Ridiculous on most counts, and odious is right.

I assume you mean that the article is odious, which it certainly is

It's typical Adam Ash. All vitriol and no reason.

Plus, it assumes certain knowledge of the personality, experiences and beliefs of both Bush and bin Laden which the author has no evidence he possesses.

4, 5 and 9 are pure supposition based on the author's assumptions and prejudices.

Dave

yawwnnnnnnnnn......isnt time for some new ideas rather than the same inane Bush Bashing......yaawnnnnnnnnn

More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.


JOM

I suppose that less Bush-bashing will follow soon after less Adam-bashing.

No bashing here...Adam does a great job playing the fool. Only one person does it better..Al "Chicken Little" gHore.

JOM

Lol. This is some of your best work Adam, although I do prefer the early stuff. Some of it's spot on, though. However, odious comparisons aside, there's really one big difference - one's main claim to fame is as a cruel mastermind of mass murder (and nothing else), the other's is being a goose who just happens to be running the most powerful country in the world (shit, how'd you let THAT happen) and felt the need to strike back.

Yet I suspect the one who is a goose, for all his lame-duck posturing and sabre-rattling and dreadful advice, would prefer to live in peace down on the farm in Lil ol' Texas, unlike the other who's probably getting mighty sick of his cave.

Actually, Osama and George have been pals since they met during George's junior year abroad at Riyadh University's School of Petroleum Engineering.

Insiders present at their toga party in Tora Bora last month report the two had a great time planning the party for George's triumphal entry into Tehran behind British troops on April Fool's Day.

Tony Blair, who was unable to attend the party (something about a kidnapping needing his attention) pledged that the Brits will relax their normally stiff upper lips during the weeklong celebrations in Tehran.

Ah, the irrepressibility of youth!

Clav wrote: "Riyadh University's School of Petroleum Engineering".

And where Osama also completed his PhD thesis: "Religious tolerance, the missile effect and the chaos-theory nexus".

Actually, Adam, your piece, though it appears to be nonsense to some, has a certain nasty resonance with me.

Your initial point - G-d has a black sense of humor - is spot on the money. At least that is what I have learned in my life...

The key point you miss is made by Stan Denham - who points out that Dubya is a goose, and a stupid one to boot. Bush is getting goosed good, and the future does not look good for him. If he is indeed who many rabbis think he is, his bright future is to be a high protein meal for the beasts of the field and the birds of the mountains of Israel. [YeHezkél/Ezekiel 39:2-5)

Your concluding point - they deserve each other - is right on the money. The same power that takes out one will take out the other - all in good time.

Don't remember the full quotation, but it's something like "the biggest messes in history have resulted from two kinds of minds:the devious and the literal."

The evidence shows bin Laden and Bush to be well-matched when it comes to creating historic messes.

Ruvy, who/what exactly IS this person you keep referring to, who 'might' be Dubya? And why is this person important to anything? Please explain. Thanks.

Nancy,

Ruvy is talking about the sexual pervert who runs the welfare state of Israel President Moshe Katsav.

Israelis shouldnt throw stones considering the voted for a person who harrases women, pigs and other small barn yard animals.

JOM

Adam, admit it: you're really Nancy Pelosi, right?

It's funny that you managed to write a whole 350-word post about the supposed similarities between Dubya and Osama. But you could probably write a thousand-page book describing their differences...

Nancy, I think Ruvy is implying that GWB is the antichrist or some hebraic proto-apocalyptic equivalent.

Dave

I think the comparison between the two is odious indeed--as well as unfair and destructive. A bit appalling, to be honest. ("They deserve each other"?)

That said, it is not one scintilla more odious, unfair, destructive, or appalling than the GOP mouthpieces who insist that the Democrats share the same political agenda as al Qaeda.

Liberal Democrats and Islamic Terrorists do not have the same ideological agenda. Not at all. However, they both seek the defeat of the US and the UK (and the rest of the West) in Iraq.

That's pretty much a fact.

I can't think of a single Democrat (at least not one who's running for the White House) who is advocating "victory" in Iraq. Instead, they are demanding an "end" to the war in Iraq (translation: American withdrawal, retreat, and defeat; and a terrorist victory).

