View Story | 329 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Why John W. McCain is an unstable, crazy, angry, clueless, hypocritical, lying, pandering douche.
by clammyc on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:02:23 PM PDT
every time their lips move.
by JoeW on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:04:53 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
This is not a matter of "they". Bush has been a mindless mouthpiece for Cheney's belligerent policies.
The mouthpiece, Bush, is still spouting inanities, but Cheney has lost his grip on power. He has lost the ability to withhold the truth from the American people.
The military and intelligence establishment isn't following Dick Cheney any more. Darth Vader has been unmasked.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:08:04 PM PDT
I used to read Der Spiegel weekly, but haven't had the time lately, so today I went to find out what the European's were saying about this whole thing, and since Merckal had been here recently I wanted to get that perspective--anyway here's what they've come up with--more than we get in our traditional media:
The new findings will also worsen the trench warfare within the US government. A rift has deepened for months between a group of advisors around Vice President Dick Cheney, who has assiduously called for a military attack against Iran, and the US State Department as well as large portions of the military, who consider such a move both dangerous and unwise.
And they further have pointed out that as they call them the 'spy agencies" want to 'get it right' this time after their Iraq blunders:
American spy services seem to have realigned themselves in this battle. "They want to be sure they don't lay the groundwork for yet another war by handing up faulty information," a onetime employee at the White House's National Security Council said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "One has to assume that they want to make up for the failures in the run-up to Iraq." Five years ago, another National Intelligence Estimate -- on the threat to US interests by Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction -- missed its mark by a mile. Independent commissions have criticized that report in the meantime as "chaotic" and a "debacle."
American spy services seem to have realigned themselves in this battle. "They want to be sure they don't lay the groundwork for yet another war by handing up faulty information," a onetime employee at the White House's National Security Council said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "One has to assume that they want to make up for the failures in the run-up to Iraq."
Five years ago, another National Intelligence Estimate -- on the threat to US interests by Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction -- missed its mark by a mile. Independent commissions have criticized that report in the meantime as "chaotic" and a "debacle."
http://www.spiegel.de/...
They have that right, and cheers to the 'spy agencies' for taking a stronger stand!
"People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"
by Wary on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:33:30 PM PDT
"You can count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else." -- Winston Churchill
by bleeding heart on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:37:41 PM PDT
Its all about the oil and always has been. 1.2 million dead Iraqis for money and oil. If this is not evil I don't know what is.
"Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."
by Owllwoman on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:49:17 PM PDT
This should be on every informed Dem's online reading list.
The EU's superpower, Germany, has its eye on the ball. They are so damned sharp.
It'll have you smacking your forehead. (Oh how uninformed Americans are. It's shocking.)
by Pluto on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:34:43 PM PDT
The CIA analysts got the Iraq war intelligence RIGHT in 2002, before Dick Cheney made them change their answers. Blaming "faulty intelligence" for Iraq is like blaming "faulty driving" for a car crash after someone cuts the brake line.
My favorite is Social Security.
by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:58:59 PM PDT
good, bad, and indifferent.
Let's go back to period before the invasion of Iraq.
On the one hand, we had those within the Agency who saw their job as providing the most accurate data and analysis humanly possible, regardless of whether that was the intelligence product the decision-makers wanted to see. There were people willing to sacrifice their careers to protect the integrity of the intelligence product. Count the Wilsons and some others at Counter-Proliferation Division (CPD).
On the other, there were managers who cooked intelligence to order. For instance, Alan Foley, the head of the CIA's Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC), which led the CIA's analysis of Iraqi WMD: http://www.dailykos.com/...
One day in December 2002, Foley called his senior production managers to his office. He had a clear message for the men and women who controlled the output of the center's analysts: "If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so." The directive was not quite an order to cook the books, but it was a strong suggestion that cherry-picking and slanting not only would be tolerated, but might even be rewarded.
by leveymg on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:35:06 PM PDT
Rubin. Libby, and all the other neocons? They, as much as anyone, "cut to fit" the intelligence.
Every single one of them are traitors to this nation, and deserve the worst punishment we can summon.
ELECT LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES NOW!
by Hornito on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:02:17 PM PDT
That neocon eye-hole is inside state dept advisory panel.
More hackery and shenanigans ahead.
http://www.reuters.com/...
Rice plans to name Wolfowitz to advisory panel
Paul Wolfowitz, forced to resign from the World Bank because of his role in obtaining a high-paying promotion for his companion, is slated to chair a U.S. State Department advisory panel on arms control, a U.S. official said on Monday.
