Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner

After declaring that he is well-known for being funny, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen launches a weird snit today against Stephen Colbert for his speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner:

Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.

Two years ago, President Bush appeared in a skit at the same event in which his administration's inability to find WMDs in Iraq was a bottomless source of comedy. The only journalist in attendance who objected was David Corn of The Nation:

... at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office, and he said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

The audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn't the end of it. After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there." More laughter. Then another picture of Bush searching in his office: "Maybe under here." Laughter again.

Disapproval must have registered upon my face, for one of my tablemates said, "Come on, David, this is funny." I wanted to reply, Over 500 Americans and literally countless Iraqis are dead because of a war that was supposedly fought to find weapons of mass destruction, and Bush is joking about it.

Washington journalists like Cohen, who didn't raise as much as a peep when Bush laughed off the false cause that sparked a war, have now spent five days haranguing a cable TV comedian for making the president huffy.

-- Rogers Cadenhead

Comments

It depends on whos ox is getting gorged.


 

I thought Colbert's speech was a tour de force (or should that be "tour de farce"?).

It was excellent -- but to me it was more of a serious indictment than a comedy.


 

I also notice when imus made fun of clinton at white house dinner, about sex, bills etc. that media just loved that...Jerks...We now know that ommision of media to bias opinion is what our american media do..They are fox news completely spreading propaganda..From now on if a republican or republican american news says something..I will verify..


 

What is the american media good for again? Oh...using the $1.6 billion worth of prepackaged propaganda stories supplied by the White House and paid for with tax dollars......

We get one sided, biased, filtered crap.

If you want to know whats really going on in the US, you have to look to outside newssources who arent afraid of Bush, his Daddy, and their Dick(cheney).


 

I don't understand why people are acting out against Colbert. He was invited to do his form of comedy. He didn't deviate from anything that he has constantly done on his show. If they don't like that style they shouldn't have invited him.


 

Rude? Absolutely. But so's destroying 20mil ppl's way of life, their country's infrastructure, and not having a working plan for rebuilding it. Ask the Iraqis if they were happier under Saddam. I served in Iraq.


 

Ask somebody in West Virginia whose mountaintop home has just been blown to Kingdom Come if they thought Bush was mistreated during the White House Correspondents Dinner. The answer would probably be too obscene to repeat here.

Bush couldn't care less about Colbert's personal opinion, or anyone else's, for that matter, which is why El Presidente is such a dangerous man. Anyone who declares childishly that he's the "decider" has not a rational thought in his head.

Prediction: The next thing Bush blows up is Iran.


 

I watched the segment. It was not rudeness towards Bush. He was reducing Washington as a whole to absurdity, and everyone in the room realized it. Washington has turned into a soap opera by both sides! Colbert is using comedy to point that out. Open your eyes, there must be a better way.


 

Which I did not get in such a way in Europe with am Bush in the USA any longer in such a way like, he does not need also more because third time can he anyway is not ordered.


 

Colbert exposed the fact that journalists, lobbyists, congress, and the Administration all go to each other's parties, read the same stuff, and are oblivious to what most people are experiencing. Only people like Colbert (and the several hundred million people outside DC) who don't need to assure access to keep their jobs can point out the emperor's lack of clothes (as well as the nakedness of his toadying attendants).


 

I am all for poking fun of anything taboo including war and the President but here in lies the rub; Colbert was not that funny. On his game, he is money. Unfortunatly he was way off the mark and squandered a great opportunity.


 

There is a weird acquiescence by the mainstream media of this country in Bush's assault on constitutional rights, and on the environment.

Cohen calling Colbert a bully would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically ironic, considering the swaggering bravado with which Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld invaded Iraq.

[If this administration is so concerned about human rights abuses, where is the diplomatic pressure on the People's Republic of China for gross abuse of human rights in Tibet?]

I almost fell out of my chair when I read these words of Cohen's about Colbert:

"...he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness."

To which I can only reply:

Try going to one of Bush's (ironically named) "town meetings" with a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on your car in the parking lot, or wearing a tee-shirt with a slogan on it that the
pseudo-cowboy doesn't like.


 

All the Republifundies must finally be fed up with the 'well-worn liberal bias' of reality.

It would be funny to laugh at these people's denial of reality, if it weren't causing our nation such serious problems.


 

Oh, Rogers. I love you like a $2,000-a-night British Columbia hooker, but are we really clinging to "the war was only about WMD until we didn't find any"? The reason what Bush did was funny was it made more ridiculous what was already so: the liberal fantasy that WMD were the only reason we went into Iraq. I guess righteous indignation is only cool when it's completely unfounded.

Colbert didn't make the liberals at the dinner laugh either. And the reason he's so funny on TV is that he's found a way to avoid making the mistake that Jon Stewart ended up making: coming off as a pissy little punk when criticizing the right while being head-shaking but indulgent about the left. When you stop going for laughs because you're hoping for applause, you're not funny any more.

Colbert seemed to get that on the Colbert Report, but forgot it at the correspondents' dinner. Hey, I love the guy and his show, think it's the funniest, smartest comedy around, but Bush and the impersonator were funnier that night. The point of that particular event is not to give the pres what for, it's to entertain. Better luck next time, Steve.

P.S. Now that I've read the other comments, I see that the fantasy that the US media is in Bush's back pocket is going strong. Now that's hilarious.


 

"At the recent White House Correspondents Dinner, master comedian Stephen Colbert performed magnificently. With the rapier of wit and the mace of truth, he respectively skewered and censured the presidency of "dum'ass botch". And that's not all Mr Colbert accomplished.

Tucked away in his address to the dinner's flabbergasted attendees, like a ticking time bomb, there was an "easter egg", which we had absolutely . . . here "we" is a polite nod . . . NO right to expect. Like the Easter Bunny in a mischievous mood, Mr Colbert camouflaged a bon mot, so profound as to approach philosophical.

oh, before I reveal Mr Colbert's casual accomplishment, I should like to preface with a cave-- . . . "

The above blue text, which is enclosed within quotes, can be found appended to the article, which is located on the other side of the below hyperlink.

thanking you in advance for your gracious patience,

toodles
...../
.he who is known as sefton

hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com

. . . oh, yeah, I should add that the full title for that post is "rehabilitation of and by and for the right wing" . . .


 

The reason what Bush did was funny was it made more ridiculous what was already so: the liberal fantasy that WMD were the only reason we went into Iraq.

Live by the mushroom cloud, die by the mushroom cloud.

The war was sold primarily and enthusiastically on the notion that UN inspections were toothless, Saddam was thumbing his nose at them, the presence of WMDs was a stone cold lock, and we had to do something about them. Bush could have sold the war with a more nuanced approach on the humanitarian concerns, the need to spread democracy or my personal favorite -- "kill them there so we don't have to kill them here." But that wasn't the BFG 9000 in his arsenal -- the claim that Saddam was going to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda as earlier as next Tuesday if we didn't introduce him to Mr. Shock and Mrs. Awe.

Bush's extremely lucky to be a wartime president with such a pliant media. Both LBJ and Nixon would have been reduced to a pile of smoldering rubble if they thought their failures in Vietnam were side-splittingly funny.


 

These poor little right wingers can't handle the truth no matter how its dished out to them. Like frustrated little children they pout and scream. Colbert told the God's honest truth and these NeoCons stuck their heads up their butts.


 

OPEN LETTER

President of the United States

Lawmakers

Movers and Shakers

Issues of the day

Iraq and Iran

Oil Dependency

Immigration

Iraq and Iran

Going into Iraq replacing Sadam was the right thing to do. Presently on the right course.
--- Continue training Iraq soldiers and police.
--- Pick isolated part of country, make it a showcase. When terrorists try to disrupt by virtue of location we will be able to prevent and destroy. Use its success as example of what can be accomplished.
--- Major effort to root out corruption especially in U.S. funds.
--- Weekly report to Nation on progress of all of the above.

Immigration

--- First and foremost put the military on the border until Border Patrol/Wall/Other Solution can become effective.

--- Strictly enforce laws against employers who hire illigals.

--- Put Social Security numbers on a national data base that can be instantly checked for authenticity. Require all employers to verify SS # against the new database.

--- Weekly report to Nation on progress of all of the above.

Oil Dependency

--- Immediately declare National Emergency and set up a "Manhattan Project". Invite other Nations to join us in developing an alternative energy source.
--- Everyone boycott Exxon/Mobil until they bring their price to $1.00 per gallon.

--- Until an alternate energy source is found we must all participate in a major effort to conserve. We will be willing to make the effort if we truly believe the government is seriously working on the problem.

--- Weekly report to Nation on progress of all of the above.


 

Colbert's routine reminded me of Nixon/Kennedy debate. Really.

When I read a transcript of the talk, I laughed. When I watched it, I didn't. Context is a great deal in comedy. The jokes were funny and biting, but the context did not allow the audience to laugh. When the audience doesn't laugh, we are less likely to laugh.

Why do sit coms have live audiences or sound tracks? Who really likes to hear comedy by themselves?

Put a laugh track to Colbert's routine and it will be funnier, not just seem it.

Interesting.


 

Yea...I saw the original article. I totally agree about the funny thing. I don't even think Colbert is all that funny on his show. I also agree that he was totally rude and that he bullied the president on national cable television.

Where I differ with that article is that I do not sympathize. Bush is a bully himself. His overconfidence has destroyed many lives. His decisions will have a negative effect on the next generation for the rest of their lives, let alone mine.

It's OK to be incompetent. I'm proud of a retard that can tie his own shoes. The problem is this mentally deficient being is running the country. He is not capable of getting and understanding the facts that are upon us. There's actually no shame in that. The shame is that he is not willing to acknowledge that he is not capable of functioning as the most powerful man in the world. He's out of his league. My only disappointment with the broadcast was that he was not tarred and feathered.

We need more rude people in close contact with the president. I hope others will follow suit. A spade is a spade. It's OK to tell someone they look nice when they don't in order to make them feel good. That doesn't apply to someone steering the giant ship known as the United States.

I'm through ranting...long live Colbert! May the press cover this more. May Bush be impeached.


 

I agree with Richard.
" He was reducing Washington as a whole to absurdity, and everyone in the room realized it. Washington has turned into a soap opera by both sides! Colbert is using comedy to point that out."

