Bush’s Lie on Rumsfeld
I don’t think it’s the most important story of the day by a long stretch, but as the presidential falsehood journal of record I’d be remiss if I didn’t note this in passing. A week before the election, Bush answered questions for a small group of reporters in the Oval Office, in the course of which he was asked about whether he’d given thought to replacing Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Bush replied that Rumsfeld was doing a heck of a job (in effect), and that he would be keeping him in place for the next two years (see Terrence Hunt’s AP story: Bush says Rumsfeld, Cheney should stay).
Fast forward to the press conference shortly after the election, at which Bush announced that Rumsfeld was being replaced, and at which this exchange took place (video and transcript available from Think Progress: Bush admits he lied about Rumsfeld for political purposes):
REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?
BUSH: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer. The truth of the matter is as well, that is one reason I gave the answer. The other reason why is I had not had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet. I had not had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet at that point. I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspectives. He likes to call it fresh eyes.
It’s a little tortured to follow Bush’s explanation; watching the video, especially, I’m reminded of certain conversations I’ve had with my daughter in the wake of some action of hers I’m not happy with. But all told, what Bush is clearly saying is, “Yeah, I lied when you asked me that question, because we were in the final days of a campaign, and for political reasons I chose to be dishonest.”
There’s been a fair amount of discussion of this by both righty and lefty (and center-y) folks. Some of the more-interesting commentary I’ve seen is:
- Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post: President’s evasion raises truth issues.
- Glenn Greenwald: Extremely odd behavior from the Washington Post re: the President’s Rumsfeld lie.
- Kevin Drum: Bush’s lie.
Kevin Drum, in particular, thinks this isn’t a big deal. He writes:
But, really, this has gotten way too much attention. There’s a pretty broad-based understanding, after all, that personnel issues are special: you’re expected to deny that anything is going on until the minute you make an official announcement. And there’s really no other way to do things. You can’t refuse to ever comment on your own subordinates, but at the same time you can’t give away future personnel moves by suddenly clamming up about them. The result is a kabuki dance accepted by everyone in which you’re allowed to lie about this stuff until something official happens.
However, this lying is typically a bit more smoothly done. What this kerfuffle really shows is that Bush must have been pretty rattled by the specter of upcoming defeat and then by the massive defeat itself.
I guess I’m mostly with Kevin Drum on this not being some terribly significant example of presidential lying. The most noteworthy part of it, for me, ends up being Bush’s casual “yeah, I lied. What about it?” response, and what that says about his evolving attitude toward his job, the press, and the public.
Some in righty blogistan have complained that if Bush knew he was getting rid of Rumsfeld before the election, he should have said so then, so he could have picked up some votes for being flexible on Iraq, thereby averting at least the loss of the Senate. What this misses, I think, is that Bush is better at doing those sorts of calculations than the average bear. What his response to the reporters hinted at, and what I think the righty complainers are missing, is that Bush’s Iraq policy is such a house of cards at this point that any acknowledgement of error (which is how a pre-election announcement of Rumsfeld’s ouster would have been seen) could have cost Bush many more votes than it gained.
At least, I’m pretty sure that’s how Bush saw it before the election. Now that the election is over, the lie is no longer useful, so out it goes. And if Bush couldn’t muster the enthusiasm to do even a minimal amount of sugar-coating on the about-face, it’s just another indication that for him, this whole Leader of the Free World thing has pretty much stopped being fun.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:27 am
For me, Rumsfeld’s resignation (read: ouster) was finally an acknowledgement by the Bush Administration that his Iraq policy has failed. Hopefully now we can start to fix this mess. Because as any rational person knows, you cannot fix a problem until you actually acknowledge that it exists.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Holy fucking shit! Bush wasn’t completely forthcoming about something involving war?!? I don’t think that anyone will believe it, because Bush has such a long history of complete honesty with the American people. Between his record of honesty and soaring popularity ratings, I just don’t see America buying it.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Thank goodness the Dems won. Their camapigning was so truthful and honest. Over 2300 dead in three years for nothing.
The last three years of the Clinton administration, that is. Over 2300 servicemen died 1998-99-2000 without the Dems saying a word. But Bill had fun with the obvious lies, so I guess its all good. God forbid someone take the job seriously.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:46 am
2300 US military casualties during the last three years of the Clinton administration? Please provide a link (other than to powerline, drudge or malkin if you would be so kind). I tried a few google searches, but I can’t find anything.
Thanks.
November 21st, 2006 at 7:31 am
Now now enkidu, we can’t let those pesty facts get in the way of some good Clinton bashing.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:53 am
I did a bit more digging with The Google: I can’t find any reference to 2300 US casualties during the last years of Clinton’s Presidency. We lost about a dozen in Kosovo (can’t find hard #s or a easy URL) and 3 to non-combat related deaths in Bosnia. Perhaps a hundred wounded in total?
Can anyone dig up the hard data on this?
November 21st, 2006 at 1:07 pm
It doesn’t matter. Only the allegation is important… remember?
