do you think you are living in a police state today? Are you a 9/11 Truther?

Who cares about what the Germans thought in the 1930s, you idiot! Bush only has two more years to serve. Unless you seriously think the Constitution has been ripped to shreds like some of the hyperventilating loons on the left, your concerns are baseless and you are hopelessly stuck on stupid.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 12:14 pm | #

It is interesting that so many assume the terrorists want to help the Democrats. My own theory, held since late 2004, is that they want to help Bush and his ilk stay in power as long as possible

Of course it might have occurred to some of our anti-terrorist masterminds a la droite that terrorists who express approval of the Democrats might be playing at reverse psychology. But if you're one of the conservascenti you might not know what reverse psychology is.

Just another ripple in the vast ocean of ignorance that characterizes our current President and his admirers. A cheerleader leading the cheerleaders.
Barton Keyes | 11.25.06 - 12:21 pm | #

Les Izmore - If the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals/Social Libertarians were a person, I would have an easy psychiatric diagnosis for them - perpetual victims.

Somebody is always doing something to them, somebody is always doing something wrong in the world or the country, somebody else is always screwing up their job or family or life.

Quit yer whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining and move on. Accept a little responsibility and reality in life, nothing's perfect.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 12:22 pm | #

Moses -- Why don't you point out which part of the Constitution allows the Congress to withdraw the troops? Spend as much time as you like, preferably forever, to research the question.

Uh, Moses, that would be the very same power that enables the US Congress to have EXCLUSIVE war powers declaration authority.

You have frequently said you are politically savvy and well-connected. I suggest rethinking that self-description. You need to rethink your arrogant dismissal of those you disagree with, especially in politics where you don't know what you're talking about. Anger-fueled disagreement isn't tantamount to factual rectitude. You seem too convinced that your anger rectifies your non-factual assumptions.

To Baldie McEagle -- You're wrong again. I am well old enough to remember 1980.

LWM - What's your point, Behrer? Because whatever it is, it's not original or new. It's getting really boring, too. If you want a third party, you have to change the rules. The law says we can only have two. That's Duverger's law, so deal with it.

Sorry, LWM. There is NO LAW requiring only two parties. You're just flat wrong here. And I might remind you that what is REALLY old is people pretending that the Democrats will effect big changes, while the reality continues to show that they are no different in anything but name and topicality. Would you like help seeing that? Please make some sensible observations, so we can discuss it further.

ebonmuse -- Paul Behrer's comment reminds me of Glenn's post from a few days back about the DC pundits who are falling all over themselves to declare the new Democratic Congress a failure before they've even taken office. Tell you what, Paul, if in a year or so there's been no progress made, then you'll have every right to come back and point that out.

You won't need me to "point it out," ebonmuse, because you'll be lining up to eat the humble pie that long ago ran out. You think they haven't "taken office"? You don't know much about how Congress actually works, ebonmuse. You need to go hang out a political consultant/lobbying shingle with Moses, the two of you can ply your naive wares on an unsuspecting group of clients who want an ineffectual advisor or lobbyist to help them get their issues unheard.
Paul Behrer | 11.25.06 - 12:24 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 12:14pm:

Who cares about what the Germans thought in the 1930s, you idiot!

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with history, that you might learn from your past mistakes. Git.

Bush only has two more years to serve.

This would be the same George W Bush who said we should be "grateful" that we're allowed to have elections "during wartime", yes?

The same one who presently asserts the right to detain anyone he deems an "enemy combatant" without clear definition of the terms or circumstances involved?

Unless you seriously think the Constitution has been ripped to shreds like some of the hyperventilating loons on the left, your concerns are baseless and you are hopelessly stuck on stupid.

I'll leave the ripping up of the Constitution to your apes on the right, who already are stuck on the 'stupid' setting. And if you aren't a little concerned by recent events, you're even dumber than your handle (both inanimate and inorganic objects) implies.

One can only hope your manchild maniquin in the White House doesn't do any more damage until he finally leaves. Personally, I won't hold my breath there.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.25.06 - 12:24 pm | #

D-Rocks: ...your concerns are baseless...

Well, not entirely, not as long as you're around, D. Then again, who listens to you, these days, eh? You'll just have to shout louder, I guess.
William Timberman | 11.25.06 - 12:26 pm | #

to angrypoodle -- Nice speech of hate. I note that you are quite the hypocrite. You pretend to be arguing forcefully against a hateful group of "repugs" but in your speech against me, your hatred and vitriol transcends even the master Karl Rove. I enjoy the way you pretend to know psychological matters, too. I suppose that comes from researching your own megalomania.

to Dorita -- Okay, michilines is one of your many alter egos. Thanks for admitting that one alternate persona. How many does that leave? 4? 6?
Paul Behrer | 11.25.06 - 12:27 pm | #

Ramon Backwards -- The analysis in this article combined with consistently dismissive mocking and humiliation from the likes of the Daily Show, etc. is what FORCES Bushists to finally understand.

Sorry, flawed premise.

You cannot FORCE someone to understand. He or she must reach that point on his or her own.

This is the major flaw in the thinking of most of the posters in this Comments section. They exemplify it most mightily in their attempts to scathe and correct daleyrocks and shooter242 into agreeing with them.

It just doesn't happen.

You might want to try remembering the last time you changed your own mind. I seriously doubt you were "forced to" do so. If you think you were "forced to" change your mind, then you didn't actually change your mind, you merely restated your view or acted differently.

"Changing the mind" involves a massive sea-change in perspective and outlook, not just a restatement of position.

Forced "changing of the mind" is why torture-generated confessions are wortheless.

Please try to think more holistically, and less in a partisan, us-vs-them fashion.
Paul Behrer | 11.25.06 - 12:32 pm | #

Iokanaan in the Well - We are living in the U.S. not Germany in the 1930s, but I guess that makes no difference to you. I am aware of the history and the factors influencing Germany and Europe then. I would say the comparison to the U.S. now is a little strained.

Given your fear of the manchild mannequin, I hope that your underwear dries through your pants.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 12:54 pm | #

daleyrocks- I looked in the medical dictionaries and there is no such illness as 'perpetual victim' you moron. Ya see, here's the problem with you and your leaders, when you want something to be you wish it to be and imagine it is true. Sometimes, a broken clock is right twice a day, life gives you the impression that wishing really does make it so. This is why we stayed the course until the water came up to our nostrils. Now, when you can't breath and are starting to drown, you turn back to the shore to get back on solid ground. You and your idiot crew are about to be swept away in the river of history and you think, because you can still see, that things are gonna be fine in just a minute or two (If the Iraqis can't turn this around in the next 6 months we'll have to examine our options... for the last 3 years). When we get our feet back on solid ground we'll stand up and take care of things the way we've always done. But you didn't notice when your feet got wet, the water at your knees, the testicle shrinking coldness, when it was up to your armpits, when it got to your chin, when you started to get water in your mouth (the neocons noticed about then and they've been running away from Bush & Co. as fast they can since then), and you won't even let yourself realize it when you are dead and drowned. You think as a child in a world of men. I spit on the grave of your New American Century. It's time for the grownups to come in and clean up the awful bloody mess your heroes have left behind. Bush and his henchmen I hate because they are aware of what they are doing. Your smug self satisfied idiocy is beneath my contempt.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 12:58 pm | #

Les - Some info on victimhood for you. It helps explain the behavior and mindset of the left.

Becoming a victim --as we all have learned from famous TV stars, prominent politicians; religions, races, and even nations--is an advantageous state of being in many ways, several of which are:

-You are not responsible for what happened to you
-You are always morally right
-You are not accountable to anyone for anything
-You are forever entitled to sympathy
-You are always justified in feeling moral indignation for being wronged
-You never have to be responsible again for anything

As you can see, these are some heavy-duty privileges; and they are not given to just anyone. This list is not exclusive.

Victimhood is automatically conferred if you are a member of one or more of the following groups:

- An underrepresented race (whoever is in the minority--the majority are barred from victimhood)
- An underrepresented gender(males are prohibited from victimhood)
- An underrepresented sexual orientation (heterosexuals are not allowed to be victims)
- A nation without land (e.g., Palestinian)
- Any nation the U.S. has a disagreement with
- A religion stuck in the Middle Ages (e.g., Islam)
- A person in jail (your crime is immaterial, but the worse the crime, the better)

Other individuals or groups may petition for Victimhood if they meet the following criteria:

- The Liberal Media confers it on them
- You appear on talk shows and spill your guts about some distasteful event that happened to you
- You use drugs or alcohol but get into treatment after you get in trouble
- You find God after you get in trouble
- You are very sorry for your reprehensible behavior or actions and have a reputable person to blame for why you did it (President Bush is always a good choice, but any parental figure--even God-- will do)
- If you are a nation or religion, it is always safe to be a victim of the Jews
- If you are incompetent at your job and unable to get ahead it is generally due to someone else's behavior; or it might be due to Adult Attention Deficit Disorder-- either way works.
- If you haven't achieved your proper level of power in the world (even if you are a dictator, surprisingly) you could be a victim of American foreign policy
-If you have economic problems, it is likely you are a vicitm of Capitalism (remember, that socialism, communism, fascism, and other ideologies are completely off the hook since they proactively blame Capitalism for all the problems of the world)
-If you are addicted to ANYTHING, you are likely to be a victim!
-If your feelings are hurt by someone--either intentionally or unintentionally-- you are a victim ( most Universities have special policies that cover you)
- If you can attract Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ramsey Clark, or Bianca Jagger to your cause, you are, by definition, a victim! Case closed!
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 1:03 pm | #

Mind closed, buffoon!
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 1:10 pm | #

Ha, what irony! daleyrocks sources the "Idiots Guide to Victimhood" by Pat Santy
Pat Santy is almost certifiably insane, a genuine fruitcake.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 1:26 pm | #

-You are not responsible for what happened to you
IRAQ WAR!
-You are always morally right
IRAQ WAR!
-You are not accountable to anyone for anything
IRAQ WAR!
-You are forever entitled to sympathy
IRAQ WAR!
-You are always justified in feeling moral indignation for being wronged
IRAQ WAR!
-You never have to be responsible again for anything
IRAQ WAR!

- An underrepresented race (whoever is in the minority--the majority are barred from victimhood)
RACISM!
- An underrepresented gender (males are prohibited from victimhood)
MISOGYNY!
- An underrepresented sexual orientation (heterosexuals are not allowed to be victims)
SEX HATRED!
- A religion stuck in the Middle Ages (e.g., Islam)
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY!
- A person in jail (your crime is immaterial, but the worse the imagined, uncharged crime, the better)
GITMO!

- The Liberal Media confers it on them
REPUBLICANS!
- You appear on talk shows and spill your guts about some distasteful event that happened to you
LYNNE CHENEY!
- You use drugs or alcohol but get into treatment after you get in trouble
FOLEY! LIMBAUGH!
- You find God after you get in trouble
HAGGARD! BUSH!
- You are very sorry for your reprehensible behavior or actions and have a reputable person to blame for why you did it (President Bush is always a good choice, but any parental figure--even God-- will do)
ADELMAN, DRUM, PERLE, ET AL!
- If you are a nation or religion, it is always safe to be a victim of the Jews
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY!
- If you are incompetent at your job and unable to get ahead it is generally due to someone else's behavior; or it might be due to Adult Attention Deficit Disorder-- either way works.
BUSH!
- If you haven't achieved your proper level of power in the world (even if you are a dictator, surprisingly) you could be a victim of American foreign policy
BUSH!
-If you have economic problems, it is likely you are a victim of Capitalism (remember, that socialism, communism, fascism, and other ideologies are completely off the hook since they proactively blame Capitalism for all the problems of the world)
LOCKHEED, CHRYSLER, JOHNS-MANVILLE, UNITED AIRLINES, SAVINGS & LOANS, ETC. ETC. ETC.!
-If you are addicted to ANYTHING, you are likely to be a victim!
BUSH! FOLEY! LIMBAUGH!
-If your feelings are hurt by someone--either intentionally or unintentionally-- you are a victim ( most Universities have special policies that cover you)
DALEYROCKS!

How does it feel to have Rush Limbaugh's hand up your butt? What a tool you are little puppet man. You really think guys like Limbaugh, Bush and Cheney respect useful idiots like you? Take a long look in the mirror sonny. That's where you can find a true victim!
.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 1:33 pm | #

Lee - You've got it bad. You are SUCH a victim! I like the displacement you use.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 1:41 pm | #

"Les - Some info on victimhood for you."

And who better than conservatives to give the lesson, as they have been victims now for decades. Victimhood is the conservative bread and butter.

Victims of a liberal media, even while they've muzzled it;
Victims of government regulation, even though they've gutted it;
Victims of popular culture, even while they've bought it;
Victims of religious persecution, even while they've done everything possible to unify church and state.

Conservatives have been whimpering like spoiled children about being victims, even while they've contolled the Whitehouse, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
We're victims, victims, victims, they scream, even while they lynch their latest segment of our society--gays, native americans, women.

So yeah, by all means, tell us how it's done.
casual observer | 11.25.06 - 1:47 pm | #

It's Les numbskull. You are so pathetic. Just keep diggin'. What a joke you are.
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 1:53 pm | #

shooter the 242nd guy to want to call himself that at the place he chose the name sayeth unto the people,

"verily I say unto thee: Heh! You don't know principled behavior when you see it. Heh. Perhaps you' ve noticed that there has been a hue and cry, throwing of tantrums and general childishness around the outcomes of the current election. Heh. Rather than blame themselves, there is a general reassessment of conservative principles within the other party. A reassessment to which you are not invited. Heh.

Indeed it's hard to tell from yours and Glenn's posts that the Democrats have control of Congress. Heh. It seems that this aspect of your post is coming to fruition.....

Heh.

In further fact, this paroxym of bile from the left in general reinforces my belief that liberals are incapable of happiness. Heh. You goddam bastards make me sick! Heh.
I wanna ring your scrawny necks you motherfucking sonsobithches. Heh.

YOU GUYS KICKED OUR ASSES. HEH.

heh. heh.

heh.heh heh heh heh heh!!!

(shooter shakes with rage and spittle drips from shooters lips as he pounds away at his keypad the word) HEH.

I think you'd be better off tending to your own garden and warding off men of low character from the the Congressional leadership. Heh.


Waaahh waaaah waaaah boo hooo hoo hooo hooo BOOO HOOO HOOO HOOO!

HEH.
shooter242 | 11.25.06 - 7:56 am | #
"shooter"shooter | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 2:24 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 12:54pm:

We are living in the U.S. not Germany in the 1930s, but I guess that makes no difference to you.

If the past three centuries have taught anything to the serious student, it is that no society or system of government are totally secure from overthrow from within. A lesson you well learn if you wish to avoid the fate of your ideological forebears.

I am aware of the history and the factors influencing Germany and Europe then. I would say the comparison to the U.S. now is a little strained.

Then, pray, enlighten us how such comparisons are 'a little strained'. Or are you simply saying this to avoid admitting your ignorance?

Given your fear of the manchild mannequin, I hope that your underwear dries through your pants.

Said manchild mannequin has command of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, and increasingly few emotional impediments it seems to utilizing it.

If this does not at least give you pause, there's no hope of engaging you in discussion. You'll follow him into the abyss and insist its paradise.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.25.06 - 2:31 pm | #

Have no fear. Being the "party of hate" falls right into place nicely. heh. I would know.

Glenn can protest all he likes but his illustrations of the Bush movement were from individuals. heh.

Lawyers can semantic their way out of potential pitfalls. heh.

Someof my best friends are black! Hate. Hate. Hate. Heh.

This is interesting....The ends have condemned the means. That would make every bad result, the logical end to prior malicious intent is summary to the fallaciousness of the syndromic intent meter polic rebus nog filwnisterm. Heh.

Kind of like the way early religion blamed the sun, moon, and attending lesser God's responsible for the fates and fourtunes of we, mere mortals who have the nimbic nogin of notable nullity on our upper doily woilics.heh. It's official folks.

Heh.

Bush has the power of a God, and is responsible for every good visited upon the world. I know this in my innermost heart of hearts. If only you people could find the peace that I've found in worshipping GW Bush, you'd never agagin need to think rationally. It feels so fantastic to be freed from the needs to think for myself. I just repeat what I'm told, and attack the people I'm told to hate.

OTOH Democratic victories have given the go ahead to civil war. Heh.

The various factions are now confident of no American reprisals, and enjoy withdrawal of American support from the Iraqi Government. Let the slaughter continue! It fits nicely with the hate meme doesn't it? I understand hate memes better than anything else in the whole wide George Bush lovin' world.

Heh.
shooter242 | 11.25.06 - 10:45 am | #
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 2:38 pm | #

Shooter242: You write - "Bush has the power of a God, and is responsible for every evil visited upon the world".

Where in my statement do I say he's responsible for "every evil visited upon the world"...as opposed to the evils that flow from his actual policies (which is what I DID say).

Let's just take one such policy - His Torture Policy and Secret Renditions to CIA locals around the world. And when (and if) those signed Presdential memos make it to see the light of day --

Let's be clear - This President Endorses and Condones and Permits people to be tortured to death in methods inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. Is it any better that G.W. didn't dirty his own hands and actually use the implements himself? (Only signed those memos?) That he did this while sipping iced-tea and trimming brush in Crawford, or safely behind his desk in the Oval Office, but never raise his own hand to these victims.

Does this make him any less of a torturer? Should I despise him any less for these policies done in the Good Name of us - U.S. Citizens? Does it really matter that he never personally saw those folks in prisons? Viewed their treatment- saw the sweat, blood, tears, vomit, bile, shit, urine, stink of death? Never sullied his little Presidential fingers with actual contact...maybe only had the reports read to him third hand by an aide?

Is that what you're suggesting, Shooter...that IF he's not responsible for all the "evils visited upon the world" - then he's not responsible for this particular evil, those particular policies and those specific tortures and deaths? I must be imagining it all...and ascribing super-powers to such a normal beer-swilling down home guy...who couldn't possibly be RESPONSIBLE for any of this!

The stupidest thing is Dubya's constant suggestion that because the folks who deal in terrorism are likewise evil - that somehow he himself is NOT. That's a false dichotomy...that it's either those folks are evil, and I'm against them...then I have to be GOOD). Why can't they both be evil...only from a different angle?

It reminds me of the 2004 election issue of John Kerry mentioning in the debate about the Cheney's daughter being Gay...and Lynne Cheney faux umbrage at Kerry - "He's not a NICE man." The unstated implication of this being that the Cheney's are just *Such Nice People.* Sheesh...I'm sorry , but the Cheney's are Not Nice People- and neither is Dubya just a Nice Guy, working his way through hard time - a victim of circumstances beyond his control, some innocent bystander to the events he has CREATED.

But my real question is (was) why is it de-legitimate to hate him personally in addition to hating his policies? Why should it matter, or somehow confer a bias or taint to the underlying issue of IF Bush is responsible for reprehensible policies and despicable results and illegal inhuman effects of his actions...why can't I hate him for this? And hate the policies too?
KarenMcL | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 2:52 pm | #

Les is Even Less - Sorry about the name thing. Slip of the finger on the keyboard.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 3:50 pm | #

Iokanaan in the Well - You're a serious student? We'll color me surprised! Who knew!

You think we're living in a police state - obvious delusion right there. You're worried about our society or government being OVERTHROWN from within - what are you smoking? You claim Bush is about to push the nuclear button - have you got your shelter all stocked up? Better start with some adult diapers.

You sound like a bigger whack-a- doodle than Paul Craig Roberts

BTW - Who do you claim are my ideological forbears?
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 3:58 pm | #

Karen - Honey, I don't want to put words in shooters mouth, but you just go ahead and hate whoever you want if it makes you feel good. That's what being a liberal is all about isn't it, feelings and feeling good?
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 4:02 pm | #

daleydittohead

When you think about reality, does it hurt your head to think about your love for everything Rush Limbaugh says at the same time?

Now that almost the whole country has rejected everything you love, does that mean you hate almost the whole country now, or just the people smarter and stronger than you, like all of us here?

I love that losing hasn't changed your mind. The tiny little group that still doesn't realize what complete idiots you guys are still needs to see your posts to understand why the rest of the country has turned on you.
The more you guys open your mouths, the better it is for America. Be sure to keep mentioning what Rush Limbaugh tells you about what liberals think.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 5:04 pm | #

daleydose o'shite

You could earn Rush's eternal love if you showed up at his studio with a bunch of oxycontin. He'd hand you a cigarbox of money bigger than the ones he used to give his housekeeper. Of course he calls money, "the cabbage." He'll say "here's the cabbage," like he used to say to his housekeeper when he met her in parkinglots to pick up his pills.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 5:11 pm | #

Some of our local commenters seem to be fans of Calvin & Hobbes.

Calvin: "I like to verb words."
Hobbes: "What?"
Calvin: "I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember when `access' was a thing? Now it's something you do. It got verbed."
Calvin: "Verbing weirds language."
Hobbes: "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."
- - Calvin & Hobbes, by Bill Watterson
http://look.onemonkey.org/verbing_sm.jpg

Or maybe they're old fans of Alexander Haig:
"Haig, in congressional hearings before his confirmatory, paradoxed his audiencers by abnormaling his responds so that verbs were nouned, nouns verbed, and adjectives adverbised. He techniqued a new way to vocabulary his houghts so as to informationally uncertain anybody listening about what he had actually implicationed. If that is how General Haig wants to nervous breakdown the Russian leadership, he may be shrewding his way to the biggest diplomatic invent since Clausewitz. Unless, that is, he schizophrenes his allies first."
-- The Guardian
sysprog | 11.25.06 - 5:16 pm | #

Of course GW's a coke man. You'll want to remember to bring along some quaaludes for him. He calls them "the antidote."

When you show up with the coke he'll usually say, "Did you bring the antidote?" Then he'll laugh real hard and punch you in the arm and call you "da man."
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 5:16 pm | #

First, I forgot something and could someone tell me if everyone thinks this country and its citizens are legally bound by the Geneva Conventions? Does Glenn? Do the commenters here?

Secondly,

EWO - Recheck the piece you posted. He talks about a Bush police state, meaning today. Do you think we are living in a police state?

Do I daleyrocks? Yes. The effects haven't been felt yet except by the few. If these laws are not taken off the books and new ones are allowed to pass, in time everyone will notice it.

Please read these articles, daleyrocks:

Real ID Act Will Make America a Police State
by REP. RON PAUL

and

Boogeymongering
by Charley Reese

I want to say I do know something about animal activists not because I am one, approve of their methods, or know any personally, but because I follow these things in the press because of my compassion for animals and my desire to see less suffering in this world. Most evidence suggests strongly that there are probably less than TEN or TWENTY, if that, and I am not exaggerating here, animal activists in the country who believe in using violent and unlawful means to free animals and spare them from suffering. The others you read about are government plants meant to make the public think there is a large group of animal activists who advocate the use of violent methods.
Publishing pictures is not a violent method, daleyrocks, but a new law was just passed that defines that as an act of terrorism.

That being said, the fact that these ten or twenty people, who so far have not killed a single human or harmed a hair on a human being's head, are primarily responsible for this entire "War on Terror" occasioning a complete revamping of American laws, a rewriting of the Constitution, and the stripping of civil liberties is, daleyrocks, a bit of a joke, isn't it?

There are over a half-million foreign students at American colleges and universities; the U.S. borders, for all practical purposes, remain wide open; only 6 percent of the shipping containers are checked; and there is still a generous number of legal immigrants admitted.

I offer this as an antidote to the Bush administration's boogeyman stories about the threat of terrorism. There is a threat, of course, but it is far less than the administration would have you believe. Americans are much more likely to die in automobile crashes or from falls or at the hands of a 100 percent American criminal than they are from a terrorist attack.

The most active terrorist organizations in America, according to FBI testimony, are the animal-rights activists. For some reason, you never see terrorism "experts" from the network Rolodex files talking about animal-rights activists....

The president's war on terror has been fraudulent from the get-go. You can't wage war on a tactic, and since there is no conceivable circumstance where all the terrorists in the world would collect in one convenient killing ground, you will never eliminate terrorists by military means....

Terrorism is a product of politics and of injustice, real or perceived. Since human beings have no choice but to act on their perceptions, whether the injustice is real or perceived doesn't matter. An injustice will stick in a man's craw more painfully and longer than poverty or unemployment...

Many people perceive the U.S. foreign policy as hypocritical and unjust, yet President Bush has made no effort whatsoever to change or modify that policy. On the contrary, he has aggravated it so that we have gone from the point where in 2001 we had most of the world's sympathy to a point where in 2006 most despise our policies and view us as a greater threat to peace than North Korea....

At any rate, to assess risk, you need to know the facts. There aren't many terrorists in the world, and only a small portion of those direct their anger toward us. Check the mortality tables in any almanac. You'll see clearly that you have more to fear from accidents, too much cream pie, wobbly ladders or nature's own infectious agents than you do from Osama bin Laden. He might want to kill you, but wanting something and having the means to do it are two different things.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.25.06 - 5:38 pm | #

---

From daleyrocks at 3:58pm:

Iokanaan in the Well - You're a serious student? We'll color me surprised! Who knew!

We'll add this to the (very, very long) list of things you are ignorant of.

You think we're living in a police state

Did I say such a thing?

You're worried about our society or government being OVERTHROWN from within

Did I say such a thing?

what are you smoking?

I don't smoke. Filthy habit.

You claim Bush is about to push the nuclear button - have you got your shelter all stocked up?

Once again, did I actually say such a thing?

You sound like a bigger whack-a- doodle than Paul Craig Roberts

'Damming with faint praise', are we? You need more fish oil in your diet.

BTW - Who do you claim are my ideological forbears?

Oh, most likely the Sturmabteilung and Schutzstaffel, with a touch of Lavrentiy Beria. You haven't demonstrated the moral or physical courage to be one of the Konarmia under Budyonny.

Mind the long knives.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.25.06 - 5:52 pm | #

Dear Daleyrocks you say:

"just go ahead and hate whoever you want if it makes you feel good. That's what being a liberal is all about isn't it, feelings and feeling good?"

I don't hate Dubya cause it feels "Good"... I hate him cause it feels right, correct, the perfect measure of contempt for who and what he stands for.

I'm not sure if you saw the end of the season of Bill Maher's Real Time for November 17th. Richard Dreyfuss was on and he said this about Impeachment:

MAHER: And you think he should be impeached? I mean, what would that get you? Cheney as president?

DREYFUSS: The two reasons that one would argue against impeachment are the vice president—and the Democratic Party.

MAHER: Right. All right—

DREYFUSS: [overlapping] But I’m not in favor of impeaching him. I am in favor of the process. And I believe that unless the – the society stands against certain things, they will have endorsed certain things.

MAHER: Right.

DREYFUSS: Like torture. Leaving the Geneva Convention.

MAHER: That is well said, professor.

DREYFUSS: And lying to the Congress about the reasons for war. And once the Republicans are placed in the position of having to endorse torture, you’ve got a bad problem on your hands. And we do not realize that this is not about impeachment; it’s about the other branches of the government doing their duty so that you don’t hand off to a liberal or a conservative president swollen powers when no one ever turns power away. No one ever says, “Oh, no, thank you, we’re not going to use that power.”

MAHER: Right.

DREYFUSS: And so, whoever gets to be president, will use the power handed to this president. And we will rue that day unless we stand, in some way, against that, even in a minority report. Even if we lose – if you lose an impeachment hearing, whoever “we” are, then at least you have a body that says, “We stand against these things.” And unless you do that, then you’re for them."

And I think, similarly, the repugnance and absolute detest I have are a measure of the the *Stand* I take not only against his policies - but of way he does it. I'm in favor of the process of calling him OUT. Not putting up with his crap - "Ohhh....He's the President and one MUST respect the Office." If he acted as though he deserved the respect of his Office, he wouldn't behave with those Banal, off-hand, petulant Bullying ways. He wouldn't be lying to promote these policies - with Smiling lies and calling those who disagree with him *Terrorists* and Question their Patriotism and commitment to our Citizens, our Country, our Laws. It's equally in his dismissive manner to serious issues as if he's in a room dealing with five-year olds, not with fellow citizens.

And...I ask you, Glenn...go on admit it...you do slightly HATE him...now don't you? Feel a sense of disgust at this man ...and wouldn't ya like to slap that smirk off his face - just once for good measure! :-)
KarenMcL | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 6:01 pm | #

In further fact, this paroxym of bile from the left in general reinforces my belief that liberals are incapable of happiness.-shooter 242

To unpopular acclaim (here) I will post my own observation as I disagree with yours. I would say that those members of the left who are bile spewing partisans (as opposed to "liberals" which I think most people other than neo-cons and religious fanatics now sort of consider themselves since recently the word "liberal" has come to include classical liberals, libertarians and defenders of genuine civil liberties) are capable of happiness. They just cannot be truly happy if there is even one wealthy person left who is allowed to keep the fruits of his labor and they spew their bile at anyone who argues that someone should be allowed to do just that.

They forget, although they claim to be patriots in defense of American values, that this country was set up as a laissez faire capitalist system of government.

Do you think 9/11 Truthers are rational?- daleyrocks

Well neither you nor I know all of them so it's impossible to tell whether "they" are rational. I'd guess many are rational, a large number are earnest seekers of truth and considering how many lies the public has been told, it's rational to question all government "stories" and try to piece together the facts oneself as best one can.

Beyond that, I can't say and I think any further inquiry will be non-productive because if there was a 9/11 secret plot, whoever was behind it got away with it.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.25.06 - 6:27 pm | #

That's what being a liberal is all about isn't it, feelings and feeling good?
daleyrocks

Yes, I think that was a certain Pennsylvania senator's shrewd analysis.

Santorum also came out against the Declaration of Independence, you may recall, by condemning "the pursuit of happiness."

Feh.
Baldie McEagle | 11.25.06 - 6:53 pm | #

Iokanaan in the Well - WOW! You're really good. You certainly had me fooled with all that meaningless tripe.
daleyrocks | 11.25.06 - 7:38 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 7:38pm:

Iokanaan in the Well - WOW! You're really good. You certainly had me fooled with all that meaningless tripe.

Then perhaps you should quit typing the meaningless tripe you try to pass off as 'comment', respond to the questions put to you, and actually try to take these matters seriously.

But that's asking too much I suppose. I shouldn't be surprised.
Iokanaan in the Well | 11.25.06 - 8:01 pm | #

Dan D-
That's exactly what I mean. And muddying the waters by making false comparisons is one of the tricks the right wing pundits use to soothe the consciences of the faithful. Because, you know, if both sides do it, it's not really wrong.
just driving by | 11.25.06 - 8:22 pm | #

"shooter242":

I think you'd be better off tending to your own garden and warding off men of low character from the the Congressional leadership. Heh.

We did. We supoerted the Democratic candidates.

Your turn.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 8:57 pm | #

Iokanaan

I tried discussing things with these guys early on and learned it was pointless. The kind of comments they would make rang a bell, but only after a few weeks of puzzling did I start to remember arguments with my siblings as a child and the meaningless back and forth that used to take place. I remembered the same tactics used against me by older kids when I'd try to reason with somebody who was unwilling to lose in a fair fight.

These guys actually see themselves as the tough kids on a playground. The conversations always devolve into scoolyard taunts. The only thing they comprehend is schoolyard bullying, so feel free to push them around and knock their books in the dirt. It's kinda fun to get back at the bullies when they realize you're bigger than they are now.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 8:58 pm | #

I wish all these fucking conservatives would just wake up and die right. The party is over and it wasn't that good. In fac, it was a flop. We won, you lost. Move on. :-)
LWM | 11.26.06 - 12:29 am | #

daleyrocks- keep your deep intellectual arguments coming. You're a genius man!! In this forum you serve the same purpose as the crazy guy in the street yelling about liberals and minorities and women and immigrants messin' up his town. All the adults can point at you and say, careful kids, you don't want to grow up to be like him! Seriously, you're too stupid to realize it, but you do good work for our side pal. Keep shovelin'!
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 1:39 am | #

Glenn, here's a reason not to hate even the Bush movement: their goal is to get people so emotional that violent conflict seems like the only possible resolution. They have lots of experience at this. We win when we use reason and when we act constructively.

Not that I don't occasionally go and pound a post with frustration at how a small group of right-wing nitwits can bring down the most powerful nation in history.
Charles | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:41 pm | #

The strangest thing in reading these comments here is the notion that the obvious trolls like that "shooter" fellow and that "daley rocks" guy are clearly flaming anyone who is emotionally reactionary and illogical, and what's strange is that those who are emotionally reactionary and illogical waste absolutely no time distracting the comment thread in a direction that causes its derailment. The derailment results in the comment taking a new direction, this new direction being a reprisal of the old Super Bowl of Politics in which "repugs" are evil and "progressives" are heroic, and the emotionally reactive post many paragraphs of absolute drivel in an attempt to remind the trolls that the Super Bowl recently was "won" by the Democrats.

Sadly though, the recent election did not result in progressives or liberals gaining traction, except for a rare few. Most of the Democrats who won this recent election are centrists in the Bill and Hillary Clinton mold, people who will voice platitudes that are superficially attractive to those who consider themselves liberal. The sadness arrives in realizing that if you consider yourself liberal and you support a centrist Republican-Lite version of Democrats, you aren't even remotely liberal. You're basically a right winger who considers him or herself a "liberal" as a label of self-proclaimed honor and braggadocio, but the truth is seen by those who care to look closely.

Something tells me that the trollers like "shooter" and "daley rocks" see this hypocrisy and that is what keeps them coming back here to troll and delight in the banality of the replies to their trolling.
wet nurse | 11.27.06 - 12:27 pm | #

Nope, Wet Nurse, I disagree.

What is the issue with Shooter and daleyrocks, and why they act as trolls, is because they NEVER actually address the issue at hand in favor of derogatory references to ancillary points (like whether I'm liberal or not...as if that really matters, or to points I didn't make.)

My question is and still IS: Why should I HAVE to separate my dislike of GW policies from a dislike of him personally (as the person responsible for those policies). In order to respond to this issue...Fill in this sentence --

It's OK to dislike George Bush's policies, but Not to dislike him personally because___________________.

And WHAT is that answer?

IF anyone really has a good, rational, persuasive reason for this *assumption* - Make IT. Explain it, describe how it's *irrational* to hold both of these concepts at the same time!

[Or conversely, explain How it's only GW's policies that are horrid...but that he's really such a nice, generous, honest, forthright, competent, intellectually honest, straight-shooter, upstanding individual and IS not to held personally for any of these things.]

As a final aside, as much as I might *enjoy* slapping that smirk of his face (which would FEEL GOOD)...I prefer the idea of whacking him upside his head with the Rule of Law...and bringing him to account for these issues in an open forum like a Court Room to be judged by a Jury of Good Citizens! But's that's just the sense of Justice I hold and the Lawyer in me!
KarenMcL | Homepage | 11.28.06 - 9:17 am | #

"Sadly though, the recent election did not result in progressives or liberals gaining traction, except for a rare few."

By 'rare few', I suppose you're referring to the committee chairs.
casual observer | 11.29.06 - 8:47 pm | #