idrankwhat

He's establishing quite the pattern for those sorts of slips. I believe this is what Chasingbluesky was referring to earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM&eurl=http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/46628-cbs-edits-mccain-s-whopper-out-of-broadcast-w-original-video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NC0Y7zMcn_4 Edited to add: I'm really not sure what he was trying to say. It sounded like political speak where he wants to sound like he's saying something without saying anything.

I know that CBS News has started to edit his flubs, it could explain why you are missing out on them. It's really sickening to see what the media is doing with this election. They don't care about it, they just want their ratings Hmmm....maybe it wasn't a "flub". Iran is the "situation" on the Iraq/Pakistan border. Maybe he's secretly planning on partitioning the country! Poor guy, I'm seriously beginning to worry about the man.

That's a great line, but I gotta ask, who would that be? I was thinking most specifically about Lieberman. He helped McCain out of one of his tang toungled moments, but has been out of the news recently while he's on the Hagee House of Hate tour, aka. Christians United For Israel conference.

I don't know how accurate the numbers are, but it's certainly an interesting video. Blues, Dave As far as I can tell they seem to have their act together. And it's nice to hear people making sense in the gray area as opposed to arguing in black and white. http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/

Ouch! I missed that one. Was the distinguished Senator from Israel there to bail him out of that one too? Didn't you get the memo? It's "an aggressive diplomatic infiltration offensive" and "victory horizon facilitation related activities".

Besides all of the above, THIS GUY has been McCain's foreign policy adviser. Maybe not for much longer but that's a different story. However both stories make you question McCain's judgment.

I like the way Ben explains things but it can be hazardous to your fall rate. A little perspective

One issue that many neglect to factor in is the cost of the fuel after we convert to cleaner technologies like solar and wind. It's free. Well, at least until someone figures out how to implement the "solar tax".

I mean the response to the White memo, directing that no investigative data be shared - *that* "wall". Right, the "wall" that wasn't, as I referenced earlier. Bullshit - I was *IN* Saudi Arabia, bro. Isn't that proving my point? But to use bin Laden's words: e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures. Then why the meetings between AQ and Iraq's intelligence arm? Why the training camp at Salman Pak? I don't want to dig up the 9/11 report AGAIN. You do it. I'll be doing something constructive like pounding my head against a wall instead. I could say that is a PA, but I'm pretty sure you don't mean it as the bald words themselves sound. Don't worry. Similarly, I don't blame the troops for the decisions of their CiC either. When you can provide proof that military planning was done for the sole benefit of military contractors, come back and we'll discuss it. Of course, if that *could* be proven (despite the fevered yapping of the moonbats), Bush and Cheney would have been impeached LONG ago with my full support. "Sole benefit"? No. The oil and Israel reasons are easier to prove. Still, I wish we had listened to Eisenhower. "... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Update: Rove had until three days ago to appear. I just called the House Judiciary Committee and asked them what the next step was. The guy that answered the phone said they were still working that out but should decide within a few days. I wrote that off as a standard non-reply but I wanted to let him know some people were still paying attention. If you want to check in for yourself and help make some noise, use the phone number. The email form on the website doesn't work. Someone has to make sure that they do their job even if they don't want to. House Committee on the Judiciary 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 p/202-225-3951

That's desperate and pathetic. I'm glad to know about it but now I fear that by reading the story that I've done nothing but help to make it "newsworthy". Those idiots will now get that billboard plastered across the country, basically for free.

I don't think I've ever met a "porch monkey". I've met criminals and just plain "assholes" before but I don't know that I could pick 'em out of a crowd. They blend in with the general population too easily. I could use a "trunk monkey" though if you know where I can find one.

Don't bitch slap the young voters. Bitch slap the media when THEY do it! Why do you think voters, both young AND old, are ignorant in the first place?

I don't hear it much any more and I never have the case to use it myself. I figure that it will eventually go the way of the mashie niblick. Your Honkey, Matt

I was going to ask y'all the same thing... or I could just mention the "Gorelick wall". That one must be "F7" But ok, what "wall"? You mean the one attributed to Gorelick by Ashcroft during a pre-testimony partisan hack attack? The one that was not a "wall" but a set of procedures for sharing intelligence? The one that was part of a 1978 statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? You mean the "wall" that Reno adopted, which was subsequently reaffirmed by Ashcroft in 2001? You mean the "wall" that was, according to the Ashcroft Justice Dept., "a set of largely unwritten rules that limited to some degree information sharing" that were the result of Reagan and Bush 41 interpretations? You mean the "wall" that, when directly questioned, Ashcroft referred to, not as a wall, but as a "culture". There was no "wall". Ashcroft admitted it when pressed. He panicked and started pointing a partisan finger in an effort to deflect criticism. He was even rebuked by the Bush White House for interjecting partisanship into the 9/11 commission's investigation. Depends on how you define the cost, doesn't it? It's a semantics game - I feel it's better to be fighting them over there than at home ('over there' being a loose term for the M.E. and not indicative of Iraq). That's their job - those 'rough men' that Orwell spoke of. You want to see paranoia? Pull the troops out and have another 9/11 type of attack happen on American soil. I like you Mike but that notion of "over there instead of over here" is so full of shit on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. One of the main reasons that there is an al qaeda is because we based our military in Mecca. The reason there is an "al qaeda in Iraq" is because we invaded Iraq! They weren't there before 2003! We didn't need to invade Iraq so we could "fight them over there". We were already next door in Afghanistan, fighting them where they were. That's "over there"! And lastly (for now), I think it's seriously f'd up to suggest that, even if it means making more enemies and propagating an indefinite "war on terror" that we should send our military into the region simply to act as easier targets than those on US soil. Besides being a waste the lives of our soldiers (both actual life and quality of life/family life, etc.) but it makes as much sense as raising a population of Africanized bees so that we can send people in to kill some of them. And from a military stand point it makes about as much sense as firing off half of a clip just to see if you have bullets. If you make more enemies then yes, you will kill more of them. But in the end, you will have more people wanting to kill you. You will also have fewer friends. That's not solving a problem. That's creating "busy work". But I suppose if you're a military contractor then it's a sound business decision.

Do you have hot keys programmed with this stuff On a more serious note and just to provide some perspective, that single attack was just as effective as seven years of #43's wars wasn't it? Hell of a lot cheaper though.

It died because the committee hasn't returned from their lunch break. It was all you can eat fried mayonnaise day at "Bob's Big Bottom Buffet".

Just got it yesterday but so far have only had a chance to peruse the map. Maybe tonight. NG does great stuff. I really enjoyed the article they did on Pakistan a few months back as well. Very well done and quite timely. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/09/pakistan/don-belt-text.html

"Can he resist the temptation to push the button that, even now, beckons him even closer? Will he succumb to the maddening urge to PA? At the MERE...PUSH...of a SINGLE...BUTTON! The beeyootiful SHINY button! The jolly CANDY-LIKE button! Will he hold out, folks? CAN he hold out?"

But that reply never factors in scale and often relies on half truths, such as the FISA discussion the other day.

The world is changing dramatically. We're still "top dog" at the moment but that's changing. If we continue our on our current path of poor education, over consumption and high debt then we're screwed. I'd be willing to bet that if we continue with the current trend of mortgaging our country to foreign interests that we'll be handing Taiwan over to China within a few years. I did acknowledge it. But I also pointed out that we may get the war that WE seem to want because we're pushing Iran into a corner, not because we're in danger. The UN and IAEA are doing pretty well. We should have listened to them with regard to Iraq. I'm willing to give them the reins on this one. Whose yard am I in?

Well, at least two out of the three answers were worth taking the time to read.

BZZZZZT wrong answer Not really. I can't argue with your paranoia but I can point out that we have two carrier groups on Iran's doorstep. Cheney and a number of core neocons are calling for a war with Iran. Israel is practicing and last month said that if we didn't attack that they would do it. To date we have yet to prove that Iran is doing anything illegal but we are seriously beating the war drums and the lame duck clock is ticking loudly. Iran is being difficult but they're not breaking any laws as far as I can tell. Posturing? Yes. But chest thumping in response to a threat is not illegal. I think that the point that Darius is trying to make is that the US has attacked countries for far less than the threat that we currently pose to Iran. If Iran had missiles off our coast and a leader saying he was ready to push "the button" we'd have "preemptively retaliated" by now.

You don't think that besides being the place where Cheney sheathes his saber that it might have something to do with keeping the Strait of Hormuz open after an Israeli or US attack on Iran?