August 31, 2006

Path to 9/11 [Retired Geezer]
— Ace

I haven't had time to come up with an intelligent post on my own; no horse stories or pictures of the grandkids, no attempts at teh humor or shameless blog pimping.
I'll just link Patterico's excellent review of ABC's upcoming movie:

For those who have been asking for a clear historical account of the build up to the 9/11 disaster, free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling - I can say wholeheartedly that this is the film that you have been waiting for.

“The Path To 9/11″ is astonishing.
It is an amazing achievement on many levels. It is flat out one of the best made-for-televison movies seen in decades. The only thing that would keep this movie from theatrical distribution is its nearly 5-hour running time (split over two days in this instance). Forget CNN’s “replay” broadcast from 9/11 - Trust me and mark your callendars to watch ABC these nights.

The Clinton administration will likely go ballistic over this film. (Perhaps why ABC isn’t pushing it at as much as they should be??) It does not have a ”partisan” feel to it by any means. The Bush administation comes in for some criticism (Condi Rice in particular comes off rather poorly), but that is nothing comapred to the depiction of Sandy Berger and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. I doubt that they will be able to show their faces in public after this (and also helps to explain why Berger was so earger to try and illegally remove classified documents from the archives before his Senate testimony on the 9/11 events). If Bill Clinton’s current purpose in life is solidify a positive ”legacy” for his time in office, this film has the potential to be his biggest hurdle to overcome yet...

The Path to 9/11 ~ Patterico's Review

CORRECTION: It was Justin Levine, not Patterico.

Posted by: Ace at 04:45 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Free of political spin"?

I've been so disgusted with Hollywood over the last few years, that I'm thinking they would show an advance non-partisan version and then broadcast it with GWB pushing down on the detonator like Wiley E. Coyote.

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at August 31, 2006 04:56 AM (s7Ian)

2 sorry for o/t but how come nobody's pounding ted stevens like cheap veal? that was supposed to be the really fun part, after the patient waiting, etc... the morally satisfying third act.

Posted by: jdubious at August 31, 2006 05:09 AM (G7s9a)

3 If this miniseries is everything I'm hearing it cracked up to be, then we should get ready for Bill Clinton to issue a "release the hounds" order and flood the talking head shows with his hired surrogates and apologists who will attempt to smear the miniseries and those who made it -- which is what he always did when he was president every time he was criticized.

Get ready for:

Paul Begala
James Carville
Lanny Davis
Sidney Blumenthal

...coming soon to a TV near you.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 31, 2006 05:27 AM (jqv3S)

4 Ah, but will Soxy Sandy come out and defend himself?

Posted by: Dan Collins at August 31, 2006 05:59 AM (Ouds1)

5 The difference in MSM coverage of Plamegate and the SandyBurglar incident is a very good demonstration of the difference between a story the MSM wanted to pursue vs. a story the MSM definitely did not want to pursue. This Clinton/911 movie looks like it will be another test for the MSM to fail.

I salute, and the Clintonistas will question, the timing.

Posted by: eman at August 31, 2006 06:20 AM (SD4ZE)

6 I expect the Clintonistas and liberals to come out in force to denounce and try to discredit the movie. Rush said yesterday that a guy involved was pretty aggressively confronted by a Clintonista in a DC screening, s'anecdotal evidence, but if its anything like he said, we'll know soon enough.

The left can't let this movie be effective in portraying them as largely to blame for 9/11 because they were ignoring the problem. Its gonna get nasty, remember that our side managed to shut down the CBS anti-Reagan hit piece? Also remember, ABC is a mainstream media operation, and are going to be favorably inclined to its leftist masters, who are going to push hard to make the film disappear, like Jean Kerry did to the movie about his Anti-Vietnam War shenanigans.

That said, if ABC plays it, its a self inflicted wound of the worst kind of way.

Carville kinda reminds of Judge Doom from Who Framed Roger Rabbit...

He also looks like a grey, all those people with abduction experiences, you gotta wonder, was it Carville on lonely nights driving to his next speaking engagement...the truth is out there

/obligatory mulder
//man that show aged poorly
///Ever see the film quality on SciFi, yikes
////Slashies!!!

Posted by: Sinistar at August 31, 2006 06:51 AM (FUWRQ)

7 Hot damn shit. I can’t believe a mainstream media outlet is having the balls to tell the truth about 9/11. If only 1 single leftard gets their eyes opened to who is responsible for the hell we find ourselves in with the muslim hordes, it will be worth the weeks upon weeks of denial and redirecting the klinton klan will initiate. I hope murtha the traitor is shown to be culpable as well, as it was his advice to cut and run from Somalia which empowered bin laden to plan the hit on the US. I’ll be watching, at least up to the actual attack. That still makes me bawl like I did when it happened

Posted by: Theresa at August 31, 2006 07:25 AM (tN0oi)

8 "I doubt that they will be able to show their faces in public after this"

This assumes that they have a sense of shame. I would guess that is a bad assumption.

Posted by: ken at August 31, 2006 07:48 AM (hFZJx)

9 Out of curiousity...how much blame do you guys think Bush and his team should get for letting 9/11 happen on their watch?

10%?
50% maybe?

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 07:57 AM (unUeA)

10 ABC did something free of political spin??
I'd certainly be amazed.
Just for kicks, I watched 20/20 last night, ABC's 'The Last Days' scenarios, including a gamma ray burster, a black hole, a supervolcano, an asteroid, nuclear war, a man-made biological pandemic, and...
and I was waiting, saying, yeah, it's gotta be, of course they'd make this the number one...


GLOBAL WARMING!!
Sure enough.
Un-fucking-real.
Al Gore was in front of his solar powered TV jerking off with a handful of organic soy oil.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at August 31, 2006 08:04 AM (vh+iP)

11 Out of curiousity...how much blame do you guys think Bush and his team should get for letting 9/11 happen on their watch?

We blame you. What the hell were you thinking? 4 fucking planes hijacked and you're sitting there with your thumbs up your ass? When are you going to grow a pair and admit that you did nothing - Nothing, despite all the warnings and previous attempts?

And what about homeland security? There's the border - where's monkyboy? Hijacking another thread with dumbass questions.

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 08:05 AM (Id2DF)

12 You still showing your face around here after how badly you got embarrassed on your lies back in that other thread, monky?

I guess you're a glutton for punishment.

Posted by: Warden at August 31, 2006 08:08 AM (rZ5uY)

13 Out of curiousity...how much blame do you guys think Bush and his team should get for letting 9/11 happen on their watch?

Monkyboy, you are dumber than a sack of retarded puppies.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 08:09 AM (R8+nJ)

14 The National Geographic did an excellent special on 9/11 a year or so ago. I've only watched DVD 1 (the build-up) but it's very thorough.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at August 31, 2006 08:11 AM (a5z+K)

15 Hehe, geoff,

I admit I didn't all I could to stop the attacks...

I'm just fascinated by the "blame Clinton" guys.

Was it all Clinton's fault?

Do they think Bush shares any responsibility for 9/11?

If so...how much?

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 08:14 AM (unUeA)

16 Well, monkyboy, why don't you start by counting the number of al Qaeda attacks that took place on clinton's watch vs Bush's?
Then tell us what you think of clinton turning down the government of Sudan when they offered Osama to us?
Then when the CIA and Northern Alliance had Osama surrounded and in their sights in Afghanistan, but clinton's boy sandy burgler pulled the plug and had them abort the mission?
And how about jamie gorelick, and all she contributed?

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at August 31, 2006 08:37 AM (vh+iP)

17 Were there any attacks on Clinton's watch?

The first World Trade Center bombing took place one month after Clinton took office, so that one wasn't his fault...it was Bush 41s fault, right?

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 08:50 AM (unUeA)

18 The first World Trade Center bombing took place one month after Clinton took office

You're a moron.

Why are you fine people entertaining this dope?

Posted by: at August 31, 2006 08:54 AM (NE2DL)

19 Pay attention to Bart, instead.

Posted by: at August 31, 2006 08:55 AM (NE2DL)

20 Were there any attacks on Clinton's watch?

Do the words "USS Cole" and/or "Khobar Towers" mean anything to you?

Posted by: meekrob at August 31, 2006 08:58 AM (wosqx)

21 Fair is fair.

If 9/11, which took place 8 months after Bush took office...is somehow Clinton's fault...you can't blame Clinton for an attack that took place one month after he took office.

Well, I suppose you could blame Clinton for both attacks. Wouldn't make any sense...but, it's a free country.

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 08:59 AM (unUeA)

22 * click *

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 09:10 AM (Id2DF)

23 We don't blame Clinton for letting the 1993 WTC#1 attack take place "on his watch." Dipshit.

We blame him for utterly failing -- after WTC#1 in 1993, Riyadh in 1995, Khobar Towers in 1996, Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000 -- not to mention Mogadishu in 1993 and a long history of incidents from Munich 1972 through Teheran 1979-80 and up to Lockerbie and the first intifada -- to recognize that appeasement (see: Arafat handshake), flyswat retaliatory attacks (see: empty aspirin factory) and empty bluster alternating with "We-Are-the-World" multi-culti platitudes are utterly ineffective at dealing with terrorism.

We also blame him for -- through the aforementioned failures -- emboldening Al Qaeda and their ilk, cementing the idea (propounded by bin Laden in a 1998 fatwa) that the US is a "paper tiger that crumples at the first blow," and thereby encouraging further attacks.

To be sure, Clinton isn't the only president to kick the can down the road to the next administration. Everyone from Nixon up to Bush 41, and especially Jimmy Carter (and even Reagan -- see: Beirut 1983), also shares some blame.

Bush 43, unfortunately, is showing some signs of the same falta de huevos tendency lately. But I don't blame him so much as I blame the disloyal opposition (i.e. the McGovernite / Kossack wing of the Democratic Party), which has been sadly successful in politically hampering and obstructing the war on terror and preventing it from being carried out more effectively.

Posted by: Alex at August 31, 2006 09:15 AM (fgyj8)

24 So why do liberals call Bush a "dry drunk" and accuse him of falling off a wagon, but give Ted Kennedy a complete pass?

Fair is fair.

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 09:22 AM (Id2DF)

25 Oops - should be "the wagon" not "a wagon."

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 09:22 AM (Id2DF)

26 God, this feels like volunteering to hose out the hog pen.

Monkeyboy,

I don't blame Clinton for the occurance of the first World Trade Center bombing. In fact, I, unlike liberals, blame the jihadis for for what they do.

What I do blame Clinton for is turning his entire 8 years in office into a gigantic jack-off session, spending more time and effort closing military bases and fetching nuke technology for China than he did fighting terrorism.

I blame Clinton for listening to liberals and being the U.N.'s fluffer. I blame Clinton for willfully ignoring the threat of terrorism, spending American time and resources to ship a little boy back to a Dictator from which he and his mother escaped or burning alive a bunch of women and children in Texas.

I blame Clinton for 8 years of self-congratulating unseriousness. Not that I oppose gays in the military (but then, I'm not in the military), but I blame Clinton for caring more about the military's gay-and-women ratio than actually USING THE FUCKING MILITARY.

I blame Clinton for cutting budgets to the bone in the military and intelligence. I blame Clinton for creating the "wall of separation" between intelligence services in order to hide the Democrats treasonous dealings with Red China.

I blame Clinton for being such a consumate jack-off, that it was more important for him to predate women and take credit for an economy whose growth he had nothing to do with, than with doing the first, foremost, primary and ultimately ONLY job he had: defending the goddamn country.

Posted by: grayson at August 31, 2006 09:33 AM (3Vh45)

27 Grayson, that fire's gonna burn you up inside.

Grayson: It keeps me warm.

Posted by: John at August 31, 2006 09:38 AM (wg4FW)

28 Well said, Grayson.
I blame clinton for working on his next blow job, while the jihadis were working on their next
blow-up job.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at August 31, 2006 09:41 AM (vh+iP)

29 grayson,

Now that Bush has cut and run from the hunt for bin Laden and he is trying to get Iran to stop making nukes by threatening them with U.N. sanctions...

Do you feel the same way about Bush as you feel about Clinton?

Or do you somehow blame the powerless Democrats like, Alex does?

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 09:47 AM (unUeA)

30 Now that Bush has cut and run from the hunt for bin Laden

When did he do that? Don't we still have 19,000 guys in Afghanistan hunting the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Of course, liberals never acknowledge that we're not permitted to pursue the baddies across the Pakistan border to where OBL is most likely hiding.

he is trying to get Iran to stop making nukes by threatening them with U.N. sanctions...

Keeriminey - that's your guys' idea. We have to go through the motions or we'll hear more of your "he didn't give diplomacy a chance/sanctions were working" BS.

Or do you somehow blame the powerless Democrats like

Yeah, real powerless. But of course that's what all the whining is really about. Keep pestering until you finally get the car keys.

Almost all the liberal talking points revert to your single-minded desire for power.

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 09:53 AM (Id2DF)

31 Desire for power?

Sounds like you think the Democrats are still running things even though the Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, geoff.

The defense budget was $286 billion the year Clinton left office...now it's over $500 billion a year.

If the Republicans, with complete control of the government and almost twice the defense budget Cliton had...can't lead...why should they stay power?

It's not going to get any better for them than this...

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 10:06 AM (unUeA)

32 Once again, monkyboy displays a problem with reading comprehension.

What do we covet, monkyboy?  What is "desire?"

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 10:09 AM (R8+nJ)

33 If the Dems are powerless, why do they continue to take a paycheck? Are you accusing them of taking money for doing nothing?

Why do they have enormous staffs which suck at the public trough? Why is Nancy Pelosi calle the Minority Leader? What possible function does Hary Reid have?

Since you are an annoying dipshit who asks childish nyah nyah questions instead of reasoning like an adult, why do you come here since you provide zero heat and less light?

Posted by: JackStraw at August 31, 2006 10:15 AM (rnOZq)

34

People like monkeyboy are like people who have sex with barnyard animals. The truth about them is so horrible- letting al Qaeda plot 9/11 or doing goats doggie-style- that they can never admit it, and need to spin and obfuscate and deny the obvious forever.


People like monkeyboy are why 3000 people were killed on 9/11.


Posted by: Barry at August 31, 2006 10:18 AM (kKjaJ)

35 Hehe, slu

I have a "problem with reading comprehension?"

The Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress.

Are they in charge of America now or aren't they?

Are the Republicans responsible for what is happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Are they responsible for dealing with Iran?

Pretty simple questions to answer...

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 10:21 AM (unUeA)

36 Tell you what, when you get democrats in the house and senate to not just say that, but actually say they will from now until november abstain from every vote and let Republicans do as they will since they are in control, then we'll talk business.

You seem to want to pretend like they don't exist and have no effect on anything. So, let's see them not effect anything for a while eh? Write your representative and senators.

Posted by: Entropy at August 31, 2006 10:41 AM (m6c4H)

37 Monkyboy, your last post exhibits a near-toxic level of stupidity.

Read geoff's post again.  Slowly.

I know there are some big words there, but I believe in you.*


*Actually, I don't.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 10:41 AM (R8+nJ)

38 Nice try, slu.

I believe my question was first:

Does Bush share any responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?

If you can answer that question with a straight yes or no answer, I'll be happy to break out my decoder ring and try to decipher the hidden message in geoff's post.

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 10:52 AM (unUeA)

39 No.

The responsibility for the terrorist attacks lies entirely with those who planned, funded and executed those attacks.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 10:57 AM (R8+nJ)

40 Now, are you willing to acknowledge that the policies of the Clinton administration helped lead to al quada's ascent?

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 11:01 AM (Qty2k)

41 Coooool...

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 11:01 AM (R8+nJ)

42 slu,

Again, nice try, but that's not really answering my question, is it?

Does Bush share any responsibilty with Clinton for failing to prevent the 9/11 atacks?

If so, how much?

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 11:08 AM (unUeA)

43 I answered the question you asked, halfwit.  If you want an answer about 'failing to prevent,' then ask it the first time.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 11:08 AM (R8+nJ)

44 Boo, creepy monkyboy.

Hooray, Defense Spending!

Posted by: Pupster at August 31, 2006 11:13 AM (NMGPj)

45 Honestly, to answer that question, I would have to know what you think could have been done to prevent the terrorist attacks.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 11:15 AM (R8+nJ)

46 Hehe,

Is that how the game is played around here, slu?

You avoid giving a straight answer to an obvious question.

Then call the questioner an idiot for not seeing the "true" meaning in rather vague posts?

One more try at actual reasoned debate...

Does Bush share any responsibilty with Clinton for failing to prevent the 9/11 atacks?

If so, how much?


Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 11:18 AM (unUeA)

47 The responsibility for the 9/11 attacks rests solely with the hijackers themselves and al Quada and its network which supported them.

The responsibility for the numerous terrorist attacks on US ships, embassies etc. during the 1990s are also soley the responsibility of those who carried them out.

The difference in how President Clinton and President Bush responded to these attacks is what counts. Clinton did almost nothing; Bush has attempted to do a great deal, and would have a much better chance of succeeding if the msm/Democrats and the msm/left in general were not doing everything they could to undermine him and his efforts during a time of war.

The US has never had a more disloyal, unconstructive, irresponsible and power-mad out-of-power party than the msm/Democrats today.

Posted by: max at August 31, 2006 11:20 AM (sZsVD)

48 Well of course he shares some responsibility - he's the president.

How much?  How the hell do you quantify something like that?  Gee...let's say 6.324% of the blame.

Idiot.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 11:20 AM (R8+nJ)

49 5.739%  with rounding.

Tob

Posted by: Toby928 at August 31, 2006 11:23 AM (ATbKm)

50
One more try at actual reasoned debate...


Please, spare me the self-righteousness.  You're a feces-throwing moron who has yet to communicate an original thought.

Okay, there was the whole 'fight terrorism with psych drugs' thing, but let's face it - that was really stupid.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 11:25 AM (R8+nJ)

51 Thanks for the straight answer, slu.

I'll try to answer what I think geoff's question was:

Is everything the Democrats do or say crafted to win them elections?

Yes

But, I think the same is true of the Republicans.

Such is democracy, I guess.

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 11:39 AM (unUeA)

52
Is everything the Democrats do or say crafted to win them elections?



Yes


That's gonna leave a mark.

Tob

Posted by: Toby928 at August 31, 2006 11:51 AM (ATbKm)

53

No, I don't think the same is true with Republicans. Bush put his presidency on the line to fight the war in Iraq. He didn't and won't cut and run even though the war has become unpopular. He has in fact taken many unpopular positions throughout his presidency, not the least of which would be his position on immigration. But at least the man has a core, and he sticks to his guns.


 


Posted by: Nice Deb at August 31, 2006 11:57 AM (woQK4)

54



We all remember the Jackoff “Don’t Stop Thinkin About
Tomarrrrow” decade of self love.
I’ll answer your stupid question, monkeypuss.



Responsibility for the murder of thousands of Americans here
& abroad… The Murderers.



Percent of responsibility for preventing said mass murder (I’ll
reduce this to the level of a fourth grade story problem so you can understand
it);



Clinton in office for 8 years or 96 months, with numerous opportunities
to respond to overseas attacks & the growing threat of a major attack on
U.S. soil  (and one real shot at beheading
al Quada).



Bush in office for 7 months, with 1 midlevel intelligence
memo to suggest an eminent domestic attack.



Here is your irrelevant answer..



7/96=0.072917*100=7.2917% Bush’s responsibility to prevent
9/11



92.7083% Clinton’s.



 



You were mighty close Slu & Tob.


Posted by: A. Weasel at August 31, 2006 11:59 AM (RvUfa)

55

That's gonna leave a mark.



Tob





One that will never heal, I’m afraid.


Posted by: A. Weasel at August 31, 2006 12:05 PM (RvUfa)

56 Another batch of lame ass trolling from monky

monky - you are not very good at this, it's still embarassing

Posted by: Red Right Hand at August 31, 2006 12:09 PM (VuJCG)

57 That's what you got from geoff's post?

Huh.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 12:14 PM (oag7v)

58 do you think monkeyboy gets beat up a  lot at school?

Posted by: Barry at August 31, 2006 12:32 PM (kKjaJ)

59

*click*


Geoff, you couldn't resist, could you?


Im sure there are many new readers daily who will benefit from seeing why m-boy is not worth the debate. There's some good in that, I suppose.


Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 01:11 PM (d6bNm)

60 max,

Why does your calculation stop at 8 years?

If there is no extra weight given to months closer to the attack...why not go back to George Washington?

Maybe if Jefferson had handled those darn Barbary pirates better...none of this would have happened!

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 01:11 PM (unUeA)

61

do you think monkeyboy gets beat up a  lot at school?


"gets" - heh.


We are talking High School, yes?


Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 01:12 PM (d6bNm)

62 Geoff, you couldn't resist, could you?

I got a sweet tooth for trolls. Especially when I'm doing really boring analysis. Unfortunately this one has become even more boring than that, and Jack M. won't let us mess with Deb Frisch any more. What to do, what to do? Maybe RWS's?

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 01:17 PM (Id2DF)

63 I don't know. It seems like, over there, jandrew... has gotten worse. I don't read it as much as you, but didn't he at least try to use logic? It all seems so "gotcha", espercially if it ghoes off-topic. Lou, or rather LOU is just, well...

Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 01:56 PM (d6bNm)

64 "Path to 9/11"

If you don't go back at least 30 years...you can't see the path.

I'd recommend taking a look thru Carter Era NSC-Directives related to South West Asian.

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/pddirectives/pres_directive.phtml

Posted by: Soldier's Dad at August 31, 2006 02:33 PM (XWsOh)

65
If there is no extra weight given to months closer to the attack...why not go back to George Washington?


Cool fact about monkyboy - he can always top his own stupidity.

Posted by: Slublog at August 31, 2006 02:58 PM (oag7v)

66 Cool fact about monkyboy - he can always top his own stupidity.

When your reading comprehension level is a negative number, it's easy.

The older he grows, the stupider he gets.

Posted by: max at August 31, 2006 03:09 PM (DtIRb)

67 It seems like, over there, jandrew... has gotten worse.

I wrote jandrew off after he said that it was OK if the second release of Abu Ghraib photos caused more US deaths in Iraq, because it was their duty to protect his constitutional right to see them. Once in a while he's almost coherent, but normally he slips from argument to argument like most trolls. Can't believe he's a lawyer.

LOU! ticked me off mightily by laying into Henry, saying he was a coward and chickenhawk. Henry, of course, is in the Merchant Marines and is currently serving in the Gulf. I believe LOU! is beyond reach - nothing you say goes in, it just serves as a stimulus for another irrational rant.

Poor RWS. I thought after she banned some of the more obnoxious commenters that things would get better, but she just got innundated with more. She's way too nice.

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 03:22 PM (Id2DF)

68 The difference in MSM coverage of Plamegate and the SandyBurglar incident is a very good demonstration of the difference between a story the MSM wanted to pursue vs. a story the MSM definitely did not want to pursue.


You don't even have to go that far. Look at how the legacy media covered Plamegate ... until it was revealed that one of their boys was to blame. Are there reporters camped out front of Armitage's place? Are they hounding him, calling for his arrest, for a frogwalk? No, what you hear are crickets.


To quote Kate O'Bierne on National Review:


"For almost three years, at every minor twist or turn of Plamegate, there were media stakeouts at the offices and homes of of the suspected leakers that invariably made the evening news and played in constant loops on cable. So who’s on Armitage driveway duty? Richard Armitage isn’t being hounded to answer questions about his role in Plamegate because the media wishes he had no role."


Regarding President BUsh, I don't know how you can assign blame other than 100% to the terrorists. They did it, they are to blame. However, President Bush like every president before him back to Nixon should have been doing more about terrorism than they did. Only one president in our history finally stepped up and picked up the ball the rest had been nudging around with their toes or trying to ignore - Reagan included.


That president is Bush.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 31, 2006 05:43 PM (FuM7z)

69 LOU! ticked me off mightily by laying into Henry, saying he was a coward and chickenhawk.

I did not know this.
So, does a troll help or hurt a thread? It seems to almost reliably change the course and intent of a thread, but at the same time adds energy. Agression built up between debates in good faith get to have a collective spew on the troll, and at least realize that they had an honost debate.

Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 06:01 PM (TtaDz)

70 Too bad the terrorists are playing soccer, Chris.

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 06:02 PM (unUeA)

71 So, does a troll help or hurt a thread?

Dissent helps, trolling is invariably bad. Take the Ann Coulter thread - there were widely differing views and the thread took off. Hardly any troll participation.

The only good thing about trolls is usually they have a pet topic and they can incentivize you to do some research on that topic. But they have no depth and really can't carry a discussion.

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 06:12 PM (Id2DF)

72 Pet topic...
Is this why it is inevitable that the thread becomes jacked?

Have we ever had a truly honest "honorable opposition" commenter?

I wonder how much infighting there would be if there were no trolls, whatsoever?

Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 06:26 PM (TtaDz)

73 So, does a troll help or hurt a thread?

Serious discussion - No, can't think of one who has done more than name-call, threadjack, repeat discredited and in some cases already discarded msm lies (Our trolls are not only low quality, but often out-of-date as well.) Think Jersey, Mike (shudder), Jeno, plv (double triple shudder), Michael Meyer etc. Larry the U was above average, but still essentially tiresome, and in the end the worst of all.

Humor - Yes, big time. The funniest threads ever imo were the Dave/Jersey/Jefferson and the plv in Antartica threads. Monkyboy is doing his bit in this department (although not on purpose) and perhaps with a little seasoning will reach Mike's level.

PS They reason they can't carry on a discussion is that (i) they're wrong and (ii) they lack either or both (a) the integrity to admit it or (b) the intelligence to see it.

Posted by: max at August 31, 2006 06:29 PM (ut95J)

74 <i>Have we ever had a truly honest "honorable opposition" commenter?</i>

The legendary and much-missed Von Kreedon was quite good. You know how it is, though - nobody appreciated him until he was gone and replaced by the swarms of pinheads. I had a great discussion about Plamegate with Skeptical, and once he calmed down, I even got through to Seattle Slough. But I think that in almost all cases it takes a warped mindset to want to drop into a hostile blog and start raising a ruckus. Especially with career trolls like monkyboy.

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 06:32 PM (Id2DF)

75 I suppose who you think is a troll depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

If you believe Clinton did nothing right and Bush has done nothing wrong...and anyone who disagrees is a troll...I expect you'll see a lot of trolls.

If, however, you have a more nuanced point of view...you won't see very many trolls at all.

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 06:41 PM (unUeA)

76 If you believe Clinton did nothing right and Bush has done nothing wrong...and anyone who disagrees is a troll.

There you go - a great example right there. It's his first reaction - put forward a crap argument to evoke a response. It's like a reflex.

Posted by: geoff at August 31, 2006 06:45 PM (Id2DF)

77

Geoff,


You're absolutely right about von Kreedon. He was in a class by himself.


Posted by: max at August 31, 2006 06:53 PM (ut95J)

78 Hehe, geoff,

I see your type of response as the mark of a troll.

Call someone an idiot or make an accusation without adding anything at all to a thread...kind of a "church lady" response.

Posted by: monkyboy at August 31, 2006 06:54 PM (unUeA)

79 If, however, you have a more nuanced point of view...you won't see very many trolls at all.

Actually, monkyboy, nuanced or not, we don't see many trolls at all right now. In fact we see only one troll right now and, surprise, it's you.

Posted by: max at August 31, 2006 07:07 PM (ut95J)

80

If you believe Clinton did nothing right, and Bush has done nothing wrong...and anyone who disagrees is a troll..."


See now, Monkeyboy, that right there, is why people keep questioning your age. That is just some straight-up dumbass shit, you're throwing. Nobody here thinks that, and you ought to know it.


Posted by: Nice Deb at August 31, 2006 07:34 PM (woQK4)

81
If, however, you have a more nuanced point of view...you won't see very many trolls at all.


I echo max. There really aren't that many trolls here. They are ever replenishing, but actually few in number.
Is this why that Baloon Juice thingy lost commenters?

Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 07:36 PM (TtaDz)

82 And if that's the case, then isn't it necessary to trim the trolls every now and then?

Banning is justified on yet another level.
Herd thinning.

Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 07:38 PM (TtaDz)

83

Tom M:


 Pssst... That was Monkeyboy who said that thing about the "nuanced point of view", you agreed with.


Posted by: Nice Deb at August 31, 2006 07:46 PM (woQK4)

84 Well, we really don't get a constant stream of bat pi- uh, trolls.
It does not, in any way, of course, suggest that he is anything other than a dick.

Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 07:54 PM (TtaDz)

85 Plus I really need to stop reading the Coulter thread.
'Night.

Posted by: Tom M at August 31, 2006 07:55 PM (TtaDz)

86 According to National Review Online, the CLinton smear machine is already at work.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 01, 2006 10:47 AM (FuM7z)

87 REMEMBER - it's just TV!!! It is not labeled a documentary, nor for that matter I hear no one representing it as any kind of FACT, just someones representation of the 9/11 report, which of course was someone elses representation......

Its just TV!! The right wingers will label it their way as will the left. So far the TV show is sounding like it leans RIGHT - but I will watch it, while I remember that just like 24 - it's just TV!

Posted by: Greg at September 06, 2006 04:48 PM (tU2R2)

88 If you believe Clinton did nothing right, and Bush has done nothing wrong...and anyone who disagrees is a troll...

Your problem, monkyboy, is that you're not arguing with us, but rather with imaginary wingnuts you've created in your own mind.

Consider me, your old pal Sandy. I believe Bill Clinton did plenty right. I'm a big fan of NAFTA, welfare reform, standing up to Serbia, and plenty more. I voted for Clinton, in fact. (In retrospect, if I could do it over, I don't know if I would vote for him again, but I just might; I really dislike George H. W. Bush.) Most of the people on this blog have a worse impression of Bill Clinton than I do, though, it's true. Except for Knemon, but he's an even dirtier hippy than I am.

I also believe Bush has done plenty wrong. Virtually everybody who comments here has plenty of complaints about Bush, although we often disagree on what exactly those are. For me, I think Bush is an awful communicator, I think his war leadership has suffered as a result of that, I don't like his social conservatism grandstanding, I wish he would have tried to reign in congressional spending, etc. In 2004, it wasn't so much that I voted for Bush, it was more than I voted against Kerry.

I don't think you're a troll because I "believe Clinton did nothing right, and Bush has done nothing wrong". I think you're a troll because you keep getting into arguments that aren't interesting or fun, and it's not us, it's you. You're being a troll, dude.

Although, to be fair, the one time I saw you post something that wasn't political or insulting, it made me laugh, so you've got potential, kid.

Posted by: sandy burger at September 06, 2006 06:13 PM (ooJqp)

89 The writer ADMITTED making up entire scenes. This minseries is a crock of shit. May your poo squirt from your eyes and run into your nose, solidifying on your nosehairs. Suck it.

Posted by: person at September 08, 2006 10:09 PM (2I4Pg)

90 We need another "docudrama" about Bush and his political cronies assisting Osama in attacking the WTC for political and financial gain. I think it would have more credability.

Posted by: Mark C at September 08, 2006 10:11 PM (c4/FQ)

91 I'd love to see a good ol' movie about the civil rights movement. Imagine Democrat Senator Byrd playing himself as a young man full of hate and rage as a leader in the KKK. I can just imagine the uproar that would cause amongst the democrats since the KKK was to them like the German people were to the Nazis. Democrats either were involved or knew someone who was and none of them ever stepped forward to stop the KKK.
That might be a great television movie... the title might be, "Lest we not forget." LOL

Posted by: Eric at September 09, 2006 05:52 AM (3leRl)

92 If the dems take over the country, we won't be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan alright, we will be fighting in America. Al-qaeda--democrats they both try to control our minds and our lives. the only difference is the dems haven.t started killing us yet. Then again, maybe they have.......911. Thanks for listening.

Posted by: Patricia at September 09, 2006 12:49 PM (MgKLV)

93 Ich habe über ein paar Kontaktanzeigen richtig willige Frauen gefunden, die es sich von mir besorgen lassen. Wenn Du auch Bock auf so eine Fickschlampe hast, lass dich nicht zwei mal bitten und such auch du dir im Web passende Erotikkontakte. Du wirst es ganz bestimmt nicht bereuhen. Ganz nebenbei - beim Camsex kann man auch richtig schönen versauten Spass haben. Den Tipp habe ich aus einem Sex Magazin.

Posted by: Alex at September 11, 2011 09:37 AM (LY+8B)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
122kb generated in CPU 0.2, elapsed 1.2297 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1246 seconds, 329 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.