home

Late Night Open Thread

I think some of the song lyrics on Spinner's recent compilation of The 20 Worst Lyrics Ever aren't so bad. The reader's choices are better, although I would have elevated their number 10 to number 1:

"Having my baby
What a lovely way of saying
That you're thinking of me"

Or maybe she's saying, "You did this to me you SOB." (By the way, Mr. Anka, "having our baby" would have been a bit less self-centered.)

This is an open thread.

< LA Times: Crack Disparity is Unjust | Sunday Musings and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, this is a good topic (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:01:11 AM EST
    #11:

    "I wish it was Sunday
    That's my fun day
    My I-don't-have-to-run day"

    --The Bangles' 'Manic Monday'
    (lyrics by Prince)

    I'm holding you responsible for putting that song in my head, TChris!

    But I do like Smooth Operator and Live and let Die (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:03:50 AM EST
    so this list doesn't do much for me.

    Parent
    One of those 'I'm really old' moments (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    I've never heard of half the songs or artists on that list.

    Parent
    I doubt if most people would recognize most (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    "Longfellow Serenade..." (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by otherlisa on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:48:14 AM EST
    "Such were the plans I made..."

    Doobie, doobie, doo... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:07:55 AM EST
    "Strangers in the Night"

    May Lt Cmdr Speicher Finally Rest In Peace (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by john horse on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:49:57 AM EST
    According to the news today the remains of Michael "Scott" Speicher have been finally been found in Iraq.    

    Back in 2007 I wrote a Talkleft diary about how Speicher was shamefully used by the Bush administration for propaganda purposes to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq.  

    Speicher was shot down and classified as killed in action during the first Gulf War.  However, by 2001, the Bush administration needed to drum up support for their invasion of Iraq and, as a result, they made the claim that Speicher was actually alive and being held prisoner by Saddam Hussein's government, changing his classification from killed in action/body not recovered to missing in action.  This was based on the flimsiest evidence from a defector supplied by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

    The tragedy of Speicher was that as a result of the false hope propagated by the Bush administration, Scott Speicher's family and friends never experienced closure with his death.  They unwittingly became propaganda tools of the Bush administration by spreading the false claims of the Iraqi national Congress that he was alive.  In defense of them, they didn't know better.  The same cannot be said of the Pentagon and the Bush administration.  They didn't honor this fallen soldier but instead for political purposes.  Another lie to invade Iraq.

    My condolences to his family and friends.  May Scott Speicher finally rest in peace.

    We are very happy here this a.m. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:37:07 AM EST
    It seems like if you were ever in Iraq representing the U.S. that you were always subconsciously looking for Speicher or evidence of Speicher during the Bush mess.  The Bushies could have played me like a fiddle too for awhile.  I would have wanted my spouse found alive. Curveball sux, Bush administration fairytale intelligence sux.  May Scott Speicher's family find peace.

    Parent
    I Wonder Sometimes How Bush and Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by john horse on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    can sleep at night.  Some people might argue that giving a family false hope is better than no hope at all.  But I think this is BS.  I believe that military families can not only handle the truth, but what they need and want is to be told the truth even if its the awful truth that a loved one has been killed.  We ask our military to make the ultimate sacrifice and what they should get in return is a commitment from those that send them to war that they will not have to lay out their lives for light and transient reasons.  

    Instead, what we've gotten from Bush and Cheney is a long string of lies, whether it be about Scott Speicher, Jessica Lynch, or Pat Tillman.  I wonder how Bush and Cheney can sleep at night because I know that they haven't lost a lick of sleep over the men and women they have sacrificed.    

    Parent

    And you can not (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:57:40 AM EST
    resist using this closure for them as a political prop for yourself.

    Congratulations.

    Parent

    If I had manners I would never (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    talk about race in the South or the possibility that we might have some issues. And if I had manners I would never discuss whether or not any administration that was a Republican one would USE the grief of a service members family for poltical gain.  I would never exercise my freedom of speech and even entertain talking about an injustice being visited upon any deceased soldiers family for political gain.  If only I were that polite.

    Parent
    What does expanding your (2.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:00:15 AM EST
    complaints about the south you know nothing about or Rep8ubs or your freedom of speech do anything to justify your using a family's grief and their desire for closure for political gain?


    Parent
    Does the Speicher family desire (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:27:00 AM EST
    for closure get challenged when members of the democracy who sent him into war ask questions about the circumstances surrounding all the many political situations that "cropped" up during the time this soldier was missing?  That soldier was representing much more than just his family and we all know this. Those are silences Jim that breed dictatorships.  I'm an adult, not a child, and I understand that when someone is in uniform fully armed representing this country there is more closure that's going to be needed other than just immediate family closure.  There sure is a h*ll of lot more red meat for political exploit than just immediate family red meat so tell me why the democracy can't point that out when a lying President and his lying administration from a position of global power takes unfair advantage of a grieving family?  I guess Bush and Cheney are held to a different standard than the rest of us because they are part of the "Up and Out" members of the "C" street house.

    Parent
    Excuses excuses (2.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    You don't need  the Speicher family to have dozens of reasons to attack Bush.

    You're just using them. Please. You embarrass yourself.

    Parent

    How am I embarassing myself here? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    I do not think that an administration should be allowed to play upon a service family's pain in front of the rolling cameras and then not be called on it.  That is part of checks and balances.  I embarass myself if I remove that accountability from an administration.  That's when I embarass myself.

    Parent
    Prove your snark. (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    So??? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:47:45 PM EST
    It is an established fact that our intelligence agencies, as well as all the other major intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had WMD's.

    Now. You know that. I know that. Everyone on this site knows that.

    So prove your snark. Because you haven't.

    Parent

    So you deny that all the major intelligence (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:03:20 PM EST
    agencies didn't think Iraq had WMD's?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Parent

    So you deny all the wiorld's (2.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:51:24 AM EST
    major intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMD's.

    Okay. I got that.

    Now, who was in charge of taking down the second WTC tower?

    And while you are at it, what studio was used to film the lunar landings?

    hahahahahhaa

    And you call the birthers paranoid.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Everybody have fun tonight (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:26:02 AM EST
    Everybody Wang Chung tonight

    Morning conversation (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    I'm voicing one of my usual complaints about how Republicans get known for being "tough" because they stand at the podium and say stupid stuff like "Bring It On" while Dem Presidents in my lifetime have been just as responsible for military ventures.  My spouse said something very interesting about Carter's perceived failure attempting to rescue the hostages.  He said that it was a military failure.  We never had pilots trained to do what needed to be done and due to that sh*t happens.  Because of that failure we created the 160th.  I learn something new everyday from his perspectives.  Spouse said that Carter's failure was that he took that military failure too personally and may have paralyzed himself because of it.

    I'd much rather have a Prez (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    who takes military failures personally than "Stay The Course" Bush, who apparently didn't believe there was such a thing as a military failure - just endless opportunities to obtain a victory!

    Parent
    I can see where you are coming from (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:27:21 PM EST
    I think where my husband was coming from though was that after the failed attempt to rescue the hostages Carter still had the same problem, and perhaps he had become too fearful to entertain other rescue possibilities and thereby spare the nation the continued trauma of the hostage situation.  I think there is more than one way that a President can be emotionally and intellectually militarily disfunctional, and Bush was just one way.

    Parent
    The nation had no trauma until the (2.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:10:28 AM EST
    press manufactured some and Carter hid in the Rose Garden acting as if he were too frightened to move. (Remember it was the election of Reagan, and what the Iranian terrorists feared, that caused them to be released.)

    Historically seizure of a embassy is an act of war.

    If Carter had declared a state of war and moved on Iran, while pressing them to release the hostages, Iran's terrorist leaders would have released the prisoners and returned the embassy.

    Instead he let a wound fester and we still suffer from it today.

    Parent

    Now you want a war in Iran? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:35:53 AM EST
    What end goal there could have been ours that isn't miles and miles of speculation?  Look Jim, we really do have crazy whack jobs in uniform who do want to go in and rescue American hostages placing themselves solely and wholely at risk........why kill more people who likely have nothing to do with the situation?  Why wage war on the one Middle Eastern country that is very pro United States other than Jordan?  Isn't that like screwing our own selves over?

    Parent
    You truly can't read (2.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:59:29 AM EST
    My comment had nothing to do with the three "tourists" currently being held by Iran. I have no sympathy for people who go into Iraq and then the Iraq/Iran border and get themselves into deep dodo.

    My point was that when Iran seized our embassy that was the time to respond. That was an act of war. By his weak knee lack of actions Carter caused all that followed. His actions gave birth to the expanded terrorist actions we have seen since '79.

    As proof that the terrorist would have released the embassy personnel I give you what happened AFTER Reagan was elected.

    Parent

    I'm not talking about now (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:01:08 AM EST
    I'm talking about then

    Parent
    I answered "then." (2.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:08:23 AM EST
    You didn't answer my questions (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    Just blowing sh*t up isn't really solving much Jim.  Take a good look at Iraq.  How many times do you have to blow up Fallujah?  How many children must explode on impact before their parents quit hating us? Go ahead and take a good look at Vietnam while you're at that.  It leaves long term scars on the people who survive too, and some of them then spend the rest of their lives plotting your death.  It's stupid if there are other solutions available.  It's even more than stupid when there are no reasons outside of curveball :)  Then it's nuts.

    Parent
    So now war doesn't work???? (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    Only in that it eliminated slavery, fascism, the Nazis and communism/Soviet Union.

    But you do make a point that war should only be fought using every weapon we have to achieve maximum results in minimum time with the smallest amount of losses to us.

    We transformed Japan because we totally defeated them. They had no choice.

    Sooner or later we will do that in the ME or we will lose.

    And your inability to understand the situation and what Bush did what he did only proves again that you hate Bush.

    Parent

    How do you know (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:04:49 AM EST
    how Bush took the deaths of military people he commanded. Fact is that you don't.

    If Presidents took your position the we would have never won the Revolution or WWII or the cold war.

    Parent

    Stay the course = meat grinder (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    Give me a break.  He broke people.  He destroyed assets that we still can't replace at this time of stress.  He did it all for his ego.  We have nothing more to show for it other than his ego, dead bodies, and broke sh*t.

    Parent
    I understand that (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:32:47 AM EST
    you hate Bush.

    I also understand that you don't have the vaguest idea of what Iraq was all about, why it was necessary for us to fight it and what we have gained from it.

    Parent

    I don't hate Bush (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:49:07 AM EST
    sorry, but I don't.  I think I may have bordered on that when I felt like he had total sway over my life and he was utterly incompetent.  I'm done with him though.  If I feel anything at all for him it is a mixture of relief that he is gone and a sadness for the wreckage he brought us.  I don't hate him though.  It takes too much energy to hate someone who isn't relevant.  He doesn't have to worry about me, he can go about all of his speaking engagements in Roswell NM and I won't even show up to throw a shoe at him.  He's free of me, I'm free of him.

    Parent
    For not hating someone you never (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:10:18 AM EST
    miss a chance to attack him.

    Parent
    Hold him accountable Jim (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:12:22 AM EST
    not attack.  I'm sorry that you desire selective accountability and when you don't get it you cry attack.

    Parent
    Bush is gone. (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    What you show is hatred, even if you can't see it.

    Parent
    He is gone but he is accountable (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:23:00 AM EST
    for what he did when he was in charge.  Once again I don't hate, but he's accountable.  It is hard being accountable for some people.  I understand this.  In any situation all players have a shared accountability and Bush thought he didn't have to have one because he was the decider.  In this country though being the decider isn't forever and you will eventually one day have to deal with the life you created for the lesser people.  Bill Clinton makes hundreds of thousands speaking because of the life he was able to cocreate during his time in office for others.  George Bush is reaping his rewards now and the first blush of those rewards are that now he is not in power.....he was so nuts any commentary from him is not relevant to anyone.  Not even to members of his own party.

    Parent
    So Clinton is a great man (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    because he makes money giving speeches?

    hahahahahahahahahahahaah

    Please.

    Parent

    I do think the Clinton (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    is a clear example of true supply and demand at work.  I didn't say anything about a "great" man.  That was you.

    Parent
    So he tells people what they want (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    to hear?? That's what Limbaugh does.

    Parent
    The difference being (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    aside from being able to stand and walk upright, some of Clinton's supporters have been known to be able to read and write.

    Parent
    To bad you weren't part (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    of that stand and walk upright group...

    Better luck next time around.

    Parent

    And since you understand what (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    Iraq was all about and why it was necessary and what we gained.....please enlighten me.

    Parent
    Please read my response to DA (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    directly above.

    Remember. Bush had to face the possibility that if he did not act, and if he was wrong, thousands could die.

    I hope Obama catches some of that reasonable caution when it comes to Iran. If he does not thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, will die.

    That is what all Presidents must be prepared to face.

    Parent

    OMG (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    Thousands would die....hysterical the scenarios you just can't wait to put your hero into all of your volition.  Do you have a credible link to this "thousands will die" intelligence that Bush was given?

    Parent
    If you have been paying attention you would (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    know that Bush isn't my hero.

    But yes, based on the information that he had Bush had little choice but to invade. Even Scott Ritter, a harsh critic of the war, could not give Saddam a clean bill of health.

    I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

    Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?

    I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this.


    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:29:40 PM EST
    the Ritter part should be in quotes and came from

    Time

    Parent

    Definatly (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    worth killing 100,000 people, 4,000 American soldiers, liquiding a hundred-billion-or-so that could've been used for infrastructure, schools, or to stimulate the economy.

    Way to pick 'em, Jim.

    Parent

    Defiantly?? (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:53:56 PM EST
    Ya got me. Did you mean definitely?  

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:15:03 PM EST
    Did ppj take you up on your long time suggestion and get a spell checker???  

    lol

    Parent

    Bush was (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:08:25 AM EST
    pushed to invade Iraq because he believed that Saddam had WMD's and there was reason to believe Saddam would use them or sell them to terrorists. The latter was probably of more concern than  the former.

    Remember that Saddam had a history of giving money to the families of suicide bombers, allowed terrorists to get medical treatment in Iraq and had violated the UN sanctions repeatedly. As Bush said:

    Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

    We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

    If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

    2003 STOTU

    The additional plus, which Obama is throwing away by his comments and pandering, was that we do not accept the honor killings, stoning of women, hanging of gays, etc., that is part and parcel of the extremist Muslims.

    Parent

    The same old same old (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:16:21 AM EST
    it doesn't matter how many times you are proven incorrect or how many links to credible sources anyone puts up here.  You will believe what you want to and that's your right.  I though have many other things to do today.  Some of them are even fun and make me smile :)

    Parent
    Sources about what? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    That the CIA was wrong? That someone believed a defector who was lying? You haven't the vaguest concept of what being President is about.

    First and foremost he was supposed to protect the country.

    All these blathers about who did what when 7 years later have the smell of Monday Morning Qbacking by people who could never have made the team.

    Parent

    I have no idea what you (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    are talking about now

    Parent
    Yes, I agree. You don't know, (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    Some things aren't worth linking to (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    and I thought blathers rather a kind description of all the MQbacking that has went on.

    The bottom line remains unchanged. Based on the information he had available he had no choice. and you can rant and rave and link and claim insults all you want. Facts be facts. But, if you are just eat up with wanting links, let's see what David Kay, the guy we sent to find the WMD's had to say:

    He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had.

    "My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."

    It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.

    "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.

    "We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

    "It is not a political 'gotcha' issue. It is a serious issue of 'How you can come to a conclusion that is not matched in the future?'"

    Other countries' intelligence agencies shared the U.S. conclusion that Iraq had stockpiled such weapons, though most disagreed with the United States about how best to respond.

    Asked if Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States at the time of the invasion, Kay said, "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat."

    And even Obama's man Powell said:

    Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the administration's moves Sunday. "Military action was justified by Iraq's violation of 12 years of U.N. resolutions," he said in an interview with First Channel Russia during a visit to Moscow.

    "Iraq had the intent to have weapons of mass destruction and they had previously used weapons of mass destruction. They had programs to develop such weapons," Powell said.

    CNN

    There now. Dontcha wish you had left well enough alone???

    Parent

    I still wanna know (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    how, according to your website, you've proved Obama's a muslim, and if anything ever came of that blue state conspiracy to set up Larry "Bojangles Craig.

    Parent
    Well, there you go again... (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    Obama said so himself on ABC....

    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Parent

    You can blather away (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    but Kay said what Kay said. And since he was on scene I think he had a better view that some desk jockey...

    Of course the real point is what Kay said here.

    With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons.

    They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions.

    Link

    DA, as usual you show that you know zip and are just another Bush hater howling at the mention of his name.

    Parent

    Kay said what he said (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    and he was spot on.

    You have a bad case of BDS.

    Parent

    And you have a case (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:33:29 PM EST
    of simple DS.

    Doing exactly what Chimpy and the neocons did: filtering out any and all info that didnt conform to your hopes and dreams and preconconcieved notions.

    And NOTHING played out the way you said it would. I woonder why?

    Parent

    Kay said what he said (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:50:33 AM EST
    when he resigned is meaningless.

    An out of control weapons system where you can purchase nukes??

    Now that is scary. Thank God Bush had the moxie to invade.

    Parent

    Always nice to have a troll (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:54:10 AM EST
    drop a few thousand words that prove nothing.

    Parent
    It was Jimmay's fault. (2.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    He said that it was a military failure.  We never had pilots trained to do what needed to be done and due to that sh*t happens.

    Carter ordered the attempt. I can not imagine the military not giving him a full briefing on the resources being used. He sent them on a risky mission and it failed.

    Some do. All the military can expect is the best equipment and training possible to give them a chance to succeed and come back alive.

    Was he froze in place after that? I don't think so, but if he was it just further proves that he was unfit to be President.

    Parent

    Whatever (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    To each his own point of view.  That is what America is about and have mine and obviously so does my husband.

    Parent
    I channel General Patton (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    myself.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:28:40 PM EST
    Channeling spirits of dead people now?

    Parent
    Well I have my (2.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:01:58 AM EST
    made up sources, the same as you have yours.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:14:45 AM EST
    Ventures (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    AP says that we will have 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by year's end. Double what there was when Bush left.

    No questions.

    Just stories about beer.

    Parent

    What do you guys think of... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:01:52 AM EST
    Andy "The Gambler" Hall getting a $100,000,000 bonus on our dime...as a gambler myself, I always looked at gambling as its own reward, no bonus required:)

    The real kicker is listening to rigged marketeer pundits talk about how he "earned" it...ya can't make this sh*t up.  All this cat earned is a kick in the arse from every petroleum consumer in the world.

    Ya gotta love the game for the game (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    I'm a gamer... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:59:27 AM EST
    just can't stomach the rigging...remove the strings and lets gamble baby:)

    If this clown was gambling "top talent", why is he working for Citi in the first place?  Can't he make 100,000,000 trading for himself?  Thats right, he can't make that kinda cheese without Uncle Sam banking his capos.  I rest my case:)  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:33:41 AM EST
    Someone asked for videos of Rep. Anthony Weiner (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jawbone on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    on Medicare for All and his challenge amendment which pushed Repubs to vote to kill Medicare or shut up about dissing single payer health care.

    Here's a site with 4 videos of Weiner's Big Day.

    Reminder: Pelosi has agreed to a vote on the House floor for Medicare for All, HR 676, the single payer bill. The WH and Dem leadership probably think it's a good way to put a stake through the heart of Medicare for All, but, with FSM's help and lots of call, emails, letters, LTE's, picketing reps' offices with legible signs, well, we might just shake up DC and the Versailles courtiers of corporatism!

    A diary at DKos covers Ed Schultz's "Come to Medicare for All" moment on Friday in Oregon.

    He went to Portland, OR, to talk up the amorphous public plan and the crowd kept calling out for Single Payer, Medicare for All!

    Fascinating account-- after many speakers about problems with coverage, lack of coverage, the problems with the various permutations of the public plan, a Dr. Frankel, Portland pediatrician since 1965, spoke:

    ...he told Ed that just hours before, Speaker Pelosi guaranteed that a single payer amendment to the health care bill, HR 676, would get a full debate and vote in the house after the August recess. Dr. Frankel got a standing ovation from the overheated packed house.

    This was the final turning point for Ed Schultz. He had heard enough. Ed promised everyone in that room that he would start pushing for single payer on the radio, on TV and at his appearances. He swore he would become the voice for this movement to single payer. Over 600 people heard his oath, and we will all hold him to it.



    "Muskrat Love" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Spamlet on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    'Nuff said.

    Muskrat Love was awful (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:40:57 AM EST
    Don't diss that list! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 05:30:01 AM EST
    What could be more gloriously awful than Shakira at Spinner's #19...

    "Lucky that my breasts
    Are small and humble
    So you don't confuse
    Them with mountains"

    It's like a booger in the brain!

    We had joy, we had fun, we had (none / 0) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    seasons in the sun.

    In our Democracy (none / 0) (#15)
    by joze46 on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:17:02 AM EST
    What is basically dysfunctional in our Democracy?

    More often professional positions like the one in current controversy of advancement in the police and fire departments or for that matter even in basic management positions or technical situations need a certification process or test. Interesting, even with all the schooling a lawyer goes through one needs to pass a bar exam to be considered lawfully a lawyer?

    Yet many go through very loopy debates in congress about decisions or considerations in legal cases delivered in court whether prosecutor defender or judge. Even if tested ok sometimes especially with lopsided bias in the background many individuals are deemed incompetent or irresponsible for public work. Sheesh, a very contradiction to the ascension we wish to have.

    The funny thing is to be in this fluid of flux-stration after years of education and college to be characterized as a dysfunctional person in society really shows how the endlessness in controversy that is woven by our toxic media, please hate Journalism is highlighted by corrosive news twisting as a war of word between Olberman, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or Mathews. That is not the tip of the ice burg that is but a chunk that has yet to be created.  

    Yes given loans by our toxic and zombie banks, worse the secret loaning free tax dollars by Treasury and Federal Reserve for almost a Century to perpetuate massive corruption, likely keeping the status quo, domestic and foreign hand in with our favorite enemies, comfortable with fat bonuses that drive to ruin while unemployment lines transform to tent cities and all we can afford is junk food but that destroys our mind.  We realize the aged men of our elite leadership brought us here now find them-selves arguing the point of who is the best of what they do in the media but are actually the worst persons in the world.      

    What puzzles me is the idea that is not always true in the sense of politicians as symbolized by Al Franken to get elected to the Senate and win in Minnesota. Here glaringly a man who has no penetrating training in the legal ease and language is given the opportunity to be critical of legislation and the system.

    Please understand my perspective is to encourage this notion of Joe Six pack to enter because the majority of Americans are not privy to legal language and the judicial derivative, heck they, the business community, already have Americans confused with the financial derivative which is nothing more than a secret trillion dollar gamble that when lost is payed off by the electorate as in free tax money. In fact many of the professional position in legal, science, engineering, medical health care,  manufacturing, or finance should also have intern ships galore with fresh eyes to look at the contrasting oxy moronic piles of entanglement America is in now.

    How quickly Joe Six pack gets caught up this vortex of corruption helps to stop it.

    Basically called quality control.    


    The whole song 'Jack and Diane' (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    has long been on my list.  The readers list called out 'sucking on a chili dog', but I think the abominations start with beginning a rock song with  'little ditty', and continue right on through to 'Changes come round real soon make us women and men.'  Simply awful.

    LOL My sister Diane's husband is Jack, so that's (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:43:55 AM EST
    "their song." The lyrics suck but they like it for the title, and even have a framed 45 rpm of it on their wall.  

    Parent
    Both versions? (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    Surely there are more than two!!!

    Didn't Leonard Nimoy have one? And Glen Campbell? Among others....

    Glen can be excused - I think he had a contract to record anything that came from Jimmy Webb's pen.


    two bad lyrics (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:41:36 AM EST
    First, from George Michael:

    "And I'm never gonna dance again
    Guilty feet have got no rhythm."

    And the always reliable AC/DC:

    "Shoot to thrill, play to kill
    Too many women, too many pills."

    Now, if you combine guilty feet and too many pills, wow, look out.

    Want to talk weather? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jawbone on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:50:39 AM EST
    Really heavy rain here. And I should have lowered the patio umbrella--a wind gust almost took it away after folding it in half.

    Northern NJ here--here there were reports of tornedos in southern NJ.

    The joys of climate change: changeable, unpredictable, and extremes in weather.

    Best lyrics are from this one... (none / 0) (#28)
    by blogtopus on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:40:09 PM EST
    This song is still a regular on a lot of radio playlists... it's like they're not listening to the lyrics at all, haha

    Too Close lyrics
    I wonder if she could tell I'm hard right now, hmmm
    Yeah, come on, dance for me baby, ha ha, yeah
    Ut oh, you feel that? Alright
    Come on, don't stop now
    You done did it, come on, uh, yeah, alright, hold on

    [1] - Baby when we're grinding
    I get so excited
    Ooh, how I like it
    I try but I can't fight it
    Oh, you're dancing real close
    Cuz it's real, real slow
    (You know what you're doing, don't you)
    You're making it hard for me

    The rest is here... hilarious!