But, but, wait, didn't Little Boots claim he looked into Pootie's eyes and saw his soul?
Bush must lay-off the drugs. He be seein' thangs.
Posted by Christopher at June 7, 2007 08:08 AMHerbert Well's main invention would be very useful. One day, someone will be able to figure out why the world was destroyed so 1% could get super rich and then kill themselves with the most toys
I think it is fair to say that no one in our government is competent to work in the food service or housekeeping industry. They do not understand the basic concepts that a teenager must master prior to going to work. A good analogy would be poor little paris. not functional in any way. she now has a medical problem that gets her out of jail. drug addiction perhaps? You might see the correlation in those that didn't go to vietnam, or even serve in the military they are attempting to destroy.
You can bribe your way out of anything in Mexico and the Estados Unidos. they are the same third world nation run by a dictator. We, the people, just don't all know it yet.
isn't it nice to know that your people are incapable of dealing with those that represent other countries? that they are so stupid that they get tricked into doing things that don't benefit their charges. bet they get to pocket a lot of money to be so dumb. payoffs must really have to be worth something to sell out your own country
Posted by oldtree at June 7, 2007 08:16 AM
I've always had the feeling that when Bush is overseas, his comments are always designed for the America media and the American public. They want him to come across as a combination of Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne, and they don't much care how it looks to the rest of the world. This is an American empire, you know.
Posted by phil from new york at June 7, 2007 08:23 AMWhat the hell business do we have building a missle defense shield for Europe? And why in the hell is a Democrat-controlled Congress providing any funding whatsoever for it?
Posted by redstater at June 7, 2007 08:28 AMredstater,
The question is, where the hell are the Eurocrats in Belgium? It's THEIR union of nations and NOT the USA's.
Is there anyone left on earth capable of standing up to this dimestore, Texas cowboy?
Posted by Christopher at June 7, 2007 08:32 AM"...At Reagan and Gorbachev's October 1986 meeting in Iceland, Gorbachev opposed this defensive shield, while Reagan wanted to keep it, and offered to give the technology to the Soviets...."
From Wikipedia (granted, not the be-all/end-all, but handy), a reminder that the US offered to GIVE AWAY the technology.
Shirley, others have not forgotten, much less be "surprised".
Posted by bartcopfan at June 7, 2007 08:37 AMHere's more from ronaldreagan.com:
"...I've told them I'd share it with others willing to give up their nuclear missiles...."
Or from the Hoover Institution:
"It is likely Bill Clinton intended to bait yet another overreaction from conservatives, complete with cries of "giving away the store" and "selling out" to a foreign power. Whatever his motive, President Clinton jammed every hot button in the conservative psyche when he recently hinted that he would share missile defense technology with Russia.
Many of today’s Clinton-fatigued conservatives no longer remember that the first president to make this very offer was none other than Ronald Reagan. This lack of memory can be demonstrated in a casual survey of any number of current policy briefs from major conservative think tanks, or from floor speeches by Republican leaders in Congress.
....As a result, the national defense side of Reagan’s plan has been adopted by conservatives, while the more idealistic, global defense portion has been discarded. Extensive attention is given in conservative literature to defending the American continent and close allies. It is hard to find any mention today of Reagan’s idea of sharing it with potentially hostile powers.
Posted by bartcopfan at June 7, 2007 08:52 AMAccording to TPMmuckraker, Bush's new war czar is reportedly taking over Stephen Hadley's role as national security adviser. So, in regards to Putin or anything else, what does Hadley do all day?
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003378.php
Posted by Leslie at June 7, 2007 08:52 AMUnlike our president, who has a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance, Putin is familiar with how to play the game on the top level. His Azerbaijan proposal simultaneously makes him look creative and comprimising, but it looks to contain some small-print provisions that Bush will never agree to, setting up Shrub to continue to appear badly.
It's no wonder Bush was a failure in business; he's just not very clever.
Posted by biggerbox at June 7, 2007 09:05 AMRedstater, good questions.
Does anyone in Washington, D.C., understand the destruction George Bush can accomplish in the next 18 months? Anyone? He's proceeding like he has 80% approval. Oh, I forgot, impeachment is "off the table." Let the spoiled brat run around the world making an ass out of us.
Posted by Judith at June 7, 2007 09:40 AMOh, I forgot, impeachment is "off the table."
Then there's this pip from Pelosi: "Bush isn't worth impeaching."
Man, is she ever on the payroll.
Posted by Christopher at June 7, 2007 09:56 AMThen there's this pip from Pelosi: "Bush isn't worth impeaching."
If you're gonna accuse her of corruption you could at least accurately post what she said. The entire comment. In context.
But I know that's asking a lot.
Posted by snark at June 7, 2007 10:09 AMCarl Levin and Jack Reed have just called for Hadley's firing in the hearing to confirm Bush's "war czar."
Posted by citizen Able at June 7, 2007 10:12 AMMan, is she ever on the payroll.
Whose payroll? Do you have real evidence rather than whining about "off the table?" It's not going to happen, why won't it sink in? Not to mention that it would be unethical for the person in line for the presidency if the top two were impeached to say she's going to pursue impeachment. Unless there's a dead girl or a live boy, there will be no impeachment, and probably not even then. Get the fuck over it already!
Posted by iamcoyote at June 7, 2007 10:22 AMThe thing is, Bush and his buddies are war-profiteers, first, second, and foremost. More wars equal more money for them. World peace is not the objective. Once you accept this fact everything they do makes ABSOLUTE sense.
Posted by Howd at June 7, 2007 10:28 AMcitizen Able, I would say Reed makes some valid points. Will be interesting to hear the responses.
Posted by Judith at June 7, 2007 10:29 AMGet the fuck over it already!
Your problem coyote is the zoo keepers taught you to type but they failed to teach you to think.
But you're good for a laugh. LOL!
Still waiting on the proof of Pelosi being on the the take, Christopher. Baseless accusations, coupled with your childish namecalling make you look foolish.
citizen Able, thanks for the link; I can't wait to see the video of this hearing.
bartcopfan, I never knew that stuff, thanks for the links!
You don't make demands of anyone 'round these parts, coyote. Your function is for the occasional amusement and nothing more. Now get back on your broom and be gone.
Posted by Christopher at June 7, 2007 11:52 AM"The involvement of the House leadership in the war industry may partially explain of why President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are so certain that Congress will not block their Iraq plans.
SPEAKER PELOSI, according to OpenSecrets.org, is the 9th wealthiest member of the House, with assets in 2005, the most recent reporting year, in the range of $14.7 to $55 million (the wide range results from the imprecision allowed by federal reporting requirements). She has a large portion of her money in real estate, but as of 2005 she had stock in total value in the range of $767,000 and $1.8 million in nine firms that do substantial amounts of military business, such as AT&T, Comcast, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson and Polycom.
In her 2006 race for reelection, OpenSecrets reports that Lockheed Martin, the top war contractor, with over $19 billion in military sales, contributed $20,000 to her campaign in direct and PAC contributions. PAC contributions to Ms. Pelosi from firms doing military business totalled $99,000, representing a little less than 10 percent of her overall PAC money of $1.09 million. Major military contractors who supported Cong. Pelosi also include: Boeing, with the second highest total of military contracts: United Technologies, 7th highest; and BAE Systems, 12th.
Ms. Pelosi also received $23,500 in PAC money from what Open Secrets described as the pro-Israel lobby, a group that has been supportive of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq."
Are House Leadership Conflicts Fueling Iraq Occupation? by Nick Mottern
Traprock Writers Blog, Thursday, February 15, 2007
10%? Hardly substantial, but not insignificant. Particularly when an absence of skin in the fight relieves a sense of urgency. Merits further investigation.
Bush is predictably PWN3D by Putin. Putin may be an authoritarian conniving motherfucker, but he ain't stupid.
Posted by God Of War at June 7, 2007 12:05 PMSo, childishness and no credibility it is, then, Christopher. Good to know that you are in the Faux News camp, and we can ignore you like any other troll.
See how Pvt. Keepout does it? With actual facts instead of namecalling? Even if it is speculation and not actual proof of wrongdoing, he provides some evidence (though no links, sadly). Pvt., all politicians take money, and anyone can make up any story they want to reason away unpopular votes. Are you suggesting Pelosi is being bribed to vote a certain way?
Posted by iamcoyote at June 7, 2007 12:24 PMIn Bush and Putin's comments after their meeting:
Bush: Vladimir and I just had a very constructive dialogue, particularly about missile defense. He expressed his concerns to me. He is concerned that the missile defense system is not an act that a friend would do.
Putin: I'd like to confirm what the President of the United States has just said - except for one thing. I have not said that friends do not act in this way.
Bush is such an embarrassment.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 7, 2007 12:53 PMbartcopfan, I never knew that stuff, thanks for the links!
Yer welcome, iamcoyote. I knew there had to be something good about getting older--I've lived through a little more history than others!
