From the Mouth of Babes
Posted October 26th, 2006 by Chip Bok
Click Image to Enlarge.
Nancy Pelosi actually said this. It appeared at the bottom of a story by Faye Fiore on October 21 in the L.A. Times.
Micky Kaus wondered why it's not on A1 of the New York Times if "the Democrats have given up the special interests" .
October 26th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Prediction: If Pelosi becomes Majority Leader she'll be the subject of more Bok's cartoons in the first 6 months of her term than Bush was in his first six years.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
actually, hasn't she already with just this cartoon?
just a joke, right-wingers…nor need to "fact check."
wait, i made a funny again! right-wingers and fact checking! hahahahahaha!
October 27th, 2006 at 2:34 am
Would hate to see this book writer get elected:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaw.htm
October 27th, 2006 at 6:56 am
If you like Webb's stuff, you might want to see if can find a copy of Lynne Cheney's novel " Sisters" or this classic prose from Bill O'Reilly's novel "Those Who Trespass: A Novel of Murder and Television." :
Robo used his “product” only occasionally, but tonight was special. He had two fifteen-year-old girls who would do anything for the drug,, and he was determined to exploit the situation.
“Say, baby, put that pipe down and get my pipe up,” Robo said to one of the girls. She was so intoxicated she had trouble standing, but Robo was her sugar daddy, and as he sat in a filthy, imitation, leather couch, there in the living room of a run-down three-bedroom apartment, she obediently performed oral sex on him.
Five feet away, the other teenage girl sat on a mattress on the floor and watched, greedily sucking on the crack pipe Robo had passed to her. Edgar looked over and grinned, showing yellow, decaying teeth. Obviously, he preferred oral sex to oral hygiene.
“You’re next, girl, and I want you to do her too,” he ordered. As Robo took the crack pipe back the girl groggily nodded her consent. Inhaling deeply, Robo blew the cocaine smoke out through his nose and mouth. The bitter taste left him feeling powerful, energized, and free of worry. He was bad and he was flush.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:38 am
"Would hate to see this book writer get elected:"
Didn't realize the people in your post are running for congress.
Interesting since you and kj are the ones who attack people for changing the subject.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:20 am
The cartoon was about Pelosi. Your comment was about Webb.
Who's off topic ?
The illusion and rhetoric of conservative moral authority is always on topic here.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:33 am
damn, mencken, you are making me redundant here! you are more than capable of whacking these right-wingers around quite easily with what is surely their 'kryptonite,' logic and reason.
bravo!
btw, compos, if you read anything other than drudge, you'd have seen that mr. webb, who served in vietnam unlike bush, cheney and his opponent, mr. allen, said in an interview today said that those scenes described actually HAPPENED and were witnessed by him in vietnam and he was, as all writers of fiction do, weaving real things that happened to him or that he witnessed into his writing. can you follow that?
October 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
"With less than three weeks before an election that will decide control of Congress, the Democrats are within tantalizing reach of a House win that would almost certainly make Pelosi the first female speaker of the House — second in line to the presidency — and the first from California"
It was about Pelosi AND the democrats taking over. But of course you already knew that. I'll leave you two to spit your cantankerous nonsense at Burns and others.
I wonder how many people you have already chased away from here?
October 27th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
It sounds like everyone's a real winner down in Virginia this election season.
If the topic is Nancy Pelosi, it's curious that no one has said anything about the work she does. Even the gushing LA Times article pretty much said she was a smart dresser and efficient, if hyperactive, mother.
I don't know anything about her except for the sound bytes I see on TV.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
compos: yet again, a right-winger fails to address the counter to his charge. in this case, you have NOTHING to say about webb's descripiton of why he wrote those scenes. instead, you get mad that mencken and i are so darn mean and we're just a bunch of stupidheads and you're going home and takin' your ball with you!
hmmmm, sounds like you right-wingers on here are "cut and runners," eh?
and larry, you are damned funny and you seem to have become the "sensible" center on this here blog. cheers to you!
October 27th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Why he wrote those scenes???
"– Lost Soldiers: “A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”
There is no reason for this to be in his book except to appeal to the liberal element.
Whatever, I've watched as you've attacked every poster here instead of just osting your viewpoint. Too bad Bok doesn't see the need to block you from his blog.
October 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
"There is no reason for this to be in his book except to appeal to the liberal element." Well shoot compos, I would have never known about this unless you brought it up. You're a classic enabler.
"Too bad Bok doesn't see the need to block you from his blog."
Democracy and free speech can be damned inconvenient sometimes can't it compos? You just proved how intellectually vacant the right can be sometimes.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
so true, mencken, so true…i called them intellectually bankrupt before but vacant will do.
compos, did you read what i wrote? mr webb, who SERVED IN VIETNAM, said that he WITNESSED this or something very close to it while he was serving. it's a BOOK, anyway. who cares what he wrote in a BOOK? as mencken has said then lynne cheney and scooter libby (who wrote a book filled with pedophilia AND bestiality) must be evil, perverted or whatever it is you think webb is for having such a scene in his book! i'd tell you to grow up but somehow i think that ship has sailed…
it just shows how lamely desperate your party is to attack a man who, btw, served under your GOD, reagan, in this way. lame, lame, lame…of course, having a debate on the ISSUES wouldn't help you guys much, would it? so personal attacks (btw, it is HILARIOUS how you repubs decry the "personal attacks" of the left YET, as the WaPo noted today, ALL the negative personal attack ads are coming from repub candidates. hypocrisy thy name is the modern republican party!) is ALL your kind is left with.
October 27th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Again right on cue, is Lynne Cheney telling Wolf Blitzer that her novel wasn't sexually explicit or contained lesbian situations.
"Holy Cow Wolf, I never said stay the corset!!!"
Maybe she can send a copy to David Savfavian. I understand he's been given a chance to catch up on his reading.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
and like her hubby does, lynne also lied on national tv. there are exerpts on the web of her book "sisters" and it contains "lesbian situations" without question.
this stuff is such red herring and shows how silly the repubs have gotten in their pathological quest to remain in power. who cares what anyone writes in a fiction book?
October 27th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
oh, look what i found!!
i'm pretty sure the guy who wrote this is a repub:
“James Webb’s new novel paints a portrait of a modern Vietnam charged with hopes for the future but haunted by the ghosts of its war-torn past. It captures well the lingering scars of the war, and exposes the tension between the dynamism of a new generation and the invisible bondage of an older generation for whom wartime allegiances, and animosities, are rendered no less vivid by the passage of time. A novel of revenge and redemption that tells us much about both where Vietnam is headed and where it has been.”
— Senator John McCain
October 28th, 2006 at 5:33 am
Someone is going to have to remind me again how lesbian love scenes are equivalent to the man/boy scene.
In any case, I guess if it happens in Bangkok it's okay for our elected officials to dwell on. Maybe Gary Glitter or that fellow who thinks he killed Jon Bonet should run for something.
October 28th, 2006 at 8:06 am
awww, there goes the "sensible" center. i had such hopes for you, larry.
again, to dwell on such a silly issue, is well…silly!
but the point is not to play some equivalency game. the point is that, yet again, the repubs attack someone for doing something and then one finds that a repub or a few repubs have done the same thing.
and seriously, it's vietnam, not bangkok, i believe. and mr. webb said he WITNESSED something like this in vietnam. is there not a diffference between someone seeing something and then incorporating that into a fictional account and lynne cheney dreaming up lesbian encounters?
this is such a ridiculous debate to be having, and again, shows that the repubs will go to any depths to retain their power. highly unbecoming for the "party of limited government."
October 28th, 2006 at 8:41 am
My point exactly was that the tit-for-tat defense you and Wolf are using is ridiculous. It could be avoided if anyone actually read the novel then showed how a man sucking his child's genitals fits into the story artistically or meaningfully.
I also wanted to underscore the enlightened left's strange tendency to harangue the Cheney's on lesbian issues.
Isn't lesbianism legal and acceptable these days? How does it relate to pedophilia?
October 28th, 2006 at 11:12 am
I think if you look into the man/boy act that's being referenced here, it's nonsexual in it's cultural context no matter how repugnant and unacceptable it may be to Westerners. It's a big big weird, world out there.
Lesbianism legal and acceptable???? I suppose that depends on
where you're standing and who you're talking to. If it's legal and acceptable, that means two woman could smooch away at a Browns game without being harrassed, ejected, or arrested.
You all three of those things would happen.
Now stuff dog bones up your butt, urinate and vomit on the people in front of you at the game… that's the definition of legal and acceptable.
October 28th, 2006 at 11:33 am
I'm much too lazy to be researching the cultural context of nonsexual weenie sucking in the Far East, but thought someone intent on defending the depicting the practice would do the legwork for me. Apparently, no one knows exactly how it fits in with the culture, if it does.
I'm also confused about your attitude concerning lesbians, Mencken. Weren't you the one who authored a previous post smearing Cheney for her novelized lesbian sex scenes? Why the self-righteous hullabaloo about lesbian public kissing?
October 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I'm smearing Lynne Cheney ? Gosh. Look. this administration and its minions have sold themselves on the premise that Bush has the ear of God, that gay marriage is the third sign of the apocalypse, and that somehow they (the Repubs) occupy some sort of moral highground when compared to Democrats and liberals. It was pandering then. It's pandering now.
My only complaint with Lynne Cheney is that she now denies what she wrote is what it is.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
since compos brought this ridiculous thing up in the first place, maybe this will shut him and the drudge's of the world up regarding webb's books.
check out book #5 on the USMC RECOMMENDED book list. do ya think they would have a book that was not true or "obscene?"
http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/reading/modules.php?name=Reading_List&op=booksbytitleletter<r=F
only a dirtbag like drudge would bring up something so STUPID and pointless…
October 30th, 2006 at 2:02 am
Only Drudge and Allen's campaign.
Great find kj….. take the rest of the day off.
October 30th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
well, well, the right-wing chicago tribune admits there is NOTHING to the harry reid "land deal!!"
enjoy, you lurking right-wingers, as you and your flunky solomon for the AP fail yet AGAIN to pin something on reid. meanwhile it's now up to 19 repubs curently under some sort of investigation. you must be very proud.
here's what the trib says:
The tempest that’s been created over Sen. Harry Reid’s Las Vegas real-estate transaction puts me in mind of the famous poet’s famous line “There is no there, there.”
In Reid’s case, the line could be adapted to say: There was no sale there.
For those who haven’t been following this tale, it all stems from a recent Associated Press story. The article reported that Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat as minority leader, may have run afoul of Senate ethics rules by failing to disclose on his ethics forms the 2001 “sale” of Las Vegas real estate he owned with a friend.
There’s only one problem. Reid of Nevada didn’t actually sell the real estate in 2001. What he did was transfer it to—get this—himself and the same friend he bought it with in 1998, a former casino lawyer named Jay Brown. (Read the point-by-point description provided by Reid's office. Download the point_by_point.doc))
The men transferred the real estate to a limited liability company, or LLC, they controlled called Patrick Lane LLC.
Such tranfers are very common and exceedingly legal. Indeed, many lawyers recommend the step to investors and small business people as a way to shield their personal wealth from liability, as in the event someone is injured or killed on the real estate.
So it’s credible when Reid says that he didn’t disclose a “sale” on his 2001 disclosure form because there was no sale.
When the men sold the real-estate in 2004 for $1.6 million, Reid received about 75 percent of that, between $1.1 million and $1.2. million, according to a Reid aide. His profit, based on his original investment of $400,000 amounted to about $700,000. His 2004 disclosure form doesn’t have the precise figure, saying only that it fell within a certain range. The reporting rules permit such ballparking.
Senate ethics requirements also didn’t require Reid to report on his disclosure form who his real-estate partner was.
But the Washington Post, in an editorial today, took the Nevada senator to task for not making such disclosures. It also, mistakenly, said he no longer owned the land after 2001.
“… That Mr. Reid no longer owned the land, but instead had sold it for an interest in the Patrick Lane Corp, was not some mere ‘technical change,’ as the senator would like to brush it off. It’s an essential element of financial disclosure rules, the purpose of which is to know how and with whom public officials are financially entwined.”
The problem with the Post’s position is, once again, there was no sale. The two men still owned the property though in 2001 it wasn't owned in their names per se but in the name of a legal entity they controlled.
They were even paying property taxes on the real estate in rough proportion to their ownership stakes. The AP story says as much. Not even Democrats are willing to pay real-estate taxes on property they no longer own.
Another problem: there weren’t any ethics rules that required Reid to disclose who his partner was. So he’s being pilloried for not following a regulation that didn’t exist.
It's not typical for lawmakers to go beyond what's required when they file their financial disclosures. For instance, House Speaker Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) didn't reveal on his 2005 disclosure his use of a trust to acquire and sell acreage–his own and other land owned by a partnership he belonged to–to a developer for $4.9 million.
He didn't have to. His lawyer said that instead of disclosing the trust without telling exactly what the trust owned, "Speaker Hastert disclosed the amount of his interest and the location of the property on the Financial Disclosure for the year in which the closing of the transaction occurred."
Getting back to Reid, the Posts suggests that Reid might have wanted to hide his business dealings with Brown, whose name has come up in federal probes as the Washington Post points out, though he has never been charged with wrongdoing.
But Reid and Brown's names could easily be found on real-estate documents on file with Clark County where Las Vegas resides, records accessible to the public, including Republican opposition researchers and investigative journalists. Not exactly the way one would operate if covering one's tracks was the goal.
"Obviously, Republicans are in danger of losing the House and the Senate and are desperate to push out any story that takes their troubles off the front page," said Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman. "The fact is Senator Reid owned the land from 1998 to 2004 and he fully disclosed that fact. If the ethics committee requests a technical correction to Senator Reid's disclosure forms we are happy to provide one."
The Republican National Committee picked up the Post editorial and other unfavorable Reid news coverage, wrapped it up in a press release and sent it out today, hoping to give this story more legs.
But the legs on this story seem very wobbly.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:37 am
Here's what democrats bring:
Insight of a Sergeant Major
(The author, J.D. Pendry, is a retired Army Command Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.)
NO PUNCHES PULLED HERE
Jimmy Carter, you're the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the Runner-in-Chief.
Bill Clinton, you played "ring around the Lewinsky" while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses embolden the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time… the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine sir. You wouldn't amount to a pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqis torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese which led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on you wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we will run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.
American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America's axis of idiots. Your collective stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with -self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war and this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
No Commander in Chief, you don't get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It's your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:38 am
wow, yeah, THAT was a compelling arguement!
my fav part was carter "throwing the shah under the bus!" hahaha! this guy doesn't even know history…i thank him for his service but we overthrew a democratic government in iran, along with a big boost from the british and THEN we install a dictator in the shah and THAT begins the islamic movement against him AND the USA for SUPPORTING a dictator. just like we did in the 80's when we SUPPORTED saddam hussien.
oh, i know facts, annoying facts…
btw, i won't call this guy an idiot or traitor, even though he gives no such quarter to others in his screed. it is really nothing but sad…
October 31st, 2006 at 7:16 pm
"but we overthrew a democratic government in iran, along with a big boost from the british and THEN we install a dictator in the shah and THAT begins the islamic movement against him AND the USA for SUPPORTING a dictator. just like we did in the 80's when we SUPPORTED saddam hussien."
No surprise that the USA is always at fault in your eyes.