« Another Disastrous Choice | Main | Reggie's Going to Smile »

July 12, 2007


As Kevin Drum points out, we are fighting "al Qaeda in Iraq" because who else are we going to fight? The militias that are affiliated with the various parties in the government we are supposedly counting on? The militias that incorporate people we have trained and armed as the "Iraqi Security Forces?"

Of course, if one were truly cynical, one might believe that averting another attack is not the real policy of the Bush regime. After all, post 9/11 was the high point of Bush's popularity, and it has been all downhill since.

But to become truly cynical would mean that not only the terroists, but Bush have won.

All I know is, this morning, Chimpy ADMITTED ON NATIONAL TELEVISION....that someone in his office ....revealed VALERIE PLAME'S ID!!!! How dumb is he?

At minimum, this has got to be big news for the Wilsons' civil suit! HOORAY!!!

How anyone can avoid impeachment proceedings now....I'll never understand.


Bush is slipping down the slope of being declared mentally incompetent to hold the office.

Oh, the irony of a King-like Ideologue being declared mentally incapable of faithful protection of the Rule of Law and OUR Constitution!

This is what happens when a puppet is asked to explain his actions - his strings go slack.

Now, where's Cheney?

For the life of me, I cannot understand why, when the newly elected Iraqi gov't proposed their peace plan, which included an agreement with the Sunnis to lay down their arms if we withdrew within two years, we rejected their proposal. All they wanted was a date certain for when we would leave.

Why are the Democrats not supporting the Iraqi gov't's numerous proposed peace plans? Could it be they want the American drafted oil law passed by Iraq too?

It doesn't make a bit of sense to me. They say they'll stop the fighting if we leave. We say NO and then say we won't stay if they don't stop the fighting. Are they all insane, Dems and Repugs alike? It would laughable if people weren't being blown to bits as we sit around splitting hairs and talking nonsense.

Are they all insane, Dems and Repugs alike?


This is simple answer to an obvious question.

(The next question is: what is in the air, food, and water, that affects the thought processes of MSM and government officials only.)

No one wants to take the risk of saying the policy is a crock and is not making us safer. Actually, some of the journos in the Bush presser did make comments like that, and he just harangued them, as if repeating his SOS about al Qaeda and I want them to have democracy and failure is not an option because they would come home and kill us, over and over. That's what made it ultimately unwatchable. He's awful and incoherent and delusional.

I think the tide is finally turning, but then I'm a congential optimist (when I'm not depressed). That doesn't mean I think Bush will change, just that I think the tide of opinion in DC is beginning to catch up with the rest of the country, and that makes him weaker for whatever showdown is coming.

As I watched the reporting on al Qaeda last night on Countdown, I said to my wife, It's as if the Bush PLAN was to degrade the country's defenses. Fears about that, I think, account for what Mimikatz correctly notes, the change in DC opinion (really, over the past year or so).

Yet the press remains hopelessly fearful of articulating this. As a semi-old-timer who can't shake his Evening News habit, I'd recently gravitated to ABC as the least objectionable of the three shows, but, over the last few nights, I've become hopelessly disgusted over their politeness to the Bushies. Two nights ago, in their coverage of the surgeon general story, they gave Satcher's mild problem with Clinton equal footing with Carmona's blanket denunciation of Bush. Last night, they completely omitted Sara Taylor and the vote on Webb's amendment, while profiling Petraeus' group, and asking the loaded question "Do you worry political considerations will interefere with your (implied: glorious) work?" Will coverage ever approach the consensus view of the American public?

OfT, Mimi Katz, Digby linked to your "When Centrism is Cowardice" in her "Politics In The Extreme."

Yes, they've been hyping al-Qaeda in Iraq for the past two weeks or more and shamelessly linking it to 9/11 while not even talking about the al-Qaeda that actually "attacked us on 9/11", counting I suppose on the public to continue to be confused about all this. It's all Iraq/Iraq/Iraq. Reportedly, the original al-Qaeda has been re-grouping for some time now and training operatives, ("openly" according to some reports), with Pakistan agreeing to not enter their haven near the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
At least this is what I see, based on my minimal attention to events, but many in the press corps and Congress seem oblivious to it all.

demtom, I think that the timidity comes mostly from the corporate sponsors and owners, who are making a fortune and like things the way they are (that is, fearful, incoherent, and overwhelming; more suckers to watch teevee and buy stuff while the other division sells arms to all sides). Jack Welsh was famous for openly declaring his network to be no different from any other profit center.

Of course, I'm in a pretty cranky mood today, so maybe it isn't all that bad.

You know, considering how bad the press has been, it's still quite remarkable how American opinion has shifted over the past year and a half. Basically, all they have to work with are casualty reports and knowing people who know someone who got killed or maimed. It's not a lot. And yet the American people are fed up. Says something. I'm not sure I know what.

Honestly, I can't tell that we're actually fighting anyone in Iraq. It seems to me we're just wondering around looking for an enemy, and taking pot shots to the tune of about 35 dead a month.

Insurgentcy? What's an insurgency? Who is the government they are insurging against? This is a multi front civil war - No it's not even that. It's Anarcy, actually. And our boys are stuck in the middle of it with no credible offensive to pursue.

Congress should have their ass kicked for funding one more day of this delusional mess.

Kristol the douchebag said it best this morning - "The Dems seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of possible progress" Hey douchebag, where did the word Victory go? You can't even say it any longer yet you'll keep putting you ugly mug on TV spouting the same tired bullshit. When is one of you fucks going to show some dignity and fall on a sword. If ever there were a time that Japaneese tradition made sense, it's now.

AND - Don't you just know, The real Al-Quade laughs itself silly every day at our stupidity.

Now there's an impeachable offense - "Making a mockery of the USA in the face of the enemy."

George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Neo-cons have made fools of us all - And this ex-republican is plenty pissed about it.

knut: "And yet the American people are fed up. Says something. I'm not sure I know what."
There is great opposition to the war as it is, but I think we have to keep in mind that a lot of that may be simply a sense that it is a failure and is poorly executed. We may still have a long way to go to address the issues of pre-emptive aggression, imperialism, and merciless' point about corporate profit from war. Humans seem to have wars about every other generation, or every generation, and in between times forget what war actually is.
My cynic is craving a trip to the Canadian Rockies. :) (next week - it feels like such a relief to cross the border, as illusory as that may be).

Steve Soto at The Left Coaster has an alternative strategy for Reid: If McConnell will not allow votes on the Levin-Reed measure, postpone the vote on the Defense bill until after the recess, after the GOPers have had a chance to talk to the home folks one more time.

Instead, take up some other measure (my suggestion--the student loan bill the House just passed) and do a modified filibuster on it, with debate scheduled until McConnell agrees to a vote. If there is no Defense bill until Spet, so be it. It's the GOP's choice.

I'd prefer a modified filibuster (unlimited debate) on the Defense Bill with no recess until they vote on the merits, but Steve's idea is good too.

The main entity terrorizing the United States is President Bush and his administration through their cowardly, pathetic and self serving relentless attempts to instill fear and panic in the citizenry. If al Qaida constitutes even one fourth of the threat to America's safety and continued existence that we are daily preached to about, then the single biggest, fastest and most effective step we could take to protect ourselves would be to immediately remove Bush and all the Bushistas from power. No single person in the world has done more, including Osama bin Laden himself, has done more to empower al Qaida, recruit troops for al Qaida, raise money for al Qaida, and provide training and battle testing for al Qaida than George Bush. George Bush blithely allowed al Qaida to attack on US soil after being warned they were going to do so, George Bush has allowed the masterminds of al Qaida and 9/11 to roam free, build strength and mock America while bankrupting the country morally and financially with an immoral and illegal war of aggression in Iraq, and when the masterminds, bin Laden and Zawahiri were within days, if not hours, of capture or death, Bush called off the dogs by ordering the retreat and disengagement that has allowed al Qaida to remain intact, grow and flourish. If you are concerned about al Qaida, the first thing on your mind ought to be removing sl Qaida's biggest benefactor, George Bush, from power. There is simply no other way to view this anymore.

Hear, hear.

I decided to blog the press conference on FDL as it played on CSPAN-3 after the hearing; can anybody say out of body experience?

Writing it as he said it became channeling insanity.

'Bush is slipping down the slope of being declared mentally incompetent to hold the office.'

Are we seeing a modern version of "The Madness of King George?" Or is he just plain "dumbfounded" by his own failure(s)?

Apparently the Bush history era has given us one more conundrum of monumental proportions; When does "dumb" become "crazy?"

When does ignorance become insanity? When is stupidity actually mental instability?

I've always said that our new George II is a cosmic, tragic digression from our old George III; their madness seems so similar.

So what is it... is Bush just stupid or is he crazy?

Or is he just crazy stupid? Now I think we're getting somewhere...

It would not be so bad, if Bush weren't also very dangerous and so willing to use violence to get his no-bid, book-cooking way.

There's lots of crazy, stupid people "out there", we all know a few of them. But Bush and his cronies are crazy, and stupid, and perfectly willing to throw someone into jail without habeaus corpus, and then torture them until they break (literally)...

Crazy, Stupid AND Violent...(not necessarily in that order)it makes a very bad combination for a supposedly democratically elected (NOT!!!) US President.

I, for one, will be diligently watching for submarines off the coast and will notify the authorities if I see anything. Who do I call that wants to catch anyone from al caca? I know we haven't tried, so that may be a waste of time. Any suggestions?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad