May 17, 2005

Magic Moments in Domestic Policy


By Attila @ Pillage Idiot: Condi steps in Click to enlarge

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Posted by Vanderleun at May 17, 2005 9:14 AM | TrackBack
Comments:

AMERICAN DIGEST HOME
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Thanks for the link. I have one more Cindy-related absurdity here: Cindy Sheehan raises her demands

P.S. Attila is spelled with two t's and one l. We Huns manques are very sensitive about it.

Posted by: Attila (Pillage Idiot) at August 17, 2005 11:00 AM

Done and done. Spare me the axe, oh Hunster.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 17, 2005 11:31 AM

no, see, it'd be like WAY funnier if you'd said "Durbin The Turban" like Hannity does. utilize your cultural referents!

...sweet jesus, you guys are devolving before our very eyes...

Posted by: anna at August 17, 2005 12:03 PM

But we are comforted that your own evolution towards higher, brighter, and finer human beings goes on unabated. Excelsior!

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 17, 2005 12:20 PM

Yes indeedy, punching dissenters is hysterical. good thing we don't live in a free country anymore. Way more laughs this way.

Posted by: ken at August 17, 2005 12:21 PM

That's supposed to be funny? Three people who are perhaps most responsible for the well being of our troops overseas having a fake conversation about beating up a grief-stricken mother who lost a son in that war? It's not really a laughing matter at all, and I seriously doubt Condi or Rummy find the topic of Sheehan very amusing.

Posted by: G. at August 17, 2005 12:33 PM

I think the doctored photo has already exceeded most limits of stupidity and/or taste. The woman lost her son, for Christ's sake. And this is a laughing matter to "compassionate conservatives?"

Posted by: heywood jablomi at August 17, 2005 12:39 PM

"N.B.: Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged"

What about posts that do both? Will they be edited, expunged or celebrated by amoral nitwits, hurtling toward the same fiery damnation they believe is reserved for the brown peoples of the world?

When you die, may your memory be mocked by retarded sycophants, may your family be abused by semiliterate hate monkeys, and may all that you fought for and believed in - assuming there is anything - be systematically attacked by an army of ignorant, willfully uniformed idiots.

Or instead of coming up with poorly done photoshops, you could join the Marines and head over to Iraq so that we all can see what your mom does with a child who died for Bush's folly.

Posted by: stephen at August 17, 2005 12:46 PM

Be careful there, Stephen. You've made perfect sense, which in Right-Wing Bizarro World equals batshit lunacy. Prepare to be expunged by the assholes who run this pathetic excuse for a blog.

Posted by: Ken at August 17, 2005 12:55 PM

Pathetic, truly pathetic. I hope someday when you feel the grief of losing someone you love you look back at this feeble attempt at humor with a lot of shame.

Posted by: Mitzi at August 17, 2005 12:59 PM

I don't get it.

Posted by: whit at August 17, 2005 1:38 PM

Actually, the shame and the spectacle goes to one who would wave the bloody shirt of her son's sacrifice for her own aggrandizement. And doubly so for those who would use her like a tool.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 17, 2005 1:38 PM

As an example of how I can project my foolish notions onto anything at all, I present this comment by me.

"Anyone who can't laugh at the idea of beating the crap out of a mother who's upset just because her son died in a senseless war of choice for which the original justifications have turned out to be a steaming load of horse manure, obviously lacks a true sense of humor. Not compared to the uber-patriot who had the courage to reveal to us this charming little fantasy of his. He's the sort of person who's done so much to help make America the nation it is today despite the bests efforts of liberals who would destroy us by their neurotic fascination with reality. "

I'll got still further and whip out the oldest and hoariest chestnut in my nut sack and say:

"BTW, Mr. Uber Patriot Boy, how old are you and, assuming you're in the government-specified age range of acceptable cannon fodder, have you enlisted?"

That'll show him. After all, I don't style myself "Hieronymous Braintree" for nothing. Stand back, ye mortals, and inhale my aroma.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 17, 2005 1:41 PM

And I, who am as all can see by my handle, a devotee of love in the French manner, unburden myself by saying:

"not funny. not funny at all.
I live near a family that lost a son in Iraq.
Not funny. You should be ashamed of yourself."

Thus do I not only cast the shame as widely as my French love techniques, but I up the Waving the Bloody Shirt ante by "Waving the whole bloody neighborhood."

Posted by: frenchy lamour at August 17, 2005 1:50 PM

I think a viewing of The Aristocrats should be on your to-do list.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 17, 2005 1:52 PM

Gerard Gerard Gerard,
That's ok. If there was any justice in this world this is what we would like to see:
http://billmon.org/archives/001864.html

Posted by: Northrn Oberser at August 17, 2005 2:10 PM

How could any decent American mock a grieving Mom like this? When Dubya ran for election the first time he spoke of returning our country to decency. This in no way meets that goal and is shameful.

Posted by: Sandra in Dallas at August 17, 2005 2:11 PM

"Run over 'dem crosses with mah pickup."

Posted by: hempy at August 17, 2005 2:14 PM

How could any decent American mock a grieving Mom like this?

They could not. What renders your question inapposite is assuming decency on the part of our host or Attila.

Posted by: apostropher at August 17, 2005 2:22 PM

such feeble attempt at humor tells me that this protest has touched a nerve. If you realize the protesters are right, poking fun at them is the easiest reponse to assuage your guilt. Perhaps there is a shred of compassion in you somewhere that you are trying desperately to suppress.

Posted by: carol at August 17, 2005 2:56 PM

Dunno what they're sayin', but that Rumsfeld feller's wearin' tennis shoes! LOL

Posted by: Jape at August 17, 2005 3:00 PM

This is contemptable beyond belief. This is the kind of thing chickenhawks who have NEVER strained a muscle in either defense of the country or real labor say. Its the coward's way, to act like this to a mother who has given up a son to a lie. But then, cowardice is the norm for the people who support this faction of criminals. May you never have to lose someone you care about over a lie, you losers.

Posted by: Katy at August 17, 2005 3:57 PM

I, the eneffable "hieronymous braintree" having failed to take due notice of the posting rules, have returned with in a 1926 Blue Huff with white sidewalls to say:

"It seems that a certain party was so offended by my earlier post that he rewrote and republished it it without notifying the johnny-come-latelys. [Ed:Notification given right over the text box, hieronymous braintree] My what a typically thin-skinned chicken-hawk reaction. Don't worry,my son. Goebbels would have understood. [Fifteen yards and loss of down for evoking the every-popular and roundly discredited chicken hawk argument and binding into the batter with a thick slab of Godwin's Law violation.]

"Speaking of one's personal aroma, the fact remains that supporters of this war who style themselves as patriots stubbornly refuse to enlist and share the risk [One could point you to the myriad of blogs created by veterans and troops actively serving , many in Iraq and many critical of the current war managment, hieronymous braintree, but I am sure you can hunt and peck them up yourself.]which they are only too happy to have others take on so they can feel better about themselves. Calling an accurate observation about one's cowardly hypocracy [sic] a "chestnut" does nothing to take away the yellow stain which appears to have made a permanent home in your undies. [Thank you for the stunning imagery, hieronymous braintree. We are all elevated by it to heights of discourse undreamed of by Jackie, The Joke Man, Martling in his stunning turn in The Aristocrats, which I commend to your attention.]"

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 17, 2005 4:23 PM

"Actually, the shame and the spectacle goes to one who would wave the bloody shirt of her son's sacrifice for her own aggrandizement. And doubly so for those who would use her like a tool." - Gerard Van Der Leun

Ok. Where is the shame and spectacle for the ones who waved the bloody shirt of 9/11 to start the war of choice that killed that womans son? And the double shame for those that would ride such activities to ne-punditry? Foot, meet mouth. Mouth, foot. Chew before you swallow.

I doubt you have the brains to see the irony of your attempted retort; I do, however, have unlimited hope for humanity's capacity to finally get its own joke. I'm sure you are in there somewhere, Ger.

Posted by: Saint Waldo at August 17, 2005 4:29 PM

I see the short bus from KosKids makes a stop here as well.

Posted by: P. A. Breault at August 17, 2005 4:37 PM

Regarding Katy:

Well, that would depend on whether the mother
1) has "given" the son. He was a man who volunteered to fight for something he believed in and died as a hero, not as a puppet for the fantasies of the discredited left and their shabby tent show.

2) If the leaders of this country and the military were a "faction of criminals" which they demonstrably are not except in the fevered brainpans of the fringes who lost the last election for what was once a decent and honorable party.

3) If she was the only woman who ever lost a son in war which, by our own count and the loses of the Iraqis to our enemy she is not.

Other than that, your thoughts sing.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 17, 2005 4:37 PM

Wow. When will you people work your way up to being Neanderthals? Not funny at all. And it is striking that none of the people in your "funny" have anyone dying in Iraq.

Posted by: sue at August 17, 2005 4:48 PM

Actually, it is a testament to the success of current policy in the War on Terror that the vast, vast majority of Americans has no one dying in Iraq or even wider wars.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 17, 2005 4:51 PM

Stepping out now for steak and martini's at a dreadful capitalist restaurant in Dana Point.

Hey, play nice and....

"Don't go changin' ... ".

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 17, 2005 5:29 PM

Pathetic. Three chickenhawks joking about a mother who lost her son. You folks should be ashamed of yourselves.

Posted by: dp284 at August 17, 2005 5:47 PM

"If the leaders of this country and the military were a "faction of criminals" which they demonstrably are not except in the fevered brainpans of the fringes who lost the last election for what was once a decent and honorable party."


--Yeah. Now 62% of Americans are against the war. For good reasons. You can't see that, you're nothing. Enjoy being on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: Dave G. at August 17, 2005 5:56 PM

I wonder if Osama and his crew are prancing around in slick fashion like our hero's. We're doomed.

Posted by: tinkletoes at August 17, 2005 5:58 PM

Good joke.

i think it would be better if, instead of "popped her one", Condi said "I sent her to Gitmo and had her tortured". Cuz that's funny too.

Posted by: dai at August 17, 2005 5:59 PM

There are some real sick f*ck trolls on this thread.

Tell me, which part of "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" don't you understand?

I'd sure hate to be in your shoes after the next attack...

Posted by: rickl at August 17, 2005 7:26 PM

A punch from Condie. Man, that's worse than being short-shackled to the floor in your own filth! Ouch! C'mon, quit it! Someone will get hurt!

Posted by: Douche Gasbag at August 17, 2005 7:26 PM

"2) If the leaders of this country and the military were a "faction of criminals" which they demonstrably are not"

So, has anyone figured out where the missing $9,000,000,000 (give or take) in Iraqi reconstruction money went? And what was up with the $3,500,000,000 in cash taken out of a NY federal bank and flown over to Iraq in a few C-130s? Do ya think the leaders of this country and the military had anything to do with it?

I'm sure they kept the reciepts, just in case anyone asks.

Otherwise, joking about punching the mother of a dead soldier because she has the audacity to want to know what the latest reason for his death is - comedy gold. I can't wait to see how well it plays down at the local VFW.

Posted by: Thumb at August 17, 2005 7:48 PM

Gerard,

If she was the only woman who ever lost a son in war which, by our own count and the loses of the Iraqis to our enemy she is not.

So everyone will have to get together in one big room and chant in unison to convince you? Oddly, that's exactly what we're working on.

Posted by: Jape at August 17, 2005 8:07 PM

George acts like he's scared in that gag. Is that the joke? George is a big fraidy? Is it that peacniks don't hit back? Is it a Three Stooges thing? Is it ironic? Funny things are usually ironic. Maybe it's so stupid it's funny.

Posted by: luigi at August 17, 2005 8:25 PM

I, hieronymous braintree (not my real name), have returned from a meditation of things historic and actual to share these penetrating thoughts with all here assembled:

"Dear Uber Boy, [Note that by the use of the word "uber" I immediately assign the person I am addressing into the Nazi party thus liberating myself from anything resembling actual thought. What follows is, at bottom, just a playback of a tape loop that runs in my brain day and night.]

Thank you so much for your weak response. And now that the genialities [sic] ["uber"and "weak" were my attempts at rational discourse.] are out of the way, would you mind explaining to everyone why you think the image you posted was supposed to be funny? [Translation: please accomplish the impossible and explain humor.] I think it's time you got around to that. [Translation: I set the agenda here.] I mean, exactly what is so boffo [I was trying for "buffo" -- meaning comedy on the operatic level, but defaulted to "boffo" -- meaning "extremely great" because my command of English is not quite up to snuff. ] about having the Condi Rice say that she "popped" Cindy Sheehan? [If the humor had been "buffo" in the sense of the Comeddia del Arte, the use of slapsticks and pigs bladders could have entered into "popped," but alas it was only 'boffo' so I must retreat from this point.] Also could you please explain what's behind the concept of Sheehan calling Rumsfeld a Jew? [In this I admit I have not read or refuse to admit into my memory banks the numerous statements of Ms. Sheehan concerning Israel and the Jews.Nevertheless, I shall continue to treat the existence of Israel as an ongoing irritation.]

About another point of yours. Yes, it is true that some bloggers are soldiers in Iraq. What I want to know is what's stopping you from becoming one too? [Here again, I trot out the tired and lame argument that all must get going to the war if one wants to speak of the war in positive terms. This is, as it is with all of my ilk, a strict requirement.] If your support the war is so passionate that you think the idea of beating the crap out of a prominent opponent is good clean fun [And here I admit it is a bit cleaner than just car-bombing them and a hundred other civilians into wet chunks of bloody meat as the heroes of the "Resistance" have been doing on a daily basis] then I think you'd want to enlist rather than hiding behind other people who have. [Here I admit that the function and meaning of an all volunteer army is beyond my comprehension. I would indeed prefer no army at all.]

Also, and I hope I'm not going too fast, [5 mph in the fast lane is note actually, well, "fast" but I am pushing the pedal to my mental metal. ] merely saying in advance that you're going to "edit" people's comments does not in any way change the fact that distorting them makes you look like an intellectual Percy boy incapable of handling criticism that hasn't been self-servingly molested beforehand. [And now I'd like to take about fifteen days off to adjust my medication and parse that last sentence to the best of my limited ability.]

But that's a minor point. [Said in a very minor key.] What I'm really interested in is why you think you're being funny and why you refuse to enlist. [In this I again confess to my utter ignorance of the writer and the requirements for service in today's all volunteer armed forces. ] If this war is as important and noble as you seem to think I'd expect you to rush to it. But you haven't have you? Why? [Why? Why? Why? Why? The questions echo in my brain to the bells, bells, bells, bells, bells. To the chiming of the infernal bells, I tell you! Hurts. Hurts. Make it stop!]

Now stop hiding and answer the questions. [Or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll...]

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 17, 2005 9:18 PM

It's a small world for hieronymous braintree, but somebody's got to edit it.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 17, 2005 9:51 PM

"Tell me, which part of "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" don't you understand?"

The part where Bush and the GOP have done any good at all in the fight against terrorism.

Bush ignores every single warning about 9/11, including "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." in August 2001. No, he goes on another month-long vacation, instead of doing anything about that.

Then the U.S.A. gets hit by Bin Laden, because Bush and company did NOTHING to prevent it.

But then Bush lets Bin Laden escapes, instead deciding to start a war in another country entirely....which gets many of our soldiers killed, just to create up an Iran-type Islamic government.

Meanwhile Bush walks around his ranch HOLDING HANDS with Princes from Saudii Arabia, the country which spawned the anti-American Wahabi sect, and the country from which nearly every single 9/11 terrorist hailed. He holds their hands, even though they BEHEAD people in that country for saying anything against extreme Islamism.

THAT's the part I missed -- where chickenhawk Bush and the GOP actually FOUGHT the real war on terror.

But you idiots are so busy worshipping this traitor Bush that you just don't care that he ignores REAL securiry, and continually screws this country over. He'd rather HOLD HANDS with his rich Saudii pals.

You're a bunch of sheep.

Posted by: Semper Fi Patriot at August 18, 2005 12:09 AM

That is low, down there with the sharkshit.

Would you be willing to debate Ms Sheehan for a TV audience of millions. Think about it - would you?

Are there minor van Leuns? Are they enlisted? Would you have been happy for them to have bought it for whatever war reason from the smorgasbord you have a preference for?

Are there senior van Leuns? Are they proud of such a son? Are you sure?

Perhaps they are. There seem to be whole classes of you over there who are just unmoored from the common sense of the world.

I feel a comeupppance coming, er, up.

Posted by: Glenn Condell at August 18, 2005 1:22 AM

The captions really are funny. Just not for the reason intended.
The idea Condi would pop anyone is indeed ludicrous. Let us not forget it was Condi who sat talking quietly with the "president" of Niger while the American press people were manhandled.

Posted by: Rick at August 18, 2005 1:24 AM

You might enjoy this one too.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/20153/5209

Posted by: rachel at August 18, 2005 3:27 AM

USA in Iraq: Jesus Weeps, SATAN laughs!

Posted by: Rev. J.C. Dove, jr. at August 18, 2005 4:14 AM

Hey, you guys. You will really dig this.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/08/18/keyboard-kommando-komix-presents/

Posted by: Dutch Reagan at August 18, 2005 4:44 AM

Van Der Leun? What was this man's family doing in WWII? Were they Dutch collaborators? I think somebody should check into his family background. I'll bet they weren't in the Dutch resistance. Literary agent. An agent with an extra helping of pomposity.

Posted by: Spike Bush at August 18, 2005 4:48 AM

I remember MS Paint.

Posted by: Great Job at August 18, 2005 4:49 AM

Good day to you, Sir. I have been reading your fine site and I must say you write beautifully, yet forcefully, for a man who wears Gucci loafers without socks, white slacks and pastel colored shirts. It's the kind of flowery, high sounding, long winded prose we offer in our publication and on our website. If you would be interested in contributing to our effort, we'd love to have you. Please contact us here:

http://www.jbs.org/


If not, may I interest you in a subscription to our print publication, The New American?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/cat_index_1.shtml

Posted by: John Birch at August 18, 2005 5:13 AM

Dear Uber Boy,

If I'm as big a lame-o ass as you've been implying, why not let others see my original prose so I can have a fair hearing and then eviserate it after the fact? That's the way it's usually done, isn't it? If you're as correct as you think you are and I'm as stupid as you think I am then taking me apart should be a piece of cake, no?

FYI: Sheehan denies making those anti-Israli remarks you say justifies the "Jew" Rumsfeld remark (after lamely claiming that humor can't be explained): http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/16/acd.01.html. ABC hasn't been able to find that quote so many wing nuts have been bandying about.

I therefore challenge you to find the original quote where Cindy Sheehan made that remark about her son dying for Israel and not America.You say there are "numerous" quotes. It shouldn't be hard for you to find an original source for at least one of those qoutes, assuming you aren't talking completely out of your ass. If no such original source exists then that means you have been quoting right-wing propaganda thus justifying my Nazi comparisons since making up false quotes for impassioned morons like you to pass along is classic Joesph Goebbels' type shit.

Despite all the gas expended, you still haven't explained why YOU haven't enlisted. Instead you complain about the so-called lameness of the question or say that others are in Iraq. Or you fall back on that old right-wing chestnut that it's unfair to expect every supporter to enlist when the problem is how few loud-mouth supporters of the war actually have. There's a big manpower shortage in the army, son. If this war is as important as you think it is then it is your DUTY to enlist rather than let others do their dying for you. (It would be, of course, hard on all of us if you actually got killed but, even so, I imagine that we'd find some way to go on without you.) You have repeatedly failed to answer the question. It is clear that you are never going to answer the question. My personal working assumption is that it's because you're a coward and are simply too dishonest to admit it.

Hope you find some way to get that ever-expanding yellow stain out of your undies.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 18, 2005 7:05 AM

I heard there was a joke on this page. I found it:
"N.B.: Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged"

Posted by: Gazzer at August 18, 2005 8:26 AM

Wow. Quite an infestation of Moonbats you've got -- time to spray, again.

I still do not understand, Maureen Dowd aside, why the opinion of this particular mother who has lost a son in Iraq is being presented [and taken] as more valid than the opinions of any other mothers who have lost sons or daughters in Iraq?

Could it be that she is being presented so professionally by ANSWER/ CodePinko/ War Profiteer MMoore/ Joe Trippi/ et al to an eager and willingly complicit MSM?

Doesn't any one of you smell a manufactured rat?

[Sharper than a sack of wet mice, these Moonbats...]

Posted by: Claire at August 18, 2005 10:16 AM

From my email stack. this note from Rusticus. @ http://solarvoid.com :

"I think this crowd is hopeless. They've all had their humor centers removed and replaced with 'Dour Shock and Hatred of all things on the Right' and the Mere Idea of someone mocking a Holy Member of the most Sainted Left is just beyond the Pale.

"A simple litmus test that I am sure you use is this: What if the situation was reversed? Well, they would fall over themselves laughing at the spectacle of the a member of Evil Right getting their much deserved Comeuppance.

"A shame they never had this moral outrage as Saddam's rape and torture rooms were in full swing. But that's the 'reality based' crew for you. "

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 18, 2005 10:25 AM

Attila,

I followed a Wolcott link in full expectation of finding some pathetic "rush-like" attempt at humor.
I was pleasantly surprised. It's funny and I'm glad. I would like to suggest to my left leaning bretheren that regardless of one's history or intention; when that person becomes a public, political figure, no "sacred cow" status can be observed. Who among my liberal friends protesting here has not had a good laugh at the expense of Jesus? Left or Right, funny is funny, ugly is ugly and hypocrisy is... well, you get my point. Thanks for the chuckle.
Kelly Scott, Princeton TX

Posted by: Kelly Scott at August 18, 2005 11:04 AM

I don't know what's worse... your pathetic attempt at "humor," or the fact that you think it's defensible.

I have to respectfully disagree, Kelly. A joke can go "too far." Regardless of how you feel about Sheehan's actions, this is just disgusting. And simply not funny.

Posted by: Paul the Spud at August 18, 2005 11:15 AM

"A joke can go "too far." "

"The Aristocrats" ... see it.... right now.

Do it for the children.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 18, 2005 11:22 AM

"A shame they never had this moral outrage as Saddam's rape and torture rooms were in full swing. But that's the 'reality based' crew for you."

An absurd canard, and pardon my French here but I don't mean a duck. There was plenty of outrage on both sides of the political spectrum, even back when Rummy was grinning and shaking hands with our former friend in Baghdad. To deny this is fantasy.

The moral outrage stems from being lied to (WMDs, Iraqi links to Al Qaeda, etc.) and having to pay the ultimate price (1,862 and counting). Make fun of whomever, I don't give a s---. Let the leftards and rightards keep the blinders on too, I couldn't care less. Let's just pull our heads out of our anuses from time to time and acknowledge that there are such things as facts.

Now back to sawing on that fiddle, y'all, because something's burning.

Posted by: dped at August 18, 2005 11:31 AM

We're pleased you had the manners to at least light a match.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 18, 2005 11:39 AM

"I still do not understand, Maureen Dowd aside, why the opinion of this particular mother who has lost a son in Iraq is being presented [and taken] as more valid than the opinions of any other mothers who have lost sons or daughters in Iraq?"

Of course you don't understand, your premise is backwards. Let me try and help you out. Try reading it out loud to yourself if you miss this the first time through.

You're correct in one sense, the opinion of one grieving mother is no more or less valid than that of the 1,800+ other mothers who have lost a son (or daughter) in Iraq. The reason this woman is getting all this attention is because Bush is unable to answer her questions; What are Americans dying for in Iraq? What exactly is this "noble cause" we hear about? Were Bush man enough (or intelligent enough) to have met her and answered her questions Cindy and her story would have disappeared before it made the local rag.

However I can certainly understand your confusion. Because the story is really about George Bush and not Cindy Sheehan, and in a most unflattering way, the talking heads of the right have been forced to feed this to their intellectually challenged supporters (aka their base) as a story about Sheehan instead. The cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is a normal response to conflicting realities. I'm surprised you haven't gotten used to it yet.

Posted by: Thumb at August 18, 2005 11:53 AM

Thumb presents us with a casebook study on how inferior education teaches dumb people to seem smart.

First, reverse the premise. Gets things off to a slanted start smartly.

Second, tell the person you're addressing to 'read aloud.' This knocks them down a peg or two in the intellectual pecking order (Something essential, and very common, to the educated dumb.)

Third, imply agreement. "You are correct in one sense" This allows the smarmy tone to enter. Something you will clutch to your bosom until the bitter end.

Fourth, withdraw agreement and begin the pivot to the classic "Bush Lied!" posture (One certain to keep your faction powerless in the next two national election and, hence, must be encouraged.) From this stance you free yourself to begin typing in the text of the tape loop and rattle off the list of rhetorical questions answered time and again with no deposit into your memory banks. Assert that a 'simple meeting' (with lots and lots of cameras) would have quelled the thirst for this shameful summer mediafest.

Fifth, squat into condescension with the "I can certainly understand your confusion" phrase. Then assert that thousands of headlines with the words "Cindy Sheenan" in them have nothing to do with her and her acolytes.

Sixth, be sure to make the point for the Nth time that those who see the world differently are "intellectually challenged." Every last one of them.

Seventh, as you exit be sure to use a cutting edge phrase such as "cognitive dissonance" to assure yourself that you have, by God, been educated!

Eighth, get off the stage before your argument dims.

Oops, not fast enough.

Next!

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 18, 2005 12:11 PM

A joke starring the architects of the new Islamic Republic of Iraq.

How cute!

Posted by: Pug at August 18, 2005 12:20 PM

I remember hearing about Saddam's rape room and feeling angry because of the fact that he was our ally and that we did so much to help him solidify power during the Reagan and early Bush administrations by sellling him arms, including biological and chemical weapons, etc. I mean it isn't as if we didn't know he was a son of a bitch.

And I think we should all be a little embarassed by the fact that Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney made millions off of Hussein when he was CEO of Halliburton: http://www.purewatergazette.net/dick&saddam.htm

Still, there is a large and growing shortage of military manpower, isn't there? Anybody here who still believes in this war want know the single best way to support our troops (besides demanding their withdrawl so they won't keep getting killed for no good reason)? Become one yourself!

It's called putting up or shutting up. Otherwise insensitive-type people might think you're a coward or something.

Now as to this idea that jokes can't be explained. Bullshit. Take the old why-did-the-chicken-cross-the-road? That's supposed to be funny because the set-up promistes some witty, unexpected answer but deliveres a prozaically logical one instead. The Black Knight sequence in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is based on the idea that some people will refuse to admit when they're licked no matter how absurdly hopeless their situation becomes (gee, wonder what made me think of that one). The Aristocrats suprises us with its unexpectedly brilliant commentary on the sexual morality of nobility while perversely justifying describing the most appalling conduct imaginable in the most lavishly graphic terms.

But I just don't get why Condoleeza Rice "popping" Cathy Sheehan is supposed to be funny. I mean, Uber Boy was able to explain why "'Jew' Rumsfeld" was supposed to be funny, even though it appears to have been based on a lie. I'd still like to know why "popping" a grieving, angry mother whose son died in a war that was based on a bunch of lies is supposed to tickle our funny bones. Do tell us, Uber Boy.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 18, 2005 12:23 PM

"Thumb presents us with a casebook study on how inferior education teaches dumb people to seem smart."

Ahh, projection. The hallmark of those who have mastered the fine art of mimicking intelligence. Touché.

I should add though, in spite of what you thought you read into what I said I didn't suggest Bush lied, I simply said Bush wasn't man enough (or smart enough) to diffuse the Sheehan affair before it turned into a media circus. Next time I'll try harder in advance to better fulfill your Leftist Clichés. My bad)

Posted by: Thumb at August 18, 2005 12:55 PM

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122

But, you know, canard! canard!

Posted by: Rusticus at August 18, 2005 1:09 PM

[From the above linked and ever Fair and Balanced Wall Street Journal editorial page]

"Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too."

Wasn't Sheehan's entire point that Bush wouldn't [couldn't?] tell her, and by extension the rest of us, exactly what that mission is?

Posted by: Thumb at August 18, 2005 1:22 PM

Ho ho ha ha ha! Rusticus, you're my favorite martyr, and quacking in your native French. But your head still appears to be missing.

Posted by: St Denis at August 18, 2005 1:28 PM

No, she talked with him last year. They chatted. He gave an answer, he talked with her. She left.

Not accepting or liking an answer isn't the same as not receiving one.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003204.htm

Posted by: Rusticus at August 18, 2005 1:29 PM

"No, she talked with him last year."

What is it with rightwingers and reading comprehension? I never said she never talked to president Bush, I said Bush wasn't man enough or smart enough to be able to answer a simple question; Why?

Posted by: Thumb at August 18, 2005 3:45 PM

The Aristrocrats becomes tedious around minute 50.

This is tedious upon first viewing.

Posted by: Big Worm at August 18, 2005 3:48 PM

Cause we's stoopid. My IQ hovers at 90, and that's going downhill with the wind to my back!

See, let's follow along fer a second, and only a second cause the NASCAR is comin' on and...

Where was I? Oh.

Small bite: "Wasn't Sheehan's entire point that Bush wouldn't [couldn't?] tell her". But he did. She talked with him last year. She has now decided that the answer he gave last year wasn't good enough.

See? Is that hard?

Question asked, answer given, and, like that sweater Auntie gave last Christmas, it was make to feel welcome during the unwrapping with the relatives looking on, but now, sadly, it has been swept into the back of the closet and the memory suppressed. And now the demand for a new sweater! Er, answer!

Sorry, must go, someone's coming by to wipe the drool off of my chin. Ta!

Posted by: Rusticus at August 18, 2005 3:54 PM

Cindy is a ditchwitch who rode the dead body of her son right into the limelight. My sympathy died for her the minute it was obivious she was a lying sack of liberal cr*p!

Posted by: cabie at August 18, 2005 6:26 PM

Rusticus, save the physical effort on the chin wiping. All the drool to be dealt with is in your epistolary persona, which makes us wonder why you don't take up radio. No one said you're an idiot, so go flash your NASCAR credentials in the mirror the next time you're wanking.

Maybe Sheehan has changed the way she thinks about the whole rotten, stinking, useless mess. You claim to be a simple fellah, what could be simpler than that? Maybe she wasn’t satisfied with the answer. Maybe she just changed her mind. (I hear that’s all the rage in places where people don’t care about website traffic or getting reelected.) What are you, some kind of thought cop?

And no, to answer your question, it’s not “that hard.”

“She has now decided that the answer he gave last year wasn't good enough.”

So have plenty of other people, me bucko, so you’d better get used to it.

Posted by: dped at August 18, 2005 8:29 PM

"No one said you're an idiot..."

Oh no, y'all are much too sharp to type it clearly.

Ahem.
"Ho ho ha ha ha! Rusticus, you're my favorite martyr, and quacking in your native French. But your head still appears to be missing."

Head missing.

"What is it with rightwingers and reading comprehension? "

Poor reading comprehension.

"...NASCAR credentials in the mirror the next time you're wanking."

I wank off to NASCAR creds? Or something. But I must need the use of a mirror!

But yeah, specifically no one said "Rusticus, you are an idiot." I guess I'm just too dumb not see that the insults and barbs weren't really saying that at all!

"Maybe she just changed her mind." Oh, I agree, she did change her mind, but the question posed that I attempted to answer wasn't about that. It was, to quote Thumb himself "I said Bush wasn't man enough or smart enough to be able to answer a simple question; Why?"

And my response was that he had. A year ago. Sheehan is no longer happy with that, but ignoring the answer doesn't mean there wasn't one given.

And, simply, was my point. Well, my point aside from the one on my head. Which doesn't exist. But rest assured, had I had a head, it would be pointy.

"What are you, some kind of thought cop?"
Bingo! You caught me! You sly fox you!

"So have plenty of other people, me bucko, so you’d better get used to it."

Used to it? I relish it! Nothing scares politicians more than the thought of losing voters and there seems to a bailing from both camps to the other which, despite the solemn tone of MSM telling us that the big mean Republicans are losing, means polls are increasingly meaningless, which leads the Incumbent Party (Dems and Repubs) to start shooting from the hip. And that just makes them more transparent to the American people. My dear sir, nothing pleases me more than having the politicians running scared!

The fact that people are demanding answers, after answers have been given time and time again, will only show the mettle of the Bush administration according to their reactions to this tempest in a tea cup.

I support the Republican Party simply because they, at least nominally, support the principles of the republic. Should the Democrats purge themselves of their moonbats, shake off socialism and embrace those principles with more fervor and action than the Republicans, you'll find me denouncing the Republicans and voting Democrat.

But that's as likely as you humorless twits laughing at your Sacred Cows.

Well I am off to practice my theater faces for my radio debut! Thanks for the inspiration, I see now the country needs my mug beaming out at them from the airwaves!

Posted by: Rusticus at August 18, 2005 10:42 PM

Gerard,

Which one linked to you?

Posted by: Juliette at August 19, 2005 1:48 AM

The problems with Cindy Sheehan are as follows: 1) Her "absolute moral authority" is based in the sacrifice and valor of someone other than herself; 2) She has transformed herself from grieving mother to political activist, and in doing so she makes herself fair game for the kind of scrutiny, skepticism, and jokes that any other politician... or shill... should expect; 3) She is being used by the American left as a tool in their relentless propagandizing for the enemy our soldiers now face in the field, and by allowing that to happen, has become a traitor to the ideals her son volunteered to serve.

Dissent is fine. But when dissent becomes a useful tool for those who seek to harm our country and our soldiers, it has crossed the line into treason. Cindy Sheehan has crossed that line... and she has plenty of company.

The fact is, at this point, the left needs to accept the fact that like it or not, we are in Iraq, and the best path home is victory. Can it be done? Of course.

Don't let the irrational, sport-fan style hatred you have for GWB, blind you to the consequences of failure in Iraq... and the guilt you will bear should that day come.

Posted by: TrunkMonkey at August 19, 2005 7:40 AM

Dear Trunk Monkey,

1) So you don't think losing your son in a needless war doesn't constitutse a real sacrifice, eh? My was a callous little lout you are. Please make sure you tell everyone you know about your opinion.
2) Seeing as we were lied into this war by our president why shouldn't Cindy Sheehan become a political activist? You mean that's not appropriate? Since Uber Boy's clammed up maybe you could could explain to everyone why "popping" a woman whose son died for no good reason is supposed to be funny.
3) the American left are her natural political allies. Allies who were right about the inadvisability of starting this war in the first place and the fact that the original justifications were a pile of crap. It was your side that was wrong. Remember? I's pretty sure that that doesn't count for much with you but to the "reality-based community" being right counts for a lot.

BTW, how old are you and when do plan on enlisting? Seeing as there's a manpower shortage volunteering your own ass seems like the most practical and sincere way for you to help find that "path home to victory" you mentioned. You might also want to show everyone how smart you are by explaining what that path is as long as you're bloviating at the expense of someone who has actually made a horrific sacrifice. In fact, as long as you're at it, you might also take a crack at answering Cindy Sheehan's question: What did her son die for? WMDs? To get even for Saddam attacking us on 9/11? Do tell us!

Once you've answered all that, then you can go back to herocially attacking the grieving mother of a son who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 8:14 AM

Posts that exceed the stupidity and mendacity limits will be left untouched so that all can experience the tedious irrationality of the right.

Posted by: commie atheist at August 19, 2005 8:17 AM

You know, I'm still waiting for you super-duper-uber patriots to tell me when you intend to enlist so you can share the same risks that Casey Sheehan did.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 10:12 AM

"Bush lied." Check.
"chickenhawk." Check.
"Support the troops by bringing them home." Check.
"reality-based community." Check.

Well, I think you hit all the discredited moonbat talking points.

Oh, wait. You missed one. The correct answer was "... a son who made the ultimate sacrifice for Chimpy McBushitlerCorp."

Great effort, though. Keep trying.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 19, 2005 10:17 AM

You are waiting, my little None? Well, pack a lunch, stamp your little feet, and hold your breath. That is, if you can multitask to the level of 3.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 19, 2005 10:20 AM

Of course the author of this photoshop masterpiece sent it from their barracks in Baghdad, right? Or were they back home "fighting the war of ideals".

Posted by: Jim Webb at August 19, 2005 10:45 AM

Ignore the fact that Bush DID lie? Check.

Ignore the fact that while you think the war's just ducky for others to fight, you're too much of a coward to volunteer for it yourself? Check.

Don't care that our troops are getting killed for no good reason? Check.

Idiotically mocking our side for noting the fact that we were right about Iraq and you were wrong? Check.

Being too much of an dick-head to realize that this a problem? Check.

Mocking the death of a soldier who died in the cause you refuse to risk your own neck for? Check.

It's official, Uber Boy. You're a perfect asshole. Oh, and by the way, that yellow stain which was formerly restricted to your undies has now succeeded in reaching your socks. You may want to remember that the next time you're thirsty.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 11:15 AM

Oh, Uber boy. You said that all my "talking points" were "discredited". You want to prove that I'm an asshole? Explain to us exaclty how it is that they've been discredited. Let's see you try and back up your assertions using facts and logic. It's an unfair request, I know but — what can I say? — I'm a bastard.

My guess is, being the insipid little coward that you are, you'll ignore my challenge and toss out some more of your typically inane supposed wise cracks in the pathetic expectation that nobody's going to notice.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 11:28 AM

Insults, circular reasoning, and heart-wrenching confessions about your mother's morality will not avail you. It is true that out-of-wedlock birth is one of the primary hindrances to being either clear-headed or successful in life, but you needn't parade that here.

And I have no desire to prove you are an a**hole. You need no assistance in that regard.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 19, 2005 11:47 AM

Oh, and one more thing. Calling a "talking point" a "moonbat" talking point, does not count as using facts or logic.

I felt it was necessary to clear this point up for your specific benefit.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 11:50 AM

I'm come to the conclusion that these wingnuts will just spew whatever garbage that fox news and talk radio and their wingnut bloggers say. They're hopeless. Fortunately most Americans are beginning to see through King George's Bullshit.

Posted by: Yankee Democrat at August 19, 2005 11:58 AM

As, I suspected.

I asked you to show that Bush did not lie. You did not do that.
I asked you to explain why it's morally all right for others to serve but not you. You did not do that.
I asked you to explain why Cindy Sheehan's question as to why her son had to die was not a reasonable question. You did not do that.
I asked you to explain what Casey Sheehan died for. You did not do that.
I asked you to explain why "popping" Cindy Sheehan was supposed to be funny. You did not do that.

I predicted that you would respond with lame wise-cracks. You DID do that.

You're not a patriot. You're a wimp, a gasbag and a coward.

And, most of all, you're pathetic.

And even if you censor this post — which, coward that you are, I fully expect you to do — there's more than enough left over to make that plain to anyone who isn't a severely deluded wingnut.

Ta, Sweetheart. Thirsty yet?

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 12:01 PM

Oh, and one other thing. The idea of a guy who fancies himself a comic wit and who started this whole thing by making a joke about his enthusiasm for beating the mother of a soldier who died for his country complaining that he's the victim of insults? That' fucking hilarious.

Did I mention that I think you're pathetic?

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 12:09 PM

I hereby delcare Hieronymous Braintree the winner of this thread!

Nice work, Hieronymous!

Posted by: wendy wonka at August 19, 2005 12:15 PM

Typical. Berate someone who wants to know why her son had to die for a lie; for some New England establishment upper class twit's vanity war; so Karl Rove could make Bush look like a "war president." Keep wrapping that flag, you might keep reality out for a while.

Posted by: David at August 19, 2005 12:26 PM

Look! I found the reason Cindy Sheehan's son had to die! And all I had to do was take a closer look at Uber Boy's blog. (And he isn't really a boy - he could have come right out and said that he's too much of an oldster to serve. I don't think there's any rule about being too ugly, though). Check out this link:

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/002917.php

The title? WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ : Military Bases Are A Requirement, Democracy is Merely an Elective.

So you see it wasn't because Saddam was behind 9/11 or had a working relationship with OBL or because he was going to nuke us or because Saddam was a bad buy. It wasn't even to install democracy. No. According to Uber Boy it was to put military bases in Iraq! And Cindy Sheehan is upset just because she was told it was supposed to be because all that other stuff? I mean, what a cunt, right? No wonder UB wants to "pop" her one. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to.

FYI, Uber Boy. That was sarcasm. Just wanted to make sure were clear on that.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 12:38 PM

I believe the onus is on you to prove he DID lie.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 19, 2005 1:01 PM

Are you serious?

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 1:05 PM

Yes. Yes, I am.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 19, 2005 1:34 PM

Wow. You're either incredibly stupid and ignorant or are pretending to be incredibly stupid and ignorant which, as a practical matter, pretty much works out to the same thing. In fact, I think I already know what your game is. Your strategy is to play the moron and challenge everything I say, no matter how much it ranks as common knowledge while offering little if anything in the way of facts or logic to support your own position. I've been around, son. It's a strategy I call winning through stupidity.

Now, as a political matter, the onus is on your side for no other reason than the fact that a majority of Americans (57%) agree with me that Bush did in fact lie. Here's the link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=885745

And here's the third paragraph of the article in full:

"A record 57 percent also now say the administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Views such as these cut to the administration's basic credibility and competence, vital commodities as Bush tries to turn public opinion in a more favorable direction. He speaks tomorrow night, the first anniversary of the handover to an interim Iraqi government."

I hope you're not going to claim that most Americans are disloyal or (ulp!) liberal or anything like that. Or try to insist that "intentionally exaggerate" isn't the same thing as lying. That would just be too tedious for words.

Now I am not going to go over every single GD lie that Bush uttered because, frankly, I don't think you're worth the trouble. As polls show, only the most hopeless, irredeemable, wing-nut or ignorant fat head thinks that GWB has been truthful and I'm only willing to waste so much time arguing with another pin-head after I've already squandered too much time on Uber Boy. I've pretty much done what I wanted to do to this thread anyway. So let's do one. A big one. Let's take GWB's repeated assertions that war was a "last option." Do you honestly think he was telling the truth? Paul O'Neil doesn't think so. According to him Bush was angling for war with Iraq the day he got into office. Richard Clarke too says that they were looking for excuses to bomb Iraq either the day after 9/11 or the afternoon of 9/11. Then there are the Downing Street memos (seven so far) in which our closest ally was discussing about how jour administration had decided to go to war and was "fixing" the intelligence in 2002. That doesn't sound like "last option" stuff to me. Does that sound like treating war as a "last option" to you? Then there's the fact that we had inspectors on the ground and that Saddam was caving in and there was no reason why we couldn't have forced our way into any site we wanted inspect without having full-blown warfare (I am, it so happens, no reflexive dove).

But what did Bush do? He pulled out Hans Blix and company after Saddam had started caving. So much for the "last resort" jazz. Bush then later claimed that the reason we had to go to war was because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. (He also claimed to Polish TV that we had found WMDs but that's just a gratuitous bonus lie.)

Then there was the endless and deceitful tying of Saddam to 9/11 until polls showed that 70% of Americans were bamboozled into thinking he was responsible. War a last option? I don't think so.

I looke forward to your attempts to confuse the issue with your pridefully ignorant questions and ability to ignore or deny inconvenient facts and obvious inferences.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 2:22 PM

"N.B.: Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged"

So when will you be deleting yourself?

Posted by: Youza Tard at August 19, 2005 2:37 PM

Au contraire. I'm trying to clear the issue.

You assert that 57% of Americans think that "the administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

Absolutely nothing in that ABC cite proves the President lied. What it does prove is that if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it.

Considering that the removal of Saddam was an official US policy goal going back to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, it hardly seems ingenuous to argue that the invasion wasn't a last resort. Sanctions weren't working, and they were making Saddam and his cronies rich(er).

Also, the DSM "fixed around the policy" quote doesn't mean what you think it means; even the BBC admits that.

As for linking Saddam to 9/11, President Bush said in September 2003 that they didn't have any evidence of it.

Sorry if I missed anything; I'm in a hurry because I'm late for a weekend trip (if you'd waited six minutes longer, you'd have had the rebuttal all to yourself!). I'll be back here Sunday if you want to continue.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 19, 2005 2:50 PM

The real tragedy here is that the geopolitical goal of removing Saddam and installing a US friendly, politically and financially stable government in Iraq could have been achieved easily and efficiently. Unfortunately, the real Cheney-Rumsfeld policy goal here has been to raid the US treasury and line the pockets of power players in the energy industry (e.g., by "missing" reconstruction money in Iraq, generous no bid contracts, the complete and unilateral siezure of the Iraqi people's oil rights, and the elimination of all civil law in Iraq).

Take a look at the domestic price of gas and the oil companies' reported profits. Do you think electing oil industry lobbyists and CEOs to the executive branch may have something to do with this? Is it possible that this war was engineered merely as a form of domestic political patronage? Isn't possible that our entire system of government is entirely corrupt? How would you know if it were? Couldn't a corrupt leader hide under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy, using vast amounts of PR spending to suppress the truth?

If you are unwilling to honestly ask yourself these questions, why do you even bother thinking about politics at all? Can you even really call it "thinking" when all you do is think what you're told???

Posted by: Rhyleh at August 19, 2005 3:14 PM

See, I knew this was going to happen. I predicted you were going to be deliberately stupid and son of bitch you were.

Now, you're quite right that the fact that 57% of Ameicans think Bush lied doesn't prove that he factually did. But you want to know something, Sonny? That was never my point and I can prove it. If you'll just go back and read what I actually wrote — accurately this time — you'll see that I said "Now, as a political matter, the onus is on your side." See the words "political matter"? That means that most people don't believe you. That means that yours is the minority opinion which means you're seriously slipping because yours was once the majority opinion. That means your side is in trouble. And THAT'S why, as a "political" matter, the onus is on you. Try not to screw this one up again, OK?

"Considering that the removal of Saddam was an official US policy goal going back to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, it hardly seems ingenuous to argue that the invasion wasn't a last resort. Sanctions weren't working, and they were making Saddam and his cronies rich(er)."

Well, that certainly does it for me! I'll never forgive myself for missing this point! Saddam violated the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 by staying in power and that made war impossible to avoid! I guess WMDs and the Saddam/Osama bin Laden connection and the nuclear weapons we were assured he was just about to get was only so much window dressing. We HAD to go to war because of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 made not going to war impossible! Anybody but a fool can see that. I'm so glad that was all thoroughly explained as a driving reason before our soldiers started getting killed. Cindy Sheehan isn't just a cunt, she's a pussy. (Note: this insult is sarcasm directed at the expense of wing-nuts by mocking their world view, something I thought I'd mention for all of those with poor reading comprehension skills out there.)

And, of course, the premise of citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 has just oodles of credibility in view of how frequently GWB cited it as a necessary reason for going to war BEFORE 9/11.

I checked out that BBC link of yours. Guess what? It actually proves my point not yours. Here's the money quote:

"Several well placed sources have told us that Sir Richard Dearlove was minuted as saying: 'The facts and the intelligence were being fixed round the policy by the Bush administration.' 'By 'fixed' the MI6 chief meant that the Americans were trawling for evidence to reinforce their claim that Saddam was a threat. NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME THE FOREIGN SECRETARY QUESTIONED WHETHER THE THREAT WAS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INVASTION."

"Trawling for evidence" is the British equivalent of "cherry picking." So they're "trawling" for evidence to hype the threat of Saddam — which means they're ignoring evidence that he wasn't the threat he was cracked upt to be — yet, according to you this shows that the Bush administration wasn't fixing the evidence! Amazing how you deluded yourself into thinking that link actually supports your case. What a bozo! You are my new hero! This is pure wing-nut logic!

This next point is a little subtle and works against you, which is just my way of saying that there's probably not a chance in Hell you're going to get it. After all you completely missed the one about the onus being a "political matter" so I see no reason to have any confidence in your comprehensional abilities now. Yes, Bush did say that there was no Saddam/911 connection — but only after months of implying that there was. The article you sited confirms my claim that 70% believed the falsehood that Saddam was at least partially behind the attacks so at least we don't have to argue about that. Here's a quote from that article which you may prefer not to have quoted:

"Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.

"This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say."

Now why would they say that? I'll tell you why. It's because of all the other times Bush mentioned 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same breath. Here's a link from the God-hating Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Here are some relevant quotes;

"WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago."

snip...

"Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero."

And President Bush pulled that kind of shit for months. Until 70% of Americans believed their was a Saddam 9/11 connection.

Any advertising person will tell you that the key element to an effective message is repetition. So, George Bush admitted may one or two times that there was no Saddam/911 connection? Big fucking deal! That pales compared to all the times he tied them together. And if you say he didn't deliberately mean to make that impression anyone who isn't a wing nut is going to laugh in your face.

Anyway, I'm retiring from this thread. it's gotten old and I've proved that you're an idiot. Why should I waste any more time on a deluded twit like you? Say what you want. I've discredited you plenty already. I'll just leave you with one last thought:

How old are you and, assuming you're of military age, are you enlisted? Remember that being married and a parant is no excuse. Not when parents are currently serving. Or is your idea of "supporting the troops" behaving like an effing idiot?

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 4:19 PM

CDL, I just can't resist quoting you on the way out:

"[I]f you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it."

That's right, Son. And 70% of Americans believed there was a Saddam/911 connection thanks to the Bush Administration.

Posted by: hieronymous braintree at August 19, 2005 4:35 PM


1. Did you know the real reason why her husband divorced her? Well, the media won't report it, but we will.

"Court Restrained Cindy Sheehan From Camping Outside Her Home During Divorce (Part 1)"

3.

"Cindy Sheehan To Assess Zionist Doctors And Pres. Bush's Reckless Health Care Policies (Part 2)"

Posted by: dtlc at August 20, 2005 8:30 AM

VICTOR HANSON The Biteback Effect "Yet the United States itself has not changed its character under Republican hands. Its government and people are as they were, thus ensuring the more the Left lashes out about losing the republic, the more their charges seem strident and extremist — bringing them shame as the additional wage to their irresponsibility."

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 20, 2005 11:19 AM

Yet Victor Hanson himself has not changed his character under corporatist reporklican rule. His partisan bias's are as they were, thus ensuring the more the right lashes out at those who reject needless violence, the more his charges seem strident and extremist — bringing him shame as the additional wage to his irresponsibility.

Posted by: tinkletoes at August 20, 2005 5:08 PM

"VICTOR HANSON The Biteback Effect 'Yet the United States itself has not changed its character under Republican hands. Its government and people are as they were, thus ensuring the more the Left lashes out about losing the republic, the more their charges seem strident and extremist — bringing them shame as the additional wage to their irresponsibility.'"

I belive this is what they call The Echo Chamber.

Posted by: wendy wonka at August 20, 2005 6:22 PM

Here's a reality check for you right wingbat neo-con phucks .... YOU'RE LOOSING!

Everything you and your party touches is turning into pure bullcrap.

That's right, you're losers. Go back to WalMart, do not pass go, do not collect $200 - but feel free to pick up the latest Garth Brooks CD on your way through.

Posted by: Yera Tard at August 20, 2005 7:01 PM

Hummmm.... House. Senate. Presidency (2 times). And yet more to come nationally and throughout the states in 2006. Perhaps you really *did* mean to writer "LOOSING."

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 20, 2005 8:38 PM

Does crowing carry more weight when rendered in caps? Gee, let's try. CROWING. Hmmm, didn't really do it for me. Maybe small caps is the answer. Of course, one could frame witicisms in astersisks. Heck, let's try that too! *Crowing* Don't know about y'all (tip of the hat to Rusticus), but that didn't exactly achieve the desired effect either. Guess I don't get this Internets stuff.

Posted by: dped at August 20, 2005 10:03 PM

What? You're leaving? But I told you I'd be back tonight!

Your declaring victory does not make it so. And I know you'll be back; the thought of letting me and 'Uber Boy' have the last word, I'm willing to guess, is not acceptable to you.

Now, you're quite right that the fact that 57% of Ameicans think Bush lied doesn't prove that he factually did. But you want to know something, Sonny? That was never my point and I can prove it. If you'll just go back and read what I actually wrote — accurately this time — you'll see that I said "Now, as a political matter, the onus is on your side."

Sorry, I was so accustomed to arguing against "Bush lied!" as being shorthand for "Bush lied about WMD!" that I jumped to that conclusion. So are you admitting that the President didn't lie about WMD? 'Cause that would save me a lot of time.

But to counteract this meme, war supporters would have to scream louder than the legacy media and other war opponents. Given (for example) Howard Dean's proficiency in that regard, that would be a tall order indeed.

I'll never forgive myself for missing this point! Saddam violated the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 by staying in power and that made war impossible to avoid! I guess WMDs and the Saddam/Osama bin Laden connection and the nuclear weapons we were assured he was just about to get was only so much window dressing . . .. And, of course, the premise of citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 has just oodles of credibility in view of how frequently GWB cited it as a necessary reason for going to war BEFORE 9/11.

Was there a point in there? Now you're complaining that we had more than one good reason to invade Iraq, and that we DIDN'T do it pre-9/11?

And speaking of 9/11, here's :
"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago."

I always saw any discussion of Saddam in a 9/11 context as more of a 'two fronts of the same war' thing. I don't think he had anything to do with it; he and Bin Laden are pretty far apart ideologically. I think it's possible he did, depending on how much credence you put in the 'Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent' story. Apparently 45% of people surveyed were less nuanced on that point. As you note, that figure rose to 70% by September 2003, when the President (and Rumsfeld) explicitly said "There's no evidence Saddam was involved." If they were interested in maintaining the 'illusion' of a Saddam-9/11 connection, then there would have been no reason for them to say anything at all about it!

Really, though, it's a distinction without a difference. Hussein allowed Ansar al-Islam to operate in Iraq; their ties with al-Qaeda are well-established. So yeah, Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism, and Iraq was a logical place for aQ to try to recover after we removed Afghanistan as their sugar daddy.

"Trawling for evidence" is the British equivalent of "cherry picking." So they're "trawling" for evidence to hype the threat of Saddam — which means they're ignoring evidence that he wasn't the threat he was cracked upt to be — yet, according to you this shows that the Bush administration wasn't fixing the evidence!

OK, fine, I'll spell it out for you. The Butler Report's conclusion was that

In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.

(paragraph 449. Any typos are mine; the Report itself is a PDF)

The 9/11 Commission and the Senate SIC concluded the same thing.

As far as your question about my eligibility for military service, let's just say that I'm going to play out some more rope for you. Let me know when you think you have enough.

And about your little parting shot? Heck, I stopped using "I know you are, but what am I?" in third grade.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 21, 2005 8:08 PM

-- [Sorry. Not in my place.] --

Posted by: Praise Allah at August 21, 2005 8:29 PM

-- [Removed for violating the stupidity clause] --

Posted by: GWB at August 22, 2005 10:37 AM

-- [Removed for violating the stupidity clause. Second violation.]--

Posted by: GWB at August 22, 2005 10:40 AM

"Hummmm.... House. Senate. Presidency (2 times). And yet more to come nationally and throughout the states in 2006. Perhaps you really *did* mean to writer 'LOOSING.'"

I can't speak for Yera Tard, of course. But did you ever consider that maybe (s)he was referring to the Iraq War?

The Downing Street Memo was made public May 1st, 2005. The Butler Report came out July 2004. Yet Mr/Ms. Dangerous Logic claims that the Butler Report refutes the first Downing Street Memo even though it came out almost a year earlier. Likewise the 9/11 Commission and the Senate SIC came out before the DSMs. Who knew that official reports are supposed to be psychic?

Posted by: wendy wonka at August 22, 2005 12:27 PM

I must agree that the Iraq way is a bit loose, but I don't think we're losing.

Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun at August 22, 2005 1:22 PM

The DSMs were minutes of meetings in July of 2002. Note also that all the players in the DSMs, in particular Straw and Dearlove (the source of the 'fixed' quote), appear as witnesses consulted in the preparation of the Butler Report (p161 of the Report). So no psychicality (is that a word? it is now) was necessary.

And it's "Mr.," and thanks for asking.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 22, 2005 6:52 PM

Well, Mr. D, it's true that the DSMs would be from before 2004, the year of the Butler report. The start of the war was before 2004. They didn't become public knowledge until 2005. The reason they were such a big scandal in England is because they contradicted what people had already been told. Honest. You should have been there.

Politicians like Bill Clinton have shown that public statements can often be self serving and misleading. Politicians are politicians, Honey. As a matter of common sense, isn't straight talking more likely to appear in a confidential memo shared among intimates than whan the same politician is being interviewed by persnickity investigators?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to say no sale to this one, Sweetie.

Posted by: wendy wonka at August 22, 2005 9:06 PM

I was going to comment, but I see the maker of this self-defeating comic has already had his arse repeatedly handed to him. I almost feel sorry for him, but then I remember that he's as big a coward as that kid from Conneticut who reportedly runs our country.

Posted by: Saint Fnordius at August 23, 2005 4:28 AM

Ooh, I love the sweet talk. Keep it comin'.

The DSMs showed discussions about the question of whether intelligence had been manipulated. The Butler Report concluded that it hadn't.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 25, 2005 2:30 PM

If Bush was "lying" when he asserted that Iraq had WMD's, then
*Bill Clinton was lying;
*John Kerry was lying, and
*the British intelligence services were lying, because all of the above are on record as believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It is uncontested that Iraq has historically had, and used, WMD's. Iraq used chemical weapons extensively both against Iranian troops and against rebellious minority populations within Iraq. This has been acknowledged for decades throughout the world and across the political spectrum. It is not a matter of controversy.

During the runup to both the first and second Gulf Wars, Iraq's possession of WMD's was taken for granted by every combatant, due to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians. Once again, every commentator across the political spectrum assumed the possession of WMD's by Iraq. In fact, many opponents of the two Wars argued that Saddam's assumed possession of WMD's made war too dangerous. I suspect that many of these folks are now among those yelling that "Bush lied!"

After the destruction of the WTC Bush was confronted with one enemy (Al Qaeda) who had perpetrated mass murder of Americans and promised to do it again, and another enemy (Iraq) with a well known empathy for Islamist terrorism and with a record of using, not merely "having", WMD's.

To me, the situation looks parallel to the runup to the Second World War. Roosevelt was accused (accurately) of wanting to bring America into the war. However, he held back for reasons both political and prudential. Three US presidents (Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) held back on removing Saddam for the same reasons. Pearl Harbor changed the equation for Roosevelt, and the WTC changed the equation for Bush.

I do not believe Bush "lied" about Iraq; he may have been mistaken. Saddam may have ended and concealed Iraq's NBC weapons program in hopes of heading off an invasion. The cost of the mistake? A loss of American lives that would be absolutely dwarfed by the casualties of a successful WMD attack on an American city. Fighting a war is like walking into a dark room. Any wartime President will make errors. I voted for Bush in 2004 because I believed that it was better for a President to err in the direction of aggressiveness, rather than passivity, in dealing with our enemies. I still do.



Posted by: Milo at August 27, 2005 1:13 AM
Post a comment:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.










Remember personal info?