Patterico's Pontifications

6/24/2008

McCain Adviser: You Know What’d Really Help? A Terror Attack

Filed under: 2008 Election,General,Morons — Patterico @ 8:07 am



The Washington Post reports:

A top adviser to Sen. John McCain said that a terrorist attack in the United States would be a political benefit to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a comment that was immediately disputed by the candidate and denounced by his Democratic rival.

Charles R. Black Jr., one of McCain’s most senior political advisers, said in an interview with Fortune magazine that a fresh terrorist attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.

Brilliant. But why stop there?

Why, it would be even more beneficial if the attack hit a blue state, wouldn’t it? As long as Mr. Black is on the subject, why not provide the list of states where a huge terror attack would be most beneficial to John McCain?

Oh, and hey — it seems like it would be beneficial to John McCain if the attack took out Barack Obama. Wouldn’t it? It would be even more beneficial to John McCain if it also took out other likely replacements for Obama, like Hillary Clinton or Al Gore.

In all this talk about what would be beneficial to John McCain, I just thought of something that would not be beneficial to John McCain.

Saying this kind of stuff to Fortune Magazine.

I can see that — and I’m not even a top political adviser!

270 Responses to “McCain Adviser: You Know What’d Really Help? A Terror Attack”

  1. Shouldn’t be too long before that adviser gets thrown under the back of Baracky’s bus.

    JD (75f5c3)

  2. Absolutely clueless cretins not even able to take advantage of the lightworker’s unforced errors.

    Why do I feel this campaign is shaping up as Dole/Kemp redux? I see McCain is losing S. Fla right now by 46-30 despite all the geezers here. Maybe he’ll improve that with Charlie Crist on ticket? I doubt that. At least Huckleberry Clown shouldn’t make the cut after his own Obama assassination joke flub.

    It’s going to be a long summer. Here’s hoping Denver is a real zoo and some how, some way sHrillary comes out on top there. I don’t want the Lightworker Neophyte near POTUS.

    madmax333 (702424)

  3. I’ve heard it said before, and I’ll say it again: “It’s too bad the Republicans couldn’t have gotten around to nominating a real candidate this time…”

    I denounce myself for saying so, of course. (Preemptive strike/scorched earth policy standard with McCain.)

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  4. Charlie Black has never managed a winning Presidential campaign. Ronald Reagan dumped him. I wonder why anyone else would hire the idiot.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  5. I wonder why anyone else would hire the idiot.

    Your ponderence holds the answers you seek…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  6. Hard to know the context when we aren’t told what his comments were in response to. If it was a response to a question like: “Which candidate would be hurt the most and which candidate would be helped the most by another terrorist attack?”, I think you pretty much have to answer it with the obvious answer.

    j curtis (c84b9e)

  7. Shouldn’t be too long before that adviser gets thrown under the back of Baracky’s bus.
    Yeah. Its Obama’s fault he said that. Blame it on Obama. Wonder how this blog would have been buzzing with all the anti Obama sentiments and hate speeches if that was an Obama adviser. But since he isnt we will still find a way to tie it to Obama. There has to be a connection…..

    love2008 (1b037c)

  8. Good analysis lovey. Spot on.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  9. Charlie Black? Is he still around? This is something I’ve never understood about the “profession” of politics — how losers are recycled like baseball managers. How can this be in such a dynamic business, and with so much at stake? McCain can find no young, sharp, audacious talented conservative operatives who recognize the incredible opportunity running against a crypto-marxist parvenu?

    rrpjr (fb0748)

  10. This story is similar to the story about the Congressman who said that winning in Iraq would be a problem for Democrats. It’s just a dumb comment that happens to be true.

    MIke K (2cf494)

  11. aww, he’s just admitting what everyone knows, the republicans and osama bin laden need each other. in order to accomplish its objectives, the republican party needs the people to be in a state of fear. i expect to be castigated in 3…2…1 for being insufficiently fearful.

    assistant devil's advocate (138424)

  12. rrpjr…
    “…a crypto-marxist parvenu.”

    I like that! Good work.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  13. ada @ 11…
    Better to be in fear (or aware), than in denial.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  14. 11
    the republican party needs the people to be in a state of fear

    Aren’t you one of those weather armageddon gorebots?

    j curtis (c84b9e)

  15. Just so we’re clear:

    No attacks on the US, good for Republicans!

    Attacks on the US, good for Republicans!

    Got it.

    Ian (c84cf0)

  16. #15
    Or better still;
    No attacks on the US, bad for the democrats.
    Attack on the US, bad for the democrats.
    Mmmmmgh.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  17. And, BTW, tracing back from Patterico’s link, I went through Huffingpuffington Post. They farmed this out.

    nk (11c9c1)

  18. If the attack took out some of McCain’s top campaign advisers it would help him even more.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  19. Fortune’s coverage of the two candidates is actually very good, in my humble opinion. It’s about as close to nonpartisan as you can find in this race.

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008062311

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/index.htm

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  20. I dunno that another terror attack would help McCain any more than no terror attack would help McCain. It’d probably just re-enforce everyone’s already-held opinions.

    If there were another terrorist attack on U.S., I would be wondering: “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on the “war on terror,” so why are we right back where we started on 9/11, getting attacked?”

    But of course, with no attacks, I’ll be wondering “why are we spending trillions of dollars on this war on terror when the terrorists don’t seem to have the resource to mount more than one attack on U.S. soil every decade or so?

    And conversely, both of the above scenarios would re-affirm for McCain supporters how important it is that we have a pro-war-on-terror president, to protect them from the terrorist threat.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  21. I’m with Phil. I don’t think it would really affect the race although a massive attack might ADAs attention. Probably not.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  22. “… after we raise the issue …”

    So, to suggest that Mr. Black just started yammering on how a terrorist attack on the US would help McCain is just flat out dishonest. h/t to nk for that catch.

    JD (75f5c3)

  23. As we have repeatedly been told, if Obama is not responsible for what his staff/friends/pastors say, why then is McCain?

    At worst it was a foot-in-mouth moment by someone who should know better by now.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  24. Good one, Dana! But you know full well that a differential yardstick is in play on this topic…

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  25. As we have repeatedly been told, if Obama is not responsible for what his staff/friends/pastors say, why then is McCain?

    At worst it was a foot-in-mouth moment by someone who should know better by now.

    I’ll hop in to say that I don’t care about what this guy says. McCain is an easy enough target.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  26. Just so we’re clear:

    No attacks on the US, good for Republicans!

    Attacks on the US, good for Republicans!

    If we infer that the Democrats’ position is that there is no threat, then people who agree would probably be more inclined to vote Democrat as long as we don’t get hit again. It’s hard to say what exactly Dems like Obama think about it since he doesn’t seem to ever talk about it. Probably because he never thinks about it.

    If we think there is a real threat, and we infer that Obama’s position is that there is no real threat, then McCain is the logical candidate to vote for regardless of whether we get attacked again. The candidate that seems to think there’s no threat when there is one does not belong in the White House, period.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  27. This guy is going to puke a little in the back of his mouth when he hears that Wranglers is supporting him.

    JD (75f5c3)

  28. My take on this is if there was another attack so close to the election, is it possible that the bush people and neocons do have control over the attacks on the US. And was the 9-11 instigated by them? We keep seeing how they have benefited greatly by the 9-11 attack. Where would the bush administration be without it? They would have tanked in the first year. And they got their wars and terror legislation and spying and on and on. And now oil prices through the roof they are trying for drilling rights for the oil companies. Amazing what an attack can do.

    Hannah Stevens (1297a4)

  29. If we infer that the Democrats’ position is that there is no threat,

    Jesus, where do you people get this shit?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  30. My take on this is if there was another attack so close to the election,

    You mean like the one in October, 2000?

    How did that one work out for the incumbent VPOTUS/Presidential nominee?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  31. Levi is in the school of thought that there was a threat, and Bush allowed it to succeed. Just like Hannah, apparently.

    JD (75f5c3)

  32. Jesus, where do you people get this shit?

    From Democratic actions towards what is perceived by non-Democrats as a “clear and present danger”. Not the words they mouth, but the actions they take. (Actions describe positions much better than do words.)

    Is the concept of “inference” beyond you?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  33. “the republican party needs the people to be in a state of fear”
    “Aren’t you one of those weather armageddon gorebots?”

    He shoots … he scores!

    Everytime I read a breathless “Global Warming will kill us” hype story, even as the IPCC story line unravels and the science gets ever less fear-inducing, I am reminded of Al Gore’s rant in a speech: “He preyed upon our fears!” … yeah, and its a neat trick to get a nobel *peace* prize for such flabby hyperbolic unscientific AGW fearmongering aint it?

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  34. Apparently I’m the only one who followed nk’s link to the Fortune article.

    On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy – this according to McCain’s chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.

    So Black was saying that the assassination underlined McCain’s grasp of international politics and security, and that underlining was the “help” referred to above. Similarly, the cited “advantage” is any focus on McCain’s national security credentials.

    Black did a lousy job of saying so, true. Also note that Black never used the word “benefit”, or said another attack would be “beneficial.” That was an invention of the WaPost writer:

    A top adviser to Sen. John McCain said that a terrorist attack in the United States would be a political benefit to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a comment that was immediately disputed by the candidate and denounced by his Democratic rival.

    (emphasis added)

    So Patterico is sarcastically critical of a fiction created by Michael D. Shear.

    Casey (9ee427)

  35. “I dunno that another terror attack would help McCain any more than no terror attack would help McCain. It’d probably just re-enforce everyone’s already-held opinions. ”

    Bingo … This is like the stock market saying “buy the rumor, sell the news”. These views are already factored into peoples thinking.

    Terror attack 3 days before election in Spain and – bingo – the leftists won.

    Why cant it happen here?

    It may well be that AQ perceiving a bomb helping Republicans could actually be what keeps us safer. They wont try if it causes a backlash.
    In that respect, Bush has kept us safe by showing how bat-s88t crazy we will get if they try another 9/11.

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  36. Maybe I’m missing something, Casey, but all I see is a shift to a different synonym – from “advantage” to “benefit”.

    Can you explain how the two are sufficiently different for you to draw such a distinction, because I don’t see it. Even Thesaurus(dot)com has “advantage” as the first synonym to “benefit“.

    What am I missing?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  37. “And was the 9-11 instigated by them? We keep seeing how they have benefited greatly by the 9-11 attack. ”

    Hannah, dont stop there with your brilliant historical discoveries. It must be true that since the US benefitted from WWII, that FDR must have been behind not just Pearl Harbor, but Hitler’s invasion of Poland. I am sure with enough digging you can find the telegrams from FDR that prove it all out.

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  38. The Fortune magazine article does not have any direct quote of Charlie Black. Is Fortune the only source for what Black said? If its the linked article alone, its pretty thin gruel. The reporter brought up the question not him, and he made the mistake of answering it in a way that could be viewed as insensitive. Black let some political repercussion discussion go too far with a reporter, McCain vehemently disagreed and now he regretted his stupidity. Definitely a slow-news-day type story … unless you are the Obamedia and need your McCain-dig-of-the-day.

    Travis Monitor (8d33ce)

  39. “The Fortune magazine article does not have any direct quote of Charlie Black.” excuse mymisstatement. They dont have a direct quote saying what some reports are saying. Black quote is “”Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” but what was the question?

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  40. A terrorist attack on American soil is the last thing the republicans need now. What with all this talk about America being safe since 9-11. It’s crazy to even imagine it. If anything it will benefit(advantage) the dems. Atleast they can reinforce their argument that the war in Iraq has not made America safer. Thus destroying Mccain’s only remaining suit in this election year.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  41. It’s crazy to even imagine it. If anything it will benefit(advantage) the dems.

    So, by Hannah’s logic, wouldn’t that mean that it was the Dems who have been working with, anticipating and even had LIHOP/MIHOP all of those terror attacks against American interests that were going on every 12-15 months during the last decade of the 20th century?

    So, Democratic Congress + Democratic White House = terror attacks just about every year.

    Republican Congress + Republican White House = removal of two of the most despotic regimes on the planet and 50 million people liberated AND no further attacks on our soil, plus thousands of terrorists killed and their funding cut WAY down (forcing those nations trying to support them sub rosa to become overt in their support)…

    By all means, we need to change things!

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  42. If you’re going to have an attack, what place would be better than the backyard of Speaker Pelosi. There is more than enough for any Muslim jihadist to get in a tizzy in that neighborhood to invoke the “spirit of change.”

    We could then have a criminal investigation that would bring nobody to justice.

    Neo (cba5df)

  43. “In that respect, Bush has kept us safe by showing how bat-s88t crazy stupid we will get if they try another 9/11.”

    – Travis Monitor

    There. Fixed that for you.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  44. From Democratic actions towards what is perceived by non-Democrats as a “clear and present danger”. Not the words they mouth, but the actions they take. (Actions describe positions much better than do words.)

    Is the concept of “inference” beyond you?

    What actions are those, exactly?

    I don’t know how you can infer that Democrats think there is no threat, what are you basing that upon?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  45. GeraldA,

    “If we infer that the Democrats’ position is that there is no threat.”

    “and we infer that Obama’s position is that there is no real threat”

    Where did you come up with this? I don’t know of one person, not one, that believes there is no threat.

    You have got to be a GOPer. Just make shit up if it helps your position.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  46. Republican Congress + Republican White House = removal of two of the most despotic regimes on the planet and 50 million people liberated AND no further attacks on our soil,

    I love this:

    ‘AND no further attacks.’

    Cuz everyone gets a freebie, right? You want to take credit for everything after 9-11, before 9-11? Nothing he could have done, right?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  47. I wonder Drumwaster, if you will afford President Obama the same latitude?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  48. My 2 cents on why an attack is unlikely.

    The rest of world hates the U.S. Why give the rest of the world any reason to have sympathy for us.

    They have us tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan in two unwinnable wars that are bankrupting us.

    America’s enemies could not have imagined a more favorable outcome to the 911 attacks. Why would they want to change a thing?

    jharp (cb7adf)

  49. assistant devil’s advocate wrote: in order to accomplish its objectives, the republican party needs the people to be in a state of fear.

    And of course, this is unique to the Republican party. The Democrats would never do anything like try to scare people into voting for them.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  50. Levi wrote: Cuz everyone gets a freebie, right? You want to take credit for everything after 9-11, before 9-11? Nothing he could have done, right?

    You’ve been schooled after saying this many, many times, yet you continue to pretend you have a point besides the one atop your pin head. It’s like trying to have an argument with a parrot that has trained to say only the word, “So?”

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  51. You’ve been schooled after saying this many, many times, yet you continue to pretend you have a point besides the one atop your pin head. It’s like trying to have an argument with a parrot that has trained to say only the word, “So?”

    Well just so long as you guys are consistent, and let every future President slide by uncriticized for the first massively crippling terror attack carried out on his watch, I won’t argue.

    Are you willing to be that forgiving again if another attack occurs under a Democratic President?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  52. Just shows how the Republican Party (John McSame) relies on fear to influence votes. The same way McBush used it to get his second term. All they rely on is fear. In fact, according to published reports, John McSame, the so called war hero, scored at the bottom of his military class…. John McShame, you are basically incapable of being in charge of any thing at this point and time. Be careful John McBush, you are on the verge of being exposed!!!!

    Sandy Schwartz (d671ab)


  53. It depends on whether or not previous administrations tied his hands when it came to ferreting out terrorists before the fact, or if he tied his own hands, rendering himself only able to cross his fingers for luck.

    As I previously wrote to you on this point:

    [The] “9/11 Commission”…is forever tainted by the presence of “blue ribbon” panelist Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton Administration architect of the policy by which vital information about suspected terrorists was withheld from intelligence agencies by the FBI (bka “The Gorelick Wall”).

    Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft, in his Commission testimony, said one frustrated FBI investigator saw the handwriting on the “wall” before the attacks, and expressed it in a prophetic memo:

    “Whatever has happened to this–someday someone will die–and wall or not–the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ “

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  54. Sorry — the previous post was to Levi, who wrote: Well just so long as you guys are consistent, and let every future President slide by uncriticized for the first massively crippling terror attack carried out on his watch, I won’t argue.

    Are you willing to be that forgiving again if another attack occurs under a Democratic President?

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  55. Someone named “Sandy Schwartz” wrote: In fact, according to published reports, John McSame, the so called war hero, scored at the bottom of his military class….

    Oh, my! His Naval Academy test scores clearly render him unqualified to be commander-in-chief! His scores obviously were well below those of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  56. Are you willing to be that forgiving again if another attack occurs under a Democratic President?

    If it occurs under like circumstances, yes. If it occurs under dissimilar circumstances, no.

    Xrlq (b71926)

  57. I find it more than a bit ironic that the Obama campaign can call McCain’s advisors comments a disgrace given the history of Obama’s advisors.

    Not to mention Obama’s own personal incompetence in discussing Jerusalem’s status.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. Between Sandy and Wranglers, it is hard to tell which is more noxious.

    JD (5f0e11)

  59. Levi has not merely been schooled, but had his backside repeatedly spanked on that issue. And yet he dares repeat the same stupid comment as though he’d never had himself shown to be the drooling incompetent on the issue that he is.

    Astonishing self-delusion in action there, Levi.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  60. SPQR – Though feelings are of the utmost importance to them, they are not familiar with shame.

    JD (5f0e11)

  61. Are you willing to be that forgiving again if another attack occurs under a Democratic President?

    Depends on how said POTUS responds. How did Billy Jeff respond to those half dozen attacks on his watch, as compared to Bush’s one?

    I approved of the response for the latter, not so much the former, and political party had nothing to do with it.

    They have us tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan in two unwinnable wars that are bankrupting us.

    “Unwinnable”? You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you means. Even the NYT is admitting that the surge worked, and Bush is already bringing them home…

    Better hurry up and surrender before we win.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  62. McCain was at bottom of his class? Good. I want to vote for him even more now. A “D” at the Naval Academy means more to me an “A” at Harvard Law. And I’m sick of over-achievers.

    rrpjr (fb0748)

  63. Wranglers is a twooother.

    JD (5f0e11)

  64. John McSame, the so called war hero

    So John Kerry is the real war hero, huh? Or is Bill “protested the war from Moscow” Clinton is the kind of hero you get all quivery for?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  65. Unwinnable is just a variation of one of their boilerplate memes. Just look at their pre-war calculations. Afghan winter. Quagmire on Day 2. Tens of thousands dead. They declare defeat every chance they get.

    JD (5f0e11)

  66. Quagmire on Day 2.

    Wasn’t Wesley Clark calling it a quagmire even as the troops were crossing the border northbound? Even using the V-word?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  67. Frankly, “so called war hero” by itself would earn a horsewhipping were we still a civilized society.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  68. I don’t mind their appeasement or defeatism — they can’t help being stupid and cowardly — as much as their infantile whining for instant gratification. War should be a one-night stand according to them.

    nk (11c9c1)

  69. They have us tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan in two unwinnable wars that are bankrupting us.

    “Unwinnable”? You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you means. Even the NYT is admitting that the surge worked, and Bush is already bringing them home…

    The surge has failed (though it did curb some violence). The goal of the surge was to buy time for political progress. It ain’t happening.

    Better hurry up and surrender before we win.

    We lost the day we invaded. There is nothing to “win”.

    Or better yet you tell me what we “won” with our $1 trillion, 4,100 dead, and 25,000 wounded, some maimed for life.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  70. Or better yet you tell me what we “won” with our $1 trillion, 4,100 dead, and 25,000 wounded, some maimed for life.

    What did we win with 404,000+ dead, 671,000+ wounded and many trillions of dollars (in today’s dollars) in 1939-1945? I mean, it’s not like those people deserve to live in freedom, and they had nothing to do with Japan bombing us in that territory way out in the middle of nowhere. (I mean, it’s not even a State!) And Chamberlain has already said he would be willing to talk with Hitler without any kind of precondition…

    I mean YES, we freed an entire continent from the most evil regime imaginable, and saved several other nationalities from complete genocide, but was it really worth it?

    (/your arguments applied to mid-20th century conditions)

    Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ … If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. — Samuel Adams

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  71. Patterico – I apologize in advance, but Levi and his new buddy jharp are fucking imbeciles.

    JD (5f0e11)

  72. Where did you come up with this?

    For starters the Democrats refused to renew the FISA provisions allowing warrantless surveillance of foreign terrorists.

    Spare me the inevitable BS about how they were trying to protect the constitution. There have been a series of court decisions over the decades that warrantless wiretaps are constitutional in national security.

    The Democrats’ objection wasn’t over constitutional issues. It was over immunity from lawsuits for telecoms who cooperate.

    I don’t know of one person, not one, that believes there is no threat.

    You have got to be a GOPer. Just make shit up if it helps your position.

    With all due respect to your vast knowledge, I’ve seen plenty of liberals suggesting the whole terror threat is overblown.

    The fact is you’re not looking very hard.

    Fear of terrorism is overblown

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  73. Drumwaster,

    Just as I thought. You can’t tell me what we’ve won.

    Other than empowering Iran beyond their wildest expectations.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  74. “What did we win with 404,000+ dead, 671,000+ wounded and many trillions of dollars (in today’s dollars) in 1939-1945?”

    Germany declared was on us, numbskull. And invaded Poland and France.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  75. As no defender of John McCain’s academic achievments, I must remark that he DID NOT finish at the bottom of his class. He was IIRC in the bottom 5%, but not at the bottom. Nevertheless, he did graduate with a BSE. What do you have?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  76. You can’t tell me what we’ve won.

    So we should immediately surrender.

    And as for “empowering Iran”, maybe you should take a look at a map of the Middle East. (Something newer than 1967 would be most helpful.) Once again, you keep using words you clearly don’t understand.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  77. Germany declared was on us, numbskull.

    Not until AFTER Pearl Harbor, numbskull. And what do you think the word “jihad” means?

    And invaded Poland and France.

    So Iran and Syria sending armed citizens into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans doesn’t count as an invasion?

    Does it hurt to be that moronic? If not, it should.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  78. Where did you come up with this?

    “For starters the Democrats refused to renew the FISA provisions allowing warrantless surveillance of foreign terrorists.”

    And this somehow means they think there is no threat?

    I’ve got news for your buddy. The old FISA was specifically enacted to cover exactly what is needed to do. You have 72 hours to get a warrant if necessary.

    I can hardly wait until Obama starts his warrantless wiretaps on the unAmerican right wingers.

    You won’t have any problem with that, I’m sure.

    “I’ve seen plenty of liberals suggesting the whole terror threat is overblown.”

    So now it’s goes from no threat to overblown threat? And yeah, I think it has been overblown.

    “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” Quick, who said that?

    jharp (cb7adf)

  79. 9/39 – Germany invades Poland;
    1940 – Germany invades Denmark, Norway, Holland, Luxemburg, Belgium, France;
    1941 – Germany invades Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union.
    12/41 – Germany declares War on USA.

    But, they never attacked us (except for the merchant shipping that they were sinking along the Atlantic Coast, and in the Gulf of Mexico).

    If they never attacked us, why did we go to war against them?

    Could it have been due to the fact that the Nazi’s were perceived to be a threat against what we knew as Western Civilization?

    But, we have no worries of a threat to Western Civ now, do we?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  80. He was IIRC in the bottom 5%, but not at the bottom. Nevertheless, he did graduate with a BSE.

    What do they call the guy who graduates last from Medical School? “Doctor”.

    What do they call the guy who graduates last from Law School? “Your Honor”.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  81. “So Iran and Syria sending armed citizens into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans doesn’t count as an invasion?”

    You do understand the difference between sending government forces and a few rag tag wannabes crossing over.

    And do you have any evidence fo this?

    “And what do you think the word “jihad” means?”

    Yes, I do. And obviously you don’t. Please look it up.

    “Not until AFTER Pearl Harbor, numbskull.”

    So what does this have to do with anything? Would it somehow have been different if they declared war before Pearl Harbor?

    You, friend. Are a complete buffoon.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  82. If they never attacked us, why did we go to war against them?

    Because they declared war on us.

    “But, we have no worries of a threat to Western Civ now.”

    Bingo. Now you’ve got it.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  83. And this somehow means they think there is no threat?

    Pretty much, yeah. Why else would they be trying to protect foreign terrorists from having their plans discovered through technological means?

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

    Quick, who said that?

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

    Quick, who said that?

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

    Who said it?

    “The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

    Do I really need to say it?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  84. Bingo. Now you’ve got it.

    Sarcasm. Look into the concept.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  85. Because they declared war on us.

    So when armed Iranians attack our embassy, seize our citizens, and engage in an on-and-off shooting war against the US for the last 29 years, that somehow doesn’t qualify as Casus Belli?

    Because international law disagrees with you.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  86. BTW, Osama declared war on us back during the Clinton Presidency.
    Don’t we have to respond just as we did with Germany?
    Germany never attacked us, but Osama has – ever hear of the USS Cole?

    And, BTW, I have got IT!
    You, my friend, have no idea what we are facing – or how to deal with that threat.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  87. I’ve got news for your buddy. The old FISA was specifically enacted to cover exactly what is needed to do. You have 72 hours to get a warrant if necessary.

    I can hardly wait until Obama starts his warrantless wiretaps on the unAmerican right wingers.

    You won’t have any problem with that, I’m sure.

    In national security cases you don’t have 72 hours. That’s why if there’s A REAL TERRORIST THREAT, you need warrantless searches. People who want a 72 hour wait don’t think there’s much of a terrorist threat.

    I don’t know what wiretaps on right wingers would have to do with national security, idiot. Some kind of dingbat attempt to get back to the bogus constitution claim, as I anticipated.

    So now it’s goes from no threat to overblown threat? And yeah, I think it has been overblown

    “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” Quick, who said that?.

    So what’s your point, that there’s a goood chance we’ll get attacked again but just not from nukes? You obviously didn’t read the link. Here’s another one. This is from the Huffington Post.

    Hyping Terror

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  88. News flash. Bush administration now considering pursuing diplomatic relations with Iran. They are weighing the option of sitting down with Iran to talk. Was Obama right or is Bush missing it? How will this affect McCain’s campaign?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  89. jharp, I’d say that your understanding of FISA matches your [mis]understanding of WWII. We actually began combat operations against Germany before any declaration of war

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. love2008, evidently you don’t recall that for the last several years, the Bush administration has been following the EU’s lead in dealing with Iran.

    Its something that the Democrats like to intentionally omit in their fatuous complaints about Bush administration’s extensive diplomatic efforts.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  91. But it is obvious SPQR that this is a change in policy position on Iran. Dont you think so?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  92. They are weighing the option of sitting down with Iran to talk.

    It was never about “talking”. It was about what would be accomplished by talking.

    Europe has been talking with Iran for YEARS, offering bigger and better incentive packages to try and persuade Iran to back off from nuclear development. Iran has told them to pack sand. So what would be accomplished by having anyone sit down to talk with them again unless there are conditions and preparations that need to be done first?

    In short, when Obama said he was willing to talk to Iran without any kind of conditions or preparatory groundwork (yet refusing to meet with either McCain or Petraeus without major negotiations), was he being naive or just practicing for the ‘Neville’ Award?

    Hint: When Jimmy Carter went to North Korea to bribe them to give up their nuclear weapons, they agreed, called the payments (half a million tons of food and half a million tons of fuel oil) “tribute for having lost the war” on his state-owned media (which is all the North Koreas ever get to hear), and then went right ahead with their weapons programs before the ink was dry!

    For those who think that “everything can be accomplished through negotiation”, let me introduce you to your two-letter nemesis: NO.

    There is absolutely no way to persuade someone who insists on repeating that simple word.

    “Give up your nuclear weapons technology.”

    “No.”

    Pleeease give up your nuclear technology. We’ll pay you.”

    “No.”

    “How about ‘pretty please with sugar and a strawberry on top, with billions of dollars worth of international aid’. But wait, there’s more! We will build super-up-to-date nuclear light water reactors (that can’t produce weapons-grade material) and give them to you for FREE, if only you will go along with just giving up that part that creates the nuclear weapons (that you actually agreed to not seek, anyway)! Waddayasay?”

    “No. Are we done here?”

    “We’ll have to condemn you to the rest of the world, y’know…”

    “So what? If there’s nothing else…?”

    “Uh…….”

    Your turn, lovey. What can you say to overcome that two-letter diplomacy-ender?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  93. Actually, love2008, it is obvious that Democrats have been misrepresenting Bush administration policy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  94. But it is obvious SPQR that this is a change in policy position on Iran. Dont you think so?

    No.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  95. Your turn, lovey. What can you say to overcome that two-letter diplomacy-ender?
    Offer them McCain. That could suffice. :)

    love2008 (1b037c)

  96. So you’re going to vote for McCain now?

    No, really. Come up with the argument that will persuade the Iranians (who openly support groups that kill Israelis, and directly kill American troops) from gaining nuclear weapons technology.

    They have signed the NNPT, but have chosen to ignore it. Sanctions don’t work. Incentives don’t work.

    What have you got?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  97. jharp wrote: The surge has failed (though it did curb some violence). The goal of the surge was to buy time for political progress. It ain’t happening.

    You may want to go to the House Armed Services Committee website and take a listen to supposed brainiacs warn in January 2007 that the surge wouldn’t even slow the pace of “some” terrorist violence, that it would just create “more targets,” and that instead the USA should send Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, and an all-star cast of diplomats to talk to the leaders of all nations in the region and come up with a recipe for chicken soup made from chicken you-know-what.

    Fast forward a year and a half: The level of violence has dipped down so far, it’s no longer the dominant campaign issue the Dems counted on. MSM news outlets that shill for the Donkey Party have been FORCED to admit the surge’s success, but have done their best to bury it beneath the front page, where the blood and smoke were in full view when things were at their worst. And then there’s Nancy Pelosi, clearly suffering from Botox brain — who dissed Petraeus every chance she was given, reduced to disgracing herself by crediting Iran with the surge’s success.

    It was common for Democrats to claim that the Bush Admin was “moving the goalposts” in order to claim that there was any good news coming out of Iraq. Now, they’re the ones trying to take them down so the surge doesn’t split the uprights.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  98. Actually, love2008, it is obvious that Democrats have been misrepresenting Bush administration policy.
    And what policy would that be SPQR? And how have the democrats misrepresented it?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  99. Proof the surge is working. And it’s only costing $12 billion a month while our economy crumbles.

    from http://www.juancole.com

    Councilman Kills 2 GIs;
    Mortar Fire Kills 10 on Awakening C.

    A city council member in Mada’in (Salman Pak) abruptly opened fire on Americans who had been in a meeting with him. He killed 2 US troops and wounded 4 other Americans. He had been in India recently because Sunni-Shiite tensions made it too difficult for him in Mada’in. He had only been back one week as councilman. Although there is speculation that he was unstable, my own suspicion is that the continued US military occupation was just too hard for him to take. India has an anti-colonial atmosphere, after all. Here is some of what McClatchy reporters overhead the people of Mada’in say in the aftermath:

    ‘ Anti-U.S. sentiment remains widespread, with many locals viewing the American presence as an intrusion. As news of Ajil’s killings spread, some residents hailed him as a hero. Several uttered his name and added, “God rest his soul,” and a taxi driver at the scene pointed to the bloodstains and said, “the pigs deserved this.” ‘

    Guerrillas in Udaim, about an hour north of Baquba, guerrillas bombarded an Awakening Council unit with mortar fire, killing 10 and wounding 24 of them.

    Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in Amara, pledged to send his army in to restore order in Diyala Province next. Since Diyala is 60% Sunni Arab, and al-Maliki’s troops are disproportionately drawn from Shiite militias, it is not so clear that they will have an easy time of it.

    Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that yet another party has withdrawn from the United Iraqi Alliance. The Islamic Mission (Da’wa) Party – Iraqi Organization of Abdul Karim Anizi has announced the suspension of its participation in the UIA.

    I heard US Secretary of State Condi Rice on Sunday on Fareed Zakaria’s show call the al-Maliki government a ‘national unity’ government. Not so much. Not only has he not managed to bring the Sunnis back in, he is losing the Shiites.

    An interesting idea: It is getting to the point where al-Maliki’s enemies in parliament could organize a vote of no confidence and make the government fall. If it was no longer the biggest party, some other coalition could hope to nominate the prime minister.

    McClatchy reports political violence on Monday:

    ‘ Baghdad

    A roadside bomb targeted a National Police patrol in Waziriyah, near the cotton wool plant intersection at 11.30 a.m. Monday, injuring three policemen.

    A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Qahira, near the water reservoir at noon. No casualties were reported.

    A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Salahuddin Square, Kathimiyah neighbourhood at around noon. No casualties were reported.

    A roadside bomb targeted a US military convoy in Adil neighbourhood at around 1 p.m. No casualties were reported.

    Two unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad today; 1 in Hurriyah and one in al-Amin.

    Diyala

    Mortar rounds fell on a Sahwa headquarters in al-Atheim district, 50 km to the north of Baquba at 8.30 p.m. Sunday, killing 10 members, injuring 24 others.

    Nineveh

    Gunmen opened fire on a checkpoint manned by Iraqi Police in New Mosul, south Mosul killing one policeman and one civilian female, severely injuring two civilians.’

    The USG Open Source Center translates part of a statement form Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah of Lebanon condemning the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated between the US and Iraq. Fadlallah at least used to be the spiritual guide of the Islamic Mission Party (Da’wa) that Nuri al-Maliki belongs to:

    “Source: Lebanese National News Agency website, Beirut, in Arabic 0737 gmt 22 Jun 08

    we call on the Arab and Islamic states not to comply with the security and military demands that the US Administration aims to accomplish through its keenness to influence Arab armies, impose its tutelage, and interfere in their [military] doctrine and special security features, because we know that the United States that has failed through its direct armies is attempting to accomplish its goals by using the Arab and Islamic forces. This not only constitutes betrayal, but also leads to the destruction of all security, and toppling the positions that everyone depends on to protect what can be protected, after the Americans used their chaos to tamper with the reality of our countries, peoples, sects, and denominations from within.

    We reject the US tutelage, just as we reject other tutelages. We do not find any legitimacy to any authority that attempts to bestow legitimacy to this or that tutelage.”

    jharp (cb7adf)

  100. #96
    Left for me I would say give them hell! It’s clear they have one agenda: the destruction of Isreal. A military option seems to be the only sensible option left. I would take that Drumwaster. A regime change and targetting of those nuclear stations should be on the table. If the carrot wont work, use the stick.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  101. “In national security cases you don’t have 72 hours. That’s why if there’s A REAL TERRORIST THREAT, you need warrantless searches. People who want a 72 hour wait don’t think there’s much of a terrorist threat.”

    Wrong, dumkopf.

    Under FISA you have 72 hours to get a warrant. Stop embarrassing yourself and do a little research or at the least learn to read.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  102. jharp, if this were a year and a half ago, you wouldn’t be able to cut-and-paste the daily tally of violence out of Iraq because it would have been too large. And instead of that body count meter the nightly newscasts were so fond of two summers ago as it counted up to multiples of 1000 and 500, they’re talking about internal Iraq politics. And so are you.

    Is war hell? Hell, yeah. Are there things worse than war? Ask some Cambodian immigrants about that sometime.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  103. “BTW, Osama declared war on us back during the Clinton Presidency.
    Don’t we have to respond just as we did with Germany?”

    Sure, lets go get that Osmama guy. What country does he represnt anyway?

    “Germany never attacked us, but Osama has – ever hear of the USS Cole?”

    Germany declared war on us, bozo.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  104. Fast forward a year and a half: The level of violence has dipped down so far, it’s no longer the dominant campaign issue the Dems counted on. MSM news outlets that shill for the Donkey Party have been FORCED to admit the surge’s success, but have done their best to bury it beneath the front page, where the blood and smoke were in full view when things were at their worst.

    The progress in Iraq is real. It just doesn’t fit in with the MSM or its anti-war agenda.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  105. jharp cut and pasted: ‘ Anti-U.S. sentiment remains widespread, with many locals viewing the American presence as an intrusion. As news of Ajil’s killings spread, some residents hailed him as a hero. Several uttered his name and added, “God rest his soul,” and a taxi driver at the scene pointed to the bloodstains and said, “the pigs deserved this.”

    …and? Sounds like Markos Moulitsas talking about American independent contractors or Huffington Post commenters talking about their hopes for the death of Tony Snow.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  106. There are more murders per capita in Compton than in Iraq. Should we pull our forces out of South Central?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  107. Germany declared war on us, bozo.

    Better check your timeline, Tinkerbell. You have your facts exactly backwards. Which happened first, Pearl Harbor or that declaration of war by Germany?

    Which happened first – the attack on the USS Cole or the 2000 election?

    What country does he represnt anyway?

    Used to be Afghanistan, remember?

    You seem to think that wars can only be fought by internationally-recognized nation-States with UN membership, and I pity you your ignorance.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  108. jharp wrote: Germany declared war on us, bozo.

    SFW? Did they send any of the Luftwaffe over Manhattan to devastate it like the Japanese did Pearl Harbor?

    (channeling Chris Crocker) LEAVE THE NAZIS ALONE!!!!

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  109. Oh, while I’m thinking about it, how are those two Federal indictments against bin Laden working on ferreting him out of his hidey-hole? I mean, during those salad days when we left the fighting of terrorist nations up to our law enforcement professionals?

    Best weapon we have – that Federal indictment. (According to the Dems, anyway.)

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  110. jharp,

    Are you by any chance the bearded lady who is seen flashing passersby at Code Pink protests in San Francisco?

    nk (11c9c1)

  111. PS: Love your movies, Mr. Smithee…

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  112. #98

    The United States has held discussions with Iranian representatives on particular issues of concern over the years. U.S. and Iranian envoys cooperated during operations to overthrow the Taliban in 2001 and during the Bonn Conference in 2002 that established a broad-based government for the Afghan people under President Karzai. The Secretary of State, her Iranian counterpart, and others met at talks on Iraq in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, on May 3, 2007. The American and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq took part in face-to-face discussions in Baghdad, with Iraqi officials in attendance, on May 28, 2007. Representatives from the three countries engaged in a second round of talks on July 24, 2007. Ambassadors met for a third discussion on August 6, 2007. The United States believes, however, that normal relations are impossible until Iran’s policies change.

    — Let’s also remember that it was President Carter who broke off normal diplomatic relations in 1980, and that those relations have never been reestablished.

    Icy Truth (4de459)

  113. More about US – Iran relations during the Bush administration:

    An opinion poll in 2003 asking Iranians if they supported resuming government dialogue with the United States found 75% in favor. The pollsters were jailed, at least one of them spending several years in prison for his indiscretion.

    Icy Truth (4de459)

  114. Patterico wrote: Why, it would be even more beneficial if the attack hit a blue state, wouldn’t it? As long as Mr. Black is on the subject, why not provide the list of states where a huge terror attack would be most beneficial to John McCain?

    — Number One on that list should be obvious, Patterico. Hope you’re stocking that shelter and reinforcing the insulation with your favorite dog-training material.

    Icy Truth (4de459)

  115. – Let’s also remember that it was President Carter who broke off normal diplomatic relations in 1980, and that those relations have never been reestablished.

    And the acts of war that precipitated the severing of those relations has NEVER been resolved, with multiple shooting incidents over the years.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  116. jharp, the US engaged in acts of war against German forces long before Germany declared war on us. Go read some history before you call others dumb.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  117. Good God,. Listening to Harpy and Dumptaster argue about World War II is reminiscent of this exchange between listening to Eric Cartman and Kyle Broflovski:

    Cartman: Hey! Why don’t you go back to San Francisco with the rest of the Jews?

    Kyle: There’s no Jews in San Francisco, you retard!

    Dumptaster: Yes, Pearl Harbor predated Germany’s declaration of war on the U.S. WTF does that have to do with anything?

    Harpy: Yes, Germany declared war on us before we declared war on them. WTF does that have to do with whether we won or lost World War II then, or whether we’re winning or losing in Iraq now?

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  118. “Why, it would be even more beneficial if the attack hit a blue state, wouldn’t it?”

    Is Charles Black an alias for Michael Moore?

    Tim (eb7833)

  119. WTF does that have to do with anything?

    Well, if it isn’t the salad-tosser his ownself! How’s the second-hand felching business you started doing? Or have you finally resorted to lining up for that hometown glory hole for your RDA of protein?

    To answer your question: It has the same thing to do with the topic as Osama’s lack of nationality does. I realize that the rectofossal ambiguity you currently suffer from is a formidable obstacle to comprehension, but you asked.

    Now that your microcephalic curiosity has been sated, please be so kind as to f*ck off again, m’kay? (Or try to salvage your shattered self-image by insulting me again, since you have nothing else to work with…)

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  120. Charlie Black is not fit to replace the toner cartridge in a copy machine.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  121. The rest of world hates the U.S. Why give the rest of the world any reason to have sympathy for us.

    Must be why the French elected Sarkozy.

    Maybe you should get out more.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  122. It depends on whether or not previous administrations tied his hands when it came to ferreting out terrorists before the fact, or if he tied his own hands, rendering himself only able to cross his fingers for luck.

    Bush had 8 years to get bin Laden and he didn’t, that would be a good enough excuse wouldn’t it? You must remember the press conference he held a whopping 6 months after 9-11 when he said he really didn’t think about him that much, don’t you?

    That’s a pretty good catch-all. ‘What happened while I was on the job is the fault of the guy that had the job before me.’ If it works for Republicans, it should work for Democrats, right?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  123. “Bush had 8 years to get bin Laden and he didn’t”

    Clinton actually had the opportunity to swap for Bin Laden and didn’t. What was his excuse again, Levi?

    “That’s a pretty good catch-all. ‘What happened while I was on the job is the fault of the guy that had the job before me.’ If it works for Republicans, it should work for Democrats, right?”

    It all depends on whether you can sell it. War on terror. Sure, with Clinton. Lack of progress on energy, sure, blame the dems.

    That six month press conference, Levi. You have the cite for that right Levi. You don’t remember it because you were playing with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as you have claimed before, but you have since listened to it, right?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  124. “Clinton actually had the opportunity to swap for Bin Laden and didn’t.”

    You got any evidence to support your nonsensical claim?

    And by that I mean real news sources. No Fox News. No Rush Limbaugh. No Michael Savage. No Sean Hannity. And so forth.

    It is utter nonsense.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  125. jharp – Haven’t you seen the video of Clinton himself talking about it at a speech he gave on Long Island? Maybe he was lying.

    Are you 16 or 17?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  126. It all depends on whether you can sell it. War on terror. Sure, with Clinton. Lack of progress on energy, sure, blame the dems.

    That six month press conference, Levi. You have the cite for that right Levi. You don’t remember it because you were playing with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as you have claimed before, but you have since listened to it, right?

    That’s got to be one of the least coherent posts in the history of the web. What is that first train wreck of a paragraph supposed to mean?

    You can find the press conference of Bush saying he doesn’t spend too much time on Bin Laden on your own.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  127. Levi, TRY to stay focused.

    You asked me the following question:

    Are you willing to be that forgiving again if another attack occurs under a Democratic President?

    My answer:

    It depends on whether or not previous administrations tied his hands when it came to ferreting out terrorists before the fact, or if he tied his own hands, rendering himself only able to cross his fingers for luck.

    I then cited an FBI investigator who went on the record in a memo BEFORE 9/11 predicting the hurdles left in place from the Clinton Admin would result in somebody dying in a terrorist attack. He didn’t know how right he was.

    As usual, you did your best not to acknowledge an easily discernible point, and responded:

    ‘What happened while I was on the job is the fault of the guy that had the job before me.’ If it works for Republicans, it should work for Democrats, right?

    Your man Obama has a choice to make should he win: Will he continue the Democrat pattern of sucking up to the trial lawyers who want to punish everyone who wants to prevent another terrorist attack for the sake of a principle that is meaningless when the alternative is chaos, or does he really want to protect the American public?

    If BHO is as smart as he wants us to believe he is, he will learn from the mistakes of people like former Clinton-era counsel Stewart Baker. Baker learned his lesson too late. But unlike the diehard ACLU types, he’s repented.

    L.N. Smithee (910937)

  128. Levi – I take dumps every day that are more coherent and better looking than your comments on this blog.

    Thank you very much.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  129. I then cited an FBI investigator who went on the record in a memo BEFORE 9/11 predicting the hurdles left in place from the Clinton Admin would result in somebody dying in a terrorist attack. He didn’t know how right he was.

    As usual, you did your best not to acknowledge an easily discernible point, and responded:

    I understand your point. George Bush isn’t culpable for anything that happened in the first 9 months of his administration on the issue of terrorism. Even though he got that memo, even though he was on vacation all summer, even though he hadn’t held any terrorism meetings until September, even though he demoted Richard Clarke, even though in the intervening years he’s proven himself to be utterly incompetent and unforgivably lazy on issue after issue, it was all this Gorelick’s fault.

    Just tell me this, do you think 9-11 was destined to happen regardless of who the President was?

    Your man Obama has a choice to make should he win: Will he continue the Democrat pattern of sucking up to the trial lawyers who want to punish everyone who wants to prevent another terrorist attack for the sake of a principle that is meaningless when the alternative is chaos, or does he really want to protect the American public?

    Jesus, where do you get this shit?

    You know, there’s other ways of ‘protecting the American public’ that don’t involve violating foundational Constitutional principles. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, ever hear that before?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  130. “don’t involve violating foundational Constitutional principles”…and what might those actually be? You’re against intercepting communciations originating in another country that violates the rights of foreign terrorists to privacy? You are one clueless polemicist.
    And that other lefty loon with doubts about Clinton refusal to take bin Laden. Just google Osama and Somalia. Somalia offered to ship his fetid ass out to us, but clinton did the legal two-step. Lawyers seem to have much to say about the war on terror and insane rules of engagement that tie our military’s hands. There have been occasions when big shot Al Qaeda targets were killable by missiles and yet the shyster lawyers said no way, Jose.
    Yeah, Bush should have cleaned house at CIA and state dept. I suppose the left wants to deify cretins like Joe Wilson and his lovely wife Valerie or asshat Jamie Gorelick. Wonder if that prick has ever considered that that Wall may be instrumental in 1000s of American dead on 9/11? Or the freakin’ FBI supervisor concerned about violating that raghead’s computer right to privacy in Minn.?
    Have no fear as our fearless Light Being would save the day with legal pursuit and warrants for arrests of terrorists.

    madmax333 (419721)

  131. I wrote:

    WTF does that have to do with anything?

    To which Dumptaster brilliantly responded:

    Well, if it isn’t the salad-tosser his ownself! How’s the second-hand felching business you started doing? Or have you finally resorted to lining up for that hometown glory hole for your RDA of protein?

    To answer your question: It has the same thing to do with the topic as Osama’s lack of nationality does. I realize that the rectofossal ambiguity you currently suffer from is a formidable obstacle to comprehension, but you asked.

    Now that your microcephalic curiosity has been sated, please be so kind as to f*ck off again, m’kay? (Or try to salvage your shattered self-image by insulting me again, since you have nothing else to work with…)

    Interesting answer, but needlessly verbose. Here’s a much more succinct way to say the same thing:

    Nothing, of course. I pulled that shit out of my ass.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  132. Levi’s mendoucheousness is consistent, predictable even. No matter the topic, his BDS eventually rears its ugly head.

    JD (5f0e11)

  133. Somebody put Levi out of our misery.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  134. Even though he got that memo, even though he was on vacation all summer,

    First, the memo was not actionable. You’ve been told this many times before, but you just won’t let it sink into your lead-lined skull.

    Second, Bush was not on vacation all summer. He wasn’t in Washington during August (when all of Congress was on vacation), but he wasn’t vacationing. He met with staff and foreign leaders, and generally conducted business. But with Congress out of session and no legislation passing, there was no need for him to be in Washington.

    Get your facts straight.

    Steverino (b42fd7)

  135. Levi refuses to quit repeating demonstrable falsehoods. That’s all one needs to know.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  136. First, the memo was not actionable. You’ve been told this many times before, but you just won’t let it sink into your lead-lined skull.

    You Bush-people can repeat that a million times, I still disagree. It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane. I don’t need you to define ‘actionable’ for me. Given what played out, I’d say that memo pretty well called it. The bottom line is that the President was warned that a plane could be hijacked, and planes were hijacked. That’s pretty cut and dry.

    Second, Bush was not on vacation all summer. He wasn’t in Washington during August (when all of Congress was on vacation), but he wasn’t vacationing. He met with staff and foreign leaders, and generally conducted business. But with Congress out of session and no legislation passing, there was no need for him to be in Washington.

    He’s the most vacationed President in history. He insulates himself from the outside world and is generally a lazy, incompetent deuchebag, exactly what one would expect from someone with such a spoiled rich kid background. He has no work ethic, because he’s never suffered from any consequences. Shit, he’s eviscerating the Constitution in plain sight, and he’s got millions of people making excuses for him.

    You can’t honestly believe that if we had someone better equipped in the White House on 9-11, recent history would have been radically different, can you? Someone else might have had a better shot at stopping the plot, wouldn’t you have to agree? George Bush is hardly the best and the brightest we have to offer, or do you think 9-11 was America’s destiny?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  137. “First, the memo was not actionable. You’ve been told this many times before, but you just won’t let it sink into your lead-lined skull.

    You Bush-people can repeat that a million times, I still disagree. It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane.”

    You terminally afflicted BDS sufferers can continue to ignore the many similar warnings that Blowjob Bill Clinton got without taking radical action while blaming Bush for not doing something. Yes, we have heard you make this inane point before and remain steadfast in our disrespect for your lengthy national security experience and credentials, boy genius.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  138. “You can’t honestly believe that if we had someone better equipped in the White House on 9-11, recent history would have been radically different, can you?”

    If Captain Planet was in the White House we would probably be speaking Arabic right now, cupcake.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  139. You Bush-people can repeat that a million times, I still disagree. It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane.

    Actually, yes, the fact that bin Laden was a terrorist and terrorists are into hijacking airplanes was about as “everyday” as information gets. The memo might just as well have informed Bush that water is wet, that the sun would rise the following day, and that terrorists generally are not very nice people. The only thing special about 9/11 and airplanes was not the fact that the terrorists hijacked airplanes, but what they did with them afterwards. Funny how that detail never made it into your oh-so-informative and hyperactionable memo.

    I don’t need you to define ‘actionable’ for me.

    In other words, don’t confuse the ‘Tard of Thunder with facts; his “mind,” such as it is, is made up. For the rest of us, credible evidence that a specific group of terrorists wants to hijack airplanes from a specific airport on a specific day is actionable. Credibel evidence that terrorists want to do something highly unusual, i.e., hijack planes and then go on a kamikaze mission, is also actionable, but perhaps less so if it doesn’t tell you when they are expected to strike or where. But a memo that merely informs us that terrorists want to do bad stuff is about as unactionable as it gets.

    Given what played out, I’d say that memo pretty well called it.

    It “called it” like a memo saying “Bin Laden wants to do bad stuff” called it. Since you insist the memo was actionable, go ahead and point to the part that says which airports the terrorists intended to strike when, and what they were planning to do with those planes once they gained control of them. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

    The bottom line is that the President was warned that a plane could be hijacked, and planes were hijacked. That’s pretty cut and dry [sic].

    It’s also proof that you are retarded. Terrorists have been hijacking planes since the 1970s, so every President since Carter (at least) has been warned that a plane could be hijacked. Therefore, every time a plane was hijacked, whoever happened to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time is to blame? Get real.

    Or if you won’t get real, at least be consistently in your lack of reality. Unless you think there is something magical about Republican Presidents and airplanes, then surely your “executive knew bad stuff could happen, bad stuff did happen, therefore it’s the executive’s fault that bad stuff happened” mentality would work equally “well” for other executives and other crimes. Unless your governor is as retarded as you are, surely he/she has known from the time he/she assumed office that someone in your state would be raped, robbed, murdered, maimed, forced to listen to NPR, or whatever. Therefore, by Levi-logic, every time any of those terrible things happened, it’s all your governor’s fault. Right?

    Xrlq (b71926)

  140. First, the memo was not actionable. You’ve been told this many times before, but you just won’t let it sink into your lead-lined skull.

    Levi: You Bush-people can repeat that a million times, I still disagree. It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane. I don’t need you to define ‘actionable’ for me.

    OK, what “actionable” actions would you have had us take? Warrentless wiretaps of communications passing through telecom nodes? Tearing down the wall between the CIA and the FBI? Missile strikes? Raids? Put troops on the ground in Afghanistan to root out Osama’s camps? Would you have stationed national guard troops in the airports to augment the current security? Targeted assassinations?

    What would you have recommended? Do you have other solutions?

    Ed (ac1d2e)

  141. It’s not every day that you the President gets a memo that says Bin Laden wants to take an airplane.

    You are a liar. First, that is not what it said, I believe it was along the lines of OBL still desires to strike in America, may involve airplanes. But, you know this, and choose to lie. There was nothing specific as to date, time, methods, etc … Nothing actionable. And, nothing that had not been said many, many, many times before.

    JD (75f5c3)

  142. Levi, you are constantly blaming Bush for lying about WMD’s when what he actually did was to rely on intelligence from multiple sources. Now you are blaming Bush for NOT taking action when a memo speculates that Bin Laden wants to take a plane and crash it.

    As to Bush being on vacation, I seriously doubt that he has had one single day to himself since being sworn in. If you ever start working and promote to a position where you have to make command decisions, you will find out how that works.

    Labcatcher (afe438)

  143. You terminally afflicted BDS sufferers can continue to ignore the many similar warnings that Blowjob Bill Clinton got without taking radical action while blaming Bush for not doing something.

    Similar warnings? What were those? That’s a joke and a half.

    Yes, we have heard you make this inane point before and remain steadfast in our disrespect for your lengthy national security experience and credentials, boy genius.

    Am I supposed to be in awe of Republicans’ ‘national security experience and credentials?’ By my count, we’ve suffered the worst terrorist attack in history and engaged in one of the stupidest and most shoddily run wars in the history of our country under your ‘leadership.’ This is supposed to impress me? I’m supposed to sit down and shut up because you guys have it all figured out, is that what you’re telling me?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  144. If Captain Planet was in the White House we would probably be speaking Arabic right now, cupcake.

    Brilliant. That’s just brilliant. We’d all be wearing headscarves and praying on rugs five times a day if Gore wins, sheer genius.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  145. More evidence the surge is working.

    AP

    BAGHDAD – A roadside bomb killed three American soldiers and an interpreter north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Wednesday

    In Baghdad, meanwhile, American soldiers using specially trained dogs sifted through the wreckage Wednesday of an office in Sadr City where a bomb killed 10 people, including four Americans working to restore local government in the former Shiite militia stronghold.

    At least 25 service members have died this month, with eight deaths coming since Friday

    jharp (cb7adf)

  146. there’s more.

    In Mosul, guerrillas set off a massive bomb outside a coffee shop, wounding at least 90 persons. McClatchy is reporting 2 deaths, but said the total would rise.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  147. More evidence the surge is working.

    Indeed…

    Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.

    So, jharp… How’s that coolaid, eh?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  148. Bush had 8 years to get bin Laden and he didn’t, that would be a good enough excuse wouldn’t it?

    How long did it take to catch Eric Rudolph?

    And while you are at it, tell us where Eric Rudolph was caught.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  149. At least 25 service members have died this month, with eight deaths coming since Friday

    There were more deaths than that during Clinton’s “peacetime” terms. His lowest year (2000) had 758 deaths (31 per month), and more than half of those were through “accident”, not involving the liberation of two despotic regimes or ongoing combat operations.

    You also neglect to say that the death rate is the lowest since May 2004.

    But thanks for proving my point.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  150. Bush had 8 years to get bin Laden and he didn’t, that would be a good enough excuse wouldn’t it?

    And Syria offered to hand bin Laden over to Clinton, and the offer was rejected…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  151. • New vehicles. Almost 7,000 heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles have been rushed to Iraq in the last year. “They’ve taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees,” Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.

    And it only costs us $12 billion a month.

    And what’s the reason we’re there again. It’s so hard to keep track of.

    And I’ll say it again. The goal of the surge was to provide an opportunity for political progress.

    And the only political progress is Iran gaining influence.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  152. Actually, yes, the fact that bin Laden was a terrorist and terrorists are into hijacking airplanes was about as “everyday” as information gets. The memo might just as well have informed Bush that water is wet, that the sun would rise the following day, and that terrorists generally are not very nice people. The only thing special about 9/11 and airplanes was not the fact that the terrorists hijacked airplanes, but what they did with them afterwards. Funny how that detail never made it into your oh-so-informative and hyperactionable memo.

    What does the intent of the hijackers have to do with, you know, stopping the hijacking? Because that’s all that matters. If they take the plane, you’ve already lost. If they want to hold the passengers hostage to free their buddies, if they want to crash it into a building, if they want to go skydiving out of it, none of that is relevant in stopping the hijacking in the first place.This is why there are airports. Airports’ primary function is as a security chokepoint, so we can stop hijackings from happening in the first place. If you know someone is going to try to hijack an airplane, the airport is the last line of defense.

    In other words, don’t confuse the ‘Tard of Thunder with facts; his “mind,” such as it is, is made up. For the rest of us, credible evidence that a specific group of terrorists wants to hijack airplanes from a specific airport on a specific day is actionable. Credibel evidence that terrorists want to do something highly unusual, i.e., hijack planes and then go on a kamikaze mission, is also actionable, but perhaps less so if it doesn’t tell you when they are expected to strike or where. But a memo that merely informs us that terrorists want to do bad stuff is about as unactionable as it gets.

    In other words, President XRLQ will sit on his hands until someone produces a cocktail napkin that lays out the terrorists’ whole plan in its entirety, down to the minute.

    I don’t know how you think counter-terrorism works in the real world, but you’re not going to get all the details, you’re not going to get most of the details, you’re lucky if you get anything. That the memo states that bin Laden wanted to hijack a plane is a tremendously telling detail that shouldn’t have been so easily overlooked. You can do lots of things knowing that tidbit alone. Let the airlines know about it. Tell airports in major cities to beef up security. Go ahead and deploy some federal agents to keep an eye out for Middle Easterners. Start cross-checking the watch lists. I mean, the TSA and the Bush administration have sent out alerts to airlines and airports for significantly less since 9-11. There was one instance where some grandma had a block of cheese next to some cell phone wires that had the TSA sending out alerts to all of its people, why couldn’t they have done that based on this memo, which outlines a fairly specific threat?

    It “called it” like a memo saying “Bin Laden wants to do bad stuff” called it. Since you insist the memo was actionable, go ahead and point to the part that says which airports the terrorists intended to strike when, and what they were planning to do with those planes once they gained control of them. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

    No, it called it like a memo saying ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within U.S.’ called it. There’s not that many airports in this country, there’s even fewer where a group of solemn-looking Middle-Easterners wouldn’t stick out like a sore thumb. Once again, the Bush administration has reacted (and over-reacted) on way shoddier information ever since, mainly to keep the fear juices flowing, so this excuse of yours is rather pathetic. If they’ll get on the horn about some cheese, why couldn’t they do the same about a report from the FBI.

    It’s also proof that you are retarded. Terrorists have been hijacking planes since the 1970s, so every President since Carter (at least) has been warned that a plane could be hijacked. Therefore, every time a plane was hijacked, whoever happened to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time is to blame? Get real.

    Or if you won’t get real, at least be consistently in your lack of reality. Unless you think there is something magical about Republican Presidents and airplanes, then surely your “executive knew bad stuff could happen, bad stuff did happen, therefore it’s the executive’s fault that bad stuff happened” mentality would work equally “well” for other executives and other crimes. Unless your governor is as retarded as you are, surely he/she has known from the time he/she assumed office that someone in your state would be raped, robbed, murdered, maimed, forced to listen to NPR, or whatever. Therefore, by Levi-logic, every time any of those terrible things happened, it’s all your governor’s fault. Right?

    Nothing important here.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  153. Levi – Take a look at the following article, which quotes from a government panel about Clinton’s failure to take similar warning seriously, genius:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/746wewfh.asp?pg=2

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  154. “And the only political progress is Iran gaining influence.”

    jharp – Your source for this interesting conclusion? The execrable Juan Cole again?

    Only a fringe group on the left sees Iran gaining influence right now, given that their bases of influence are being targeted and neutralized, their special operations forces killed, etc. You have interesting information. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  155. There’s not that many airports in this country

    Are you insane? There’s well over 200 that handle large jets, and probably 300 that handle at least commuter flights…

    Did the memo state exactly what was going to be done?

    “strike within the US” is so vauge as to be useless…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  156. What does the intent of the hijackers have to do with, you know, stopping the hijacking?

    What does knowing that a terror group hopes to pull off a hijacking do to help prevent it? For that you need ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE (to wit, where, when, who – including descriptions and photos, if possible, and how). Otherwise, it is as was pointed out: knowing that a generic (albeit tragic) crime is going to happen sometime within the next few months does NOTHING to actually prevent it.

    This is why there are airports. Airports’ primary function is as a security chokepoint, so we can stop hijackings from happening in the first place.

    Were you advocating racial profiling against Muslims? Or just “anyone that looks suspicious”?

    You have also failed to mention the (in)famous “Gorelick wall”, preventing law enforcement from ever seeing any of that “actionable intel” you claim we had.

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  157. And I’ll say it again. The goal of the surge was to provide an opportunity for political progress.

    And the only political progress is Iran gaining influence.

    Really now…

    From the USA Today, 6/10/2008

    When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was nearly killed in a mortar attack this spring during an offensive against Shiite militias in Basra, his advisers urged him to halt the operation and go back to Baghdad.

    Instead, al-Maliki doubled down, called in thousands of reinforcements and returned to Baghdad victorious.

    In the two months since, al-Maliki has begun to shed his image among Iraqis as a weak leader who governs only on behalf of his fellow Shiites. His emergence as a relatively strong leader could help him crack down on militia groups elsewhere, appeal to disaffected Sunnis and ensure the future of a pro-U.S. government in Iraq.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  158. Yeah, right, Iran isn’t gaining influence. When do you suppose Bush will make an announced visit and spend the night in Iraq?

    March 2, 2008

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Baghdad today for the first visit by an Iranian leader since the two countries fought a war that cost some 1 million lives in the 1980s.

    Ahmadinejad was welcomed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a fellow Shiite.

    The Iranian leader discussed some economic projects, but the purpose of the visit was mostly symbolic — designed to show off the level of influence Iran now has in a country that used to be its enemy.

    It was also a show of defiance to the United States, which accuses Iran of contributing to the destabilization of Iraq.

    Unlike visits by President Bush, which are kept secret until the last minute, for security reasons, Ahmadinejad’s visit had been telegraphed long in advance.

    The United States did not provide security for Ahmadinejad’s visit. Instead, the Iraqis brought in hundreds of extra police and soldiers to protect the route from the airport into the center of Baghdad.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  159. No fan of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but I gotta give him credit.

    Just imagine getting the American taxpayers to pay $1 trillion for something you’ve been trying to get done for 3 decades.

    And Americans also paying in blood. 4,100 dead. And 25,000 wounded. Some maimed for life.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  160. Which is nothing compared to Vietnam, where 500 a day wasn’t unheard of, and I don’t think even half a day of the Normandy invasion…

    As I’ve said in the past: “You’re keeping score for the wrong team…”

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  161. “Ahmadinejad was welcomed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a fellow Shiite.”

    And protested by the people.

    Did you read about the anti-Iranian petition signed by 2 million Iraqis jharp? Gateway pundit wrote about it yesterday, I believe. That Iranian influence is blossoming every freaking day. The Iraqis love those IEDs the Iranians build and JAM militias they fund.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  162. As I’ve said in the past: “You’re keeping score for the wrong team…”

    Meanwhile, from the American POV…

    Terrorist death count

    Iraq: 19,429 through 9/22/2007
    Iraq: 1,152 since 9/22/2007
    Afghanistan: 3,667 since 1/1/2006

    You’d probably cry over those numbers, huh, harpy?

    Just imagine getting the American taxpayers to pay $1 trillion for something you’ve been trying to get done for 3 decades.

    Not to mention that it had been American policy for at least a decade… Oh, wait, that’s right, you don’t remember that bit, do you?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  163. War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want. — General William Tecumseh Sherman

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  164. Let me understand what the argument is about. Are we saying that if Bush had to do it all over again he would still invade Iraq? In the light of all that has and is happening there now. Please I need to be clarified on this.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  165. I love it how Wrangler, when faced with facts, just continues to bloviate about what constitutes actionable intelligence. I am also interested in his proof that the Republicans are waging a racist campaign against Baracky Hussein Obama.

    JD (5f0e11)

  166. lovey…
    That is exactly what the President said when asked that question, with the qualifier “knowing what we know now…”.
    His response was: It was the right thing to do.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  167. Lovey, are you saying that a Democrat would have ignored all of the “actionable” data collected on Iraq and its WMD programs, its repeated and ongoing violations of UNSC resolutions (17 of them), its overt and flagrant support of international terrorist organizations (including the cash payouts to Palestinian suicide bombers that kill Jews and/or Americans), and its repeated attempts to shoot down American and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone (put up so he couldn’t commit wholesale slaughter of the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq and the Kurds in northern Iraq), and done nothing about a clear and decisive American policy of regime change?

    Acts of War committed against the US and her allies, repeated violations of that oh-so-sacred “international law”, and the Democrats would have done nothing?

    Is that what you see as a worthy goal?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  168. #165
    Thats very hard for me to see. As much as I like Bush. It’s difficult to see how he sells that. I have a feeling he will have a different view point after his presidency is over. Then there wont be an election to win for his party.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  169. 152 is a classic. Not quite as good as not needing to read something in order to know what it says, or using the title of a book as proof for an argument.

    JD (75f5c3)

  170. We lanced a boil (Sadam) on the world’s behind (the Arab countries). It will takes a while to drain the puss and heal the wound.

    nk (11c9c1)

  171. #166
    The UN inspection officials should have been allowed to finish their work. If they did maybe it wouldnt have taken a war to find out that there were no WMDs therein. If there was enough “actionable” intelligence available, how come the UN was not in support of the invasion from day one? In retrospect, were they not correct?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  172. Drumwaster,

    “Not to mention that it had been American policy for at least a decade… ”

    No shit. And it worked. The great Bill Clinton disarmed Saddam without a $1 trillion dollar war.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  173. Daleyrocks,

    “And protested by the people.”

    Imagine that. The secular Sunnis who were overthrown protesting their own government becoming a Shia theocracy.

    And my 2 cents. I’d rather have a protest against my visit than get blown up. But that’s just me.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  174. Here’s what I see.

    Had the Afghanistan campaign resulted in a fierce and prolonged battle and had they scored some significant victories…but Iraq had proven to be an easier road…”trick or treason” crowd with their many interchangeable masks…would have been decrying the Afghan campaign as a “quagmire” that made “no sense”…that it was Saddam who was the greater danger all along (after all, didn’t Clinton, Cohen, Albright, and Berger tell us so in advance and vote in regime change?)

    The “grim milestones” would be attached to Afghanistan and we would be “wasting resources” fighting there when we should be helping the new regime in Iraq.

    The could care less about our military, they could care less about our successes or how well the surge is working. The face of treason wears many masks and the cowards who don them see only enemies at home…none abroad.

    No fan of Hitler…but he achieved in Poland what three decades could not secure!

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  175. The great Bill Clinton disarmed Saddam

    Proof, please?

    jharp is a freaking fountain of idiocy. A perfect compliment to the mendoucheity of Wrangler.

    JD (75f5c3)

  176. Wrangler and jharp are just full of glorious fuckheaded stupidity.

    JD (75f5c3)

  177. The UN inspection officials should have been allowed to finish their work.

    They did. Their unanimous conclusion was that Saddam had weapons systems he wasn’t supposed to have, and wasn’t obeying the rules he agreeed to in the ’91 ceasefire.

    If they did maybe it wouldnt have taken a war to find out that there were no WMDs therein.

    See above.

    If there was enough “actionable” intelligence available, how come the UN was not in support of the invasion from day one? In retrospect, were they not correct?

    You would need to ask the French, since they were the ones who were going around to the UNSC “junior” members and threatening them with diplomatic punishments (going so far as to threaten Turkey with refusing EU admittance if they let us use their base for the invasion). The other two permanent members who were against it had arms and oil deals with Saddam measuring in the billions. France also had oil development deals with their state-owned oil companies.

    I wonder why they wouldn’t vote to disrupt their own economies…

    The great Bill Clinton disarmed Saddam without a $1 trillion dollar war.

    Except that he, most of his cabinet and many senior Democratic spokesmen were saying (in October ’02 – almost two years after – and all throughout his Presidency) that Saddam wasn’t disarmed. At all.

    Do I really need to start hauling out all of the quotes?

    By the way, what was Saddam sending to Syria in the six months during the leadup to the invasion? (Commonly referred to as “the most telegraphed punch in history”.)

    And even Saddam’s generals were preparing to use the WMD you say he didn’t have.

    Money quote: “…according to the Post account, Iraqi commanders have told U.S. interrogators, ‘My unit didn’t have WMD, but the one to my right or left did’.”

    And what about all of those bio weapons (ricin and anthrax) and chemical weapons (usually spun as “pesticides”, as though there were any difference between pesticides and nerve agents except for the concentration)? They qualify as WMD.

    Or are you such a moron that you thought WMD only means nuclear?

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  178. lovey @ 167…
    I don’t think his opinion of his actions will change, as time is proving them right (see #169).
    The man is very comfortable within himself; he avails himself of the data of the time and makes a decision on that data, and then goes to the next problem. If you constantly dwell on the past, you will never be able to confront the future.

    The most controversial action he ever took pre-politics, was trading Sousa to the Cubs. Though he makes jokes about it at his own expense, I have never heard that he thought that it was the wrong thing to do at the time, or that he regrets doing it.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  179. The most controversial action he ever took pre-politics, was trading Sousa to the Cubs.

    That was him? Impeach the bahrstid!

    Drumwaster (8ad883)

  180. Drumwaster,

    Put this is your pipe and smoke it.

    VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.

    By Suhaib Salem, Reuters

    Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the recommendation was given late Sunday night both to his Vienna-based agency hunting for atomic weaponry and to the New York-based teams looking for biological and chemical weapons.

    “Late last night … I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad,” ElBaradei told the IAEA’s board of governors.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  181. Drumwaster,

    “Except that he, most of his cabinet and many senior Democratic spokesmen were saying (in October ‘02 – almost two years after – and all throughout his Presidency) that Saddam wasn’t disarmed.”

    You do understand the difference between being wrong and continuing sanctions and being wrong and starting a war.

    Just in case you don’t.

    The war costs a trillion dollars, 4,100 dead Americans, and 25,000 wounded Americans.

    Sanctions = 0 dead Americans, 0 wounded Americans, doesn’t cost $1 trillion.

    I much prefer the Clinton approach.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  182. Sanctions

    Two skyscrapers collapsed, routine bombings of Americans and interests abroad, over 4000 dead, thousands maimed, billions of dollars of damage…unsafe at home.

    I prefer to not be a coward…or a traitor. I reserve vitriol for the enemey…not my own country.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  183. Sanctions…

    Ohhh!!! Can we do it like Oil for Food?

    That worked GREAT!

    Moron…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  184. jharp – What was the Clinton approach? Acknowledge that there were WMD and do nothing about it? Oil for Food was really going to bring Saddam to his senses. I would kill for sanctions that made me that rich.

    JD (75f5c3)

  185. Levi – The link I provided about warnings to Blowjob Bill a couple of hours ago must be stuck in the filter. You’ll enjoy it.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  186. jharp – Here’s some of that evidence of increasing Iranian influence from Gatewaypundit yesterday:

    UPDATE: More good news… 2 million Iraqis tell Iran to back off!
    The Media Line and Jerusalem Post reported:

    The signatures of more than two million Iraqi Shi’ites, demanding that Iran cease its interference in Iraq, were presented on Saturday during a convention in Ashraf.

    Representatives of more than 135 parties and organizations, as well as 1,000 tribal elders from Iraq’s southern and central regions, attended the conference, titled “Solidarity with the Iraqi People.” Also attending the event were representatives from the Iranian opposition group, Mujahidin Khalq.

    “We have gathered over two million signatures from Iraqi Shi’ites, calling on Iran to pull its hands off Iraq and especially the southern districts,” said leader of the Al-Humeidat tribe, Sheikh Ka’sid Najm during the conference.
    ——————————————–

    The news stories I read show the residents of Basra and Sadr City absolutely clamoring to have those Iranian backed militias back in place. They hate the new freedoms and safety that have come since they were driven out. They are also clamoring for the return of Sadaam. I’m sure Juan Cole will confirm these facts for you.

    With Iran’s oil infrastructure in tatters and population restive, now is exactly the right time for them to aggressive expand their influence in Iraq, particularly as the rest of the world puts pressure on them over their nuclear program. The brilliance of your analysis has overwhelmed me, sir. I expect to see you on Keith Olberdouche shortly.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  187. Sanctions…

    Ohhh!!! Can we do it like Oil for Food?

    That worked GREAT!

    That you for confirming. He was disarmed.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  188. jharp – What was the Clinton approach?

    To not start a $1 trillion dollar war than has killed 4,100 Americans and wounded 25,000 more.

    And bankrupted our treasury.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  189. Last time I looked, the U.S.Treasury was not a petitioner in Bankruptcy Court.
    You don’t know economics any better than foreign policy!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  190. Sanctions

    “Two skyscrapers collapsed, routine bombings of Americans and interests abroad, over 4000 dead, thousands maimed, billions of dollars of damage…unsafe at home.”

    Don’t know where you are or have been but a few facts.

    Iraq and al Qaeda had no connections. They were enemies.

    Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

    Iraq did not have WMDs.

    And what ever happened to that Osama guy anyway? You know, the guy who was actually responsible for the 911 attacks. The guy who has been wanted dead or alive since 01.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  191. Levi babbled: Just tell me this, do you think 9-11 was destined to happen regardless of who the President was?

    Yes. If you were paying attention, you wouldn’t have had to ask.

    Bush was victimized by Clinton admin policies that tied his hands. Gore would have been in the same boat unless he did something that — by all indications — is against his nature, which is what Bush is doing now: devising policies and pressing for legislation that allows the Feds to “connect the dots.”

    You know, there’s other ways of ‘protecting the American public’ that don’t involve violating foundational Constitutional principles. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, ever hear that before?

    Of course I have. But folks like you want to skin the cat without hurting its feelings. No can do.

    You OBVIOUSLY did not bother to click on my link to Stewart Baker’s December 2003 Slate editorial “Wall Nuts: The wall between intelligence and law enforcement is killing us” (then again, maybe you did, and just ignored it — it’s been known to happen). So, let me save you the trouble of a mouse click so you’ll have no excuse to be ignorant:

    Earlier this month, as fears of new al-Qaida attacks mounted, the Justice Department announced new FBI guidelines that would allow intelligence and law enforcement agents to work together on terrorism investigations. An ACLU spokesman was quick to condemn the guidelines as creating the possibility of “an end run around Fourth Amendment requirements.” I used to worry about that possibility myself. Not any more. Because the alternative is to maintain a wall of separation between law enforcement and intelligence. That’s what we used to do. And on Sept. 11, 2001, that wall probably cost us 3,000 American lives…

    There’s a quiet scandal at the heart of Sept. 11; one that for different reasons neither the government nor the privacy lobby really wants to talk about. It’s this: For two and a half weeks before the attacks, the U.S. government knew the names of two hijackers. It knew they were al-Qaida killers and that they were already in the United States. In fact, the two were living openly under their own names, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. They used those names for financial transactions, flight school, to earn frequent flier miles, and to procure a California identity card.

    Despite this paper trail, and despite having two and a half weeks to follow the scent, the FBI couldn’t locate either man—at least not until Sept. 11, when they flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. If we had found them, there is a real possibility that most or all of the hijackings would have been prevented. The two shared addresses with Mohamed Atta, who flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and Marwan Al-Shehhi, who flew into the South Tower. They were linked to most of the other hijackers as well. So August 2001 offered our last chance to foil the attacks. And if we want to stop the next attack, we need to know what went wrong in August 2001. Despite all the resources of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, we did not find two known terrorists living openly. How could we have failed so badly in such a simple, desperate task?

    We couldn’t find al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi in August 2001 because we had imposed too many rules designed to protect against privacy abuses that were mainly theoretical. We missed our best chance to save the lives of 3,000 Americans because we spent more effort and imagination guarding against these theoretical privacy abuses than against terrorism…

    (snip)

    […]I am profoundly skeptical of efforts to write new privacy rules and why I would rely instead on auditing for actual abuses. We should not again put American lives at risk for the sake of some speculative risk to our civil liberties.

    [T]he final lesson? Perhaps it isn’t fair to blame all the people who helped to create the wall for the failures that occurred in August of 2001. No one knew then what the cost of building such a separation would be. But we should know now. We should know that we can’t prevent every imaginable privacy abuse without hampering the fight against terror; that an appetite for privacy scandals hampers the fight against terror; and that the consequence of these actions will be more attacks and more dead, perhaps in numbers we can hardly fathom.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  192. “Last time I looked, the U.S.Treasury was not a petitioner in Bankruptcy Court.”

    Though true I was using it as a figure of speech.

    Your right, our economy is humming along beautifully.

    Oil at $136
    Gas at $4.00
    $4 trillion in debt the last 7 seven years.
    Housing price crash worst since the depression.
    Mortgage defaults worst since the depression.

    But that has nothing to do with our $1 trillion goodwill mission in Iraq.

    And the GOP is doing so well lately. What do you suppose that’s all about. Could it… could it be that the folks not as friggin stupid as you are beginning to see the light.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  193. jharp,

    People aren’t stupid here. It’s been a mantra of the left and of the “surrender monkeys” that “Iraq and al Qaeda had no connections. They were enemies.

    FYI, Saddam harbored terrorists. Saddam allowed terrorists to train on aircraft fuselages. It is documented. Only people like you who have severe BDS or just plain hate the US keep harping on the lies of the left.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  194. “FYI, Saddam harbored terrorists. Saddam allowed terrorists to train on aircraft fuselages. It is documented.”

    So did the state of Florida.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  195. Someone call Ripley’s. Levi has found his twin, jharp, separated at birth!

    Good for them. Bad for fans of intelligent debate.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  196. #191 I thought Pelosi and Reid promised to LOWER fuel prices when they took over? Looks like price has doubled since then? What should Bush do since we know his oil compadres are making out bandits with those high prices even though domestic oil industry has their hands tied by dem rules and verboten explorations? And we know that Urkel is pleased with high prices also because he wants them high so that the hoi polloi will use less. Yes, makes sense to transfer our wealth to Arabs and rest of OPEC because lib corksuckers oppose domestic exploration, new nuke and refinery and even wind farms off Mass. coastline because fatboy Teddy doesn’t want his NIMBY view spoiled. Give us some more of you canards and revisioist history lessons, eh?
    #192- I think J. Goldberg coined term cheese-eating surrender monkeys for the French and yet now they are the ones eschewing socialism to some extent and also down with nuke plants. What would the be term for the crapweasels on this board and obamabots in general? Some combo of arugula and fresh fruit eating surrender arseholes??

    madmax333 (79a1db)

  197. FYI, Saddam harbored terrorists. Saddam allowed terrorists to train on aircraft fuselages. It is documented. Only people like you who have severe BDS or just plain hate the US keep harping on the lies of the left.

    He also provided financial compensation to the families of suicide bombers who killed Jews in Israel.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  198. Oh, well, the Dems hardly care about that…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  199. Are you insane? There’s well over 200 that handle large jets, and probably 300 that handle at least commuter flights…

    That isn’t very many. Airports have routinely gone on higher alert ever since. Go over to YouTube and search for ‘Nexus of Politics and Terror,’ and watch a few if you can stand Olbermman. If they can send alerts out about a 60 year old woman with a leaking ice pack or blocks of cheese, why couldn’t they have sent out an alert based on an FBI memo?

    Did the memo state exactly what was going to be done?

    Is that what you wait for to counter terrorism? Exactness?

    “strike within the US” is so vauge as to be useless…

    Well if you read further in the memo, it says he wants to hijack a plane. That narrows it down substantially. The fact that he wanted to strike within the U.S. should have raised flags as well, bin Laden had been content hitting targets abroad.

    But whatever, there was brush to clear after all.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  200. “He also provided financial compensation to the families of suicide bombers who killed Jews in Israel.”

    You are a stupid fuck. Since when did suicide bombers in Israel become an issue that we send 4,100 to die, 25,000 to be maimed and wounded, and blow through $1 trillion to invade and occupy a country that was no threat to us.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  201. Your right, our economy is humming along beautifully.

    Oil at $136
    Gas at $4.00

    If Democrats blaming Republicans over the high price of oil isn’t a textbook example of chutzpah, I don’t know what is. My memory may be a bit hazy, but I’m pretty sure one party has been fairly consistent in supporting new efforts to explore and drill more oil, which would increase supply relative to demaqnd, while the other has consistently smacked these efforts down, keeping supply relatively constant while demand around the world has soared. Will someone please remind me which party did which?

    Xrlq (b71926)

  202. See?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  203. a country that was no threat to us.

    So you disagree with Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, and both Clintons?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  204. Iraq and al Qaeda had no connections. They were enemies.

    Leftist mantra/claptrap

    Ohhh!!! Can we do it like Oil for Food?

    That worked GREAT!

    That you for confirming. He was disarmed.

    There is no confirmation of your assertion there, liar.

    But that has nothing to do with our $1 trillion goodwill mission in Iraq.

    Finally, a quote where it does not lie, though it told the truth only accidentally.

    it says he wants to hijack a plane. That narrows it down substantially. The fact that he wanted to strike within the U.S. should have raised flags as well

    Pure unadulterated drivel and idiocy.

    JD (75f5c3)

  205. #199 correctomundo jharp- it was all about kissing the Jewish lobby/cabal’s ass. We should all be pragmatists like the moonbats are and throw the only functioning democracy in the Mideast under the bus like Obama does his own pals and minions for political expediency. It’s a shame Hitler didn’t manage to kill them all in your book? Why should the durty Jooooos not face the same consequences of our foreign policies as the South Vietnamese and Cambodians did- mass genocide. Why value Jews so highly? We don’t much worry about the carnage going on in Africa afterall. Yes, best to throw your allies to the wolves. I don’t understand why America should give a good crap what the UN, Europe, neo-marxist left here, Arab-effing-street thinks about anything. They should fear us. If we are truly the bread basket of the world, why not charge out the ass for grain and foodstuffsor those big wheels they crave? From what I’ve seen arabs are really lousy fighters outside of plane hijackings and homicide bombings and yet our arabist state dept. bends over to cater to them.

    madmax333 (79a1db)

  206. Yes. If you were paying attention, you wouldn’t have had to ask.

    I don’t even know what to say to that. Immediately after 9-11, when we didn’t know very much about George Bush, sure. It was fair to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    But in the intervening years, where he’s been this aloof, incompetent, dishonest and mega-stupid oaf of a ‘leader,’ which has translated into all sorts of disaster, don’t you think we ought to re-evaluate? Now that we know about this memo and that he held no meetings and was blowing off Tenet and Clarke for months, and factoring in his demonstrated worthlessness as a President in general, I think it’s fair to assign him a healthy portion of the blame for what happened that day. The barriers between our intelligence agencies are well known and they were part of the problem, but they weren’t the whole problem. It’s ridiculous to attribute the failure to any one person or any one thing, as you insist on doing. I mean, what was stopping Bush from overhauling the problems created by the Gorelick Wall?

    Of course I have. But folks like you want to skin the cat without hurting its feelings. No can do.

    We are talking about FISA, aren’t we? I don’t know why anyone would advocate the George Bush, and now, sadly, the Barack Obama position on this terrible FISA bill. It’s too much to ask to have someone check to make sure that the President isn’t just wiretapping people American citizens? This is about as un-American as it gets. Why would you lobby for blanket immunity from prosecution for an entire industry unless you had things to hide?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  207. If Democrats blaming Republicans over the high price of oil isn’t a textbook example of chutzpah, I don’t know what is. My memory may be a bit hazy, but I’m pretty sure one party has been fairly consistent in supporting new efforts to explore and drill more oil, which would increase supply relative to demaqnd, while the other has consistently smacked these efforts down, keeping supply relatively constant while demand around the world has soared. Will someone please remind me which party did which?

    Why didn’t the Republicans get all the oil flowing when they had control of both houses and the Presidency for four years? What’s your excuse for them?

    Oil is so expensive because speculators are buying up futures because George Bush and the Republicans are destabilizing the Middle East, and threatening to destabilize it further. More oil isn’t the answer anyway, when are you dolts going to come around?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  208. So you disagree with Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, and both Clintons?

    I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I disagree with them.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  209. Yes we should indeed put those corporations at risk of lawsuits because the Breck Girls of the world want that. Let’s worry about the rights of terrorists and ensure they face Mecca in the proper direction whilst they pray to mighty allah. Let’s not put any one of the insane islamomutants under the threat of loud music, waterboarding , etc. because it reflects poorly on our own humanity and we can’t go about seeking an eye for an eye. Panties on the head is afterall the moral equivalency of cutting off a non-believer’s head. Terrorists need habeus corpus protection and free counsel, privacy right when they talk on phone anywhere to anyone, etc. That first Twin Tower’s bomber sheik’s shithead infidel lawyer was only advocating for her client. We need more lawsuits. The USA as a whole should mirror the litigation industry of California. Just goes to show how stupid those Japanese are to accentutate education in things like engineering when they could have more lawyers.
    What I want to know is whom will the moonbats be blaming for all the world’s ills when Dubya is finis? Ok, they will still hate America first, but when Obama fecks up, whose fault will it be? That vrwc and the legions of racist haters on the right?

    madmax333 (79a1db)

  210. “What I want to know is whom will the moonbats be blaming for all the world’s ills when Dubya is finis?”

    – madmax333

    You.

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  211. “Why didn’t the Republicans get all the oil flowing when they had control of both houses and the Presidency for four years? What’s your excuse for them?”

    The efforts were killed in the senate by the dems every year, moron, that’s the excuse.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  212. The efforts were killed in the senate by the dems every year, moron, that’s the excuse

    What efforts? How did the Republicans get stopped every year with a majority and the White House?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  213. #126 More BS- the oil speculation is not the reason prices are high. It comes down to supply vs. demand. Your idiot bastards’ leftist sons in Congress block any effort to increase domestic supplies, but fear not as when Obama is POTUS libs can tax the industry or just take it over and suing OPEC should help immensely also. Maybe then they’ll send less oil to India and China? Get a clue. The peeps need to eschew driving and turn to mass transit, bikes and more efficient vehicles. I don’t see fat slobs walking in any case. Maybe the answer is rationing and the resultant black market? Maybe algore will sell some carbon credits? Maybe he can sell his own gasbag production of farts and hot air? He and Moore could feed an African village on what they consume.

    madmax333 (79a1db)

  214. Why didn’t the Republicans get all the oil flowing when they had control of both houses and the Presidency for four years? What’s your excuse for them?

    There is no excuse. Most were on the right side of the issue but a few, notably McCain, were not. A few weak Republicans + unanimously bad Democrats = majority on the wrong side.

    That said, it’s one thing ot be on the wrong side of the supply side when gas is running between $1 and $2 a gallon. It’s quite another to stubbornly cling to such idiocy when it tops $4 and shows no signs of stopping even there. But no matter what your price, it is sheer idiocy to deliberately fight every effort to bring down the price of gasoline, then blame your opponents for the fact that gasoline is so expensive as a result, especially when the only thing any of your enemies did wrong was to side with you!

    Oil is so expensive because speculators are buying up futures because George Bush and the Republicans are destabilizing the Middle East, and threatening to destabilize it further.

    Is that what they teach you in ‘tard school nowadays? No increased demand in China or anywhere else, just a U.S. President threatening to deliberately destablize a region of the world which we all know was super duper hella-stable from 1993 through 2001.

    More oil isn’t the answer anyway, when are you dolts going to come around?

    If more oil isn’t the answer, it must have been a really stupid question. And no, we aren’t going to “come around” on that issue until a better alternative is available. The difference between us “dolts” and you leftards is that some of us understand that not all laws can be repealed. Gravity cannot be, for example, and neither can the law of supply and demand. You, on the other hand, seem to think that the law of supply and demand is just another failed policy of the past that your brave new leader audaciously hopes to change. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

    Xrlq (b71926)

  215. You’re so eloquent, madmax. You should have your own talk-radio show.

    I hope Obama nationalizes the oil industry, just so I can watch you and your faux-FreeMarket ilk cry like little girls.

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  216. Levi – The dems got majorities in the House and Senate in 2006. Why couldn’t they stop the Iraq War?

    Why don’t you pause to think before asking another dumb question, genius.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  217. MadMax:

    #126 More BS- the oil speculation is not the reason prices are high. It comes down to supply vs. demand.

    Oil speculation is part of the demand problem, as everyone is betting that the supply will remain flat while demand continues to increase. If Congress passed a law today authorizing drilling off shore and in ANWR, oil prices would drop instantly because the perceived future supply had just gotten bigger, even though the actual supply of currently available oil wouldn’t change for years if not decades.

    Xrlq (b71926)

  218. “Gravity cannot be, for example, and neither can the law of supply and demand.”

    – Xrlq

    Doesn’t the recent Saudi declaration of increased production, coupled with the simultaneous rise in the price of a barrel of oil, indicate that the whole issue is slightly more complicated than Supply and Demand?

    Maybe I just don’t understand the intricacies of the concept well enough – the fine print, as it were – but it seems that unless the Saudi declaration was met with a correspondent (and unprecedented) rise in demand, the price of a barrel of oil should’ve gone down, not up.

    Or is the question one of consumer demand versus commodity broker demand?

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  219. Or is the question one of consumer demand versus commodity broker demand?

    I suspect that it has a lot to do with commodity broker demand.

    Of course, the oil market will go the way of the real estate market- and there would be calls for bailing out the commodity speculators.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  220. Oops.

    Cross-posted, X. But I kinda knew speculation was the issue, anyway, or I wouldn’t have put it forward as a possible solution.

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  221. “Of course, the oil market will go the way of the real estate market- and there would be calls for bailing out the commodity speculators.”

    – Michael Ejercito

    From the staunchest advocates of the “Free Market”, no doubt, although George Will put forth the admirably Darwinian sentiment that real estate speculators should be put into the graves they dug for themselves.

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  222. You are a stupid fuck. Since when did suicide bombers in Israel become an issue that we send 4,100 to die, 25,000 to be maimed and wounded, and blow through $1 trillion to invade and occupy a country that was no threat to us.

    We sent over thirty thousand people people to die to defend Koreans, why not send four thousand people to die to defend Jews?

    Either both are justified or both are unjustified.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  223. #214 as a geezer I don’t have to drive at all. You young punks full of jam might find your social life cramped sans that Beemer. I’m sure the Congressional Black Caucus (who particularly are threatening nationalization) in tandem with Urkel would do fine Jimmy Carter/Hugo Chavez job of it. Talked about a snafu cluster-f*ck. I’m sure government lackeys/lib union types have no clue about the oil industry and it would tend to mirror the really shitty job the commissars did with everything the old USSR produced. Get ready for a sky high misery index and massive stagfaltion….That indeed is change and hope! we can rely on. Dems= clueless assholes…not the least economic literacy. None of you asshat clowns ever address the truth. It seems to be “oh we will make socialism work this time under our gifted tutelage.” Yessir, everyone will be equal except, like the Commies, some will be more equal.
    jajajajaja.

    madmax333 (79a1db)

  224. “None of you asshat clowns ever address the truth.”

    – madmax333

    Reasonable as ever, buddy.

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  225. Levi – The dems got majorities in the House and Senate in 2006. Why couldn’t they stop the Iraq War?

    Why don’t you pause to think before asking another dumb question, genius.

    They don’t have the Presidency, like the Republicans did. That’s a totally different circumstance.

    You really aren’t very smart.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  226. More on oil prices from powerline today:

    Yesterday, the Democrats’ House leadership announced with considerable fanfare that Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, James Clyburn, Rahm Emanuel and John Larson would hold a news conference at 11:30 this morning “to discuss the New Direction Congress’ efforts to lower gas prices.” Here is the press release; click to enlarge:

    This morning, the news conference was canceled. The Democrats don’t have an energy policy, and they can’t think of one. The truth is that the “New Direction Congress” has done nothing whatsoever to lower gas prices, and, on the contrary, the Democrats have blocked all efforts by Republican members to enact policies that would have that result. At the moment, the Dems aren’t even able to come up with a plausible cover story, let alone a constructive energy policy.

    Posted by John at 1:57 PM

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  227. “They don’t have the Presidency, like the Republicans did. That’s a totally different circumstance.

    You really aren’t very smart.”

    You’re not thinking, junior.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  228. We sent over thirty thousand people people to die to defend Koreans, why not send four thousand people to die to defend Jews?

    Either both are justified or both are unjustified.

    Our soldiers are dying in Iraq to defend the Jews now?

    What. The. Shit.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  229. You’re not thinking, junior.

    Do you understand that having the Congress with the Presidency is totally different than having the Congress without the Presidency? I’m by no means suggesting that the Democrats couldn’t stop the war if they wanted to, but when the Republicans had both the executive and the legislative, there was really nothing they couldn’t do.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  230. Leviticus, part of it is speculator demand, sure. Whether it’s developing companies needing more oil now, SUV drivers needing more oil now, or speculators hoarding the stuff they think they’ll need later, all contribute to an increase in overall demand, thereby causing prices to go up.

    As to the recent Saudi promise to increase production, recall that by the time the formal announcement was made, there had already been quite a buzz for several weeks about some such announcement being in the works. The market knew the Saudis would boost production some, and presumably that knowledge was built into the price. If memory serves, the formal announcement surprised the market in a negative way, with Saudis announcing they would boost production to a lesser extent than the market previously “knew” they would. Thus, the immediate impact of the announcement was to decrease, not increase, the perceived long-term supply.

    Xrlq (b71926)

  231. There is no excuse. Most were on the right side of the issue but a few, notably McCain, were not. A few weak Republicans + unanimously bad Democrats = majority on the wrong side.

    That said, it’s one thing ot be on the wrong side of the supply side when gas is running between $1 and $2 a gallon. It’s quite another to stubbornly cling to such idiocy when it tops $4 and shows no signs of stopping even there. But no matter what your price, it is sheer idiocy to deliberately fight every effort to bring down the price of gasoline, then blame your opponents for the fact that gasoline is so expensive as a result, especially when the only thing any of your enemies did wrong was to side with you!

    Do you think anyone is going to buy that shit? Gas prices are high because of Democrats?

    Is that what they teach you in ‘tard school nowadays? No increased demand in China or anywhere else, just a U.S. President threatening to deliberately destablize a region of the world which we all know was super duper hella-stable from 1993 through 2001.

    Everyone knows there is more demand and less supply. But these speculators and George Bush’s never-ending clash of civilizations in the Middle East only serve to exasperate the problem.

    And yeah, it was more stable before we stepped in. We can’t even guarantee the same level of peace and prosperity that Saddam was able to maintain. Way to go America.

    If more oil isn’t the answer, it must have been a really stupid question. And no, we aren’t going to “come around” on that issue until a better alternative is available. The difference between us “dolts” and you leftards is that some of us understand that not all laws can be repealed. Gravity cannot be, for example, and neither can the law of supply and demand. You, on the other hand, seem to think that the law of supply and demand is just another failed policy of the past that your brave new leader audaciously hopes to change. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

    Conservation is the key, and there’s no reason we can’t do things right now to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Just like the Augsust 4th P.D.B., you demand to have everything laid out for you ahead of time before you will support any sort of action (were that only applied to your blind support of the Iraq war.) We should be forcing automakers to dramatically increase fuel economy, we should be encouraging people to take public transportation and resist widespread migration to suburbs, we should be investing in our railway network, we should be offering incentives hand over fist to people that carpool and buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

    But all of that shit would dip into oil companies’ profits, and unfortunately, one of our political factions thought it would be a good idea to put the oil industry in charge of the government. Now they’ve got their brainwashed supporters demanding that the only reasonable solution to the energy problem is more oil! Brilliant.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  232. Levi,

    Oil is an important to our economy as food. Try substituting the word “food” for the word “oil” in your last comment and think about how unreasonable it sounds.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  233. In other words:

    We should be forcing food producers to dramatically change the kinds of food they produce, we should be encouraging people to eat less food, and we should be offering incentives hand over fist to people that eat foods we have in abundance.

    But all of that shit would dip into food producers’ profits, and unfortunately, one of our political factions thought it would be a good idea to put the food industry in charge of the government. Now they’ve got their brainwashed supporters demanding that the only reasonable solution to the food problem is more food! Brilliant.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  234. One more time, with corrections:

    We should be forcing food producers to dramatically change the foods and food substitutes they produce, we should be encouraging people to eat less food, and we should be offering incentives hand over fist to people that eat food substitutes we have in abundance.

    But all of that shit would dip into food producers’ profits, and unfortunately, one of our political factions thought it would be a good idea to put the food industry in charge of the government. Now they’ve got their brainwashed supporters demanding that the only reasonable solution to the food problem is more food! Brilliant.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  235. Which, considering farm subsedies, fits just as well, DRJ…
    Not that Levi will ever admit it…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  236. Which, considering farm subsedies, fits just as well, DRJ…
    Not that Levi will ever admit it…

    I wonder how it will affect his thinking (such as it is) to be told that the food industry has a higher profit margin than the oil industries do. Not higher profits, when taken in absolute numbers, but a higher amount of profit per dollar.

    Drumwaster (d67aaf)

  237. Levi’s ignorance of both economics and history on display in one comment. I wish that was an accomplishment for him, but its plainly not.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  238. Like Levi, jharp seems to substitute profanity for coherence.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  239. I find this theory by Gary Kasparov, that Putin is behind the drive to keep oil prices as high as possible, credible. The Soviet Union was our biggest enemy and it still remains our biggest enemy under its new face of neo-communist Russia. But that cannot be true, can it? Our Shrub has looked into Putin’s soul.

    nk (11c9c1)

  240. Levi wrote: Well if you read further in the memo [that Dick Clarke has been dining out on for three years], it says [Osama] wants to hijack a plane. That narrows it down substantially. The fact that he wanted to strike within the U.S. should have raised flags as well, bin Laden had been content hitting targets abroad.

    Here’s what the August 6, 2001 briefing actually said about that, Leev (bold mine):

    A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

    We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

    As I have written to you before, bin Laden and his ilk were not especially appreciative of the fact that Rahman and his thugs from 1993 were prosecuted like regular criminals in NYC rather than war criminals in Gitmo with no habeas rights. But that’s beside the point; not even Clarke, the self-styled Paul Revere of 9/11, came close to believing they would use of planes as guided missiles.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  241. Our soldiers are dying in Iraq to defend the Jews now?

    What. The. Shit.

    That is one of the reasons.

    Of course, there is no moral difference between that and soldiers dying in Korea to defend Koreans.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  242. Oil is an important to our economy as food. Try substituting the word “food” for the word “oil” in your last comment and think about how unreasonable it sounds.

    Yeah, I don’t even know what you were trying to do there, but it didn’t work. People need food. There’s no replacement for it. We might need oil at the moment, but it can be replaced.

    My point is that oil is no longer a viable resource upon which to base the whole of our economy. It’s time to update the infrastructure. And it plainly wasn’t a good idea to trust two oil men to handle that transition.

    So yeah, whatever you think you did, whatever point you believe you just made, it doesn’t make any sense.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  243. That’s pretty hilarious, Levi, that whole point went waaaaay over your head.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  244. Our economy isn’t as flexible as you seem to think, Levi.

    DRJ (21aa5f)

  245. Our economy isn’t as flexible as you seem to think, Levi.

    What are you even talking about? What do I ‘seem to think?’

    Levi (74ca1f)

  246. Correction: The economy is very flexible … but it is also heartless, so we try to find a middle ground that provides a cushion for those hardest hit by changes. Conservation and encouraging alternative energy sources are excellent ideas but eliminating oil when there are no realistic or viable alternate sources is the ultimate heartless decision.

    DRJ (21aa5f)

  247. Levi,

    Here’s part of the point I was trying to make: Oil it is as important to our economy as food is to people. There is no replacement for food when it comes to feeding people and, at present, there is no viable replacement for oil as a worldwide energy source.

    There are other options, to be sure – nuclear, coal, wind, solar, hydropower – and I hope we develop them. Do you think no one has tried in the almost 40 years since the oil crisis in the early 70’s? Up to now, no one has come up with an alternative source that is economical and that works. Until alternate sources are viable, we need to keep looking for and pumping oil.

    DRJ (21aa5f)

  248. Who said anything about ‘eliminating oil?’ All the things I listed were methods of reducing our consumption of the stuff. I know it’s vital to our economy, I know people have been trying to find a replacement for it for years, but there’s no reason we can’t hit this problem for both ends. We should replace oil with alternative sources as they develop, but we should also be reducing our consumption in the mean time, because that’s something we can start doing now, and will therefore be able to start reaping the benefits earlier.

    I can’t imagine that the oil industry is too keen on those sorts of ideas, and all I’ve seen from this administration, literally sons of the American oil industry, is a bunch of feet-dragging.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  249. While you’re here DRJ, tell Pat to send me my ten bucks.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  250. Somewhat off topic, here from NRO is an example of just what I mean when I say that the Democrats are not the party of adults. Especially on national security.

    Democrats mandated that the intelligence community create a “NIE” on climate change as a stupid stunt … and are amazed that it looks stupid when they hold hearings on it. Read the link, I can’t excerpt it as it is all quite hilarious.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  251. You know what would also help, a republican advertisement showing some of those coveted foreign endorsements Obama has picked up:

    Cuba – Castro
    Venezuela – Chavez
    North Korea – Kim Jong Il
    Libya – Gadhaffi
    Iran – Imadamnutjob
    Hamas – Rockets R Us

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  252. We should replace oil with alternative sources as they develop, but we should also be reducing our consumption in the mean time, because that’s something we can start doing now, and will therefore be able to start reaping the benefits earlier.

    Why should we reduce our consumption? Because it is expensive?

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  253. Until alternate sources are viable, we need to keep looking for and pumping oil.

    Alternative sources are not viable because oil is cheaper or more convenient to use.

    Personally, I do not care what the source of energy is. I make my choice based on cost and convenience.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  254. Why should we reduce our consumption? Because it is expensive?

    Good question Michael. Obama apparently buys into this discredited AGW even more wholeheartedly than McCain, or maybe it is just an excuse to gain more control over people’s lives.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  255. You know what would also help, a republican advertisement showing some of those coveted foreign endorsements Obama has picked up:

    Cuba – Castro
    Venezuela – Chavez
    North Korea – Kim Jong Il
    Libya – Gadhaffi
    Iran – Imadamnutjob
    Hamas – Rockets R Us

    Comment by daleyrocks

    I’m new here so I don’t know if you’re dishonest or stupid.

    When did it become common for American’s to take our enemies for their word on Presidential endorsements.

    Do ya think there could be a chance they could be being deceptive? You don’t honestly believe these leaders think endorsing a certain candidate would help him be elected.

    The stupid shit I see from right wingers continues to blow my mind.

    And where in the fuck did you get the idea that Obama coveted these fake endorsements?

    You, friend, need to take a long look at your ability to reason.

    jharp (cb7adf)

  256. When did it become common for American’s to take our enemies for their word on Presidential endorsements.

    When those enemies started endorsing Democratic candidates. (John Kerry in ’04 and Obama this year.)

    You, friend, need to take a long look at your ability to reason.

    Wow. Pot. Kettle. Relative frequency of reflected electromagnetic radiation in the visual spectra.

    Drumwaster (d67aaf)

  257. Between jharp and Levi, I’m having a hard time figuring out which one is dumberer or less edumicated.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  258. jharp #256:

    I’m new here so I don’t know if you’re dishonest or stupid.

    I’m not new here, and I think you’re off to a poor start when you call people dishonest and stupid.

    When did it become common for American’s to take our enemies for their word on Presidential endorsements.

    Do ya think there could be a chance they could be being deceptive? You don’t honestly believe these leaders think endorsing a certain candidate would help him be elected.

    Do ya think these might be reasons Obama shouldn’t meet with these leaders? And yet Obama has said he would meet with them without preconditions.

    DRJ (21aa5f)

  259. Levi has a message for you, Patterico.

    DRJ (21aa5f)

  260. DRJ – Do you think jharp is lacking, as are most progressives, any semblance of a sense of humor?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  261. Do you think anyone is going to buy that shit? Gas prices are high because of Democrats?

    Anyone who is paying attention, yes. Gas prices are high because of everyone who has obstructed efforts to increase supply to keep up with demand. That would be a few “maverick” Republicans, plus almost all Democrats.

    Everyone knows there is more demand and less supply. But these speculators and George Bush’s never-ending clash of civilizations in the Middle East only serve to exasperate the problem.

    You keep using that term “exasperate.” I do not think it means what you think it means.

    And yeah, it was more stable before we stepped in. We can’t even guarantee the same level of peace and prosperity that Saddam was able to maintain. Way to go America.

    Right, dumbass, Iraq today sells us less oil than it did under the oil for palaces program. Do you really believe the crap you spew in this forum, or is this just your childish way of stirring the pot?

    Conservation is the key, and there’s no reason we can’t do things right now to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

    Conservation is part, of the solution, but only part. We’ve come a long way in increased fuel efficiency in recent decades, but that only gets you so far. The only way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil is to drill more of the stuff domestically.

    Just like the Augsust 4th P.D.B., you demand to have everything laid out for you ahead of time before you will support any sort of action (were that only applied to your blind support of the Iraq war.)

    We had far more actionable intel on Iraq prior to the ’03 invasion than we did on bin Laden prior to 9/11. A rational Bush critic may either argue that we were too slow on the draw pre-9/11, or that we were to quick on the draw in Iraq a year and a half later, but it takes a special kind of retard to argue both.

    We should be forcing automakers to dramatically increase fuel economy, we should be encouraging people to take public transportation and resist widespread migration to suburbs, we should be investing in our railway network, we should be offering incentives hand over fist to people that carpool and buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

    In other words, why allow people to make choices for themselves, when a fuel spike offers us the perfect excuse to establish a police state instead? By arguing such nonsense, you make it pretty clear you want fuel prices to be high. Yet, you also want the luxury of blaming your opponents for the results of the idiotic policies you support and they oppose. Can’t have it both ways.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  262. Daleyrocks, I think jharp is of the same mindset as Levi. He/she has swallowed the Kool-Aid and simply maintains an inability to review facts, they remain inconvenient to the “message”.

    When one gets all their “opinions” fed to them by the Deadwood Media and Koz Kidz/DU/Huffington/Olberman…it becomes very difficult to deal with things rationally.

    When you are being fed a trough of daily lies, distortions and agenda-driven drivel…your opinions and “logic” (such as it is), resembles the slop from the trough.

    Anyone who seriously suggests that Saddam had now weapons of mass destruction, was not a threat to build them, use them and pass them off to terrorists…is childlike and not ready to sit at the adult table.

    Anyone who suggests that state sponsored terrorism was THE proper target after 9/11, is a fool, a coward or a traitor.

    This child has little ability to look beyond the spoonfed brainwashing of the deadwood media and even less ability to confront it when it gets caught in its own web of lies. Lockstep Lemmings being driven into their pens. Unable to come to an original conclusion, unable to think for themselves, unable to reason out an issue.

    Debating with them is useless…they don’t respond to reason, they ignore facts, they are wholly ill equipped to engage any portion of their brain that isn’t wired to mindlessly repeat what they have been told to say by their cult leaders.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  263. Who knows what the troll means? Exasperate or exacerbate might both be on his mind.

    One recalls the war of attrition between Iran and Iraq going back to the early eighties. Didn’t Iraq have the upper hand? As far as possible ground invasions, Iraqi terrain is more hospitable, given the topography of Iran. Why not just attack the nuke facilities by air, close down their airspace and ports, preventing anyone from entering or leaving. They need refined oil from abroad right now until their own refineries come online. That castrated UN watchdog thinks they could have nuke in six months time and he will quit if we attack them. Boo hoo. I don’t think our Air Force or Navy are all that stretched. Or just let Israel do the job while the arab street and depots wail. You saw Quaddafi’s reaction to the bombing of Baghdad. Of coures the UN and Europe will be up in arms, but with their own lack of backbones, screw them. The UN blue helmets are too busy raping women and kids anyway.

    madmax333 (b4770b)

  264. Xrlq wrote to Levi: In other words, why allow people to make choices for themselves, when a fuel spike offers us the perfect excuse to establish a police state instead? By arguing such nonsense, you make it pretty clear you want fuel prices to be high. Yet, you also want the luxury of blaming your opponents for the results of the idiotic policies you support and they oppose. Can’t have it both ways.

    This is why the MSM coverage of the Obama candidacy is so startling. Never before have so many obvious questions gone unasked because the “reporters” knew the answers would get in the way of the “solution.”

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  265. In other words, why allow people to make choices for themselves, when a fuel spike offers us the perfect excuse to establish a police state instead? By arguing such nonsense, you make it pretty clear you want fuel prices to be high. Yet, you also want the luxury of blaming your opponents for the results of the idiotic policies you support and they oppose. Can’t have it both ways.

    A police state? Are you kidding?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  266. Levi wrote: A police state? Are you kidding?

    I didn’t write the comment. But I understand what you’re saying: such hyperbole is only allowable when it is at the expense of George W. Bush.

    Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  267. DRJ wrote: Do ya think these might be reasons Obama shouldn’t meet with these leaders? And yet Obama has said he would meet with them without preconditions.

    Now, hold on a minute! That was before he changed his mind. Just like he changed his mind about severing ties with Trinity United, and changed his mind about Iran being a tiny nation that wasn’t a threat, and changed his mind about public funding of campaigns being key to reform.

    Yep, that’s Obama. “Change We Can Believe In…Even If He Changes What He Believes.”

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  268. “Change We Can Believe In…Even If He Changes What He Believes.”

    Mountain Dew burns when it comes out your nose, did you know that? *glares at L.N.*

    Drumwaster (d67aaf)

  269. Drumwaster wrote: Mountain Dew burns when it comes out your nose, did you know that? *glares at L.N.*

    Could have been worse. It might have been milk or coffee. That would have been expensive. 😀

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0013 secs.