Elizabeth Drew seems savvy enough, although her characterization of Les Aspin as "a fall guy" is dead wrong.

I myself never held out any great optimism for Obama, although I was hoping. My expectations are being met while my hopes are not. As you say, there is no reason to be surprised by any of this. Obama is a novice. He was not elected on his merits (since he doesn't have any), but was the beneficiary of white apologetics. Yay. We've proven we'll elect a black (technically biracial) man. Can we get rid of him now?

But then again, look what we have waiting in the wings. President Biden? And if not, President Pelosi? (I'll say one thing for Obama: He's got some hellagood protection against assassination.)

Peggy Noonan...I can't read her. I consider her just plain vile.

It took quite a bit to make the GWB administration look competent, but this one just might do it. The number and severity of unforced errors has to discourage even the most ardent supporters. It's going to get worse, unfortunately.

"A critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man."

There isn't a much better example of what can go wrong when the pursuit of power is #1.

I doubt that "influential people" are surprised, because they habitually travel in circles having the duty of recognizing capability - and there was ample help to put him in office despite his never having done anything, to help him throw Rev. Wright under the bus after campaigning as a religious man, etc.

You who voted for him had to choose between two evils, and although it may just be the color of my glasses, the indignity of the offended put him in office, not the reasoning of the careful citizen.

Think about this: if you do not select a candidate with a history of leadership, and thus capable of withstanding the constant pressure to perform, you'll get a narcissist who can do nothing but remain aloof. What happens to you will be unimportant next to the purity of his or her ideas.

Guess which one we got.

You'll be longing to hear "strategery" one more time before this is over, and will have read everything you can find about George Washington. You don't know him if you haven't read this, and you haven't seen anyone like him since. Get the book through Amy's Mall and help her out a tiny bit, too.

You know what I thougt was funnny? Leading up to the elections I kept hearing 'finally a politican who isnt a Washington insider' or 'someone who isnt beholden to the political machine'

And I couldnt help wondering how a guy with "no connections" could go from a jr senetor to front runner for the presidency with the largest war chest in history in such a short time.

There really needs to be a poll test and a limit on who can vote

I didn't vote for Big O so much as I voted against McCain. And I didn't vote against McCain as much as I voted against the bimbo that would be one John McCain heartbeat away from the oval office.

On a private email list I expressed my reluctance to vote for Obama because of his appalling lack of experience, but figured that if he was smart enough to hire that, it might be OK. I guess he hasn't done that, or if he has he isn't listening to them.

Were I president of the most powerful nation in the history of civilization, I'd expect other world leaders to bow to me. But then, I'm an asshole that way.

This country voted in a president who did almost nothing in the Senate. The mystery to me is why people are now surprised that he's floundering around in The Oval Office.
Absolutely.

And Steve... good god. I heard that all during the election - "one heartbeat away". People act as if McCain is / was standing with one foot in the grave. Ironically, he's doing great (health-wise) and he's also sending out emails to people who voted for him about what he's working on in Washington.

Accidentally hit enter. Anyway, the rest of my post - the "one heartbeat away" diatribe was a liberal media ploy to garner votes for Obama. Unfortunately, a lot of people fell for it.

If you want another good example of the gullibility of Americans, consider Joe Biden. I heard of his selection and simply shook my head.

You were told the campaign was between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, and you bought that.

And you never looked at what Sarah has done vs. Barack. You just watched TV. Oh, gee, that's always accurate!

Government does NOT contain the best and brightest Americans. When you forget that - or, it never occurred to you - and you are unwilling to educate yourself about the issues and ride herd on your "representative", they will do stupid things.

How is it that people used McCain's VP choice as an excuse to vote against him while completely ignoring Obama's horrid choice.

Of the four primary people in that election, only Palin had any executive expeience at all. Neither Biden nor Obama (nor Pelosi) have ever run anything but their mouths.

McCain did have leadership training from the US Navy, but no actual executive experience.

Palin may not be ready for prime time, but neither is she the buffoon her critics want her to be. She ran Alaska as a competent and respected chief executive.

And Obama's ham-handed handling of the presidency shows the importance of having a president who has at least learned to make a decision (instead of voting "present").

"And I didn't vote against McCain as much as I voted against the bimbo that would be one John McCain heartbeat away from the oval office.

Bimbo? Care to elaborate? Have you been successful Governor of a state in the union?

This is a notable pattern. People pissed at themselves for voting in earnest for a man who could quite possibly go down as the worst President in history-rather than choosing to admit that it was a really "dumb" decision on their part, would rather attack McCain's VP pick not on substance, but on her sex. lovely.

All this in defense of a man that anyone with eyes could see was nothing but an empty suit.

Radwate said "You who voted for him had to choose between two evils, and although it may just be the color of my glasses, the indignity of the offended put him in office, not the reasoning of the careful citizen."

Got that, Steve?

I think Obama voters should use greater care about who they choose to call a dumb bimbo.

How much more diconnected from reality can a large percentage of the electorate be? I have lived and worked in Chicago since 1985. Saw Obama's rise, with his political godfathers help (Emil Jones)all based on charm and do-nothiness. I still wonder how people can delude themselves into voting for someone with absolutely no experience to the top office in the land. It baffles. Anything to protect themselves from the fact that Barak Obama is an empty suit owing his rise to being a tool of the "Chicago Way". Maybe we could get John Kass as his shadow press secretary. "He oozed charm from every pore as he oiled his way across the floor." Projection is a hell of a thing to base a vote on.

Bimbo? Steve you can't have the glue tube in your nose and think at the same time. Care to back up the bimbo charge?

Feebie writes: Bimbo? Care to elaborate? Have you been successful Governor of a state in the union?

While I agree that the "bimbo" charge is a bit uncalled for, I have to point out - where you ask Steve if he's ever been a successful governor of a state in the union - neither has Sarah Palin.

Regarding the claim that Obama might be remembered as the worst president in history, I think Bush also has that distinction in the bag.

"Regarding the claim that Obama might be remembered as the worst president in history, I think Bush also has that distinction in the bag."

He had second under Carter in the bag, until Obama. Now I think they're both getting knocked on down the list. Remember Patrick, against Obama does not necessarily mean for Bush. So when someone knocks Obambi, there's no need for the predictable and tired "but remember Bush" comment. He's gone. History. Time to move on.

"I have to point out - where you ask Steve if he's ever been a successful governor of a state in the union - neither has Sarah Palin."

Heh?

Still, even so, Obama strikes me as about 10 times as contemplative and insightful as his predecessor. We survived Bush jr. (although our financial collapsed, and we got stuck in intractable wars, it was train wreck, but here we are).
Obama's team will clean it up. I have not heard of a Prezzy yet that someone does not criticize, often issuing forth solon-like platitudes, but little actual policy choices.
Like Noonan's dufus piece about people not wanting to work anymore, now that they are in the 60 percent tax bracket (I guess you make a few millions a year to get there) fits nicely into pseudo-solon template.
Yet, what hard choices do these critics offer? How to balance the budget (in the real world). How to win in Afghanie?
How to pay for endless wars, but give tax cuts to the wealthiest?
I'd think if Alkon wants to parrot someone, she should pick someone--anyone--putting forth hard policy choices. Such as, "Cut federal spending across the board by 10 percent, and raise taxes on those making more than $500k a year, until the federal budget is balanced."
Maybe you disagree. That's fine. But then, come up with a solution to federal red ink. Just sniveling on the sidelines that the players on the field are not scoring enough touchdowns make you look like pansies.
In short, quit your sniveling, unless you lay out some concrete alternatives.

momof4: He had second under Carter in the bag, until Obama. Now I think they're both getting knocked on down the list. Remember Patrick, against Obama does not necessarily mean for Bush. So when someone knocks Obambi, there's no need for the predictable and tired "but remember Bush" comment. He's gone. History. Time to move on.

No one said that Bush isn't gone, but the fact remains he left behind a terrible legacy, far worse than Carter's. For the first eight months of his presidency, he ignored the warnings of terrorism, with disastrous results that will remain an indelible mark upon his legacy, despite the desperate efforts of certain Republicans to blame this on Clinton, even as the towers were crumbling.

Bush responded by attacking the wrong country, and forced our troops to purchase their own protective gear, because God knows he wasn't going to.

