Comments on: Scummy Rummy

By: 54a281cb1a3d

54a281cb1a3d — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:59:10 +0000

54a281cb1a3d…

54a281cb1a3de815a7ac…

By: Ryan Designer

Ryan Designer — Tue, 15 May 2007 23:48:41 +0000

Ryan Designer…

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….

By: Tima

Tima — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:05:46 +0000

nice photos of this blog

By: emma

emma — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:42:54 +0000

cool blog!

By: Sara Wilson

Sara Wilson — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:55:18 +0000

Excuse, and what you think concerning forthcoming elections?

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:36:07 +0000

What is really contemptible about Bush is hius abject cowardice. On the one hand he says that will question the patriotism of those who oppose the war, but then he sends out Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to do just that.

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:50:06 +0000

The GOP is counting on Democrats to lack the courage to acknowledge that demonizing Arab despots is not a viable strategy.

The Republicans and their media allies will pound away at their theme: “Would you prefer that Saddam was still in power?” and variations on that theme, and, unfortunately, the most powerful, richest Democrats will shrink from opposing that.

It worked, against all odds, in 2004, and it may well do so in 2008, if the Democrats don’t grow a spine and start standing against demonization dogma.

By: Wall

Wall — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:56:17 +0000

I guess this “with us or agin us” stuff is gauling coming from the hack who screwed up big time; but come on, Republican politics without the flag baiting is a Grateful Dead Show with no gutiar solos. I’m sure other moderate repubs have had to grin and bear it while basicly being called weakings or traitors by their own party.

They own the stupid vote, they gotta play the dumb card. So just remember, during WWII, when Rosevelt cut taxes on the rich, told everyone to go shoping, and went after Hitler by attacking Spain, the Republicans remained the loyal opposistion.

By: Lurking Pedant

Lurking Pedant — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:53:10 +0000

[As Hannah Arendt so memorably outlined 60 years ago]

43, actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem

By: Marc Davidson

Marc Davidson — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:33:11 +0000

Ryan, do you still think we went to war because of chemical weapons? This is such bullshit. Don’t you remember how it started with the hype about the mushroom cloud and eventually degraded to a couple of weather balloon trailers? Give it a rest. WMD means nuclear weapons in everyone’s book. We’ve all seen what these people can do by twisting phrases like WMD and “freedom and democracy” to advance their dark agenda.

By: Michael Crosby

Michael Crosby — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:48:29 +0000

Colin Powell knows he ended his career when he puffed the evidence before the UN in order to incite its member nations into war. It was a political error and a personal sin, both of great magnitude. He made a number of calculations and risks, and pretty much the worst came about. All of the “doubtful” evidence he proferred as true turned out to be false. The honorable thing would have been to resign, but there was a chance that such an action itself would have barred him from further influence over the right-wing that dominated the Republican Party.

Funny thing is, if he had done the right thing, he would be a hero now and would be a serious contender for President. As it is, he is due for a mea culpa book and concomitant world lecture tour.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:54:34 +0000

Erroneous case? They’ve debunked that those trailers couldn’t be used for WMD? Zarqawi didn’t enlist in a Baathist militant regime (that was loyal to Saddam)? Really?

As a military commander, he was overreaching naturally because Saddam, like Iran, is trying to be as private as possible to conceal what they’re really doing.

I know what you’re thinking: I’m shilling the ad ignorantium argument. But since he was analyzing their potential, and that is part of analyzing Saddam’s goodies, I can’t fault him for assuming too much when they had quite an undertaking into WMD’s in the 90′s. You remember that Saddam actually had them right?

Clearly, it was erroneous because it didn’t prove that they were used for that purpose, but they did show that they were small chemistry labs – whether Powell showed they did actually make WMDs is irrelevant; what the * is Saddam doing with trailers that double as small chemical labs?????

By: Michael Balter

Michael Balter — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:38:28 +0000

“he has a lot more credibility than anyone at that level – Democratic or Republican.”

I’m sorry, but just saying it doesn’t make it so. This man went before the entire world and made an entirely erroneous case for WMD in Iraq, thus helping to launch a war that may end up sinking the Republicans and will have ramifications for us and our children and their children, all over the world. Let him run for pres, the Democrats can replay the videos.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:37:57 +0000

Michael,

he has a lot more credibility than anyone at that level – Democratic or Republican.

By: richard locicero

richard locicero — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:01:23 +0000

And does the name “Bernie Kerrick” mean anything to you? I know Chris Matthews is ga ga over “America’s Mayor” but do you really think a guy who is pro-choice, pro-gay and has had one of the really messy public divorces will get the vote of the biblers?

The GOP has nade its bed. They are where the Dems were in 1968 after LBJ sctrewed the pooch. Sorry, believers but the wilderness awaits you. Get used to it.

By: Michael Balter

Michael Balter — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:22:15 +0000

Ryan, my son, are you sure Colin Powell does not have a, um, er, credibility problem?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:12:03 +0000

The only salvation for Repub’s is Colin Powell or Rudy Giuliani to run. John Mccain is somewhat moot especially since he is trying to gather the support of the religuous base of the conservatives. My aforementioned candidates were either spurned or just plain untouched by the cowboy politics and still have major credibility. Note that both talk as if it was right to want to go into Iraq, but both were critical of actually going in there. I wonder if it’ll take someone like Russ Feingold or Chuck Schumer or Barak Obama to knock those two off.

I really hope Colin Powell runs.

Although the above Democratic candidates look damn fine considering the rule we’ve had the passed five years.

By: reg

reg — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:51:46 +0000

“Bush is betting the majority want leadership”

Sorry, but if he’s right about that, the GOPers are doomed.

By: Michael Balter

Michael Balter — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:36:52 +0000

Wow, amazing that we still get this song here. Let’s just take one of these:

“Bush is betting the majority want Iraq and Afganistan stablized so their democracies can succeed before bailing.”

Now, can we have a 5 year progress report on this, please?

By: Jim R

Jim R — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:04:58 +0000

Of course they have a political program to run on Marc. You just posted about it.

Bush is betting the majority want Iraq and Afganistan stablized so their democracies can succeed before bailing. Bush is betting the majority want Israel supported in their effort to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah. Bush is betting the majority want Korea and Iran dealt with.

Bush is betting the majority want leadership, not kicking the can down the road with appologies and appeasement delays. I’m betting he will be right.