Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Are they really this dumb?

I am a regular BlueOregon reader. I know, I know, they try to keep black people from voting. I keep saying that so it must be true.

But despite their racial prejudices, I keep going back. Why you ask? Maybe it's the fact that they champion the first amendment but have banned me (and others) from commenting on their site. Maybe it's how they pass themselves off as psuedo-sophisticates by ending a good number of posts with the word "discuss." What follows in the comments consists of "Bush sucks" and isn't much of a discussion. Or, quite possibly, it's that Kari Chisholm is constantly lauded in the Fishwrapper as a "media consultant" when he is a partisan hack in every sense of the word.

Anyways, BlueOregon has a new cartoonist who looks to be around 10 years old. Far be it from me to attack a child, I just feel bad that he's been indoctrinated this young. His poorly drawn cartoons consist of, wait for it... "Bush sucks."

But to get a real taste of the intelligence and sophistication over at the segregation loving lunch counter, you have to read this post by Cody Hoesly. I'm not sure which is funniest, the fact that he cites a movie as evidence that we will not have peace for the next 100 years:

Now you only need see Syriana for the latest reminder that global peace doesn't stand a chance for at least a couple hundred years.

Hey Cody, it's a MOVIE. You know, pretend, make-believe. Or that he thinks Google Earth is going to bring us world peace. (The thesis of his post) He seems convinced that before Google came around with their satellite pictures no one could find those secret military installations that various countries were hiding. So I guess now you go into the Pentagon and see a bunch of military analysts hundled around their Dell computer using Google to find secret bases.

I'm sure that Rumsfeld is right now being yelled at for not thinking of this whole "satellite" thing sooner...

Try not smoking pot before you blog Cody.

As for you Kari, you even deleted my comment from you post that you started with This is a personal appeal to our right-wing readers:. Did having something intelligent to say interupt the realistic calls for impeachment?

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

THIS WAS ON KARI'S BLOG:

If these powers had been available pre-9-11, taps would have produced conversations to Afghanistan by two of the terrorist hijackers and likely alerted authorities in time to stop the attack.

As for your questions to us right-wingers,

Am I really sure - really, really sure - that you want George W. Bush to have expanded presidential powers this far? Yes

To have established a precedent that the president's national security apparatus can spy on any American citizen, living anywhere in America, with only his or her own staff to provide a check on that power? Yes

If oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, or Halliburton are determined to hijack jetliners and ram them into buildings, you're darned skippy I hope the authorities find out about it by any means necessary before innocent lives are lost. The powers relate to terrorism.

While looking to the future to what might happen, and planning your moves ahead of time in chess is a necessary talent, that doesn't apply in this case. The difference? You are playing your own game off the board entirely.


How did this post stand? WOW, it is dead on. JP

Daniel said...

You have a source link for that one? I'd like to see it.

How about his though:

Our president, Kari Chisholm, is an experienced political hack...
http://www.mandatemedia.com/

Anonymous said...

Google Earth isnt real time is it? I tried looking at bagdhad and it was a nice, happy non blown up place. As far as that dumb ass kid on blue oregon. He should hang.

Jeff said...

I've never understood deleting comments. I guess for the blue people, free speach is only free if it's what they want spoken.

Anonymous said...

Right-wingers! Listen up!
Kari Chisholm: By "KATI" (God I love how he spells the name)

It was in the posts to his stupid rant.

Daniel said...

The online satellite program on google maps isn't real time. I haven't played with google earth yet.

Bottom line: The military has better technology than google. To think otherwise is just stupid.

Dare!PDX said...

As someone who not only is blocked (as is my home IP regardless of the name used)but has had posts erased I can tell you BlueOregon is not a place for debate but cheer leading.

By the way - my big black-ball from Blustopo Oregon occured when I answer the question (no obscenity or disprespect involved) someone who asked "name one example of government waste." It really cracks me up that was what put them over the edge.

I have theories of what the site really represents which I'll save for when I have more time.

MAX Redline said...

Um, yes, it appears they are.

You know, between the two Judiciary committees and all of the other folks involved, I estimate that there must have been at least 40 other people in the loop on the surveillance. But my estimate is probably wrong. There were probably many more.

Anonymous said...

KARI WOULD HAVE A STROKE OVER THIS ONE:
Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...
Mark Alexander

The Left is at it again.

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.

Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.

Here are their accusations:

Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)

Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)

Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)

Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.

Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.

The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:

President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After the 2000 election:

When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.

So, Ted, Dick and Harry € what's your real agenda?

Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.

For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.

In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?

Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.

(Editor's Note: This essay is based on a Patriot Alert (http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=340) that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998" into your Internet search engine.)

One of only a few sane Democrat voices:

"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)

UPDATE: December 2005 -- The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:

"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean

"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry

More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

Dare!PDX said...

Now thats what I call a post.

Ric said...

Don't forget to watch the Washington State democrat pages for insight and wisdom :-)

Like this magnet
You can see the original web page here - imaged by a radio host Dori Monson

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you people are blocked from Blue Oregon. You're a bunch of fricking haters, extremists. Actually, you help the democrats because you're so fricking extreme far right. Keep it up people!!!

Chris McMullen said...

"You're a bunch of fricking haters, extremists."

Yeah right Anon, calling all Christians hypocrites via a burning fish sticker isn't extreme? F___ Bush stickers and signs isn't hateful?

Don't you understand how stupid you sound?

Anonymous said...

wow, you had to post that message under anonymous. You must really believe in your party.....