MyDD’s Googlenuke Campaign

posted at 11:38 pm on October 22, 2006 by Bryan

Well. The astrologer’s club is planning to wield mondo Googlebombs in the final days of the election. Check. this. out.

The utilization of Google Adwords and simultaneous, widespread embedded hyperlinks in order to drive as many voters as possible toward the most damning, non-partisan article written on the Republican candidate in seventy key US Senate and House races. The campaign will run from Tuesday, October 24th until Tuesday, November 7th.

How do you define “non-partisan” in this context? There are an awful lot of blogs, for instance, that don’t have paid connections to candidates and therefore don’t meet the usual definition of partisan but are in fact as partisan as can be. The Nation, for instance. Even The New Republic.

Does the NYT fit the definition of “non-partisan?” Newsweek? Just wondering.

Anyway. The astrologer’s club’s campaign is fascinatingly evil:

The campaign will proceed as follows:

* Step One: With help form readers at Dailykos and MyDD, I will compile a list of seventy article, one for each targeted race. Every article will focus on a different Republican candidate, and will be written by as generally trusted a news source as possible. It will also present as unflattering a view on the Republican candidate as possible. All of these articles will be placed into a database that I will maintain with the help of willing volunteers.

* Step Two: Once the database is complete, BlogPac will purchase Google Adwords that will place each negative article on the most common searches for each Republican candidate. Simultaneously, I will produce an article on MyDD that embeds that negative article into a hyperlink that names the Republican candidate. I will then send a copy of that post out to as many bloggers as possible, who can also place the post on their blogs. One posting of this article will be enough.

* Step Three: All further discussion of the Republican candidates in question on all participating blogs should include an embedded hyperlink that will increase the Google search rank of the article on the given candidate.

The result of this should be that the most damning, non-partisan article written on every key Republican candidate for house and Senate will appear both high on every Google search for that candidate, and automatically as an advertisement on every search for that candidate. BlogPac will cover the costs. The netroots will supply the research.

If the nutroots are supplying the research, well, you just know it’ll be reliable. I mean, these are people who can’t even Google “Clinton Iraq 1998” to figure out for themselves that the whole “Bush LIED, people DIED” mantra is itself a lie. These are people who can’t rub two search terms together and get link after link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. These are the people who are going to build a nuclear Google bomb and drop it on the GOP? For some reason, I feel less threatened by this than I guess I should. Their cyber nuke will probably pack all the punch of that North Korean dud.

Nevertheless, it’s good to expose tactics like these. It takes a devious mind to come up with a convoluted way to rig Google search terms, tie that to Google ads and hope to move democracy your way via online hypnosis. What would such a mind do from inside Congress, or the White House?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What would such a mind do from inside Congress, or the White House?

Let’s hope we don’t find out in a couple of weeks. Thanks for exposing these clowns.

Valiant on October 22, 2006 at 11:43 PM

They know they can count on the “fair” media. They also think we’re complete idiots. Let’s show them how this can backfire on Nov. 7, 2006.

If this isn’t enough of a call to action, then nothing will be. No party deserves to win on nothing but chicanery.

Every honest liberal leader must distance him/herself from these methods.

Entelechy on October 22, 2006 at 11:50 PM

I mean, these are people who can’t even Google “Clinton Iraq 1998” to figure out for themselves that the whole “Bush LIED, people DIED” mantra is itself a lie.

I don’t approve of the Googlebomb tactics. But perhaps you could explain the key information in the google results for the search you mentioned? All I see are articles relating to why Saddam was a very, very bad man, and no justification for invading and occupying Iraq.

However, you can find plenty of information on Bush/Cheney’s lies in this PBS documentary and this Vanity Fair article. This should put to rest the whole idiotic “bad intelligence” excuse that got so many intelligence professionals spilling the beans on BushCo’s distortions and incompetence.

Constantine on October 22, 2006 at 11:52 PM

I wonder what Google has to say about this? And if they are OK with it, then I would want to know if they would be OK with people doing this for GOP candidates.

I’m just sayin’ …

LissaKay on October 23, 2006 at 12:00 AM

Dang it LissaKay, you beat me to it! :)

Fact is, I think Google is complicit in this kind of behavior; or else this kind of attack would have been guarded against after the “Bush Failure” bomb.

- The Cat

MirCat on October 23, 2006 at 12:13 AM

With today’s anti-conservative atmosphere on the internet, there would probably be enough of an outcry from the left that any attempt of GOP resprisal would be prohibitted due to an interpretation of someone’s terms of use clause.

Let the democrats play their childish games. At this point in the race, all we can hope for is that voting Americans aren’t as stupid as the left portrays them to be.

Just another reason they deserve to lose more seats. Let the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy and others cry in each other’s beer on November the 8th.

jarhead05 on October 23, 2006 at 12:29 AM

Does anyone realize how easy (and damaging to the Dem’s) it would be to do this to Democratic candidates? Harry Ried (Greed) alone provides enough fodder to neutralize this B.S.! If it’s war they want…

thedecider on October 23, 2006 at 12:33 AM

Constantine;
Vanity Fair and PBS is the best you can come up with? Maybe next time you can quote Al Franken and Micheal Moore as reliable sources.

jarhead05 on October 23, 2006 at 12:34 AM

I mean, these are people who can’t even Google “Clinton Iraq 1998” to figure out for themselves that the whole “Bush LIED, people DIED” mantra is itself a lie. These are people who can’t rub two search terms together and get link after link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.

Move along folks, nothin’ to see here. Seriously, thank you for confirming that I’m not taking crazy pills. I don’t know how many hundreds of times I’ve said/typed those to exact points to liberals over the years, but I don’t see it said as often as I’d like to see.

RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 12:38 AM

Damn:

Google defends its search algorithm as generally effective and an accurate reflection of opinion on the Internet. They further state that, though some may be offended by the links which appear as the result of Google bombs, that Google has little or no control over the practice and will not individually edit search results due to the fact that a bomb may have occurred.

According to Marissa Mayer, Director of Consumer Web Products for Google, in an entry on the official Google Blog:[7]

We don’t condone the practice of Google bombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we’re also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up. Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don’t affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission.

RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 12:41 AM

According to BlogPAC’s October disclosure, they only have $16,878.09 as cash on hand at the end of September.

Wouldn’t an evil counter plan involve clicking their most costly links?

rw on October 23, 2006 at 12:54 AM

Vanity Fair and PBS is the best you can come up with? Maybe next time you can quote Al Franken and Micheal Moore as reliable sources.

