That guy is disturbed. How anybody can defend it, plunged, is beyond my comprehension.
Everything that happened before is destined to happen again - domestic politics as bloodsport. Sick.Comment Posted By Sweetie On 23.08.2006 @ 12:06
Congratulations, well deserved.Comment Posted By Sweetie On 16.08.2006 @ 09:31
I think Brad has a point. People are dying and the Rove Patrol is worried about facts. When it comes to war you should always trust your feelings. No worries about the facts - we can always fit the facts around your feelings, no matter how delicate or how sophisticated the software required.
Layers. Like an onion without the skin.Comment Posted By Sweetie On 7.08.2006 @ 21:06
Do you have examples of right of center bloggers threatening left of center bloggers? Or did you have a pertinent point that somehow got lost in your orgy of BDSpalooza?Comment Posted By Sweetie On 27.07.2006 @ 10:35
Here's a link from 2004 re. your response to Tano.
Here's something of interest: "The most recent case is that of Abdullah Mehsud, a former Taliban commander released from the detention facility in March, who masterminded the recent kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in Pakistan, one of whom was killed during a rescue attempt by the Pakistani military." I'm guessing the two who were kidnapped, with one killed, aren't in favor of releasing the Gitmo prisoners.
Additionally, the inmates that have been released are the ones, presumably, where we had the greatest confidence that they were innocents. In the story it says 202 were released and 8 (at least) later fought in Afghanistan. If we released the next 100, as an example, where we had the next greatest confidence (after the 202) that they would not re-emerge on the battlefield would we expect the 'wrong rate' to be higher or lower than the 4% we got with the first 202? And does that matter? Or maybe it makes a difference if your ass is actually on the line in Afghanistan? I'd imagine the 'national shame' of Gitmo would pale next to losing a buddy on the battlefield.Comment Posted By Sweetie On 12.06.2006 @ 16:21
"The US has the most sophisticated military in the world, yet we couldnâ€™t stop a passenger plane from slamming into the pentagon 85 minutes after the first plane hit the WTC?"
Did you see United 93? The answers are there, as well as in the actions of the Clinton administration in response to various terrorist attacks in the 90s. There was no national consensus that we had a homeland terrorism problem - it was a foreign terrorism problem. The country was asleep. The air traffic controllers were asleep. The military was asleep. It's really pretty simple - as Fukuyama said post the Cold War, paraphrasing, history is over. We instintively knew it too. We were wrong.Comment Posted By Sweetie On 24.05.2006 @ 18:35
"there are plenty of examples of him saying â€˜911 and Saddamâ€™ in the same sentence, as if there were some connection"
The bastard. But not half as bad as when he used the words 'tax', 'poor', 'cut' and 'wealthy' in the same sentence. Who can doubt he favors cutting up the poor in little pieces so the wealthy can have tax cuts or something. He's like encouraging axe murders or something.Comment Posted By Sweetie On 24.05.2006 @ 18:19
The moonbats apparently think they will never be given power again. Because the scorched earth approach to politics they have made the SOP will be replicated if that should ever happen and it will be 'their President' that is assumed to be a liar no matter the issue and no matter the evidence.
But I think they may be right - they will probably never be given power again so they lose nothing with the constant hyperventilating.Comment Posted By Sweetie On 16.05.2006 @ 10:28
The SF Chronicle has 3 stories from their staff on this - two reporting, one "analysis". In the stories they have 31 cites of others, some named individuals and some unnamed groups (some democrats, many others in Congress). Four of the 31 cites directly note or imply that Republicans see the brouha as being 'good politics'. There is no cite or suggestion that just maybe Dems might be playing politics by raising the brouha in the first place.
In the main story the first two mentions of Republicans are Specter - grill phone companies - and "some Republicans" who think the brouha was good politics. Half way through the story they reveal, per Pat Roberts "(a group of senators) are being breifed, we are conducting oversight, we support this tremendous program".
Of the total 31 cites, 22 were negative, 4 were supportive and 5 were neutral or mixed (if a cite was exclusively 'good politics for Republicans' I called it a negative as it implied that this was the motivation, if a cite was in favor of the program specifics and noted good politics I called it mixed). Interestingly, though one story cited "independent pollster" Zogby, the guy that called the 2004 race for Kerry six months before the election, not a single poll was cited. I wonder why?Comment Posted By Sweetie On 12.05.2006 @ 17:24
I didn't recall it so I went back to read Imus' 1996 Clinton speech that some have compared to Colbert's turn. Little wonder that bit also landed with a thud. But there's a startling difference. While Imus was over the top with Clinton he was equally rough with the right and the media. Colbert's idea of poking fun at the left and the media was poking fun of Jesse Jackson for speaking slowly (with a global warming punchline - Colbert makes fun of the left by, apparently, attacking those that haven't drank the global warming kool aid, largely the right) which was probably necessary because Jesse provides so little to work with for a 'send up'. Right.
This seems to be a pattern for the Stewart and Colbert as it brings to mind the 'goodbye' the Daily Show gave to Clinton in 2000 or 2001. Evidently they couldn't find any material to poke fun at the President, instead spending the 1/2 hour poking fun at the Republicans, spending most of the time on impeachment (surely a worthy subject for bi-partisan ridicule if there ever was one). This was in the same vein.
It's unfortunate that Comedy Central used to have a comedian on the payroll that did speak truth to power - Colin Quinn. But having a liberal show lead into Colin's 'shoot at all targets' show probably wasn't going to work. Quinn would have been perfect for the correspondent's dinner.Comment Posted By Sweetie On 1.05.2006 @ 15:33