Bowtie Boy weighs in: Tucker Carlson and "Who cares about Halliburton?"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Four excerpts from this entertaining, trivial little man...and his entertaining, trivial little blog on last night's debate.

1). Who cares about Halliburton?

Posted: 9:49 p.m. ET

Edwards is going off on Halliburton again. What a boor. Even if every single charge he makes it true, what the hell does any of it have to do with the war in Iraq -- why we went or what we're going to do now? Nothing.

2). Bad form

Posted: 10:02 p.m. ET

Why did John Edwards just bring up Dick Cheney's daughter? Bad form. Over the top, really.

3). Cheney on gay marriage

Posted: 10:00 p.m. ET

Brave answer from Cheney on gay marriage.

4). Why the world hates the U.S.

Posted: 9:28 p.m. ET

What a ludicrous argument Edwards is making. The rest of the world hates us because Bush is a liar? Please.

It's true that Bush is wildly unpopular in Europe. But the United States is distrusted abroad because of longstanding, bipartisan policies like support for Israel.

[shaolinmonkey]

1. What does Halliburton have to do with Iraq? Tucker, it's called

war profiteering, and it's illegal, immoral and just plain evil. He gave a no-bid contract to his own company as a political favor. It's corruption. Loosen the tie, tucker, it's cutting of the flow of blood to your brain.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Tucker's looking a little scruffy lately, no?

Looked like he hasn't bathed in a month last night.

[mac56]

3. Tucker, Donald Trump just called.

He wants his comb-over back.

[maine_raptor]

4. Tucker......Please!.......You're over the top, Really.

I mean it, really. Halliburton has NOTHING to do with why we went to war!!!! I mean, really, that is just too far out to even deal with. Are you just Nuts or Plain Ol'Crazy, which is it?



Note: The above commentary should be spoken in a high-pitched voice by a boyish looking man wearing a bowtie and mis-matched suit coat and shirt.

[redqueen]

5. Is he on CRACK?!

Cheney was one of the most outspoken proponents of going after Saddam! He was the one hammering at the intelligence agencies! It's blindingly obvious that he did it to garner fat no-bid contracts to generate massive war profits for his benefactors... I honestly didn't know Tucker was that stupid.

hahahaha... the US is distrusted because of longstanding blah blah blah... yeah right... they HATED us when Bill was pres.

What a MORAN!

[PCIntern]

6. He doesn't look well because

his fellating partner Novak is bedridden with that broken hip and Tucker can't get over the irony of Bobby being in bed but inaccessable to his tender ministrations. How sad.

Holy Safire, Batman!

[billybob537]

9. Novak's broken hip

Did he break it trying to get his head out of his ass?

[PCIntern]

14. Possibly,

but it really made my day, thinking of him writhing on the floor in agony. As a healthcare provider as they say, who is truly dedicated to the alleviation of suffering even among my RW patients, no lie, I couldn't help but be pleased that this happened - and I'm not that kind of guy. Novak has damaged so many decent people in a lifetime of slimy innuendo that he deserves this. To show you how much I hate him , I actually have more empathy for Cheney and his condition.

[mac56]

17. "The Douchebaggery Duo"!

NM

[slappypan]

7. Bow Tie Daddy - Frank Zappa and the Mothers

Bow tie daddy dontcha blow your top
Everything?s under control
Bow tie daddy dontcha blow your top
?cause you think you?re gettin? too old
Don?t try to do no thinkin?
Just go on with your drinkin?
Just have your fun, you old son of a gun
And drive home in your Lincoln

[KharmaTrain]

8. He's On "Auto-Spin"

After watching Mahrer, where Tucker almost came off as a human, it seems like he's not doing anything more these days than role playing. Yep, his wingnut comments are over-the-top most times, but I sense it's contrived and there are many times he says things you know no rational human...even Tucker can believe.

Of course Halliburton is gonna be downplayed, just like Democrats did with Whitewater (I know it's not the same type of issue, but it's the word that stuck in people's minds). There was some polling that showed Halliburton has a very poor name and Edwards using it was not only appropriate, it was a smart political move...connecting it with Ken Lay & Enron (I wish he had done more of that) was a double bonus.

Tucker's looking down the road...and where he's gonna fit in. If this regime is re-selected, he doesn't want to ruffle feathers, since he knows...first-hand...how going against the Rove machine can make one's life inside the beltway miserable, but he also is no kool-aid drinker and just caught up in the rhetorical games that is what his bosses at CNNservative want.

[ScreamingMeemie]

10. I care. n/t

[life_long_dem]

11. Moolah =sphincters.. oops. Spinsters

[gratuitous]

12. I'm guessing Tucker would care

If he was packing 40 pounds of gear, humping it down a dusty desert roadway, making sure that the passage was safe for the Halliburton driver making $80,000 a year tax-free.

[nyhuskyfan]

13. Ludicrous?

It seems to me that Bush's predecessor is rather popular when he travels abroad. So what happened in the last three years to change most of that? Oh yeah - Bush lied us into war and alienated the world.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. To answer Mr. Carlson's question

Even if every single charge he makes it true, what the hell does any of it have to do with the war in Iraq -- why we went or what we're going to do now? Nothing.

It didn't? Well, let's see.

If we believe the Bushies, we went into Iraq to rid Saddam of his biochemical arsenal and because Saddam had an active and extensive relationship with al Qaida. The problem is that neither is true; that leaves the question whether the Bushies knew it was false and deliberately lied or whether the intelligence was just wrong.

I go for the former theory. One does not set up a department in the Pentagon like to OSP to cull information and suppress inconvenient bits of intelligence if one is intent on using all the facts and allowing the chips to fall where they may. If one is intent on making a decision based on facts, then one does not send leading White House aides like Dick Cheney to Langley to oversee the writing of intelligence reports in order to get the ambiguous statements out and make them more certain of Saddam's capabilities than the actual intelligence warrented. One does not insert a charge about Saddam's attempts to buy yellow cake uranium into the State of the Union address when one knows the charge rests on a crudely forged document. The intelligence was bad because the neocons wanted it bad; good intelligence did not serve their purpose.

So why did we go into Iraq? If all the stated reasons were false, and those stating them knew they were false, then they must have had ulterior movtives. These would be to open up Iraq's economy to investment by transnational corporations. US troops protected the oil fields and the oil ministry in Baghdad as they overran Iraq, but nothing else.

It looks to me like the reasons for invading Iraq had a lot to do with transnational corporations like Halliburton.

[terrya]

16. Tuckie boy continues to plumb the depths of assholeness.

"Why did John Edwards just bring up Dick Cheney's daughter? Bad form. Over the top, really."

It's called graciousness, Tuckie. Edwards offered a very nice comment to Cheney. I thought it was a nice gesture on Edwards' part.