Same old crap

The only thing they know how to do is smear.

President Bush and his surrogates are launching a new campaign intended to rebuild support for the war in Iraq by accusing the opposition of aiming to appease terrorists and cut off funding for troops on the battlefield, charges that many Democrats say distort their stated positions.

What "new campaign"? Sound to me like the same crap they've been doing for five years. Claiming that people who want to actually FIGHT terrorists (as opposed to occupying Iraq) want to appease terrorists. And sadly, they are FAR more interested in attacking their fellow Americans than in attacking any terrorists.

You want to see appeasement? Here's a REAL example:

"I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." - Bush

You know who he's talking about, right? The leader of the terrorists. How's THAT for appeasing terrorists?

And in the same speech:

"I am deeply concerned about Iraq."

NOT concerned about the leader of the terrorists. DEEPLY concerned about Iraq, which wasn't a center of terrorism. And this was in March of 2002 - just SIX MONTHS after September 11th and BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

George W. Bush sent the terrorists of the world a clear message: If you attack the United States, we'll leave YOU alone and go after someone ELSE.

And that actually IS appeasement. REAL appeasement. Brought to you by George W. Bush.

Keith Olbermann

If you missed Keith Olbermann's speech, you missed something. The transcript is below, and I'll be posting the video when it's available. here's the video



Transcript:

Feeling morally, intellectually confused?

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelope this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens — must now address, is stark and forbidding.

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.

KOlbermann@msnbc.com

Maureen Dowd

Don't tell the New York Times you read her here.

Bewildered Bush
Maureen Dowd
The New York Times, August 30, 2006

Doing his stations of the Katrina cross, President Bush went for breakfast with Mayor Ray Nagin at Betsy’s Pancake House.

As Mr. Bush tried to squeeze past some tightly placed tables, a waitress, Joyce Labruzzo, teased him, saying, “Mr. President, are you going to turn your back on me?’’

“No ma’am,’’ he replied, with a laugh and a pause for effect. “Not again.”

It was a rare unguarded moment — showing that his towering Katrina failure is lodged somewhere in the front of his cerebral cortex — in a trip of staged, studiously happy settings, steering away from the wreckage of buildings and people so searing for anyone who loved the saucy and sauce-laden New Orleans of old.

W.’s anniversary contrition for the cameras was a more elaborate version of his famous Air Force One flyover a year ago, when he had to be shown a DVD of angry news coverage of apartheid suffering here before he belatedly and grudgingly broke off his five-week Crawford vacation.

In an interview on the Upper Ninth Ward’s desolate North Dorgenois Street, the president told NBC’s Brian Williams that, besides Camus, he had recently read a book on the Battle of New Orleans and “three Shakespeares.” A White House aide said one of them was “Hamlet.”

What could be more fitting? A prince who dithers instead of acting and then acts precipitously at the wrong moment, not paying attention when someone vulnerable drowns.

Asked by the anchor whether he was asking people in the country to sacrifice enough, he replied briskly, “Americans are sacrificing — we pay a lot of taxes.”

The last two days in Mississippi and New Orleans were W.’s play within the play. He took the role of the empathetic and engaged chief executive, rallying resources to save the Gulf Coast, even as the larger lens showed a sad picture of American communities that are still decrepit and hurting, while the Bush administration’s billions flow to reconstructing — or rather not reconstructing — Iraq.

You longed for this Crawford Hamlet to just go out there and say, “This just isn’t good enough.”

Instead, he gritted his teeth and put on his blandly optimistic cheerleader-in-chief role and talked about restoring “the soul’’ of New Orleans. It always makes me nervous when W. does soul talk.

He was brazen enough to pose as the man of action even in a city ruined by his initial and continuing inaction. “I’ve been on the levees,’’ he told a crowd at a high school here yesterday. “I’ve seen these good folks working.’’

He spoke to a small number of residents in the boiling sun before the one house that had been tidily restored in a blighted working-class neighborhood in Biloxi. Outside the TV frame, there was a toilet on its side in the yard of a gutted house full of dangling wires, iron scraps and other sad detritus. On one fence spoke there was a child’s abandoned stuffed toy.

At a stop at a building company in Gulfport, Miss., he chirped biblically: “There will be a momentum, momentum will be gathered. Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses.”

Douglas Brinkley, the New Orleans writer who recounted the history of the trellis of failure, Republican and Democratic, federal, state and local, in “The Great Deluge,’’ noted that Mr. Bush was merely “sweating bullets trying to get the visit over with.”

“In the Republican playbook, Katrina’s a loser,’’ he said.

Mr. Bush tells journalists he has been reading prodigiously, 53 books so far this year, with three bios of George Washington, two of Lincoln and one of Mao. He seems more attuned to his place in history and yet he doesn’t really seem to get that his presidency will be defined by rushing into one place too fast and not rushing into another fast enough.

He has let Dick Cheney and Rummy launch Cat-5 attacks on critics of the war. Darth Vader reiterated his nutty pre-emption policy, and Rummy compared critics of Iraq to Chamberlains who appeased Hitler, noting that “once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.”

Somebody needs to corner the defense chief and explain that it’s not that we don’t want to fight terrorism, it’s that we want to do it efficiently and effectively. Why is it necessary to scare the country, make false connections between an ill-conceived war and fighting terror, and demonize critics with outrageously careless historical references to Hitler and fascism?

W. needs to restore the soul, not merely of the Big Easy, but of the White House.

The L word

No, not "liberal." "Lie."

Massa guy is running for Congress in Western New York State; Walz is in Minnesota. Neither are in my district, and I might send them some money anyway.

Democratic candidate accuses Rumsfeld of lies about Iraq progress
AP


WASHINGTON -- A House Democratic candidate accused Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of lying about the progress in Iraq, a day after the Pentagon chief lashed out at critics of the Bush administration.

"After 21 months of trying to find something I can agree with Secretary Rumsfeld on, it is true: the American people are being lied to and I totally agree with Secretary Rumsfeld," Eric Massa, a Navy veteran, said Wednesday. "What I disagree with is the fact that he's the one doing the lying."

The New York Democrat and another House candidate, Tim Walz, discussed Rumsfeld's speech in a conference call with reporters. The national party had arranged the call....

Massa, who is challenging one-term Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl, said he was outraged by Rumsfeld's comments and faulted him for blaming the media for his own misstatements and missteps.

Walz, a Minnesota schoolteacher and veteran of the U.S. Army National Guard, said the Bush administration has no effective plan to secure the country.

"This thing has disintegrated," Walz said of Iraq. "On the macro level, there's an absolute failure."

Feel the Joementum

Lieberman has decided that the solution to his problem is to produce the dumbest political commercial ever.



Vote Joe. He films a nice sunset.

Plamegate

Richard Armitage has admitted his role in the Valerie Plame leak.

The right-wingers are going to seize on this, trying desperately to pretend that it somehow exonerate Libby, Rove and Cheney. Obviously it doesn't.

Liberal Oasis has an excellent breakdown of the whole thing.

When all else fails, imitate Joe McCarthy

No, not the old manager of the Yankees. The Senator from Wisconsin. It might be GOOD to imitate the OTHER Joe McCarthy. Rumsfeld prefers the commie-baiting Senator.

"Once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons. Can we truly afford to believe that, somehow or someway, vicious extremists could be appeased?"

Who are these people who believe that "vicious extremists could be appeased"? Rummy doesn't say. What a coincidence. He doesn't say because they don't exist.

Reid missed the boat on this one:

"Secretary Rumsfeld's reckless comments show why America is not as safe as it can or should be five years after 9/11. If there's one person who has failed to learn the lessons of history, it's Donald Rumsfeld." - Harry Reid

That's fine as far as it goes, but Reid should demand that Rummy NAME the people who believe that "vicious extremists could be appeased" and provide actual quotes where they say that they believe that.

And then flat call him a liar when he can't.

Just another day.

Iraq Army Battles Shiites

BAGHDAD — A major battle between the Iraqi army and Shiite Muslim militiamen in the southern city of Diwaniya left more than 40 dead, including 25 soldiers, and more than 90 injured, U.S. and Iraqi military sources said.

Witnesses described a chaotic scene in which combatants fought through the streets using machine guns, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. At one point during the battle, which began Sunday night and raged into Monday, militiamen executed a dozen Iraqi soldiers who had run out of ammunition, Maj. Gen. Othman Ghanimi said.

It isn't a civil war, it;'s just a huge battle between the Iraqi army and the Shi'ites - BOTH of whom who are supposed to be our allies and therefore on the same side.

The Shi'ites are led by Muqtada Sadr. Remember him? After we invaded, he commandeered makeshift armies and used them to attack us. He was therefore the Dreadful Evil That Must Be Defeated At All Costs.

Well, he was only evil until we realized that he wasn't going anywhere, and actually had a sizable following in Iraq. Then we decided that it was better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

So now he's part of our new cabinet. And the official new American-Approved government of Iraq is carrying out sectarian killing and fighting the Iraqi Troops that we are supposedly training. He's inside the tent and pissing in ALL directions.

This is the hugest mess imaginable. Things couldn't have GONE more wrong in Iraq. The Bush administration went in with no plan for ANYTHING that wasn't a rosy best-case scenario. And what they got is the WORST-case scenario.

The clowns who acted like they were all geniuses and nobody else knew what they were talking about were completely unprepared for reality, and are now whining that nobody else can figure out how to clean up the filthy mess that they made.

"We blew it up! Why can't YOU figure out how to put it back together?"

It's pathetic, bit it's actually the best argument that they have left.

Heckuva lie, Bushie

"Heckuva Job" Michael Brown now says that in the aftermath of Katrina, the White House wanted him to lie.


Don't expect the mainstream press to actually act like that's a story or anything, though.

Well, you knew he was thinking it

Corrente catches Bush saying what he actually thinks:

"On my grade, I could have — we — the federal government, and I’m responsible for the federal government, could have done better in coordinating with the state and local government in its response."

Guess he was drunk through high school civics, too.

The weirdest thing about Lieberman is that his image is that of a man of principal, and he is one of the biggest political opportunists in Washington, DC - the capital of political opportunism.

Lieberman to consider Iraq pullout plan
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 25, 9:12 PM ET

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker's proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals.

Video Blogging

Just to start the weekend, one you've seen before. Probably.



Zimmy. Subterranean Homesick Blues. And...



Weird Al, of course.

Katrina Timeline.

In an effort to counter the White House spin that the administration's response to Katrina was anything but shameful, Think Progress has put together a timeline showing exactly what happened when.

A real useful tool.

Turdblossom flatulates again

Toledo, Ohio - Rove said the government should be free to listen if al-Qaida is calling someone within the U.S.

"Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome," he said.

How about if your boss had paid an ounce of attention to terrorism before 9/11? You think it might have been a different outcome THEN, too?

Bush didn't want to hear the WORDS "Al Qaeda" before 9/11. So why in the hell are you spewing this transparent bullshit about how he would have prevented it if only he had been allowed to break the law? Do you REALLY think that anybody buys this shit anymore?

And why are Rove and Bush allowed to get away with this crap about "if Al Qaeda is calling someone within the US"? Is Rove claiming that they know Al Qaeda's telephone number?

"If Al Qaeda is calling someone in the US," then you know where Al Qaeda IS. So why don't you PICK THEM UP? And GET A WARRANT to tap the OTHER guy's phone?

What a pathetic load. Why the hell doesn't someone call these clowns on it when they play stupid games like this?

And WHY THE HELL is Bush's CAMPAIGN MANAGER involved in National Security issues AT ALL?

Liberal Media strike again

Today on C-Span:



A discussion called (Cue: Dramatic Music) "What's at Stake in the 2006 Vote?" on the "policy implications of the upcoming Nov. elections." The panel? John Fund (WSJ conservative columnist); John Gizzi (right-wing extremist for "Human Events," an online publication for those who find that Rush Limbaugh is just too liberal for them); Bob Novak (right-wing extremist who leaks like a sieve); and Kate O'Beirne, right-wing nutjob and author of a book called (ready?) "Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports."

Moderator: Paul Weyrich, conservative activist and considered one of the Founding Fathers of the Right-Wing Nutjobs.

And no doubt the discussion will be about the fact that the world will come to an end if the Democrats take control of the House.

Don't you just love the liberal media?

George does it again

LONDON (Reuters) -
Iran's standing in the Middle East has been bolstered by President George W Bush's "war on terror" and its power will continue to grow unless stability is restored to its neighbors, a top think tank said on Tuesday.

London's Royal Institute for International Affairs said wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and with Lebanon's Hizbollah had put Iran "in a position of considerable strength."

"There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East," the RIIA said in a report on the region.

I don't want to hear anymore nonsense about what a bad job Bush is doing. I mean, heck, he strengthened Iran, he strengthened Al Qaeda, he strengthened North Korea, and he strengthened world-wide anti-Americanism. And he did it all at the small sacrifice of only 3000 American lives, about 30000 Iraqi civilians, the entire contents of the public treasury, AND our international reputation.

Heckuva job, Bushie. I do believe you hit the trifecta.

2500 Marines sent back

This is what happens when you fight an indefensible war that no sane person wants.

"You can send Marines back for a third or fourth time, but you have to understand you are destroying their lives." - Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

It's time the Armed Forces - not just a bunch of bloggers - demanded that the 30% who are still idiotic enough to support this disaster sign the hell up so these Marines can GO HOME.

This is old and has been mentioned here before, but just in case you were unaware of it:

Go to Google; type "failure" or "miserable failure" into the search engine; and click "I'm feeling lucky."

All that bouncing must hurt.

From AOHell's Welcome Screen:



The media want to return to their script of "Bush the Popular" so bad that they can TASTE it. That's what the story is SUPPOSED to be, but they can't recite it, and it's driving them crazy. So they get all excited and start breathing hard every time that dead cat bounces.

As atrios has pointed out, they keep reporting that Bush's approval is climbing, but it never seems to actually go anywhere. That's because they ONLY report the temporary bounces, but become mute bobbleheads when the poll numbers sink right back to where they were.

Bye, Joe.

American Citizens, absurdly behaving as though they actually have a voice in things, have demanded that Lieberman be stripped of Democratic Party affiliation, citing an unimportant thing known as "the law."

Lieberman says that expecting him to obey the law is a "dirty trick."

"The law is pretty clear he is no longer a member of the Democratic Party in good standing," said group leader Henry Lowendorf. "There was an open vote, and he was voted out. He joined a different party."

Ferrucci said she would research the request, the first of its kind in her two decades on the job.

Lieberman campaign manager Sherry Brown branded the effort "dirty political tricks at its worst."

Per the intrepid Chris Bowers, the group is dead right, the law is dead clear, whether Lieberman thinks it's a "dirty trick" or not.

Check out the statute for yourself:

Prima facie evidence supporting discretionary erasure or exclusion. Enrollment in any other political party or organization, active affiliation with any other political party or organization, knowingly being a candidate at any primary or caucus of any other party or political organization, or being a candidate for office under the designation of another party or organization, within a period of two years prior to the date of the notice as provided in section 9-60 shall be prima facie evidence that any elector committing any such act is not affiliated with, or in good faith a member of, and does not intend to support the principles or candidates of the party upon the enrollment list of which his name appears or in which his application for enrollment is pending; and, upon reasonable proof of the commission of any one of such acts, the name of any such elector may be stricken or excluded from such list and such erasure or exclusion shall be effective for a period of two years from the date of any such act. The same procedure as to notice to appear thereon, return and hearing shall be followed as provided in section 9-60. If, after full hearing, such registrar and chairman or party member or such deputy registrar and chairman or party member, as the case may be, find that the name of any such elector has been wrongfully or improperly stricken or excluded from such list, such name shall be forthwith placed upon the enrollment list.

Poor Joe. He's ugly and he has a whiny voice and he has cooties and nobody likes him.

Corporate sensitivity

You know, when you lay people off, it always shows sensitivity and understanding to tell them that they can always pull stuff that they need out of somebody else's trash:

ST. PAUL (Aug. 17) - Getting money advice from a bankrupt airline wasn't the thing that most offended some soon-to-be laid-off Northwest Airlines Corp. employees. It was the Dumpster-diving tips.

Northwest is laying off its customer service workers and baggage handlers at many smaller airports as it reorganizes under bankruptcy protection. Earlier this month it sent workers in Bismarck, N.D., Bozeman, Mont., and Austin, Texas, a handbook with tips for handling their layoffs. It included 101 money-saving ideas such as, "Don't be shy about pulling something you like out of the trash."

Other tips included using old newspapers for cat litter, asking friends and family for hand-me-down clothes and asking a doctor for free prescription drug samples.

Nothing

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing. We got it from the chimpanzee's own mouth:

BUSH: You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and -- you know, the stir-up-the-hornet's- nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Note that Bush STARTS by making this sort of assumed equation between Iraq and 9/11, and then has to back off.

"Nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack," my ass. He just DID.

Bush on Iraq

Today: "We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president."

Gee, whatever happened to "When they stand up, we will stand down"?

I guess Bush has just admitted that we will not SUCCEED in Iraq as long as he is the president.

Holy Joe is a liar

I decided to practice what I preach and do my own checking (I was about to call it "legwork" but I don't think I can call surfing the net "legwork" and keep a straight face).

"Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he had called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003." - AP

I don't know about 2003, but here's Holy Joe in 2004:

WASHINGTON — Some Democrats are calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (search) to resign amid controversy surrounding pictures depicting U.S. military personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners outside of Baghdad.

But others say the demand for pink slips is merely politics in an election year when Democrats are hoping to oust President Bush.

"The Congress will politicize this, will spend too much time investigating it," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., told Fox News. "The other danger is, the administration will be defensive about this instead of being aggressive ... This has been a setback for our cause."

Lieberman told Fox News that the calls for Rumsfeld's ouster are a distraction from the larger picture.


"We're in the middle of a war — you wouldn't want to have the secretary of defense change unless there's really good reason for it and I don't see any good reason at this time," Lieberman said.

And here's an Op-ed from Lieberman in the WSJ in 2004 subtitled "Why Rumsfeld Must Stay."

I guess this is the cue for the dumbass press to tell us all what a man of integrity Joe Lieberman is.

Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign

Yes, I know: it seems pretty pathetic. The guy kissed up to everything Bush wanted UNTIL he lost the election. NOW he's suddenly desperate to demonstrate his liberal credentials. Despite the fact that Bush and Cheney have tacitly endorsed him.

"Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he had called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003."

Isn't that a GREAT example of reporting? Lieberman SAID that he said it. Well, that's it, then, eh? If Holy Joe says it, it MUST be true.

How about the "reporter" actually FINDING A QUOTE where Lieberman says that? Or would that be too much like reporting, when they'd rather be a pack of stenographers? And, in the same article, they simply repeat a claim AGAIN:

"I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq."

WHERE? Is it too much to ask that we not be expected to just take his word for it?

Does anyone recall Lieberman previously calling for Rumsfeld to resign? Or is he lying?

Well, here's an interesting item.

A blog called (and I swear I am not making this up) Iggy Junior.

I have no idea what I did to this person, that they would appropriate my name and use it to purvey evil, tree-hugging, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, pointy-headed-intellectual liberalism. But they probably thought that they'd like to join me (and you) in Alberto Gonzales' giant database. Not that it's lonely in Alberto Gonzales' giant database.

Check him out. It looks like a nice blog, and Junior can obviously write.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." - U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

Pretty tough to argue with, Judge Anna. Not that Bush won't try. But that says it, doesn't? Bush's whole philosophy is that there ARE Executive Powers not created by the Constitution.

Go see Jack Cafferty rip Bush another asshole.

Court to Bush: "You have to obey the law, you jackass."

By way of Think Progress

Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

"In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained." - Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (opinion (pdf) here)

But animals can't think, right?

The moustache speaks

Tom Friedman, New York Times. You can't read it without paying. Here's a excerpt. And remember: Friedman SUPPORTED the Iraqi war.

Well, I just have one question for Mr. Cheney: If we're in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did you "tough guys" fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld Doctrine -- just enough troops to lose -- and not the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is security? How could you send so few troops to fight such an important war when it was obvious that without security Iraqis would fall back on their tribal militias?

Besides a few mavericks like Chuck Hagel and John McCain on Iraq and Dick Lugar and George Shultz on energy, how many Republicans have stood up and questioned the decision-making that has turned the Iraq war into a fiasco? Had more of them done so, instead of just mindlessly applauding the administration, the White House might have changed course when it had a chance.

Not only is there no honest self-criticism among Republicans, but -- and this is truly contemptible -- you have Dick Cheney & Friends focusing their public remarks on why Mr. Lamont's defeat of Mr. Lieberman only proves that Democrats do not understand that we are in a titanic struggle with "Islamic fascists" and are therefore unfit to lead....

Mr. Cheney, if we're in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why have you and President Bush resisted any serious effort to get Americans to conserve energy? Why do you refuse to push higher mileage standards for U.S. automakers or a gasoline tax that would curb our imports of oil? Here we are in the biggest struggle of our lives and we are funding both sides -- the U.S. military with our tax dollars and the radical Islamists and the governments and charities that support them with our gasoline purchases -- and you won't lift a finger to change that. Why? Because it might impose pain on the oil companies and auto lobbies that fund the G.O.P., or require some sacrifice by Americans.

Mr. Cheney, if we're in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why do you constantly use the "war on terrorism" as a wedge issue in domestic politics to frighten voters away from Democrats. How are we going to sustain such a large, long-term struggle if we are a divided country?

Please, Mr. Cheney, spare us your flag-waving rhetoric about the titanic struggle we are in and how Democrats just don't understand it. It is just so phony -- such a patent ploy to divert Americans from the fact that you have never risen to the challenge of this war. You will the ends, but you won't will the means. What a fraud!

And it's their own damned fault

The Democratic Party has a self-image problem. Talk to Democrats at every level about the strong position the party is in for this fall's elections and the conversation inevitably ends with a variation of: "Yeah, if we don't blow it." Karl Rove's greatest victory is how much he has spooked Democrats about themselves. - E. J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post

Correction, Mr. Dionne: you're giving Rove too much credit. The Democrats have done that to their own damned selves.

Loved around the world

I would have gone for the same sentiment, with a slightly stronger synonym.

Bush is crap, says Prescott
Deputy PM criticises US handling of Middle East, condemning 'cowboy' President at private meeting

John Prescott has given vent to his private feelings about the Bush presidency, summing up George Bush's administration in a single word: crap....

The remark is said to have been made at a private meeting in Mr Prescott's Whitehall office on Tuesday with Muslim MPs and other Labour MPs with constituencies representing large Muslim communities. Muslim MPs wanted to press home their objections to British foreign policy and discuss ways of improving relations with the Muslim communities.

Some of the MPs present said yesterday they could not remember Mr Prescott making the remark. He has been at pains to avoid breaking ranks with Mr Blair in public although he is believed to have raised concern about the bombing of Lebanon at a private meeting of the Cabinet. But Harry Cohen, the MP whose constituency includes Walthamstow, scene of some of the police raids in the alleged "terror plot" investigation, said Mr Prescott had definitely used the word "crap" about the Bush administration.

"He was talking in the context of the 'road map' in the Middle East. He said he only gave support to the war on Iraq because they were promised the road map. But he said the Bush administration had been crap on that. We all laughed and he said to an official, 'Don't minute that'." Mr Cohen added: "We also had a laugh when he said old Bush is just a cowboy with his Stetson on. But then he said, 'I can hardly talk about that can I?'

Up next: The Australian Prime Minister calls Bush, "A fetid, maggot-ridden pile of rotting dingo's kidneys."

Why do I get the feeling that newsrooms across the country are saying, "Thank God for JonBenet Ramsey. We might have had to talk about the war"?

Clueless in Washington

In an unscripted moment, truly frightening in its implications of just how ignorant and clueless is the Man Who Squats In The White House, Bush thinks that Israel has defeated Hezbollah:

President Bush's startling assertion yesterday -- that at the end of 33 days of warfare between Israel and the Hezbollah militia, Hezbollah had been defeated -- once again raises questions about his ability to acknowledge reality when things don't turn out the way he intended.

Here, from the transcript of his appearance at the State Department, are his exact words: "Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis. And the reason why is, is that first, there is a new -- there's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon, and that's going to be a Lebanese force with a robust international force to help them seize control of the country, that part of the country."

How Rumsfeld supports the troops

This really, really stinks. How much do they expect these people to take? What do they think they are? Machines? Toys?

On July 26th, the men and women of the 172nd Stryker Combat Brigade prepared to end their unit's deployment to Iraq. This unit of 3,800 Americans had endured the fight for a year, distinguishing itself as an essential and effective factor in bringing stability to the North of Iraq. A small number of the brigade had taken the first steps back on U.S. soil, arriving to their base near Fairbanks, Alaska, while many others were already in Kuwait waiting to board homebound planes. With these successes behind them, their flak vests packed, personal items sent stateside, and their Stryker Armored Vehicles turned over to other newly-arrived units, this battle brigade was able to breathe a sigh of relief and prepare to Go Home.

The following day, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gave his approval to extend the 172nd Brigade's deployment in Iraq. Instead of greeting their loved ones, the Strykers will help to fight the insurgency in Baghdad, a city occupied by garrisoned American soldiers for nearly 3.5 years.

On August 14th, 301 of the 378 soldiers who had made it back to Alaska for a brief time were sent back to Iraq to join their unit.

I have good news and bad news:

The good news is that CBS is giving solid play to Bush trying to cut bomb detection funds.

The bad news that they putting it in the POLITICS section.

Why the hell they think that's "politics," I have no idea, unless they have adopted Bush's definition that EVERYTHING is politics.

The Bush Panacea

WASHINGTON - The nation's chief of homeland security said Sunday that the U.S. should consider reviewing its laws to allow for more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects, citing last week's foiled plot.

Isn't it funny how the Bush administration's proposed solution to EVERY PROBLEM is "give us more power"?

Coincidence, I'm sure.

Bush: Defund explosives detection

WASHINGTON - While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

The stone fact is that the Bush administration doesn't actually care about terrorism. They regard it as a useful political tool, handy for stoking fear, and manipulating people to get what they want. They TALK about it: they do nothing about it. They defund anything that might actually be useful, and use that money for there own little pet projects.

That's why none of Bush's actions have actually helped to decrease terrorism: because there is no actual desire on the part of this administration to decrease it.

“I don’t take anything he says seriously anymore. I think that he has been a very counterproductive, even destructive, force in our country and I am very disheartened by the failure of leadership from the president and vice president.” - Hillary Clinton

If the Democrats keep this up, they may actually be able to snatch victory from the jaws of victory.

SOMEONE in the press gets it.

It's about TIME someone called these nutjobs out for the sort of garbage that they routinely spew.

Editorial from a mainstream media outlet - the Philadephia Daily News:

BUSH AND CHENEY'S REIGN OF ERROR
VEEP SAYS CONN. VOTERS AIDING AL QAEDA. NOW, THAT'S SCARY.


THESE PEOPLE have no shame. Their contempt for democracy is so great they will stop at nothing to undermine it. Their adherence to fundamentalist beliefs that blinds them to reality is frightening. They must be stopped.

And that's just the Republicans.

Let's start with Vice President Dick Cheney.

Yesterday, Cheney bashed those who voted for Democrat Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate primary, claiming that these votes would encourage "al Qaeda types" to think that "they can break the will of the American people."...

Cheney's comments came out a day before British intelligence officials announced they had thwarted a major terrorist attack. Surely Cheney was aware of the plot and the work to thwart it, and was no doubt aware of the timing of yesterday's announcement.

To exploit a very real terror threat that could have led to major casualties, and to even indirectly implicate Americans who were exercising their democratic right by going to the polls and making a choice borders on the criminal, to say nothing of the insane.

Has Cheney completely lost it?....

But the real terror is this: While our Vacationer-in-Chief and his vice president shut down dissent, and discourage questions about the way our government has directed our intelligence and military resources toward a single target in Iraq, we are no closer to understanding or dismantling the threat of al Qaeda.

Cheney's remarks underscore just how unsophisticated our understanding of terrorism is. We have no more understanding of the global forces at work that lead so many to want to bomb and destroy innocent lives than we did five years ago.

America's latest crisis is not what happened in Connecticut; it's what was going to happen in airplanes over the Atlantic.

The immoral and ridiculous claims coming out of the Bush administration's reign of error could ultimately be responsible for the kind of casualties that al Qaeda can only dream of.

IOKIYAR

Two days ago, Dick Cheney disgracefully said that Lamont's victory would encourage Al Qaeda.

What we didn't know when he said it was that he already knew about what was going on in England:

U.S. Knew Of Plot 'For Days'
Bush, Homeland Security, Lawmakers Were Briefed

If a Democrat had said something like that, the "liberal media" would have him on the defensive and apologizing within a day. But there is NOTHING that a right-winger can possibly say that will be regarded as over the line by our press corps. Nothing.

You know the old analogy of the boiling frog, right? How if you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out, but if you put it in cool water and heat it a little at a time, it will sit there until it is boiled?

Well, these Republicans have so constantly and continuously indulged in filthy, over-the-top, disgrace that nobody even notices. It's EXPECTED for them to play politics with unimportant things like war and terrorist attacks.

The Bushites think that EVERYTHING is political and that politics is all that matters.

And that shit is hurting America.

And it's time that the stinking Democrats call them on it, publicly define what they are doing, frame it as the disgraceful action that it is, and demand that the Republicans stop hurting America.

"If you don't vote for me, you all will DIE!"

Well, we all knew that it wouldn't be long before some Republican tried to tie Lieberman's loss to the terrorism alert in England. Stupid as such a thing would be, it's the standard M.O., and exactly what we expect from Republicans.

The only thing that surprises me is that I REALLY wasn't expecting the "Republican" to be Lieberman himself.

Joe seems determined to react to his loss by publicly humiliating himself from now until November.

Props to Mark for drawing my attention to the article. Don't have a link for him, though.

More than we wanted to know.

"We have a good president. I pray for him. Sometimes I'd like to pull down his britches and switch him, but I still love him." - Ralph Hall, Republican Congressman

Threat level raised to red.

For the first time ever.

And John Aravosis is obviously right: This is bullshit, and they are trying to stoke fear over nothing to distract from Bush's woes, and they are playing politics with Homeland Security to do it.

Is Lieberman the Republican candidate?

You may have heard the George Stephanopoulos reported that one of Leiberman's adviser said that Karl Rove had called Joe Lieberman and said, "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

The New Republic called the Lieberman crew and asked (wow - actual reporting). His Adviser Dan Gerstein said that it wasn't true. "Rove made a personal call, no help was offered, and we are not interested regardless."

So, Gerstein says that no help was offered, but confirms that Rove called.

Well, I have a question: Why the hell would Karl Rove make a personal call to Joe Lieberman the day after the election?

And to top it off, Ken Mehlman, on Chris Matthews, REFUSED to say that the RNC would support the Republican Candidate in the Connecticut race.

MATTHEWS: Do you want Republicans in Connecticut to vote for the Republican candidate or do you want them to vote for Joe Lieberman, which one?

MEHLMAN: I'm letting Republicans in Connecticut make that decision.

He's the head of the RNC, and he won't say that he wants Republicans to vote for the Republican?

Sometimes, life is good.

Actual screen capture from FOX News last night:

Bush wants to weaken WAR CRIMES LAWS.

he Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.

"We will fight to declare the Geneva Convetions invalid - but not because we wish to violate them. Honest."

"We will try to make torture illegal, but not because we want to torture people. Honest."

"We will weaken the laws governing war crimes, but not because we are war criminals. Honest."

When will the press and the Congress stand up and loudly and clearly call this scumbag what he OBVIOUSLY is?

Good morning

I'm that by now you've heard that Lamont beat Lieberman, and Lieberman intends to run as an independent.

I'm going to quote kos whole, because I think he's right, and because I think every should be on the same page in attempting to stop Lieberman's independent run:

Lieberman just announced that he is running as an independent.

I know Democrats in DC, including many of Lieberman's allies, are horrified at that possibility. Lieberman will tell them all to fuck off. He doesn't care. He doesn't care about promises he made to them to respect the will of the primary voters.

Lieberman's original rationale for collecting signatures was that only 20 percent of Democrats would vote in a summer primary. Well, we got a blockbuster primary turnout. While only about 3 percent of Democrats voted in the Virginia primary a few weeks ago, about 50 percent will have participated today. That's an incredible number -- unprecedented -- for a Senate primary. I'll leave others to do the historical research, but this isn't normal. This is what people-power looks like, and it is changing the face of politics.

Now, Lieberman wants to stab his allies and his party in the back. It won't be the first time.

Here's what we all need to do the next few days:

1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.

2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.

3. Get all Democrats -- including Bill Clinton -- to publicly back Ned Lamont.

4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general.

The DSCC and the DCCC will have to deal with the fact that this race will continue to suck oxygen from great pickup opportunities. And I won't apologize for that, because as a proud Democrat, I will help in whatever way I can the Democratic nominee from the Great State of Connecticut.

The Republicans rejoiced at Lieberman's decision to stay in. They couldn't be happier. And let's not talk about the lobbyists! They're besides themselves!

Joe Lieberman is not an independent Democrat. He needs to be stripped of his committee assignments and have those handed to real Democrats. And then we need to buckle down and finish the job we started.

This was never going to be easy. it still is not. But in the end, we will prevail.

Idiot

Is being insanely delusional an impeachable offense?

Bush apparently thinks his own Generals don't know what they're talking about. From Think Progress:

Last week, Gen. John Abizaid, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, raised the prospect that Iraq could be sliding toward civil war. Abizaid said, “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably is as bad as I’ve seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.” Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “I believe we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war.”

Today at a press conference, President Bush dismissed these concerns out of hand. Bush said, “You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.”

More than one hundred Iraqi civilians are dying per day, mostly in sectarian violence, according to a recent U.N. report.

"Well, what's YOUR plan?" said Custer to his Lieutenant, as 1200 Indian warriors came storming down the hill.

"No good options"

Chuck Hagel (R-still sane), on Face the Nation:

HAGEL: There’s no good options here, no good options. I would move toward a higher ground toward right back to what you talked about, Bob, the regionalization. I would–I would get the first President Bush, President Clinton involved and try to impanel a regional security conference, a regional diplomatic conference. The UN can be part of that. Unless you come at it that way, we’re going to be leaving Iraq, and it is not going to be the way we intended to leave Iraq. Because that is the direction of where this is going. It is very wrong, Bob, to put American troops in a hopeless, winless situation, just keep feeding them into what’s going on. That’s irresponsible and that is wrong.

SCHIEFFER: But if, if the United States leaves, won’t you somehow have a confederation of Iran and the government there with the Shiites that are in southern Iraq?

Sen. HAGEL: Bob, like I said, there, Bob, there are no good options here. That may well happen, I don’t know. But let me ask you the question, and I hope the president and his people are starting to ask themselves this question, that what is the alternative? Are we going to put our troops in the middle of a civil war? Who are they going to fight? This will be slaughter of immense proportions. The American people will not put up with it, the leadership in Congress will not put up with it. I hope this administration has got a way out of this, because yes that’s a tough question, Bob, but the fact is that may well be the way it turns out. But we cannot put American troops, and ask them to do the things that we’re asking them to do in the middle of a civil war, and that’s where it’s headed.

Think Progress has the video.

In case we all forgot, Americans are still dying in Iraq

By Jimmy Breslin

The latest polls suggest that the Democrats will retake the House.

It's early, of course, and I wouldn't trust a poll at this point as far as I could throw it. But what it does indicate is the intensity of opposition to Bush. Thanks to past incompetence ("Mississippi? Why should we bother campaigning in Mississippi?") the Republicans have a LOT more seats than the Democrats. To take control of the House, they have to flip 30 seats. And this possibility that they may do it is entirely due to dissatisfaction with Bush and the Republicans - not approval of the Democrats. And for that to be the case, this "dissatisfaction" has to be bordering on fury.

An enormous number of Americans are absolutely furious about what George Bush is done. Rightfully. Furious enough to vote in droves with the sole purposes of disempowering him.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (Aug. 6) - The nation's governors are closing ranks in opposition to a proposal in Congress that would let the president take control of the National Guard in emergencies without consent of governors.

"Give me more power, and everything will be fine."

Is Bush actually under the illusion that people think that the solution to all of the problems that he created is to give him MORE power? Doesn't he realize that the American People believe that he has NO IDEA WHAT HE'S DOING?

Sunday Mornin Comin Down

Joe Leiberman, that is.

From the Lamont for Senate site, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee slaps Leiberman, and Lamont savages him:

DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel in today’s Washington Post

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Friday he is not worried about the fallout from the Senate primary on House races, arguing that the message from Connecticut is that anyone supporting Bush’s war policies is in deep trouble. “What’s playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening,” he said.

Indeed. And it’s dangerous for Republicans as well. That’s why you see them flying the president in under-cover for fundraisers, taking the word “Republican” off their website, and falling over themselves on the way to the microphone to criticize the President. Yet one remains steadfast in his un-yielding support for the president, and on Tuesday, we have a shot to replace him with Ned Lamont in the United States Senate.

Lamont is right: The Republicans are running away from Bush. But Leiberman continues to defend failure.

RNC: Don't defend Bush.

How bad is it for the Bushites?

The Republican National Committee is advising Republican candidates to not defend Bush OR the Republican Congress.

The Republican National Committee opened its two-day annual summer meeting Thursday at the Sheraton Bloomington Hotel, hoping to outline a national strategy that will enable its candidates to swim against a tide of popular opinion flowing against Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

The theme of the meeting — the RNC's first in Minnesota — is "Defining the difference," and that means debating the Democrats on the issues and not defending Bush and the Republican Congress on the policies they have instituted in the past six years.

"This is going to be an election about choice, not a referendum on the president," said RNC spokeswoman Ann Marie Hauser. "The president is not on the ballot."

Gee, I wonder if Ann Marie Hauser would be saying the same thing if he was a POPULAR President? You know, like Bill Clinton.

"And I know the question was some wars lasted three years, some wars lasted four years, some wars lasted five years. The Cold War lasted 40 plus years." - Rumsfeld

Hey, you imbecile, this is a HOT war. The Cold War wasn't a real war.

What the hell is this clown doing in a position of authority?

Hey, it's hot, what do you want?

"Afghanistan - um, I don’t know who said what about if the Taliban are gone but, in fact, the Taliban that were running Afghanistan and ruling Afghanistan were replaced. And they were replaced by an election that took place in that country, and in terms of a government or a governing entity, they were gone, and that’s a fact.

"Are there still Taliban around? You bet. Are they occupying safe havens in Afghanistan and other places — correction, in Pakistan and other places? Certainly they are. Is the violence up? Yes. Does the violence tend to be up during the summer, in the spring, summer and fall months? Yes it does. And it tends to decline during the winter period. Does that represent failed policy? I don’t know. I would say not." - Rumsfeld

He said that to GROWNUPS.

He just told a roomful of GROWNUPS that the increase in violence was due to hot weather.

Every single Senator whose IQ is higher than 72 must be frigging insulted that he actually thinks they're stupid enough to buy that.

"Damn, it's hot out. I think I'll go bust a cap in somebody."

Holy God.

They should have pelted his ass with rotten fruit.

Bush may sue Maine.

Wow. It looks like Bush may try to SUE A STATE in order to cover up his criminal activity.

The Bush administration is threatening to sue if Maine regulators decide to investigate whether Verizon Communications illegally turned over customer information to the National Security Agency.

The Federal Government suing a sovereign state. I wonder how that will go over with the right-wing "State's Rights" crowd.

It probably won't bother them at all. They have no real principles left. "Bush is always right" is not a principle.

Rosy pictures

Yesterday, Rumsfeld, trying to defend the indefensible again, claim that he had "Never painted a rosy picture" of Iraq.

CLINTON: Well, Mr. Secretary, I know you would and I know you feel strongly about it, but there’s a track record here. This is not 2002, 2003, 2004-5, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented, you know, many assurances that have frankly proven to be unfulfilled, and –

RUMSFELD: Senator, I don’t think that’s true. I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words, and you’d have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been excessively optimistic. I understand this is tough stuff.

Think progress had no trouble finding examples.

Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

Are they delusional, or compulsive liars?

The Poor Man answers all your questions about Mel Gibson.

Bush Grants Self Permission To Grant More Power To Self

From the Onion:

WASHINGTON, DC—In a decisive 1–0 decision Monday, President Bush voted to grant the president the constitutional power to grant himself additional powers.

The Presidential Empowerment Act, which the president hand-drafted on his own Oval Office stationery and promptly signed into law, provides Bush with full authority to permit himself to authorize increased jurisdiction over the three branches of the federal government, provided that the president considers it in his best interest to do so.

"In a time of war, the president must have the power he needs to make the tough decisions, including, if need be, the decision to grant himself even more power," Bush said. "To do otherwise would be playing into the hands of our enemies."

Added Bush: "And it's all under due process of the law as I see it."

Soldier

WASHINGTON -- President Bush came and sat by the side of Sergeant Brian Fountaine, a 24-year-old tank commander from Dorchester, a gung-ho soldier who had lobbied to be deployed a second time. Now Fountaine was among the wounded at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, his legs amputated below the knees after an explosion June 8 ripped apart the Humvee in which he was riding.

The president chatted about the sergeant's beloved Red Sox, but made no reference to the war, the soldier said.

If the topic had come up, the president might not have liked what Fountaine had on his mind. In a dramatic change of heart, Fountaine now considers the war a military quagmire in which American soldiers are caught in a deadly vise between irreconcilable enemies.

I give it roughly half a day before the Republicans start savaging this wounded soldier in the name of "supporting the troops."

Isn't it interesting that when talking to a soldier whose legs were blown off in a war that HE chose to start, Bush doesn't mention the war, itself.

I guess he's afraid of what he might hear.

Pentagon Deception?

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

You know, I have very little patience with conspiracy theorists who try to say that something ELSE brought the Twin Towers down, when we all saw the plane with our own eyes.

But can I believe that the incompetents in the White House completely bungled their end of things, and then covered that up?

That doesn't sound like anything THESE guys would do, does it?

Heh

From Freeway blogger:

George W. Bush: 0 for life.

Analysis: Bush Mideast stance may flop

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration may have badly miscalculated in insisting that any Mideast cease-fire be tied to long-term objectives. As the toll on Lebanese civilians has soared, even moderate Arab governments have turned into U.S. critics, and Hezbollah's support has climbed across the region.

How is it possible for ANYONE - even the clown in the White House - to be wrong ALL THE TIME?

Every single bloody decision he MAKES is the wrong one. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? He'd be better off flipping a frigging coin than actually making decisions with his own pathetic brain. A LOT better off.

I swear, it wouldn't surprise me if the first thing he does EVERY SINGLE MORNING is put his shoes on the wrong feet. It would be consistent with his screwing up everywhere else. Laura: "Dear, your shoes are on the wrong feet again." George: "Ah! Yah, thanks." Every day.

Everything he does is wrong. It's actually amazing.