Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

WTF is going on in the White House

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Capitulated on the attorney general thing, reversal in diplomatic policy towards Iran, confessing abuses at the FBI, all within the last few weeks - what's goin on in Dubya's little brain? Admitting mistakes/changing course is so uncharacteristic. I can't imagine that a Dem majority in congress makes him feel THAT much pressure...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Saturday, 10 March 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

trying to regain lost capital?

― lfam, Saturday, 10 March 2007 15:41 (eighteen years ago)

When you are down to your king and a few pawns, your only hope to revive your offense is to start advancing your pawns in the hopes of reaching your opponent's bottom row.

― Aimless, Saturday, 10 March 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

probably a couple of factors in play here: presidential election in 2008 (the election will be the major shaper of the political arena in all areas; just because he's not up for reelection doesn't make it a non-issue), offsetting lame duck status (if he wants any political manuveurability or effectiveness at this late date he has to start negotiating), and thoughts of his presidential legacy are surely plaguing his mind. we've been working our way towards this point since at least the time of katrina.

and the effect of the dem congress cannot be underestimated. there are many types of bargaining chips on the table that were not before.

― Edward III, Saturday, 10 March 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

Gonzales resignation in the works...?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 16:53 (eighteen years ago)

^^impeachment

― m coleman, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

I'm starting to see a LOT of pins / posters / flyers advocating a campaign towards impeachment

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

those have been around since 2004. bush isn't going to get impeached. gonzalez might though.

― akm, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:12 (eighteen years ago)

those have been around since 2004.

No shit??!!? REALLY?

My point is that its more than crusties with them now.

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:15 (eighteen years ago)

yeah I don't see impeachment happening

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:15 (eighteen years ago)

gonzalez' sidekick quit today.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:17 (eighteen years ago)

Dan Rostenkowski, one of the most powerful figures in Congress before
a fraud conviction sent him to jail, turned up Monday as a television
commentator, saying President Clinton will never be impeached over
the allegations of lying about alleged sexual misconduct. "I think
the worst it could get to is censuring the president - a
memorializing parchment in the House of Representatives legislation
suggesting the activities of the President of the United States are
unbecoming the gentlemen in the office. I think that's as far as it
can go," he said.

― and what, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:22 (eighteen years ago)

there can't be an impeachment without a) specific and conclusive evidence of criminal wrongdoing and b) the collusion of members of the President's own party. Neither of these are currently in evidence, or even in development.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:23 (eighteen years ago)

ever heard of chuck hagel

― and what, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:24 (eighteen years ago)

They'd have to impeach Cheney first, I'd think. If that happens, all bets are off.

― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:28 (eighteen years ago)

Let's here from Newt:

Perjury is at the very heart of our legal system. And is very often punished very intently by the courts. […] The standard is in a court of law, should somebody who’s popular get away with committing a felony?
And if this week it’s perjury, and next week it’s theft, and the week after that it’s having somebody beaten up, then what morning do we end up as a corrupt country like Nigeria where the corruption is so deep that it eats at the very fabric of our society?

Strong words but OH WAIT they are from 9 years ago

― kingfish, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:28 (eighteen years ago)

now find him talking about adultery!!

― and what, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:30 (eighteen years ago)

Hmmm

― Michael White, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:32 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/fired.attorneys/index.html

haha

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:49 (eighteen years ago)

While all this has been going on, Bush has been praising the fantastic meats of Uruguay (scroll to the bottom).

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:54 (eighteen years ago)

• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will hold a news conference at 2 p.m.

what's the over/under that he

1) resigns
2) grabs his crotch and claims to have tasty nutz on offer to certain senate subcommittee members
3) mentions 9/11 at least 3 times.

Also: wtf up with Democrats say / Democrats are examining e-mails Do the emails say it or not? use the reportorial voice, not this he said/she said shit. The Senate Committee is doing this, right?

― kingfish, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

I love Froomkin's White House columns. I wonder if "Great Van Susteren" is a typo or sarcasm.

― Rock Hardy, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:05 (eighteen years ago)

This is quite good:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/03/alberto_gonzales_a_willing_acc.html

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

Based, on kf's #2, I hope for multiple Eazy-E quotes.

― David R., Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

don't get me wrong I have no doubt this administration has committed all kinds of crimes/felonies/malfeasance - but none of that stuff is making its way through the courts, which is a slow process anyway, the only thing linked to Bush/Cheney that's been brought to trial is the Libby thing, and oh what a rousing success that was.... the prospect of charges connected directly to Bush or Cheney making it to court and then becoming grounds for impeachment some time over the next 18 months seems waaaaay slim to me.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:21 (eighteen years ago)

No Gonzales resignation. "Mistakes were made," blah blah blah.

― Rock Hardy, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

no junk-grabbing?

― kingfish, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

There was no way he was going to admit to his own malfeasance wearing that suit.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

My theory is that Cheney, being a liability, is going to "step down for health reasons" and McCain will take his place, giving his candidacy a leg-up.

― Beth Parker, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

Like Elvis, Gonzales was only filmed above the waist, so he may have been adjusting the boys.

― Rock Hardy, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

Cheney's not gonna step down - they were trotting him out (again) as the admin's press pitbull as late as last week

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

you mean yesterday

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

I mean if they were worried about his being a liability they'd keep him sequestered in his Underground Penguin Lair - but he's still hugely popular with the Republican base, so they trot him out when they need to attack the opposition/distract the public while Bush is outta the country being lambasted and protested against, etc.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

you mean yesterday

haha what did he say this time

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

you mean yesterday.

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

do you not read a newspaper?

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

Where's Tony Snow been lately? Cayman Islands? Rehab?

― Mike Dixn, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

Take your Pick

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

bush is in South America dipshit

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

Beth, Cheney would rather eat broken glass than resign.

― Aimless, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

uh, I know Bush is in South America that's why I said he was outta the country? what's your problem?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

Cheney would rather eat broken glass than do a lot of things!

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

he's still hugely popular with the Republican base

really?

bush is in South America dipshit

actually, he's in mexico

― gabbneb, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:39 (eighteen years ago)

Okay, I withdraw my theory.

― Beth Parker, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

uh, I know Bush is in South America that's why I said he was outta the country? what's your problem?

Shakey Mo Collier on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:37 PM (1 minute ago)

Dude that was for Mixe Dixon, sorry!

Gabbneb he was in South America earlier this week and went to Mexico yesterday, but thanks for the update. Guess I should have said Latin America.

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

But only to keep the peace. If it really happens, I still claim the rights to an "I told you so."

― Beth Parker, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

chuck hagel or no, i think impeachment proceedings are exactly the thing that would coalesce the GOP at this point, maybe the only thing.

― gff, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

xpost.

― Beth Parker, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

he's still hugely popular with the Republican base
really?

according to some CNN story last week he still has high approval ratings with registered Republicans, will try to find a link...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

If it really happens, Beth, you have my permission to play my head like a bongo drum for up to several minutes. I won't mind, under those cirumstances. Small price to pay and all that.

― Aimless, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

He's in Mexico you dipshit.

― Mike Dixn, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

hahahaha powned by a mere eight hours, i was

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

dipshit

― Mike Dixn, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

sorry! at least i know where tony snow is!

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry! You said he was in South America.

― Mike Dixn, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

i said bush was in south america dipshit!

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

Oh boy.

― Mike Dixn, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

There must be some sort of witty rejoinder having to do with not being able to find tony snow in the dark, if one used both hands. It's past me. Suggestions?

― Aimless, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:53 (eighteen years ago)

ask gabbneb he's got a pulse on America

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

"you got your pulse all over me" --America

― river wolf, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

I can't imagine any scenario short of that "24" shit that would spur the Party of Clinton / Bush loyalists to impeach the fuckers. Unless a pollster told em to.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 19:38 (eighteen years ago)

Oh man. The Corner is rockin' today. K-Lo nominates Alberto for SCOTUS. Goldberg is, erm, miffed.

Kathryn — One: I was trying to be clear that I am very biased against Gonzales and therefore my views on the matter should be judged accordingly. Two: I think David makes fine points, though they leave out Gonzales' ultimate responsibility for turning what — David believes to be a — non-scandal into a firestorm. Three: several readers note that a confirmation fight over a new AG would be a bloodbath and contrary to Bush's interests, particularly in the war on terror. Okay...that's a fair point, even if I'm not fully persuaded

But, four, are you and David Frum really, honest and for true, hoping that Bush nominates Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court if there's another vacancy? Really? That's the upshot of David's final, "crucial" point. I confess that I haven't been focusing on the bullpen for the next vacancy now that we have a Democratic Senate. But are things really that bad that the best argument for holding on to Gonzales as AG is that it keeps him viable for the Supreme Court? Where did I put my toaster, I think I'll take a bath with it.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:14 (eighteen years ago)

dsjklnsfdjk

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:19 (eighteen years ago)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000004B40.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

― daria-g, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:15 (eighteen years ago)

is gonzales stubborn refusal to step down (he will I bet) just a smokescreen? i still want to know what the attorneys who weren't fired were doing

― daria-g, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:16 (eighteen years ago)

hahaha currently listening to 1981 box set

this is what is going on in the white house!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtUc6Z4ZRSo

― daria-g, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:18 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sure some of you got this email from the Democrats, signed Howard Dean? Just attention-getting cup-rattling perhaps, but they're sure are using all the words assoc'd with "impeach":


This could be George Bush's Watergate.

Eight U.S. Attorneys, fired because they wouldn't follow orders by the Bush Administration.

Fired because they refused to go on witch-hunts against Democrats, or ignored the Republicans' blatant disregard for the law. Fired so that they could be replaced by talking heads and loyalists of the Bush Administration.

When Scooter Libby was convicted, I said that this administration reminded me of Richard Nixon's administration -- more obsessed with their critics than with the jobs the American people entrust them with. But this latest White House scandal takes that comparison to another level.

Just what did George Bush, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales and the rest of the Bush White House and Republican senior staff know about the Justice Department firings -- and when did they know it?...

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.lifeclever.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/gonzales_passive.jpg

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

could he look anymore like a brown-nosing lickspittle?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:28 (eighteen years ago)

thatsracist.gif

― deej, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Link]

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

lolz

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

okay maybe "brown-nosing" was an ill-advised choice of words. Let's go with sycophantic instead.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

(I'm stickin by lickspittle)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/03/army-of-martha-mitchells.html

What happens when official journos at Time feel the sneer at those Dirty Fucking Hippies/Bloggers.

Except that those DFH are actually, y'know, right about shit. but they're still wrong, or something.

― kingfish, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.lifeclever.com/dont-be-alberto-gonzales/

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

Ew, Shakey's stickin' by lickspittle.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:21 (eighteen years ago)

people with brown noses need to get off this fuckin planet

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 20:32 (eighteen years ago)

Shit, meed Mr. Fan.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/16/fired.attorneys/index.html

has Rove ever been subpoena'd by the Senate? Cuz I'm lookin forward to it.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

Schumer seems pretty set on getting him under oath.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

hahahahahaha wo "are loyal Bushies, etc."! SOMEONE SET HIM UP THE BOMB

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

ONLY ONE MORE SLEEP TO GO!

― Kiwi, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 20:59 (eighteen years ago)

Why? what's tomorrow?

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 21:25 (eighteen years ago)

Just now, Leahy to Fielding: fuck you.

― Rock Hardy, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 21:25 (eighteen years ago)

this should be interesting.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 21:34 (eighteen years ago)

WE GET LUNCH WITH THE BOSS OF COURSE!

― Kiwi, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 21:36 (eighteen years ago)

shit is going down:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors

"constitutional confrontation from which he would not back down" makes me think jesus christ, what are they hiding?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 23:54 (eighteen years ago)

"Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," Bush said."

"He's got support WITH me". If this even makes sense, is it actually a boost?

― everything, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 00:00 (eighteen years ago)

no no no that's a constitutional SHOWDOWN.

they are hiding flagrant contempt of rule of law + us constitution probably? yeah, that. bush doesn't want fingers pointed straight at the white house b/c obv the white house was primarily responsible

― daria-g, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 04:22 (eighteen years ago)

nice little deconstruction and explanation of what's been going on

― kingfish, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:46 (eighteen years ago)

Love what youve done with the hair Helen.

http://www.website.com/yourimage.jpeg

― Kiwi, Thursday, 22 March 2007 02:20 (eighteen years ago)

what. wheres my cavader?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10430150

bwhahah

― Kiwi, Thursday, 22 March 2007 02:41 (eighteen years ago)

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/21clarkb.jpg

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 03:21 (eighteen years ago)

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/21clarkb.jpg

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 03:21 (eighteen years ago)

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/21clarkb.jpg

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 22 March 2007 03:22 (eighteen years ago)

odd. i got apache errors when trying to post that.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 03:24 (eighteen years ago)

Genesis P-Orridge?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 22 March 2007 03:26 (eighteen years ago)

'saight kingfish, I seriously hypnotized myself by scrolling over that triptych over & over. Effect enhanced by my soundtrack: THE TEMPLE from Jesus Xt Supastar!

― Abbott, Thursday, 22 March 2007 05:51 (eighteen years ago)

See my eyes/I can hardly post.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 22 March 2007 05:53 (eighteen years ago)

Bush defensively asserting there'd be no congressional "show trials" by offering off-the-record interviews instead of sworn testimony gave me a FLASHBACK to was it late 73? early 74? when Nixon offered his edited version of the Watergate Tapes, I couldn't stop thinking of Tricky D sitting there on TV w/the stack of tapes/transcripts behind him during the news clip of Bush. All W needs is a Rosemary Woods...

― m coleman, Thursday, 22 March 2007 10:01 (eighteen years ago)

But White House officials held firm to Bush's offer to turn over thousands of pages of correspondence and to make the aides available only for private interviews and not under oath, with limited questions and no transcriptions. White House spokesman Tony Snow called that offer "extraordinarily generous."

"look we could've just told Senator Leahy to go fuck himself..."

― m coleman, Thursday, 22 March 2007 10:14 (eighteen years ago)

Klieg lights!

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 14:27 (eighteen years ago)


"look we could've just told Senator Leahy to go fuck himself..."

OTFM

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:12 (eighteen years ago)

Why cant the President fire everyone?

...The entire Civil Service system also needs to be reformed so that the President can fire anyone he thinks is disloyal the way it was during the McCarthy era and before the passage of the Pendleton Act. Then government will be better able to "serve the people," as Surber put it. Surber is also right when he says the President "should be able to fire anyone." In fact, the President should have the power to fire members of Congress and members of the Supreme Court as well. Only then will the President have successfully neutralized the threat of those inside the government who have weakened us in the War on Terror.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

so won't this showdown end if Gonzalhack falls on his sword?

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:29 (eighteen years ago)

I doubt it.

― Alex in SF, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:29 (eighteen years ago)

The only reason I can care about this scandal, of all the corruption scandals and investigations and improprieties, is that we may get to see some blood on the White House walls. Thrilling, really.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

Unfortunately, the creation of Civil Service led to the federal government becoming too powerful. When federal workers were incompetent, government was weak and didn't bother people that much. But once the government was filled with people who knew how to do their jobs, the government became too strong. President Bush has done what he could to weaken the power of government bureaucracies by restoring some of the incompetence that was lost, but there is only so much one man can do in six years. Although people like Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld and Michael Brown made great strides in weakening the bureaucracies they supervised, a lot more needs to be done

― Ed, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

my feelings are 1) great, I hope Dubya gets nailed on something I don't care what, send some of these fuckers to jail or at least get them out of office as quickly as possible, and 2) sad that the main reason this is happening is only becuz Congress (specifically Leahy and a few others) have been personally insulted.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:55 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/22/navarrette/index.html

god I hate Navarrette!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

Pinata?!? omg

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

That Navarette piece employs one of my least favorite political strategies used by the administration and their bolstering punditry -- using the race card to deflect criticism of an official's integrity into accusations of the critic's racism. UGH. Hate that bullshit. All in all, though, that piece is nothing new, and pretty mediocre at that.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:13 (eighteen years ago)

another genius appropriation of traditionally leftist tactic

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

what a load of shit

― deej, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

My god, he event takes baseball metaphors seriously.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:21 (eighteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Link]

sonned!!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:26 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlDyY_wQzjk

fuck you ilx fucking fuck you

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

^ Rocky Anderson on O'reilly (3/20/07)

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzz/Rocky_Anderson

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

Senate's authorized subpoenas. Yr move Dubya!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

Sampson's agreed to testify - could they scapegoat that guy anymore?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 23 March 2007 20:39 (eighteen years ago)

Robert Novak lets it rip:

With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500912.html

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 26 March 2007 14:18 (eighteen years ago)

Meantime, blame a Blackberry.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 26 March 2007 14:19 (eighteen years ago)

Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.

WTF? Who does that?

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 14:23 (eighteen years ago)

I'd forgotten that W's nickname for AG is "Fredo." Get out the rowboat.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 26 March 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

"a Hispanic"

is that the preferred nomenclature?

― elmo argonaut, Monday, 26 March 2007 14:47 (eighteen years ago)

a pretty exhaustive timeline from TPM

― elmo argonaut, Monday, 26 March 2007 14:56 (eighteen years ago)

With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone.

is there a "world's tiniest violin playing just for you" emoticon?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.iamnotageek.com/images/smilies/smiley_violin.gif

natch

― kingfish, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:31 (eighteen years ago)

$
||
{ ||| }
) || (
{___} <-- sad sad music

― elmo argonaut, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:33 (eighteen years ago)

my kingdom for a <pre> tag

― elmo argonaut, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:34 (eighteen years ago)

gotta love Justic Dept officials taking the 5th.

Classy!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:56 (eighteen years ago)

Clinton did it too

Or not.

― kingfish, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:07 (eighteen years ago)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTNjY2U3Yjk0NTRmNTcyNjg1M2EwM2FlNTA0OTYyMzU=

^^^National Review is asking gonzales to resign

― deej, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 19:36 (eighteen years ago)

Saw that this morning. I like the first outraged response they posted from the guy saying that their doing that meant surrender to the awful left.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 19:42 (eighteen years ago)

he's right, don't these people understand that there's a war on!

― Edward III, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 20:24 (eighteen years ago)

we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability.

ouch.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 20:29 (eighteen years ago)

This bears reading too. Ignore the stupid headline: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGIyNGU4MjdhYWIzNWE1ODNlMWQ3NzQwMzdiOGU3YmE=

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 21:07 (eighteen years ago)

and, likewise, from TPM, a response to the NRO and other pieces

Despite the fact that it was one of the highest profile federal investigations being undertaken at the Department, Lam's investigation into Duke Cunningham and others is never mentioned in the Justice Department emails that have been released. Not once. This must have been discussed at the highest levels, but we've seen no record of those communications.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 21:36 (eighteen years ago)

[i]we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability.[/strike]

True, but his loyalty has not once wavered. Heckuva job, Gonzo!

― fife, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 21:48 (eighteen years ago)

Whoops. (Slaps self)

― fife, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 21:49 (eighteen years ago)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ciqj-31-CQCmrM:http://modafoca.surtohype.com/imagens/gonzo.jpg
you're fired!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 21:50 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2989996

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," said Kyle Sampson.

― deej, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 22:47 (eighteen years ago)

Trawling through the usual sites I do tomorrow will be a huge treat, I predict.

TPM is breathing heavily about some new documents released today showing Gonzalez/the White House more at fault. Well, we'll see.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 22:49 (eighteen years ago)

dood that Samson quote is pretty damaging wtf

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 22:58 (eighteen years ago)

Nah he's arguing that hiring/firing based on politics is part and parcel of the job.

I'm kind of curious as to what people think of the standard republican line on this - that its a political witchhunt, etc. Basically the argument made in the National Review's piece calling for Gonzales to leave. Obviously it would be wonderful if we thought the justice dept. was going to be completely free of political influence but this clearly isn't ever going to be the case; exactly what line has been crossed? What are you arguing with someone who maintains that the worst Gonzales is guilty of is poor management, poor ability to be transparent about the political motivations of his decisions? If firing people for political reasons isn't illegal, couldn't dems be better spending our time focusing on getting other things done in the house and senate? Isn't Bush already the lamest of lame ducks? Why bother beating a dead horse.

devil's advocate.

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:26 (eighteen years ago)

mc rove

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

If firing people for political reasons isn't illegal, couldn't dems be better spending our time focusing on getting other things done in the house and senate? Isn't Bush already the lamest of lame ducks?

bitch of it is, until this hubbub came up, the lame duck could still stick apparatchiks wherever he wanted, including the Karl Rove wannabe into Arkansas(where the dude could presumably get access to some Hillary records).

As for going after this bit, hey, if it works, if this is the tax evasion charge that causes everything to tumble, so be it.

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:31 (eighteen years ago)

What are you arguing with someone who maintains that the worst Gonzales is guilty of is poor management, poor ability to be transparent about the political motivations of his decisions?

ITZ THE COVERUP STOOPID

http://originaldo.com/richard-nixon-scarface.jpg

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:31 (eighteen years ago)

i wish there was a competent conservative on this board who could argue this position w/ more passion

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:39 (eighteen years ago)

devil's advocate, cont'd

There is no evidence that anything was covered up; only that gonzales, in a poor management strategy, attempted to soften the blow of a move that would make people upset and give dems an excuse to blame the president for 'politics' even though every president's justice dept. tends to answer politically to that president. So he's not guilty of covering anything up - he's just done a really bad job of PR.

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:42 (eighteen years ago)

Don and I are the closest you'll get, deej.

Gonzalez lied to Congress about the reasons for firing the employees. In his defense, not every one of those attorneys was fired for going after Dems (in the case of Carol Lam she even enjoyed Dianne Feinstein's support, as the NR article to which I linked upthread indicates). Nobody on the left or right thought Gonzalez possessed scintillating legal skills, so this seems like the perfect excuse to can him.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:46 (eighteen years ago)

So basically, Gonzales should be fired because he did a really bad job of answering congress' questions, but so far the noise people are making about corruption and everything is theoretical. This is the National Review's position, right? So where are they wrong?

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:48 (eighteen years ago)

They're wrong because they are putting legalities before ethics and bad management.

If it's true that the AGs serve at a president's pleasure, then Gonzalez should have just summarily fired them and told the world that the administration was unhappy with them.

Bush's sense of loyalty--both to his servants and to his causes--is a strength that he has overplayed so fully and so often that it has become his weakness. His inability to compromise, which is a hallmark of diplomacy and political success, has ruined his presidency.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 29 March 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/thumb/7/71/Young-palpatine.jpg/230px-Young-palpatine.jpg:http://www.w-mac.com/ebay/palpatine.jpg
::
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/POLITICS/03/29/fired.attorneys/newt1.jd.hear.14.thurs.gi.jpg:http://images.scotsman.com/2007/03/21/2007-03-21T021227Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKWD-UK-USA-PROSECUTORS.jpg

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:04 (eighteen years ago)

i'm also noticing young palpatine kind of resembles joe lieberman

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:04 (eighteen years ago)

shockingly original political insight

now do bush as hitler!!

― and what, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:06 (eighteen years ago)

?? I didnt know that was a cliche

i've heard the pope = palpatine one before but thats about it

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Gulf_War_1-Operation_Desert_Shield-Storm/DFST9207515.jpg

http://www.gregkucera.com/_images/newport/newpo_dick_cheney_small.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070325/capt.sge.iqc60.250307082129.photo00.photo.default-512x341.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=zsh1YPDWJjmAIRIlpj8D4A--

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:14 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.gregkucera.com/_images/newport/newpo_dick_cheney_small.jpg

holy shit i totally remember these. my cousin had some but i wasnt allowed to buy them.

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:19 (eighteen years ago)

i got an entire box of 'em as some white elephant present, i think, sometime in 1992.

They'd make a nice neocon CCG, since all the characters are the same.

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:22 (eighteen years ago)

Bush's sense of loyalty--both to his servants and to his causes--is a strength that he has overplayed so fully and so often that it has become his weakness. His inability to compromise, which is a hallmark of diplomacy and political success, has ruined his presidency.

You do get the sense sometimes that the performance of the administration hangs on this one man's character. Do the gross failures and oversights in Iraq etc. reflect flaws in the system or flaws of personality?

― fife, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:29 (eighteen years ago)

I'm waiting for the book analyzing the leadership style from actual managerial expert types. These guys made all this noise in the beginning about a CEO President, and slavishing adhere to the "privatization is always better" line, so i'd be curious as to what folks who knew what decent company management was to chime in.

This thought was sparked by something I'd read years ago, about how much of Dubya's style seemed to be comprised of bad corporate management styles left over from the '70s and long since discredited. e.g. the whole bit about decision-making by letting his department heads yell/argue it out with each other, and then go with whomever lasted longer or somesuch.

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:34 (eighteen years ago)

As the great Michael Dukakis once said, "The fish rots from the head down."

The most important quality in any manager is the ability to hire and fire. It trumps everything else. You make nearly all your decisions based one what your subordinates tell you, you are a reflection on their performance. George Bush has an astounding inability to fire anyone, which I attribute to his loyalty complex. Hell, this guy can barely muster a veto.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:40 (eighteen years ago)

I wonder when the fuck these assholes in both parties will realize that being a CEO and a politician are two fucking different jobs, requiring different talents.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 29 March 2007 17:59 (eighteen years ago)

George Bush has an astounding inability to fire anyone, which I attribute to his loyalty complex. Hell, this guy can barely muster a veto.

Ha, I had never connected those two things. To me he seems indecisive and without the means to reason through an issue and arrive at a sound assessment. He almost blindly adheres to the judgment of others because he doesn't trust his own judgment . That compartmentalized model that might go over at the corporate level, but it's a hell of a way to run a state.

― fife, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:01 (eighteen years ago)

I wonder when the fuck these assholes in both parties will realize that being a CEO and a politician are two fucking different jobs, requiring different talents.

Plenty of media/pundit types need to learn this as well.

But what do you expect, seriously? We have a history for 26-27 years of leaders and prominent types continously declaring that government and public services are always bad, always the problem, and that the profit motive and unregulated cronyism would fix everything. Fuck, you had Ross Perot's entire candidacy based on the fact that he was a sucessful businessman and would get right in there and fix this stuff, or so he said.

This is the logical progression of that, of people continually being elected espousing loudly how government and the public sector is horrible, and they're going to prove it by flying it straight into the ground.

If we actually re-introduced basic civics classes for schoolkids, this would help, too.

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:07 (eighteen years ago)

Dean Barnett, sage:

So what’s next? The conventional wisdom is that the president vetoes the bill, Congress authorizes temporary measures to keep the troops funded, and the debate drags on until one side decides it’s to its political advantage to bring closure to the legislative wranglings. The Democrats display their anti-war bona fides to the Nutroots, a sufficient number of Republicans are steadfast enough to please their base, and the troops get their funds. Everyone wins! Even al Qaeda!

But what about this: What if the president surprises everyone and signs the bill into law but says the usurpation of the president’s Commander in Chief duties are unconstitutional and he has no intention of following the orders of 535 congressional General wannabes. Basically, he does what Ronald Reagan should have done in Iran/Contra which was say, “The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional and you’re damn right I disregarded it. Impeach me if you wish.”

If Bush takes such a course, then the Congress can do one or two things: It can bring the law to the Supreme Court for a ruling on its constitutionality, a case that it will surely lose. Or it can just skip that step and go right to impeachment.

If that happens, they will successfully impeach the president in the House but never get him convicted in the Senate. Regardless, the prolonged orgasmic reaction from the fever swamp will gratify them nonetheless.

As for the president, he gets to show that he stood up for a matter of serious principle at a moment in history when the opposition party has gone certifiably insane. Seriously – if Congress wants to end the war and has the votes, it can and should do so by using its Constitutional power of the purse. But does anyone think it’s in the national interest to signal our future strategy to our enemies?

Perhaps the system needs the partisan version of a Gunfight at the OK Corral to jolt itself back to normalcy. I know I’m dreaming here, but the time has come to leach the bitterness out of our body politic. For that, only dramatic action will suffice. Besides, with this Congress and this president, a constitutional showdown is inevitable. The president may as well have the battle on favorable terrain

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

That compartmentalized model that might go over at the corporate level,

hell, it didn't go over even in his own history; dude was perenially getting bailed out by daddy's buddies.

Of course, when daddy's buddies came in to fix this latest problem, he decided to let the oedipal thing flare-up again in conjuction with listening to the AEI types who supported his belief that God wanted him to do this and history would be the judge, not these nattering assholes who actually have decades in this kinda thing.

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

Just how big is Bush's weakness for flattery?

― fife, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:19 (eighteen years ago)

mmm, Kodachrome

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Gulf_War_1-Operation_Desert_Shield-Storm/DFST9207515.jpg

― milo z, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

Either flattery or just confirmation of whatever he's previously made up his mind about, that's how the guy works. Stories came out during the 1st admin about how he'd have tantrums or yell at underlings when they'd present contradictory information or didn't nec. immediately go along with whatever he said.

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

A friend of the Bushes once called W the Sonny Corleone of the family. He is a hothead but he also a streak of insecurity. I think he recognizes his impulsiveness and tries to control it. He pines for a success he could call his own. Jeb is Michael of course.

― fife, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

I always thought W was Fredo.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

This is why i take an interest in the psychoanalysis of the guy(as much as can be done on someone who very likely doesn't believe in it, etc), since I think that it's been the last coupla-few years that we're seeing his neuroses and peccadillos and other entertaining flaws become the dominant force in u.s. politics. Policy and party and war and everything else has fallen secondary, the main driving force for why things are the way they are is rattling around in that calcium tank above his shoulders, and the cultists who support him there.

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think there's that much difference between a CEO and a politician, in terms of being successful. Certainly, on a Fortune 500-level, being a successful CEO requires many of the exact same skills. The major, significant difference, is that there is so much more direct interaction with the public in the case of a politician. But the skillset requirements are remarkably similar.

