« KELLIHER PROMISES CIVILITY | Home | SEIFERT QUESTIONS WHO’S REALLY IN CHARGE IN AG’S OFFICE »
NICK COLEMAN ATTACKS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD ON DAY OF HIS FUNERAL
By Michael B. Brodkorb | January 3, 2007
Leave it to Nick Coleman to attack a patriot like Gerald Ford on the day of his funeral. While most Americans of all political persuasions were praising the former president for his decency and civility, Coleman manages to usher in the new year with a cheap shot.
"Gerald Ford had been dead eight days and was on his second or third funeral yesterday, but it still was necessary that government offices be closed (for the third day in a row). This presented a hardship for people such as Shanna Brinkley, who zeroed out her bus card to bring her 6-week-old baby, Nyasia, to the doctor and was hoping her mother would come pick her up because no bus cards for poor were available, out of respect to a dead president." Source: Star Tribune, January 3, 2007
Stay classy, Nick.
Topics: Uncategorized | 55 Comments »
55 Responses to “NICK COLEMAN ATTACKS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD ON DAY OF HIS FUNERAL”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 am
What an ass. Only Nick Coleman is arrogant enough to blame President Ford for someone’s travel hardships. I trust he’ll have a similar article following MLK Jr. Day, President’s Day, Veteran’s Day, Columbus Day, Bosses’ Day, Arbor Day, Ground Hog Day, Flag Day, Friendship Day, Memorial Day and Halloween. Not Labor Day though, Shanna Brinkley will just have to suffer at the hands of America’s unions.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
I cannot remember a time when anything this clown has written in the newspaper (and I use that term very loosly) has ever shown an ounce of interest to the ordinary citizen of the Twin Cities. I would really like to see some balance in the reporting and commentating from that rag. Katherine Kersten cannot offset all the liberal fools they have on staff or print on the pages of the paper.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
From SwanBlog:
I think there is a column to be written about Shanna Brinkley, but not the one Coleman wrote. Federal offices are closed to mourn the loss of a president (what a raw deal for Brinkley that someone died). Are bus cards ONLY available from the federal government? Are they ONLY available on the first day of the month? But for that stinker Ford dying and making Shanna’s life difficult, she would have gotten free bus fare on time?
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
I love it.
“”People have things to do,” she said with frustration, hugging her baby in a blanket, waiting for her ride across Wabasha Street from Palm Tuesday at the Fitz.”
Right. “Things to do” like get pregnant with kids you can’t support, or bitch to reporters because the government office that hands my money over to you in exchange for . . . nothing . . . is closed for one extra day . . .
But, do those “things” include finding a job so that you can join me in paying for such people to hang out all day with their kids?
I’m guessing not.
“McMillan, 64, has had two heart attacks and lives on Social Security of $800 a month. Last fall, Pawlenty came to speak at his public housing high-rise in downtown St. Paul, but McMillan stayed upstairs, watching TV in his apartment.”
Um, no, N-Col, he doesn’t “live on $800/month” from SS. Add to that the market value of his rent, paid for by me, and likely his food, highly subsidized by me, and whatever else our overly-beneficent charity-ward government transfers from me to him for the sole reason that he’s the deserving non-productive poor and I’m merely a productive leech on society.
Coleman truly is the voice of the Undeserving Whiners.
.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 am
Nick should get some facts straight. I work for a county office and we were open yesterday. Not to mention doesn’t stores like Rainbow sell bus cards. Shows his lack of class when he does an insult and doesn’t bother to make sure the facts back him up.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
$2.
That’s all a bus ride costs.
$2.
Babies ride free.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Um, no, N-Col, he doesn’t “live on $800/month†from SS. Add to that the market value of his rent, paid for by me, and likely his food, highly subsidized by me, and whatever else our overly-beneficent charity-ward government transfers from me to him for the sole reason that he’s the deserving non-productive poor and I’m merely a productive leech on society.
and Conservatives wonder why they get a bad rap?
me me me me me me me meeeeeeeee, it’s all about meeeeee
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:32 am
but yes, dumb article. although i agree with the sentiment that it was silly to put the gov’t day off the day after New Years day. shoulda did it this Friday or something.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Coleman needs to lash out now as it will not be long and the new paper owners will be letting him go.
See ya Nick!! Don’t let the door hit you on the a$$ on the way out.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
Yeah JEFF, for liberals like you, it is you you
you you yooooooooooou ! You and Nick Coleman, think you have the right to STICK YOUR HAND IN
ANYBODY’S POCKET ANYTIME YOU WISH TO PAY FOR WHATEVER STUPID POGRAM THAT YOU AND YOUR DFL HACKS DICTATE ! And the word is POGRAM !
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
The best argument that can be made for public education in Minnesota is that while TIM PAWLENTY
graduated from South St.Paul High School, Nick
Coleman attended the private school Cretin !I hope you gave the poor woman her bus fare NICK, or , did you put it on the AVISTA expense ACCOUNT ?! Oil drilling money sure comes in handy
sometimes,doesn’t it NICKY ?
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I was thinking that this was just about the worse column of Coleman’s, until I remembered all of his other columns.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Give some credit to Nicky boy, he just provided proof that he’s the is the worst writer for the worst newspaper in America.
Quite an honor for a two-bit honorless hack. If I threw my cat on the keyboard I could come up with a more coherent article then anything from Nicky-boy the mindless robot.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Perhaps Shanna can explain why her husband couldn’t give her a ride or some bus money. Oh, wait, what’s a husband?
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Two words: F*ck’n Waaaaaa!
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
You know this has to be the MOST over the top column to date! I mean really Nick….would you have been this out of control if it were former President Carter we were mourning?
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
If only that were the case Lady… if only that were the case… But, instead, I’m sure America’s worst president will continue his bleating for several more years…
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Did the troops get a day off for Ford’s death?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
#
Yeah JEFF, for liberals like you, it is you you
you you yooooooooooou ! You and Nick Coleman, think you have the right to STICK YOUR HAND IN
ANYBODY’S POCKET ANYTIME YOU WISH TO PAY FOR WHATEVER STUPID POGRAM THAT YOU AND YOUR DFL HACKS DICTATE ! And the word is POGRAM !
Wow, keep it up, you’re only helping the stereotype of Republicans & right wingers with that bastion of knowledge and grammar there.
Seriously, don’t you true conservatives just cringe when people on your own side post total shit like this?
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Jeff, I’m too busy cringing over the crap that comes out of the left.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hey Jeff what about Mr. Coleman here. I actually had the nerve to write him an email and ask for him to apologize to the Ford Family. You won’t believe the response I got!
This was an email I sent to Nick along with Anders the editor (he should know that this was insulting), Kate Perry the reader rep (she should know that this was insulting) and J K Moyer publisher who doesn’t know what’s going since he created a dramatic drop in the Star Tribune’s value.
Dear Nick:
I’ve heard about your column and made a point of going to the Star Tribune website to read it before I personally replied. Why are you blaming Ford for the bus pass problem?
* Federal officers were closed because of the funeral. Not county offices so unless the MTC is tied only to a federal office this person should’ve been able to buy a bus pass especially given the fact that I believe they can be bought in nongoverment places such as Rainbow!
* The funeral was made for the second in part because with New Years and people travelling it was meant not to disrupt people travelling that much or not available. Besides if you’re going to blame people than why don’t you blame the desire for people to have parties and celebrate the start of the New Year with a holiday! That was more of a factor in causing this three day gap than anything else. No holiday Ford’s funeral will probably have been on the first than instead of the second.
* I’m a conservative Republican and believe that people have to take responsibility for themselves. In this case the simple act of paying attention to when my bus pass might expire and pay for a new one before it expires applies. In this case since the faire is something like two dollars asking somebody for a ride or to borrow a few bucks doesn’t sound outragoues to expect.
And to find one person who wants to criticize the decision to pardon Nixon and throw that in was a cheap shot. The pardon cost Ford reelection in 1976 that should be enough! And Ford to the best of my knowledge has been praised in death for doing it and helping us get over Watergate. Furthermore Nixon didn’t steal the White House as the reader said. What he did was cover up for members of his campaign team wihtout his approval did criminal acts. It was the cover up that was the crime not stealing the White House.
You should apologize to the family of former President Ford for the way you had the nerve to insult him!
Sincerely,
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Now are you ready for a comment that just shows hatred!
Dear Walter:
I am not ojbecting to the respect shown to Ford. I am objecting to the deification of the politicians, and the self-serving excess of the honors that present-day pols put on for the old ones, in the hope that someday they too will get a funeral that compares to the one for Alexander the Great. Do we stop for the funerals of soliders and cops, thirty years after they retired? No. And we shouldn’t for dead presidents, either.
Thanks,
Nick Coleman
I have sent Nick a reply to this. I will disclose my reply if Mr. Coleman has the nerve to respond!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
i don’t like Nick but he makes a good point in regards to soldiers & policemen….
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with paying respect to our elder statesmen.
I guess it will be interesting to see what Nick has to say (if anyone is still publishing his column) when Carter (bar none: America’s worst president) buys the peanut farm.
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
i don’t either, and i don’t have a problem with a national day of mourning, i just was a bit perturbed that they picked to pro-long the holiday more. that and i had some shit i needed to mail out, christ, think of us eBayers here!
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
“i just was a bit perturbed that they picked to pro-long the holiday more.”
Yeh, it really sucks when they do that.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Jeff, What kind of a twisted world do you live in? Someone has their hand out and expects other taxpayers to provide their basic needs, they’re not selfish. It’s the guy who wants to keep what he has earned that’s thinking only of himself.
That kind of logic would make a 12 year old cringe.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
A president died. It’s a big deal for those of us who respect the office. Get over it.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Bruiser, that’s just it though…
you folks have never been even remotely close to being in that situation of needing help, so you just asssume that they’re all lazy and looking for a handout.
fact of the matter is, you type of people wouldn’t last a month in their shoes.
the logic that people who feel as though like 10 cents of every dollar they earn goes to help the poor & needy and less fortunate, those are the ones who are clearly mistaken.
hell, we’ve sunk 400 billion into the boondoggle that is this Iraq War, don’t get me started on my tax dollars going to waste bud.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Jeff, I can show you in the constitution where it mentions providing for Defense.
Can you show me where it says we have to help the downtrodden by making them rely on a government handout designed to keep them in that situation since they have no encouragement to reverse their misfortune?
When you find that in the constitution, let me know!
January 4th, 2007 at 10:17 am
lmao. trying to turn this into a “but it’s in the constitution, nanny nanny boo boo” argument = pathetic.
i’m just glad you live nowhere near my district
January 4th, 2007 at 10:18 am
also, $500 billion (it’ll top that mark this year) for a war that we were lied to about the reasons for going to war (numerous lies, had they actually just told the truths, fine)…
i highly doubt the framers of our Constitution themselves would approve of this war either.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:19 am
also, i find it funny that so many neocons are speaking so highly of a pro-choice, very moderate almost centrist Republican, who had pretty ill words for Reagan & Bush Sr.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Email exchange with Coleman:
Me: Nice cheap shot on President Ford, Coleman. You are, by far, the winner of the no-class award. Bet you had on your tie-died shirt plinkin’ that one out. Leave it to you. Poor people’s expired bus cards? Give me a break. I suppose some idiots actually buy that crap. No wonder everyone’s dumping your rag for the internet.
Coleman: Let me know when cops and soldiers and other public servants who die 32 years after they left the job get 8 days of funerals.
Me: As an ex-cop, ex-soldier and ex-public servant, I take no offense whatsoever to the President of the United States of America receiving such honors and to equate my service with that position is simply ridiculous. You can let us worry if we are offended or not. Who the hell are you to throw our names about? Stick to poor people with expired bus cards and washed-up reporters.
No reply from Coleman.
Jeff…you just don’t get it, do ya, pal?
January 4th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Sorry Jeff, Reporter Thomas DeFrank in what would be Gerald Ford’s Last interview said that Ford supported the war.
“Ford was a few weeks shy of his 93rd birthday as we chatted for about 45 minutes. He’d been visited by President Bush three weeks earlier and said he’d told Bush he supported the war in Iraq”
Poor Democrats, The suffer from such a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome that they can’t accept facts and the truth.
January 4th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Jeff, what lies. Prove it.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Kyle, prove what? that Ford and his wife were pro-choice? and had plenty of bad things to say about Reagan & Bush Sr.?
Read this week’s issues of Newsweek if you think i’m “lying”, it’s an interview that was conducted with the intention of not being printed until after his death. It’s a really great read, i enjoyed it a lot, and made me appreciate him a lot.
and RamseyRep, where did i claim that Ford was against this War? Christ almighty, please show me… i looked twice, i can’t find it.
Read the damn Newsweek article & interview and then get back to me about my “lies”.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Hey RamseyRep, apparently you can’t read, you posted about BUSH JR. my quote was:
“who had pretty ill words for Reagan & Bush Sr.”
I think you need some new eyeglasses my friend
January 4th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
if you don’t want to buy the magazine, here you go, i’ve highlighted the parts i think you’d be most interested in:
http://obiakpere.blogspot.com/2007/01/gerald-ford-unpublished-interview.html
An unlikely president, Gerald Ford steadied America and, in an unpublished interview, mused about her fate.
By Michael Beschloss
Newsweek
Jan. 8, 2007 issue – He was a larger figure than you might have thought. Many familiar personalities—politicians, movie stars, newscasters—are smaller in fact than they are on television or in photographs. In his 1970s-modern desert house in Rancho Mirage, Calif., or his mountainside ski retreat in Beaver Creek, Colo., however, Gerald Ford was striking: lean, muscular and imposing into his 90s.
Before he died last week at 93, Ford had also become an imposing figure in American history. The 38th president, who will be mourned at services this week in Washington and Michigan, helped shape America in two different centuries. He was a product of the Depression, a World War II Navy hero, a cold-war leader in the House and vice president and president at a time when America was struggling to get past an unpopular war in Vietnam and the Watergate scandal of Richard Nixon.
For a reminder of what a difference it made that Jerry Ford became president in August 1974, think of this: if Congress had let Nixon nominate his first choice for vice president after Spiro Agnew’s resignation in disgrace, ex-Texas governor John Connally would have been the 38th president. That same month, Connally was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice in a separate scandal. (He was later acquitted.) Would faith in our system have survived after we watched a president and vice president quit, only to see a new president indicted as he was sworn in?
The student of history can detect Gerald Ford’s influence on America from Watergate to Iraq, from the presidencies of Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. President for just 29 months, Ford changed the way we live, rescuing the White House from scandal, restoring a measure of confidence in politics and articulating a philosophy of robust executive power that influences President Bush even now. Ford’s last two chiefs of staff, Vice President Dick Cheney and ex-Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld—men whose understanding of executive power was shaped by their experience in Ford’s White House—have been crucial figures in the Bush years.
Ford’s most controversial decision, of course, was to pardon Nixon for any crimes he might have committed in his White House years. In that dark September 1974, there were charges of secret deals, and complaints that Ford had foreclosed the possibility that justice would be done. Yet as the years passed, more Americans came to see the pardon as an act of unusual statesmanship. “I was hurt by the lack of understanding of what I did,” Ford told NEWSWEEK’s Jon Meacham in 2004. “In retrospect, I look back and I understand it, but boy, at the time, as you know, I caught unshirted hell. That so many people came to see my reasoning, and agree with it, makes me feel pretty good.”
Ford had reason to glow: in the space of 30 years, he completed the journey from historical footnote and mid-1970s punch line to statesman. As he grew older, he also increasingly moved to the center. He was privately critical of Bush’s Iraq war and was also surprised by Cheney’s growing hawkishness. He has been quoted criticizing President Bush’s Iraq war, and marveled to friends that Cheney had grown so much more hawkish.
In September 1995, at the suggestion of NEWSWEEK’s then editor, the late Maynard Parker, I called on President Ford one afternoon in Beaver Creek for a conversation about his life and career. Our ground rules were that I would divulge nothing about our talk until after his death, which would allow him to speak more freely than normal. Reminded of these, Ford replied in lawyerly fashion: “I accept.”
In hindsight, what stands out most from our talk was Ford’s frustration that the Republican Party had lurched so far to the right. “If I’d been elected in ‘76,” he told me flatly, “the party wouldn’t be as far right as it is at the present time … I sure hope it comes back to the center.” Ford went on to complain about the 1992 GOP convention in Houston, where Pat Buchanan—who had challenged President George H.W. Bush for that year’s party nomination—demanded that conservatives “take back our culture.”
Ford told me, “My wife and I are moderate Republicans. We felt uncomfortable at the last [1992] convention. And … unless things change, we’ll feel uncomfortable in the next one—if we go.” (They went.) Ford lamented that George H.W. Bush had not reversed their party’s rightward movement: “I was disappointed that George didn’t fight a little harder against the hard right.” Asked to reply to the remark last week, the senior Bush said: “He never told me that, but that’s not surprising. He was a much more moderate guy in his later years.”
In Beaver Creek, Ford reminded me that he and Betty were “pro-choice.” He criticized Bush Senior’s public avowal that he had come to oppose abortion rights. “I know damn well that he and Barbara are pro-choice,” Ford told me. “Why didn’t they get up and say it? That really disappointed me more than anything.” Ford’s comment, Bush says, was off the mark. “That’s wrong,” he says of Ford’s suggestion that Bush was secretly pro-choice. (Barbara Bush wrote about her own pro-choice views in her 1994 memoir.)
Bush 41 was not the only Republican successor Ford criticized in our talk. He complained that Ronald Reagan had cost him the 1976 election by challenging his nomination. Ford told me that in the spring of 1976, “we thought we would have a tough time [winning] anyhow, and then to get diverted for six months or more in a very rigorous [primary] campaign—it made it difficult to be president and campaign simultaneously.”
Ford said that during his fall campaign against Jimmy Carter, “the only time [Reagan] appeared with me … was when … we had a nice, vigorous rally [at a fund-raising dinner] in Los Angeles … He made no other campaign appearances on my behalf … I never understood that. If he had made an appearance in Ohio … Louisiana and Mississippi, we would have won, I’m sure.” Ford added: “I never asked him about it. There was no point … I can’t imagine him wanting Jimmy Carter to be president. What went through his mind, I don’t know.” (In fairness to Reagan, the ex-California governor did make TV spots for the Ford-Dole ticket that fall.)
Despite what he considered to be Reagan’s damage to his candidacy, Ford campaigned enthusiastically when Reagan was nominated against Jimmy Carter in 1980. “I felt that Carter had been so mediocre on domestic policy that we had to have a change,” Ford told me. Foreign policy, too: Ford speculated that he and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger “could have gotten the shah to handle his problems differently” to prevent Iran’s turn to Islamic fundamentalism.
After Reagan’s election, Ford was disappointed that, despite his contribution to the victory, the 40th president didn’t consult him “as much as I would have expected he would.” In our talk, Ford inveighed against Reagan’s budget deficits: “With all his pronouncements about needing to balance the federal budget, his eight years were about as bad as any in the history of the country.” Still, he conceded that as president, Reagan “did a much better job than I expected.”
Ford knew the best-known act of his own presidency would be Nixon’s pardon. He insisted to me he had no second thoughts: “I felt so strongly that I had to get this damn thing off my desk.” He admitted that “sure, I would have appreciated it” if, in return, Nixon had made a stronger statement confessing guilt for Watergate offenses, which would have helped shield Ford from the firestorm the pardon created.
In our conversation, Ford said he suspected that the reason Nixon had refused to sign such a confession was that Alexander Haig, the chief of staff he had inherited from Nixon, had tipped off his exiled old boss that Ford was going to pardon him. (Haig strongly denies this.) Ford said he was “shocked and saddened” when he discovered years later (from James Cannon’s 1994 book “Time and Chance”) “what the role of Al Haig turned out to be. At the time, I had no idea. I assumed he was totally loyal to me … I’m sure what Haig apparently transmitted to Nixon convinced Nixon that he didn’t have to make an outright admission of guilt.”
Historians will treat Ford kindly. A tough-minded politician, he was a decent man who came to symbolize an American longing for bipartisanship and courage. We may marvel that Ford could remain so good-hearted amid such a toxic political environment. In our talk, Ford recalled that when he was vice president during Watergate, his “old friend” Nixon kept offering him his private “personal assurance” that there was nothing to worry about. “‘Of course, Jerry, I had nothing to do with it! I was so preoccupied with foreign-policy decisions—the Soviets, China’.”
The 38th president looked directly at me and asked, “Wouldn’t you believe him?”
Who’s the “liar” now?
January 4th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
and now that i actually read it more closely again, i see that he WAS in fact critical of Bush Jr’s Iraq War, just not openly (and understandly so)
January 4th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
No, Jeff — you dumbshit. Prove what lies. Fer cryin’ out loud your stupid, and angry.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
You wrote this canard:
for a war that we were lied to about the reasons for going to war (numerous lies, had they actually just told the truths, fine)…
I said: Jeff, what lies? Prove it.
If you’re too hopped up on crack to sustain a conversation, just put the keyboard down.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
ah, well let’s see, WMD for one (oh wait you guys still believe that one)
had they just said it was to overthrow Saddam/regime change, i don’t think as many people would have been all up in arms (i know i wouldn’t have been, at least it would have been the truth).
that’s the thing, they gave us like 5-6 “reasons”, had they been honest and to the point, i know myself personally, i wouldn’t have been as annoyed.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
was logged in under my roomate, sorry
January 4th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
ah, well let’s see, WMD for one (oh wait you guys still believe that one)
had they just said it was to overthrow Saddam/regime change, i don’t think as many people would have been all up in arms (i know i wouldn’t have been, at least it would have been the truth).
that’s the thing, they gave us like 7-8 actual “reasons”, had they been honest and to the point, i know myself personally, i wouldn’t have been as annoyed. instead they tried to pad their reasoning with some known (and some that turned out to later be) lies & misleading information. so i should clarify, mislead & lied.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Sorry Jeff (or Kate)… I said tell me which lies, and prove it. Just claiming that something was a lie doesn’t cut it.
Did somethings turn out to be incorrect? Yes.
Were there lies? No.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Kyle, keep on living in your dream world my friend. The amount of dirt that will come out about this current administration in 2009 is going to be record breaking, you can quote me on that.
And fwiw, i thought you were referring to my comment about President Ford like RamseyRep was initially, sorry.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:12 am
also, i know you will never believe it, buy this one was a blatant lie, it was already proven to be false:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
This was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. The document was signed by an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect.
The ex-ambassador to the CIA sent to check out the story commented: “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” he told the New Republic (a right wing newspaper, i might add), anonymously. “They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly.”
January 5th, 2007 at 11:14 am
re: The New Republic, nm, i was thinking of a different publication that’s uber right wing, disregard my stab
January 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Jeff — you’re flat wrong on all accounts. And don’t ever quote Joe Wilson again. The only lies in this matter have come from that boob’s mouth.
Nice try. But, think again.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Right, i forget, you guys will never believe facts, no matter how they’re presented.
like i said, we’ll see come 2009 all the dirt that will fly regarding this Administration & Presidency.
man, i don’t mind conservatives, but ones who will defend this current admin & President until the end just boggle the mind.
Almost all of my conservative friends agree that Bush has been a terrible President.
January 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Jeff — first, state some facts. Then maybe they will be believed. Until then, you clearly don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
I’ll be waiting in 2009. My guess is, we’ll continue to see how wrong you and the liberal trash you listen to are.
I don’t mind liberals either. But ones who peddle the same discredited bullshit you’ve swallowed boggle my mind.
Probably time you find new friends. Good luck dip shit.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:24 am
wow, you’re so classy, i bet you have some really GREAT friends yourself
January 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Thanks Jeff. Yes, I do. And, unlike you’re buddies, they don’t sit around in an echo chamber whispering conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
why do you feel the need to use insults so loosely? you’d be taken a lot more seriously on both sides of the coin if you toned it down and wrote more rationally. just FYI
January 7th, 2007 at 8:39 am
You’re funny Jeff.