He signed tax cuts that favored the rich, and was the first president to cut taxes during a time of war. And the results of this is a recession that's going on its twenty sixth month.

Basically, Bush got in office with the mind that he was going to do everything he could to benefit the rest, without even thinking of everyone else. This is why we attacked the wrong country. Not because Bush made a mistake, but because it was a very calculated move to enrich Halliburton, et al. It's a great idea, if you're a callous bastard who doesn't care about anyone but your cronies. Halliburton execs hee-yuk hee-yuk all the way to the bank and our under-equipped soldiers provide them free security.

I've always regarded Bush as his mother's boy. Barbara's attitudes toward the non-filthy rich were characterized in her callous assessment of the situation of Katrina survivors (another taint on the Bush legacy), how "this is working out very well for them." As if the non-rich don't really have things like loved ones, memorabilia, lifestyles they loved, pets, homes, neighbors, friends, family, etc. No, we're just common animals to the likes of her. Just throw in a stadium with several thousand roommates and we're just fine.

So it is with Bush. We're not people to him. (Although I'm sure his mother wisely taught him never to say that out loud, as us non-people might get upset.) People are the rich. Everyone else is an expendable commodity to be used for the benefit of "people."

And while I loathe Obama, in the interest of fairness, he hasn't been President for even one year. To say your triumph is premature, would be putting it in the very gentlest manner.

Obama let Craig go because Craig was a problem - pushing too hard on the torture/Gitmo issues at a time when Obama can't afford to be spending political capital on these things if he wants to accomplish his domestic agenda. This is entirely consistent with Obama's style. He's very unsentimental in how he handles people - throwing friends under the bus or bringing rivals into the fold as suits his needs.

It's a real contrast to Bush, who was loyal to a fault. But I do think Obama risks not having people around him he can really trust with moves like this.

"I've always regarded Bush as his mother's boy. Barbara's attitudes toward the non-filthy rich were characterized in her callous assessment of the situation of Katrina survivors"

I have to disagree with you here Patrick. This is the one and only area where I do have respect for GW. He may have been a lousy leader, but I've never for one second questioned his compassion for Americans, or his patriotism. Never once.

Katrina was horribly bungled, horribly. But part of the reason was that FEMA was placed under the jurisdiction of the DOHS after 9/11 - which meant most of the resources had been focused on acts of terrorism, which left them ill prepared to respond to a natural disaster of such a magnitude. And while I don't defend Bush on the handling of Katrina, I believe pinning the entire thing on his head (or suggesting he was lacking in empathy for the victims) is going too far.

Just one example, the way Mayor Gulliani handled 9-11 vs. the way Ray Nagin handled Katrina. There was a huge difference, one stepped up to the plate and the other one screamed and bitched never acknowledging his own incompetence himself and did very little to assist in any measurable way during the aftermath. I would guarantee, if Gulliani were mayor of New Orleans, things would have been handled much better.

Then again, Bush (unlike Obama) along with the Mrs. during his presidency had managed to visit, thank and grieve with nearly all (if not all) fallen soldiers who served in Iraq and Afganistan, including the families of the victims of Fort Hood. He has done so with very little (sometimes zero) press coverage.

I just don't see the "non-rich people don't matter" label. I had many, many issues with his Presidency, but I never questioned his human compassion for others or having this countries best interests in mind.

Obama on the other hand.....

Here is just one example of a visit President Bush made time for during his Presidency:

http://www.eielson.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123111092

FTA: "The remarkable thing about the whole event was that he didn't have to see us at all. If he wanted to do more, he could've just given a quick handshake and said, "Thanks for your sacrifice." But he didn't - he put everything and everyone in his life on hold to meet privately with the family of a Private First Class who gave his life in the service of his country. "

"In short, quit your sniveling, unless you lay out some concrete alternatives."

Those are always for the other guy, aren't they?

I am really tired of double standards. Please. Bring up the corporate bailouts again. Then, bitch about Republicans giving "the wealthy" a tax break. Your second face couldn't as confused-looking as the first one.

-----

Everybody, please say this out loud:
Congress has 100% of the job of funding Federal programs.

Go on. Say it!

For everyone who has, or ever will say something to the effect that "President Bush attacked the wrong country":

1) He operated under the literal terms of the War Powers act at all times, reporting to Congress. This, by the way, is what the President has to do today, even though his name is Obama. Hmm. Where are the cries for an "exit strategy" now, as more troops are being sent to the ME?

2) Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war. The President cannot continue operations on his own without the approval and endorsement of and funding from Congress.

If you are concerned about the march of Islam in other countries outside the Middle East, you should consider for ten seconds or so what a secular democracy would do to radical Islam if it was established in Iraq - the "cradle of civilization". Islam is a key factor in perpetuating the poverty of many a nation under its thrall. The single best way to beat it is to show the public what prosperity is, how to get it and how to maintain it. We only see the nastiness over there because the media is selling Kleenex, but a big part of Iraq can tell who is destroying what - and its not Americans. That's one reason why there are volunteers for their police forces.

If I were a political cartoonist here's the image I would draw:

From the front, Obama as the driver of a tour bus, swerving crazily down the highway. In behind, body after body of once loyal supporters lying on the road, having been thrown under and then driven over by the bus.

One heartbeat away isn't working for ya'? Fine. How about one assassin's bullet. One stroke. Tripping down the stairs of Air Force One and breaking his neck away.

President Palin. Good god.

I was not a Bush fan. At all. I think my older brother and the rest of the lawyers down in Florida working for the RNC got him the election. I voted Clinton twice, Gore (embarrassed about that now), and Kerry.

In hindsite, I rather like him. I miss him, and would vote as many times as possible to get him back the next 4 years.

How's that "Focus on Afghanistan" Obama promise working for ya? Bush had faults, but Katrina wasn't one. Neither was his caring for our troops. Nor did he make banks loan money to people with no damn way of paying it back just because they had dark skin. But I guess the dems get a pass on that-after all, if we weren't at war, those hundreds of billions wouldn't matter, right?

I"m not sure what Bush was supposed to do about Katrina, short of stopping the storm in it's tracks. They told people to evacuate. Brought busses in to take them. People refused to go-after all, what were the odds? So, people died for their own mistakes. It happens. Quite frankly, if you don't give enough of a shit about your life to evacuate when it's threatened, and your belongings enough to insure them, why in the fuck should I do it for you? The fact that these people are STILL living rent-free is past absurd.

Obama had a much-worse disaster on his watch, with much less help given the vics. But they were mid-country white, so hey, they can handle themselves and Obama had a fundraiser to attend! Or, an ad to film. Something more important, anyway.

what a secular democracy would do to radical Islam if it was established in Iraq - the "cradle of civilization".

Yes, because the magical freedom fairy will come and spread understanding and tolerance among people whose primary allegiance is to tribal factions and who have hated each other for centuries.

Iraq was a damn-fool way to waste a few trillion bucks; Afghanistan is every bit the same waste. We need to make sure Pakistan doesn't collapse, but trying to fix Afghanistan and Iraq is a fool's errand. It's time to leave them both.

Obama had a much-worse disaster on his watch, with much less help given the vics.

Right - a single guy murders a handful of people and that is so much worse than the destruction of most of a major U.S. city (plus seriously damaging others) and the killing nearly 2,000 people.

The Goddess writes: I didn't think she was qualified for vice-president, but as governor, I'd take her over our Governator in a hot second. Perhaps I'm uninformed about Alaska -- why do you suggest she was unsuccessful?

Uh, that would be because she quit. She couldn't even stick it out to the end of her first term? Lord, talk about a wuss. She claimed that she was going to work every day to defend herself from her critics rather than do the job she was elected to do. I guess the thought of going to work to do the job she was elected to do and letting the mongrels yap as they will never entered her mind.

The rife failures that rocked her stint: Monegan, Bridge to Nowhere and income tax evasion on her per diem allowances for occasions when she worked out of her own home. Gotta love a case of tax fraud.

To say nothing of the fact that her approval ratings were dropping like a rock.

Robert W: From the front, Obama as the driver of a tour bus, swerving crazily down the highway. In behind, body after body of once loyal supporters lying on the road, having been thrown under and then driven over by the bus.

That...is amazing to me. On an AOL message board, I recently suggested something remarkably similar. My version had Obama in a tour bus with all four wheels in the air, held up by the number of bodies Obama has thrown under it, with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers at the very bottom of the heap.

Feebie: I have to disagree with you here Patrick. This is the one and only area where I do have respect for GW. He may have been a lousy leader, but I've never for one second questioned his compassion for Americans, or his patriotism. Never once.

I have to disagree. Former President Photo-Op was an expert in creating the illusion of compassion. Witness signing the Terri Schiavo bill in his pajamas. So, we're to believe that the bill couldn't have been faxed to him to sign, and he could fax it back, and that in the entire flight from Crawford to Washington D.C., he didn't have time to change into a suit?

Actions speak louder than words, but apparently not louder than a few carefully constructed photo shoots. Because he makes a show of going to the funerals, that outweighs the fact that he let our troops go in without protective armor. And even if I allowed the fact that he did what he thought was right based on the best intelligence available (which I will not), he still left our troops in harm's way. Can't leave just yet. Halliburton hasn't quite picked clean the coffers of this country.

Yes, because the magical freedom fairy will come and spread understanding and tolerance among people whose primary allegiance is to tribal factions and who have hated each other for centuries.
Posted by: Whatever

Thought you might like this Whatever, skip forward to about 1:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlIm-riMN6Q&feature=related

"Uh, that would be because she quit. She couldn't even stick it out to the end of her first term? Lord, talk about a wuss."

Uhh, last time I checked - with an unfortunate law on the books, frivolous ethics complaints could be filed in Alaska against the governor but none of the legal defense is paid by the state, which means it is out of her pocket directly. Hmmm.

One such complaint was filed against Palin for her legal defense fund. Funny thing is, it was set up exactly the same way as it had been for John Kerry (named the "Fund for Truth and Honor"), the Clintons, and other notable Democrats by a law firm named Perkins Coie (PC is the lawfirm for the DNC and President Obama). Perkins Coie then reviewed Palin's trust to be sure it was legit. A few days later, Perkins Coie findings of the Trust (which were confidential) were now somehow leaked to the Press as illegal - which they weren't. Thus another suit filed.

So, because of this loophole, and because she is not some slime bag politician, she resigned. She could no longer afford to pay to defend the blitzkrieg of frivolous ethics complaints filed against her, which were already taking up as much as 80% of her time away from her duties as governor (this has Chicago Politics written all over it - but that is my opinion only).

Say you don't like Ms. Palin's politics, policies, party or that she just doesn't seem to fit the bill for you - fine.

But calling her a stupid wuss (or a bimbo) is absolutely baseless.

As far as the tax fraud, that was proven to be a false claim. She paid for her own expenses and this was something she had repaid - and you should also know that she went directly to the McCain vetters with this information.

She did many, many great things for Alaskans. I would suggest that you read some articles about her PRIOR to the VP nomination. After the VP nomination she became Washington Elite enemy #1 - and they haven't stopped the sliming since.

Patrick, for real - just tell us why you don't like her - no need to start grasping at straws here...

By the way - every single one of the ethics complaints filed against Palin were dismissed. Every. Single. One. All baseless.

As far as the photo ops and body armor (the democrats held up that bill) - Patrick, your need to dislike these people so much so that you are tossing turds around in hopes that one will eventually stick - is well, quite childish.

Feebie: Patrick, for real - just tell us why you don't like her - no need to start grasping at straws here...

If you tell me where I said I didn't like her.

The Goddess writes: I would just like effective sleazebags, but that seems too much to ask.

Clinton.

Did you really need to? I think it was more than implied...

:D xo

Feebie writes: Uhh, last time I checked - with an unfortunate law on the books, frivolous ethics complaints could be filed in Alaska against the governor but none of the legal defense is paid by the state, which means it is out of her pocket directly. Hmmm.

She could have taken it out of the per diem expenses that she drew that she was not entitled to and didn't declare on her income taxes.

She paid them back, pumpkin. Check it out.

She sold the Gov. private jet, she didn't live in the huge mansion (heating, upkeep, maids, butlers, security, etc). She dismissed the cook...

She actually walked the walk. She cut expenses not only in the budget for others but did them herself as well.

THAT is what I like about her. I don't care one way or another if she runs for President. The sliming of her is so effing unconscionable and so blatant, it makes me want to stand behind her even more.

She is a good egg, and in my honest opinion, much too good of a person to be a politician.

And Patrick, her first veto as Gov of Alaska was for a bill that denied health benefits for same-sex partners - on the grounds it was unconstitutional.

Feebie writes: She paid them back, pumpkin. Check it out.

Yeah, it takes a real saint to pay something back after you've been busted for stealing it. And I'd love to hear her excuse for not declaring her per diem allowances on her taxes.

Yes, you do have to show me where I said I didn't like her, before you insist that I don't.

By the way, a better question would be why you consider Sarah Palin to be a successful governor. By what measure? Alaska is one of the states most dependent on Federal Aid. In 2005, for every dollar the Federal Government received from Alaska, Alaska received $1.84.

As for those nasty ethics charges, the bulk of them were charges that Sarah Palin filed against herself in a legal maneuver to avoid charges associated with Troopergate.

"Uh, that would be because she quit. She couldn't even stick it out to the end of her first term? Lord, talk about a wuss."

The frivolous ethics complaints were affecting her ability to govern (which they were intended to do).

She resigned, leaving the state in the hands of an ideological ally, the lieutenant governor. This move gives the Lt. Gov. a leg up in the next election cycle as an incumbent, ensuring a Palinesque continuity. All in all, a much shrewder political move than she gets credit for.

In 2005, for every dollar the Federal Government received from Alaska, Alaska received $1.84.

Most of that is because Alaska is almost wholly owned by the federal government.

Over 60% of Alaska is owned by the federal government. Most of the payments to the state are due to that.

http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

@lujlp

Thanks - funny clip. That's pretty much the bill of goods used to sell the war, and that apparently some people still believe is possible.

Jumping in to the Sarah Palin thing - wasn't the biggest reason for her popularity as governor that she increased the amount of revenue paid to each citizen from Alaska's oil industry? Her signature achievement, the big oil pipeline, remains mired in red tape. Palin is petty, vindictive, ill-informed and constantly whines about unfair treatment. Hardly the poster child for tough red-state feminism.

Conan, while her resignation may have been useful, you credit her with way too much intelligence. We all cringed as we saw her spout two minutes of strained gibberish in her interview with Katie Couric. And during her debate with Biden how she cutesified her evasion of direct questions...which left us with the painful realization that she simply doesn't know a thing about the issues she was asked about. And her inability to name a single newspaper that she read left me seriously worried, remembering Bush's candid admission that he doesn't read newspapers and that he gets his news from unbiased sources, specifically his advisors.

She is the Peter Principle to the second power. She didn't just rise to her level of incompetence, she went well above her level of incompetence.

Okay, for you global warming naysayers, here's a funny video about Climategate.

whatever, indeed. You've identified yourself pretty well as the type of person who impedes as much as possible and then complains when the measure you impede doesn't work.

No, idiot, there is no "magical freedom fairy". And in case you haven't looked elsewhere, Amy has addressed the march of Islam repeatedly. Your solution?

Nothing. Nice going.

And please, please, people, keep dumping on Sarah Palin. She's the single biggest threat to... wait. Threat to what?

How many cannot stand the idea of a successful, beautiful woman? How many cannot accept the existence of anything but the babbling idiot until or unless she is old and ugly?

Is that you?

Look at the furor following Sarah today and ask yourself, not me, why that is going on.

Palin is petty, vindictive, ill-informed and constantly whines about unfair treatment. Hardly the poster child for tough red-state feminism.
Posted by: Whatever

Dont know - that sounds like most of the feminists I know.

And in case you haven't looked elsewhere, Amy has addressed the march of Islam repeatedly. Your solution?
Posted by: Radwaste

We didnt invade Iraq because of the spread of islam, we invade becuase of all the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that we KNEW Saddam had buried everywhere around Bagdad. WEapons of Mass Destruction remember?

More on Palin's success as a governor:

1. She constructed and implemented a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES". Which would heavily benefit Alaskans instead of the oil companies. Exxon protested and she showed them the door (yes, that's right, she stood up against one of the largest oil companies in the world and told them to eat it if they didn't like it). Exxon stayed and played by Palin's rules and the remaining oil companies doing business in Alaska fell in line - allowing Alaskans to directly benefit financially again.

2. She eliminated 85% of the pork spending for the State (not including the cuts to her own personal perks - plane, cook, etc.).

3. She got the Alaskan pipeline project PRIVATIZED (so the citizens could benefit from it) making this the largest private construction project ever in North America.

4. Exxon for 30 years was sitting on Point Thompson - a piece of land the leased and was to be used for exploratory drilling of oil - and they were not drilling on it to use it as an investment (prohibiting others from drilling and depriving residents of Alaska from revenues). She was the first Gov in 30 years to break this tradition by revoking their lease.

5. Renewable electricity is currently at 25% in Alaska with a timeline of being at 50% by 2025 - all Sarah's doing.

I'd say she was a successful Governor. Her ACTIONS speak for themselves - and that is how I judge people. Any politician can talk about great things and promises, but it takes a true statesman (woman) and a real person to back it up with direct action.

Feebie blusters: Her ACTIONS speak for themselves - and that is how I judge people.

BUUUUUUUUUULLSHIT! I can't believe you actually typed that with a straight face. You have launched vicious and uncalled personal attacks on this board, when all you have are peoples' words, sometimes willfully misinterpreted.

Moreover, the fact remains Sarah Palin did falsify per diem expenses, which she did not declare on her income taxes.

"Why, how DARE YOU! She gave it BACK!"

Yeah, after she was busted. Considering the alternative was going to prison, I don't see that as a terribly ethical thing to do. An ethical person wouldn't have tried to claim them in the first place. And I'd love to hear the excuse for not declaring it on her taxes.

Quite frankly, her want of intellect is sufficiently damning. How can she address world issues when she doesn't understand them?

And as Whatever points out, Palin is petty and vindictive, and dishonest, and all the proof anyone needs of that is her book.

"You have launched vicious and uncalled personal attacks on this board"

????

Patrick, seriously.... this was not only Oscar worthy, but also embarrassing to witness since you do not even realize your own projection patterns.

What are we in denial about this time, cupcake?

Going back to the original post...

It's rarely a great time to be president, and even before he took office I knew it was going to be a very bad time for Obama to be president, with the severe economic problems and difficulty of the Afghan situation, to name the two most prominent issues.

In situations like the present one, often regardless of what a president does, he's going to be damned by a significant part of public opinion regardless of what he does.

Republicans sure bear a lot of responsibility for the current economic and international difficulties this country finds itself in. Now, I sure am no big fan of Obama or many of his ideas (health care "reform" comes to mind first), but vis-a-vis the Republican ticket in 2008, and the republican track record in general of the last 15 years, well, should we really be dissing the president every time for his every mistake and every fault? Like everyone else he's only human.

I wrote: "You have launched vicious and uncalled [for] personal attacks on this board"

Cleopatra, Queen of Denial writes: ????

Patrick, seriously.... this was not only Oscar worthy, but also embarrassing to witness since you do not even realize your own projection patterns.

From a certain gay marriage discussion, not too long ago.

Feebie: PS. Patrick, you are a pansy.

Feebie: And I would "prefer" if you and Patrick would pull your heads out of your own asses - but that ain't gonna happen...

By the way, the sent Feebie completely the deep end was answering a question she asked. By the way, my crime was in providing factual information to a question she asked, "What is the name of the court case [in which the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right]?"

I provided the answer, "Loving vs. Virginia" and Feebie completely went off the deep end. "SCREEEEEEEEAM! HOW DARE YOU COMPARE THE PERSECUTION OF GAYS TO BLACKS!"

(No one compared anything to anything, but Feebie had lost it completely by then!)

Oh, no! Feebie never, ever judges people only on their words. She never, ever, launches into vicious and uncalled for personal attacks.

And her fusillade of patronizing pet names is nothing more than an effort to distract from the fact that Sarah Palin, theif and tax cheat, got busted with her hands in the cookie jar.

Honeybunch, did you really think that giving it back after she got busted makes her such a good egg? Considering the alternative was Federal Prison, I hardly think so.

whatever, indeed. You've identified yourself pretty well as the type of person who impedes as much as possible and then complains when the measure you impede doesn't work.

?????

No, idiot, there is no "magical freedom fairy". And in case you haven't looked elsewhere, Amy has addressed the march of Islam repeatedly. Your solution?

Nothing. Nice going.

My solution - kill terrorists and their supporters wherever they can be identified. Use the military, use targeted assassinations (the current CIA Predator program is doing good work in Pakistan's tribal areas), bomb the hell out of places where terrorists are known to be.

My solution does not involve invading countries chosen more or less at random (Iraq), or ungovernable tribal wastelands (Afghanistan) and pretending we can turn them into modern democracies at the point of a gun. These things are absolute insanity.

How many cannot stand the idea of a successful, beautiful woman? How many cannot accept the existence of anything but the babbling idiot until or unless she is old and ugly?

Is that you?

Nope, I'm married to a lovely, successful smart woman. I'm acquainted with many others. Successful beautiful women (who are decent humans) are a delight.

Look at the furor following Sarah today and ask yourself, not me, why that is going on.

I know why it's going on. Like Glenn Beck, she channels working-class white resentment masterfully. These people - their shared fan base - are really pissed off right now (witness the teabaggers). And she can give a speech. And is the sort of white trash bible-thumper that rubs the coastal elites the wrong way.

Patrick, that didn't happen. Specifically, your quotation marks don't convey what was actually said. Alleging a quote like that is extremely poor form, and borderline dishonest. As for being called a "pansy", let me remind you that you're grown man participating in an anonymous forum, and a somewhat minor one at that. (Nothing personal, Amy, you know I love it here, but this ain't the oped page of the Times.) In such a context, a single schoolyard taunt hardly qualifies as a "vicious and uncalled (sic) personal attack", especially given the timbre of your own demeanor over the years. You're characterization is much of the problem: it summons to mind a gradeschooler's distress from horseplay at recess, not a righteously aggrieved adult. Every offense to you is a vicious attack, summoning your congestive anger and revulsion.... There are no gradations to your perceptions, which makes it hard to take your ideas seriously.

Tell us again about your childhood. Musta been rough.

Shoulda been your, not you're.

Y'know.

Crid, if you'd bother to read the link, you'd discover I was not offended, merely amused. And you're the last person on this blog who should lecture anyone on dishonesty. Your arguments (and I use the term generously, in your case) consist entirely of strawmen, if not outright lies. Who can forget your relentless badgering of Whatever demanding that she say that a mother is not essential to a child? When she did so, you willfully twisted that statement to "a mother's love means nothing." It was pointed out to you repeatedly that no one said that, but that didn't stop you from crowing like a loon over your imagined victory, claiming that that's what was said.

To say nothing of your lack of moral perch to chide others for being thin-skinned. Shall we pull up the posts showing the consummate ass you made of yourself when I pointed out that it was quite beyond ridiculous to suggest that Obama had no business knowing that Kanye West did to Taylor Swift? Just say the word, and they're right back up here for all the world to see.

And now, the misrepresentation machine is operating full steam, isn't it? I was not offended at being called a pansy. On the contrary, it was so far out in left field, I was actually amused by it. I did not say I was offended by it. I said it was uncalled for, and it was. I merely answered a question and Feebie went quite off the deep end.

Crid, the practice of breaking up street fights is extremely dangerous. Unless you know what you're doing, you're the one who ends up in ER with a broken jaw.

Patrick - I presented you with facts. You twist facts to suit your own devices so you don't have to look at the truth. It's a nasty habit you may want to look into (since this has happened before). Please also note, your similar reaction to it...does this feel familiar to you?

One thing you are right about though, in bringing up that gay marriage thread- here is a perfect example of your argument styles - they can be as petulant as they can be delusional.

Pansy = vicious? You're joking, right?

"if you'd bother to read the link, you'd discover I was not offended, merely amused."

Pffffttt. Ya, riiiight! If you were so amused, why did you use these links to prove me a "vicious personal attacker"....

Look, I know you have a problem with someone...what I would like to tell you, Patrick, is that, that person ain't me. You got too much energy going here for it to be about me.

Ya need a hug there lil' buddy?

PS. Patrick, as far as your assumption I went off the deep end - it is just not so, but I should have known better than to continue to debate a person who is well practiced in the art of *crazy-making*.

It's the only way you know how to win an argument, Patrick...admit it.

Conan, while her resignation may have been useful, you credit her with way too much intelligence.

And you reflexively refuse to credit her with any, despite a pretty solid record as governor.

Her interviews have been disasters. And until she gains the ability to debate issues in public and to answer questions - or even to evade them - skillfully, she will not be ready for the national political stage.

Her reign as Alaska's governor did not include that kind of training (although it probably should have, making one wonder what kind of questioning and debate process a candidate goes through up there).

Her current role as author on a book tour and political gadfly should leave her more prepared for the intense glare of the spotlight.

You have only to look at the White House right now to see the results of electing a glib public speaker with the "right" education credentials, but no actual experience making decisions, will get you.

> I did not say I was offended by it.

"Vicious and uncalled [for]"?

> the practice of breaking
> up street fights

Patrick: It's a blog.

Feebie, in context of the statment, "pansy" was vicious.

If you ask someone the time of day, and they give it, do you call them a jerk for doing so? "Jerk" is hardly a vicious comment, however, when it's used as a response to a courtesy rendered, it's rather ugly and most definitely uncalled for. Not the name itself, but the context in which it was used. Here's a total stranger rendering a minor courtesy to total stranger, when in fact, ignoring the request would be completely justified and not at all rude. You are under no obligation whatsoever to speak to total stranger. Not even etiquette dictates that you do so.

So, it was with you. Someone said that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. So, when you asked which case, I thought, "Good question," and took it upon myself to see if I could find it.

When I did, I confirmed this with a lawyer friend of mine. I emailed him and asked him, "Someone said that the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. I Googled this and came up with Loving vs. Virginia. Is this the case he was referring to?"

He replied in the affirmative, and now armed with this new found knowledge, I posted it as a courtesy to you.

What did I get for my efforts?

You blasted me for several posts for daring to compare the persecution of gays to that of blacks (as if you were an authority on either one) for several posts, and called me a pansy.

When I tried to point out that I was merely trying to answer a question, not argue anything or compare anything to anything, the attacks continued: "How was I to know your argument was going to be so weak?"

What argument?

You always react this way when someone goes out of their way to supply you with information that you requested? If so, you are one decidedly fucked-up individual, Feebie. But I'm more inclined to believe that you misconstrued my intentions and flipped out. Which doesn't change the fact that you have a hyperactive sense of outrage.

But I am not your "li'l buddy," your "pumpkin," your "cupcake" or your anything (save perhaps unfriendly acquaintance) and if I "needed" a hug, I have someone to supply my "needs." (As if hugs were something that anyone needed. Unless the definition of hug includes the Heimlich maneuver, no one ever "needs" a hug.) And even if we were in proximity, I am not at all comfortable with the idea of you touching me. Just let's be clear on that, in case we all end up guest-starring on Amy's talk show.

Patrick, you are crazy-making again.

Have a good night and sleep well.

Conan writes: Her current role as author on a book tour and political gadfly should leave her more prepared for the intense glare of the spotlight.

Considering she plays fast and loose with the facts, such as claiming she was billed for being vetted, while the McCain campaign denies even vetting her. (Given her disastrous debut in national politics, I have no trouble believing that.) And exposing herself as an unblushing hypocrite, claiming to be so against conflict of interests, but using her office to benefit both herself and her family (her sale of her home, her father-in-law's plane, and her and her husband's business).

Her book only serves to put more nails in her political coffin.

"Her book only serves to put more nails in her political coffin."

Did you read her book, Patrick?

Feebie: Patrick, you are crazy-making again.

If you say so, dear. Have a good night.

The Goddess writes: I'm available, should any people with production deals be driving through my neighborhood!

Talk shows are fly by nights, for the most part, even when big names, such as Suzanne Somers, takes them on. But yours would at least have me as a loyal viewer, and I bet the rest of us on this blog would, too.

As long as you bring us all on, at least once, as your posse of loyal blog commenters. Personally, I'd be delighted.

Feebie writes: Did you read her book, Patrick?

I thought you were going to bed.

But to answer, "No. Only excerpts from it."

It's currently on loan at the library and I'm on a waiting list to get it when it comes back.

Yes, I was on my way when you referenced (for the second time now) how Sarah's book provides you with proof she is a liar.

How could you possibly be making such a confident assertion without even having actually reading her book?

OK, totally bungled that last sentence (dammit).

"...without having *read* her book..."

Now, I'm trying to think of ways to make Amy's talk show a success...

Being off the wall doesn't do it, otherwise, Susan Powter would still have hers.

Seems like you have to have trailer trash trading punches, a la Jerry Springer, or be preachy, like Oprah.

Why hasn't Oprah called you? She should love your book. Did you send her a copy?

If you're not into the evangelical thing, Amy, Crid and I will be happy to come on your show and beat each other up.

the practice of breaking
> up street fights

Patrick: It's a blog.
--------------------------------
Crid: It's an analogy.

> It's an analogy.

Can you work in something about watching freeway traffic through a microscope? That was cool

You should know that while I was typing this reply, knowing it was going to be a reply to Crid, I started to type "Crid" in the name box. (If I ever thought I was Crid, I'd shoot myself.)

Crid, Crid, Crid, why are you being so deliberately obtuse? I didn't say anything about watching traffic through a microscope. Unless paramecia travel along tiny highways, that's not possible.

I said motorists are entitled to appropriate yielding of the right of way without having their lives placed under a microscope. Having one's life viewed under a microscope, I thought, was a pretty common metaphor of the age. It means minute scrutiny of a person's private life and history. Celebrities have this done to them all the time.

I am saying that you don't need to scrutinize the life of a motorist, to yield the right of way.

The point being is that respect is not earned. "Respect is earned" is simply a popular catch-phrase used by boorish, obnoxious, jerks to justify rude behavior.

Do you walk down the street and give a passer-by the finger for no reason? If so, when he questions you about it, do you say, "Hey, respect is earned, buddy. Fuck off!" then flip him off again for good measure?

Those are rhetorical questions, Crid, but you can go ahead and answer them anyway. I don't think any answer would surprise me where you're concerned.

The Goddess writes: No fistfights! The first rule of any show I do.

Well, you can forget about becoming the next Jerry Springer then! Crid and could sit there and make faces at each other, but I don't think it would have the same impact.

Regarding Corny Koehl's email address, I'm afraid this is the best I could do. I'll keep trying, but I think I'll drop a suggestion right there and see if I can't persuade Mr. Koehl to consider you for the show.

How are she and Dr. Phil getting along these days? Doesn't he owe his start to her?

Patrick writes: "For the first eight months of his presidency, he [Bush] ignored the warnings of terrorism..." and then "And while I loathe Obama, in the interest of fairness, he hasn't been President for even one year."

Patrick, wouldn't you say there is a bit of a disconnect between these two statements?

By witnessing Patrick's previous posting patterns, I am guessing he will think Cousin Dave is a vicious attacker as well as well....

> I am saying that you don't need
> to scrutinize the life of a
> motorist, to yield the
> right of way.

Sure we do. We license them, test their preparedness, test their vision.

> Having one's life viewed under a
> microscope, I thought, was a
> pretty common metaphor of the age.

Nope, it was inane. "Life under a microscope" for children acting up in public?

> Cousin Dave is a vicious attacker as well

Yeah, CD! DON'T BE SO HARSH, DUDE! "A bit of a disconnect" is a grotesque, violent assault on the very core of a man's being!

Well, it will be important to remember what Patrick said in this thread: He was "not offended" by "vicious" attacks, but "merely amused" by them. He's got a thick skin! Our Patrick's a tough little guy! Always has been!

Actually, I consider Cousin Dave to be an astute and thoughtful poster. Unlike certain others, such as Feebie, who generates a facade of feigned outrage over comparing the persecution of gays to that of blacks when arguments fail.

Or say, unlike Crid, who accuses people of "borderline lying" but has no reservations about twisting a plain statement such as "a child doesn't need a mother," into "a mother's love means NOTHING!"

(Queen Elizabeth did just fine even though her mother lost her head before Liz was even three years old. Not that Ann Boleyn would have won any prizes for her maternal instincts, considering she was the wickedest stepmother since Cinderella's.) Or accusing people of being thin-skinned but devolves into the blog equivalent of hysteria when someone points out that it is beyond ridiculous to expect Obama to be totally ignorant of what Kanye West did to Taylor Swift at the VMA.

But enough of addressing the hypocrisy of the whiners.

Cousin Dave writes: Patrick, wouldn't you say there is a bit of a disconnect between these two statements?

I would say that...if I accepted those remarks at face value. Context, CD. Context.

Your comparing the warnings of an imminent threat (terrorism), with the ability to overturn the effects of eight years of bad policies overnight.

Would you consider taking the threat of a terrorist attack seriously to be a valid comparison to expecting the economy to turn around? More to the point, Obama has done something to address the problems of the economy and healthcare. Consequently, he did more in an to address the problems of the economy than Bush did to address the problems of terrorism.

Now with this in mind, I don't say Obama did the right things. That's a point we can still debate. It doesn't look like it to me so far, but perhaps we need to await the results.

Crid, by the way, "life under a microscope" was a reference to motorists and appropriately yielding the right of way, not unruly children or their parents. Your lofty denunciations might sound more authoritative if you had some idea of what the hell you're talking about.

Your [sic] comparing the warnings of an imminent threat (terrorism)....

The Bush adminsitration is reported to have received warnings that a hijacking operation was being planned. In those days, hijackers captured a plane, flew somewhere safe, and demanded a ransom (money or something else). Almost no one expected a hijacking kamikaze attack.

...with the ability to overturn the effects of eight years of bad policies overnight.

How exactly do you "overturn the effects of eight years of bad policies" by continuing them and even expanding upon them?

Obama has done something to address the problems of the economy and healthcare.

He expanded Bush's ill-advised relief programs, further expanding the government's role in the economy.

Conan writes: The Bush adminsitration is reported to have received warnings that a hijacking operation was being planned. In those days, hijackers captured a plane, flew somewhere safe, and demanded a ransom (money or something else). Almost no one expected a hijacking kamikaze attack.

That is incorrect. We had a very clear idea that a kamikaze attack was a possibility. On August 16, 2001 an INS agent arrested Zacharias Moussaoui, writing that he seemed like "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center."

We not only knew that a kamikazi attack was imminent, we even knew the target.

Conan writes: How exactly do you "overturn the effects of eight years of bad policies" by continuing them and even expanding upon them?

Obama's been signing 1.6 trillion dollar tax cuts that favor the rich? Impeach the bastard!

By the way, I forgot to give a source for that WTC information on Moussaoui. Here's one.

There's actually a whole bunch of sites that mention this. Google the quote along with "Moussaoui," and you'll find a bunch.

As long as you're not offended by viciousness, then, like, whatever.

On August 16, 2001 an INS agent arrested Zacharias Moussaoui, writing that he seemed like "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center."

Moussaoui was arrested by the FBI and the INS for an immigration violation. The FBI unit in Minneapolis monitoring him for potential terrorist activity chose to let his visa run out so they could deport him rather than arrest him, only detaining him when they discovered his visa had already run out.

After the arrest, the Minneapolis FBI office sent more than 70 e-mails trying to get permission to search his laptop and residence. All requests were turned down by FBI headquarters.

Since Moussaoui was arrested outside his hotel room, the FBI could not search it without Moussaoui's permission. And Moussaoui didn't give them permission.

The FBI agent, Harry Samit, initiated the procedure to alert the FAA, but his superiors censored the memo.

But you blame Bush for not being aware of one illegal immigrant arrested on a visa violation...or of a danger that the FBI didn't recognize or tell him about?

And, Patrick, I googled the quote and looked into several of the returned links. I haven't yet found one that says anyone connected with the case speculated before 9/11 (in writing or otherwise) that Moussaoui was the "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center." And nothing to indicate that Bush was ever made aware of anything more than a potential hijack plot.

I did find one article in which the FBI's top terrorism expert testified at Moussaoui's trial that he never read Samit's warning about Moussaoui. What makes you think Bush did or should have when the FBI's top guy didn't?

Conan, you miss the point. You wrote: Almost no one expected a hijacking kamikaze attack.

Either you believe that this INS was astute to the point of prophetic when he glibly speculated that Moussaoui was the type that would fly something into the World Trade Center, or you concede that a kamikaze-style attack wasn't as unheard of as you tried to suggest.

What do you think? That Samit was the one lone voice speaking to the possibility of a suicide attack, while this never even dawned upon anyone else in the business of national security? If that's true, Samit should be made head of DHS for his remarkable insight.

And finally, that was by no means the only warning sign that was not picked up on.

The PDF of August 7, 2001, for instance, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." which suggested that al Qaeda was planning to hijack U.S. airliners.

There is also the emphasis placed upon terrorism by the outgoing administration, which Bush simply dismissed.

Patrick, you're ignoring the forest trying to get everyone to look at your "blame Bush" tree.

Hijacking before 9/11 consisted of gaining control of a craft, taking it somewhere, and demanding something for its return. Even prior hijackings operations by Arab terrorists employed this methodology (e.g., Air France 139, the Achille Lauro).

Prior to 9/11, attempts to bring down airliners were done with bombs (e.g., Pan Am 103).

So, information that bin Laden and al Qaeda were planning hijackings in the US did not automatically make even experienced terrorist experts think of suicide attacks. A new president, less than nine months into office, hardly qualifies as a terrorism expert.

While kamikaze attacks were not beyond the realm of the possible, they were not the standard tactic employed by terrorists in airplane hijackings at that time.

That's one reason why the hijackers on the first two planes encountered little resistance. The passengers expected to be flown somewhere and ransomed. When the passengers on United 93 (and some speculate on the Pentagon plane as well) found out the paradigm had shifted, they attempted to recapture the plane.

And the "emphasis placed upon terrorism by the outgoing administration" consisted of treating terrorism as a legal concern. The WTC attacks, the USS Cole bombings, and the embassy attacks were all treated as matters for the criminal justice system.

No, Samit wasn't the Amazing Kreskin of the FBI. Other FBI agents in Florida also brought suspicious behavior by their subjects to the attention of their superiors and were shot down. It was during the outgoing administration (the one that placed such a high priority on terrorism) that many of the warning signs were ignored, due to jurisprudence concerns (that's one side effect of treating terrorism as a legal matter instead of an attack on the country).

And, Patrick, I'm still waiting for you to point me to a (non-truther) site that shows an INS agent submitting in writing an evaluation that Moussaoui was "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center" and Bush ignoring it.

Conan writes: And, Patrick, I'm still waiting for you to point me to a (non-truther) site that shows an INS agent submitting in writing an evaluation that Moussaoui was "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center" and Bush ignoring it.

Excuse me??? Weren't you the who insisted that I don't get to decide the legitimacy of news sources when I requested that information from a non-Fox source, a source that is notorious for political bias. That source was the New York Daily News, the fifth most widely circulated newspaper in the country. You don't like it? Well, that's just too damned bad, isn't it? You don't get to decide the legitimacy of news sources.

Wouldn't want to get caught in a double standard now, would you?

Conan writes: That's one reason why the hijackers on the first two planes encountered little resistance. The passengers expected to be flown somewhere and ransomed. When the passengers on United 93 (and some speculate on the Pentagon plane as well) found out the paradigm had shifted, they attempted to recapture the plane.

Please tell me that you're not expecting the general population to be as aware of the threat of terrorism and what terrorists are capable of as the President of the United States.

Regarding the outgoing administration's methods of dealing with terrorism as a legal issue, at least he dealt with it in some way. I can think of a certain other person who spent seven of his first nine months on vacation who didn't deal with it in any way, shape or form.

Need I remind you of who was at the helm during 9/11? At least Clinton wasn't talking to cows at a fake ranch.

Regarding Clinton's effectiveness, I defer to expert testimony. Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".

Paul Bremer, former Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagreed and said that the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."

Clinton was and remains the most effective anti-terrorism President in this nation's history. That would include the imbecile that just left and the imbecile we currently have.

Since you didn't provide a link, I had to go to the Daily News site and look it up. It was an interesting piece.

However, you implied in your tirade earlier that this piece was an news article. It was not. It was an opinion piece by Michael Daly, a columnist with a decidedly leftist outlook and who has almost as big an anti-Bush jones as you do. Not very honest of you.