I think Bush's moments of indecisiveness have been far and fleeting.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 29 March 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe lacking judgment is the better way to put it -- he lacks the confidence to look into a complex issue like Iraq and assess it himself which would then give him a truer sense of how his underlings are performing vis a vis the war. Say the management of Iraq gets handed to Rumsfeld. He entirely defers to Rumsfeld, and when people say "Iraq is not going well," to his ears it sounds like "Rumsfeld is not doing well," which raises his sense of loyal indignation and perhaps insecurity about his own perception of character. And, yes, he hates to cut poor old Rummy off at the knees. It's as if he doesn't see the real world implications of his policy, he only sees his narrow policy-making circle. It's like the clannish competitiveness of domestic politics produces a myopia toward foreign policy resembling that of the French Third Republic near its end. And the press/media frenzy deafens everyone -- to continue your analogy, it's like being CEO of a company which answers to 300 million shareholders.

― fife, Thursday, 29 March 2007 19:25 (eighteen years ago)

Scapegoat to Gonzales: fuck you

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 29 March 2007 20:54 (eighteen years ago)

patrick leahy is so gangster

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

The administration began skewing federal law enforcement before the current U.S. attorney scandal, says a former Department of Justice lawyer.By Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
March 29, 2007
THE SCANDAL unfolding around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest.

I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.

This pattern also extended to hiring. In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 21:57 (eighteen years ago)


Schlozman, for instance, was part of the team of political appointees that approved then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's plan to redraw congressional districts in Texas, which in 2004 increased the number of Republicans elected to the House. Similarly, Schlozman was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the division when the Justice Department OKd a Georgia law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. These decisions went against the recommendations of career staff, who asserted that such rulings discriminated against minority voters. The warnings were prescient: Both proposals were struck down by federal courts.

Schlozman continued to influence elections as an interim U.S. attorney. Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent.

This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.

Morale plummeted, resulting in an alarming exodus of career attorneys. In the last two years, 55% to 60% of attorneys in the voting section have transferred to other departments or left the Justice Department entirely.

At the same time, career staff were nearly cut out of the process of hiring lawyers. Control of hiring went to political appointees, so an applicant's fidelity to GOP interests replaced civil rights experience as the most important factor in hiring decisions.

For decades prior to this administration, the Justice Department had successfully kept politics out of its law enforcement decisions. Hopefully, the spotlight on this misconduct will begin the process of restoring dignity and nonpartisanship to federal law enforcement. As the 2008 elections approach, it is critical to have a Justice Department that approaches its responsibility to all eligible voters without favor.

― deej, Thursday, 29 March 2007 21:57 (eighteen years ago)

One more Bush aide unlucky in love.

Mr. [Matthew] Dowd said, in retrospect, he was in denial.

“When you fall in love like that,” he said, “and then you notice some things that don’t exactly go the way you thought, what do you do? Like in a relationship, you say ‘No no, no, it’ll be different.’ ”

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 31 March 2007 22:58 (eighteen years ago)

is this, uh, rather pronounced level of inexperience common for Justice Dept appointees?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monica_Goodling

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 21:25 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, graduated some mail-order-degree Christian law school in '99, no trial experience, etc.?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 21:26 (eighteen years ago)

| {{#if: {{#if: | {{#if: |1}}}} ||Error on call to template:cite web: Parameters archiveurl and archivedate must be both specified or both omitted }} }}{{#if: | {{#if: | [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: | {{{last}}}{{#if: | , {{{first}}} }} | {{{author}}} }}]] | {{#if: | {{{last}}}{{#if: | , {{{first}}} }} | {{{author}}} }} }} }}{{#if: | {{#if: | ; {{{coauthors}}} }} }}{{#if: | {{#if: | ({{{date}}}) | {{#if: | {{#if: | ({{{month}}} {{{year}}}) | ({{{year}}}) }} }} |}} }}{{#if: | . }}{{ #if: | {{{editor}}}: }}{{#if: | {{#if: | {{#if: DC Picnic Photos | [{{{archiveurl}}} DC Picnic Photos] }}}} | {{#if:?

― Bnad, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 21:40 (eighteen years ago)

The amount of fundie-schooled appointees is staggering, i know that much, and under-reported.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 21:47 (eighteen years ago)

yes its now officially a MCCARTHYITE WITCH HUNT! Against, uh, fundie law school idiots, or something...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 23:23 (eighteen years ago)

The fundies are there as political tokens. This is an administration of business, not fundamentalism. God bows before profit.

― fife, Thursday, 5 April 2007 00:22 (eighteen years ago)

And that Monica fundie-schooled lawyer chick, the one who took the Fifth?

she just quit.

― kingfish, Friday, 6 April 2007 22:45 (eighteen years ago)

"This is an administration of business, not fundamentalism"

I think everything in W's presidency makes perfect sense when you consider he campaigned on Enron's jet before being elected. It sadly appears that the same credentialling was happening at The Dept. of Justice as in FEMA and the CPA in Iraq.

I'm just glad that sick fuc Gonzales didn't end up a Supreme Court justice.

― earlnash, Saturday, 7 April 2007 03:57 (eighteen years ago)

Leahy on a rampage: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070412/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 17:51 (eighteen years ago)

I think/hope the email story is the one that will really make some White House heads blow up Scanners-stylee.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 12 April 2007 17:56 (eighteen years ago)

The press guy they have in place of Snow (and Perino) has been tripping over himself ridiculously.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 April 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

Democrats say the firings might have been improper, but that probe yielded a weightier question: Whether White House officials such as political adviser Karl Rove are intentionally conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental accounts to evade a law requiring preservation — and eventual disclosure — of presidential records.

this is the serious shit right here

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

shades of Nixon once more

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

it's nice that the bush-era doj modus operandi has finally been exposed to the public. (this is mostly about the big nyt article today about the voting fraud cases) perfectly willing to ruin peoples lives for some political agenda. some big guy somewhere pushes some issue he's adopted, or been bought into adopting, and the doj quickly gets to work ruining lives of unfortunate regular people. it's all fucking sick.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:03 (eighteen years ago)

i'm sure a handful of people are trying to think of a really clever zing after reading that, and so be it, but i am very sincere about this and it is really fucking disgusting.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

but they deleted those emails! i mean, who will dive into the series of tubes to fish out all these missing internets?

http://www.users.vance.net/grayarea/1422deepsea.jpg

― daria-g, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

haha, I want to see RNC-style pop up ads:

YOUR COMPUTER CONTAINS 23,074 ILLEGAL FILES.
DON'T RISK THE FUTURE OF YOUR POLITICAL CAREER.
CLICK HERE TO DELETE ALL UNETHICAL COMMINICATIONS

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:06 (eighteen years ago)

yeah GWB43.com is kind of the biggest fuckup from a shit-ton of perspectives. I mean first of all they're conducting government business with donated RNC funds, second of all that ISP is NOT certified govt-acceptable comms channels for serious business, third the evasion of oversight (AGAIN) and overall arrogance, it's completely fucking insane.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:07 (eighteen years ago)

tombot OTM

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

My nipples are hard.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:09 (eighteen years ago)

i hardly see how this scandal is worse than any of the others that have permeated the bush era. i mean, you guys do realize that there's some scandals involving people actually being killed, raped, and tortured, right?

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:09 (eighteen years ago)

patrick leahy, i like you:

"I've got a teenage kid in my neighborhood that can go get 'em for them," he told reporters later.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

zing

― and what, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:12 (eighteen years ago)

mickey the difference is this is something they might actually get nailed on. Not that that excuses all their other amoral fuckups.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

what, abu ghraib? they did manage to dump a fair share of the blame on whatever's in the water back in my hometown, you know, hillbillies like us who can hardly read or write and just don't know no better

― daria-g, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:18 (eighteen years ago)

democracy is not about being moralistic. the principle of transparency in government, however, is pretty fucking crucial.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:18 (eighteen years ago)

i mean that stuff went on all the time at the high school pep rallies round those parts. ask rush limbaugh

xpost tombot - otm

― daria-g, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:19 (eighteen years ago)

"get nailed on"? there's all kinds of shit they could have been "nailed on." guess what? george bush is still the president. the only thing that'll change will happen in the next election, and that will be decided in the court of public opinion, not law.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

EG if the electorate allows torture and rape and killing then that's the electorate's option. If the electorate is never allowed to even understand or get an inkling that something is going on, then that's subverting the entire system in favor of authoritarian basura

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

Tombot is totally right on this - its the INSTITUTIONAL nature of this that is such a big deal. And particularly in respect to Congress as its something they have direct control over and a vested interest in (as opposed to foreign policy or military or judicial disasters, which are a bit farther out of their reach).

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:21 (eighteen years ago)

YOU NATTERING NABOBS

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

OF NEGATIVITY

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

Watch David Broder or another dipshit member of the media elite warn the Democrats that this issue "will threaten to punish them in the eyes of the voter" or some such nonsense.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

xpost to Mickey: It's not necessarily worse, but it's more clearly a crime of commission rather than a matter of looking the other way while bad people do bad shit on their behalf. It's something you have to be seriously scheming and rotten to do rather than being able to claim you were "acting in the best interests of the country and we can all legitimately disagree about methods blah blah blah." Also, what Shakey said. Potentially easier to prove.

Also, something that everybody can relate to. I've never waterboarded anybody, but I've deleted an email to hide something bad I've done.

Also, what "scandals involving people actually being killed, raped, and tortured" were you referring to specifically? I don't doubt they're there, I just wondered what exactly you were referring to.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

TOMBOT, there's been innumerable cases of "subverting the entire system in favor of authoritarian basura." i just hardly see how this is any more outrageous, or damaging to our society, than say, off the top of my head, the outlandish use of signing statements on legislation?

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

bah, slow fingers, slow brain, so many interruptions

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

Meanwhile Paul Wolfowitz, after his New Yorker profile last week, keeps apologizing.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)

I am continually surprised at yr limited grasp of how laws and the legal system work, mickey. (the signing statement thing will have to be tried in the courts, eventually, and congress has no jurisdiction over it... and no one's been "raped tortured or killed" because of it wtf)

I wouldn't piss on Wolfowitz if he was on fire.
x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)

i wasn't referring to any one specific scandal.

here's one thing that i think is far worse than this, also prominent in the NYT today: the bush administration vigorously lobbying the DOJ to pursue "voter fraud," resulting in the bush DOJ throwing a whole handful of people in prison whose crime was messing up filling out their registration forms, accidentally doing it twice, or misunderstanding their eligibility to vote. do i need to find the sandbox prison rape thread? this administration is guilty of crimes far more monstrous than hiding emails.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

shakey, i never claimed people were raped or killed because of that

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

mickey you should start a political blog

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:28 (eighteen years ago)

I hope the voter fraud push puts the Ann Coulter case on the front burner.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

Mr. Que, i did and then got bored with it after a month or so

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

your voice just really speaks to me.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

your sarcasm is like a breath of fresh air

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:31 (eighteen years ago)

mickey you can get all righteously indignant about a ton of things with this administration - take your pick. At the end of the day, this attorney-firing thing is still the most likely one to actually be prosecuted and result in some serious consequences. Complaining about the morality of that is kinda inconsequential.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:31 (eighteen years ago)

mickey are you just trolling or are you genuinely convinced that nobody on this thread has read the fucking news in the past seven fucking years

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

um mickey, you do understand that the hiding emails controversy and the voter fraud push in DOJ are the same controversy, right?

― gff, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

xpost lol pileon

― gff, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

jesus christ

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

no i really think you have the answers. you are the breath of fresh air this country needs. obama? pfffft. we need someone who makes hard decisions about prison rape.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

it happens every time he posts, and not even because we hate him, he's just DUMB

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

TOMBOT, i'm just tired of the (imho) disingenuous posturing over every front page WaPo article - this is it! finally the scandal that will really ROCK the bush administration, fitzmas bitches!!!

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

no one's posturing on this thread besides you

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

where's that dj drama thread about how you guys all foretold that it would change the whole world, etc, etc.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

Greenwald connects the dots.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

can you summarize? i have a no salon policy

― gff, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

plz cite my previous posturing or fuck off. believe it or don't, there's not actually an ILX hivemind.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

The U.S. attorney firings, the missing videotape in the Jose Padilla trial and missing documents related to torture and detaining of prisoners and Bush's Air National Guard records = WHERE'S ROSE MARY WOODS.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

yeah mickey I among others were talking about gwb43.com back when it fucking showed up on wonkette and dailykos about a month ago. you're the most disingenuous person here since, btw. nobody else here sings like a fucking canary. ad hom I know but whatever, why do you hang around here except to troll?

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

(do not have killfile installed at new job)

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

patrick leahy is so gangster

-- deej, Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:01 PM (1 week ago)

― deej, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

Rock Hardy, plz stop assuming i'm talking about specific things (ie, you) when i'm not. the posturing i'm referring to is TOMBOT's "this is the biggest fuckup" etc

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

TOMBOT, do you and ally share your talking points about how people don't defend me here, or did you both think of it on your own? just curious

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

Mickey, this is posturing, okay? You said it five minutes ago dude

i mean, you guys do realize that there's some scandals involving people actually being killed, raped, and tortured, right?

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

it IS the "biggest fuckup" in the sense that its the one that could cause them the most trouble for the widest variety of reasons.

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

but by all means keep up the indignant schtick. frankly I don't see what the point is.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

do you troll here because you don't know any other way to behave or is it just an adapted behavior in the face of the fact that we all fucking hate you for being a dimbulb and a narc, yet you have no other place to go?

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

I don't hate anybody!

Although its true I don't think highly of the narc routine.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

Mickey should get a job at the DOJ, he'd fit right in.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

WTF is going on in this thread

― ghost rider, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

mickey's stealing our thoughts with his computer

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

limited grasp of legal principles, bottomless well of self-serving rationalizations of personal behavior, etc.

x-x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

lol "nowhere else to go" "narc routine"

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

ghost rider, same shit as always. don't act like you don't pull this too.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

the world vs. mickey part 348989 FITE

― deej, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

Mickey, were you locked back in your room again?

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

http://static.flickr.com/73/168888915_7df34f29fe.jpg

― ghost rider, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Tony_Basil_-_Mickey_picture_cover.jpg

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:53 (eighteen years ago)

ned, now i'm locked in a cubicle until 4:30.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

but tombot, to answer your question: more of the latter. i used to be nicer on here. what is it that made you such an asshole?

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

OK MEANWHILE the whole story of the WH hanging out a help wanted sign for "war czar" and having everybody qualified turn it down would be mad roffly if it wasn't so, so, scary

― gff, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

Unless you're Putin, why the fuck would you want to be czar of anything? When did we start use that awful word to describe a government employee?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

but on the other hand, making life resemble a dostoevsky novel has its amusing qualities

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

xpost :(

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

you wish

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:00 (eighteen years ago)

"energy czar" in the 70s, was the first one I think...?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:00 (eighteen years ago)

In a startling new revelation, CREW has also learned through two confidential sources that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) has lost over five million emails generated between March 2003 and October 2005. The White House counsel’s office was advised of these problems in 2005 and CREW has been told that the White House was given a plan of action to recover these emails, but to date nothing has been done to rectify this significant loss of records.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27607

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:02 (eighteen years ago)

being on here for five years and running into the same tiresome dweebs over and over and over while I watch the fun friendly people stop posting because of too many tiresome dweebs!!! that is the origin of tombot, asshole!

OK not really I've always said fuck you to trolls

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:02 (eighteen years ago)

When did we start use that awful word to describe a government employee?

i believe the narcs started it, yes?

― daria-g, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:05 (eighteen years ago)

that is certainly a different atmosphere than the "zing culture" that i thought was destroying ilx. maybe we need another huge meta thread to work these issues out? i'm sure we can uncover some deep seated racism!

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

mickey you really are pulling at my heartstrings

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

also the wolfowitz world bank shit is hilarious guys

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

scare quotes hilarious, like when do we finally riot in the streets in this town, ha ha

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:11 (eighteen years ago)

http://domain-history.domaintools.com/?q=gwb43.com&page=results

lol

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:11 (eighteen years ago)

what does that mean?

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

riot in the streets. speaking of my posturing.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

what does that mean

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:26 (eighteen years ago)

I know this thread is an extended exercise in ironic performance art meant to mirror that tatters that is the American government behind its veneer of democracy and freedom, but SRSLY CUT IT OUT GUYS GAWD.

― HI DERE, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

I'm just wondering how that domain was kept secret from everybody for this long

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:30 (eighteen years ago)

prob like other stuff it was hidden in plain sight? yes? it's been less about totally secret than.. well.. elections have consequences ie ppl in congress actually willing to do some oversight

― daria-g, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

Does anybody have access to a domain history acct, or anything that saves the whois that far back?

Oh yeah and mickey, this is the trite response by now but remember that Al Capone got sent up the river for tax evasion. Not gambling, not racketeering, not murder, not bootlegging, not whorin', not extortin'. It was the taxes that allowed Kevin Costner and that little dude with the glasses wot got shotgunned before the final reel to finally put him away.

― kingfish, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

where is Kevin Costner when we need him

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

Making serial killer movies in order to be taken seriously as an actor, i think.

Also, it's this bit

"You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."

that reminds me why Pat Leahy was considered an ally of the techie/linux/EFF/anti-DRM/slashdot folks in the late Clinton years. The guy has some knowledge of how this shit actually works(unlike others e.g. Ted Stephens).

― kingfish, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:21 (eighteen years ago)

And to reiterate the link that Alfred made upthread, you really need to check that Greenwald bit, click thru the Salon jump-thru and see the list of plenty of other critical docs that just so happened to go missing. Like the recording of the teleconference where Michael Brown & FEMA guys warned the White House, the vid they said didn't exist.

― kingfish, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

haha that 'accidentally erased' excuse sounds like something i would make up to my boss at work :-O

― deej, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:30 (eighteen years ago)

Rosemary Woods 2.0

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:31 (eighteen years ago)

fucking disgusting btw.

hang all these bastards.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/04/yohohosandrum-thumb.JPG

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:37 (eighteen years ago)

what is the most we can rationally expect to happen (jurisprudentially) before 1.20.09? or are we settling for after?

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:38 (eighteen years ago)

yeah good question, hard to say.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:41 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.npr.org/politics/watergate/ervin.jpg

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:52 (eighteen years ago)

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Leahy_Missing_RNC_Emails_are_like_0412.html

^^^video of leahy at bottom

― deej, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:55 (eighteen years ago)

it sounds pretty badass playing over this Goldie essential mix someone uploaded and posted on ilm

― deej, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:56 (eighteen years ago)

man he really IS gangsta

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:57 (eighteen years ago)

haha "we screwed up"

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 21:10 (eighteen years ago)

ew, capt morgan-soaked ho-ho's

― kingfish, Thursday, 12 April 2007 21:26 (eighteen years ago)

host -t mx gwb43.com
gwb43.com MX 10 mailscan2.smartechcorp.net
gwb43.com MX 10 mailscan1.smartechcorp.net

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 12 April 2007 21:36 (eighteen years ago)

SMAR TECH CORP
smart ech corp
???

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 12 April 2007 21:36 (eighteen years ago)

http://smartechcorp.net/index.php?page=news&sub=story&id=68

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 12 April 2007 21:37 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/04/05/email_aaddbfghhe_ch/

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 12 April 2007 21:39 (eighteen years ago)

omg Smart Tech!!!

Mike Judge fans to thread

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 21:45 (eighteen years ago)

SEATEC ASTRONOMY

― kingfish, Thursday, 12 April 2007 22:05 (eighteen years ago)

In addition to its work at the convention, Smartech also sends out several million e-mail messages a day under contracts with both President Bush’s campaign and the Republican National Committee.

HA! oh man, how much activity do you think they have going on with the bulk tape eraser now?

― kingfish, Thursday, 12 April 2007 22:07 (eighteen years ago)

ok seriously guys smartech/gwb43.com/ohio vote counting outsourcing already had a thread for real

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 April 2007 22:11 (eighteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_40-Year-Old_Virgin

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 12 April 2007 22:14 (eighteen years ago)

haha unrelated but Wolfy's been asked to resign by the World Bank board. I hope he ends up on welfare that fucker.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 April 2007 23:04 (eighteen years ago)

do you have a link for that? I can only find references to them "discussing" him.

