Republicans say the darndest things

Reuters is reporting that federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald “appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments” this week, possibly including charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation over the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. If that’s not surprising, neither is the Republican’s typically hypocritical spin:

In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury — rather than for the underlying crime of outing a covert operative — as a “technicality.”

A technicality, huh? Oh… you mean like lying about a blowjob?

Yesterday on Meet the Press, Hutchinson accused Fitzgerald of trumping up perjury charges in an effort to show that “two years’ of investigation was not a waste of time and dollars.”

Hmm. So how does the Fitzgerald investigation compare to the four-year witch hunt that Ken Starr conducted against President Bill Clinton? Well, Armando reports on Daily Kos that Fitzgerald has spent $723,000 to date, whereas Starr spent $40,835,000 to catch a president lying about sex. Remember… Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, and everything else he investigated… and all he came up with was Monica’s stained blue dress. And a Republican Congress impeached a president for that.

So now that their ox is being gored, and Republicans start explaining away perjury as a “technicality”… I have to laugh.


  1. 1

    Jimmy spews:

    Was that not the most outragious thing. I was laughing up a storm. The Star investigation machine kept rolling on in search of something tangible (and never really got it). Yet Fitzgerald’s investigation has been tightly focused on the Plame outing and who had broken the law. Well… I guess Fitzgerald could be pretty sure that Bush has never had a blowjob. Convieniently keeping his investigation tidy.

  2. 2

    Felix Fermin spews:

    A friend who trends Democratic but is far less personally invested than me was over this weekend and we were discussing the pending indictments. I mentioned that I was concerned that the Rethugs were preparing the mother of all mudslinging campaigns against Fitzgerald. Sure enough, the NYTimes and WAPost report exactly that yesterday and today …

    My friend, who often provides me a reality check on my rantings, actually provided a welcome one this time … stating he thought the GOP smear machine has “jumped the shark” … i.e. their lies aren’t going to work anymore and that the media is not going to play along with the neocons.

    The mud is coming, no doubt, but it is too late to stop the cleansing winds of justice …

  3. 3

    Belltowner, formerly Swift Boat Vets For Universal Healthcare spews:

    They’re either liars or hypocrites, and they’ve chosen hypocrites. Perjury is a crime. Obstruction of justice is a crime. So let’s wait until the shoe drops, and have a Fitzmas party. (I’m bringing the spiced rum.)

  4. 4

    Larry the Urbanite spews:

    Sorry, Goldy, Daily Kos Beat u to the punch:

    This Sunday we got a preview of the GOP post-Fitzmas spin — that perjury isn’t a crime.

    Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

    The DSCC helpfully gathered the following quotes from 1999, when a certain set of Senators from a certain party were suffering heart palpitations from a certain president’s perjury.

    Sen. Frist: “There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors…Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor…The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice.” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Sen. Kyl: “…there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses…John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said `there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society’ than perjury, precisely because it `discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Sen. DeWine: “Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice…Perjury is also a very serious crime…The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth-so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies-so that injustice may prevail.” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Sen. Talent: “Nobody else in a position of trust, not a CEO, not a labor union leader, not a principal of a school could do half of what the president has done and stay in office. I mean, who would have said a year ago that a president could perjure himself and obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses… and stay in office.” [CNBC, “Hardball,” 12/19/98]

    Sen. McConnell: “I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors…Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice.” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Sen. Voinovich: “As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, `The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Sen. Hutchison: “The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overridding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy.” [AP, 2/12/99]

    Sen. Craig: “There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind, and the House managers have demonstrated these crimes were committed by the president. As for the excuses being desperately sought by some to allow President Clinton to escape accountability, it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution-something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president.” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Sen. Brownback: “Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government.” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Let’s see what kind of rhetorical contortions these (and other Republicans) engage in to justify their outrage over blowjob-fueled perjury while treason-fueled perjury is acceptable.

    Or, they can remain consistent and admit that obstruction of justice and perjury is a crime regardless who does it. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen

  5. 5

    Janet S spews:

    If Rove or Libby lied to the grand jury or covered up evidence, they ought to be convicted of a crime, and forced to resign.

    But this will be really stupid if this is all they are indicted on. If Fitzgerald can’t bring any charges directly related to outing a CIA agent, then they win that argument. But they lose the war.

  6. 6

    Belltowner, formerly Swift Boat Vets For Universal Healthcare spews:

    @ 4

    “But this will be really stupid if this is all they are indicted on.”

    We were thinking the same thing back in ’98

    “All Clinton leaked was on a Jewsih girl’s dress” -Bill Maher

  7. 7

    GBS spews:

    This is like the Watergate break in. It wasn’t some simple burglary, it was an attempt to subvert democracy by the Republicans.

    The outing of Valerie Plame isn’t some simple argument. It’s high treason, it involves going to war on the pretense of a lie, that lie being the attempted sale of yellow cake uranium. Joe Wilson debunked that as a forged document.

    What really begins to get deep in the pool of lies, but nobody in the MSM dares touch it, is WHO is behind the attempt to forge the documents that would implicate Iraq building nuclear weapons, and more importantly, WHY did they forge those documents?

    Who, would want the American public to think Iraq was, without a doubt reconstituting it’s nuclear program? Hmmmm. . .who would want Americans to think that?

    In addition, one would have to ask, that by outing a CIA NOC the CIA front company Brewster Jennings was exposed. The interesting part here, is that Valerie Plame, whose job it was to track the proliferation of real WMD’s was on the trail of financial institutions that were used by terrorists organizations. What’s even more strange is that companies with deep connections to the Bush family used those same murky banks in the Middle East as our enemies to transfer funds as well.

    Could it be that the outing of Valerie Plame to has more to do with covering up the Bush’s family of illegal fund transfers and connections to the Bin Laden family than embarrassing Joe Wilson for being accurate in his assessment of Iraq’s WMD’s, as the Republicans would rather that you believe?

    In the end, Fitzgerald may have to impanel yet another Grand Jury to investigate other crimes that may lead to impeachment of not just George W. Bush, but Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and other senior administration officials.

  8. 8

    Aexia spews:

    I believe Fitzgerald is also the one heading the investigating into Daley in Chicago, so they can’t even argue it’s a partisan witchhunt either.

    We need to clean house on both sides of the aisle. Sure, some Democrats will go down but we’ll be better off in the long run without them.

  9. 9

    Mark The Redneck spews:

    You can keep telling the same lies, but the truth doesn’t change. Clinton was impeached and disbarred because he lied to a grand jury in an attempt to cover up a pattern of predatory behavior in a felony assault case he settled for $800k. BJs had nothing to do with his crimes.

  10. 10

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    “The most expensive independent counsel probe to date still belongs to Iran-Contra Counsel Lawrence Walsh, who spent $47.4 million.”

    From Walsh’s investigation there 11 convictions, 2 were overturned. Two people received pre-trial pardons from GHW Bush, and one indicted person had the charges dismissed. I don’t see you complaining about how much money Walsh spent investigating the Reagan administration.

    by Goldy, 10/24/2005, 10:43 AM

    “Remember… Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, and everything else he investigated… and all he came up with was Monica’s stained blue dress. And a Republican Congress impeached a president for that.”

    Actually Starr convicted over a dozen people, including close the #2 person at the Justice Department Webster Hubbell and Jim Guy Tucker, the Governor of Arkansas after Clinton. Sounds like more than a stained dress to me.

  11. 11

    Apache Fog spews:

    Re #8, CF: So, out of 11 convictions, 9 stood. Accepting a pardon, you realize, is an admission of guilt. Why would you need to pardon an innocent person?

    Looks like W’s non-service record during the Vietnam war is going to resurface, also. You’ll all owe Dan Rather a big apology on that one.
    How could 60 million people be so stupid as to vote for Bush? There is no honor among thieves. I love the way the radical right is cannibalizing itself!

  12. 12

    yearight spews:

    I have heard or read several conservatives denouncing Hutchison’s blather. And no, there has been no real smear campaign against the Plamegate prosecutor, unlike the constant vile from the Clinton spin machine.

    The Starr/Ray investigations yielded many felony convictions. The “lying about a BJ” stuff is also baloney. That resulted only because Vernon Jordan’s sugar-daddy payoff behavior involving Monica was extremely similar to that used with Webb Hubble when he was not cooperating. Again, the end result ended up only being found as a result of the initial investigation. Kind of like perjury and/or obstruction of justice in Plamegate, no?

    In addition to the actual convistions there were many instances of lying that did not lead to indictments or subsequent convistions. One in particular is especially relevant for the HA “team”, as we all know Hillary can do no wrong.

    There were so many of these items for both Clintons, as well as the entire Arkansas team that the lefties did not even try to explain them away. Hence the slogans, etc.

    If Rove, Libby, Miller or anyone involved with Plamegate lied or obstructed justice they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And no, Fitzgerald is not a hack prosecutor.