December 5th, 2006 at 11:31 am
“The White House choice to be the next defense secretary conceded at his confirmation hearing today that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq. Robert Gates warned that if Iraq is not stabilized, it could lead to a “regional conflagration.””
Gee, all’s it took was an election defeat for Bush to finally find some rational friends. Let’s confirm this dude and get on with fixing this mess!
Do you think we’re winning TV?
December 5th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Yes, that’s what he said in response to the scarcely coherent Byrd mumbling of the talking points.
I don’t only think – I know – that we have not lost a single battle in Iraq, but you might refer to that as losing; and, Gates would probably have said just about anything to get Byrd to go back to sleep. By those standards, Lombardi and his Packers were losers. The only way we can lose is by losing the war at home, and I’m one of those nutjobs who would prefer that we win it.
Do you think Gates plans to “stabilize” Iraq by cutting and running?
I agree somewhat with re-deployment; re-deploy enough of our troops in Iraq to secure the borders of Iran and Syria.
Bush lost an election? Five “INO” Republicans who supported abortion ran; all five lost. Sixteen Democrat abortion supporters ran; twelve of them lost. The MSM wants us to believe that conservatism lost, and that the election was a mandate on Bush’s Iraq policies, but it would be wise to consider other considerations that weighed heavily on the minds of voters.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Thanks, that’s what I thought.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:53 am
You’re welcome, although that’s certainly not what you thought. “What you thought” was exactly what the NYT erroneously reported, that Gates said we are not winning the war in Iraq. The “Ole Gray Glad Rag” has now printed a correction – Gates actually said we were neither winning nor losing it.
Do you think Gates plans to “stabalize” Iraq by cutting and running?
December 6th, 2006 at 10:33 am
That is to certainly what I thought. I thought that would be your answer, and it was. You GOP’ers have to get used to that fact that you no longer have control, and that it includes control of my thoughts and my wife’s vagina.
“Cutting and running” is a GOP talking point. I have never heard anyone advocate this as a startegy. I have only heard this term used by desperate people, like yourself, who for some reason believe that everything is just fine and dandy in Iraq. Using this fabricated term didn’t help win you elections, and its not helping you now.
“Stay the course”, however, is a strategy that has been advocated for sometime (4 years??) by your administration and it has clearly failed, and continues to fail our soldiers each and every day. Pretty much every one in America can see this (including the Iraq Study Group) except for a few hardcore dummies (yeah, that includes you). Is “stay the course” the strategy you support?
Nearly 3,000 of our troops have been killed since the beginning of the war in Iraq; all but 139 of them after President Bush stood below a banner declaring “Mission Accomplished.” More than 21,000 troops have been wounded, and of those about 10,000 of were so seriously wounded they could not return to duty within three days.
The Pentagon is considering a request of at least $127 billion in new spending, most of which would be to support the war in Iraq. That request would be in addition to the $70 billion already allocated for next year, bringing the total allocation for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and anti-terror efforts to almost a half-trillion dollars.
Not only was this administration wrong in declaring Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but it was also wildly wrong in its original estimate on the cost of the war. Then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey put the cost at $100 billion to $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, discounted Lindsey’s estimate as far too high and said the cost would be between $50 billion and $60 billion.
The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices.
Still want to “stay the course”? Well, pay for it yourself then.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
TV, when will you stop with the blatant lies to further a partisan political agenda of hate and division? Watch the first 20 seconds or so (no stopwatch needed!)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Gates-Hearing-Levin-Iraq-12-05-06.wmv
Levin: “Mr Gates, do you believe we are currently winning in Iraq?”
Gates: “No sir.”
Listen to the rest and you get the distinct impression we will be there “for the indefinite future” (translated from bushco speak: forever). We will be slogging through a deteriorating middle east for the rest of our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children (and their children, and quite possibly their children). Unless we can kick the radical right’s lunatic agenda to the curb. Or the Rapture comes first (I get the feeling this is shrub’s ‘plan’ whispered to him by Gawd).
Subpoena power in ’07
Obama in ’08
December 6th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Guys: I’m aware of your obsessions, but I want nothing to do with treehugger’s personal vagina or enkidu’s little uterus. Your kids can practice reckless sex every day, and I honestly hope they don’t suffer the common emotional problems from abortions as they progress through life, but surely any intelligent human can see a problem with 1.5 million babies killed each year in a program that is founded on the eugenics goals of Margaret Sanger. My niece’s new baby has a cute shirt – “I survived Roe v Wade.”
treehugger: Try some consistency. You state that “cutting and running” is merely a talking point, then you use false Democrat talking points to criticize “stay the course” and “Mission Accomplished.” Let’s look at each expression.
“Cut and Run” is clearly the true meaning/intent/goal of “re-deployment” while engaged in conflict.
“Stay the course” means that we don’t re-deploy or cut and run. “The course” is the fight against terrorist elements in Iraq and elsewhere. Our strategies have changed throughout the war to meet changing conditions.
“Mission Accomplished” was absolutely true. We went into Iraq with the stated mission of removing Saddam Hussein from leadership, and that mission was certainly accomplished at that point. If the sign Gen. Franks had made as a backdrop for Bush’s speech had read “War Over,” I would agree with the Democrat meme that the sign was false.
This administration, the past administration, and every nation in the free world asserted that Saddam had WMD. Talking points?
You’re too intelligent to actually believe that we would have spent a half-trillion dollars in precious capital to fund a massive alternate energy development program, or used it to fund four years of oil exports, if we hadn’t used it to prosecute the war.
Yes, we have spent a lot of money defending ourselves against terrorism. What is the limit beyond which you would sacrifice our national security?
Concerning your proposal for funding the war on terrorism – Let’s make a deal: I’ll designate my tax money solely for national defense, and you fund the socialist liberal agendas that are in place only to buy votes. I’ll appreciate the savings.
enkidu: Correct, Gates responded, “No, Sir.” Later, however, he said we were “neither winning nor losing” – unless the MSM lied to us… again.
The Middle East has deteriorated? When? From what?
I openly hope for the subpoena threats to begin immediately in January ’07, and I hope they continue for two full years. All voters will understand, although “live for the moment” Democrats will not.
Obama in ’08? Help me here: He’s pretty, but what has he done to establish his qualifications as the potential Commander-in-Chief during two years of public service? If Bush was unqualified because of his lack of combat experience, how can you justify supporting Obama? From the little we actually know of him at this point, I don’t think he’ll be appreciative of your sarcasm of his Gawd.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:25 am
Senator Levin: “Are we winning in Iraq?”
Gates: “No, sir.”
TeacherVet: “Pass the crystal meth, please.”
December 7th, 2006 at 9:39 am
That was a response?
December 7th, 2006 at 11:03 am
And a funny one too!
TV (you ignorant slut) your response was so filled with talking points, tangential nonsense and partisan stupidity, the best thing I can say about your spite filled diatribe is that this is time you aren’t ‘teaching’ your hatred to children.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Come on, enkidu, you can do better. Where are the usual racial slurs, vulgarity, self-demeaning insults and other signs of tolerance that always comprise your “rebuttals”? You’re slipping, but I guess it’s tough to type with treehugger tugging on your pants leg.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Oops, I forgot; you never promised honesty or simple human decency. My bad!
December 8th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Barack Obama’s political experience is the same as Abraham Lincoln’s was when he was elected president. Last decent Republican it would seem… Obama would be a better choice than Hillary. You (supposedly) campaigned for the most racist political smear-job in decades, yet you accuse me of being racist. Hilarious!
Racial slurs? Macaca-san means buffoon-friend (unless you are finally willing to admit George Allen is a racist dickhead). Vulgarity? If Dick Cheney can scream “go fuck yourself!” to Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor, then I think it proper discourse for the comment section in this blog (read the lies.com manifesto and note jbc’s liberal use of the word bullshit – teh horror! teh horror!) And how many times have you screeched “asshole!” or “traitor!” or various other terms all while chastising others for their use of “vulgarity”?
With all due respect (meaning absolutely none) you are a hypocrit, a liar and a (partisan) buffoon.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
enkidu, I really don’t care so much about the quality of your character that is evidenced in your rhetoric, but that childish nonsense is often the only thing you have to offer. It is self-demeaning.
Your initial response to the term George Allen used against a persistent stalker: You said you had never heard of the term, but called it a racist remark. Now you say it is not racist… but you still say it is racist… Huh? Perhaps it’s racist when Allen uses it, but not when you use it yourself, eh? Hypocritical?
Of course truth/evidence is of no importance when making an allegation, but please explain how the Tennessee campaign qualified as “the most racist political smear-job in decades.” Is the charge founded solely in a vague political ad that aired for a few hours, or was there actual racism that was known only to you? Or, are you referring to some behavior by his opponent? Your knowledge of people in the South must be limited to Hollywood propaganda productions.
I don’t “accuse” you of being racist, I simply acknowledge it. Are you even aware that “neocon” is a code word for a Jewish Republican? Are you anti-Semite, and is that not racist? Yes, I know, you’ll check wikipedia opinions or google for another opinionated definition of the term.
Q. “How many times have you screeched “asshole!”…?
A. On exactly one occasion, in response to months of irresponsible, childish, hateful rhetoric from you.
Yes, Dick Cheney (wrongly) uttered your favorite phrase in response to Leahy’s persistent garbage. Would you like a list of similar phrases from Democrats? If it is so repulsive, why do you also use it? Hypocritical?
“Traitor” is a vulgar term? It obviously strikes a nerve (the truth can be painful), and I’ve never used the term without defining it using your rhetoric/behavior. You can call me a neocon, a Nazi, or a bowl of turnip greens – but it is simply irrelevant, sophomoric name-calling without basis in fact.
Again, with hate-filled, violence-obsessed extremists such as yourself running loose, I hope our political leaders stay in undisclosed locations.
I’m well aware of Lincoln’s past; I’m asking about Obama – What has he done to establish his qualifications as the potential Commander-in-Chief during his two years of public service? Is combat experience a pre-requisite to serve as CiC during war-time? Hypocrisy?
December 12th, 2006 at 6:10 am
Obama inspires people, something that is so desperately missing from the White House these days.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Shouldn’t you be saving some of your craziness up for your traditional Christmas Eve message?
I am more filled with humor (at your partisan silliness) and pity (for the bottomless well of snarling hatred that constitutes your postings). I hate what the right wing extremists and neocon greedmongers (like you TV) have done to our country. Your divisive, angry stupidity and partisanship are ruining America.
Obama would be a better candidate than Hillary: she is the devil to the reichwingnut crowd (you again TV) while Obama is black (that’ll go over well down in Dixie, don’t you think?) Wait, I can answer that: you don’t think, you just believe. It will be amusing to see how many twists, turns and flip flops you make to ‘justify’ your support for racist attacks on Obama. It is impossible to debate a extremist with facts, as wingnuts like dear Macaca-san just won’t believe it.
I am going to keep using buffoon-friend as your handle until you can admit that (former) presidential hopeful George “Macaca” Allen is a racist dickhead. It isn’t just the macaca, it’s the confederate battle flags he is so proud of, his many uses of the dread N word, his long history of racism, etc. Just like the shrinking island of intolerance that you call home TV, ooops Macaca-san.
george dumbya bush ‘inspires’ me to switch my registration from NA (None of those Assholes) to the Democratic Party so I can help elect someone who can bring us back together (like say, Obama). So all our children can have a future that doesn’t include endless warfare, warprofiteering, enviro-suicide, incompetent leadership – aw hell, a future without what the current Republican Party basically IS.
Have a nice day!
December 12th, 2006 at 11:49 am
btw – it is TV/Macaca-san’s Christmas Eve message from last year I am referring to (obviously not treehugger). Go read it if you can stomach the stupidity and hatred. On Christams Eve.
Sad, sick and angry, but that’s our Macaca-san.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
The immature labeling is important to you, and it doesn’t matter what you use as “my handle.” If it’ll make you feel good, you can further demean yourself by quoting Seinfeld’s sidekick and drop the N-bomb. Come on; with your vocabulary, it should be easy and natural for you.
My “Christmas Eve evening” message 2005 was in response to your own “Christmas Eve afternoon” message and the months of trash that preceded it. Grow up, and get over it.
Obama is half-black. Why is that of such great importance to you?
Which parts of my rhetoric imply “snarling hatred”? Or sadness, sickness, and anger? (besides the obvious – I have the audacity to disagree with you, and you can’t tolerate disagreement). If you’ll identify the specific phrases (the “facts”), I’ll gladly reciprocate.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:52 am
gosh golly gee willikers Mr Macaca-san, sorry I haven’t had time to trade bon mots with you True Patr(id)iots™ of late, but with the pre-RSNA crush and the post-RSNA backlog, things have been a bit busy for my business.
Can you please explain what “macaca” really means then? Cuz I think it means – as per George (I almost ran fer prezidint) Allen – a) nothing b) silly sounds c) buffoon d) clown. What does it mean to you?
I never wrote “Christmas Eve evening”, but you can’t get even the simplest facts straight (like there were no gigatons of WMD gigadeath in Iraq after GW1, or perhaps that shrubco is the most incompetent, corrupt and disgraceful regime ever to seize power in our once great country). Grow up? When you use phrases like “my bad” it blows your cover that you are some kind of rock-ribbed, super-smart, kind and gentle elder patriot. Grow up yourself lil guy.
Obama can win, whereas I don’t think Hillary can.
Just go back and read your depiction of libs/dems/progressives as Evil*… And yes I think calling a fellow citizen a traitor and a commie and all that other crap is quite vulgar (besides your screaming asshole when it suits you). But you don’t hear me whining about other people being ‘vulgar’ (boohoo for you, it’s the fucking internet). No, during the ‘Clinton gots hiself a blowjob!’ I wasn’t calling anyone else your terms of hatred and spite. I don’t recall ever using the N word.
Not sure I care to continue this ridiculous tit-for-tat. You are more than set in your ways, more like fossilized, so it is a fool’s errand to argue with a die hard 5%er fanatic like you dear Macaca-san. Your magical beliefs trump any use of facts, figures or fine language.
Which reminds me: just repeat Darth Cheny’s screaming insult to Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor for my wrap up. And you punks were supposed to bring back honor, integrity and dignity to politics. What a sad sick joke.
Subpoena power in ‘07
Obama in ‘08
December 15th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Did you guys actually label Allen a racist for calling a persistent stalker a “buffoon friend”? It doesn’t matter what it means. Only you are obsessed with the labeling, and you can impress yourself any way you wish. Your language is only self-demeaning, doing no damage to anyone else, so please continue to denegrate yourself.
Read again – I didn’t say you posted on “Christmas Eve evening.” Examine a calendar. December 24th is labeled as Christmas Eve, and I responded to you on that same day. We were both wrong, but I was the only one to subsequently acknowledge it. Magical beliefs trumping facts?
My 14- to 18-year-old students frequently use the phrase “my bad.” Yes, they still need to grow up, lil’ guy.