― The Real Dirty Vicar, Thursday, 12 April 2007 23:18 (eighteen years ago)

The Psychology Behind G.W. Bush's Decision-Making

An extensive character analysis.

― fife, Friday, 13 April 2007 11:24 (eighteen years ago)

One of the things that strikes me about the latest wrinkle(the "lost emails" thing) is that it's an excuse that even more pathetically bullshit than their usual. There's enough tech knowledge out there now thanks to the mass implementation of the internets that you have regular folks and a nation of IT guys able to point out how wrong it is. It's kind of fortunate that we've moved on to this matter, since the firing of the attorneys to replace them with apparatchiks is relatively esoteric next to shenanigans with email servers.

It's far more concrete & quotidian; we all have to deal with work email and work email servers everyday. We know that the shit gets backed up(as mentioned upthread). Computer security is something that far more people can readily grasp, esp. in regards to assholes deliberately using non-secure servers and communciation channels since they knew the official servers wouldn't log it.

― kingfish, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:04 (eighteen years ago)

i think it's pretty credible. sen. stevens sent an email to a staff member and it took a week to get there! the internet pipes are too clogged up, like a bad highway! it only makes sense that some of those emails would get lost on the wrong exit.

― modestmickey, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:23 (eighteen years ago)

i hope to christ above you're being ironic

― gff, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:26 (eighteen years ago)

I've found it interesting that NROville has essentially said nothing about the e-mail fracas over the last couple of days. I tend to read it as an admission that there's nothing to defend.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:27 (eighteen years ago)

hay guyz here is my gwb43.com thread http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=40&threadid=52980

― and what, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

DV - This isn't the story I originally saw (which I think was on Yahoo) but I may have misunderstood as its the World Bank employee representative group that called for his resignation.

"But the World Bank's employee representative group called for Wolfowitz to resign during a staff meeting at the bank."

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:32 (eighteen years ago)

Jesus christ, the shit is so prevalent that different channels of it are finally merging together. I'm waiting for this to involve Walter Reed, the dubai ports, and Terri Schaivo.

― kingfish, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:32 (eighteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

[...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.[2]

― modestmickey, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:40 (eighteen years ago)

I expect Jonah Goldberg to post his usual I-really-don't-think-this-is-a-big-deal-but-for-the-record-here's-what-I-think stuff in response to GOP perfidy.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 13 April 2007 15:45 (eighteen years ago)

John Hodgeman did a bit with the best response to Ted Stevens' series of tubes:

"The Senator is correct; the internet is not a truck."

― kingfish, Friday, 13 April 2007 16:20 (eighteen years ago)

the internet pipes are too clogged up, like a bad highway! it only makes sense that some of those emails would get lost on the wrong exit.

-- modestmickey, Friday, April 13, 2007 8:23 AM (1 hour ago)


was this part of your defense statement?

― Steve Shasta, Friday, 13 April 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/8746/hoooozo2.gif

― kingfish, Friday, 13 April 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

man its too bad Hurrican Katrina did not actually result in Stevens' resignation.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

But there was a conversion sometime between 2002 and 2003 to convert people that were using Lotus Notes when we first arrived to Microsoft Outlook. And I know that the tech people worked to get us all transferred over. We had to save our Word documents and all to make sure that they weren't lost in that transition.

They're now blaming it on Tech Services!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003010.php

― Mr. Que, Friday, 13 April 2007 17:51 (eighteen years ago)

ooh very convincing

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

weird how this is dovetailing with the Plame thing

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 13 April 2007 20:36 (eighteen years ago)

-Gonzalez testimony to the Senate is postponed to Thursday (probably)

-meanwhile, the Justice Dept just failed to meet a 2pm deadline to respond or comply w/ John Conyers' subpoena

― kingfish, Monday, 16 April 2007 23:21 (eighteen years ago)

oh Koochpaws.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/articles_of_impeachment_to_be.html

Articles of Impeachment To Be Filed On Cheney
Looks like he's reached his boiling point.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich has made ending the war in Iraq the central theme of his campaign. He has even taken aim at the leading Democratic presidential candidates in the field for their votes on authorizing the war.


Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice president and "all civil Officers of the United States" for "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Sources tell the Sleuth that in light of the mass killings at Virginia Tech Monday, Kucinich's impeachment plans have been put on hold. There will be no action this week, they say.

Kucinich's office had no comment on the Congressman's "Dear Colleague" letter -- which apparently was drafted over the weekend, before the school massacre -- or on what the focus of articles of impeachment against Cheney would be.

But Kucinich shouldn't hold his breath on getting anywhere with his impeachment plan. "We'll see a Kucinich Administration before we'll see a Cheney impeachment," quipped one Democratic aide.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:54 (eighteen years ago)

gonzalez hearing streaming now

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan3_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

schadenfreude

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 13:39 (eighteen years ago)

leahy doing opening statement. thug life!

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 13:39 (eighteen years ago)

oh man, even specter is grilling him pretty hard

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:21 (eighteen years ago)

Someone plz to summarize and post appropriate zings

― kingfish, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:08 (eighteen years ago)

nothing as stood out as really amazing yet, no smoking guns. same old info being rehashed. just sat through 5 minutes or whatever of orrin hatch doing his scott seward autism impersonation.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:09 (eighteen years ago)

feinstein vs gonzalez

(back and forth, back and forth)

feinstein: -- and you are testifying that YOU made the decision [to fire attorneys]?

gonzalez: ... that is correct.

feinstein: and you are testifying that that you made this decision without ever looking at their performance reports?

gonzalez: ... yes.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:11 (eighteen years ago)

there's some george-bush-'04-debate-style blinking going on now

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:18 (eighteen years ago)

(paraphrased)

lindsey graham, s.c.: okay, let's get down to this. this all sounds really contrived. let's be honest here. these attorneys had some sort of personality conflict with you or the white house, so you made some excuses to get rid of them.

gonzalez: UH, i respectfully disagree

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:25 (eighteen years ago)

haha - I wish I could watch this right now

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

durbin: kyle sampson recommended that patrick "fitzmas" fitzgerald be fired as part of this program. did he sampson make you aware of this before he made the recommendation?

gonzalez: i don't recall

durbin: it DID happen, it DIDN'T happen, or you DON'T RECALL?

gonzalez: uh... i have thousands of conversations

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:32 (eighteen years ago)

I HAVE THOUSANDS OF CONVERSATIONS t-shirts pls

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:36 (eighteen years ago)

someone started heckling as leahy announced break for lunch. whole crowd is shouting shit now, i can't make it out. heard the words "allow torture."

unidentifiable senator, unaware he's on c-span mic: (chuckling) there's too many to kick out

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

The Daily Show folk won't be struggling to find non-Va Tech material tnite.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:41 (eighteen years ago)

how did they handle the vatech thing btw? i havent managed to tune in yet this week

― deeznuts, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

last night's was a repeat. I don't think they've addressed it yet. I kinda hope they don't

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

Jon said that they would try to grimly repress it in themselves as much as possible, then let it all out sometime 30 years down the road when sometime spills a cup of coffee

― kingfish, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:48 (eighteen years ago)

also, NPR is running the audio from the hearings.

― kingfish, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:49 (eighteen years ago)

when leahy did opening statement, he started by expressing regret about va tech. nothing surprising. he then segued it into suggesting that gonzalez has had extra time to prepare so he better not give half assed answers. (despite this, during break a reporter mentioned that someone in the crowd counted 55 "I don't recall" answers) one or two other senators had a line or two expressing sorrow over va tech.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:51 (eighteen years ago)

WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF COVERSATIONS, FOR YOU TO SLEEP TIGHT, GRIM RIGHT

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

oh, you were asking how daily show handled va tech. haha

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

last night's was a repeat. I don't think they've addressed it yet. I kinda hope they don't

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:43

I saw a new ep 'round midnight last night? It went completely ignored until the guest showed up, dude's book=a history lesson on Iraq etc.

Jon said something like "I'm sure you're aware of the tragedy that we sufferred earlier this week; we're going through something of a national mourning period. I was sort of shell-shocked from the news and was trying to deal with it when I saw that something like 60 people had been killed in Iraq that same day." Turned it into an interesting question about how the guest, as an Iraqi, deals with that sort of tragedy on a daily basis.

The guy responded really insightfully, saying that the psychological toll of continuous death will be one of the major legacies of the invasion.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

morbius otm re t-shirts

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

i wonder what it means that neither instapundit or the corner have said anything about this yet

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:26 (eighteen years ago)

coburn just announced he thinks gonzalez should be replaced!!

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:03 (eighteen years ago)

I think "Fredo" just got in the rowboat.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:06 (eighteen years ago)

lolz

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

this hearing is the best theater in ages

― Hans Rott, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:20 (eighteen years ago)

yeah this is awesome

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:22 (eighteen years ago)

When even Tom Coburn decides it's time for you to go, you ain't lasting too long.

― kingfish, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:25 (eighteen years ago)

kyl and hatch are the only r's standing by him. everyone else is being surprisingly harsh. especially specter and coburn.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:27 (eighteen years ago)

aargh I wish I was at home stoned and watching C-SPAN and laughing my ass off

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:27 (eighteen years ago)

omg Senator Leahy so awesome: okay, which of these eleventy thousand conflicting statements you made about the firings is true?

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:30 (eighteen years ago)

Gonzalez: if you ask me a specific question, I can answer it.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:31 (eighteen years ago)

we need some kinda gangstaleahy.jpg

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:31 (eighteen years ago)

ugh. after i praise specter he drops the entire issue and starts talking about vt.

― modestmickey, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20050916/wdip0916/leahy.jpg

hmmm.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

A 2004 New Yorker piece on the Bush 41/43 relationship.

I want to be a fighter pilot because my father was.

― fife, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:51 (eighteen years ago)

I shall now fold my hands quietly on my lap and wait for the Political Genius of Karl Rove to spin this situation into an unexpected triumph, leading to the Holy Grail of a Permanent Republican Majority. I shall wait as long as necessary.

― Aimless, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:08 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think Specter's tough questioning was much of a surprise, myself. One of the more interesting tidbits for me today was Gonzales saying he hasn't tried to find out who put names on "the list" because he didn't want to interfere with the Senate's ongoing investigation. The WH has pulled that a few times in the last year, refusing to investigate something because someone else is already investigating it, and it really pisses me off.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:24 (eighteen years ago)

Chuck Schumer: You've answered "I don't recall" to around 100 questions...

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:37 (eighteen years ago)

On a related note

http://wonkette.com/images/thumbs/269793430541a3bb2db1eb2703d9740c.jpg

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

dude should lose the hat, then he'd be pretty hot

― elmo argonaut, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20070420/2007_04_19t150815_450x350_us_usa_prosecutors.jpg?x=380&y=295&sig=QpnXPhZShvFhS7uuBMkBAA--

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070420/capt.sge.qqw85.200407003742.photo04.photo.default-512x355.jpg?x=380&y=263&sig=x0Uuym5V3poqDO6KuLL6pA--

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070420/capt.sge.qqw85.200407003742.photo02.photo.default-512x404.jpg?x=380&y=300&sig=z7amSVh.QBToBuHHazrxXw--

Senate oversight is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070420/capt.sge.qqw85.200407003742.photo01.photo.default-512x341.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=obFqXZbDcyPKGLQqDNvpEw--

"someone ated all my cookie"

OR! compare & contrast w/ Wolfiwitz frownie face.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20070419/2007_04_19t104044_450x310_us_usa_prosecutors.jpg?x=380&y=262&sig=0lvgUJE7byoB5ZmWHviPyA--

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

the Marine up there w/ the whiteboard showed up on Wonkette that day and gave some details, and the wonkette crew found his profile on the IVAW site.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:07 (eighteen years ago)

subpoenas approved for Gonzales aide, Rove aide, and Condi

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 20:03 (eighteen years ago)

And the committee agreed to give immunity to that Monica chick, so no 5th for her

― kingfish, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes5/mad5.png

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes5/mad6.png

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 20:15 (eighteen years ago)

those need a "caption this photo" thread

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 20:15 (eighteen years ago)

(second one = "now lemme show ya how ya do the hokey-pokey")

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

omg

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 20:19 (eighteen years ago)

WOW

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 21:06 (eighteen years ago)

u guys there are none of these that aren't funny:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes5/mad4.png

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 21:08 (eighteen years ago)

has W arrived in exile or sumpin?

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 21:10 (eighteen years ago)

please have a headdress on in one of these
please have a headdress on in one of these
please have a headdress on in one of these

― kingfish, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 21:12 (eighteen years ago)

Check Yahoo News for the raw video of this

― kingfish, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 21:23 (eighteen years ago)

"And believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do...Well, I hope they do know the burden, the worry that's on his shoulders every single day...And I think they do. I mean, I think if they don't, they're not seeing what the real responsibilities of our president are."
The first lady admitted that "it's absolutely hard" to watch her husband "in this."

― Mike Dixn, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 21:31 (eighteen years ago)

first lady otm

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 23:42 (eighteen years ago)

about this, I mean:

The first lady admitted that "it's absolutely hard" to watch her husband "in this."

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 23:42 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.kare11.com/assetpool/images/07425164412_bush_dancing_sortof-hd.jpg

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 26 April 2007 00:25 (eighteen years ago)

dudes.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2007-04/29325310.jpg

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 26 April 2007 00:26 (eighteen years ago)

"636 days until I can get blind drunk..."

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 26 April 2007 00:30 (eighteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Image]

― kingfish, Thursday, 26 April 2007 04:04 (eighteen years ago)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070423/capt.fae3d993658f4b578c9b97351341c410.bush_colts_football_whgh122.jpg?x=301&y=345&sig=zFmmzcPDzuYE3JEVoRt.tg--

― kingfish, Thursday, 26 April 2007 04:06 (eighteen years ago)

some david brent level cringeworthiness in that video

― deeznuts, Thursday, 26 April 2007 04:07 (eighteen years ago)

at least it was a properly substantive observ of Malaria Awareness Day, wtf

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 26 April 2007 14:33 (eighteen years ago)

three months pass...

Tony Snow departing - man so many rats leaving the ship, its just Dubya and Cheney hunkered down in the undisclosed location while Condi jetsets around the globe....

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 17 August 2007 22:08 (eighteen years ago)

Karl Rove’s father’s solid gold cock ring
please let this be true please please please

― zappi, Sunday, 19 August 2007 03:30 (eighteen years ago)

lol you beat me

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 19 August 2007 03:32 (eighteen years ago)

if it were Karl Rove = fair game
that it's his dad = bullshit tabloid politics that allows some of the smears of the left to stick (hysterical, hateful, etc)

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 17:05 (eighteen years ago)

i cant find my old thread about dems using homophobia to win elections (mark foley, giuliani drag, etc) but i got reminded of it again when daily kos was proudly trumpeting that their rep candidate in CA wasnt a fag like david drier

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 17:18 (eighteen years ago)

their arguments about why it's just fine are so bizarre & self-righteous - I mean, I concur with one of the arguments: if a dude is running/got elected on openly homophobic shit and it turns out he's in the closet, it seems fair to me to let his supporters know "this guy who you think is one of you? he's gay." Same principle as, say, if your church were considering a new pastor: it's fair to ask if he actually believes in the tenets of the church.

but yeah otherwise dem activists love nothing better than to join in on the homophobic tip and justify it by saying "well this fag is an asshole who works against our interests, haha check out his kinky bedroom behavior!"

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 17:22 (eighteen years ago)

mmm, yeah, homophobia, woo!

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

but yeah otherwise dem activists love nothing better than to join in on the homophobic tip and justify it by saying "well this fag is an asshole who works against our interests, haha check out his kinky bedroom behavior!"

I don't think Democrats love doing this. They (a) fear Karl Rove's prediction of a GOP majority for a generation, (b) fear that the U.S. has lurched very far right on social issues, (c) desperately want to win elections again (or, after the last midterms, continue their momentum) and (d) think many Republicans are hypocrites on social issues. Because of that, they can sometimes be shrill in their approach or even display ugly -isms (e.g., homophobia, racism, sexism) in a rush to condem a Republican's hypocricy.

I'm really not trying to be an apologist for Democratic activists. Maybe there's more here than I'm aware of; this was just my initial thought (for what it's worth -- and, I'm well-aware -- that's not much).

― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:09 (eighteen years ago)

ya i don't really understand how it would make sense to be gleeful about karl rove's stepdad being gay unless you were actually homophobic yourself.

― s1ocki, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

guys, some of us just like the phrase "solid gold cock ring"

― Curt1s Stephens, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

"ya i don't really understand how it would make sense to be gleeful about karl rove's stepdad being gay unless you were actually homophobic yourself."

Um because you perceive it as being embarrassing to Karl Rove?

This OHMIGOD Democrats often behave badly SHOCKER thing is pretty amusing.

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

i guess karl rove's embarrassment is a good thing but i dunno, it seems like too just much to be happy about a possibly homophobic backlash against him!

― s1ocki, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

I didn't read the article, but what kind of homophobic backlash do they anticipate happening? Does anyone really think Karl Rove won't get work cuz his stepdad owns a solid gold cockring?

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:28 (eighteen years ago)

his stepdad might get MORE work now

― Curt1s Stephens, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:31 (eighteen years ago)

would it be fair to 'embarrass' karl rove with the shameful knowledge that his dad was involved in an interracial relationship or whatever

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

For the record, I don't support smear politics and this is pretty lame stuff even by those standards (being that it doesn't even relate to Karl Rove himself), but I can't say I'm the slightest bit sorry when hypocrites like Haggard and Foley (and by extension Hastert, et all) get hoisted by their own petards. And I think that the glee on the part of most Democrats is far less "hee hee those fuckers are queers" and far more "oh well guess you reap what you sow, dontchya".

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

Haha fair. Jesus Ethan where did you grow up? Candyland?

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

i make that distinction too... your own behavior and your dad's behavior are two separate things.

― s1ocki, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:53 (eighteen years ago)

hey, remember strangely-ethnically-featured war-criminal john kerry? nerdy, un-kept weirdo judy dean? short, mentally ill weirdo howard dean? kind-of-faggy-acting congenital liar al gore? chelsea the white house dog? roger clinton the cokehead fuckup? hillary the lesbian murderer? kitty dukakis the flag-burner? mentally ill, not-from-the-same-stock-as-you-and-me pansy boy mike dukakis? ethnic geraldine "rhymes with witch" ferraro? billy carter the drunk redneck fuckup? the canuck letter?

oh yeah, but it's "homophobia" to call out a guy who sexually harasses pages, or a guy who loves drag but talks shit about other peoples' "sick" art or interests, or air dirty family laundry, or just try anything you can to fuck up your evil opponent's game through even the slightest possibility of embarassment (through, you know, talking in public about the dude's dad's penis). i cordially extend dick cheney's invitation to pat leahy to you if you disagree.

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

oh guys, and it's perfectly fine that the other side is playing with shit like "barack the magic negro" and that "faggot" john edwards, let's just sit back and enjoy it like last time.

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

lol @ gabbneb missin point as per, centrists be fightin back like this

― mark s, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

what point am i missing, precisely?

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

(and what exactly are we fighting about here? it's news that the dude's dad is gay? john doesn't want some people to put links on their blogs?)

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

would it be fair to 'embarrass' karl rove with the shameful knowledge that his dad was involved in an interracial relationship or whatever

how would you work discussion of his penis into that one, genius?

hey guys, remember bill clinton's unique curvature?

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:01 (eighteen years ago)

guyz why are you so upset about abu ghraib - remember saddams rape rooms?

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

yeah guys, saddam and his rapists were tortured at abu ghraib

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

Ugh you're pathetic. What kind of schoolyard bullshit is this? They played dirty first so whatever we do is justified because they started it.

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

why be holier than one party when you can be holier than two?

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

Well if both parties are behaving the same way, aren't they really just one party?

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

"Many have died, and hundreds of thousands died under the previous regime," Tony Snow told reporters at a White House press briefing. "This is a place that has too long been wracked by violence."

A recent report compiled by 30 NGOs found that nearly a million Iraqis have died due to the effects of the occupation and a dozen cities have been destroyed by US attacks.

An estimate at 1.5 million people perished under Saddam Hussein's 25-year dictatorship, with half a million of them being killed during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

"Unfortunately, if we fought evil guys who simply would say, you caught us, we're evil, we give up, we'll be good -- that would be great, that would be wonderful," Snow replied when asked whether it is right for the United States to compare itself with a dictatorial regime.

But Snow said that he was not sure whether or not US forces were killing Iraqis who were opposing American presence in their country, saying "that requires the kind of canvas of those who have died that I'm not capable of doing."

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

keep it up with the strawmen, tho, never mind showing me a dem official, candidate or staffer who's talking about karl rove's dad's cock ring (or who has ever talked about karl rove's dad being gay)

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

Graham played down the administration’s purge of U.S. Attorneys, calling it perfectly within President Bush’s authority and merely “poorly handled”. He also repeated that President Clinton also purged attorneys. “Clinton let them all go when he took over,” Graham said.

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

and try reading what i'm saying first

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

(xxpost)Whose creating the strawmen now? Who said anything about Dem officials other than you? We can lament the fact that rank and file Dems and bloggers are behaving badly or is that against the rules?

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:15 (eighteen years ago)

gabb i'll remember your 'show me one official or candidate' rule next time you're whining about limbaugh/savage/coulter/malkin/oreilly/etc

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:16 (eighteen years ago)

Haha right Ethan let's pretend that anonymous blogger #5 is exactly the same as the #1 radio/tv/news personalities. Jesus you two are both dipshits.

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:18 (eighteen years ago)

i'll be waiting here for you to disown any rapper who's used "faggot," ethan.

Who said anything about Dem officials other than you?

ethan and john, both before me

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

Did they? Can you quote them saying that Dem officials are using Karl Rove's dad cockring for political purposes? Cuz I appear to be missing the reference.

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:21 (eighteen years ago)

i said "dems", dummy

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:22 (eighteen years ago)

ethan talked about dems who win elections; john talked about dem activists

maybe ethan can defend ann coulter again

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

or disown all rappers who use "faggot"

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

Activists = officials, candidates, or staffers? Since when?

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:32 (eighteen years ago)

people other than staffers and candidates "win elections"

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:33 (eighteen years ago)

right, markos moulitsas wins lots of elections

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

are you saying official dems didn't use foley?

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:36 (eighteen years ago)

Richardson sorry for 'maricón' moment
Posted: 7/10/2007, 11:11 AM

By KAREN OCAMB and CHRIS CRAIN

Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson apologized this week for using a Spanish-language slur for gay people.

Almost exactly one year before Imus was to lose his show for using a slur to describe the Rutger’s women’s basketball team, the shock jock used the Spanish word “maricón” in an on-air exchange with Richardson.

“Bernard on the staff here has been claiming you’re not really Hispanic so-- that you're just claiming that for some sort of advantage or something,” Imus said to Richardson, tongue clearly in cheek. “You can just answer this yes or no and this will answer that question. Would you agree that Bernard is a maricón?”

Without missing a beat, Richardson replied in Spanish, “Yo creo que Bernardo, sí — es un maricón si él piensa que yo no soy hispano. [General laughter] Was that good enough or what? [General laughter]”

“That’s good enough for me,” Imus replied.

Most gay Latinos interviewed for this story agreed with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that the word “maricón” means “faggot” in Spanish. So, translated to English, Richardson had replied: "I believe that Bernard, yes – he’s a faggot if he thinks that I am not Hispanic."

One year later, news of Richardson’s “maricón” moment comes as he has relied on his strong record on gay rights to reach out to gay Democrats for money, support and votes in his presidential campaign.

Sixteen months ago, Richardson’s Imus appearance flew under the media radar, and the Democrat has never publicly acknowledged or apologized for using the word. That has bothered Denver, Colo.-based Christopher Hubble, a member of the spiritual activist group Soulforce and a blogger.

Hubble was listening to the Imus show that morning, and afterward alerted Shana Naomi Krochmal, then GLAAD’s media strategist for the Southwest region.

“I was shocked that an elected official would think he could use a derogatory epithet simply because he is speaking Spanish and is perhaps assuming we don’t understand what he is saying,” Hubble wrote later in an email describing his reaction at the time.

Krochmal told Hubble she would pass the email along to Monica Taher and Carlos Macias, GLAAD’s “excellent Spanish-language media advocates.” Taher would say later in an interview for this story that another GLAAD employee decided instead to go to Equality New Mexico with the information.

“The statewide organization in New Mexico asked us not to contact Richardson because that would jeopardize the domestic partnership bill that the governor was supporting and working on at that time,” Taher said.

Alexis Blizman, executive director of Equality New Mexico (EQNM), acknowledged that she asked GLAAD not to “go after” Richardson because of his strong gay rights record, but said the domestic partnership bill was not under consideration at the time.

― and what, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

this thread sure went classic in a hurry.

Can we go back to talking about butching up Hillary's campaign again yet?

― Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 19 August 2007 19:42 (eighteen years ago)

and what exactly are we fighting about here? it's news that the dude's dad is gay? john doesn't want some people to put links on their blogs?

"disingenuous," adJ: adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:02 (eighteen years ago)

srsly dude what I want is for people who like to imagine they're holding the high ground to either walk it like they talk it or STFU

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:02 (eighteen years ago)

anyway, afaic john's distinction is one without a difference, as they say in my arena. he's basically saying that it's acceptable to attempt to point to a politician's own behavior, because that could demonstrate that a politician doesn't believe what he preaches, but it's unacceptable to point to a politician's family member's behavior contrary to the politican's preaching, because that can only be motivated by hate for, or an attempt to make use of hatred for, the behavior itself. never mind that:

1) demonstrating that a politician doesn't believe what he preaches by pointing to his own behavior is in this case necessarily an attempt to make use of hatred for the behavior

2) the politician's love for his family member might identically demonstrate the politican's hypocrisy, either because a) it demonstrates that the politician doesn't believe what he preaches at all, or b) the pollitician's preaching stops at the family line, which is different from the one the politician's supporters would draw

3) the politician's preaching might be expressive of self-loathing more than hypocrisy, which might in turn be echoed in more than a few of his supporters

4) the politician's preaching might be motivated by self-loathing derived from the family member's behavior or loathing of the family member's behavior

don, if this thread gets any 'classic'-er, will you 'bet your balls' on something? you've already done the requisite hillary post.

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:09 (eighteen years ago)

xp - without endorsing any of the tactics ascribed to me, i don't believe i've ever put myself on any specific high ground as far as putting the higher-grounded team over the top, so you can revise your imagination there

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)

gabbneb on lefty fagbaiting: "I got a whole host of reasons why shit than would be outrageous if it came from the other side of the aisle is totes kewl when it scores points for my side"

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:14 (eighteen years ago)

than=that

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:14 (eighteen years ago)

"totes"

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:17 (eighteen years ago)

i mean, from here your position looks just like dick cheney's - it's more not-ok to play rough with family members than to prevent some rough policy from being enacted (oh i forgot, the governing party makes exactly zero difference regarding which countries are invaded, the top marginal tax rate, SChip coverage, FDA enforcement, etc etc etc)

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:18 (eighteen years ago)

gabbneb, the Cheney line doesn't work because (a) he has publicly spoken against the adminstration on this issue; (b) Mary Cheney by all accounts has such a happy relationship with her father that she and her partner appear on stage with him at political rallies.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:20 (eighteen years ago)

yes gabbneb I am pretty indistinguishable from Dick Cheney in my belief that people don't have any business using "your dad's a fag! a kinky fag!" as a political trump card

I'm tappin yr phone also

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:21 (eighteen years ago)

al - that was self-parody, right?

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:26 (eighteen years ago)

I had to match the stuff you've been posting the last hour.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:27 (eighteen years ago)

I'm the fag on this thread, and it's enough for me to despise Rove's tactics without my constructing hopeless psychonanalytic and biographical explanations for his behavior.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:30 (eighteen years ago)

yes, it should be verboten to discuss psychonanalytic and biographical explanations for the behavior of very powerful people

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:32 (eighteen years ago)

shut up Alfred, The Party will tell you when to be offended or delighted

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:32 (eighteen years ago)

haha xpost yes gabbneb VERBOTEN, that's what people are talking about: CENSORSHIP!!!

looooooooool

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:33 (eighteen years ago)

alfred is not part of the party; he seems convinced that he is required to show some deference to the other side at regular intervals to be assured of his intellectual honesty

― gabbneb, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:33 (eighteen years ago)

sounds like a pretty good rule to me

― ^@^, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:34 (eighteen years ago)

I can't believe gabbneb is as cynical as he pretends. I suppose it's fitting that he resort to GOP fag baiting when in today's NYT his party just gave yet another reason why they're as stupid as the one filled with sons of fags.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:35 (eighteen years ago)

The Party knows better than gay men whether The Party is selectively homophobic

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:35 (eighteen years ago)

gabbneb, I'll never ever forget your post where you wanted to butch up Hillary. You can bet your balls on that.

I don't think gabbneb is nearly as cynical as he is a poltical realist. It's nice to crusade for a world where ethics and bigotry aren't situational but shit, we got us some elections to win before we can start the moral cleansing process.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:37 (eighteen years ago)

alfred is not part of the party; he seems convinced that he is required to show some deference to the other side at regular intervals to be assured of his intellectual honesty

Please to show how being a pol is preferable.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:38 (eighteen years ago)

THE HEALING HAS BEGUN

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:38 (eighteen years ago)

yeah Don if you think that this kinda thing will attract more voters/donors than it repels then I'm the guy who gets to holler "impractical"

― J0hn D., Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:44 (eighteen years ago)

Put it to you this way John, it's not going to repel nearly as many as you or I wish.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:47 (eighteen years ago)

The Party knows better than gay men whether The Party is selectively homophobic

― ^@^, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:52 (eighteen years ago)

http://static.flickr.com/32/54268941_d274cb5008.jpg

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:55 (eighteen years ago)

brilliant comparison, bozo

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:09 (eighteen years ago)

that "if only we'd stayed in Vietnam LONGER" narrative never gets old, does it

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:09 (eighteen years ago)

(besides, I thought we were fighting WWII over, not Vietnam...? Sadaam worse than Hitler etc)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 16:10 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login