Powered by TypePad

« Hank Paulson For Treasury | Main | Zaladonis Ex Machina »

June 02, 2006



I respectfully disagree, Tom.

Hillary would need to 1) admit a mistake regarding her war vote to please Kos & co. and 2) that ain't agonna happen.


Kos & Co. would need to take a dose of Reality (200mg) and realize that the larger issue is getting non-Republican control of anything. That ain't agonna happen neither.

So in 2008 we'll have a Mexican Standoff between Hillary and the Progressives. Ironically, it'll take place in the border states.


Jos Bleau

The real difference between liberals and progressives is that, when you disagree with a liberal, they try to educate and convince you; when you disagree with a progressive they tell you what bad person you are, and how you don't deserve to even have a position on the issue.

But overall Nagourney's article is a good sign - if he had a lot of confidence that this fall's election would be a landslide for the Dems, he wouldn't be writing about the '08 pres race right now.


I'm confused...Is it the liberals or the progressives that attack with swear words and vulgarity as soon as they are confronted with facts? Or is it both?

Gary Maxwell

Ironically, it'll take place in the border states.

the Mexican border? the Canadian border? Or WTF are you talking about. If you mean Kentucky and Missouri, she aint gonna win in those State no matter who see picks for VP and whose butt they both publicly smooch.

Carol Herman

Debka has up an interesting post. The shi'ites in Iraq are bleeding the oil pipelines. And, they're getting cocoperation from syria, iran and JORDAN. Sales are keeping money in the terrorists pockets. Where are the Shi'ites dug in, here? IN BASRA. Which has been given to the British to control. No surprise that they have a different relationship with muzzies than we do.

The Iraqi parliament has been a disaster. And, is unable to disarm the shi'ite militias. How will this problem get solved?

At IRAQ THE MODEL, the brothers are saying there's a rumor with high speed circulation, getting a lot of attention; that some Sunni General will have a coup. And, take over the country. With America's "blessings."

One thing for sure. The stakes are high. The terrorists don't mind setting up our marines. All Haditha represents, now, is the Internet's ability to counter the MSM. If you've been to LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS, or LUCIANNE, you've read and hopefully absorbed some interesting stuff.

Bush has a problem in that he TRUSTED the Iraqis to fend for themselves; and develop a democracy AND he handicapped the CIA's chosen players (Chalabi and Allawi). There have been lots of moves, by Bush, where men and their careers were swept away. From Bremer, to generals. Even to a Marine Captain, KIMBER, who was NOT even in Haditha when this staged piece of violence against our marines was set up.

I'll put my money on free people choosing the Internet for MORE information. And, I'm no so sure we'd cut and run in the medeast. Meaning the MSM and the donks haven't overcome America's distaste for how they handled themselves in Vietnam.

I'm even reminded that in the 1964 election the press at the time said Lincoln didn't have a chance to win re-election. BUT HE DID. Today, the word's out that the GOP won't field a candidate Americans will respect.

But then a Kennedy kid is saying 2004 was stolen! As if Kerry even came close to a White House win. (And, by the way, algore's movie, and subsequent outdoor rally, is NOT pulling in any audience.

Of course, the INTERNET WINS.

As to McCain, I don't give him high chances. As to a Perot-like approach? Where McCain goes 3rd party? Lots a ruck. Perot pretty much damaged the field by attracting a following and then going INSANE. (And, his ace was a different attitude than Kerry's towards POWs.) Oh, forget at your peril. Since a good analysis requires connecting some old dots.

Bush shouldn't be counted "out" in Iraq, either. We've gone from seeing the problem as one of insurgency; to this new thing. Where the shi'ites went into Basra and have been stealing the oil's flow for profits. PIRACY. A long time ago, when America was young, we dealt quite a blow to piracy. And, I'd bet our navy is stronger, now, too.


I'm confused...Is it the liberals or the progressives that attack with swear words and vulgarity as soon as they are confronted with facts?

I have long contended it is "leftists". I continue to resist tarring 'progressives' with the leftist tag. To me the term 'progressive' is just a feint to dodge the 'liberal' tag which became death in US politics sometime around 1979 or so.

The left certainly aren't liberals. Traditional liberals have a well established set of beliefs and a long and honorable history in this country. Included in their number are Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Moynihan, Scoop Jackson and a host of others. There's not an anti-American leftist on the roster.

The liberal tradition believes in the US as a force for good in the world and believes in the power of government to make peoples lives better.

I suspect that I am far more traditionally liberal than most of the lefties we see posting on the net - and for that matter so is George W. Bush.

Bill in AZ

"As Mr. McCain saw when he was hooted down at a speech at the New School in New York, this issue could be a problem for candidates from both parties."

Maybe Mr Nagourney literally meant McCain as being a candidate from both parties, though I find it a stretch to believe he represents the Republican party in any way.


Chalabi was NOT the CIA's chosen. He was the DoD's . The CIA did everything it could to handicap him..So good , indeed, that I am still seeing people who should know better claim he was responsible for Curveball .(Read the SSCI).
When the CIA spread the word that Chalabi was working for Iranian intel, I offered money to anyone who'd take the bet that Chalabi would never be charged either here or in Iraq for that because it was a lie.
Subsequently, with Bremer's imprimatur they raided his hq.
Chalabi was the one who had the best idea for dealing with Iraqi oil--follow the Alaska model where every citizen had a share in the revenue--the one idea that would keep the country from becoming a petrocorruptocracy and would serve as bait for the oil-poor Sunnis to join up to the new enterprise.

as for Jean Rohe, she so encapsulates the deluded left, I propose we coin a new word Jean d'Rohe to describe nitwits like her.


""These words I speak do not reflect the arrogance of a young strong-headed woman, but belong to a line of great progressive thought, a history in which the founders of this institution play an important part.""

Nope. It's arrogance. Smart enough to realize that in herself, not wise enough to not mention it.

Soylent Red


Damn fine bit of coinage, that.


If you say so, it must be Soylent. When are we publishing the R/S/S comic book?


Clarice: You should not encourage conspiracy theorists even as much as trolls! This woman never makes any sense in her ramblings.


I expect a lot of change in Iraq in 2 years but MSM may not report it,

Patrick R. Sullivan

'when you disagree with a liberal, they try to educate and convince you'

Where would I find such, in native habitat?

Soylent Red


I'm working on a little sumpin' sumpin' even now...


Soylent..I really hope so. I think it has all the makings of a major hit .

Another reason to be cautious about the charges against US troops:

Troops appear in the clear on Ishaqi incident.
Horrific images of Iraqi adults and children have fueled new allegations that U.S. troops killed civilians in the Iraqi town of Ishaqi. But ABC News has learned that military officials have completed their investigation and concluded that U.S. forces followed the rules of engagement.

A senior Pentagon official told ABC News the investigation concluded that the allegations of intentional killings of civilians by American forces are unfounded.

Military commanders in Iraq launched an investigation soon after the mid-March raid in the village of Ishaqi, about 50 miles north of Baghdad.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell will make a statement about the Ishaqi allegations today in Baghdad, ABC News has learned.http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=2032795


C, there are gendarmes and gendro.


We could call it the Redneck and Bluecollar Comedy Club.

Carol Herman

Clarice, your post above on Chalabi is excellent.

From what I remember, Judith Miller was very close to Chalabi for at least ten years. Because of something I read about Yitzhak Rabin allowing her to watch the Israelis interrogate "someone of interest" to Chalabi. She seemed to get a lot of access; given that she was carrying NY Times credentials.

I guess I conflate the CIA and the DoD; where you see real splits between factions. Where would that put Judith Miller when she was travelling high on her credentials?

And,what about the Chalabi story that he robbed the treasury in JORDAN? It happened back in 1991; when King Hussein sided with Saddam. Chalabi was supposed to come out of that a billionaire. (I also thought he counted George Tenet among his friends.)

Those "Aspen roots" sure are intertwined somehow. And, a lot of the players are now under some kind of blanket order not to write a thing. Woodward doesn't. Judith Miller's been silenced. And, Bremer paid some sort of career price for his moves in Iraq.

Now, if DEBKA is to be believed, the new game in town is not TERRORISM,, but OIL PIRACY. About 20% or 30% of Basra's oil supplies are diverted through the pipe lines; with black market cash flowing to Sadr, and his Shi'ite militia. Happened right under the noses of the British (who were given the job of controlling Basra.) PIRACY, now. And, BLACK MARKETEERING. (Doesn't even sound very different from the Italians "rescuing" Sgrena.)

While the President is working at keeping scandals isolated, there's a lot more going on which we just don't know. And, Chalabi is still in Iraq. While, as I said, George Tenet and Judith Miller are quiet, or toast.

How come there's such a dirth on real information and analysis?




Carol, Judy was Aspin's girl and got to know lots of Defensniks. She may even known some WINPACers thru her co-authored book on Bio-Chem warfare.

Chalabi was set up in Jordan and has been trying to sue to clear his name and one day he will..I am persuaded he is a genius..He does have a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago and seems to be the best at holding together broad coalitions. DoD sent Gen Garner to Iraq in the hope that he could quickly form an interim Iraqi government to turn over Civil affairs to them months after the invasion. Powell insisted on Bremer, a pro-consulate and the predictable mess ensued, for which with his amazing coat of armor (Invincible) Powell as yet managed again to allow Rumsfeld to take the blame.(Guess why no DoS or CIA types leaked anything damaging about Powell? I think it's because he let the mandarinates rule his agenda to the extent he could.)

Soylent Red

Clarice and Kim:

"C for Conspiracy" (?)

Perhaps with sidebar prose from Kim. This really should be a joint TAC effort.

WRT Hillary:

She, like all Dems, are going to have a difficult passage to negotiate. With Dean as Chairman, the fundraising efforts seem to be targeted toward the kooks, who will eventually demand what they've paid for.

Bill could change his message daily, whereas Hillary will have and Army of Toms hanging on her every word looking for inconsistency.

So the kook fringe and the moderate/hawk left will be constraining her movement on two sides through the primaries, with the GOP looming right in front, threatening "lack of vision".

My prediction is that Hillary will come off as a nuanced flip-flopper, like Kerry.

McCain, incidentally, faces a similar situation on the right facing the neocon centrists and the containment reactionaries.

What we'll wind up with is two bloodied up front runners working overtime during the general election to get their moistened finger higher into the atmosphere than the other.


Sometimes, TM, I earnestly wish you could make up your mind what the subject of your post is to be.

Nagourney = dog bites man?

New School in New York is not independent, it's progressive, because Jean Rohe represents the entire school and termed herself a "progressive."

Rohe is a coward because, as TM's Friend/Expert teaches him, a progressive is a liberal afraid to admit it.

Hillary Clinton is a progressive, no, no, I mean a liberal.

Hillary Clinton's position on the WAR and, oh let's just say everything, has modulated over time and we just know it will continue to do so. (Oh, and when a conservative does this, it is by definition not craven, but when a progressive, oops, sorry, a liberal does it, it is proof of a degenerate mind and soul.) I'm willing to give you a twofer there.

Could you pick one and run with it TM? You give us vertigo, whiplash and all sorts of intestinal tract disorders when you can't light on a point. Electrons are very inexpensive, you can afford to spread them around and let them have their own little posts.

BTW, big fella, how many Republicans currently considered (even, egads, self-referentially) as candidates for president in 2008 have spent much of the past 5 years bucking the pro-war wing of their party? Show of hands for Hagel? Roberts? Frist? McCain? Bueller?

No, I didn't think so either. Does that make them craven cowards like Hillary if they modulate their appreciation of the war in Iraq somewhat over the next two years?

Of course, not, Nash, how silly to ask that TM be ethically consistent.


Find a liberal who supports self-determianation for the Iraqi people; there is ethical consistency.


Chalabi is the Master of the Bazaar, and possibly the second most influential man in Iraq after Sistani.


Find a liberal who supports self-determination for the Iraqi people; there is ethical consistency.

This liberal supports self-determination for the Iraqi people and therefore requests that those Kim-like Republicans who have botched this war step aside and let the Iraqi people actually, you know, self-determine. As opposed to the fake jobs you've pulled off so far--you've done such a bang up job of that. Almost enough to bring a tear of pride to the eye of Ken Blackwell and to warm the cockles of Tom "the next sixth months will tell" Friedman.

So, I call your faux self-determination and raise you--can you handle real self-determination for the Iraqis, Kim, and what's more, will you be able to recognize when it actually happens?

Because in spite of all of your orgiastic purple-fingered gestures to date, it hasn't happened yet. And I see no sign it will happen while you are in control.


I don't mean to quibble, but haven't the Sunni apparatchiks stolen the oil, for as
long as their has an oil concession in Iraq;
in this case, the International Petroleum
Division of Anglo-Persian (now BP)much in the same way, that the Wahhabs stole the
oil in Saudi


n79, you know, don't you that most of the oil in Saudi Arabia underlies Shia populated territory. It's only a matter of time.


Nash, you've been reading too much MSM. The Iraqis are doing pretty well. Better than the Iranians.

And who said I'm a Republican? I'm capable of offending the left and the right. It's your turn, today.


Can I recognize self-determination in Iraq? Yes, the Kurds have been working successfully at it since the first Gulf War, and Sistani is making sure the Shia get it. Hell, even the Sunni run their own affairs pretty well. al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is a little hampered in it's self-determination.

What kind of self-determination do you want. Saddam was into extermination.


The Iraqis are doing pretty well. Better than the Iranians.

Usually, it's prudent to wait a few more days into the month before awarding a "stupidest statement of the month" award, but that one cannot be topped for shear insanity.

Iraqis doing better than Iranians. Okay, that was seriously funny.


I'd a hell of a lot rather have Sistani for a spiritual leader than Ahmadinejad. The Iraqis have free elections; the Iranians do not. Some of that sort of stuff used to be important to liberals. I stand by my statement. The Iraqis are better off than the Iranians, now.

However, I don't expect you to ever understand that.


The Iranians still have government forces torturing dissidents; the Iraqis have thugs disturbing the peace. The forces of repression in Iraq are the few Sunni still manifesting their resentment at the loss of power, and foreign agitators. In Iran the forces of repression are government troops.

Yeah, take your pick. You've been brainwashed.


The Iraqis have free elections

Because Dear Leader told you they were free? The elections where a full government was supposed to have been formed 24 months ago? The elections where a federal government was to be the model, rather than the regional division you now champion as being so good for Iraqis? You are a fool, Kim.

You are also gullible.


What is fun for me is that for quite some time, it no longer matters whether people like you are foolish or intentionally misguided, because you are in the distinct minority and the country long since moved away from you. So, it's fun not to have to worry about actually "winning" any argument--they done already been won.

Quite liberating. I'm sorry for your loss--opinion moved on and left you behind.


Because Dear Leader

I don't know about anyone else, but when a sentence starts with some shit like that...I stop reading.



That is good, Sue. You have always been seriously humor impaired and I wouldn't want to clog the works up for you. By all means, I implore you to not read what I write. It is over your head and would simply confuse you.

Rick Ballard

Nothing you type is confusing. Bone head stupid, certainly, but not confusing. Stop by to chat about the country having moved on after Nov 8. 'Til then you're just a drive by Kossack - a ton of air and nothing to show for it.



I wouldn't know if you posted anything worth reading past your opening remark. Which says more about your style than my ability to not become confused. ::grin::


You have always been seriously humor impaired

I meant to ask...do I know you? You speak of me like we are old friends and to my knowledge I've never noticed you before. Different name somewhere else perhaps?


Indeed, Rick, your echo chamber of smug self-satisfaction is quite safe.

Sue, if you aren't reading past my opening remark, how can you possibly be commenting about my later remarks? It is perplexing.

Do you know me?--Lord, I hope not. You guys can all drop off to sleep now, my comments were originally directed to TM and that's the only one I'm truly interested in hearing from. Your chatter just gets in the way.



I notice my name. ::grin:: So you don't know me but my humor has always been seriously impaired? Are you psychic?

I'm sure Tom appreciates you telling his guests to leave. I somehow thought that was his title. You know, owner of the forum and all of that. ::grin::

Soylent Red

Liberals "knew" communism was pretty much OK.

Liberals "knew" the Great Society would work.

Liberals "knew" Reagan was going to cause WWIII.

Now liberals know that the country is in favor of their enlightened reign.

Bullshit Nash. Traditionally, you perform your touchdown dance after the touchdown. When you and your peckerwood friends score one, me and mine will stop laughing hysterically at you and your pink knickers.

richard mcenroe

"The Iraqis have free elections; the Iranians do not. Some of that sort of stuff used to be important to liberals. "

Kim — You are watching the Liberal/Progressive neurosis is action. Yes, free elections are important — but it was the actions of the Republicans and the military that brought about the free elections. Therefore: "But... but... then the elections cannot have been free! Because!"

The same neurosis was at work after the 2004 election. "The people can't have rejected us! They just can't! So... so... the election was stolen! It had to be! Because!"

This neurosis is so strong, and so deeply seated, that Howard Dean actually stood up at a press conference to announce the results of the party's investigation of Ohio, and stated that there had been widespread election fraud... right in front of the expert who had actually conducted the study for the Democrat. To his credit, that man then took the mike and said, "That's not what I told you, Mr. Chairman. We found no evidence of fraud."

The same thing is at work in Kerry's obsession with dredging his service record back up. A lefty literally cannot bear to have his lies challenged in public. His politics are too closely tied in to his very identity. Invalidate his fantasies and you invalidate him.

The comments to this entry are closed.