Posted by bartcopfan at June 7, 2007 01:02 PMiamcoyote,
At the present advanced stage of haute military keynesianism, nothing so vulgar as an overt bribe is necessary or tolerable. The quid and quo are merely considered traditional good manners, if they are considered at all. These lesser symbiont's antics now injure the greater national interest.
nothing so vulgar as an overt bribe is necessary or tolerable.
Heh, tell that to Cunningham, Abramoff, Delay, and Jefferson!
Pvt, if the national interest is war, then how is it injurious? Look at our history, that's what we've been about from the beginning - 70% of the US may be against this war, but I'll bet that number aren't anti-any war. Americans like being the superpower.
Sadly, one can't get elected without pots of money, and with pots of money, some sort of payback is expected. Until elections are publicly financed, no one is fully clean. That's all there is. I'd still rather have Pelosi as Speaker than any Republican.
bartcopfan, I've lived a few years as well, but didn't pay much attention during the '90s; got sick of all the yelling about blue dresses and shit.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 7, 2007 01:27 PMI've lived a few years as well, but didn't pay much attention during the '90s....
Welp, right there's your problem. Saint Reagan announced Star Wars in 1983 and offered it to Gorby in '86.
Posted by bartcopfan at June 7, 2007 02:46 PMPvt. Keepout, Actually, she gets most of her contributions from employee associations and Unions. Solidly greased from labor if you ask me. That works for me.
Christopher, From wiki:
However, in May 2006, Pelosi told colleagues that while a Democratic House would conduct vigorous oversight of Bush administration policy, a specific impeachment investigation was "off the table." A week earlier, she told the Washington Post that while Democrats would not set out to impeach the president, "you never know where" investigations might lead.
So, "you never know...!"
Posted by Seven of Six at June 7, 2007 02:51 PMDuke, Jack, Tom & Bill? Where's their crude pilfering gotten them? At day's end, were they tolerated? Bulls & bears make money, pigs get roasted.
Our $1 trillion p.a. war economy injures the national interest by compelling needless aggression serving only its own narrow interests at the opportunity cost of essential civilian investment. Lacking legitimacy, the criminal, failed, American way of war, whatever its historical utility, has reached the end of the line in SW Asia. Americans should be more selective in the wars they accede to; power guarantees no victories and defeat has consequences. Things that hurt can also instruct.
Public election financing would be and Pelosi is a great improvement over the alternatives. However the former is nonexistent and the latter inadequate to meet our needs. Shape up or ship out, Madame Speaker.
Regards,
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at June 7, 2007 02:52 PMWhy do we keep calling it "missile defense shield?" It doesn't work -- can't work, will never work. Putin knows this (although GWB probably doesn't, Cheney and his gang do know it). Thus, the only possible use for these weapons is offensive.
Posted by Marie at June 7, 2007 03:40 PM
Of course the weapons are offensive in intent. the intent is for the US to dominate the world and to be able to intimidate all those rogue states, i.e., all of them that disagree with the Bush gang.
Posted by Delia at June 7, 2007 05:52 PM...she had stock in total value in the range of $767,000 and $1.8 million in nine firms that do substantial amounts of military business, such as AT&T, Comcast, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson...
Stock in all those obscure companies with military connections! A warmonger for sure! What other possible reason could she have for having investments in all those companies?
In her 2006 race for reelection, OpenSecrets reports that Lockheed Martin, the top war contractor, with over $19 billion in military sales, contributed $20,000 to her campaign in direct and PAC contributions. PAC contributions to Ms. Pelosi from firms doing military business totalled $99,000...
So Nancy Pelosi, the potential future Speaker of the House got lots of campaign contributions during her 2006 re-election campaign. Shock of shocks! I mean I can't imagine big corporations throwing money at a potential Congressional agenda setter. One has to figure they'd make massive contributions to a bunch of peon backbenchers!
This stuff is almost laughable. But utterly pathetic at the same time.
Posted by snark at June 7, 2007 08:23 PMIt doesn't work -- can't work, will never work.
The reason for this posturing is arms sales. The United States is the top military death merchant and Russia would like to clip-off a few sales. What better way than saying "Sure the U.S. has Death-o-Matic 3000, but at 30% less Russia can sell you our Spread-o-Death version Z!"
It's about global arms sales and the resultant empires created from those arms sales.
Posted by phidipides at June 8, 2007 09:28 AMseven of six,
Indeed, Pelosi's staunchest supporters are organized labor. Labor contributions lead at 31%, followed by Finance/Insur/RealEst 24%, Communic/Electronics 10%. Branded Defense barely pushes 3%.
It would be interesting to learn how OpenSecrets derived "firms doing military business totalled $99,000..." or 10%. Must be some bloodshot eyes over there.
Regards,
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at June 8, 2007 01:18 PM