Breaking News
Comcast Close To Buying NBC
They run an op-ed by Richard Perle (yes, THAT Richard Perle) attacking George Tenet and the intelligence infrastructure for the failure in Iraq.
Up next: OJ Simpson slams the LAPD in an op-ed for not finding his ex-wife’s killer.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
That durn Freedomn of the Press!
Don’t you just hate it when newspapers print what you don’t like?
Good thing we conservatives are never unhappy with what the press prints, since we control it and all.
You disagree that the “C.I.A. failed America”, Oliver? How so?
Frank: The press is free to print what it wants, but it also is free to be criticized for making amazingly bad editorial decisions.
Farris: I agree that the CIA failed America (along with the congress, the FBI, and at the end of the line – the President), but the last person who I want to hear that from is one of the main cheerleaders and architects of a military engagement that has also failed America.
LOL. Again the Republican fucknuts conflate criticism with censorship. Wow, and it’s not even 9:30 yet!
Perle intimates that Iraq under Saddam was part of a broader Islamicist movement. Nice try, but false.
And his upbraiding Tenet for being careless with information is like Mr T chiding others for pitying too many fools.
Farris and Frank: What’s your take on Rudy shunning a heartland farm family because their networth lacked the requisite number of zeroes?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Frank- note that Oliver did not bloviate like a low-tooth-per-capita wingnut fuckwit and advocate the editors / owners of the Post be jailed or hanged for treason.
Perle should be denied public platform that gives any credibility to his sorry ass. Perle is an anachronistic Soviet era hardliner with cobwebbed ideas he ineptly applied to the Middle East. No further proof needed than how sparkling things are in Iraq, where Perle now expresses “Regret” -All the while still cashing checks from Saudi investors, Hollinger International and Trireme Partners LLP. That should buy Perle some happiness, despite an ongoing SEC investigation.
The Washington Post’s “new” face under Fred Hiatt is beginning to look more and more like the “Washington Times”.
I added it to the list of Corporatist NeoCon “New” Media crooks and liars awhile back.
I find it totally disgusting that two men, who promoted and cheerled this evil war, are given attention at all. They should be relegated to the dust bin of evildom and shunned by every human being…instead, they appear on MTP, write op eds….blaming each other, and suggesting that the other one “is more evil than I am, nah, nah, nah, nah.” Instead of being vanished into irrelevancy, they score book deals and sit on boards of corporations. Is there something wrong with our society or what?
Perle intimates that Iraq under Saddam was part of a broader Islamicist movement. Nice try, but false.
Do tell, Jimmmmmmmmmmmmmm… You have done the requisite research to back up that criticism?
It so happens that that assessment goes back to his war with Iran, and his invasion of Kuwait. Those two events did occur, did they not?
And by the way, Jimmmmmmmmmmm… I didn’t say anything about censorship.
Not conflated, deflated or inflated.
No, you didn’t, not directly. But your reaction to Oliver criticising a major newspaper for being stupid was to defend the freedom of the press, as if Oliver was suggesting the paper be shut down and erased from history for printing something he didn’t like.
One can draw many inferences about you from that.
“…Saddam was part of a broader Islamicist movement…??”
In what universe?
Wait, I know, in Wingnut Isolandia.
as if Oliver was suggesting the paper be shut down and erased from history for printing something he didn’t like.
You don’t deserve a reasonable response after that comment.
I meant no such thing.
As you (interestingly) have said to me dozens of times: Shut up, Nimrod Gently.
I find it totally disgusting that two men … are given attention at all.
And there it is again. Because we have a First Amendment, they can say whatever they want, you can be disgusted, and I can laugh at you.
“…Saddam was part of a broader Islamicist movement…??”
In what universe?
Wellstone, I guess you fell asleep in the same history class as Jimmmmmmmmmmmm.
I wrote a 19 page paper on the Iran – Iraq War, and Gulf War I. How much research have you done?
“But your reaction to Oliver criticising a major newspaper for being stupid was to defend the freedom of the press”
Was that, or was that not, basically the gist of Frank’s reaction?
“That durn Freedomn of the Press! Don’t you just hate it when newspapers print what you don’t like?”
One which would have been more appropriate had Oliver been calling for active censorship rather than offering criticism?
The deliberately flippant hyperbole aside, nothing I said is inaccurate, Frank.
Also I’m not sure Saddam was really part of any great Islamist movement. His motives mostly began and ended with Iraq, the making greater of (like invading Kuwait and killing Kurds and that sort of thing). Him and Bin Laden were practically ideologically opposite, except for the not liking America thing.
Do you think anyone will buy his story?
1) In his early days as leader of Iraq, Hussein saw himself as the ideological descendant of Nasser, a pan – Arabist.
2) He added a crescent to the Iraqi flag to ride piggy pack on Islamic appeal
3) He didn’t just invade Kuwait, he claimed it “belonged” to Iraq.
4) He fought a, what, 8 or 9 year war with Iran to be the “big dog” in the Middle East.
#4 is probably the real reason we “took him out”. It’s also the reason I have always been glad we went in there, and why we have to stay and win.
But keep hollering, “Where’s the WMD’s!”
The Perle/Tent tiff is a small part of what we will be seeing in the future as people try to distance themselves from the failures of the Bush administration. There will be lots of books coming out in the next few years. You can certainly expect Colin Powell, Condi Rice and others to tell us that they foresaw the problems, but George would not listen. I can hardly wait for Cheney’s revelations of all the things he warned George about.
Uh. gee, Frank, if you “wrote a 19-page paper” on Iraq under Saddam being part of a broader Islamicist movement, I’m glad I never read it. I would have worn out a red Sharpie on you.
Did ANYONE ever read it, or just you? HAHAHHAHA!!
Even cursory GOOGLE research will show you that Saddam was a master at paying lip service to the mullahs, so’s he could keep the lid on his 60% Sh’ia dictatorship for 30 long years.
Especially in light of the near-100% fervently Sh’ia country he shared a 600-mile border with, his enemy Iran.
The war with Iran was extremely problematic for Saddam, since he had to whip his Sh’ía back with extreme force to keep them from rising up in religious fervor in support of Iraq’s enemies.
For you to try to make the argument that Saddam was PART of the mullah movement is beyond ludicrous, it’s dazzlingly stupid.
As usual, you first arrive at a result (usually a position in support of some wingnut dogma) and then try to round up and line up some “facts” to support it.
And if the “facts” don’t cooperate, you yell and bully and wave your arms around a lot and PRETEND they do “for all intents and purposes”.
That’s what I understand they teach you at the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced COnservative Studies.
See, the way REAL historians do it, is first you line up the FACTS you know are true, and THEN you draw a conclusion and a model to support them.
And if you find NEW facts, your whole model changes.
This last part is, I know, completely beyond the ability of most wingnut heads to comprehend without exploding.
“3) He didn’t just invade Kuwait, he claimed it “belonged” to Iraq.”
It did. The borders in the Middle East were drawn up by the British and the French without regard to political or cultural differences in the region. This is why you have three faction in Iraq that have more in common with groups within foreign countries than they have with each other.
Well, CSS. I’m not going to argue the point, because it couldn’t be more academic,if not completely moot. The point is that he had Imperial Designs, and he had plans to make a Middle Eastern Empire not unlike ancient Babylonia.
“The point is that he had Imperial Designs, and he had plans to make a Middle Eastern Empire not unlike ancient Babylonia.”
And after the first gulf war he no ability to follow through with those plans and taking him out destabilized an already volatile region.
Further proof people should mess around in places they have no understanding of.
I am assuming that
1) You meant for “not” to follow “should”; and
2) You really didn’t mean for that preposition to be hanging out there by its lonesome at the end of the sentence; and
3)That you couldn’t possibly be deluded enough to believe that the people in our government have no knowledge of the geopolitics of Iraq, and that your knowledge of the area is superior to theirs.
That’s a point, where are they?
He didn’t say knowledge, he said undestanding. Different things.
Besides, maybe they do have more understanding of Iraqi geopolitics than CSS is giving them credit for (although I doubt it), but they just don’t care. That’s a possibility.
OK, fine: That you couldn’t possibly be deluded enough to believe that the people in our government have no understanding of the geopolitics of Iraq, and that your understanding of the area is superior to theirs.
There, all tidy now. I’m sure CSS will appreciate your diligence.
As to whether or not the United States “cares” about Iraq, I think 4,000 dead addresses that issue, but you don’t see it that way, I suppose…
He fought a, what, 8 or 9 year war with Iran to be the “big dog” in the Middle East.
#4 is probably the real reason we “took him out”. It’s also the reason I have always been glad we went in there, and why we have to stay and win.
Yes, Iran and bin Laden are glad of that as well. What did you say a while back about the company you keep?
I think 4,000 dead addresses that issue, but you don’t see it that way, I suppose…
Well, you’re sure right about that, pal. Assuming for a moment that you are referring to 9/11 casualties, let me just point out one more time that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
assuming for a moment that you are referring to 9/11 casualties
I was, and am not.
What did you say a while back about the company you keep?
As best as I can recall? Nothing.
“That you couldn’t possibly be deluded enough to believe that the people in our government have no knowledge of the geopolitics of Iraq, and that your knowledge of the area is superior to theirs.”
Bush didn’t know there were Shiites and Sunnis. So yes, my knowledge was greater than theirs.