In response to my listing of the tenets of the Communist Manifesto, you said the objectives on the list sound pretty good. I disagree, but you labeled yourself by agreeing with socialist and communist goals – and that is evidence of my supposed “snarling hatred”? Magical beliefs trumping facts?
(1) Please exercise subpoena power in ’07, and continue it for two years; I’ll carry it a step beyond that – please begin impeachment proceedings against Bush; it should be very revealing on both sides of the aisle, and (2) by all means, please run Obama in ’08 (I’m still wondering why his mixed race/skin tone is of such great importance to you). He might be the only viable Democrat they can find who didn’t vote for the Iraq War. It doesn’t matter who is on the Democrat ticket in ’08 if they waste the next two years punishing Republican voters with vindictive investigation efforts.
Cheney screamed an original, insulting phrase at Leahy? Was it the same one you keep repeating?
Yes, if leftist thinking is represented by your rhetoric, I’ll always be on the opposite side of the aisle.
To repeat (redundantly, as necessary), I responded to your garbage by calling you a stubborn asshole on a single occasion, and certainly not every time it was appropriate. I refrained after that one time because you couldn’t handle it, going even farther over the edge with your little knickers in a wad – and, obviously, you’re still seriously wounded a year later.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:54 am
**Time-out**
Hey Guys,
Just want to wish you a very Merry Christmas and all the best in New Year. I have a feeling this is going to be a very good year, for everyone.
Take care.
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Thanks, treehugger, and the same sincere wishes are extended to you and yours. I hope your feeling becomes a reality.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Happy New Year to All!
Today is the day America returns to a checks and balances form of government. In the next week we will find out if the Dem congress is serious about reform and revitalization of our government. We will see investigations into how we were misled into the quagmire of Iraq. Investigations into corruption. Malfeasance. Stupidity. Republicanism. There probably won’t be impeachment proceedings (they have had too long to cover this crap up), but I would love to see Cheney in leg irons.
If the Dem leaderhip is really serious about fixing what ails this country, they will do what is best for all Americans (which will of course lead to much wailing and gnashing of rotten teeth amongst the wingnut crowd and cries of partisanship). Get us out of Iraq, find Osama and kill him, stop wasting money making Rethugs even richer, increase taxes for our wealthiest citizens (don’t like it? move), immigration, energy policy. The list goes on and on and frankly if they fix even half of it before ’08 I will be pleasantly surprised. Might even register as a Dem to participate in the primary process…
If we can put aside the divisive partisan politics of the Rove/Gingrich/Bush/Delay (insert the rest of those criminals here) era and come together with wisdom and humility, we can once again lead the world. Or we can keep going on the shrubco track of gratuitous torture, blatant warmongering greed, neocon wet dreams and colossal stupidity.
When the truth of the last 6 years is finally revealed, I expect Rethugs to lose another 20 seats in the House in ’08. Another handful of seats in the Senate and possibly the preznitsy (gonna be hard to beat Saint McCain as the press just loves him). Who knows, it might be good for the Grand ol Pedophiles to rediscover integrity and honesty and reinvent the party of Lincoln. I am not holding my breath.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Please promise that you’ll personally encourage Madame Peelousely to spend the next two years seeking retribution against all Republican voters. I’ve already emailed her my words of encouragement in that regard. (Of course, I’ll receive only her customary reply – that she only serves those in her voting district)
January 5th, 2007 at 6:33 am
TeacherVet, if you were lied to or mislead about something, wouldn’t you want to know the truth, no matter what the outcomes may be?
To say that the things that went terribly wrong over the past few years don’t deserve to be investigated because it may alienate some voters is pretty stupid thinking. Anyone who cares about their country would want to know what went wrong, how to make sure it doesn’t happen again and bring the perpetrators to justice. Why don’t you care about your country?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
It must just be be killing you that there is a woman in charge of the House – the evil liberal hippy from the west coast that she is.
This is too good to be true!
January 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
You misunderstand, apparently reading sarcasm into my statements. I very sincerely encouraged The Madame to devote the next two years to investigative processes. After all, she has promised total bi-partisanship, so we will surely learn lots about folks on both sides of the aisle… if her stated intentions were truthful. Time will tell.
Pelosi doesn’t look like a hippy, and neither does her husband. What do you know about her that I don’t? Is she really evil, as you said?
Of course, with the skin that was once covering her jaw now somewhere around her hairline, looks could be deceiving. If her facial features are fake, can we trust anything else about her? Can she still blink, or is the skin too tight? Is the smile frozen in time? Is it real? Since 2000, I thought criticism of facial features was acceptable, even encouraged.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Sorry TV, but you’re only aloud to make fun of leaders who talk like they have a 3rd grade education. If you want me to list some “Bushisms” for you, let me know.
PS – Better sell that stock you have in Haliburton, I sense trouble in their future.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Can you believe that this admin is still bungling shit up over there?! For crying out loud, they can execute a man properly! The spectacle of him on the gallows will reinforce his claim to martyrdom and make him the hero in death that he was not in life. Wow.
I thought the American people spoke pretty loud and clear in November, demanding a major shift in this fiasco. Seems like the “decider” has decided to continue to waste more lives and money. Can’t say I’m surprised, it’s what he does best.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:01 am
treehugger, I poked fun of no one aloud. I typed it on my keyboard.
I own stock in Halliburton? Wow. Did I profit when they were given no-bid contracts in the aftermath of the 1990s wars?
Saddam, poor fellow, was so mistreated. Tried, convicted, and hanged by his own people. They obviously weren’t aware that the U.S. midterm elections were a mandate for forgiveness of his little misdemeanors. I wish him a Happy Martyr’s Day.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
heh
I haven’t visited lies.com lately, as jbc seems busy with the non-blogosphere tasks that preclude updates. However it is good to know that after an absence of 3 weeks the resident troll is replying to my optimistic post with the usual vitriol in under 100 minutes. Where’s my stopwatch? Ahhh there we go (starts timer). How many minutes before your next screech, teach?
I read this today and thought to ask my dear friend and fellow citizen Macaca-san if he thinks 42% to 64% of US troops are traitors and all the rest of his usual spew. So what do you think?
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
35% Approve
42% Disapprove
10% No opinion
12% Decline to answer
From Military Times (obviously a bunch of far left crazies and moonbats) 12/29/06
Note that all left wing sites are blocked for US military personnel. It’s nothing but FauxNEWZ 24/7/365.25. That and Drudge. Or Hannity. Fairly imbalanced news. Wait until these folks hear the truth.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Yeah, I’m sorry about the lack of posting. I’ve just been having a really hard time summoning the energy.
I’ll see what I can do about that.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Well, Dumbya finally admitted that his Iraq policy is a failure…now the question is… will TeacherVet?
Though I don’t agree with his proposed solution, at least he finally is admitting the mistakes he made. But yeah, I don’t think sending 20, 000 more American targets is a really good idea, but we shall see.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Oh, while Bush was pleading for our patience, here’s what was happening in Iraq…
Bush spoke on a day that was all too typical in that country. Two busloads of Shiite Muslims returning from their pilgrimage to Mecca were gunned down while passing through a predominantly Sunni Muslim swath of western Iraq. Twelve were killed and 18 wounded.
In Baghdad, bombings killed 11 and police patrols retrieved the bodies of 60 others dumped overnight. A suicide bomber killed four and injured 10 others in Tal Afar and three more Americans were killed, bringing the U.S. death toll to 3,017.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Independent inky-doo, I missed your 100-minute timeline. Sorry.
Ah, another poll by a civilian-run, liberal, agenda-driven Gannett publication! Was the poll conducted through their USA Today office? Let’s analyze the mere 16% who responded to the poll.
The respondents were all subscribers to one of the Gannett rags, with only 9% in the Marine Corps. Representative of our fighting force in Iraq?
At least 50% have never deployed to Iraq. Representative?
85% have never deployed to Afghanistan. Representative?
61% live in off-base civilian housing. Representative?
According to this poll, 73% have earned a college degree, and 35% have a Master’sDegree or higher. Is that representative of our fighting forces (as defined by Sen. Kerry)?
Disclaimer by the pollster: “Those polled differ from the military as a whole in important ways. They tend to be older, higher in rank, and more career-oriented.” Translation: They are simply state-side pencil-pushers. Of the 32% who have deployed to Iraq only one time, it’s doubtful that even a single one has seen combat duty there. Representative? Were they the ones who flocked around Sen. Kerry in the Chow Hall?
Keep citing “facts” from the Gospel according to St. Poll.
You “note” that all left wing sites are blocked from U.S. military personnel? As usual, that is a blatant lie. Did you cite that “fact” from a poll, or what? My USMC nephew – an actual combattant who is presently in Ramadi – says that all “left wing sites” (CNN, MSNBC, Kos, lies.com, etc.) are available, but yes, they choose Fox News, Drudge, Hannity, etc. 24/7/365.25.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
In the same post, you try to discount enkidu’s poll, but then use the poll to try to bash a war hero like John Kerry. Remember he misspoke? You guys tried to spin it but it didn’t work and you still lost the election.
I find it it quite amusing as well that in your “analysis” you state that a very high percentage of respondents have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan, and have a college degree.
Hmm. I wonder if their education has something to do with the fact they haven’t had to go over there. That kind of vindicates Kerry’s botched joke, doesn’t it?
Slam dunk baby!
January 11th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Independent Inky-doo took the Gannett bait, buying the idea that the poll was representative of the US troops’ opinions. My point was simple: the 16% of their subscribers who responded are not representative of troops in the field.
He also buys the notion that the civilian rag is “obviously” not a bunch of far left crazies and moonbats – simply because the word Military is in the title. Using a similar tactic, many communist groups in this country include the word American in their title to suck in gullible people.
The pollster’s disclaimer says it well enough: The poll does not reflect opinions of the military as a whole. Given that, the poll is worthless – except for suckers. They expect idiots who share their agenda to use the meaningless results, so I used their own statistics to illustrate the worthlessness of the poll.
Those polled were also asked whether “Congress has my best interests at heart.” 73% of the pencil-pushers disagreed. You trust agenda-driven polls? Slam dunk, baby!
Speaking of quite amusing, John Kerry is a war hero? For what? Violating rules of military conduct by killing a wounded enemy? Killing a child in the arms of its grandmother? A self-inflicted injury? Torching villages? Lying in Congressional testimony? Kerry, your war hero, is a botched joke. His Pinocchio face has gotten even longer since he “misspoke.” The fool claims to have simply omitted a single word that would have clarified everything, but even with that word included, the statement still has the same negative implications toward military personnel.
Speaking of heroes, Orca Kennedy has now spoken. Every time I hear his voice, I look at the photo that hangs on the wall above my computer desk – of his partially submerged Oldsmobile.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Amazing how you bring such a fresh air of craziness to every post Macaca-san. Bravo! Hey btw can you point me to your Xmas eve rant n rave? 05’s was a real knee slapper, head shaker, plea for help that I was kind of looking forward to seeing you top it in 06.
So you feel that the 42% to 64% of service men and women who don’t agree with your agenda are just “pencil pushers”? Why don’t you just out n out say that anyone who doesn’t goosestep along with you, dumbya and cheney are just Evil* traitors? You certainly imply this all the time, but I still think it is offensive and just downright stupid. imho. I never said the poll was 110% accurate or the last final holy word about what our troops think as of 12/06. It is just a poll that indicated approx 42 to 64% of respondents think the Iraq war is a crock of Macaca.
Hey btw thanks for the lesson on civility. Referring to the new Speaker of the House as “Madame Peelousely” and Ted Kennedy as “Orca” really sets the tone for the new year! Repeating wingnut nonsense about the troops shunning John Kerry reveals you to be factually challenged yet again.
Personally I think their first 100 hours on the job went pretty well. Jim Webb introduced a bill to extend GI Bill benefits to Iraq Debacle Veterans when they come home. If they come home (ie not in a casket). How many permanent military bases have we built in Iraq? Didn’t the Iraqi ‘government’ just pass a bill allowing majority foriegn ownership of their oil wealth? Those pernicious facts again…
Rethugs only hope is to provoke Iran into some sort of causus belli (or the neocons will just manufacture an incident to get things rolling).
January 16th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Trying to set a record for response efficiency – am I close? You didn’t post this past Christmas Eve, so I had nothing to which to respond.
One would think that “independents” would not be offended at criticism of Democrat leaders, but that’s our Independent Inky-doo.
The majority of those who responded to the poll (to which you made reference) have not been to Iraq or Afghanistan. If they aren’t pencil-pushers, how do you suppose they spend their time? Raking leaves around the Day Room? You fell for the civilian-operated rag’s ploy, ignoring their own disclaimer that the results were meaningless to make a false claim.
Neocons (Jewish conservatives) will invent a causus belli? Since they are under constant threat, I don’t think that will be necessary.
How many military bases? I don’t know.
Did the democratic Iraqi government that you seem to resent pass such a bill? I don’t know, but it might be advantageous in helping pay for their freedom.
Having never used the phrase “Evil* traitors,” I’m not inclined to begin now; although I’m not displeased that my comments sometimes cause you to look inward. That would certainly impress the little office girls.
Would “Madame Pulloutsy” be more appropriate? And, there you go, making me look up at a hero’s car again.
January 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“Today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common-sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan and gummed up by money and influence that we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions, and that’s what we have to change.”
Senator Obama – Announcing a possible run for president.
“Pass the crystal meth, give me a big blast this time.” – TeachVet upon hearing that a black man may actually become president in this country.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Check the following link (just the tip of the iceberg):
http://209.157.64.201/~beckwith/
I don’t share your concerns about anything so silly as skin tone, and I hope he gets the Democrat nomination – this campaign could be lots of fun. Will he get the support of Nancy Starkist Pollousy?
I don’t know anything about crystal meth, including the physical form or the method of injestion. Perhaps I should ask Barack Hussein Obama, since he seems to have experience in such areas.
P.S. – You’re not doing well at imitating Independent Inky-doo. Holding his hand seems to give you the warm fuzzies, but you might consider a return to your intelligent reasoning of long ago.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Sorry, I misspelled Pulloutsy. Perhaps I’m just too excited over the new-found wealth to be gained by 2% of our nation’s employees.
I visited my pharmacist today. He hires 15 local college students, but is cutting 40% (6) of them as a result of the 40% increase in minimum wage. The same thing will happen everywhere. Thanks, Nan.
Thanks, also, for the pledge to restore integrity to your House. Is it true that Mr. Pulloutsy owns $17 million in Starkist stock?
January 17th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Oh I’m sorry.
Since you think that all people who oppose this fiasco in Iraq are anti-war, I guess I just assumed that all religious tighty-righties did meth and enjoyed butt-sex. My bad.
So what were you doin at your pharmacist’s? Getting some ingredients I presume. Or a new case of Viagra? Can’t you hire those 6 students to work in your meth lab?
January 17th, 2007 at 11:57 am
While the U.S. Congress raised its pay eight times over the past decade, it refused to raise the minimum wage above the current $5.15-an-hour level since 1997. During that time nearly three-fifths of our states acted on behalf of working men and women at the lowest wage scales. Ten of those states even tied future increases in the minimum wage to inflation, exhibiting both foresight and a commitment to working Americans.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
When you have to resort to such goofy rhetoric, you expose your lack of fact-based argument, so thanks for the concession.
Be cautious with the “my bad” expressions, lest you be ridiculed by your alter-ego, Independent Inky-doo.
I make no assumption that all people who oppose the Iraq war are anti-war… because there is no anti-war movement. Rather, it is simply an anti-Bush movement by people who would sacrifice anything and everything for political gain.
I visited the pharmacy to pick up my wife’s meds. She’s fighting breast cancer – if that’s somehow relevant or of importance to you.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
btw, since you ignored the Barack Hussein Obama reference, I assure you that skin tone is not a political concern for me. I would vote for Starr Parker or J. C. Watts without hesitation.
Predictably, anyone who opposes the Illinois Muslim will be accused of racism. That’s pretty sad… and simple-minded… ignorant…and sick.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Breathtakingly angry and illogical, but that’s your schtick Macaca-san.
I mentioned your wonderful respect and civility with regard to the new leadership of Congress simply because you so love to lecture others on the decorum and manners which you so lack. It’s the internets, go fuck yourself m’lord. Since Dickhead Cheney can yell “go fuck yourself” to Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor, it must be proper for a blog’s comment area. Leahy seems intent on uncovering the truth regarding the abuse of power, privilege and our tax dollars. Subpoena power activate!
A supermajority of American’s (the ones who value patriotism above rock stupid partisanship) think the bush/mccain ‘doctrine’ of a way-too-weak-escalation is a Very Bad Idea (see Tom Tomorrow’s hilarious toons asap). You claim that US casualties are down (they aren’t, see the lies.com vietnam/iraq casualty post), while also impunging anyone to the left of your rightwingjingofascism. I would love the casualty count to go to zero, but your sick fantasies and hatred of anyone to the left seem to know no bounds. Then again, any time you aren’t shoving your craziness down the throats of children is time well spent.
You spend a lot of time with your dealer (or is that druggist?) So you and this other rightwing nutjob think raising the minimum wage 12% a year for 3 years is far too burdensome? You claim the kids mostly just stand around and do nothing, what kind of work ethic is that? He could afford the minimum raise if he made the kids actually work (perhaps improving customer satisfaction, simple cleaning, bringing in new business or improving the performance of the existing processes by a whopping 12%?) As a small business owner, I don’t hire people to sit on their hands for charity. Sorry to be so capitalistic, but if your dealer (ooops druggist) is hiring these kids as a charity, he seems woefully cheap to not pony up the 12% increase after no increases for a decade. Maybe he should just cut your antipsychotics a bit more (meth is a horrible scourge and I hope and pray for your recovery). Speaking of meds, perhaps your druggist should tell you to take those antipsychotics in parallel rather than a serial fashion. One a day would explain your anger management issues and general incoherence/demeanor: you need to take the antidepressants WITH the antipsychotics (and the other stuff) SEVERAL times a day. And lay off the meth.
Speaking of meth, your hilarious smears about Barak Obama reach new heights of hypocrisy. You call him a muslim, a meth user and enjoy pointing out that he has the same middle name as Osama bin Hussien (wasn’t he that tin-pot dictator we propped up in the 80s? hung by a mob in vietraq?) Equally bizarre are your smears of anyone who dares use the term neo-con (I hadn’t heard the rightwingnutjob spin machine’s new talking point that neo-con = anti-semite… hilarious!)
Keep it up superrightwingnutjobman and I’ll register as a Demoncrat! ooooooooo! scary! but hilarious!
boo!
January 19th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Independent Inky-doo returns, with the usual incoherent rambling! Aw, is him still injured? Who is Osama bin Hussein?
Poor Obama. Reared as a Muslim, now trying to hide in a Protestant church for obvious reasons of hopeful political gain. I can hardly wait to see sHrillary tear him apart in the primaries. His Muslim “past,” his admitted drug use, etc. It should be quite a party.
Perhaps you would force my pharmacist, and thousands of other small business owners, to retain all of his employees at the new wage rate? Sorry, but it won’t happen.
I take no medications, I don’t do drugs, and haven’t even had a beer since my daughter was born 28 years ago. Also, I’m a high school teacher, not a college prof, so politics don’t enter my classroom. If you and your little buddy must rely on straw-man arguments to impress your little office girls, knock yourself out.
About two-thirds of the way through January, with 24 casualties so far – some of them non-combat related. The December stats were encouraging for you, but January has long-since arrived.
I shouldn’t resist the new, second-guessing Commanders-in-Chief leaders of Congress who don’t know what they want from one day to the next? After all the lectures about how dissent is the only true form of patriotism, I’m just trying to follow your rules.
Reid, Pulloutsy, and the rest of their bunch demanded troop increases. Less than a month later, they don’t want troop increases. Did they learn the flip-flop technique from Big John? It certainly worked well for him.