Monday, April 30, 2007

Numbers Games

It's Mission Accomplished Eve, boys and girls.

On the eve of the fourth anniversary of Commander Codpiece's prance across the deck of that aircraft carrier in his little flight suit costume, it seems as good a time as any to review some numbers:

1. American deaths to date: 3,351

2. Cost of the war: on track to top $500 billion.

3. Original estimate for the war's cost: approximately $50 billion.

4. Additional amount allotted for Iraq in bill Commander Codpiece is poised to veto: $78 billion.

6. Additional amount Commander Codpiece wants for the war: $116 billion.

7. Some of things the $564 billion in combined spending requests for Iraq could buy:
A college education - tuition, fees, room and board at a public university - for about half of the nation's 17 million high-school-age teenagers.

Pre-school for every 3- and 4-year-old in the country for the next eight years.

A year's stay in an assisted-living facility for about half of the 35 million Americans age 65 or older.
8. Number of morons Americans who actually voted for Commander Codpiece in 2004 (62,028,285) (+) Number who did so in 2000 (50,456,002) = Number of those who are morally complicit in all of the death, destruction, and waste that is Iraq (all of them).

9. Number of my senators who voted for the Iraq war resolution: both of them (Clinton & Schumer).

10. Number of my senators who voted for the Iraq war resolution and who are running for president who will get my vote: none.

The Rush Limbaugh Date Drunk-o-meter

Mr. Limbaugh, your trough is ready sir:

RADIO host Rush Limbaugh is far from conservative when it comes to his big appetite. The Post's Braden Keil reports that Limbaugh and a female companion lived large at Kobe Club last Thursday night, devouring bacon with truffles, Japanese strip steak, Kobe beef cheek ravioli, a large seafood platter, a combo of American, Australian and Japanese wagyu steaks and several "side" dishes. After finishing their $700 feast, Limbaugh left the server a $1,000 tip. On a previous night, Limbaugh and another female friend were spotted by patrons sharing a $4,000 bottle of wine at '21.'

Imagine the tip he had to give his "female companion" at the end of the night. I mean, one would think making nice with the both of Rush's inches must cost at least the GDP of a third-world nation.

Even then, it must take a lot of $4,000 bottles of wine before Rush's snausage has a happy ending.

Yeah, you might want to look into that one

The Doughy Pantload, who as much as it pains me to say it, is one of the more rational people at the Cornhole, takes note at the David Brooks column that Res wrote of yesterday.

First, Brooks conflates conservatism and GOP policies. As close readers know this is increasingly a major bugaboo of mine. The mess the GOP and the conservative movement are in, to some degree, stem from the lamentable fact that whatever Bush does has come to define conservatism and, in many corners, conservatism has come to mean defending Bush's policies.

Other than their hating "the Mexican" it is hard to discern an area where most of the Corner's denizens have any differences of substance from Bush. An area, one should also note, that puts them at odds with about 80% of the country and 10% of the punditry that bring up the topic.

Every sodding day, they pretty much never mention deaths in Iraq (when was the last time the "troop supporting" Corner took note of an American soldier that "died for their freedom" [I'm not addressing the irony of that phrase in this post]). At the same time any piece of NY Post or Washington Times manufactured bullshit in support of whatever the Bush Administration policy is in Iraq (pre-surge or post) they throw up.

Two of their writers, Clifford May and Michael Ledeen are veritable Major Kongs, wishing and hoping every fucking day for another war to break out in the Middle East. If there is any unfounded conspiracy Ledeen, the non-farsi reading Ledeen, can toss out there it goes up immediately. When timetables are passed they are called "Surrender" declarations.

And somehow Jonah seems to not notice his own flaccid rag isn't Bush conflator with conservativism's number one violator.

Predicting Chris Matthews first questions this week

In the GOP Debate.

To Mitt Romney:

"Your are such an incredibly handsome man. So handsome, my GOD you are really a stud. Do you have a six-pack? Show us your six-pack. SIX-PACK SIX-PACK SIX-PACK. C'mon show us your body, work it Mitt, show the country you want to be President and work it. Did you see "The 300"? Because I think you'd look great in that movie as a Spartan. Who's your favorite Spartan? Are you like the King of Sparta that goes off and ignores his parliament and that slimy guy who is like Hillary? Man, Hillary, are your balls bigger than Hillary? How about your six-pack? Can I see your six pack? SIX PACK SIX PACK SIX PACK! Man would you look good in a leather thong. Don't you think so Senator Brownback? Can you tell us your impression of Governor Romney in a thong? Ooh, woof! woof! SIX PACK SIX PACK SIX PACK! There's nothing healthier than one heterosexual man telling another heterosexual man how much you admire their body.

Rudy, how does your prostate feel when you think about Mitt in a leather thong showing us his SIX PACK SIX PACK SIX PACK!? You're a tough guy, a real man's man, a macho man, a really tough macho man. Wouldn't you like to oil up Mitt Romney in his leather thong, puttin' oil on those pecs? Man, I'd love to see that. Oh man, would I love to see that. You know who wouldn't want to see that? Hillary, because I think she likes women, just like her husband. She's not a man's man like you are Rudy. Just the thought of you oiling up Mitt Romney's six-pack abs, lord that's the manliest, most healthy heterosexual fantasy this side of John Bastow and his Fitness Made Simple videos. I bet you could do those Governor. SIX PACK SIX PACK SIX PACK, can I touch them? Really can I? Man, I bet you smell nice too Governor, I bet you smell like lilacs, really tough manly lilacs.

What can we expect from a Romney Presidency on the subject of the estate tax?

Well, I see the Lopez family reunion

Was the typical affair for them. Plenty of hot dogs, pizza, bbq'd ribs and baby tartare.

AFP/Toshifumi Kitamura

Our Buddy Maliki

Not because he's competent, Bush doesn't deal with competent people, they make him uncomfortable. But he loves obsequious people, good lord almighty he loves the obsequious people fawning over him and thanking him for his assistance in invading Iraq and making the country save for the car bomb.

And nobody is apparently more thankful than Maliki. However, if you could write a prescription for failure via supporting stupidity this would work (close enough for Government work as "Dear Leader" would say):

A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

Since March 1, at least 16 army and national police commanders have been fired, detained or pressured to resign; at least nine of them are Sunnis, according to U.S. military documents shown to The Washington Post.

Army Spec. Patrick Read patrols in Mosul. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been accused of undermining security crackdowns for sectarian ends. Army Spec. Patrick Read patrols in Mosul. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been accused of undermining security crackdowns for sectarian ends. (By Maya Alleruzzo -- Associated Press)

Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals.

"Their only crimes or offenses were they were successful" against the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia, said Brig. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, commanding general of the Iraq Assistance Group, which works with Iraqi security forces. "I'm tired of seeing good Iraqi officers having to look over their shoulders when they're trying to do the right thing."

But "the right thing" for Maliki (other than groveling with his fingers behind his back whenever Bush is on the videoconference while they read from their respective scripts) is to eliminate the Sunni's -- something that Bush likely will do little to prevent other than lip-service.

Where was Perle?

Bill Kristol is raising a stink about Richard Perle's whereabouts on September 11, 2001 (does he need an alibi?) and how he could not have possibly spoken to Tenet personally in the White House as the latter claims.

Loathe as I am to wander into the discussions of three douchebags the path of deceit and lies from these three is sizeable, but still Tenet strikes me as the least deceitful of the bunch (and if that's not condemning with faint praise I do not know what is).

Kristol claims Perle was in Europe until September 15, 2001. This doesn't seem difficult to prove.

But Perle was pretty active in this country for someone that wasn't here.

On the evening of September 11, 2001, he was quoted in the Washington Post:

"This could not have been done without help of one or more governments," Perle told The Washington Post on Sep. 11. "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments."

On September 16, 2001 he was definitely back in the United States and telling CNN the same thing he is claimed to have been telling Tenet on September 12:

PERLE: Even if we cannot prove to the standards that we enjoy in our own civil society that they were involved. We do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden. That can be documented.

So, on the theory, which seems to be a valid one, that if you support terrorists and they then commit atrocities against Americans, you are responsible.

Unless we hold those countries responsible, we will be chasing terrorists without significant effect...There's something similar going on in Iraq, where there's an opposition to Saddam Hussein. They ought to have our support.

We should be aligning ourselves with the opponents of terrorism where we can find them and we should be taking this war to the heart of the enemy, which is the infrastructure that supports them. Without that infrastructure, there may be a car bomb, there may be a hijacking, but we won't see anything on the scale of the tragedy we've seen now.

Well five and a half years later on the subject of Iraq after we've deposed of Saddam that last part is a telling quote about how much we should ever listen to Richard Perle. 180 degrees removed from accuracy.

Anyway this sounds like a good research project.

This has been pointed out before...

But here is Bush standing during the "Pledge of Allegiance" this weekend while simultaneously demeaning the phrase "Honorary Doctorate" for all time. It really summarizes all you need to know about the relative intelligence and cravings of the Chimperor Disgustus.

(AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)

Watertiger noticed this too.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Girl Stuff

First, the transcript isn't up yet, but Chris Matthews and Co. had another round of "Hillary -- too strident -- or merely too shrill?" this morning. "Strident" and "shrill" are words Matthews often uses to describe Hillary and her voice, which have morphed into a regular Matthews Obsession. This morning's excuse was the Democratic "debate" of last week. I note with interest that not one of the panelists described Mike Gravel, who, while pretty amusing, was pretty much screaming like a banshee, as strident.

Second, don't know who E.J. Graff is, but he/she hits the nail on the head re what drives "The Mommy Wars" machine:
The ballyhooed Mommy Wars exist mainly in the minds -- and the marketing machines -- of the media and publishing industry, which have been churning out mom vs. mom news flashes since, believe it or not, the 1950s. All while the number of working mothers has been rising...

An especially inflammatory article or episode can increase Web site hits, achieve "most e-mailed" status, drag more outraged viewers or listeners to the phone lines and burn a media brand more deeply into consumers' minds.

That's because middle- and upper-middle-class women are a demographic that responds well to anxiety, says Caryl Rivers, author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women." She sees the Mommy Wars as "the intellectual version of 'Thin Thighs in 30 Days.' " Tell women that working will damage their marriages, harm their health and ruin their children, and they will buy your magazine, click on your Web site, blog about your episode and write endless letters to the editor. They may do so out of fury, anxiety, scorn or an earnest desire to correct your statistical errors -- but if your goal is to increase your hit rate or impress your editor, producer or publisher with something that's widely discussed, where's the downside?
The dollars. Always the dollars.

True, but ...

David Kurtz of TPM suggests we not get too giddy over the prospect of Republicans being ensnared in the percolating D.C. Madam scandal because "nothing is more bipartisan than sexual indiscretion."

Agreed, but one party hasn't spent the last six years trumpeting its lock on "family values."

Remember: it's not the sex, it's the hypocrisy.

Baby Steps: NYT Edition

In his Sunday column, Frank Rich reveals that the NYT has decided to end its participation in events like the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Good for them. I don't know if they were more horrified by Bill Moyers' Buying the War, Rich Little's routine, or Bush's lame attempt to score political points off Virginia Tech, but either way, it's good news.

In addition to its readers being able to feel (slightly) less concerned that NYT reporters may be compromised by their social ties to the people they cover, it will result in fewer opportunities for journalists to play the stooge for Karl Rove. Considering that David Gregory's credibility is now completely shot to hell, that's a good thing.

I was thinking last night... If Josh Marshall started yucking it up with the people he covers, would I immediately grow suspicious of his ability to report objectively? Would I wonder if he'd been corrupted? Would I take him less seriously? Oh yes, I would.

Your Sunday Morning Gloat

Schadenfreude City, bitches!

Mister McBobo gives us the 10,000-foot view of the state of the Republican party:
On Capitol Hill, there is a strange passivity in Republican ranks. Republicans are privately disgusted with how President Bush has led their party and the nation, but they don’t publicly offer any alternatives. They just follow sullenly along. They privately believe the country needs new approaches to the war against Islamic extremism, but they don’t offer them. They try to block Democratic initiatives, but they don’t offer the country any new ways to think about the G.O.P.
They are like people quietly marching to their doom.
Actually, I don't buy the above. These creeps cheered George W. Bush for years. And now, if they start to run around saying, "I always disagreed with Bush" we're going to float pictures, audio, and (blessed be!) video of them hugging Bush, sucking up to Bush, and otherwise praising Bush. It's gonna be so fun.

In any case, you know you're in trouble when you're candidates are running around pretending to be disgraced racist thug George Felix Macacawitz Allen Junior. For all the crap I give twenty-somethings, the vast majority of them appear not to abide trash like Allen (and Republicans in general). That's great news for 2008 (and America).

Update: Eschaton commenter Linda lead us to this even more substantive L.A. Times piece about the waning fortunes of the Trash Party. Mmmmmm...tasty:
Though Republicans have recruited many solid candidates in their effort to retake Capitol Hill — and they have more than 18 months to improve their fortunes — the environment could get worse.

Damaged by ethics scandals in 2006, the GOP in recent weeks has seen FBI raids at businesses or homes connected to two of its congressmen. A federal agency last week began an investigation into Bush advisor Karl Rove's political operation, and congressional panels authorized a flurry of subpoenas related to White House political activities and the run-up to the Iraq war.


I don't necessarily agree that withdrawal from Iraq ipso facto equals a strategic defeat for the United States worse than Vietnam. The same sorts of doomsday scenarios kept us in Vietnam far longer than we needed to be and kept us from minimizing the humanitarian costs to the region after we departed.

Costs that our intervention largely, though indirectly, caused.

But unlike Vietnam, which was the nadir of a generally valid long-term strategic policy continued by several Administrations of both parties, Iraq is a totally self-inflicted and grievous wound caused by one Administration who used 9/11 to go absolutely apeshit.

Iraq is worse than Vietnam "in so many ways," agreed Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., a retired Army officer and author of one of the most respected studies of the U.S. military's failure in Vietnam. "We knew what we were getting into in Vietnam. We didn't here."

Also, President Richard M. Nixon used diplomacy with China and the Soviet Union to exploit the split between them and so minimize the fallout of Vietnam. By contrast, Krepinevich said, the Bush administration has "magnified" the problems of Iraq by neglecting public diplomacy in the Muslim world and by not developing an energy policy to reduce the significance of Middle Eastern oil.

In strategic terms, the Vietnam conflict was understood even by many of its opponents as part of a global stance of containment, a policy that preceded the war and endured for 15 years after Saigon fell, noted retired Army Col. Richard H. Sinnreich, a veteran of two Vietnam tours of duty. "I'm not sure we can count on a similarly prompt strategic recovery this time around," he continued. "Bush's preemption strategy was controversial even before Iraq, and the war itself has been so badly mismanaged that even our allies doubt our competence."

Twenty-five years after the fall of Saigon we were buddy-buddy with the regime that strategically defeated the United States. There is no reason why actually humbling himself and engaging in diplomacy now with regimes he has heretofore refused to speak to cannot minimize the effects of what is already a strategic defeat.

But to do refuse to do so, while simultaneously undertaking a complete war-of-choice in an economically vital region that his incompetence made infinitely worse is a cycle of incompetence that makes George Bush the Worst President of All Time.

I've said this a few times, but one of the things that has been to the great good fortune to us in America throughout our history is we have managed to bring out the greatness of our leaders in times of greatest need. Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower. Not a bad lineup.

But now, we get the Chimperor Disgustus. The Streak had to end sometime I guess, lucky us it happened during our lifetimes.

Talk about Karma catching up to a country.

Congrats James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce. Speaking of the latter, that's some nasty genes Babs Bush's family has dished out.

I'm no military analyst

But at least I'm not a Kagan so I can state, this story seems rather troubling:

BAGHDAD - U.S. forces fired an artillery barrage in southern Baghdad Sunday morning, rocking the capital with loud explosions, while the death toll from a suicide car bomb attack in the Shiite holy city of Karbala rose to 68.

The blasts in Baghdad came a day after the U.S. military announced the deaths of nine American troops, including four killed in separate roadside bombings south of Baghdad and five in fighting in Anbar province, a Sunni insurgent stronghold west of the capital.

The size and the pattern of the explosions, which began after 9 a.m. and lasted for at least 15 minutes, suggested they were directed at Sunni militant neighborhoods along the city's southern rim. Such blasts have been heard in the evenings but are rare at that time of day.

Doesn't firing artillery barrages in a country you occupy and in which you are fighting an insurgency seem rather...

Um, desperate?

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Your Saturday Evening Gloat

This fat fuck, who commissioned a $10,000 study of Bill Moyers' "Now" in a pathetic, wasteful, and paranoid attempt to root out "liberal bias," is gone from PBS.

Meanwhile, guess who's back on PBS?

Princes & Kings

Everybody hates George (and Condi and Dick). NYT:
Bush administration officials have been scratching their heads over steps taken by Prince Bandar’s uncle, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, that have surprised them by going against the American playbook, after receiving assurances to the contrary from Prince Bandar during secret trips he made to Washington.

For instance, in February, King Abdullah effectively torpedoed plans by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a high-profile peace summit meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, by brokering a power-sharing agreement with Mr. Abbas’s Fatah and Hamas that did not require Hamas to recognize Israel or forswear violence. The Americans had believed, after discussions with Prince Bandar, that the Saudis were on board with the strategy of isolating Hamas.

American officials also believed, again after speaking with Prince Bandar, that the Saudis might agree to direct engagement with Israel as part of a broad American plan to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. King Abdullah countermanded that plan.

Most bitingly, during a speech before Arab heads of state in Riyadh three weeks ago, the king condemned the American invasion of Iraq as “an illegal foreign occupation.” The Bush administration, caught off guard, was infuriated, and administration officials have found Prince Bandar hard to reach since.

Since the Iraq war and the attendant plummeting of America’s image in the Muslim world, King Abdullah has been striving to set a more independent and less pro-American course, American and Arab officials said. And that has steered America’s relationship with its staunchest Arab ally into uncharted waters. Prince Bandar, they say, may no longer be able to serve as an unerring beacon of Saudi intent.
The King is not pleased. Why?
But Saudi frustration has mounted in the past four years, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated. King Abdullah was angry that the Bush administration ignored his advice against de-Baathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi military. He became more frustrated as America’s image in the Muslim world deteriorated, because Saudi Arabia is viewed as a close American ally.
But then:
Tensions between King Abdullah and top Bush officials escalated further last year when Mr. Bush announced a new energy initiative to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil during his 2006 State of the Union address, and announced new initiatives in that direction this year.
Hasn't anyone clued the King into the fact that Bush has made a career out of lying during the State of the Union?

All Hail the Never Ending War

Amazing how in our democracy, we manage to just keep on fighting the war that the majority of people in both countries want to be over.

And the Bush Administration has come up with a way to keep it going...

The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.

In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.

No benchmarks, no expectations, just keep on keeping on with the bloodletting. When will the military just plain rebel and say enough.

There is one person that Patraeus has on his staff that should know, H.R. McMasters, author of 'Dereliction of Duty' and how Generals in Vietnam went along with civilian leaders and/or failed to fully inform them of difficulties. Will McMasters and his boss Patreaus practice what the former has preached?

Letting the Iraqi government off the hook AGAIN makes me somewhat skeptical.

Also, I rather doubt that the Administration is just going to stay mum. They will leak...and leak...and leak...stories spinning about their great "successes" (which as usual will turn out to be overblown or non-existent after the 'spin cycle' ends). Plus they can always count on their endless supply of enablers to lie for them. Their problem is, we all know the game now, and we know that they and their enablers are full of shit.

Wolfowitz is under a lot of stress

Who'd have thunk that the man who thought things would be hunky dory in Iraq would EVER get himself in other ethical difficulties?

A World Bank committee investigating president Paul D. Wolfowitz has nearly completed a report that it plans to give the institution's governing board, concluding that he breached ethics rules when he engineered a pay raise for his girlfriend, three senior bank officials said Friday.

Friday evening, the committee was debating whether to explicitly recommend that Wolfowitz resign, according to the sources, who spoke on condition they not be named, citing an ongoing probe into leaks.

Sounds like Wolfowitz could use a good massage.

Speaking of which...

On Monday, as Washington hosts a U.S.-European Union summit, President Bush is to hold a joint press conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, which is leading the charge for Wolfowitz's dismissal.

Friday, April 27, 2007

How Jack Valenti just learned that karma's a bitch

Now you know why Bill Moyer's is working so hard on good-works in his later years.

Some People Call Me "Maurice..."

Last night was mostly bullshit, but I sure did enjoy Maurice "Mike" Gravel, and his post-debate Tweety beat-down.

BTW, if you skipped the debate and need it Bottom-lined for you, you could do worse than to search the comments in this Eschaton thread for the nom de blog "Culture of Truth." CoT has his own blog; but he regularly provides Atriots with witty and delightful synopses of the talk-show jabber of politicans and the gasbags who love them. Check him out.

Update: I see that Gravel spent some time as a New York City cab driver. Makes sense.

Some People Say ... That the GOP Owns Brian Williams' Ass

From last night's debate:
Senator Biden, a question for you. A friend of mine who's in the leadership of the Democratic party says that if the party goes down a third straight time, what will happen is what he defines as "modern day extinction" of the Democratic party.
Note to Brian Williams: results of the 2006 mid-term elections are in. I know this may comes as a shock to "reporters" who focus on hard news like "Faith in America," "What's doing at your local volunteer fire house," and "How Your Socks May be Killing You!" but the election was actually a sweep, with Democrats taking the House of Representatives (by 31 seats), the Senate (by 2 if you count scumbag Joe Lieberman and Good Guy Bernie Sanders, who both caucus with Democrats), a majority of governorships and state legislatures, and (sweetest of all), knocking off the GOP's 2008 presidential hopeful, the racist thug, George Felix Macacawitz Allen, Junior.

Does that sound like a party headed for "extinction" to you?

Yeah, I know Williams went on to qualify his question by asking if Democrats could win the White House, but Sheesh. What Liberal Media?

BTW, Joe Biden? You could have refuted Williams' "extinction" bullshit by repeating those results above instead of letting this RNC talking points-spewing cretin put you on the defensive.

If you're so inclined, call MSNBC and tell them what you think Williams' little frame job: (201) 583-5000. Tell the operator you're a viewer who wants to leave a comment.

P.S. Who's the friend, Brian?

File Under: "Too Little, Too Late"

George Tenet is from Queens. As a fellow New Yorker, that fact is reason enough for me to give the guy a bit of a break. But it irritates me when people who could have stood up and stopped an outrage (and didn't) show up years later to explain complain that they were misunderstood, or that they' were used, or that life isn't fair.

You know what? It isn't. Fair, I mean.

Sometimes I think about George Tenet and say, "If you (or Colin Powell) had stood up at the U.N. that day and said, 'This is wrong. This guy is a prick and a problem, but the "evidence" that he has WMD is weak at best and non-existent at worst and if we go in there we'll spill blood and treasure in what could prove the worst clusterfuck the U.S. has known since Vietnam' you'd be a hero today."

But the truth is that neither Tenet (or Powell) probably would be a hero today. BushCo probably would have come out -- guns blazing -- and smeared the shit out of them. Tenet would have had to quit anyway. He'd have been Dixie-Chicked, for sure. He would have been called a "coward," "anti-American," and an "appeaser." They would have said, "He's Clinton's guy. What do you expect?" and there would have been a(nother) nation-wide round of "Clinton got a blow job." Fun facts about his private life would have been leaked. It would have been ugly.

But you know what? Tenet would probably be where he is now (a professor at Georgetown). He'd still have his family. His health. A livelihood. For some people, he'd be on the list of names we cite when we say, "They knew there were no WMD. They told you. But you didn't listen." Those people (Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, others I'm now forgetting (See? I can't even remember their names.) aren't considered "heros" now. The situation is just too sad and outrageous. It would be unseemly to gloat and say, "I knew I knew."

But at least Tenet would have the knowledge that he'd stood up, spoken out, taken the heat, and did the right thing. The guy was the director of the CIA, for God's sake. If anyone could have endured it, he could have.

Instead, he's pimping a book (for Rupert Murdoch, no less) about what a bad guy Dick Cheney is.

You lie down with dogs ...

P.S. About that infamous "Slam dunk!" thing, Tenet says:
“I told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a ‘slam dunk,’ a phrase that was later taken completely out of context”...
In other words, it would be a "slam dunk" to lie to the public.


David Broder sure doesn't like Harry Reid and him saying stuff he doesn't like and the manner in which he says it. It even leads him to say stuff like how Senators of both parties consider him an embarrassment. Which must be true because EVERY FUCKING DEMOCRAT, and those caucusing with Democrats, in the Senate not named Harry Reid said they applaud his manner of speaking and leadership, even Lieberman.

On the other hand the man who sang "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" and praised the merits of brigade guarded shopping, John McCain and his various inconsistencies and embarrassments...WHY THAT'S JUST DUCKY!

Credit John McCain with one thing: When you're 70 years old, are running for president a second time and have been stumping through the country for many months, it's difficult to spring any surprises in your formal announcement speech.

The Arizona senator came up with one: He is running as the anti-Bush...

...But for John McCain, there must be at least some relief now in being able to speak his own mind -- whatever the consequences. Candor, even belatedly, becomes him.

It's the bees knees, the cat's meow, the kind of thing that makes Broder's two artificial hips want to do the charleston and the lindy-hop. It makes his old man giant glasses steam up, all three focals.

It just leads you to one simple question...


McCain's stance is he loves all of Bush's fucked-up policies, his position is simply I'LL TURN THEM TO "11".

Here's something for you Broder:

And hey kids, don't forget that normally on Fridays at Noon Eastern you can watch David Broder have someone else type in nonsense answers to filtered questions during his regular (and he appreciates anything "regular") Washington Post chat. You can go here to view it, or go early and submit your politely worded question where you attempt to call-out Broder on his incredibly high-level stupidity.

Or you can ask him for his favorite "Matlock" or "Mannix" episode.

However, for some MYSTERIOUS reason, Broder is not available today, but next week.

Amazing co-inky-dink he's out today isn't it?

General Wanker

The junior officers are rebelling against the Generals that have sucked up to the Bush Regime and a chance to retire with extra stars. Withing the Pentagon, the pivotal book in the 1980s and 1990s was "Dereliction of Duty" which described how the Vietnam Era generals lied to themselves and the Johnson Administration and found themselves bogged down in the wrong war at the wrong time.

Now the rank-and-file is saying the same things as opposed to "the Generals on the Ground". Specifically, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "The intellectual and moral failures . . . constitute a crisis in American generals."

Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.

Given the lack of troop strength, not even the most brilliant general could have devised the ways necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. However, inept planning for postwar Iraq took the crisis caused by a lack of troops and quickly transformed it into a debacle...

After failing to visualize the conditions of combat in Iraq, America's generals failed to adapt to the demands of counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency theory prescribes providing continuous security to the population. However, for most of the war American forces in Iraq have been concentrated on large forward-operating bases, isolated from the Iraqi people and focused on capturing or killing insurgents. Counterinsurgency theory requires strengthening the capability of host-nation institutions to provide security and other essential services to the population. America's generals treated efforts to create transition teams to develop local security forces and provincial reconstruction teams to improve essential services as afterthoughts, never providing the quantity or quality of personnel necessary for success.

After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public. The Iraq Study Group concluded that "there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq." The ISG noted that "on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals." Population security is the most important measure of effectiveness in counterinsurgency. For more than three years, America's generals continued to insist that the U.S. was making progress in Iraq. However, for Iraqi civilians, each year from 2003 onward was more deadly than the one preceding it. For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq. Moreover, America's generals have not explained clearly the larger strategic risks of committing so large a portion of the nation's deployable land power to a single theater of operations...

To reward moral courage in our general officers, Congress must ask hard questions about the means and ways for war as part of its oversight responsibility. Some of the answers will be shocking, which is perhaps why Congress has not asked and the generals have not told. Congress must ask for a candid assessment of the money and manpower required over the next generation to prevail in the Long War. The money required to prevail may place fiscal constraints on popular domestic priorities. The quantity and quality of manpower required may call into question the viability of the all-volunteer military. Congress must re-examine the allocation of existing resources, and demand that procurement priorities reflect the most likely threats we will face. Congress must be equally rigorous in ensuring that the ways of war contribute to conflict termination consistent with the aims of national policy. If our operations produce more enemies than they defeat, no amount of force is sufficient to prevail. Current oversight efforts have proved inadequate, allowing the executive branch, the services and lobbyists to present information that is sometimes incomplete, inaccurate or self-serving. Exercising adequate oversight will require members of Congress to develop the expertise necessary to ask the right questions and display the courage to follow the truth wherever it leads them.

Sorry, know that was a long section, but the whole thing is illustrative. Without being disobedient this is clearly a primal scream of frustration over the handling of this war and a warrior that cannot believe it has happened all over again. Like the Johnson Administration, and perhaps even more, the Brass ignored their better judgment and told the civilian leadership -- politicians -- what they wanted to hear. Of course, this happened, only after the civilian leadership told them what they wanted them to say. This is why Shinseki was so rudely cashiered by Rummy & Wolfowitz. The Generals knew the score then.

And now here we are. A war that should never have happened, executing a policy that if it ever would have worked should have been executed in May 2003 and with twice as many troops as we are trying to execute now.

And the troops keep dying and the Iraqis keep dying and the story goes on and on. We fight a war because of one man's vanity.

Support the troops indeed.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Just to make it clear

Because the point in Broder's column that is the worst, the most factually OPPOSITE of reality is this: is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.


It is Dear Leader whose negotiating position has been, "I'll negotiate as long as you give me everything I want". It has never varied, it has never changed.

Every fucking person in the world that has followed the news AT ALL knows this, even the Republicans know this, THEY FUCKING PRAISE BUSH FOR IT PUBLICLY (and curse him for it in private).


It makes me want to shoot someone in the face so hard!

What Have We Learned

Following up on Attaturk's post about the Moyers show ...

I don't know if I wasn't paying attention to this or if the information was new, but one of the really outrageous things that Moyers discussed last night was the series of "coincidences" that lead to big "revelations" about Saddam's WMD, "elite fighting force [trained] in sabotage, urban warfare, hijacking and murder" (!!), killer kittens, or whatever showing up in the New York Times or the WaPo at -- lo and behold! -- the same time that people like Chucklehead Cheney were scheduled to appear on "Meet the Press."

BILL MOYERS: Quoting anonymous administration officials, the [NY] TIMES reported that Saddam Hussein had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed aluminum tubes...

And there on MEET THE PRESS that same morning was Vice President Cheney.

DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): There's a story in the NEW YORK TIMES this morning, this is-- and I want to attribute this to the TIMES -- I don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but--

JONATHAN LANDAY: Now, ordinarily information-- like the aluminum tubes would-- wouldn't appear-it was top secret intelligence, and the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. But, it appeared that morning in the NEW YORK TIMES and, therefore, they were able to talk about it.

The NYT ought be ashamed of itself for getting played by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi. So had Tim Russert, of course, but as an alleged "liberal" newspaper, I (foolishly) hold the NYT to a higher standard. So am I wrong to speculate that the con worked like this?
  1. Chalabi & Co. feed bullshit to the NYT (to inside man, Judith "I-Was-Proved-Fucking-Right" Miller, or some patsy) with a wink and a nod to the White House.
  2. Judy Miller tips the White House to when the "big scoop" will run.
  3. The White House (probably Wingnut Harpy Conga Line Member Snarly Mary Matalin) calls "Meet the Press" to say that the Vice President, Known Knowns Rummy, or our Idiot Girl Nat'l Security Advisor/Secretary of State will be available for an exclusive interview on Sunday, which, unbeknownst to Timmeh is the day said "scoop" will run.
  4. On "Meet the Press," Cheney, Rummy, or Rice says, "We know this bullshit is true because we read it in the New York Times."
The entire team of NYT clowns who "reported" on Iraq (along with Pinch) ought to do the right thing and just commit mass ritual suicide in the middle of West 43rd Street this afternoon. It's the only way for them to redeem themselves for their part in this clusterfuck.

Funny that

No words on the Bill Moyers PBS show on the Selling of the Iraq War and it's demonstrable wankery of the Press from anointed media conscience Jeff Jarvis.

Funny that.

If you did not see it, or tape it (as I did) or did what the kids call "TIVOING", you really missed out on an unbelievable indictment that demonstrates a pattern of ineptness, laziness, and often outright complicity by the major media that is even worse than you have imagined. I believe you can see the whole show on the website.

I'm sure David Broder did not watch it.

Some excerpts:

BILL MOYERS: You had Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector. Who was saying that if we invade, it will be a historic blunder-

PHIL DONOHUE: You didn't have him alone. He had to be there with someone else who supported the war. In other words, you couldn't have Scott Ritter alone. You could have Richard Perle alone.

BILL MOYERS: You could have the conservatives-

PHIL DONOHUE: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn't have a dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.

BILL MOYERS: You're kidding.

PHIL DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true-

BILL MOYERS: Instructed from above?

PHIL DONOHUE: Yes. I was counted as two liberals. And so-


TIM RUSSERT: I-- look, I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo. I know who my sources are. I work 'em very hard. It's the mid-level people that tell you the truth. Now-

BILL MOYERS: They're the ones who know the story?

TIM RUSSERT: Well, they're working on the problem. And they understand the detail much better than a lotta the so-called policy makers and-- and-- and political officials.

BILL MOYERS: But they don't get on the Sunday talk shows--

TIM RUSSERT: No. You-- I mean-- they don't want to be, trust me. I mean, they can lose their jobs, and they know it. But they're-- they can provide information which can help in me challenging or trying to draw out-- sometimes their bosses and other public officials.

BILL MOYERS: What do you make of the fact that of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department?

TIM RUSSERT: It's important that you have a-- an oppos-- opposition party. That's our system of government.

BILL MOYERS: So, it's not news unless there's somebody-

TIM RUSSERT: No, no, no. I didn't say that. But it's important to have an opposition party, your opposit-- opposing views.

It's important to have "Opposing Views"?

Looks like Timmah is not one of our children learning, the Meet the Press line up for April 22, 2007:

NBC’s “Meet the Press” — Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt; Education Secretary Margaret Spellings; Col. Gerald Massengill, former Virginia State Police superintendent; former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.

No individuals from the Opposing Party, not that this has ever been the case for Timmah.

This about sums it up

I've been rather disconcerted about how the Bush Administration, the "most Christian Administration EVER!" has been throwing out Saviors like Jonah Goldberg throws down Pringles.

Bush is Jeebus on the Potomac (or Crawford) for crying out loud. But Patraeus is Jeebus on the Tigris if you listened to the descriptives that proceed him.

This week I said Patraeus is as wedded to "wishin' & hopin'" as anyone else in the Bush Administration and will be giving presentations saying that "success is at hand" that would bring back memories of General Westmoreland. Those 4-Stars come with a debt, you got them because you were the new "Commander on the Ground that had to be listened to" and goddammit you're going to tell us "what we want to hear".

Arianna Huffington
noticed this as well, in far more widely read form (And one of the great "Titles" ever):

These bold pronouncements -- and attendant irrational expectations -- are almost always buttressed by the fact that, as we have been told again and again, "General Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency." Literally.

Which he did, spending the last year overseeing the preparation of FM 3-24, the Army's newly-revised counterinsurgency field manual.

The trouble is, most of those touting his authorship have clearly never read his magnum opus. Or perhaps they have, didn't like the plotline, and decided to ignore or alter the contents to fit their political agenda. (This, of course, is standard operating procedure for the Bushies. Just this week, the president suggested the 2006 elections offered a mandate for his policy of escalating the war on Iraq, and Dick Cheney used the findings of the Iraq Study Group to slam Harry Reid, conveniently skipping over the fact that the ISG recommended a troop withdrawal timetable similar to the Democrats'.)

Now they are willfully ignoring Petraeus' blueprint for success -- and acting like they are following it to a tee. His newly-minted counterinsurgency approach calls for a ratio of 25 soldiers per 1,000 residents -- which would require 120,000 soldiers to provide the proper security for Baghdad, and roughly three times that amount for all of Iraq. But let's just focus on the 120,000 soldiers that, according to the manual written by Petraeus -- "the expert on counterinsurgency," remember? -- are needed to secure Baghdad. Simply put: we're not even close to that number. And never will be. Even after all of the planned 21,500 additional troops are sent to the embattled capitol, there will still only be 85,000 security forces there -- and that includes significant numbers of Iraqi security forces, whose readiness and loyalty have repeatedly proven to be unreliable at best.

So Petraeus says it will take 120,000 soldiers to succeed. Instead, he's being asked to do it on the cheap -- and pretend that he's getting what he needs. And this is just in terms of troops. Petraeus' manual also says that a muscular military presence is just 20 percent of what is needed for a counterinsurgency effort to succeed -- the other 80 consists of establishing political and economic reform, two areas in which the United States is also failing miserably.

Despite this, Petraeus, to his eternal discredit, is going along with the charade -- probably crossing his fingers behind his back -- and promising to let us know how it's really going sometime this summer. But we don't need to wait until sometime this summer. We can see the news, and count the bodies, and know for ourselves that this is all just another case of prolonging the inevitable, of asking more young men and women to die for a lost cause. For the first time since the war began, we've just had five straight months with 80 or more U.S. fatalities.

And the fraud continues.

Patrick Murphy


Dick Cheney, five deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam because he had other priorities.

And then there is the voice of the military that the White House doesn't trot out, John Murtha, former long-time Marine, also served in Vietnam:

And then there is George Bush, who can't prove he actually served as a weekend warrior in the National Guard guarding the Gulf of Mexico from the Vietcong.

Maybe Maureen Dowd can make jokes about their hair, or their suits, or how they just aren't hip, cool, and chic like say, Maureen Dowd?

"No one suffers more than their President and I do."

I know I keep coming back to this, but on the same day Laura Bush said this, a few hours later there was this...

This juxtaposition needs to be shown over and over and over.

Until even David Broder & Joe Lieberman see it.

And then, ten minutes later...

It turns out I WAS WRONG, Broder is but the SECOND WORST COLUMN EVER.

I wasn't expecting Joe Lieberman to proclaim "progress" for the first time for the sixth time for another month or two.


He's in the Washington Post today.

It's apparently a date which will life in Inanity, April 26, 2007, the day when the Washington Post Editorial Page finally surpassed the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

Of course, there's that intrusion of reality per McClatchy (the one news bureau that has, you know, been right all along..

Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims...

... There are no authoritative statistics on Iraqi civilian casualties. The Iraq Study Group in its report last year found that the Pentagon routinely underreports violence. Other groups have criticized the Iraqi government's statistics as unreliable - a moot point since the government recently stopped releasing comprehensive totals. On Wednesday, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq chastised the Iraqi government for withholding statistics on sectarian violence.

One study, conducted by Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health and Mustansiriyah University in Baghdad, estimated that 78,000 Iraqis were killed by car bombings between March 2003 and June 2006.

Iraq Body Count, which keeps statistics based on news reports, finds that there have been just over 1,050 car bombs that have killed more than one person since August 2003, when a car bomb detonated in front of what was the United Nations headquarters, killing 17.

McClatchy gathers its statistics daily from police contacts, and while they're not comprehensive, they're collected the same way every day.

And then there is the Lieberman of the Past:

December 29, 2006:

The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.

In particular we must provide the vital breathing space for moderate Shiites and Sunnis to turn back the radicals in their communities. There are Iraqi political leaders who understand their responsibility to do this. In Anbar province we have made encouraging progress in winning over local Sunni tribal leaders in the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists. With more troops to support them, our forces in Anbar and their Sunni allies can achieve a major victory over al-Qaeda.

And then there was:

July 25, 2006:

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman believes the U.S. will withdraw a "solid' contingent of its military forces in Iraq by the end of the year because of gains made by the Iraqi armed forces.

"There really has been progress made by the Iraqi military," Lieberman said Tuesday during a meeting with the Connecticut Post's editorial board. "Two-thirds of it could stand on its own or lead the fight with our logistical support."

The three-term U.S. senator said he believes a complete withdrawal is possible by late 2007 or early 2008.

But that's not all...

November 29, 2005:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

We need a "MATLOCK CHANNEL" Stat!

Because Broder's remote is stuck on "The Beltway Boys", or as Broder knows them, his "Ross & Rachel" Nelson Eddy & Jeannette McDonald.

Worst. Column. Ever.

Inexplicably stupid, almost up there with jumping twenty centimeters in the air and pretending you're a cheerleader.

It makes me pine columns like this...

February 16, 2007:

It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case...


By the way, same poll, BUSH 28% APPROVAL, his lowest approval rating ever.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007


Josh Marshall:
After half a decade, the verdict is pretty clear: President Bush has been the biggest ally Osama bin Laden has. He's helped bin Laden at pretty much every turn -- even if only by his own stupidity, incompetence and cowardice. And when the next big terrorist attack comes, we can thank President Bush for helping make it happen.
And Rudy? Remember the "Kiss" float that dogged Lieberman all over Connecticut tying that putz to The Incredible Loser That is Bush? Well, there is plenty of documentary evidence tying you to President Loser, as well. So when you go all Dick Cheney and that only Republicans can protect us from another terrorist attack, think again. You're throwing in your lot with the guy who has been Public Enemy Number One's Best Friend Evah!

Update: TPM reader thinks tying Rudy to Bush is the way to go, too:
Americans believe Giuliani is different, a leader, a maverick, brave. But Rudy's constant pandering to the Bush hard line on Iraq and defense issues presents a fantastic opportunity for Democrats to pin the Bush label on him, a scarlet letter that has already brought down one GOP front-runner and could well work its magic again, if the Democrats simply point out the obvious connection.
I'm telling you: Kiss Floats in 50 states!

Hey America...

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

"no one suffers more than their President and I do."
-Laura Bush, on Iraq, 4-25-2007

The President of the United States

Batteries not included, assembly required.

REUTERS/Jason Reed


"no one suffers more than their President and I do."
-Laura Bush, on Iraq, 4-25-2007

Watertiger has a different picture in the same series.

Fez tip to the Pony Boy

You can't out sorry me

Laura Bush on Iraq:

"no one suffers more than their President and I do."

This is a long standing Welch-Bush trait as you can see:






If you haven't already, go over to Greenwald and read his ode to one great journalist. And let's hope that Halberstam's death and the feelings stirred among his hapless brothers and sisters in the profession that they have left in tatters is not all for naught.

Maureen Dowd in History - 1947

Gandhi's Fashion Faux Pas

By Maureen Dowd

They say that clothes make the man, well then what to make of Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi's choice of apparel. It's fair to say that in my time in the Hamptons a man who walks around in a diaper is about as old as Gandhi, but at least is accompanied by a sailing jacket and a trophy wife. A trophy wife they are so attached to they will not give a columnist the time of day. One wonders what these gentlemen think of themselves going around with someone young enough to be their granddaughter rather than someone young enough to be their daughter, especially since Freud would tell you it's much more erotic to sleep with someone like the latter than the former. By doing so you deny yourself the chance to discover that modern chemistry has provided the ability to make the carpet match the curtains, all thanks to adding #45 Auburn and #55 auburn into a combination I like to call 100% Maureenilicious!

But none of that trophy wife stuff for the Mohandas, no that and a well-balanced meal would detract from what he says is his important message of peace and community. A message that is all well and good until you realize it is based upon a logic asking for sacrifice and a willingness to deny the importance of fashion and appearances.

However, this week Mr. Gandhi's humble message of self-sacrifice and concern for the downtrodden, as displayed by his appearance, was undercut by the fact that he pays his diaper-service 400 £ a month for cleaning, folding, and fluffing. It is also reported he pays an additional 20 £ to have someone give him "ribcage" definition.

Excuse all of us Mr. Gandhi if we consider the importance of being well groomed (but not too expensively and ostentatiously well-groomed) and well-bathed in only the finest oils and other fluids to be high. Gandhi makes the rather laughable argument that we should listen to a person so plainly adorned and so dessicated as an individual, who nonetheless lavishes substantial expense on being comfortably undergarmented. Mr. Gandhi strongly believes in abstinence from the imbibing of liquor, yet has been known to drink the best well-water. Well, excuse me Mr. Gandhi, but the sauce helps some of us ease the pain of living life without a man and a soul to crush; especially when they decide they would rather spend their declining years with British starlets.

Gandhi's arguments are not being listened to by the much more fashionable Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who knows the true value of a well-cut suit and a nice hat, and one can certainly see why. Perhaps if Gandhi dressed more appropriately for the expense, like the dapper Lord Mountbatten there would be some reason to take his message seriously. But until he stops spending literally dozens of pounds on comfortable diapers who will really listen to him?

Note to Washington Pundasses

THIS is how you interview someone.

And note to "Mr. No Spin Zone", there was no "cutting" of mics.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007


Reid, Pelosi, and balance of Reality-based Community accuse disgraced former House leader, Republican party stalwart, Terri Schiavo would-be savior, and Grand Old Police Blotter regular Tom Delay of getting "Very Close to Irrelevance."

(Above: Tom Delay, Artist's Conception)

Sums it up

From Froomkin:

A pugnacious George McGovern fires back at Vice President Cheney in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. In an April 11 speech, Cheney attacked McGovern's 1972 presidential platform and contended that today's Democratic Party has reverted to those views.

Writes McGovern: Cheney "said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the U.S. exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.

"In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat -- a record matched by President Bush. . . .

"It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972. Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over."

How "Al Qaeda in Iraq" Works

Just a guess, but after four years, one based upon past events.

1. Group of disaffected losers who can't get laid sit around dreaming of burkaed pooty tang, call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq".

2. Something shitty happens, has nothing to do with Al Qaeda in Iraq.

3. Al Qaeda in Iraq finds out something shitty happened.

4. Al Qaeda in Iraq claims responsibility.

5. U.S. Says Al Qaeda in Iraq responsible.

6. Bush says we have to stay in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda.


On a "Very Special" episode of Fox & Friends

The Co-hosts reenacted their lobotomies.

Bubba O'Reilly

Sure hates him a Jew. I guess to O'Reilly's mind it isn't anti-semitic if you single ONE JEW out in particular as being behind a conspiracy.

Who controls the Lib'ral press?
Who tried to wash Lewinsky's dress?

Who tries to kill Christmas every year?
Who keeps Media Matters from arrears?

Who prevents us from winning in Iraq?
Who demands opinions based on fact?

Who stops O'Reilly rubbing boobs?
Who puts his flubs on YouTube?

Sing along to...

Not to be confused with this.

The "substantive" Wanker Junction

April 23, 2007, a summary:

Posts about Sheryl Crow & Toilet Paper: 5

Posts about Prison Rape: 2

Posts about 9 American Soldiers dying in Iraq: That would be ZERO.

I wonder who they work for?

I bow in their general direction

Low enough to look up their dresses.

Atlas Juggs & Ann Altmouse.

Both directed by Sergei Eisenstein.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Food For Thought

Dear CBS News:

The fact that the FDA has actually not been monitoring the food supply all these years is not news.

The FDA is a governmental agency.

Republicans have run the government for the last six years.

Republicans do not believe in government.

Hugs and kisses,


P.S. Tell Katie she ought to sue that surgeon. Rectangle is not a great shape for human eyes.

An American Particularity About Guns

Adam Gopnik, writing in the NYer, strikes a few chords:
The logic is unusual but striking: the aftermath of a terrorist attack is the wrong time to talk about security, the aftermath of a death from lung cancer is the wrong time to talk about smoking and the tobacco industry, and the aftermath of a car crash is the wrong time to talk about seat belts.
Yes, that was the message from VA governor, Tim Kaine, who can fuck off.

And then:
Semi-automatic Glocks and Walthers, Cho’s weapons, are for killing people. They are not made for hunting, and it’s not easy to protect yourself with them. (If having a loaded semi-automatic on hand kept you safe, cops would not be shot as often as they are.)

That one's for you, Newt.

Worst Bruckheimer Movie EVER!

I think we shall be resolved to be dissolved:

Oxford Bound [Jonah Goldberg]

I leave tomorrow for Oxford to defend the existence of the United States of America.

I guess the Title of this one would be:

Fez tip to Pony Boy.

Baldwin's Abuse shows "sickness" in the left

By Charles Krauthammer:

The recent release of an abusive phone message from well-known Hollywood Liberal Alec Baldwin shows a deep insecurity that exists in the American Left. A sickness that reflects their inability to deal with the issues that really matter to Americans. The Islamofascist middle east and high taxes.

When Baldwin was expressing to his daughter that she was a "little pig" it really is an extension of the feminization of American culture. If America is going to be ruled by the sensibilities of women, well then all is lost. What the hell have women ever done of any value in this nation? They haven't started or fought any wars that I know of.

Further, my training as a psychiatrist allows me to provide the expert opinion that pigs are complete girls when it comes to the animal species. Total wussies.

Further, it was shameful for Baldwin's equally liberal and slutty ex-wife to release the attacks their daughter's shortcomings in public. But this is the type of shameful behavior that is excused by liberals out of habit as the free expression of ideas. Such expressions are devastating to the child.

My daughter Ruth has several substantial flaws. She is not particularly intelligent, getting polite "Cs" in high school & college. This included a shameful b-minus in behavioral psychology. This led to her being placed into the punishment room in the backyard of my home without food or water for three days in the dead of Winter. But you didn't see me writing about this issue to try to embarrass her publicly. Nor have you seen me write about her prominent, dark-haired mustache; her clubbed-foot; nor the fact she is at least 50 pounds overweight. This is because I know the difference between respecting another person's privacy and castigating them inappropriately.

Further, my son Hans has been a great disappointment to me for several years. He obviously failed to inherit any of the good Krauthammer genes and has been an underachieving boy with a horribly small penis, again, not my doing. Nor is it my responsibility that he likes to eat his own nose-candy...well that which he doesn't wipe beneath the furniture. Granted, this may not be unusual activity for a twenty-seven year old man, but it is still somewhat below my expectations of his performance.

And then there is my niece, Martha Krauthammer, who lives in a small-town, Hiawassee, Georgia and is a junior in high school there. She has a cleft-palate, no neck, and inherited her mother's gigantic ass offsetting her extraordinarily thick cankles. Nevertheless, you won't see me calling her out brutally or in public like the liberal Baldwins.

The Hollywood Left, would have us believe that berating and publicly flogging their children's shortcomings is a good way to set boundaries. This, of course, is complete non-sense. As a psychiatrist and father, I can state unequivocally that I have long demonstrated the importance of boundaries with my children by using shock-collars. They now know not to soil the neighbors lawn and not to touch neighborhood children or others inappropriately. It has been more than six months since Hans last rubbed-himself against the mailman. If this progress continues, I am confident I will be able to allow him to go outside without having to wear secured oven-mitts and a motorcycle helmet.

But where this boundary setting really applies is in relations between nations. The United States cannot allow Alec Baldwin to yell at this daughter, while simultaneously allowing Iran to involve itself in the affairs of its neighbor, Iraq. Such a situation can only be controlled by the dropping of many, many nuclear weapons. It would show Ruth, Hans and Martha a thing or two.

Having seen "Hot Fuzz" this weekend...

I'm glad to see one of the supporting players got a show on MSNBC.


BTW, see "Hot Fuzz" if you can, great send-up of buddy cop movies.

Just enough "success" to keep dyin'

People seem to think that Bush's handpicked general (having fired his prior "Commanders on the Ground" he swore he always deferred to) and his handpicked ambassador are going to actually tell them if the game is up in Baghdad in August or September.

We've been counting on somebody telling the unvarnished truth under the Bush Administration for six years now, more than four when it comes to the greatest mistake of them all (really saying something).

Why people think this will actually happen after all these years is beyond me.

Here is Patraeus this weekend:

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said the ongoing increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country has achieved "modest progress" but has also met with setbacks such as a rise in devastating suicide bombings and other problems that leave uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy will ultimately succeed.

And I predict in four months Patreaus will say EXACTLY THE SAME THING!

And then there is the Ambassador, Ryan Crocker:

"I think the Baghdad security plan ... can buy time, but what it does is buy time for what it ultimately has to be -- a set of political understandings among Iraqis. So I think these months ahead are going to be critical," Crocker said.

Just before Labor Day 2007, Crocker will be saying "these months ahead are going to be critical."

But both will say enough "progress" has been shown to keep going with the plan.

And then at the end of 2007, they'll say the same thing...

...and then in the Spring of 2008...

and then again in the Fall of 2008.

And then in March 2009, when a new President, probably a Democratic President begins a withdrawal, they will be blamed for "LOSING" the war just as "real progress was really being shown."

Or so will write, Joseph Lieberman, in a Wall Street Journal editorial.


The GOP and, in particular, the Bush Administration's craven abuse of the poor and minorities manifests itself in the most obvious of ways:

For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states...

...To the shock of Mississippi officials, who in 2004 had seen the infant mortality rate — defined as deaths by the age of 1 year per thousand live births — fall to 9.7, the rate jumped sharply in 2005, to 11.4. The national average in 2003, the last year for which data have been compiled, was 6.9. Smaller rises also occurred in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina saw rises in 2004 and have not yet reported on 2005.

Whether the rises continue or not, federal officials say, rates have stagnated in the Deep South at levels well above the national average.

Most striking, here and throughout the country, is the large racial disparity. In Mississippi, infant deaths among blacks rose to 17 per thousand births in 2005 from 14.2 per thousand in 2004, while those among whites rose to 6.6 per thousand from 6.1. (The national average in 2003 was 5.7 for whites and 14.0 for blacks.)

The overall jump in Mississippi meant that 65 more babies died in 2005 than in the previous year, for a total of 481.

Yet, the result this draws from the "Right to Life" crowd will be abysmal silence.

Sacrifice is for the poor and ill-situated

TBogg on Mitt Romney and his biological little varmints.

Sunday, April 22, 2007


Get a load of the American Taliban in action.

You think this is small time? It wasn't enough for the American Taliban to walk out of Mike Daisey's performance. They had to destroy his personal property in an attempt to prevent anyone else from seeing the performance.

Watch the video.

Well here's a story you don't read every day...

Pope Imelda:

During a visit to this northern city known as Italy's shoe capital, a local consortium gave one pair for himself and 15,000 more pairs for the needy around the world.

The Pope was given red loafers designed and manufactured by the Moreschi firm and made from kangaroo hide.

This Mitre is known around the Vatican as "the French Tickler"
REUTERS/Tony Gentile

When Karl Met Sheryl

This is Sheryl Crow.

This is Karl Rove.

Sheryl Crow touched Karl Rove.

Yes, you read that right: Sheryl Crow touched Karl Rove.

The fact that Karl Rove recoiled from her touch can mean one of only two things:

1) Karl Rove's loathing and contempt for anything save his own warped ideology are so great that he has officially become a non-person.
2) Karl Rove is gay.

Tune in next week to watch Karl Rove strangle polar bear cubs live on national television.