« Uh-oh | Main | Interesting Timing »

August 15, 2007


oh no.

please, god.

not cursed video at the next hurrah.

i'm leaving for mars on the first shuttle.

Well, Bill and Jon can agree on one thing: PUSSIES are for women, not MANLY MEN.
Let's be murderers, but not, god forbid, anything associated with women.
(though we can all get a good laff out of it...kinda like Benny Hill).

Shorter Kristol: Our strategy has always been sound, we screwed up on tactics. I couldn't find anyone else to tell me this except the soldiers in our all-volunteer Armed Forces (and I won't divulge their names, because they don't exist).

FWIW imvho, John Stewart is really good and really worth watching as he destroys Kristol.

In one respect, it's better that the White House is issuing a report. It was absurd abdication of commander-in-chief authority to delegate the decision to Patreaus. Now its clear that framing was just a gambit to gain credibility for the decision to extend the failed war policy and co-opt the good General's eternal optimism.

EW rightly challenges the conclusions of the imminent WH report and the "facts" on which it is based. If I'm the chair of the intelligence and armed services committees, I'm insisting that a declassified version of the NIE be made public.

This war is wrong. Two hundred dead Iraqi's today. Jeese.. I thought murder was one of the ten commandments. My body is screaming inside.

Sorry I just needed a tad more drama. Why won't congress stop this.

Shorter: The Daily Show

Jon Stewert: With all due respect, why should we trust you?

Bill Kristol: Don't trust me, Don't trust Bush (after all, we've been wrong about everything WRT Iraq.) Instead, trust the trustworthy people who are using exactly the same talking points we are.

Why doesn't Congress ask Petraeus and Crocker to make their assessment in person (or by video link) and answer questions. If they have a backbone, they won't stand for the - "Just trust us- this is what Petraeus said" -BS.


As I understand it (I heard this back in June), the analysts working on it assumed the key judgments would be unclassified.


Good suggestion. I recall that Crocker, at least, was unwilling to BS the last time he came before Congress.

After flying indirectly towards the target, wounded stragglers are turned back and the remaining formation tightens-up. The fleet of bombers settles into the most critical stretch - the final run.

Distractions minimized, all eyes following the leader, inexorably bearing down on the objective...

Once again, we are hell bound in the dark for an extension of Bush's messianic, but totally unprincipled and immoral Ideological War.

Our 'unseen' government is fighting an 'enemy' that is not readily apparent to the masses - We who are bearing an enormous and growing War Debt, many of whom have no health care coverage, and all of whom are experiencing eroding Civil Rights - all in the name of fighting Terror.


Okay, I'm happy to see the LA Times printing this, but what makes anyone sure most of the media will reference this reality when dealing with the Petraeus report? I've seen dozens if not hundreds of facts-in-plain-sight that were ignored over the past five years in favor of war-uber-alles propaganda. Kristol clearly indicated: the Wurlitzer will be at full volume telling us Petraeus' word is unimpeachable. Given, just for instance, the way most rolled over for O'Hanlon/Pollack, despite major pushback from the blogs, why would we assume CNN and the rest won't make "The General Has Spoken/The War Must Continue/Everyone Else Shut Up" its final verdict?

Yeah, the LA Times has more clout than McClatchy, but I've been too disappointed by the press's obtuseness even in the face of overwhelming evidence (e.g., the Time cover story right after the election) to expect them to suddenly report reality on a regular basis.

None of this, by the way, affects my overall assessment: continuing Iraq is devastating for the GOP, and will lead them to catastrophic defeat in '08. It's just watching the insanity continue between now and then that's hard.

While I don't share the prevailing sentiment here, that the war and subsequent nation-building in Iraq was "wrong," or that the best interests of the country are served by "pulling out now" -- and no thank you, I won't debate the subject here there or anywhere, it would just inflame and annoy with no minds persuaded -- I do share the attitude toward the report, that it is to be presumed as heavily biased, not unlikely to the extent of being misleading spin.

It's good practice to look a layer or two below what the simplified political pronouncements made for the gullible masses.

Bush is killing or controlling totally innocent foreign people that he won't talk to, but doesn't like, and making them OUR enemies for generations to come.

Ideological not Principled

Racist (torture, oppression, hatefulness)
Authoritarian (total control, no civil rights)
Theocratic (mission to kill others from the Christian God!)

It's not about reason, logic, precedent, negotiation, compromise, intellect, understanding, compassion - it's about a madman and his goons getting his entitled and hate-infested way at everyone else's expense.

"I won't debate the subject here"

Must be nice. Let me try that one on my wife (any good divorce lawyers here?)

radiofreewill: glad to see you back, and thank you (11:31). I love it when others speak my thoughts so well.

-- Must be nice. Let me try that one on my wife --

It won't work there ;-)

Obviously the war is a controversial subject. I mentioned my general point of view because I didn't want my distrust in administration pronouncements to be mistaken for also rejecting the actions that the administration takes -- not just by readers here, but also by people who "make book" on my opinions, wherever I may express them.

I enjoy a good deal of the banter here, and appreciate the luxury of contributing even though my political sentiment doesn't fit well here. I figure "keeping the peace" has better chance of success if I don't push my point of view against the tide here.

Personally I glad we are finally getting back to a level of discourse that would allow Marilyn Chambers an authoritative voice . It has been a long time in arriving . Although it is probably a little abstract for the undisputed all-time lightweight world champion gut thinker . I am inclined that the distraction of the former Ivory Soap Lady will suffice as shiny just long enough for his gut and associated thoughts to cry out "Shiny" long and loud enough to overcome the companion organs incessant chatter .

My apologies cboldt. Just a little snark to match my day. I was actually commenting on the humor of your understandable predicament (and complements for your wisdom).

This is far any away the most gracious blog I have ever seen, especially considering the subject matter. Even the Troll is well behaved compared to most blogs.

-- My apologies cboldt. Just a little snark to match my day. --

No apology necessaary ... with that "let me try that one on my wife" addition, I knew the comment was made in good humor.

I hope the rest of your day is a joy and pleasure.

Why not wait and see/hear the report before you begin with the misgivings?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad