Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

New Romney Ad Says "Now Is the Time"

As the 2008 presidential campaign heats up, The Fix will attempt to catalogue and analyze the most interesting and impactful campaign ads being put on the air in Iowa, New Hampshire and other key states.

(washingtonpost.com also just launched a blog in partnership with PrezVid.com called "Channel '08" that will be the clearinghouse for video of all sorts during the coming campaign so make sure to bookmark it.)

Today, Mitt Romney launches a new ad in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as on cable nationwide (watch it below). Here's a run-down:

Visual: Splices of Romney speaking are interspersed throughout the commercial. In each snippet he is speaking confidently in declarative sentences and with an optimistic demeanor. Images of the Statue of Liberty, and men and women in uniform are shown as are photos of crowds gathered around Romney.

Audio: The ad runs 30 seconds, so each word was precisely chosen. The messages are clear: Romney is a defender of conservative values ("This isn't the time for us to shrink from conservative principles") and the military ("America must remain the world's military superpower"). Both ideas are red meat for the type of Republican voters most likely to vote in next year's primaries and caucuses. The other primary message is that Romney believes the U.S. must embrace its role in the world -- notwithstanding the current conflict in Iraq, which is not mentioned in the ad. "Now is the time for us to lead a great coalition of strength."


By Chris Cillizza  |  May 9, 2007; 8:26 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Edwards Hits Iowa Airwaves
Next: Richardson Interviews for the Job

Comments

As the political "lynchings" in our 110TH DO-NOTHING CONGRESS continue the lastest Gallup Poll shows our DO-NOTHING Dem controlled Congress at 29% approval.

Today's Rasmussen poll for our President is at 38%.

Attention Dems.........keep up the good no-work by the time November 2008 comes around your approval should be around 6% .........really sad

Posted by: perception5 | May 15, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

fomikymr473n9c bn8fyu5nstjmypn i3dk0tehx

Posted by: caf0fzfsyj | May 10, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Razor said "Their civic culture has no respect for life, and that will not change even if Israel is wiped off the map."

Need proof? Just look at the television shows that are being aired in the Middle East aimed at the youngest recruits to the cause of radical Islam.

Hamas militants have enlisted the iconic Mickey Mouse to broadcast their message of Islamic dominion and armed resistance to their most impressionable audience - little children.

A giant black-and-white rodent - named "Farfour," or "butterfly" - but unmistakably a Mickey ripoff - does his high-pitched preaching against the US and Israel on a children's show run each Friday on Al-Aqsa TV, a station run by Hamas.

"You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists," Farfour squeaked on a recent episode of the show, which is titled, Tomorrow's Pioneers.

"We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness..."

With the help of a furry mascot, children are taught to hate Jews and to hate nonbelievers. This is truly sickening. Liberal appeasment of these terrorist groups will only play into their hands.

Where is the outcry from the rest of the 'religion of peace' on this attack on their children?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 10, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Interesting question, Blarg. Obviously the suggestion that we did that in the '90s conveniently ignores history.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse


When Romney says it is time for the US to embrace its role in the world and lead a coaltion of strength he could mean a number of things. Most likely he is just speaking of the same old effort to "spread democracy."

What it would be great to see is candidates addressing how the US could lead a coalition of stregth in fighting issues that are of fundamental importance. Like global poverty.

The Borgen Project estimates that it would take $19 billion annually to end hunger and malnutrition world wide. And the UN has established a set of Millennium Development Goals which seek to eliminate global poverty by 2025, but political support in the US is lacking.

Issues like creating a world in which everyone can afford to feed their family and have accesss to basic healthcare and education are what should be at the center of candidates campaigns, but they are tragically overlooked.

Posted by: Andrea | May 9, 2007 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Former Gov. Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, gave an $150 donation to the abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood in 1994, at a time when Romney considered himself effectively "pro-choice," the Romney campaign confirmed today.

SOOOOOOOOOOO PHONEY.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Blarg makes reference to insulting nearly a billion people (Muslins) like that.

I dont have a problem with 1 billion Muslims except that the large majority of non-fanatics seem to defer to the small percentage of fanatics.

What I think is lacking in the Muslim community is a clear expression against suicide bombers. While the impact of suicide bombers is tragic enough for victims, just think what it says about the suicide bombers and their supporters: The life of one of our loved ones should be traded for a few people we hate, even if we dont even know which people it will be.

Their civic culture has no respect for life, and that will not change even if Israel is wiped off the map.

Years ago, I remember the Israelis and the Palestinians doing a prisoner swap where hundreds of palestinians were traded for one or 2 Israelis. My first impression was why did the Israelis do it? They just got screwed in that deal. But what that deal shows is what BOTH societies think of their own people.

Any society what would send its children out to trade their lives for a few anonymous enemy is a sick sick society that will never succeed, regardless of its circumstances. Yet among the vast majority of non-fanatic muslims there isn't a loud denunciation of this practice.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous, in the 90s we attacked Iraq repeatedly. We also continued our support of oppressive regimes in the Middle East, and of Israel. Our actions in the 90s were nothing like the total isolation which I described.

Proud, it's hard to know what are your words and what you're quoting. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just quoting someone when you compare one of the world's major religions to a parasite. Because I'd hate to think that you're the kind of bigot who would insult nearly a billion people like that.

Posted by: Blarg | May 9, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Roo says:

"I am curious why you think it is significant that non-U.S. oil companies have a 'home-field' advantage? From a nationalistic point of view it would STILL make sense since the U.S. companies access will increase but I think that is completely secondary."

There exists a world oil market. The country of origin of the owner(s) of the oil company doesn't change the price, unless some country wants to artificially raise it or lower it through subsidies. If China "buys" an oil company, and takes all that oil for itself, they will only buy less from a different source. Worldwide oil supply/demand dynamics control the price regardless.

JOYCE has retreated to irrelevance now that she concedes US oil companies already had access. She has gone from Bush went to war to steal the oil from Iraq, to Bush went to war so that oil companies price for the oil they already had accest would be different. Both arguments are nutty conspiracy arguments, although one makes for a better chant than the other.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

So are the Democrats just jihadists lite? they seem to share all the same values and goals.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Envy works, just ask the Democrats.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Until they correct their own internal failures, all they have is envy. no writers, no scientists, nada.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

roo: Interesting argument. Yes, the first reaction when confronted by an enemy whom is culturally different than us is to try and put that enemy in the context of our own universe. Unfortunately, you seem to miss the point that I was trying to make, which is that 9/11 had nothing to do with us, and everything to do with Al Qaeda's own "fantasy ideology". They simply used us in an effort to further their own ideology.

To now argue that if we change our behavior we will somehow escape their wrath, is just obtuse. In fact, their is every reason to believe that these groups will simply find some other reason to hate us. Their are plenty to go around, greed, sex, Christianity,...pick one.

Posted by: FH | May 9, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

This is no time for us to hand over a victory to terrorists and radical Islamists.

Yes it is.

Posted by: Democrats | May 9, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

FH - your analysis is spot-on!

It seems to be comforting to some to hope that there might be a way to placate this enemy, that somehow if we acted differently, the violence, the conflict might just go away.

But this enemy seeks no armistice with free people. They've called America an enemy of God.

They have said of Americans and Europeans, "Their wives will be widowed and their children will be orphaned," and that, "jihad against the United States does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula"

Worse yet, the next president will have to deal with the growing threat of Iran.

Ahmadinejad, the handpicked president and puppet of the Supreme Leader Khamanei, spouts threats at the world like a madman. But he is not a madman.

Ahmadinejad is strict Islamic and he is a perfect example of the real and true Islam. Europe seems to think if it placates the enemy, the enemy will leave it alone.

Collectively, Europe doesn't realize that Islam will make Hitler seem only semi-mad.

The United Nations will do nothing. Most of the member states are terrified of Islam because of the fear of an attack and try to placate an enemy that will be satisfied with nothing less than complete victory and domination of the world.

Appeasers don't seem to realize that Islam feeds on the weak like a parasite. Islam sucks the life blood out of anyone near it and then moves on to the next weak fool. http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/BarbaraStock60111.htm

This is no time for us to hand over a victory to terrorists and radical Islamists.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, we did exactly that in the 90s. they kept coming and got more aggressive and more dangerous. do you always ignore history when it is convenient?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

extremely dangerous is trying to understand criminals and terrorists instead of killing them or locking them up. If you have limited resources, which is more effective at saving your skin?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Hypothetically, let's say that the next president declared we aren't interested in international affairs anymore. We're going to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq and other countries, we're going to stop sending foreign aid, and we're generally going to only concern ourselves with domestic affairs.

You don't think that would change things? You think the terrorists would continue planning attacks and calling "Death to America!" if we stayed out of their part of the world and didn't interfere with them? You think Al-Qaeda would still be able to recruit new members without pointing to any specific grievances against America?

You see the terrorists as cartoon supervillains who want to destroy America because they hate the concept of freedom. And I'm the one who's being naive?

Posted by: Blarg | May 9, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

FH--I am not sure you have the slightest idea what their ideology is.

Furthermore, Harris' maxim also seems to be childishly naive. It is absolutely a gargantuan oversimplification. But even at face value, consider equating such an extremist with a mentally ill person. Is the latter completely uncurable? Can anything be done to allow them to attain a level of functionality acceptable to society?

The motivations of, say, Osama bin Laden are quite a bit more complicated, however.

Anyway, that is all beside the point. All Blarg was saying that any time someone attempts to understand why criminals do what they do, they inevitably get labeled as sympathisers by the nationalists, right-wingers and warmongers (usually, I cannot really come up with any opposite situations.)

Understanding and finding out how stuff works is *the* single most important faculty of a human being and such hand-waving--even yours though it was better articulated than most--is extremely dangerous.

Posted by: roo | May 9, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Understanding the motivations of the terrorists doesn't entail sympathizing with them. We can recognize that our support for Israel makes terrorists hate us, but still continue supporting Israel, if we believe the benefits outweigh the risks. But you don't bother to understand their motives. You say that they hate us because of who we are, so there's nothing we can do except kill them. That kind of thinking is intellectually lazy, and it doesn't help us solve the problem at all.

Posted by: Blarg"

This from a book by Lee Harris: "The logic behind this fanaticism is childishly transparent: The world does not live up to my ideals of it. Therefore, it must be changed to fit these ideals. And since it is entirely the world's fault that it does not come up to my ideals, the world is in the wrong, and my mission is to set it right by any means necessary."

The problem with your premise is that you seem to feel that we can take action that will placate the extemists. I.E. if we feel supporting Isreal is causing us grief, we then should stop supporting Isreal. Through this action you seem to believe that the extremists will change their behavior. In this, I believe you are dangerously niave. Theirs is a "fantasy ideology" because their aim is to reshape the world according to their own ideals--ideals that turn out to be nothing more than a kind of intellectual make-believe.

Posted by: FH | May 9, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Joyce - what facts. You have presented none. then you declare you have.

Are you ignorant cowards female half? you act like it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulter/William/Razor/Dave!/GOP are all zouk. and you're not.

I may seem paranoid and delusional and slightly obsessed but I know stuff.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Razorback--"First, you miss the point on the New York Times article. Joyce said that the reason for the war was to give oil companies access to oil in Iraq. The import data and the NYT article show that oil companies had access to Iraqi oil before the war. Joyce posted a whopper."

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'access.' You can access the Internet with dial-up still, too.


Razorback--"Second, you state state my information on contracts is 2 years old. That is an april 5 2007.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm"

You are correct. I even misread the date in the article itself for some reason.

Fortunately the most egregious PSA abuse (viz. the leaked policy memos from Dec./Jan.) was curbed after the outrage it sparked.

I am curious why you think it is significant that non-U.S. oil companies have a 'home-field' advantage? From a nationalistic point of view it would STILL make sense since the U.S. companies access will increase but I think that is completely secondary.

Posted by: roo | May 9, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

They had access but not the kind of access they wanted -- Saddam had nationalized the oil markets,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

What a turd you are razor. I just gave up on you because you will not face facts any more than any neocon -- why waste my time?

You are just another troll with phony arguments, fake 'facts', obfucations, and straw men and red herrings. I don't get paid for posting here every 5 minutes 8 hours a day, so I don't bother with trolls like you, since you can neither listen nor learn.

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, I don't need your help to make a fool of myself. I am capable of doing that all on my own.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

sandflea is zouk too. hilarious!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Rescind your lies or I will cut and paste again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Roo responds on oil, but Joyce does not. Joyce is a drive-by liar, she posts stuff that gets rebutted, then disappears only to reappear in a few days posting the same garbage that has been rebutted.

in response to Roo's oil post:

First, you miss the point on the New York Times article. Joyce said that the reason for the war was to give oil companies access to oil in Iraq. The import data and the NYT article show that oil companies had access to Iraqi oil before the war. Joyce posted a whopper.

Second, you state state my information on contracts is 2 years old. That is an april 5 2007.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm"


Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

moo is koz. what a clown. how can you post in exactly the same way, using exactly the same terminiology and obbsessions, and not realize people can see through it?

are you about 12 or something?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Name the members of the executive branch impeached for lying.......

Hint - its not cheney.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

blarg, mikeB et al ,

We do not like anything american my liberal friend. In that feeling we share everything with you. thanks for your support, we couldn't win without your constant impulse to surrender. we will kill you last as repayment. And we won't make your kids watch. We are that much in debt to you. spread the news.

Over the weekend, the second-highest ranking member of al Qaeda called Democrat-led initiatives to end the war symbols of American defeat in Iraq.

thank you american jackasses. We have no hope of victory without the help of dingy harry reid and general pelosi. We fear US marines but know that you comrades from the left will insure our victory and the big al queda fire in your cities. allah akbar!!


Posted by: Sand flea | May 8, 2007 04:05 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

When someone has lied and lied and lied and lied the way Cheney has, he no longer deserves the 'benefit of the doubt.' He deserves to be impeached for his dishonorable conduct.

Posted by: Sally | May 9, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Public service announcement to anyone new to the blog.

We, the Evil Libs, are intentionally ignoring the poster known as kingofzouk (or, occasionally, Trotsky.) because we are afraid to take him on, because we are afraid to discuss issues with him.

In fact, as you may notice, we do shout those very same issues with several of the other staunch conservatives, just not KOZ.

The reason we ignore kingofzouk is that we lack the intellectual honesty required by a serious debate. Our posts--rife with opinions and conjecture presented as facts along with the rare but easily disprovable links or citations--have been rebutted several times. Usually we respond in one of three ways: 1) ignore the response completely, 2) make a strawman against a single part of the rebuttal while ignoring the rebuttal itself or 3) admit we were lying or exaggerating and explain that "only perception matters, not the facts."

We are so obsessed with him, even if we don't see him for days, we talk about him on this blog. He is the boogeyman and haunts us. We have never beat him in an honest debate but there is always hope. Please disregard any logic or facts if you want to help us. We are counting on you to win the next election, even if all our policies are totally foolish. Under no circumstance should you accept any truth or watch Fox news. they will only fool your little pea liberal brain. Stick with us and we will share the money we steal from the rich.

Posted by: moo | May 9, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Actually the only postwar 'planning' that WAS done was planning how to divvy up the oil revenues...

you can obfuscate all you want razor and your neocon pals, but the oil was what this was all about from day one -- and anyone with a brain can see it.

four years ago all of us who said that iraqi oil would be open to exploitation by foreign multinationals [and yes, they are AMERICAN and BRITISH, but they ALL have international subsidiaries now] and we were called conspiaracy theorists.

oh no, you exclaimed, all that oil would go to the iraqis, to help pay for the war and the infrastructure. rlmember that? paul wolfolwitz said it... you know, the guy who the world bank is trying to can for getting his girlfriend a posh job...

remember? rush limbaugh, another cheerleader for the Occupation, said 'the war will pay for itself' and you people, you moronic wingers, you still beleive it, even after it has cost your country $ 500 BILLION and thousand dead.

you people are tragically mentally ill.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cheney's first stop was a 45-minute meeting at the U.S. embassy with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Mr. Cheney said the meeting focused on "the way ahead in terms of our mutual efforts to help build an Iraq that is safe and secure, is self-governing and free of the threats of the insurgency and al Qaeda."

Mr. al-Maliki called it a "positive and serious" meeting.

Maybe we could give these elected leaders the benefit of the doubt, instead of second-guessing their every thought and discussion.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous, I think everyone here is capable of going to Slate and reading these articles themselves. If you think something is so interesting, then post a link and a short excerpt. Don't make 3 posts plagiarizing the bulk of yesterday's article on Giuliani. And don't excerpt Today's Papers without the actual article links.

Seriously, I can't figure out what you're trying to do here. If you actually want to inform people, there are better ways to do it. But if you're just trying to fill up the forum with useless posts, mission accomplished.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Proud, that's ridiculous. We have military bases near holy sites in Saudi Arabia. We support oppressive Middle Eastern dictatorships. We're the major international supporter of Israel. And we regularly invade Middle Eastern countries. Considering all that, how can you think the terrorists hate us for "our freedoms"?

Even in your quote from Bush, he can't keep his story straight. "With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." Exactly! They're trying to get us to change what we do, because that's what they dislike. Al-Qaeda aren't trying to take away our freedom to vote or assemble. They're trying to get us to stay out of international affairs, because our international actions are what pisses them off.

Understanding the motivations of the terrorists doesn't entail sympathizing with them. We can recognize that our support for Israel makes terrorists hate us, but still continue supporting Israel, if we believe the benefits outweigh the risks. But you don't bother to understand their motives. You say that they hate us because of who we are, so there's nothing we can do except kill them. That kind of thinking is intellectually lazy, and it doesn't help us solve the problem at all.

Posted by: Blarg | May 9, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Cheney, in Iraq on an unannounced visit, appeared before reporters with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top-ranking U.S. military official in Iraq.

The vice president was asked about one contentious issue: the Iraqi Parliament's plans to take a two-month recess amid a host of unresolved issues, including oil revenue legislation, de-Baathification and constitutional reform. U.S. officials have said that hiatus would be unwise.

But Cheney declined to reveal what he said to Iraqi officials on the matter. He said he referred to the issue in general terms, saying only that he couldn't predict whether Parliament would recess, and it's important to take up any matter in a "timely fashion."

Earlier, Crocker said of the planned recess: "The reality is, with the major effort we're making, for the Iraqi Parliament to take a two-month vacation in the middle of summer is impossible to understand."

they learned from bush. fiddle while ny and new orleans burn...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush would veto any bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday.'

well of course not, that would amount to accountability. he just wants a blank check to borrow ever increasing billions from the chinese.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Razorback--"How could there not be military planning regarding Iraq on the first day of Bush's term? There has been military planning regarding Iraq every say since 1990."

Distorting the meaning of a statement in order to rebut it is known as a Strawman argument.

Posted by: roo | May 9, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Wall Street Journal, 20 January 2000

"Saddam Is Reversing Gulf War Defeat"
...

"When, in the fall of 1998, Saddam sent U.N. weapons inspectors packing, President Clinton subjected Baghdad to a modest four-day air campaign. Advertised as a powerful setback to Saddam's efforts to rebuild his military machine, Operation Desert Fox amounted to little more than a pyrotechnic display that covered a stinging diplomatic defeat for the U.S.

In the 13 months since, all but unnoticed by the American public, the U.S. has continued to bomb Iraq, unloading some 2,000 missiles and precision-guided bombs against several hundred targets scattered throughout the Iraqi outback."

In the 13 months before Bush took office, there were 2000 bombs dropped on Iraq.

How could there not be military planning regarding Iraq on the first day of Bush's term? There has been military planning regarding Iraq every say since 1990.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Razorback--"US Oil companies had access to Iraqi oil under Saddam. In fact, the New York Times reported on May 8, 2007 that Chevron is about to pay a huge fine for knowledge of kickbacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/business/08chevron.html?em&ex=1178856000&en=641ac08d8ea7ac4a&ei=5087%0A"

Yeah. If I were an oil company, I would DEFINITELY rather pay kickbacks to participate in a marginally functioning program and risk being fined for them than have unfettered access to the resources on my own terms.

It makes real business sense.


"2. The second flaw in Joyce's conspiracy theory is that for her to be correct, oil imports from Iraq should be increasing. If Bush stole the oil for energy independence, why are the imports not skyrocketing? In 2002, the first full year before the war began, we imported more oil from Iraq than we did in 2006."

Because

A) production is only now returning to normal levels
B) the agreement for distribution of the oil has only recently been finalised
C) currently it is in their best interest to not saturate the market with oil.

Consider this: gas price at the pump has gone up, say by X amount. Oil companies say that this is due to increased raw prices which are Y. However, they are making more profit than before. Therefore, X - Y does not equal 0. Plus of course someone is getting the markup from the raw, too. Currently we are in the reserve-building phase where exports are intentionally kept marginally level and the raw-refined correlation continues to be assessed at a percentual markup.

"3. The third problem is that is that the first foreign contracts did not go to US companies. Contrary to what Joyce says, there are no contracts except these.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm"

Nice, an article from two years ago. Really proves your point. Want to try this instead to update your information?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

...And the rest of it was just based on your false premise.

Posted by: roo | May 9, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

dc voter:

I think there is a 4 or 5 link limit. You can post them 2 or 3 at a time.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I tried to post this with links but the Post stopped me, so here is the context of my response, though it remains to be seen if the Post lets the links through:
Apologies, Razorback, for assuming I would be understood. Let me clarify. Regardless of who had access to what oil when, it is beyond dispute that the Iraq war was being planned specifically by the Bush administration prior to 9/11.
My links included one to CNN with O'Neill saying as much (which probably didn't hlpe him keep his job, though that was more about disagreement on tax cuts);
one to Bob Woodward's story in the Post saying as much, as I think it fair to point to him as he is a journalist respected by both parties (and I don't think anyone quibbles with the meetings in late 2001); one to his own authorized biographer back in the day, Mickey Herskowitz, saying as much; and one to Tenet saying the same thing in his book about Cheney. I don't think the administration can or has tried to credibly refute these accounts.

Posted by: dc voter | May 9, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"Make them hate us and they will show up on our doorstep and do us harm."

mikeB -I fundamentally disagree with your logic here. The idea that "if we are just nicer to them" then they won't hate us has been disporven by history time and time again. Weakness only emboldens the islamists; just look at the last 30 years as evidence of that....
bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and bombing the USS Cole.

Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

Why do they hate us? I agreed with Bush then and I agree now that "They hate our form of government. Their leaders are self-appointed.

They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. "

"They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way. "

Yet in the gloom over postwar Iraq, ex-CIA agents and moody public intellectuals have recently doubted this "They hate us for who we are" explanation. Instead, they have reintroduced the notion of "They hate us for what we do" -- as if there are legitimate grievances that logically earn such violent attacks organized by petro-heirs, doctors and crackpot mullahs. Even a toned-down bin Laden is quoted as witness. He recently joked that al-Qaida is going after America, not liberal Sweden: had we just shrunk to the stature of the politically correct Scandinavians, then our problems would vanish.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0105/hanson2005_01_13.php3

But would they?

Not at all.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Every Wednesday is gallows day in Baghdad -- one that brings great fear, especially for a young woman on Iraq's death row who says she was tortured into confessing a role in the slayings of three relatives. According to Amnesty International, that's not uncommon in Iraq, where it says many confessions are coerced. "I am innocent," the woman told CNN.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

It was probably unintended, but one of the pictures used in the Romney ad has him standing with his hands on his hips and his BACK facing the camera. Presumably his FACE is looking forward to a better tomorrow, to the rising sun. Yet the guy is also standing in what appears to be water while the voice over declares American needs to stand tall.
The irony of standing up to one's knees in what? A swamp? A quagmire? The start of the second Great Flood? And all the while his voice declares that we need to be strong is comical. It makes Romney look strong and wet; strong and clueless.
What is he supposed to be anyway in the picture? A fisherman looking for his rod and reel? Someone testing the waters? Or is he thinking of trying to walk on it?

Posted by: Barton Keyes | May 9, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. Education Department said its head of federal student aid, a program facing criticism and investigations for conflicts of interest, will resign in keeping with a decision made in February.

Theresa Shaw was hired as the program's chief operating officer by then-Education Secretary Rod Paige in 2002 after working for companies including SLM Corp., known as Sallie Mae, the largest U.S. student-loan provider. Shaw will step down on June 1, the department said today in an e-mailed statement.
Lawmakers and officials including U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, U.S. Representative George Miller and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo are investigating conflicts of interests in the $85 billion-a-year student loan industry. Kennedy last month requested personnel records for Shaw and 26 other Education Department employees.

Shaw's departure is "absolutely'' unrelated to the inquiries, said Samara Yudof, a spokeswoman for the Education Department. Shaw told Education Secretary Margaret Spellings in February that she planned to leave, the department said in the statement. The department expects to announce a replacement before June 1.

The congressional and state probes have revealed revenue sharing between lenders and schools, as well as gifts, payments and stock transfers to college officials who recommended lenders to borrowers.

Indeed, Chairman George Miller's investigation has just revealed that "until recently, one of the nation's largest student lenders had hired officials from five different colleges to perform various services even as the officials continued on their colleges' payrolls." A release just issued adds, "The lender, JP Morgan Chase, also paid over $70,000 for a harbor cruise in New York City for over 200 college financial aid officers in 2005."

Additionally, as Reuters reported in April, another figure in the student loan scandal, university financial aid officer Ellen Frishberg, "resigned from a federal rule-making panel after being asked to step down amid a widening scandal involving student loans." Education Secretary Margaret Spellings will also appear before the Education and Labor committee on Thursday, May 10 to discuss these issues as well as corruption in the Reading First program.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

dc voter says:

"Reread his post, proudtobeGOP. Those aren't MikeB's views; he is suggesting that is the view of the Arab street, with the other ideas in quotes."

He is also suggesting that US policy should in some ways be shaped by the views of the Arab street, which is why I wonder just which of our values should be sacrified in order to satisfy the Arab street.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Public service announcement to anyone new to the blog.

We, the Evil Libs, are intentionally ignoring the poster known as kingofzouk (or, occasionally, Trotsky.) Not because we are afraid to take him on, not because we are afraid to discuss issues with him.

In fact, as you may notice, we do discuss those very same issues with several of the other staunch conservatives, just not KOZ.

The reason we ignore kingofzouk is that he lacks the intellectual honesty required by a serious debate. His posts--rife with opinions and conjecture presented as facts along with the rare but easily disprovable links or citations--have been rebutted several times. Usually he responds to this in one of three ways: 1) ignore the response completely, 2) make a strawman against a single part of the rebuttal while ignoring the rebuttal itself or 3) admits he was lying or exaggerating and explains that "only perception matters, not the facts."

Enjoy the good parts of the conversation. Keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle and do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: roo | May 9, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

ProudToBeGOP - That is a pretty low stoop, even for a Republican. Now, are you guys attributing to people opinions when they quote other's opinions? Despicable and NOT condusive to intelligent discourse. Are you trying to be as dense as the two resident right wing whack jobs here? I thought you were beterr than that.

In any event, that is the sort of stuff that is running around the Arab street and you cannot take it for granted. These sorts of theories take a life of their own and become "establish fact" after a while. And that "after awhile" has already come. Sooner or later, the present dicators and royals will be replaced by the present street. Then, watch out! Most Arabs want not to do with us right now. Make them hate us and they will show up on our doorstep and do us harm. We already paid that price with Al Qaida and the jerks in the Pentagon thinking they had a cushy military base in Saudi Arabia. Most Amercian's are under the impression that the same holds true, today, for Kuwait. We will soon be disabused of that illusion.

Posted by: MikeB | May 9, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

dc voter says:

"Regardless of who had access to what oil when, it is beyond dispute that the Iraq war was being planned *prior* to 9/11."

There was a no fly zone in Iraq from the end of the 1991 war until the start of the 2003 war. Of course there was contingency military planning going on.

The US military had a war plan for attacking England as late as 1938.

http://www.act.nato.int/events/seminars/07actodusymposium/Cirillo.pdf

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

When dealing with goofy conspiracy theorists, you have to throw rationality out the window, because anything that tends to disprove the conspiracy has just been planted by the conpiracy to conceal its own existence.

The video that shows PLANES hitting the buildings is just some diversion to hide the real fact that it was a missile. At least, that is what the voices inside MikeB's head say.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Surely you can do better than "interesting and impactful" as descriptors.

Posted by: Peter | May 9, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Reread his post, proudtobeGOP. Those aren't MikeB's views; he is suggesting that is the view of the Arab street, with the other ideas in quotes.

Posted by: dc voter | May 9, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - "The World Trade Center was destroyed by a U.S. missile test gone awry or purposefully by Bush and the NeoCons/New Crusaders as an excuse to kill Muslims"

wtf??????????????
Please tell me you don't actually believe this crap, mikeB.

The Islamist radicals can distort the facts however they want via Al-Jazeera, but that doesn't make it true. They are the ones who declared jihad on the Jews and America. You do care about our allies, right?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of who had access to what oil when, it is beyond dispute that the Iraq war was being planned *prior* to 9/11. I imagine someone will start asking for data on that point, and to avoid US news outlets and cries of bias, I point you here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
The whole 9/11 link to the Iraq war is a moot point. It did not and does not exist. Any Republican running for president will gain huge amounts of respect if admitting that one point, slimy greaseball or no.

Posted by: dc voter | May 9, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

MikeB seems concerned about "the overwhelming opinion of the Arabic street".

The overwhelming opinion of th Arabic street is that women should cover their heads, men should have beards, infidels should be beheaded and that suicide bombing is morally justified.

Unlike MikeB, I am not ready to surrender my values to the values of the Arab street.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - "...conspiracy theories don't hold up...under scrutiny". Whoever the anonymous poster was, they nailed it. Please spend a bit of time reading Arabic news sites (hit: Free Arabic web page translators are available). The overwhelming opinion of the Arabic street is exactly the opinion of 90% or more of the Arab street. 'We violated their holy places and still violate them. American's torture prisoners at the Guantanimo camp replete with photo's from Abu Grave.The U.S. is in Iraq for the oil and intends to take over all of the oil fields in the Middle East. The World Trade Center was destroyed by a U.S. missile test gone awry or purposefully by Bush and the NeoCons/New Crusaders as an excuse to kill Muslims.' Etc. The problem is, we have done so much wrong, much it documented with phoographs and eye witness testimony, that there is no possibility of our winning the Arab street. Worse, for us, our even being in the Middle East is fanning the flames to hatred to the extent that we are destabalizing the governments and the few members of the business classes that still will do business with us. In the end, we WILL be tossed out of the Middle East, that much now is clear. The only question is, will be take down the governments and everyone else who has anything to do with us? The answer to that is apparently "Yes". Bush and CHeney are such clodhoppers and inbred slackers that they do not see the utter ruin they are leaving as their legacy. There is no way we will be able to undo the damage they have done. Remember this, when the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia is overthrown and your oil supplies are cut off. Romney, I submit, is just as ruthlessly crazy, flat out insane, as are the other Bushies and would simply repeat the same mistakes until the wreck of our foreign policy simply falls apart. The GOP has no visionaries, no one with an ounce of sense, other than Hagel, and you people see dead set on driving him into a third party.

Posted by: MikeB | May 9, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Just keep up your useful blindness, tools. The neocons love ya for it. But most of the rest of the country now knows better. Check the polls.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

re: "The United States did not want to undermine the compliant Saudi government so it thought to move the bases to an Iraq with a newly installed puppet regime. "

anon/coward -You conveniently left out the part where the US moved it's military base from Saudi to Al-Udeid, where we have been conducting our Middle East military command and control since well before 9/11.

Qatar agreed to host pre-positioned equipment for an Army brigade, and in 1996 it hosted an air expeditionary force consisting of 30 fighters and four tankers. Air Force pre-positioning was facilitated by the construction of what may be the premier air base in the Gulf at Al-Udeid.

Your conspiracy theories don't hold up well under scrutiny.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

You see how hard they work to block any facts from making their way into a discussion? By calling names, obfuscating, ridiculing.

But it's silly to argue with trolls.. they just waste their. So I'll leave them to talk to each other, coz no one else is listening. Too bad you boys don't have alife, nice day...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Another 'duh' headline: "Bush Threatens Veto of New Iraq Bill." What, did we expect unity from the divider/decider?

How about some REAL news/analysis regarding whether the D's might have the R votes needed to override this expected yet unsurprising veto threat?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

If you all would just go to Daily Kos, there would be no need for me to cut and paste everything from over there and place it here. OK?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

We don't need no stinkin' facts. we're Democrats

How do you think we won the last election - all lies.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

And while we are at it, Joyce has this idiotic theory that the reason persons disagree with her is because of Fox News.

Lets do simple fact checking, Joyce. Even you can follow along.

Go to the Fox news Political Headlines section:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html

Then go to the CBS news and look at "more inside politics" and "latest ap political news:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/main250.shtml

Now you tell me the substantive difference between the news coverage. Joyce, why do you keep repeating things that are demonstrably false?

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

WaPo: "Cheney Makes Unannounced Trip to Baghdad"

NYT: "Cheney Makes Surprise Visit to Baghdad"

I'll channel Jon Stewart and simultaneously paraphrase "A Few Good Men:" is there another KIND of visit/trip? What, is Cheney going to say "I'll be there on Wednesday morning at 9 am" and give the wide range of insurgent groups the chance to converge on the Green Zone with every ounce of explosive in their possession?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 9, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

LOS ANGELES - Ty Pennington, host of ABC's "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," has been charged with driving under the influence

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

LOS ANGELES - The Hilton who made the most noise in and out of court last week wasn't named Paris. Kathy Hilton, mother of the notorious party girl, became a media magnet herself at her daughter's probation-violation hearing Friday.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

After the first Gulf War we stationed forces in new bases in Saudi Arabia, but the presence of American military bases in Saudi Arabia violated the sanctity of the holy places there. Not only Osama bin Laden, but other Saudis found it objectionable, and the Saudi princes could hardly disagree. Also, Saudi Arabia with the weight of many expensive useless princes, one of the fastest growing populations in the world, and an economy dependent on oil revenues, saw its per capita income plunge. The oil income per person fell from $22,589 in 1980 to $4,564 in 2004. The natives were growing restless. The United States did not want to undermine the compliant Saudi government so it thought to move the bases to an Iraq with a newly installed puppet regime. Saddam could put up no resistance. It would be a cakewalk. With control of Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran would be next. 9/11 was a perfect pretext. It didn't turn out that way.

In the early nineties few saw the coming peak in world oil production, but that peak must now weigh upon policymakers' minds. Soon demand will exceed supply and prices will rise rapidly. Although oil is now sold on the open market, the United States will have a hard time competing with China for it. China has over one trillion US dollars of reserves. It would almost certainly spend this to keep its economy growing and its energy needs met. Were oil prices to rise even faster than they have been the American economy would almost certainly fall into recession or worse. Given the economy's present condition this recession would likely be long and deep. There is no doubt that the social turmoil following deep economic trouble would dwarf the present antiwar protests. These likely consequences give new urgency to American elites' need to control the oil fields of the world and particularly those of the Persian Gulf.

Posted by: the truth is complex | May 9, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Documented facts vs. corporate doublespeak. Which do you believe?

Saddam's real crimes, in the eyes of the American elites, were that he nationalized oil and spent oil revenues on Iraqi infrastructure rather than on American high tech military gadgets as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait obediently did. But American sights were always on the entire Persian Gulf oil region and, more recently, the oil rich Caspian Basin.

Clinton continued to pressure Saddam Hussein with the cruel sanctions and periodic bombing, but he knew, as did George H. W. Bush, that Iraq needed a tyrant to hold it together. They were smart enough to know that a strong man has to be strong, and that an Ahmad Chalabi, with no base in the country, just wouldn't do. They hoped a military coup in Iraq would install someone more ready to spend the oil revenues on war toys rather than electricity. However, the long-term plan was still for a permanent American military presence in the Persian Gulf that would keep those governments from giving too much preference to Chinese oil interests. Regime change in Iran, hostile to American interests since the revolution in 1979, was always on the agenda, but Iraq had to be taken first. With a large American military presence and no other counterbalancing force, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, already extremely compliant, could be persuaded to spend even more of their revenue on weapons. There was no need to invade them -- they welcomed American armies with flowers.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Those conspiracies are not nutty, it shows they are both true. that is the only logical conclusion. Believing in only one is a little loopy but believing in both shows determination. I suppose you will claim some sort of market forces. So naive you cons. when I filled up my tank today, I saw a camera pointed at me. this obviously is a direct feed into the white house. they are studying how much I will pay for next week's price hike.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Some IDIOT says "I'm quite convinced razorback works for exxon."

If I work for exxon, why I have REPEATEDLY posted on this blog my opposition ANY subsidies for exxon or any other oil company?

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Suicide truck bombing in Irbil, Kurdish northern Iraq today. A correspondent writes that a "huge truck of dynamite exploded and destroyed the [Kurdish Regional Government Ministry of Interior]. Forty people affected." AP: "Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman blamed the attack on Ansar al-Sunnah, a Sunni Arab insurgent group, and Ansar al-Islam, a mostly Kurdish militant group. Ansar al-Islam has been blamed for a number of attacks, including attempts to assassinate Kurdish officials."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Joyce says the major multinational oil companies DID NOT have access to the oil before the invasion.

The New York Times says that Chevron is about to pay a $30 million fine for knowing about kickbacks when it was BUYING THE OIL that the moron Joyce says Chevron didnt have access too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/business/08chevron.html?em&ex=1178856000&en=641ac08d8ea7ac4a&ei=5087%0A

The New York Times must be in on the conspiracy to print that, right Joyce?

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm quite convinced razorback works for exxon. He comes all equipped with pro-corporate talking points right at his fingertips. The usual self-serving lies and propganda, while we pay $3.50 a gallon at the pump, our poor soliders are getting blown to bits, and the oil companies are raking in record profits. You are a disease, razor, souless wh*res like you are a disease that is going to destroy the United States.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

We don't need no stinkin' facts. we're Democrats.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Larry says:

On Iraqi oil--yes, the multinational oil companies, often falsely assumed to be American companies, want control of the oil. But not to sell, but to keep off the market, at least in the short term. Given the prices they are getting, no oil company is interested in increasing production. If anything, they would like to lower it. Example--the gasoline market at the moment.

Posted by: larry | May 9, 2007 12:46 PM

This is the biggest flaw of all of the nutty oil conspiracy theorists.

Their conspiracies contradict. This is why I had to ask what oil and what were they doing with the oil.

Under Joyce's conspiracy theory, the oil was stolen to make big oil companies rich. Of course, the only way for them to get rich is to SELL the oil.

Under Larry's conspiracy theory, oil companies and Bush are conspiring to keep oil prices high to enrich themselves. If that is the case, the last thing Bush would do is steal a bunch of oil to sell, because under the law of supply and demand, that reduces prices.

2 nutty contradictory conspriracy theories.

And when dealing with nutty conspiracy theories, you always must remember that any evidence that tends to disprove that there is a conspiracy was planted by the conspiracy to cover up its existence. Therefor the nuts just dismiss any facts.

Talk abouat superstition and psuedo science.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

'As stated above, the major multinational oil companies had access to the oil before the invasion.'

BS, R propagandist. Saddam nationalized the oil companies in 1990--that when he stopped being our 'friend' and puppet. The oil companies have watned it privatized since then, and now they have that.

Anybody with a brain can see what it's all about. But that doesn't include neocons, obviously.

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

'Lieberman leads the Senate committee on government affairs, but apparently avoiding the "partisan politics of polarization," as he calls it, is a good excuse not to do his job. Campaigning last year, he said he would make sure the Bush administration turned over records on internal White House deliberations -- likely to embarrass the president -- from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. After the election, he changed his mind.'

No love lost for Liberman in Ct. But then, republicans elected him -- very few dems voted for him. so it's not surprising he's still a shill for cheney.

Posted by: The CT Post | May 9, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

'My legislation, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 223), requires Senate campaigns to submit campaign finance reports electronically. Sounds simple enough doesn't it? House campaigns, political parties, Presidential campaigns, and even 527's already file their reports online - but that's not the case in the Senate.

The Senate has exempted themselves from this requirement and is only required to file paper reports. The public's ability to review these reports in a timely manner is substantially curtailed by these antiquated paper filings. Not only that, it costs taxpayers over $250,000 per year to have these reports scanned and made available online at a much later date.

When Senator Feinstein and I sought to pass this legislation by unanimous consent, an objection was voiced on the floor "on behalf of a Republican senator." Senators are within their rights to object to a bill coming to the floor of the Senate, but the objecting senator has not been named, and no one has spoken to me about any objection they may have to this legislation.

The use of these so-called "secret holds" has rightly come under attack in recent years, and I need your help to try and determine who may be delaying this common sense reform measure.

If you are represented by a Republican senator, please contact them and ask if they're holding up my Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. You can get contact info for your senators here. If you live in a state with two Democratic senators, consider forwarding this email to your friends in states that aren't so lucky.

If you learn of anything that may be useful in helping me identify the "Secret Hold Senator," email me at russ@progressivepatriotsfund.com.'

Posted by: from russ feingold,, | May 9, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Joyce says:

'For their part, major multinational oil companies have made no secret of their desire to gain access to Iraq's reserves.

As stated above, the major multinational oil companies had access to the oil before the invasion.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The 3 biggest obvious flaws in Joyce's conspiracy theory are as follows:

1. US Oil companies had access to Iraqi oil under Saddam. In fact, the New York Times reported on May 8, 2007 that Chevron is about to pay a huge fine for knowledge of kickbacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/business/08chevron.html?em&ex=1178856000&en=641ac08d8ea7ac4a&ei=5087%0A

2. The second flaw in Joyce's conspiracy theory is that for her to be correct, oil imports from Iraq should be increasing. If Bush stole the oil for energy independence, why are the imports not skyrocketing? In 2002, the first full year before the war began, we imported more oil from Iraq than we did in 2006.

Here is a 10 year history:
2006 226,804
2005 289,998
2004 167,638
2003 175,663
2002 240,191
2000 423
1999 32,530
1998 122,518
1997 264,764

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimiz1A.htm

3. The third problem is that is that the first foreign contracts did not go to US companies. Contrary to what Joyce says, there are no contracts except these.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

Of course, the US could be sending Iraq oil to Europe, and bring European oil here to hide the true source. Add Europe to the conspiracy. Of course, the Energy Information Agency is part of the administration, so they could be lying. But the EIA gets its money from Congress, so add them to the conspiracy. And so on and so on.

Once again we have liberal mythology
superstition psuedo science rebutted by the facts.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cc, why doesn't any reporter ask Mitty if he believes in the Consitution and our right of habeas corpus?

'The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is, without question, the single worst law enacted during the Bush presidency, and is one of the most destructive laws passed in the last several decades. It is not merely a bad law. It vests in the President the power to detain people indefinitely with no meaningful opportunity to contest the government's accusations. That is the very power the Founders sought first and foremost to prohibit.

More significantly, whether a country permits its political leaders to imprison people arbitrarily and with no process is one of the few defining attributes dividing free and civilized countries from lawless tyrannies. Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his 1789 letter to Thomas Paine: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." To vest the President with the power to imprison people indefinitely with no charges is fundamentally to transform the type of country we are.'

We either stand for our principles -- all of our principles -- and the rule of law, or we have allowed the terrorists to win. '

Posted by: Jeremy33 | May 9, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I am really enjoying the analysis of how a greasy slimeball has the potential of being a better president than a slick phoney. That is the kind of analysis you don't get in traditional news formats, but it is right on!

This might sound sarcastic but I am 100% serious. Thanks, razor.

Posted by: Golgi | May 9, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

koz apparently has absolutelynothing to do but rant and howl and drool on this board. what a pathetic waste he is...

Posted by: Sally | May 9, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

It seems clear to me why MikeB was fired from his job and replaced by illegal immigrants. Would you want this nutjob working for you? his final review stated "does not play well with others".

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

HHHHoooowwwwwllllll

Posted by: moonbats | May 9, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I notice KOZ (posting as Trotsky...another harbringer NeoConservativism by the way) claiming that the Democrats are "gutting" the missile defense system being proposed by all of those businesses to which the Pentagon and Bush owe favors. This, of course, after these same swine let the horse out of the barn. Okay, KOZ, where are you complaints about connected Republican corporations that sold missile guidance systems, night vision erquipment, stealth technology, the plans for the B1 and B2 bombers, our latest shoulder fired field missile, our latest tank design, our underwater missile, our latest torpedo system, our silent propultion system used by our submarines, the plans for Los Alamos, the technology and use of OTDR equipment for determining intrusons into optical fiber networks, our RF location algorithms, and quite a bit more. It seems to me, you squack about some worthless make work project and keep strangly silent when your guys sell this country's technological crown jewels and place us and our chldren in grave danger. If you want people like me to take you seriously, you had better address these treasonable actions and call for trails and prison terms for the guilty corporate swine who perpetuated all of this and the politicians who permit them to do this. Until then, please just shut up, you have nothing worth listening to to say.

Posted by: MikeB | May 9, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Notice how zouky/trostsky doesn't want to talk about iraq or romney -- he wants to rant about how melting glaciers, for god's sake [which will eventually turn into widespread worldwide drought and starvation and wars over food and war] he wants to get in some rousing fear-mongering and hatred of muslims.

Look over there, omigod it's a boogeyman. Everything they do or say is a lie. Sure there are somepeople who want to kill us. Always has been, always will be. So why don't we do anything to protect ourselves, like seal our borders, or search cargo containers.

Because there's no proift in it, that's why, and for republicans, if there's no profit, there's no poiont. But there's lots of opportunitiy for profit in boondoggles that will never work, aren't there? 30 years into 'missle defense' and still no closer to working. But that's perfect isn't it, a 30 year contract where you have to deliver exactly nothing?

What's not to love for a contractor? And you bet they invest big in the politicians who get them this candy.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

We are obsessed with KOZ. whenever he comes around our eyes glass over and our brains go numb. how does he do it? We won't be able to talk about anything else today. Is he a prophet?

I was told if we insult him profusely, we get 40 virgins in the afterlife. His points are rock solid so it won't be easy but we will try. Please forgive us if most of what we say is utter nonsense, that is really the best we can do.

Love and kisses,

IgnoRANT coward and friends

PS, more to follow

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

On Iraqi oil--yes, the multinational oil companies, often falsely assumed to be American companies, want control of the oil. But not to sell, but to keep off the market, at least in the short term. Given the prices they are getting, no oil company is interested in increasing production. If anything, they would like to lower it. Example--the gasoline market at the moment.

Posted by: larry | May 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Hi Kouk! Glad to see you signing in as Trotsky today, in that inimitable kingofzouk style.

Posted by: malis | May 9, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

As we have noted, the biggest objectors to defending the U.S. against enemy missiles are not the Russians, but the Democrats. Their hall of shame on this issue includes senators like Joe Biden, Jack Reed, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Carl Levin. Sen. John Kerry has voted against missile defense programs more than 50 times.

It's hard to believe anyone could think climate change and melting glaciers are more of a clear and present danger than Islamofascists armed with dirty bombs or states like Iran and North Korea with nuclear-armed long-range missiles. But Democrats do.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263517133327025

Posted by: Trotsky | May 9, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

if your read nothing else all day -- see this:

'The CPA appointed former senior executives from oil companies to begin this process. The first advisers were appointed in January 2003, before the invasion even started, and were stationed in Kuwait ready to move in. First, there were Phillip Carroll, formerly of Shell, and Gary Vogler, of ExxonMobil, backed up by three employees of the US Department of Energy and one of the Australian government.'

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

One campaign promise the Democrats are keeping is to gut missile defense. While the House votes to cut funding to stop enemy missiles, they shift intelligence funds to study climate change.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 9, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I am rubber and you are glue!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

You see, the oil company advisors were already in Kuwait, before the invasion started -- while you silly little people where quaking in your boots about the mushroom cloud being spun by --none other than Dick Cheney, one of the biggest liars and purely evil men in the known world:

'The US and UK have worked hard to ensure that the future path for oil development chosen by the first elected Iraqi government will closely match their interests. So far it appears they have been highly successful: production sharing agreements, which were first proposed by the U.S. State Department group, have emerged as the model of oil development favoured by all the post-invasion phases of Iraqi government.

Phase 1: Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi Governing Council

During the first fourteen months following the invasion, occupation forces had direct control of Iraq through the Coalition Provisional Authority. Stopping short of privatising oil itself, the CPA began setting up the framework for a longer-term oil policy.

The CPA appointed former senior executives from oil companies to begin this process. The first advisers were appointed in January 2003, before the invasion even started, and were stationed in Kuwait ready to move in. First, there were Phillip Carroll, formerly of Shell, and Gary Vogler, of ExxonMobil, backed up by three employees of the US Department of Energy and one of the Australian government. Carroll described his role as not only to address short-term fuel needs and the initial repair of production facilities, but also to:

"Begin planning for the restructuring of the Ministry of Oil to improve its efficiency and effectiveness; [and]
Begin thinking through Iraq's strategy options for significantly increasing its production capacity."(40)

In October 2003, Carroll and Vogler were replaced by Bob McKee of ConocoPhillips, and Terry Adams of BP, and finally in March 2004, by Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips and Bob Morgan of BP (d). The £147,700 cost of the two British advisers, Adams and Morgan, was met by the UK government.(41) Following the handover to the Iraq Interim Government in June 2004, Stinson became an adviser to the US Embassy in Baghdad.

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Zouk will post juvinile comments for a while, until someone comments about them. Then, as if by magic...he appears! Rather like that clodhopper that has to shave his back. Morons.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I wish The Fix would stop linking to political ads. Describe the ad if you must, but if someone truly wants to see it then they should go and look for it on Youtube or something. The Fix should not be aiding the distribution of political ads of EITHER PARTY.

Posted by: J. Crozier | May 9, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey ignorant coward 'Trosky' -- it's you, zouky! so good you dropped by... why calling yourself by another name. Don't bother. We all know who you are.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Remember Cheney's secret 'energy meetings'?

'Prior to the 2003 invasion, the principal vehicle for planning the new post-war Iraq was the US State Department's Future of Iraq project. This initiative, commencing as early as April 2002, involved meetings in Washington and London of 17 working groups, each comprised of 10-20 Iraqi exiles and international experts selected by the State Department(33).

The "Oil and Energy" working group met four times between December 2002 and April 2003. Although the full membership of the group has never been revealed, it is known that Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, the current Iraqi Oil Minister, was a member.(34) The 15-strong oil working group concluded that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war" and that "the country should establish a conducive business environment to attract investment of oil and gas resources."(35)

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

You see, these decisions were made long ago. By the oil companies. Bush and Cheney are simply their well-oiled and obedient servants. The internation oil consortium gets the oil and our soldiers get to die for it. And we, the taxpayers get to pay to have our soliders killed for multinational oil profits. See? It's real simple:

'For their part, major multinational oil companies have made no secret of their desire to gain access to Iraq's reserves. Shortly before the invasion Archie Dunham, chairman of US oil major ConocoPhillips, explained that "We know where the best [Iraqi] reserves are [and] we covet the opportunity to get those some day."(24) Shell has stated that it aims to "establish a material and enduring presence in the country."(25)'

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#rethinking

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama overstates Kansas tornado deaths


you Dems should stay away from numbers, math and economics. It only shows how little you understand.

I see ignorant coward is up to his usual schoolyard tricks. you can write off this blog for today. It will be content free thanks to him.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 9, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Thank you blarg for pointing out the obvious. I think we all have had enough of ignorant cowards cut and paste jobs and senseless posts. I don't mind partisanship, but idiocy is different. For that reason, I can't stand myself.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 9, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

'What oil? Where is it?'

In Iraq? Are you joking? Second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia, whose peak passed a couple years ago. It's all over Iraq? Are you really this ignorant?

Right, the maliki government is tied up in knots trying to get everyone to sign onto a production-sharing agreement which will divide the oil among the dozens of warring factions, with the majority of the profit going to a few American and British Companies -- mainly Exxon and BP-- and they will exclusive rights to the oil revenue for 30 years.

Bush has announced several times that getting that production-sharing agreement is one of his MAIN GOALS in Iraq.

You should try watching somethng besides Fox News -- you might learn something. But I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Thank you blarg for pointing out the obvious. I think we all have had enough of ignorant cowards cut and paste jobs and senseless posts. I don't mind partisanship, but idiocy is different.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 9, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

razorback

for Pete's sake stay on topic and lay off the name calling.

Iraq oil. Third or fourth largest untapped known reserves in the world. That's why we invaded. Part of Bush's original strategy for energy independence. His strategy to secure it-Take out an unfreindly dictator and put his own puppet in guaranteeing US control of the oil. But he needed Kurdistan to have a clear pipe line shot to water that did not go through unfreindly countries. That's why the Administration has been so nice to the Kurds.

Strategy seems to have blown up in his face. He obviously slept through Middle East history as an undergraduate...or maybe attended as well as he did Air National Guard service.

Posted by: chi town hustler | May 9, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

bsimon:

I agree there is enough in the public record to conclude that Bernie Kerick is a "greasy sleazball". While Kerick's ties to Giuliani are more substantial than (for example) Obama's ties to the Chicago slimeball (Rezko), there are legitimate questions about using association with one clear sleasball to conclude others are also sleazballs. I am concerned about Giuliani's association with Kerick and am sure more will be said about it.

I am also not sure where the line should be drawn with private lives of politicians. Although I agree that one who holds themselves out as a paragon of family values invites scrutiny of their private life, I also believe that one who holds themselves out as a paragon of compassion invites scrutiny of their sense of compasion, because boffing an intern is not exactly acting with compasion towards those persons whom you profess to care the most in the world about.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Rudy may be a greasy slimeball -- some might call him a slimy greaseball -- but I'd still vote for him over the other nine GOP candidates, who are either slimy and greasy in their own right, or simply wacked out.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 9, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

When is WaPo going to run a story on Sharpton's inconceivable rant about Romney's religion? Sharpton issued a dimwitted apology that made him look even worse. WaPo doesn't fein a blind eye...

Posted by: BigBob | May 9, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Why is Giuliani a greasy slimeball, well, for starters there's his well-publicized history of, shall we say 'unconventional' familial structures. If we ignore those out of respect for privacy, it is my opinion that his ties to Bernard Kerick, for example, are indicative of other moral and ethical problems with the former mayor. Rudy isn't just a used-car salesman, he's a used-car-salesman that doesn't tell you there's a body in the trunk.

Posted by: bsimon | May 9, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

It is obvious from your comment that you do not like Giuliani.

Although I think think that being a "slick phoney" might automatically make one a "greasy slimeball", I don't think being a "greasy slimeball" would automatically make one a "slick phoney".

The "greasy slimeball" category is just a broader catagory than "slick phoney".

I have stated why I think Edwards and Romney qualify for "slick phoney" status.

Why do you think Giuliana qualifies as a "greasy slimeball".

Please not that I have no objection to name calling. Name calling is merely a generalization. A bar stool, a bean bag chair, and a throne can all be called "chairs" because we uniformly use the word "chair" to describe that which we sit on. A generalization is appropriate if we state our definition, and then uniformly apply it to all regarless of ideology.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Anyone got poll numbers on Tim Kalemkarian? He's got to be moving up on Gravel and Gilmore by now.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 9, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Razorback, if you can see that Romney & Edwards are slick phonys, how can you support Giuliani? Perhaps he's more of a greasy slimeball than a slick phony, but the species are related.

Posted by: bsimon | May 9, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Joyce:

What oil? Where is it? Who has it? Are they selling it? Who are they selling it to? Who is buying it? Who is profiting from its sale?

Do you have any proof of this? Or are you just yacking off?

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

R from FLA says:

"No we don't. We want American jobs for Americans. Let them find something to do in their own countries. Why do we have to take anybody who wants to come hre?"

We don't have to, but we should. We should because a big reason that this nation is great is because we were willing to accept the contributions from persons who showed up here with nothing except a desire to be free and work hard.

The mix of constitutional government, individiual freedom, and economic freedom when combined with the willingness to accept people who work hard is what has built the greatest country on earth.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Yeah for all the R's who want out of Iraq by '08 -- fuhgeddit about it. Cheney/bush ain't going nowhere. They are determined to stay there and hang onto that oil -- permanently.

Posted by: Joyce | May 9, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Who to believe....who to believe?

Kathleen Parker says this morning that the Republicans are blessed with a wealth of highly qualified candidates and with impressive credentials that JD/MBA/Brooks Brothers Mitt should be the golden boy.

Yesterday the Post said the pool of candidates is wide a shallow. I still figure Rudy wants to be Ambassador somewhere in a Republican administration.

But then there is this morning's Ignatius report on Cheney's cajoling the Saudis.

"The ferment in the region is driven partly by the perception that U.S. troops are on the way out, no matter what the Bush administration says. To dampen such speculation, Bush is said to have told the Saudis that America will not withdraw from Iraq during his presidency. 'That gives us 18 months to plan," said one Saudi source '"

Who cares how many and how qualified and how pretty the Republicans wealth of candidates is. If we are still in Iraq in November 08 which will correspond to more than 4000 plus casualties, any republican candidate will be....uh..."dead meat" for lack of a more gracious term.

Posted by: chi town hustler | May 9, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

'That all depends on if they are here legally and here to work and better themselves. We want those.'

No we don't. We want American jobs for Americans. Let them find something to do in their own countries. Why do we have to take anybody who wants to come hre?

Posted by: R from FLA | May 9, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

drindl says:

"I don't think the repub base really wants any stinkin' foreign 'tired' or 'poor', do you?"

That all depends on if they are here legally and here to work and better themselves. We want those.

We don't want the illegals and the malingerers, welfare cases, and criminals.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

'Images of the Statue of Liberty' -- You mean the one that says, 'Bring me your tired, your poor?' Umm, Mitty, your base is not going to like that message much, are they?

I don't think the repub base really wants any stinkin' foreign 'tired' or 'poor', do you?

If you're gonna do weighted subliminals, you really have to focus better on what they mean to people.

Posted by: drindl | May 9, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

'Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) is furious that the FBI is thoroughly investigating him, issuing subpoenas for documents, and interviewing a number of his former aides.

For one thing, the Justice Department just won't stop asking questions about his wife's work for two organizations controlled by Ed Buckham, a lobbyist and close associate of Jack Abramoff. Here's DeLay speaking with reporters yesterday:

"They're going after other people and they're questioning the other people about whether they know anything I may have done. And we've given them all the records and that's the problem they're having..'

I mean, can you imagine? The very idea of questioning a republican -- beyond the pale!

Posted by: the incredible hubris of delay | May 9, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The military being used as it is is a disgrace. For Mitt to try and do the same is even more disgraceful. Monday I was talking with a friend and he mentioned for the first time he was in Iraq for the first war, and was really ashamed of this country for the way veterans are being treated. I knew he was a vet, but not of Iraq, and for these folks that have lost family and friends there, I can only imagine how they must feel.

Posted by: lylepink | May 9, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I would vote for the most liberal idiot on the ballot before I would vote for Tim Kalemkarian, just because some idiot makes that post every day.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 9, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

CC, I'm sure you'll be wanting to write about Tom Cole, new RNC chair. He says stuff like this:

'He thinks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is electoral poison, too liberal for the country, and he can't wait to attack moderate Democrats for "marching in lock step" with their liberal leader. He's also eager to have a GOP presidential nominee, a new standard-bearer for a Bush-fatigued nation.'

Thank god for these people. Oh do run against Nancy Pelosi! Because that worked so well last time! Do run against the woman sponsoring the Iraq Accountability Act [which the corporate media can't even say out loud] which the public approves by a two-thirds margin!

Oh please do run against the will of Americans, who want out of Iraq. Good boy, Tommy. I can see you're a winner.

Posted by: drindl | May 9, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Romney is the same problem that Edwards has. He is phoney. How does Romney keep a straight face when talking about conservative principles when in 1994, there was Romney, just as slick and polished as he is now, trying to convince Ted Kennedy that he would work as hard as Kennedy would for gay rights and abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Romney and Edwards are both the worst kind of phoney: The slick talented kind of phoney. What compels Romney to say he was a life long hunter, when he wasn't? Why didn't Romney just say, "why would a pretty guy like me sit out in the woods when its so cold. I don't like hunting, but I support the second amendment." This constant pandering and pretending to be what you are not is the problem. Same for Edwards. I don't have any problem with his house or his haircut, its the phoneyness. What is the real Romney? What is the real Edwards? There is no way to tell.

I dont like Obama, but when a guy graduates from Harvard Law, and then goes back to be a "community organizer" in south Chicago, I at least know part of him is real. McCain is not my first choice, but when he could have come home from Vietnam because he daddy was an admiral, but he chose to stay in the hole 7 years until everyone else was also released, at least I know part of McCain is real.

All politicians hedge their answers and try to appeal to their audiences. That is part of public relations and politics. But the convincing talented earnest slick phoneyness of Romney and Edwards is beyond the pale.

I am pro life and pro second amendment, but I will vote for Guiliani over Romney, just because Romney is such a slick phoney.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Mit Romney's father was a popular three-term Govenor of Michigan, and that State hasn't been transformed into some kind of "cult".

Martin Luther King Jr. said it best......"don't judge me on the color of my skin .........but instead on the content of my character............He if were alive today he would probably add "religion" to that statement.

Mit Romney isn't running for "Pastor-in-chief" he's running for "Commander-in-chief"

Posted by: bridgeway | May 9, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Anonymous, I think everyone here is capable of going to Slate and reading these articles themselves. If you think something is so interesting, then post a link and a short excerpt. Don't make 3 posts plagiarizing the bulk of yesterday's article on Giuliani. And don't excerpt Today's Papers without the actual article links.

Seriously, I can't figure out what you're trying to do here. If you actually want to inform people, there are better ways to do it. But if you're just trying to fill up the forum with useless posts, mission accomplished.

Posted by: Blarg | May 9, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Oh, man. The GOP has a new hit out on Nancy Pelosi that's even more absurd than the bogus plane story or the "controversy" over the trip to Syria. And predictably, the Associated Press is already running with the story. The AP has already gotten its reward for doing this: A pat on the head from Matt Drudge, who predictably linked the story today, complete with a big pic of Pelosi next to the headline.

Yet this latest hit is so easily debunked -- all it took was one phone call on my part -- that it's truly astonishing that the AP ever published this garbage in the first place.

Here are the specifics: The GOP is hammering Pelosi for including a provision for $25 million in waterfront improvements in San Francisco in a big water redevelopment bill passed by the House in April. The GOP is insinuating that the provision was included by Pelosi because it could boost the value of land her husband owns in the city.

The AP jumped at the GOP's accusations late yesterday, moving this story about the GOP's attack.

As the AP story noted, Pelosi's aides are defending her by pointing out that "the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco," not by Pelosi, and noting that the rental properties owned by Pelosi's husband are at least a mile away from the project.

If it were proven that the improvements were in fact requested by the Port of San Francisco, and not Pelosi herself, of course, it would render the story thoroughly bogus -- unfit for publication, really. The AP, however, merely attributed this line to Pelosi's people. It's unclear whether the AP made a serious effort to determine whether it was objectively true or not. This allowed the news org to run with the GOP hit as a he-said-she-said dispute.

But I've just gotten off the phone with the Port of San Francisco. Guess what? Its representatives told me in no uncertain terms that it requested the improvements, and that Pelosi only included the improvements at their request. Here's what Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said to me:

"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."
Got that? Those funding provisions that the GOP is insinuating Pelosi included because they benefit her husband's real estate were actually initiated by a local agency in San Francisco, the agency says, and not by Pelosi herself. It took one phone call to nail that down -- and to show that this is a complete non-story. But the AP went ahead and ran with this crap anyway. It was bad enough that the AP even ran some versions of the story with a headline that wasn't even supported by the story in the first place, as Media Matters noted. Now we find that the story doesn't hold up at all.

You might note a pattern here. If you recall, the GOP blasted Pelosi for allegedly requesting a bigger plane and the big news orgs gleefully played along. Then when Pelosi's people said that the House Sergeant-at-Arms had requested the plane, and not Pelosi, the big news orgs that had flacked the story buried that inconvenient piece of info. A similar dynamic played out with the bogus Syria tale, too.

And now again with this Port story. How the hell do we make the hackery stop?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse


In a statement issued last month, eight public interest groups, including the Consumers Union, Public Citizen and the Consumer Federation of America, urged the Senate to reject Baroody. The statement said he has a history of working to "dilute safety proposals pending before the Commission."

Seriously -- how much harder could this administration work to make life harder and more dangerous for most of us? They are truly evil.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's choice to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission worked as a lobbyist to block state "fire safe" cigarette laws. He could be charged with setting similar rules nationwide if his nomination is confirmed.

Michael Baroody, head lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers, pressed then-Gov. George Pataki of New York in 2000 to veto a bill requiring that cigarettes sold in the state be fire-safe, meaning they self-extinguish if left unattended.

Baroody's position "is the same as saying 'I'm against fire-safe cigarettes,' " says Jim Shannon, who heads the National Fire Protection Association, a fire-safety group that writes model fire codes used by dozens of state and local governments.

According to the fire protection association, cigarette fires account for 700-900 fire deaths a year. Shannon's group and the National Association of State Fire Marshals want Baroody's candidacy rejected.

Posted by: more foxes, more henhouses | May 9, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Romney has to spend all that money his mormon friends gave him, just to make it appear as though he is in the running. Right now, he is running third or fourth behind a couple of has been clowns and he has not even begun to satisfactorily answer the religious questions or the abortion or gay rights flip flops inspired by moments of epiphany. Romney is a fake. He ought to quit the campaign and resume his life long hunting career.

Posted by: Butch Dillon | May 9, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

'Over in the Post's op-ed page, David Ignatius says readers should pay attention to Cheney's trip to Saudi Arabia this week. The Saudis have apparently "given up" on Maliki's ability to solve Iraq's problem and are "quietly backing" former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who is working on forming a new coalition government.'

It's just like musical chairs. Only with lots of blood.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

roop levels will have to be maintained into the spring of 2008. The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox with the new war-spending bill drafted by Democrats, which was previewed in some of the papers yesterday. The bill calls for approximately half the war funds to be withheld until late July, at which point progress would be measured on a series of benchmarks and lawmakers would have to vote on whether to release the rest of the money.

Posted by: YES! | May 9, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

he New York Times leads with word that two drug companies pay "hundreds of millions of dollars" every year to doctors who prescribe their anemia medicines, which might not actually be very effective and could even be dangerous. A few studies suggest that the medicines shorten patients' lives when used in high doses.

Posted by: big pharma at work | May 9, 2007 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Romney doesn't mention that he's a Mormon in front of evangelical audiences. And how exactly, are we going to 'expand' the military? We're giving away so much money now to every enlistee it's breaking the bank.

If we are going to be involved in more global military adventures for oil, we will have to institute a draft -- there's no other way.

Posted by: condo | May 9, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

n other words, Giuliani isn't a dad trying to do right by his kids who just happens to be twice-divorced. He's a father who burned his ex-wife to such a degree that his son hasn't forgiven him six years later or made peace with his father's new wife. Giuliani's line to voters about this mess is the classic "Judge me by my public performance." Cue a condescending lecture about American prudishness: If only we could be blasé and sophisticated like the Europeans, we'd figure out that a candidate's personal foibles are no basis for deciding whether he or she will make an effective government leader.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

This isn't a divorce--it's a conflagration. Giuliani inflicted lots of pain on the people in his family, the people he was supposed to protect, in a manner that was both public and, to all appearances, unnecessary. To hear him shrug this episode off with "I don't think any of us have perfect lives," as he did to Barbara Walters, is like watching Tony Soprano play down his little violence problem. When you humiliate your spouse in public, you humiliate yourself.

You also hurt your kids. Giuliani's were 15 and 11 at the time of his breakup with their mother. Andrew, now 21, says he still has a "problem" with Nathan, whom Giuliani married in 2003, and Andrew told the New York Times in March that he wouldn't be campaigning for his father. He said the two hadn't spoken in a year. Giuliani's daughter, 17-year-old Caroline, doesn't have much to say to her dad either. The Times delicately referred to the "distance that appears to have developed" between them and reported that Giuliani didn't show up for Andrew's 2005 high-school graduation or go to Caroline's school plays over the last year and a half.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"'This isn't the time for us to shrink from conservative principles.'"

Pshaw. The GOP ran away screaming from conservative budget principles 7 years ago. And, lip service aside, they showed no signs of returning until the D's resumed control over Congress. I guess we'll have to wait for a D president before they really remember that principle, won't we?

"Both ideas are red meat for the type of Republican voters most likely to vote in next year's primaries and caucuses."

Yes but Romney's Mormonism is red meat for the R haters who are intolerant of any deviation from what they regard as Christianity. In a crowded R field, Romney is yet another dead man walking.

"the U.S. must embrace its role in the world..." which is what, Global Policeman? US-lead war in every continent on Earth?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

ut the fact that Giuliani has been married three times hardly captures his transgressions. You can be unfazed by divorce and still despair of Rudy's treatment of his family. This is a man whose life is filled with poisoned intimate relationships and who appears to be responsible for much of the poisoning. It's not only the religious or the uptight that can be put off by an utter lack of personal morality in a presidential candidate.
Let's haul out the Rudy sin list. His first marriage, to Regina Peruggi, was annulled on the grounds that they didn't get the dispensation from the Catholic Church they needed to marry as second cousins, once removed. Annulments are a religious fiction--the obvious reason to get one is so you can be married in the church again--but after 14 years of marriage, Giuliani's can only seem squirrelly. That's a venal sin, though, compared with the crash and burn of his second marriage, to Donna Hanover. She found out Giuliani was divorcing her during a press conference and then accused him of carrying on a longtime affair with one of his staff members. Giuliani's defense was that she'd fingered the wrong woman: He was involved with Judi Nathan.

The mayor's flameout with Hanover led a judge to bar Nathan from the mayoral residence at Gracie Mansion and to reprimand Giuliani for letting his lawyer call Hanover "an uncaring mother" who was "howling like a stuck pig" over leaving the mansion. Giuliani retaliated by publicly stripping Hanover of her first-lady duties and insisting that the judge was wrong to keep Nathan apart from his children. Giuliani finally moved out of Gracie when he couldn't move Nathan in.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse


"America must remain the world's military superpower," Romney adds. "If we lock our arms together, we can forge the political will to rebuild our military might."

'Locking our arms together'? Is that like marching in lockstep? Lock and load? Yes, all the words are very carefully chosen -- but what do they mean? Sounds very fascist, doesn't it?

Face it, the R's are all fighting to see who can sound the most like Mussolini.

Posted by: DVO | May 9, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Mighty fine looking hair, Mitty. How much does that color cost you? I can see it ain't real. Anybody got any info on where Mitty gets his highlights done? It's an expensive process you know.

Posted by: Sarabeth | May 9, 2007 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone done a story on campaigns being able to use all of the applicable domain names?

http://www.clintonforpresident.com

http://www.obamaforpresident.com

http://www.edwardsforpresident.com

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

In Iraq on Tuesday, a parked car bomb exploded near a prominent Shiite mosque in a southern city, killing 16 civilians and wounding at least 64 others, authorities said.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone done a story on campaigns being able to use all of the applicable domain names?

clintonforpresident.com

obamaforpresident.com

edwardsforpresident.com

Posted by: anonymous | May 9, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

More pathetic attemtps by Romney to assert that he is actually a top-tier candidate for the GOP. When will he finally face reality?
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: cfl | May 9, 2007 8:30 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company