Olby seems to be in a dander tonight. At the show's start, he was racing through his copy and frothing at the mouth. He gave a stammering retraction/clarification about Jessica Lynch/Lynndie England. Now we know there is something wrong with him. The Magnificent Olbywan never does that.

Dick Deadeye? I think he got that bass ackward, but that's our Olby.

He's still racing through his script. What's wrong, Olby?

Why I can't believe it!!!!!!!

Thats it!!!!!!!!!!!

Fox News and Bill O'Reilly have gone too far!

Bill has that far,far,far, right wing Kook! Whoopi Goldberg on the schedule tonight!!!!!!

Thank God that Keith has nothing but fair and balanced guests on!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe the NY Post is planning another story about Olby. Maybe that's why he's upset and rambling like a fiend.

It seems that Paris Hlton was caught somewhere saying the "N" word.

So I guess she is going to have to go to 'Bad Word Re-Hab', like that guy did from that t.v. show I don't watch.

Any way we could send Olby to 'Bad Show Re-Hab'?

Maybe the reason Olby was upset tonight was the NBC brass told him they were not giving into his contract demands?

What is it 27 days to go?

I think he's mad because NBC exec Steve Capus chose to laud Joe Scarborough's ratings during a town meeting. Could that be an omen?

calling all moonbats/wingnutz
i want to be the first to let you know that gasbag ivins is still at room temp.since all of you were afraid to remember how the blackwater employees were treated in the words of daily kos"screw them".and now another wingnut is calling our troops mercenaries.go ahead defend these asshats and you become unhinged over my comments about alter,matthews,and ivins don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

can someone please tell me where Keith OBscnutts got his info tonight during his WPTW rant that its NEVER been proven that ANY American soldier has EVER been spit on EVER.......oh wait,I'm sure it must be from one of those "high ranking,unnamed officials" that KO always gets his rock solid info from.

Wingnuts in Boston- if you're reading this I want you to know that it's alright to come out now. I know you frightened folks get very, very uneasy at the thought of a lite-brite bomb, but I assure you everything is O-Kay.

"HAVE YOU PICKED UP YOUR JAW YET"??!!...LMAOOOOOOO...Ol crook-mouth Shuster is trying so hard to salvage his career with this Libby case. He's prayin for a conviction so bad. Wont happen and he's toast..BET ON IT!!

Keith Olbermann: "There is not one, not ONE confirmed case of Americans spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam".

Really Keith? I think I know a few Vietnam Veterans who would beg to differ.

jtm- I'm calling you out. You are not a right wing nut like you're pretending to be. You are a committed leftist that is just trying to make wingnuts look even worse (trust me, they don't need your help). No one on this planet is dumb enough to write those comments with conviction. You're a "double agent troll".

indiedick
i don't believe your qualified to comment because you said you don't go to daily kos and you were to lazy to go to wa post for the bill arkin article.so why ddon't you shut your pie hole.you can put your sherlock holmes costume away.now when david brock is brought up we will call you up because you said you go to his site.once again you run away from the double standard of the left.don't forget i have that cold one for when you assume room temp.
BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL (this means "laugh out loud", jtm)!!

I bet that in your lifetime you'll eat Bob Cox's weight in boogers.

Johnny Dollar said:

"Just like Madame Pelosi trying to get carte blanche on military flights."

I see you failed to mention that Speaker Dennis Hastert asked for AND RECEIVED military flights for almost every trip back to his Illinois district from Washington. That was IN THE ARTICLE.

Pelosi is third-in-line for the Presidency. I think that reasonable security measures (like those Hastert received) are permissible.

James said:

"Really Keith? I think I know a few Vietnam Veterans who would beg to differ."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276799/posts

"I have studied urban legends for nearly 20 years and have been certified as an expert on the subject in the federal courts. Nonetheless, it dawned on me only recently that the spitting story was a rumor that has grown into an urban legend. I never wanted to believe the story but I was afraid to investigate it for fear that it could be true.

Why could I not identify this fiction sooner? The power of the story and the passion of its advocates offer a powerful alchemy of guilt and fear -- emotions not associated with clearheadedness.

Labeling the spitting story an urban legend does not mean that something of this sort did not happen to someone somewhere. You cannot prove the negative -- that something never happened. However, most accounts of spitting emerged in the mid-1980s only after a newspaper columnist asked his readers who were Vietnam vets if they had been spit upon after the war (an odd and leading question to ask a decade after the war's end). The framing of the question seemed to beg for an affirmative answer."

indiedick
when you can't refute an argument or facts revert to name calling.what part of double standard don't you understand.bill arkin is a employee of nbc is that not mainstream enough.i thought you would be in a good mood your feb check will be here soon and feb only has 28 days you can party like a rock star.go crawl under the rock you came from.don't forget conservatives don't need to be liked we stand on facts.
BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have Vietnam War Vets that post here regularly. Have any of you, or friends you served with, ever had spit directed towards them?

indiedick
i'm not going away i'm your nightmare that won't go away.we conservatives have the facts and all you can do is name call or change the subject.why don't you call out bill arkin for calling our troops mercenaries.
BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was some sort of shift today in the Anglo-American world. Prime Minister Blair was discredited just a bit more; Dubya seems to have lost a bit more public and Congressional support; Cheney seems to have become just a bit more vulnerable. There is nothing new in all of that. I have described virtually every day for the last couple of years. But there seems to have been some sort of milestone or benchmark passed. In the case of Dubya, his long honeymoon with the media may have ended in that ridiculous flyover of New Orleans on the trip from Waco to D.C., but his alienation was somehow made permanent in the CBO report today. If Dubya began to lose the respect of the average American with the "Heckuva Job" performance, he somehow managed to become truly disrespected as a silly incident in Boston showed us the lunacy inherent in living a life in America in abject and perpetual fear and the danger inherent in a leader who cultivates that fear for his own purposes. Dick Morris, of all people, may have sensed that when he wrote that the death of modern Republicanism is at hand (with one final short remission in 2010-2012). I think he is right. Dubya somehow managed to bungle a war and wreck a nation and a political party at the same time. And, maybe nothing really happened today. This is simply the day it all became clear. In practical terms, the Democratic primaries become all-important. We all need to come to know and understand the candidates in profound ways for it is they who will be leading us virtually the rest of our lives. By contrast, the current Republican class is irrelevant. We need to be looking not at the John's and Rudi's, but at those whose names and faces are not so well known and who will become relevant as our generation passes the political torch. The shift is likely to become a full-fledged quake before we realize it. Let's not be caught without batteries and bottled water.

And interesting corollary may be at work as well. As goes the modern Republican party, so goes the Bill-o's, O'Hannity's and Hillbilly Heroin Addicts of the nation? Perhaps. Much of their careers and all of their sustenance seems to be found in a mindless allegiance to Dubya & Co. Will they disappear? No. But, we are likely to find that they become mere shockjocks (not that much of a transformation) as they mimic the crudeness and shrillness of some of their compatriot bloggers on this site. I am not prepared to say that the future of the media is with Mr. Olbermann and those like him, but I am reaonably sure it is not with Miss Shrill Malkin's and her fellow shrews and charlatans. We have a glorious future.

kurt kissel
i would to love to hear your comments on what bill arkin said and your buddy daily(screw them)kos.just once i would love to have a lib answer a question.
BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KK,

I suppose if you are on an airline flight and somebody pulls out a plastic gun and starts waving it around you will find that amusing. But don't you be the one doing it.

I see you failed to mention that Speaker Dennis Hastert asked for AND RECEIVED military flights for almost every trip back to his Illinois district from Washington. That was IN THE ARTICLE.
********************************************
It was also in the article that Pelosi was asking for a lot more access to military flights than Hastert.

Back to KO....
Lets see a Dem Congressman calls a Dem Congresswoman a whore and KO can't find room on his WPITW list?..well no surpise I guess...1- their Dems so KO won't say anything bad about them and 2- KO is known to be unkind to woman so maybe he doesn't see it as an insult.

JTM371:

When you showed youself to be a crude giant and an intellectual pigmy during earlier "conversations," you forever forfeited the opportunity for dialogue with me. Beyond this, there will be no reaction nor any response to any of your foul emissions. This should be a venue for constructive argument and civil discourse. I intend to do my part.

Indierek:

I am a Vietnam era veteran. While I was fortunate enough to have never been sent to Vietnam itself through the luck of the draw, I did spend 1 year in nearby Thailand in 1970 - 1971 on a base that was one of the major Air Force bases used for bombing North Vietnam (Takhli).

To give a little background, most GIs going or coming from anywhere in Southeast Asia, including both Vietnam and Thailand, went through Travis AFB in California and Clark AFB in the Philipines. In other words, I traveled with the guys going and coming from Vietnam. In addition to that, I traveled all over the US in uniform because it was cheaper to fly in full uniform.

While I can only speak for myself, I NEVER had any incidents of hostility directed at me by anyone, nor did I know anyone who personally had experienced anything like that. I can't say it never happened at all, because there were isolated reports in the news, but I really believe all of that was overblown.

The bottom line for me is that I was never treated with any disrespect whatsoever at any time during my travels over a 4 year period, which all occured during the latter years of the Vietnam conflict. I was ALWAYS treated with respect by every civilian that I met.

We have a glorious future.
****************************
Well if your buddies in congress bring back the "fairness doctrine" which is an attempt to silence Dem critics then you may be right..but if O'Reilly ,Rush and others are removed from the airwaves it won't be because nobody wants to listen to them it's because the Dems had them silence.

"Lets see a Dem Congressman calls a Dem Congresswoman a whore and KO can't find room on his WPITW list?"

Well, maybe if SOMEONE other than the person making the accusation (who wasn't present) confirmed it...

kurt kissel
well i'm 2 for 2 first indiedick would not response to the questions and now kk won't response could it be they would have to call out another lib for something that is indefensible.go ahead kurt put your tinfoil hat.once again the double standard is in effect with the left.in the words of daily kos screw the bitch/ivins. BUSHROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

"Well if your buddies in congress bring back the "fairness doctrine" which is an attempt to silence Dem critics then you may be right..but if O'Reilly ,Rush and others are removed from the airwaves it won't be because nobody wants to listen to them it's because the Dems had them silence."

Gah, do you rubes even know what the Fairness Doctrine IS? It doesn't SILENCE anyone - Rush, Bill O and their ilk WILL NOT LOSE THEIR JOBS.

It just requires that BALANCE be provided when a network presents a matter of controversy - so if Rush bellows on for three hours, the radio station must provide EQUAL TIME to a person holding the opposite view.

> Well, maybe if SOMEONE other than the person making the accusation (who wasn't present) confirmed it...

That's odd. I recall when he made Karl Rove worst person, based on an unconfirmed story from one anonymous source lifted from Insight magazine. Olby never needs confirmation for his smears, because they're all against what he considers the opposition party.

Well, maybe if SOMEONE other than the person making the accusation (who wasn't present) confirmed it..
**************************************************
She was told by the person he told it to California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez..plus their are reports by other women making similar claims of his attitude towards women.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2572.html

And when was the last time KO let lack of facts get in his way of reporting a story if he could attack Bush,O'reilly or others he dosen't like.

You raise an interesting point, MLong. Although I favor a return of sorts to the Fairness Doctrine (the airways, after all, are in the public domain), we have to proceed cautiously. If Bill-o, O'Hannity and the Hillbilly Heroin Addict, even Messrs. Olbermann and Scarbrough were rendered mute, we would have lost little more than noise. If the voices of Messrs. Will, Buckley and Barnes, even Mesdames Carlson and Huffington were silenced, we would have lost natinal treasures.

It just requires that BALANCE be provided when a network presents a matter of controversy - so if Rush bellows on for three hours, the radio station must provide EQUAL TIME to a person holding the opposite view.
***********************************
Would KO have to follow those rules too?

The bottom line is the FD is going to be used by Dems to silence critics..because radio stations are not going to put on 3 hours of liberal bs which no one will listen too..they'll just play it safe and go to non-threating radio programs.

Dem and liberals have much more access to the airwaves than conservatives the truth is Rush,Hannity and others have been the EQUAL TIME.

While I firmly believe that right wing radio blowhards like Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaughm, and others have done GREAT harm to our country, I am wary of any 'solution' like the Fairness Doctrine.

The networks would probably respond by putting on the most idiotic sounding 'opposition' they could find, effectively gutting it's intended purpose.

You raise an important point, too, Ensign Expendable. You are absolutely correct about the manner in which the Fairness Doctrine applies. Some have argued that the Fairness Doctrine has a chilling effect. Media outlets will not air any political discussion because political discussion doubled consumes all time. I am not sure that is a valid argument. I guess it is conceivable, but I do not think I know of an instance in which it has actually happened.

Your fears are well-founded, Mike. Maybe the answer is in responsible citizenry, discerning viewers and listeners. How do we get people to spend as much time in the political theatre as on the stage of the American Idol, however?

Now THAT's a good question Kurt!

If we could just get the general public interested enough to learn most of the characters, they might actually become hooked on politics the way we are.

To me, the daily interactions of politicians, pundits, writers, and the like provide FAR more drama than any soap opera or American Idol type show ever could. You never know what is going to happen, or be said next.

KK and Mike,

You deep leftist intellectuals are starting to get to me. I guess I'll have to go out tomorrow and buy a bumper sticker that says something really, really profound like "Think Globally, Act Locally". Is "Masterpiece Theatre" still on? If so, I'll be watching that from now on, too. No more AI for me.

Kissel, your pseudo eruditeness is only slightly offset by your half-baked liberal bromides. You virtually reek of self-absorbtion. It's not pretty. You sicken a thoughtful mind. If you could see yourself as you truley are, you would set yourself on fire.

It just requires that BALANCE be provided when a network presents a matter of controversy - so if Rush bellows on for three hours, the radio station must provide EQUAL TIME to a person holding the opposite view.

Posted by: Ensign Expendable at February 1, 2007 10:29 PM

So radio stations MUST find a progressive to "bellow on for three hours" and pray like the dickens that they attract listeners.

Didn't progressive radio station Air America have a rough time with that?

One can easily see a station making the decision to jettison currently popular and lucrative talk radio shows if they have to devote the same amount of air time to shows that people turn off.

All hail govt mandated programming...

kurt
don't worry it sounds like you might have a few skeletons in your closet i will do alittle digging in austin and get back to you on it.hope it all comes back clean
BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

p.s.thanks J$ for the great fun!

These idiots think their ideology will take root only if other viewpoints are censored or eliminated from table, completely. I've always believed that although the Conservatives see Liberals as children who need looking after, Liberals simply want all Conservatives DEAD.

That's odd. I recall when he made Karl Rove worst person, based on an unconfirmed story from one anonymous source lifted from Insight magazine. Olby never needs confirmation for his smears, because they're all against what he considers the opposition party.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 1, 2007 10:30 PM

I remember Lance Armstrong making the equivalent of "worst person" on Olbermann's MSNBC blog Bloggermann....when Olbermann wrote that he thought it likely Armstrong lied about not using steroids because Armstrong said he would not cross a tv screenwriters picket-line and then later changed his mind...

No QQ, you got it all wrong!

We liberals, (and moderates) just want the Bush conservatives to go to their corner, sit down, and shut up, since they have screwed things up so badly in the last 6 years.

Now is that really too much to ask?

Cecelia,

Krazy Keith hates all sports and all athletes. That's why he became the first of the smart alecky, sarcastic "sports journalists". Now he's doing "journalism" about politics. Wonder why?

"While I firmly believe that right wing radio blowhards like Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and others have done GREAT harm to our country, I am wary of any 'solution' like the Fairness Doctrine."

John Stewart and Steven Colbert have put a considerable dent in the list above.

Conservative talk radio works because it uses a simple formula. That formula began with tent revival evangelism.

Evangelist tell their listeners what the evils are in our world then tell them the safe path through such evils can be found in their sermons.

They define such evils as things to fear and then resolve those fears through listening to them.

O'lielly and Hannity constantly mix their political talk with victim crimes especially child victims. This is all about heroics. They make themselves out to be protectors of society. A perfect example of a faking coward!

This is old stuff in small town politics across this nation - predominantly in the south.

The idea that we can have an equal practice with "conservative" talk radio is not feasible as it is today. But the use of calling these noise pieces out on the carpet every time they lie and distort reality - then we need more people like Al Franken, John Stewart and Steven Colbert. Ed Schultz is a great one for confronting these charlatans on talk radio without the use of humor. More hosts like Schultz would be great.

So far the genius of geniuses is Steven Colbert, he rules media of all kinds hands down.
O'lielly was a real fool to think he match wits with Colbert. I loved watching both shows on Youtube.

kurt
come on kurt you must have more backbone then your showing.you get called out and you run and hide like any good lib now that is a oxymoron.kurt why don't you act like you have a pair or have you been gelded to control your A.D.D.

BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not all athletes and all sports Rico. Keith loves baseball and he has the man love for A-Rod and Derek Jeter too. But it's true he's virtually clueless when it comes to any other sport besides baseball.

This is classic. Krazy Keith is so paraniod he had to start another site to try covering his fat ass lies he is caught in time and time again. What is Krazy Keith goint to talk about when the Libby case is thrown out? He'll have to dig up another witch hunt to "cover". How's the contract negotiations coming along "I answer to no one/Krazy Keith? Good Luck, loonie!

I guess it is conceivable, but I do not think I know of an instance in which it has actually happened.

Posted by: Kurt Kissel at February 1, 2007 10:41 PM

How could you? There's no Fairness Doctrine in effect.

O'lielly and Hannity constantly mix their political talk with victim crimes especially child victims. This is all about heroics. They make themselves out to be protectors of society. A perfect example of a faking coward!

---

An excellent analysis. Thought-provoking. Thank you.

Bush Rocks!!!!

I love this "I got nothin" Bush Rocks empty commentary.

Try this one on for size. Not a "rock" but a very dense substance, a newly discovered element for the periodic chart (google it for you pea brains with no science education).

Subject: THE DENSEST ELEMENT

THE DENSEST ELEMENT

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the
densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named
"Bushcronium." Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75
deputy neutrons and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic
mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark forces called
morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles
called peons. The symbol for Bushcronium is "W." Bushcronium's mass
actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various
elements in the atmosphere and become assistant-deputy neutrons in a
Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of
moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is
formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This
hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass." When
catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that
radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise,
since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons.

Well, folks, it's turd time again. This cowardly fake Buffalo is a miracle worker. One perfect, cookie cutter turd after the other, and all night long, too. Except the turds keep gettin' bigger and bigger with every day that passes. Dang! How's he do that? Things was easier in my day when a buffalo was a buffalo, and a human was a human. But today, too many people got too many problems in the head and they seem to want to display them for all to see. It's the 21st century and all y'all can produce it a cowardly fake buffalo. But not to worry folks, 'cause I am a gettin' my lever action Winchester converted to so's it'll shoot 10 gauge Lysol pellets. If that don't work, then I don't know what will.

There's no Fairness Doctrine in effect.
---
Once, there was. Most often it was referred to as "Equal Time." Same species.

Mike doesn't believe in the fairness doctrine. Witness his post above, "We liberals, (and moderates) just want the Bush conservatives to go to their corner, sit down, and shut up, since they have screwed things up so badly in the last 6 years."

In summary, Mike wants anyone who doesn't agree with HIS opinion to sit down and shut up. See, liberals don't want open debate and free speech in this country, they want one message and one message only to get out: their own.

Buffalo, very of you. I like the "Bushcronium" gag. Apparently you concieved of this gem yourself. You don't credit anyone else. Nice.

Buffalo, very > clever

hey buff:
i'm 3 for 3 you libs run from any questions that might call out one of your beloved spokemen.just tell me how you defend bill arkin.by the way i will take BUSH'S academic record over yours anyday of the week.maybe you should take the kerry 04 sticker off your car oh i forgot you take the bus.

"Buffalo, very of you. I like the "Bushcronium" gag. Apparently you concieved of this gem yourself. You don't credit anyone else. Nice.
Posted by: DavidBrock at February 1, 2007 11:23 PM"

Gem? How about a hilarious, and no I did not write it. Can you see the "Subject" as in strait from email.

Don't make who wrote the issue. The piece speaks for it's self.

Cowardly fake Buffaloes don't write their own material, but those turds he keeps a layin down on the roadside sure look real to me. And they are all perfect, as if his fake buffalo ass had a cookie cutter on the end. Dang, how does he do that?

Brandon:

My comment that you quoted was meant as a joke, as I'm sure most here recognized as such....as long as they looked at my WHOLE post, taken in it's proper context (not just the part you chose to quote).

However, most jokes are based on some measure of fact.

There's no Fairness Doctrine in effect.
---
Once, there was. Most often it was referred to as "Equal Time." Same species.

Posted by: Kurt Kissel at February 1, 2007 11:18 PM

No, it's not the same species. "Equal time" has to do with journalistic ethics, concepts that are delineated by that community. Though this process naturally entails peer pressure to conform, the decision to comply to agreed upon standards is ultimately voluntary.

That's not the case at all with legislation that would mandate stations to use air time for political programming regardless of its profitability.

We've not seen anything similar to that.

Hey Brando Puck,
Posted by: jtm371 at February 1, 2007 11:27 PM"

You're a desperate fool who can't enter a conversation with adults unless it is to help you get up on the big boy toilet before you pooped your pants.

You are an a--hole that has zero to offer to any discussion - here or else where.

You're a loser!

Here we have a coward hiding out in a buffalo suit and he's a callin' somebody else a fool? Dang, those turds keep a 'comin.

"See, liberals don't want open debate and free speech in this country . . ."

Brandon, are you kidding? The debate is over. Bush and the neocons have screwed things up badly over the last 6 years. If I'm writing Bush's résumé as president I'd have very few bullet points to accentuate the positives. The only thing he hangs his hat on is the stock market is at record highs. Currently, my retirement fund is benefitting from this. Other than that, I'm not living as well day to day as I had been before he took office. Bush has had 6 years to prove to us, his employer, that he would be a competent leader. It is time for the neocons to go to their corner, sit down, and shut up.

Please don't attempt that nonsensical argument that is along the lines of "Well, we never knew the genius of Reagan until after he left office.". That's as stupid as me telling my parents when I was arrested for drinking as a high schooler "Don't give me any grief about this now because I'll make you proud in 10 years."

hey buff
you live up to all the traits of the modern left wing.i think you need to get back on your meds.how hard is it to respone to a question.just because the answer will so your cause to be bankrupt and all you can do is name call.all you wingnutz coming out of the woodwork i'm going to have to buy a case so i can pop a cold one when you all assume room temp.let me guess 9/11 was a inside job
BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S.hope your neutered so you can't reproduce!!

He's a fake buffalo, but a real screwball. Don't know if he has his nuts, but he is nuts.
Don't know if he has his nuts, but he has lost his marbles.

And those turds keep a 'comin. Dang, one after the other. Where's those Lysol pellets? 10 gauge.

Yesterday at 9:28 PM, JTM371 posted: "its too bad that Jonathan Alter and chisssy Mathews beat the grim reaper that would have made for one hell of a triple header.i just opened a cold one knowing that gas bag is dead.have a great day i did knowing one more lib is now at room temp."

This JTM371 is just like some filthy little cockroach running around in a clean room that folks on both sides would really like to stomp, but it keeps on scurrying around and hiding under things, only to reappear a few minutes later adding more filth in it's new location.

The problem with cockroaches is that there are often many more hidden under in a slimy crawlspace somewhere, although One would hope that that isn't true in this case.

"Don't give me any grief about this now because I'll make you proud in 10 years."

Posted by: indierik at February 1, 2007 11:39 PM

Who's asking you to stop giving them grief?

On the contrary, you're the one saying "the debate is over".

Bill Cody, aren't there people in real life that you could go harrass?

mike
maybe you can defend the statements of daily kos and bill arkin.if you can't see the double standard then your blind when the blackwater employees were murdered your buddy kos said "screw them" and your other buddy arkin who is employed by nbc called the troops mercenaries and i have yet to hear any of you hypocrites call these asshats out.it is so easy to show you hypocrites for what you are as phony as the color of harry reids hair.kiss my conservative red ass.BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"On the contrary, you're the one saying "the debate is over"."

Yes, I am saying this. And the majority of the voters also said "the debate is over" last November.

Lovely Cecelia,

Ma'am, I was hired to take care of one buffalo. It ain't my fault that he ain't one. If he was a real buffalo I would have shot him with my Winchester, but since he ain't one I had to figure out another plan. Since those turds keep a 'comin, one cookie cutter designed turd after the other, I got to do somethin'.

"P.S.hope your neutered so you can't reproduce!!

Posted by: jtm371 at February 1, 2007 11:43 PM"

You try so hard to hide the more common names you use here, Puck, Brandon, or who ever. The use of no spaces after a period does what? You think that hides your over use of "meds" and other quips in your simple minded sophomoric peanut gallery name calling?

You have no style other than the use of many ID's on this page. Very lame. I know you have to be an a--hole in your everyday also, not just here.

As for reproducing? I have two grown children and 3 grandchildren. I am passionate about politics strictly because I give a shit about the world my descendants will inherit. Unlike the anti-environmental right wing evil perspective of thinking saving the world is a waste of time because god is going to destroy the world anyway.

I have zero-non-zip thoughts of or concern for a life after my death other than that of my offspring.

Unlike you, I had a father who taught me how to be a man. How to stand and fight for a cause instead being a lame pussy who sucks up to a group to huddle with. You have come to this page seeking validation for being what you are. Sorry to say this will never happen.

As for me and my validation, there is no more greater moment in a person's life than holding up your grandchild and looking him or her in the eye and wonder in awe about the fact that your after life is in your hands.

I can only think of how sad it is that you have come about in this world so lost and desperate to discover who you are in the manner you seek here. Always begging for a whipping in the manner you do is one sad pathetic way to seek validation that can be recognised.

"On the contrary, you're the one saying "the debate is over"."

Yes, I am saying this. And the majority of the voters also said "the debate is over" last November.

Posted by: indierik at February 1, 2007 11:54 PM

And the November before that?...

So it's not Brandon who's asking for no more grief (argument from opponents), it's you, from a debate board... who's being grieved by continued discussion.

We'll alert the media...

Since those turds keep a 'comin, one cookie cutter designed turd after the other, I got to do somethin'.

Posted by: Bill Cody at February 1, 2007 11:56 PM

Yeah, well, you could start by putting down the gun and getting an argument.

"That's not the case at all with legislation that would mandate stations to use air time for political programming regardless of its profitability."

It has been held consistently that a FCC license does not give the person holding it OWNERSHIP of the frequency at which they broadcast, but merely the PRIVILEGE of using it. And the government, as the TRUE OWNER (like any landlord) can require the renter to do certain things. Why do you think radio stations are required to carry emergency broadcasts?

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves." - Justice White, writing for the majority in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969)

"its too bad that Jonathan Alter and chrisssy Mathew's beat the grim reaper that would have made for one hell of a triple header.i just opened a cold one knowing that gasbag is dead.have a great day i did knowing one more lib is now at room temp."

The trash above was posted by JTM371 yesterday at 9:28 PM.

Lovely Cecelia,

It just ain't right for a man to debate a man who's wearin' a buffalo suit. It just plain goes against the code of the West. As you all say in the 21st century, "It goes against my values".

hey buff
did you teach your kids and grandkids to plagiarize like you.just answer the question how do you defend daily kos and bill arkin.you sound like a real pompus ass.you moonbats are so easy to nail for hypocrites its like taking candy from kids.why are you afraid to answer the questions.maybe i will be poping a cold one to you seeing that you might be older and ready to assume room temp.you want a fight lets fight but were going to play with one set of rules.by the way BUSH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can only think of how sad it is that you have come about in this world so lost and desperate to discover who you are in the manner you seek here. Always begging for a whipping in the manner you do is one sad pathetic way to seek validation that can be recognised.

Posted by: Buffalo Tough Love at February 2, 2007 12:02 AM

THIS from a guy who has worn out a thesaurus looking for news words for feces.

Bill Cody is a creepy stalker, but the above is more sanctimony that anyone who knows you can possibly take.

Don't act like anyone here would have ever guessed you (or Bill O'liely) are over 16 years old without your having told them.

"It goes against my values".

Posted by: Bill Cody at February 2, 2007 12:11 AM

And those values would be....?

anybody
why is it such a crime to make fun of alter matthews and ivins but it is okay for kos and arkin to trash people i respect and look up to.is this not a double standard.i just wish someone could answer this question.

Cowardly Fake Buffalo,

It's against my values, and the code of the West, to debate the insane.

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves." - Justice White, writing for the majority in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969)

So you want that to be interpreted to the extent that the govt reguires stations to produce programming that may not be conducive to paying the bills.

Of course you do! But don't then turn around and scold critics by smugly avering that the bill will not effectively silence anyone.

JTM371:

Because you cockroach, IF KOS and Arkin actually did say what you accused them of saying, NOBODY, but nobody would defend it.

I already know that you are one crude screwball, but are you really THAT dense as well?

THIS from a guy who has worn out a thesaurus looking for news words for feces.

Huh? That would be "Shit" and "poop"

I hope you would not evaluate such slang as worthy of a thesaurus.

However, it is worthy of the fools who share your side of politics on this page.

However, it is worthy of the fools who share your side of politics on this page.

Posted by: The Buffalo Poop at February 2, 2007 12:25 AM

Well, since you routinely include those synonyms in your moniker, I'd say you find it accurately descriptive of yourself.

You've managed to be right about something.

Lovely Cecelia,

If you still think that I am being too hard on the fake Buffalo you let me know.

Actually Cody, your just wasting discussion board space. The joke is very stale.

mike
if they said it where have you been living bill arkin wrote an op-ed yesterday in the wa post and called our troops mercenaries and when the blackwater employees were murdered and hung from the bridge in fallujah daily kos said screw them.can't you see the double standard.if its okay for the left then its okay for the right.do alittle work before you call me names read the arkin article and research the kos/blackwater issue.

Bill Cody,

The point isn't that you're too hard on Buffalo, it's that you're just like him.

"",

Your non-name is very stale.

Lovely Cecelia,

You are debating the insane, and think that I should be doing so, too. All while he dumps turds on you. That's crazy.

"routinely"

Fabrication Cecelia

I put "poop" or "shit" in my title rarely and only when it applies.

Now if you want to demonstrate to Bill Cody or jtm371 how to properly challenge me let alone get a "gotcha" on me, you will have to do a lot better than this.

I know you got it in you to be a better hero to these lame idiots than this. They need you!
(being sincere).

I know you got it in you to be a better hero to these lame idiots than this. They need you!
(being sincere).

Posted by: The Buffalo at February 2, 2007 12:38 AM

No, they need YOU...

No, I didn't read that, but did you see ME, or anyone else on this board defending what you said Arkin wrote?

If he actaully did say what you accused him of, why would I want to read trash like that? I didn't want to read the trash you wrote either, but there it was on this board.

At the risk of being too redundant, lets review ONE more time: At 9:28 on 1/31, JTM371 posted the following:

"its too bad that Jonathan Alter and chrisssy Mathew's beat the grim reaper that would have made for one hell of a triple header.i just opened a cold one knowing that gasbag is dead.have a great day i did knowing one more lib is now at room temp."

And then he called that "making fun" of people!

"Lovely Cecelia,

You are debating the insane, and think that I should be doing so, too. All while he dumps turds on you. That's crazy.
Posted by: Bill Cody at February 2, 2007 12:36 AM"
-----------------------------------------------------

Lovely? How dare you imply that Cecelia takes shit from me? You actually think you can evaluate my comments to her as "dropping turds" on her?

That's not accurate. I respond to her - it is you I shit on, fool.

Now stop pretending you are a peer to Cecelia. In your dreams!

You're a pea brained uneducated idiot who looks up to Sean Hannity as a big brother figure!

"No, they need YOU...

Posted by: Cecelia at February 2, 2007 12:39 AM"

Exactly!

Mike,

I leave them to you before Cody and jtm371 reveal that they have 10 grandchildren and are brain surgeons.

Why was Mark Levin nominated on the WPITW segment? Was it because he nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel peace prize?

mike
i did write that because i wanted to see the reaction and all the libs did just what all libs do they have selected memory.they can never remember or have read when the left uses ther vitriol to belittle conservatives reagan,heston,blackwater emploees,or our troops.turnabout is fairplay.please read the arkin article and the kos/blackwater murders and you will understand why this is a cause of mine.
thanks jtm371

> Was it because he nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel peace prize?

Yup.

J$
would you confirm that when the blackwater employees were murdered that daily kos said screw them and that arkin called our troops mercenaries.

"Why was Mark Levin nominated on the WPITW segment? Was it because he nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel peace prize?

Posted by: at February 2, 2007 12:49 AM"

__________________________________________________________________________
> Was it because he nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel peace prize?

Yup.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 2, 2007 12:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh I wonder who that anon above was...hmmmm

"would you confirm that when the blackwater employees were murdered that daily kos said screw them and that arkin called our troops mercenaries.

Posted by: jtm371 at February 2, 2007 12:54 AM"

I guess two wrongs do make a right(winger)

Subject: THE DENSEST ELEMENT

THE DENSEST ELEMENT

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the
densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named
"Bushcronium." Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75
deputy neutrons and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic
mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark forces called
morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles
called peons. The symbol for Bushcronium is "W." Bushcronium's mass
actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various
elements in the atmosphere and become assistant-deputy neutrons in a
Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of
moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is
formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This
hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass." When
catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that
radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise,
since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons.

"So you want that to be interpreted to the extent that the govt reguires stations to produce programming that may not be conducive to paying the bills."

I want it interpreted so that the cranks and the nutjobs don't just get carte blanche to say whatever demented theory comes into their heads and no one can challenge it because the radio station THINKS the opposition won't sell (Air America was a failure because the business model diluted the product by trying to immediately go coast-to-coast instead of building slowly and steadily through regional markets).

> would you confirm that when the blackwater employees were murdered that daily kos said screw them and that arkin called our troops mercenaries.

I confirm both. By the way, you can hear Arkin calmly defending his writings here:

http://tinyurl.com/yuxte6

I want it interpreted so that the cranks and the nutjobs don't just get carte blanche to say whatever demented theory comes into their heads and no one can challenge it because the radio station THINKS the opposition won't sell (Air America was a failure because the business model diluted the product by trying to immediately go coast-to-coast instead of building slowly and steadily through regional markets).

Posted by: Ensign Expendable at February 2, 2007 1:05 AM

Well, that's the point. The success or failure of any business ought to be decided by the popularity of the product and the business sense of the people who own that product.

To compel others to market it despite those factors,leads to some unintended consequences or maybe ...intended ones...that pretty much makes this

"So you want that to be interpreted to the extent that the govt reguires stations to produce programming that may not be conducive to paying the bills."

and this

"I want it interpreted so that the cranks and the nutjobs don't just get carte blanche to say whatever demented theory comes into their heads and no one can challenge it because the radio station THINKS the opposition won't sell (Air America was a failure because the business model diluted the product by trying to immediately go coast-to-coast instead of building slowly and steadily through regional markets)."

the same thing...

I would be very careful, leftists (read Olbermann)....venturing into calling personal accounts "myth," is a mighty arrogant stand.

First of all, what are the motives of those behind the need to "review" history?

The leader in the revisionism, Jerry Lembcke, has said the following,

"Derek Summerfield is correct that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a social construction but there is more to say about who constructed it, how, and how the concept functioned in post-Vietnam America.

"In my book THE SPITTING IMAGE: MYTH, MEMORY, AND THE LEGACY OF VIETNAM (NYU Press, 1998) and the article "The `Right Stuff' Gone Wrong" in CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY (24/1-2, pp. 37-64) I argue that PTSD was as much a mode of political and cultural discourse constructed by the media as anything "found" by mental health professionals. Furthermore, Psychiatrists imported almost all its key elements (e.g. alienation, survivor guilt, and flashbacks) from other contexts.

"PTSD functioned to help erase the memory of the war as an act of U.S. agression that we lost because the Vietnamese beat us by rewriting it as a war we lost because we defeated ourseselves, i.e. our military was stabbed in the back, our soldiers spat on, etc. The image of the dysfunctional PTSD-stricken victim-veterans displaced the historical reality that the war politicized and empowered a generation of GIs who revolted against the war and joined the movement to stop it."

from http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/week18/index.html

It seems like Jerry Lembcke has some ideological reasons to come to the conclusions he has published.

Secondly, how does the revisionist work?

Please read the research of Holocaust deniers....they have the same arguments: only third or second person accounts, memory issues, lack of "documentation." Looking at WWII, the denier simply says the camp victims died of starvation...not an actual program of genocide. The showers and ovens are also nicely expalined away.

So can how those who fought for our country were treated by the majority of the country when they returned from Vietnam. Then there are the leftist elitists who have to try to explain it all away...ignore history so that their sacred ideology is protected at all costs.

"The spat on veterans" deniers say there were no wide spread reports about the incidents...ok, but that does not mean personal accounts are any less credible.

See this post about a Morton Dean story in 1971....

http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1971-12/1971-12-27-CBS-17.html

It is a crying shame.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/01/did_spitting_vi.htm

Wow, cee. Its interesting that this same individual - a documented associate of Horowitz, COulter, and North - seems to be victimzed again and again and again by lefty war protesters, while no one else seems to experience anything of the sort. The "death threat" that this partisan provacatuer reports turns out to have been sent by a White Supremisist.

This "spit-on vet" cannard is merely a component of Horowitz's Trotskyite strategy for right-wing "political war", of which cee is a drug-addled wannabe participant.

But I do agree that legislators who do not forcefully combat Bush's international military predation are in fact buying into it. Feingold for President!!

Thanks for the link back! I love that image you put together.

As Bush's credibility sinks further and further beyond the lowest depths a president can sink, as the global warming summit results come out today confirming what we've been saying all along, that the problems are man made,as the trial of Scooter Libby continues to reveal what a lying sack of shit he is, to more revelations of Cheney's involvement in this whole sordid affair, it reeks of total delusional behavior when the right wing nut cases keep coming on this site and spouting their gibberish and thinking that they have the high moral ground with ANYTHING.

This site is equivalent to ((((((((Bizarro Theater))))))) !

Bushkill- Shaddup

This is a bash Olbermann site, not defend Bush site.
Your peeing in the wrong sand box.
LOSER!

You too KK

Love to bash a US ally because he supports Bush.
Double loser!

Cee:

Please review my 10:17 post preceding yours regarding "the spat on veterans' deniers". You seem to want to treat this as just another left wing conspiracy theory....but damn it, it's not!

You then defend yourself by saying "that doesn't mean that personal accounts are any less credible". OK, so what!...The fact remains that there are no VERIFIABLE accounts of this, meaning that any incidents that might have occurred were indeed, isolated, and only committed by a handfull of the most extreme fanatics, NOT the anti-war movement in general. There will ALWAYS by extreme fanatics on both sides of any controversial issue.

You were not there! And I saw what was happening first person, and there simply was NOT any widespread disrespect directed at the returning Veterans, as the right wing history revisionists love to keep claiming.

The only thing I can see that is really different between then and now is that people did not routinely come up to veterans and "thank them for their service" the way they do now. That is a positive change.

The truth is that the "anti - war movement" during the Vietnam era was EVERY bit entrenched WITHIN the military as it was in civilian society. I served with many, many anti - war GIs. In fact, that is how I first discovered that my Military parents had been feeding me a steady diet of propaganda about the war prior to my joining the Military (they didn't know it was propaganda themselves at the time).

If you want to keep on defending Bush and his war, that's fine, but when you keep using your very biased third person rendition of THAT war to defend your take on THIS war, you only sound shrill and uninformed.

delusional behavior when the right wing nut cases keep coming on this site and spouting their gibberish and thinking that they have the high moral ground with ANYTHING.

This site is equivalent to ((((((((Bizarro Theater))))))) !

Posted by: Bushkill Falls, Pa at February 2, 2007 9:57 AM

Yes, it's a hard Bizarro World for the Bushkills of Olbermann Watch. They keep insisting we don't have enough moral authority to hold opinions and we keep having them anyway...

Will somebody call these folks a wwwwwaaaaaaaaambulance...

The truth is that the "anti - war movement" during the Vietnam era was EVERY bit entrenched WITHIN the military as it was in civilian society.

AND EVEN MORE SO WITH THE IRAQ WAR TROOPS.

You are absolutely correct , Mike, but trying to convince that demogogue, (Bush's bottom, Cee,), of the reality of the situation is as fruitful as pissing in the wind.
He's one who loves to ignore the ignominy of right wing history from the Joe McCarthy witch hunts to Governor George Wallace, surrounded by Alabama State Troopers, confronting and blocking Assistant U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and the African American students from entering the University of Alabama, to the Watergate Scandal which ripped our country apart and weakened our faith in government forever, right up to present day where the republicans have cultivated a "culture of corruption" with that dunce in the White House wagging wars we can't win.

The lapdog for Bush's condemnation of the Iraq Vets Against the war , WWII vets and anyone else who protests this war, shows he is just another despicable right wing fanatic who deserves nothing more than to be ignored.

Sure Cecilia, you are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions have all been discredited with reality.
But I'm sure you haven't noticed.It's a difficult pill to swallow.

Mike,

I, personally don't know whether there are "verifiable accounts" of the mistreatment of Nam vets. I do know that then and now ROTC programs were not welcomed on many campuses and that ROTC participants and the military in general, were regarded as being commprised of authoritarian types who prey on innocent, in a sense. But I'd have to do more research, rather simply taking Olbermann's word for it.

That said, I DO know that it's a fact that many of the war protesters of that time were manhandled by the police, to put it mildly.

Something that you mention that I don't understand, is why David Horowitz, who was indisputably part of the anti-war movement, is suddenly not credible as to how the New Left felt towards and treated Nam vets, simply because the antics and positions of the members of that movement influenced Horowitz's change in philosophy.

I want to point out to you too that you reference your own service during that time as giving you some insight and experience but then seem to dismiss Oliver North's experience and standing in such matters,

Are liberals the only credible voice on the subject?

Sure Cecilia, you are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions have all been discredited with reality.
But I'm sure you haven't noticed.It's a difficult pill to swallow.

Posted by: Bushkill Falls,Pa at February 2, 2007 11:05 AM

You're right, I haven't noticed.

You're the one whinning over people differing with your opinions. If there's a pill stuck somewhere it's in your gullet.

GOP IN ESCALATING CIVIL WAR OVER IRAQ TROOP SURGE

-- Uniter-In-Chief First Divides U.S. Electorate, Congress, Allies, Iraq ... Then Republican Party --

WASHINGTON (NewYorkSun) -- The first rhetorical shots of a Republican civil war will be fired Monday when the Senate begins debate on a resolution rebuking the president's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. While Republican critics of the surge policy persuaded their Democratic colleagues to tone down a version of the resolution passed nearly along party lines in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, those Republican senators who said they would vote for such a resolution are now under fire from the party's base. Yesterday, the Senate minority leader tried to make the best of a bad situation. Senator McConnell, a Republican of Kentucky, hosted meetings with representatives of the anti-surge Republican caucus to at least maintain party unity for procedural votes to retain his option to filibuster the compromise resolution sponsored by Senator Warner, a Republican of Virginia, and Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan.

"Actually, I have tremendous respect for the PM, as a statesman and as a political operative. If someone like the PM would have been our president, I might have disagreed with the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, but I would be confident that the strategy and the tactics would have been thoughtfully and skillfully developed, the plans well-executed. We could truthfully have said, "Mission Accomplished". "

What mission would that be, Kurt? The one to profit the military-industrial complex? The mission for U.S. oil hegemony? The one to revenge Bush's padre and fulfill Pescott Bush genetic markers for fascism?

You've described "the mission" in all these terms, why do you now wax glowingly that a liberal British PM would have won the damn thing?!

A liberal who saw all the U.S. intelligence, that you've declared was cynically interpreted and had his own intelligence about Saddam's intentions for WMD as well!

More proof that on Olbermann Watch anyway, war opposition is only epidermis deep.

Delve more deeply than that layer and the rest is pure Bush hatred all the way down to the marrow...

"Are liberals the only credible voice on the subject?"

Cecelia, stop dealing in labels and pedigrees and look at the arguments themselves. Horowitz was an anti-war activist during the Vietnam war, but he was also at that time a Trotskyite who dealt in propaganda and misinformation. He abandoned his phoney position on the left when he finally was in no personal danger of military service in a war zone, and when it became apparent that his baseless and manipulative style of argument and misinformation was not welcomed by real liberals. He is still a Trotskyite, and is a champion of the straw-man offense for the right-wingers. His widely circulated memo to Republican activists clearly shows his dedication to disingenuous manipulation of opinion as opposed to engaging is open debate.

Ollie North may be credible as a vet - I really don't know the particulars surrounding his military service; but in his subsequent role as a servant of the executive branch he demonstrated his position as a virulent enemy of our constitution, and his persistent following on the right goes a long way to discredit all of you people. I particularly despised the way he - during his recent week of Fox reporting in Iraq - failed to mention in his reports the death of his miltary escort via IED mere moments after they had deposited him in his secure lodgings. One of these slain escorts was the highest-ranking female serviceperson to be killed to date in this cynical war. He did not say a word about the sacrifice of this detachment with whom he had been in such close contact: instead, he issued only rosy reports regarding the situation there. Talk about disregarding and disrespecting our troops! The troops are used as sheilds, scapegoats, and bloody shirts for these propagandists for eternal war.

Sir Loin,

There's a certain irony in your telling me not to "deal in labels" and then throwing around terms like "trotskyite", "right-wingers", and "real liberals".

God knows there's always the eternal irony here in all the presuppositions one must accept in order to be "looking at the arguments themselves", from your side.

I must accept that Horowitz was a part of the New Left, the anti-war movement, as an effort to save his own hide from being sent over to fight (as though that position held any shame for member of the left at the time) and that he left the movement because he was being marginalized by "real liberals" instead of intellectually drifting away from them as he claims.

As for North and his female escort here's a news article that differs from your account in some important ways.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003523039

Sure Cecilia, you are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions have all been discredited with reality.
But I'm sure you haven't noticed.It's a difficult pill to swallow.

You're right, I haven't noticed.

----------

Ha!
Truer words were never typed.

"As for North and his female escort here's a news article that differs from your account in some important ways.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003523039"

Cecelia,

I was aware of the column that North wrote in this regard, but in my post I was referring to his reportage on Fox News, a much more widely consumed source of pro-war pablum. I challenge you to find any hint of a mention of these deaths from whatever residue of North's reporting during his visit that may remain on the FoxNews archives. Could it be that North is cynical enough to trim his reporting on unfolding tragedies to suit his episodic paymasters?

This is not, as you assert, a case of me dealing hypocritically in lables - I am instead pointing out clear patterns of discrepancy that permeate the positions seeping from the right. Such patterns can quite legitimately be cited to discredit particular mouthpieces.

Ha!
Truer words were never typed.

Posted by: at February 2, 2007 12:22 PM

Yes, that no one has noticed is often the case with Bushkill's assertions.

But crunch all you want. He'll make more.

Well Mike, I may have been 4 years old at the time, but the revisionism of history by both sides of the political spectrum that has taken place through the 70's, 80's and 90's is well documented.

The numbers of individuals who claim disrespect in the form of spitting, hateful words or threats is tremendous. Using the argument that first hand stories have not been "verified," seems very similar to those who deny The Holocaust....plus, there was a definite anti-war bias in the media at the time so I do not trust that record anymore than I trust the coverage of post-Vietnam war coverage of Asia genocide. My conclusions have been based on reading primary sources and talking to Vietnam Vets who were the victims of abuse at the time.

Also, Mike, how do you address the comments made by the lead cheerleader against Vietnam Vet abuse, Jerry Lembcke regarding PTSD? His (and your's) ideology make you unable to objectively claim what you do....You and him have an ax to grind.....Just like the professor claims I have an ax to grind.

The silly professor (Bob) and Sir Loin of Milquetoast don't have any legs to stand on because they have had no skin in the game....so to speak. Their ideological pathology allows them to ignore the deaths of millions....(See the posts at the end of 1/29/07....A million South Vietnamese were killed in the decade following 1975).

Another case in point of the radical left's disrespect for the troops is Jane Fonda. Her story about what she did, through the years has changed. Now, a fact of history is that she was a person the anti-war left raised at the time as a spokesperson, a leader. In the 1970's, she claimed the POW's were treated well by the NVA....Is that true, Mike? She claimed that there were no atrocities committed by the NVA.....Is that true, Mike?

Another leftist celeb.....Kerry....How about Kerry's allegations at the time....True or not?

You see that the IDEOLOGY of the person...GI, protester, me, you, influences what they think is the historical truth....And to be honest, you and the professor and the rest have not supplied any evidence to refute the allegations presented. That says a lot about your conclusions.

Also, the guilt by association canard goes both ways.....arguing against Joshua Sparling's allegations based on who supports him is ok if you want to go down that road....there's a lot of dirty people on the left side of the argument as well.

And until The New York Times retracts their story, I will continue to post their depiction of the event on Saturday.....Why do you liberals have a problem with your favorite, "paper of record?"

Oh, and the George McGovern quote is just TOOOOOO important to give up.....1,000,000 dead Vietnamese confirms him as the TOTAL, UNCARING FOOL he always was....like Professor Honeydew (Bob), his follower and defender!

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

"I must accept that Horowitz was a part of the New Left, the anti-war movement, as an effort to save his own hide from being sent over to fight (as though that position held any shame for member of the left at the time)...."

True, true. The shame and notoriety only kicks in when people like this change their tune 180 degrees to ride a diametrically opposed bandwagon when they they themselves are out of danger and in a position to reap a healthy livelihood through such apostacy. After all, hypocrisy and self-interest are usually only discernable through inconsistencies in speech and action.

e.g.: "I din't want to run of to Canada or shoot out my ear with a shotgun, so I decided to improve myself by learning to fly airplanes (in the TANG)" (Bush in 1987)

J$
THANK YOU for confirming my statements on arkin and daily kos.

Kurt Kissel,

I would like to lead with a request. You are obviously a gifted writer with strong opinions. If at all possible, could you refrain from writing in such a way that says, "Thank God for the world that I exist"? Do you really believe that if PM Blair had your number on the speed dial, he would be in a much better position? I think Cecelia addressed the issue much more cogently than I.

You don't know the mind and heart of President Bush, or anyone else for that matter. I thought the nuns beat a Catholic education into you: ) There are people, like myself, who want the best possible outcome here. I watched an interview with Michael Ware (I may have his first name wrong), a CNN reporter who has been covering the war. He is not a supporter of Bush. He doesn't believe that the surge will make any difference. Yet he also acknowledges that withdrawal will lead to disaster. He kind of threw his hands up in the air as to what the next step should be. He may be right about the surge. But he may be wrong. Some course of action needs to be taken. I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I did hear these two points in the President's speech: the soldiers have restrictions lifted in their combat operations and Maliki has a deadline of November to demonstrate progress. I think it is crystal clear that time is just about up. Could that be the difference here?

You have taken the position that Bush is now leading our country into yet another conflict to draw attention away from the failed mission in Iraq. Has the situation in Iran remained constant as of late? Is there no need to consider a harsher stance? I don't see how diplomatic ploys will help with Iran. Maybe I am wrong. Olby and Matthews started on this topic the night of Bush's speech on the war. They tried to bait Obama into finding an ominous note in what the President said about Iran and Obama's reaction, taken just after the speech before time to spin, was that there is nothing wrong with making sure Iran is not up to mischief (or something to that effect).

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE: U.S. LOSING CONTROL OVER WORSENING IRAQ

-- Cheney Losing Control Over Worsening NIE; VP Unsuccessful In Postponing Long-Delayed Report Till 2009 --

WASHINGTON (WashingtonTimes) -- U.S. intelligence officials have told President George W. Bush conditions in Iraq are getting worse, the Washington Post reported. Citing sources familiar with the long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the newspaper said the report describes increasingly perilous conditions over which the United States has little control. The NIE says there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, the sources told the Post. The document offers no conclusion on the question of whether Iraq is in a state of civil war. It says there is a chance conditions could improve, but it also offers an uncertain prognosis on the ability of Iraqi leaders to fight extremists, establish effective national institutions and deal with rampant corruption.

Sir Loin writes: "Could it be that North is cynical enough to trim his reporting on unfolding tragedies to suit his episodic paymasters?"

Could it be that if North did not identify the Major personally in a medium far less instanteous than television, because he was, to quote the news story "not identifying her at the time as news had not yet come out.", he could have said even less about an uninvestigated matter on live television?

I don't know? But I'm not sure that's a less valid assumption than yours.

Too, you're asking that subsequent political partisanship or even gamesmanship can be used as a basis for mitigating any authority based upon past experience. In Horowitz's case it's as a former member of the New Left and with North it's as a Nam vet.

Stiff rules. I can't say I've even seen you apply them across he board.

WASHINGTON - Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the next 12 to 18 months, a collaborative report by 16 U.S. spy agencies says, raising uncertainty about the prospect for withdrawing American troops that are shoring up the government.

PARIS - A panel of international scientists predicted Friday that global warming will continue for centuries no matter how much people control pollution, in a bleak report that blamed humans for killer heat waves, devastating droughts and stronger storms.

War going poorly, Global Warming real, Olbermann keeps issuing Special Comments to his audience...NeoCons just can't catch a break!

"True, true. The shame and notoriety only kicks in when people like this change their tune 180 degrees to ride a diametrically opposed bandwagon when they they themselves are out of danger and in a position to reap a healthy livelihood through such apostacy. After all, hypocrisy and self-interest are usually only discernable through inconsistencies in speech and action."

Conversely, with this logic, one could claim (impugn is the better word...) that the many former pro-Nam folks who subsequently changed positions, joined the peace movement out of self-interest as well...

"no skin in the game"

Har Har Har!! cee is such a funny little eunuch! Tell us of your sacrifice, you pompous faith-healer?

Millions died in SE Asia between the early 1950's and the mid-1970's because we crammed out noses into the process of self-determination of a people who had fought at our sides against the Japanese. Had we not created and propped-up a phoney "government" in South Vietnam there would have been nationally unifying elections in 1956 -as decreed in Geneva following the defeat of the recently Vichy French at Dien Bien Phu. But we abstained from signatory status in that convention, and when the date for the election came we had built a straw-man set of rationales to promote and perpetuate a savage civil war.

My understanding is that the deaths in Vietnam following our departure were a result of ongoing hostilities from Cambodia (which had overt US support in this endeavor) and from China (which similarly and incomprehensibly also hinged on US support and aid), although North Vietnamese purges and retaliations most certainly did play their part. Similar mayhem very well may follow our departure from Iraq - whenever that may occur, and the onus will remain on the pirates that created the war from whole-cloth.

The obvous answer is to avoid in the first place starting stupid ideologically-rationalized wars that destabilize entire regions.

I don't see how diplomatic ploys will help with Iran. Maybe I am wrong.

--------

Ha!
Diplomacy is not a ploy (unless practiced by Republicans).
James Baker said it best.
One should always negotiate with one's ememies.
That's what diplomacy is for.
And diplomacy is exactly what the U.S. has successfully practiced with the Soviets and Chinese for decades.
It's also what the Bush admin has not successfully practiced (or even tried, for that matter).
Which is one of the paramount reasons Iraq and the Middle East is so f---ed up right now, dummy.
Oh, but that's right,
since you can't accept the realities on the ground,
things aren't f---ed up at all,
are they ditto head?

Main Entry: ploy
Pronunciation: 'ploi
Function: noun
1 : ESCAPADE, FROLIC
2 a : a tactic intended to embarrass or frustrate an opponent b : a devised or contrived move : STRATAGEM

"Conversely, with this logic, one could claim (impugn is the better word...) that the many former pro-Nam folks who subsequently changed positions, joined the peace movement out of self-interest as well..."

Yes, Joining the Peace Movement is an act of self-interest - in that one is actively attempting to improve the lot of humanity by ending the cynical cycle of waste, death and profit that is modern warfare. However, I find it hard to saddle an ideological shift in this direction with the same malignacy that is readilly appropriate to one who late in life joins the ranks of war-profiteers.

Please lay out for me your reasoning - what are the self-interested motivations you mention that would make an anti-war convert as succeptible to moral criticism as is a slimy chickenhawk of Horowitz's ilk?

Please lay out for me your reasoning - what are the self-interested motivations you mention that would make an anti-war convert as succeptible to moral criticism as is a slimy chickenhawk of Horowitz's ilk?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 1:09 PM

Absolutely, none. There is no reason to assume either 180 turn is any more morally superior than the other, unless the assumption is a convenient way to impugn an opponent.

How like the left to make an argument that any cynicism required in doing a 180 in joining a peace movement out of self interest is somehow less evil because the end justifies the means. However, an alternative idealogical shift based upon an evolution in your thinking on what is prudient national policy, is cyncism incorporated...

Either way, assumptions abound... as usual...and as usual... they're determinedly the worst for one side...

How like the left to make an argument that any cynicism required in doing a 180 in joining a peace movement out of self interest is somehow less evil because the end justifies the means.

-----------

And this from the party that justifies its freedom end with torture means.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Man, you couldn't even try to make up the kind of irrational-right doublethink we've been audience to over these sorry six years (unless you're George Orwell, of course).

Cecelia,

I guess I see what you're saying, but sorry: I tend to draw conclusions and make attributions based on a combination of empirical observation and the conscious use of Occam's razor.

Torture to terrorists! Yay says me!

Be nice to these terrorists says the loser with no name!
So glad these liberals aren't in charge.
We'd all be dead.

OK, the post above by _ responding to Cecelia helped me discern her point. No, Cecelia, it is not the degree of change in opinion that I find to be malignant - it is the direction of the change, and the context and implications surrounding the change. The two senarios of altered positions are in no way morally equivalent.

How like a conservative to see the act of changing one's mind as a crime.

"And this from the party that justifies its freedom end with torture means.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Man, you couldn't even try to make up the kind of irrational-right doublethink we've been audience to over these sorry six years (unless you're George Orwell, of course)."

Actually, Orwell, would have excoriated you for all your self-referential statements.

Sir Loin writes "No, Cecelia, it is not the degree of change in opinion that I find to be malignant - it is the direction of the change..."

Indeed!

Torture to be terrorists! Yay says you!

well, indeed indeed!

You are taking every angle you can in this discussion, Cecelia, and its getting you nowhere. Your argumetn was that I'm being hypocritical by criticizing Horowitz for changing his stripes because some pro-war people have turned anti-war and I don't criticize them. I've laid out my reasons for making this distinction and all you can muster is a lone "indeed". You seem to have been saying that it is intelletually dishonest to use one's capacity for reason to make motivational attributions in regard to individuals' behavior. This is patently ridiculous for anyone but a dedicated mind-slave. Please elaborate if I am in error.

Are you paid by the hour to post here or what?

How like a conservative to see the act of changing one's mind as a crime.

"When the facts change, I change my mind -- what do you do, sir?" - J.M. Keynes

"SCIENTISTS" OFFERED CASH TO DISPUTE UN CLIMATE STUDY

-- 10,000 Dollars Going Rate For Corporate Shills; 10K Amount Equals 30 Pieces Of Silver, Adjusted For Inflation --

LONDON (TheGuardianUK) -- Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

Sir Loin,

You're quite welcomed to use your powers of reason, such as they are, to make a judgement that Horowitz was opportunist and cynical as lefty because of the A--direction of the change he made and your interpretation of that directions context and B- because you feel Horowitz has subsequently been opportunistically as righty.

What you cannot expect is to credibly make an argument that such a perception is not nebulous at best or not based upon the sort of self-referential argument that holds that the self-interest of a peace movement convert is more inherently moral than self-interest based upon a change of perspection concerning national self-interest.

You get into even more dangerous territory when you then decide that these judgements of yours add up to a negation of the sort authority that is based upon the experience of having been in a particular movement or having served in war.

Are you paid by the hour to post here or what?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 1:55 PM

I assume I'm getting paid in the same currency that brings you here. A love of issues and discussion.

And, you are correct, we have a real conundrum. We ought not to have started a war against Iraq. We did. Having started a war, we ought to have won it. We did not. Do we remain, putting many American and Iraqi lives at risks and expending billions of dollars, with uncertainty as to the outcome? Do we pull out, with uncertainty as to the outcome? My best guess, and it can only be a guess, although it seems to be the prevalent notion among the experts now, is, stay a bit longer or leave now, Iraq is going to spiral downward as soon as we leave. I see no positive outcome, so I think we ought to save the lives and the money and pull out now.

As succinct and accurate an assessment as you are likely to find outside of Baker-Hamilton.
(Except for irrational-right deniers, of course -- who favor ideological beliefs over facts. You know, like Islamic extremists.)

"What you cannot expect is to credibly make an argument that such a perception is not nebulous at best or not based upon the sort of self-referential argument that holds that the self-interest of a peace movement convert is more inherently moral than self-interest based upon a change of perspection concerning national self-interest."

The self-interest of a peace-movement is not a zero-sum proposal - it is self-interest that advances the interests of the wide base of society. I interpret the current pro-war positions - and those during the Vietnam era - as being diametrically opposed to our national interest(e.g.: our people are dying, our treasury is overdrawn, and our international influence is now limited to the coersion we can muster) and therefore I oppose them.

When obseration of context and ancillary variables of monetary self-interest surrounding the pro-war opinion-leaders leads me to condemn these sycophants for sociopathic self-interest I make no bones about condemning them.

You have yet to explain your conception of the self-interest that you claim motivates anti-war activists - this is a huge gap in the central proposition of your argument that is causing this discussion to grow tedious.

"You get into even more dangerous territory when you then decide that these judgements of yours add up to a negation of the sort authority that is based upon the experience of having been in a particular movement or having served in war."

You are correct, Cecelia - good thing I've never done anything of the sort. Next straw-man?

"You get into even more dangerous territory when you then decide that these judgements of yours add up to a negation of the sort authority that is based upon the experience of having been in a particular movement or having served in war."

...and furthermore - this entire discussion began with my identification of the near-abslute absence of any of your side's political or opinion-leaders on the rolls of anyone's military unit or movement. You've got Ollie (subsequently a criminal vs the US constitution) you've got McCain,.....pretty much everyone else is Grade "A" Chickenhawk White Meat.

So, conversely, how much respect do you give the opinions and positions of Kerry, Hagel, Murtha, McGovern, Gore, Rangel, Howard Zinn, and Gore Vidal?

You have yet to explain your conception of the self-interest that you claim motivates anti-war activists - this is a huge gap in the central proposition of your argument that is causing this discussion to grow tedious.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 2:36 PM

I make no assumptions that anti-war protestors, including Cindy Sheehan, are driven by the sort of self-interest that you assign to Horowitz. I assume that they are motivated by what has come to be their opinions of what is in our national self-interest. That's the same interest I assign to war advocates, it's an interest that elevates individual self-interest into a more universial concern--- as you have described what you called the "self-interest" of the peace movement in the 60s.

If I make assumptions as to how anyone will behave having done a 180, it's that they'll pursue their conclusions with all their might. They will advance and advocate them. I will not assume that any monetary reward acquired in the process of doing that, is any more tainted than the salary of Bob Herbert or Paul Krugman.

If the advocation of beliefs moves someone into the area of impropriety, then we do come to our own conclusions about that person's judgement and their sense of perspective. But to apply that to the whole of their life and work and to use it to invalidate any authority that experience confers, is to abandon own own sense of perspective. We generally do that in order to advocate certain positions...and... you get the picture.

You get into even more dangerous territory when you then decide that these judgements of yours add up to a negation of the sort authority that is based upon the experience of having been in a particular movement or having served in war."

You are correct, Cecelia - good thing I've never done anything of the sort. Next straw-man?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 2:39 PM

Actually, you did it with both North and Horowitz.

So, conversely, how much respect do you give the opinions and positions of Kerry, Hagel, Murtha, McGovern, Gore, Rangel, Howard Zinn, and Gore Vidal?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 2:54 PM

Sir Loin, we're discussing your assumptions about Horowitz's motivations for changing his opinions (doing a 180).

Don't try to steer it out the muddy water of your clairvoyant self assigning certain motives to Horowitz, into the area of our differing with an opponent's opinion.

"If I make assumptions as to how anyone will behave having done a 180, it's that they'll pursue their conclusions with all their might. They will advance and advocate them. I will not assume that any monetary reward acquired in the process of doing that, is any more tainted than the salary of Bob Herbert or Paul Krugman."

...or, I suppose, to the massive no-bid war contracts given to the VP's once-and-future corporation.... or the Carlysle group, which until recently boasted the president's father on its BOD..... or Vinell and Blackwater, companies associated directly with the administration's hand-picked civic sabatuer Paul Bremmer, who demonstrably prolonged the chaos in Iraq through his series of incomprehensible and unnaccountable policy decisions.

Do you make no judgements when a presidential administration acts as the marketing department for their own Military Industrial Complex? Why is it so preposterous to you conservatives to put two-and-two together in regard to overt conflicts of interest that damage our country in so many fundamental ways? You wouldn't accept such behavior from your local dog-catcher; why give such a huge brainless pass to the most powerful decision-making apparatus in the country?

Yes, that no one has noticed is often the case with Bushkill's assertions.

But crunch all you want. He'll make more.

Posted by: Cecelia at February 2, 2007 12:32 PM

Wonder if Cecilia has the integrity to admit she's wrong on global warming.If not, please show YOUR EVIDENCE OF INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR VIEWS.

PARIS, Feb. 2 - In a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate change scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

In its fourth assessment of global warming, released Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used its strongest language yet in drawing a link between human activity and recent warming.

They said the world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas, resulting from the buildup of gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, the panel of scientists said in a report released here today.

The report summarized the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, sizing up the causes and consequences of climate change. But it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty " more than 90 percent confidence " that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950.

In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at http://www.ipcc.ch.

If carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice their pre-industrial levels, the report said, the global climate will probably warm by 3.5 to 8 degrees. But there would be more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a situation many earth scientists say poses an unacceptable risk.

Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling as a foregone conclusion sometime after midcentury unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive quest for expanded and improved nonpolluting energy options.

Even an increased level of warming that falls in the middle of the group's range of projections would likely cause significant stress to ecosystems and alter longstanding climate patterns that shape water supplies and agricultural production, according to many climate experts and biologists.

While the new report projected a modest rise in seas by 2100 "between 7 and 23 inches " it also concluded that seas would continue to rise, and crowded coasts retreat, for at least 1,000 years to come. By comparison, seas rose about 6 to 9 inches in the 20th century.

cecilia uses her "gut" to formulate her opinions on global warming. The same "gut" that told her the Iraq War would be a glorious success !( and George Bush knew what he was doing)

Cmon now, you going to believe the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or Cecilia ?

Just because her track record is abyssmal, doesn't that mean she's due to be correct, soon ?

Someday?

Maybe ?

in our lifetime ?

Similarities of Radical Right and Radical Islam:

-- Imagined, mythological deity
-- Biblical/social diminution of women
-- Fearful hatred of homosexuality
-- Idealized view of regressive past
-- Believe that ends justify means
-- Violence seen as viable solution
-- Contemptuous of dialogue, diplomacy and detente
-- Oppressive, proselytized belief systems
-- Belief in jealous, vengeful god
-- Fear-based view of reality
-- Rigid social mores
-- Insecure need for absolute certitude
-- Dismissive of iterative, scientific process
-- Belief in promised, idealized afterlife
-- Intolerant of alternate belief systems
-- Faith-based rather than reality-based
-- Belief in own god as the only one, true God

"Don't try to steer it out the muddy water of your clairvoyant self assigning certain motives to Horowitz, into the area of our differing with an opponent's opinion."

Pardon, me Cecelia; but you steered us there of your own accord:

"You get into even more dangerous territory when you then decide that these judgements of yours add up to a negation of the sort authority that is based upon the experience of having been in a particular movement or having served in war."

Remember?

Talk about your strawmen...

Now we move from an argument about the sort of quality and objectivity inherent in making judgements about the motives of others (namely David Horowitz) into a screed on Dick Cheney and the military-industrial complex...

No, Sir Loin...uh...Dick Cheney has ALWAYS been pro-military and pro-business.... He's committed no 180 so there are no Horowitz-like motivations for you to divine... He's been consistent...THAT should recommend him in your book, should it not...

For his next trick, Sir Loin, will introduce stem cell research matters while accusing me of consorting with scarecrows...

Al Gore is not only up for an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" he's up for a Noble Peace Prize too!
He has brought the world's attention to the most critical issue facing mankind today !