The official, who spoke on condition that he not be named because of the appointment has not yet been made public, said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to name the former deputy defense secretary and an architect of the Iraq war to chair the International Security Advisory Board.
Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)
by fugue on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:47:50 PM PDT
and not necessarily American spies, just on alternating Tuesdays.
They served their countries dually, but not equally.
by leveymg on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:57:54 PM PDT
well.
They might as well have been working for some third power, which wanted to set the two against each other to destroy both.
Not even good spies. No good, at all.
by leveymg on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:03:44 PM PDT
Is that how Al got this job? What do you think?
What you see is what you get, but what you don't see is what ends up getting you.
by Existentialist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:17:48 PM PDT
on the Chris Matthews show
This is a man who trusts his own judgment, rewards his own friends, and keeps his own counsel. Now, if you think that Dick Cheney's been a great vice president, you'll love Rudy Giuliani as president.
We should make that link over and over again.
by dclawyer06 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:15:13 PM PDT
tribunal on him . . . .
Know why it won't happen? 'Cause too many Dems in Congress are complicit in his crimes as well!!!
by LivinginReality on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:32:24 PM PDT
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment was pushed thru at approx the time that the NIE would have been surfacing. Knowing that getting caught in a lie is not a deterrent for BushCo, I was puzzled when they lightened up on the pounding of a nuclear Iran and switched their rhetoric to "killing our soldiers in Iraq". I think the timing comes together (all too) nicely. The NIE says no WMD and that, this time, they'll go public and Bush winds up his Lieberman- kissey-doll to pass legislation on another angle. These bat-rastards don't quit.
Barack Obama - I'll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, it's a threat that should rally this country against our common enemies
by madgranny on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:42:00 PM PDT
I think the Bush Administration ignore the NIE for the same reason they didn't act on the President's Daily Briefing of August6, 2001; warning us of bin Laden's plot to attack the US. It didn't fit into their agenda, so they sidetracked it.
I would also point out that because the NIE came out when it did, it rewarded a man the Adminstration would prefer to snub: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If it took the NIE only half as long to get out as it had, that would have been when Mohammed Khatami was President of Iran, and the report would not have backfired so severely.
Overturn Bush v. Gore II, Impeach the R. A. T. S.
by Judge Moonbox on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:47:05 PM PDT
Same key players are still in there somewhere,
The basic set up and relationship between Congress/think-tank&neocons/cheney&Bushco/GOP are still there.
It might not moves as swiftly, but the same mechanism still functions.
for eg. if Bush drop a bomb on Iran to trigger the war. There is nothing to stop him.
by fugue on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:51:44 PM PDT
stinkin' Neonuts GONE from our government for good....and so does she:
by Jeff Y on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:28:30 PM PDT
The reporting here from China indicates any further sanctions are dead in the water although Chine would still continue to press for better and complete cooperation with the UN on nuclear inspections through diplomatic channels.
It's not that anyone greatly trusts Iran, but that the basis for sanctions now lacks credibility.
Serious tactical blunder by the Bush administration.
When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)
by koNko on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:16:07 AM PDT
In fact, they stretch the lie even further with each opportunity. When Bush spoke this morning in Nebraska, he took the lie to the outer edges. From his words, someone who is relatively uninformed could hardly be faulted for believing that the conclusions reached in the NIE report actually strengthened the administration's position, i.e., that Iran is diligently working on attaining nuclear bombs, with which it intends to attack us within the near future.
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin
by vigilant meerkat on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:10:31 PM PDT
are ringing in everyone's ears. I would not be surprised if someone now comes up with a memo that proves that Bush knew years ago.
Maybe they were just waiting until he denied it in public and they will prove otherwise.
by Do Tell on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:24:07 PM PDT
Seymour Hersch reported that Bush met with Olmert to discuss the NIE report TWO days before the date he insists he first was briefed on the report.
by vigilant meerkat on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:56:57 PM PDT
others as well.
by Do Tell on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:21:10 AM PDT
you wouldn't think, but you know how it is, the tee-vee and the traditional media don't go out of their way to slit the goose's neck.
"I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man'". Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:33:57 PM PDT
and a half-hour of time to spare could have figured this out and seen the truth long ago. A simple Google of "IAEA Iran" would do the trick. Read the IAEA reports on Iran's "nuclear program". They spell it out very clearly and with ample details.
Even "little bootsie" could have figured this one out if he had just a tiny bit of sincere curiosity about what is happening in the world.
The official NIE is the icing on the cake. There should be nothing startling about this. The information has been available to the public for months.
"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people..." Henry Kissinger
by truong son traveler on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:19:53 AM PDT
Hannity was stating the same thing today, that this report shows how Iran still wants nukes and, in fact, have 6 nukes from Russia in store, ready to put on missiles and show up off of our borders, hitting our cities.
I kid you not, they are nuts.
My new bumper sticker: Cheney-Satan '08
by adigal on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:03:07 PM PDT
Blatant lies about Saddam kicking out the inspectors, etc.
It's up to the people to make sure it doesn't happen again.
by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:01:50 PM PDT
let's nuke Russia too for helping them.
by clammyc on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:11:05 AM PDT
Aug. 6th 2007
it's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon. W.H. trenscript
it's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon.
W.H. trenscript
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
by Lefty Coaster on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:46:10 PM PDT
They were deliberately exposed by someone in their own government.
by DMiller on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:17:39 PM PDT
one of the liars from the last go-around (Hadley)
by clammyc on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:18:54 PM PDT
people the real patriots and heroes.
Check out ePluribus Media Community and now Timelines too!
by standingup on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:29:55 PM PDT
More likely the crew that's been quietly making deals with Iran since Casey & Baker in 1980 got alarmed that somebody was about to turn their profitable phony war into a shooting one.
Another thing is to read Bush's quotes from October & see what he's not saying : that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. He knew, but didn't care then, which is why he's still trying to sell the war - it hasn't occurred to him that other people do care.
by Downpuppy on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:40:52 PM PDT
In the case of Iran today, I say with confidence that it would be better to have people make deals with them than for us to go to war with them.
The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
by lysias on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:06:32 PM PDT
are going to have change their graphics now that their Hero in Chief got busted for lying again:
by Jeff Y on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:34:36 PM PDT
with Iran and assist them in their effort to obtain cheap electrical energy we would be in a situation to observe what they were doing. If we were to cooperate with Iran we could actually profit from the venture and assure its safety. Why hasn't General Electric stepped forward to offer assistance and provide oversight?
by Gordon20024 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:37:05 PM PDT
tired of taking the fall for BushCo. They are covering their collective asses this time. Can you blame them?
by phrogge prince on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:34:30 PM PDT
needed to purge the CIA because it was a hotbed of liberal activists. Whatever happened to that guy? He suddenly resigned one day amid rumors of hooker parties, and then there was nothing.
Investigate War Lies --> Evidence for Senate Conviction --> End the War. Got it?
by bejammin075 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:02:39 PM PDT
so maybe he got most of what he wanted done, and then the corruption started to catch up to him.
by unterhausen on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:09:38 PM PDT
I just love it..teehee
What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams
by Demfem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:24:03 PM PDT
in government show this kind of courage and start exposing these liars for who they really are. There is hope!
Republicans only care about republicans. Democrats care about the Republic.
by beaukitty on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:02:08 PM PDT
They're lying because it's always worked for them. If they need to start another war to enforce their latest lie, so be it.
Americans over the age of 7 may notice that this represents a significant change in attitude compared to previous administrations.
(-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin
by john07801 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:23:01 PM PDT
Not lying to JUST start a war, but to start a war, so they can rob us of MORE power and strip the Consitution bare, and the treasury just that much more, and put us all in deeper fear. There is always more in their motives than people realize. Probably a nice power shift to alter the United States into the control of the few and rich and powerful elite to boot.
by Dazy on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:46:06 PM PDT
when the president is trying to tell us that we NEED to go to war?
I mean, how have people forgotten that the president is supposed to be cool, calm and collected about these things?
And I've been saying it for a couple of days: George, Iran DOESN'T have nuclear weapons. You DON'T have to send thousands of Americans to their deaths and doom hundreds of thousands of Iranians. This is a GOOD THING. You might want to stop talking about it with the demeanor of a grounded teenager.
You call it Bush Derangement Syndrome; I call it sanity.
by RickMassimo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:44:22 PM PDT
I'm sure the generals are telling him we don't HAVE any troops to send, and we have 150,000+ potential casualties sitting RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
by mmacdDE on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:34:12 PM PDT
Since when has he listened to any generals that aren't kissing his ass at the same time as they talk?
The Prince of Peace has been usurped by the God of War.
by Spoc42 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:31:10 AM PDT
...if we don't stop them.
Is there ANYTHING these clowns can do that will actually get impeachment on the table? Does Decider Guy have to be caught with his pants down with a 4 year old boy on his lap?
(1) D.I.E.B.O.L.D.: Decisive In Elections By Ousting Liberal Democrats. (2) R.A.T.S.: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia. (3) -8.75, -8.10
by Archangel on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:45:27 PM PDT
After all, someone in the WH had Geoff Gannon staying overnight. They'll palm it off on some underling.
by Spoc42 on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:32:35 AM PDT
A bit surprised they didn't set up another OSP to preempt intel. Maybe they couldn't find another Curveball? They seemed a lot better prepared the first time around.
by alefnot on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:58:43 PM PDT
so manifestly in the first war, if not in the first leadup to war.
by lysias on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:07:47 PM PDT
I meant in sidelining the professional intel community and in the panicking of an unengaged public in the leadup to war.
by alefnot on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:20:42 PM PDT
"Trap us into taking the fall for your illegal war once, shame on you. But twice? And anyway, you're just phoning it in. You didn't even vary the scam. Look, this is the intelligence community, buddy. Most of us can count to twenty without taking our shoes off."
Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.
by Canadian Reader on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:42:54 PM PDT
most of us that were in the military during Desert Storm were a little disgruntled that we didn't finish the job. Granted, that wasn't really realistic, but the feeling lingered. And I think a lot of the people that were in command were susceptible to the right-wing bullshit on Iraq that said that Saddam had some responsibility for 9/11, or are simpleminded enough to think that all Middle Easterners deserved some blame for it.
Now the military brass has gotten an education about Islam, and also realize that Iran could hold their own in a battle with us.
by unterhausen on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:15:42 PM PDT
This is precicely why it is very practical to persue investigations that will inevitably lead to an impeachment.
Lying to start one war was obviously very dangerous. Letting Bush off the hook only encourages him to do it again. Bush is trying to do it again.
Only the removal from office of both Bush and Cheney can limit the damage they can do with 1+ year left. If Bush and Cheney are not in the White House, they can't start another war.
It's that simple. A bank robber once was asked why he robbed banks. He said "Because that's where the money is."
by bejammin075 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:00:57 PM PDT
they are so brazen. The jig is up! The cat is out of the bag! Iran has no nuclear weapons program! Their stated reason for going to war with Iran has crumbled into dust! Yet this has no effect whatsoever on their disinformation campaign. They must think we (or, at least, the greater part of the American public) are blind, stupid, or both.
-5.13,-5.64; When pygmies cast such long shadows, it must be very late in the day. -Gian-Carlo Rota
by gizmo59 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:18:26 PM PDT
The Spice Girls are touring! Amy Winehouse is drugged up! Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes ...
Sigh.
I don't believe, honestly, that the media celebrity crap is a conspiracy, but it sure seems to be a hell of a way to keep the populace distracted.
You can tell you have created God in your own image when it turns out that he or she hates all the same people you do. - Anne Lamott
by javelina on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:12:18 PM PDT
And I was so proud when an NPR commentator made the comment "If I hear the ad which says 'Christmas starts with a K' one more time, I'll scream." Because I had no idea what he was talking about.
Thrilled to be disconnected from TV.
by rerutled on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:20:47 PM PDT
I'm rather disconnected from tv myself.....nothing on except reality shows, and I can't get KO since they went digital....but it seems like I vaguely remember someone singing that little ditty in regards to either Kaye jewelers or K-Mart: take your choice. I was upstairs blogging at the time and the TV Monster was on downstairs....even so...evidently their message got across somehow. How unfortunate. Thought I was above all that....guess not. This is just embarassing that I think I know that ridiculous phrase. Time to dig out the ol' earplugs or turn up the stereo.....sheesh! ;O)
"What, Me Worry?"...King George Walker Alfred Eusless Newman Bush
by RantNRaven on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:41:56 PM PDT
and got nothing.
"We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis
by Nespolo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:01:47 PM PDT
That's just a guess, as I don't watch TV.
by javelina on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:38:41 PM PDT
in my youth there was a local band called Root Boy Slim and the Sex Change Band that recorded a holiday song called "X-mas at K-Mart." But that was in the days before Wal-Mart.
by gizmo59 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:03:02 PM PDT
Who is going to stop them from doing anything that they want to do or say? Our Democratic lead Congress is suddenly going to do their jobs and hold them accountable for their lies and their unlawful actions? Our brave and fearless press core and our MSM are suddenly going to call them out for being liars and dangerous fanatics? Neither scenario is likely so they can continue doing what ever they want.
No courage = No $$$ for Dems
by MO Blue on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:14:00 PM PDT
into what the President knew, when he knew it, and if they knew it, and still talked about WWIII, or if cheney tried to slow this report down.
There should be impeachment procedures if they knew. But pelosi does NOT have the guts to put this back on the table.
by adigal on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:11:18 PM PDT
we'd be agreeing with Pat Buchanan on anything?
by gizmo59 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:59:16 PM PDT
Not part of the solution.
by Existentialist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:50:55 PM PDT
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain," they say, and the MSM complies. Actually, though, they don't even say it. If there's damning information, they don't respond to it. To respond is to acknowledge the damning information, to respond to it is to repeat it and give it traction. Their rule is: Just act as if the damning information doesn't exist and let the story die. Too often this has worked for them, so naturally they are using the tactic again. For the MSM to even think of covering the lie as a lie, some newsmaker(s) have to harp on the lie as a lie, repeat it like a broken record, expanding their criticism, deepening it, adding new news hooks day by day.
Politicians must not be restrained by the polite convention that "You don't call the President a liar" either. This President has broken more important conventions, not to say laws. And innuendo just won't cut it.
The MSM won't make much of the lies on their own. The MSM is not in the business of pointing out lies, even when lies are obvious. The MSM sees itself as in the business of covering viewpoints, allegations, controversies -- not establishing the truth. High-profile individuals, "news makers," have to talk about the lie and keep talking about the lie as a lie and explaining its ramifications in order that the MSM can (may) cover them -- and keep covering them.
The other thing with the use of TV: Bushies know research has shown that most people basically react to the visuals, while the verbal narrative of TV news goes in one ear and out the other. People also react to key words in juxtaposition more than to whole ideas. So if the visuals behind the anchor show a map of Iran and a picture of a bomb, or a map of Iran and the word, "WAR?," then their desired message is received by most viewers, even if the news anchor is saying "The NIE showed there were no nuclear weapons in Iran." Meanwhile, the mind half-hears the words "Iran" and "nuclear weapons" in the same sentence, and makes the connection that Iran has nuclear weapons.
The counterprescription would be news stories about the NIE where the visual in the background is something like a picture of Shrub and the word "LIAR?" (Or maybe a long-nosed Pinnochio.)
Peace and love. :)
by Clio2 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:36:47 PM PDT
They must think we (or, at least, the greater part of the American public) are blind, stupid, or both.
All evidence is to the affirmative. Hell, even today, at least 25% of the American public will reliably support whatever he says.
by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:04:29 PM PDT
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
by darthstar on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:28:59 PM PDT
isn't even more abusive?) lied us into a war and continuing occupation of Iraq for the benefit of their Big Oil cronies. They have entirely f**ked up a country that as a secular state was on its (in a surely slow but nonetheless real) way to democracy, and have placed there an incipient theocracy. They have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths (without mentioning the deaths caused by Albright's "it was worth it" sanctions). For what? The answer is simple: so that American Big Oil (rather than, say, French Big Oil) would get Iraq's oil contracts. We have established permanent bases that will remain in Iraq till the oil runs out, no matter who's Prez (hey, who runs this country after all?) so as to make sure that American Big Oil gets it all. Our military in Iraq often speak of "getting the Bad Guys" - do they mean Bush when he brings the plastic turkey?
We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.
by Lepanto on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:35:44 PM PDT
Last night on television.
by adigal on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:13:26 PM PDT
He needs no plastic model, when he's the real thing, a USDA Grade AAA Jive Turkey.
by Existentialist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:53:44 PM PDT
This is why us crazy leftists are so concerned over the death of the fourth estate. The stakes are quite literally the fate of the planet.
Low impact development and web design
by AmericanFactotum on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:45:36 PM PDT
...I remember reading something recently about Israeli intelligence saying Iran was at least five years away from having the technology to enrich nuclear material into weapons form. So while Ahmadinejad may want to destroy Israel, not only is he not working on developing the technology to be able to do so, even if he were, there'd be time for more sensible measures to be attempted long before any military option.
"Mission Accomplished" -7.62, -6.36
by wiscmass on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:49:59 PM PDT
it is ongoing...
"Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae
by pfiore8 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:04:17 PM PDT
by clammyc on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:05:53 PM PDT
