Today on Blogcritics
Home » Are Republicans Hoping for Another 9/11?

Are Republicans Hoping for Another 9/11?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Democrats have often been accused by conservatives of secretly wanting to lose the war in Iraq because it would benefit them politically. Given the difficulty in even defining the meaning of “win” and “lose” in the quagmire that is Iraq, it seems a rather specious charge.

But let’s turn the tables a bit. Are Republicans secretly hoping for another terrorist attack on the homeland? It’s a deliberately provocative question, and one that deserves some discussion.

Look at where Republicans find themselves in the summer of 2007. They’ve got a wildly unpopular president at historical lows in the polls, rejected by Americans across the political spectrum. As a direct result of his policies, especially in Iraq, the Republicans have lost control of both houses of Congress. Surveying the current political scene, most observers are predicting a Democratic tsunami in 2008, with the party taking back the White House and increasing their numbers in both the House and the Senate.

Republicans have always considered national security to be their strong suit. Although recent polls show that that perception is changing in favor of the Democrats. They believe that people trust them more than the Democrats to keep Americans safe. So any perceived threat, they reason, benefits Republicans politically. They also believe that the natural reaction in the face of a terrorist attack is to rally ’round the President.

The Bush administration, of course, has always played the terror card when it suited them. Terror alerts and uncovered terror plots seem to conveniently appear whenever Bush has some sort of political crisis that he needs us to avert our eyes from. Their apparent goal is to keep the American people in a perpetual state of fear, and in a state of mind that will compel them to support the President and his party. The unspoken message they want to send is, “Vote Republican or Die.” Rudy Giuliani has latched onto this theme and will attempt to ride it all the way to the White House.

But having cried wolf so often, this strategy may be losing its effectiveness. Recent statements by the administration and prominent Republicans suggest that they might actually welcome another terrorist attack as a way to rally the nation and cause people to run back to the Republican party.

Rick Santorum, the recently defeated Senator from Pennsylvania, had this to say during a July 7, 2007 interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio show:

“…between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK.”

A few weeks ago, Dennis Milligan, the chairman of the Republican party in Arkansas and a strong Bush supporter, said this:

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”

Both Santorum and Milligan seem to be looking forward to another terror attack as the best way for the “naysayers” to “appreciate” President Bush. Couple that with Michael Chertoff’s recent “gut feeling” that an attack may happen this summer, and you have to wonder if they know something that we don’t.

And then there’s Stu Bykofsky, a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, who wrote this week:

“One month from The Anniversary, I’m thinking another 9/11 would help America…The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago’s Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda. Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again? If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America’s righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail. The unity brought by such an attack sadly won’t last forever. The first 9/11 proved that.”

Recently, I came across an alarming essay that began with these ominous words:

“Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran. Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of ‘executive orders’ that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, ‘terrorist’ events in the near future….Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.”

Of course, the interesting thing to note here is that the author is not some “left-wing loony.” Those words were written by Paul Craig Roberts, a conservative and the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is also considered to be the “father” of Reaganomics. The executive orders that he references include the recent July 17 order which allows the White House to, incredibly, seize the assets of anyone who ‘interferes’ with its Iraq policies. Roberts notes that “When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there’s no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule.”

He continued by writing this:

“Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging ‘terrorist’ attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda? Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.”

Such alarmist talk might seem to be over the top, and Roberts is probably at risk of being labeled “paranoid.” But like they say, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”

But is the conventional wisdom right? Would Americans flock back to the Republicans and support Bush in the event of another attack? I’m not so sure. I think at one point (early on in Bush’s tenure) that may have been true, but Americans been through a lot, and may have finally wised up. I think most people would be more likely to have a reaction along the lines of, “Hey, Mr. President, I thought you said you would keep us safe!” before pulling the lever for the Democrats.

Do I believe that most Republicans are consciously looking forward to the day when their fellow Americans may die in another terrorist attack, as a way to possibly save the Republican party? No, I don’t. I’m not that cynical (yet). Do I believe that there are elements within the Republican party that wouldn’t necessarily, shall we say, be disappointed if such an attack were to occur? Almost certainly.

Powered by

About Doug DeLong

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Just for the record, the fact that Paul Craig Roberts is a RIGHT wing loony rather than a left wing loony doesn’t make him any less of a loony. And quoting him and Alex Jones pretty much makes you a loony too.

    Can I sell you a tinfoil hat on the cheap?

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    That’s what I like! Nothing like a good dose of name-calling to get a discussion started!

    By the way, I don’t believe I quoted Alex Jones anywhere in my article. Does seeing things that aren’t there make you a looney? Just asking.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Check your first link. It’s to Alex Jones’ website. I’ll give you Jones didn’t write the particular article, though. Doesn’t make it one bit less idiotic, though.

    As for the comment, I kept it relatively light – just trying to encourage further discussion. You do want people to discuss this, right? And given your perspective my comments are probably among the least incensed you’re going to see.

    If I expressed my full and honest opinion of this kind of drivel my comment would get deleted.

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Clearly, “quoting” someone and linking to an article on someone’s website written by someone else are quite different. I think we can agree on that.

    As for Roberts, his level of paranoia is higher than mine, but his point of view is illustrative of the fact that people across the political spectrum are of the opinion that, given Bush’s record, he cannot be trusted or believed on almost any subject.

  • http://www.u4prez.com/index.php?do=rate&act=profile&id=2155&view=&prevphoto=2155&rating=10&gender=6 Lucky

    Americans already know that war and religion have been used for ages by the ruling classes.

    Last Night, I was looking for a book on one of my bookshelves … and I stumbled across a book that I got back in 1989 but I never actually read it … because I was taught that the Jehova’s Witnesses were a cult by my Southern Baptist church.

    I decided to open up the book titled “The Bible: God’s Word or Man’s?” What I found amazed me because it completely backed up my theories that religions were corrupt and that the invasion of Iraq was nothing more than an attempt to take control over ancient Babylon and Messopotamia.

    The book lays out the history of the bible and tries to convince you that the bible is God’s inspired word … but for me … knowing what I do now … it dealt a damaging blow to the believers of Christianity. The book shows a 15th century image of a man being burned to death … and the image is labeled “As this 15th century wookcut illustrates, many were burned alive for the “crime” of reading the Bible.” The image is very revealing .. because it is obvious that the man being burned is the only one who is not a Christian. The others are wearing the fish type hats (like the Pope) and have sceptors with crosses on them. The man being burned looks like a buddhist or something. What a shame that they even said this … it is clearly a lie. In this book they say that “no such book has been the target of so much vicious opposition and even hatred throughout history. Bibles have been burned on public bonfires, from the Middle Ages down to our 20th century. And reading or distributing the Bible has been punished with fines and imprisonment and even in modern times. In past times such crimes often led to torture and death.” These statement are not exactly true. The real punishments were imposed on those that did not believe the bible … as they were improsoned, tortured and fined. Throughout our history you will see that the Christians were the ones that did these very actions and were the book burners. You need to look no further than the Nazi’s in Germany that were backed by Christians. Yes, indeed the Nazi’s who killed the Jews were doing this in Christ’s name. They were a Christian Organization.

    Take a look at the Mayans … as all their books were burned when the explorers came to their lands and discovered their pagan religions.

    The original Christians were the Egyptians and the Christians are trying to cover this up. That is why we are in Iraq.

    Jesus Christ is the solar mythological deity that represents Pisces and this Age.

    The world is not coming to an end. The Christians, Muslims and Jews just don’t understand astronomy or the Zodiac.

    Watch for information.

  • Roger Whidden

    There is no need to qualify the answer to the question with “Almost”. It is most certainly a certainty that you BELIEVE “.. that there are elements within the Republican party that wouldn’t necessarily, shall we say, be disappointed if such an attack were to occur?”
    Believing it does not make it true. Hoping harm comes to America for partisan gain is, shall we say, treasonous. Saying some in the opposition party hopes that, shall we say, is purely partisan politics.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Clearly, “quoting” someone and linking to an article on someone’s website written by someone else are quite different. I think we can agree on that.

    Not really. THe site represents the Alex Jones mindset, the conspiratorial disinformation machine which seeks to muddy the waters and distort reality to serve an extremist agenda. Whether Jones or one of his loyalists wrote the piece is largely irrelevant.

    As for Roberts, his level of paranoia is higher than mine, but his point of view is illustrative of the fact that people across the political spectrum are of the opinion that, given Bush’s record, he cannot be trusted or believed on almost any subject.

    But you see, not trusting Bush does not automatically legitimize everything that is anti-Bush or every crackpot theory about the government or conspiracies. Bush can be a weasel and still not be part of some grand conspiracy.

    I do admire your restraint and the good shot you made at seeming rational in this piece. The mask barely slipped.

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    #6 Roger,

    “Hoping harm comes to America for partisan gain is, shall we say, treasonous.”

    Yeah, that was kinda my thought as well, but I didn’t want to say it out loud, like you just did.

    “Saying some in the opposition party hopes that, shall we say, is purely partisan politics.”

    Oh, you mean like when Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting to lose the war and hating America, etc. Methinks you can dish it out, but you can’t take it.

  • Clavos

    Are there elements of the democrat party that would like to see our armed forces get their asses kicked big time in Iraq so Bush will suffer the ultimate (for him) failure and so they can be right about our involvement?.

    Or are democrats not that devious and self absorbed?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    BTW, Doug. Read Lucky’s comment carefully. Pin it on your wall. When you start sounding like that – and I’d say it’s only months away – it’s time to head for the bunker and check make sure the Spam supply is up to date.

    dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Dave,

    If I end up in the loony bin in a few months, you’ll be the first to know. I think, though, that once we are freed of the current psychotic administration, and get some people with a firmer grasp on reality running things, I’ll be able to regain my equalibrium.

    And Lucky…just curious, did you read my article or do you just randomly post your ramblings anywhere that strikes your fancy?

  • http://myspace.com/ericindiana Orwell’s Ghost

    Dave, Dave, Dave…
    if there is an attack in the US by November then you might just want to hold on to that tin foil hat before you go selling it.

    You just might need it.
    Yes Alex Jones is a complete chode, but those statements were made on the Hugh Hewitt show by Rick Santorum, regardless the source.

    The writer may also want to look into Bushs statements about giving it until November to prove that we are still needed in Iraq.

    Something is on the burner.
    Whether you think so or not.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    OMG I forgot to even abuse Doug for quoting Santorum. Santorum is a dyed in the wool freak from another planet. There’s a reason he wasn’t reelected. He and his family are like the real life Addams Family. The man brought his wife’s miscaried fetus home and slept with it in their bed ferchrissakes.

    As for a terrorist attack by november, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. We’re more than due. And who cares? Keeps us on our toes. When I travel around town I see scores of great targets which are virtually undefended. Eventually someone will do something about them.

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    “As for a terrorist attack by november, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. We’re more than due. And who cares? Keeps us on our toes.”

    Jesus, Dave, you sound like Stu Bykofsky. Who cares? Keeps us on our toes? Please tell me your kidding!

    At least we can both agree on the fact that Rick Santorum is certifiable…and yet, he was (and still is) a hero to many in the Republican crowd.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Jesus, Dave, you sound like Stu Bykofsky. Who cares? Keeps us on our toes? Please tell me your kidding!

    Don’t know Bykofsky, but I’m not kidding. We have to be prepared to deal with occasional acts of terrorism in the future and take them in stride. They are going to happen. Hopefully we can minimize the impact and move on.

    The only way to prevent all terrorism has a price so high that I know that you are no more willing to pay it than I am, so I accept the occasional bit of terrorism as the price of preserving freedom.

    At least we can both agree on the fact that Rick Santorum is certifiable…and yet, he was (and still is) a hero to many in the Republican crowd.

    Not to any Republicans I know, but then I stay away from tent revivals, polygamist compounds and full immersion baptisms.

    Dave

  • f0ca1
  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Check out my article again for Bykofsky’s column. He wrote that “One month from The Anniversary, I’m thinking another 9/11 would help America…”

    His thesis being that a nice, big juicy attack would unite Americans again. He then went on to helpfully give terrorists a list of targets for them to consider.

    Personally, I prefer the motto “Never Again” to “Take Them in Stride.” I mean, isn’t that what the whole “War on Terror” is supposed to be about?

  • REMF

    “BTW, Doug. Read Lucky’s comment carefully. Pin it on your wall. When you start sounding like that – and I’d say it’s only months away – it’s time to head for the bunker and check make sure the Spam supply is up to date.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Would it be safer than a fortified compound?
    (MCH)

  • REMF

    “Are there elements of the democrat party that would like to see our armed forces get their asses kicked big time in Iraq so Bush will suffer the ultimate (for him) failure and so they can be right about our involvement?.”
    – Clavos

    No, but there are elements of the democrat party who want our men and women out of that cluster-fuck, since those who are responsible for the invasion are a group of draft dodgers led by a deserter.
    (MCH)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    His thesis being that a nice, big juicy attack would unite Americans again. He then went on to helpfully give terrorists a list of targets for them to consider.

    Hey, I’ve considered writing that article.

    Personally, I prefer the motto “Never Again” to “Take Them in Stride.” I mean, isn’t that what the whole “War on Terror” is supposed to be about?

    The War on Terror is supposed to be about stopping terrorism, but there’s more than one way to do it, and the only method which leads to ‘never again’ involves a level of domestic security which I think is unacceptable. I lived in the soviet union when I had to carry a domestic passport and submit to police checks wherever I went. I don’t want to experience that in America.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    So, Doug:

    You gonna answer my #9???

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    “Are there elements of the democrat party that would like to see our armed forces get their asses kicked big time in Iraq so Bush will suffer the ultimate (for him) failure and so they can be right about our involvement?”

    It’s not a question of wanting to see Bush fail. That’s already happened. Don’t you read the papers? Now it’s just a question of figuring out the best way to get out without making things worse than they already are.

  • Clavos

    I see.

    Didja notice the “(for him)” in my question? HE doesn’t think he’s failed, does he?

    So I guess you’re NOT going to answer my question in #9, huh?

  • Baronius

    Secret wishes aren’t treasonous. You don’t demonstrate that Republicans secretly wish for another terrorist attack. Santorum sounds like he’s expecting something; Milligan doesn’t. Neither of them indicate secret hopes. I haven’t read Santorum’s statement in context, but it’s a long way from suspicion of an attack to hope for one.

    But let’s say that every Republican is hoping for big deaths. (That seems fair.) They’re not doing anything to speed it up. The Democrats are doing and saying things that undermine our war effort. For all I know, Democrats secretly hope we stabilize Iraq, but they’re keeping that secret buried deep in their hearts.

    Maybe the Republicans should start calling for timetables to withdraw security from airports.

  • Karen Olgom

    Believe it or not. Saying so in this article does not make it automatically true. Neither does saying that it would make Bush and his government treasonous make it necessarily false.

    The proof will out. The question is less if it will happen – are you a crazy left wing conspiracy theorist – or if it will not. The question is how to deal with it IF it does happen.

    If you believe that Bush’s govt are capable of, and plan to do this, then what is the best way for damage control – to prevent his getting his intentions. Not enough people read this blog (I just found it today) to make a difference.

    If it happens, and the political mood turns back to the Republicans, it is not good enough to say “I told you so.” What do we do?

  • Roger Whidden

    Doug #8

    Wow! This is weird in soooo many ways. Where do I begin?
    1. Words matter.
    2. I accused no one of treason. I used the word “treasonous”, and adjective that imparts the nature of treason to an act; i.e., “Hoping harm comes to America…”
    3. I made the statement to point out the implication (unspoken) of your blog.
    4. I have never understood an adult attempting to defend their behavior by citing examples of questionable behavior commited by others. The only word I can think of to describe those attempts is “childish”.
    5. Are you assuming I’m a Republican?
    6. Just what was it I dished out in my previos post (#6), and what is it I can’t take?

  • Nancy

    Bush & Cheney are already traitors to this country. It’s just a matter of time before they act to stage a coup. Has it occurred to anyone else here that one reason Bush is holding so tight to Gonzales is that he’s trying to retain the one AG he knows will carry out his directives (or Cheney’s, probably, in reality) without question, or refuse to have him arrested for treason when he actually tries it? Also take a look at those who are currently holding the top Pentagon positions: all BushCo loyalist freaks. All the critics & independent thinkers have been quietly being retired, replaced, or re-assigned. So when the coup occurs, the military will be supporting Bush/Cheney against any civilian or military uprising or protests, should anyone be foolish/patriotic/quixotic enough to do so. He’s already set the stage for any political critics and/or opponents to just ‘disappear’ … held indefinitely by being declared “enemy combatants”. He tried it out initially with those who could conceivably actually BE enemy combatants, & few blinked, so he’s banking that Americans will remain equally apathetic or even supportive if he next tries it on, say, some critic like Roberts, or even an Arlen Specter who’s been a pain in his rear since the inception.

    I hate to be a cassandra, or worse, an RJ, & predict seemingly wild things, but I see handwriting on the wall, & it ain’t spray-painted graffiti for the local gang. I hope & pray I’m wrong…but when someone like Roberts comes along & independently concludes what I have – & he’s in a far better position to know than I am – I suspect I’m not going to be wrong; I’m going to be disastrously correct. The additional horror is that congress is doing nothing – can do nothing because the Dems don’t hold a big enough majority – to impeach these bastards & remove them in time. Even if they DID have enough people to carry out an impeachment, would they? I doubt it, considering the spineless way they’ve been carrying on about everything else thus far since last November.

    I hope I’m wrong. I hope Dave can indeed come back & jeer at me for wearing a tin hat. I’ll eat my words gladly, in that case. But I don’t think I’ll have to.

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    2. I accused no one of treason. I used the word “treasonous”, and adjective that imparts the nature of treason to an act; i.e., “Hoping harm comes to America…”
    3. I made the statement to point out the implication (unspoken) of your blog.”

    Yeah, I know, I got all that. I was just having a little fun by tossing your words back at you. It was supposed to be funny.

    I don’t know party you belong to, but I thought your statement about partisan politics could apply as much to Republicans as to Democrats.

    You know, I guess we live in a partisan world, but I think it’s really interesting the way some people throw around the word “partisan” like it’s an epithet of some kind (Dave, are you listening?), instead of recognizing that most people come at an issue from a point-of-view based on many different factors. But if my POV is different than yours, I’m accused of being partisan.

    Well, that’s fine, but my partisanship is based, as much as possible, on the available evidence. Am I biased in certain ways? Sure, but show me someone who’s completely neutral on any issue, and I’ll show you someone who’s not much fun at parties.

  • Nancy

    You may not have accused them of treason, but I most certainly have, & I retract not a letter of it. By taking us to war using false pretenses, half-truths, & outright lies, they are already guilty of treason; likewise by knowingly violating FISA and other restriction on executive powers; & I’m convinced they’re planning on bettering that list by topping it with outright establishment of a dictatorship, posing as an emergency of some kind. And if another 9/11 at the hands of foreign agents isn’t in the offing, I’m also quite sure they have no problems creating one of their own to ensure the excuse to declare a military emergency & suspension of government. They certainly haven’t hesitated to try to destroy anybody else who has tried to expose or stay them. Bush/Cheney imo is going to make the Nixon crew look like a bunch of girl scouts before they’re through. Also, Rove has bailed. Interesting timing, that.

  • Roger Whidden

    Damn Doug, agree almost 100%. Didn’t detect your humor. That’s OK, sometimes I try to lighten the mood and folks think I’m agitating.
    Now, back to the arena. I agree, some words are used by some folks as an accusation of wrongdoing, when in fact, the words are simply defining. Not my style. If you notice, I made no judgment call, good or bad, right or wrong. Just called it as I saw it.
    You wrote, “But if my POV is different than yours, I’m accused of being partisan.”
    Wasn’t an accusation, had nothing to do with a differt POV.
    I do lament partisanship taking precedent over national interest in some of our elected leaders.

    Hope I meet the high standards to be on your party invitation list. ;-)

  • Dr Dreadful

    I do lament partisanship taking precedent over national interest in some of our elected leaders.

    It’s not just politicians. Check out this nasty sequence of comments right here on BC following Katrina in ’05.

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Roger,

    “But if my POV is different than yours, I’m accused of being partisan.”

    Wasn’t an accusation, had nothing to do with a differt POV.

    Actually, that particular comment was directed more at Dave than at you.

  • Roger Whidden

    Doug,
    Lousy aim. You’re forgiven.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You know, I guess we live in a partisan world, but I think it’s really interesting the way some people throw around the word “partisan” like it’s an epithet of some kind (Dave, are you listening?), instead of recognizing that most people come at an issue from a point-of-view based on many different factors. But if my POV is different than yours, I’m accused of being partisan.

    Doug. I don’t throw words around lightly and when I use them I know what they mean. If I call someone partisan it is because I detect that their position comes from a point of view based not on an objective analysis of facts, but on a political or ideological allegiance. They may have facts at their command or have used facts to justify their point of view to themselves, but they’re still partisan.

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Dave,

    People form opinions and allegiances by analyzing facts, so it’s ridiculous to accuse someone of being partisan, (according to your definition). What you really mean when you throw that word around is, “I don’t like your opinion because it’s different than mine.”

    While it’s true that 2 people can look at the same facts and form 2 different opinions, that doesn’t mean neccessarily mean that either one is being “partisan.”

    I think the word “partisan” is only appropriate when someone knows the facts and chooses to ignore them, or to make up their own facts, or spins the facts to fit their own view.

  • moonraven

    If you want to consider the next smoke and mirrors caper a la 9/11, just look back to what the Nazis used as a follow-up to the Reichstag Fire.

    It will become obvious.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    People form opinions and allegiances by analyzing facts,

    People certainly CAN form opinions that way, but in practice that’s rarely the case. More likely they form an opinion on an initial impression, a gut reaction, or what someone else suggested that they think.

    No, what I mean is that I think your opinion is based on allegiance to an ideology which tells you how to view the subject, rather than on an objective analysis of the subject. Hey wait, didn’t I already say that? A person with an open mind would be listening.

    While it’s true that 2 people can look at the same facts and form 2 different opinions, that doesn’t mean neccessarily mean that either one is being “partisan.”

    Sure, I’ll agree with that. But if one of them looks at the facts filtered through the lens of ideology, then he’s likely to come to a partisan conclusion.

    I think the word “partisan” is only appropriate when someone knows the facts and chooses to ignore them, or to make up their own facts, or spins the facts to fit their own view.

    More typically a person who is partisan won’t even see or acknowledge any facts which don’t fit their preconceptions.

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Dave,

    I’m rubber and you’re glue
    Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!

    Or to put it another way…

    I know you are, but what am I?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Someone who doesn’t listen, Doug.

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Oh, I listen alright. I’m just tired of your childish bullshit. Sorry. Moving on…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Doug, I gave you a chance to discuss this issue on the basis of reason and honesty and you resorted to defensiveness and repeating partisan talking points. If you can’t find a way to talk to people who don’t just nod their heads and pat you on the back, how do you expect to accomplish anything?

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    If you can’t find a way to talk to people who don’t just nod their heads and pat you on the back, how do you expect to accomplish anything?

    I don’t expect to accomplish anything. In fact, I’m hoping to be an utter failure. So I depend on people like you to keep me in my place. Thank you for helping me to realize my dream of becoming a spectacular waste of space, thrown aside by society, and loved by no one.

    Your smugness is my salvation.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I’ll start by saying I’m not a bush fan…not anymore anyway…but your “opinion” piece here is most definately partisan…and after reading it, I’ll say you have some big brass balls calling anyone smug!

    Amazing the insider info you have here…telling us all that every time there’s a terror alert or a foiled terrorist plot it’s just republican bullshit is pretty amazing…I guess you just got Rove’s job? Or you’ve been an insider all along?

    And for the record that lied us into a war thing is plain old bullshit…and I’d say if you’re going to insist on using the lie then at least make it somewhat believable and say that the entire world lied us into a war…because even your beloved democrats were blowing smoke up our collective asses on this one.

  • Clavos

    “Are there elements of the democrat party that would like to see our armed forces get their asses kicked big time in Iraq so Bush will suffer the ultimate (for him) failure and so they can be right about our involvement?”

    Hmm??

  • Jon

    The Problem is that voters dont really choose who will be President, the elite bankers do. The problem is you cant fight absolute corruption with democracy, its just too deeply rooted and well established to be upended by something as simple as a vote. I wish it was, but it just isnt.
    Stalin did make one honest comment of relevance here…. “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

    You were sold out in 1913. Surely you must all know about the Federal reserve and its utterly corrupt introduction by an elite few on Jekyll Island. If not you should read ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island -by G. Edward Griffin’.
    Warburg, JPMorgan, and others with only self-interests drafted what would be the Fed Reserve and sneaked it in with bribes and threats to support the opposition of those who didnt ‘agree’ with them. This isnt speculation, this is a known fact if you care to research it.
    Imagine how deep and widespread the corruption has become as it has had almost a Century to firm its roots into most aspects of the powers running our society, including the Mainstream media which is now a huge propaganda machine.
    People should be looking at the Rockefellers and Rothschilds very closely as they are among the main puppeteers behind the scenes, although these dynasties are pretty much untouchable nowadays.
    The funny thing is im not even an American or living in the USA, im from London, but i am concerned as we`re all in the same boat and we are all heading down a dead-end road.
    Just you wait and see… someone in power is going to do something incredibly stupid soon (like start a war with Iran). The only profiteers from these wars are the cartel of bankers above the Government.

    Please wake up – Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely

  • REMF

    “More typically a person who is partisan won’t even see or acknowledge any facts which don’t fit their preconceptions.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Um…might be time to take a peak at the mirror, Nalle.

  • Nancy

    Jon, I don’t think it’s just the bankers; it’s the multinational corporations these days. Those who sit on the boards, or own the stocks, are the same plutocrats who hold office. Gonzo provided an excellent website about this: werule.com. Check it out. Otherwise, you’re right: we the people no longer decide, nor do we have the chance of a snowball in hell to make that decision. Those behind the scenes who own the parties/government do that, & then parade their choices to the sheeple/consumers (that’s us) to pretend we have a choice & thereby hopefully pacify some of the rowdier elements (people like me) who can be pacified by this sort of charade. Otherwise, it would be a lot easier for a non-Dem or GOP-candidate to actually make a meaningful run for the WH…but that will never happen, because the elite wouldn’t be able to manipulate &/or control a maverick independent actually elected by the people. That’s how Perot got defused & derailed, remember? He was too close to making an actual bid, & he had enough $$ etc to be hard to handle/not needing their money in his pocket/uncontrollable (by them).

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    #43 And for the record that lied us into a war thing is plain old bullshit…

    Andy, I’m sorry, but anyone who says that Bush did NOT lie to get us into Iraq is just not paying attention. Whole books have been written cataloging Bush’s lies and deceits.

    For me, the biggest and boldest lie was the constant drumbeat of lies and insinuations that Iraq had a connection to 9/11. Bush and Cheney had had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11, but knew that they couldn’t justify an attack, unless they could link it to 9/11 (and convince everyone that Iraq was getting ready to nuke us).

    Their lies were so successful that at one point prior to the invasion 66% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. Bush knew this was false, but continued to perpetuate the lies.

    So he attacked Iraq, a country that had NOT attacked us, was NOT a threat to us and had NO connection to 9/11. Now thousands of American soldiers are DEAD and thousands more MAIMED, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are DEAD, and BILLIONS of dollars have been spent in this criminal war.

    And yet you and others continue to be Bush apologists and try to blame “the whole world” for Bush’s war. It blows my mind.

    The very best analysis I’ve seen on Bush’s lies and his techniques of deceit was written by Dennis Hans just prior to the invasion. Do yourself a favor and take a look at it.

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Best Bush/Rove joke…

    Triumph, the Insult-Comic Dog, on the occassion of meeting Karl Rove…

    “So you’re Bush’s Brain! I was expecting a much smaller man.”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Andy (#43) you’re wasting your time. It’s become quite clear that Doug isn’t interested in discussion or finding common ground or even solving problems. He just wants to repeat the talking points and gets defensive and snide when his assumptions are challenged.

    Look at his last comment. It’s like a collection of catch-phrases strung together, utterly devoid of any kind of thought or perspective. He has the revealed truth and you’re not going to get through to him.

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Dave,

    Instead of continuing to insult me, why don’t you tell me exactly what it is my post (#48) that you don’t agree with.

  • Lumpy

    Doug. Dude. That “bush lied” horseshit is for bumperstickers, not for discussions bwtween people who have more brains than the ass end of a Prius.

    If your views are really that self-righteous and simplistic who’s Agoing to waste their time talking to you. Read the AUMF sometime and fill me in on how big a role the al qaeda Iraq connection plays in there.

  • Nancy

    That was a good one, Doug-!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The Dave Nalle and Clavos making vicious, snide comments on this thread couldn’t be the same Nalle and Clavos writing humanist, compassionate stuff on the gay marriage thread. Could they?

    Although there may or may not be a Big Evil Conspiracy involved, politicians are certainly capable of using an unpleasant situation to their advantage should the opportunity present itself. The Bush administration may not have planned all their lies in advance, but they certainly didn’t rush to correct the public’s false belief in the connection between 9/11 and Saddam [and Cheney on Meet the Press professed to believe in the connection himself]. They certainly made lots of pronouncements about WMD in the months leading up to the war….then pretended later that the lack of WMD didn’t really matter.

    The Republicans have certainly used the fear of terrorism to win elections. [“A vote for the Democrats is a vote to let the terrorists win.” Classic, huh?] That doesn’t mean they invented the fear or secretly wish for another terror attack. But if one happened, and they won more elections, they might be tempted to keep amping up the fear rhetoric, mightn’t they?

    And to ask [over and over and over] if Democrats desire a military defeat in Iraq just sounds ludicrous to me. I assure you that this Democrat doesn’t. I don’t believe Democrats in Congress or running for president want that either. Is this just another example of rightist militarists assuming that people who are antiwar are ipso facto unpatriotic? Just a cynical, worthless caricature.

    I’ll once again urge everyone to see The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear, a brilliant documentary film made for the BBC in 2004 and available on Google Video and elsewhere. It completely changed my own perspective on whether governments use fear to prolong their power. Bush is Example Number One.

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Read the AUMF sometime and fill me in on how big a role the al qaeda Iraq connection plays in there.

    Lumpy. Dude. Yep, al qaeda is in Iraq now. Were they there before the invasion? Did Hussein have anything to do with 9/11? Did Bush try to convince us that he did?

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    If your views are really that self-righteous and simplistic who’s Agoing to waste their time talking to you.

    Well, apparently you are.

    I’m not sure where you get “self-rightous” from a post that points out that Bush has been deceitful. That would fall under the category of “common knowledge” by this point. Simplistic? Well, yeah, either he lied or he didn’t. That’s pretty simple, I guess. And so is the answer.

  • Dr Dreadful

    handy, I don’t see that Clavos has been making any vicious, snide comments on this thread. Unless you count his #9, which hardly seems to qualify as such.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle


    Instead of continuing to insult me, why don’t you tell me exactly what it is my post (#48) that you don’t agree with.

    Doug, I don’t agree with the idea that you think you can get away with posting talking points we’ve all sseen before instead of reasoned arguments with a bit of depth to them to express your points. Do you really want me to go over #48 point by point? If you’re willing to post jingoistic garbage like that I can’t imagine you’d pay any attention to anything I posted in response to it with any kind of open mind.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Bush/Cheney/Rove are merely following in the well-established footsteps of their role models, Hermann Goering, Machiavelli, & Sun, who long ago established the efficacy of using fake, ramped-up fear threats to steer the sheeple as they wished, stampeding them into blind obedience & support, & smearing anyone who opposed them as traitors or cowards. The problem is, most people are too stupid or ignorant to recognize it, so they fall for it – over & over & over & over. Even people who SHOULD know better fall prey to it. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Ad nauseam, it would seem.

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Dave,

    So in other words, you can’t rebut the fact that Bush has been deceitful and lied. That’s what I thought.

  • Nancy

    I forgot to add, I also don’t see where Clavos has been making snide comments. Dave, yes, but not Clavos. He just doesn’t agree w/you.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The Dave Nalle and Clavos making vicious, snide comments on this thread couldn’t be the same Nalle and Clavos writing humanist, compassionate stuff on the gay marriage thread. Could they?

    Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? I mean, what if we’re just being intellectually consistent? Then our lack of outrage over Rove might be just as valid as our staunch defense of gay rights.

    Although there may or may not be a Big Evil Conspiracy involved, politicians are certainly capable of using an unpleasant situation to their advantage should the opportunity present itself. The Bush administration may not have planned all their lies in advance, but they certainly didn’t rush to correct the public’s false belief in the connection between 9/11 and Saddam [and Cheney on Meet the Press professed to believe in the connection himself]. They certainly made lots of pronouncements about WMD in the months leading up to the war….then pretended later that the lack of WMD didn’t really matter.

    Handy, this is why I’m responding to you more completely than I’m responding to Doug. You make a reasonable argument and seem to understand that it’s not as simple as Bush setting out to deceive everyone to achieve some nefarious goal. You’re approaching the subject with a relatively open mind and your intellect engaged, and while I don’t entirely agree with you I can respect what you have to say, because you’ve clearly thought about it.

    I think that someday down the road we’ll see memoirs which make a lot of this stuff clearer than it is now. I agree that Bush was eager to go to war in Iraq. I think that he did have serious if perhaps somewhat misguided concerns about Iraq being a threat, which had very little to do with the WMD issue which was a convenient pretext which seemed to have enough substance to be useful.

    Bush turned out to be wrong about the WMDs, though some will argue he wasn’t as wrong as is generally believed, but being wrong doesn’t make him a liar. Even not fully explaining the real reasons for going into Iraq doesn’t make him a liar. There were plenty of valid reasons for invading. The real issue is where you draw the line and say the reasons are sufficient for launching a war.

    The Republicans have certainly used the fear of terrorism to win elections. [“A vote for the Democrats is a vote to let the terrorists win.” Classic, huh?

    Now this I disagree with. I have never perceived their treatment of terrorism as fearmongering. If anything I think they’ve consistently softpedaled the threat and gone out of their way to make it look like they were masters of the situation when they most certainly are not. If anything I think they’ve promoted a false sense of complacency and security in the interest of presenting themselves as successful protectors of the nation. It’s still taking advantage of terrorism for their own advancement, but it’s kind of the opposite of fearmongering.

    That doesn’t mean they invented the fear or secretly wish for another terror attack. But if one happened, and they won more elections, they might be tempted to keep amping up the fear rhetoric, mightn’t they?

    Maybe what you perceive as fear rhetoric I perceive as reassurance, though that seems strange.

    And to ask [over and over and over] if Democrats desire a military defeat in Iraq just sounds ludicrous to me. I assure you that this Democrat doesn’t.

    To be fair, it’s not generally the administration asking this, but the pundits and talking heads of the more hawkish persuasion. And it really doesn’t help that people like Harry Reid have said such ridiculous things that can be used as fodder to lend legitimacy to that argument.

    I do think that the argument that democrats ‘want’ a defeat in Iraq because it would give them political clout is probably as valid or more valid than the argument that the Republicans secretly want another 9/11 because of the political advantages it would give them.

    I don’t believe Democrats in Congress or running for president want that either. Is this just another example of rightist militarists assuming that people who are antiwar are ipso facto unpatriotic? Just a cynical, worthless caricature.

    I think that most of our leaders are not as venal as this article or the punditry suggest that they are when it comes to matters of national security or the safety of the people, but they’ll certainly use whatever opportunities fall into their laps, and sadly there are a tiny number who are very outspoken and really are extremist loons – enough to make sounding even a little like them very risky for an otherwise sensible politician.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Well, I for one think our leaders of BOTH parties are every bit as venal – and more so – than this article suggests. At least, their behavior in the past decade, lower & worser, as it were, seems that way.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    It was Clavos’s repeating his #9 question, total of 4 times, that seemed gratuitous, pointless and aggressively in-your-face, goading, fight-picking. Maybe I just missed something, if so, sorry.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Handy, I think that maybe Clavos was just faster than the rest of us to realize how dogmatic and unresponsive Doug was being.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Here’s how I expressed my views in an earlier article:

    “Have governments and politicians, striving to maintain their power in the post-Cold War world, latched on to a scary and mythical “War on Terror” as their means of survival?

    Have they taken advantage of the fear and lack of knowledge among ordinary people to say, “Don’t worry – this stuff is too complicated and frightening for you to understand or for us to even reveal it to you – but we’ll protect you…just keep voting for us”? Does the Republican rhetoric of the last two elections (“A vote for the Democrats is a vote to let the terrorists win”) lend credibility to this theory? Do the Democrats offer any kind of viable alternative, or just a craven me-too-ism?”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You know, the ‘War on Terror’ is only mythical to the extent that it is a euphemism for the real war, which is a war on Islam.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I think of “The War on Terror” as an advertising slogan, or as John Edwards has called it, a bumper sticker. Calling it a “war,” and claiming that it will not end in the foreseeable future, provides putative justification for Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping of citizens, and invading any number of countries.

    However, I’m happy to say that I think the expiration date on “war on terror” as a useful political phrase has passed or will pass soon. Unless there is another big attack. Which leads us back to Doug’s article, a good piece that has been unfairly attacked here.

  • REMF

    “And for the record that lied us into a war thing is plain old bullshit…because even your beloved democrats were blowing smoke up our collective asses on this one.”
    – Andy Marsh

    Hey Marsh, Colin Powell disagrees with your claim the lie about WMDs was a lie (for the record):

    “Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell finally acknowdged that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Yet Powell said on Meet The Press, “it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.” Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

    On Meet the Press, Powell said of the bioweapons claim, “I am disappointed and I regret it.””
    (from the nation.com website, 5/17/04)

    ——————————

    With all due respect to your 20 years of peaceful Navy service, I’m afraid Colin Powell’s military record slightly trumps yours…

    ** Two tours in Vietnam;
    ** Wounded in a helicopter crash landing, Powell managed to go back into the burning wreckage and save his commanding general and two others;
    ** Received two Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star, the Soldiers Medal, and the Legion of Merit;
    ** 35 years in the U.S. Army;
    ** A Four Star General, Powell served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm.
    (MCH)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Have to disagree. The War on Terror may mostly be a slogan, but the underlying problems are just not going to go away. They’re going to come back again and again in different forms, often including terrorism for a long, long time to come. We can probably largely ignore them for quite a while, but others will suffer for our safety.

    One might have thought the even more ridiculous ‘War on Drugs’ would have faded away after 30 years, but it’s still with us.

    As for Doug’s article, it’s still inflammatory claptrap, but at least it generates discussionl, and that’s always a good thing.

    dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Powell’s UN speech, and some convincing editorials in The Economist, led me to ambivalently and reluctantly support the Iraq invasion in 2003.

    Needless to say, those scales have since fallen from my eyes. I’d guess I’m not the only one.

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    One might well be astounded at Daves shockingly bald assertion that “You know, the ‘War on Terror’ is only mythical to the extent that it is a euphemism for the real war, which is a war on Islam.”

    Did you know that all the time, Dave? Whence comes this insight?

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    Dave goes overboard again: “Just for the record, the fact that Paul Craig Roberts is a RIGHT wing loony …”

    For what record? Do you mean the same Paul Craig Roberts as served in the Reagan administration?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Did you know that all the time, Dave? Whence comes this insight?

    Yes, I did know that at the time, and I blogged about it as early as 2003 when I first started blogging. And the insight comes from having been born in and having lived in the middle east and having spent time in central asia (the ‘stans) as well, plus growing up with a father who ran the Middle East desk of USIA and regularly had Arab and Persian friends to visit.

    The earliest surviving article I can find where I wrote on the subject is from 2004 on my old blog.


    For what record? Do you mean the same Paul Craig Roberts as served in the Reagan administration?

    Yes. And my point was that not all loonies come from the left as the original comment implied, but that many of them, like Roberts come from a right wing perspective.

    Dave

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    Colin Powell LIED to everyone when he said he had “incontrovertible proof…” of Iraqi WMD. He did NOT have incontrovertible proof.

    “Incontrovertible” means “impossible to deny or disprove; “incontrovertible proof of the defendant’s innocence”; “proof positive”; “an irrefutable argument””

    Irrefutable. Impossible to deny.

    “Incontrovertible” does not mean “gee, I have a Real Strong Feeling…”

    or, “rumor has it that…”

    or, “one of my cronies says…”

    it means that the statement is irrefutable, impossible to disprove.

    When Colin Powell said “…incontrovertible proof…” he was LYING, and HE KNEW IT!

    He didn’t say, “…this guy i trust says so…”, he said “…incontrovertible proof…”.

    It’s NOT a detail of grammar. the word “incontrovertible” is not just a modifier that adds strength to an assertion, it, in itself, is an assertion of proof positive, of undeniable certainty.

    Colin Powell KNEW at the time that he did not have such proof. HE LIED!

    And notice that the lie is not just about whether Saddam had WMD, it was about the nature of Powells own knowledge. It has NOTHING to do with whether Saddam had wmd or not (altho the lack of WMD proves that Powell was lying because there could thus have been NO such proof. Modus ponens.).

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    So you’re saying that picking the word ‘incontrovertible’ instead of ‘definitive’, for example, makes you a liar?

    Bliffle, are you aware that there are a great many people – some of them inside the intelligence community – who believe that Iraq DID have WMDs and moved them out of the country, and that there is considerable evidence which is largely ignored to support this theory?

    As you may recall, a lot of the evidence Colin Powell brought to the UN was evidence of the Iraqis packing up WMDs in preparation for moving them somewhere else.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    And, we ALL know that Americans, and especially American politicians, DON”T LIE!

    Heh.

    Oh, and the reason for repeating my question in #9 (only thrice until now, BTW) was because Mr. DeLong STILL hasn’t directly answered it.

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    handyguy…Which leads us back to Doug’s article, a good piece that has been unfairly attacked here.

    dave…As for Doug’s article, it’s still inflammatory claptrap.

    Funny how the same article can be read so differently, but I’m gonna have to go with handyguy on this one.

    clavos…Oh, and the reason for repeating my question in #9 (only thrice until now, BTW) was because Mr. DeLong STILL hasn’t directly answered it.

    Please, call me Doug. We’re all friends here.

    Actually, I answered your question. You just didn’t like the answer. Your question was “Are there some Democrats who would like us to lose in Iraq?” and my answer was that your question was not appropriate, because we’ve already lost. It would be like asking, “Are there some Democrats who would like the Bears to lose the Super Bowl?” after the final gun had sounded. As much lipstick as Bush tries, and will try, to put on this pig called Iraq, it’s still gonna be a pig.

    The only focus from this point on should be on how to get out without further damange to our nation (and to Iraq). Do you really think that Iraq is going to magically turn around and everything will be hunky-dorey?

    I’ll admit that some Democrats get a certain satisfaction every time Bush screws up anything, but there’s not much point in that anymore. Bush’s failures are on the record, and satisfaction has been replaced with depression and frustration.

    The question that this article asked was deliberately provocative, because I had come across some rather disturbing comments from some prominent Republicans to the effect that as soon as we get attacked again, people will come around to Bush’s way of thinking.

    I wanted to raise the question of how an attack might affect people’s political feelings, and wondered if there were some Republicans who thought that it might benefit their party in some way.

    By the way, Dave, you had mentioned that you’d thought of writing an article something along the lines of Stu Bykofsky’s piece. If you get around to it, I’d love to read it.

    I apologize if some of my comments sounded overly snide or rude. I’m really a very nice guy. But Dave, for some reason, brings out my snide side, with his condescending put-downs. But I’m sure he’s also a very nice guy, and apparently I bring out his condescending side.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Doug, it’s the closed-minded partisanship which sets me off. I’m sure that on a subject other than the ones you’re writing on you’d be a joy to read, but with every comment you make more and more clear that you’re an ideologue and your mind is completely closed.

    Case in point, your recent non-response to Clavos. Rejecting his premise out of hand doesn’t speak well to your open-mindedness or your ability to carry on any kind of two-sided conversation. You’d clearly prefer to just tell us what to think and not consider our points of view, especially if they challenge your assumptions.

    Why don’t you just answer his question? Will you acknowledge that there are democrats who seek to build political power on the back of failures in Iraq, past or future?

    There, does that make it more answerable for you?

    Dave

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Dave, I answered the question, and you can keep re-wording the question all you want, but like they say in court…asked and answered, your honor.

    And your constant harping about my “partisanship” is tiresome. Give it a rest, already. I’m not any more “partisan” than you are. And I’m certainly not any more “closed-minded” than you are. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. Let’s leave it at that.

    But go ahead and continue to insult me if it relieves the stress in your life. I’m happy to help out.

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    Dave Nalle again demonstrates his utter intellectual dishonesty by attempting to permute “incontrovertible proof” into a popular vote or a mere choice of words. Despicable.

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    bliffle, I’d like to check out your blog, but the link next to your name doesn’t seem to work.

  • Clavos

    OK Mr. DeLong, have it your way.

    It is my belief that there ARE Democrats who believe, as you do, that we have already lost in Iraq, and are glad this is so, for partisan reasons.

    I further believe that these same elements of the party would also like to see the loss become a decisive combat defeat of our troops, and that they hope this will happen prior to the election in order to further embarrass the Republicans.

    And Dave is right; you never DID answer my question; you dodged it.

  • troll

    ok Clavos – you’ve stated your beliefs…so what’s your point – ?

    that DeLong’s article doesn’t give equal time to the masturbatory dreams of democrat assholes – ?

    …morally bankrupt sick fucks come from all political backgrounds and persuasions

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Well, Mr. Clavos, it seems to me that things have gotten so bad in Iraq, so completely FUBAR, that the only refuge Bush apologists have is to bitch and moan about the Democrats, rather than put the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of this corrupt administration…

    By the way, why don’t you give me your scenario for how this war is gonna turn out? How, exactly, are we going to pull victory from the jaws of defeat?

    Yeah, I know, Dave, I’m being partisan again. Sorry about that.

  • Clavos

    Indeed they do, troll.

    And, the degree to which Mr. DeLong evaded my question and implied in his article that all such sickness is purely on the Republican side IS my point.

    And I’m not even a Republican.

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Clavos,

    And what exactly is your evidence that Democrats have these feelings and motivations? I offered actual quotations from actual Republicans in my piece to indicate that at least some Republicans might be thinking that an attack would be beneficial for their party. Notice that I also said that I thought MOST Republicans did NOT feel this way.

    Where are your quotes?

  • Clavos

    Read the DailyKos…

  • REMF

    “Doug, it’s the closed-minded partisanship which sets me off.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Ooooohh…be afraid, Doug. Be very afraid.
    (MCH)

  • Nancy

    Even I don’t wish for failure in Iraq – even if it means the downfall & utter discrediting of BushCo – & I’m as partisan anti-Bush (not necessarily anti-GOP or pro-Dem) as anyone can get. I haven’t heard any (known to me as) Dems wishing for it, either.

    What I DO wish for – & have repeatedly heard from other anti-Bush/anti-war conversations, is that we want our troops HOME so they’re safe, & so they can do what they’re supposed to do which is protect the US HERE – NOT in some fucking pisshole in the middle east for a bunch of ragheads who don’t deserve/don’t want/don’t care a flying fuck about democracy, fighting for oil profits for a pack of greedy multinational corporations manned by the usual pack of greedy, self-centered, power-mad, sociopathic elites, who in turn control an utterly corrupt, morally bankrupt, ethically clueless, totally traitorous administrative regime headed by an alcoholic fratboy chimp & a homicidal maniac.

    That’s why.

    Of course, Dave & fellow BushCo apologists will continue to assert that anybody who isn’t with them is secretly hoping for the downfall of the US, because they’ve found that if a lie is repeated often enough, the vast preponderance of sheeple & the MSM will start to believe it. Or at least, they hope they will.

  • Clavos

    Nancy,

    Again, read the DailyKos; I’m not making this shit up.

    I say bring the troops home, too.

    And I say, disband them, because if we don’t, they’ll be in the Sudan so fast it’ll make your head spin (the rumblings are already starting on the left).

    And after that, there’ll be another hot spot in the world into which America, the world’s self-appointed policeman, will want to stick its collective gringo nose.

  • Nancy

    I can’t stand DailyKos, therefore I don’t bother to read it. I’m sure some idiots think that way – I never asserted that NONE did – and usually it’s those that have the biggest mouths & most hot air. The rest of us – rather like the bulk of ‘normal’ everyday GOP folks – don’t stand with them. DailyKos doesn’t speak for me or anybody I’ve talked to, any more than I recognise that the religious reich speaks for you or most GOPs. And I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of making it up. I know you don’t do that. Unlike some on this site. BTW, where is MR lately? Did she possibly get kicked by a burro?

  • Nancy

    Maybe she’s visiting Zing2 in Seattle?

  • http://nutsanddicks.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Nancy,

    greedy, self-centered, power-mad, sociopathic elites, who in turn control an utterly corrupt, morally bankrupt, ethically clueless, totally traitorous administrative regime headed by an alcoholic fratboy chimp & a homicidal maniac.

    As an English teacher, I salute your incredibly creative use of adjectives.

  • Nancy

    Thank you, but the credit goes to my English teacher, the late Ms. Cornelia Sheehan, an educational genius, IMO. And not because of me.

  • Nancy

    Birds are not in the habit of being kicked by burros.

    Think about it.

    As for visiting zing, I have managed to fly uner his radar here in Seattle.

    I am here to call atention to the dogpacking being done by the Nalle Clones in regard to Doug.

    Vox Populi could not possibly agree more….

    So transparent it amazes me that you fools believe all those alter egos are real.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    For the avoidance of confusion, the Nancy who made comment #96 is not the same Nancy who made #95 and is our regular Nancy. In fact, the tone of #96 reminds me of a certain bird that has temporarily flown north…

  • Dr Dreadful

    I suspect that MR made a boo-boo. She meant to put her alias in the appropriate place, and then type: “Nancy: birds are not in the habit…”

  • Nancy

    Well at least she’s still alive & commenting. Y’start to worry a tad when a regular, proflific contributor drops out of sight for awhile.

  • moonraven

    Precisely, doc.

    Glad to know that I am always the News of the Day.

    Peabrains….

  • Nancy

    No, you were the subject of concern. Perhaps unwarrantedly.

  • moonraven

    Don’t try to shit me. It is patently obvious from a brief glance at this thread that you folks have nothing to write about except me.

  • Clavos

    Yaaawwwnnn…

  • Nancy

    Uhh…actually we were all carrying on quite well about other things until I was stupid enough to invoke your name. Mea culpa. I should have kept my mouth shut, so to speak. Sorry all.

  • Clavos

    OK, Nancy. But just this once…

  • moonraven

    Oh really?

    I don’t see anything else on this thread–and I don’t believe its title was even moonraven is missing….

    Don’t blame your stupidity on me.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Talk about bitter!!!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “What I DO wish for – & have repeatedly heard from other anti-Bush/anti-war conversations, is that we want our troops HOME so they’re safe, & so they can do what they’re supposed to do which is protect the US HERE – NOT in some fucking pisshole in the middle east for a bunch of ragheads who don’t deserve/don’t want/don’t care a flying fuck about democracy, fighting for oil profits for a pack of greedy multinational corporations manned by the usual pack of greedy, self-centered, power-mad, sociopathic elites, who in turn control an utterly corrupt, morally bankrupt, ethically clueless, totally traitorous administrative regime headed by an alcoholic fratboy chimp & a homicidal maniac.”

    Nancy,

    Don’t hold back out of a need to show restraint. Tell us what you really feel….

    By the way “I hate to be an RJ…” – is that a reference to me, dear?

  • Nancy

    No Ruvy, you know it wasn’t.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Nancy,

    Actually, I didn’t know; that’s why I asked. But I do feel better knowing that it wasn’t a reference to me…