Absolutely, and left forgets that they and their press now take seriously what Colbert said. This is EXACTLY why it wasn't funny to them. They FEEL and THINK exactly along the lines of Colbert's humorous jokes. That my friends, is the sad truth, or the grave reality, take your partisan pick.

I have seen blog after blog and the left celebrating over the "destruction" of GWB by Colbert, and the drooling and wishing they could have been the one to say it, it has been over the top.
I guess unfortunately, since I'm not an obsessed Bush hater, I can't enjoy that point, and I look at the celebrating lefties as sick insane moronic fools and smart alecks and misbehavers.
It's really become a mess, as Richard pointed out, and I would only caveat his comment by noting that more and more often the conservative side of the discussion is missing the reality and common sense side of things, and is being drawn into the insane mindset of lies and hypocrisy the left have made a into cultural phenomena since the 1960's.
I don't agree with it, and I don't think anyone does unless they are raving lunatic partisans. The problem is, if you ask me, the problem is there are millions of raving lunatic partisans on the left, and they are giving Steven Colbert the vast majority of his comedic lines...

I now call the democrat party or the left or whatever they all are, the party of smart alecks. That's what they've reduced themselves to. I can honestly say that I hear the left and democrats lie 99% of the time they open their mouths to speak.

I sure hope that changes if they ever win the mantle back. In fact, in many senses I'm hoping they do so I can see how they change...how it changes, and if the republicans start misbehaving as the democrats are doing now.

Don't be upset, I am a conservative except in the fiscal areas, and that above is EXACTLY how I see it, and I am more than CERTAIN I am correct.

BTW- I watch Colbert Report nearly everday, and love it. I also watch a lot of the Daily Show daily.

I'm very happy Colbert did what he did at the dinner. The more the PRESS realizes it is a laughing stock, the better off we will be.


 

Rogers says, "Washington journalists like Cohen, who didn't raise as much as a peep when Bush laughed off the false cause that sparked a war, have now spent five days haranguing a cable TV comedian for making the president huffy."

This effort on the part of the Left to constantly reinforce the Big-Lie that Iraq did not have WMD is, to me at any rate, INSANE! What kind of real-life idiots are you, to demonstrate what a bunch of total and complete hypocrites you, and your corrupt party, just happen to be!?

Didn't Clinton say, on providing reasons to attack Iraq, this?

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

A presidential liar and excuse maker for a false cause, isn't that right, Rogers?

That's why the Left is now becoming infamous as the Party of anti-patriots . . . because you are caught in so many blatant lies and obvious misdirections and just *exactly* like your effort with "false cause(s)."

How about Kerry, immediately before the invasion?

For a list of quotes from Democrats and with this one as a prime example: John Kerry says, "If You Don't Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don't Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, . . . Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me."

Look at all the Democrats claiming the same "intelligence" that Bush used!!!

Look at all the False Cause lies told by Democrats, then, and the obvious inference that you are all Liars, now!

. . . and that is exactly what your party is: A goebbelsesque circus of PT Barnum wannabes -- political clowns and "progressive" liars . . .


 

Iraq had no WMD program at the time of the invasion. I see no other conclusion that can be drawn today, after three years of American presence in the country.


 

I always laugh when right-wing delusionals talk about the 'liberal' media. Who do these innocents think owns the media in this country?

Do they really, for example, think that the blaring Fox News coverage is pristine, untainted by Rupert Murdoch's personal politics?

Even Rupert would laugh at that.


 

Rogers says, "Iraq had no WMD program at the time of the invasion."

I don't understand -- are you quibbling over the term "program," as opposed to WMD, in general? If so, how typical!

"I see no other conclusion that can be drawn today, after three years of American presence in the country."

So, reports from Saddam, his sons, and his cabinet and advisors is not sufficient to indicate that WMD were moved to Syria?

Even if such reports, along with CIA satellite indications, are not enough -- aren't you forgetting that your Democrat leadership was claiming the same danger from WMD in the hands of Iraq even up to the time of invasion?!

That "tune" was only changed when Iraq was successfully invaded and Saddam deposed! Democrats just can't abide any success on the part of Republican American citizens -- only Democrats. Otherwise, they'll act out like the OBVIOUS hypocrites they actually are, in reality!

This particular *misdirection* as a good demonstration of that saffron colored, canine response . . .


 

So, reports from Saddam, his sons, and his cabinet and advisors is not sufficient to indicate that WMD were moved to Syria?

How could Iraq move WMDs out of the country, given the satellite surveillance capabilities of the U.S.?


 

OMG. The retoric spewed by both sides here would drown a fish.

Both parties, Republican and democrats, are currently screwed up beyond belief.

Democrats - Are basically just as they always were. Powermongers who thrive on popular fears, and who are afraid or ashamed of US power and capitolism, and secretly want to be socialists.

Republicans - Are turning into Democrats without the ability to sway public opinion through the use of celibrity endorsments. Corrupt, big goventment pinheads who are only interested in furthering thier own ambitions.

So, here is my retoric. Enable Term Limits. If politicians cant be career leeches, maybe they will worry more about making themselves remembered by doing GOOD things, like balancing the budget, reducing the size of government (like the constitution says, and the federalist papers reaffirm), securing the country, and improving the ability of people to earn THIER OWN income, instead of depending upon th egovernment for a handout.

BTW, only Fox news of the major TX outlets has any conservative lean, and it not even really strong. The rest, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, ... are all so liberally minded that they are willing to fake informations, and reproduce that fake information, just to propogate material that bases/hates on conservative anything (people/ideas/actions)

Also interesting that the single most persecuted religion in the US today is the religion of the founding fathers, and the most self-aggrandizing religion of today is Atheism.

Rant off.


 

I always laugh when right-wing delusionals talk about the 'liberal' media.

You want to get that one, Rogers, or should I?

The war was sold primarily and enthusiastically on the notion that UN inspections were toothless,

Weren't they?

Saddam was thumbing his nose at them,

Wasn't he?

the presence of WMDs was a stone cold lock, and we had to do something about them.

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

There's no such thing as a stone cold lock in the intelligence game (see the last five times we assumed, on the best info available, that other nations didn't have military capabilities we didn't want them to have. Turns out they all did), but the preponderance of info and extrapolations of past behavior all led every liberal politician, among others, to insist that SOB Saddam be removed. Until it looked like that SOB Bush was about to actually do it, that is.

Bush could have sold the war with a more nuanced approach on the humanitarian concerns, the need to spread democracy or my personal favorite -- "kill them there so we don't have to kill them here." But that wasn't the BFG 9000 in his arsenal -- the claim that Saddam was going to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda as earlier as next Tuesday if we didn't introduce him to Mr. Shock and Mrs. Awe.

What's funny about this is that the only people who remember a BFG9000 to the exclusion of all else are liberals. I agreed with Bush (as I agreed with both Clintons, Dean, Clark, Boxer, Hillary, Kennedy, Pelosi, and anyone else you care to name) when he said leaving Saddam in place was a mistake that needed correcting years ago, for a number of reasons, the least ignorable being the possibility of WMD. My personal interest was the creation a democracy in Iraq after killing Saddam and his kids, but that's just me.

Iraq had no WMD program at the time of the invasion. I see no other conclusion that can be drawn today, after three years of American presence in the country.

While giving Saddam four months to tidy up is not the same as "Iraq had no WMD program," I'll grant you that no WMD have been found. If that was truly the only reason we went, why not plant some? Easiest thing in the world.

How could Iraq move WMDs out of the country, given the satellite surveillance capabilities of the U.S.?

Well, for example, all the bio stuff we thought was there would fit in a three-car garage. I'm guessing, given four months, I could get that done in the trunk of my 20-year-old BMW 2-door without looking terribly suspicious. Trucks cross borders all the time, as do planes. Satellites look where we tell them to look, not everywhere at once. I'd love to believe we have the kind of omniscience you refer to, but we don't.

The one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that what we know now about WMD and Iraq is but a fraction of what will be known in the future.

In the end, Stephen Colbert didn't do anything brave, new or even particularly interesting. He just did it with Bush in the room. Why that's perceived as heroic rather than jerky is more a question of personal taste than anything else, and while I do not personally subscribe to the idea that confrontational = interesting, I respect an artist's desire to make a ruckus in the name of his art. On the other hand, this particular event has traditionally been one at which, for just a couple of hours, respect for the office of President trumps pathetic J-school fantasies of bearding The Man in his corporate den. Going along with such a tradition isn't selling out, it's being gentlemanly.


 

Fuck me, fucked up the italics. Trying again:

I always laugh when right-wing delusionals talk about the 'liberal' media.

You want to get that one, Rogers, or should I?

The war was sold primarily and enthusiastically on the notion that UN inspections were toothless,

Weren't they?

Saddam was thumbing his nose at them,

Wasn't he?

the presence of WMDs was a stone cold lock, and we had to do something about them.

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

There's no such thing as a stone cold lock in the intelligence game (see the last five times we assumed, on the best info available, that other nations didn't have military capabilities we didn't want them to have. Turns out they all did), but the preponderance of info and extrapolations of past behavior all led every liberal politician, among others, to insist that SOB Saddam be removed. Until it looked like that SOB Bush was about to actually do it, that is.

Bush could have sold the war with a more nuanced approach on the humanitarian concerns, the need to spread democracy or my personal favorite -- "kill them there so we don't have to kill them here." But that wasn't the BFG 9000 in his arsenal -- the claim that Saddam was going to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda as earlier as next Tuesday if we didn't introduce him to Mr. Shock and Mrs. Awe.

What's funny about this is that the only people who remember a BFG9000 to the exclusion of all else are liberals. I agreed with Bush (as I agreed with both Clintons, Dean, Clark, Boxer, Hillary, Kennedy, Pelosi, and anyone else you care to name) when he said leaving Saddam in place was a mistake that needed correcting years ago, for a number of reasons, the least ignorable being the possibility of WMD. My personal interest was the creation a democracy in Iraq after killing Saddam and his kids, but that's just me.

Iraq had no WMD program at the time of the invasion. I see no other conclusion that can be drawn today, after three years of American presence in the country.

While giving Saddam four months to tidy up is not the same as "Iraq had no WMD program," I'll grant you that no WMD have been found. If that was truly the only reason we went, why not plant some? Easiest thing in the world.

How could Iraq move WMDs out of the country, given the satellite surveillance capabilities of the U.S.?

Well, for example, all the bio stuff we thought was there would fit in a three-car garage. I'm guessing, given four months, I could get that done in the trunk of my 20-year-old BMW 2-door without looking terribly suspicious. Trucks cross borders all the time, as do planes. Satellites look where we tell them to look, not everywhere at once. I'd love to believe we have the kind of omniscience you refer to, but we don't.

The one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that what we know now about WMD and Iraq is but a fraction of what will be known in the future.

In the end, Stephen Colbert didn't do anything brave, new or even particularly interesting. He just did it with Bush in the room. Why that's perceived as heroic rather than jerky is more a question of personal taste than anything else, and while I do not personally subscribe to the idea that confrontational = interesting, I respect an artist's desire to make a ruckus in the name of his art. On the other hand, this particular event has traditionally been one at which, for just a couple of hours, respect for the office of President trumps pathetic J-school fantasies of bearding The Man in his corporate den. Going along with such a tradition isn't selling out, it's being gentlemanly.


 

It would be surprising if Bush showed the respect for the Executive Office that he expects others to show it. He could start by learning some geography and maybe even some world history.

Going along with such a tradition at the Correspondents Dinner might be gentlemanly-- on the other hand, Bush is certainly not a gentleman.

His first presidential campaign's vicious smearing of John McCain proved that.


 

Actually, they're complaining because he wasn't funny.


 

Cohen swooned over Colin Powell's February, 2003 UN skit. He shit on Michael Moore over F 9-11. He shit on George Clooney over Syriana. Now he shits on Colbert. Cohen's part of the fake 'opposition'.


 

Colbert is nothing but a talking head, take away his script writers and he is just another leftwing dumbfuck. All this jibber jabber about how funny he is or isn't is pure balderdash, hes not funny, HIS SCRIPT WRITERS ARE......


 

No, I think it's Colbert who's the brains of that outfit. He's way too quick in the interviews to be a puppet of writers, and his stuff on The Daily Show was always the best thing they had. I think the Colbert Report is the consistently funniest thing on, which is why the correspondents dinner thing surprised me. Maybe he really thought he could change Bush's mind. Who knows?


 

Yea, Stephen Colbert, talking leftwing parrot, is going to alter the course of the future....What planet do you live on 'Uncle Mikey'? Planet Dumbass?....this numbnut needs to enjoy his 5 minutes of fame before he fades into obscurity....Make sure you get all of the wit and wisdom his ghost writers type out for him while you can, because tomorrow he enters the trash bin of history.....FLUSH...


 

This really flushed out the high blood pressure sufferers, didn't it?

(Just as an aside, I think Bush and Osama love each other. They need each other so much).


 

Rogers pretends to ask, "How could Iraq move WMDs out of the country, given the satellite surveillance capabilities of the U.S.?"

See!? Even though the administration showed satellite photos of various convoys to Syria -- you ignore it, in order to ask your rhetorical "question" and which panders to the ignorance of your "public!"

Besides which, you are MISDIRECTING the fact that your Democrat leadership was touting the SAME WMD fears up to the time of the invasion! If it is a LIE for Bush, then it is another LIE for you puling Democrats!

The entire world is safer knowing that Saddam is in jail and that he, at least, won't be giving any WMD to terrorists to attack us!

You sniveling anti-patriot, political greed mongers!


 

Iraq had no WMD program at the time of the invasion. I see no other conclusion that can be drawn today, after three years of American presence in the country.

Rogers Cadenhead | 2006-05-04 09:53 PM | link

Thats simply not true, Iraq had toxic wmd dumps all over Iraq, they were just monitered by the UN inspectors and the IAEA....but they were there....

50,000 tons of WMD material is missing and it scares the living shit out of me......The Russians, the french, the Chinese, and elements in Syria and Lebanon were giving help to Saddam right before the invasion.....Where are the missing tons of antrax, boutilism, mustard gas, VX, and other assorted WMD? Saddam and Dr. Germ didn't eat them.....


 

Rogers repeats himself, "Iraq had no WMD program at the time of the invasion. I see no other conclusion that can be drawn today, after three years of American presence in the country."

The actual "fact" is that you didn't know that Saddam did not, as you claim, have a WMD program at the time of the invasion. Neither did the Democrat leadership who were advancing the exact same fears about WMD in Iraq, as they had been since 1998 and Clinton's air war with Iraq. Your "claims" only began as a political propaganda campaign (during wartime) after the WMD were found missing.

And, missing they are! Saddam/Iraq has NEVER accounted for the WMD known to exist and determined by the UN!

However, in order to continue your Democrat campaign to revile this administration over missing WMD, you subversively pretend that this was the only reason for invading Iraq, and (once again) IGNORE that Saddam's threats against his neighbors, his tortures and murders, his efforts at genocide and his support of terrorism against the US and Israel didn't exist!

Bosnia was declared to be about all of that, and you supported Clinton, but when the Right makes a successful effort to end tyranny, murder, genocide and threats from WMD (real or not), you lying, Big-lie spouting Leftist subversives whine and moan and revile ALL OF THE UNITED STATES for you political greed!

Disgusting, despicable, slimey, . . . words just can't describe the depths to which your party has sunk in its calumny . . .!


 

It doesn't matter whether or not Colbert was funny. It's long past time that the people of this country stood up to the thugs who occupy the White House.

This country hasn't been so close to dictatorial rule since Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. We need to uninstall the would-be dictators.

We now have government by, for, and of corporations. This administration invites them to write the very regulations that are supposed to restrain them from their customary plundering of the common weal.

George W. Bush has forfeited the respect due his office by his continued malfeasance in that position. His contempt for our democratic institutions is dangerous to our freedoms and treasonous to our ideals.

Bush's fealty is to the money interests that got him elected, and his job as conceived by the Republican Party is to deliver full return on their investment.

I would say that a man who considers the Constitution just a piece of paper doesn't deserve to be president.


 

the American people elected 'those thugs' in the Oval Office, you fricking moron.....TWICE......What part of a democracy do you not understand, you dimwitted fool?


 

I'm sure things in Bosnia would have turned out more
like Iraq if only they had oil and the promise of WMDs.


 

Vince Williams, the last word in Bush Derangement Syndrome.


 

Gunderfunk says, "I'm sure things in Bosnia would have turned out more
like Iraq if only they had oil and the promise of WMDs.
"

This isn't about Dreamtime, it is about reality.

The reality is that the Democrats supported the reasons for going to war in Bosnia, but refuse to accept those same reasons (and more) for invading Iraq.

The Democrat party, and its dupes and stooges (like this site), are acting out as blatant hypocrites in demonstrating this political, and anti-patriotic, double standard.

It is one of the most disgusting displays of subversion, since the party accepted the Chicago rioter's leadership into the party to form their platform in 1968!

The demonstration, here in Portland, Oregon, was claringly obvious in slavish support of the Left/Democrats, when their in-the-street protest of war in Bosnia was MISSING, but was present even when we invaded Afghanistan and for the reason of 9/11!

The Democrats are becoming infamous as liars, whiners, subversives and in support of the terrorists goals by reviling and attempting to defame our commander-in-chief during a time of active warfare!

Despicable anti-patriots . . .


 

Sometimes you have to go to the temple to confront the publicans. Colbert did that. Let's finish the job and use those democratic processes (while we still have them), to drive out the moneychangers who defiled it.

Thanks for the compliment, Uncle Mikey. Hey, Joe. How's the Navy treating you? Sounds like you need a vacation.


 

The reality is that many Democrats supported the reasons supplied by
the Republican administration for going to war in Iraq. Isn't that
what the Republicans wanted? I think so.

But the mission isn't exactly accomplished, is it. Many Democrats
and Republicans who are not politicians are righteously angry over
the piss-poor peace planning put in place by our government. The
Administration has made little or no progress working with Iraq's
neighbors to secure the borders so that Iraq could construct its
new government more peacefully. Instead, WMDs (if there were any)
went out, and the martyrs came in.

Tadowe, refusing to support the government before or after a
declaration of war (or its executive equivalent) does not constitute
sedition nor violate any clause of the Patriot Act. Perhaps you wish
it did, but it doesn't. American citizens are under no obligation to
bend to the will of their politicians. It's the other way around,
my friend. Even Bush understands that.

And if the Democrats take power this year or in 2008, (God forbid...
I am neither Democrat nor Republican), it's the will of the people,
just as it was in 2000 and 2004 (right?).

FYI - It's doubly bad to use name-calling in debates. As a
name-caller, Democrats and objective observers discard your words
like lint while you make yourself and your party look worse.


 

I just deleted a comment by one participant in this discussion challenging another to meet for a fight.

People get free rein here, for the most part, but that's off-limits. One of my life goals as a web server admin is to not to testify at anyone's criminal trial.


 

Wise decision. I apologize for my indiscretion. I remember you wondered once why people so often express themselves in the most offensive way possible on the internet. Maybe the free rein they have is one of the reasons why.

But didn't even William Buckley slug Gore Vidal on national tv?

Even smart people do stupid things.


 

Gunder says, "But the mission isn't exactly accomplished, is it."

This is the one the those misdirections, and which are in the way of being virtual lies; in order to revile and discredit this administration. The "mission" is a "War on Terrorism," and which was stated to be not only against individual terrorists, but also nations which supported that terrorism.

Democrats, and you as a correspondent for them, don't whine and moan about the "mission" in Bosnia not being completed, yet. They don't cry about their own putative negligence in not solving the Somalian, Iraq and Haitian troubles during those military adventures conducted by their "gang" -- do you? No, you can only find the ability to pule, hypocritically about invented "mission" problems, and which you want the public to believe is a "failure."

When analyzed, your tactics and efforts are actually downright slimey and disgusting! We are in a literal war and your party is sowing lies to subvert the political process! You are acting out as virtual traitors; aiding-and-abetting the enemy's cause! Despicable!

"Many Democrats and Republicans who are not politicians are righteously angry over the piss-poor peace planning put in place by our government."

More bald faced lies! It takes thousands of man hours to plan the movement of one military division; much less coordinate a combined nation attack and pacification of another country!!!

Why anyone, with two brain cells to rub together would believe this GIGANTIC BIG-Lie -- I will never understand. . . except to say that there are sure a lot of stupid people, and Democrats out there, for sure!

"The Administration has made little or no progress working with Iraq's
neighbors to secure the borders so that Iraq could construct its
new government more peacefully.
"

See!? More stupid lies! Except that they (Democrat subversives) count poor cooperation from Syria and Iran as One Big Victory For Their Side!)

The scummy Democrat traitors!

"Tadowe, refusing to support the government before or after a
declaration of war (or its executive equivalent) does not constitute
sedition nor violate any clause of the Patriot Act.
"

BS! Your party, and you, are lying through your teeth for political advantage -- not the advantage of ALL the United States!

This is a time of war, and you can leave your aid for the Democrat/enemy lies about "poor planning" aside during while our soldiers are being shot at -- talk about the economy, immigration, abortion or any other neutral, political subject and your commentary is justified -- but not about Iraq, the war on terrorism, or any of the other downright lies you all are spewing about the WAR -- you self-apologizing traitors!

"Perhaps you wish it did, but it doesn't. American citizens are under no obligation to bend to the will of their politicians. It's the other way around, my friend. Even Bush understands that."

Your efforts are for political greed and not to win the war against terrorism, assist our soldiers in their fight or anything like patriotic action(s.) You parrot, merely and simply repeat the propaganda issued by your party and its leadership. You gather together in collective agreement to spread those same ignorant lies -- all to gain political advantage for your "side" and not the entire US . . .

Then, you refuse to take responsibility for your own words, and forgive yourselves because of "freedom of speech" and never recognizing the appearance(s) your partisan words and actions demonstrate!

Not only unconscious subversives, but stupid, unconscious subversives!

"And if the Democrats take power this year or in 2008, (God forbid...
I am neither Democrat nor Republican), it's the will of the people,
just as it was in 2000 and 2004 (right?).
"

It was the "will of the people" that the German republic be governed democratically by the National Socialist German Worker's Party, too -- do you consider that some justification for the lies and propaganda they used to get there?

Well, do you, punk . . .?

"FYI - It's doubly bad to use name-calling in debates. As a
name-caller, Democrats and objective observers discard your words
like lint while you make yourself and your party look worse.
"

BS, again! My insults are reasoned, not made-up as are the lies you spread about "poor planning," etc. I can call you a bald faced liar, because you are one! It doesn't excuse your actions, that you are actually ignorant and just repeating the calumny you heard from some other collectivist sheep! Disabuse yourself of the idea that you will have any effect on me with your attempts to patronize my commentary . . .


 

Rogers truly believes in democracy. He lets everybody have a say, including the cowards and even the spammers.


 

Gore Vidal is right.

Roosevelt had rearmed the United States to defeat the Fascist Axis, and with Stalin's help, we did that. From this, Harry Truman and Dean Acheson..."learned an important lesson: It was through war and a militarized economy that we became prosperous with full employment."

It was Truman and Dean Acheson who armed us with nuclear weapons and crafted the national security state to wage permanent war against Godless communism.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new bogeyman was needed, ergo, the 'War on Terror'-- fetchingly named, though Congress has declared war on nobody.

So we have another perpetual war to prop up the U.S. economy, which can't seem to sustain itself without this sham device. Worse, we have a chief executive playing 'War President', who has "no idea of, or interest in, playing President."

The fact that Bush and his handlers have their hands on the steering wheel of the National Security Agency, with its terrifying information-gathering powers, is no laughing matter.

The Washington media are collaborators by default in the White House's assault on American 'democracy'.


 

Tadowe,

Huh? Misdirection? I'm pretty sure W's landing on the carrier and the photo-op beneath the banner that said "Mission Accomplished"
was not Democratic party subversion. If it was, hats off to them because it looked EXACTLY like real-time war propaganda to me.
Nonetheless, set aside all your phony hatred for a moment and ask yourself, is the mission accomplished?

When I say refusing to support the government is not sedition or a violation of the Patriot act, it's not a lie for political
advantage...it's simple fact. Rational people from all parties would agree on that, but I'm guessing that even if you studied
the original text of the laws, you'd still say the same thing.

Anyway, I don't understand how anyone could honestly reach the conclusions you reach. In fact, your comments are so retarded
there's no way you're really who you say you are. I've never heard a Republican say anything as stupidly as you do, although
W comes pretty close. You're like the Zacarias Moussaoui of Republicans. Tadowe Moussaoi. Has a nice ring to it, don't you
think?

You know, I think your frontin' with all your haught pseudo-savant gibberish. So come on now, Tadowe, you crazy nut! Time to come
out of the closet! Go ahead, admit your not really a Republican. Admit to the world you're really a Democrat posing as a Republican
bent on making them look bad...for political advantage. It's ok, honey. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward healing.

If not, well, hooray for the Democrats; you're on their team!

Just the same, I'm not taking your bait any more, troll. Suggest you take some time and get some help.

You will be ignored, Tadowe.


 

George W. Bush is a Connecticut Yankee playing in the Court of the King.


 

No, YOU're a torso


 

Sir, I would have thought the word described your unfinished piece of writing.

If you take umbrage at what I write here, why not contribute a rebuttal? This blog could use some civilized discourse after the recent dumping of a mountain of smut here.

By the way, how do know what a British Columbia (Vancouver?) hooker costs?

Vince Williams, the working man


 

Southern says, "With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new bogeyman was needed, ergo, the 'War on Terror'. . ."

Repeated crap heard from the "collective." China, the actual monolithic communist regime, had not disappeard, nor Korea, PRV, Cuba and other communist countries known for their aggressive imperialism! Indeed, the Islamic efforts to spread that religion through the use of terrorism wasn't invented by Bush and had been and ever growing problem since 1948. So, your "history" and conclusion(s) are nothing more than inane lies not even suitable for daytime television pap.

"So we have another perpetual war to prop up the U.S. economy, which can't seem to sustain itself without this sham device."

This actually supports the goals of terrorism: assert power through massive violence. You seem to provide them with perpetual immunity to being defeated! You side with the terrorist in sowing defeatism and a cowardly sense of surrender . . .

. . . and the inference that the US economy is criminal because it ruthlessly uses war to support it!

What are you!? Another European hater of the US -- Canadian?

"Worse, we have a chief executive playing 'War President', who has "no idea of, or interest in, playing President."

Who is this "we," MrIhateAmerica? Or, are you actually some US socialist zealot, intent on helping international terrorism defeat America by using inhuman sacrifice to enforce their political goals? You want to destroy capitalism and any enemy of your enemy is your friend?

Is that what it is?

. . . or are you really just ignorant and full of Democrat propaganda -- the party would be at fault, then, for spreading these lies and providing dupes like you with stupid, but nice sounding squawks to parrot?

Maybe you are just another ignorant partisan puppet, supporting your "gang" over our Commander in Chief during active military warfare. The People's Progressive Party are the ones supporting terrorism by attacking our leadership while they are trying to fight a real world war, this instant, at this time!

They, the abstract "Party," are the guilty antipatriots saying the exact same things that al Jazeera and the other Islamic fundamentalist newsblats are spewing by the minute . . .

Whew! It is a wonder that you petty terrorist helpers are able to keep up with all the muckraking, misdirecting and outright lies you've managed to regurgitate on a daily basis for the last 6 years!

Disgusting, despicable, cowardly, subversive . . . nothing can actually describe the actual depths you and your party have sunk in pandering for party during a time of war . . . counting our dead as some sort of "victory" for your cries to assist the terrorists in withdrawing from the fight and allowing them to have their way!

iIi.

The fact that Bush and his handlers have their hands on the steering wheel of the National Security Agency, with its terrifying information-gathering powers, is no laughing matter.

The Washington media are collaborators by default in the White House's assault on American 'democracy'.


 

Thank you for your response. I see that in the end, you've come round to my way of thinking. Let us pray for guidance.

Vince Williams, the "Pretender"


 

Good riddance to those who would despoil the House of the Laird.


 

I'm just guessing on the hooker prices, but that doesn't change the fact that you, sir, are a torso.


 

Again I say, "Sir, in order to be facetious, it is not necessary to be indecent." I'm sure the blognoscenti will concur.

Vince Williams, somewhere on A1A


 

Here is some contrast with this effort to criticize the reaction of a vanishingly small number of conservatives:

Don Imus's raunchy performance at the Radio & Television Correspondents Association Dinner Thursday night has developed into a full-blown media flap. The committee that organized the event has issued a formal apology to the president and expressed its hope that he might attend another of their dinners someday. ABC's Cokie Roberts says she will never -- repeat, never -- be a guest on the Imus radio show again.

The media laughed it up at the Bush/Colbert roast but were suspiciously silent during the Clinton roast by Imus!

Got that? The media laughed when Bush was roasted, but didn't when Clinton was being defamed!?

The "Media" collectively criticised Imus, while look here, only ONE (1) reporter criticizes Colbert but UNIVERSALLY criticise Cohen!

You puling Democrat hypocrites are gigantic, world class *hypocrites!*


 

The Democratic party is the moribund party of the people ('demos' in Greek). The Republican party has subsumed their will and is erecting a totalitarian state organised along the lines of Plato's Republic, as conceived by the Masters of iniquity. They desire to enslave the people, to force them to become mindless robots of consumption. True to Socrates on at least one point, however, they want the 'demos' to be happy (in their enslavement).

These vipers use the narcotic of false religion to impose their regime of lies on this country, and even the world. But the giants of old are rising from their slumber, and even now gird their loins to arise and speak the Word.

Vince Williams, the Devil's Bane


 

Cthulu's coming? Which stadiums will he play? I can't wait to get tickets.


 

Cthulhu is Lovecraft's baby. Cuchulain is more my style.

Un, dou, tri. We wait on a Cumbric bard, he was grooving in a cave with a Pict.

Vince Williams, the Family Gene


 

The media has become a bunch of trained seals, put a tape recorder on their back and record what you want them to say and presto you have a journalist.


 

Good day! Thx for your great post and Im thinking about how to introduce my ugg boots to you cos Im not sure if u like this. Many people who live in the cold area like the ugg boots, especially the north-europe.


 

Add a Comment

These HTML tags are permitted: p, b, i, a, and blockquote. A comment may not include more than three links. Participants in this discussion should note the site's moderation policy.

:
:
: