12 Comments so far

1. jp February 21st, 2007 8:46 pm

   “And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it’s happening”

   I guess you could ask the same question with regard to Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijackers.

2. GARBOTOO February 21st, 2007 9:30 pm

   Journalist and news peoople are not funny and they shouldn’t try to be…it’s not their NATURE!

   NPR’s…WAIT WAIT DON’T TELL ME…is a bomb of a show too…NPR seems to think they should be in the comedy business too…laugh track and all

3. stormkite February 21st, 2007 10:03 pm

   I can’t say for certain but I think Molly Ivins wouldn’t agree with you.

   Fox is an interesting network… almost like a split personality. The LOCAL teams actually do a pretty good job on local news, from what I’ve seen, and although they are by no means “liberal” neither are they screaming Rushite Reactionaries.

   At the National level, however…

4. ezeflyer February 21st, 2007 10:41 pm

   Conservatives have no sense of humor. Maybe it’s because they are anal retentive and so uptight about sex and everything else that they don’t see that humor is about being loose. They mistake ridicule for humor and are famous for their racist and sexist “jokes”.

5. Karol Klein February 22nd, 2007 8:39 am

   Bush and Cheney lied and hundreds of thousands maybe a million have been killed, another million or so give or take some other hundreds of thousands have been displaced as refugees and made miserable and still 32% of Americans still approve of “Shrub”, but only 13% approve of “Big Dick” then we are expected to believe more lies about Iranian weapons? For anyone who believes anything these pretenders say, I have a bridge in Brooklin to sell them!It is time for both to resign and go to their place in infamy.

6. Uncle Buck February 22nd, 2007 9:29 am

   My point is, what’s worse, them being legitimately elected or them not being legitimately elected.

7. provoice February 22nd, 2007 1:11 pm

   Frankly, i’ve always kind of considered Fox to be a comedy channel.

   Consider for example, assertions by Hannity and O’Reilly that George W. Bush might be the best president we have ever had…

   Consider for example the Fox representation that Rudy Guiliani who vetoed the radio equipment that would have saved firefighters lives in the World Trade Center might be a viable Republican candidate…

   That old comic Euripides said it first: “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make crazy.”

   With that thought in mind, Fox becoming a direct competitor with the comedy channel is therefore a natural progression.

8. tranquilidy February 22nd, 2007 2:00 pm

   “For the first time in a long time, it isn’t cool to be a Young Republican. If the right wing loses the next generation – and many public opinion surveys show that generation to be more open-minded and liberal than those before it – then one has to speculate on what future the right wing really has.”

   Did this make anyone else’s day?

9. MLRiamapilgrim February 22nd, 2007 8:04 pm

   Anyone who believes anything, without independent verification, that comes out of the mouth of Dubya, Cheney, Condi or any of the other myriad liars associated with the Bush mis-administration is one of the following: mentally challeged, prone to being less than honest themselves or one of the corporate/fascist executives (and their lobbyist tools) that have been snorting, rooting and gulping at the Bush/Cheney trough of war largesse.

   The majestically sad part of this whole thing is that We the People are left with a chief executive of our government, who thinks he’s an emperor, that neither we nor any soul on the planet can believe. I no longer intend to accept anything said by Bush or his minions without incontrovertible proof from an unquestionably reliable third party (that source of proof,sadly, cannot be the mainstream media of the U.S.).

   I am also unsure that the subject of Bush, Iraq etcetera, etcetera etcetera lends itself to mirth at this point.

10. lawlessone February 23rd, 2007 3:15 pm

    “BUSHWA”
    Or, Perhaps Bush Is Not Lying This One Time When He Says He Is Not Planning An Immediate New Invasion

    For about the first time in about seven years, I find myself agreeing that Bush is possibly telling the truth (to the extent that pathological liars are capable of it) when he says that he has no immediate plans to invade Iran. After all, he knows (or at least should know if he bothers to read our current maximum troop roster figures) that the minimum necessary number of trained and equipped troops necessary are simply not available, let alone on short notice.

    Granted, he may want to invade. He probably does hate the Iranians since he seems to hate anyone who doesn’t believe he should be Emperor of the World, but even Bush must recognize that an attempted invasion of Iran would leave us in critical jeopardy under secured in numerous other parts of the world, not to mention guarding our installations at home.

    It’s puzzling then why Bush would seem to be deliberately and recklessly provoking the Iranians by instilling in them a fear he may start another “pre-emptive” war as he did with Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s sudden planned deployment of about half our currently sailing nuclear carrier fleets at Iran’s very doorstep, not to mention the countless press briefings on supposed Iranian supplied weapon attacks on our troops and the possibility that Iran might someday have WMD, all add up to what sounds like yet another prelude to war.

    Why then? Could it be that Bush is inciting the Iranians because he would welcome the opportunity for an excuse to use nukes if the ships are attacked that he has chosen to provocatively put in harms’ way. It is almost as if he is sitting them there because he wants someone to attack them as former President Johnson did so he could have his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution allowing a major escalation in Vietnam. If even some two bit pirate or independent insurgent in a dingy fires a couple of rounds at our armadas, Bush could then announce he was forced to use nukes to “defend” the new task forces he is putting in the Gulf and Red Sea because he has insufficient “conventional” forces to stop them. I hate to be that paranoid about Bush’s intentions, but he has proven in the past that he is capable of unimaginable excesses.

    Of course, it is always possible that when Bush says he is not planning to invade, he is just lying regardless of whether we are ready or have enough troops. Unfortunately, our military prowess is always bigger in Bush’s imagination than it turns out to be in real life, especially as to nation building and territory occupying tasks. Perhaps he is proceeding with his and his fellow Neocons’ intentions from back in 2001 to sweep the Middle Eastern oil producing countries clear of anyone who might threaten supply.

    Still, my gut says he might actually be telling the truth for once on this one issue. The problem with Bush’s credibility on any subject is that he is seems to be almost a pathological liar, someone who lies even when he does not have to do so. Take for instance his response to the British 22% troop reduction in Iraq shortly after Bush had been telling Congress he needed to increase US troop strength by 16% in order to “win.” His Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said in a press conference immediately afterwards that the British withdrawal was all part of the “plan” and we no somehow longer needed the British troop for our “surge.” That so defies logic as to suggest she is lying on behalf of the Bush Administration or trying to “BS” us with the usual automatic politician “spin.”

    If she had simply said Bush disagreed with the Brits and stated Bush preferred they stay to support our “surge,” we could have understood that. Or, if it was truly all part of the “plan,” she could have announced the Brit intention before Blair did. That way she could have said our own troop surge was needed precisely BECAUSE OF the British reduction. Instead, Rice on behalf of Bush tried to play games with our minds again.

    It makes you wonder if they are really that stupid or just assume all of us are. Either way, Bush convinces us once again that, liar or not on an planned invasion of Iran, he needs to be stopped cold.

11. bnceresazyci December 11th, 2007 7:31 am

    titpyhorekycu…

    exnepucisita…

12. bnkepizexire December 26th, 2007 6:50 pm

    titcaritezora…

    exnynysykuci…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)