And then there's the right's heroes..ah...can't think of any of them that's had any accomplishments at all.
Does ruining the country of Iraq ( GWB) count as an accomplishment ? ( to cee it does)

...in case you hadn't noticed, Cecelia, we haven't been discussing that lame little Horowitz character for some time now - please try to keep up.

Dick Cheney is pro business- pro Halliburton's business !

Cecelia only discusses topics she thinks she has a fighting chance in hell to win.

Not many topics of that kind left for her.

Movie making? Wow!
Didn't they just give that jew hating ex president Carter one.
Nobel indeed

I hear Cecilia is up for a Nobel Peace prize too.

If she wins there's rumors to the effect that's she'll turn it down on principle.

She's against peace.

Cheney never did a 180? Are you serious? When his number came up during Vietnam he had "other priorities"...FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES! Now his own made-up war is his only priority. This is the sort of hypocrisy that matters, Cecelia. Horowitz is only of interest in that he uses his warped understanding of the power of media to suck up to Cheney and his dangerous power structure. Horowitz's personal cowardice makes him worthy of Cheney's trust; and few that have actually sacrificed altruistically can be found seeking similar patronage.

What's your story?

Benson is just pissed that the only thing Bush will be getting in his impeachment papers.

The right wing- Solid losers !

Movie making? Wow!
Didn't they just give that jew hating ex president Carter one.
Nobel indeed

Posted by: Benson at February 2, 2007 3:48 PM

it's called education. Something Benson wouldn't understand as a member of the discredited wingnut society.

Different subject- but nice try.
IMPEACH-IMPEACH-IMPEACH
Payback is a bitch, so bring it on!

Bushy- you back to just slinging insults when someone discredits your side with facts? For shame.

Al Gore educates the world on the most important topic we have.

George Bush just keeps digging a bigger hole for the next president to try to get out of.( Iraq)

Bushy- you back to just slinging insults when someone discredits your side with facts?

Please post this imaginary discrediting please.

please consult post at 3:30.

Then post the discrediting.

You got nothing, benson, absolutely nothing !

Anti-semite Carter receives Nobel Peace prize.
Hardly a loving soul... but he did win an award
saying he was peaceful. Read the book. It may change
your opinion of him.

"You get into even more dangerous territory when you then decide that these judgements of yours add up to a negation of the sort authority that is based upon the experience of having been in a particular movement or having served in war."

Remember?

Posted by: Sir Loin

The authority of Kerry or North's opinion about the Vietnam War is far more compelling than someone who was not a vet. But even their opinions are still arguable on the merits of their conclusions and interpretions.
We can agree with their opinions or not on THAT basis.

That's essentially different from your stance of negating the authority of Horowitz's experience based upon some judgement you have made in divining his motives for leaving the peace movement or some impropriety he has committed long after his 180.

Bushy- you harbor such hate for me because countless times I have smacked you hard. So now all you can do is insult... you go girl.

Only in your imagination have you ever even touched me, just like now.

You and your side have nothing.

RECORD HALF-BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG FOR BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

-- Will Host Conservative Belief Tank; Center For Hope-Based Initiatives; Interactive Voice-of-God Exhibit --

WASHINGTON (NYDailyNews) -- He may be a certified lame duck now, but President Bush and his truest believers are about to launch their final campaign -- an eye-popping, half-billion-dollar drive for the Bush presidential library. Eager to begin refurbishing his tattered legacy, the President hopes to raise $500 million to build his library and a think tank at SMU in Dallas. Bush sources with direct knowledge of library plans told the Daily News that SMU and Bush fund-raisers hope to get half of the half billion from what they call "megadonations" of $10 million to $20 million a pop. Bush loyalists have already identified wealthy heiresses, Arab nations and captains of industry as potential "mega" donors. "It's a stretch," said another source briefed on the plans. "It's so much bigger than anything that's been tried before. But the more you have, the more influence [on history] you can exert."

Sorry Cecelia, your rules are preposterous. I'm not allowed to bring up ancillary issues or individuals that demonstrate the arbitrary and hypocritical nature of the dialectic guidelines you insist upon for this one discussion? Bullshit.

If you insist that North's military service and Horowitz's apostacy from far-left dogma make their current positions unassailable by critics like myself, then I must in turn I insist that you extend the same magical powers to the conditions of John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Charlie Rangel, George McGovern, etc.

If you insist that this discussion must remain on the topic of one chickenhawk hypocrit war-profiteer, then I in turn insist that the master chickenhawk hypocrit war-profiteer must be invoked for context and clarification.

You can cry "FOUL" all you want, but I've clearly whupped yer ass in this argument, despite your attempts to crawfish and muddy the water.

Cheney never did a 180? Are you serious? When his number came up during Vietnam he had "other priorities"...FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES! Now his own made-up war is his only priority. This is the sort of hypocrisy that matters, Cecelia. Horowitz is only of interest in that he uses his warped understanding of the power of media to suck up to Cheney and his dangerous power structure. Horowitz's personal cowardice makes him worthy of Cheney's trust; and few that have actually sacrificed altruistically can be found seeking similar patronage.

What's your story?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 3:50 PM

Yes, Sir Loin, one can not support a war AND accept any draft deferrment offered by your country. We've heard that argument from you once or twice...

Poor David Horowitz... not only did he originally join the peace movement to cynically fight against the war solely in order to protect himself...and protect himself in the bad way...not in the good way that other peace protesters do... he did it in order to suck up to the power structure....

Nevermind that at the time the power structure was crumbling, anti-war sentiment ruled the day, and the New Left was hailed as the force of a new generation.... Horowitz was smart enough to change courses in order to suck up to...Nixon...
And clairvoyant enough to know that Dick Cheney was coming down the pike...

Which all in all, makes him only about a tenth as prescient as Sir Loin...

Rudy,
Spoken like a true Bushie.

Kudos to you and your insight.

"Yes, Sir Loin, one can not support a war AND accept any draft deferrment offered by your country"...

...and then start a couple of wars in Central America, and then trade arms for hostages to a proclaimed enemy of the US, and then sell arms to this same enemy in order to fund the wars you previously started in Central America, and then promote wars between Iraq and Iran, and then promote two wars against our own proxy in that latest war.... Personally profiting all the way.

Cheney has worked all of five years of his adult life in the private sector, and he is worth something lke 250 million dollars. How does this happen; if you believe he is working in the national interest?

"Actually, you did it with both North and Horowitz."

No, I based my criticism of North on his demonstrated tendency to value the party line of his masters above the truth regarding the conditon of our troops, who he should feel some responsibility and empathy for. Also, I disregard his opinion due to his convicton as a traitor to the constitution. Call me crazy.

Horowitz spews illogical strawmen, then brazenly exposes himself by arrogantly distributing "how-to" manuals to budding right-wing sycophants. He is hoisted on his own petards. I see him as a symptom, nothing more. Why do you care so much about my opinion of him? - to the degree that you avoid the actually relevant issues I raise?

"Nevermind that at the time the power structure was crumbling, anti-war sentiment ruled the day, and the New Left was hailed as the force of a new generation.... Horowitz was smart enough to change courses in order to suck up to...Nixon...
And clairvoyant enough to know that Dick Cheney was coming down the pike..."

He clearly knew that a right-wing, media-based juggernaut was coming down the pike - it was initiated under Nixon with the racist "Southern Strategy" and the definition of the same wedge-issues that confound the small-minded in this country to this day, and many cockroaches scuttled to get in on the ground floor. That's when Cheney started positioning himself. Don't play stupid.

Sir loin writes "If you insist that North's military service and Horowitz's apostacy from far-left dogma make their current positions unassailable by critics like myself, then I must in turn I insist that you extend the same magical powers to the conditions of John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Charlie Rangel, George McGovern, etc."
--------------------------------------------------

Who argued their POSITIONS were "unassailable"? I agrued that negating the authority of their experience based upon your perspections of their motivations, is quite murky water indeed.
Espcially a conjecture such as....Horowitz was only part of the peace movement in order to stay out of Nam... That somehow a 180 means he had no core beliefs in the first place.

However, you can certainly assail ANYONE'S opinions based upon the conclusions you make concerning their logic, their intelligence, and their accuracy.

----------------------------------------------

Sir Loin writes "If you insist that this discussion must remain on the topic of one chickenhawk hypocrit war-profiteer, then I in turn insist that the master chickenhawk hypocrit war-profiteer must be invoked for context and clarification."
-----------------------------------------------

Well, sure....1. Define Horowitz as being a war profiteer. 2. Argue that since Cecelia insists we talk about said war profiteer, you're entitled to branch things out to the Vice War Profiteer..

Why don't we define Horowitz as being an adversary of diabetics, quadraplegics, Parkinsons Disease suffers, etc....and you can bring in the baleful power of the religious right and embryonic stem cell research, when discussing Horowitz's "apostasy" from those far left ideals he never truly harbored in the first place...
-------------------------------------------------

Sir Loin writes "You can cry "FOUL" all you want, but I've clearly whupped yer ass in this argument, despite your attempts to crawfish and muddy the water.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 4:08 PM"

Since you're doing the chickenhawk thing, wouldn't the better word be "FOWL"?....

If I had a nickle for every time someone on the left declared themselves to be the winner of a debate, Bob Cox wouldn't have to pay me to post.

Cheney has worked all of five years of his adult life in the private sector, and he is worth something lke 250 million dollars. How does this happen; if you believe he is working in the national interest?

----------

In the same month (October 2006) that the US forces lost a record number of soldiers in Iraq, and the Iraqi citizens lost many more, Halliburton announced that its third quarter revenue had risen by 19 percent to $5.8 billion. This prompted Dave Lesar, the company`s chairman, president and CEO, to declare, "This was an exceptional quarter for Halliburton. Jeff Tilley, an analyst who does research for Halliburton, likewise pointed out, "Iraq was better than expected. . . . Overall, there is nothing really to question or be skeptical about. I think the results are very good." This led many critics to point out scornfully that when around the same time Vice President Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that "if you look at the overall situation [in Iraq] they're doing remarkably well," he must have been talking about Halliburton.[6]

---------

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." -- Maj. General S.D. Butler

Amen, _

"Who argued their POSITIONS were "unassailable"? I agrued that negating the authority of their experience based upon your perspections of their motivations, is quite murky water indeed."

Ceelia, you're a weird chick. Please show me how I exactly attempted to "negate the authority of their experience" without attacking their positions and I will concede the argument to you.

And no cheating by referring to Howowitz's "Right-Wing Sycophantic Obfuscation Made Easy" as you respond.

He clearly knew that a right-wing, media-based juggernaut was coming down the pike - it was initiated under Nixon with the racist "Southern Strategy" and the definition of the same wedge-issues that confound the small-minded in this country to this day, and many cockroaches scuttled to get in on the ground floor. That's when Cheney started positioning himself. Don't play stupid.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 4:42 PM

Well, who couldn't see the arrival of the global corporate rightwing media labyrinth?... What's THAT self-referential mishmash when you're on a roll....eh, Sir Loin?

Horowitz peer off the...eh.... Ramparts....and saw...Rush Limbaugh and gleaned Anne Coulter best sellers.

I'd caution you not to play stupid AND psychotic, but I don't think you're playing.

I may be stupid and crazy, but at least I'm not patholoically incapable of discussing the blatant conflicts of interest that characterize this administration. What is it - do they put some kind of nano-bot in your brains that will explode if you actually consider for a brief moment the empirical facts surrounding the Cheney/Halliburton scandals?

Has anyone else noticed that once again today "cee" stopped posting as soon as "Cecelia" got on a roll? Victor/Victoria?; Clark Kent/Superman?

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I've seen this pattern many times in the past.

U.S. MILITARY LOSES FOURTH IRAQ HELICOPTER IN TWO WEEKS

-- Bush Suggests Looking In Iran For Lost Copters; Gates Parses Words: No Plans To "Invade" Iran; Invade, No ... Bomb, You Bet --

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. Apache helicopter went down Friday in Iraq, killing two American soldiers, the military said. It was the fourth helicopter to crash in two weeks. Nineteen Americans died in the three other copter downings. Of those, two U.S. troops were killed when another Apache was lost during fighting with insurgents last weekend in Najaf. Last week, a U.S. helicopter providing air security for two U.S. Embassy officials came under heavy fire and crashed in eastern Baghdad, killing five employees for the Blackwater private security company. Three Iraqi insurgent groups claimed responsibility for the attack. On January 20, a U.S. military Black Hawk helicopter -- believed to have been downed by a shoulder-fired missile -- crashed in Diyala province, killing 12 U.S. soldiers on board.

U.S. MILITARY LOSES FOURTH IRAQ HELICOPTER IN TWO WEEKS

The Cheney/Bush marketing team once again delivers for Northrup Grummond - I'll bet the ink is already dry on that new WO for four new choppers.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I've seen this pattern many times in the past.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 5:13 PM

Paranoid, Sir Loin? Oh, no not YOU...

Just call me Victor/CeeCelia.

It's just Keith's world and we are just crapping on it.

Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.

Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" — only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake ... in Iran.

Only this president could extol the "thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group," and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — "engage Syria and Iran" — and transform it into "threaten Syria and Iran" — when al-Qaida would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.

This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes.

And to Iran and Syria — and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq — we must look like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy’s friends, "Ok, which one of you is next?"

The thirst for popularity and power is greater than the hunger for philosophical purity or ideological orthodoxy. (KK referencing Bush as "Clintonesque.)

I have to disagree, KK. The popularity of Bush has been declining since the war. You have a complete right to believe he made the worst decision in U.S. history to invade Iraq but it can hardly be said he has continued on this path for popularity. Moreover, the power he has now was given to him in part by those truly interested in popularity (the ones who initially didn't speak out). When Bush was ordered to give the Gitmo detainees their day in court, he established the tribunals. He can be reigned in, if those with the ability to act do so. It seems to me that they are playing a waiting game: let's wait and see if this surge actually works (which is supporting the President without having the courage to state it) or wait until it fails.

I also don't believe that Bush is 100% responsible for the tide the war has taken (leaving aside whether the war should have been undertaken.) The absence of the Fourth Infantry Division at the start of the war may have been the initial cause of chaos that was never contained. From what I recall at the time, the Turkish government suddenly became uncooperative. I also feel that General Janice Karpinski was very much responsible for the Abu Graib tragedy. If she had been doing her job, she would have known that Charles Granier and Lyndie Englund were openly carrying on, and I mean openly, according to Karpincky's own words. (Check out the date of Englund's conception.) An investigation of the two of them which would have uncovered all of the other abhorrent behavior. That prison was an obvious powder keg under her command. She may have even been able to discover who actually indoctrinated the soldiers in the sophisticated torture by exerting control. She didn't know what was happening and should have. I don't believe she was railroaded because she was a woman.

Bush has been presented on the one hand as the evil mastermind behind starting a war for his own interests as well as his corporate friends. I stated this a few weeks ago concerning the alleged lies presented to take our country to war: either the new majority doesn't believe Bush lied; they don't care that he lied (or maybe have unclean hands themselves) or they have no proof he lied and merely conjecture. To not institute impeachment proceedings under these alleged facts because they "couldn't get the votes" is reprehensible, if you believe a lie was perpetrated on the American people leading honorable men and women to their deaths. If there is the requisite evidence, all Republicans have the obligation to impeach and convict and enough of them would. A truly evil mastermind was behind the destruction of the Golden Mosque. The fact that it happened in 2006 seems to me an indication that the future was beginning to look a little too bright for the Iraqis.

WHITE HOUSE DELAYS RELEASE OF IRAN-IRAQ-LINK EVIDENCE

-- Administration Narrowly Avoids Releasing Overstated Intel To Oft-Burned Congress --

-- More Time Required For VP To Pressure CIA; Analysts Working Overtime To Better Falsify Facts --

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The United States is not planning for war with Iran but is determined to stop Iranians supplying bombs for deadly attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday. Tehran denies involvement in the violence in Iraq. But U.S. officials have said they have evidence many of the deadly projectile bombs used in Iraq were made in Iran. U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the release of evidence intended to support accusations of Iran's role in Iraq had been delayed partly because the administration felt the initial intelligence judgments had been "overstated". "We sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," he told reporters at the White House. The administration`s caution may stem from the damage done to U.S. credibility after information indicating Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction was later shown to be wrong.

"The absence of the Fourth Infantry Division at the start of the war may have been the initial cause of chaos that was never contained."

I don't think the addition of another Division would have made the difference. I think that Colin Powell's perception that a massive ground force (upwards of 350,000 soldiers) would have been necessary to contain the situation.

"From what I recall at the time, the Turkish government suddenly became uncooperative."

Yes, mainly because the Turks were afraid of what the war's effect on their own ethnic Kurdish population would be. The Turkish Kurds have been agitating for more autonomy for years...

"I also feel that General Janice Karpinski was very much responsible for the Abu Graib tragedy."

I don't think the buck stops at a one-star general, but at least we agree that it was more than just a few lower-eschelon personnel who got out of hand.

"A truly evil mastermind was behind the destruction of the Golden Mosque. The fact that it happened in 2006 seems to me an indication that the future was beginning to look a little too bright for the Iraqis."

Well, apparently the future was looking a little too bright in the late spring of 2003, as well -when Garner was proposing the distributon of reconstruction contracts to primarilly Iraqi firms, and had fast-track plans for a June election underway. Bremer was dispatched to derail all of Garner's responsible and well-conceived plans in favor of the now notorious series of gut-shots the former Vinnell/Blackwater executive administered to these early and hopeful attempts to develop civil society in Iraq. Disbanding the Army; De-Baathifying the bureaucracy; dishing out contracts to ONLY American and British firms, who brought in their own multi-national workforces, etc. Meanwhile, we know that British secret agents were running around planting car-bombs for undisclosed reasons (the WaPo reported on two SAS agents caught thusly redhanded by the Iraqi police), much like their docmented modus operandii in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the same "masterminds" you cite, Sharon?

There is no other rational exlanation for this war - its chaos farming. The MIC has reaped fortunes from our national treasury with this pointless war for a rationalization.

"Who argued their POSITIONS were "unassailable"? I agrued that negating the authority of their experience based upon your perspections of their motivations, is quite murky water indeed."

Ceelia, you're a weird chick. Please show me how I exactly attempted to "negate the authority of their experience" without attacking their positions and I will concede the argument to you.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 4:51 PM

"

Well, I've waited long enough. Subsequent posts by cee-celia don't touch this salient query with a ten-foot pole. Apparently cee-celia is unable to explain his/her own bullshit jargon - not that I am in any way "negating the authority of his/her hermaphroditic experience".

I win.

isn't it like Sharon to blame Gen Karpinsky instead of Rumfeld who created the atmosphere of benign neglect as far as adhering to rules and protocol.

There's always someone else at fault with Cee-Cecilia-Sharon 3 headed monster of denial.

It was frankly music to my ears that Bush is sending the extra non-combat troops to assist the surge effort in and around Bagdhad. It will put some teeth in the effort. 25- 30 thousand in total would not have been enough, and until I heard this news yesterday, I was against the idea. Now I say: " Go Give'em Hell in Bagdhad."
Erstwhile comedian Keef olberwinchell, however, will spin this every way from Sunday.

If these idiots knew how to fly helicopters, maybe they wouldn't be crashing every time I wipe my ass.

What will zizwheel say when this "surge" runs into five/ten years, and we finally depart the country we've so effectively destroyed?

Well, some dishnorable f----stick has stolen my moniker to trash the troops. Just like a f---ing chickenhawk Republican puke.

Bushkill,

I think Rumsfeld is responsible for many mistakes. Karpinski herself spoke of the behavior of Granier and England of which she was unaware, Granier being the most culpbale active participant. Don't you think she bears any responsibility? Other units did not follow that kind of protocol. If you ever read any of my statements, you would know my position. I said over and over that if the requisite amount of proof were presented that Bush lied to promote his own interests, I would support impeachment and conviction 100%.

Sharon:

So it has to be "Bush lied to promote his own interests"? But as long as it's just incompetance - well, I guess thats OK?

Right, Sharon - forget the fact that the Abu Ghraib abuses relfect perfectly the core array of interogation torture used by the CIA since Vietnam - it was all the work of that one f---ed-up prison guard and his trailer-trash girl-friend. If it weren't for those two we'd have the Iraqi hearts and minds as our own.

"Has anyone else noticed that once again today "cee" stopped posting as soon as "Cecelia" got on a roll? Victor/Victoria?; Clark Kent/Superman?"

I call "Victor" and "Kent"....Cecelia is "Superwoman."

"Maybe I'm paranoid, but I've seen this pattern many times in the past."

Sir Loin of Milquetoast, there is a cee (me)seperate from Cecelia.....I was working, having dinner and now wishing to relax....

Impossible, reading the back-and-forth between the two of you.....your paranoia knows no bounds.

So, Dick Cheney is a brilliant opportunist...and the continuing Iraqi civil unrest is because of WILLFUL incompetence so that more money can be spent. Did I get it right?

Well, the idea of a conspiracy of the making of billions of dollars for a rather small group of individuals is pretty intriguing, but unrealistic. I would really like to know why our media and rather powerful liberal establishments both in acadaemia and government would not be able to put together the puzzle pieces for us all to see....AND BELIEVE.

Or are they in on it also?

IF it was just a matter of economic power, I really think Dick could have devised a more efficient and less destructive way of attaining the goal.

You see Loin, I am a bit simple in seeing the actions of all human "entities" as a matter of attaining dominance over their fellows.... economic, religion and political ideology are just components/tools to optain the natural "pleasure" people have for being dominant (right) over their perceived lessers....Feeling secure in their grandiose plans is what drives the impulses.

But this is based on my God centered world-view and we all know what my bringing that up will lead to.....

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

And Sir Loin of Milquetoast....calling me a eunuch or an hermaphroditic is also untrue as proven by existence of my lovely 17 month old son.....

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

"So, Dick Cheney is a brilliant opportunist...and the continuing Iraqi civil unrest is because of WILLFUL incompetence so that more money can be spent. Did I get it right?"

Yes, you got it right; and moon-eyed incredulity is is not a convincing counter-argument.

Take note - "Cecelia" disappears and "cee" makes his first appearance since morning - not counting the vile assault on our troops you just posted under my pseudonym. You're not very good at this.

#1...I don't have the energy on this snowy Friday night to find the facts that counter your evaluation of Dick Cheney's political and professional career....But pointing out the ridiculous nature of such a plan to transfer monery out of the US treasury is a simple start.

#2......I have always posted under cee....and from knowing Cecelia from her posts she is not likely to participate in the juvenile activity of swiping you name either, Loin.

Perhaps Cecelia went out on a date...maybe she is washing her hair....maybe she went to her KKK meeting....

I swear on the life of my infant son I have never posted under someone else's name....give me a break!

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

...and cee, as for the lazy and tiresomely redundant paragraphs with which you have been ending your posts of late, here are my responses posted this morning:

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/01/did_spitting_vi.htm

Wow, cee. Its interesting that this same individual - a documented associate of Horowitz, COulter, and North - seems to be victimzed again and again and again by lefty war protesters, while no one else seems to experience anything of the sort. The "death threat" that this partisan provacatuer reports turns out to have been sent by a White Supremisist.

This "spit-on vet" cannard is merely a component of Horowitz's Trotskyite strategy for right-wing "political war", of which cee is a drug-addled wannabe participant.

But I do agree that legislators who do not forcefully combat Bush's international military predation are in fact buying into it. Feingold for President!!

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 8:36 AM

"no skin in the game"

Har Har Har!! cee is such a funny little eunuch! Tell us of your sacrifice, you pompous faith-healer?

Millions died in SE Asia between the early 1950's and the mid-1970's because we crammed out noses into the process of self-determination of a people who had fought at our sides against the Japanese. Had we not created and propped-up a phoney "government" in South Vietnam there would have been nationally unifying elections in 1956 -as decreed in Geneva following the defeat of the recently Vichy French at Dien Bien Phu. But we abstained from signatory status in that convention, and when the date for the election came we had built a straw-man set of rationales to promote and perpetuate a savage civil war.
My understanding is that the deaths in Vietnam following our departure were a result of ongoing hostilities from Cambodia (which had overt US support in this endeavor) and from China (which similarly and incomprehensibly also hinged on US support and aid), although North Vietnamese purges and retaliations most certainly did play their part. Similar mayhem very well may follow our departure from Iraq - whenever that may occur, and the onus will remain on the pirates that created the war from whole-cloth.

The obvous answer is to avoid in the first place starting stupid ideologically-rationalized wars that destabilize entire regions.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 1:00 PM

I read it already, Loin....and I posted at 12:34pm....

Also, the guilt by association canard goes both ways.....arguing against Joshua Sparling's allegations based on who supports him is ok if you want to go down that road....there's a lot of dirty people on the left side of the argument as well.

And until The New York Times retracts their story, I will continue to post their depiction of the event on Saturday.....Why do you liberals have a problem with your favorite, "paper of record?"

Oh, and the George McGovern quote is just TOOOOOO important to give up.....1,000,000 dead Vietnamese confirms him as the TOTAL, UNCARING FOOL he always was....like Professor Honeydew (Bob), his follower and defender!

Do you agree with McGovern's judgement, Sir Loin of Milquetoast?

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

BTW, the left ALWAYS wants to lie about themselves and be seen as "mainstream." So any aspect of radicalism is quickly dismissed and assigned somekind of label....

....Disrespect of the US armed service member is denied or the person claiming the disrespect "character assasignated."

....Any association with groups like anarchists, socialists or the like is quickly labeled "fear-mongering," and claimed that these types are but a minority...."Look at the priests, moms, Veterans, kids and 'regular folk' joining in!"

....Opinion polls are used inconsistently to normalize the position...."70% of the US population agrees with us!"...IF that were true then well over 100,000 people would have showed up on Saturday....not well less than 100K!

****Oh, and no one ever corrected the 500K claim made by the organizers on their website....

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

"January 27th was an extraordinary outpouring for peace in Washington DC and in communities all around the country. On Saturday, the National Mall was filled with the voices of 500,000 people committed to doing their part to end the war in Iraq and bring all of the troops home. And the energy in this massive turnout was electric."

A half a million....DC would have been shut down!

I will rely on historical facts in evaluating the radical left's behavior then and now....it was/is anti-American, anti-troop and dangerous to the lives of millions of innocent people.

cee
"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

Well, I've waited long enough. Subsequent posts by cee-celia don't touch this salient query with a ten-foot pole. Apparently cee-celia is unable to explain his/her own bullshit jargon - not that I am in any way "negating the authority of his/her hermaphroditic experience".

I win.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at February 2, 2007 7:20 PM

Well, evidently I'm not supposed to go out to eat or even to the bathroom after spending hours arguing with you all day.

I'm done...you're the winner...the king of the Shadow People...whatevah...

Take note - "Cecelia" disappears and "cee" makes his first appearance since morning - not counting the vile assault on our troops you just posted under my pseudonym. You're not very good at this.

Posted by: Sir Lion of Beef at February 2, 2007 8:24 PM

Sir Loin or Sir Milktoast, I'm good enough to have fooled the rest of these lugs with my diabolical plot to type every post that appears on Olbermann Watch.

I had hoped that soon, after having grown tired of my constant usurpation of their screen names and of my ability to articulate their arguments more lucidly than they themselves, all these other noisemakers would leave this blog and my alter-ego Cee and I could concentrate our full effort upon dethroning Johnny and Bob Cox.

But you were able to see through these efforts and see through my brilliant plot to pass myself off as kindly though somewhat obsessive physician.

Damn!...

Cee writes "You see Loin, I am a bit simple in seeing the actions of all human "entities" as a matter of attaining dominance over their fellows.... economic, religion and political ideology are just components/tools to optain the natural "pleasure" people have for being dominant (right) over their perceived lessers....Feeling secure in their grandiose plans is what drives the impulses."

psst.....Sir Loin....I couldn't have said that better myself... baaawwwhahahahaha!

Sir Loin,

There is plenty of blame to go around, Karpinski part of it. I never placed the entire blame on one event or never claimed Bush was blameless. If you were against the war from the start and perceived it as not winnable, then you have a different argument from a person who believes that many mistakes were made that could have changed the course of the war. If you are of the mindset that by invading Iraq, all of what has transpired was foreseeable, it doesn't really matter what decisions were made, it was doomed.

"you are of the mindset that by invading Iraq, all of what has transpired was foreseeable, it doesn't really matter what decisions were made, it was doomed."

Sharon,

I am of the mindset that the entire undertaking was planned and directed from the start with this end as the goal; persistant, profitable chaos.

Sir Loin,

That is where we disagree. I am not naive in the sense that I am aware that people act in their own self interests. I am probably guilty of being too idealistic. I don't believe that there is going to be a favorable outcome; I would just like to hope for the best outcome.

I posted a link the other day from NBC with Richard Engle reporting. He has probably been reporting in Iraq longer than anyone. He reported (objectively) that soldiers are growing angry at those who say they support the troops but not the mission. (One said that this means the fallen have died in vain; I am paraphrasing.)It's ironic that I and others have been accused on this site of not supporting the troops by supporting the mission. I don't want servicemen and women to die. I think of young people graduating and desiring to sign up upon graduation, knowing that some will be dead by this time next year. I have stated before that when the war was about to begin, it seemed to me that everyone was on board. If I had researched more, maybe I would have had a different opinion, maybe not. Once the war began, there was no turning back. With all of the mistakes, in my humble opinion I felt hope until the aftermath of the mosque being blown up.

Some people get personal fulfillment in attacking others here. I don't. That is what I think Olby is mostly about. Everyone here uses this site to engage in battle. But it's still a free country, even though some think Bush has eroded the Constitution.

Sharon,

I find your opinion to be naive and overly credulous of those who have everthing to gain from the venal misuse of their power. You just weren't paying attention prior to the attack on the mosque.

"A half a million....DC would have been shut down!"

What? Are you a civil engineer as well as a quack podiatrist? I was in DC a year and a half ago with 300,000 and everything ran pretty smoothly - maybe a half-hour wait at the trains.

Is it just me? I can't access tonights recap? Is it not available?

"Well, the idea of a conspiracy of the making of billions of dollars for a rather small group of individuals is pretty intriguing, but unrealistic. I would really like to know why our media and rather powerful liberal establishments both in acadaemia and government would not be able to put together the puzzle pieces for us all to see....AND BELIEVE.

Or are they in on it also?"

cee,

These voices you seek are everywhere - except on the majority of corporate media that reaches the majority of passive consumers. You say that my conspiracy theories are unsound because no one in the media is discussing them; but everyone out there that you drowning rats dedicate your waking hours to excoriate (George McGovern, Noam Chomsky, Jimmy Carter, Scott Ritter, Chuck Hagel, Ward Churchill, ...and Olbermann) are and have been fulflling exactly this criterion that you claim remains unsatisied. And although you insist on playing the enjenue in this regard; Yes - the corporately-owned media is a fundamental component of the right-wing conspiracy.

"IF it was just a matter of economic power, I really think Dick could have devised a more efficient and less destructive way of attaining the goal."

Then you're an idiot. Read some Orwell and get back with me.

Firstly; its not utimately about economic power -its about political power, of which wealth in our current defacto system is a critical component. The most efficient tool the MIC could have would be the set of war-powers weilded by a mercenary executive; and empirically one can see just this situation today. My next two posts will illustrate these concepts for you through highly relevant statements from some who should know...

Göring: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country

Ike:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. "

...so cee, Eisenhower descrbes the imminent treat posed by the scenario that you coyly claim is impossible. How exactly has our government assured the safeguards against "the acquisition of unwaranted influence" about which Ike admonished our nation? All you can muster in this regard are unsophisticated claims that this could never happen, or that Bush and Cheney et.al. are intrinsically trustworthy.

Was Eisenhower an idiot? Do you "negate the authority of his experiences" at the hieghts of power through two destructive and expensve wars?

Cee,

I feel so close to you. You're just like my right hand...

"Cee,

I feel so close to you. You're just like my right hand..."

Right hand; left hand - it doesn't matter. Niether you nor your alter-ego seem inclined to touch my latest arguments with any appendage.

Best way to shut a modern conservative up is to bring up Ike - they just can't deal.

Yes, Sir Loin, Eisenhower's sensible words can easily be extrapolated to virtually prove your assertion that the war in Iraq is indeed a conspiracy by Dick Cheney to transfer large amounts of govt money into the hands of the military-industrial complex.

I was so taken with your argument that I googled the whole of Ike's speech. I'm particularly thrilled with this part.

Aren't you, Cee? (Yes, Cecelia)

Ike says:

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

Yes; Ike is right on again.

You must have cited this passage as a comment on the Bush administration's recent initiatives to subsume open scientific inquiry beneath its stifling bureaucratic system of mercenary cronyism - like putting unqualified shave-tail political operatives in powerful positions of review and censorship in a wide array of government oversight, granting, and research agencies. Or perhaps you are invoking the offer that went out last week from Administration ally Exxon Mobil to buy wholesale the right to establish the "expert opinions" of any scientist willing to toe the industry/administration line on global warming?

I'm glad we can find this area of agreement.

"You must have cited this passage as a comment on the Bush administration's recent initiatives to subsume open scientific inquiry beneath its stifling bureaucratic system of mercenary cronyism - like putting unqualified shave-tail political operatives in powerful positions of review and censorship in a wide array of government oversight, granting, and research agencies. Or perhaps you are invoking the offer that went out last week from Administration ally Exxon Mobil to buy wholesale the right to establish the "expert opinions" of any scientist willing to toe the industry/administration line on global..."

We've covered ground so throughly it's hard as concrete. We know what might motivate pols to minimize global warming-- maintaing the status quo.

I cited Ike's words for the other heretofore undiscussed angle that must surely concern truth-seeker you as much as any other danger to free society. I'll add, that you of all people are surely concerned because of your particularly suspicious nature ... What other parties and entities are there who might benefit from a global warming crisis. And benefit in the sense of having the power to mold the nation and other nations into an ideal of what the world should be?

"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

Ike certainly understood the sort of scenario that comes from being motivated to seek more and more funding in a sort of self-perpetuating reason for existence and for power, in an endless cycle of cause and effect. The sort of monetary engine that only crisis after crisis can fuel. More crisis, more money, more solutions needed, more power to wield.

You have the bizzaro-world picture of the potential problem, Sir Loin. You see it massively and in exaggerated kaleidoscope perspective...and you see it only in one set.

"What other parties and entities are there who might benefit from a global warming crisis. And benefit in the sense of having the power to mold the nation and other nations into an ideal of what the world should be?"

Cecelia,

Here you ask the essential question the answer to which is what your entire argument must rest in order to be taken seriously - and believe me; I'm willing to take you seriously.

But you never cough up the answer. Who are these "liberal elite" with whom you attempt to counter the specific allegations against members of the Republican administration? You seem to suggest that this conspiracy is composed entirely of scientists seeking government grants.

Are there no conservative scientists? How much money is involved in the system? What - as you yourself ask - do they have to gain by pushing such issues as Global Warming? How much money have they paid/been paid in questionable business deals and congressional allocations in the interests of furthering any leftist initiatives? What are the direct business/familial relationships between these scientists and sufficiently influential office-holders in our government? What are the specific conflicts of interest that should concern us?

If, as you have asserted, these lefties make the NIMBY blockage of wind-farms and other alternative energy infrastructure, where is the money generated by Global Warming propaganda supposed to come from?

In short: your indictment makes no sense.

I've recently given you many of the correlary answers to these questions as they relate to the Bush/Cheney administration; others have been provided by Mike and other sensible posters here. Additional answers have been povided by Olbermann in his special comments and White House coverage. In congress, Conyers, Waxman, and Feingold promise in explicit terms to investigate many of these tender areas. All of these sources rest solidly on a set of clear, logical indictments cleanly shaven by Occam's Razor.

I'd like to see a similar magnitude of evidence from your case against this elusive and inscrutable "liberal elite" - whose brilliant conspiracy includes the absence of any apparent or significant revenue streams, and the total abdication of overt power within our legislature, judiciary, and executive offices. Scaring the country about Global Warming? Destroying Christmas? Promoting abortion? Beastiality in our schools? Show me where the criminal economic incentives and motivaton are in these cannards - or any others you might choose - and I will be happy to entertain your positions.

But please, quit invoking empty boogie-men and vapid incredulity in leiu of a relevant, well reasoned, and well supported argument.

"Relevant and well-reasoned argument"?

Your argument is essentially that your claims must be more credible simply by the fact that you are making them against Republicans And that Cheney used to work for Halliburton.

Short of John McCain...and only because he's somewhat sacroscant... I can't think of one Republican who wouldn't fit your bill were you to replace Bush and Cheney with their names in this scenario. Bob Dole-- Elizabeth has familial ties to the oil industry... New Gingrich?...Giulani?....Mitch McConnell?... Bill Frist?.... They all have the same outlook on private enterprise...including Big Oil that is going to make them imminently suitable to be cast in whatever play the windmills of your mind concocts.

I don't know what "liberal elite" you're talking about, but yes, it's certainly interesting that you've become tone death to the particulars of Ike's warning when you know very well that pols and nonpols alike can be corrupted by the vast wealth and power mediated by govt. Even govt scientists and the universities they work for. By money, by the power of formulating solutions that will effect multi-million dollar businesses, effect "solutions" down to our individual lifes, and by influence via the U.N. into any number of countries that it comprises.

Oh, you've no trouble making "relevant and well-reasoned" arguments that Dick Cheney has decided to make Iraq a morass in order to redistribute public money into private coffers, and this dispite any political cost, or any cost to anyone anywhere.

But ask you to take that note that there's also an inherent interest in finding problems when you're being paid to find problems... and an inherent interest in finding solutions when people, by nature, want to redesign the world to their liking ...but unless there's some ideological opponent in mind, it's all paranoid speculation in your book.

Go fiure.

Sure, you're talking about legitimate corruption concerns - ones that should be scrutinized closely. But you're also comparing a sidewalk apple vendor with a Super WalMart - the differential scales of wealth/power/inlfuence you attempt to equate are just not comparable.

Ike knew this, and he prioritized his warnings to these diverse dangers both in order of appearance in his address, and in the strength of his rhetoric relative to each issue. Read it again and tell me I'm wrong.

But back to the issue of your allegations - please be specific! I can tell you which companies make how much serving food to our captive-consumer troops overseas; I can tell you how top executives in these companies are linked to the Administration or the Republican power structure. I can tell you how much money is being spent on the SUVs that drive the personel of well-connected security firms around Iraq, and the inscestuous nature of these connections to the people running the war. I can even tell you which oil companies having donated generously to the president are expecting an explicit cut of the Iraqi oil reserve, once it is deemed the optimal time to release this fuel to the market.

Describe the cycle of political patronage, profit, and political support that makes scientific research into Global Warming or trans fats an imminent threat to our liberties.

Describe the cycle of political patronage, profit, and political support that makes scientific research into Global Warming or trans fats an imminent threat to our liberties.

Posted by: Sir Lin of Beef at February 3, 2007 10:11 PM

Like Ike (and I like Ike...), I'm talking about what could happen and you're talking about something you think is sewn up.

Again, I think you could substitute the name of any Republican, and really quite a few Democrats, who have managed to have careers outside of being a school teacher, who could be cast in any six degrees of separation plot concocted by whatever paranoiac quilting circle you attend.

Oh, I'm sure the good ole boy network is alive and well and that men of certain backgrounds and men who have attained a certain status operate within their circle, such as the CEO who was your roommate at Harvard, etc. But I'm also sure that the path to being in the right place at the right is much more oblique than you suggest and at the same time more ordinary.

That you'll find all my words more than ironic, from your position at Conspiracy Central, there's no doubt. That's just how you'll find my view that the sort of possiblities for corruption within the self-perteptuating govt gravy train for crisis management among non-oil-men is perhaps more potentially pernicious in that the connect-the-dots are more difficult and the motivations more ideological than monetary.

Who can doubt the potential for corruption. But do I think that Cheney started a war in order to transfer money to himself and his friends who head whatever corporation that runs Nabisco and Monsanto. No, I don't.

You painted some scenario in some post where you said that things were starting to unravel with Cheney and that Scooter was turning on him, and we'd see other minions doing the same and that the Democrats will ferret out other co-conspirators via investigations. That you are the type of conspiracy seer who will, if your projections don't pan out, claim that they didn't because the same sort of men have the same sort of connections and the same sort of motivations, but sit on the other side of the aisle, is not something I think I'll see from you. I've seen you spin for Pelosi in the past and engage the sort of rah-rah my party-- political speech that's certainly against my nature, though I'm sure you'd swear otherwise. So while you are a paranoiac, you aren't an honest paranoiac.

But Sir Loin, I'll watch and wait and I'll keep your words in mind. The only thing I can add about any of this anymore is that we shall see.

"I've seen you spin for Pelosi in the past and engage the sort of rah-rah my party-- political speech that's certainly against my nature, though I'm sure you'd swear otherwise. So while you are a paranoiac, you aren't an honest paranoiac."

I may have "spun" (i.e. written well of) Pelosi, because I have a high regard for her and see no overt, significant conflicts of interest surrounding her - she appear sincere.

But many here should be able to attest that I also continualy lambaste Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and other corporate slaves on the Democratic side, so don't accuse me of blind partisanship.

By the way, I don;t recall ever seeing you, Miss Objectivity, write a single critical word about Bush or Cheney.

I just can't figure out why bob or johnny would ban someone like dp. Shocker!