« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »
June 30, 2005
Spielberg kicked my ass today
Forget for a moment that Tom Cruise has been a monumental whackjob of late with a case of verbal hubris that makes you want to reach through your TV and smack him.
Get your ass to your local theatre and go see War of the Worlds.
Most people know the plot and premise of War of the Worlds. This afternoon at my local movie house, Spielberg blew my mind with it.
Tom Cruise plays a father who can't seem to figure out how to be even a weekend dad. Then the alien ships come from under the ground and start blowing things up and it's every family for themselves. The film is less than 20 minutes old before all hell breaks loose. Cruise is forced to take his progeny and run away. Except there's no place to hide.
The tension in this movie is so thick that I caught myself gripping the armrests of my seat throughout the film. The visuals are brilliantly creative and practically jump off the screen. The cinematography is spellbinding. Spielberg proves once again that he's one of the greatest directors ever.
What really got to me though was the sound. The wailing of the alien tripod ships as they attack or call the aliens back to the ship is bone chilling. The quiet dripping of water during the scenes in the basement when the alien is searching for the people is creepy. The sounds of destruction as the aliens are attacking are some of the best auditory sequences I've ever experienced on film.
This is one kick ass movie. It's definitely worth the full fare to see it. Don't wait for the video, either. This is a big screen, big theatre film.
Posted by Carla at 04:19 PM |
Wide World of Sports, target vomiting edition
"ANOTHER bullseye!"
"How can he do it? that's 7 projectile-vomit bullseyes in succession, a new world's record!"
"The only possible explanation is that he's just read this:"
"After months of anticipation, millions of votes, and heated debate, you, the people have spoken and Ronald Reagan is the 'Greatest American.'"
"EIGHT STRAIGHT! UNBELIEVABLE!"
Posted by Jeff at 11:37 AM |
Oliphant on the Elephant King
Oliphant hits the mark:
via TJ at AlsoAlso, who hits the mark as well:
I know the fashionably liberal blog response seems to be outrage at Bush's conflation of 9/11 and Iraq. But that is such old news, and I actually think it's turning into a negative for him, or at least subject to rapidly diminishing returns. No, what really caught my attention from the speech was "It's worth it."
I'm racing my way through Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz today, so I'm keenly observant that the problem I'm having here is probably one about me--but my first thought on those words from the President was literally "you miserable fucker--what would you know about it?" What galls me is the presumption about something that is ultimately individual and personal. All of the sunny crap that we're turning the corner and things are moving well ahead--that's his call to make those statements, and if I don't believe them then I don't, but he's certainly got a big right to his opinion on the matter. But it truly shows supreme disregard to to declare for those who have really made a concrete and brutal sacrifice, that it was worth it. And to say so, knowing how tenuous even this level of instability might be? I couldn't believe the nerve.
I hadn't really looked at Bush's speech from that perspective until I read TJ here. I'm certainly not surprised at the arrogance of Bush's remarks. It's typical Wspeak hubris. The fact that a guy whose father pulled strings to keep him out of Vietnam and couldn't finish the cakewalk TANG service his father did get him manages to be the guy whose colored as the Uber Patriot Troop Supporter is a tribute to GOP marketing prowess (hows that for a run-on sentence..?).
I think the speech is having the opposite effect than what was intended. It seems like Iraq war morale is lower now, rather than the upswing that Bush/Rove had hoped for.
Oddly, Tony Blair is dancing on the heads of his cabinet much the way Bush is dancing on the graves of dead Americal soldiers:
"The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document," he said. "It would be absolutely weird if, when the Iraq issue was on the agenda, you were not constantly raising issues, trying to work them out, get them in the right place," he said.
So release to the public all the government records having to do with the decision making in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. Problem solved.
In the meantime, stop sniveling:
Despite his strong linkage of the Iraq campaign to the Sept. 11 attacks, Blair denied that the decision to go to war had been fixed long before it was carried out. He said the so-called "Downing Street memos," which suggest the Bush administration had made up it mind to invade by 2002, painted a distorted picture.
"People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken," he said.
Then you'd better fire your cabinet, Tony. The noise from them NOT denying the content of the Downing Street memos is deafening.
Posted by Carla at 11:29 AM |
The other thing I obsess about
Kevin knows that I sometimes obsess about this blog. I worry about the traffic and the links and if the writing is good. I nitpick to myself about it's appearance and things we should change.
These traits seem to translate well into the garden.
Yesterday I spent enough time out in my garden to warrant a sunburn. Given the weather we've had of late (cool, rainy, cloudy) that's a feat all by itself.
I had the raised beds built in the late winter this year. I've always had veggie garden space in this area of my yard but it's been hell to weed. These stack stone beds work great.
I've discovered sweet peas this year, too. The pastel ones that I planted in the pot are past their peak, but the bold colors are peaking right now:
I've been cutting those flowers for the last two weeks and putting them all around my house. They make my house smell amazing.
And now that the weather is finally warming up maybe my roses will do something. And I really need to weed a couple of those beds.
Obsess. Obsess. Obsess.
Posted by Carla at 08:44 AM |
Thank you sir, may I have another?
First a New York GOP state legislator refers to his constituency as pontificating idiots.
Now GOP Congressman Peter King is taking his turn with the voters.
Discussing constituent complaints about the language of his response letters:
"I think they should be honored they have a congressman who actually listens to them -- even if they are not making sense"
I've been to New York just one time. Maybe I haven't been exposed enough to that famous New York rudeness and abrupt manner that we hear about out here on the west coast.
Is it customary for constituents to enjoy their Republican elected officials showing public disdain for them? Do New Yorkers bend over and grab their ankles for this process?
Posted by Carla at 08:22 AM |
June 29, 2005
Justice is served?
Last week I wrote about the appalling ruling by the Supreme Court which perverts eminent domain's constitutional basis and clear purpose.
To recap: a narrow majority of the SCOTUS ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development on the theory that the resulting higher tax revenue justifies it and meets the 5th amendment's stipulation of "public."
Justice Souter may be regretting his participation in that ruling as I type these words.
A reader at INDC Journal posted a link to this Freestar Media report:
Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Two days ago Logan Clements, CEO of Freestar, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. As it happens that property is where Justice Souter's house stands... for now. Obviously a hotel on that same parcel of land has the potential to generate more tax revenue for the Towne of Weare than Justice Souter is paying.
Clements claims to be deadly serious about wanting to build a hotel where Souter's house stands. But, his sarcasm is hard to miss when he describes this future hotel:
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
I'm skeptical of the hypothesis that somehow two wrongs make one right. But this seems pretty damn appropriate to me, even so.
Posted by Kevin at 08:44 PM |
Crucified!!
Jeffrey Feldman at FRAMESHOP has discovered the real problem undermining America: the persecution of Christians!
Feldman has his finger on the pulse of this issue..asking a series of probing questions sure to enlighten the nation to this growing problem.
I've posted a few here. Go read the rest:
1.Can anyone think of a day in our national calendar when Federal and State offices are closed because of a Christian Holiday?
2.Can anyone think of one President or Vice President, or any member of the President's cabinet who was a church-going Christian?
3.Can anyone name a Representative or Senator in Congress who has not been forced to resign once he or she became openly Christian?
4.Can anyone think of a state level representative who openly practices Christianity?
5.Can anyone think of a state or federal judge who has been appointed to the bench or elected despite being Christian?
6.Can anyone think of any U.S. diplomats who retained their jobs once it was discovered that they were raised Christian?
7.Can anyone think of any Christian symbols that are mounted and celebrated in our nation's capital on an annual basis?
8.Can anyone think of a single town in America where it is safe to attend a Christian church?
9.Can anyone think of a single place in America where Christian Churches have not been the subject of regular abuse from the public?
10.Can anyone think of a single U.S. University that does not have a quota system to guard against the hiring of too many Christian professors?
Posted by Carla at 07:01 PM |
Oops
A New York state lawmaker says he's embarrassed, after he mistakenly sent out an e-mail message that referred to his constituents as "idiots."
Assemblyman Willis Stephens says he thought he was sending the e-mail to an aide. Instead, he sent the note to nearly 300 people on an online discussion group that focuses on the community of Brewster.
The message included the comment that he was -- quote -- "Just watching the idiots pontificate."
Within an hour of sending the message Monday morning, Stephens sent another e-mail apologizing for the slip-up.
Stephens, a Republican, represents an area north of New York City.
Watching the idiots pontificate? He must spend a lot of time in front of the mirror.
Posted by Carla at 04:35 PM |
DeLay advocates for minimum wage
Without realizing it, Tom DeLay makes the main argument for minimum wage. When discussing the House's vote to give itself a pay raise, Delay remarked:
"It's not a pay raise," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "It's an adjustment so that they're not losing their purchasing power."
Far be it for the House of Representatives to lose their "purchasing power". Odd that this doesn't translate to minimum wage workers.
Posted by Carla at 04:28 PM |
Hipwaders required
AP:
The Labor Department worked for more than a year to maintain secrecy for studies that were critical of working conditions in Central America, the region the Bush administration wants in a new trade pact.
The contractor hired by the department in 2002 to conduct the studies has become a major opponent of the administration's proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
The government-paid studies concluded that countries proposed for free-trade status have poor working environments and fail to protect workers' rights. The department dismissed the conclusions as inaccurate and biased, according to government and contractor documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
The Senate Finance Committee approved the CAFTA agreement by voice vote today, sending it on to the full Senate.
The Labor Department found the need to keep this taxpayer funded study secretive because it was "innacurate and biased". If it was so riddled with inaccuracies..why not show the "accurate and unbiased" studies to prove it wrong, thus showing CAFTA to be the correct thing to do?
This article cuts a wide swath of bullshit.
Posted by Carla at 04:15 PM |
Apples and Trees
Off and on over the last few years, I've been researching my family history.
Most of the research I've done is on my mother's side (My father's family history is already pretty well documented).
Yesterday in a futile effort waiting for the sun to make an appearance, I went tiptoeing through my hard drive looking over some of the old family photos that I've scanned during my research.
These are my great grandparents, Francis and Grace. This photo is circa 1932. Grandma Grace is the woman I wrote about last Thanksgiving.
These two girls are Francis and Grace's children. On the left is my Grandmother Mary, my mother's mother. And on the right is my Great Aunt Claire (circa 1932). Mary was a beautiful child and a very beautiful woman. She had a tough life though, much of it by her own choosing. I wasn't close to her at all. But looking at that photo today reminded me of this one:
That's me at age 2, almost 3. I always was a bit of a show off. And I noticed that my apple doesn't fall far from Grandma Mary's tree. Notice the family resemblance?
And who the heck was cutting my bangs???
Posted by Carla at 08:22 AM |
June 28, 2005
Bush's speech by the numbers
You can view the speech in it's entirety by clicking here, courtesy of ThinkProgress.
References to 9/11: 5
References to "war on terror"/"fight against terror": 4
"terrorists": 19
"insurgents": 5
United Nations: 1
Coalition: 8
NATO: 2
"freedom": 21
"tyranny": 4
Moments of speechified irony:
The terrorists who attacked us – and the terrorists we face – murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.
And evidently have a hand in organizing Bush's "Town Hall" style events.
We are improving roads, and schools, and health clinics … and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.
We invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" (WAR OVER!) on May 1, 2003. Saddam was captured on December 13, 2003. We did the "handover of power" one year ago today. And we still don't have the lights working properly or have the toilets flushing correctly? Basic sanitation is still not where it should be? And Bush calls this "progress"? Yikes.
Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed – and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power.
Privileges? Unchecked power? Now where have I heard that before?
They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society – a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law.
Oops..not so much on the free speech thing, as Muqtada al-Sadr and Al Jazeera found.
The Department of Defense has set up a website – AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community.
Cuz the public efforts are falling by the wayside...tax cuts, don'tcha know.
Jeff was right on the 9/11 references, incidentally. Way to go, Jeff!
And while we're at it, Harry Reid gives em hell (via Kos):
"Tonight's address offered the President an excellent opportunity to level with the American people about the current situation in Iraq, put forth a path for success, and provide the means to assess our progress. Unfortunately he fell short on all counts.
"There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President's Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. "Staying the course," as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek.
"The President's numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq, they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and Al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America.
"Democrats stand united and committed to seeing that we achieve success in Iraq and provide our troops, their families, and our veterans everything they need and deserve for their sacrifices for our nation. The stakes are too high, and failure in Iraq cannot be an option. Success is only possible if the President significantly alters his current course. That requires the President to work with Congress and finally begin to speak openly and honestly with our troops and the American people about the difficult road ahead.
"Our troops and their families deserve no less."
Posted by Carla at 06:40 PM |
Prognosticating W's Speech
Bush's speech tonight promises to be one of those "rah-rah" affairs to attempt to drum up support for his Iraq War in the face of plummeting approval ratings.
Jeff is predicting that the word/phrase of the night will be "9/11".
Given that tonight is all about making happy talk on Iraq, I'm predicting it will be "war on terror" or perhaps "democracy".
What's your prediction? Leave your ideas in comments.
I'll post the lucky word/phrase later tonight or in the morning..with transcript snippets of the speech.
Update:
Tonight's TV listings (Eastern time):
Bush (ABC, 8 pm).
"Lie Detector" (PAX, 8 pm).
"Armageddon" (FX, 8 pm).
"The Boy in the Plastic Bubble" (TVLAND, 8 pm).
Posted by Carla at 03:21 PM |
Scum begets scum
The morally challenged gang of White House thugs are "puzzled" that Democrats are demanding an apology from douchebag-at-large, Karl Rove:
"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said, contending the comments weren't aimed at all Democrats. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."
Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn't apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and some Democrats who questioned that approach.
I've got your "philosophical divide" right here, assholes.
Karl doesn't get to shovel his brand of hate laced bullshit on top of half the population of this country without apologizing.
You want to stand behind Karl on this, boys? Fine. Be prepared for the blowback. There's no truth behind Karl Rove's words. Only inflammatory rhetoric set to cripple this nation into the fetal position of fear.
I realize you guys are trying to backpeddle a bit now...stating Rove was only referring to the "fringe" like MoveOn (which has nothing to do with fringe..so stop pretending) but that isn't what Rove said nor is it what he meant. You're caught.
So by all means...stand next to Rove. And when the next election cycle comes up, the left will use your photos with Karl and your words backing his spew...and the Dems can take back the House.
Will you want your crow with ketchup or do your prefer Tabasco?
Update: Orcinus' excellent essay talks about "Liberal Hunting Permits" bumperstickers and how the right from Rove to Coulter to Malkin to DeLay are all about completely ending liberalism. The "edgy" commentary from folks like these becomes conventional wisdom...just like "Jap Hunting" permits became conventional wisdom during WW2.
Posted by Carla at 12:45 PM |
All news is good news, for now
Last evening I blogged on the Downing Street Memos receiving front page treatment for this morning's Washington Post.
Even with conservatives trying to turn this anvil into a way to blow sunshine up our asses or sticking fingers in their ears to hope DSM will just go away (incidentally I'm referring to the comments on that post, not the post itself..there's no permalink for comments), it continues to dog Bush.
This morning's Post efforts offer no insights that have not already been discussed. The piece is essentially a timeline and summation of the memos. The key thing is that they're sitting smack on the front page rather than hidden down below the fold in the back of section A.
Nice.
The Wall Street Journal's Christopher Cooper did Downing Street up today as well.
Cooper credits lefty bloggers (specifically a group of six Daily Kos people) for getting the issue up and running. The Big Brass Alliance merits no mention. Cooper tries to paint the efforts to keep DSM on the media radar a strictly a fly by night operation rather than a concerted effort by over 600 blogs.
He also refers to Conyers hearings on the matter as "mock hearings", conveniently leaving out the fact that Sensenbrenner banned the hearings from the Capitol.
Even with Cooper's slanted reporting, the WSJ felt compelled to report on the memos. And even with the story buried on page A4, the fact that conservative journalism is paying attention is a victory.
Attention=Victory.
Posted by Carla at 11:54 AM |
Skip the speech, read the transcription now!
Not sure what W can do to fire up the base anymore, but he's about to give it a go tonight. Rove probably has him running down the talking points all day today.
I'm sure it will be something like:
"brave soldiers here got my back
you're with us or with the terr'ists
9/11
Praise Jesus
freedom is on the march
stay the course
buy stuff or you're the enemy
Hillary Clinton
9/11
freedom isn't free
new nucular weapons
Amurka held hostage
Iran, you're next
we will make no distinction between terr'ists and those who harbor terr'ists (except Pakistan or them other 'stans)
Osama bin Laden
Steroids!
patriot act
9/11
homeland security
thousand points of light
Zarqawi
liberals
Hitler
Democrats
Mars!
liberals
Nazis
Jimmy Carter
9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11! 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11!"
See, I've saved you and the transcriptionist lots of time already. Watch "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" tonight instead.
Posted by Jeff at 08:51 AM |
Then and Now (Iraqi Sovereignty Edition)
THEN: A year ago, Bush scribbled "Let Freedom Reign" on a note handed to him by Condoleezza Rice during a NATO meeting, when his then national security adviser informed him that a handover ceremony had formally ended the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
NOW: Tonight, Bush will scribble and hand Condi a note saying "I'm wearing a thong. How 'bout you?"
Posted by Jeff at 07:54 AM |
Secretary of the Painfully Obvious
Snow says oil prices hurting economy
Record high oil prices are beginning to take their toll on the U.S. economy, but not enough to halt or reverse the recovery, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Tuesday.
"Energy prices are way too high," Snow said on CNBC television. "Clearly, it's hurting."
Dude -- pray harder and clap louder! In other news, water is still wet; sharks bite; and Bush lied.
Posted by Jeff at 07:46 AM |
June 27, 2005
Wa Po:DSM gets front page treatment/timeline
The early edition of The Washington Post offers up a timeline and synopsis of the Downing Street Memos.
It's long, detailed and ON THE FRONT PAGE.
I've scanned the piece but it's very late here and I need to be off to bed.
I'll attempt to get commentary up on the piece tomorrow. But feel free to offer your own in comments if the spirit moves.
Posted by Carla at 11:33 PM |
Quoted
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9-11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban. In the wake of 9-11, the liberals believed it was time to submit a petition." --Karl Rove, in the throes of "Oh, God, Did I Just Say That Out Loud?"
Dear Karl: Where's Osama?
Until you boys actually catch the terrorists and stop rattling sabers over nations that had nothing to do with 9/11, I suggest you put a sock in it.
Contact the White House at this link and ask them where Osama is. Do it every day, email, snail mail, however you want. Demand an apology for this crap. Enough already.
Posted by at 06:38 PM |
DSM getting House Floor discussion
Conyers, Waters and Lee have
sent out a letter to House Democrats:
June 24, 2005
Dear Democratic Colleague:
Please join the 'Out of Iraq' Caucus this Tuesday, June 28th for a
Special Order hour on the Downing Street Minutes. The Democratic hour
for these remarks is scheduled for the second hour of the Special
Orders, which will commence immediately after votes for the day have
ended
Over the past month, 128 Members of Congress, along with some 560,000
citizens have sent letters to the President demanding a response to
reports of a pre-war deal between Great Britain and the United States
and to evidence that pre-war intelligence was intentionally
manipulated. All of these letters have gone unanswered.
Given the importance of these matters, we believe it is incumbent upon
Congress to discuss these issues in a public and forthright manner. We
hope you will join us in this hour of Special Orders.
To reserve time during the Special Order, please contact Stacey Dansky
or Adam Cohen of the Judiciary Committee staff at 225-6906. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Maxine Waters
Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Barbara Lee
Member, Committee on International Relations
Make sure your Congresscritter is attending. Call their office and have them contact the House Judiciary Committee staff:
Phone: 1-877-762-8762
Email: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/39
Let's roll.
Posted by Carla at 02:13 PM |
Simple question, simplified answer
"If the War in Iraq was all about oil, how come gas prices are still so high?"
This was a comment I read somewhere recently. To that commenter, and anyone else who needs it spelled out:
Gas prices are still high because the oil companies charge as much as they can possibly get away with. That's what corporations do.
The oil companies are lovin' every minute of this eternal War on Terra. What, you think they could just jack up gas prices 50%+ overnight and get away with it, without some excuse the general public would swallow?
If there's a war, there'll be war profiteers. If there's peace, the war-mongers will always be looking for other profit opportunities. William Rivers Pitt has an excellent post about our military-industrial complex.
Rumsfeld says 12 years may be necessary to defeat the insurgency; damn that's some hellified "last throes"! Is that how long we'll take to complete the Green Republic of FUBAR in the Green Zone? But how long can it stand, as an island surrounded by hostile territory?
Long enough for Exxon to post a few more quarters of record-breaking profits. Count on THAT.
Posted by Jeff at 11:31 AM |
Obligatory Monday-expletive-laden post
Karl Rove. Two 4-letter words in a row. I've worked with 2 other guys with two 4-letter names, and both were total assholes. Can't explain why, it just is.
Anger can be power. The Clash said so.
"It's nice to know that as my wife and I both go to put our lives on the line for THEIR lies, he has the audacity to use our sacrifice for his benefit, and his political gain by impugning our political philosophy... I think its time for these Neo Cons to put their ass, or the ass or their sons or daughters, on the line, in gear, in Iraq."
It does indeed seem Rove's timing is the introductory war-cry of Campaign 2006, wherein all enemies of the BushCo state -- party affiliation notwithstanding -- will be smeared, slandered, "framed", whipped into line, deemed enemy combatants, or just plain tried for treason. And worst of all, called "liberal".
Posted by Jeff at 11:25 AM |
Obligatory Tombstone post
Like the Preacher said, every blogger gets one post about leaf-blowers, or something unbelievably mundane or apropos of nothing. Tombstone was on the other night, so --
Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Ringo, Doc?
Doc Holliday: A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of himself. And he can never steal enough, or kill enough, or cause enough pain to fill it up. And so he walks the earth, forever seeking revenge...
Wyatt Earp: Revenge for what?
Doc Holliday: For being born.
Explains a lot about... oh, I don't know, any current hate-spewing religious or political figures come to mind?
Posted by Jeff at 11:19 AM |
Special Delivery to Karl Rove
Dear Karl:
I wonder which day you woke up deciding to hate your country.
Last week, you made comments so vile and hatefilled that your boss, had he any scruples, should have fired you immediately.
You are a disgusting, wretched pile of human filth. Your attempts to use 9/11 to pad the polling numbers of your lying boss and his garbage spewing cohorts won't work. We're on to you.
On the morning of 9/11 ALL AMERICANS awoke to find their country under attack. All of us..liberals, conservatives, independents..whatever...ALL were struck on that day. The difference is that you and your boss saw it as a political opportunity instead of the crime against this nation that it was. And that's what it was, Karl. A crime. And you guys have failed to catch the perp.
I know that you've had your share of media darling attention. You'll do anything to win. You have no moral or ethical compass. It's also pretty clear that you have a more than casual need to compensate. That's a powerful combination. I guess living with yourself isn't something you need to worry about except for the few hours during the middle of the night when you're alone...dealing with what little conscience you might posess.
So listen up you traitorous douchebag. I love this country so much that I'm willing to live my principles and fight for what I believe in. Unlike yourself..I don't hide behind the apron strings of anyone. I'm calling you out.
I want you to come here and say that shit to my face. You look me in the eye and tell me that I'm "weak" when it comes to fighting for the survivial of my nation. Bring your sorry ass to my town and at least pretend to have some manhood. But be ready. I'm not taking your shit lying down. I may be a woman..but I'm completely prepared to knock you into next week. Don't think I can't do it.
It's time for you to do a gut check, Karl. You want to see weak? Look in the mirror. It's your side that went to Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan. It's your side that has turned Iraq into a hotbed of terrorist activity. It's your side who give lipservice to "supporting the troops" while finding every conceivable way to screw them sideways.
Your side Karl. You're the ones who sent our troops on a trumped up mission into Iraq without the proper equipment. It's your side that's defunding veterans benefits. It's your side that's failed to capture or kill Bin Laden. Your disdain for our military is obvious. Waving that flag looks good on Fox...but it doesn't do the guy who's had half his face blown off a damn bit of good.
You owe this country an apology. And not just for that spew from the other night. You owe us an apology for all the shit you've pulled over the last six years...foisting the inept Bush Administration onto us. You put our nation in a constant state of fear, using it to erode the rights of Americans.
If there is a Heaven and a God who runs the place...he's looking down on your deeds. I'll bet he's wondering which special place in Hell his competition has set aside for you.
Love,
Carla
Posted by Carla at 09:09 AM |
June 26, 2005
Well it's 1-2-3, what are we fighting for?
Vietnam! The hell you say!
GENERAL ADMITS TO SECRET AIR WAR
Michael Smith
THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.
The nine months of allied raids “laid the foundations” for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.
President Lying Sack of Shit (aka George W. Bush) and his Vice Sack-in-Chief (Cheney) were telling the nation no plans had been made for Iraq.
You yellow bellied liberals had better stop sympathizing with the terrorists and get on the bus. Just like you should have done with Vietnam! If it wasn't for you liberals..Johnson could have made that summabitch work.
Posted by Carla at 09:59 PM |
Thoughts on Gitmo...
So I read this morning about how a Congressional delegation has visited Gitmo, saying that "we've made progress."
Last week President Bush went so far as to invite journalists to go visit Gitmo so that they could see that the allegations of torture are untrue.
Okay... maybe we have made progress. Maybe every allegation of torture was false. But, let's be honest with ourselves for just a minute. Has there never been an example of a government deliberately sanitizing a prison facility with the express purpose of purpetrating a deception?
C'mon, we all know better.
So, what this comes down to is whether we trust the Bush administration to not rig the entire thing just for show. Which of course begs the question: Would they deliberately rig the system so as to give a false impression about how a prison is being run?
Well, we know from a variety of sources that the infamous Abu Ghraib contained ghost prisoners who were prisoners that were deliberately hidden from International Committee of the Red Cross officials. Indeed, it is a matter of public record that the IROC complained about this very issue of "ghost prisoners" the previous year.
We also know that members of the Bush administration, such as one Vice President Dick "Fuck Off" Cheney, have indicated their contempt for accountability by giving absurd rhetorical versions of sanitized show prison by suggesting that Gitmo is some sort of Club Med resort for Islamists.
So, no... I don't think an honest and objective assessment of the situation grants the Bush administration the kind of credibility to take their assertions at face value, including the implied assertion that Gitmo hasn't been artifically sanitized in order to evade accountability.
How do we the people regain some control over what is being done in our name?
A St. Petersburg Times editorial from this last Thursday suggested that Congress do their job and use their constitutional authority to "define appropriate treatments for captured foreign suspects."
"The administration has wanted Congress to butt out and give the executive branch and the military a free hand to make up the rules as they go along. So far it has gotten its wish. But the administration has also bungled the task of treating detainees in a manner consistent with American principles. Instead of relentless speechifying, members of Congress should act to rein in the unfettered authority claimed by the president. Specter appears ready to lead the way. Will the Democrats follow him?"
Posted by Kevin at 01:24 PM |
It is a puzzlement...
There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know.
Very often find confusion
In conclusion I concluded long ago
I do not get the The TTLB.
I've tried to understand how it works. I know it has something to do with inbound unique links and unique hits in some combination thereof.
Yesterday this blog was at 723 in the link ecosystem. Today we're at 594. It looks to me like we have fewer inbound unique links today than yesterday.
The list of "links by source" doesn't appear to show some of the more prominent blogs in which we're blogrolled.
For example, we're on Rox Populi's blogroll..but it doesn't show up on the TTLB. We also have a trackback from Friday from Pandagon blog..which should show up but isn't.
It's just a vanity thing and nothing more. It's like checking your look in the mirror..checking where your blog resides on the TTLB ecosystem. But it sure would be nice to understand how it works.
Posted by Carla at 01:21 PM |
Shorter Frank Rich
They ain't got nothing on ol Joe McCarthy.
The rightwing media machine at the behest of the White House isn't trying to end PBS. They're castrating it.
Big Bird isn't being roasted on a spit. Independent, indepth journalism is. As well as anyone who stands in their way.
Posted by Carla at 10:46 AM |
June 25, 2005
Stalking for recruits
The Department of Defense is trolling
for high school recruits to get them to join in the orgy of needless killing and dying for nothing the Armed Forces.
The Department of Defense began working [June 22] with a private marketing firm in Massachusetts to create a database of all US college students as well as high school students between ages 16 and 18, to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches.The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The database will include an array of personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade point averages, ethnicity, and what subjects the students are studying.
This isn't really news, since the No Child Left Behind Act ensures no kid is left behind in the war.
Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. "We don't give out a list of names of our kids to anybody," says Shea-Keneally, "not to colleges, churches, employers -- nobody."But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.
The new plan goes much farther than getting people's names and contact information, which is bad enough. It gets every bit of information out there on these kids.
Under the new system, additional data will be collected from commercial data brokers, state drivers' license records, and other sources, including information already held by the military.''Using multiple sources allows the compilation of a more complete list of eligible candidates to join the military," according to statements provided by Pentagon spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke in response to questions. ''This program is important because it helps bolster the effectiveness of all the services' recruiting and retention efforts."
The Pentagon's statements added that anyone can ''opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate ''suppression file." That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.
You know, fellas, I've got some names for you if you're in need of some recruits.
Posted by at 03:29 PM |
OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT
The premise of OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is simple: The objective of OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is to recruit College Republicans and Young Republicans to serve as infantry. They demanded this war and now viciously support it. It's only right that they also experience it.
The 56th College Republican National Convention is happening this weekend. Patriot Boy has all of the latest news on how OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is progressing.
- August and Campus Progress have more from inside the convention.
- The Frenchman, Gilliard, has an operative inside the convention.
- Jesus' General has a recon with pictures and commentary as the Marriot location of the GOPer convention was scouted in advance.
Thanks to PK reader Bowditch's Ghost for alerting us to OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT.
Posted by Kevin at 10:04 AM |
News you can actually use
Check it out.
Posted by Carla at 09:32 AM |
Wearing the black hat
In the world of old western films, the visual metaphor sometimes had the "good guy" wearing a white hat and the "bad guy" would wear a black hat.
Right now, the United States is the guy in the black hat.
This week at the United Nations, the United States admitted that torture of detainees had taken place at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Naturally the news was released on Friday and under the radar of the Karl Rove brouhaha. It will be interesting to see if it shows up on the Sunday talk shows.
In related black hat behavior, 13 CIA members have been charged by and Italian judge with kidnapping an Egyptian:
Confirming the arrest warrant without mentioning the U.S. intelligence agency, the prosecutors office said the 13 suspects were believed to be behind the abduction of imam Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, who was grabbed off a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003 and stuffed into a white van.
Nasr was then taken to a U.S. air base in Aviano, Italy and flown to Egypt, stopping over on the way in Ramstein, Germany, to change planes, the prosecutors' statement said.
Kidnapping...torture..circumventing the laws of other nations...lying to governments that are our strongest allies....
One of Bush's alledged strengths is his "cowboy diplomacy". Right now..the cowboy is wearing the wrong color. And he doesn't look much like he's in the market to change.
Posted by Carla at 09:08 AM |
June 24, 2005
Why now?
Karl Rove doesn't do ANYTHING without a well thought out plan.
I can't figure out why he would make these inflammatory statements now right now. What's the point?
Yes..Bush has taken a dive in the polls. But so what? He doesn't have to run fo reelection. The House and the Senate are pretty much out of reach for the Dems...even with GOP polls being in the crapper.
Sure it's red meat for the base...but they're not going anywhere and it's a long way to the next election. It's offputting to moderates and even some conservatives who are scratching their heads wondering what the hell Rove is doing.
I guess I'm just tossing this out there....but what do you all think is the real reason behind this?
Posted by Carla at 12:12 PM |
Keeping my New Years Resolution
It's just over the halfway mark for 2005. Time to check in on my New Years Resolution:
One of my resolutions for 2005 is to expand my horizons through the reading of more rightwing blogs. In the past I've been loathe to do this as I find myself with little more than raised blood pressure.
But in the spirit of learning more about how conservatives view their lives, their localities, this country and the world...I'm going to give it a go.
I haven't remembered to do it every week...but I have been checking in with those "to my right" in the blogosphere.
This week I tried to put my finger on the pulse of the rightwing when it came to the comments and subsequent apology of Dick Durbin. What I found was not so much a pulse. It was more like the Land of Confusion.
There were plenty who were pissed at Durbin..ready to pile on. Check out the comments to this post on Dean's World (yours truly has several...but I found pissing up a rope to be an exercise in futility). Instapundit...just by clicking over there I can feel the IQ points being sucked out.
But there were also some very thoughtful and introspective dissenters. Most noteably from Andrew Sullivan and John Cole:
The fact of the matter is, we just don't know the whole story. And no matter what the blowhards and the administration apologists (and I used to be one) say, it isn't liberal ACLU pro-terrorist anti-military crazinesss to demand the facts and to demand that we behave better than we have in the past. It isn't anti-soldier to question policy and to demand that abuses and torture aren't being conducted under our flag, even if we benignly label them 'approved interrogation techniques.'
And one more thing- Dick Durbin didn't do anything wrong- he used some stupid rhetoric. He could have used a better example, and it was stupid to include regimes as murderous as the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis in that speech, even though he didn't compare our troops to those guys. But that doesn't give us any excuse to ignore his message.
And just because I have to say it given the idiotic political climate we currenty have to live in- I think the severe allegations and the deaths are an aberration, not the norm. I don't think all of our soldiers are evil and sadistic torturers. I don't know what is true and what is not, and I don't know what is considered acceptable under international norms. I, in fact, love the military and think it is the best way that we as a society spend our money. But I don't think it is stupid or slanderous or unpatriotic to have the idea that everything isn't kosher.
The lack of lockstep is encouraging. The effort to get outside the regular conservative groupthink is downright heartening.
Most importantly...some conservatives are questioning the policy and noting that it's actually PATRIOTIC to do it.
And this time I didn't require an alcoholic beverage before lunch to get through it.
Posted by Carla at 08:16 AM |
June 23, 2005
Karl Rove must resign or be fired.
Karl Rove's inflammatory bullshit, in my opinion, is a way to get the Downing Street Memo chatter off of the blogs, tv and radio.
Rove's appearance on Hardball (with guest host David Gregory) exposes the White House's nervousness:
GREGORY: As you well know, critics of this war have seized on what's being called now the Downing Street Memo, based on meetings that Britain's Chief of Intelligence had with American officials about the war. One issue that comes up in that memo and subsequent memos is British concerns about the fact that the White House in their view wasn't adequately thinking about what happens after the regime falls.
ROVE: I'm glad you brought that up because I want to put that in context. First of all that is the British - a Brit making a comment about what he perceived to be U.S. policy. But remember the time frame, it is months and months and months before the balloon goes up in Iraq. And in those intervening months there was plenty of time planning for post-war efforts, vast amounts of planning. You never know exactly how a war is going to plan out. Napoleon once said, 'vast numbers of refugees enormous problems with food aid'- did not happen. Vast uprising- didn't happen. That we would see a vast uprising by hundreds of thousands of Iraqis- didn't happen. War is ugly, but a lot went very well with this effort and in part it was because the United States government and our coalition partners used the months to plan for any eventuality.
GREGORY: But if you're talking about the number of troops necessary, the level of American casualties, the force and intensity of the insurgency.did the president mislead the American people about the cost of the war or was he just simply surprised by what happened?
ROVE: I would go back to the president's statements over the last several years and I would defy you to find one speech which he talked about Iraq where he doesn't say there would be difficult times ahead, that we had a long road to hope that a great deal of sacrifice was going to be called for by both the American people and by the Iraqis to achieve this goal. Look, we do not underestimate the ferocity and the anger and the viciousness of the people that we face. We are in a war. Some people may treat it as a law enforcement matter and be worried about indictments from the U.S. attorney from the southern district of New York. But we recognize this administration and the American people we are in a war and the only way you have a successful outcome in the war is to aim for a complete and total victory, which is exactly what we're doing.
Of course we already know that the Vice President and Rumsfeld expected to be met with flowers and candy...and deliberately kept troop levels lower despite being told otherwise by experts. Rove knows it's catching up with them.
So what does he do?
Goes out and makes the most inflammatory, anti-American statements possible...to get the very damaging Downing Street chatter off of the lips of the talking heads and the bloggers.
Tough shit, Karl. Downing Sreet isn't going away. Your efforts at deflecting from your boys' advocacy for torture..your fixed intelligence...your ill planned war..all still on the front pages.
And for tonight..it's at the top of this blog.
As it will be here every day. Until your ass is gone.
Posted by Carla at 08:01 PM |
The Merchant of Hate
Karl Rove: The Merchant of Hate:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.
I guess that explains why conservatives have brought Osama Bin Laden to justice.
Oh wait...
Crooks and Liars has the whole, disgusting charade on videotape. View at your own risk.
I've always believed that spitting upon another human being is an act so vile and disgusting that noone is deserving. Rove proves me wrong.
What can one possibly say to animals like Rove who have such blatant hatred and disregard for their fellow Americans?
Update:
The brilliant Peter Daou:
I'm devoting much of today's report to Karl Rove's vile comments denigrating half of the American public. My office overlooks Ground Zero, and I'm looking at the gaping footprint as I write this. My wife and I were in New York that day, on our way to the WTC for a morning meeting. A chance phone call dragged on a few minutes too long and most likely saved our lives. I lost friends in the towers, and when I walk past the site, as I do almost every evening, the pain is as real as it was on September 11th, 2001.
I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon's civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the "Cedar Revolution." I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I've seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn't presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn. Today, Karl Rove took that rhetoric to a new, filthy low.
For the record, my motives aren't to get more troops killed. If those were my motives I'd ship them off to a war on false pretenses without sufficient equipment to keep them safe.
Even the media gets this one.
Oh, that's right.
Al Qaeda isn't the enemy.
We are.
Posted by Carla at 04:13 PM |
Abizaid calls Cheney a liar
"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
--Vice President Dick Cheney, Larry King Live
WASHINGTON - The top American commander (General John Abizaid) in the Persian Gulf told Congress on Thursday that the Iraqi insurgency has not grown weaker over the past six months, despite a claim by Vice President Dick Cheney that it was in its "last throes."
Posted by Carla at 11:59 AM |
Loving your country means never having to say you're sorry
My grandfather was a decorated World War II veteran. He died when I was a girl. Every once in a while at family get togethers we've seen his medals and the flag that was draped over his coffin at his funeral. I've always been fascinated by those medals because they tell part of the story of my grandfather's life. His bravery, his fortitude and his sacrifice are marked in time by those decorations.
I remember reading some time ago about how toward the end of World War II, German soldiers deliberately surrendered to American troops instead of troops from other nations because Americans had a reputation for humane treatment of POWs. This is something I've considered as a matter of great pride for the US military and for Americans in general. We're not like other countries. We're better because we respect the rule and intent of law. We're the good guys.
Not so much anymore, it seems. There are many in our country who condone the inhumane treatment of US detainees. Or they turn a blind eye to it.
I expect that these attitudes are bred of fear. Our nation was attacked in a brutal manner. The Bush Administration consistently reminds Americans of that attack. They issue color coded "terror alerts". White House spokesman Scott McClellan holds daily press briefings in which terrorism is discussed consistently. Osama Bin Laden is still at large and Al Qaida is still alive and planning attacks, we're told.
And we're holding detainees, individuals captured in and around areas of battle. They're not called prisoners of war because our government doesn't want to be held to the Geneva Conventions, so they split hairs to say we're not technically at war. Except when it's time to talk about terrorism. Then of course, we're at war.
A few days ago, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill) felt compelled to apologize for remarks last week on the Senate floor which outlined the treatment of some detainees. Durbin noted specific incidences of abuse of detainees. The horrors he outlined were something we'd expect to read, Durbin said, from regimes like Pol Pot or the Soviets...who had no regard for humanity. Certainly not from the good guys.
The howling from the conservatives was relentless. And even though Durbin was telling the truth when he spoke out...the pressure was apparently too much to bear and he caved in.
Last month I visited the US National Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. One of the main themes at the Museum is the fact that so few spoke out against what the Nazis were doing. While it's apparent that the US is not commiting atrocities even close to the degree of World War II Germany, there is some very serious inhumane treatment of detainees held in US custody. In Germany, the atrocities continued in part because there were so few who came out against Hitler and those that did were murdered.
In the US when a prominent official speaks out...they are trampled by the rightwing media machine. They are verbally flogged over and over. Those brave individuals who are willing to stand up against torture are steamrolled by conservatives who are afraid to the point that they'll give up basic decency and morals.
These individuals who condone or turn a blind eye to torture, especially those that so viciously attack the brave who speak out against it, dishonor my grandfather and those with whom he served. Whether we're "as bad as Pol Pot" or as "inhumane as Stalin" isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not we're willing to allow conservatives to toss aside basic American values of decency and humanity to assuage their fears. And to dishonor everything our nation has built for the last 250 years.
Posted by Carla at 10:48 AM |
The Supreme Court F's up
In a ruling handed down this morning the Supreme Court said that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development.
The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, said that "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area."
Hello!!! The plaintiffs weren't asking the court to oversee boundry lines or to sit in review on the size of anything! They were asking the courts to respect their constitutional right
Justice O'Conner issued a harsh dissent saying, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
At stake was the 5th Amendment which allows governments to "condemn" (aka: take) private property via "eminent domain." But, only if the land is for public use.
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, summed today's ruling up succintly: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
Yep!
Posted by Kevin at 09:11 AM |
June 22, 2005
Liars or true believers...which is worse?
The notion that the president led the country into war through indirection or dishonesty is not the most damaging criticism of the administration. The worst possibility is that the president and his advisers believed their own propaganda. They did not prepare the American people for an arduous struggle because they honestly didn't expect one.
EJ has a point. I've wondered myself if perhaps these guys really believed their own schtick.
Many of this same cast of characters were lobbying President Clinton to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in the late 90s (Note John Bolton is prominently figured among them).
In the event that they were true believers...this raises a number of important issues.
Bush quite obviously didn't have the intelligence to back up the belief. The first Downing Street Memo says that the intelligence was being "fixed around the policy". So they may have believed that the intelligence gathering capabilities of the world's various intelligence agencies was inept or inadequate. Or both. And in order to get the world to back the invasion...they had to make it look like the invasion was completely necessary.
The rest, it seems to me, is nothing short of criminal negligence.
The first Downing Street Memo also makes it very clear that the British government wasn't seeing much in the way of postwar planning for Iraq.
It's not as if the Administration wasn't warned, either.
Voices of postwar skepticism were heard in this interview with Dick Cheney on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.
Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
MR. RUSSERT: We have had 50,000 troops in Kosovo for several years, a country of just five million people. This is a country of 23 million people. It will take a lot in order to secure it.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, but we’ve significantly drawn down our forces in Kosovo and in the Balkans. There’s no question but what we’ll have to have a presence there for a period of time. It is difficult now to specify how long. We will clearly want to take on responsibilities in addition to conducting military operations and eliminating Saddam Hussein’s regime. We need to be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance, medical care, food, all of those other things that are required to have Iraq up and running again. And we are well-equipped to do that. We have got a lot of effort that’s gone into that.
But the—again, I come back to this proposition—Is it cost-free? Absolutely not. But the cost is far less than it will be if we get hit, for example, with a weapon that Saddam Hussein might provide to al-Qaeda, the cost to the United States of what happened on 9/11 with billions and billions of dollars and 3,000 lives. And the cost will be much greater in a future attack if the terrorists have access to the kinds of capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed.
MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.
Russert's assertions have been more than borne out.
We all know the results. The war is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. So far, the American taxpayers are footing the bill. Our military is stretched to the limit and recruiting is abyssmal. More importantly are the US casualties and injuries. Many of which could have been avoided if they'd been properly equipped.
Liars who deliberately misled the nation and the world to war? Or true believers who were criminally negligent for the postwar plan?
Posted by Carla at 06:09 PM |
Was it worth it?
Polls are showing the American people are increasingly unhappy with the Iraq War, saying it wasn't worth it.
Neconservative hack extraordinare Robert Kagan takes umbrage (who else is shocked?) and uses his Washington Post monthly column to show Americans that even neoconservatives have bad acid trips:
The most sensible argument for the invasion was not that Hussein was about to strike the United States or anyone else with a nuclear bomb.
Excuse me?
That was THE sensible argument for the invasion. In fact, that was the ONLY sensible argument. That was why we couldn't wait, remember Bob? The weapons inspectors had to get out immediately (even though they said Iraq was cooperating) because Iraq was an imminent, immediate, approaching, brewing,inescapable threat and we had to get Saddam before he got us.
So when W and friends were bully pulpit-ing all over the world to tell us that we'd better get our asses into Iraq or face a mushrooom cloud...where the hell were you? Why weren't you offering the "sensible argument" back then?
Could it be because Kagan's "sensible argument" wouldn't have scared the American populace into backing this sham?
Kagan cries "containment":
It was that containment could not be preserved indefinitely, that Hussein was repeatedly defying the international community and that his defiance appeared to both the Clinton and Bush administrations to be gradually succeeding. He was driving a wedge between the United States and Britain, on one side, which wanted to maintain sanctions and containment, and France, Russia, and China, on the other, which wanted to drop sanctions and normalize relations with him. The main concern of senior officials in both administrations was that, in the words of then-national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger, containment was not "sustainable over the long run."
NOW you're concerned about a wedge between the US/Britain and France/Russia/China? Again I wonder...where were you during the Freedom Fries brouhaha? Where were you when the Republican Party was badmouthing Germany, France and Russia for not supporting the invasion? Wedge, my ass. If Republicans were really concerned about wedges...they'd not have tried to boycott France or the Dixie Chicks.
Now stop with the bullshit and tell us why Bush really invaded.
Posted by Carla at 01:04 PM |
What headline writing should be
Favorite FARK headlines of today:
Posted by Jeff at 11:21 AM |
Taft, like golf, is a 4-letter word
Mr. Taft bent over for the exam, then was heard to protest: "Ow! not so rough! the coins aren't IN there, how many times do I have to say it?!? Check Noe's ass, he's the one...!"
Or write your own caption.
The Toledo Blade is all over Ohio's "misunderstood" governor like a cheap suit:
Taft did not report golf outings, allegedly with Noe, to the state
Posted by Jeff at 07:27 AM |
June 21, 2005
Durbin is a wimp!
He said nothing wrong. Don't wanna take my word for it? Andrew Sullivan, an all-around hawk and, until recently, unstinting Gitmo fan, says the same thing.
"I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful. Hugh Hewitt should answer one single question: does he doubt the FBI interrogator who witnessed the appalling treatment of some detainees at Guantanamo?"
Sullivan then quotes from the FBI report. He follows up with:
"Is Hewitt arguing that the interrogator was lying? Does he believe that the kind of tactics used against this prisoner are worthy of the United States? Does he believe that this happened without authorization? If he were told this story and informed that it occurred in, say, Serbia under Milosevic, would he be surprised? Hewitt should then answer the same question about the 5 detainees which the U.S. government itself has acknowledged were tortured to death by U.S. interrogators, and the scores of others who died in detention during or after "interrogation". Does he deny that this happened? Does he honestly believe that removing the legal restrictions on cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees by our current president had nothing to do with this? Maybe he needs a little refresher on the extraordinary range and scale of the record of abuse that is still accumulating. I'm just amazed that some can view what has happened and their first instinct is to attack those who have criticized it, rather than those who have perpetrated it. It is this administration that has brought indelible shame on America, and it's people like Dick Durbin who prove that some can actually stand up against this stain on American honor and call it what it is. Good for him. Thank God for him."
Naturally, since Sullivan has moved out of lock step, his fellow conservatives like GM Roper immediately question whether he's still a conservative.
Oh... and do check out the amusingly obvious straw man argument which GM Roper uses to try to make his case. Apparently all anyone needs to do to prove themselves right on a given issue is to generate a political cartoon using the same distortion and... voila! Fiction becomes reality... in the mind of a wingnut, at least.
Meanwhile back in the reality-based world, yet one more piece of the slimy DeLay puzzle is exposed to the light of day. But, being the slimeball that he is, Rep. DeLay had to jump on the disinformation bandwagon and expressed his phony outrage at Durbin's "premeditated and monstrous attack against America's military."
Yeah, yeah, Tom... Black is white and white is black. We're onto your shell game around here, even if Durbin doesn't have the cajones to not cower in front of liars and demagogues. We're gonna call you out every time 'cause we ain't afraid of two-bit pesticide jockeys around here!
Hat tip to: Middle Earth Journal
Posted by Kevin at 10:47 PM |
Wipe that sweat off your upper lip
Republicans are nervous. Very nervous.
Bush's job approval ratings are in the tank.
The vast majority of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.
Polling on Iraq is dismal.
You know things are really in the crapper for the GOP when their rightwing talk show hosts start pissing their pants:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Today, I would like to join the chorus of those calling for a cease-fire in Iraq. I don't mean a truce and I don't mean a surrender. Don't misunderstand me. I'm talking about a cease-fire.
I, your host, El Rushbo, on today -- Tuesday, June the 14th -- call for a 90-day cease-fire in Iraq.
I call on the New York Times to lay down their arms. I call on the Democrats in Congress to stop the assaults. I call on weak-kneed Republicans to lower the temperature for 90 days, three measly months.
Lebanon is in the middle of a crucial election sequence. Iran is about to have an even more crucial election. Syrian and Saudi terror backers are losing for signs.
So for 90 days, no attacks on our war effort. Somewhere, deep inside, there has to be something -- a memory of patriotism, a stirring of some national pride -- some remaining sense of right and wrong.
Hey Asshole Limbaugh..if you're looking for a "ceasefire" (I know you're really not..but it's fun to watch you squirm like the worm you are) then stop making appeals to false patriotism. The people that really love this country call bullshit when the government is doing it. And right now..Bush and his masters are hipwader deep in bullshit.
Even Frist is tiring of standing downwind...having said earlier today that he wouldn't seek another vote on Bolton.
Until Bush yanked his leash, of course.
Somebody hand Rush and Billy Frist some aspirin.
Posted by Carla at 01:07 PM |
It's not what it seems...
Not what you think
No, I must be dreaming
It's only in my mind
Not real life
No, I must be dreaming
Posted by Carla at 09:10 AM |
Fair and Balanced: stealth conservative style
A researcher retained secretly by the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to monitor the "Now" program with Bill Moyers for political objectivity last year, worked for 20 years at a journalism center founded by the American Conservative Union and a conservative columnist, an official at the journalism center said on Monday.
The decision by the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, to retain the researcher, Fred Mann, without the knowledge of the corporation's board, to report on the political leanings of the guests of "Now" is one of several issues under investigation by the corporation's inspector general.
Sneaky bastard.
Conservatives have weaseled their way in to every important American institution...and have ruined everything they've touched. And for the sake of "balance"..because balance apparently means "conservative leaning".
In the late 20th Century, Conservative Presidents drove our national debt and deficit spending into the stratosphere. They saw to it that well paying jobs disappeared. They atrophied government assistance for the poor and indigent. They moved to foreign policies that constantly put the American people in danger.
These same Conservative Presidents did away with fairness and accuracy regulations in the media, paving the way for such sneaky, underhanded garbage that we're currently seeing with Public Broadcasting.
Posted by Carla at 07:49 AM |
You have the right to choose. Sort of.
Sunday's New York Times had a column about two states that attempted to ban junk food from schools. One state--New Jersey--was successful. The other (Connecticut) shot it down.
I graduated from high school in 1987. I did not have access to junk food food in school as readily as kids do today. There were no vending machines hawking Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Doritos, Cheetos, Milky Ways, M&M's, or any of that.
They did not exist.
You could get a dessert with lunch if you bought your lunch. You could bring nothing but potato chips. But the school was not a subsidiary of Coca-Cola, or Lays, or Nestle.
Not so anymore.
On Monday, regulations become law in New Jersey - to be fully phased in by September 2007 - that will ban soda, candy and foods listing sugar as the first or principal ingredient from almost all school cafeterias from prekindergarten to high school. No other state has done it.Last Tuesday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut vetoed an already watered down bill that would have limited the sale of snack foods and sodas and required at least 100 minutes a week of recess for younger students.
In New Jersey, the lesson was that sometimes the best politics is the least politics. In Connecticut the experience was similar to states across the country that found that once soda and candy get in the schools, it's almost impossible to get them out.
Junk food in schools is like a roach infestation. Don't even invite it in.
But by doing this, some of the pro-corporate lackeys cry, we are acting like a nanny state! We're taking away choice.
Mrs. Rell, in her veto message, cited her commitment to local control and said, "The task of determining and meeting the health and dietary needs of children should first and foremost be undertaken by parents."I'm sure Rell's ties to a Coca-Cola lobbyist had nothing to do with this. It was all about providing choice.
It's too bad that what she did--and what the pro-corporate lackeys do--is actually undermine parents. If parents choose to let their kids eat more junk food, they will pack their lunches with it. They will give it to their kids. Parents who do not want their kids eating junk food are having their choices undermined when its so readily available in schools.
This isn't about valuing the family, or consumer choice. It's about valuing corporations and pimping kids for their benefit.
Posted by at 04:17 AM |
June 20, 2005
Saddam hearts Reagan
"I wish things were like when Ronald Reagan was still president" Saddam Hussein to PA Nat'l Guard Specialist Sean O'Shea.
Posted by Carla at 02:51 PM |
Great nonPresident Americans
The Discovery Channel is hosting an American Idol style "Greatest American" program. Hosted by Today Show cypher Matt Lauer, the program seeks to find what it labels the "Greatest American" of all time.
The show began with 100 individuals. I never understood how these people were chosen. They were somehow "nominated".
Rush Limbaugh and Ellen DeGeneres made the list, while people like Walt Whitman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Hemmingway were left off. Bizarre.
To make a long story short, they've whittled the list down to 5:
George Washington
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Benjamin Franklin
Ronald Reagan
Abraham Lincoln
3 of the 5 are former Presidents (it also speaks to the skewing of history when Reagan makes the top 5 and FDR doesn't).
Presidents definitely have a major impact on what happens to the United States. Their policies shape our nation, in many ways, for good or for bad. But there are many Americans who weren't President who've had a profound impact on our nation.
Alexander Hamilton comes to mind, first of all. Hamilton may be the individual who most helped shape our founding government without having actually been President. Ben Franklin is up there as well.
Eleanor Roosevelt played a major role in shaping American attitudes coming out of World War II and into the fifties.
I know I'm leaving a huge number of other people out. Who else could be on that list?
Posted by Carla at 01:33 PM |
The mouse that roared
The tale of Mukhtaran Bibi continues to unfold. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times once again offers the latest dispatch:
After the Pakistani government tired of kidnapping Mukhtaran Bibi, holding her hostage and lying about it, I finally got a call through to her.
Pakistani officials had just freed Ms. Mukhtaran and returned her to her village. She was exhausted, scared, relieved, giddy and sometimes giggly - and also deeply thankful to all the Pakistanis and Americans who spoke up for her.
"I'm so thankful to everyone that they keep a woman like me in mind," she said fervently. Told that lots of people around the world think she's a hero, she laughed and responded: "God is great. If some people think I'm a hero, it's only because of all those people who give me support."
President Pervez Musharraf's government is still lying about Ms. Mukhtaran, saying that she is now free to travel to the U.S. Well, it's true that government officials removed her name from the blacklist of those barred from leaving Pakistan, but at the same time they confiscated Ms. Mukhtaran's passport.
Mukhtaran's struggle is an analogy of all those who stand up against tyranny and oppression. Against fierce odds she's stood up in the face of the government of Pakistan and it's leader Pervez Musharraf.
As Kristof so eloquently notes:
Hats off to this incredible woman. President Musharraf may have ousted rivals and overthrown a civilian government, but he has now met his match - a peasant woman with a heart of gold and a will of steel.
That's so often the way these things go down. One small, tiny voice stands up against a great wall of tryranny and oppression. It's that small, constant drip that wears away those great walls.
Posted by Carla at 11:51 AM |
......the smell of napalm in the morning....
Reports coming out of Great Britain this weekend indicate that the US government used napalm-type weaponry during the Iraq War and then lied to the British Government about it:
Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.
But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."
In other words, Mr. Ingram was lied to by US officials.
At least the Bush team is consistent. As long as their lips are moving, there's a good chance they're lying to your face, eh?
The morality of using weaponry like MK77s is highly questionable given the fact that it's banned by the the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) for use on anything but strictly military targets. The US has not signed on to the Convention. Britain has.
Reports of US use of such incendiary weaponry are readily available:
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald. But a navy spokesman in Washington, Lieutenant Commander Danny Hernandez, denied that napalm - which was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 - was used.
Oops..guess the US officer didn't get the memo.
American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs – similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War – in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.
Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.
"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.
Using this material against military targets is clearly legal, even under the CCW protocol. This begs the question: why would the Bush Administration lie to the British about the use of these devices?
Further, if Bush lied to the British government about intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD and about the use of napalm-type weaponry in Iraq..what else are they lying to the British about?
Posted by Carla at 08:49 AM |
June 19, 2005
S5: Howard Dean Fraidycats edition: vote your conscience
You know the drill. Vote for the piece you think deserves the Monday grilling. The nominees are:
Conservative stalwart Cal Thomas, who says that the only way to defend against the Red Chinese Menace is Star Wars. Dude..I have news for ya..if the Chinese decide to launch missiles against us we're toast. No missile defense system that we can create is going to stop the rain of hundreds of missiles. Wake up and smell the plutonium, man.
Neal Boortz. Shorter Neal: It doesn't matter if we race to the bottom of morals and ethics cuz we'll never be as bad as people we say we hate. Torture away, boys.
NY Times columnistThomas Friedman, who must not have access to a television, radio, newspaper, computer or Barnes and Noble...cuz he's convinced that absolutely no liberals (or conservatives for that matter) are talking about Iraq. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Posted by Carla at 11:23 PM |
One of these things is not like the other...
Republicans are reaaaaallllyyy getting desperate over the Downing Street Memos.
Kevin Drum notes with bemusement:
DOWNING STREET DELUSIONS....The wingnuts are getting desperate. Captain's Quarters, in a nostalgic attempt to recreate the glories of Rathergate, suggests that the Downing Street Memos aren't real. Why? Because Michael Smith, the reporter who got hold of them, had them retyped to protect his source and then returned the originals. Jonah Goldberg feverishly calls CQ's revelations a "must read."
Now, unlike the Killian memos that were at the center of Rathergate, there are quite a few principals in this case who either wrote or received these memos and therefore have absolute knowledge of whether or not they're genuine. The first memo, for example, was written by Matthew Rycroft and distributed at the time to David Manning, Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, Peter Goldsmith, Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, Richard Dearlove, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, and Alastair Campbell. So far, not a single one of these people has claimed they're fake.
For the Republicans , let me clarify that for you:
GOP Porn Star Mary Carey: fake (or faking it)
Downing Street Memos: REAL
Posted by Carla at 06:25 PM |
Downing Street Memos make Oregonian front page
Posted by Carla at 10:07 AM |
Of circular firing squads and penguins
Last week's scuffle at Daily Kos over an ad on Kos' site and his response to complaints became a full blown issue. (If you're not up to speed and really want to be, click on the link. You'll get the gist right away)
This episode brought out some of the ugliest, nastiest, reactionary rhetoric I've seen in a while. From both sides.
The entire thing really pissed me off.
It pissed me off to the point that I considered throwing up my hands and walking away. What the hell difference can I possibly make in terms of working toward getting liberal ideas/issues implemented into government...when so many of those around me so easily abandoned the focus of working together in favor of tearing each other apart?
I sat at my computer last week while reading these posts and exchanges and cried like a child. Perhaps it was just the pain of shattered illusions. I really believed that I was part of something that really wanted to work for the greater good of everyone. But just under the surface is this seething, reactionary, "give me what I want right now or I'll beat the crap out of you" rhetoric that made it crystal clear to me that I had been naive.
I read last week that all men (whether they be liberal, conservative, moderate..whatever) secretly hate women and are threatened by them. Liberal men don't care about "women's issues" (what the fuck is a "woman's issue"?I can think of no issue that effects only women) and will abandon them at the drop of a hat in favor of scoring a short term win.
I also read that those who disliked Kos' ad are humorless simpletons who simply aren't sophisticated enough to understand the complexities of advertising.
Even revisiting this in order to blog about it feels like nails on a chalkboard to my soul.
Kos acted like an egotistical ass, but he doesn't hate or disrespect women. I also don't see evidence that he's willing to abandon core Democratic issues. I don't see that those who commented on his blog are that way. They're not misogynists, either.
Those who complained about the ad and Kos' attitude aren't simpletons. They were treated badly by Kos and deserved better. His attitude and some of those who came to his defense was reprehensible and mean spirited.
But goddamit we have bigger fish to fry.
If we use up this kind of time and energy getting and maintaining this anger at Kos or at those on the opposite side..what does it serve liberal ideas and issues? We certainly can't get liberal values implemented in government if we're all so busy tearing the shit out of each other to work together.
This morning I read no less than 3 digs at Kos on other lefty blogs. Okay...I get it. He was an ass. But we have too much work to do to allow this playground style bullshit to get in our way.
And please...spare me the "we can't work with those people" whine. Yes you can. You do it because the goals are more important than the individual sniping and backbiting. The left is not softening on these goals either..despite the petulant whining from some who hand wring over abortion.
The left has historically had so much trouble because of meltdowns like this. Stop it. Stop it right now. There are such greater problems out there than whether or not someone over at Kos or at someone else's blog doesn't believe the same as you on two or three issues. Stop acting like your two or three issues are greater than the sum of the left.
It's demoralizing and it's a recipe for continually losing.
Posted by Carla at 08:00 AM |
So maybe it will be Hagel
A few days ago I asked, "Who'll be the first Republican to say it?" Meaning who will be the first GOPer to call for an independent investigation of the Downing Street Memos?
My answer was Arlen Specter.
I think perhaps I'll change my answer to Chuck Hagel who is very sincerely (and rightly) pissed off about the characterizations by the Bush team about Iraq.
Chuck gets vocal when he gets pissed.
Posted by Carla at 07:55 AM |
June 18, 2005
So much for the "liberal" MSM
Hardly a peep from the American networks about the Downing Street Memo. But, the Canadians aren't afraid to not only talk about it, but to put it into context and ask the hard questions.
Hat tip to The Indy Voice
Posted by Kevin at 10:54 PM |
Get yours!
Get yours here!
Posted by Carla at 03:47 PM |
June 17, 2005
Who'll be the first Republican to say it?
PSoTD asks the question the White House most fears:
Right about now, I suspect the folks at the White House are pretty nervous about the Downing Street Memo.
Yes, it's a culmination of things, partially. It's the Conyers' hearing. It's the steady drumbeat of press coverage. It's the possibility (probability?) of more documents being released in Britain.
But you have to think that Rove, Bush, McClellan have a growing, gnawing fear that somebody in Washington, somebody in Congress, somebody Republican, is going to say in public what the White House fears most in their game to run the clock out on DSM:
"There should be a Congressional Investigation into the Downing Street documents and the runup to the Iraq War."
Because once that happens, the political game clock will be turned off, and the national history clock will begin.
It's not a matter of when. It's a matter of who. What Republican in today's Congress will be guaranteed a prominent spot in history? The Bush Administration has to wonder.
So which GOPer will come out first? I have my own idea which I'll put in comments. Who do you think it will be?
Posted by Carla at 03:26 PM |
Support the torture of your troops
Yesterday I noted the odd embrace of torture by LaShawn Barber: It's perfectly okay to beat the shit out of people as long as they're getting three squares a day.
Powerline blog has also got themselves into the act, schleping apparel at CafePress with "I heart Gitmo" across the chest and the ever popular slogan Support your U.S. military by sporting the latest 'I Heart Gitmo' fashions as the sales pitch.
Support your US military? I wonder how supported this soldier feels:
Mr Baker, 37, was a member of a military police unit based in Kentucky when it deployed to Guantanamo Bay in 2003.
In January of that year he volunteered to act as an unco-operative detainee for training purposes and put on an orange prison jumpsuit.
He argues that other participants were not made aware that he was a soldier.
Discharged
During the exercise, Mr Baker says, military police choked him and slammed his head against the floor. Mr Baker says he told them he was a US soldier but the beatings continued until the jumpsuit was yanked down, revealing his uniform.
Mr Baker - who has complained of traumatic brain injury - was subsequently honourably discharged.
The army initially said the discharge was unrelated to the exercise, but later acknowledged the injuries sustained at the time had been a factor.
But as long as he got his ration of Tandoori Chicken he should just take his beating cuz we heart Gitmo to support the troop