Thursday, November 30, 2006
1) R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me
The Jim Webb incident has generated a lot of talk and I'm wondering what it all means. The right-wing echo chamber is all over Webb's supposed "rudeness" and "boorishness" (they seem to have forgotten how one Sen. Jesse Helms effectively threatened Bill Clinton's life) and his lack of "respect."
If you have read these pages, you know that "respect" for George Walker Bush is a scarce commodity around here, and our contempt is well-justified. This is nothing new of course. Go back and see our 16th president referred to as "the original gorilla" and mercilessly caricatured in the cartoons of the day.
My question though--is there any validity to the old saying, "I don't respect the man, but I respect the office?" Is that possible, and if so, what does it mean?
… I get tired, just a little bit, keep on tryin' (just a little bit), you're runnin' out of foolin' (just a little bit) and I ain't lyin' (just a little bit)
2) Isn't it remarkable that it is the Democrats' responsibility to solve George's mess when they haven't even been sworn in yet?
3) It looks like the much-hyped "Baker Report" will be warmed-over nonsense and people will just keep dying. It will speak in vaguely-defined platitudes and indefinite objectives--and people will keep dying.
4) Speaking of death, remind me to take al-Maliki in next year's dead pool (if he's still eligible, this is a tough month for him).
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Department of State advises that the use of the phrase "civil war" in Iraq is not appropriate. Based on our review of events in Iraq, we have determined the proper terms to use. From now on, the conflict will be referred to as:
1) a "Kerfuffle"
2) Explode-y Tag
3) Iraqi PUNK'D!
5) Sectarian Slapdown
6) Damned ungrateful A-Rabs!
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
"We will work together" is the heady plaudit we now hear from both parties. If this was at all possible, why was this affirmation not forthcoming from the Democrats who never ceased to give the president total uncooperation? What is really meant is, "Now you can do things OUR way-cooperate, or else!" Elephants have great memories and can be stubborn too.
Oh Elizabeth! Clearly, the last time you poked your head out of the sand you heard moderate GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush stating that he was a compassionate conservative and a uniter, rather than a divider. That was a long, long time ago, and since then things have changed somewhat. The GOP gained total control of both houses of congress over two election cycles ago. That's when George and Dick took off the sheep's clothing and revealed themselves to be Drinky McLiar and Darth Cheney. Drinky went on to lose his veto pen for a record period of time, allowing the GOP-controlled congress to spend all of your children's inheritance. In return, congress allowed Drinky and Darth to make a mockery of the constitution while sacrificing life and limb of America's youth (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis) to make the world safe for Wall Street, Halliburton and Exxon. During all this time the "uncooperation" of the neutered Democrats amounted to a couple of judicial filibusters in the senate. The GOP response was to threaten to do away with the filibuster!
Fortunately, enough of America had their heads out of the sand and their ears open over the past four years and found that a GOP-controlled government (like a unitary executive) is a really BAD idea. That "Cooperate, or else" that you're hearing is coming from the PEOPLE who voted the criminals and the liars out of office. You see, it turns out that progressives have long memories too.
So Elizabeth, thanks for sharing. Now you can feel free to
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
(link) The United States will not withdraw its forces from Iraq before its mission of building a stable democracy is complete, President Bush said Tuesday. "There is one thing I’m not going to do. I am not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."Oh my God. Could this man possibly be any more detached from reality?
He added that
“There’s a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al-Qaida...No, George, it's not al-Qaida, it is a home-grown, completely foreseeable civil war that YOU caused. He stumbled on that
“When you see a young democracy beginning to emerge in the Middle East, the extremists try to defeat its emergence,” Bush said. “Extremists attack because they can’t stand the thought of a democracy. And the same thing is happening in Iraq.”No again, George. This is not a "young democracy." This is a failed occupation decorated with faux "elections" for show. None of the elements of statehood are present, the regime is absolutely devoid of legitimacy and no further sacrifice of blood and treasure on the part of the United States can change those two basic facts.
For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Friedman, he is one of the supposed "liberal hawks" on the war. He was a gung ho supporter of U.S. intervention, and believed such action could be justified solely by regime change alone. Imminent threats or UN resolution defiance were unnecessary adornments in Tom's world.
Well, Mr. Friedman has basically spent the last 18 months telling us to ignore what he wrote for the previous 18 months, as regime change has turned into an ever-worsening nightmare. This morning, on the Today show, Tom told us that the blame for this disaster falls squarely on the shoulders of the Sunni Iraqis who have not accepted "the verdict of this war."
Think about that one for a second. We should blame those who have not embraced the invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign power, coupled with the imposition by that alien power of a stooge government where Shi'a death squads operate with impugnity under that government's (at least nominal) authority.
I doubt many would blame them for not accepting that "verdict."
"We fight to avoid a Sunni victory which may lead to an Al-Qaeda dominated caliphate that will use Iraqi oil revenue to purchase the nuclear bombs that will be used to commit an American Hiroshima. Any questions?"
Just one, Terry--how do you feed yourself?
Ladies and gentlemen, Retard America.
Monday, November 27, 2006
WASHINGTON - NBC News Monday branded the Iraq conflict a civil war—a decision that put it at odds with the White House and that analysts said would increase public disillusionment with the U.S. troop presence there. NBC said the Iraqi government's inability to stop spiraling violence between rival factions fit its definition of civil war.In a related announcement, NBC News Monday branded the Golden Gate a "bridge" and the Statue of Liberty a "statue."
(link) Eager to begin refurbishing his tattered legacy, the President hopes to raise $500 million to build his library and a think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Bush lived in Dallas until he was elected governor of Texas in 1995. Bush sources with direct knowledge of library plans told the Daily News that SMU and Bush fund-raisers hope to get half of the half billion from what they call "megadonations" of $10 million to $20 million a pop...The legacy-polishing centerpiece is an institute, which several Bush insiders called the Institute for Democracy. Patterned after Stanford University's Hoover Institution, Bush's institute will hire conservative scholars and "give them money to write papers and books favorable to the President's policies," one Bush insider said.That's odd, I thought we already had lasting memorials to the Bush legacy
I have stories, oh, do I have stories, from my sojourn into Red State America, but unfortunately, for the sake of domestic tranquility, I can't share most of them here. But one very quick one--I went with my 15-year old son to see Borat. It is as funny and as grotesquely inappropriate as you have heard. The next morning, the local paper runs a column on said film by the loathsome Jonah Goldberg. A Limbaugh-Hannity listening [unnamed] family member showed it to me and asked if I had read it. I said, politely, "no--considering the source." Unnamed Family Member responds, "Why, because he's CONSERVATIVE?" Again as politely as possible I responded, "no, because he's an IDIOT!"
But some leftovers for a delicious dessert, courtesy of Gadflyer and Tapped:
Democrats 39,267,916 (57.7%)
Republicans 28,464,092 (41.8%)
Democrats 31,405,754 (53.7%)
Republicans 24,920,212 (42.6%)
"This is presumably the first cycle since the modern party system began that no party (in this case the Dems) lost not a single House, SEN, or GOV seat."
Now THAT'S happy!