‘If you love pizza, and you hate terrorism…’

As far as I know, airport security has yet to apprehend one would-be terrorist, even after the Bush administration spent $40 billion and hired 45,000 “professional screening officers.” Of course, they also ignored most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations for helping law enforcement prevent terrorism.

We’ve endured years of people like Senator Ted Kennedy being flagged by the “terrorist watch list” or “no fly list,” a secret database that we’re not allowed to see, and cannot be questioned. Reportedly, there are about a half million “terrorists” identified so far. Now they’re telling us these are two different lists, because the Nigerian guy who will forever be known as the “underpants bomber” was allowed to board a transatlantic fight even though he was a suspected suicide attacker (according to his own father). Oh, and this guy reportedly had no passport, no luggage and bought a one-way ticket paid for in cash by a third party.

You might think this is the fault of a dumb bureaucracy, but right-wing op-ed writers know where to point their fingers:

Some share of responsibility lies with civil libertarian extremists who have ceaselessly lambasted the entire no-fly system.

To which I say, let’s renew the generous offer made by Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon in a classic “Weekend Update” segment on “Saturday Night Live,” first broadcast on November 10, 2001. Just substitute “professional screening officer” for “airport employee.” Fey and Fallon are bigger stars now than they were eight years ago, so maybe we’ll get results if they do this again.

Tina Fey and Jimmy FallonFEY: This week, the FAA shut down a terminal at Kennedy airport because security workers were not using the metal detectors properly. And, at O’Hare, a man with seven knives, a stun gun, and a can of mace passed a security checkpoint. I just wanna take a minute to address the airport security personnel directly, if I might…

I know you guys only make like $7 an hour and you’re worried about being replaced by federal employees, but – seriously, you have got to get it together! You have got to focus up! Okay?

So here’s what I propose: the first airport employee who successfully catches a terrorist, Jimmy and I will personally throw a pizza party for you, and up to 20 of your friends. Isn’t that right, Jimmy?

FALLON: Absolutely.

FEY: Think about this: It’s all the pizzas you can eat – up to 20 of your friends. There’s no limit on the kind of toppings you can have..Jimmy is there a limit on toppings?

FALLON: No.

FEY: If you wanna get all plain pizzas..great.

FALLON: Get half plan, half pepperoni, that’s cool with us.

FEY: If you want like, ham and pineapple – I think that’s weird, but, whatever.

Tina Fey and Jimmy FallonFALLON: You eat it.

FEY: That’s the kind of freedom that makes our country great. Will I pay for cheesy bread…?

FALLON & FEY: No!

FEY: That’s not the deal!

FALLON: Don’t be greedy.

FEY: It’s a pizza party, okay? Don’t try to take advantage of us. Also, don’t be a jerk – if you only have like 15 good friends that like pizza, don’t scape up 5 other people just to make it more expensive for us.

FALLON: I wanna have a good time too, don’t bring a bunch of creeps.

FEY: It’s called: “Weekend Update Strikes Back:”

FALLON:
“Pizza Party Against Terrorism.”

FEY: So if you love pizza, and you hate terrorism…get your head out of your ass, and get all up in Muamar’s carry-on.

Thanks to FallonFey.com for the transcript. Can anybody find the video?

UPDATE: Accountability-free Republicans have been quick to politicize the underpants bomber with predictable accusations. Without evidence New Gingrich claims that “protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans.” And he wants to bring back torture.

Related One Utah posts:
Are There Really 400,000 Terrorists? (May 7, 2009)
A Million Terrorists, and Counting (July 15, 2008)
OMG There Are A Million Terrorists (February 27, 2008)

  1. #1 by Cliff Lyon on December 30, 2009 - 6:58 pm

    A fine and visceral post Richard. I feel like Republicans and weak-kneed Christian Evangelist (and Richard Okelfairy) are more interested in power than than intelligent solutions like, GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!

  2. #2 by brewski on December 31, 2009 - 9:07 am

    If there is one theme which is consistent in OneUtah it is the theme of shifting standards. In this one Richard gives us another example about how the rules apply differently depending on whether you have a D or an R next to your name.

    So in this case, Obama has been President for 11 months, and yet when people who work for him don’t do their job then it is Bush’s fault. But when Bush had been in his job for 8 months, and the same sort of mistakes were made, it was Bush’s fault, and not Clinton’s. The only difference in the two cases is that this guy’s bomb didn’t work. Other than that the two examples are the same, but Richard’s standard of blame shifted.

    This goes to the issue of credibility where any reader of anything Richard writes needs to be viewed through the prism of Richard’s open double-standard. We already know that Cliff openly admitted that political campaign speeches are Nobel- worthy “accomplishments”, so that takes Cliff off the table as being treated as a grown-up. And now Richard is working hard to add himself to that list.

  3. #3 by Cliff Lyon on December 31, 2009 - 9:37 am

    Brewski,

    You want to blame the foiled crotch fire attempt on Obama? Go ahead. No body buys it.

    The Bush admin only encouraged more terrorism and recruitment and anger toward the US.

    They also failed to implement the 911 commission recommendations, failed to get bin Laden, and surrendered some of the worse Gitmo detainees to the Saudis.

    You wanna blame Obama? I feel sorry for you.

  4. #4 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 31, 2009 - 11:39 am

    I just want to point out one of the most interesting things about this case: the underpants bomber’s father is an extremely wealthy and influential Muslim.

    Why is this so interesting? Well, because I’ve had conversations over the last couple of months with some of my family members about the innate evil of Muslims. According to them and their sources, Muslims more or less all support the terrorists.

    I guess this just goes to show that this powerful, wealthy Muslim would rather risk the imprisonment of his son than support the violent downfall of the U.S. Obviously, profiling works so well.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  5. #5 by brewski on December 31, 2009 - 11:48 am

    Cliff, what I want is the same standard applied to Obama as to Bush. If Bush is to be blamed for 9/11, then Obama is to be blamed for this guy. If Bush didn’t implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, then Obama has had 11 months to do something about it. Bush falied to get OBL, and Clinton had him offered to him and turned it down. So you want to apply different sets of standards? I feel sorry for you.

  6. #6 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 31, 2009 - 12:04 pm

    Brewski–

    Unfortunately, this D/R double-standard has been going on a long time–at least since Clinton was blamed for the first WTC bombing only 3 months after he took office.

    I believe, however, that you miss some of the notable differences. This was an instance where a single man with a little bit of help poorly coordinated a terrorist plot. 9/11 required 19 actual bombers, a ton of planning and training, and a whole organization to back the effort. It required failures over several years of several agencies, followed by a grand failure of security personnel, military forces, and the executive.

    Furthermore, I believe that Richard was commenting on the apparent failure of a specific policy–the no-fly listing itself, which was set up by the Bush administration. But I don’t see this post so much as an accusation of Republican fault as much as reactionary indignation at the accusations of Republicans. Funny to think that you, Brewski, are outraged at outrage at accusations of Obama’s failure.

    There’s also the key element that the bureaucracy didn’t exactly inform Obama of the potential for this attack. Bush had Wesley Clark warning him to be cautious about bin Laden 3 times before 9/11 to his face, not to mention the August 6th 2001 daily briefing. Regardless of whether you personally think that Bush should have responded to these documents and warnings or not, they are definitely qualitatively different than the number of personal warnings received by Obama–which, of course, equal 0.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  7. #7 by Cliff Lyon on December 31, 2009 - 12:11 pm

    Brewski and Bush sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

    Let use this standard Brewski. Everyone who voted for the worse president in history is responsible for the all the deaths that result from his two failed wars.

    Bush lover!

  8. #8 by Tim Carter on December 31, 2009 - 12:15 pm

    Brewski, you decide if this is a fair comparison:

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021691.php

  9. #9 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 31, 2009 - 12:31 pm

    You don’t get it, Brewski. As usual, your rules apply only as far as they prove your point. Try complicating your perspective a little bit.

    If our only measure of standards is the amount of time that passed post-election, then yes, Obama is to blame–for a failed terror attempt; Clinton is to blame for a successful but relatively minor one; and Bush is to blame for a successful and horrendous one. Establishing such simplistic analyses is precisely why I accused you on another thread of lacking rigor.

    I won’t repeat my other post here, as I left it after you had posted the one to which I’m responding now. But read it, please, so you can understand that there are more differences between Bush/bin Laden and Obama/underpants bomber than simply months. Key difference: the amount of information the president possessed.

    Finally, I hope you’re not repeating the same old line about Clinton failing to get OBL–as if, when we hear that a suspected (at the time) criminal is found in another country, we can just run on over and seize him. Clinton was “offered” bin Laden by a Sudanese businessman, not the Sudanese government, who requested a fee in exchange for setting up an arrest and delivery. At no time did the Sudanese government actually offer bin Laden. I refer you to Media Matters for one of many analyses on this issue. Besides this, the FBI asserted at the time that there was insufficient evidence to detain him. Back in the pre-Bush days, there was a mythical age when you had to have more than just a hunch in order to kidnap someone from another country and lock them away forever.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  10. #10 by Cliff Lyon on December 31, 2009 - 1:13 pm

    Brewski,

    At the risk of complicating your conveniently simplistic understanding of politics…

    House Republicans opposed a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that included funding for airport security.

    The 2010 appropriations bill contained Transportation Security Administration funding for explosives detection systems and other security measures — it was opposed by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) among others.

    Oooops. The Bush legacy lives on.

  11. #11 by Tim Carter on December 31, 2009 - 1:47 pm

    Brewski:

    Bush failed to get OBL, and Clinton had him offered to him and turned it down

    You can do better than this:

    I get your frustration, though:

  12. #12 by brewski on December 31, 2009 - 3:23 pm

    So now we have shifting standards and shifting facts.
    So according to Dwight:

    9/11 required 19 actual bombers, a ton of planning and training, and a whole organization to back the effort. It required failures over several years of several agencies

    So the fact that Clinton missed this vast operation going on on US soil for years with many people under his nose does not make him guilty of being derelict. That is a new standard of “it’s not my fault”. But it happened under Bush’s watch, so it was Bush’s fault. But the underpants bomber happened on Obama’s watch and included security failures by his team, but it wasn’t his fault. Yet another standard.

    As for the long sordid history of OBL:

    In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.
    It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no “credible offers” to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found “no credible evidence” that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning “The Looming Tower,” flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.

    And of course, if you don’t believe me, then you can believe the convicted purjurer:

    So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.

    - William Jefferson Clinton

    So all this crap about how the Sudanese didn’t offer him and Clinto didn’t really turn it down is one giant ass-covering lie.

    What we can agree on is that Clinton made the legal determination that the US didn’t have a legal case for holding OBL, even though OBL made a declaration of war on the US in the same year.

    Call me crazy, but once war is declared, this whole lawyers’ mindset of having a legal basis for holding OBL should have gone out the window.

    And apparantly Obama agrees with me. Just ask the inmates as Bagram Air Force Base which our current commander-in-chief is holding without legal basis.

    And Tim: I am not going to get in the business of defending things Karl Rove says. He is a political hack cut from the same cloth as Cliff.

  13. #13 by Richard Warnick on December 31, 2009 - 5:52 pm

    The only difference in the two cases is that this guy’s bomb didn’t work. Other than that the two examples are the same…

    That’s got to be the funniest comment I’ve read this week. The 9/11 attacks are in a class by themselves, four simultaneous airplane hijackings and unprecedented (for the USA) massive death and destruction. The underpants bomber destroyed a pair of pants and the seat he was sitting on.

    You want a double standard? The worst terrorist attack ever made Bush temporarily the most popular president in history. Even though his reaction on September 11, 2001 was to run away and hide in an underground bunker in Nebraska! Yet Republicans want to score this minor incident as an epic fail for Obama. Nobody was seriously hurt, and the plane landed at its destination on time.

  14. #14 by brewski on December 31, 2009 - 6:10 pm

    Yes, no one was hurt…..luckily.
    According to the African Prince:

    A systemic failure has occurred and I consider that totally unacceptable……a mix of human and systemic failure…..information that could have and should have been pieced together

  15. #15 by Richard Warnick on December 31, 2009 - 6:26 pm

    brewski–

    You nailed it. President Obama identified this as a “totally unacceptable” failure. Did Bush say anything like that after 9/11? Did anyone get fired? Did anyone even apologize, with the exception of Richard Clarke?

  16. #16 by brewski on January 1, 2010 - 8:08 am

    Wow, Obama made a speech? Let’s give him another Nobel. You have officially joined the “speech-as-accomplishment” club of which Cliff is the Grand Wizard.

  17. #17 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 1, 2010 - 10:43 am

    So the fact that Clinton missed this vast operation going on on US soil for years with many people under his nose does not make him guilty of being derelict. That is a new standard of “it’s not my fault”. But it happened under Bush’s watch, so it was Bush’s fault. But the underpants bomber happened on Obama’s watch and included security failures by his team, but it wasn’t his fault. Yet another standard.

    I, um, don’t recall having ever stated that 9/11 was Bush’s sole fault, nor that Clinton had no fault in it. You made that one up on your own. In fact, if you reread my statements, I haven’t made a necessary argument that Bush had fault so much as that the differences in degree of the two instances in question signify vastly different degrees of failure. In fact, I said,

    Unfortunately, this D/R double-standard has been going on a long time–at least since Clinton was blamed for the first WTC bombing only 3 months after he took office.

    I agree that the double-standard exists. It seems more like you’re participating in it than that I am, so who are you to accuse me of “shifting standards”?

    And of course, if you don’t believe me, then you can believe the convicted purjurer:

    No one’s impressed, brewski. You know full-well that just about everyone in Congress could be a “convicted purjurer” if personal business were asked on C-SPAN and they were put on the spot.

    In regards to how Clinton should have charged across international borders to apprehend bin Laden, let me refer you to something I said before:

    the FBI asserted at the time that there was insufficient evidence to detain him. Back in the pre-Bush days, there was a mythical age when you had to have more than just a hunch in order to kidnap someone from another country and lock them away forever.

    Do you consider the consequences of violating other countries’ airspace in order to arrest a man who has a lot of local and political power, simply on suspicion? Can the U.S. simply do whatever it wants whenever it wants?

    So all this crap about how the Sudanese didn’t offer him and Clinto didn’t really turn it down is one giant ass-covering lie.

    Yup. Based on one man’s testimony, we know that Clinton personally turned down a straight-up and agreed upon offer from the Sudanese government. Come on, brewski. We don’t know all of the details. This website lays out a lot of information about the bin Laden mess, including failures and possible corruption. No point telling you, though. Seems you’ve made up your mind that the offer went straight to the top, was clear cut, and was denied (sort of like the daily briefing about bin Laden that was disregarded?).

    But lets not dwell solely on the things Clinton didn’t do. How about the things he did do? This list details a few of them. In particular, notice the GOP opposition to Clinton’s attempts to deal with terrorism, as well as the last three items on the list. Interesting.

    Yes, no one was hurt…..luckily.

    Your attempts to denigrate Obama at every turn are transparent. You know full-well that, even if this terrorist attempt had succeeded, it would have been nothing compared to 9/11. Even in a state of utter failure, Obama still wouldn’t have presided over an attack to be 9/11′s equal. So you quote Obama stating that something must be done? Is that supposed to be a condemnation? Now, whenever he gives a speech, even when he couples it with actions, he’s supposed to become the laughing stock of U.S. politics? Big surprise: Presidents give speeches. It’s called “communicating with the public.” You’re buying into G.O.P. defamation of Obama, and it’s sickening.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  18. #18 by brewski on January 1, 2010 - 1:31 pm

    Dwight,
    I apologize if I wasn’t clear about to whom some of my comments were addressed. Many of them were not referenced to anything tou said, but rather to numerous assertions by others at OneUtah. Cliff, Richard, Larry and Glenden are the Grand Poobah’s of the shitfing standards club.

    Many, and I mean many, have asserted that 9/11 was entirely Bush’s fault and that Clinton bears no responsibility for all the planning and training that took place in the US on his watch. I know that you have not said this. Similarly, those same people have asserted that the underpants bomber was also entirely Bush’s fault and that Obama does not bear any responsibility.

    So, if it sounds like I am harsh on Obama it reflects that I am providing the counterpoints to a lot of drivel. Read alone those counterpoints sound as though I have it in for Obama, which I don’t. I am just holding him to the same standards as the OneUtah loony-left is holding Bush to. Part of the technique is to illustrate how the loony-left looks when their same arguments are held to a mirror. So of course it sounds ridiculous, because I am using their own ridiculous arguments the other way. However, this seems to be lost on them. I am also holding Obama to his own words.

    And you disappoint me:

    You know full-well that just about everyone in Congress could be a “convicted purjurer” if personal business were asked on C-SPAN and they were put on the spot.

    It wasn’t on CSPAN and it wasn’t “personal business”. Tell it to the judge.

  19. #19 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 1, 2010 - 2:04 pm

    Brewski–

    Apology accepted. And I have to apologize for my misinterpretation of the Clinton-Lewinsky facts. The point was that a person put in his position would be hard-pressed indeed to maintain factual integrity the whole time. According to Clinton, his incorrect statements were based partially on a misunderstanding of the legal definition. It’s not surprising that society verified this lack of understanding about the distinction between oral and vaginal sex over the following years. The heads of the LDS church even made it clear that oral sex is, in fact, intercourse.

    I guess what I’m saying is that the use of “convicted purjurer” was hyperbolic, serving little but inflammatory purposes; everyone in Congress and the presidency has lied from time to time. It doesn’t mean they are lying every time they speak. Considering Clinton’s approach to terrorism and the general unwillingness of Congress to support his concern, it seems unreasonable to think that Clinton would be blatantly offered bin Laden and then just give him up, but believable that Bush would ignore a report about a possible terrorist attack.

    I agree with you, however, that the tendency to place blame on only one side of the party line is ridiculous.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  20. #20 by brewski on January 1, 2010 - 6:43 pm

    Dwight,
    We can agree to agree.
    Happy New Year.
    Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men.
    It’s been a good day of football so far. Just wish we had a real playoff.

  21. #21 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 1, 2010 - 7:33 pm

    Sorry. I don’t like football, but eat a nacho for me.

  22. #22 by Larry Bergan on January 2, 2010 - 12:03 am

    David Sirota has done a list of the decade’s top ten quotations and they’re pretty good. Number 6 is priceless. Yes, Rumsfeld actually said this:

    “As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know they’re some things we do not know. But there’re also unknown unknowns; the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

  23. #23 by Larry Bergan on January 2, 2010 - 12:16 am

    I’ll bet nobody here knew Bush Jr. said this:

    “Haven’t we already given money to rich people … Shouldn’t we be giving money to the middle?”

    If I recall correctly, that information came out of Paul O’ Neil’s book about his eyeopening stay in the early Bush White House. Right after Bush said that, either Karl Rove or Cheney burst in to refute such a thought.

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on January 2, 2010 - 10:19 am

    My retort to Rumsfeld is he never watched out for the unknown “knowns,” the things you think you know but turn out to be false (e.g. WMD).

    I never read O’Neill’s book, but I’ve heard the quote. IMHO the final proof that Bush was clueless about “his” own policies was the deer-in-the-headlights performance when he had to announce the bailout for Wall Street billionaires.

  25. #25 by Richard Warnick on January 2, 2010 - 10:27 am

    brewski–

    I never said that the Clinton administration could not have done more about al-Qaeda. However, your criticisms are repeats of right-wing talking points.

    The USS Cole bombing happened right before the election. Rather than be accused of politicizing the al-Qaeda issue, the Clinton administration decided to investigate the attack and pass on the findings to the next administration. Which did nothing at all.

    True, two of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country while Clinton was still in office. But it was not President Clinton who was presented with a President’s Daily Brief headlined “Bin Laden determined to strike in US.” President Bush read that briefing and went fishing. Because Condi Rice was so clueless about the threat, the Bushies never even held a high-level meeting about al-Qaeda until after September 11, 2001.

    It was the Clinton administration that successfully prosecuted Ramzi Yousef and his co-conspirators. Also, the millennium plot to bomb LAX was thwarted when Ahmed Ressam was captured. It was Ressam who told investigators that al-Qaeda sleeper cells existed within the United States. This information was included in the famous PDB delivered to President Bush on August 6, 2001.

  26. #26 by Cliff Lyon on January 2, 2010 - 11:04 am

    Im guessing Brewski is too young to remember…

    I remember very clearly Clinton trying to do something about bin Laden. But he was prevented by the same people that were jealous of Monica Lewsinski.

    Do you remember what happened when he bombed the so-called medicine factory? He took a ton of shit for that FROM REPUBLICANS!!!

    He was also encumbered by the CIA’s collusion with bin Laden to beat back the Soviets.

    Oh yeah, then the republicans took the entire country hostage for a BLOW JOB!

    At least he got one.

  27. #27 by Richard Warnick on January 2, 2010 - 12:05 pm

    Unfortunately for President Clinton, Hollywood made a not-very-good movie called “Wag The Dog” (1997). So the cruise missile attacks he ordered on Sudan and Afghanistan in the midst of the Lewinsky brouhaha were dismissed as “wagging the dog.” Worse, the attacks didn’t kill anybody important.

    We’ve solved that problem. All our air strikes now kill “at least 30 suspected militants” with great regularity. Government officials often announce the death of the same high-ranking al-Qaeda member several times.

    The Clinton administration was also trying to set up a close working relationship with our Special Forces and the Pakistani ISI to go after al-Qaeda. That was not a particularly good idea at the time, but something similar seems to be bringing results now.

  28. #28 by cav on January 2, 2010 - 1:18 pm

    Rumsfield never even had a clue about the unknown knowns. He knew not the known unknowns, and never suspected how little he knew of the known knowns. Really what a dimwit.

    …but he made the girl teabaggers wet (or so the liberls media would have had us believe).

  29. #29 by brewski on January 2, 2010 - 4:36 pm

    Cliff,
    It is the darker side of me that even bothers to respond to anything you say.

    Was it the Republicans who took the entire country hostage for a blow job? Or was it Clinton and his apologists who took the entire country hostage for a blow job? Also, it wasn’t the blow job which was in question. It was committing perjury to a Grand Jury which was the issue. And it just wasn’t Monica Lewinsky (whose father I have met). It was Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, the assault on a married woman (Kathleen Willey) and other untold hundreds of conquests the deeply sick man nailed all the time having a wife and young daughter at home thinking Bill was “jogging” in Little Rock. Cliff, I understand that as a Baby Boomer your people live by the credo “if it feels good, do it” so you don’t get that Bill’s beahvior is sick. And I understand that you think lying under oath to a grand jury doesn’t really matter even if you were the attorney general, law professor, governor and president. I mean, those pesky laws are meant for someone else and not for us to actually follow.

    Reminds me of last week when I was in San Francisco and I saw a number of large SUV’s with bumper stickers on them such as “Keep Tahoe Blue” or “Obama/Biden” with no apparent sense of irony.

  30. #30 by Cliff Lyon on January 2, 2010 - 6:05 pm

    Brewski,

    Congratulations you just placed yourself firmly in the camp of the whiny losers and perverted voyeurs who cover for their perversions by appointing themselves moral judge and jury. Go ahead and compare Clinton perjury to Bush’s treason, lies and wars. MAKE MY DAY!

    My, my aren’t we obsessed with sex. That old hat puts you squarely in the middle of the moral majority. You know, the sexually repressed still in denial about masturbation.

    I got news for ya. We knew about Flowers and Jones BEFORE we elected the pervert. Fortunately, in America, we reserve the right to elect perverts, scum bags, AND coke head drunks.

    I’ll take the pervert who would have gotten a third term (and could still be elected today), over the Coke head who stole two elections and destroyed the country. Clinton got shit done. Or did you forget about the budget SURPLUS!

    Ouch, that musta hurt. Loser!

    BTW: I missed the baby boomers by a few years.

  31. #31 by brewski on January 2, 2010 - 11:50 pm

    Cliff,
    You would be pretty convincing if you weren’t simply and easily factually wrong. Arguing with you is child’s play. You keep making this far too easy for me. At least Dwight is a challenge.

    Go ahead and compare Clinton perjury to Bush’s treason, lies and wars. MAKE MY DAY!

    This one is a lay up for me:

    Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
    And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

    – President William Jefferson Clinton, December 16, 1998
    Next:

    My, my aren’t we obsessed with sex.

    I am pretty sure I said it wasn’t about sex, but was about perjury before a grand jury.

    By Anne Gearan
    Associated Press Writer
    Monday, Oct. 1, 2001; 10:48 a.m. EDT
    WASHINGTON –– The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
    The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
    In April, Clinton’s Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

    And then I’m scratching my head about this one:

    We knew about Flowers and Jones BEFORE we elected the pervert.

    This is your defense? Oh so it is ok that he sexually assaulted a married woman in the Oval Office because we all knew we was a sexual sociopath. I see. Makes total sense.
    And then you give me the allyoop slam dunk with:

    Or did you forget about the budget SURPLUS!

    1. There was no budget surplus unless you use Bernie Madoff accounting.
    2. If there was a surplus it was because the GOP congress wouldn’t let him spend all the money he wanted to.
    3. The last year of his presidency included a gigantic stock market crash, rising unemployment and recession.

    Brewski 4, Cliff 0

  32. #32 by Larry Bergan on January 3, 2010 - 1:13 am

    Brewski:

    Why does right wing politics always involve sports analogies? That’s one thing I like about Dwight: he said he doesn’t care about football, (or maybe basketball), and I couldn’t be more in agreement. Our lives are not a game with lay-ups, punts, or long passes and we don’t have time these days to fill our brains with sports scores.

    Why do you think Clinton never did a ground invasion of Iraq? The neocons were begging him to do it. Why was the entire middle east scared shitless about George W. overseeing a war there. Clinton probably could have pulled a real coalition together, but virtually none of Saddam’s neighbors were interested in a Bush war. Who had more at stake then they did if Saddam had WMD’s.

    The whole world saw the danger of Bush and his instructors waging a war. Why are you defending him and why are you more concerned with private sexual matters then a decade of mayhem and death for profit using your tax dollars?

  33. #33 by Cliff Lyon on January 3, 2010 - 9:47 am

    Brewski,

    Normally, I would not stoop to debating with you or anyone under the premise that a blow job is the same as an illegal war that kills Americans, innocent women and children, and makes us less safe….but Im willing to make an exception…under one condition:

    If you will restate your argument using your real name (which I will verify), I will debate you.

    But you won’t. No sane American would embarrass themselves so. Would they?

  34. #34 by brewski on January 3, 2010 - 7:25 pm

    Larry,
    I’d like to see the correlation between sports analogies and rightwingedness. I have no reason to believe that is true. Many sports terms have become such common turns of phrase that many people don’t even think about their origin, i.e. a sticky wicket. Nevertheless, if it makes you feel more comfortable, I will refrain from using sports terms if for no other reason that I would rather have you contemplate my points and not my diction.

    Clinton probably did not do a ground invasion not because he didn’t think Saddam was developing WMD or that he was violating the 1991 conditional surrender. Clearly Clinton thought that Saddam was. He probably didn’t invade Iraq for all the reasons you would expect; he got burned in Somalia trying to do some peace-keeping and nation-building and saw how quagmires happen, didn’t think there would be domestic support for it, didn’t think there would be international support for it, didn’t see an exit strategy.

    I have no interest in Clinton’s private sexual matters. Sexual assault on a married woman on government property is not a private sexual matter. We should all have an interest in any government official who thinks he is above the law.

    I don’t see that I am defending Bush. I am countering the half truths that keep getting repeated. If Bush “lied” about WMD then Clinton’s December 1998 speech is equally a lie. The economy was really in a downturn as Clinton left office. This is factual, not my opinion. The “budget surplus” of Clinton is only a surplus only if you use cash accounting and not accrual accounting, which means liabilities which are incurred in a period buy will be paid in a future period still count. None of this is defending Bush. It is just applying the same standards to all people and all mistakes.

  35. #35 by Larry Bergan on January 3, 2010 - 10:50 pm

    All I can say is that in sports, winning is everything and that’s the way people who call themselves conservatives seem to think. There hasn’t an ounce of compromise from the conservatives in decades.

    [Clinton] probably didn’t invade Iraq for all the reasons you would expect; he got burned in Somalia trying to do some peace-keeping and nation-building and saw how quagmires happen, didn’t think there would be domestic support for it, didn’t think there would be international support for it, didn’t see an exit strategy.

    So in other words: Clinton learned from his mistakes and thought it would be stupid to invade Iraq. Cheney wanted to invade every country in the middle east even after the quagmire in Iraq.

  36. #36 by brewski on January 3, 2010 - 11:26 pm

    There hasn’t [been] an ounce of compromise from the conservatives in decades.

    Apparently you don’t remember the Gang of 14 (which included 7 Republicans including McCain). So much for not giving “an ounce of compromise”.

    And all this time I thought sports was about doing your best, working hard for a goal, having fun, sportsmanship, and shaking hands with your friend after the game.

    We must have had different coaches.

    One Democrat I met briefly and liked what he had to say was Paul Tsongas. He said a couple of things I liked. One was that you can’t be pro-employment and anti-employer. The other was that he called Bill Clinton the “Pander-Bear” since no matter who he was talking to, he was always on their side. This was true. He told investment bankers that he would lower the capital gains tax rate. At the same time Al Gore was telling tobacco farmers that they were the backbone of America, nevermind that their product killed millions of people. And Obama has broken about every promise he has ever made just to win. So I am not convinced that conservatives will do more to win than liberals.

  37. #37 by brewski on January 3, 2010 - 11:29 pm

    Cliff,
    By the way, what reason do I have to believe that you will be willing to “debate” anything? I have never seen you debate anything once, so why would you start now. You don’t debate. You hurl, snip, whine, throw tantrums, make-up, hallucinate and all kinds of other actions. But “debate”? Never.

  38. #38 by Cliff Lyon on January 4, 2010 - 6:37 am

    Breswki,

    Its amazing how closely your rhetoric parallels the Republican party these days. Take health care as a recent example;

    They continued to insist they were negotiating in good faith one day and that they supported reform then, at the next press conference or town hall, all we hear about was death panels.

    We’ll no one can argue the dems didn’t try, how many republicans voted yea?

    Insisting you liked a dead dem is just more of the same tactic.

  39. #39 by brewski on January 4, 2010 - 8:35 am

    Cliff, your brain must be so fried from those UVM-I-couldn’t-get-into-a-real-Ivy-school pot sessions.

    My position on healthcare is farther away from the GOP as yours is. I have argued for a single payer plan here several times. I have lambasted the current bill as a sell-out to lobbyists, among other fatal flaws.

    Voting yea on the current bill is no virtue. It is an awful bill which is probably unconsitutional. Different members of the GOP voted agains it for different reasons. Some of them had bad reasons, like they don’t want any reform at all. Some voted for good reasons like it is just about a bad a bill as someone could make up in their nightmares.

    No one can argue the Dems didn’t try? Ha! I would say introducing a 383 page “managers amendment” (that no one read including the manager) 39 hours before the vote is not trying.

    By the way, I caught you in another blatant lie. You said there was no such thing as a “Democratic Talking Point”. Well, you might want to tell that to the DNC:
    http://my.democrats.org/page/speakout/AffordableHealth

    Use this tool to write letters to Congress. Start by entering your location on this page, then use Democratic talking points to compose your letter on the next page.

    - Paid for by the Democratic National Committee — 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C., 20003.

    You really suck at this.

  40. #40 by Larry Bergan on January 4, 2010 - 11:25 am

    Brewski:

    You’re going to have to refresh me on what the “gang of fouteen” was about, but as far as proving republicans are willing to compromise has to be the worlds largest red herring.

    An important aspect of sports is fair play, but the republicans have no use for that and set out to violate that principal in everything they do. Besides, nobody is supposed to die in a game. Republicans cause poor working people to die all the time because they don’t care about people who work to make the things they use; that’s why they ALWAYS fight minimum wage battles. Game analogies are silly when talking about important policy decisions.

    I am not convinced that conservatives will do more to win than liberals.

    Oh, brother.

    • #41 by Glenden Brown on January 4, 2010 - 11:57 am

      The “Gang of Fourteen” was a group of Senators back in 2005 who came together for forestall the Republican leadership from changing Senate Rules to disallow the Filibuster on judicial nonimees. The Gang included the last few moderate Republicans and some centrist and conservative Democrats. Their deal was basically that the Democratic senators wouldn’t vote for filibusters with the rest of the caucus and the Republicans wouldn’t vote to end the filibuster with their caucus.

      At the time, the Gang was hotly criticized by leaders on both sides.

  41. #42 by Larry Bergan on January 4, 2010 - 4:10 pm

    Thanks Glenden. I think I remember something about that time period: the republicans had always called doing away with filibusters as “The Nuclear Option”, but when THEY wanted to do it, it was called “The Constitutional Option.”

    Very disgusting and very typical.

  42. #43 by Larry Bergan on January 4, 2010 - 4:33 pm

    I had to leave for work during my last comment to brewski concerning his nonsensical statement:

    I am not convinced that conservatives will do more to win than liberals.

    I guess you were too young when the 2000 election was being stolen by the republicans. Al Gore fought until the Supreme Court ruled against him – even though nobody disputes he won the popular vote and the ruling was outrageous on many levels.

    If the Supreme Court had ruled AGAINST Bush, congressman Tom Feeney of Florida was poised to introduce a bill into congress that would have still denied Gore’s victory using electors. Tom Feeney asked a man named Clint Curtis to write software for him that would flip an election and when Curtis blew the whistle, an attorney who was going to take the case was found dead in his bloody bathtub. There is a movie about the incident and includes hero’s from Florida, Utah and California who have tried to stop the horror of the voting machines. It’s called “Murder, Spies & Voting Lies (the Clint Curtis story) (2008)”

    But you’re right, republicans play fair and winning is far down the list of priorities. :)

    Please try to read up and man up! Everything you need to know about election fraud at the highest levels of government is at BradBlog.com. I wish I could say the Democrats, (large D), gave a crap about this, but I cannot. It seems as though some businesses are “too big to fail” and American elections in the twenty first century are too corrupt to prosecute.

    Don’t worry, be happy!

  43. #44 by brewski on January 4, 2010 - 5:28 pm

    But you’re right, republicans play fair and winning is far down the list of priorities

    Nope, they don’t play fair and winning is high on their list of priorities. Just like the Democrats who contine to this day to stuff ballot boxes, “lose” ballot boxes, hand out “walking around money”, use union dues illegally for politcal purposes, etc. But that is ok in your book. Lying cheating and stealing is all ok as long as you have a D next to your name.

    You are probably old enough to remember 1960:

    Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of two-tenths of one percent. However, Nixon carried 92 of the state’s 101 counties, and Kennedy’s victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago’s vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago’s 1960 population of 3.55 million—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.

  44. #45 by Larry Bergan on January 4, 2010 - 6:45 pm

    brewski:

    Every time I bring this up I get pointed to the same old thing that happened over 40 years ago. I was 8 years old at the time. Maybe you can tell me why Nixon never contested the results of that “theft” as Gore didn’t contest his theft in 2000.

    BradBlog and many others, (with the help of senator Al Gore’s internet), will tell you that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen and you’d have to be a “conspiracy theorist” on the side of fallacy to believe otherwise; in other words there is a plethora of evidence to suggest fraud and practically nothing, (if that), to prove otherwise.

    I’m using my real name here. What are you using, brew!

  45. #46 by brewski on January 5, 2010 - 9:59 am

    Maybe you can tell me why Nixon never contested the results of that “theft” as Gore didn’t contest his theft in 2000.

    Various stories regarding Nixon in 1960 do say that many people did urge him to contest the election more vigorously. The reasons he didn’t are probably the same as Gore’s; hard to prove in court, look like a sore loser, not wanting to throw the country into a constitutional crisis, etc. I am not sure why you can’t come up with lots of reasonable reasons yourself.

    More recently, Clinton and Gore broke about every campaign finance law imaginable by laundering illegal contributions through monks and people’s maids. So it is hard for you to get seize any moral high ground on this.

    The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, also known as Chinagate, was an alleged effort by the People’s Republic of China to influence domestic American politics during the 1996 federal elections.

    The issue first received public attention in early 1997, with news that a Justice Department investigation had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in violation of U.S. laws regarding foreign political contributions. The Chinese government denied all accusations. Twenty-two people were eventually convicted of fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections, and others fled U.S. jurisdiction. Several of these were associates of Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

    Your only defense on this will be something like “well money laundering and fraud aren’t as bad as what Bush did”. Yes, and I suppose rape isn’t as bad as murder. It’s pretty sad if that is all you have.

  46. #47 by Larry Bergan on January 5, 2010 - 2:56 pm

    Chinagate?

    I completely missed that one and so did the entire main stream media, even though they ignored the theft of the 2000 election. Are you saying the republicans stole the election to save us from the Chinese?

    Got any links, bro?

  47. #48 by brewski on January 5, 2010 - 5:56 pm

    - The Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
    - According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore’s last fundraising campaign.
    -James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/chung062098.htm
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/indict071498.htm
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/trie052299.htm

    You must not have been paying attention.

  48. #49 by Larry Bergan on January 5, 2010 - 8:19 pm

    Well I guess I’ll have to give you that one since I can’t disprove it, but at least no election was stolen there.

  49. #50 by brewski on January 5, 2010 - 8:38 pm

    Yes, rape isn’t as bad as murder.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: