The lies are only part of it. Cheney and Bush are war criminals.

And more lies to cover up the lies meant to cover up the lies about the war.

The Washington Post - fellators of the D.C. aristocracy

Hey, Saddam isn't in power anymore. The surge obviously worked.

Can't wait for his next gig.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out moonbat.

bulldg4life: Hey, Saddam isn't in power anymore. The surge obviously worked.

Whut?

Link (new window)

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The Iraqi regime never used WMD's against its own people! Lies!

/Baghdad Bob

bulldg4life: Hey, Saddam isn't in power anymore. The surge obviously worked.

I was in the Surge, so I'm getting a kick out of your replies.

Seriously, at this point, it would be more re-assuring if Cheney and Rumsfeld just came out and knew the WMD threat was bullshiat and they knew it. A few lying, callous, chickenhawk assholes I can wrap my brain around.

Thousands of unqualified idiots analyzing intel for the CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, NIMA, etc, etc. scares the living shiat out of me.

The lies aren't stopping. Expect the Iraq and Afghan fiasco to go on well into your great-grandchildrens' lifetimes farkers. All we have to look forward to is the inevitable invasion of Iran. The War on Terror will end around the same time the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty end. Never.

This guy is shown the door, and a certified purveyor of Whargarrrble like Krauthammer gets to stay? Yeesh.

Now we have new lies and liars. Politicians, it's all about the power.

Pechorin: Expect the Iraq and Afghan fiasco to go on well into your great-grandchildrens' lifetimes farkers.

What if I die alone and childless? That'd put a kink in your theory, wouldn't it? Sucker!

Phil Herup: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out moonbat.

Haha, you're awesome. Cheers!

SmedIndy: This guy is shown the door, and a certified purveyor of Whargarrrble like Krauthammer gets to stay? Yeesh.

It's because the Washington Post is the servant of the Communazi George Soros ACORN.

bulldg4life: Hey, Saddam isn't in power anymore. The surge obviously worked.

Too bad that bin Laden guy that supposedly masterminded those attacks in New York never got caught, killed, whatever.

But hey, at least Bush and Co made something out of their idiocy, right?

FTFA: ...it's now very clear that the Bush years were all about kicking the can down the road - either ignoring problems or, even worse, creating them and not solving them. This was true of a huge range of issues including the economy, energy, health care, global warming - and of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

TofuTheAlmighty: The Washington Post - fellators of the D.C. aristocracy

Phil Herup: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out moonbat.


Maybe one of you sarcastic geniuses would care to address some of the actual points in the article instead of snidely casting Hannity-esque platitudes. Hell, I'd be satisfied just to watch you try to refute any of the points made in the paragraph I quoted.

Car_Ramrod: Pechorin: Expect the Iraq and Afghan fiasco to go on well into your great-grandchildrens' lifetimes farkers.

What if I die alone and childless? That'd put a kink in your theory, wouldn't it? Sucker!

Hmmm... touche.

SmedIndy: certified purveyor of Whargarrrble like Krauthammer gets to stay?



Yeah him sure is stupid... dang. What in the hell was they thinkin'?

Dr. Krauthammer is certified... Board Certified that is.

chaoswolf: But hey, at least Bush and Co made something out of their idiocy, right?

And can you believe how much Obama wants to spend on healthcare?

Phil Herup: SmedIndy: certified purveyor of Whargarrrble like Krauthammer gets to stay?



Yeah him sure is stupid... dang. What in the hell was they thinkin'?

Dr. Krauthammer is certified... Board Certified that is.

Would you like a list of his false predictions?

Barricaded Gunman: Maybe one of you sarcastic geniuses would care to address some of the actual points in the article instead of snidely casting Hannity-esque platitudes. Hell, I'd be satisfied just to watch you try to refute any of the points made in the paragraph I quoted.

You misunderstood me. D.C. aristocracy = unelected, entrenched cadre who believe bipartisanship is A) letting Republicans always get their way and B) an end rather than a means to an end. WaPo is terribly retarded for firing Froomkin. He was just about their only columnist willing to call bullshiat regardless by whom it was peddled.

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: ...it's now very clear that the Bush years were all about kicking the can down the road - either ignoring problems or, even worse, creating them and not solving them. This was true of a huge range of issues including the economy, energy, health care, global warming - and of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

TofuTheAlmighty: The Washington Post - fellators of the D.C. aristocracy

Phil Herup: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out moonbat.


Maybe one of you sarcastic geniuses would care to address some of the actual points in the article instead of snidely casting Hannity-esque platitudes. Hell, I'd be satisfied just to watch you try to refute any of the points made in the paragraph I quoted.


