Comments on: Great Sense of Humor

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:00:48 +0000

What's good for the Rush Limbaugh geese isn't good for the anti-Rush Limbaugh ganders?

While Obama is not a Magic Negro…unless he owns yet undisclosed supernatural powers….it is certainly true, given Blackwell's Clarence Thomas mindset….that Uncle Tom describes him accurately.

And….once again, frank drives the nail with one swing.

Additionally….we now know with certainty that pre-inauguration Bush-Cheney planned on invading Iraq. It could be that Bush-Cheney's plan to invade and occupy Iraq actually WAS their plan from the beginning to deal with Islamic extremists. 9-11 gave them the excuse to implement their pre-9-11 plan. Ignoring Clarke and other warnings, I think, is best understood from Bush-Cheney's predetermined Iraq policy.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:30:57 +0000

Rev, did you really complain about the Magic Negro song and then call Ken Blackwell an Uncle Tom in the same post ?

LOL. You are a piece of work.

By: Tbomb

Tbomb — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 03:22:02 +0000

Hey Angry! Bush was in office for 20 months ,had 9 PDB's in which the topic of terrorists hitting U.S. targets with hijacked planes was discussed and yet the first words out of his mouth were that"…nobody could have anticipated that terrorists would use planes as weapons to attack the U.S."…Sounds like a guy worried about getting reelected.Oh, and those N.Y.dudes,.the ones entrapped by a very highly paid informant[looking to lose hard time in the bighouse for prior convictions] …..they were, by the FBI's own admittance wannabes who were clueless and no real threat.

By: frank

frank — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:35:15 +0000

Mr. angry conserv,
Let me start by saying that I feel nearly as much contempt for Clinton as Bush. He is a traitor to all working class people. By the time that the bombing of the USS Cole was identified as an Al Qaeda operation, Clinton was a lame duck and didn't want to hand off an ongoing operation to the incoming administration. However, the Clinton administration, especially Richard Clarke, explicitly warned them that Al Qaeda was going to be their #1 security concern. The new Bush administration was apparently not impressed. They apparently weren't impressed with warnings from at least 5 foreign intelligence units, nor the FBI. And, of course, there was that early August PDB explicitly stating that Al Qaeda was determined to attack.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:39:47 +0000

Was Bush demonized by media when he lied us into attacking Iraq?

What I remember was how the media praised and uplifted Bush as a strong and gallant war leader. Even Democrats, you know, like Chris Matthews, said that only "whackjobs on the left" didn't like W. when W. was playing dress-up, grabbing his codpiece.

frank not only starts out rational, larry…..he is rational.

average says this…

"But you have to admit had he announced to the American people that their was a plot to hijack planes and do what was done he would have been demonized."

You mean like how W. was demonized with that 90% approval rating when he lied us into Iraq? Like that, you mean?

The laugh, if you want to call it that, is how revisionist thinking starts the Bush-Cheney administration, conveniently, on Sept. 12th, 2001. Funny how that all works.

By: angry conserv

angry conserv — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:30:24 +0000

Larry,
I am no fan of Bush but we could argue untill the cows come home about who is more responsible Clinton or Bush for allowing 9/11 to succeed. But you have to admit had he announced to the American people that their was a plot to hijack planes and do what was done he would have been demonized
and ridiculed from all quarters. Hell it is still going on. A few days ago I listened to K. Obermann riducle the very idea that assholes convicted in New York for planning to bomb a New York airport were a threat He blew the whole idea off as ludicrous .

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:15:54 +0000

You always start out so rationally, frank.

By: frank

frank — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:48:37 +0000

Mr. angry conserv,
The difference is that the attacks on Clinton were personal. They tried to destroy him by digging up dirt on his business deals and his sexual proclivities. Those attacking Bush did so on the basis of his political decisions, like ignoring the warnings about Al Qaeda, and invading Iraq instead meting out justice to the perpetrators of 9/11.

By: angry conserv

angry conserv — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:54:51 +0000

I agree the ditty is in bad taste but that doesnt excuse one who claims to
oppose such verbage to do the same thing. Am I to understand because the Reps. received only 5% of the black vote that proves those who find no problem with the parody are wrong?
I agree that the Right was over the top on their hate Clinton campain and although Bush gave his enemies more ammunition the lib side is every bit as quilty of attacking Bush regardless of what he said did or didnt

By: frank

frank — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:42:40 +0000

I, too, like consistency, but it is easier to be humorous when one doesn't confine oneself to the high road. But it will be interesting to see how the GOP reinvents itself from the current debacle. The Democratic party spent its time in the wilderness by becoming the party of the financial sector, leaving its traditional constituency disappointed, but with nowhere else to go. If the Republican party were smart, it would redefine itself as a truly conservative party, return to its isolationist roots, reject the unitary executive nonsense, and become a party most interested in preserving and protecting the Constitution.
But I think the Rev is right that the Republicans will do all they can to derail the Obama presidency. And once again, the Democrats will let it be done. As the recent release of LBJ tapes by his library indicates, LBJ knew that Nixon's team was sabotaging the 68 Vietnam peace talks, but "for the good of the country" did not bring this information to the public in time for the election. Nixon was subsequently pardoned "for the good of the country". Reagan's team sabotaged Carter's attempts at securing the release of the Iranian hostages. With the held of the compliant Democrats, this was swept under the rug. Iran-Contra was also defused with the help of Lee Hamilton (the Republican's favorite choice to head any inquiry) and by Clinton's refusal to pursue the investigation and risk any display of partisanship, again, "for the good of the country". And, I would wager that Obama, like Clinton, will issue a pass for Bush and the members of his administration whom have violated their oaths of office, our laws, and international law "for the good of the country". It is interesting to speculate what our country would be like today if the Democrats had had the courage to uphold our Constitution instead of patronizing the electorate as if we were children.