In reading Daly's diatribe, I noticed that the sources he cites for his allegations are vague ("case file") or glossed over ("numerous warnings"), a practice that you called out to criticize Fox News and offered as proof they were not a legitimate news source.

Which Fox News isn't. Fox News calls itself an entertainment channel. Given their devotion to fiction, it's not hard to see why.

By the way, what do you think of the Associated Press?

By the way, regarding the opinion piece, does it matter so much? True, the article casts Bush in an unfavorable light, but on those points of objective fact, such as Moussaoui, the PDF, the fact that Bush talks to cows, etc., was there anything in there that wasn't true?

Oh, and Crid? Hush, child. The grownups are speaking.

By the way, regarding the opinion piece, does it matter so much?

Opinion pieces play by different rules of evidence, or at least they're supposed to. These days, too many "news" articles are thinly-disguised opinion pieces (on the right and the left).

And way too many people get their "news" from opinion and entertainment programming (Olberman, Stewart, Hannity, etc.).

Fox News calls itself an entertainment channel.

If so, that is most likely a pre-emptive strike to avoid being regulated as a news channel under the proposed revival of the inappropriately named Fairness Doctrine.

Limbaugh maintains that he is an entertainer while his critics call his show a news show and insist it needs to be regulated under a revised Fairness Doctrine.

...but on those points of objective fact, such as Moussaoui, the PDF, the fact that Bush talks to cows, etc., was there anything in there that wasn't true?

Hard to say. The sources cited were left pretty vague.

====================

I try to judge presidents objectively. Which means I'm often left defending GW Bush. He won't go down as a great president, but he gets blamed for things far out of proportion to his actual culpability.

Bush was elected to office on an almost purely domestic agenda. He planned to reform Social Security, education, and the tax code. 9/11 changed those plans.

Clinton was successful at a number of things. And, unlike our current president, Clinton at least knew how to make a decision.

But "the most effective anti-terrorism President in this nation's history" is stretching things a bit much.

For one thing, it blithely dismisses Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion, Jefferson's response to the Barbary Pirates, Reagan's stand against Qaddafi and the Achille Lauro hijackers, and the actions of a host of other presidents in other times.

Clinton's legalistic approach to combatting terrorism had to be tried. We're a democracy (well ... a democratic republic), after all. But it had limitations and unforseen side effects.

The transcript of the trial of the first World Trade Center bombers gave al Qaeda the information about why their attack failed and helped them figure out how to do it right the next time.

The legalistic approach failed to capture and punish the perpetrators (the ones still living) of the USS Cole bombing and the embassy bombings. They simply hid in countries that would not extradite them and from which they could not be compelled to appear in an American court. Abu Nidal, anyone. The Cole perpetrators were later captured hiding in Iraq.

And, it didn't mesh with Clinton's later militaristic (and unilateral) launch of cruise missiles into a sovereign country without a declaration of war or a UN mandate (as we had with Iraq).

====================

The AP article was interesting, but had nothing to say about an INS agent submitting an analysis that Moussaoui was "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center" and Bush ignoring it.

It did have to do with John Kerry's committee issuing a finding based upon a single report that Rumsfeld (and Bush) failed to send enough troops to Afghanistan - a report that was issued just before the current president (of the same party) is expected to announce he is sending more troops to Afghanistan.

This is the same John Kerry that was opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan when Bush was president.

And, of course, Kerry has no axe to grind against the previous administration.

Conan: Reagan's stand against Qaddafi and the Achille Lauro hijackers,

By any standard, when it came to terrorism, Reagan was beyond abysmal. Radical Muslim extremists killed more Americans during the Reagan administrations than Bush Sr. and both of Clinton's combined.

From the Marine barracks bombing in 1983 and Flight 103, nearly 500 Americans were killed, to which the Gipper responded with a single bombing run in Lebanon.

To say nothing of the fact that he cut and ran in Lebanon, armed murderers such as the Mujahadeen and in Iran and Iraq. To say nothing of the Contras in Central America, in their "freedom fighter" agenda of raping nuns and attacking undefended civilian targets, like schools and hospitals.

Please be serious. Reagan was effective on terror like Lizzie Borden was a devoted daughter.

Sorry, got ahead of myself. I meant "single bombing run in LIBYA!" not Lebanon.

"To say nothing of the Contras in Central America, in their "freedom fighter" agenda of raping nuns and attacking undefended civilian targets, like schools and hospitals."

Patrick, you ever been to Nicaragua? Ever spoken to a Nicaraguan about what went down with Daniel Ortega and the Sandanistas?

Patrick, Most American's know VERY little about south american politics unless they really care to study it - at that means speaking to the people who actually lived there or defected/immigrated from there- or getting your information from reputable non-MSM outlets (which it is very obvious you have not).

What you just spoke of was propoganda. The Contra's were made up of several different groups of rebels (a small portion of which could have in fact engaged in human rights abuses).. But this was not the norm, the Sandanista's were murderous thugs.

The Sandanista's were bloody, horrible, terrorists that raped, maimed, pillaged, killed, bombed, mutilated and assassinated civilians in Nicaragua under the leadership of Daniel Ortega. Sandanistas were backed by communists and used a tremendous amount of leftist propaganda against the Contras.

Human rights abuse stories represented by our media were from one organization and one alone which was pro-Sandanistan (so were the media, just look at the slant we get on Honduras right now).

I have good friends of mine from Nicaragua and I was there in 2006 for their daughter's wedding. They had EVERYTHING taken from them by the Sandanistas. Everything. There land, their home, money - everything. When I was there Daniel Ortega was just on the cusp of being elected again - there was Sandanista thugs at that time (Oct 2006) running around beating people, setting fires to stores and shops, threatening people with violence unless they voted for the Sandanista party. I left there right after the wedding, five days shy of the elections and the streets were in turmoil.

I figured when I got back that this must be being shown in the media outlets - this was crazy. Not one mention of it anywhere. Sandanista's got cover from our media as well as others.

Ignorant comment, Patrick, ignorant.

You forgot the in-flight grabbing of the Achille Lauro hijackers. It's not the Gipper's fault that Italy refused to extradite them. But it did try them and imprison them.

====================

Reagan's record was mixed. He didn't treat terrorism as a ongoing threat, preferring to take one-off action in response to individual incidents.

Neither Reagan's nor Clinton's strategies seemed to put a dent into the enthusiasm of the terrorists or the effectiveness of their tactics.

====================

The Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon came about because we tried nation-building in Lebanon, supporting the Christian-minority government, instead of staying neutral and sticking to peace keeping.

When we were acting as neutral peace keepers, we were respected by both sides in the Lebanese Civil War. So, yeah, that part's on the Gipper.

But the lax military security that allowed a bomber to drive a truck into the building is on the actual operations specialists who determined the level of security for the building.

====================

The pulling the troops out of Lebanon afterward was probably justified, but looked too much like cutting and running to the rest of the world, especially to a young man named, Osama bin Laden.

====================

I don't know that Reagan can be blamed for Flight 103, which originated in London.

After the Helsinki Warning, the FAA cabled all US carriers (including Pan Am) alerting them of the threat. In addition, British security services were put on alert after the PLO warned them of extremist threats.

====================

As far as outfitting and funding the mujahideen, this was an anti-Soviet measure started by Jimmy Carter and continued under Reagan.

Reagan was out of office by the time the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan (1989).

Unfortunately, no plans had been made for after the Soviet withdrawal and the country descended into violence and chaos.

The Taliban was formed in 1994 and took control of most of the country by 1996.

====================

The contras were not choir boys. But most of the reports of their atrocities came from the Sandanistas, their supporters, or their ideological allies, including adherents of the Sandanista's "Liberation theology."

In fact, one of the most influential reports detailing alleged contra atrocities, later published as a book, was requested and financed by the Sandanistas themselves.

When Violetta Chamorro was elected over Daniel Ortega in the 1990s, she won with majority of votes. When Ortega later won election in 2006 (just in time to insult Barack Obama at the OAS meeting), he got less than 40% of the vote.

Since Ortega won election, there have been numerous allegations of election irregularities, major opposition parties have been disqualified and banned from participating in elections, and reported incidents of election fraud and intimidation are on the increase.

And, for the first time since the overthrow of the first Sandanista government, international observers have been barred from monitoring the elections in 2008.

Nice guys, those Sandanistas.

Conan: The pulling the troops out of Lebanon afterward was probably justified, but looked too much like cutting and running to the rest of the world, especially to a young man named, Osama bin Laden.

You make me think of Clinton's departure from Somalia. It's the same rationale I had. It was justified, but it did look like cutting and running. Regarding what OBL thinks, I think anything that was done in Lebanon or Somalia would be twisted into something bad by him.

Conan: I don't know that Reagan can be blamed for Flight 103, which originated in London.

Just a minor quibble, but I take issue with the suggestion that a President should be "blamed" for a terrorist attack, as if they're the ones driving the trucks, planes or whatever. The "blame" belongs with the terrorist. We don't set up barracks and buildings for terrorists to blow up. They take that upon themselves.

I found my disgust for this practice in the events of 9/11. Prominent Republicans, such as Hatch and Lugar were basically saying, on 9/11, "Wow. Clinton's sure done it now."

The towers are crumbling right before our eyes and they're pointing fingers? Sickening. I do not blame Bush for 9/11. However, I do blame him for not taking the threat of terrorism seriously.

I also have to note that Clinton, despite the opposition of the Republican controlled congress, managed to develop a systematic approach to combating terrorism, the very first this country ever saw, and did have some successes. I also fault the Republicans for letting partisanship stand in the way of acting appropriately for the good of the nation. We all saw the consequences of this on 9/11. And it seems that neither party's learned the harsh lesson that was taught that day. Wouldn't you agree?

On 9/11 in his anxiety to shift the blame from the administration at the time, Hatch was all over the airwaves and basically tipped off OBL that he was the prime suspect. Rumsfeld's consternation over Hatch's leak was quite easy to decipher: he implied that had Hatch kept his stupid mouth shut, we might have gotten bin Laden right away.

Conan: The contras were not choir boys. But most of the reports of their atrocities came from the Sandanistas, their supporters, or their ideological allies, including adherents of the Sandanista's "Liberation theology."

Inadequate, Conan. But I think you know that. First, you claim "most", but simply claiming that it was the Sandanistas who did all the negative PR is insufficient to prove that they're lying about the Contras. Progressio, which is a human rights organization for the eradication of poverty, pretty much confirms the Sandanistas' description. As does Human Rights Watch, based in our own NYC. "Not choir boys" is gross understatement. They were deranged rapists and murderers.

Providing support for the "enemy of my enemy" is occasionally useful strategy, but let's think of other ways when these mutual enemies are pretty much equally vile.

Conan, let me thank you for this exchange. I find your perspectives informative and interesting, even if I don't always agree. It's very nice to speak to someone so up on his history.

> I take issue with the suggestion that
> a President should be "blamed" for
> a terrorist attack

And yet they get credit?

> Clinton was and remains the most
> effective anti-terrorism President
> in this nation's history.

"Progressio, which is a human rights organization for the eradication of poverty, pretty much confirms the Sandanistas' description. As does Human Rights Watch, based in our own NYC. "Not choir boys" is gross understatement. They were deranged rapists and murderers."

Patrick, you are grossly misinformed.

...pretty much confirms the Sandanistas' description. As does Human Rights Watch, based in our own NYC.

Human Rights Watch absorbed Americas Watch, which was their source on the stories of Contra "atrocities."

Americas Watch was sympathetic to the Sandanistas and fellow travelers in their "Liberation theology" movement. So, I don't assign a great deal of neutrality or even credibility to them on this.

I don't know about Progressio, so I can't comment on their credibility. However, based on your description, I suspect they are another left-wing Liberation theology group sympathetic to the Sandanistas.

Conan, regardless of what are their allegiances, or in the case of Progressio, what you think are their allegiances, that is insufficient to disprove their testimony.

Feebie: Patrick, you are grossly misinformed.

Feebie, you're just gross.

How vicious!

...regardless of what are their allegiances, or in the case of Progressio, what you think are their allegiances, that is insufficient to disprove their testimony.

Hmm. It's not. But it's enough for you to dismiss Fox News and other conservative sources.

From the Wall Street Journal in 1985:

Three weeks ago, Americas Watch issued a report on human rights abuses in Nicaragua. One member of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"

From the New York Times:

In the border region, however, most reports implicate the Nicaraguan Army. Refugees in Government camps in Costa Rica and peasants interviewed two weeks ago in southern Nicaragua were unanimous in accusing the Sandinistas and not the rebels of human rights violations. Many, but not all, of the refugees and peasants said they supported the contras.

From Time:

In October 1984 Leiken (rhymes with bacon) published an article in the New Republic titled "Nicaragua's Untold Stories." It was a searing indictment of the Managua regime that accused the Sandinistas of repression, corruption, political manipulation and fealty to Moscow. ... [Robert Leiken] argues that while the rebels were initially a small mercenary force made up of supporters of ousted Dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle, they have, as a result of widespread disenchantment with the Sandinistas, grown into a diverse army of 20,000 that is now a popularly based vanguard for a widespread and growing rebellion. Most scholars in the field reject Leiken's assessment, but he argues that popular perception of the contras in both the U.S. and the cities of Nicaragua has not yet registered this change because the rebels have failed to embrace "democratic leadership."

In Why Nicaragua Vanished, Leiken details the mis-reporting and biased coverage by the American media of the Sandinistas, the contras, and the situation in Nicaragua. This biased coverage is why most Americans were shocked when the Sandinistas lost the 1990 election in a landslide.

Leiken is no conservative idealogue. In the Time article, Robert Leiken is described as a "well-respected liberal analyst" who "probably knows more about Nicaragua than any other non-Nicaraguan," says Nina Shea of the New York-based International League for Human Rights. "He's tireless in his pursuit of the facts and lets the chips fall where they may."

> > Feebie, you're just gross.

> How vicious!

Indeed, it was, in this context, "uncalled" [for].

Conan: Hmm. It's not.

Yes, it is. What you're invoking is basically "guilt by association." You know nothing about Progressio, but that didn't stop you from dismissing their testimony out of hand.

One member of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"

Which is not a denial of the abuses by the contras.

Feebie: How vicious!

You and Crid have been trolling so very hard, I felt I just had to give you something out of compassion. All this focus on little ol' me! I had no idea I dominated so much of your time and energy. With Crid, I've known that for years. So glad to know he's aggressively recruiting for my fan club. My favorite retort of his is when he starts snuffling, "I don't like you, either!" I can just hear the bawling.

Your "arguments" are simply maudlin, kissy-poo, bits of anecdotal evidence (logical fallacy; look it up), and are not arguments at all.

I have no reason to consider your stories to be truthful, as you're unreliable, emotionally unstable and irrational, which you proved so ably during the "How DARE you compare the persecution of blacks to that of gays!" screamfest. Very entertaining, by the way. And even if I did, one sentimentalized account is not proof of anything about anything. I'm not saying that your position is inaccurate. However, you're failing miserably to make your case. Overdramatizing a single case does not suddenly make the case representative.

I'm not refuting your argument, as you haven't made one. I'm teaching you how not to make an argument. You make your case by citing reliable sources of trends, not a single account and claiming it's representative. Least of all, by a single unverifiable account.

> I'm teaching you

Which is not a denial of the abuses by the contras.

It was not offered to deny that abuses may have been committed by one or more of the organizations under the umbrella label of "the contras."

It was offered in response the claim that America's Watch did not have an agenda and that their reporting on Nicaragua was unbiased and could be taken at face value.

A biased researcher can stumble onto the truth (although, by definition, he rarely goes looking for it). As my dad used to say, even blind squirrels find acorns once in a while.

...that is insufficient to disprove their testimony.

I didn't refute or dismiss their testimony. I simply wrote that I suspect Progressio is a left-leaning orgnanization in sympathy with the Sandanistas and Liberation theology.

I'm still trying to learn more about Progressio. In the meantime, I withhold judgement on the veracity of their reports.

So far, I've learned that Progressio evolved out of a Catholic lay organization committed to liberation struggles in developing countries.

The current organization is committed to fighting climate change. You can see where a suspicion of sympathies with Liberation theology might arise.

I do think their ideas of development on a small scale and skills sharing have merit.