Comments on: Lies under oaf

By: glenstonecottage

glenstonecottage — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:07:02 +0000

Yeah, Peanut, beautiful work on the graphics.

You know, I used to think of s.z. as being my dream girl, but lately… oh, never mind!

By: SullyWatch

SullyWatch — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:26:37 +0000

We loved the pic too! The really sad thing is that it took a second to realize it was supposed to be a joke …

By: Democratic Veteran

Democratic Veteran — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:37:53 +0000

Blindfolded, they step on that Land Mine

A WaPost Editorial about why Condi should testify: after 9/11 everything is different. On the other hand, maybe she shouldn’t because well it’s really not….Presidents are more likely to surround themselves with political loyalists, depriving themselv…

By: vachon

vachon — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:01:20 +0000

Your graphic is too cool! I cracked up when I saw it.

I have to admit I wanted her to at least hold her own on 60 Minutes since it would make Clarke even more credible and hopefully would have elevated the entire discussion concerning Iraq. But geez, there were so many “tells” all through her interview I had to feel bad for her (but not that bad). I think she spoke 3 sentences where she didn’t rapidly blink her eyes or shake her head no to in the whole thing. With all the bucks floating around the GOP you’d think she could hve been coached a little better than that.

By: Njorl

Njorl — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 07:20:02 +0000

There is a very good reason the White House can’t let Condi testify under oath … It would be tantamount to subourning perjury.

By: Peanut

Peanut — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:16:35 +0000

I agree, Xan — it’s what so many BushCo apologists conveniently forget when they try to blame yet another of the Miserable Failure’s miserable failures on the Clinton admin.

Clarke mentioned it a few times. When Clinton had a chance to bomb terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, congress, the media and of course the GOP attack machine screaming about “wagging the dog” were obsessed with Lewinsky.

It WILL emerge how much the fanatical RW’s determination to block Clinton’s initiatives simply because they hated him hurt the nation. It continued when the Bu’ush Party sued its way into taking office and it’s a big reason the 9/11 attacks weren’t prevented.

By: Xan

Xan — Tue, 30 Mar 2004 03:26:38 +0000

It has been repeated over and over again by every Bushco flack who has been hustled in front of a camera: We didn’t like the Clinton approach to terrorism because it “only” relied on a law-enforcement approach. We wanted a more COMPREHENSIVE attack on terrorism that would wipe it off the face of the earth with military intervention.

The difference being that: (1) the Clinton/law enforcement/covert tactics approach WORKED, as witness the Millenium Attacks and others that never happened, and (2) while devising (as this post details) the supposedly more effective absolutist approach, they let all the law-enforcement/covert tactics stuff go by the wayside. No “battle stations”, daily meetings, “shaking the trees”, etc.

THIS, imho, is the connection they are trying desperately to obfuscate here. These guys are slick–they hide things not by not saying them but by saying so MUCH that the important details get lost in the mess.