From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Hannity is desperate

September 30, 2004 8:48 PM

Bush did so poorly, Hannity isn't even talking about the debate. He's just dredging up old Kerry stuff.

More from the archive in Politics.

Hannity is desperate (09.30.2004)

Next Entry: Iraq's Prime Minister is working for the Bush campaign (09.30.2004)
Previous Entry: Nightline Poll (09.30.2004)

Read the 18 comments.


I can get more allies!

By the way allies, you are all a bunch of bribed inconsequential countries that I will pretend dont exist. But, "please join us in Iraq for a grand diversion." Oh and Prime minister Allawi you dont know what your talking and are unrealisitic, but when I'm President we will cooperate with each other. Oh yeah, almost forgot, Americans soldiers your doing a poor job on a war that was a mistake, now let me lead you to victory.

Thu Sep 30 2004 9:06 PM

raging red:

Wow, those are some really original thoughts, commenter who shall remain nameless. Not just parroting all of Bush's lines or anything, huh? Unless that WAS really you, Mr. President?

Thu Sep 30 2004 11:11 PM


This was an embarrassing and incoherent performance by Bush. It looked like he hadn't even prepared for the debate.

Fri Oct 1 2004 8:45 AM

evil for short:


I'm glad you speak for 30 Americans.

Fri Oct 1 2004 10:21 AM

Right Wing Robby:

You may have broken a blog record with all those threads back to back like that Jim.

Here is my analysis about the debate which I know your all waiting for with baited breath.

Firstly, there can be no question that Kerry looked and sounded much better. Bush looked tired and over worked. Kerry appeared more presidential which goes a long way and surely will re-energize his base that were beginning to throw in the towel.

One thing I don’t hear any liberals mentioning here or elsewhere are ideas and substance. I can make a used car look new and shiny and you may go home excited about how good it looked. Eventually, the hole in the muffler and the engine block oil leak are going to be found. Next thing you know your getting a ride to work from your friend in his rusty chevette.

Let me briefly touch on some points you all seem to be missing/ignoring.

1) We need China to help us with North Korea. Kerry doesn’t think so.

2) You can’t lead an army when the troops think your fighting a wasted war that is the wrong war, wrong place, and wrong time. Why some of you call that annoying, maybe you can explain how you ask a soldier to fight for something you don’t even believe in. I’ll look for the explanation on that one.

3) You can’t lead a coalition when you ignore their contributions and insult them for being bribed and coerced. How do you ask them to help you fight a war that you call a big distraction and a waste of time, lives and resources? Its just doesn’t work. What are you going to say, come waste your time with us? Please Jim or one of his minions, explain how you get around that.

Some things that Kerry said were just untrue.

1) John Kerry said, "They had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there”

Sorry John, you are completely wrong that didn’t happen. Where does he get his facts from?

2) Kerry said he never called the president a liar. This is a lie.

Kerry’s quote in Sept 2003 “The administration has lied to us. They have misled us and they have broken their promises to us.”

There is more, but I’ll spare you today. The point is that Kerry said little to nothing of value, he just looked good saying it. I would let the dust settle before claiming victory.

Fri Oct 1 2004 10:33 AM

Tom from Madison:

Since when is substance important Bushies?

Personally, I'm not too excited about whether Kerry CALLED Bush a liar. Bush IS a liar. That's what matters. He lied about Urananium from Niger, WMDs, the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, ....

I know the righties want to make a big deal about whether he really lied or just relied on bad intelligence. Personally, I think W is much smarter than some of my friends on the left believe. I think he knew the intelligence was a crock & decided that it wouldn't matter once Iraq was a flourishing democracy.

THIS WAS A GROSS MIS-CALCULATION! The lies he told and their consequences have come back to the President. He owns them can't explain away the quagmire. Happy talk about "democracy on the march" cannot change the reality of car bombs, beheadings, dead Iraqis, and dead US troops. The situation is getting worse. Bush is in denial. The American people are starting to notice that Bush world bears no resemblance to reality.

The debate was the first time the President has really been held accountable for 9/11, the outsourcing of the Afghanistan Hunt for Osama, and the Iraqi debacle. Bush didn't explain his position well because: a) he doesn't have the facts on his side & b) he isn't used to dealing with probing questions. Perhaps he would have done better if he'd practiced for the debates by having real press conferences instead of the dozen or so scripted events.

Fri Oct 1 2004 12:46 PM

Right Wing Robby:


So what your suggesting is that Bush is a genious and knew that there wouldn't be stock piles of WMD's in IRAQ while every intelligence agency and leader in the world didnt know the truth including John Kerry and Bill Clinton.

What your suggesting is that when Kerry said....

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

He was not lying, just dumb? We know he saw the same intelligence. There is a major problem with your arguement.

Fri Oct 1 2004 1:33 PM

Independent Jones:

Congratulations, Right Wing Robby, you managed to regurgitate the same tired sentences Bush was repeating last night which rely heavily on semantics. That's the most valuable tool of republican spin masters...semantics. They take someone else's words and make them mean what they want them to.

A) Kerry didn't say he didn't want China, he said we didn't NEED China, which is entirely subjective. Just because you say we need them, doesn't mean we do. Bush didn't really want international support to invade Iraq, why does he care so much about international support for North Korea? Is it because Iraq didn't have any real weapons and North Korea does? Or maybe North Korea is lacking in oil. Things that make you go hmmm...

B) If you listened at all to anything Kerry had to say you would have a much better grasp on his position. He was clear, concise and consistent, all the things the GOP say he's not. He says that the way in which the war was undertaken was the mistake, which has thrust our young soldiers into a long and costly battle. This is no aspersion on the soldiers. They are doing a job their president told them to. Kerry is not telling them they are being bad. He is telling them they have poor leadership at the very top and that he would try to exhaust all measures before rushing them into combat. But, he realizes we are in that combat now, and respects the job the soldiers are doing and wants to do everything in his power to improve the process in Iraq and get them home sooner and safer. I don't see anything wrong with a president being straight with his countrymen and his army. When you're asking young men and women to put their lives on the line, the least you can do is be honest with them. Once again it was the manner in which the war was engaged that is the problem - rush to judgement, poor planning, miscalculations, etc. As a soldier why would I want to fight a war for a man who is sending me out into the battle field with no clear plan or real strategy to get me out when I'm there.

C) You can't lead a coalition when you barely have one. When the international community balked at rushing to war, Bush decided that he didn't need the UN because the UN wasn't telling him what he wanted to hear. Well, we have the UN for a reason, and that is to keep countries from making these sorts of unilateral decisions that effect the entire global community. We're not talking about protecting national security. We're not talking about these walls in. We're talking about invading another country who has not provoked us beyond being obstinate. The consequences affect more than just us. Bush created a self-fulfilling prophecy when he said Iraq was a center of the war on terror. It wasn't before he invaded, but it sure is now. How do you lead a coalition when you announce to the world that it's our way or the highway, if you're not with us your against us. His position is that the whole world should be accountable except for us. No international criminal court, no nuclear weapons for any other country, but we get to build more. What message does that send to the world? Is that the sort of ideal that galvanizes the international community? Regardless of what you believe we need the world on our side, we won't survive with just the white folk. Bush has single handedly destroyed the international good will that was sent our way after 9/11, now that's quite a talent. Who would't want four more years of global polarization?

George Bush threw back a case of Bud, jumped behind the wheel of America and drove us into a big nasty ditch. I don't think he deserves, nor can we afford to give him, the chance to drive us out. A wrong turn is a wrong turn, no matter how steadfast you are in insisting it's the right direction. I'd rather have someone who can admit there was a mistake and have the cajones to look at a map and find the best route out.

Fri Oct 1 2004 1:40 PM

Right Wing Robby:


A) If North Korea does have weapons, why doesn't Kerry want help? Why would he exclude every country in the region? Does he want to wait till after the nuke test? He has attacked the President endlessly for lack of a coalition as you just did, then says we dont need one? How can a person say that we can take pre-emptive action if it passes the global test, then say we dont NEED the globe? That makes sense to you?

B)You dont see a President being straight with them? He has been on every side of every position on this war. He has agreed with what I believe, and he has disagreed with what I believe. He has agreed with what you believe and has disagreed with what you believe. There is nothing straight about that position. He does keep his position fresh and new rather then letting them get old and tired, I'll give you that much.

C) The UN has failed to prevent a single war ever. The sit by passing unbacked resolutions and getting NOTHING DONE. We are working on the Sudan issue with the UN, people are getting slaughtered and the UN wont do anything. What about Rowanda when 800,000 people were slaughtered? Where was your precious UN then? The UN passed 18 resolutions on Iraq and did nothing when Saddam broke EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Why do we have the UN? Thats a hell of a good question.

Fri Oct 1 2004 4:01 PM


"Bush looked tired and over worked."

No, Bush looked fresh and sometimes angry. But he was incoherent, like he hadn't prepared for the debate, or like he wasn't familiar with the topic and was just trying to keep everything abstract until his time was up. What he said was pure puffery, no substance to it whatsoever.

Fri Oct 1 2004 7:00 PM


wrong wing, your "analysis" sucks.

"1) We need China to help us with North Korea. Kerry doesn’t think so."

This was the most nonsensical statement Bush made. The reason Kerry called for bilateral talks is that the multiparty talks have been a roadblock for the North Koreans. They want to deal with us directly. Kerry is willing to do that in order to prevent North Korea from building nuclear weapons.

The rest of your statements are straight BS talking points from the RNC.

I don't have the transcript in front of me, but I believe Kerry actually said in the debate that he generally avoided using the term liar. I don't think he actually said that he never used the word ever.

Anyway, this is a total nitpick from a partisan zombie. When will you people start thinking for yourselves. I really am starting to think that someone pays you to go post these stupid ideas in the blogosphere.

I don't go over to Little Green Footballs and post my progressive ideas. I leave them to their ignorance over there. What drives you people to spread your BS theories where it is not welcome?

If it were up for community vote, I would encourage Jim to abandon the comments entirely or move to a community system like DailyKos. A reasonable discourse is one thing, but this BS cut-and-pasting of talking points from the RNC is offensive.

Fri Oct 1 2004 7:09 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Your right right wing robby...? The UN does suck. I mean it couldn't prevent the US from attacking when it DID NOT have recognized authority to do so, despite any claims to the contrary. The use of force resolution being drafted contained the caveat the the weapons inspectors must have complete unfettered access to all sites and materials. They did. Their reports didn't jive with what 'W' wanted to hear. So he acted alone, against the international community and made the UN irrelevent by his own actions.

Oh and here's one more reason the UN sucks, because the US has veto power as a permanent member. They've vetoed 14 resolutions condeming Israel on a multitude of issues. Guess thats why its irrelevant. 18 resolutions against Iraq... pushaw, I know a country that can beat that record hands down!!!!

* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return.

So when can I expect the tanks to be rolling into Tel Aviv for regime change? Dinner time tomorow?

Fri Oct 1 2004 9:01 PM

Independent Jones:

Okay, settle down there Robert. you don't want to have a coronary.

A) Again you are missing what Kerry said. He never said he doesn't want anyone else's help with North Korea. He said he doesn't need China in order to have talks. That's a far cry from barrelling in with artillery. What pray tell is the problem with having talks with the leader of another nation? Now please take a breath and actually answer my point...why does Bush need a international support for North Korea, but didn't care for it for Iraq? I'm getting really tired of republicans not answering questions. If you are so proud of Bush, then just explain why his plan for things is so great. Why is that so hard? You like the guy, right? So, why is it that you can only build him up, buy attempting to tear down others? Why can't you stay focused and on task?

B) No, the president we have in office is not being straight with the soldiers and is not being straight with America. I pay my taxes and I don't whine about it. Bush is a federal employee being paid to do a job by the American people and he should be held accountable. If we're in the shit, tell me we're in the shit. Then tell me you're working on a way to fix it. Don't blow smoke up my butt and parade you handpicked interim government as if it's the end all be all of manufactured democracy. Pretending there is not a problem, hoping we don't think there is a problem, doesn't mean the problem goes away. And for crying out loud, man, pay attention. Kerry very cohesively laid out his views in an understandible manner, which did not conflict with anything he has said. What groups of folks like you don't want to admit is that the issue is not black and white. it's not cut and dry. It's complicated and takes thought and reasoning, powers that Bush does not seem to possess. Kerry stated very plainly that Hussein was a threat (but not eminent, which is true) and needed to be disarmed, but he it needed to be done in a better way that the president chose. It needed to be done in a fashion that did not lose sight of the real war on terror. Now, if you are simply unable to glean those simple messages from Kerry, whether you agree with them or not, then I'm truly concerned about the state of todays educational system. It is not a waffle. It is not a flip-flop. So, again, please tell me how Bush is being straight with the troops by miscalculating the offensive.

C) The UN is evil seems to be your position. Nice. I suppose if you had it your way. We would be cowboys making our own rules and going it alone in the world. Terrible things are happening in the sudan and something needs to be done, so what are we, us who don't need the UN doing about it? Waiting for the rainy season to end, so we ship them some rice? If we are so effective on our own, then why are we committing billions to attacking and rebuilding a country that did not attack us, rather than help stave off rampant genocide. The answer is oil. The Sudan doesn't have what we want, there is no value in helping. so, why don't you climb down from that high horse before you fall off drunk with delusion.

And before you decide to put my handle in quotes, let me inform you that I call myself independent for a reason. I have always been a registered independent and always will be, because I share views with both major parties. (Pro capitol punishment, pro-choice, pro-military, pro-environment.) I just don't share George W. Bush's view of the world and our place within it. being an arogant nation is not going to win us any friends, in fact, the danger is that our arogance will make us an even bigger target.

Fri Oct 1 2004 9:34 PM

Independent Jones:

Damn, Mike came to fight. Let's hear it Robert.

Fri Oct 1 2004 9:36 PM


I see that Robert is responding in typical republican fashion: If they don't like the question, you won't get an answer.

Mon Oct 4 2004 10:58 AM

Right Wing Robby:

I give plenty of answers. But there is only so much back and forth I have time for. I do have a real job that occupies much of my time.

In regardes to North Korea, is their anything else the dictator would like us to do before we talk to him? Maybe jump through some hoops? Come on. We tried that before and he lied to us. Why go down the same failed path again?

I said my piece on the rest, I realize fully when I enter this site 99.9% of the readers disagrees with me.


"What drives you people to spread your BS theories where they are not welcome."

Come one now Paul. That isnt in the spirit of free and open debate. I realize I am of a minority viewpoint here, but that doesnt mean I shouldnt come here. Perhaps you enjoy sitting around where everyone agrees with you, but I would rather stir the pot. I am sure Jim can appreciate that, he has stirred a few pots in his day. Besides that, imagine this thread without me in it. I provide the spark that gets people thinking. Look at all the good hard thought that people put into this thread. That is truely a good thing. You may want to stifle free thought and opinion, but I encourage it.

Have a Nice Day

Mon Oct 4 2004 2:22 PM



Mon Oct 18 2004 2:36 AM



Mon Oct 18 2004 2:37 AM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart