~ former KVI talk host Bryan Suits' new job at Los Angeles talker, KFI, is in the slot vacated by John Ziegler. In 2005, novelist David Foster Wallace wrote Host, a lengthy, widely-hailed piece for Atlantic Monthly profiling Ziegler and examining talk radio from his unique slacker genius perspective. Many missed it because The Atlantic's site content was for subscribers only. To their great credit, they've recently put their archives on-line. Read Host here and think of Bryan in that chair.
~ new KIRO website will launch... Monday! It'll have Blogs of the Talk Stars; a TV station; a fancy page for 
each
host -- even a digital Taj Mahal for Maharishi Dori Monson and a
cyber-graveyard with Ajax biographical headstones memorializing talk hosts
past. It will emphasize
"community building," civic responsibility, and personal hygiene, they say. Remember how we
were all excited because we assumed David Goldstein, (KIRO, Sat., Sun.,
7-10p) would have a role in the new site because he's the region's
blogger of record who's built a formidable on-line community? WRONG.
They didn't even ask him; instead consulting with Bryan Styble, Master
of None.
~ who in the hell is Bryan Suits? That's the question
national radio pros are asking according to an East coast radio guy we
know. That The Bad Lieutenant got the job of reporte
dly over 50+ applicants, puzzles everyone. Not a judgment on Suits talent as much as his relatively obscure
professional background. In other KFI news, the station according to LARadio.com, has retained its title as the "most listened to talk station in the
nation." The Fall '07 book shows KFI with an additional 100,000 cume over
New York's WABC.
~ "Bryan is a thinker," KFI PD Robin Bertolucci writes on the KFI website. "When he's curious about something, he digs in and discovers the truth for himself. He's not the kind of guy that blindly believes anything. He's got a wicked sense of humor and is definitely a 'more stimulating' Talk show host who will thrive at KFI."
~ Is there a talk host in your life? slip into something more comfortable. Click here for Narcissistic Personality Disorder support.
~ Trial is set for June 9 for KGO talk host Bernie Ward in a San Francisco federal court. Defense attorney, Doron Weinberg said, "We're deeply disappointed" that U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors chose to level charges carrying the "most serious and harshest" penalty. "The government has seized a moment in someone's life and treated him as though he were a lifelong predator, when even at worst he was someone who was involved for a matter of days."
~ Spades work with a ho'? The big fat bigot is so beloved nobody seems to pay much attention to what he says: Last week Rush Limbaugh said that Barack Obama "... is holding his own against both of them–[Bill and Hillary Clinton] and doing more than his share of the ‘spade’ work. Maybe even gaining ground at the moment. Using not only the spade ladies and gentleman—that when he finishes with the ‘spade’ in the garden of corruption planted by the Clinton’s, he turns to the ‘hoe.’ And so the spade work and his expertise using a hoe. He's faring well.” The corpulent pill-freak is nothing if not subtle, no?
~ If you had a mind to Google: "episiotomy for men," (and why wouldn't you?) you'd get thee to BlatherWatch. Same as you would if you put "illegal babies beautiful ass," in that Google box.
~ DID YOU KNOW? Dori is a girl's name. (Hat tip to Ryder).
~ Keith's in charge and Chris Matthews is pissed. In a profile in the February edition of Men's Journal, Paul Tullis cites a senior executive at MSNBC, who says, "Keith runs MSNBC. It's been an amazing turnaround, because two years ago they were going to cancel him. Because of his success, he's in charge. Chris Matthews is infuriated by it." If Keith's in charge, why doesn't he dump Matthews?
~ We usually don't write about FM babes, but we're hearing about a rash of "plumping parties" by Warm bodies looking to botox their way to radio success.
~ Southern-fried Fred Thompson, wrinkled like a basset hound, and sadly in need of a plumping party was Rush Limbaugh's idea of a presidential candidate. His flaccid campaign officially fizzled Tuesday, is rumored to be going back to ABC Radio Networks. Before his presidential run, he'd been a Senior Analyst and special program host for ABC, and has been long considered to succeed 89-year-old Paul Harvey if and when he ever ceases broadcasting. He may not be done with politics -- he's still being mentioned as a vice presidential candidate to balance a moderate like McCain or Giuliani.
If someone is posting in your name, please let me know via [email protected]/. I can verify that stuff usually and will happily erase the phony posts.
Posted by: blathering michael | January 26, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Thanks Bla'M...will do.
Posted by: Duffman | January 26, 2008 at 02:57 PM
I'm not terribly surprised at Obama apparently winning So Carolina, but I am surprised at the per-centage 53%, if in fact it holds up. I think Mrs Clinton's husband Bill can be a great asset; he must, however tone it down a bit and not stir up so much controversy. I'm still confident overall with Mrs Clinton. [in case anyone cared] Ha...
Posted by: Duffman | January 26, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Interesting folks here don't care that much for Sen. Clinton - except you, Duff. Obama may lack experience, but not that much less than the other two candidates who say they have tons of it - shows you who you really can trust there.
Shame on those who were doing the Faux posting for Joanie and Puts - that kind of crap that should be policed better.
For the record, I didn't say Chris Matthews had alot of class - just some class. I cannot take someone like Olber.. seriously as long as continues his current schtick on MSNBC (More Snotty Nonsense by Creeps). Sorry..
Posted by: KS | January 26, 2008 at 06:40 PM
doesnt this remind you a bit of west wing when you had the older republican candidate -maverick- played by alan alda going against the younger dem candidate -minority/change hope theme- played by jimmy smits.
didn't mccain give the people in iowa some straight talk about ethanol similar to the alda candidate in west wing.
it's early. but damn.
anyway, duff you and i are just gonna disagree about hillary. but i respect your views and it is nice we can disagree in a civil manner.
Posted by: PugetSound | January 26, 2008 at 06:54 PM
I think most herein seem to be for John Edwards, and I don't understand that. However, soon it will be apparent that Mrs Clinton will be the standard-bearer and folks with 'gather-round'. Obama is unique and drawing on the 'change' image in a way similar to JFK. I heard tonite (on NBC) that apparently 'Carolyn Kennedy' is coming out for Obama tomorrow? A revelation is about to take place in America; there will be a 'major' swing in politics from the good 'ol boy Republican era to the new Democratic youth. We either 'get-on-board' or get out of the way.
I still think it will be Mrs Clinton...I could be wrong?...Nah...Mrs Clinton hasn't gotten tough yet, I'm sure she has a lot in reserve. She's a tough lady full of determination and passion; I just hope that Obama isn't too proud to accept the VP role. :)
Posted by: Duffman | January 26, 2008 at 06:55 PM
what would happen if you had a dem ticket of either obama or hillary with a vp like jim webb vs a repub ticket of say john mccain with say a sen mel martinez.
that would be very interesting.
Posted by: PugetSound | January 26, 2008 at 07:01 PM
Very interesting Puts. I actually think the stronger Repub ticket would be Romney w/Martinez (Fla), but regardless - Mrs Clinton and Jim Webb (Va) would probably still be unbeatable. 'Change' does not a John McCain make, in my opinion and our country is heading for 'change', I believe.
Posted by: Duffman | January 26, 2008 at 07:15 PM
i am wondering if martinez would give the repubs enough of the hispanic vote to make a difference. bush did pretty with hispanics in both elections and it carried him to victory. who knows. it really is moot here in Washington State as it will be a blue state albeit a Clinton or a Obama that is pretty much guaranteed.
Posted by: PugetSound | January 26, 2008 at 07:44 PM
Interesting Liberal Columnist Take on Hillary and Bill
I see the light
Posted by: PugetSound | January 26, 2008 at 07:59 PM
The clock strikes twelve for Obama on Super Tuesday. He will awake from his fairy tale and pay homage to the 44th President of the United States: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Posted by: abob | January 26, 2008 at 08:54 PM
Are you joking abob ? Team Clinton has painted themselves into the proverbial corner in the last few weeks. Even many Democrats don't like them now - because of their I am entitled to be President attitude that is written all over them. It's even money if she will get the nomination.
She will bring out more Republicans (because they are so polarizing) to vote against her than if Obama ran. If she runs against McCain - she is toast. It would be closer if Obama ends up being the candidate.
Admittedly, Hill-Billy would have a decent chance against Romney, but think that he'll be outed someone soon after Super Tuesday. If the Republicans play stupid and give it to Romney, they deserve to lose- thanks to Bush, who has done much to destroy the Republican Party. For the good of this country - No more BUSHES and no more CLINTONS in the White House ever !
Posted by: KS | January 26, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Thanks, PugetSound for that link--a good read on the Clintons.
Even I would have to admit grudging admiration for HillBill's tenacity. How many would dust off and get back in the ring after what she's been thru? And she's got to know that if she loses, it's going to be tough for her. She could have continued with a relatively risk-free career in the Sen.
If I can admire that, how much more must Dems admire? So, I still have to figure that will carry her thru the primaries.
As for the fake postings, look at the bright side. No one has ever posted fake under wutitiz. Not worth it, I guess. The fake postings probably mean you are frustrating the hell out of somebody w/ your arguments. I have posted occationally under other names, but never to be mean, and NEVER under somebody else's handle. That is just a dirty, sleazy move that should get anyone kicked off a board.
Posted by: wutitiz | January 27, 2008 at 12:50 AM
putsie, you're musta been outa town. Twas Michael hiimself that posted the news about audioslave. Sorry, can't confirm. I don't bookmark posts the way you do.
He can confirm if he chooses to do so. So much for your ability to judge character.
And what's up, nobody will every pretend to be you because you are too boring. Anybody that thinks HA posters would actually come get him is seriously emotionally and mentally challenged.
You have peers on this board . . . puts, duff, aboob and DT seem to operate on your wavelength.
Caroline Kennedy remembers the Kennedy myth. She is about as relevant to young people as you are. What a ridiculous comment.
Apparently, she's relevant to you... you and she about the same age?
Finally, I was out for the evening but heard the last hour of Jeffers. He was interesting tonight. Had some callers. He's good when he's got something to talk about. Enjoyed the analysis.
I didn't know that Michael Moore and (suddenly went blank!-another good liberal I wouldn't have expected to vote green) voted for Nader in 2000. I'm very disappointed in that. Anybody who was paying attention in 2000 knew what this mentally-challenged megalomaniac was going to do to this country. Unbelievable.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 01:08 AM
putsie: Matthews debates Olbermann?
See Sparky's post above on Matthews. Apparently you've never seen him. He's not on Faux News.
You really ought to stick to what you know.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 01:12 AM
Normally, I'm a limited-gov't guy, but I would not object too loudly if Nanny Christine were to propose some kind of 'Posting Under the Influence' (PUI) legislation.
Posted by: wutitiz | January 27, 2008 at 02:02 AM
See, what's up? Your posts are just plain boring.
Go read winnie the pooh.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 02:23 AM
joanie
actually i am well acquainted with chris matthews since the late 80's. before 'hardball' he was actually a fairly serious political fellow who wrote a good column and a few nice political reads. i recall him being on kgo's ronn owens show -late 80's- regularly offering political insights.
i just didn't get the creepy factor until having a chance to see him on hardball on a regular basis.
by your own comments, you would have been guilty of the same poor character judgement
ie you wrote:
"audioslave - like duffo - was outed as being several different people and slinked away with his tail between his legs.
I liked talking to him until I found out ..."
until i see it, i am not believing it about audioslave my friend.
wuttitiz, you keep posting. many of us enjoy it. and that PUI legislation it has merit :)
Posted by: PugetSound | January 27, 2008 at 03:00 AM
In regards to the LA Columnist link I posted I am wondering how many of those liberals that staunchly/loyally defended the Bill and Hillary circus through thick and thin in the 90's aren't ready for a change to Obama.
I mean, after suffering the triangulation crap, fundraising sleeze, or the sleezy stuff like those midnight pardons -many of them to the clients of Hill's brothers, and having to listen to those right wingers mock that 'depends upon the meaning of is, is' PLUS that uncomfortable feeling in the pit of the stomach about not all those women could have been lying...could they? i don't think all of those women were liars.
the other day Bill Clinton was waiving that finger at us on TV, lecturing about the unfairness to Hillary, all the while his minions are spreading crap about Obama dealing drugs.
like KS, I abhor having another Bush or a Clinton in the Whitehouse. They had their turns and it really is time to bring in some fresh blood.
Posted by: PugetSound | January 27, 2008 at 03:08 AM
Couldn't agree more--I haven't trusted Hillary since travelgate, which was early 1993. And if I were Obama, I'd play up triangulation and the fact the US House was lost in 1994. Feb. will be very interesting.
I sure would not count her out though. Remember the polls had Obama up 10 points in NH the morning of the primary, and we know how that turned out.
Anyway, thanks again for the link & the support. And I don't doubt that one day we'll have we'll have web-breathalyzers and PUI's. Maybe not on BW, but for tele-commuters and on .wa.gov. Probably complete with ticket & fine for the latter.
Posted by: wutitiz | January 27, 2008 at 04:32 AM
spot on wuttitiz. i voted for bill in 92 -new democrat and all- but that travel gate was the first warning i had. then the el foldo on lani granier as AG -read the Hitchens book 'Nobody Left To Lie To' it is devestating- and by the time you get to WACO, coupled with various bimbo eruptions, plus all those executive branch -non ken starr- scandals, et al. it became too much.
and Hillary wasn't like an innocent waif. she was a full partner. she was the one that brought back dick morris. read that Hitchens book on her conduct. Anyway, as Duff will tell you just never count out a clinton. but as dennis miller puts it, the media isn't performing that spell check function for them anymore. so it is a little harder this time around. and damn it, isn't obama a compelling story. and for a liberal, you get an articulate spokesperson who doesn't have that clinton baggage. just look at how they are running their campaigns. you have the clinton's out there trotting out the chairman of BET to allege that Obama was a drug dealer. just beyond the pale.
does anyone want more of that stuff? haven't you had enough of the Clinton Circus. you know, all those talking heads coming on to tell us the meaning of is, james carville rants, and lanny davis dancing on the head of a needle. parsing away. yikes. not that crowd.
Posted by: PugetSound | January 27, 2008 at 05:13 AM
Regarding earlier posts referencing Caroline Kennedy's Obama endorsement. Maureen Dowd on Meet the Press says "I think it's huge."
Also, there seems to be a sea change (or at least a pond change) in how Dems are talking about Hillary. The phrase "the Clintons" (e.g. see LAT column linked by PS) is on many Dem tongues, and it seems to be code for "link Hill to the scandals of Bill."
Posted by: wutitiz | January 27, 2008 at 07:16 AM
"Caroline Kennedy remembers the Kennedy myth. She is about as relevant to young people as you are. What a ridiculous comment."
Yeah wutitiz I wasn't even making a 'comment', I was simple pointing out what I'd heard on NBC. Of course joanie had to 'attack'. And joanie fyi: I am relevant to the young people I care about; i.e. my 3 children and 9 grand-kids, thank you! :)
Yes wutitiz I believe that's the current prevailing tactic, to lump Hill & Bill together and present them as the 'past'.
Posted by: Duffman | January 27, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Yeah, repeating what you heard on...that's you duff. Try some original thinking once in a while.
You know, if you guys reread your posts above, not one of you has said anything either proven or specific. Just a lot of hate rants about the Clintons.
You know, you really need to get a collective brain transplant.
Of course, lumping Hill and Bill (and of course Duff you're not BillHill/HillBill-what an idiot imposter whiner you are) couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they are married sorta like John and Elizabeth and Barack and Michele...
You guys are walking ads for why this country is in serious trouble and exactly why we've had seven years of misery.
Rant, lie, distort and whine all you want. The proof of the incompetence on the right is witnessed everyday by the rest of the world.
But then, sheep are usually the last to know ... until they're over the cliff. And even then they have to wait for the "bump." America is over the cliff thanks to you guys.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I can certainly understand the frustration you must undoubtedly be feeling because your 'Breck' boy is fading fast and really doesn't stand much of a chance.
Oh my, what will you do now...hold your nose and vote for Mrs Clinton. I think so. :)
Posted by: Duffman | January 27, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Dear Joanie
You seem to have the same warm fuzzy feelings over the Clinton crime family that you have for the incompetent James Earl Carter.
Maybe you just remember the good things about both (though admittedly, I can think of none) and forget all of the bull crap.
Many of us on the right could really give a rats ass about any of our left leaning Republican POTUS candidates, but bring on thunder thighs and you are going to see us coming from all angles to elect anybody but Hillary.
We have money and we have the machine in place.
Posted by: chucks | January 27, 2008 at 03:03 PM
And if you are stupid enough to vote on everything but issues, you will be left behind.
Maybe you can rent one of your own vehicles to catch up.
I don't remember or forget anything. I look at the here and now and assess. You might try it sometime.
BTW, nice steal from Malloy. Lying about sex is such a crime . . . lying about war, well, we do it all the time...if you're in the Bush leagues.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 03:37 PM
Oh, and as for your machine... yes, we've all seen what rightwing machines look like. Swift boat liars can lie about anything, it's true. But like Peter, sometimes those who try to lie twice get caught.
But, since you have so little on the right of which to be proud, push those Swifties right out loud.
I'll stick with the side that takes pride in DEMOCRACY whether it be Obama, Edwards or Hillary.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 03:41 PM
And chuck s.: Have you said sorry to a vet today?
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 03:43 PM
and one more thing...it doesn't matter who the Dems nominate, your rightwing hate machine will be in full gear anyway.
Isn't that what you guys do? Isn't that all you do?
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Well, today its cold so global warming is not happening in Seattle. thats looking at the "here and now"
Look at our economy, with the Libs in charge it is going down the tube. Why? Well I'll tell you why, nobody is spending any money. They have it, just not spending it. Why? I'll tell you why, they are afraid that a lib will become president and tax the hell out of them to pay for their pet projects. Now thats looking at the "here and now".
Does that sum it up nicely Joanie?
Posted by: Nevets | January 27, 2008 at 04:01 PM
Just another outlook from another dolt. Why do you keep guessing about everything?
I don't look at selective history, Steven. It is a waste of time. You guys prove it every single day.
As for being afraid something will happen? Well, that is true of the right and you have all proved it since 9-11. Just look where it got you.
But you never learn, do you?
Unfortunately, you see everyone from your narrow perspective. Most people have learned from the Bush fiasco. They have learned that there are worse things than a little infidelity and sex.
They have been taught by an expert right-wing crazy man.
Proud of yourselves are you?
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 04:30 PM
That was moderate fun. Sometimes you are easy to ignite Ms Joanie.
I suspect that you do not believe that we have not learned from the Clinton's and their special machine as well. That Senator Obama has stepped of of the plantation. The Clinton hate machine is going to attempt to destroy him. Just watch. After that, it is going to get ugly. Obama is just a bump on the highway to Thunder Thighs coronation.
Posted by: chucks | January 27, 2008 at 05:17 PM
Oh Yeh.
I thank every vet and every active duty service person at every opportunity. Do not need to insult them by apologising. Pretty much to every man or woman serving, they know the value of what they are doing, even if you coward pergressive's don't.
God, I wish we could re-elect Bush to four more years.
Oh well, Cheney in 2008 would be great. After being POTUS, can Bush be VP? Cheney-Bush 2008. That would rawk my world.
Posted by: chucks | January 27, 2008 at 05:26 PM
You're not voting for McCain, chucks? I would of thought you supported vets instead of four more years of Cheney.
Posted by: coiler | January 27, 2008 at 05:36 PM
Now, I just read that the floater is going to endorse old thunder thighs. That'll piss her off.
Snicker-snicker.
Looks like the D's are going to be feasting on D's for a spell.
Posted by: chucks | January 27, 2008 at 05:40 PM
I like McCain as a man. He has paid his dues. He is just too damn liberal for me. Heck, if Paul were not such an idiot on foreign policy, I could go for him. I really like his domestic agenda. But he is too much like the isolationist of the thirty's that helped lead us into WW2.
Do not yet know who I will support. It is still looking like Obama at this time cause he is not or has not yet proven himself a crook. I'm still looking at Romney, but with some caution. I liked Huckleberry until he started to talk about screwing with the Constitution. No chance of his getting his way with that if he were elected, but it would be a distraction.
Posted by: chucks | January 27, 2008 at 05:52 PM
More selective sh**. chuck, don't you have any shame? You've painted Hillary with a the broadests brush possible. So, fill in some details now. WTF are you talking about?
"thunder thighs"- exactly who and what is the political point of this sophisticated (for the right) term?
"the floater" - I'm sorry, chucks, I don't own the name-calling playbook for your hate machine. Please identify with a normal name like a normal person. thanks in advance.
Which D's will be "feasting?" And how does elucidating resumes constitute feasting?
Perhaps Clinton's "fairy tale" comment should have been reserved for the revisionists on the right who have rewritten WMDs and Iraq to be an Easter Egg Hunt - oh, isn't that cute. I'm sure that's the fable you'll tell rightwing kiddies when putting them to bed at night.
And if Uncle McCain becomes president, after dinner he'll have radio-time with the kiddies and tell them in person this right-wing fairy tale, and he can promise them all that he will insure that they all get to be one of old-man Mccain's warriors in the "Hundred Years War" that McCain is so proudly looking forward to.
Snicker some more, chuck, cause you do have a wagonful of fodder for snickering on the right. Don't you just...
(let's snicker together, Coiler)
No barns being painted here...
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 06:03 PM
Joanie, Clinton did not just lie about sex, he lied about it in the context of sexual harassment litigation (the Jones case). Is sexual harassment something to slough off in your book?
What did Bush lie about--WMD??? Not really. Saddam used WMD against Kurds in '88, and tried against Shiites in '91. His own senior officers thought he had WMD to the end.
In March '03, shortly after the invasion began, Saddam issued a cryptic order to "hold the coalition for 8 days and leave the rest [to me]." His senior people were relieved because they thought it meant he still had a secret WMD cache. They were accustomed to being left out of the loop because Saddam trusted nobody. (from "Cobra II: The inside story of the invasion and occupation of Iraq" by NYT reporter M. Gordon and Gen B. Trainor, p 190).
So did Bush lie? No like everyone else, including Iraqi generals, he was mistakenly convinced that Saddam had WMD.
Posted by: wutitiz | January 27, 2008 at 06:05 PM
Just like a right-wing crazy to think that thanks takes care of the TBI's, the rotating of sick guys and girls back into combat, and homelessness, poverty, unemployment and mental challenges.
You remind me of another imbecile that thought serving sandwiches in church on Sunday took care of hunger. With people balancing all the needs soldiers have with a thanks, soldiers don't need to go to Iraq to meet the enemy. The enemy is you.
And, for your remediation, I did not say "have you thanked? (that's your talking point) but I said "have you said sorry to a vet today?
That's a little harder, isn't it, chuck?
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 06:09 PM
Aaah, joanie my dear - if nothing else you are indeed (to an extent) the life's blood of this blog! :0
Posted by: Duffman | January 27, 2008 at 06:26 PM
And that is your talking point Ms Joanie. There is nothing to apologise for. Nothing....
I understand that a little gratitude is tough for you. You do not see the value of our veterans or active duty persons service.
So, when was the last time you called Se. Murray and thanked her for her efforts on behalf of our veterans? Maybe encouraged her to keep fighting.
Pretty sure it is never, but OK, continue blow v8ing here.
Stay self righteous joanie. Most of us understand you.
Posted by: chucks | January 27, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Joanie must be dipping into the liqour cabinet tonight. She can't remember what she wrote a few hours ago.
Chucks I was at Fort Lewis yesterday and said hi and thanks to many of our brave men in uniform. They look at me with a "what the" look until they finally figure out what for and smile and say thanks. I also always beep my horn when I go under the "Freedom Bridge" for respect to those vets that wave the flag in all kinds of weather, like I have many of times raising the flag over the many duty stations I served on. Ahhh to be young again...
Posted by: Nevets | January 27, 2008 at 06:28 PM
You can dig down as far as your needy little hand can go for whatever specks of proof you can find to justify that fool's war. I don't care.
To think that anyone should start a war based on that flimsy evidence - a rational person wouldn't even call such "beliefs" based on the guess of a meaning of one statement evidence - is only additional proof that you people are idiots without the ability to critically think your way out of a paper bag.
That one little statement is your "proof" that there was enough evidence to kill 4000 American soldiers, disable tens of thousands more, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (who we know you Christians don't even think about) is so shameful that I'm embarrassed to consider you even an American.
It has been very well accepted that this war was based on a lies. If your consciene can't handle that, too bad. Or if your ego can't handle being wrong, too bad.
Just one more thing you have in common with your Decider.
This whole thing would be comedic if it weren't so tragic. And that you're still defending this insanity is perplexing to say the least.
Oh, and thank you for having so much sympathy for Ms. Jones. Try having some for all the people killed and maimed in Iraq. They might be as deserving as Ms. Jones - who's allegations, btw, were dismissed by the judge.
That's a small thing I know to you Bill haters, but in the annals of jurisprudence, a dismissal actually has some meaning.
I'm sorry Bill wasn't perfect like your warmongering Decider. But, like I said, there's always granddaddy McCain for you warlovers. Problem with him seems to be he has a little feeling for social justice. Damn. That's really too bad.
Well, except when it comes to the Iraqis.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Boy, I must have missed a good Randi Rhodes and Malloy show last friday. Joanie is spewing out that DEAN Rhetoric faster than D&D shoots his bullets.
Posted by: Nevets | January 27, 2008 at 06:41 PM
If you re-read my post, you will see that I did not try to "justify that fool's war." I just tried to show that Bush did not 'lie about WMD.' That's all.
Sure it's "well accepted" that he lied. It's been repeated ad infinitum. But that obviously doesn't make it so.
Posted by: wutitiz | January 27, 2008 at 06:42 PM
Reread your rightwing bs posts: just read how self-congratulatory you all are.
This war isn't about them; it's about a bunch of old warriors who are living off the blood of young people dying and disabled from this empty mishap called a war.
No, a sorry would do them much more good. A thanks? For what? FOR WHAT? For Oil to make exxon richer.
The whole world knows the reason for this war and that's why nobody else is even left fighting it.
What a group of fools you be. What a group of self-congratulating, egotistical old fools you be.
I'll bet a lot of those guys and girls at Fort Lewis are simply condoning you chucks. And if they're still walking around, they have the same zeal for it that you old codgers have. I'm wondering, chuck, what's up, and steven, how many soldiers you've visited in the hospital. How many soldiers have you found shelter for? How many soldiers have you fed lately?
What a bunch of faux warrios you are. If slapping these soldiers on the backs and saying "thanks" makes you feel good, go for it. Because that's about all such conduct accomplishes.
Remember your glory days boys. That's what this is all about for you.
I cry that so many will be so disabled to keep your memories of manhood alive.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 06:42 PM
"Problem with him seems to be he has a little feeling for social justice."
Or the feeling that he did a terrible thing that could have put our country and our service men at risk far greater than anything Bush has done.
Posted by: Nevets | January 27, 2008 at 06:45 PM
And again, I did not say I had sympathy for Jones. To me, with the evidence she had, her's was a frivolous lawsuit.
I just said that Clinton didn't just lie about sex, he lied about it in a sexual harassment suit. And further, he lied about it to circumvent a law that he himeself signed.
Posted by: wutitiz | January 27, 2008 at 06:49 PM
steven, I'm used to your diversion of crediting my statements to someone else. Please quit projecting your own behavior onto me.
It is a vacuous attempt to deflect the truth of what I say. Try, for a change, actually commenting on my comments.
You prove yourself to be the fool when you do otherwise. Your last debate with Sparky was actually interesting. Whether or not I agreed with you, at least you used your brain and came up with adult-type comments.
Simple deflection leaves you looking foolish and vacuous.
But, your choice.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2008 at 06:50 PM