Ouch!

This oughta leave a mark. ha!

Take the pledge - approaching 25k as of now.

Here's the FAQ.

Take the pledge - approaching 25k as of now.

Here's the FAQ.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

Wow, that's a new one.

[ApplePie]

How are Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Mohammad Khatami the enemy? That is just idiocy. But what else does one expect from the silly children at LGF. If you don't believe me, read the comments on the linked page.

"Ouch!"??? Kerry should be maligned for being invited to speak at conference attended by Tony Blair, Michael Chertoff, Paul Wolfowitz, Trent Lott, Bill Gates and every other business leader on the planet? Obviously the organizers of the World Economic Forum felt Kerry had a viable message to convey to the world leaders and CEOs in attendance.

You're above juvenile like this one, Dan.

[Dan Riehl]

"Kerry should be maligned for being invited to speak"

What is it about you folks? I can't believe it's only stupidity. No one is criticizing his having been invited, or even his speaking. It is what he said, particularly in such company. I thought the Left were the people of nuance. Funny how all that goes away when you are evaluating a shameless jerk like Kerry.

[scarshapedstar]

"No one is criticizing his having been invited, or even his speaking. It is what he said, particularly in such company."

Oh, yeah, sure. If he had stood on a stage with "the terrorists" and remained silent, I'm sure we would have seen an LGF post titled "Kerry Snubs Islamofascists, Redeems Himself". And if he had praised Bush for 15 minutes, I'm sure there would have been at least 12 seconds before somebody fired off the perfunctory "Kerry flip-flops on Bush, fails to condemn nearby jihadists".

[Artie]

Any of you 'patriots' seen bin Laden? It's been 5 years since 9/11 and you idiot cons still havent found him. All you idiots can do is lose wars and elections and blame the other guys.

[SDN]

Cluster bombs don't leave you in a condition for public appearances.... and $100 bucks would buy enough software for producing video and audio good enough to fool artie.

[Phoenix]

This is great. Kerry has Self-Derangement Syndrome. Boy, is it going to hurt. Wow...

[Jon G]

Looks like the American Public would rather impeach Bush then send more troops to Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/from/ET/

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 411861 responses

87% Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
4.4% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
6.2% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
2% I don't know.

[DoubleLeftWingPatrick]

Yeah, Jon. Very scientific poll. I'll bet you find a link on all the moonbat havens.

Secret spying - you mean, like FBI files in the White House? Craig Livingstone, anyone?

Deceptions? Don't get me started. Every one of the posturing, braying asses in Senate oversight committees saw the same intelligence, and everyone including the UN agreed with it, although nobody except for our President had the balls to actually take an affirmative stand and enforce 1441 among others.

You want to quote something, quote this: U"nited Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284)."

Can you count that - TEN previous resolutions. If you don't disarm, you're going to bed without your supper. Don't make me stop this car. If I have to stop this car one more time, we're turning around and going home. That's it - you're in time out. No allowance for a month. Add six more worthless threats, and then dad goes ballistic.

Jon, keep your MSNBC online polls out of here. Head on over to Balloon Juice or DU if you want to sell that crap.

[Jon G]

Secret spying, like in listening to phone calls without warrants.

You may have missed this, but Iraq had ALREADY DISARMED. They had NO WMDs. So they were in COMPLIANCE with the resolution BEFORE the invasion.

[DoubleLeftWingPatrick]

Jon,
As my friend Rush is fond of saying, you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

I fully support the right of the Administration to order surveillance of domestic-to-foreign communications in a time of war. If you doubt we are at war, check out the skyline of New York for reference.

As to the WMDs, the fact that we didn't find major stockpiles is not evidence that there were none. Talk to me in 20 years when they dig up whatever got buried in the Bekaa Valley in the days immediately preceding hostilities. And if, which I don't believe, Saddam had already disarmed, all he had to do was comply with the UN resolutions (all 11 of them) and provide proof and monitoring. Now, he patently refused to do that.

Hmmm, genius, why did he do that? Did he secretly always wish to live in a spider hole, but just couldn't bring himself to it? Or maybe he didn't believe Chimpy McHitlerburtoncowboy would actually do something the rest of the world was too flaccid to do - actually take a stand.

You and the rest of the 910-worlders need to get your head together, before someone with a scimitar lops it off.

[Jon G]

Rush Limbaugh for your source -- that would be the guy that was for gung ho for the War on Drugs before he admitted he himself was an addict. The Genius that made fun of Michael J. Fox, probably getting Claire McCaskill elected Senator delivering the Senate to the Democrats.

From the mouth of the Man himself:

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."

Whoops: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

As for resolution 1441: Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in December 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of possible nuclear, chemical, and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

Face reality - there ain't no WMD's to be found. The war was a mistake, probably the biggest foreign policy mistake ever.

[DoubleLeftWingPatrick]

Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm". Blix: Iraq can't account for deadly gas, germs. CNN.com (January 27, 2003).
-----
Speaking on FOX News Sunday, David Kay said "We know there were terrorist groups in state [Iraq] still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomenon was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been dangerous if the war had not intervened." Transcript: David Kay on 'Fox News Sunday'. FOX News (February 1, 2004).
-----
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) - Congressional Record, October 9, 2002
-----

Yep, Bush made it all up, all right. Nothing to see here. Just move along.

[sglover]

"Rush Limbaugh for your source -- that would be the guy that was for gung ho for the War on Drugs before he admitted he himself was an addict. The Genius that made fun of Michael J. Fox, probably getting Claire McCaskill elected Senator delivering the Senate to the Democrats."

If pressed, the hive-minders will assure you that a genuine patriot like Rush isn't a REAL junkie, like, you know, THOSE people.

Besides, making jokes about cripples and folks with degenerative diseases is all in fun, and an important part of the war on Crimethink.

[DoubleLeftWingPatrick]

I don't believe I defended Rush's drug use. However, as he made several mistakes in his life, nothing he has to say can be considered truthful.

I see, it's all so clear now. Everything is so much simpler with these 910 glasses on. Nobody is our enemy. Nobody is going to fly planes into skyscrapers tomorrow. It's all so... peaceful.

Asswits.

[sglover]

"I don't believe I defended Rush's drug use. However, as he made several mistakes in his life, nothing he has to say can be considered truthful."

Ummmm... Then why do you cite him approvingly, thus:

"As my friend Rush is fond of saying, you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance."

Eh?

"I see, it's all so clear now. Everything is so much simpler with these 910 glasses on. Nobody is our enemy. Nobody is going to fly planes into skyscrapers tomorrow. It's all so... peaceful."

Oh, I get it. Somebody calls you out for YOUR OWN WORDS, and your best shot is random insults and non sequitars. "Nobody is our enemy. Nobody is going to fly planes into skyscrapers tomorrow." -- what the hell are you blathering about? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Your pipsqueak fuhrer himself has said that Iraq and bin Laden HAD NO CONNECTION. Jesus, how do you type when you're so obviously illiterate?!? Do you use some kind of picture language?

[DoubleLeftWingPatrick]

It's all so simple to you. Saddam didn't have OBL's business card in his wallet, so there is no connection. My God, man, are you that obtuse?

Do you think that global terrorism is like the fucking oil change place down the street, with Yellow Pages ads and coupons in the paper? There is no business plan, vetted by a banker and funded by venture capitalists with government approval. Are you actually thick enough to believe that if Osama were room temperature, and I'm not entirely sure he's not, that it all goes away?

Read Steyn's book, if you can read. If not, wait until it comes out on tape, if the jail that you're typing from gets books-on-tape. Of course, you probably have already decided that it's all about bashing Islam, having not read word one of it.

I cited Rush because I happen to think that his turn of phrase is especially appropriate to 910-ers like you.

[sglover]

"It's all so simple to you. Saddam didn't have OBL's business card in his wallet, so there is no connection. My God, man, are you that obtuse?"

No, you ignoramus -- I'm more informed about the history and politics and culture of the region than you are. (I'm damning myself with faint praise, there.) Saddam Hussein was one of a cohort of SECULAR Arab leaders in Southwest Asia, who were hated by bin Laden and his millennarial followers. That hatred was always returned, with interest, by Saddam. With good reason, as any regional tyrant who saw the fates of Anwar Sadat and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would. You need to stop getting your history from the ravings of Dick Cheney.

[Jon G]

DoubleLeftWingPatrick - you need to bone up on your Iraq War facts. Even President Bush doesn't claim this anymore:

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing.

[DoubleLeftWingPatrick]

Jon, you confirmed my writings. You see the war in Iraq via the lens of tit-for-tat, rather than a front on a larger, global struggle. 910 vision.

And gloveman, you also see things as static, zero-sum and operating in a vacuum. Like today's democrats who want to establish and publish an exact timetable for prosecution and ending the war in Iraq - the whole while denying that there might be any strategic advantage to the enemy if they know our plans three years in advance. There can be no public plan without giving the game away.

But back to your point. Historically, UBL and Saddam tended to be enemies, although they apparently never came to conflict. So therefore it must inevitably follow, using all logic and reason, that there should be no chance they might ever cooperate. But this assumes something like a phone call: "Hello Saddam? Usama. bin Laden. Tall guy, beard. Yeah, that's me. Anyway, it is the will of Allah (pbuh) that you should provide me with some hotel rooms, a couple of hundred square miles to train upon, and some nice box lunches for about 20,000 of my fighters. Then we can be friends and I won't try to chop your head off like I will do to the Great Satan, with the guidance of Allan (pbuh)."

Using all logic and reason, when a hijacker tells everyone to sit down and shut up, you should do so because they're only going to fly around and then someone will pay ransom and they'll let everyone off (except for the dead pilots, flight attendants, air marshals and Jews). Next thing you know, you're flying 500 mph into somebody's credenza.

910 thinking will get us all killed, friend.

[sglover]

"And gloveman, you also see things as static, zero-sum and operating in a vacuum. Like today's democrats who want to establish and publish an exact timetable for prosecution and ending the war in Iraq - the whole while denying that there might be any strategic advantage to the enemy if they know our plans three years in advance. There can be no public plan without giving the game away."

Let's get something clear, ace -- you have no real idea what I think about any of this. This paragraph, and the two paragraphs of boilerplate that follow it, is nothing more than you arguing with some caricature that exists ONLY IN YOUR OWN MIND.

Before you yammer on about "910 thinking" (I'm seeing that lately; guess Rove sent out a new set of talking points), explain something for me. One of the FIRST actions of Bush's first term was the REDUCTION of funding for Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation activities. This was the cooperative program under which we helped the Russians secure and often destroy nuclear weapons built by the Soviet regime. Didn't cost a whole lot of money, by federal budget standards. Consequently, it was generally rated as one of the most cost-effective national security measures, EVER.

This was back before "the day that changed everything", so it only rated a smallish article toward the end of the A-section of the Washington Post. That's where I read it, way back in early 2001, and I remember thinking, "I don't think these guys have a good sense of priorities. I think it'd be a good idea to keep those nukes from small bands of extremists. I think it would be wise to see that the guards get their salaries, and the storehouses are stoutly built." But in those days, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld crowd was trying to hype China as our newest death-nemesis. And they kept right on staring at China, on into September 11, 2001. Hell, when that happened, one of my first reactions was, "At least it wasn't a nuclear weapon."

So why don't you tell me some more about how *I* am the guy who's behind the times, while Bush has been so infallible about predicting the future? That's a sick goddam joke, is what that is.

[DoubleLeftWingPatrick]

"nothing more than you arguing with some caricature that exists ONLY IN YOUR OWN MIND."

No, it represents my looking at a situation where one side of the political spectrum seems to think that all military plans should be developed and fully vetted in public. Now I am not one who believes the democrat politicians actually want to lose the war, but how else do you explain it. How can you justify this overwhelming push to make plans and publish them? The public's right to know does not extend to war plans, and anyone who argues same is a buffoon.

""910 thinking" (I'm seeing that lately; guess Rove sent out a new set of talking points)"

Yeah, we all just wait for thoughts to waft down from the hive, being the Borg Collective that we are. Yep, Rove did so well for us in November that we are feasting on his every word. Actually, 910-ers is what I've been calling you for a long time.

"One of the FIRST actions of Bush's first term was the REDUCTION of funding for Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation activities."

Here's what I found on this:
- From 1992-2002, the Departments of State, Defense and Energy Have funded over $4.9 billion in nonproliferation and threat reduction assistance to Russia. For FY 2002, United States Government security-related assistance for Russia totals over $870 million.

- The Administration review of nonproliferation assistance to Russia, completed in December 2001, found that most programs are effective and well run, some should be expanded and a few modified. FY02 budget allocations reflect these decisions.

- FY03 request for threat reduction and nonproliferation programs in former Soviet states is over $1 billion.

I'm not seeing a cut, but if you can give me a better citation, I'd be interested. These were from http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/sort/fs-nonpr.html

"Bush has been so infallible about predicting the future"

Please, find me just a single time I have every written the words Bush and infallible in the same sentence. No, the same ten thousand words will do fine. He's a man, and as fallible as anyone. What I do insist about the President is that he is a fine and honorable man, who generally (not always) does things for altruistic, rather than political, reasons.

He's for this amnesty plan, I believe, because he thinks it's the right thing to do, not because he thinks the pardoned-illegals will suddenly vote for him in droves.

He took us to Iraq because, I believe, he thinks the ousting of Saddam and replacing him with a stable democracy would be in American interests in the mideast and the world. We can argue about the wisdom of it, both enabled with the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight.

[sglover]

I appreciate a comment that actually responds to what I said, and that also includes some supporting links from a some place other than, say, the National Review. The FAS is an excellent source for national security info.

I apologize in advance for throwing long-ish quotes at you, but I want to make things as clear and aboveboard as I can. It would be a lot more readable if this site supported blockquotes and embedded links, but, oh well. Many of the sources I dug up are rather obscure and tedious federal budget documents, but these three are pretty lucid summaries of my claim:

1) http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_05/nunnlugar15.asp

2) http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/000137.php

3) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2002/dod/fy02pb_ctr.pdf

(Sorry to throw a PDF at you, but it may have the clearest summary of the three, right after the cover sheet.)

Just to be clear about what periods we're talking about, the definition of the federal fiscal year is

"The fiscal year is the accounting period of the federal government. It begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year. Each fiscal year is identified bythe calendar year in which it ends and commonlyis referred to as 'FY.' For example, FY2003 began October 1, 2002, and ends September 30, 2003. "

Which you can find here: http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-325.pdf

(Again, sorry for the PDF.)

The armscontrol.org link contains this capsule history of Nunn-Lugar funding:

"This analysis focuses, however, on the Defense Department’s ongoing CTR program. Congress authorized $400 million annually out of the defense budget for the CTR program for its first four fiscal years, 1992-1995. Over the next decade, annual requests ranged from a low of $328 million in 1997 to a high of $476 million in 2000. Although the debates noted above have continued over the years regarding whether CTR funds are truly necessary for nonproliferation or rather a stealthy foreign aid program for the former Soviet Union, both parties in Congress have generally been receptive to executive branch requests. Over 15 years of funding requests, from 1992 to 2006, Congress has reduced funding only twice and increased funding only once. Approximately $6.1 billion has been requested and authorized over the period, averaging $407 million per year. Combined with Energy and State Department requests for global nonproliferation efforts but without amounts for U.S. fissile material reprocessing in the Energy Department budget, annual funding is about $1 billion, the amount to which the United States committed at the 2002 Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Kananaskis, which established the Global Partnership (see page 38). The current request for fiscal year 2007 for the CTR program is $372 million. In addition, the administration has requested $45 million in a fiscal year 2006 supplemental bill for enhanced warhead security."

The armscontrolcenter.org link has this, from DECEMBER 2001:

"The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved today a version of the fiscal 2002 Defense Appropriations Bill cutting $46 million from the Nunn-Lugar program, initiated in 1991 to assist Russia in dismantling the former Soviet nuclear weapons complex.

The Bush administration had requested $403 million for the program, already $40 million less than fiscal 2001 funding levels. The additional cuts, if they stand, would bring the total 2002 funding for Nunn-Lugar down to $357 million."

The globalsecurity.org link is a June, 2001 report from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Page 2 summarizes the reduction in Nunn-Lugar funding proposed for FY 2002. The total funding request differs from the figure mentioned in that last source ($403 vs. $357 million). This seems to be due to additional cuts imposed by Congress, over and above the Bush administration's cuts.

Now, look, I'm not saying, "AHA! If Bush had spent another $100 million here, everything would be swell!" What I am saying is that many Iraq war sceptics, blithely accused of "9/10 thinking", were more prescient about the nature of post-Cold War security threats than Bush ever was.

That said, I have at least two major disagreements with your post:

"What I do insist about the President is that he is a fine and honorable man, who generally (not always) does things for altruistic, rather than political, reasons."

By now there are many prominent people who worked in the inner sanctum of this White House, and who agree that there's essentially NO real policy making apparatus, there. Instead, it's all politics, all the time. Why did a supposed free-trader like Bush impose steel tariffs? Why is still, almost four years into his war, funding Iraq operations with "supplemental" and "emergency" appropriations? Why, if Iraq really is so important to the future of America, won't Bush even impose taxes sufficient to pay for it? Remember the Terry Schiavo circus? Please explain to me how ANY of this is consistent with responsible governance. All I see is a politics of free lunches and stirring up the mob.

"He's for this amnesty plan, I believe, because he thinks it's the right thing to do, not because he thinks the pardoned-illegals will suddenly vote for him in droves."

I don't think Bush is a racist, or a bigot. Rove was definitely intent on enlisting socially "conservative" Hispanic Catholics in the "permanent Republican majority". But unfortunately for them, a big chunk of the coalition that they rode to power IS xenophobic. Those who ride tigers always face the awkward moment when they need to dismount.