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has refused to allow the elected officials in the House of Representatives to pass a motion deploring the abduction and kidnapping of 15 British sailors by Iraq. However, Ms. Pelosi is planning on having a nice little visit with the anti-American dictator if Syria in a few days, the same guy who funds and supports terrorist attacks against Israel and Lebanon, against the publicly-expressed wishes of the State Department.

But none dare call it treason...

RJ, you're distorting the anti-war position. You can't effectively oppose something you so thoroughly fail to understand.

Most of those who favor a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq do not seek the defeat of Western forces at all. They mostly see a defeat in Iraq as inevitable, which is something entirely different from desiring it.

They advocate leaving Iraq while the West still has the resources to battle terrorism on other fronts and by other means. They oppose pouring endless funds and troops into Iraq for years or decades, only to face defeat at the end when all our resources are depleted.

In particular many of them advocate refocusing the efforts in Afghanistan, where the NATO alliance's previously strong position against Taliban and al-Qaida forces has grown steadily weaker since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Personally, I would have liked to see Bush and Blair succeed in what they claimed to want for Iraq, establishing a modern, stable, prosperous, free, democratic, and tolerant society in that country. Given what has happened there since 2003, however, I can see why many observers consider such an outcome highly unlikely in the near future.

Vic;

I agree with about 99% of your first four paragraphs, and with about 75% of the fifth one.

The writer of #18 claims to "support" success over there, and yet has never done anything beyond typing an endless string of empty, phony rhetoric about "victory."

"victory" is meaningless in the context of Iraq. What we're doing in Iraq is NOT fighting a war. We're effectively a peacekeeping force in the middle of a potential civil war. The only way to 'win' in such a situation is to survive and maintain a minimal level of stability until the country can function on its own without or help or someone takes over as nanny in our place.

Dave

Dave sez:

The only way to 'win' in such a situation is to survive and maintain a minimal level of stability until the country can function on its own without or help or someone takes over as nanny in our place.

Since nobody else in the world either is willing or able, it looks like down the tubes for Iraq within a few months after we leave.

That's the price Iraq pays for living in a world full of eunuchs. The rest of us will pay the price a bit later.

Dave

you can not be this stupid

Adam

I think the point that you make is a huge one. It actually relates to our society in general. There is a need to demonize others in order to justify our anger at their deeds.

I love the simplicity of your statement for it may make sense to people who would not accept a more thorough self criticism.

The truth is that when we "evilize", we loose our objectivity over other issues in our world. If Bin Laden represents evil, we cant see "evil" in someone who may seem totally different from him.

The brilliance of this administration (most likely of masterminds like Rove) is that they tagged certain people (people who are least like them physically and circumstantially but not ideologically really) as evil. After that, the definition of evil was established and everything else couldn't be thought of as being all that bad because it doesn't resemble what evil is.

Zedd:
Thank you for understanding what I was saying. I was trying to point out that there is some kind of moral equivalence between Bush & Bin-Laden, both of whom claim to be doing God's work on earth, but end up causing the deaths of many innocent people by the ten thousands (Bin-Laden) and the hundred thousands (Bush).

A point that escaped the likes of Dave Nalle, JOM & cohorts because they automatically react, "oh, here's another cheap-shot Bush-bashing." It doesn't occur to them that they're easily manipulated by the likes of Rove who go around "evilizing" (love that coinage of yours) others to mask their own evil.

It's amazing to me that the Dave Nalle crowd can be reasonable and thoughtful about many things, but actually are such suckers. Too many people in America don't think for themselves, and can be manipulated to believing anything.

For example, it amazes me that 99.9% of Americans think Bush/Cheney started the Iraq War for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with getting at the oil there, which is the real reason we invaded.

It's not only Dave Nalle & Co who are suckers. Our entire media establishment and punditocracy are suckers, too -- and they help politicians and Texas oil men turn our nation into suckers.

You are rather rare, Zedd, in not being one.

Adam Ash.

It's not only Dave Nalle & Co who are suckers. Our entire media establishment and punditocracy are suckers, too -- and they help politicians and Texas oil men turn our nation into suckers.

Right, Adam.

Everyone in the parade is out of step except for you...

Adam

We live in a wonderful country in many respects and are blessed to get to experience it.

This country is a place of myths. People come with wonderment and refuse to let go of the myth of their new world. I remember being in Durban in the 80's when the show Dallas was at its height in a small Indian eatery near the beach. My sister and I soon found ourselves surrounded by Indians and all manner of blacks (coloureds and all) asking if we knew Sue Allen :o) I remember how I didn't want to disappoint. I didn't want to say just how dry and very real our existence is in the US. I didn't want to tell them that life in RSA was much more enchanted, simpler and in many respects wealthier (house help et all... you remember). I just said that "no they are in Hollywood and that is far from Dallas". I encountered some form of that so many times from all races at home and in all of my travels in Europe.

However it taught me just how the image of who we are gets distorted even in our own minds. My father believed in the American dream and was highly patriotic. Although he was very objective and taught us to be, his resolve to the ideal of America, even when he came to understand the challenges, remained firm. I came to understand that he had to be. He removed his entire family and brought them to this place, he had to keep believing or else he was wrong. He grew up in early Soweto dreaming of America in the 40's and 50's. After civil rights, and we came, he vowed that he would get his children out of SA. I remember us standing in Carlton Center when it was first built, all dressed up and watching the other children ice skating. I was a tiny munchkin but I recall him saying, I'm getting my children out of here. I remember as we were leaving when young police interrogated him gestapo style and threatened to prevent our departure, it was so tense. We were used to the silly interrogations off course but this particular time there was a sort of "who do you think you are boy" element. This kids more than likely came from poor Afrikaner families. As soon as we got into the ship, my dad said, my children will never have to deal with that again.

I think this element of hope (in different varieties) contributes heavily to the commitment to the myth of America; the need to believe no matter what becomes apparent. This commitment is passed from generation to generation in many cases and results in this malaise. I could be wrong but I think it has to be a contributing factor.

Anyway, I think you are sharp and I love your clarity. It is rare.

Adam

We live in a wonderful country in many respects and are blessed to get to experience it.

This country is a place of myths. People come with wonderment and refuse to let go of the myth of their new world. I remember being in Durban in the 80's when the show Dallas was at its height in a small Indian eatery near the beach. My sister and I soon found ourselves surrounded by Indians and all manner of blacks (coloureds and all) asking if we knew Sue Allen :o) I remember how I didn't want to disappoint. I didn't want to say just how dry and very real our existence is in the US. I didn't want to tell them that life in RSA was much more enchanted, simpler and in many respects wealthier (house help et all... you remember). I just said that "no they are in Hollywood and that is far from Dallas". I encountered some form of that so many times from all races at home and in all of my travels in Europe.

However it taught me just how the image of who we are gets distorted even in our own minds. My father believed in the American dream and was highly patriotic. Although he was very objective and taught us to be, his resolve to the ideal of America, even when he came to understand the challenges, remained firm. I came to understand that he had to be. He removed his entire family and brought them to this place, he had to keep believing or else he was wrong. He grew up in early Soweto dreaming of America in the 40's and 50's. After civil rights, and we came, he vowed that he would get his children out of SA. I remember us standing in Carlton Center when it was first built, all dressed up and watching the other children ice skating. I was a tiny munchkin but I recall him saying, I'm getting my children out of here. I remember as we were leaving when young police interrogated him gestapo style and threatened to prevent our departure, it was so tense. We were used to the silly interrogations off course but this particular time there was a sort of "who do you think you are boy" element. This kids more than likely came from poor Afrikaner families. As soon as we got into the ship, my dad said, my children will never have to deal with that again.

I think this element of hope (in different varieties) contributes heavily to the commitment to the myth of America; the need to believe no matter what becomes apparent. This commitment is passed from generation to generation in many cases and results in this malaise. I could be wrong but I think it has to be a contributing factor.

Anyway, I think you are sharp and I love your clarity. It is rare.

Clavos:
If you read my blog (click on URL) you'll come across a small corner of the punditocracy who are not suckers, besides me. I work hard to blog them all, and it keeps me and my readers sane, to have a place where suckers like you don't rule.

I figure the American punditocracy has around 50 non-suckers, and maybe you should start reading them -- on commondreams.com, counterpunch.com, The Nation, etc. You'd say they all have a "lefty" viewpoint, but I think they're the ones who try not to be suckered.

For overseas publications, I recommend Eurozine and signandsight.com.

There's also The Guardian in the UK, somewhat less suckered than the NY Times, who were totally suckered into supporting the Iraq War. Listen, if the NY Times -- the best newspaper in the world -- can get suckered by transparent dumb fucks like Bush/Cheney, then you can see what we non-suckers are up against.

Adam Ash

Adam, being suckers for a different, equally terrible message doesn't make you any less suckers.

Dave

Dave:
What equally terrible message are you talking about?
Please: you still think the Iraq invasion wasn't about oil. Give me a break.

Adam Ash

Nancy,

If you do not have a Bible at home, go to one on-line and dial up Ezekiel 39:2-5. If you do not find Gog there, let me know. The verses I cited above describe Gog's ultimate fate. I always wish George W. Bush a good appetite, animal lover that I am...

Shavua Tov

"It's amazing to me that the Dave Nalle crowd can be reasonable and thoughtful about many things, but actually are such suckers. Too many people in America don't think for themselves, and can be manipulated to believing anything."

Rubbish.

Moral equivalency is a scourge. There's nothing valid in it and if this is what passes as "independent thought" God help us all.

Suckers are in the eye of the beholder.

What equally terrible message are you talking about?

The relentlessly negative, destructive and do-nothing message of the left.

Please: you still think the Iraq invasion wasn't about oil. Give me a break.

As usual, you don't get it. I think the Iraq invasion was not about the short-term acquisition of oil, as the left so often claims. It certainly did include among its motivations a desire to stabilize the region the oil comes from and keep it flowing at a reasonable price. But it wasn't at all about US companies going in and grabbing up all the oil.

It's amazing to me that the Dave Nalle crowd can be reasonable and thoughtful about many things, but actually are such suckers.

Perhaps you should consider that if we're reasonable and thoughtful about other things we're also reasonable and thoughtful about the things you don't agree with and you're just wrong, Adam.

Believe me, when you get to the point in your thinking where you believe everyone is a sucker and just you and a select few like you are on the right track, you're probably wrong or at the very least looking at things from an overly simplistic perspective.

Dave

1. "The relentlessly negative, destructive and do-nothing message of the left."

Who is this bugaboo you're talking about? The entire world -- millions and millions -- demonstrated against starting a war against Iraq, which turned out to be a disaster. Is this the left you mean, the ones who wanted to save America and the world from right-wing American Conservative idiologues and suckers like you?

2. "I think the Iraq invasion was not about the short-term acquisition of oil, as the left so often claims."

The left doesn't claim it's about short-term acquisition of oil, for chrissake, it's about nailing down longterm exploitation of Iraqi oilfields that haven't been exploited yet for Texas oil companies -- the rights of which Saddam Hussein had given to Russia and China. The Texas oil men, i.e. Bush/Cheney & Co, wanted those rights for themselves. And now they're at last succeeding, in a bill that is now before the Iraqi parliament. Get a clue. Read all about it here.

Then come back if you have any more to say. It's tough to talk to suckers when they don't have the facts. Get the facts, then we can talk.

3. "Believe me, when you get to the point in your thinking where you believe everyone is a sucker and just you and a select few like you are on the right track, you're probably wrong or at the very least looking at things from an overly simplistic perspective."

I don't believe everyone is a sucker, only you and most of the easily manipulated US voting population. Again, millions upon millions marched against the Iraq War. Those millions aren't suckers. You are.

Adam Ash

Liberal Democrats and Islamic Terrorists do not have the same ideological agenda. Not at all. However, they both seek the defeat of the US and the UK (and the rest of the West) in Iraq.

That's pretty much a fact.

Now you see, RJ, even if I don't agree with Adam, when you say shit like this you're just begging for reciprocation like the comparison in his article.

Talk about equal-and-opposite reaction! Maybe you two should date.

Who is this bugaboo you're talking about? The entire world -- millions and millions -- demonstrated against starting a war against Iraq, which turned out to be a disaster. Is this the left you mean, the ones who wanted to save America and the world from right-wing American Conservative idiologues and suckers like you?

As usual you're on the wrong page, Adam. The Iraq war is a great irrelevancy. The 'issues' the left have with it are bogus phantoms dreamed up to make partisan attacks. You might want to read this informative recent article from Matt Finley. Abandoning Iraq benefits no one except for those who profit from chaos to spread radicalism and oppression.

The left doesn't claim it's about short-term acquisition of oil, for chrissake,

I refer you to comment #4 on this thread. If that isn't one of your compatriots talking about an oil grab, I don't know what it is. And he's part of a large population who think the same way.

it's about nailing down longterm exploitation of Iraqi oilfields that haven't been exploited yet for Texas oil companies -- the rights of which Saddam Hussein had given to Russia and China. The Texas oil men, i.e. Bush/Cheney & Co, wanted those rights for themselves. And now they're at last succeeding, in a bill that is now before the Iraqi parliament. Get a clue. Read all about it here. Then come back if you have any more to say. It's tough to talk to suckers when they don't have the facts. Get the facts, then we can talk.

Nothing on commondreams is likely to be even vaguely true or accurately researched. And your (and their) take on this issue is inherently flawed because like all those who don't understand how the oil industry works, you fail to consider that oil is a fungible resources, so for the purposes of the oil companies and our national energy security, it doesn't matter who actually extracts the oil so long as it goes into the general pool of oil. If China extracts it then that means more oil from other sources is available to the multinationals.

What's more, the war in Iraq resulted not in more oil being available, but in a reduction of production, AND the ultimate outcome was to put control of the oil into the hands of Iraqis not US oil companies.

I don't believe everyone is a sucker, only you and most of the easily manipulated US voting population.

So just those who don't agree with you are suckers. No one is trying to sucker you. You developed your delusions all on your own... implausible.

Again, millions upon millions marched against the Iraq War. Those millions aren't suckers. You are.

Millions, no billions more did NOT march against the war. Does that prove anything?

Dave

given all this lovely fungibility why and for what do oil companies compete - ?

"for what do oil companies compete?" Control.

This article has motivated me to post my own article...the working title

The Minds of the Left Wing Loons and a One Cell Ameoabe: An Odious Comparison

JOM

I'd have said Market Share, MBD. But control is close.

Dave

Re #28 by Zedd;
"Anyway, I think you are sharp and I love your clarity. It is rare."

I agree, Zedd. I felt the "ridiculous" and "odious" comments in #1 and #2 were just sour grapes from a couple of promoters of the cluster-fuck in Iraq.

There are some basic differences between Osama and W:

1. Osama appears to be a highly intelligent man.
2. Osama has correctly identified the short-term enemy to be the US government--which props up both the House of Saud and the Israeli government.
3. Osama appears to be a lot more skilled at keeping an organization afloat financially. Bush couldn't even manage a two-bit oil company or baseball team--and has bankrupted the US for generations.
4. A lot of folks outside the US see Osama as a hero. W is not even seen as a hero by his followers.
5. Osama is a Pisces, W is a Cancer--as well as a cancer.

^ Plus I don't Osama ever went AWOL from military duty, did he?

Plus I don't Osama ever went AWOL from military duty, did he?

He's never been in the military, emmy.

Osama is a Pisces, W is a Cancer

Ah yes, astrology.

Highly regarded by all the world's top scholars as the definitive science to decipher all those arcane unknowables, such as personality and the future.

Endorsed by mental midgets everywhere.

he rode a desk while the mujahadeen fought the Ruskies...?

@#47:

According to Wikipedia, Yes:

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi government. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK.

Clavos,

I have covered my bases. I believe in all systems.

What have you done to insure your salvation?

Not a thing, MR.

I'm going to die.

Probably sooner than later.

Ni modo.

"Astrology...Endorsed by mental midgets everywhere."
- Clavvy

Like Ronald and Nancy Reagan?

Yep.

MCH

You are so funny!

You're right, Zedd, he is funny.

The sad part is he isn't trying to be.

NEITHER ARE YOU, NAILS.

But you make me laugh anyway at your arrogant stupidity.

I'm glad MR. I live to amuse you.

I must be the one spot of light in your sad little life.

Unfortunately, you're not bright enough...

Typical gringo complainer.

You get what you pay for, asshole.

You get what you pay for, asshole.

Nope. I paid nothing and got far less than that.

Typical gringo

Soy chilango. ¿Donde naciste tú, güera?

"it amazes me that 99.9% of Americans think Bush/Cheney started the Iraq War for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with getting at the oil there, which is the real reason we invaded."

Read this.

Typical gringo complainer.

You get what you pay for, asshole.

I guess the comments editor was asleep...for three days...

RJ

Are you reposting to remind him or just making sure that we thoroughly are re-offended?