    Meanwhile, the lefties get to play both sides – it all depends on whose ox is being gored with you guys.

  13. 13

    Seeb spews:

    Bush is begining to feel the heat;-)
    Bushies Feeling the Boss’ Wrath
    Prez’s anger growing in hard times – pals
    by Thomas DeFrank
    New York Daily News
    October 24, 2005
    WASHINGTON – Facing the darkest days of his presidency, President Bush is frustrated, sometimes angry and even bitter, his associates say.

    With a seemingly uncontrollable insurgency in Iraq, the White House is bracing for the political fallout from a grim milestone that could come any day: the combat death of the 2,000th American G.I.

    Last week alone, 23 military personnel were killed in Iraq, and five were wounded yesterday in a relentless series of attacks across the country.

    This week could also bring a special prosecutor’s decision that could shake the foundations of the Bush government.

    The President’s top political guru, Karl Rove, and Vice President Cheney’s right-hand man, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, are at the center of a two-year criminal probe into the leak of a CIA agent’s identity. Many Bush staffers believe indictments are likely.

    “He’s like the lion in winter,” observed a political friend of Bush. “He’s frustrated. He remains quite confident in the decisions he has made. But this is a guy who wanted to do big things in a second term. Given his nature, there’s no way he’d be happy about the way things have gone.”

    Bush usually reserves his celebrated temper for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss’ wrath.

    “This is not some manager at McDonald’s chewing out the help,” said a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts. “This is the President of the United States, and it’s not a pleasant sight.”

    The specter of losing Rove, his only truly irreplaceable assistant, lies at the heart of Bush’s distress. But a string of political reversals, including growing opposition to the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath and Harriet Miers’ bungled Supreme Court nomination, have also exacted a personal toll.

    Presidential advisers and friends say Bush is a mass of contradictions: cheerful and serene, peevish and melancholy, occasionally lapsing into what he once derided as the “blame game.” They describe him as beset but unbowed, convinced that history will vindicate the major decisions of his presidency even if they damage him and his party in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

    At the same time, these sources say Bush, who has a long history of keeping staffers in their place, has lashed out at aides as his political woes have mounted.

    “The President is just unhappy in general and casting blame all about,” said one Bush insider. “Andy [Card, the chief of staff] gets his share. Karl gets his share. Even Cheney gets his share. And the press gets a big share.”

    The vice president remains Bush’s most trusted political confidant. Even so, the Daily News has learned Bush has told associates Cheney was overly involved in intelligence issues in the runup to the Iraq war that have been seized on by Bush critics.

    Bush is so dismayed that “the only person escaping blame is the President himself,” said a sympathetic official, who delicately termed such self-exoneration “illogical.”

    A second senior Bush loyalist disagreed, saying Bush knows “some of these things are self-inflicted,” like the Miers nomination, where Bush jettisoned contrary advice from his advisers and appointed his longtime personal lawyer.

    “He must know that the way he did that, relying on his own judgment and instinct, was not good,” another key adviser said.

    Despite the turmoil, Bush is determined to soldier on, already preparing for two major overseas trips in November and helping shape next year’s legislative agenda.

    “I’ve got a job to do,” he told reporters last week. “The American people expect me to do my job, and I’m going to.”

  14. 14

    GBS spews:

    @ 7

    Which is worse lying about predatory behavior, or

    lying about the reasons to take this country to war, that so far has cost nearly 2,000 American lives, 20,000 wounded, untold number who will suffer PTSD and the 10’s of thousands of Iraqi deaths, not to mention the $300 Billion dollar price tag with no end in sight and the alienation of our allies and emboldening our enemies?

    Hmmm. . . I wonder which one you’ll pick.

  15. 15

    windie spews:


    Lets for a moment try to remember that this isn’t about Clinton, and what Clinton did or didn’t do has no relationship to the crimes in the leak scandal.

    All this is just another righty smokescreen. You guys have nothing to support now, so yer falling back on the same old saws… pathetic.

  16. 16

    prr spews:

    GBS @ 11

    I’m curious GBS, do you geel that fighting a war against terrorism is something we should be doing?

  17. 17

    windie spews:


    do you mean the war we abandoned to go into Iraq? That war?

    Still a smokescreen… but how dumb can you get?

  18. 19

    Aaron spews:

    @14: Not until we show we can win the battle against fear.

    A war against terrorism is a surrender to the terms defined by the terrorists, and generally a pretty stupid idea as recent history has demonstrated.

  19. 21

    yearight spews:

    windie-12 ‘..try to remember that this isn’t about Clinton..’

    Nice dodge. Problem with your request is that it should be directed at Goldy. (“Remember… Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, and everything else he investigated…”)

    The problem here, although expected, is that the lefties did not want to think the Clinton’s were corrupt, and the media was full of character assasinations by the Clinton supporters on the prosecutors. Now, with a single prominant repub saying something stupid on TV Goldy and HA “team” knee-jerk into gotcha mode, and try to compare Plamegate to all of the Clintongates. Hypocrites at best.

  20. 22

    prr spews:

    Windie @ 14…

    Limiting a war on terorism to geographical borders does not work.

    To say that we abandoned a war in Afghansitan is just plain ignorant

  21. 24

    yearight spews:


    You are wasting your time. You are preaching to the choir of MoveOn and Al Franken. The theory involves repeating lies about “lies” long enough to convince those outside the looney left. To them terrorism is what Bush does on a daily basis, and past and future attacks on Americans are better handled as law enforcement functions. (Berger/Kerry 2004.)

    Keep giving it your best, and just hope the lefty-inspired defense let-down does not result in the next act of terrorism affecting you or you family.

  22. 26

    fire_one spews:

    Hutchinson really is a MORON! She also stated that Supreme Court nominee Harriett Miers is “qualified geographically.” WHAT THE FUCK? QUALIFIED GEOGRAPHICALLY? I feel like I am taking crazy pills here! ANY fucking person who votes for her needs to hang their head in shame, and resign on the spot. FUCKING REPUBLICAN MORONS!

  23. 27

    Larry the Urbanite spews:

    prr @ 16: Wow, you are really off base there chum. Most of the eperts (including a recent gov’t sponsored report, I believe)agree that going into Iraq has demonstrably made the world in general and America in particular LESS safe from terrorism. Besides, that isn’t the issue here. The issue is that the american public was lied to by it’s administration, not an acceptable event at any time, but even less acceptable when the puspose of the lying was to get us into a war that was (note: was, isn’t anymore, thanks to Bush) a side show on the war against terror. We in the know like to refer to it as T.W.A.T., lol

  24. 29

    Bobblehead spews:

    Yearight @ 23

    Using the Republican logic in recent investigations/indictments the only thing Bill Clinton did wrong was lie to a grand jury about whether or not he had sex with Monica or the other woman and that perjury is merely a technicality.

    Using their defense for DeLay spin, the indictments Starr brought against the Clinton business associates for Whitewater was a partisan witch hunt by a Republican that only showed that Clinton had the misfortune of associating himself with disreputable people.

    So Clinton lied about getting a BJ and got impeached. The Bush Administration endangered national security by outing a CIA Operative working on WMD proliferation and they get a free pass? Makes sense to me…

  25. 31

    prr spews:

    here’s a newsflash Lar….

    Everyone was convinced of the WMD’s and it was one of many reasons to go into Iraq, so stop splitting hairs.

    Like it or not you fucking coward, we have a reason to be in the Middle east and we are not pulling out

  26. 32

    dj spews:

    Man, oh, man. The Whitehouse is going to be damn empty for awhile. Bush is nominating people out of the WH, and most of the rest will resign under indictment.

    Bush with no brain? Who will tell him to stop sucking his thumb before the cameras get turned on?

  27. 34

    dj spews:

    prr @ 33,

    “The delay charges will not stick nor will anything happen based on the Plame case.”

    Been playing with the Ouija board, prr?

  28. 36

    windie spews:

    hows this:

    Whitewater is to the Lewinski deal as

    Invading Iraq is to the “War on Terror”.

    What was that bush quote re: OBL? “I don’t really think about it much anymore”?

  29. 38

    Bobblehead spews:

    prr @ multiple posts

    Please explain how invading Iraq was related to the war on terror?

    Saddam Hussein was almost as despised by Al Qaeda as the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia. Saddam’s secret police were brutal on all his political opponents, which included the Muslim Extremist groups in Iraq. The only terrorist training camp in Iraq was in Northern Iraq, which was controlled by the Kurds and under the protection of the US no-fly zone.

    If Bush really wanted to attack a country that supported terrorism he just needed to pick a direction from Iraq, except South to Kuwait. Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran are far bigger supporters of Al Qaeda, anti-US type terrorism than Iraq was and as such are a bigger national security threat to the US than Iraq was.

    Not saying Saddam’s removal wasn’t a good thing, but Saddam in power was not a national security threat to the US and could have been resolved through diplomatic measures. Prior to Bush’s ‘we’re invading with or without your help’ stance, there was broad based support in the Middle East for Saddam’s ouster and many were working behind the scenes trying to convince Saddam to accept exile.

    Terrorism is not something you fight militarily on the scale Bush is currently using. It’s a heart and mind operation. The only way to win the ‘War on Terrorism’ is to remove its support and you can’t do that with bombs and bullets. History shows that the only thing bombs and bullets does is galvanize a population to support a cause. The British rallied around Churchill during the Blitz and the Americans rallied around Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. Prior to Pearl Harbor most Americans were Isolationists and did not want the US involved in WWII and more than likely would have remained that way if the Japanese had not attacked.

  30. 39


    I suppose all those Starr convictions are all very interesting IF YOU LIVE IN ARKANSAS.

    I am going to be verrrrry interested in the indictments that come down over the treasonous actions of this Republican Administration.

    I looking for at least one or two high profile convictions (Rove/Libby).

    And what would happen (‘Ol Rujax is rubbing his little mitts with glee) if Fitzy decided to take action on the Niger forgeries…based on their links to the WHIG!!!! Fun, Fun, Fun, Fun, Fun!!!!

    BTW-I haven’t seen much of the paid rethug trools lately. I guess they’re BUSY elsewhere. REAL BUSY!

  31. 40

    prr spews:


    Hows this:

    Al Qaeda is to the attack on the WTC

    As Al Qaeda is to the War in Iraq

    What was that Zaeqawy quote?

    “· Al-Qaida’s ambitions do not stop at Iraq ’s borders. Establishing the political dominance of Sunni militants in Iraq is only a first step—a means to an end—in realizing al-Qaida’s ambitions of imposing its control over the broader Middle East. In fact, al-Qaida’s focus on Iraq has nothing to do with Iraqi nationalism, but is purely instrumental as a beachhead for al-Qaida’s broader agenda. Under al-Qaida, Iraq will serve as a terrorist haven and staging ground for attacks against Iraq ’s neighbors and quite possibly Western nations — all those judged to be ruling in violation of their distorted interpretation of Islamic law – and clearly destabilize the region. According to Zawahiri:

    o Quote: “…the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq . The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas. . . . The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq . The fourth stage: …[This is ] the clash with Israel , because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity. . . . [T]heir ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.””

  32. 41

    Dr. E spews:

    “Like it or not you fucking coward, we have a reason to be in the Middle east and we are not pulling out”

    And what would that reason be? Well, no, let me reframe the question… what would the original reason be? Or perhaps: what would the long-term objectives be?

  33. 42


    Bobblehead…I am sure you’ve figured out by now prr doesn’t even have the slightest CLUE about what HE’S talking about. I mean to say…he doesn’t even understand his OWN drivel…so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

  34. 43

    Chimp Patrol spews:

    prissy, you are absolutely right, the reason we are in the mideast is that the N#CHimp, your president, wants to have enough oil that even he can’t bankrupt the damn company/country. He is a miserable, failing, bat ass stupid man, and you and YOUR ILK, with your lies and scams, venom and character assinations, put him there. Now another party has the balls to go after your saints? Get a life twerp, get a hold on reality and off of your MD2020

  35. 44

    Dr. E spews:

    “Terrorism is not something you fight militarily on the scale Bush is currently using. It’s a heart and mind operation.”

    I largely agree with you. In my opinion, the worst way to prevent the spread of terrorism is to invade a Muslim nation on trumped-up reasons and kill tens of thousands of civilians. It also makes, to my mind at any rate, absolutely no sense to invade a sovereign nation, depose its government, and not have a realistic plan for how to establish order in the vacuum that ensues — especially when the power structure that would be deposed is a monolithic one, controlled mainly by one individual.

  36. 45

    dj spews:


    Rove and Libby, almost certainly. But, it’s looking like Cheney might have to get himself fitted for an orange jumpsuit, too.

  37. 47

    Donnageddon spews:

    prriss is in fine form now. He has stoked up on gin and cigarretes, put on his nicest silk panties, and smeared his mouth with lipstick.

    He is out for blood this time, no matter how many lies and distortions he has to type!

  38. 49

    windie spews:


    that would be a false comparison of course… But I don’t expect you to believe me.

    Hows this:

    Al Qaeda caused the WTC attacks, but
    Al Qaeda took advantage of the situation in Iraq.

    But I’m letting you distract me again. Shame on me!

    It’ll be good to see a good ol’ clearing of the temple…

  39. 50



    prr maybe a vile, vicious, misinformed, misanthropic, deluded rightwing parrot troll…but at least he’s OUR vile, vicious, misinformed, misanthropic, deluded rightwing parrot troll.

  40. 51

    Dr. E spews:


    I would not have invaded in the first place. It’s actually that simple.

    My questions still stand:
    And what would that reason [for being in the Middle East] be? Well, no, let me reframe the question… what would the original reason [for being in the Middle East] be? Or perhaps: what would the long-term objectives [for remaining in the Middle East] be?

  41. 52

    prr spews:


    My answer….

    As a retaliation for the attack on the world trade centers and as a final response to 30 years of un-answered terrosits atacks by islamic Fundameltalist groups that have declared a war against the US.

  42. 53

    Bobblehead spews:

    Rujax.. I’m quite aware of that. ;) Just a slow day at work, so I needed to do something to prevent the boredom from setting in. *laugh*

  43. 54

    prr spews:

    Long term objective?

    to remove from thae face of this planet anyone who would would make an un-announced, unprovoked attack against civilain populations.

  44. 55

    Bobblehead spews:

    Prr. Please explain to me how Iraq was involved in the attacks on 9/11 and supported anti-US terrorism. :)

  45. 57

    Donnageddon spews:

    prriss @ 54 swigging back another gulp of gin and scratching his butt through the silk panties said

    “to remove from thae face of this planet anyone who would would make an un-announced, unprovoked attack against civilain populations.”

    Then it is agreed! Gather up Bush and his hentchmen and off to the HAGUE!

  46. 58

    Janet S spews:

    Can any of you at least admit that the Iraqis claim, themselves, to be better off now than they were under Saddam? This isn’t spin from the Bush Administration, this is what they are saying. And they are backing it up by showing up at the voting booth in massive numbers.

    Why are we in the Middle East? Because a democratic middle east is safer to the US than one that is run by fascist Islamists like Zarqawi and Bin Laden. Lebanon is trying to get Syria out, Egypt is getting closer to real elections. It isn’t a quick process, but it is one that has moral authority.

    But, I fully expect that all I will get from this answer is a bunch of insults and swear words. That seems to be what passes for dialogue around here.

  47. 60

    Bobblehead spews:

    Prr @ 54

    When can we look forward to the removal of George Bush? The bombing of Baghdad was unannounced and unprovoked. Matter of fact, it caught the US ground forces by surprise.;)

  48. 61

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Apache Fog @ 11 (10/24/05 @ 12:02 pm)

    “Accepting a pardon, you realize, is an admission of guilt. Why would you need to pardon an innocent person?”

    Your statement is ridiculous. Even if innocent, a reasonable person might accept a pardon to save the non-recoverable legal costs, and headaches, of a trial.

    I’m glad that Congress let the Independent Cousel law lapse.

    “Looks like W’s non-service record during the Vietnam war is going to resurface, also.”

    Really? Got some proof, other than ruminations from left wing bloggers?

    rujax206 @ 39 (10/24/05 @ 1:42 pm)

    “I suppose all those Starr convictions are all very interesting IF YOU LIVE IN ARKANSAS.”

    I suppose convicting the #3 person in the U.S. Justice Department for stealing over $400,000 from his clients and law firm partners, as well as mail and tax fraud, isn’t interesting to anyone outside Arkansas.

  49. 62

    Bobblehead spews:

    Prr @ 56

    I never said Islamic extremism was limited to Afghanistan.

    Perhaps you missed in my prior posts (namely #38) where I noted that Bush would have been better served if he invaded Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran. I know it was a long post, but it does behoove you to read before you make a silly comment.;)

    But this brings me back to my original question. Please explain how Iraq, a country the violently crushed Islamic extremism, was related to the attacks on 9/11 and anti-US terrorism.

  50. 63

    yearight spews:

    Larry the Urbanite-4

    Even more interesting – what were the leading dems and lefty pundits saying about the same thing at the same time. Priceless.

  51. 64

    prr spews:

    Bobblehead at 60…

    let me lookinto my crystal ball.

    I see that george Bush will be removed, just for you, in January of 2009

  52. 65

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    ConservativeFirst @ 10 (10/24/05 @ 11:45 am)

    I think I was incorrect, Hubbell was #3 at Justice, not #2, as stated in that post.

  53. 66

    Donnageddon spews:

    Janet @ 58, your first paragraph is unsupported by reality. The waves of Iraqi’s to the polls is a sure sign they want our soldiers OUT of Iraq. Other than that it is ALL spin from the Bush administration. The Generals on the field have stated as such. The American and British presence is INCREASING the insurgency.

    Second paragraph gets worse. During 9/11 the only Middle East country run by radical fundamentalist Islamists was Afghanistan. Hussein, for all his tremendous faults was NOT an Islamic radical.

    Bush’s ludicrous foreign policy in the Middle East has dramatically worsened the situation in the Middle East, the United States, and the world.

    No spin from you or the Bush administration will change that.

    And now we find ourselves in a holy mess in Iraq, and fascist enablers like yourself still keep drinking the Kool Aid.

  54. 67

    Larry the Urbanite spews:

    prr @ 52:

    “As a retaliation for the attack on the world trade centers and as a final response to 30 years of un-answered terrosits atacks by islamic Fundameltalist groups that have declared a war against the US.”

    Lets go back to logic: If A strikes B, why should B strike at C, A’s estranged brother? There was, prior to the start of the war in Iraq, no substantive connection between Al Queada and Iraq. There had been attempts at such, but they were rejected due to fundamental (pardon the pun) ideological differences between A and C above. While the administrations attempts to make the US public believe there was a connection were largely successful, peolpe chiming in here know (and knew a the time) better, so stop wasting our time. You are not that stupid (a compliment!) and neither are any of us.

    “People who tell lies merely hide the truth. People who tell half truths have forgotten where they put it.” – Mr. Dryden in LAwrence of Arabia

  55. 68

    prr spews:


    here’s anewsflash.

    In your wildest dreams, if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008, gues what?

    we;ll still stay in Iraq

  56. 70

    Donnageddon spews:

    prriss @ 68 I certainly hope Hillary is not the Democratic candidate in 2008.

    So what was your point?

  57. 71

    GBS spews:

    prr @ all your posts…

    Fighting terrorism, at it’s principle, is like fighting any war.
    A) You have to be honest with the American people.
    B) You have to have a cohesive strategy.
    C) Where’s Osama?

    And finally,
    D) Like it or not the viable military option in Iraq is completely played out. What we could reasonably accomplish with military force was accomplished in 2003. Liberty is not an imposition, you can’t force it on anybody. Having our troops run all around Iraq in insufficient numbers, with a lack of proper armor, body gear or a comprehensive strategic plan only serves to endanger them further. All military operations end in one of two ways: In a negotiated settlement or not at all.

    Bush went into Iraq with the mindset that we could continue to conduct operations in Afghanistan and invade Iraq where we’d be welcomed as liberators and given flowers and candy. Then, reality set in. Iraq drew too many resources away from the war in Afghanistan diminishing our efforts to hunt and kill Osama, while at the same time causing a high attrition rate to our forces in Iraq over time.

    So, this war in Iraq is a 2nd front in the War on Terror, I won’t disagree with you there. But you have to realize by now that the 2nd front was opened by Bush at the place and time of his choosing. It is obvious to all somewhat intelligent and honest people that that decision was a seriously flawed decision executed by the the Commander.

  58. 72

    prr spews:


    “While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security. ”

    Ann Coulter

  59. 73

    Janet S spews:

    Donna @66:
    Yes, you are right – Saddam is not an Islamist. But he was openly supporting the Islamists by giving them a place to train and a place to hide. Where do you think Zarqawi was?

    Saddam was also sending payments to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

    Saddam destroyed all enemies in his country. It was not a pleasant place. Iraqis want us out, in time, but they do not want Saddam back in.

  60. 74

    Donnageddon spews:

    JAnet, now you are stepping into complete idiocy! Zarqawi (a Lebanese) was in Norht3er Kurd held Iraq. This part of Iraq was cocered by the No-Fly Zone. Saddam was not responsible for his encampment there, the Kurds were!

    IF you do not have any facts, Janet, just shut the fuck up!

  61. 75

    prr spews:


    do you ever get sick of making lies on why America is evil?

    Seriously, why do you live here?

  62. 77

    Bobblehead spews:


    Actually.. Yes. There is doubt that al Qaeda is in Iraq. Zarqawi is not affiliated with al Qaeda. However, if you are asking if there is an Islamic Extremist terrorist organization operating in Iraq right now, then the answer to your question is yes. The only reason why there is one in Iraq right now is because the US invaded Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was akin to someone kicking over a series of hornet’s nests and then standing in the an open area centrally located to all the nests.

  63. 78

    Donnageddon spews:

    prriss “do you ever get sick of making lies on why America is evil?”

    An example of where I have ever done that would be in order, prriss.

    Are you up for it, or should we just discount you as the drunken transvestite you are?

  64. 82

    Donnageddon spews:

    Naw, prriss, your a Neo-Con so you are by definition an unpatriotic American Hating fascist scunbag.

  65. 83

    Dr. E spews:

    “While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security. ”

    Yeah, Ann Coulter — the very same quasi-intellectual who thought that Canada fought in the Vietnam War. Looking at this quote, one can see a hasty generalization (i.e. logical fallacy) she has attempted to use as the basis for what one would hope would be a logical argument.

  66. 85

    Donnageddon spews:

    prriss it is simaliar to a “anewsflash” but not written by a deranged lunatic Neo-Con.

  67. 86









    GET IT?

    Of course you won’t. You’re an idiot.

  68. 89

    Bobblehead spews:

    Prr and Janet,

    Read and enjoy.

    Based on intelligence reports that are in question now, Zarqawi was in Afghanistan during that invasion, was supposedly injured, then taken to the Northern Iraq (which was under the control of the Kurds at the time, but the terrorist camp was under neither Iraqi or Kurdish control), then smuggled into Baghdad for further medical treatment. All of which was done without Iraqi intelligence knowledge or assistance. Last I checked Baghdad had a population of multiple million.. Does the FBI know the movement of a specific criminal within New York City?

    Using your logic of ‘But Zarqawi was in Iraq!!’, the US supported the attacks on 9/11 because the terrorists involved lived in the US prior to the attacks. And the terrorists lived in the US for longer than Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to its invasion.

    Saddam Hussein did not give money to Hamas or Islamic Jihad. He gave $20,000 to the families of the suicide bombers that attack Israel. While that is highly lamentable, most Palestinian groups do not support attacks on the US. Even those pay outs only started after the Gulf War when Saddam was trying to repackage himself as a new Saladin, the leader of the Muslim army that drove the Christians out of Jerusalem in 1187. Scored some brownie points with the Palestinians, but didn’t get him anything from OBL and al Qaeda.

  69. 92

    Bobblehead spews:

    prr @ 79

    I know you probably won’t read the article in the link I provided, but here’s a direct quote from it:

    PROBABLY THE MURKIEST and most intriguing feature of this man of many mysteries is the question of Zarqawi’s relations with Osama bin Laden. Though he met with bin Laden in Afghanistan several times, the Jordanian never joined al Qaeda. Militants have explained that Tawhid was “especially for Jordanians who did not want to join al Qaeda.” A confessed Tawhid member even told his interrogators that Zarqawi was “against al Qaeda.” Shortly after 9/11, a fleeing Ramzi bin al-Shibh, one of the main plotters of the attacks, appealed to Tawhid operatives for a forged visa. He could not come up with ready cash. Told that he did not belong to Tawhid, he was sent packing and eventually into the arms of the Americans.

  70. 93

    prr spews:

    Riveting stuff…
    except that Zarqawi publicly pledged his allegiance to Al Qeada

    Al-Zarqawi: Allegiance to al-Qaida

    Monday 18 October 2004, 20:20 Makka Time, 17:20 GMT

    Al-Zarqawi has reportedly made a call for unity

    A purported Iraqi group linked to Jordanian fugitive Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has reportedly pledged allegiance to Usama bin Ladin in a statement posted on a website.

    “We announce that al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad, its leader and soldiers have pledged allegiance to Usama bin Ladin,” read the statement, the first linking al-Zarqawi to al-Qaida.

    Both al-Zarqawi and bin Ladin have a $25 million US bounty on their heads.

    Since the US invaded Iraq in April 2003, Washington has held al-Zarqawi responsible for attacks against its forces and US-sponsored officials.

    The internet statement, however, says: “Shaikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in contact with the leadership of al-Qaida for eight months. They exchanged points of view and then there was a cut due to fate.

    “After contact was restored, the al-Qaida leadership understood our strategy in Iraq,” the statement added.
    Al-Zarqawi just joined

    London-based Muslim activist Yasir al-Sirri, whose own website monitors other Muslim sites, said he believed the statement was authentic and was aimed at unifying ranks among anti-US groups.

    “It also aims to belie US claims that al-Zarqawi was an al-Qaida member by saying he only just joined the network”

    Yasir al-Sirri,
    London-based Muslim activist

    “It is aimed at boosting morale and recruiting more people by saying that Tawhid and Jihad have become the soldiers of bin Ladin in Iraq,” he said.

    “It also aims to belie US claims that al-Zarqawi was an al-Qaida member by saying he only just joined the network,” he added.

    Jordanian charges

    Al-Zarqawi also faces charges in his native Jordan after being indicted on Sunday, along with 12 other people for allegedly plotting to bomb US and government buildings.

    The charge sheet lists the US embassy in Amman and the Jordanian intelligence headquarters as prime targets.

    If found guilty, all face the death penalty.

  71. 94

    prr spews:


    Just asking cause theres was a homeless guy this weekend hitting me up for change and he refferred to you as a “throw-away” moron.

  72. 95

    Donnageddon spews:

    Notice the date on that prriss? Oct. 18th 2004.

    So, now, again…what was your point?

  73. 96

    Bobblehead spews:

    Oh.. Since my quote doesn’t explain it. Tawhid is the terrorist organization lead by Zarqawi whose stated goal was to replace Jordan with an extremist government and kill as many Jews as possible. Prior to Iraq, Zarqawi also opposed attacking the US.

  74. 97

    prr spews:

    Al Qaeda praises Zarqawi’s allegiance pledge
    The Saudi wing of Al Qaeda has praised Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the US’s top foe in Iraq, saying his pledge of allegiance to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden would foil “crusader” plans in the region.

    “This will deprive the people of the cross [Christians] of sleep, thwart their plans and retard their campaign,” Al Qaeda Organisation in the Arabian Peninsula said.

    “They said at the start of their war on Muslims that a main aim was to eradicate Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and now Al Qaeda has spread globally.

    “No doubt, this is a big indicator that victory is near… and will irk the enemies of Islam who thought that with their war in Iraq they were nearer to uprooting Islam from its last bastions but Iraq turned into hell for them.”

    The praise is contained in the latest issue of the group’s web magazine.

    In an Internet statement last week, Zarqawi’s group in Iraq declared loyalty to Al Qaeda.

    It was the group’s first admission of ties to the network behind the September 11, 2001, attacks on US cities.

    Analysts say one aim is to attract more fighters under the banner of Al Qaeda.

    The Jordanian militant’s group is blamed for Iraq’s bloodiest suicide bombings and hostage beheadings.

    Saudi Arabia has been battling a 17-month wave of violence by Al Qaeda supporters, who have bombed residential compounds housing foreigners, shot several Westerners and attacked state security forces.

    — Reuters

  75. 99

    Bobblehead spews:

    Prr @ 93

    Your post does note that Zarqawi announced his alliance with Al Qaeda.. A year and a half after the invasion of Iraq… So if Zarqawi was not allied with Al Qaeda prior to the invasion of Iraq and was actually opposed to Al Qaeda’s approaches, why did we invade Iraq again?

    So, while al Qaeda is in Iraq now.. It wasn’t prior to the invasion. All of this is based on your own quote, so please refute and justify the invasion of Iraq.

  76. 101

    prr spews:

    My quote, here are your exact words…

    “Actually.. Yes. There is doubt that al Qaeda is in Iraq. Zarqawi is not affiliated with al Qaeda. “

  77. 102

    prr spews:

    I’ll answer that again for you and expand…

    My answer….

    As a retaliation for the attack on the world trade centers and as a final response to 30 years of un-answered terrosits atacks by islamic Fundameltalist groups that have declared a war against the US.

    Iraq, was unfinsihed business from ’91

  78. 104

    Donnageddon spews:

    Well hell yes, prriss! That is one of the major problems! Bush has turned Iraq into a county wide terrorist camp and reqruitement station!

    This is just compounds the profound idiocy and incompitance of the Bush Admin’s foriegn policy! It in no way makes a case for the invasion and supsequent disasterous quagmire in Iraq!

    You freeking cross-dressing lush!

  79. 105

    Bobblehead spews:

    Yup. Willing to admit I was incorrect on that comment. There is currently an al Qaeda franchise in Iraq. However, as your posts note, this affiliation was not created until a year and a half after the US invaded Iraq.

    By your own quotes you are admitting that the invasion of Iraq created a brand new al Qaeda franchise in a country that did not have one prior to the invasion. So, the invasion of Iraq made the US safer how? Oh.. I know!! By making more enemies!!! Oh.. Wait.. Making new enemies doesn’t make one safer, it does quite the opposite…

  80. 107

    yearight spews:

    Pass the kool-aid.

    The Plamegate results should be in this week. If anyone in or out of the administration lied, obstructed or outed a covert agent they should be prosecuted. Do not forget, however, that Rove and Libby were not trying to smear Wilson, but only exposing his lies, which live on here today on HA.

    Wilson did not disprove that Iraq sought yellow cake from Africa. Wilson did not know about the forged documents before he completed his “mission”, months before they were discovered. Wilson’s wife was responsible for his getting the CIA assignment. The CIA did not think the “mission” or the resulting findings were worth keeping secret, nor that the findings did anything but confirm the original premise that Iraq had sought yellow cake. Short version – most of the critical points Wilson made in his OpEd were either later admitted as lies to the Senate, or known to be different than what was actually claimed by Bush and co.
    In particular:
    “True, Rove and Libby did seek to discredit Joseph Wilson — as they should well have done. As the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report in July 2004, just about everything Wilson said publicly about his trip to Niger was untrue. He said that he had discredited reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Niger. But the CIA people to whom he reported concluded that, if anything, he substantiated such reports. He said that he pointed out that certain other intelligence reports were forged. But the forgeries did not appear until eight months after his trip. He said his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger. But it was she who recommended him for the trip. And on and on.”

    Why was Wilson assigned this duty without so much as a non-disclosure agreement, and allowed to vent in an Op-Ed? Because the CIA wanted to deflect blame over the mission WMDs. Wilson was part of the CIA Op to do this.

    The war in Iraq is only a diversion to those that still live in a pre 9-11 world. Iraq should have been finished in 1991, and barring that, several times throughout the 1990’s. His threat to the region and the US, including the WMDs was well established by the CIA, both the Clinton and Bush II administrations, as well as politicians on both sides of the divide. Even without yellow cake, which is still a viable reason, Saddam had to go in our post-9-11 world. And Al Qaeda? The links there were again a very small part of the overall reasons, yet even these are overlooked here in the kool-aid capital of the world. For those who really are curious the Iraq/Al Qaeda liks were there, even if there are no proven links to 9-11 itself.

    Lies about Iraq’s WMDs. Give me break. UNSCOM never knew how much of what Iraq had, or whether any or all had been destroyed. How about a link to a lefty site – full of damning evidence related to UNSCOM reports and WMD understanding. Warning – Put your kool-aid down first.


    The lefties have repeated lies about ‘lies” for so long now that it is not merely a propaganda exercise to get Kerry elected. They appear to actually believe their own re-version of history.

    Bring on the profanity – it is all you have left.

  81. 108

    Bobblehead spews:


    How does invading Iraq, a country that violently oppressed Islamic extremism (and did a much better job of it than the US is doing now in Iraq), punish the people that attacked the world trade center and various other attacks on US citizens in the past 30 years?

    Using your logic, should I go kick the crap out of your cousin three times removed because you’re being an idiot? Damn. That’ll really show you!!

  82. 109

    prr spews:

    @ 105

    While it may have created a new franchise it also attracted existing members and drew them into a fire zone.

  83. 110

    Donnageddon spews:

    prriss stubbing out a lipstick smeared cigarrette said “Now we know exactly where to find the terrorists.”

    Really priss? You think they are staying in Iraq? They are inflating their numbers and moving out across the globe you gin-soaked bar-room queen! One only needs to watch the bombings in London, Spain and Indonesia to know this.

    Bush is the top terrorist recuiter in the world!

  84. 111

    prr spews:

    so donna,

    do you think if we pull out this will all stop?

    is that your defense (or offense), just surrender?

  85. 112

    Donnageddon spews:

    Absolutely! IT will not stop, but our precense is doing absolutely no good. And it is costing us billions, and thousands of lives.

    The Iraqi’s want us gone. So lets get the freak out. Apologise the the world. Send Bush and his pack of war criminals to the Hague, and send in the UN to clean up our mess.

    That is not surrender, prriss, that is just not following bad policy with worse.

  86. 113

    Bobblehead spews:

    We already knew where to find the terrorists.. I like to call it.. Afghanistan. The only reason why Iraq was invaded was because the Bush Administration wanted to finish what Bush Sr. was not able to justify doing. There is absolutely no other reason. And I’m sorry.. Personal vindictiveness is not a justification for going to war.

    The Bush Administration lied in order to get us into war in Iraq and history will show that Bush is the worst pressident the US has ever had. It is the most corrupt administration there has ever been. Bush lied and tens of thousands of people have died. Clinton lied and no one died, but he did get oral from an ugly chick.

  87. 114

    prr spews:


    “We already knew where to find the terrorists.. I like to call it.. Afghanistan. ”

    It would be an insult to moron’s to call you one.

    Look at the dempgraphic breakdown of the 9/11 Hijackers. Were they Iraqi? Afghanny? or was a more dominant trait at play… Say the were all Islamic?

    I’d look at creating a stronghold in the Middle east, establishing a free fire zone and killing as many of those fuckers as we can for as long as we can.

  88. 115

    Janet S spews:

    I have doubts that Zarqawi could be in Baghdad and Saddam didn’t know it. Just doesn’t seem plausible.

    Should we send the UN to clean up, like the way they have brought peace to … to … well, they meant well. Except for all the girls UN officials raped and trafficked. And the millions stolen in the oil-for-food scandal. And Darfur. Oh, never mind.

    Just curious – how do the terror attacks by Islamists in Indonesia tie back to the US? Could it be they are just blood thirsty scum who really don’t need an excuse, because their goal is to eradicate all non-Muslims from the earth?

  89. 116

    GBS spews:


    Your ignorance makes you unwittingly unpatriotic. And, quoting from “Tranny, Annie” Coulter, please. Nothing could be more un-American than that slimy crack whore.

    You’re going to learn just how fucked up the false leaders you idolize really are.

    It IS going to be a Merry Fitzmas. That’s a prediction you can count on unlike your crappy prediction that Bush’s approval ratings were going to skyrocket after the London Bombings last summer.

    I noticed you pussied out and didn’t post for a while after that. We had a good time poking fun at your expense. Hell, Goldy even started a thread quoting you, you fucking moron.

    Well, hope you enjoy the last of your fantasy life dreaming about a tawdry affair with Tranny Annie Coulter, because like the Bush administration it’s about to come to an untimely end.

  90. 117

    yearight spews:

    GBS-115 ‘..quoting from “Tranny, Annie” Coulter..’

    The lefties cannot help but trash women and the troops. Coulter uses more facts in her work than all of the HA “team” can muster over a 10-year period, and she is always vilified yet never refuted.

    ‘..that slimy crack whore.’

    Now the left does not like crack whores? Where is the so-called compassion that funds the druggies and parasites on society? Scratch the surface and the true lefty always comes out.

  91. 119

    spyder spews:

    “yet even these are overlooked here in the kool-aid capital of the world.:”

    People who continue to make these sorts of statements invariably demonstrate their own incapacity to understand factual reality (not of course to mention the use of regressive Servative links as sources). If perchance you would like to venture into the reality realm and are willing to actually learn something substantial about your seeming obsession with the “kool-aid,” then by all means come to Vegas this next weekend. If however you merely wish to continue to muck about in the morass of culture war lingua franca, then you might up your own rhetorical standing by refraining from the use of the kool aid metaphors. It serves you poorly; mostly being the signifier of your chosen desire to remain substantively and rigidly ignorant.

    the seminar session would only be a starter, then please, please, drink from the kool-aid thermos dispenser!

  92. 120

    yearight spews:

    windie-117 ‘You’re really around the bend, buddy..’

    I must not be too far around the bend – I have yet to catch a glimpse of you guys up ahead.

  93. 121

    yearight spews:


    C’mon spyder – please do not hog all the kool-aid…leave some for the others.

  94. 122

    GBS spews:

    yea ‘right’ @ 116

    First off do you know how often that lying bitch has been exposed for her lies. Get a clue will ya?!

    Second, I guess Oxycontin drugged out felons are just A OK when it comes to the voice of conservatism? Oh, yeah, and coke heads with a drinking/truth telling problem are tops are your list, too?

    Stick to (un)SP blog where your ilk can wallow around in each others feces and blame liberals for all the wrong that goes on in your party. Like the Criminalization of Politics. Another astounding mini sound bite you guys can parrot about. You mindless dumb fuck.

  95. 123

    GBS spews:

    @ 107
    “Bring on the profanity – it is all you have left.

    Comment by yearight— 10/24/05 @ 3:44 pm”

    Oh, yeah, and the force of LAW.

    Bahahahahahahaha. If you don’t believe me, just wait. Tomorrow and a wake up and it’ll be FITZMAS!!!!!!

    You loser.

  96. 124

    GBS spews:

    Tomorrows Fitzmas Eve!!

    Yeah, bring it on!

    Rove & “Scooter” are about to become someone’s prison bitch. And with a tough name like “Scooter,” he ought to be jussssst fine.

  97. 126

    GBS spews:

    Turd Blossom, what kind of homo nick name is that?

    Oh, yeah, Jeff Gannon, that explains it all doesn’t it?

    You losers.

  98. 129

    Aexia spews:

    Where do you think Zarqawi was?

    Not getting blown up because the Bush administration thought getting rid of him would “undermine” their case for invading Iraq. It’s true! The military went to the White House on three different occassions to take him out and each time they were rebuffed. As mentioned before, he was in northern Iraq where Saddam couldn’t reach him.

    Zarqawi wasn’t affiliated with Al Quaeda prior to the invasion but both saw the advantages in publicly allying with each other after the invasion. It’s like franchising; Al Quaeda gets to claim responsibility for a ready-made tested terrorist operation in Iraq; Zarqawi gets to use the Al Quaeda brand-name for recruiting. Most of AQ’s terrorist operations are like that now; lots of previously unrelated local terrorist orgs taking up the Al Quaeda banner.

    Look at the dempgraphic breakdown of the 9/11 Hijackers. Were they Iraqi? Afghanny? or was a more dominant trait at play… Say the were all Islamic?

    Saddam’s regime was many things; Islamic was not one of them.

  99. 130


    The lefties cannot help but trash women and the troops. Coulter uses more facts in her work than all of the HA “team” can muster over a 10-year period, and she is always vilified yet never refuted.

    Here’s a breakdown of Ann Coulter’s Chapter 11 from Treason. Just in this one chapter alone (on why we should invade Iraq), Ann spews out about 25-30 specific falsehoods (some of which, like Saddam being involved in 9-11, have zero support even from the most avid Kool-Aid drinkers).

    As a fellow northeasterner (Ann is a Connecticut native), let me tell you a little secret about how people from the big cities of the northeast view red state America. The Democrats from New York think you’re stupid. The Republicans from New York know you are.

    It’s a good lesson to learn as you continue to spout the nonsense that latte-sipping, northeasterners like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh tell you so they can get rich.

  100. 132

    Bobblehead spews:


    According to the 9/11 commission the 9/11 hijakcers were citizens of Saudi Arabia (15), United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt (1), Lebanon (1). What do the governments of three of those 4 governments have in common? Their governments are pro-American.

    Aside from Kuwait, the citizens of which Middle Eastern countries are the most pro-American? Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. What do these three countries share with each other? Their governments are anti-American.

    Which countries had no citizens on the flights? Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

    Which countries are harboring the most terrorists? Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
    Which countries are the biggest supporter of terrorists? Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

    After 9/11, which countries were the most helpful in tracking down al Qaeda? Pakistan, Iran, and Syria.
    Which countries were the least helpful? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Afghanistan.

    Which countries had no al Qaeda training camps? Iran and Kuwait. Iraq had 1, but it was in area not controlled by the central government.

    Which countries had the most al Qaeda training camps? Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

    So.. Why did we invade Iraq again?

  101. 133


    So Vice President Richard Cheney was the source of the Plame leak.

    Well isn’t that a fine kettle of fish. I’m almost starting to feel a little sorry for your boy chimpy. “Big Time” just might have sold his boss down the river by virtue of his unchecked ego.

    My, my, my, my, my. Read ‘em and weep, trollies’.

    ( The NYTimes has it!)


  102. 134

    Donnageddon spews:

    This is just fantastic! WOW indeed Rujax!

    Cheney = Agnew
    Bush = Nixon

    Not in any real fashion other than one follows the other in GOING DOWN!



  103. 135

    Bobblehead spews:


    Just because Cheney was the one that told Scooter that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent doesn’t mean he was involved in the leak. It just means he was Scooter’s source of the information. While I happen to believe that Cheney was indeed involved in the leak, there is still a lot of plausible deniability for the VP.

    While we might see Cheney indicted in the coverup of the leak, I doubt we’ll see him indicted in relation to the leak itself. Scooter is more than likely going to take the fall for that. Rove is a low probability for indictment for the leak itself and highly likely for the coverup.

    Basically there is a lot of plausible denial for the VP and the President. Scooter and Rove were given a lot of leniency in how they protected the VP and President with their slander. Because of these leniency it is easy for the President and VP to claim that they were unaware that Scooter and Rove would leak her identity.

    The only way we’re going to get the President and VP is if Scooter and/or Rove flip and unless Fitzgerald was going to indict on a lot more than conspiracy charges (I’m thinking Espionage Act), I don’t think we’ll see that.

    Basically, until there’s a press conference by Fitzgerald I would treat all news articles as scuttlebutt.;)

  104. 136

    Dr. E spews:

    gbs @ 122

    Yes, there have been some pretty amusing moments with Ms. Coulter over the past year — especially when she displays her astonishing ignorance (not knowing who Alexis Herman is, asserting that the Canadians fought in the Vietnam War, etc.). She’s even been taken apart by, of all people, that “liberal” Alan Colmes.

    As far as the “factual” citations one finds in her books, well they’re sloppy at best… I know many a grad student that do far better.

  105. 137

    Donnageddon spews:

    Bobblehead @ 135 Man, quit being a downer! Yeah, maybe your right, but I am starting my HAGUE 2006 party right now!

  106. 138

    Bobblehead spews:

    Hey, don’t get me wrong, Donnageddon.;) I’ve got the alcohol on ice and in convenient reaching distance in preparation for Fitzmas. I’m prepared for indictments on Scooter and Libby, hoping for a few Cheney’s direction, praying for a special one with Georgie’s name on it. Heck.. I’m optimistic Judith Miller might get a couple. But I’m not sure if Fitzgerald offered immunity for her testimony.

  107. 140

    John spews:

    It is estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 Canadians crossed over the longest unprotected border between two nations in the world, and volunteered to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

    This web page is dedicated to remembering those Canadians who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

    Their names are immortalized on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
    (The Wall) in Washington, D.C.

    On July 2nd, 1995, a Canadian Vietnam Veterans Memorial was placed on
    Canadian soil in Windsor, Ontario, Canada by three men from Michigan,
    Ed Johnson, Ric Gidner and Chris Reynolds, better known as
    M.A.C.V. (Michigan Association of Concerned Veterans).

    The “North Wall” as it has become known, has all the names of the Canadians
    who died in Southeast Asia engraved on the black-granite panels.

  108. 142

    Bobblehead spews:

    John @ 139

    Clinton lied about having sex with an intern.. Liddy and Rove endangered national security by releasing the identity of a CIA agent working on WMD proliferation in the Middle East.

    Typical Republican. Party before country.

    The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats will hold their members accountable, Republicans justify the violation and blame Democrats for neccessitating the violation.

  109. 144

    John spews:

    There are now connections from Saddam to Al Quaida via UN intermediaries in Europe. Saddam was notorius for rewarding the families of human bombs who killed Jewish people. He used all his resources possible to defeat the US and try to kill a President. It’s a very very very small leap of faith to assume that he winked at a few Al quaida gentlemen every once in awhile. And had boshi and poshi send a few shekels their way. I’ll give GWB the benefit of doubt here.

  110. 146

    Donnageddon spews:

    John, what a bunch of repeatedly proven wrong bullshit. “There are now connections from Saddam to Al Quaida via UN intermediaries in Europe.”

    What kind of stupid ass commnet is that? Jesus, do you think you are talking to your Kool Aid drinking buddies?

    Go back to your parents basement and masturbate to your Guns-n-Babes magazine you freak. We have hashed that bit of BS over and over again, and it never gets any truer no matter how many times a Neo-Con tells it.

  111. 147

    John spews:

    86 rujax — Death is to be expected in war. However sad that is, death is to be expected.

  112. 149

    John spews:

    I’m on a roll today. Sorry i am late to this thread and reading it in reverse order.

    Reading Ann Coulter did darken my soul a bit. But beyond the small inaccurate inane bits and pieces, I did come to agree with her overall message on liberals. I couldn’t date her she would drive me crazy. You ever notice how these attractive right wing women have a shrillness to them and a deep cagy look in their eyes. Like they are too hungry for your soul or something like that? Laura Ingrahm frightens me the same way.

  113. 150

    yearight spews:


    Do you realize that in three paragraphs the only thing you accomplished was use of profanity?

    Are you really out of ammo?

    ‘First off do you know how often”’?’

    None that I am aware of – care to enlighten?

  114. 151

    Dr. E spews:

    john @ 140, 141

    Are you attempting to defend Ann Coulter? When she was interviewed by the CBC, she volunteered the “fact” that Canada fought in the Vietnam War. Canada, the nation, not individual Canadians who may have decided to volunteer to serve with the US armed forces, but Canada, the nation. Therein lies the difference. She did not split hairs about volunteers. She was expressing to Bob McKeown her incredulity as to why the Canadians would not fight with the US in Iraq, since they fought in Vietnam. Specifically, she said “Canada sent troops to Vietnam.” McKeown calls her on it, not just once, but repeatedly, and she still asserts “I think Canada sent troops.” What is telling is how she sits there with a blank stare on her face as she is confronted by her own ignorance. Don’t believe me, though, go ahead and watch it for yourself:

    Now, the attempt to split hairs ex post facto with the assertion that some Canadians apparently volunteered, well, in my book, that’s trying to be clever after the fact.

    Re: Alexis Herman, just do a Google search. Coulter could have. She was called out on this after asserting (to the “liberal” Alan Holmes) that Donna Brazile was the only African-American close to Bill Clinton.

    Why does this matter? I dunno, maybe because she’s a “pundit,” and therefore supposed to be knowledgeable about such things.

  115. 152

    John spews:

    All wars are based on choices from break downs in communications. No politician will ever tell the whole truth.

    This war will be concluded and the middle east will be a little more western and we will be a little more mid eastern. Drops of blood stain a land with the memory of the perished once. Happier times could have been gotten if we had gone drinking with the Muslims.

  116. 153

    John spews:

    Dr E. I am sure you are right. Thanks for the link. I am glad to look at it. I imagine she read that Candians died in Vietnam and assumed they were part of a Canadian deployment. part of her gist is correct, but her fact was off. She’s a brain she has to take her lumps for that. Trying to write books to fast for money and not vetting them out a bit more is a recipe for regrets.

  117. 154

    Bobblehead spews:

    John @ 140

    What’s your point? Canada did not fight in Vietnam. According to your quote 30-40 thousand Canadians did, but the country of Canada did not.

    According to a source I found, 60,000 Americans crossed the Canadian border to avoid the draft..

    Also, according the National Archives the following non-US residents died in Vietnam as members of the US Military

    Australia (1)
    Bahamas (1)
    Bolivia (1)
    Brazil (1)
    Canada (57)
    Columbia (1)
    Costa Rica (1)
    England (3)
    France (2)
    Germany (7)
    Ireland (1)
    Italy (1)
    Jamaica (2)
    Japan (2)
    Mexico (5)
    New Zealand (2)
    Panama (3)
    Peru (1)
    Phillipines (27)
    Switzerland (1)

    The fact that the citizens choose to fight and die does not mean the country supports the operation.

  118. 156

    Donnageddon spews:

    John, are you the confucious of the wingnut sphere? You write chinese cookiw prophacies? Lets try this out…

    “All wars are based on choices from break downs in communications.” In Bed

    “No politician will ever tell the whole truth.” In Bed

    “This war will be concluded and the middle east will be a little more western and we will be a little more mid eastern.” In Bed

    “Drops of blood stain a land with the memory of the perished once.” In Bed

    “Happier times could have been gotten if we had gone drinking with the Muslims.” In Bed

    Yep, you are the wingnut confucious. You must be proud!

  119. 157

    John spews:

    Dr E. I saw that vid. She is quiet and squirming and not so garishly flippant as she is on Hannity and Colmes. I could almost love her now. lol… History is so funny when it plays with the human mind. Everything is third person almost. the rule for me is that if it’s really important, get a second opinion beforehand. Otherwise make your best case, and apologize later. It’s tough to believe any reporter as they are always on an angle and like politicians will only reveal partial truths to serve their purposes. I go by that old history teacher ploy to read Mother Jones and an opposite counterpoint magazine to weigh the two sides.

  120. 158

    yearight spews:


    Thanks for the liberal rant consisting of subjective and defensive knee-jerk selective quotes, etc.

    Coulter did not really write what you are implying on the “like Saddam being involved in 9-11″. Did you not really read the quote?

    I have not read the book, yet from your link it is clear that the critic is more biased than she, and does a poor job with translating waht she wrote. It actually seems she gets more readers on the left – what about that?

  121. 160

    yearight spews:

    Dr. E-136 ‘her astonishing ignorance (not knowing who Alexis Herman is, asserting that the Canadians fought in the Vietnam War, etc.). She’s even been taken apart by, of all people, that “liberal” Alan Colmes.’

    Not having heard what she said about Herman or Canada, your rant is a bit suspect by the last part. I have never seen Colmes get the upper hand on Coulter – he always leaves the debate without his knickers intact. Which Fox News are you watching?

  122. 162


    Hey “John”-

    You seem like an OK guy…sharp too…lookit, i keep getting emails from this Nigerian banker…

    I can’t help him, but maybe you could do something with it. Sharp guy like you.

  123. 163

    Donnageddon spews:

    Ah, yearight, you have reached the ultimate Neo-Con state of conciousness.

    You don’t even believe the truth when you see it right in front of you.

    Congratualations. Perhaps you should look up John. I understand he thinks he is proud in bed.

  124. 165

    John spews:

    153 Bobblehead. I was thinking that in the Dr E post that a Coulter probably had her nouns confused. No harm in that. If one is not a perfectionist. but her job is needling so she has to take the needling back if she is wrong. Canadian troops went to Vietnam, they just weren’t Canadian.

    Looking at the vid I think she thought the Government of Canada sent them. I haven’t seen her reply. But my point was that Canadians did go to Vietnam. the articles I read did not state the policy of the Canadian government at that time(more MSM bias???). Which is I think what Coulter was trying to do. Her overal point is that we have been friends with Canada a long time and she would rather they be supportive. I agree with her on that. No use suing American pilots involved in friendly fire with Canadians.

  125. 166

    yearight spews:

    Dr. E-151 ‘Why does this matter?’

    Good question. Two items of pretty minor consequence out of thousands?

    Goldy “lied” about the Simms/Irons story and whether the MSM had covered it. Is his credibility in the toilet?

  126. 167

    Chimp Patrol spews:

    John @ 151, what in the hell are you mumbling about? More Western and more Middle Eastern? Drink with the Muslims (non drinkers). Better get back to your 4th grade studies, my best guess is that in about 5 years you will start studying world history and get atleast some of your ‘facts’ somewhat straight.

  127. 168

    John spews:

    I find Ann Coulter amusing. Maybe that is her slippery trick. And she occasiionally pulls a rabbit out of her hat. I think those three cooridinate their talks a little bit, or they know each other well. I have her last book here by me know. it’s like an Anne Rice novel. I don’t know If I will still have my soul after I read it, but I am strangely attracting to reading it. I would like to see her take a little more time on her crafting. It reads like the statacco of “Gilmore Girls”…

    There still might be enough blood left in me to vote for one Democrat in November.

  128. 170

    John spews:

    Chimp Patrol… It’s historical fact that nations that war acquire attributes of their opponents. Leaving blood on a foreign soil via war has a lasting impact on the warring parties. Totally unnecessary of course. But that is how balanced communication gets restarted once the war ends.

  129. 172

    John spews:

    #155 Bobblehead thanks for the link. It would be interesting if someone produced a single website with the names and numbers as best can be of all the US Citizens that have died in a war.

    Now to be clear I am pro Iraq war, but am sorry to see anyone die. Especially kids. Everyone should have a chance to grow up happy. That is the tough thing about this war. I do wish the Iraqis peace, but am pretty worried about sharia and islam.

  130. 175

    anonymous spews:

    Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report

    October 25, 2005
    Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report
    This article is by David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson and Douglas Jehl.

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 – I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

    Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

    The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.

    Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

    Mr. Libby’s notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status.

    It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

    White House officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby’s legal status. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, declined to comment on the case.

    Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to decide whether to bring charges in the case by Friday, when the term of the grand jury expires. Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment, lawyers involved in the case have said. It is not publicly known whether other officials also face indictment.

    The notes help explain the legal difficulties facing Mr. Libby. Lawyers in the case said Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that he had first heard from journalists that Ms. Wilson may have had a role in dispatching her husband on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission to Africa in 2002 in search of evidence that Iraq had acquired nuclear material there for its weapons program.

    But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald’s possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson – who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame – from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said.

    It is not clear why Mr. Libby would have suggested to the grand jury that he might have learned about Ms. Wilson from journalists if he was aware that Mr. Fitzgerald had obtained the notes of the conversation with Mr. Cheney or might do so. At the beginning of the investigation, Mr. Bush pledged the White House’s full cooperation and instructed aides to provide Mr. Fitzgerald with any information he sought.

    The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name of Mr. Wilson’s wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that she may have helped arrange her husband’s trip.

    Some lawyers in the case have said Mr. Fitzgerald may face obstacles in bringing a false-statement charge against Mr. Libby. They said it could be difficult to prove that he intentionally sought to mislead the grand jury.

    Lawyers involved in the case said they had no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald was considering charging Mr. Cheney with wrongdoing. Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.

    But the evidence of Mr. Cheney’s direct involvement in the effort to learn more about Mr. Wilson is sure to intensify the political pressure on the White House in a week of high anxiety among Republicans about the potential for the case to deal a sharp blow to Mr. Bush’s presidency.

    Mr. Tenet was not available for comment Monday night. But another former senior intelligence official said Mr. Tenet had been interviewed by the special prosecutor and his staff in early 2004, and never appeared before the grand jury. Mr. Tenet has not talked since then to the prosecutors, the former official said.

    The former official said he strongly doubted that the White House learned about Ms. Wilson from Mr. Tenet.

    On Monday, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby both attended a cabinet meeting with Mr. Bush as the White House continued trying to portray business as usual. But the assumption among White House officials is that anyone who is indicted will step aside.

    On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, The Washington Post published a front-page article reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The article did not name the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address.

    An earlier anonymous reference to Mr. Wilson and his mission to Africa had appeared in a column by Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on May 6, 2003. Mr. Wilson went public with his conclusion that the White House had “twisted” the intelligence about Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material on July 6, 2003, in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times.

    The note written by Mr. Libby will be a crucial piece of evidence in a false-statement case against him if Mr. Fitzgerald decides to pursue it, lawyers in the case said. It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked to Mr. Libby.

    The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife. Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, in his account of a deposition on the subject, wrote that he asked Mr. Libby whether he had even heard that Ms. Wilson had a role in sending her husband to Africa. Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Libby did not use Ms. Wilson’s name but replied, “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”

    In her testimony to the grand jury, Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, said Mr. Libby sought from the start of her three conversations with him to “insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson’s charges.”

    Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions about Mr. Cheney, Ms. Miller said. “He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interview with me or was aware of them,” Ms. Miller said. “The answer was no.”

    In addition to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, Mr. Fitzgerald is known to have interviewed three other journalists who spoke to Mr. Libby during June and July 2003. They were Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC News.

    Mr. Pincus and Mr. Kessler have said that Mr. Libby did not discuss Mr. Wilson’s wife with them in their conversations during the period. Mr. Russert, in a statement, declined to say exactly what he discussed with Mr. Libby, but said he first learned the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife in the column by Mr. Novak.

  131. 178

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 9

    Roger Rabbit is on vacation. This is an automated response. If Bush can take 3 vacations a month, why can’t Roger Rabbit take 3 vacations a month too? Why should Republicans get all the vacations?

    Hey Mark LeRedneck, it sounds like you agree — perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes! So you support indicting Libby, Rove, Cheney, and anybody else who committed perjury and/or obstruction of justice, correct? We’ll see, soon enough, if you’re just another fucking Rethug hypocrite.

  132. 179

    madison spews:

    gbs – now there’s a thinking, reasoning person. money, power and control – those at the top have it and will keep it at all costs.

  133. 182

    yearight spews:

    Apache Fog-180 ‘The real enemy is multinational corporations.’

    Tell me you do not support increased authority for the UN, the World Court, etc. If having central authorities increase power to control over the masses is desireable how would any corporation not evolve into “multinational”? The question is only relevant if you agree on the UN, World Court, etc.

  134. 183

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Roger Rabbit is on vacation. This is an automated response. If Bush takes 3 vacations a month, why shouldn’t Roger Rabbit take 3 vacations a month too? Why should Republicans get all the vacations?

    GOP = party of criminals, thieves, and traitors

  135. 186

    snfrk spews:



    Twas the night before Fitzmas, and in the White House
    Every one was scared shitless, and Bush was quite soused
    The indictments were hanging like Damoceles’ sword
    As verminous oxen prepared to be gored

    The perps were all sleepless, curled fetal in bed
    While visions of prison cells loomed in each head
    And Dick in his jammies, and George in his lap
    Were sweating and swearing and looking like crap

    When out on the web there arose such a clatter
    The blogs and the forums were buzzing with chatter
    Away to the PC Rove ran like a flash
    He booted his browser and cleared out his cache

    The rumors that flew through the cold autumn air
    Made Dubya shiver with angry despair
    When what to his horror-filled eyes did he spy?
    A bespectacled man with a brown suit and tie!

    With an impartial manner that gave Bush the shits
    He knew in a moment it must be St. Fitz!
    With unwavering voice, his indictments they came
    He cleared out his throat and he called them by name:

    Now Scooter, Now Libby,
    Now Blossoming Turd,
    Now Cheney, dear Cheney,
    Yes, you are the third
    To the bench of the court
    Up the steps, down the hall
    Now come along, come along,
    Come along, all!

    He then became silent, and went right to work
    He filed the indictments and turned with a jerk
    And pointing his finger at justice’s scale
    Said, “The people be served, and let fairness prevail.”

    He then left the room, to his team gave a nod
    And the sound could be heard of a crumbling facade
    And we all did exclaim, as he faded from sight
    “Merry Fitzmas to all, and to all a good night!”

    – © 2005 Daryl W (t3poh)

  136. 187

    Michael spews:

    @154 What’s your point? Canada did not fight in Vietnam. According to your quote 30-40 thousand Canadians did, but the country of Canada did not.

    I’m not sure what that means. Did these people just voluntarily leave their homes, get on a commercial airline to Vietnam, and take up a weapon? Or were they sent by the government?

    By the way, the exact quote from Coulter was “I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam.”