Thompson talks to Moore

email this story
read comments (135)
post a comment

Before before she flew to Cannes on Sunday, Variety's Anne Thompson got Michael Moore on the phone to talk about the early-bird attacks on Sicko, his health-care doc that will screen in Cannes within a few days, and particularly Moore having taken ailing workers from Ground Zero in Manhattan to Cuba for free medical treatments. Here's Fred Thompson's National Review attack piece. Here's Moore's official responses so far, and a bunch of links besides.

"The Sopranos" ain't doin' it<< previous | next >>Bern, Seitzerland

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 15, 2007 at 3:54 AM

comment #1

Josh Massey says ...

Why is anything contradictory to Moore labeled an "attack piece?"

Posted by Josh Massey at May 15, 2007 5:58 AM

comment #2

NYCBusybody says ...

When is "Manufacturing Dissent" released?

I hope to be able to see it in NY, but perhaps Moore's new buddy Castro will pull some strings and get it banned.

Posted by NYCBusybody at May 15, 2007 7:08 AM

comment #3

NYCBusybody says ...

Well, not "new" buddy. Most leftists are spiritual friends with Castro, but the rich, movie star ones actually get to meet him. Something tells me Moore's gotten money from him before.

Posted by NYCBusybody at May 15, 2007 7:09 AM

comment #4

Rich S. says ...

Moore: "I feel sorry for him. He mistakenly thinks that by going after someone who represents what 72% of the American people's opinion of the war and the president is, he'll get votes. It hurts his chances, he hasn't seen the movie. But the forces I'm up against this time are a lot more sophisticated and well-funded than on 'Fahrenheit 911.'"

What in the world does that have to do with what Thompson wrote? I wholeheartedly agree that Thompson should wait to see the movie to attack it. But Thompson's post is primarily critical of Castro's "People's Paradise," and Hollywood's seeming fascination with a murderous dictator. Neither Bush nor Iraq is mentioned in Thompson's piece at all.

Posted by Rich S. at May 15, 2007 8:13 AM

comment #5

JD says ...

The thing I love about these attack pieces (or "diasagreeable, yet objective and well-meaning critiques," as Josh might label them) is that they're completely humorless and are clearly missing the satirical intent of Moore's actions. Like he just spontaneously flew to Cuba for the hell of it. Right wingers will always be undone by their general humorlessness and complete incomprehension of irony. You may not agree with the point he's making, but it's certainly worth thinking about. Like it or not, many Americans are unable to get adequate health care in the United States, not because they're unemployed, not because they're lazy, but because greedy, profit-driven HMOs deny them the services they've signed on to give them. And why does Cuba have to be either heaven or hell? I've been there and I can say with conviction that it's neither. It has many good qualities and many bad qualities. But what's with the caricature depiction... from people who, in all likelihood, have never even bothered to go there and look around.

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 8:21 AM

comment #6

Josh Massey says ...

Moore is the one with the "caricature depiction" of Cuba - blind to the fact that its health care system isn't exactly the wine and roses he presents it as being (which is Thompson's point.) I don't see the humor in that, and trust me, I'm fucking hilarious.

Posted by Josh Massey at May 15, 2007 9:13 AM

comment #7

christian says ...

for all the right wing vitrol against moore, he's been out of the political picture the past two years so the bushies and thompson can now drag him back into the scene while they whine.

but moore is correct: it's usually republican fat cats who love to condemn cuba while puffing on their illegal cigars -- right, guvn'r terminator?

and moore will wipe the floor with thompson.

bring it.

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 9:22 AM

comment #8

Craig Kennedy says ...

Ok, Thompson lost me at the end when he says "Even Andy Garciaâ€™s brilliant fictionalized movie about the real Cuban experience, The Lost City, was given the Hollywood silent treatment." It wasn't brilliant. It was boring. A missed opportunity to really get another perspective on the Castro take over. It looked nice though.

Ok, I'm done talking about movies. You can go back to arguing politics again.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 15, 2007 9:30 AM

comment #9

christian says ...

and it's great to see yet another republican actor go into politics so their party can continue to insist that hollywood doesn't share their values...

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 9:52 AM

comment #10

breadlymoore says ...

I can't believe Thompson brought up that MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA film. That thing died about three years back due to a complete lack of interest and, well...it was god-awful.

I wonder if the hack that made it is trying to sell it again.

Posted by breadlymoore at May 15, 2007 9:57 AM

comment #11

JD says ...

"Moore is the one with the 'caricature depiction' of Cuba - blind to the fact that its health care system isn't exactly the wine and roses he presents it as being (which is Thompson's point.) I don't see the humor in that, and trust me, I'm fucking hilarious."

So you guys all caught advance screenings of the film? What is with people taking positions on films they haven't seen yet? You may be missing the irony, but if Moore's purpose was to simply celebrate another country's health care system, wouldn't he take these people to one of the European countries with celebrated health care systems. I'm assuming the ironic/satirical point is that, even a health care system we think is beyond repair (ie. Cuba's) is better than the American system. It's fundamentally intended as an attack on the American system, not a celebration of the Cuban system.

"Even Andy Garcia's brilliant fictionalized movie about the real Cuban experience, The Lost City, was given the Hollywood silent treatment."

"The real Cuban experience" = the experience of wealthy people who turned a blind eye to the country's suffering poor. I'm not without sympathy for these people, but let's be honest: as far as the National Review is concerned, rich people are "real" people and poor people are not. And how did Hollywood silence The Lost City? Many well-known liberal stars acted in it, it was given a theatrical release, and it tanked. I can think of many filmmakers would love to be screwed by Hollywood in this way. At the very least, the right wingers at this site need to acknowledge the incoherent, ignorant portrayal of Hollywood that's presented in the right wing press. They simply don't understand how the movie business works... or they pretend not to. After all, Republicans need villains and "Hollywood" is a good, scary-sounding villain.

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 10:04 AM

comment #12

christian says ...

and i'm sure that most of you know that our prez himself was a silent partner in the movie business for years and was partially responsible for bringing THE HITCHER to screens.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/091400/gen_0914005979.shtml

the shameful hypocrisy of the modern repub party is beyond parody or comprehension at this point.

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 10:09 AM

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

My point is that Michael Moore, in the way he conducts his business, is actually detrimental to the causes he espouses. He's going to be attacked, certainly, but why give these people extra ammunition? Your argument should be strong enough without gilding the lily.

I think he (and the larger bogeyman "Hollywood") had a real negative effect on the Democratic slate in the '04 elections. George Clooney certainly thinks so. He has been quoted as saying he is being very careful with his support of candidates in '08 so as to avoid that same effect.

The end result of Moore's actions is that Moore ends up preaching to the choir and the only thing that gets real attention is Moore.

Posted by Rich S. at May 15, 2007 10:23 AM

comment #14

JD says ...

It's hard to trust the results of the 2004 election when there's concrete evidence of polling tapes being illegally thrown out and replaced with alternate polling tapes that have dramatically different election results, dated 10 days after the election. HBO's documentary Hacking Democracy presented evidence of this:

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 10:37 AM

comment #15

JD says ...

link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3zp80H3pN0

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 10:38 AM

comment #16

christian says ...

and here's thompson's shattering comeback, cigar in mouth like a puffed up limbaugh.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 10:42 AM

comment #17

Pelham123 says ...

For all the vitriol thrown at Moore no one mentions (or should I say they conveniently forget) that he was 100% correct about Bush & the Iraq war/occupation. You might want to give that a thought before blasting, sight unseen, his new film.

Posted by Pelham123 at May 15, 2007 10:44 AM

comment #18

christian says ...

now that falwell is gone, who will lead the gop in religious hate bigotry and zealotry?

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 11:00 AM

comment #19

JD says ...

Thompson's video response is classic. Watch how quickly Republicans veer off the real subject. Was there any mention of health care in that message? I guess mental institutions qualify as health care facilities, but the real question is how do the Cuban mental institutions compare to the American ones? And let's be honest: if the American health care system is in great shape (as Republicans like to pretend), why are they worried about Moore's film? If you tell someone who's happy with their health care that there's a problem, are they really likely to rally behind this film? The truth is, politicians like Thompson know the system is a mess -- just like they know Iraq is a mess -- but they're so busy profitting off it (I smell campaign contributions), they don't want anyone to talk about it.

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 11:12 AM

comment #20

christian says ...

i love how thompson swivels his chair away from the camera as in, "dismissed. back to my wall street journal and variety."

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 11:14 AM

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

The irony of criticizing universal health care is that you hawks indirectly endorse what happened at Walter Reed.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 11:45 AM

comment #22

Hallick says ...

"now that falwell is gone, who will lead the gop in religious hate bigotry and zealotry?"

Is Monica Goodling still avaiable?

Posted by Hallick at May 15, 2007 11:51 AM

comment #23

Hallick says ...

"Is Monica Goodling still avaiable?"

Apparently more available than the cell in my brain that left the first "l" out of the word. Instant karma...

Posted by Hallick at May 15, 2007 11:53 AM

comment #24

Josh Massey says ...

"The irony of criticizing universal health care is that you hawks indirectly endorse what happened at Walter Reed."

Walter Reed is the very definition of government health care.

Posted by Josh Massey at May 15, 2007 12:32 PM

comment #25

christian says ...

yes, republican health care means privitized services with porkbarrel spending ala halliburton -- and no compensatory services in the deal.

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 12:34 PM

comment #26

JD says ...

"Walter Reed is the very definition of government health care."

Walter Reed is government health care as provided by a government that is a) adamantly against government health care and b) indifferent to the well-being of American troops.

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 12:37 PM

comment #27

christian says ...

and i always love that the only thing republicans think government can do well is kill people.

well, they're probably right...

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 1:07 PM

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

christian: "and i always love that the only thing republicans think government can do well is kill people."

Except for Osama...

Rich: "I think he (and the larger bogeyman "Hollywood") had a real negative effect on the Democratic slate in the '04 elections."

What effect? Moore endorsed an anti-war candidate, and the Dems picked a candidate who took a anti-"management" of the war stance. OTOH, Katrina and Iraq have killed the Republicunts' prospects for at least a decade.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 1:21 PM

comment #29

jeffmcm says ...

No they haven't.

Grow up, DZ.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 15, 2007 1:28 PM

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

jeff: The conservative public's not buying Rudy and McCain, even if they agree with their values of oppressing women, minorities, and gays because they don't want to lose their jobs to China and their family members to Iraq anymore. They finally started realizing the costs of intolerance and ignorance.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 1:33 PM

comment #31

Stephe96 says ...

I love how critcising a proven liar like Michael Moore is somehow an "attack," yet the libs had no problem imposing censorship demands on the factually accurate ABC movie, "The Path to 911," which was based entirely on the 9/11 Commission Report, before it even aired. The hypocrisy on the Left is truly, truly breathtaking.

The libs can produce a movie like "Death of a President," which depicts the assassination of Bush, and chalk it all up to "artistic freedom" and whatnot. But a filmmaker who dares include a scene of Sandy Burglar hanging up on a CIA agent desperately looking for a green-light to take out Osama? No WAY there's any room for "artistic interpretation" for THAT!!!

Posted by Stephe96 at May 15, 2007 1:38 PM

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Stephe: "I love how critcising a proven liar like Michael Moore is somehow an "attack," yet the libs had no problem imposing censorship demands on the factually accurate ABC movie, "The Path to 911," which was based entirely on the 9/11 Commission Report, before it even aired."

That's because the movie was just a movie and not a fact, since it was a biased interpretation of the report.

"But a filmmaker who dares include a scene of Sandy Burglar hanging up on a CIA agent desperately looking for a green-light to take out Osama?"

Clinton tried to go after Osama, and ended up bombing a medicine factory. He didn't want to start a war he wouldn't be able to finish at the end of his term like Shrub, so he gave Dubya some suggestions in catching him which were promptly ignored.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 1:47 PM

comment #33

Stephe96 says ...

So what's wrong with demanding that Moore provide documentation for every scene in HIS stupid movie before it sees the light of day?

Posted by Stephe96 at May 15, 2007 1:51 PM

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Stephe: "So what's wrong with demanding that Moore provide documentation for every scene in HIS stupid movie before it sees the light of day?"

He usually does when he gets sued.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 1:53 PM

comment #35

christian says ...

"I love how critcising a proven liar like Michael Moore is somehow an "attack," yet the libs had no problem imposing censorship demands on the factually accurate ABC movie, "The Path to 911," which was based entirely on the 9/11 Commission Report, before it even aired."

unlike when the right screamed about the cbs reagan bio-pi and had it killed.

and bush and the right fought the 9/11 commission every step of the way, recall?

of course, the director and screenwriter of the 9/11 film are disciples of right wing looney david horowitz and various evangelical organizations - which is fine when you're doing a documentary on god, but not when you're making a documentary to blame 9/11 on clinton.

and didn't the 9/11 movie leave out the scene with our president sitting frozen in stupefaction in a classroom for 10 minutes while we were attacked? talk about false advertising!

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 2:05 PM

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

Bonus link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070515/us_nm/healthcare_usa_dc

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #37

Stephe96 says ...

"unlike when the right screamed about the cbs reagan bio-pi and had it killed."

Ha ha ha! You honestly would expect an objective and factually accurate movie about the Reagans from Mr. Barbara Streisand? And you complain about the political leanings of the "911" filmmakers?

Posted by Stephe96 at May 15, 2007 2:13 PM

comment #38

christian says ...

"You honestly would expect an objective and factually accurate movie about the Reagans from Mr. Barbara Streisand?"

mr. brolin was only an actor in the film. he has no other credits on it. do you actually think it was his idea to make a mini-series on reagan?

and no, i would expect little honesty from a major tv network since it's in their best interests to keep americans as far from knowledge as possible in order to sell us the crap we don't need.

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 2:19 PM

comment #39

christian says ...

...crap like the present war which cbs, nbc and abc sold to americans like you.

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 2:20 PM

comment #40

Stephe96 says ...

Oh, is that the same war that Kerry, Edwards and Hillary all voted to authorize?

Posted by Stephe96 at May 15, 2007 2:44 PM

comment #41

Joshua Mooney says ...

Most actors who become politicians are Republicans. Eastwood, Arnie, Sonny Bono, Thompson, Reagan. Why is that? In David Thomson's astounding book, "Warren Beatty and Desert Eyes," he discusses various failed efforts to draft Beatty as a politician. So. Now in '07 the Dems have Al Franken. Hell, I'd vote for him, probably. But there must be more substantive Dem/Actors who could make a run for something-- Redford? Sarandon?

Who else?

Posted by Joshua Mooney at May 15, 2007 2:47 PM

comment #42

D.Z. says ...

Stephe: "Oh, is that the same war that Kerry, Edwards and Hillary all voted to authorize?"

They didn't authorize war, just intervention.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 2:49 PM

comment #43

Stephe96 says ...

Too bad Franken is being utterly crushed in the polls by Norm Coleman.

http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=6517809

Posted by Stephe96 at May 15, 2007 2:49 PM

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

Stephe: Lieberman was ahead by 20% once, too.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 2:52 PM

comment #45

Stephe96 says ...

"Stephe: Lieberman was ahead by 20% once, too."

Do you mean current US Senator Joe Lieberman? He was once "ahead by 20%?" And then won re-election? Sounds like Coleman has nothing to worry about.

I fail to grasp the significance of your post....

Posted by Stephe96 at May 15, 2007 3:24 PM

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

Stephe: He won the election, but he lost his mandate. You don't seem to realize that America continues to become more liberal the longer Republiscum stay in power.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 3:39 PM

comment #47

christian says ...

"Oh, is that the same war that Kerry, Edwards and Hillary all voted to authorize?"

yes they made the tragic mistake of supporting the president when he lied about weapons of mass destruction. had they not authorized, you repubs would have screamed "you're either with us or against us!"

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 3:41 PM

comment #48

christian says ...

does it bother you stephe96 that general after general is slamming bush on iraq and that gonzalez is a weasel? any thoughts there?

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 3:43 PM

comment #49

jeffmcm says ...

Stephe, most incumbent senators will be ahead of challengers when a poll is taken 17 months before the election. They have name recognition. The important thing is that Coleman is below 50% which means he is indeed vulnerable.

DZ: Your Lieberman example was, in a word, lame. Your arguments only hurt your side.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 15, 2007 4:16 PM

comment #50

Arizona Joe says ...

Michael Moore was right in the main about the Iraq War. And he is right in the main about our healthcare system.

The costs exceed the benefits, and both mostly suck.

Have any of you conservatives read about how the Insurance Industry and their lobbyists have rigged the privatization of Medicare? It costs the government 20% more per individual on average, and delivers less medical care.

Inefficiency with government planning bringing healthcare to all is a big canard. We don't need total socialization of medicine, but a single payer system would be a step in the right direction. And you can bet with health insurance killing our heavy industries, private equity and investment bankers will have surprising support for the new system.

I don't want a totalitarian medical system. But giving the money to medical professionals is a lot better than paying business fascists and racketeers in the insurance business.

Posted by Arizona Joe at May 15, 2007 4:46 PM

comment #51

le corbeau says ...

"Right wingers will always be undone by their general humorlessness and complete incomprehension of irony."

Fred's spot was pretty damn funny to me. Keep it up and he may laugh all the way to the White House.

Posted by le corbeau at May 15, 2007 4:54 PM

comment #52

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Your Lieberman example was, in a word, lame. Your arguments only hurt your side."

Taking the Hillary talking point, I see?

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 5:30 PM

comment #53

jeffmcm says ...

If Hillary's talking point is that idiots are harmful, then yes.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 15, 2007 5:50 PM

comment #54

LYTrules says ...

But there must be more substantive Dem/Actors who could make a run for something-- Redford? Sarandon?

Who else?

If Tom Hanks ever ran for office, he'd win. I think he's a Dem. Spielberg too, if he were ever inclined. Everybody loves them, and with all the WWII/Americana projects, they're pretty much immune from having their patriotism questioned.

Posted by LYTrules at May 15, 2007 6:15 PM

comment #55

SaveFarris says ...

Right on, jeffmcm. Al Franken is losing because, according to you, Norm F'ing Coleman has higher name recognition.

Posted by SaveFarris at May 15, 2007 6:23 PM

comment #56

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "If Hillary's talking point is that idiots are harmful, then yes."

She still backs the idiot-in-chief, and won't admit she was wrong about it.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 6:51 PM

comment #57

christian says ...

if that spot is the level of depth of thompson's argument, he could win.

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 6:56 PM

comment #58

JD says ...

Get over this Dems vs. GOP nonsense. No matter who's elected, everyone knows the Federal Reserve is pulling the strings. And anyone who believes the 9/11 Commission Report has any credibility is on crack. Educate yourself:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=9%2F11%3A+Press+For+Truth

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 7:09 PM

comment #59

jeffmcm says ...

SaveFarris: That is exactly correct. Are you a Minnesota voter? Here's a shocker - Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Susan Collins of Maine have pretty high name recognition among voters in those states too. Plus, please be aware that this isn't just name recognition the way people would recognize 'Paris Hilton' or 'Michael Jackson' - it's also favorability ratings and knowledge of a candidate's positions.

Suffice to say, it is common political knowledge that any incumbent below 50% approval a year before an election is in trouble.

DZ: She clearly does _not_ back Bush, considering that she has a liberal voting record of 95% according to Americans for Democratic Action and a conservative voting record of 11% according to the American Conservative Union.

Grow up.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 15, 2007 7:11 PM

comment #60

jeffmcm says ...

JD: I hate to say it, but you just lost a huge amount of credibility.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 15, 2007 7:13 PM

comment #61

le corbeau says ...

"if that spot is the level of depth of thompson's argument, he could win."

Actually, the op-ed linked by Jeffrey is the level of Thompson's argument, and I haven't read one substantive counterargument to it here.

As for JD, go read the Popular Mechanics book on 9/11. If you still have any truck with the slippery "truthers" after that, well, at least you'll know what you are.

Posted by le corbeau at May 15, 2007 7:50 PM

comment #62

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "She clearly does _not_ back Bush,"

And what has she said or done which makes you think that?

"considering that she has a liberal voting record of 95% according to Americans for Democratic Action"

Birds(Or should I saw hawks?) of a feather tend to flock together. Being pro-censorship, anti-smoking, indirectly pro-torture ( http://www.crooksandliars.com/index.php?s=Hillary+torture )and for the possibility that she "might" get out of Iraq in two years if elected isn't exactly what I'd call "liberal".

"and a conservative voting record of 11% according to the American Conservative Union."

Well conservatives are frightened of anyone remotely liberal, which is why they've give her such a low score. However, like Joe, she's ideologically closer to them.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 8:17 PM

comment #63

christian says ...

thompson knows where his checks will be coming from, just like our robot guv'nr lied about not taking special interest cash and was just rewarded with more from chevron. thompson will fall
right in with these corporations who outsource and exploit. he'll whisper socialism and extoll the free market insurance system and talk about how wicked hollywood is blah blah blah...

he's a republican. we've seen their wisdom at work writ large over the past 8 years. caveat emptor.

Posted by christian at May 15, 2007 8:21 PM

comment #64

D.Z. says ...

christian: More like 25 years. It's not that they weren't corrupt before; it's that they had the ability to cover it up and blame liberals for their mess.

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 8:28 PM

comment #65

JD says ...

"JD: I hate to say it, but you just lost a huge amount of credibility."

Thanks for skillfully dissecting my argument, jeffmcm. And I apologize for providing an 85-minute clip to support my point. Evidence can be frustrating, can't it? The real reason I linked to that documentary is a brief section dealing with the 911 Commission and the Bush Administration's various strategies to prevent this investigation from arriving at any meaningful results. I'm not suggesting that I know what the Bush Administration is hiding, but to pretend that that The 911 Commission Report even skims the surface is simply inaccurate.

And I'm not taking any kind of "911 Truth" stance, Mgmax, but given the Bush Administration's resistance to any investigation of the evidence, it's hard to believe the official story. And The Popular Mechanics book was clearly White House damage control hidden behind a brand name. I think the Loose Change documentary is full of holes and so is the Popular Mechanics book. Does this mean we have to believe every shred of the official story? Given that very little evidence has been made available regarding the assumptions most people complacently accept as truth, I say no. In any case, here's a 5-part debate on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M&mode=related&search=

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 9:01 PM

comment #66

jeffmcm says ...

You don't have an argument, you have a link. I could send you any number of Youtube links to kids skateboarding or cats dressed in funny clothes but they wouldn't be relevant either. I don't like GWB any more than anyone else, but conspiracy theorists in this case are just deluding themselves.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 15, 2007 9:23 PM

comment #67

jeffmcm says ...

I almost forgot -

DZ, you're an idiot.

Done for the day.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 15, 2007 9:25 PM

comment #68

le corbeau says ...

"thompson knows where his checks will be coming from"

What's so charming about our politics right now is that this is the moderate position next to JD insisting that fire doesn't melt steel or whatever science-illiterate hornswoggle he's bought into on the subject. I swear, all of life is becoming Scientology...

Posted by le corbeau at May 15, 2007 10:05 PM

comment #69

D.Z. says ...

The free market at work. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070515/us_nm/homeless_dumping_dc

Posted by D.Z. at May 15, 2007 10:44 PM

comment #70

mitch says ...

when all you do is tent pole your own agenda so blindly that all opposing opinion is summarily dismissed you know you've painted yourself a complete fool.

just a general observation.

enjoy.

Posted by mitch at May 15, 2007 10:51 PM

comment #71

JD says ...

"You don't have an argument, you have a link."

Oh. So I lost credibility on the basis of a link. A link to a totally middle-of-the-road documentary about the families of 911 victims? No, you're not shielding yourself from the facts at all. You really want to have it both ways, don't you? You're a right winger who claims not to like George W. Bush, but reserves the right to attack anyone who distrusts George W. Bush... if their reasons differ from yours. Interesting.

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 11:06 PM

comment #72

JD says ...

Don't put words in my mouth, Mgmax. I didn't say anything about melting steel and I happily volunteered my belief that the Loose Change documentary is full of problems. Have you ever thought that holes in the 911 story might be as simple as the Bush administration reacting too slowly... or ignoring warnings and not wanting too many details about this to get out? You didn't hear me say 911 was an inside job, did you?

And like it or not, questions (not "conspiracy theories") about 911 remain. Why was all the WTC evidence immediately shipped out of the country and destroyed? Why were Cheney and Bush opposed to an investigation of 911? Why did they insist on testifying to the 911 Commission together? Why has so much evidence (from surveillance footage to interview/testimony transcripts) been hidden from public view? Why did Bush claim to see the first tower hit more than a day before that tape materialized? Why did Cheney prohibit the military from firing down the plane as it approached the Pentagon? Why did Tower 7 fall? This has all been touched upon in the mainstream media, and I'm sure there are good, honorable (and convincing) answers to all of these questions, but where are they? And why does it worry you so much when these questions are asked?

Posted by JD at May 15, 2007 11:26 PM

comment #73

le corbeau says ...

Sweetheart, I lived through that with the people who thought Oswald-- a Marine sharpshooter who defected to the Commies, for Christ's sake-- was the sweet innocent all-American patsy for a conspiracy of real bad guys.

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 5:18 AM

comment #74

JD says ...

You're right, Mgmax. Nothing the government does is covert or strategic. All those declassified documents that suggest otherwise? Irrelevant. The CIA and the FBI? They're just there to gather facts and honestly relay them to the people. When you put it that way, the world is so much simpler. Problem is, no Democrat or Republican working in government would accept that characterization of the system. Remember, you're living in a world where even most American people agree that their country was deliberately and knowingly mislead into Iraq. They must be imaging things because, as Mgmax has made clear, the American government lies about nothing.

Posted by JD at May 16, 2007 7:15 AM

comment #75

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Moore is as Anti American as they come. He's a Communist. Hence why he thinks Castro is so great.

And that Thompson piece was spot on. If Cuba has such a great health care system, why was Castro on the first flight out of the country to get medical help????

Anyone???

Posted by Dave Polands Gut at May 16, 2007 7:47 AM

comment #76

Josh Massey says ...

If Wells really wants to up his hit count, he should just post the words "Michael Moore" once or twice a week.

Posted by Josh Massey at May 16, 2007 8:36 AM

comment #77

le corbeau says ...

You're right, JD. Nothing the government does is plain and comprehensible. All those people working in buildings trying to achieve objectives that make sense to them? Irrelevant. The CIA and the FBI? They routinely pull off 10,000-person conspiracies without a hitch even when they can't seem to spot a spy in their own ranks driving a car he can't afford. When you put it that way, the world is so much simpler-- someone like you never has to have a coherent answer, you just get to keep throwing questions back at anyone who challenges you.

You're like a cat with a claw in my sweater. I could argue with you all day why you shouldn't do that but you'll never put together a coherent counterargument for why the sweater should be unraveled-- you'll just keep looking for other threads to stick your claws into. Easier to just throw you across the floor and say "Bad kitty!"

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 9:06 AM

comment #78

christian says ...

"And that Thompson piece was spot on. If Cuba has such a great health care system, why was Castro on the first flight out of the country to get medical help????"

probably the same reason republicans like wrapping their lips around castro's cigars.

but really you repubs, you've lost your way and your minds. how great to watch the candidates for prez last night trip over themselves to promise they would never ban assault weapons -- just in case some sleeper cells here might not have enough access. and you're the great terrorist warriors!

even better was romney etc stumbling to praise jerry falwell, the right wing godhead who had his own 9/11 conspiracy theory -- that fags, tinky winky, liberals and the aclu were responsible.

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 9:13 AM

comment #79

JD says ...

Authority figures dream about people like you, Mgmax. They want the entire population to consist of scared little unquestioning slaves like you who assume everything they do is transparent, straightforward, and in the best interest of the people. You don't even make arguments, you just call people "sweetheart" (???), "kitty," or (my personal favorite) invoke Scientology. But something tells me you think everything is a little less transparent when a Democrat is in office.

Did I say NOTHING the government does is plain and comprehensible? No. I said SOME things they do are covert and strategic. If you opened a book or a newspaper some time, they'll tell you this themself. Republicans and Dems alike. And where do you get this ridiculous idea that 10,000 people would have to be involved to carry out a conspiracy. A giant conspiracy could be perpetrated by 5 people in charge of any country. Just because you instruct someone to do something doesn't mean you have to tell them WHY they're doing it. Do you think American troops have any idea what the real, foreign policy motives are behind their actions in Iraq? Of course not because, as they'll tell you, politics aren't their business. And if you want to pretend that the United States went into Iraq because of a sincere concern about WMDs, go right ahead. It's your right to be wrong.

Posted by JD at May 16, 2007 9:35 AM

comment #80

christian says ...

mgmax is selectively naive about his government --except when it's democrats i'm assuming -- and the fact that he could claim all is well, no conspiracy here (and i'm not talking 9/11) in light of enron; wmd's; katrina; illegal surveillance; gonzales; wolfowitz, etc. after what went down 30 years ago under previous corrupt administrations (see cia-fbi and nixon) is proof enough that americans are hardly over-informed.

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 9:45 AM

comment #81

le corbeau says ...

"But something tells me you think everything is a little less transparent when a Democrat is in office."

No, I felt exactly the same way about the Hillary-was-a-lesbian-fucking-Vince-Foster-as-they-flew-coke-into-Mena-airport rightwing fever swamps crowd as I do about the "enron; wmd's; katrina; illegal surveillance; gonzales; wolfowitz" leftwing fever swamps crowd.

But above all I don't feel the need to debate, point by point, people whose idea of an argument is a series of nouns strung together, as if it's self-evident that there must be a deep underlying conspiracy. Down, kitties, down!

"If you opened a book or a newspaper some time"

Some books I've read on the subject since 9/11: The Looming Tower, The Rise of the Vulcans, Terror and Liberalism, The Pentagon's New Map, The Crisis of Islam, What Went Wrong?, Against All Enemies, Reading Lolita in Tehran, Among the Believers (Naipaul, a criminally neglected book from about 1980 about Islamic fundamentalism, by the way)-- and Debunking 9/11 Myths from Popular Mechanics.

And you?

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 10:16 AM

comment #82

christian says ...

mgmax, please explain why enron is a left-wing fever swamp dream: bush family friend ken lay and his associates cooked books, lied to employees and investors and also ripped off california energy markets for billions (replete with recorded phone calls on how they were going to "fuck the grandmothers" and "that socialist clinton". enron was also consulted by dick cheney in his still-secret energy meetings in 2001.

these were the trusted business friends of bushco. and look how they treat us. and since ken lay and the others were actually sentenced for crimes, what's left wing here?

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 10:38 AM

comment #83

jeffmcm says ...

JD, I'm a liberal. I have no idea why you would think I'm a rightwinger, except that I go after DZ, which is something everyone should do across the poltical spectrum.

Mgmax: all that reading doesn't seem to have helped much.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 16, 2007 10:40 AM

comment #84

le corbeau says ...

christian, where does liberal new york times hiring enron adviser paul krugman to bash bush in columns fit into your conspiracy? anyway, you listed a whole bunch of things like they were supposed to mean something together. what, other than you don't like bush?

jeffmcm, if you're going to fire cheap shots, they need to be funny, like fred thompson's

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 11:08 AM

comment #85

le corbeau says ...

Oh, and I'll be interested to hear the perspective of all the folks decrying Enron when John "Two Americas (That's How Big My House Is)" Edwards releases his financial statements for the year that he spent working at a hedge fund shipping jobs overseas and putting the squeeze on folks in retirement homes (Fortress has a big position in Alterra).

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 11:15 AM

comment #86

christian says ...

"anyway, you listed a whole bunch of things like they were supposed to mean something together. what, other than you don't like bush?"

uh, yes bush and enron do belong together. both were based out of houston and enron received all sorts of benefits from the bush free marketeers, not to mention the sleaze under which their ethics allowed them to screw hardworking people.

do you live in california? do you recall the rolling blackouts of 2001? when gray davis suspected the blackouts were deliberate he asked bush to intervene. you know what your beloved honorable prez said? "i don't want to hurt california so i'm opposed to price caps." well no wonder. he wanted enron to make more unregulated illegal bank.

and as for krugman, he wasn't writing for the ny times when he briefly was an advisor to enron. but don't the facts get in the way of your truth:

http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/EnronFAQ.html

and calling the ny times "liberal" after judith miller pimped front page lies on wmd's is funny.

but your bizarre response to actual facts on why this administration is not to be trusted shows your limited allegiance to truth.

and if clinton were prez you would be hearing me going off on him like i did when he was.

but keep reading those books on islamic fundamentalism. they do share something with christian fundamentalism: a fevered, fanatical belief in a vengeful god and an apocalyptic holy war.

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 12:07 PM

comment #87

D.Z. says ...

D.P.Gut: "Moore is as Anti American as they come. He's a Communist."

If being a Communist is anti-American, then why do you defend a President who subsidizes corporations
and makes trade deals with China and Vietnam?

"If Cuba has such a great health care system, why was Castro on the first flight out of the country to get medical help????"

I'm guessing because he has unusual complications which the doctors of that island may not necessarily know how to deal with, not because he thinks capitalist health care systems are better. The victims of Chernobyl certainly aren't complaining... http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/0505/top-story.html

jeff: "JD, I'm a liberal. I have no idea why you would think I'm a rightwinger,"

It's probably because "mainstream"-liberals as you like to refer to yourself-have more right-wing tendencies than the rest of us.

Mgmax: "Edwards releases his financial statements for the year that he spent working at a hedge fund shipping jobs overseas and putting the squeeze on folks in retirement homes"

He worked for the company. He didn't make the decisions. That's the difference.

Posted by D.Z. at May 16, 2007 12:09 PM

comment #88

Craig Kennedy says ...

Come on Mgmax, you don't really believe a hypocritical politician is as big an evil as a law breaking corporation do you?

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 16, 2007 1:26 PM

comment #89

christian says ...

not if the politician has been working in tandem with the evil corporation since its inception, like...uh...oh, say...bush and enron.

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 1:51 PM

comment #90

le corbeau says ...

What do you think a hedge fund is if not a corporation, CJ? Who do you think commits those big evils if not the people running it, like John Edwards?

"and as for krugman, he wasn't writing for the ny times when he briefly was an advisor to enron. but don't the facts get in the way of your truth"

Actually, the NYT made him quit. But don't let the free pass you're giving him for freezing old people to death in wintry California get in the way of smearing Bush for being associated with the same evil corporation.

"but keep reading those books on islamic fundamentalism. they do share something with christian fundamentalism: a fevered, fanatical belief in a vengeful god and an apocalyptic holy war."

Yeah, I'm sure worried Alabama's gonna get nuclear first-strike capability.

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 2:35 PM

comment #91

le corbeau says ...

"Mgmax: "Edwards releases his financial statements for the year that he spent working at a hedge fund shipping jobs overseas and putting the squeeze on folks in retirement homes"

"He worked for the company. He didn't make the decisions. That's the difference."

HE VAS CHUST FOLLOWINK ORDERS!!!

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 2:37 PM

comment #92

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "HE VAS CHUST FOLLOWINK ORDERS!!!"

There's a difference between indirectly participating in war crimes and having to keep your own job while other people are getting fired. By your logic, middle-class workers who survive being out-sourced are immoral.

Posted by D.Z. at May 16, 2007 2:48 PM

comment #93

christian says ...

"But don't let the free pass you're giving him for freezing old people to death in wintry California get in the way of smearing Bush for being associated with the same evil corporation."

but bush WAS involved with enron. george sr and jr. were both intimately involved. they did donate MILLIONS to keep the bush folk in power. have you ever read the personal letters between bush and lay? you thimk krugman and lay shared xmas cards with family info?

krugman didn't have the political power to appoint various houston energy cronies to push thrugh ken lay's de-regulation plans while his company came up with outage schemes called DEATH STAR, did he?

so in essence, an economic columnist who was paid to advise enron at a meeting and then found out what was happening and blew the whistle on them before it was fashionable is in the same moral position as the president of the united states and vice president corrupting the system to make them richer?

this is the level of your insight, mgmax?

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 2:55 PM

comment #94

le corbeau says ...

"There's a difference between indirectly participating in war crimes and having to keep your own job while other people are getting fired. By your logic, middle-class workers who survive being out-sourced are immoral."

Are you seriously suggesting that any of this applies to John "Personal Fortune Estimated At $60 Million" Edwards? That he was taking a summer job at the hedge fund to make ends meet? What do you think a firm like that thinks they're buying when they bring somebody like Edwards into the firm to wet his beak in the off-season? The exact same thing all of you are so exercised about in regards to Bush and Enron, obviously.

"you thimk krugman and lay shared xmas cards with family info?"

No, obviously he came more cheaply than the Bushes do.

"and then found out what was happening and blew the whistle on them"

Ho! Ha ha! Tee hee hee! Are you seriously trying to pass that one off? Citation please. You might start here:

"Krugman claims that Vice President Cheney's energy task force misdiagnosed the California crisis, while "yes, I am patting myself on the back for getting it right." But when, exactly, was Krugman "getting it right"? When he was paid 50 thousand to be a member of the Enron Advisory Board? When he was writing glowing puff-pieces on Enron for Fortune magazine? Or when he was accusing the Bush administration of "crony capitalism" for its involvement with Enron, without admitting his own involvement? Does he really think that by not mentioning the name Enron in a column about energy market manipulation that no one will remember any of that?"
http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=217

To watch you guys flip-flop from attacking Bush for being in the same city as Enron to excusing any Democrat who was ever on the board of Wal-Mart (Mrs. Clinton) or a major vendor (Mrs. Obama) is breathtaking in its sleaze. I will admit that money talks too damn loud in the Republican party, you're trying to pretend it only sings hymns in the Democratic one. Don't be tools of the moneymen like that!

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 3:03 PM

comment #95

christian says ...

mgmax, factor this: i despise the clintons and have never defended them here. if you want to bring up the clintons, do it -- but they ain't it charge anymore. bush is and remains.

why does he get this magic blank check from you?

your only answer to the lies and corruption on your team is to blame a columnist for enron (!) and bring up misdeeds from a previous administration.

in a court, you can't just say, but your honor! the clintons did bad things too!

and at this point, you might want to watch the news to see how much more sleaze this rotten crew has flooded into the white house.

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 3:47 PM

comment #96

christian says ...

"To watch you guys flip-flop from attacking Bush for being in the same city as Enron..."

now i get it. this was also ann coulter's defense of bush and enron. and it makes as much sense from her as you.

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 3:49 PM

comment #97

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Are you seriously suggesting that any of this applies to John "Personal Fortune Estimated At $60 Million" Edwards? That he was taking a summer job at the hedge fund to make ends meet?"

At least he was working, instead of taking 9 months off out of the year, and ignoring warnings that 9/11 was going to happen.

"What do you think a firm like that thinks they're buying when they bring somebody like Edwards into the firm to wet his beak in the off-season?"

I'm guessing advice and assistance. You know, because, unlike Mike Brown, he has experience?

"The exact same thing all of you are so exercised about in regards to Bush and Enron, obviously."

Um, no, because Edwards didn't give the ok for the firm to do anything illegal.

"To watch you guys flip-flop from attacking Bush for being in the same city as Enron to excusing any Democrat who was ever on the board of Wal-Mart (Mrs. Clinton) or a major vendor (Mrs. Obama) is breathtaking in its sleaze"

Hillary wasn't on Wal-Mart's board when they were hiring illegal aliens, messing with the clock to short-change wages, and spying on employees who wanted to unionize.

Posted by D.Z. at May 16, 2007 4:14 PM

comment #98

SpinDozer says ...

"now i get it. this was also ann coulter's defense of bush and enron. and it makes as much sense from her as you."

Ackterely, it makes quite a bit more sense coming from Sweet Ann cos she is well compensated, whereas Mgmax's public humiliation is pro bono.

Posted by SpinDozer at May 16, 2007 5:57 PM

comment #99

jeffmcm says ...

Oh good, DZ's been busy making liberals look stupid on this page all day too.

DZ, it's really insulting for you to call me 'right-wing'. You don't know what you're talking about. From your perspective, 99.9% of the world is too conservative.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 16, 2007 6:12 PM

comment #100

Craig Kennedy says ...

"What do you think a hedge fund is if not a corporation, CJ?"

Yeah, I know what a hedge fund is Mgmax, my point was that this particular one wasn't actually breaking laws unlike Enron. That's a key difference. Some may find being pro-business reprehensible, but it's not a crime.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 16, 2007 6:23 PM

comment #101

le corbeau says ...

"Ackterely, it makes quite a bit more sense coming from Sweet Ann cos she is well compensated, whereas Mgmax's public humiliation is pro bono."

Ah no! young blade! That was a trifle short!
You might have said at least a hundred things
By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . .
Aggressive: 'Sir, if I had such a nose
I'd amputate it!' Friendly: 'When you sup
It must annoy you, dipping in your cup;
You need a drinking-bowl of special shape!'
Descriptive: ''Tis a rock!. . .a peak!. . .a cape!
Ã¢â‚¬â€A cape, forsooth! 'Tis a peninsular!'
Curious: 'How serves that oblong capsular?
For scissor-sheath? Or pot to hold your ink?'
Gracious: 'You love the little birds, I think?
I see you've managed with a fond research
To find their tiny claws a roomy perch!'

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 6:40 PM

comment #102

jeffmcm says ...

Mmhmm, that's good intellectualism!

Posted by jeffmcm at May 16, 2007 7:01 PM

comment #103

christian says ...

and let's not even get into fellow texas crony and soon-to-be-gone gonzalez rushing to ashcroft's sickbed to get him to re-approve the nsa warrentless wiretapping -- and if john ashcroft had reservations about it, whoa baby.

here's the amazing testimony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxHjWYA50Ds

mgmax, i await your poetic retort.

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 7:01 PM

comment #104

le corbeau says ...

I'm fully in favor of the so-called illegal wiretapping, which is misnamed as it neither illegal (no court has yet ruled on Bush's reasonable legal position that he has the right under the War Powers Act to listen to conversations involving people he has the right to drop bombs on) nor mainly about wiretapping (it almost certainly is primarily a data mining program, you know, like companies like the New York Times use all the time).

That members of the JD were too nervous to stick their necks out for that speaks volumes about the legal atmosphere in Washington these days, and shows that the spirit of Sandy Berger's ass-covering legalism re Bin Laden is alive and well, but I do not find it a, so to speak, "slam-dunk" indication of the validity or invalidity of the program.

Allow me to be as clear as possible. I despise the cynical, heads I win tails you lose attitude which seeks to smear Bush for failing to predict 9/11 but then seeks to hamstring him stopping the next one. I believe firmly in heavy surveillance of fanatics engaged in activities which could result in the murders of more Americans in the name of Allah (or any other god or godless cause, though it is rank unseriousness to worry about any other at the moment). And as a firm believer in civil liberties, I believe that taking serious preventative action now makes it more likely that we will avoid the kind of horrific attack which could truly lead to genuinely draconian martial law and a sweeping surveillance state. People regarded FDR as a potential dictator when he stuck the state into areas of life where it had never been before, in order to prevent a far more total state rising to power in America as it had in other places. Much the same mistake is being made about the president today.

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 7:15 PM

comment #105

christian says ...

so you believe executive power should be unchecked and unfettered contrary to the constitution. glad you clarified. and you even managed to bring clinton right back into it.

then sleep easy mgmax, it's good to have a king!

Posted by christian at May 16, 2007 8:01 PM

comment #106

le corbeau says ...

When the Supreme Court rules on the constitutional issues, then it MAY be contrary to the Constitution. Until then, you're assuming your point of view will prevail or already has, which it has not.

Hopefully the issue will be settled before an American city is a radioactive crater.

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 8:29 PM

comment #107

jeffmcm says ...

...which is something Bush's policies have made more likely, not less.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 16, 2007 8:50 PM

comment #108

le corbeau says ...

Evidence for this assertion, please?

Major Al-Qaeda attacks on US:
1993: first WTC bombing
1996: Khobar Towers bombing
1998: Embassies in Kenya, Tanzania bombed
1999: Millennium plot (foiled)
2000: Attack on USS Cole
2001: second WTC, Pentagon attacks

Hmm, what could be responsible for the dropoff in activity since then?

Posted by le corbeau at May 16, 2007 8:57 PM

comment #109

mitch says ...

mgmax; I applaud your tenacity when dealing with the hard left leaners here (you are NOT one of them, jeffmcm. I feel you're very centrist, which is appreciated. thank you).

here is my prediction: no matter what takes place in the coming election, everything that goes wrong will be the republican's fault.

oh, and I love the attempts to align bush with the enron debacle.

Posted by mitch at May 16, 2007 9:21 PM

comment #110

jeffmcm says ...

Your disinterest in listing such incidents as:

2002: Mombasa bombing
2002: Bali bombing
2003: Riyadh bombings
2004: Madrid train bombings
2004: Second Khobar Towers bomb plot
2005: London train bombings
2005: Amman bombings
2007: Algiers bombings

On top of the simple knowledge that we have hastened or ignored the North Korean and Iranian arms programs, and damaged our ability to deal with other terroristic groups in a large variety of ways.

This is pretty common knowledge.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 16, 2007 9:24 PM

comment #111

jeffmcm says ...

Maybe you were too quick to thank me, Mitch. I'm not one of those who advocates a total pullout of American forces all over the world to return home, I especially think we need to pay more attention to Afghanistan - but I certainly believe that the Bush administration has been wildly incompetent.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 16, 2007 9:27 PM

comment #112

jeffmcm says ...

In the interest of fairness, I also think that any American president, Democrat or Republican, would have been blindsided by Sept. 11. Even Gore might have sat around looking stupid with a kids' book on his lap.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 16, 2007 9:30 PM

comment #113

D.Z. says ...

jeff: Any Democratic President wouldn't ignore their predecessors' warnings about terrorist attacks, simply because they were Republican.

Posted by D.Z. at May 16, 2007 10:17 PM

comment #114

jeffmcm says ...

Thanks for adding to the divisive, pointless discourse, DZ. You make liberals look bad. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?

Posted by jeffmcm at May 17, 2007 12:38 AM

comment #115

D.Z. says ...

How do I make liberals bad by telling the truth? The Republicans don't want to share; they just want to take from everyone else, whether it's money or power. The fact that they're looking for Dems to blame, rather than fixing their mistakes pretty much proves it, too.

Posted by D.Z. at May 17, 2007 1:09 AM

comment #116

le corbeau says ...

Well, I did say in or directed at the US. Now, you could say that so much of the Iraq war is al-Qaeda attacking US forces, and that's true, though I personally am comfortable with their attacks involving heavily armed soldiers and Apache helicopters who quickly take them out rather than, say, office workers and busboys at Windows on the World. It's shifting the odds in our favor, in my book.

Posted by le corbeau at May 17, 2007 5:17 AM

comment #117

le corbeau says ...

Someday DZ will buy a house and have a child, and he will be the most obnoxious Reagan Republican in his subdivision.

Posted by le corbeau at May 17, 2007 5:19 AM

comment #118

le corbeau says ...

"On top of the simple knowledge that we have hastened or ignored the North Korean and Iranian arms programs, and damaged our ability to deal with other terroristic groups in a large variety of ways.

This is pretty common knowledge."

Well, it's common wisdom on one side of the aisle. Whether it's knowledge is HIGHLY debatable.

Posted by le corbeau at May 17, 2007 5:24 AM

comment #119

christian says ...

so mgmax, you thought it was a good idea for the bush administration to ignore a briefing titled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK AMERICA?

and i ask you to go watch your president tough guy sit stupified in a class room while our country was under attack, michael moore didn't create that footage. it's truly disturbing.

and mgmax, if your country was invaded and bombed based on spurious info, then your family was raped and murdered by "liberating" troops, do you think you'd sign up with the united states goals? is that how bush has made the world safer?

bush has created new levels of hatred towards our country with his destructive incompetent policies.
that's a fact, it's been documented, but because of your blind ideology, you deny truth. very sad.

and if you were truly concerned about radioactive cities, you wouldn't embrace the bush energy doctrine of more nuclear power after military reports have come out saying that our present plants are ill-secured.

and given bush's history of hiring only the best, you should feel doubly secure. and you're a republican, so where does all this "personal responsibility" come into play?

"oh, and I love the attempts to align bush with the enron debacle."

how great to live in the freest country in the world with access to all the info you need and you still come up with a patented lie like that.
i've already pointed out the bush-enron collusion, there's nothing secret about it:

enron was bush's biggest donor and gave over $560,000 to his gubernatorial and presidential campaigns. enron's law firm vinson and elkins were elite "pioneer" fundraisers who moved another $400,000 or more dollars into bush's presidential campaign. lay was also a "pioneer" fundraiser for Bush and had extensive personal contacts and meetings with bush. lay met with dick cheney at least 6 times that led to bush doing NOTHING while enron was raping the energy market. you didn't have to pay those bills, did you? we did. lay has been getting political favors from team bush for decades. fact.

now back here in reality, that's a collusion of the highest order. but you can go back to sleep.

Posted by christian at May 17, 2007 9:08 AM

comment #120

le corbeau says ...

"bush has created new levels of hatred towards our country with his destructive incompetent policies. that's a fact, it's been documented"

With the Hate-O-Meter?

Christian, if this long thread demonstrates anything, which isn't much, it's that there are two Americas, and what's important to one is much less important to the other, and vice versa.

I could try to find middle ground on certain things-- I don't like the effect of big money in our politics either-- but I'll never be met halfway in good faith by people who think Edwards getting rich at a hedge fund or Obama buying property on the cheap with Tony Rezko is pure as the driven snow. So why bother? The only value here has been that each side gets to come out of its groupthink bubble a little bit and actually subject its arguments to examination (and I know I've won when someone like SpinDoogie turns up to throw out substanceless insults).

But you might want to tone down the rape rhetoric toward the men and women who protect you, just as a matter of decency.

Posted by le corbeau at May 17, 2007 10:25 AM

comment #121

christian says ...

"but I'll never be met halfway in good faith by people who think Edwards getting rich at a hedge fund or Obama buying property on the cheap with Tony Rezko is pure as the driven snow."

i've never defended either of these men here, so straw man on your part. i'm against ALL corruption on the political spectrum, whereas you need to defend the administration's massive corruption that continues to play out as we blog.

and the us army just issued a formal apology for accidently killing 20 innocent people in afghanistan -- so by your argument, the army should have just kept mum.

our troops were sent into battle by ill-suited men who have continuously been wrong. the cause and effect of a 14 year old girl being raped and burned in iraq (among thousands killed) will go beyond your simplistic notions of what we should or should not say.

i pointed out to mitch that my dad served in nam, and i grew up with "the troops" so your desire to keep them as silent cannon fodder in a civil war is not exactly supporting them. i do. you try.
and it was soldiers that told their superiors about the rape murder. they should have shut up, huh?

mgmax, it's okay to be a republican. but when facts are brought up over and over, you fall back on wishes, bromides and FOX news propaganda.

if this was 1972, it's clear you'd be defending nixon.

Posted by christian at May 17, 2007 11:08 AM

comment #122

jeffmcm says ...

I'm confused - how is Edwards making money off a hedge fund bad in any way shape or form? I thought the Republican complaint against him was that he's a faggot.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 17, 2007 11:41 AM

comment #123

le corbeau says ...

"I'm confused - how is Edwards making money off a hedge fund bad in any way shape or form? I thought the Republican complaint against him was that he's a faggot."

Being a, er, Homosexual-American is bad to Republicans, having anything to do with capitalism in any way, shape or form (other than getting rich suing it) is bad to Democrats.

There is exactly as much truth in each of those stereotypes, which is to say, they hold true for maybe 15-20% of the base of each party at most, but seem to take on outsized importance to the opposite side...

Posted by le corbeau at May 17, 2007 12:09 PM

comment #124

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Being a, er, Homosexual-American is bad to Republicans,"

But cross-dressing is just fine.

Posted by D.Z. at May 17, 2007 12:13 PM

comment #125

jeffmcm says ...

DZ: Shut up.

Mgmax: I suggest you're mistaken. Edwards is my favorite Democratic candidate, and it's okay with me that he's rich. Obviously I think there's something wrong with the system that you have to be a multi-millionaire to get elected to any high office in this country, but I definitely prefer the way Edwards got his money - earning it - than the way Bush got his - inheriting it and running failed business after failed business.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 17, 2007 12:29 PM

comment #126

christian says ...

btw, mgmax, under FISA, domestic spying on americans without court orders is ILLEGAL. bush himself said on 4-20-04:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

which was a whopping lie under the NSA program.

christ, this president is a crook and should have been impeached a long time ago. he just stepped closer to it with the revelations that DOJ officials were ready to RESIGN over the program.
and here's the "moral" president today stonewalling like tricky dick:

O'Donnell: There's been some very dramatic testimony before the Senate this week from one of your former top justice department officials, who describes a scene that some Senators called stunning about a time when the warrantless wiretap program was being reviewed. Sir, did you send your then chief of staff and White House counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft, while he was ill to get him to approve of that program and do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?

Bush: Kelly, there's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen and I'm not going to talk about itâ€¦It's a very sensitive programâ€¦

but after that sad line-up of FOX news talking heads this week (minus ron paul who is now officially a repub pariah and demon), i don't think america is going to trust her fate to republicans for awhile. i pray.

Posted by christian at May 17, 2007 1:14 PM

comment #127

christian says ...

and in the interest of fair play, here's the only sane republican prez candidate -- the one who doesn't stand a chance because he tells the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

Posted by christian at May 17, 2007 2:00 PM

comment #128

le corbeau says ...

Lefties praising the anti-semite isolationist in the race. Why am I not surprised?

I'm tired. This thread needs to die. Only 653 days till the election, then you can start up again with a new set of conspiracy theories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGc-F_0Y7tM

Posted by le corbeau at May 17, 2007 3:15 PM

comment #129

christian says ...

well, let's get to the bottom of the old set of conspiracies first:

(AP) WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of senators is pushing legislation that would force the CIA to release an inspector general's report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The CIA has spent more than 20 months weighing requests under the Freedom of Information Act for its internal investigation of the attacks but has yet to release any portion of it.

The agency is the only federal office involved in counterterrorism operations that has not made at least a version of its internal 9/11 investigation public.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and two other intelligence committee leaders Ã¢â‚¬â€ chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and senior Republican Kit Bond of Missouri Ã¢â‚¬â€ are pushing legislation that would require the agency to declassify the executive summary of the review within one month and submit a report to Congress explaining why any material was withheld.

The provision has been approved by the Senate twice, but never made into law.

In an interview, Wyden said he is also considering whether to link the report's release to his acceptance of President Bush's nominations for national security positions.

"It's amazing the efforts the administration is going to stonewall this," Wyden said. "The American people have a right to know what the Central Intelligence Agency was doing in those critical months before 9/11.... I am going to bulldog this until the public gets it."

Posted by christian at May 17, 2007 3:44 PM

comment #130

jeffmcm says ...

I guess Reagan's 11th Commandment can be ignored when it's a Republican who dares to speak the unspeakable like Paul.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 17, 2007 4:26 PM

comment #131

SpinDozer says ...

'Someday DZ will buy a house and have a child, and he will be the most obnoxious Reagan Republican in his subdivision.'

Awe Yes, the Sweet Voice of Reason and Experience. This, perhaps the most economical and unintentional autobiography in the anus of lit-terat-ure. Sweet Jeezus, U are a Grate Man, MgMaxipad. Salut!

Posted by SpinDozer at May 17, 2007 8:48 PM

comment #132