Don't bother asking Phil to say something intelligent. It won't work. I give it 75% odds that he will just post that picture of the screaming Acorn lady at some point in this thread and feel like he won the argument.

TofuTheAlmighty, your point. Missed it I did. Mea culpa.

The post used to have two "must-reads" for me that balanced each other perfectly: Center-Left Froomkin's White House Watch and Center Right Kurtz's Media Watch Column.

Now Froomkin gets canned and Kurtz is trending ever righter, which means there s very little reason to type "www.washingtonpost.com" into my browser anymore

Of course one more lie to add to the list of many is the Post's stated reason for getting rid of Froomkin. "Political position had nothing to do with it."

Yeah, right.

Magorn: The post used to have two "must-reads" for me that balanced each other perfectly: Center-Left Froomkin's White House Watch and Center Right Kurtz's Media Watch Column.

Now Froomkin gets canned and Kurtz is trending ever righter, which means there s very little reason to type "www.washingtonpost.com" into my browser anymore

Kurtz has never been about watching the media. He throws some in to look honest, but he is a right wing shill. I have no idea how he gets the respect he does.

Phil Herup: SmedIndy: certified purveyor of Whargarrrble like Krauthammer gets to stay?



Yeah him sure is stupid... dang. What in the hell was they thinkin'?

Dr. Krauthammer is certified... Board Certified that is.

Didn't say he wasn't smart - just said he spews total nonsense most of the time.

bulldg4life: chaoswolf: But hey, at least Bush and Co made something out of their idiocy, right?

And can you believe how much Obama wants to spend on healthcare?

I'll judge Obama's spending at the end of this term. If the deficit is higher than it was when he took office, I'll consider him as much a failure as I consider Bush.

"This is not a repeat from 1974..."

chaoswolf: bulldg4life: chaoswolf: But hey, at least Bush and Co made something out of their idiocy, right?

And can you believe how much Obama wants to spend on healthcare?

I'll judge Obama's spending at the end of this term. If the deficit is higher than it was when he took office, I'll consider him as much a failure as I consider Bush.

Deficit will be higher. NOBODY could make it lower with what he inherited. Not even an Obama voter, but you will be disappointed.


The Bush damage is HUGE and far reaching.

Lies about the war and lies to cover up the lies about the war..."

A vanguard, if you will.

Lost Thought 00: Can't wait for his next gig.

He and Matt Taibbi are going to start the first hydroelectric plant powered entirely by high-volume spittle ejection.

chaoswolf: bulldg4life: chaoswolf: But hey, at least Bush and Co made something out of their idiocy, right?

And can you believe how much Obama wants to spend on healthcare?

I'll judge Obama's spending at the end of this term. If the deficit is higher than it was when he took office, I'll consider him as much a failure as I consider Bush.

You have every right to that opinion, but it seems to me as though your metric for success/failure doesn't make any sense. Your judgment of the size of the deficit at the end of Bush/Obama's terms needs to be counterbalanced by your judgment of what we got for that spending.

Example:

If the deficit was 1 trillion (for simplicity's sake) at the end of Bush's term, and all we have to show for it is two mismanaged wars, an invasive internal surveillance program, and prescription drug benefits for seniors, is that really better than if Obama runs up a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit and manages to completely reform healthcare, improve our energy infrastructure, and create a vastly upgraded national rail system (all this is theoretical)?

You have to take into account costs and benefits.

Gulper Eel: Matt Taibbi

Matt Taibbi's take on Goldman Sach's in the Rolling Stone shluld be read by everybody.

mikeandeichmann: chaoswolf: bulldg4life: chaoswolf: But hey, at least Bush and Co made something out of their idiocy, right?

And can you believe how much Obama wants to spend on healthcare?

I'll judge Obama's spending at the end of this term. If the deficit is higher than it was when he took office, I'll consider him as much a failure as I consider Bush.

You have every right to that opinion, but it seems to me as though your metric for success/failure doesn't make any sense. Your judgment of the size of the deficit at the end of Bush/Obama's terms needs to be counterbalanced by your judgment of what we got for that spending.

Example:

If the deficit was 1 trillion (for simplicity's sake) at the end of Bush's term, and all we have to show for it is two mismanaged wars, an invasive internal surveillance program, and prescription drug benefits for seniors, is that really better than if Obama runs up a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit and manages to completely reform healthcare, improve our energy infrastructure, and create a vastly upgraded national rail system (all this is theoretical)?

You have to take into account costs and benefits.

I'm currently finishing up paying off debt I created when I was younger and stupider. A 1.1 trillion dollar deficit is stupid and would be akin to a drug addicted college kid with new credit cards.

And I'm not stupid enough to believe that the government we have has the intellectual capacity to manage ANY of your theoretical goals. Therefore, reducing the deficit left by the last 8 years of neo-con retardation should be the primary goal.

IF the Obama administration and the spineless farks in congress right now can make things better in those other areas while they do so, then I'll stand up and applaud, be shocked and then pleased that I did vote for him.

chaoswolf: mikeandeichmann: chaoswolf: bulldg4life: chaoswolf: But hey, at least Bush and Co made something out of their idiocy, right?

And can you believe how much Obama wants to spend on healthcare?

I'll judge Obama's spending at the end of this term. If the deficit is higher than it was when he took office, I'll consider him as much a failure as I consider Bush.

You have every right to that opinion, but it seems to me as though your metric for success/failure doesn't make any sense. Your judgment of the size of the deficit at the end of Bush/Obama's terms needs to be counterbalanced by your judgment of what we got for that spending.

Example:

If the deficit was 1 trillion (for simplicity's sake) at the end of Bush's term, and all we have to show for it is two mismanaged wars, an invasive internal surveillance program, and prescription drug benefits for seniors, is that really better than if Obama runs up a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit and manages to completely reform healthcare, improve our energy infrastructure, and create a vastly upgraded national rail system (all this is theoretical)?

You have to take into account costs and benefits.

I'm currently finishing up paying off debt I created when I was younger and stupider. A 1.1 trillion dollar deficit is stupid and would be akin to a drug addicted college kid with new credit cards.

And I'm not stupid enough to believe that the government we have has the intellectual capacity to manage ANY of your theoretical goals. Therefore, reducing the deficit left by the last 8 years of neo-con retardation should be the primary goal.

And it would lead to economic disaster. Seriously.

IF the Obama administration and the spineless farks in congress right now can make things better in those other areas while they do so, then I'll stand up and applaud, be shocked and then pleased that I did vote for him.

They cannot and will not lower the deficit in the next 4 years.

Here's a tip, dummies:

If you START OFF with a bank account that's in the red, there is no possible way you can turn it around in a very short period of time unless you STOP ALL SPENDING IMMEDIATELY and put all your effort into making money to fill up your account.

Given that it's not possible to run a country by not spending anything, there's no way to completely erase the deficit in four short years, even if Obama was some kind of money-making fool.

In fact, it may not ever be possible, since it's so much harder for a country to make money than spend it. Regardless of the party in power.

Yall suck at math.

If I'm spending $200 on pot, $250 on booze and I've got $10000 worth of debt at the start of the year guess what happens if I cut my booze and pot intake by 50% and use that savings to pay off debt?

So if I have a 1 trillion dollar deficit, all I have to do is find the areas where I'm throwing money away on crap and reduce that.

This is NOT rocket science.

This will NOT cause the economy to collapse.

Make some simple laws:
Politicians get no raises until the budget is balanced.
Politicians get an immediate 50% pay cut.
All federal money to the arts is tossed.
Churches will be taxed as any other business.
Reduce defense spending by 50%.

There. I just gave you the money to reduce the federal deficit by a considerable amount.

And I'm not asking for the deficit to disappear in
I don't think that's too much to ask considering Bush was able to crank it up to where it was in 8 short years.

PascalsGhost: chaoswolf: bulldg4life: chaoswolf: But hey, at least Bush and Co made something out of their idiocy, right?

And can you believe how much Obama wants to spend on healthcare?

I'll judge Obama's spending at the end of this term. If the deficit is higher than it was when he took office, I'll consider him as much a failure as I consider Bush.

Deficit will be higher. NOBODY could make it lower with what he inherited. Not even an Obama voter, but you will be disappointed.


The Bush damage is HUGE and far reaching.


Did they try just shaving it and letting it grow back? What about using conditioner?

Wow... no clue what happened to my last post.

The missing text would have made the post this:

And I'm not asking for the deficit to disappear in 4 years. I'm only asking for it to be reduced from the level Obama inherited.

I don't think that's too much to ask considering Bush was able to crank it up to where it was in 8 short years.

Didn't read the article, but I'm so glad that Mr. Froomkin called out Wolfowitz, Perl, Fieth, Krystal and the other Zionist Neocons who got us into our interminable war for Israel.

Oh, wait.

He blamed it on Bush and Cheney, while praising the work of reporters, the majority of whose names rather resemble his.

I'm shocked.

chaoswolf: Yall suck at math.

If I'm spending $200 on pot, $250 on booze and I've got $10000 worth of debt at the start of the year guess what happens if I cut my booze and pot intake by 50% and use that savings to pay off debt?

So if I have a 1 trillion dollar deficit, all I have to do is find the areas where I'm throwing money away on crap and reduce that.


Your analogy is flawed. If you want to use a more apt analogy, think of it like having $500,000 debt that includes a mortgage, car loan, student loans, credit card loans, etc.

Now, if you were to reduce your debt, you could sell your house or car loan, which would be a significant part, but that would drastically change your lifestyle as well. You'd be without your own home and without your own car.

On the otherhand, you could get another loan ontop of that $500k you already owe, which sounds insane, but if you use the additional loan to keep yourself afloat, and then make good use of the money, like expanding your business or getting better educated for a better paying job, then you can hopefully continue to live the lifestyle you've been living.

That's not to say cutting back on some things isn't a bad idea. Maybe instead of the $100 a month gym membership, you go to the Y for half the price. But how many people do you really think can go out of debt by cutting spending? If your debt is $500k, you're not going to save yourself by cutting out the nonessentials. You're going to need to get rid of that car and house. Are you willing to let go of the car and house (ie social security and defense)? It may take getting rid of the BMW and getting the Civic instead. You'll live with less worries, but you won't be the envy of the neighborhood any longer. Is the US willing to let it go? Is the US willing to no longer be the greatest military power in the world so they have less worries in other parts?

he's going to land on his feet. and he wont be drawing traffic to a neocon publication anymore, which is great. mr. froomkin is an analytical sledgehammer. if he could just get into the whole brevity thing he'd really have some influence.

moralpanic: Your analogy is flawed. If you want to use a more apt analogy, think of it like having $500,000 debt that includes a mortgage, car loan, student loans, credit card loans, etc.

You're implying that the government spends a huge amount on actual necessities rather than frivolous crap. I don't believe you are correct at all.


Now, if you were to reduce your debt, you could sell your house or car loan, which would be a significant part, but that would drastically change your lifestyle as well. You'd be without your own home and without your own car.

Or I could sell my 6 bedroom house that I live in alone and move into a 2 bedroom house which lowers my mortgage payment AND my property taxes. I can also sell the Lamborghini and buy a Toyota, thus lowering my car payment AND insurance payments. I then take ALL that savings and pay off my student loan.

Why YES, I am one of those psychopaths that think People Should Live Within Their Means.



On the otherhand, you could get another loan ontop of that $500k you already owe, which sounds insane, but if you use the additional loan to keep yourself afloat, and then make good use of the money, like expanding your business or getting better educated for a better paying job, then you can hopefully continue to live the lifestyle you've been living.

Someone with 500K debt is probably not intelligent enough in the first place that MORE debt is going to let them fix anything. I hold the same belief toward my government. MORE debt does nothing but dig one deeper. And where does that take us? To bullshiat bailouts like we've seen this past year+.


That's not to say cutting back on some things isn't a bad idea. Maybe instead of the $100 a month gym membership, you go to the Y for half the price. But how many people do you really think can go out of debt by cutting spending? If your debt is $500k, you're not going to save yourself by cutting out the nonessentials. You're going to need to get rid of that car and house. Are you willing to let go of the car and house (ie social security and defense)? It may take getting rid of the BMW and getting the Civic instead. You'll live with less worries, but you won't be the envy of the neighborhood any longer. Is the US willing to let it go? Is the US willing to no longer be the greatest military power in the world so they have less worries in other parts?

The US better be prepared for that or we're screwed. We need to take care of ourselves first now. Once we have our OWN house in order, then we can help others with theirs.

To do otherwise is to stay on the same path of stupidity, greed and ignorance that we've been riding for far too long.

flavor of the month: he's going to land on his feet. and he wont be drawing traffic to a neocon publication anymore, which is great. mr. froomkin is an analytical sledgehammer. if he could just get into the whole brevity thing he'd really have some influence.



flavor of the month..... moonbat of the day

Phil Herup: flavor of the month: he's going to land on his feet. and he wont be drawing traffic to a neocon publication anymore, which is great. mr. froomkin is an analytical sledgehammer. if he could just get into the whole brevity thing he'd really have some influence.



flavor of the month..... moonbat of the day

You really have no life at all do you Phil?

Yeah.

Too bad he can't name one.

Difference is policies are NOT 'lies' and decisions based on information assumed by all to be true are not lies, either.

Columnist is a bitter hack POS.

Let me correct that: a bitter, hack, UNEMPLOYED POS.