Obviously you’ve not read the article or watched the program. No one has disputed the facts presented in the article, and in the case of the PBS show the “biased” sources are CIA officials, analysts and operatives, DoD officials and national security advisors. You should note that public television gets significant funding from the government, and exposing facts contrary to the administration line is not in its best financial interest.

Constantine on October 23, 2006 at 1:05 AM

Wouldn’t an evil counter plan involve clicking their most costly links?

rw on October 23, 2006 at 12:54 AM

I like your line of thinking rw, but I’m afraid it might be a little too difficult. First of all, we’d have to determine that they were in fact the top result on particular phrases (so we don’t click and ring up crazy advertising fees on some innocent bystander). But then we’d also need to make sure that there was a way to make them get charged for those clicks. Google claims to have click-fraud blocking stuff, but it’s all honor system for the advertiser. The advertiser has to trust Google’s word that they are monitoring and stopping click fraud, or at least not charging the advertiser for fraudulant clicks. Not sure how good they are at it, and what constitutes a fraudulant click though.

RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 1:09 AM

from mydd

Update 3: I want to emphasize to people that I am looking for NEGATIVE ARTICLES ON REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Not process stuf. Not favorable stuff on Democratic candidates. Not really endorsements. This is oppo stuff. Look for that.

That about sums up the Dems campaign – smear the opponent with negative attacks because they have no ideas.

And Constantine, I see you’re trying to argue with someone using the played out “Bush lied” crap still… Bryan, talking about Clinton/1998 is, I believe, referring to Clinton’s own casus belli that sounded remarkably like Bush’s, if not a bit stronger. And it came a month after he (Clinton) made regime change our policy on Iraq. Not to mention the fact that all the Dems, specifically those who now call Bush a liar, spent about 12 years leading up to the war making the WMDs argument. Are they (Kennedy, Kerry, both Clintons, Rockefeller, etc.) part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton conspiracy, sense W wasn’t there to be “cherry-picking” intelligence through the 90s.

RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 1:27 AM

Bryan, I’m not sure why, but my last comment seems to have been picked up by the spam filter… if you see it sitting there can you slap it through so I can put Constantine to bed.

RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 1:32 AM

If they try it, we should implement a variation of what former Sen. Phil Gramm’s once said, often paraphrased as: “we’re going to be hunting Democrats with dogs.”

In otherwords, we should expose the people behind this including publishing their names and cities and moving against them in the court of law (if possible) and in the court of public opinion. We should go after the Democratic Party and hold them collectively accountable as well.

Understand, they are doing this BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE AGAINST THEM PERSONALLY.

The persons smeared should file defamation lawsuits against these people. Formal complaints should be filed against the DNC with the FEC as well. Let these punks pay for their fun with defending themselves in court. Sticking each and every one of these useless turds with a $100,000 lawyer’s tab from defending themselves in court will put them out of business and deter them (or their pals) in 2008.

And we need to pass this intelligence on to Rush Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio, to make life living hell for them before they even try.

My 2 cents.

georgej on October 23, 2006 at 1:56 AM

RightWinged, you can keep calling the evidence “crap” but it stands on its own; I’ve yet to read or hear about anybody refuting it.

Do you even know what Clinton’s regime change plan was? Supporting opposition parties in Iraq, not invading and occupying it.

12 years of comments by Democrats (post-9/11 they were made based on Bush’s distortions) don’t obliterate the fact that Bush knew there were no WMDs, no 9/11 links, no Niger uranium deal, no mobile chemical weapons labs, no meeting with Mohammed Atta in Belgium.

The fact that absolutely no prediction that this administration has made about Iraq has been correct should give you a clue that something’s wrong. Just last week Cheney was still telling us the war is going “remarkably well.” Perhaps he’d like to visit the families of all the soldiers killed this month and tell them personally.

I’m guessing perhaps BushCo thought it was in America’s best interest to pacify Iraq and put permanent bases there, but there’s no excuse for making the case to do that by lying to congress and the American public. I’m sure the Halliburton profiteering was just a nice bonus for Cheney. How do you think he’ll make an income after he leaves the White House in disgrace?

Constantine on October 23, 2006 at 1:57 AM

“According to BlogPAC’s October disclosure, they only have $16,878.09 as cash on hand at the end of September.”

ONE injunction against them by the RNC and that money is history — and then so is their website.

georgej on October 23, 2006 at 1:59 AM

Bryan, I’m not sure why, but my last comment seems to have been picked up by the spam filter… if you see it sitting there can you slap it through so I can put Constantine to bed.

RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 1:32 AM

Thanks Bryan, I see the comment is posted now.

RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 2:20 AM

Constantine wrote: “No one has disputed the facts presented in the article, and in the case of the PBS show…”

The facts have been disputed so many times and in so many places, that the list is enormous.

Especially the bullshit contained your favorite magazine article in Vanity Fair from Craig Unger:

The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful “black propaganda” campaign with links to the White House.

1. It’s been PROVEN that Saddam tied to buy yellowcake in 1999. It’s been proven repeatedly that Bush did NOT lie when stated that the Brits thought it to be true. He told the EXACT TRUTH.

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’

was well-founded.

[Butler Report, Page 123]

2. JOE WILSON was proven to be a LIAR when he claimed in his NY Times article that there was no attempt to buy yellowcake, because he TOLD THE CIA THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

3. Bush didn’t lie, CRAIG UNGER, JOE WILSON and YOU LIED.

From that BOGUS and LYING Frontline link of yours:

At the center of the administration’s case for war was a classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that found evidence of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. But Paul Pillar, one of the report’s principal authors, now admits to FRONTLINE that the NIE was written quickly in a highly politicized environment, one in which the decision to go to war had already been made.

The Robb/Silberman commission EXPLODED Paul Pillar’s thesis. They say, CATAGORICALLY, that the Bush Administration did not influence the Oct 2002 NIE in any way. The CIA (of which Pillar is an employee) screwed it all all by themselves.

Further, there are these commments by Steven Hayes in the Weekly Standard about Pillar.:

Think about that: A senior, unelected CIA official–Paul Pillar–was given agency approval to anonymously attack Bush administration policies less than two months before the November 2, 2004, presidential election.

And:

His was not an isolated case; CIA officials routinely trashed Bush administration policy decisions, often with official approval, in the months leading up to the Iraq War and again before the election. Pillar, who had complained to a CIA spokesman that someone had violated the ground rules by providing his name to Novak, simply got caught.

And:

Paul Pillar’s political attacks on the Bush administration’s use of intelligence are not particularly surprising. They are not entirely accurate and, given that he has leveled the same charges for years–both in private and in public–they hardly qualify as news.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/713hkkee.asp

So we have a CIA employee with an agenda to LIE and UNDERMINE the President of the United States — HIS ULTIMATE BOSS.

Why is Pillar a DISLOYAL CIA EMPLOYEE trying to undermine President Bush?

Dinocrat at http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2004/09/27/who-is-paul-r-pillar/ notes that Pillar does NOT believe in the use of military force to fight terrorism. EVER.

Dinocrat specifically asks:

Clearly Mr. Pillar is not on board with George Bush’s fundamental premises in the Global War on Terror, so it should be no surprise that he is having secret meetings around the country criticizing US policy. Why does this fellow have a job at the CIA?

Why is Pillare ALLOWED TO RETAIN his job, given his repeated attempts to singlehandely sabotage the war?

Even Michelle Malkin EXPOSES Paul Pillar as the fraud he is and she begins to connect the dots that Pillar might have been the person who recently ILLEGALLY leaked the National Intelligence Estimate to the NY Times.

She links to an entire plethora of articles about Pillar and his bad ideas and possible misconduct.

So, moonbat.

I, personally, have BLOWN UP YOUR TWO BULLSHIT REFERENCES. And it took me more than 5 minutes to find the references, including a whole list of links from our dear Michelle.

And now, that I’ve blown up your pathetic, nonsensical claim that “[n]o one has disputed the facts presented in the article, and in the case of the PBS show…”, you can stuff it in your pants and socks like Sandy Burglar did, and take it to a forum of fellow moonbats who might give a damn what you think.

georgej on October 23, 2006 at 2:57 AM

Wow, the execution is not living up to the intention. Here are articles, proposed in the comments, with which to Googlebomb the Republican candidate in “OH-1,” which I suppose must be the First Congressional District in Ohio. These articles are damning in about the same degree as “Please go to Hallifax” is damning. I’ll be damned if any of this milquetoast stuff would make me feel damned!

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061015/NEWS01/610150363

http://www.govote.com/OH/Steve_Chabot_War_+_Peace.htm

http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061004/EDIT/610040305/0/NEWS01

Kralizec on October 23, 2006 at 3:30 AM

Wow, GeorgeJ, thanks for that last.

I can’t do that anymore; …. I used to do that kind of stuff on other fourms/blogs, but I’m just too tired to talk/type to people for whom reality, facts and logic are willfully ignored because they get in the way of a good emotional outburst or DNC talking point.

Now I just opinionate or make inane comments; but I’m pleased that someone is willing to do more. Good Job!

LegendHasIt on October 23, 2006 at 3:34 AM

Ladies and gentlemen:

One more thing on that “precious” Vanity Fair article that Constantine holds so dear to his bosom. I decided to post this separately to focus on the SOURCE of his claims.

The link to this Vanity Fair article is http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060706N.shtml

The people running “truthout.org” as we all should remember are the same LOONS that INSISTED that Karl Rove was indicted for leaking Plame’s name last May. Remember that?

This guy has the balls to play the BUSH LIED!! game with us using TRUTHOUT to “prove” his assertion?

And *we* are supposed to take this fool seriously?

georgej on October 23, 2006 at 3:37 AM

With help form readers at Dailykos and MyDD, I will compile a list of seventy article, one for each targeted race.

Then we get Moose and Squirrel!

Karl on October 23, 2006 at 4:35 AM

I agree with LegendHaslt, georgej. Excellent job. Like Legend, I’ve gotten tired of doing such thorough jobs of destroying libs like you just did, because 99% of the time the reason they don’t know the information is because they choose not to and are liars. Rarely are they someone just uninformed and looking for the truth. All I’d like to add is more on the yellowcake business. Here’s FactCheck.org’s info. What’s really said is that Plamegate and all that stemmed from it all began as a Democratic plan to call Bush a liar on something that he told the truth about. “Sought” is what the President said, but the left knew that there are enough idiots in in this country who could be fooled by them and their media insisting that Bush lied because Saddam hadn’t actually “bought” it. Too bad for folks like Constantine and friends that we aren’t all that effing stupid. Go back to Kos dude, you’re ridiculous. We already have a GregH and Honora to keep us occupied.

RightWinged on October 23, 2006 at 4:47 AM

Maybe these guys can do a bake-sale to pay for the deficit while they’re at it.

Oh, and they can sign an internet petition about how much they don’t like Republicans!

And do a rain dance!

frankj on October 23, 2006 at 6:52 AM

Methinks Constantine has shown us all why telling those on the left they should google “Clinton Iraq 1998″ is useless:

“But perhaps you could explain the key information in the google results for the search you mentioned? All I see are articles relating to why Saddam was a very, very bad man, and no justification for invading and occupying Iraq.”

Constantine, the purpose for the search is to show that Clinton and his cabinet and the rest of his administration were saying that Saddam had a WMD program and that he needed to be stopped; in other words, the dems were crying for Saddam’s head long before the republican’s were. If Clinton et al believed so strongly that Saddam had to be taken down back in 1998, and we had no evidence to the contrary as of 2003, how could Bush have lied? *That* is the purpose for googling “Clinton Iraq 1998″.

FYI, shortly after 9-11, Al Gore was the one talking the loudest that we should invade Iraq. Don’t believe me? Google it.

Lornkanaga on October 23, 2006 at 7:17 AM

Thanks for exposing the tricks of the trade. I don’t know the exact point when the left became so unhinged, but it seems to me that it was around the time that Bush Jr. got elected. His re-election just made it worse.

ScoopPC11 on October 23, 2006 at 7:31 AM

When the Dems get the White House Google will have an “epiphany” and claim they discovered a flaw in their search algorithms.

Helloyawl on October 23, 2006 at 7:44 AM

The result of this should be that the most damning, non-partisan article written on every key Republican candidate for house and Senate will appear both high on every Google search for that candidate, and automatically as an advertisement on every search for that candidate. BlogPac will cover the costs. The netroots will supply the research.

Yawn, what a dire and destructive conspiracy. Should we steal their idea and do the same for the Dhimmicr@p candidates? Probably find more than in the Republicans. Start w/ harry reid.

tormod on October 23, 2006 at 8:46 AM

I say, make some $ off this. Everyone with a Blog that can should sign up with Google’s AdSense and pick politics or what ever as the subject to get those links. Then tell all your readers to click on them. The Site owner gets paid per click and BlogPac pays per click!

opusrex on October 23, 2006 at 8:58 AM

I dunno, how “non-partisian” will an article appear when it’s written in ALL CAPS!!!!?

CrankyNeocon on October 23, 2006 at 8:59 AM

Fact is, I think Google is complicit in this kind of behavior; or else this kind of attack would have been guarded against after the “Bush Failure” bomb.

Fact is, Google is not complicit in this. They are fully aware of the problem that googlebombing presents and have publicly recognized the inherent issues. See more on Google’s failure.

GregH on October 23, 2006 at 9:31 AM

I, personally, have BLOWN UP YOUR TWO BULLSHIT REFERENCES.

georgej on October 23, 2006 at 2:57 AM

…………..

With help form readers at Dailykos and MyDD, I will compile a list of seventy article, one for each targeted race.

Then we get Moose and Squirrel!

Karl on October 23, 2006 at 4:35 AM

:o) I love Hot Air. Raw humor is always worth searching for.

Coronagold on October 23, 2006 at 9:38 AM

GregH, GoogleYouTubeMySpace etc. are partisan-fed tools.

Coronagold on October 23, 2006 at 9:41 AM

The right simply does not understand the power of Google and needs to start harnessing it. It is doable; and with not too much difficulty.

lorien1973 on October 23, 2006 at 9:47 AM

Coranogold, all media are partisan-fed tools.

GregH on October 23, 2006 at 9:54 AM

Outstanding posting, GeorgeJ!

But it was all – of course – entirely wasted. To believe what Constantine is trying desperately to believe, you have to not only ignore fact, logic, and history … you also have to set aside your own common sense. Which makes it so deliciously ironic that he probably believes he’s part of a “reality-based” community.

For those with functioning brains, all your facts are unnecessary – because the truth is even simpler. First, just from a logical standpoint, it is a near impossibility to prove that anyone *knows* the non-existence of anything.

But even setting aside that logic, the common sense is equally damning. Every Democrat is on record, many as late as 2002, with unquivocal statements that Hussein did, in fact, have WMDs; every intelligence on Earth, from the Russians to the French, reached the same conclusions. And perhaps most obvious of all is the fact that we KNOW Hussein had them, because he USED them, on his own people and against the Iranians.

Even as late as 2003, Hussein’s own generals beleived they had WMDs to use.

It is thus an absolute logical impossibility to claim as Constantine tries that Bush *KNEW* there were no WMDs. It’s not even a possibility. For Bush to know that, he would have not only had to have been smarter than every Democrat, he would have had to have had better information than every nation on Earth, and Hussein’s own military.

That Constantine can believe that is … well, liberal.

Give up on the facts. They don’t matter. But nice posting!

Professor Blather on October 23, 2006 at 9:56 AM

I share the passion for fighting back that many here have expressed, but let’s remember the differences that exist between “us” and “them”. Substance over style; reason over emotion; intregrity over hypocrisy. (I know, many right-leaning folks have failed on these things also, we’re all human, but overall it remains true)

So the right (right ==>>) thing to do, is first try to get this story into the MSM. Give them one chance to see if they publish it. When anyone cared about Howard Dean, the MSM was falling all over itself about the power of the Netroots. They should be more than willing to air such a powerplay of obvious and intentional “dirty tricks”, right?

I’m not of a mind to try and play the same game they are playing, I never have. But this hands the right some viable ammunition to show the vapid, vacuous non-position of the left.

- Not one useful idea that might just tilt a race in their favor.
- Not one well-structured argument, explaining what they would do differently if in power, to justify throwing the current bums out.
- Not one declaration from ANY liberal candidate that they care more for those values they happily use as the fire with which they burn hypocritical conservatives.

They expect values voters to either vote Democrat or be no-shows based on the following logic:

The Republican party has compromised on the values and ideals that used to earn my loyalty. The Republican party has drifted to the left on social and fiscal policies, and I strongly disapprove. Therefore, I am going to vote power to the party that is much farther from what I approve of.

(In best GHWB voice) Not gunna happen…

Freelancer on October 23, 2006 at 10:58 AM

I emailed Google’s security team, as they claim that Google bombing is a big problem, so we’ll see how it goes. At least we can say they were notified, they can’t say that they didn’t know.

americanpundit on October 23, 2006 at 11:05 AM

By the way, getting this bit headlined on Drudge couldn’t hurt, and I have yet to see it linked on other “righty” blogs.

Getting the word out is the best counterattack to this sad nutroots ploy.

Freelancer on October 23, 2006 at 11:35 AM

FROM GOOGLE, about ‘bombing’ “but they don’t affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission.”

They dont care, as long as its the left doing the bombing.
We need an attorney to have the courts place a cease and disist order on this election bomb plot. That will tie it up past Nov. 7th. Any takers out there?

And DIGG this above, send it to hannity, oreilly, rush, etc.
get the word out.

shooter on October 23, 2006 at 11:53 AM

The nutroots is merely aping their Master with what tools they possess…

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52566

Lest we forget the true politics of corruption.

Freelancer on October 23, 2006 at 12:10 PM

1. It’s been PROVEN that Saddam tied to buy yellowcake in 1999. It’s been proven repeatedly that Bush did NOT lie when stated that the Brits thought it to be true. He told the EXACT TRUTH.

Incorrect. You’re quoting the Butler Report, a British inquiry. The summary can be found here; much of it contradicts statements by BushCo. And you’re ignoring:

“In last-minute negotiations between the White House and the C.I.A., a decision was made to attribute the alleged Niger uranium deal to British intelligence. The official reason was that it was preferable to cite British intelligence, which Blair had championed in his 50-page report, rather than classified American intelligence. But the C.I.A. had told the White House again and again that it didn’t trust the British reports.”

“A week after Bush’s speech, on February 4, the Bush administration finally forwarded electronic copies of the Niger documents to the I.A.E.A. Astonishingly, a note was attached to the documents which said, ‘We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims.’”

Perhaps you value British intelligence over American.

2. JOE WILSON was proven to be a LIAR when he claimed in his NY Times article that there was no attempt to buy yellowcake, because he TOLD THE CIA THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Incorrect. You have a source for that? If it’s the GOP web site smear of Wilson, please tee that up for me so I can hit it out of the park. If Wilson has been proven to have lied, why isn’t he being prosecuted for lying to congress?

3. The Robb/Silberman commission EXPLODED Paul Pillar’s thesis. They say, CATAGORICALLY, that the Bush Administration did not influence the Oct 2002 NIE in any way. The CIA (of which Pillar is an employee) screwed it all all by themselves.

Incorrect. First of all, you disigenuously omit the fact that the Robb/Silberman report was commissioned by Bush himself. If that alone isn’t enough to discredit it, there’s this.

4. So we have a CIA employee with an agenda to LIE and UNDERMINE the President of the United States — HIS ULTIMATE BOSS.

Who called Pillar a liar?

Dinocrat at http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2004/09/27/who-is-paul-r-pillar/ notes that Pillar does NOT believe in the use of military force to fight terrorism. EVER.

Now THAT is a baldfaced lie, and you know it. The article cites an Amazon reader review of the book which states:

Mr. Pillar explains the methods for answering the terrorist threat and -contrary to what many may think- he relegates military actions to the last place of the list.

Does that qualify as “not ever?”

You may disagree with Mr. Pillar’s ideas and opinions, but that doesn’t make him a liar. And in fact, his assessments are in line with recent events, in that military action has not proven to be a solution, and in fact has created more terrorism (see most recent NIE report). You seem to have a hard-on for Pillar, yet ignore the statements of everybody else in the PBS piece. Tyler Drumheller, CIA’s top spy in Europe regarding the yellowcake story: “We never took it seriously. I mean, we looked at it, but there was never any real substance to it.” Is Drumheller a traitor, too? And in fact, anybody who disagrees with Bush?

So, moonbat.

I, personally, have BLOWN UP YOUR TWO BULLSHIT REFERENCES. And it took me more than 5 minutes to find the references, including a whole list of links from our dear Michelle.

And now, that I’ve blown up your pathetic, nonsensical claim that “[n]o one has disputed the facts presented in the article, and in the case of the PBS show…”, you can stuff it in your pants and socks like Sandy Burglar did, and take it to a forum of fellow moonbats who might give a damn what you think.

georgej on October 23, 2006 at 2:57 AM

You’re a class act, sir. Sorry to have messed with your world view and made you so upset.

Constantine on October 23, 2006 at 1:28 PM

For Bush to know that, he would have not only had to have been smarter than every Democrat, he would have had to have had better information than every nation on Earth, and Hussein’s own military.

That Constantine can believe that is … well, liberal.

Give up on the facts. They don’t matter. But nice posting!

Professor Blather on October 23, 2006 at 9:56 AM

No Democrat would ever admit that Mr. Bush is smarter than any of them.

Professor, I’m so happy you’re back!

Entelechy on October 23, 2006 at 2:47 PM

First, just from a logical standpoint, it is a near impossibility to prove that anyone *knows* the non-existence of anything.

It is thus an absolute logical impossibility to claim as Constantine tries that Bush *KNEW* there were no WMDs. It’s not even a possibility. For Bush to know that, he would have not only had to have been smarter than every Democrat, he would have had to have had better information than every nation on Earth, and Hussein’s own military.

This is true. All I’ve proven is that Bush had all the information he needed to determine that at very least there was strong doubt that the WMDs and everything else they claimed didn’t exist. The key is that he was knowingly contradicting his own intelligence sources when making the case for war to Congress and the American people. He approved Colin Powell’s statement to the U.N. that the existence of WMDs was “not an assertion, it’s a fact.” That’s what we call a lie.

The fact that American intelligence was correct and Bush was not is more evidence of the lie.

Every Democrat is on record, many as late as 2002, with unquivocal statements that Hussein did, in fact, have WMDs; every intelligence on Earth, from the Russians to the French, reached the same conclusions.
Even as late as 2003, Hussein’s own generals beleived they had WMDs to use.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, all claims by Democrats post 9/11 were based on the administration’s own claims as they tried to make the case for Iraq. They made the mistake of trusting this President, who had access to the best information. As far as the opinions of all the other world powers, I’d be interested to see your sources (except the British, who can’t verify their own conclusions, and neither can American intelligence).

Give up on the facts. They don’t matter.

Living in Aldous Huxley’s 1984, are we? Perhaps closer to the truth than we’d like to admit.

Constantine on October 23, 2006 at 3:09 PM

Constantine – you provide proof positive that to be a neo-liberal, you simply must avoid reality at all costs.

Ignoring the fact that you’re confusing Huxley and Orwell, you purposefully avoid my point – that while the rest of us both care about and know the actual, objective facts, you neither know nor care.

You make exactly zero attempt to demonstrate how President Bush could – in any conceivable way – have even had the knowledge necessary to “lie.” Try a direct answer: if Hussein’s generals thought they had WMD’s, how exactly was the President – or anyone else – supposed to have better information?

Wait – let me guess. The Iraqi generals, along with the French/Russian/Israelis et al were ALL relying on Bush Adminstration statements? ALL of them? Really?

In the end, you have but one argument: that somehow Democrats (and the rest of the world) were either dumb enough or ill-informed enough to be entirely fooled by a President who you most likely call “dumb.” Right?

Are you intellectually honest enough to admit it? That for YOU to be right, the Bush administration had to have both 1) had an amazing ability to discover information that even the Iraqi military didn’t know, and 2) had an even more amazing ability to fool every Democratic leader and every major government on Earth.

Is *that* your position?

Well, even if we could swallow that silliness, you encounter a rather large problem: for any of the above to be logically true – this statement ALSO has to be true:

“As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, all claims by Democrats post 9/11 were based on the administration’s own claims as they tried to make the case for Iraq. They made the mistake of trusting this President, who had access to the best information.”

Right? So … um … how do you explain the following statements – noting the dates. How precisely is George Bush to blame for all of the following?

(Game – set – match. Next troll, please)

………………….

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

Professor Blather on October 23, 2006 at 3:47 PM

Professor,

Ignoring the fact that you’re confusing Huxley and Orwell…

Yeah, my bad on that one.

you purposefully avoid my point – that while the rest of us both care about and know the actual, objective facts, you neither know nor care.

I directly responded to your point; read again. I understand that nobody knew anything 100%– in spite of BushCo statements to the contrary. I present no facts of my own, but cite other sources. In the case of pre-war intelligence, I direct you to the words of the American operatives in the PBS piece.

You make exactly zero attempt to demonstrate how President Bush could – in any conceivable way – have even had the knowledge necessary to “lie.” Try a direct answer: if Hussein’s generals thought they had WMD’s, how exactly was the President – or anyone else – supposed to have better information?

Sorry, but I dispute the premise of your question. I ask you again, what is the source of this information? I provide my sources for you to examine; you should do the same.

In the end, you have but one argument: that somehow Democrats (and the rest of the world) were either dumb enough or ill-informed enough to be entirely fooled by a President who you most likely call “dumb.” Right?

Where in my posts do I call the President “dumb”? As Commander-In-Chief and instigator of the Iraq war, he’s certainly incompetent. The current state of Iraq bears that out.

Are you intellectually honest enough to admit it? That for YOU to be right, the Bush administration had to have both 1) had an amazing ability to discover information that even the Iraqi military didn’t know, and 2) had an even more amazing ability to fool every Democratic leader and every major government on Earth.

Again, I can’t agree or disagree with your sources if you don’t provide them. Do your homework.

Right? So … um … how do you explain the following statements – noting the dates. How precisely is George Bush to blame for all of the following? (Multiple quotes)

The fact that you rely on all these quotes from the 1990s seems to assume that no new information became available post-9/11. Again, I direct you to the statments of the people who were there. In addition, to my knowledge not one of the people you quoted has ever advocated invading and occupying Iraq. This has been the most recent tactic of Bush supporters. Since all Bush/Cheney’s justifications for war have proven to be without merit, neocons now comb the archives for anti-Saddam statements by anybody they can find, as if somehow this proves “everybody” (and by extension Bush/Cheney) believed the WMDs were there and we had to invade.

Hey, I can have fun with quotes, too. Here’s one:

“While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs…”
–George H. W. Bush, Time Magazine, March 2 1998

Well, he was certainly accurate about the “incalculable human and political costs,” wasn’t he? How many of Bush/Cheney’s predictions have come true?

I see you’ve declared the discussion over and yourself the winner. Congratulations.

Constantine on October 23, 2006 at 4:40 PM

Please don’t take this thing so seriously – it’s only the internet!

So what does this expensive plan accomplish? If I’m googling a Republican candidate, there will be some ads and a top link to an article that is not complimentary … SO EFFING WHAT?

btw, I love the DNC prank referred to here — so much more clever!

boru on October 23, 2006 at 5:28 PM

oops … link didnt work …

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/23/right-wingers-prank-dnc-donations-page/

boru on October 23, 2006 at 5:29 PM

Constantine – since you’re in the mood to type, how about applying your erudition to this paradox -
If Bush is as disingenuous as you proffer, why did he not just have a “dirty tricks squad” pretend to find the WMD’s?

If you have an answer for that, you’ll be the first.

Also, I’m going to hide a truck somewhere in Indiana, Illinois, or perhaps Ohio (three states which together are roughly the size of Iraq). I get three, no make that six months head start before anyone can start looking. Could be on the outskirts of Akron, maybe suburban Fort Wayne, or a warehouse in Kankakee.
If no one finds it, guess it doesn’t exist.
Oh yeah, it might also be in Wisconsin, but you can’t look there.
Good luck!

Indy Mark on October 23, 2006 at 7:58 PM

I can’t agree or disagree with your sources if you don’t provide them. Do your homework

I think you have really just revealed what is wrong with liberal groupthink. You site sources when quoting someone or listing facts. Asking for citations at the stage when someone is making logical and deductive arguments shows you really are not thinking for yourself and are making the logical fallacy of relying on arguments from authority.

Resolute on October 23, 2006 at 8:54 PM

Indy Mark:

Six months? He had over a year thanks to Sen. Rockefeller.

Gianni on October 23, 2006 at 10:35 PM

Hey Constantine,

Just so you know, you lost the argument. By quite a large margin. But it was funny watching you squirm like a worm on a hook. Care to try it again?

wearyman on October 23, 2006 at 10:53 PM

Just so you know, you lost the argument. By quite a large margin. But it was funny watching you squirm like a worm on a hook. Care to try it again?

Really? Your opinion means so much to me, so I must have lost, even though my rebuttal went unanswered. I shall mourn now.

Constantine on October 24, 2006 at 2:46 AM

Constatine:

Well now, if Bush lied then Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, etc. also lied, because they had the same info that Bush did and said pretty much what he said about Iraq and WMDs.

However, if Bush didn’t lie, Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, etc. still lied, because they backtracked from their original statements.

I would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that if the donks were mislead by certain intelligence, so were the pubbies.

But in case you didn’t know, WMDs weren’t the only reason we invaded Iraq. Remember the firing on our planes in the no-fly zone? Remember the WMDs used on the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north? Remember the imperialistic designs of Iraq on both Iran and Kuwait? Remember the Oil for Food Scandal?

I can agree with one thing, if you have a steady diet of MSM, you can be forgiven that things are always going badly over there for us. Try milbloggers for a more honest assessment – of both the good and bad. Occassionally, things do slip out into the MSM because they are so amazing. Such as purple fingers.

Concerning Wilson: Which version of his yellowcake story are you concluding is the truth? The one which says that Saddam was trying to obtain it, or the one which says he wasn’t? Even Kerry eliminated Wilson from his website when he found out what a liar and an embarrasment Wilson had become. And this from a person who has never fully released his military records – while claiming he will (or has, as the case may be).

Oh, and let’s not forget Wilson’s changing stories on his wife being outed.

Natrium on October 24, 2006 at 4:15 AM

Constantine wrote in response to my post:

“Incorrect. You’re quoting the Butler Report, a British inquiry. The summary can be found here; ”

WHY READ A SUMMARY, boyo, when you can read the ACTUAL Butler Report instead. And the actual report made my point.

You wrote: “And you’re ignoring…”

DAMN STRAIGHT I’m ignoring it. I’m ignoring EVERYTHING in that Vanity Fair article by Unger, because it is nothing but deliberate misinformation. That’s why TRUTHOUT.ORG — who went silly for months by claiming that Karl Rove has been secretly indicted — has it up on their website, after all.

You wrote: “Perhaps you value British intelligence over American”

Given the massive failures of the CIA over the years, WHY SHOULDN’T I?

The CIA *HAD NO CLUE* that the fall of the Soviet Union was imminent. The CIA *BLEW* the location of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia that we mistakenly bombed. The CIA *BLEW* the entire Iraq WMD thing — George Tenet even said it was “slam dunk!”

Bush accurately reported that the Brits had told the US government that that monster Saddam was attempting to buy uranium for enrichment — and that was exactly the case.

Unger (and you) are LYING.

You wrote: “Incorrect. You have a source for that? If it’s the GOP web site smear of Wilson, please tee that up for me so I can hit it out of the park.”

Damn straight I have a source. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, pages 45 and 46. The one who is “incorrect” is YOU (and Craig Unger).

You wrote: “Robb/Silberman report was commissioned by Bush himself. If that alone isn’t enough to discredit it, there’s this. [With a link to Mediamatters.org."

ONLY a idiot moonbat with the brains of a toad would claim that the bi-partisan commission that included the following individuals:

Charles S. Robb
Co-Chairman

Laurence H. Silberman
Co-Chairman

Richard C. Levin
John McCain
Henry S. Rowen
Walter B. Slocombe
William O. Studeman
Charles M. Vest
Patricia Wald

OF COUNSEL

Lloyd Cutler
[Source: http://www.wmd.gov/commissioners.html

... were "shills" or dupes of the President, especially when the commissioners included university presidents, corporate CEOs, senior DOD officials under DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS Clinton, Carter and Johnson, two federal appellate judges, INCLUDING a FISA judge AND a former justice of the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague (who was appointed to the federal bench by CARTER) and that they are "discredited" -- and then try to justify it by an appeal to mediamatters, a liberal/Democratic Party *LIE FACTORY*

That's called moving the goal posts, and that kind of bullshit behavior on your part isn't going to fly, moonbat.

You wrote: "Who called Pillar a liar?"

Read the links. Pay particular attention to the one that links to Michelle Malkin's site.

You wrote in reference to dinocrat's blog: "Now THAT is a baldfaced lie, and you know it."

Take it up with dinocrat. I'll take HIS word over anything YOU claim.

You wrote: "You may disagree with Mr. Pillar’s ideas and opinions, but that doesn’t make him a liar."

Take it up with Steven Hayes, Dinocrat, and Michelle Malkin. I trust their word over ANYTHING you claim.

You wrote: "You’re a class act, sir. Sorry to have messed with your world view and made you so upset."

Thank you, I think.

Let me explain why I am no longer predisposed to be in the mood for "taking prisoners" on the BUSH LIED!! moonbat mantra.

1. You suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Your personal hatred of the man precludes you even understanding the arguments against your position. You just dig in your heels and shout BUSH LIED!! even louder when well meaning people try to talk to you about it.

BDS is, in fact, a specific form of paranoia (see Dr. Pat Santy's blog, THE POLITICAL PARANOIA OF THE LEFT at http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/05/political-paranoia-of-left-parts-i-and.html for a detailed explanation of what it is, and why it is so destructive to those who have it, and the rest of us forced to watch YOUR personal train wrecks.

The hallmark of the paranoid individual and the paranoid style is constant anticipation or expectation of either attack or personal betrayal. Paranoia finds causal connections everywhere and in everything; for them, nothing is coincidental. They can develop complicated conspiracies about innocuous behaviors and seemingly irrelevant events. Their paranoia makes them constantly on guard, searching for hidden motives and meanings in everyone else's behavior. (Just go check out the Democratic Underground, where these fantasies on every action or inaction on the part of the Bush administration are immediately converted into conspiracies and plots). The tragic death of a reporter -- Bush et al had him killed because he knew too much. Osama's most recent tape -- a Rovian plot to show how frightened we should be. And so on.

...Once fixed on a particular idea or explanation -- no matter how bizarre or irrational; the paranoid person looks for evidence to validate their prejudices. It is almost impossible to change their minds. Their entire concept of themselves is tied up with the paranoid idea or conspiracy. If it did not exist, or was proven to be untrue or false-- then they would need to question their underlying assumptions and ideas--and those are what usually form the foundation of who they believe themselves to be.

YOU and your fellow moonbats believe that "BUSH LIED!!" to take us into war. Nothing that anybody tell you, no proof or logic to the contrary will sway you that you might happen to be wrong.

which leads us to:

2. You and people like you litterly live in a different perceptional reality than the rest of us. You are so far removed the fact, and are unwilling to accept the fact, that we face a war "to the knife," one which was not-of-our-choosing, that you hide in the comfortable denial of the mantra: BUSH LIED!!

3. There can be no meaningful communication between fools like you who are blind to the truth and the nature of the reality that faces us, because your very belief structure is, by its very existance, a mortal threat to my life, and that of my family, and the people of America. And the inability to convey awareness of this to you is blocked by YOUR mental chains, not mine.

Michael Walzer, the editor of Dissent Magazine put it this way:

"Many left intellectuals live in America like internal aliens, refusing to identify with their fellow citizens, regarding any hint of patriotic feeling as politically incorrect. That's why they had such difficulty responding emotionally to the attacks of September 11 or joining in the expressions of solidarity that followed. Equally important, that's why their participation in the policy debate after the attacks was so odd; their proposals (turn to the UN, collect evidence against bin Laden, and so on) seem to have been developed with no concern for effectiveness and no sense of urgency. They talked and wrote as if they could not imagine themselves responsible for the lives of their fellow-citizens...

...But what really marks the left, or a large part of it, is the bitterness that comes with abandoning any such desire. The alienation is radical. How else can one understand the unwillingness of people who, after all, live
here, and whose children and grandchildren live here, to join in a serious debate about how to protect the country against future terrorist attacks? There is a pathology in this unwillingness, and it has already done us great
damage.

...We can be as critical as we like, but these are people whose fate we share; we are responsible for their safety as they are for ours, and our politics has to reflect that mutual responsibility. When they are attacked, so are we; and we should join willingly and constructively in debates about how to defend the country." [Michael Walzer, "Can there be a decent left?"
Dissent Magazine, Spring 2002,
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wwwboard/salon.html, emphasis added by me]

UNTIL YOU PEOPLE GROW UP AND ACCEPT THE WORLD AS IT IS AND STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR INFANTILE “BUSH LIED!!” MANTRA, you will get nowhere with the rest of us.

We will NOT yield to you the argument. We will not let your paranoia and your denial threaten our survival.

georgej on October 24, 2006 at 9:07 AM

George, sorry to have been delayed, but I’ve been busy with some tight deadlines at work. Miss me?

And the actual report made my point.
Not really. Actually, there were two points: one was that the British still assert that the yellowcake story was correct. They do still assert this, but refuse to provide their sources. And, as we know,

I’m ignoring EVERYTHING in that Vanity Fair article by Unger, because it is nothing but deliberate misinformation. That’s why TRUTHOUT.ORG — who went silly for months by claiming that Karl Rove has been secretly indicted — has it up on their website, after all.
SOP for neocons… deny, deny, deny. So everything archived on truthout.org is a lie? That’s an awful lot of information to toss aside.

You wrote: “Perhaps you value British intelligence over American” Given the massive failures of the CIA over the years, WHY SHOULDN’T I?
Your statement speaks volumes. Sorry you’ve lost confidence in our intelligence apparatus… even though they were first on the ground and kicked ass in Afghanistan. From PBS: “Conflicts surface between the CIA and military during the Afghanistan war against the Taliban, but the war is deemed a CIA success story. Meanwhile Cheney works to undercut Tenet’s CIA by building his own intelligence capability.”

Bush accurately reported that the Brits had told the US government that that monster Saddam was attempting to buy uranium for enrichment — and that was exactly the case.
Bush did report what the British were saying. My point is he ignored what his own intelligence people were saying.

Damn straight I have a source. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, pages 45 and 46. The one who is “incorrect” is YOU (and Craig Unger).
Perhaps you can provide a link (for a change) to the report? In the one I’m looking at, it says the Iraqis didn’t have any chemical weapons.

ONLY a idiot moonbat with the brains of a toad would claim that the bi-partisan commission that included the following individuals:
Charles S. Robb, Laurence H. Silberman, Richard C. Levin, John McCain, Henry S. Rowen, Walter B. Slocombe, William O. Studeman, Charles M. Vest, Patricia Wald were “shills” or dupes of the President…”

Never said any such thing. But just like the investigations of the Iran/Contra affair in the Reagan area, you can almost guarantee the outcome you’re looking for by limiting the scope of the investigation. The New York Times explains:

Sadly, there is nothing about the central issue – how the Bush administration handled the intelligence reports on Iraq’s weapons programs and presented them to the public to win support for the invasion of Iraq. All we get is an excuse: the panel was “not authorized” to look at this question, so it didn’t bother. The report says the panel “interviewed a host of current and former policy makers” about the intelligence on Iraq, but did not “review how policy makers subsequently used that information.” (We can just see it – an investigator holding up his hand and declaiming: “Stop right there, Mr. Secretary! We’re not authorized to know what you did.”)

“Who called Pillar a liar?” Read the links. Pay particular attention to the one that links to Michelle Malkin’s site.
Which link? Throw me a bone here.

You wrote in reference to dinocrat’s blog: “Now THAT is a baldfaced lie, and you know it.” Take it up with dinocrat. I’ll take HIS word over anything YOU claim.
Dinocrat didn’t claim that “that Pillar does NOT believe in the use of military force to fight terrorism. EVER.” You did. That’s a very creative interpretation of wheat he said.

1. You suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Your personal hatred of the man precludes you even understanding the arguments against your position. You just dig in your heels and shout BUSH LIED!! even louder when well meaning people try to talk to you about it. BDS is, in fact, a specific form of paranoia (see Dr. Pat Santy’s blog, THE POLITICAL PARANOIA OF THE LEFT at http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/05/political-paranoia-of-left-parts-i-and.html for a detailed explanation of what it is, and why it is so destructive to those who have it, and the rest of us forced to watch YOUR personal train wrecks.
That’s the first I’ve heard of critical ability being called a mental illness. And your link doesn’t work. I’ve applied information from sources I trust, and you simply dismiss them all as liars, including the intelligence professionals involved in the affair, without providing a source to the contrary aside from British intelligence, which the Bush administration itself claimed to doubt in its report to the IAEA. Pretty shaky.

YOU and your fellow moonbats believe that “BUSH LIED!!” to take us into war. Nothing that anybody tell you, no proof or logic to the contrary will sway you that you might happen to be wrong.
Provide me with some proof or logic that the WMDs do exist, or that Saddam was a threat to us. Provide me with proof or logic that shows any of the Bush administrations rosy predictions for Iraq came true, or that there were any links to Al Qaeda as the President claimed… and then denied. If Bush is so concerned with the perpetrators of terror, where is the logic in diverting resources from hunting Osama bin Laden to a fool’s errand in Iraq? It’s documented that the PNAC advocated invading Iraq back in the 90′s, members including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby and John Bolton. Think there wasn’t a predisposition to invade Iraq on flimsy evidence? Who’s in denial here?

You and people like you litterly live in a different perceptional reality than the rest of us. You are so far removed the fact, and are unwilling to accept the fact, that we face a war “to the knife,” one which was not-of-our-choosing, that you hide in the comfortable denial of the mantra: BUSH LIED!!

There can be no meaningful communication between fools like you who are blind to the truth and the nature of the reality that faces us, because your very belief structure is, by its very existance, a mortal threat to my life, and that of my family, and the people of America. And the inability to convey awareness of this to you is blocked by YOUR mental chains, not mine.

We will NOT yield to you the argument. We will not let your paranoia and your denial threaten our survival.

I live in the same place and time as you do, I just see it differently. I agree with Paul Pillar: terrorism cannot be destroyed, only minimized and controlled. This should be obvious to you if you think about it. Why? Because the jihad against America, and the concept that America is the Great Satan, is an idea. And you can’t destroy an idea. You could attempt to kill every person who chooses to act on that idea, but you will simply give more credence to the Great Satan label, and help the idea spread; the most recent NIE has shown as much. The war in Iraq has made us less safe.

The good new is that America is also an idea that can’t be destroyed. Every terrorist in the world could strap on an explosive vest and successfully detonate it within the United States, and we would still be here; even if they destroyed every major city in our country, we would still exist and function. They can never, ever destroy us. Our survival isn’t threatened, but I’m sure you can see there are those who are all too ready to create paranoia and exploit fear for their own ends. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves, of course, the key word is defend.

We can only be destroyed from the inside, by betraying our own laws and principles. By dismissing sections of the constitution, by giving in to fear and allowing unscrupulous men to divert our resources (especially our military) to their own ends. This is how the Soviet Union collapsed, through its own corruption and lack of principle. In this way, the Bush Administration has done tremendous damage to the idea of America as a just nation working for the benefit of mankind.

What’s with all the ANGRY CAPS? Seems you devote a great deal of energy to psychoanalyzing and namecalling rather than debating the facts.

Constantine on October 26, 2006 at 1:16 AM

Oops… left a sentence hanging there. Should read:

They do still assert this, but refuse to provide their sources even as they’re required per IAEA guidelines. And, as we know, not even the Bush administration would vouch for it in its report to the IAEA.

Constantine on October 26, 2006 at 2:00 AM

Whoa . . .

iNeXuS on October 27, 2006 at 3:41 AM