February 02, 2005

Fun With Polls

Posted by Michael J. Totten


You're going to war. Who do you want next to you in the trench?
George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, and Christopher Hitchens
John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Jacques Chirac, and Maureen Dowd
  

Free polls from Pollhost.com

It ought to go without saying that this poll is as unscientific as creationism, astrology, and Miss Cleo all roled into one.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at February 2, 2005 11:38 PM

Comments

But more FUN, and obvious.
See Mark Brown, Chicago Sun-Times -- What if Bush is right?

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at February 3, 2005 12:51 AM

Only because of the rewards, dude. Ask a population of monkeys to choose between bananas and feces, you'll get about the same results.

Posted by: Mark Poling at February 3, 2005 01:03 AM

Haha!

Now, down to the serious stuff. Did you, MJT, have dinner with Hitch?

And if so, details please!

Posted by: Fish at February 3, 2005 01:48 AM

Fish,

Dinner, drinks, and chain-smoking. For eight hours. I am just now recovering.

Details to follow.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 3, 2005 02:14 AM

Someone actually chose Kucinic?

How do you even begin to make a dent in that kind of denial.

Posted by: Carlos at February 3, 2005 06:03 AM

And then there was Nancy stare Pelosi... altho I liked the bit where she swallowed the guinea pig whole live on camera...--- Charlie

I found this on Roger's site.This really deserves the LOL dooey.

Posted by: dougf at February 3, 2005 06:28 AM

Since when are Kucinich and Kerry buddies? Since when is Chirac buddies with any of those people? Chirac is not interested in US ideas of left or right, he is interested in one thing - preserving the power of the French state. What makes the Bush camp so annoying, and impossible to trust, is their love for these ridiculous strawman arguments. The war on terrorism is not furthered by playing these stupid partisan games.

Posted by: Vanya at February 3, 2005 06:40 AM

"What makes the Bush camp so annoying, and impossible to trust, is their love for these ridiculous strawman arguments"

Too be fair, I don't think the Bush administration came up with this test.
It is true that the favorite pasttime for a certain type of Bush supporter (many of whom I'd expect better from) seems to be the gleeful, serial destruction of strawmen that live only their minds.
Some Bush detractors also have this tendency but it's (slightly) more forgivable among the opposition on the side that controls all three branches of government, it's significantly less becoming.

My answer: I won't play this silly game (though I have nothing against silly games in general).

Posted by: Michael Farris at February 3, 2005 06:56 AM

Tom Grey -- the Mark Brown op-ed is interesting, but his last point that he might have to vote Republican in 2008 to reward Bush for being right is pretty stupid. In the event that "Bush is right" on Middle East democratization, we nominate a candidate who supported the President on the war -- Hillary Clinton or Evan Bayh.

Posted by: markus rose at February 3, 2005 06:57 AM

Seeing that I write for a website that calls itself "The Ministry of Minor Perfidy," it should be no surprise I chose to fight alongside the milkylicking liberals.

Why?

Because... Kerry, Pelosi and the like are what my esteemed coblogger Buckethead calls spares. They will draw fire to themselves with their incompetence, untimely arguments over theory, and silly white flags while I scoot away to make my escape to a bar in the nearest REMF-occupied town to await the arrival of the real soldiers.

I am a man of steadfast and uwavering cowardice.

Posted by: Johno at February 3, 2005 07:09 AM

I know this isn't part of the polling process, but, honestly, I think both sets of options presented suck.

I'd like to live in a country where option C could be Evan Bayh, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, Bob Graham, and Marty Peretz.

I'll keep Tony Blair and throw in John Howard too, though...

Posted by: SoCalJustice at February 3, 2005 07:33 AM

If I was going to end up in the trench I'd have to pick option B. That way if I had to pick someone up and throw them over a grenade in order to save myself, I wouldn't feel bad about it afterwards.

Posted by: sam at February 3, 2005 07:56 AM

Michael Moore: the world's fattest straw man.

Posted by: Stephen Silver at February 3, 2005 08:13 AM

So, I know that I've been terribly missed... sniff, but I had all sorts of fun things going on which involved extremely long periods of time away from the computer. So I have not been able to enjoy this lovely forum.

Ok, enough of that mushy stuff...

First, in the days of my absence, I didn't get to say "Whoopee! Yay!" and "Good Job!" in response to the election in Iraq on Sunday. It was a damn fine turnout, a well run election (from what I've seen) and a swift kick in the pants for the Insurgency. I don't think that it will end the insurgency, or even take Iraq back from the brink of civil war (60% vs. 40% is not good... at this point the Sunnis are like Democrats, except they like guns).

So, there ya are, my hat is off to Mr. Bush, because while I hold him responsible for every error, he does get to claim responsibility for the good days too.

Also, the economy is doing well, good job Mr. President... (and yes, in fact, I would rather have my money than give it to you for Social Security).

Yet, with all of the good, comes the stupid...

"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges.

I agree! It should be decided by the electorate of each state. I don't agree with the decision made by my fellow Ohioans, but, it's their right and no Judge should get in the way.

You know, for the first part of that Speech, I was proud to have a President, for the first time in a long time...

For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."

NO NO NO NO NO! Bad President, no cookies and milk for you!

Ohio doesn't need your Constitutional Amendemnt. We took care of it ourselves, thank you very much. In fact, so did several other states. So leave New Hampshire, Connecticut and California alone, let them have the freedom to persue their happiness.

"SO MANY OF MY GENERATION, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them."

Nor should the government undermine anyone elses decisions about the way that they are gonna live their life. It is not the governments place to judge moral values, unless they directly impact the life and liberty of another citizen.

So, good job on Iraq and the economy Mr. President. I hope you wake up out of your evangelical fog before you do something terribly hypocritical.

(like saying you know better than the government how to save for your retirement... but the government knows who you should and shouldn't marry)

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 3, 2005 08:15 AM

Toskie, you're a goof. Welcome back.

.

Posted by: Sam_S at February 3, 2005 08:51 AM

Markus, Mark Brown's NEXT article confesses he was only joking in the last line -- guess it's on folk like you?

Still, I think it a reasonable question: WHAT would it take for you to change your vote (next time)?

Um, "not much" for me: a Dem who was believable when they said they were pro-life (instead of Kerry-like belief contrary to votes); a Dem who understood that job creation requires higher profits in profitable companies, wanting even higher profits (eg profits good, job creation follow profits); and especially a Dem who is actually HAPPY when a new democracy is born. (Not like Marc Cooper?)

Is that too much to ask? (I know that our MJT host is NOT for the first one; strongly avoids econ for the second)

I wait for the Hitch report.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at February 3, 2005 09:43 AM

Hmm, in a war, in a trench. Who to pick, who to pick.

Well, I know that Kerry actually served in a war and killed 20 or so dudes, so I know he has experience. On the other hand, I know that Bush has worn a flight suit.

Hmmmmm.

Could we vote on Pickard vs. Kirk instead?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at February 3, 2005 09:44 AM

Rat -

Glad you resurfaced.

For the last little bit I've been wondering if the geophysicists had underestimated the orbital wobble induced by the Sumatra earthquake.

My cats have been fractious. The neighbor's goats have withheld their milk. The damned birds have been scuffling at the bird feeders and wasting seed.

But now that you are back I'm sure that everything will settle down.

Short comment on the possibility that a fundie shadow is falling across the nation:

Bush is calling on government to support programs that work, regardless of their labels. He's not calling for a theocracy. He's making a case that there exists assets we aren't making the best use of.

Just because religion figures in the composition of some charities should not be an automatic disqualifier for government support if the charity does not limit its services based on the religious affiliation of the clients it was established to succor or support.

I'm about as non-LDS as a person can be, but my family has enjoyed the support of our neighbors who are during disaster or lean times. We make it a point to participate in the relief projects organized by our local congregations (LDS churches are organized by geography) and I have tremendous respect for them.

If I perchance hear an LDS parable or a personal testimony while delivering meals or helping someone clean their furniture after a fire, I just remember back to the troubled time I accompanined a great friend of ours to a local women's shelter. It was not a simple case of providing a ride. It turned into an extraction, culminating in an arrest.

The braless, brainless, ill groomed, pigtailed Mother Jones charicature that processed our friend in treated me as if my testicles marked me as big a bastard as the son of a bitch husband that actually drove our friend into the shelter. There are all sorts of religions. Some make it a point to NOT have a deity.

Our friend, and her kids, moved in with us 24 hours later. She couldn't take the religion anymore.

Just my opinion, of course. Welcome back, Ratatosk.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 3, 2005 09:53 AM

Tom Grey -- so you're a pro-life, pro-business, pro-war Democrat? And you differ with the mainstream Republican party on what issues?
Do you have any particular reason for calling yourself a Democrat?

As for me, I'm moderate left on "social" issues, solid left on economic/safety net issues, and a wilsonian-leaning centrist on foreign/military policy questions. Econ issues are important to me, so I could never vote for a Republican unless someone convinced me that the Republicans contempt for the public sector makes sense, intellectually and morally.

Posted by: markus rose at February 3, 2005 10:06 AM

I know this is kind of OT, but check out this article at Pravda.ru, some of you will find it good for a laugh.

http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/14911_Bush.html

Posted by: Mike T. at February 3, 2005 10:19 AM

TmjUtah -- the concerns of Bush's "faith-based" plan are based on the way that it would legitimize employment discrimination, even in non-religious employment positions: for instance, a Muslim group running a soup kitchen with federal funds could refuse to hire a Jew for a cooking or janitorial position.

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7338&c=37

Posted by: markus rose at February 3, 2005 10:20 AM

I voted for Bush and co because I would want them to face the consequences of their decisions to sent people to war.

Posted by: John Philip at February 3, 2005 10:30 AM

Vanya: What makes the Bush camp so annoying, and impossible to trust, is their love for these ridiculous strawman arguments.

Oh, come on. I just thought it was slightly funny, that's all. It's humor at your expense, so I don't expect you to laugh, but gimme a break. Obviously I was not being serious.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 3, 2005 10:33 AM

TmjUtah,

I think you misunderstood... I don't mind if faith based orgs do charity... in fact I think that charity belongs in the private sector, either as non-profit secular or as non-profit "faith-based" groups.

My only problem with Mr. Bush's religion, is in the legal arena. Specifically, the constitutional amendment on Gay Marriage(I think his stance on stem-cell research is luddite-like, but that will probably be fixed with the next C-i-C).

The traditional Republican stance on more federal involvement is usually negative. Traditionly, Republicans allow (and prefer) to delegate responsibility to States when possible. Ohio, among many other states have proven that they can take care of the 'Gay Marriage' issue, without Mr. Bush's federal amendment. He should leave it alone... but the evangelicals, the James Dobsons, etc aren't going to be happy if he doesn't act like a big government "Mommy Knows Best" democrat and pass a freaking Federal law...

Bush is very close to either winning me over, or alienating me for good... not that he cares either way ;-).

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 3, 2005 10:48 AM

TmjUtah,

I think what turns people off of the faith-based initiatives is how pre-disposed the "faithful" are to self-righteousness. The same reason I think so many have rejected the new "lefter" Democratic Party. They are so self-righteous and indignant it almost makes one sick (both groups).

When Moveon.org essentially said "We paid for it, we own it" to the DNC, that was disturbing, but didn't anyone else get that same sense from the Moral Majority folks and their ilk, once the election was over?

I'm growing very weary of this tug of war, we need John McCain to come in, lose his cool and bitchslap these ***holes into effecting true progressive reform for the betterment of the American people.

*We do need Social Security Reform
*We do need to stablize Iraq and get the hell out.
*We don't don't need to amend the Constitution to limit the rights of American Citizens.
*We do need to secure our borders
*We don't need to invade or occupy any other countries.
We do need to expand the roles and abilities of our special forces.

And as a side note, did anyone else here feel like the "moment" of the Iraqi woman, and the deceased soldiers mother embracing was a bit contrived? I'm fully in support of this Administration and the Iraqi people, but don't try to pull my heartstrings, they are rather short and hard to come by.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 3, 2005 10:58 AM

"Self- righteousness"?

I don't suppose you've noticed the casual dismissal of Jebusland folks by media and the thought-based community, right? Or the quaint cottage industry that frames Dobson or any random family who happens to attend weekly services as one and the same?

They are the authority on what people should believe? Who's got a self-righteousness problem now?

We are a society of men living under a government of laws. Important questions that affect the society are best addressed in a manner that garners the greatest support of those subject to the resulting laws when, and this is important, when those issues are not questions of constitutional freedoms.

I don't think that gay marriage is a constitutional question in and of itself; it's more a social issue being exploited for political points. The breakneck pace at which the gay lobby has pursued a judicial edict to accomplish their agenda goals has made it so.

I do not want to ignite a hugeous debate on the subject - if that's possible - but I will point out that the actions along the lines of SF's Mayor Newsome in ignoring state law strike me as a much greater example of self righteous grandstanding that did threaten our process of government.

I'll tell you what I told my gay brother down in Austin (lawyer, two kids from a previous marriage):

"You want legal status and protections for your bond? You find a lawyer you trust, take your partner downtown, and create a binding contract defining distribution of assets and earnings in common, survivors' and dependents' benefits, and the mutual and binding obligations you both will enter into voluntarily and without reserve. You file that as a partnership under existing state law, and you have accomplished your ends."

He was a Deaniac early on and ended up as an ABB Kerry supporter. He didn't think much of the idea. Not because he disagreed that he couldn't realize the protections - he wouldn't be getting EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED.

To him I say "The sun will rise tomorrow, bro. Time fills good ideas." I have no idea where the debate or law will be on this subject ten years from now. I do believe that gays have chosen the wrong strategy and rhetoric for pursuing their goal.

We need what works, now what we want. Telling seventy percent of America that their opinions, customs, and faith don't count is a horrible way to govern. Do it too often and you lose the support of the people who have to live under the laws...

... or just lose your party, which is exactly where the Democrats are today.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 3, 2005 11:36 AM

On leadership, Rudy Giuliani said that it helps, in an emergency, to be the "calmest person in the room."

Lately, when have the Democrats ever been the calmest in the room?

Posted by: mary at February 3, 2005 11:39 AM

Actually, can I change my vote? It occurs to me that the only one in that whole crew with actual close quarter combat experience is Kerry. I mean, I love Hitchens, but I can just picture him in the trench with a Cohiba and a highball, and he'd be all, "The forces of reaction and jihad have engaged all that we cherish in a rear guard medieval putsch which seeks...", and I'd be all, "YO, HITCH! THE FORCES OF REACTION AND JIHAD ARE ON OUR TEN WITH TWO RPGS! NIGGAH PUT DOWN THE MOTHERFUCKING CORVOSIER AND GET IN THIS SHIT!"

Posted by: Wagner James Au at February 3, 2005 11:46 AM

Wagner,

You make me laugh.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 3, 2005 11:49 AM

>Econ issues are important to me, so I could never >vote for a Republican unless someone convinced me >that the Republicans contempt for the public sector >makes sense, intellectually and morally.

Markus,

You don't strike me as the kind of guy who is often behind the curve, so you might consider checking yourself here.

One lesson that can be taken from the 20th century, and one that many truly progressive thinkers (whatever their political stripe) have taken, is that public need not be equated with government. Indeed, to do so risks the health of both.

There is a majority for collective action. There is not for such action undertaken by a coercive monopoly.

Posted by: Ged of Earthsea at February 3, 2005 12:01 PM

Mary, when are the Democrats the calmest people in the room? When a Republican President delivers a SOTU address. Except when he mentions Social Security, of course.

Posted by: Zacek at February 3, 2005 12:02 PM

And as a side note, did anyone else here feel like the "moment" of the Iraqi woman, and the deceased soldiers mother embracing was a bit contrived?

Mike T,

How could the dead GIs mother and the female Iraqi human rights worker with ink-stained finger from having recently voted be "contrived"? They where both real people expressing real sentiments about real events. What's contrived about it?

Here's contrived: where Bill Clinton is laughing it up with his buddies at Ron Brown's funeral, and when he spots the camera pointed at him he instantly loses the belly laughs and goes into instant deep mourning within the span of half a second. That's contrived.

One's fake, the other is real. Can you spot the difference?

Posted by: Carlos at February 3, 2005 12:24 PM

TmjUtah,

I agree with every point you made. I was just pointing out that self-righteousness permeates both ends of the political divide and that it's that very "self-righteous" nature that motivates people like myself to make moves against them. As one who is generally right of center I become infuriated at the prejudice of the "Consortium of Intellectuals" towards my faith, and the faith of my peers.

However with that being said, I am painfully familiar with the other side, namely my daughters other grandparents. To them, as a catholic, I'm not really a "Christian", Y2K was to be the Apocolypse, and every word broadcast on Conservative talk radio or Townhall.com is gospel.

They belong to a Church which recruits kids into their youth programs, and pretty soon those same kids, won't hang out or date anyone outside of the church. They even went as far as convincing my high school at the time (7 yrs ago) to allow an assembly put on by a group of these kids and their "faith minister" which ended up being 90 mins. on how to form a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I'm very very spiritual and devoted to my god, but that's my business and it didn't belong in school. Not only did that stuff freak me out, but it pissed me off and showed me the potential of how a group of like-minded "faithful" people with good intentions can get carried away.

The social-political pendulum swings both ways and the harder each side pushes, the farther each swing becomes and therefore perpetuates itself over and over again. We need to at times like these grab a firm hold of the system, put an end
to the self-righteousness and indignance on both sides, and start solving some problems b/c lord knows we've got 'em.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 3, 2005 12:32 PM

Carlos,

I know that what they were feeling was real, and I don't mean to denegrate it in any way; it was a very powerful thing. But the time, place and manner in which it took place was engineered for maximum effect struck me as tantamount to propoganda; thus in a way cheapening something very pure and special.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 3, 2005 12:41 PM

Mike T.

Well Said!

One might wonder if the devotion to ones deity of choice, is directly proportional to the level of hypocrisy in the individual.

I remember in school, we were told about the dangers of "peer pressure".

But, apparently it's only peer pressure if its pro drugs and sex. If its anti-drugs and sex, then its wholesome education.

Whatever happened to the days when Christians lived life as they saw fit and let other people alone...

Oh, right... they've always been a bunch of meddlesome bastards (Myself included when I was one).

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 3, 2005 12:43 PM

when are the Democrats the calmest people in the room? When a Republican President delivers a SOTU address. Except when he mentions Social Security, of course.

That’s true. The problem is one of definitions. The Democrats define ‘an emergency’ as Bush having too much power. They define ‘the enemy’ as fellow Americans who aren’t Democrats. I guess that’s why I wouldn’t want them next to me in a trench.

Posted by: mary at February 3, 2005 12:59 PM

Tosk,

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't much like being referred to as a "meddlesome bastard" (I believe you meant it in jest though). My parish is only concerned with helping those in need and inviting in all those in search of guidance or a better relationship with god. We preach (to our own congregation) love and acceptance of all people, especially those most in need. We take very literally "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first".

Please don't generalize "Christians" as such b/c many of us are not that way.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 3, 2005 01:12 PM

But the time, place and manner in which it took place was engineered for maximum effect struck me as tantamount to propoganda; thus in a way cheapening something very pure and special.

Mike,

it would have been a terrible shame if the spotlight had NOT been shed on such a powerful moment. It was a moment of shared national grief and celebration. And it showed the mothers of all those dead GIs that their sons didn't die in vain. Why keep it in the closet? I know it must have made some Dems uncomfortable, but can't you set that aside for even one evening?

Re "cheapening", it seems to me those two women were in a far better position to make that judgment than you or I were, and they didn't seem to mind one bit. In fact, it appeared to be the last things on their minds. Why shouldn't it be the last thing on yours?

Posted by: Carlos at February 3, 2005 01:37 PM

The mary hits just keep on coming! So far right, she has has to take three turns to go west from north.

I think it's ironic that a member of the group of people who have been calling all Democrats "traitors" and "fifth columnists," accuses Democrats of being willing to frag.

For shame.

Posted by: FactCheck at February 3, 2005 01:45 PM

Mike T.,

It was in jest. I know that 80% of Christians are indeed good people, and gasp even Christlike. It's the few, the loud, the Pharisaical that cause problems for the rest of you. (Matt 23)

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

Sigh... so do you suspect that Jesus knew that his followers would have need of this advice?

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 3, 2005 01:54 PM

FactCheck,

First of all, your handle is exceptionally arrogant and obnoxious.

Second, Mary doesn't call "all Democrats traitors." Far-right? Oh, stop it. When you take a shot at somebody, try to first figure our who you're aiming at.

From her "About Me" page:

I’m to the right of Rummy when it comes to defense, and an unrepentant lefty when it comes to supporting social programs. (Feed the poor. Save our schools).

I guess, if you add it all up and divide it by two, I’m a moderate.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

it would have been a terrible shame if the spotlight had NOT been shed on such a powerful moment. It was a moment of shared national grief and celebration. And it showed the mothers of all those dead GIs that their sons didn't die in vain

Carlos,

You have an excellent point, and maybe you're right. I don't have anyone to bounce these thoughts off of so I do it here, and I fully realize I can be overly cynical at times. That's why I asked the question, to gauge how far off I was, and if many of the people here, who's opinions I've come to greatly respect, felt the same way.

It doesn't change the fact that the manner in which it was presented took a very real moment of human expression, and made it appear contrived for the purposes of making the President appear vindicated before the democratic congress and the eyes of the nation. That's just how it felt to me.

I will add that I can think of no better way of shoving it right down Teddy Kennedy's throat; so far that he'd have to kick another fifth of Johnny Walker just to get it down. (god I'm a vindictive prick)

Posted by: Mike T. at February 3, 2005 02:00 PM

It's the few, the loud, the Pharisaical that cause problems for the rest of you.

So true, it's a point I've made many a time. I'm just not witty enough to produce the word "Pharisaical". I'll be using that one in the future though.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 3, 2005 02:07 PM

I don't recall labelling any Democrat a traitor or a fifth columnist.

Jane Fonda, possibly - by dictionary definition she and her buddy Hayden fit the bill. Kerry was a commissioned officer when he met the North Vietnamese in Paris. Never prosecuted, alas. No records exist in the public arena... but being former military myself and knowing the timeline and having read what is available concerning his citations and service records, I've got a pretty fair idea what games were played there, too. Google is a wonderful tool; maybe I'll run back a ways and see if I slipped in a moment of passion.

Hey, it COULD have happened.

I have no problem with indicting them for prioritizing their partisan and personal agendas ABOVE the duties of their offices, and to the country; for being generally clueless about solving problems, incapable of taking responsibility for any failure, and being graceless in either victory or loss, to boot.

Posted by: TmjUtah at February 3, 2005 02:30 PM

Off topic, but I just found this very interesting and extensive website purporting to represent the Iraqi resistance.

Know your enemy.

http://www.albasrah.net/index1.html

Posted by: markus rose at February 3, 2005 02:45 PM

Some people on the left are as close to traitors or fifth columnists as one can get but they are only nominal Democrats, IMHO, because there is no viable Socialist or Social Democratic party in the U.S. As Tom Wolfe said in "Hooking Up" American intellectuals tend to be the equivalent of sweaty little colonials in cultural and political matters and it busts their chops big-time that this Edwared Hopper-like American Wasteland bobs along vigorously, rules the world, but never generated Euro-style political parties, and never learned proper appreciation of its elites.

Posted by: Zacek at February 3, 2005 02:46 PM

The guy I want in my foxhole: www.rleeermey.com

Posted by: Warren Fenner at February 3, 2005 02:51 PM

Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barack Obama, Jon Stewart and Wesley Clark.

Posted by: Katherine at February 3, 2005 03:40 PM

Boy, that was an easy one.

On the other hand, Jacques Chirac could be useful if we wanted to annoy the enemy to death. Also, in the dark of night, Nancy Pelosi with a flashlight under her face is sure to scare the crap out of even the most dedicated Jihadist.

Posted by: MisterPundit at February 3, 2005 04:10 PM

War against what? You didn't specify. Wrinkles? Aging? I'll take the Botox brigade - Kerry, Pilosi and Dowd. I'll bet Pilosi wields a mean needle.

Re the embrace that brought tears to many eyes and whether or not it was scripted - the 2 women happened to be seated close to eachother because they were both special guests. Those special guests always get seated close together. Did anyone tell the mother to look so nervous? Did anyone tell the Iraqi woman to literally shake? Did anyone tell the mother to get her son's dog tags tangled up in the Iraqi woman's jewelry? Did anyone tell them to hug so tightly for so long? Did anyone tell George Bush that the dogtags would get tangled up with the jewelry and so practice your best emotional face for a protracted period of time?

Is this going to run the course of the fake turkey story - just ruining a great and spontaneous moment for no purpose whatsoever, except to demean the sacrifices of the people most closely involved in OIF?

Posted by: Caroline at February 3, 2005 04:37 PM

Tosk,

I have a strong feeling Jesus would be considered "pharisaical" today. He wasn't against morality, he was against pretend morality i.e., pretending to be godly, yet being worldly. And it was a Biblical morality. He told the adulteress (after saving her from being stoned by the mob) to go sin no more. It was an absolute standard of morality, not subjective, even if it didn't conform to that of the priestly phonies. In today's world, that would be considred "pharisaical," because it's absolute.

Posted by: Carlos at February 3, 2005 04:39 PM

It doesn't change the fact that the manner in which it was presented took a very real moment of human expression, and made it appear contrived for the purposes of making the President appear vindicated before the democratic congress and the eyes of the nation. That's just how it felt to me.

I will add that I can think of no better way of shoving it right down Teddy Kennedy's throat; so far that he'd have to kick another fifth of Johnny Walker just to get it down. (god I'm a vindictive prick)

Posted by Mike T. at February 3, 2005 02:00 PM
**************************************************
Mike it was not presented as much as it just "happened" The mother of the dead soldier claims it was all spontaneous and NOT staged.

So either she is a liar or people like Chris Mathhews are cheap headline hunting slimes.

How should it have been "presented"?

How exactly do you set the bar on this?

Can't somethings just happen AND make the President appear vindicated before the democratic congress and the eyes of the nation.

You need to look inside yourself to find out what bothers you about that scene.

I recall a story I read sometime past. There was some kind of cermony and one of the purple heart soldiers was there, a reporter wiseassed to the GI, "I bet this is the closest you have ever been to the President."

The reply was. "Oh no he comes into Johns Hopkins to see us ALL the Time"

That came from the GI not the Bush Public Relations office. Somethings happen and are not in the public eye and never get reported, this happened in front of the World, no way could it be ignored.

You think the Press DIDN'T know Bush was making unscheduled visits to those wounded GIsin the hospital??????

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at February 3, 2005 08:06 PM

The Iraqi woman's husband had been murdered by Saddam (some 11 years ago?) -- so both women had lost family.

Them "being together" WAS staged. So was the whole SOTU, like every public event. And the attempt at symbolism WAS deliberate, no less than Kerry's "reporting for duty" Convention.

But Kerry slandered his "band of brothers" after his (mostly honorable?) service, so his symbolism was hugely flawed. Were you annoyed, then, at Kerry?

These two women DID, truly, each lose a loved man; and both are likely to be happy that Iraq has had a free election, yet personally sad for their own sacrifice.

Fighting evil is not free. Yet evil not fought can be victorious.

[Markus -- I'm a Rep now, ex-Libertarian, because of the 3 positions: freedom, low taxes, morals. I think the nation is better off with a vibrant Dem party, though, and MJT seems among those most likely to help them on foreign policy. My blog shows this...]

And this was supposed to be a happy occasion.

Posted by: Tom Grey at February 3, 2005 08:38 PM

"FactCheck" – my comment was a reference to the fact that Ted Kennedy said:

“As I've said before, the only thing America has to fear is four more years of George Bush”

And Howard Dean said: I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.

I wasn’t questioning your patriotism and the Democrats aren't my enemy, despite the fact that some think I’m theirs. Despite the fact that I disagree with Bush on most social policy issues, I think he and his party have more skilled leaders and are less prone to hysteria. In a hypothetical siege situation I’d chose to be with leaders who defend my general principles, and far away from the easily confused who attack randomly and without cause. I’m sorry if this concept confuses you.

As Michael pointed out, you don't check the facts. You're still a misnomer.

Posted by: mary at February 3, 2005 09:20 PM

I'm either early or late to the party, it seems!

Anyway, MJT, looking forward to reading about your debauched evening with my intellectual pin-up boy.

And you're all probably over this topic by now, but when I first heard someone suggest the SOTU embrace was staged, all I could think about was that scene in F9/11 - you know, the one where Moore milks the tears of the grieving American mother?

Of course, that was okay. Moore was just telling it like it is, right?

Thing is, that sort of grief is real, just as the emotional embrace between those two women was real. Anyone who tries to belittle such things to score points is worse than those who try to use such things as propaganda, IMHO.

I know, I know. Worse than Michael Moore? But my disgust at Moore was overshadowed by my revulsion towards those who claimed the mother was faking it.

Just having a rant because I live and work in a dogma-infested environment, and I get, well, tetchy sometimes!

Posted by: Fish at February 4, 2005 03:48 AM

You allege that mary is "an unrepentant lefty when it comes to supporting social programs."

I decided to do some research. I operated on the hypothesis that mary may, in fact, be an unrepentant leftist, but, for some reason, has never expressed a single pure-leftist viewpoint.

I searched mary's site using google's tools for the phrase "social security" and got one hit - In which she implicitly attacks means-testing Social Security.

I searched mary's site using google's tools for the phrase "anti-choice" and got no hits.

I searched mary's site using google's tools for the phrase "pro-life" and got one hit - an article, since taken down, assaulting "Activists" for committing arson to save trees - which was a debunked accusation that envrionmental activists burnt a housing development to save a swamp. Activists, of couse, did no such thing.

I searched mary's site using google's tools for the phrase "welfare," and found ten results, only one of which was about "welfare" in the social-traditional sense, and not about the Middle East. In it, mary attacks European labor unions, Socialism, and is mainly an attack on the far-left.

I searched mary's site using google's tools for the phrase "global warming" and found out that mary stands with Michael Crichton on DDT and Second-Hand smoke. I found out that the researchers who study global warming are the Rodney Dangerfields of Science -> I find that "Scientists do not know why global warming occurs – they make extraordinary claims, but provide no extraordinary evidence to support their theories. Until they do, the only people who should care about this research are late night comedians."

In conclusion, mary's "Unrepentant Leftism," may be both Unrepentant and Leftist, but it's certainly not expressed.

I started reading mary's archives in date order. The first non-personal, non-Arab/Foreign Policy post was one that said that preparing minorities for the technical and skills demands of the new millennium puts them at odds with Democrats.

I would be excited for someone to point me at something that would falseify my hypothesis.

I'd be tempted to use the S word, but I understand that's banned, here.

Posted by: FactCheck at February 4, 2005 05:53 AM

Sorry, I had to leave work yesterday and didn’t get back online to respond to you guys. Anyway in chronological order:

Caroline, Dan Kauffman, Tom Grey, and Fish:

I had no intention of demeaning those who’ve sacrificed in the WOT (which includes OIF). By stating that it felt contrived I merely was expressing my lack of appreciation for what appeared to me as puppetry for purpose of manipulating our emotions. However, I certainly don’t excuse the other side of the isle from the same behavior because most of them have built their entire careers on it, and if one were to name a worse perpetrator I’d have to say it’s the Democrats.

I hadn’t heard that story about the unscheduled visits, but it doesn’t surprise me. I voted twice for GWB because, among other things, I think he is a man of character. Also I wasn’t emulating anything I’ve heard from anywhere else, I just perceived it that way and am using the people here as my barometer. Apparently I’m more cynical than most.

However just to give you perspective on the pillar of intellect that you’re dealing with in me; after watching the SOTU, I flipped on my PS2 to continue playing my new game “Mercenaries”, where I’m invading North Korea right now.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 4, 2005 06:50 AM

I have a strong feeling Jesus would be considered "pharisaical" today. He wasn't against morality, he was against pretend morality i.e., pretending to be godly, yet being worldly. And it was a Biblical morality. He told the adulteress (after saving her from being stoned by the mob) to go sin no more. It was an absolute standard of morality, not subjective, even if it didn't conform to that of the priestly phonies. In today's world, that would be considred "pharisaical," because it's absolute.

Its very scary to hear anyone who has studied the Man (or God) Jesus and ever think that he would be considered "Pharisaical".

Beyond pretend morality, they also "bound up heavy loads" on the people... The Pharisees had added to what God had commanded. While God said that one must not Work on the Sabbath, the Pharisees added that sandels that were held togteher with iron couldn't be worn on the Sabbath. For the extra weight of lifting the Iron was "Work".

Most importantly, and this is key, Jesus NEVER in any part of his earthly ministry tried to force the Jewish/Christian view of Morality on anyone not either bound to the Mosaic Law (All Jews), or those who voluntarily came to listen. Jesus preached in the public square, but he did not try to legislate any of his Fathers commands. In fact, Matthew recorded in Matt 22:36-40

" 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”"

Is it loving one's neighbor to deny them access to health insurance? Is it loving one's neighbor to deny them the ability to live their life in comfort, they way that they choose?

Is it loving one's neighbor, to deny them access to a painkiller that has never been linked to a single death... especially when that person is terminally ill?

Those Christians that have overstepped the words of Christ, who have gone from speaking about their beliefs, to legislating their beliefs upon others, are Pharisaical.

The Good Samaratin cared for his neighbor, and went on his way, without changing his faith (or expecting the Jew to change his), Yet Jesus felt he was a good example. The Greek woman who came to Jesus (and did not believe as a Jew or Christian), was at frist rebuked (gently) and then praised by Jesus (who of course granted her request). There is no evidence that this woman changed her faith, or her morals.

No, Jesus was not a Pharasiee, he was not a modern Evangelical. I think that he would consider Christendom's involvement with the Politics of Ceaser to be a horrific bastardization of his work.

But, you... you believe what you want.

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 4, 2005 09:13 AM

Tosk,

Nail hit on head. If I could say it better myself I would. I am consistently amazed at how so many of my fellow "Christians" are willing to distort what was and is such a clear and simple message. One so clear and simple that most of us are actually born subconciously knowing it.

I can also see how some people have become disenchanted with all religion and turn to Atheism or Agnosticism given the rampant hypocrisy of the most "Pious" amongst us. It's astonishing that so many "Christian" people in this day and age are simply unable to draw the parallels between their own behavior of interolerance and chauvinism, and that which they deplore in religions such as Islam.

Of all figures in religious history, Jesus was most certainly not pharisaical. Of that you can be assured.

Posted by: Mike T. at February 4, 2005 09:58 AM

FactCheck – if you’d bothered to check the facts, you’d see that mary alleges that mary was an "unrepentant lefty", in my ‘contact me’ page.

Another fact – I was wrong about that. Congratulations, your anonymous bad faith arguments have had an effect. I changed the text on that page, striking thru the use of the term ‘lefty’ with this disclaimer.

“Since writing this, I've been reading a lot more blogs, which means that I've become better-informed about the difference between 'lefties' and liberals. Simply put, Leftists are pro-totalitarian, while liberals are not. The only system of government that Leftists oppose is Capitalist/Liberal Democracy. It's odd that these terms are often confused.”

I shouldn’t have been calling myself a nasty name like ‘lefty’. Thanks for helping me correct the error.

By the way, FactCheck, you claim that you know everything. You know that Leftists and Liberals are entirely different entities. Liberals in the mold of JFK and Roosevelt did a lot of good work and helped a lot of people. This is in contrast to the anti-capitalist ‘no war but the class war’ activist Left.

Can you name one thing that the ‘no war but the class war’ activist Left has ever done to help our society? I can’t think of one single accomplishment. You know everything. Can you?

Posted by: mary at February 4, 2005 10:06 AM

Child Labor Laws, Collective Barganing Laws, The 8 hour workday, Overtime Laws, Environmental Laws, Food Safety Laws, Workmans Comp, Universal Public Education and The Consumer Product Safety Commission could all be seen as acomplishments of Socialists in America.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll go ahead and revise my hypothesis based on your new statement: "mary may, in fact, be an unrepentant liberal, but, for some reason, has never expressed a single pure-liberal viewpoint."

Posted by: FactCheck at February 4, 2005 11:21 AM

FactCheck: In conclusion, mary's "Unrepentant Leftism," may be both Unrepentant and Leftist, but it's certainly not expressed.

Thats's because Mary, like me, runs a hawkish foreign policy blog. Not a domestic liberal activist blog.

I, too, have many conventional liberal opinions. I don't express them as often here because I am primarily interested in history and foreign policy. I think Bush's tax cut scheme was the wrong way to go about it, but I don't particularly care to write about it because frankly the topic bores me to tears.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 4, 2005 11:31 AM

See, MT, I ran the same test on you, and I didn't find you doubting Global Warming because of corporate funded (p)research. You also didn't attack means testing social security, or use welfare to attack european labor unions. What I do find is this -http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000457.html

See, I can tell the difference between someone who is a foreign policy Republican and a domestic policy Democrat. Can you? Please, disprove my hypothesis. Like I said - excited.

Posted by: FactCheck at February 4, 2005 12:08 PM

Mary: Simply put, Leftists are pro-totalitarian, while liberals are not.

Better let the anarchists and the social democrats know. Both are socialist, and both political philosophies are deeply opposed to authoritarianism.

So am I, as a matter of fact.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at February 4, 2005 12:22 PM

I think Bush's tax cut scheme was the wrong way to go about it, but I don't particularly care to write about it because frankly the topic bores me to tears.

LOL! That's why I don't discuss domestic issues in detail (except for general opposition to the drug war. Drugs are, occasionally, an interesting topic).

Posted by: mary at February 4, 2005 01:41 PM

LOL! So do you agree with him?

Disprove the hypothesis.

Posted by: FactCheck at February 4, 2005 01:47 PM

Mary Asked: "Can you name one thing that the ‘no war but the class war’ activist Left has ever done to help our society? "

But, thats the wrong question, dear.

The right question is "Can you name one thing that either the extreme Left or the Extreme Right has ever done to help our society?" As a secondary question, one might ask if any extremist Authoritarian or Libretarian viewpoint has ever done something useful for society.

It's a trick question, I think. Too much of anything is bad for you... too much water, food, sun, drugs, blog posting, you name it. How could any ideology that is too far in any direction produce something good for soecity?

Society plays to the lowest common denominator. What is acceptable to society, is usually, what is acceptable to the majority of people in that society. What is good for a society, is determined by the number of people that believe the thing to be good. Since by defination, the extreme (insert political scale here) are not in line with the majority of society (unless the society itself has drifted to one extreme or the other), then its not surprising that the extreme has not contributed directly to such a society.

But, is that the only way that an ideology benefits a society?

The United States is a democracy, and as Abbie Hoffman once said (and I'm fond of quoting) "Democracies are judged by the freedoms they give to their dissidents, not the freedoms they give to the assimilated conformists". I tend to agree with Abbie, for a society to prove that it is tolerant, it must show tolerance for that with which it doesn't agree.

The political extremes, I think, are inevitable in an open democracy. Some people tend to be authoritarian, Authoritarians tend to define things as Absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. These types of ideologies, or dogmas, tend to be most prevelent at the fringes of the political spectrum, not the center.

Do the extremes contribute to society? I would have to say that they do, as a discordant note, a dissident voice or an 'Adversary' to the status quo.

It would be nice if we could conquer the Authoritarian mindset. It would be good if we could make people constantly question, instead of absolutely believe.

Of course, it would also be nice if the new report on the environment is wrong. I would much prefer not to see the Ocean level rise 16 ft over the next few years... but, I'm not buying property in New Orleans or the South of England anytime soon.

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 4, 2005 01:48 PM

LOL! So, I used google's tools to find out what mary has had to say about the drug war. Two posts. In one, she says that mincing words about George Bush's 16 little words is less important than the Drug War. LOL!

LOL! In the other, she says that Transnational Progressives (do they even exist?) are out to get us with the International Criminal Court, and that we shouldn't join it because we might get blamed for the crimes of the Columbian millatary, as we prosecuted the drug war! LOL!

Yes, you've said quite a bit about the Drug War. Or not. Anything. Not one post. Not one.

LOL!

Posted by: FactCheck at February 4, 2005 01:52 PM

As an aside, I notice that many perviously non-political people, became extremely political post-9/11, but many of these tend to focus only on the War and Forgin policy.

Is it because the issue is more important than all of the other issues, is it because the issues are bandied about so loudly by the media that it is easy to form an intelligent sounding post or, is it simply because most people don't feel qualified to speak about finance, science, etc... but feel qualified to talk about Us vs. Them?

Now, I don't intend this toward any of you here... this is only an observation.

A fun experiment, is to not watch the news for a week... then get on Daily Kos or one of the many other blogs, use google to find some quick sites that discuss the topic being blogged about and just post. Don't really try to figure out the real information... just post the crap you find spewed at FOX news, or CNN. You might be surprised how many of them believe you to be a) Very intelligent and exactly right, b) Very intelligent, but dead wrong, or c) A crazy chaotic rodent.

;-)

PS - No I don't usually do that, it only an experiment.

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 4, 2005 01:55 PM

DPU – when given a choice, the majority of any population will choose to work in a healthy economy and to own private property. The majority of any population will also choose to pay for social programs, but only if they benefit from them.

Which is why liberal programs like the public school system work. It’s why leftist programs like the Kyoto treaty don’t work. When industry and the economy are attacked the majority suffers. A genuine Leftist agenda will eventually have to override the wishes of the majority or allow itself to be voted out of office.

I hope you’re not insulted by this, but you’ve always seemed like more of a liberal than a leftist to me.

Posted by: mary at February 4, 2005 02:03 PM

"Which is why liberal programs like the public school system work. It’s why leftist programs like the Kyoto treaty don’t work."

Now, I have to ask, by what standard are you judging these two programs? My personal view is that the Public School system is a horrific failure. Whereas, Kyoto is far to young, in my opinion, to judge. It appears that most other developed countries think it will work. New companies in the EU are making lots of money on cleaner fuel technologies and trading energy /carbon credits.

But, those are my opinions, what metric are you using to measure the success or failure?

Posted by: Ratatosk at February 4, 2005 02:09 PM

Ratatosk – you’re absolutely right. Authoritarians on the right and the left are equally productive (or non productive) It’s also interesting to note that they agree with each other more than they agree with the moderates.

As for why many previously non-political people, became extremely political post-9/11, in my case, it was because I live near New York and I know many people who lost loved ones and friends in the WTC attacks. Before 9/11, I had no idea that there was a connection between al Qaeda, the Islamists in Iran, the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. When I learned more about it, I figured that other people should know about it too.

..oh, and the goal of Kyoto (as I understand it) is to reduce greenhouse emissions. Is there any research that proves that these restrictions and regulations will significantly reduce greenhouse emissions? If the South of England is about to be flooded, is there any proof that Kyoto will do anything to stop it? Yes, global warming is a fact, but there is no proof that we started it or that can do anything to stop or even slow it.

Kyoto will damage industry, though,which may or may not be its purpose.

Posted by: mary at February 4, 2005 02:34 PM

No, Jesus was not a Pharasiee,

Tosk,

I didn't say he was a pharisee, nor did I say he was equivalent to a modern day evangelical. So that pretty much means your entire post wasn't directed at me.

I merely said that if Jesus appeared today, at YOUR very doorstep, you'd probably call him a pharisee as soon as the words "go and sin no more" escaped from his lips.

Posted by: Carlos at February 4, 2005 03:14 PM

mary: when given a choice, the majority of any population will choose to work in a healthy economy and to own private property. The majority of any population will also choose to pay for social programs, but only if they benefit from them.

Well, I could point out that you're speaking for the majority of the people, and I don't think you're qualified to do that. But a more important point is that many countries populations elect socialist governments.

Which is why liberal programs like the public school system work. It’s why leftist programs like the Kyoto treaty don’t work.

Look at the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Are you really saying that Israel, Brazil, India, Japan, Costa Rica, and Switzerland are left-wing countries? C'mon now.

A genuine Leftist agenda will eventually have to override the wishes of the majority or allow itself to be voted out of office.

Like Tony Blair?

A genuine leftist agenda follows the wishes of the majority, while not crushing the minority.

I hope you’re not insulted by this, but you’ve always seemed like more of a liberal than a leftist to me.

Not insulted at all. I think that you have a preconceived notion of left and right that is at odds with the historical concepts. Just as "right-wing" includes both authoritarian right-wingers AND libertarians, the left runs the gamut from anarchists (who believe in no traditional government at all) to Stalinists (who believe in autocratic governments with them at the top). Just because I believe in democratic principles doesn't mean that I'm not a leftist. Social Democracy is based on the principle that liberal democracies and socialism are not incompatible.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at February 4, 2005 04:07 PM

In the past you’ve said that anarchy is Utopian and Stalinists are hateful. I’m not really sure what Leftist “gamut” you’re talking about. I define Leftism as anti Capitalism, anti-Liberal democracy, based on Marxism. Your definition may be different.

Social democracy is not doing well economically and Canada is having problems with Kyoto. And yes, there is no hope that Kyoto will 'work'. Like most leftist endeavors, its basic purpose seems to be increase government power while attacking independent business.

The only advantage of social democracy is that people can vote the bums out. However, it’s not clear which bums should replace them. In France, Chirac is considered to be right-wing. Every time I read about left/right politics in Europe, I’m so glad my ancestors came here.

Posted by: mary at February 4, 2005 07:52 PM

>The political extremes, I think, are inevitable in >an open democracy. Some people tend to be >authoritarian, Authoritarians tend to define things >as Absolutely right, or absolutely wrong.

In general, this is true, but the idea itself can also be taken to the extreme. I.E. one can be so extremely against absolutes that none are recognized at all.

With how much confidence can one say that pulling the toenails of children out with pliers is wrong? If one's philosophical system has difficulty doing so, then one runs the risk of unwittingly becoming as extremist as those one might wish to avoid.

In my estimation, this phenomenon is not rare, and is one of Bush and his followers' key insights, whether or not they consciously appreciate it as such.

Posted by: Ged of Earthsea at February 4, 2005 09:30 PM

Well, it looks like people prefer to serve in a trench with the draft dodger instead of the highly decorated combat veteran.

Ideology trumps reality on the rightwing side of the fence, as usual.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 5, 2005 12:02 PM

>Well, it looks like people prefer to serve in a >trench with the draft dodger instead of the highly >decorated combat veteran.

Guilty as charged. I did indeed vote for Clinton in 1992.

;-)

Posted by: Ged of Earthsea at February 5, 2005 12:23 PM

Sheesh. I'd rather be alone in the trench than have most of those guys from either side.

I could maybe accept Rumsfeld, Blair, or Kerry. I mean, I wouldn't point a gun at them and tell them to get to the rear or else.

Rumsfeld might be too old to do much good, but he could probably tell some good stories.

And if Kerry survived I'd have a decent chance to get a medal.

I can't tell if Blair would be any use but that's 3 possibles out of two teams. Sheesh.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 5, 2005 06:58 PM

978121:

Bush would hide in a corner, Rice wouldn't notice the bad guys infiltrating our trench, Rumsfeld would insist on shelling an abandoned farmhouse, Hitchens would be too drunk and angry to shoot straight, and Blair would be too busy apologizing for the rest of them.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 6, 2005 03:01 PM

Hey, we'd only be going to war if people like Bush and Rumsfeld are still around -- and Hitchens is a major, (quiet) farter so we don't want him in the same bunker.

I think the solution is to get rid of Bush and Rumsfeld, leave Hitchens at home, and thus avoid war altogether. Then, too, one wouldn't have to be bored to death by Maureen and John while feeling aggrieved about our present, incompetent leadership.

Posted by: PW at February 7, 2005 06:22 PM

Pets need dental care, too, and this February an increasing number of pet owners are taking the initiative of in-home care. According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA), 15 percent of dog owners get veterinarian dental care for their dogs, 5 percent more than in 1998, while 28 percent of all dog owners own a toothbrush for their dogs.
Taken from http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050124/245091_1.html
I recently visited this website http://www.dogproduct.mypetdogs.com and find the dog product information very helpful.

Posted by: about dog products at February 9, 2005 09:56 PM

Hello nice page and it downloads very fast, enjoyed it very much, take care. The internet is a great place to showcase art and increase awareness in the variety of excellent work available.
U-booty okręty podwodne ubooty Katalog stron camcoo katalog on-line Website Directory katalogi stron internetowo www Przepisy Kulinarne mniam smaczego Camcoo on linie 24 hTelewizory plazmoe lcd Aparaty ofertaopinie serwis Aparaty cyfrowe canon minolta nikon sklep dvd odtwarzacze mp3 Kamery minidv cena Aparaty cyfrowe cennik i ceny Dvd sklep Kamery cyfrowe promocje Camcoo.de promocja Maximedia polecane E-shop

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at April 23, 2005 09:33 AM

Thanks, for the useful site. Thanks again and again.

Posted by: Datx Webdesign at April 24, 2005 11:38 PM

Thanks, for the useful site. Thanks again and again.

Posted by: Sar-Webdesign at April 25, 2005 12:19 AM

Very nice site. Aganejszyn
Website Directory

Posted by: Nooxe at April 27, 2005 06:48 AM

Very nice site. Aganejszyn
Website Directory

Posted by: Nooxe at April 27, 2005 06:49 AM

2 |
4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

97 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

97 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

97 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

97 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

97 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

97 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

98

14 |

97 |

98

2 |

4 |

5 |

6 |

7 |

8 |

9 |

10 |

11 |

12 |

13 |

14 |

98

Posted by: bob at June 30, 2005 04:07 AM

Greetings From NY !

Posted by: casinos at July 5, 2005 01:09 PM

blog @ forum @ doli blog @ guestbook @ cool blog @ add url

Posted by: casinos at July 30, 2005 10:49 PM

thanks

Posted by: Hotelsuche Rom at July 31, 2005 09:09 AM

hi guys

Posted by: casinos at August 7, 2005 05:29 AM

Directory

Posted by: casino at August 7, 2005 07:41 AM

hi

Posted by: Hotel at September 21, 2005 09:02 PM

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online slots
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino

Posted by: online casinos at October 5, 2005 11:45 AM

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.

Posted by: size genetics at November 20, 2005 06:41 PM

asc
kraob
eves
akupunktura
freesz
puz
domy opieki
mopinsite
oppin

Posted by: epart at December 23, 2005 04:16 AM

runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy

runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items <a href="http://www.runescapemoney-

runescapegold.cn">runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp <a href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com/dofus-c-

1054.html">dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c

-389.html">buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/lord-rings-onlineus-c-

975.html">lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/hellgate-london-c-

1102.html">Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London

Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">tabula rasa money lotro gold

buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold

Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy

dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码

电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪

风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 <a href="http://www.wow-power-

leveling.net">wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft

Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape

power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树


eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk

Posted by: runescape money at November 30, 2007 07:01 PM
Post a comment













Remember personal info?






Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn