Oh, I just thought of something.

Bush never defined what "win" means for
the Generals at that meeting.

So it's impossible for them to come with a winning plan.

Bush will never hear it because it can never be spoken.
James | 01.02.07 - 3:27 am | #

People need to realize Bush has NO problme driving off the cliff! He doesn't care!
palolo lolo | 01.02.07 - 3:45 am | #

Why is it that the "reasonable" Repubs (not my opinion, but the CW) never seem to GET that Bush isn't going to do the "reasonable" thing, EVER? They keep projecting their own desires onto him, and trying to give him "political cover" to do what they think he should, and writing long op/ed columns giving him "advice" about what he should do next... and he's not listening to a damn word they're saying, which is completely unremarkable to those of us on this side of the spectrum but which continually seems to catch the "reasonables" by surprise. I keep waiting for this tipping point moment where the people of this particular stripe realize that ALL of us, no matter what our political leanings, will be richer and safer and healthier and less likely to die pointlessly and tragically when the incompetents, cronies, and crazies of the Bush admin are out of office and out of power in the Repub party. I keep waiting... they keep not getting it.
Matt P. | 01.02.07 - 5:05 am | #

Bush only understands force. The vast majority of the political elite is on James Baker's side.... it's kinda like the mafia at that level.

Here's the Deal Baker needs to Offer Bush

The rest of us, the unwashed masses, need to rattle the cage. Here's a Media Contact List
.
GDAEman | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 6:36 am | #

Since we are rapidly becoming militarily and politically irrelevant in Iraq, with the Iraqi government sliding into de facto Iranian control, the only way to attain "victory" in Iraq is to ally with the side which is going to win - i.e. Iran. However, the neo-con element could never bring themselves to do that.

My current belief is that they may have written the Iraqi government off long term; getting rid of Saddam has now removed most of the common interest between them. Tony Blair has spoken of the need for a regional alliance against Iran, which would be completely incompatible with support for an Iraqi government which is undoubtedly part of a regional alliance with Iran.

They may well be encouraging the current animosity between Saudi and Iran (over the mutual massacring of their religious 'brothers' in Iraq) to develop into a war of one sort or another on Iraqi soil. They would then back the Saudis against Iran and the Iraqi government. This would be used as an opportunity to transfer blame for the existing Iraq catastrophe onto the Iraqi government and its subversion by the Iranians - a PR strategy that is already well underway.

Of course that would be a lunatic strategy with potential to destabilise the entire planet (because of the vulnerability of Saudi and Iraqi oil supplies), but that has never in the past stopped them from doing things.
junglecitizen | 01.02.07 - 6:43 am | #

Perhaps the only "intervention" that will be effective is impeachment, after all.
bob h | 01.02.07 - 7:26 am | #

The only way significant change will occur is if Bush finds himself so politically isolated that those around him feel it necessary to stage some sort of intervention.

The ISG was Dubya’s Daddy’s attempt at some sort of intervention, and we saw just how well that worked. The problem is those around him are just as engaged as he is in trying to salvage his legacy. He and they are already politically isolated, but it certainly will get worse.

At this point I don’t see any “significant change” coming, just more of the same – dragging this debacle on until Bush is out of office when they’ll blame the “defeat” on liberals, the press and all who disagreed with them. (Which they’re already doing.)

Right now it looks like the neo-cons may take down the Republican Party with them. I don’t see them changing. That would be an admission of error – something which they are not capable of.
~ ~
zack | 01.02.07 - 7:36 am | #

yes, the "stabbed in the back" argument has been memed for more than a year now.
and the presumption, unless proven otherwise, is that the dems won't have the political cojones to fix limits, through the power over military expenditures, because they know how the republicans will play it in 08 and beyond.

i think 07 especially is going to be a year of showdowns between congress and the white house over investigations. we've been anticipating the other power the dems have, that of subpoenas; yet i also assume that the white house will try to defy each and every one of them. and then you'll have your full blown constitutional crisis.
damaged goods | 01.02.07 - 8:05 am | #

Bush is a man paralyzed by a need to salvage his own historical legacy, a man so personally invested in a failed policy that he cannot allow himself to see it for what it is, much less fix it.

They psychology of GWB should be easily recognizable by anyone who remembers what it is like to be a rebellious teenager, or anyone who is the parent of one. Most go though that stage (to the degree that they will) and resolve it in their teens or 20's. Not listening to advice, no matter how sound and well intentioned, is imperative as a matter of establishing independence. The only ones they will listen to are their friends goading them into doing one stupid thing after another to piss off their parents.

GWB has never completed that stage of his life because he has never really been able to establish independence. He has always been dependent on daddy and his friends to provide for him and fix his screw ups. His whole life, up to and including the presidency of the United States has been handed to him on a silver platter and everything he's done rigged so that he couldn't fail, or there wouldn't be any consequences when he did. At some level he must realize that he is an idiot, completely dependent on benefactors to care for him, and it must be a terrible feeling. Iraq was his one chance to screw something up so big and so bad that daddy couldn't bail him out, and he did a heckuva job.
Dread Scot | 01.02.07 - 8:10 am | #

the latest example of just how close bushes 41 and 43 are is that they came separately to view gerald ford laying in state yesterday.

man, i'm no fan of constitutional amendments, but it might be more than expedient to pass one that prohibits more than one individual from a family to be president. because look at all the suffering that this faux-texan oedipal tableau has foisted on the planet.
damaged goods | 01.02.07 - 8:17 am | #

The key is the 21 Republican senators up for reelection in 2008. We're already seeing wavering. Gordon Smith (R-OR) has already said the war is a failure. Collins, Sununu, Hagel and Chambliss are all trying to distance themselves from the escalation strategy.

It's important that constituents hold these 21 senators to their rhetoric. It's one thing to express doubt and ask for more information and not support the escalation plan without a clear plan.

It's another thing entirely to vote on legislation in opposition to the war, even just a sense of the senate resolution.

We need to make sure that these senators know that support for the war is a doomed electoral strategy. They obviously aren't concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, America's armed forces or the position of the US in world. But they are clearly deeply concerned about reelection.
JayAckroyd | 01.02.07 - 8:19 am | #

Excellent observation A.L. but it's not going to happen! The deals are already made, just ask Conyers about his impeachment investigation. The Conyers/ethics dog and pony show was the message from Nancy. There will be no one held accountable. This war will continue whether it be democrat or republican with power.
Pete S | 01.02.07 - 8:34 am | #

I have to agree with Dred Scot above. I don't think W has the maturity necesssary to even be concerned about his legacy. He simply can't stand to be wrong in the here-and-now.

That thousands of better men than he have to die in order to prove the point just makes it even more tragic.
paul dirks | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 8:46 am | #

JayAckroyd | 01.02.07 - 8:19 am

"The key is the 21 Republican senators up for reelection in 2008."

Bingo--this will be the first test of whether Bush will have any room to move at all. The vulnerable republicans in Senate don't sound real supportive do they.

One question I've been wondering about is whether the Bagdad strategy is enough. The leaked parts of the plan all talk about stablilizing Bagdad and el anbar--nothing changes anywhere else. I wonder if that's enough.

Also, if the surge occurs, the WH had better prepare the american people for higher casualty rates. "Clearing and holding" Bagdad is going to kill many people, American and Iraqi.
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 8:50 am | #

the only legacy the kid cares about is the shakedown from corporations he's so liberally gifted to his "library." you know, half a billion covers a lot of administrative costs.
damaged goods | 01.02.07 - 8:50 am | #

AL says...
It's time to stop coming up with ways of providing Bush "political cover" for leaving Iraq; he doesn't want it. It's time to start playing hardball.

In other words...
It's time to lose another one. Let's make it happen.

And people wonder why I think we should pull out ALL our troops.
shooter242 | 01.02.07 - 8:59 am | #

And people wonder why I think we should pull out ALL our troops.

Actually I don't wonder at all. It's a view consistent with the idea that our military exists in order to defend America's territorial integrity against foreign encroachment or invasion. It's only through an accident of history that we've gotten into our collective head that we have a duty to control the world and remake it in our image.

The fact that both our Armed Force's mission and the choices being made concerning approprate weaponry and equipment are now being dictated by business interests as opposed to national interest (precisely as Ike Eisenhower warned us against) almost guarantees that we're going to end up trying to perform un-accomplishable missions.

Welcome to Iraq.
paul dirks | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 9:14 am | #

ONLY 13 SENATORS FAVOR BUSH'S “TROOP SURGE”
http://suntimes.com/news/novak/193198,CST-EDT- NOVAK01.article

GOP support scant for troop 'surge'
January 1, 2007
BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist

...President Bush ...in pressing for a surge of 30,000 more troops, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators.

...What to do about Iraq poses not only a national policy crisis but profound political problems for the Republican Party. Disenchantment with Bush within the GOP runs deep. Republican leaders around the country, anticipating that the 2006 election disaster would prompt an orderly disengagement from Iraq, are shocked that the president now appears ready to add more troops...

...Among Democrats, Lieberman stands alone...

sysprog | 01.02.07 - 9:20 am |

Wow. Saddam had more support than that when they lynched him.

Re: intervention, it's not clear to me how the congress reigns-in the surge, while not being hammered about "not supporting the troops".
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 9:36 am | #

well, the surge is really not a surge of fresh troops -- it's to be achieved at least in part by keeping soldiers in iraq who would otherwise be rotated out.
so you could frame the discussion that way -- "we most certainly ARE supporting the troops -- it's time these soldiers, many of whom are on their second or third tours, were brought home."
damaged goods | 01.02.07 - 9:42 am | #

It's impeachment, or two more years of catastrophe.
ifthethunderdontgetya³² | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 9:43 am | #

impeachment is essential, but it's two more years of catastrophe either way.
damaged goods | 01.02.07 - 9:45 am | #

Reading between the lines of the NYTimes piece (which is really very good), I notice Bush again and agian follows a simple logic: leaving equals losing and victory involves staying. To me that means staying indefinitely. A large military footprint on permanent bases, and damn the consequences.

That's the elephant in the room with Bush. I feel that a major military presence in the ME based out of a compliant Iraq was one of, if not the, primary goals in invading Iraq and he's simply not giving it up.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 10:02 am | #

In other words, What Problems we all got? huh. I believe in the word 'respect.' I hang at the bottom of my proverbial hemp-rope and still 'hope' that principled politics is still possible in the good 'ole U.S.A. Try Industrial use of 'it' instead of switch grass biofuel nonsense and hangman noose's under constructions ...

For what it's worth, (Words) we can be 'learnt' and vote for what's sure goofball stupid. I love the word 'democratic' and the word has been damaged bad. Thanks for post/comments that help unsimplify a complex era. who ain't got a dose of p.t.s.s. (s--for stress, not d--for disorder) we live in unusually stessed times. The press/prez is the dangerous, disordered, wild-ball, knuckel-head pitcher.

Hardball? Surge? Quick Withdrawel? Decider/Dither? etc.,...Translate.

Well, we got a war-porn pitcher up the Potomack River, and also drunken at the liver? Slugger. A rape of the world, and one day it's alleged the one with the worst batting average-rapist misunderstood the tone of word-emphasis...V-victim shouted..."No-stop, stop, No-don't stop."

So the legal requirement for war is understood to Surge-quickly-faster- forward? Sing to Cat Stevens Peace-Train?

The legal case to Investigate all this gibber gets sent out from trial by jury to the USA's highest council's and then again, the case gets 'thrown' directly to the Hague for impartial grandstand review?

Are gettin' a screwin' days ever going to be over? How about a 7th inning stretch in 2007? How can a Win-V sign mean anything? Unsimplify by ousting all of 'um getting paid as lobbing soft balls at Leftist switch-hitters. Are we living in the days when 'left' paw pitchers get sent to the bullpen gallows for warm-up? I wish this was a play-monopoly game and a wild-card can be drawn to-say- to neo-con's payrolled/and on patrol, "Go directly to jail. Don't stop. The g-8 corporate game is over!

(?) What I began to say before I honestly, without premeditation, went off on a oversimplified tangent...I am a day behind the "news." (Should have stopped while ahead) Yesterday's NYT newspaper did see fit to print the 3,000 dead who have, so far, served as connon-fodder. Sacrificed. The names are in sad A-to-Z order. You can likely find a last name (james in my case) that is same-same as yours. Family kin?

Brothers-sisters, we need to hammer out justice, freedom, and ring out a sound diff than the neo-clown's non-Pete Seeger dither...We need a neo-lyric saying 'love...and sing together' or, we may need more "swarthy" illegals to help construct more gallows for this slug-snail, slime-ball, spit-ball pitch, and we gettin' sickoo-tired-of..the cookoo neo-con pitch pundit hitters. How long we gonna' listen to a pitcher who is up the river eatin' more rotton liver? oh, forgive me for a flashback to my little leage all star memory days. I must admit, it's Noy my intent behind my comment to oversimplfy big troubles. The lefties must never quit. wow. peaceableness please.
clownsense | 01.02.07 - 10:08 am | #

If this battle im Iraq truly is the ultimate struggle between good and evil, the ultimate fight against "terror" and all things malevolent...then...where is the sacrifice? Instead of exhorting the American people to consume, why isn't the current Administration calling on every American to contribute to the war effort?

Does the Administration continue to believe that a half-assed attempt at co-opting a country and then establishing an ethereal bulwark against "islamo-fascism" can continue to be done on the cheap? Can it be done with continued borrowing from the communist Chinese to facilitate tax diminishing stipends for the wealthy...as their progeny attend the finest universities without fear of finding themselves in a foxhole in Mosul?

You can't have it both ways, as we and the families of the 3,000 brave fallen warriors in Iraq are finding out, and as the savvy military experts such as Shinseki pointed out before the first boots hit the ground in the "shock and awe" smokescreen that ensued later.

You see, the administration is trying to play it both ways. It isn't, and never will work. You fight a war to win, you fight with every resource that you have wihtout regard to the political consequences...such as what a draft and a tax increase to fund the battle would bring. That is if the war is truly worth fighting.

Since the Administration doesn't possess the testicular fortitude to damn the political ramifications of what a successful war effort would be, i.e., a draft, tax increases, 1,000,000+ troops, homosexual U.S. military Arab translators, 25,000 to 100,000 American and over 1,000,000 Iraqi casualties...then...it's time to get the hell out.
angrypoodle | 01.02.07 - 10:11 am | #

From shooter242 at 8:59 am:

It's time to lose another one. Let's make it happen.

Too late. You've already lost. All that's left for you is to surrender your illusions you have any redeeming worth on this issue.

Or you can quit trying to shift responsibility for this disaster and learn from it. I won't hold out hope for you.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.02.07 - 10:25 am | #

I have long believed that the political agenda of the Republican Party is totally bankrupt: "supply side economics" is just a blatant attempt to bribe rich people and corporations into supporting the Party at the expense of the middle class; the culture wars just appeal to people's ignorance and prejudices, etc. How do you build long term dominance on that foundation?

Ronald Reagan is given credit for destroying the "Evil Empire". The collapse of the Soviet Union was historically inevitable; at most, Reagan hastened the event.

My question is: will George W. Bush go down in history as the guy who destroyed the Republican Party, at least, as the party of Conservatives, or will people say it was historically inevitable anyway and he just hastened the process?
James Weiss | 01.02.07 - 10:25 am | #

I would echo the "bingo" to Jay's comment re: the Republicans up for reelection.

Bush gambled his presidency and at least the short term fate of his party on this fiasco. To double-down now would be to gamble the long-term fate of his party on (at best) a long-shot. One expects that the electorate (not to mention history) would harshly judge a President who repeated the mistakes of Vietnam, throwing hundreds or thousands of additional lives away in a misguided and desperate attempt to salvage his own legacy, as well as a party that enabled it, particularly after it had sent a clear message of its wishes for just the opposite course.

One expects that if Bush seems to be heading off that cliff, Republicans will intervene and try to prevent him from taking the entire party down with him. If Bush sticks stubbornly to his guns (not unlikely), a test of wills, and the limits of executive power, could follow.

The next election will likely be a referendum on the wisdom of withdrawal v. surge, in any case. Note Edwards already framing the issue, describing the idea of a surge as "the McCain doctrine".
lewp | 01.02.07 - 10:32 am | #

Great comments, everyone. For my two cents: the planet is going down the tubes and it's too late now to do anything about it. So the measly Iraq war, the stupid oil dependency of the planet, and all the other business as usual neglect and distraction we go through every day (including all of our phony baloney jobs) are only hastening the demise of homo sapiens as a viable species. Good luck ridin' it out!
Tom | 01.02.07 - 10:33 am | #

his one chance to screw something up so big and so bad that daddy couldn't bail him out
Dread Scot | 01.02.07 - 8:10 am | #


I'm reminded of the scene in Ferris Bueller (sp?) where the sportscar falls down from the parking garage.

George needs to screw up so bad that his father will be unable to sweep the mess under the carpet and be forced to face his son in a more natural and real sense.

It is quite touching that this president is willing to share the psychodrama that is inherent in being born rich. The nation should feel honored.


/Impeach, try, convict, sentence.
echo | 01.02.07 - 10:34 am | #

George Sr. is speaking at the funeral. It's so sad to see vis/via the mask-pretence. We weep in their behalf. Their sad mien make tears 'sweep' down my cheeks. Sad. Broken 'men.' They need to weep too.....Oh, merci-my...kissinger is say something?
clownsense | 01.02.07 - 11:07 am | #

Since we are rapidly becoming militarily and politically irrelevant in Iraq, with the Iraqi government sliding into de facto Iranian control, the only way to attain "victory" in Iraq is to ally with the side which is going to win - i.e. Iran.

I am inclined to agree. I think we are stuck negotiating the least dangerous terms of an Iranian victory.

As for stopping a surge, I really don't see how. Congress might have prevented Bush from going to war in the first place, but now that we are there, military strategy is central to his role as commander-in-chief. My own guess is that "surge" will amount to no more than the old game of whack-a-mole with a slightly larger army.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 11:10 am | #

This is the paragraph from the Times piece (which was PURE White House stenography) that I think is most significant....

Over the past 12 months, as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey’s strategy. And now, as the image of Saddam Hussein at the gallows recedes, Mr. Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that General Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general’s departure from Iraq, according to senior military officials.

This is the "official" communication of right-wing talking points that we will be seeing spewed for the next two weeks --- "Bush has been concerned all along that the strategy wasn't working, but placed his faith in the military leadership that got it wrong."

Of course, its all bullshit.....but if Casey is willing to fall on his sword in exchange for a "Freedom Medal" or something, it will become the official version... at least for a while...
p.lukasiak | 01.02.07 - 11:25 am | #

lewp | 01.02.07 - 10:32 am |

"The next election will likely be a referendum on the wisdom of withdrawal v. surge, in any case. Note Edwards already framing the issue, describing the idea of a surge as "the McCain doctrine"."

Strong smart move by Edwards in my opinion. Paint "surge" all over McCain and let him choke on it.

I think the last election was also a vote on it. Exit-polling said that voters were most motivated by 1. corruption 2. Iraq. Recently, Bush stated that the message of the ''06 election was bipartisanship--that the people wanted democrats and republicans to work together. That is absollutely not what the vote said. Deliberate misreading.
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 11:27 am | #

Right you are:

It's time to start playing hardball. It's time to start holding hearings and exerting whatever leverage is available to put pressure on the White House. The only way significant change will occur is if Bush finds himself so politically isolated that those around him feel it necessary to stage some sort of intervention.

If there were anything rational about the arguments over what to do now (while more Americans and Iraqis are maimed or killed), Bush has excused himself from it. He has nothing to offer but more blood, lies, and corruption. If he can't deal with the process of extrication, he has no part in the discussion. It's up to the rest of the nation to help him in spite of himself.

Here it is again: George W. Bush is the disgraced leader of a rapidly diminishing band of incredibly ignorant followers. Nothing he says makes sense, but nothing he says should carry any weight in a functioning democracy.

The necessary decisions, including the management of troops and funds, can be made without him if he refuses to bend to the will of the nation. Congress has the power to stop this. It's very stark and simple now.
scruffy | 01.02.07 - 11:30 am | #

p. lukasiak,

While the article was largely WH stenography, I was struck by how much revisionist history the WH is now trying to slip past us. The new PR strategy seems to be-

1. Blame the Generals
2. Blame Rumsfeld
3. Define victory as simply not leaving. (Okay this one's not so new, but it is more obvious than before.)


Meanwhile the military strategy remains stay the course, only harder. But with these guys PR always trumps policy, so to them this is a major change.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 11:35 am | #

/Impeach, try, convict, sentence.
echo | 01.02.07 - 10:34 am | #

I'd be more excited about this if it weren't for Cheney. Do you really want him to be president?

Or, if you're wanting to impeach both, what are the chances of that happening.
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 11:37 am | #

et's make it happen.

Shooter, now isn't the time for more of your fantasies with farmyard mammals - Iraq is a serious problem and all you appear to think about is sex with goats.

Your personal preferences should not be anyone else's business, if in fact you do have sex with farm animals and I just don't know. If the goats are of legal age and consent anyhow...

Which leads to the next questions, how do you tell if a goat says "yes"?
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 11:42 am | #

"supply side economics" is just a blatant attempt to bribe rich people and corporations into supporting the Party at the expense of the middle class

Well they have already raped the poor, the current war on the middle class, working families, and children is where the rest of the loot is at.
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 11:44 am | #

We're way past the time to play hardball, and it's probably too late to prevent Bush pulling the temple pillars down on top of everyone. He really is the anti-Christ, if there ever was such a thing. The only way to stop him is for everyone to act in completely different ways. We can't "stop" him, in other words. It's all coming down the tracks. What we have to do is LIVE DIFFERENTLY. BE different. Focus on what's right and true (the opposite of Bush) and make it real.

Grappling with the beast will only drag us down with him. Let go and make a new world. There isn't any other way.
John H. Farr | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 11:45 am | #

Well, here's something to start with: all Iraq war funding (as it has all been "new, emergency" funding) has to be supported with "new, emergency" taxation.

Starting with a catch-up, to pay for the war funding that was already approved.

That "new, emergency" taxation is to be applied to the wealthiest 0.1%. Make the connection crystal clear: $1B for an Iraq escalation = $1B extracted from GWB's 'base'. Oh, yeah, don't forget to put in about $10M/ea of new death benefits for the troops.

We gothcher nuts in a vice, Shrubbie, just turn that crank to escalate.
Satan luvvs Repugs | 01.02.07 - 11:46 am | #

"That "new, emergency" taxation is to be applied to the wealthiest 0.1%. Make the connection crystal clear: $1B for an Iraq escalation = $1B extracted from GWB's 'base'."

Beautiful! You got my vote.
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 11:50 am | #

Excuse me, but isn't withdrawl the same as defeat at this point? How can it be interpreted by anyone any other way?

Bush is right about that. I think it is already gone beyond the point where you could "declare victory" and go home.

What I believe is he is waiting for congress to finally take action and force the issue. That way, his supporters will always be able to say "the traitors on our own side wouldn't let us win, that's why we lost. Not Bush's fault."

Obvious, really.
Alan | 01.02.07 - 11:51 am | #

"That "new, emergency" taxation is to be applied to the wealthiest 0.1%. Make the connection crystal clear: $1B for an Iraq escalation = $1B extracted from GWB's 'base'."

Actually wouldn't it be easier just to send the bill to the GOP? They still poll as a majority who likes what is going on in Iraq.

Just kidding, of course. But its a nice fantasy.
Alan | 01.02.07 - 11:53 am | #

Suggested mood music for this week's new Democrat majority Congress - Sondheim's "Send In The Clowns."
daleyrocks | 01.02.07 - 11:53 am | #

"Intervention" Is that a codeword for coup?
Lupin | 01.02.07 - 11:55 am | #

Glenn, putting "significant change" and "Bush" in the same sentence is like putting "enlightenment" and "drunk fratboy" together. It just won't happen.

We will not be pulling anyone out of Iraq during Bush's presidency.

All we can do is further use this failure to illustrate to the American people what happens when they vote for a P.R. campaign and elect an unqualified and willfully ignorant petty tyrant.

We can also use this failure of a war to expose the media hacks and agitprop liars who continue to find gainful employment in spite of the exposure of their incorrect predictions, distortions and general failure to understand anything correct about international politics. Which is why your blog is so important.

If by 2008 we can use Iraq as "reality check" to expose the corruption and danger of the republican cult movement and the media support networks in place to help it, then we can do real good.

Ironically, the losses of American troops in Iraq, if they serve to wake the American people up to the corrupt moles in our midst called "republican," will have served their country after all. Albeit a sacrifice they never should have made.
JM | 01.02.07 - 12:04 pm | #

This blog has become shooter's and daleyrocks' blog, at least as far as the comments section (which I would argue, and I believe Glenn would agree with me, is almost as important as the main posts). My readership of this blog has certainly dropped off because of the hijacking of the comments by the likes of shooter and daleyrocks, who has dozens upon dozens of responses to their inflammatory and deliberately dishonest comments here; they've succeeded wildly in hijacking this thing. Each day I come here and see this, I come here less. Just look at this comments section: shooter made only one comment and much attention shifted towards him; daleyrocks made another deliberately shitty and inflammatory post (Suggested mood music for this week's new Democrat majority Congress - Sondheim's "Send In The Clowns."); can anyone (including you, daley) tell me what purpose this serves, other than to be an asshole?

Again, Glenn, and A.L., or anyone else, I ask, what purpose does it serve to continue to let these jerks still post here?
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 12:06 pm | #

The Deciderator-In-Chief [from the article]:

"What I want to hear from you is how we’re going to win," he quoted the president as warning his commanders, "not how we’re going to leave."

It would have been better for all concerned if Dubya hadn't been drunk off his a$$ during the Vietnam war. He's considerably stoopider than Kissinger, and more stubborn than Nixon.

"Hope is not a plan."

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 12:08 pm | #

We're way past the time to play hardball

Hardball wasn't an option with the rubberstamp congress in place. Now two things have changed. The rubberstamp Congress is gone. Hardball may commence. Second, republicans, especially Senators (who cannot gerrymander their states), up in 08 are in real bind. Support the President, and lose the independents, or oppose the President and risk a primary challenge from the right or a cutoff of support from the White House.

I just set up a blogger site to keep track of what goes on with what I call the 21 Little Senators. I think the president is going find himself in a great deal of trouble within his party by the end of the next Friedman unit.

Lincoln Chafee was a very popular Senator and a very popular person in RI. I read more than one voter interview: "Oh, I do like Linc, and I felt bad voting against him. But we have to do something to rein these people in." They're all vulnerable. Good potential Dem candidates will see that vulnerability. Olympia Snowe faced token opposition. Susan Collins will not.

I hope that people who are represented by the 21 little senators will make some phone calls and write some letters:

Lamar Alexander, Tennessee;
Wayne Allard, Colorado;
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia;
Thad Cochran, Mississippi;
Norm Coleman, Minnesota;
Susan Collins, Maine;
John Cornyn, Texas;
Larry Craig, Idaho;
Elizabeth Dole, North Carolina;
Pete Domenici, New Mexico;
Michael Enzi, Wyoming;
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina;
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska;
James Inhofe, Oklahoma;
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky;
Pat Roberts, Kansas;
Jeff Sessions, Alabama;
Gordon Smith, Oregon;
Ted Stevens, Alaska;
John Sununu, New Hampshire;
John Warner, Virginia

If you do get in touch with your Senator, let me know what they say at 21littlesenators@gmail.com
JayAckroyd | 01.02.07 - 12:23 pm | #

Seeing as how Hagel is from my state...

he ain't gonna do JACK SQUAT!

He's been playin the same type of game McCain has been playin for years now.

Hell just stand back, and maintain he's not 'part of the problem' while voting the party line just like he always does.
willyjsimmons | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 12:24 pm | #

Hope is not a plan

Clicking your heels together and reciting "there's no place like victory"; "there's no place like victory" however IS a plan.
paul dirks | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 12:25 pm | #

Anoymous (ANONYMOUS?) at 01.02.07 - 12:06 pm: Again, Glenn, and A.L., or anyone else, I ask, what purpose does it serve to continue to let these jerks still post here?

God has a plan for everything. In God's plan, the entire purpose of shooter and daleyrocks existence is to serve as a warning to others. Their sole purpose is to provide a living example of what happents to the thought processes of ideologically driven cultists. They are not here to provide intelligent commentary, but to make it possible for sane people to sample the lack of principles of the far right without having to be subjected to the untrammeled depravity of LGF or the Freepers. View them not as part of the discourse, but as training aids, here to display the lack of seriousness of the Bush cultists. I have found their postings to be of greatest use in providing material for my epistemology course that I can give to the students and ask: "What is wrong with this statement?" Do not mistake them for part of the discourse -- they are hecklers, pet troglodytes, nothing more.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 01.02.07 - 12:30 pm | #

"The only way significant change will occur is if Bush finds himself so politically isolated that those around him feel it necessary to stage some sort of intervention."

Agree with you 100% here. A good start would be to round up families and friends of sacrificed american soldiers to start a protest outside the White House. Something will need to be done soon before Bush drags the entire country's people down with him.

I watch with hope and encouragement from Canada.
Amy | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 12:39 pm | #

Frank - It's great that you put the comments to good use. I take comments from this and other lefty boards for use in an abnormal psychology class. They get a lot of laughs.
daleyrocks | 01.02.07 - 12:39 pm | #

Isn't Bush's attitude a natural extension of the "we need to stop the erosion of Presidential power" meme Cheney and the Neocons cite to justify their power grab? How can Bush cooperate or consult with Congress when this would be a tacit admission of the limitations of his power?

He's put himself into a corner where even good ideas (or at least the best of the bad choices we face) must be rejected to justify his own relevance - but by doing so he makes himself even more irrelevant.
JSH | 01.02.07 - 12:40 pm | #

Frankly, my dear: You've made a good point about the trolls.

I remember when I first started replying in online discussions I was taken aback by how idiotically and beyond belief some of the comments and commenters were that I was replying to.

It took awhile for me to realize that they were almost always repeating 'talking points' that were being used on Limbaugh, and other talk radio, but also on sites like LGF which, at that time, I was not aware existed. So, it is true that shooter, Drocks, and some of the other asswipes who disrupt threads on here are giving us a window into the latest- and the most outdated - idiotic talking points being now, or having been in the past, used on their favorite wingnuttery sites and radio and TV stations.
Kitt | 01.02.07 - 12:41 pm | #

The difficulty of divining other people's true motivations comes into play here. Assuming Bush has a clear understanding of his own motivations (a questionable assumption -- it's at least as likely that he's an irreflective and banal thinker, pushed around intellectually by the strong-willed members of his circle of advisors) the closest we can come to an insight into his motivations is by looking at what he's done.

OK, he doesn't want to leave Iraq. Why? Perhaps for many reasons, but the one that stands out is the oil reserves. If all he wanted to do was stay in Iraq until it had been turned into a capitalist democracy, there would have been no need to build those huge bases would there? It would seem, therefore, that it's more likely the reason we're in Iraq is primarily to protect the supply of oil. Given that it's now become public that Iran's oil supply may be drying up (a fact that was probably known to the intelligence community a while before it was made public), this becomes more plausible.

The question then becomes, if we're there to protect oil, why, at the expense of so much life and treasure? To answer this question we ask "qui bono?" The answer is that Big Oil benefits, both from the war and also from the opportunity to continue to exploit the middle eastern oil reserves. The wealthy in this country also benefit, as they would be the ones who would lose the most by a catastrophic long-term increase in the price of oil and resulting depression.

Disclaimer: We still can't know. It's possible that the man is just stubborn, single-handedly standing up to all the forces opposing his Iraq adventure. I would point out that this is contradicted by almost all of the reports from those insiders who have come out. But we can't know.

We'll have to wait until the oil runs out (or becomes unprofitable to extract) and see who wants to pull out then.
Charles | 01.02.07 - 12:41 pm | #

Frankly, my dear, ... | 01.02.07 - 12:30 pm | #

Personally, I find shooter and daleyrocks are powerful reminders of the damage that alcohol abuse has on the brain and thought processes. I have seen that shooter likes to have sex with farm animals and he has never denied it.

While I don't think we should judge either of these 2 by their inability to think or articulate meaningful dialog, I do wish they would keep their "unusual" pastimes to themselves. Reasonable people can question what is an appropriate age for animals to have consentual sex, One dog year = 7 human year, for example is not universally accepted and what about other species?

And then there is the stickier legal question of how they indicate consent anyhow - seems to me if shooter or daleyrocks had anything meaningful to add to the dialog here, they would not constantly bring up their sex lives.
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 12:44 pm | #

Blowjob Dalerocks: I take comments from this and other lefty boards for use in an abnormal psychology class. They get a lot of laughs.

And what does your teacher think about it?
Frankly, my dear, ... | 01.02.07 - 12:48 pm | #

In God's plan, the entire purpose of shooter and daleyrocks existence is to serve as a warning to others.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 01.02.07 - 12:30 pm

You're so kind. This is probably a good spot to remind those in favor of tax increses, that half the country pays no income tax. Didn't someone say the whole country needs to sacrifice?

For those that can't stand to hear anything that might disturb their worldview, I suggest FDL as a safe haven. It has been censored and sanitized for your protection.
shooter242 | 01.02.07 - 12:49 pm | #

shooter, just because they don't allow posts about beastiality does not mean that the site has been "sanitized" - after all - most people feel no need to post their "unusual" fetishes at political blogs.
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 12:53 pm | #

I just wish the trolls had something to say that was even tangentially related to the topics under discussion.

No, on second thought I don't, because the trolls, in particular Daley and Shooter, have proven themselves not only stupid, but more importantly dishonest. On the rare,rare occasions when they have asked a relevant question, they have simply insulted those whose respond without admitting their own mistakes/lies/idiocies.

Does anyone know what happened to Gary Ruppert at Sadly,no? Now he was funny.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 12:54 pm | #

Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 12:44 pm |

"And then there is the stickier legal question of how they indicate consent anyhow - seems to me if shooter or daleyrocks had anything meaningful to add to the dialog here, they would not constantly bring up their sex lives."

I saw that you had asked that question, and I have to admit that I was hoping they would answer it. But this would be an invasion of privacy and that just isn't right. That kind of information is between them and their animal acquaintances.

No, I think that all posters should be treated alike. As Mr. Greenwald said here not long ago--you look at the post, regardless of who wrote it, and you decide whether it makes a good contribution or not, and you act accordingly. Since this is his blog, I accept that guidance and try to follow it. I don't believe anyone should be banned.

unless they're illegal aliens. or terrorists. or gay. or polygamists. or Amish, of course.
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 12:56 pm | #

Some "kids"
Like goats get lame from too much wormwood. You let a herd of ill-goats out of a fenced pen, watch! Every time they go right for the planted wormwood shrub-brush. honest. The health kid, not a lame goat, leads the herd to the best pastures. True.

If a bunch of sad-sac-clowns don't know how to f**k right, WITHRAWEL. Bring the youn soldiers home, Now. Intervene. Use Persion Gulf ships, send rubber rafts, use any means available...walk on water...try to be honest and make sense. Gads Zooks, we need skin as 'tuff' as a porcupine these days. No moosekiss. Let's let our delicate conscience get pricked?
clownporkopine | 01.02.07 - 12:59 pm | #

This is the "official" communication of right-wing talking points that we will be seeing spewed for the next two weeks --- "Bush has been concerned all along that the strategy wasn't working, but placed his faith in the military leadership that got it wrong."

p.lukasiak, I totally agree. That's clearly how they are going to spin this. We're going to start hearing a lot about how Bush relied on bad advice. That's a dangerous tactic, though. If they push too hard on that meme, we're going to see a flood of counter-leaks from within the military leadership.
A.L. | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:02 pm | #

Iraq is just another success that hasn't happened yet.
The Heretik | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:02 pm | #

shooter and drocks are just geniuses before their time - all hail the chimperor! Folks like these are who is leading the smirking chimp's march to approval ratings below the 30's.

I say - let them rant and be respectful of their privacy - casual observier is right. How they know that goats concent is between them and their animal acquaintances, though I am sure the farmer would prefer to have a say as well.
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 1:06 pm | #

daleyrocks :

Suggested mood music for this week's new Democrat majority Congress - Sondheim's "Send In The Clowns."
daleyrocks | 01.02.07 - 11:53 am

Making my entrance again with my usual flair,
Sure of my lines,
No one is there.

Happy New Year, by the way could you please check out my blog at http://avilesnews.blogspot.com and link to me and i'll link to you, and if you register for my RSS feed i'll do the same and register for yours.

Admin,
http://avilesnews.blogspot.com
Admin | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:11 pm | #

So, it is true that shooter, Drocks, and some of the other asswipes who disrupt threads on here are giving us a window into the latest- and the most outdated - idiotic talking points being now, or having been in the past, used on their favorite wingnuttery sites and radio and TV stations.
Kitt | 01.02.07 - 12:41 pm

Rather like AL is doing with the NY Times today. Speaking of wing-nuttery, the Times was just excoriated by it's own Byron Calame about a fake story around abortion. Meanwhile the reviled Eason Jordan is taking AP to task for non-existent sources. Tsk. Tsk.
shooter242 | 01.02.07 - 1:12 pm | #

Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 1:06 pm |

"though I am sure the farmer would prefer to have a say as well."

Surely you are not suggesting that agricultural businessmen would consider pimping their goats.
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 1:14 pm | #

Somebody 'round here must practice good 'ole fashion 'husbandry' in the name of preserving diverse community and humanity. I'm just upset I got to go to the barnyard and feed the 'kid-goats' some left-over-cans-of...Worms! And the vet cost too much when masttitis (sp) gets to be a sore chore. Milk prices go down. Imperial reigns end. Maybe, the Billy can have a word of clown-2-cents to say. Sad. Waste of good talent...Terrible to let brains tink like rusted cans? Who knows? I'm going to kick the mule. Win?
clownporkopine | 01.02.07 - 1:17 pm | #

casual observer | 01.02.07 - 1:14 pm | #

Have you seen the price of wheat this week?
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 1:18 pm | #

From Anonymous at 12:06 pm:

Again, Glenn, and A.L., or anyone else, I ask, what purpose does it serve to continue to let these jerks still post here?

Beyond offering fascinating insights into the sociopathic tendencies of their crowd, you mean? Well, they do offer a very easy target to skewer on an almost daily basis. That plus they're such demonstrated cowards they don't dare try to defend their supposed positions.

In any case, there's been a marked decrease in attempts to engage them and greater concentration upon the posts themselves. Guess they haven't gotten the memo their fifteen seconds was up two years ago.

But what do you expect from them? Actually intelligence? Just look at shooter242's meaningless comment at 1:12 pm.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.02.07 - 1:18 pm | #

From Bob Novak, on Chuck Hagel's reaction to Bush's surge proposal:

"It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposal. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...3100931_pf.html
MD | 01.02.07 - 1:19 pm | #

Hardball. Exactly my thinking. This is not "your father's" impeachment. See my post here.
seesdifferent | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:24 pm | #

Chuck always says that type of stuff.

Bet he doesn't do much to actually STOP any of it though.

Bet ya a pony.
willyjsimmons | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:26 pm | #

"daleyrocks":

Suggested mood music for this week's new Democrat majority Congress - Sondheim's "Send In The Clowns."

The last line is apt: "Don't bother, they're here". "shooter242", "daleyrocks", "anonymoose".....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:29 pm | #

Okay. A pony named Polkadot sits 10 feet beneath a fresh pile of manure. You win.
clownporkopine | 01.02.07 - 1:33 pm | #

Iokanaan in the Well | 01.02.07 - 1:18 pm | #

I agree with you to an extent, but still, they are not posting here out of disagreement or to discuss and debate; I disagree with much of what is said here, and I think that some of the comments coming from the "left" here do deserve to be debated and debunked and there are some left-wing asshole comments here, but shooter and daleyrocks are OBVIOUSLY only posting here to disrupt. And they hijack the comments here; so again, why continue to allow them to post? If they were not posting assholic comments and inflammatory comments only for the sake of being so (daley's clowns comment above, for example; please explain to me what other purpose that serves), obviously I would never call for not allowing someone to post just simply because their comments are unpopular or disagreed with.
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 1:35 pm | #

These are not predictions, exactly, just some thoughts about the forces likely to be in play during the next two years in the Middle East -- barring, of course, the unforeseeable catastrophe which not even the players themselves can foresee, let alone my humble self:

1) As I read the situation, Bush will do as little as possible in the Middle East. The aircraft carriers everyone worries about are an empty threat as far as Iran is concerned; it's more likely that they're there to cover American troops in the event of a more serious escalation in the Iraqi civil war, and as a warning to Democrats of the political risks to them in any serious attempt to force a change in U.S. deployments.

It's always possible, of course, that Bush, petulant moron that he is, will order a provocation against Iran in the hope that it will give him the political cover he needs to scare up the resources for a wider war -- the draft, increased defense appropriations, etc. -- but I doubt it. The timing is wrong, for one thing. There's simply not enough time left to put much of this in place, even if the political will existed, and it doesn't -- the Republican establishment minus the neocons has made its own skittishness about such a course perfectly clear. I'm not sure either that the Israelis are confident enough in their own powers of prediction after Lebanon to risk pushing any harder for further punitive measures against Iran. Possibly they are, but it doesn't seem that way from what one can read in the Israeli press.

2) Iran need do nothing except make sure that its counsel is heard among the Shi'a in Iraq, and that Nasrullah and Hizbollah are provided with the means to remain dominant in Lebanese politics, and survive any further Israeli adventurism. After decades of hamstringing or crushing weak Arab leaders, Israel has created some very strong and smart ones. Nasrullah is probably the most formidable among them. If he can keep Israel from engineering his assassination, there is little to prevent him becoming something Arafat never was -- a real threat to Israel's freedom of action on its own borders.

3) The Saudis are scared, and have every right to be. In the current situation, they are being held hostage to forces outside their own control, and possibly outside their influence as well. If the reports of factionalism in the royal family which have surfaced lately are accurate, they may well not know what to do to resolve the conflict between American demands on them to stay out of the Iraqi mess, and their own fears of being seen to abandon the Sunnis there and elsewhere to Iranian dominance. If Iran is attacked, it's doubtful that the Saudis will be able to protect their own oil terminals -- and revenue -- and they're painfully aware of this.

4) Turkey will keep troops available to intervene in the Kurdish region in Iraq, but won't do so unless there's a major provocation from the Kurds themselves. The delicacy of the continuing EU negotiations, and remaining fears about American intentions will most likely deter them from any unilateral moves on their own.

5) Syria will also temporize. Increasing U.S. and Saudi pressure on them will be counteracted by their desire to remain players in Lebanon, and to avoid irritating the Iranians, and thereby cutting off one of the main sources of Ba'ath party funding.

6) Egypt is out of it, as is Jordan. They have their own problems, and are not at the focal point of the struggle in any case. This could change if the governing juntas of either lose control of the populace. (Mubarak is old, and the Hashemites have had serious problems with the Palestinians inside their own borders before.)

7) Israel's policy of creating and maintaining failed states on its borders will come increasingly into question. The Palestinians appear to be finished for another generation, but in the long run, Hamas seems likely to win the power struggle among the Palestinians, and Hamas doesn't seem as interested as Arafat and his coterie were in feathering its own nest. Whether or not Israel can continue to bribe and bully them successfully therefore remains an open question. In this sense, Nasrullah should be seen as a harbinger of things to come. The weakness of Israel's main patron, the U.S., has been exposed by Bush's misadventure in Iraq, as has the very real possibility that Israel's influence on American foreign policy may have seen its peak, and be on the decline, however little concrete sign of this is evident at the moment in Washington.

As I look at it, Israel's effect on the so-called front-line states has been one of selective evolutionary pressure. Weak leaders have been defeated, only to be replaced by strong ones. Inferior weaponry has been replaced by deadlier versions. Populations which were once easily divided are now much more coherent, at least in their enmity toward Israel. If I were an Israeli, I might well long for the days of occasional airline hijackings -- even one like Entebbe -- or grenade attacks on El-Al counters in European airports. Even short-term history now no longer looks to be on the Israeli side.
William Timberman | 01.02.07 - 1:37 pm | #

"daleyrocks" says cluelessly:

Frank - It's great that you put the comments to good use. I take comments from this and other lefty boards for use in an abnormal psychology class. They get a lot of laughs.

They're laughing at you, not with you. Of course, you are oblivious to polls ... and to reality itself. In your case, stoopidity is apparently some kind of self-defence mechanism gone awry.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:40 pm | #

Rather like AL is doing with the NY Times today. Speaking of wing-nuttery, the Times was just excoriated by it's own Byron Calame about a fake story around abortion. Meanwhile the reviled Eason Jordan is taking AP to task for non-existent sources. Tsk. Tsk.
shooter242

I don't know the details of the stories you mentioned but that's beside the point. The point is that you won't find me defending inacurate stories when I know better. No matter who they come from. And you won't find me agreeing with you that either CNN or the New York Times are "liberal" news sources. They aren't. They're corporate run news sources. The fact that you and your talking points brethren use those sources against us who are trying to tell the truth is just another of your talking points games. Those organizations purposely, and sometimes inadvertantley, deceive or prevaricate on a regular basis. Judy Miller, formerly of the New York Times! Do you think I ever supported her shoddy reporting and lies?

So, Shooter, your post does not address the point I had made about you and rocks and so on. You just posted more of the same diversionary strawman gunk that you are so accustomed to posting. You'll never get a new schtick. We can see that. But you sure as hell need one. Your schtick is old as cracked shoe leather.
Kitt | 01.02.07 - 1:41 pm | #

"shooter242":

This is probably a good spot to remind those in favor of tax increses, that half the country pays no income tax.

Care to trade places with them? Or are you already in that demographic.

But FWIW, SS is a regressive taxe and there's no zero base. "shooter242" ignores this inconvenient fact.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:45 pm | #

Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 1:18 pm

"Have you seen the price of wheat this week?"

Yeah, good point.
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 1:45 pm | #

From Anonymous at 1:35 pm:

I agree with you to an extent, but still, they are not posting here out of disagreement or to discuss and debate

Oh, I agree completely. My point was they provide comic relief and reaffirmation they and theirs are little more than cowards and fools. Which is why I merely skewer them on their rubbish and confine the rest of my comments to more serious and substantive discussion.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.02.07 - 1:51 pm | #

WT,

I think your assessment of the Arab states is largely dead-on, and I would add that Israel is causing itself great long-term damage not only through it's policy of encouraging and/or creating failed states on its borders, but also by fighting a wordlwide PR battle that denies the simple reality of the settler movement and the treatment of the Palestinians under Israli occupation. The Israli claim that there is 'no moral equivilancy' between a dead Palestinian baby and a dead Israili one is simply absurd and will not stand up to examination. In the meantime, calling every critic an Anti-Semite provides cover to the real, and numerous, Anti-Semites. Hell, at this rate a healthy majority of the world's population will end up in the "Anti-Semite" camp, and that's bad for Israel.

The question your solid assessment brings to mind is how long the Saudis can maintain the bizarre status quo they currently occupy. They are the home of Wahabbi extremism and are the main supplier of Al Qauida's money, men and spiritual support. At the same time they are the U.S.'s best ally and customer in the region. Can this really go on forever? I personally have no idea, but somehow it seems an unsustainable arrangement.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 1:52 pm | #

And you won't find me agreeing with you that either CNN or the New York Times are "liberal" news sources. They aren't. They're corporate run news sources.

Just as an FYI, every news source of any decent size is corporate run. Even Air America. But I'm guessing that's just one of your borrowed talking points.
Why not try thinking for yourself, and use a more descriptive label to distinguish between conservative and liberal "corporate run" news outlets.
shooter242 | 01.02.07 - 1:54 pm | #

And you won't find me agreeing with you that either CNN or the New York Times are "liberal" news sources. They aren't. They're corporate run news sources.

Just as an FYI, every news source of any decent size is corporate run. Even Air America. But I'm guessing that's just one of your borrowed talking points.
Why not try thinking for yourself, and use a more descriptive label to distinguish between conservative and liberal "corporate run" news outlets.
shooter242 | 01.02.07 - 1:54 pm | #

Okay Shooter how about this:

Fox, Limbaugh= Conservative

Air America, the Nation= Liberal

NYT, CNN= Mainstream

Shooter telling others to think for themselves and not use talking points= hilarious.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 1:56 pm | #

This class is better than Greek 101 for all us nice...nice...nice-worn-0ut-phrase, tired hillbillies. Nothing is going Right. Lizzy abandoned Billy. A Amish farmer is also under the weather. Singing the blues. Amish are frugal.

Why so sad?-- I ask the Amish neighbor. Ans.: Just bought a new suit for a funeral/wedding, or community discussions about salvation of a family/empire...Oh, Wall-Mart had a season-special. Buy one suit with a tie, two vest and a jacket...Guess what? The goats ate my one pair of pants they were so hungry?!.

Truth is not absolute. Clampet's & the Real McCoys feud fair and change ideas fit for any ocassion. WhilBush/Muph Laws are in motion. Cause/effect. Look what horrow has already ensued. No faith in nutcases...I bet a acorn it may/must get healthier...or else. pass doomsday laws? Rigore'ist Right views all the time have proved darkness. Bet us we need a flashlight. Let's be honest/serious. Reverence momentary truth when it expressed. I don't care if dem/repub/ or comes forth from a donkey's behind. Truth.
clownporkopine | 01.02.07 - 1:57 pm | #

Here's where Fred Barnes' "Rebel in Chief" title is significant. What Bush is doing is rebelling against all of American society outside Dick Cheney, the talk show hosts, and the neo-con think tank types.

AI is right that the Democrats should put pressure on Bush through Congressional mechanisms. Other things are equally important though:

1. Keeping up the flow of information and commentary on actual conditions.

2. Challenging Republicans to either declare for the "surge" or cut and run.

3. Reminding people that Bush has become the "President of the Right" rather than "President of the United States."

4. Preparing to campaign in 2008 and govern in 2009.
Ric Caric | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 1:57 pm | #

It's been a long road from when Bush was standing before our nation with his socks damp with testosterone shouting, "Bring 'em on". Now he's cowering in the recesses of the White House trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Bush is a loser and a liar...understand that America!

America needs to pull the plug on this sniveling idiot's ass. The price of his foolishness has become too high to pay.
Swami | 01.02.07 - 1:59 pm | #

I have long believed that the political agenda of the Republican Party is totally bankrupt: "supply side economics" is just a blatant attempt to bribe rich people and corporations into supporting the Party at the expense of the middle class; the culture wars just appeal to people's ignorance and prejudices, etc. How do you build long term dominance on that foundation?

Just as an FYI, every news source of any decent size is corporate run. Even Air America. But I'm guessing that's just one of your borrowed talking points.
Why not try thinking for yourself, and use a more descriptive label to distinguish between conservative and liberal "corporate run" news outlets.
shooter242

You're always "guessing" Shooter, and, laughably, telling people how to think. Is that kind of like the way news organizations pose a dispicable headline and 'soften' it with a question mark.

I think you know what I meant by corporate run. But if you didn't: it means that the bulk of US news media is not liberal, as you always like to pretend that they are. And they are not often honest or competant. But that goes against the theme of your previous post, and danged near all other of your posts in which you pretend otherwise.

There's Link TV. There's this blog and others like it. There are some independent papers. But as for Corporate run? It's rare that any of them do an honest and commendable job. It does happen. But it's rare.
Kitt | 01.02.07 - 2:15 pm | #

Okay. A pony named Polkadot sits 10 feet beneath a fresh pile of manure. You win.

That's a dangerous tactic, though.

Worse, for the country, who's gonna take the job. If even brainless sycophancy isn't gonna cut it, what is? There's no military man at that level who doesn't realize things are FUBAR. Top Iraq jobs have been career-enders for all concerned. And it's gonna get worse.

Who'll take the job? The president will neither take the truth, nor the responsibility for refusing to let the truth into the oval office.

Who can possibly do the job of delivering the president victory? Who would be idiotic enough to take it, knowing that not only will he fail, but he will be blamed.

Sheesh.
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 2:53 pm | #

JayAckroyd, excellent point. But you forgot Kit Bond (R-MO). He has been a reliable source of support for all of Junior's idiocies, but I think he may have been just a little spooked by Jim Talent's loss to Claire McCaskill.

He is also, IIRC, one of the few members of our ruling class who has a son in the military and actually serving in Iraq.

I have him on speed-dial. I think his staff draws straws to see who has to talk to me these days.

Let's use those phones, people. These GOP rubber-stampers don't really give a shit about what's right or what's moral; they just have to pretend to, to get re-elected.

They need to get the message that the equation has changed, and reality has broken into BushBubbleWorld.

An awful lot of formerly Republican Christians voted for Democrats in November. By '08, it's going to be really scary for people like Senator Bond.

And I'm going to help.
Gentlewoman | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 2:54 pm | #

Speaking of wing-nuttery, the Times was just excoriated by it's own Byron Calame about a fake story around abortion. Meanwhile the reviled Eason Jordan is taking AP to task for non-existent sources. Tsk. Tsk.

Yes, and unlike those on the right, we actually care that stories be accurate, and are unhappy when stories are made up, inadequately sourced, or insufficiently researched. Unlike the wingnuts and trolls, who are happy to see false stories that advance their cultish favorites regardless of their accuracy, we are just as pleased to see a story corrected that does not serve a progressive agenda as one that does.

You see, we believe, correctly by all available evidence, that if journalists write their stories accurately, correct errors and refuse to print outright falsehoods (or, if the must print the lie, follow it with a debunking of the lie in the next line).

On the wingnut side, they don't care whether the story is accurate, whether errors are corrected, or whether the story is an outright lie (or maybe a year-old fabricated email).

See, shooter, we have principles. And you guys wouldn't know a principle if it were um shoved^H^H^H^H^H^H laid on a silver platter in front of your face.
JayAckroyd | 01.02.07 - 3:00 pm | #

“THOUGHTFUL, DECENT, HONORABLE MEN”

Fox “News”, Monday, December 4, 2006

BRIT HUME: You have said on a number of occasions that your view of the shape and mission of U.S. forces day by day in Iraq, week by week, is based on what Generals Abizaid and, more specifically, General Casey say, that this has been kind of a Casey and Abizaid approach. Is that a fair assessment?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I have said that the force size will depend upon conditions on the ground and upon the recommendations of our commanders on the ground, absolutely.

BRIT HUME: Is it fair to say, then, that the approach in Iraq has been more a reflection of what Casey and Abizaid wanted than of anybody else over there? Or anybody else in the military?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think from the military tactics that they are the chain of command through Rumsfeld to me.

BRIT HUME: Right.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Now they listen to all kinds of people on the ground and they are very thoughtful, decent, honorable men, who understand that -- what the mission is and understand that it is their obligation to design the tactics to achieve the mission.

BRIT HUME: It is -- it does the raise the question though, Mr. President, if they're the guys who've been designing and trying to execute the mission and you're impatient with the progress, why is it that Rumsfeld's going and they're staying?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, they also are impatient with the progress, just like Secretary Rumsfeld is. And he came to the same conclusion that I came to, that it was time to get fresh eyes in the Pentagon on the issue.

"shooter242":

Why not try thinking for yourself, and use a more descriptive label to distinguish between conservative and liberal "corporate run" news outlets.

Shorter [or at least more precise] "shooter242": "'Fair and balanced' is the news media that Dubya-buttsuckers like me agree with. 'Liberal news media' -- nay, 'wingnuttery' -- is the news media that dare to point out that the Deciderator-In-Chief is buck-naked."

Just so that's clear.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 3:02 pm | #

But you forgot Kit Bond (R-MO). He has been a reliable source of support for all of Junior's idiocies, but I think he may have been just a little spooked by Jim Talent's loss to Claire McCaskill

No, I didn't forget him. I'm trying to focus on class II, the 08 Senators. I think that's where we can best bring pressure to bear. But if you do call or write Bond, let me know what his office has to say, and I'll post it on the blog.

21LittleSenators.blogspot.com
JayAckroyd | 01.02.07 - 3:04 pm | #

Blame the generals now??

Colin Powell, see what you did man?

SEE!!??
willyjsimmons | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 3:12 pm | #

My scooter/paley/noose comment: college football. The Big Names gotta sharpen their skills against the never-have-a-chance, perennial 65-7 losing schools; hence, the necessity of scooter/paley/noose as training fodder here. A personal note to who or whatever sits behind these (and for too many other) sad monikers: if y'all dropped the Gingrich/Rove/Limbaugh/Fox/Savage/ Commentary/NRO/WSJ slimeball guttersnipe bullshit and stuck to whatever you actually believe in, think - just think - of what might happen: civil and civilized discourse! Whoa, hey, howzabout that! Paley, you've shown glimmers, I know you can do it...whaddaya say, guys (or gals)? It's a new year! Repeat after me: I resolve to: a) at least attempt to retain a modicum of focus on the post to which I am responding; b) not propagandize the thread with blather points stolen from crappy, fourth-rate 'conservative' idea factories; c) not try to turn every discussion into a junior high school, "he said, she said," rabidly partisan, ad hominem slime fest; and d) present my heartfelt beliefs and thoughtful opinions in a conscionable, coherent manner, one clearly delineated and indicated as the norm by Glenn and the other commenters. Whaddaya say, guys? It's the new year!
Dirty Dog | 01.02.07 - 3:13 pm | #

Another Friedman, another millstone in Iraq. This go-round, we were blessed with two millstones for the price of one, delivered right on time: a grotesquely botched hanging, and a new set of three zeroes on that odometer, the one under the inscription "Greater love hath no man than this, that he give up his life for his President's rags of legacy."

Four millstones to go. Then Bush can leave all the additional blood and treasure he spilled for the help to clean up.
pt bridgeport | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 3:25 pm | #

sysprog | 01.02.07 - 3:00 pm

"The president's less articulate than Brit Hume, but the two of them are pretty clear about blaming Casey and Abizaid."

It's almost as if Hume is leading Bush to water, but the guy is too stupid to drink it. But I agree that Hume is definately trying to go there. Can't blame him really. He's trying to help run an administration, after all. Not sure I can say the same about Bush though.
casual observer | 01.02.07 - 3:31 pm | #

Dirty Dog | 01.02.07 - 3:13 pm | #

I'd second your sentiment here; however, it's never going to happen. The disgusting and assholic comments made by these jerks are made for a specific purpose. While I might actually agree with some of their points if they made them in an honest and genuine and non-inflammatory for the sake of being an asshole way, they won't do that.
Anonymous | 01.02.07 - 3:33 pm | #

Like 'jhaber' I continue to be amazed at the sustainability that spin has in the MSM. It is truly Orwellian.

The failure of spin to really explain anything from empirical standards, or maybe I should use the (R)hetroical perspective and say, the successful 2 week life span of spin, just does't seem to trip the MSM up at all. After all, when not taking dictation as Colbert points out, they are offering up 'debate' in the form of 'Crossfire' shouting matchs, as Stewart demostrated.

Amidst all this, like so many others, I have tried to figure out what the actual Bush Admin motives and objectives really were, going into Iraq ... what the relationship between their (R)hetoric and their intentions really are. This still remains unclear, since nothing more coherent than their spin emerges.

Possibly this is because Bush's motives were/are different from Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz of the PNAC cabal, which are different from Haliburton's, which are different from Israel's, which are different from the (R)eligious (R)ight, etc., who all support the wa(R) for their own peculiar reasons ... And who sustain their sense of coherent gravitas by telling one another stories to keep themselves 'together'.

Despite numerous logical and empirically based analysis that thread their way through historical facticity and draw 'reasonable' conclusions, I still don't get an overarching (R) vision for invading Iraq, other than implementing PNAC ideology. It is an ideology which states, 'only girlie-men restrict themselves to reality-based politics ... (R)eal men alter reality in their own image', especially if someone has unintentionally given them the keys to the US military.

If so, then the reason people like myself can not determine actual Bush Admin policy from amid the (R)hetoric, it that there is no difference ... that for the Administration, reality is just another tactical issue, like supply lines, troop levels, etc. If so, then it explains why not leaving is not defeat, and so is winning, or minimally on the way to winning.

In which case, the (R)hetorical is the real, even when it flip flops all over the place, every 2 weeks ... Policy is not a function of the facts on the ground, but is designed to over-(R)ight it.

And if that is so, then there isn't even a bubble in which (R)hetorical ideology lives, surviving because it is able to separate itself from facticity, from the toxicity of the real world. There is no silver bullet to crack the bubble, because there is no bubble, there is no separation, as Jr.'s 'Stay the Course' response to the mid-terms shows. There are just different bits of rhetoric at play, as in a 'collide-o-scope', to be rearranged into some new form ... to support a belief about the way you want it to be!

The only reality based 'thing' then, is power, since it is the only factual 'thing' necessary for the practice of (R)adical (R)ight politics. For me, that is '(R) vision', literally in a Nutshell.

Snerd
Snerd Gronk | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 3:33 pm | #

Does the Bush administration know how much they are despised? Maybe they're hoping the right-wing press and the power-worshipping goons in the mainstream press will protect them from "the will of the people." That bubble has to pop some day. They're shuffling around the grounds of the palace, trying not to look worried. They can't fool us.
steve_e | 01.02.07 - 3:33 pm | #

I'm gonna write my congressfolk, and cc others who might be sympathetic.

It is time for the public to pay for Iraq. An "Iraq War Income Tax Surcharge". Continues the SS tax from the cutoff up, with a surcharge of 5% around $200,000, and some proportion of unearned income that isn't taxed as income (i.e. capital gains & dividends).

Continue the surcharge until the Iraq war is paid for. Then it goes away.

This gives the public and the congress incentive to push back against Bush. And if congressfolk won't support it, they don't support the troops.
OwnedByTwoCats | 01.02.07 - 3:41 pm | #

That would be "the surge surcharge"? OwnedBy, I like the way you think.
pt bridgeport | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 3:49 pm | #

P T Bridgeport ... is this you?
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/%7emills/icons/ barnstablea.gif
sysprog | 01.02.07 - 4:06 pm | #

I've got no problem with the likes of pleasedontshooterme and daleyrocks hanging around.As has been pointed out,they bring us fresh from the oven right wing talking points so we don't have to waste our time listening to the O'Limbaughs or O'Hannitys.At the same time,they're wasting their time here where their prevarications are easily(and usually humorously)eviscerated instead of spending their efforts on a more unsuspecting audience(like daleyrocks and his abnormal psychology classmates).I realize it's kind of like throwing stones at kids on the short bus,but it is fun to watch and participate in their ridicule.
That surcharge idea is brilliant.
AnonE.Mouse | 01.02.07 - 4:13 pm | #

Well, I've been in/outabout, and wonder who will win the Prez's Torturer of the Month award?

Everything seems out of order. Broken. An oppossum (sp) at least knows how to play dead. Bushnatures should draft right-wing nuts to guard Badgdad. Let pro-war hopping-human-frogs walk point in war.

Natural frogs can (croak) on Left-flank patrols for peace down at the pond.

War's Cowpokes, hey, come'on with the Strategic Limitation Talks. We 'lefty's are Noy just emotional adrenilin flows. We need new Ornithology 101 field trips to begin soon in the turbulent M.E. Well, what ya know, the gifted ones in the right-wing New Plan is Not to spread chicken wire 'roun oil fields?

May some of us be excused from the draft? Right -thinkers can chane side while time last. Our brains, both rt./lf.Lobes... Bushis's is also too--too-full... it's so dangerous in cowpoke territory vegetarians aint No longer safe. Lefty's have to lie and say they eat chicken legs for dinner. Left-thinkers should read the latest Plan for Withdrawel from fiasco (just publishedto avoid confusion)

READ: Life among The Inveterbrates--WORMTALK and SLUGSPEAK. We all feel a bit creepy low-crawling via days like this...Next, we can expect worm-hanging? None of this is funny. I'm first to apologize...if the cold-ice age don't catch us totally off guard, the snake-worms of those arch-techy-bush-tavern dwellers will. It's Not making me feel pleasant to adress Snakes. Each audible 'wumph,' and hiss which comme'th forth from forked tongues is a makin' us yelp. Enough. And oh, is it time to shear sheep yet? More worms? Saaaaay-be let's try to be 'nice' in another way?

Look, what kind of cat will bring a human 'drifter' to these post and think America is civil? Bush and associates have been a bad "Cheetah's for too long. Who is not wanting neo-con's gallblader's cleaned?. No call THEM who runs amok this White House Clown Show. We have despaired of hope they ever will learn how to operate a 3-ring circus properly.

3-R's---1)retire, 2)refrain from opening the blabber-mouths, and 3) find some honest hick to fix the broken republic! This day, I am convinced the republicans must squirm somewhere beneath the Earth. It's just 'they' screw you to the limit...Enough. shhezze me to...my sincere wish and new-year resolution is to try Not to offend sensitivities. We don't want the parakeets slaughtered. It's about a full moon so we can all blame empty heads on that phenomena.
clownporkopine | 01.02.07 - 4:18 pm | #

Re: the surcharge idea,

since the admin won't put the war costs in the budget and only spring them on Congress as 'emergency' measures, maybe this methodology could be passed on to the taxpayer. Every year at tax time you get a separate envelope with a 'surprise' tax bill in it for the Iraq war. Label the bills as coming from the White House, of course, not Congress. What's one more lie that appears to be coming from the White House.

But seriously, a dedicated Iraq War tax is a great idea, and would drive home the actual costs of the war to those who have to pay it. I think starting it where SS deductions stop is also brilliant. Exemptions for the families of those who serve, of course.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 4:27 pm | #

Steve Gilliard :
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com

Monday, January 01, 2007
...Unlike Atrios, I don't think this lasts until 2009. I think when it's clear you have 70+ votes against you in the Senate, that either you change your plans or you leave. Bush cannot escalate in the face of massive opposition and the reality that the Sadrists control the government. Saddam's hanging was a Mahdi Army special. The Hakim coup is not only dead, but dead and buried, because Sistani refused to back it.So the Sadrists run the show in all but name. Do these geniuses think that the Iraqi Army will support an attack on the Mahdi Army? I don't think so...

Tuesday, January 02, 2007
...If Casey retires in early February, and still opposes this plan, the hearings will be devastating. Bush's main problem is a simple one: who is he backing? It is clear that Sadr now runs the government. All this talk of shoving him aside was Green Zone nonsense. One word from Sistani, and that was done. The Mahdi Army is now, in effect, the government's main force. The uniformed units have only a nominal loyalty to the government. ...It is only a matter of time before an Iraqi Army unit turns on the US forces. The US has no options, but it pretends it does.

...I know people don't believe me, but I don't think Bush's presidency survives a rejection of his Iraq plan. Because there will be hearings and hard questions and unlike the GOP, people will expect answers. If Terri Schiavo began the road to the end of the GOP domination of Congress, this will do the same for Bush. Because he has no support for this and doesn't realize it.
posted by Steve @ 1:51:00 AM

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
-- Gerald Ford, April 15, 1970

daleyrocks post of "Send in the Clowns" as a pejorative without knowing the real background of the song is an indicator of the intelligence level shared by him, shooter and their ilk. Fox News for research and a two day memory span are the cranial parameters we're dealing with here folks. Just think Pavlov's dog; the little bell rings on their desktop signaling a new post on Unclaimed Territory, donning their tight shiny super suits, they leap to the keyboard to defend the True Faith, a bit of googling and a touch of Rush and they sally forth to slay the 'leftie' dragons with their slashing wit and intelligence. The are sore tested and sometimes bested but they battle on with sly barbs and clever made up statistics. Well ya go to war with the army ya have not the one ya want and though they are everywhere overmatched when it comes to tactics and armaments yet they soldier on. It's a long slog to victory in these wars of civilizations. They can't give up their quest no matter how apparently hopeless. What, cut and run? Unacceptable... There is no possible result but Victory!! Any less begins the long slow slide of Western civilization into nothingness... Remind you of anyone?
Les Izmore | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 4:37 pm | #

(sysprog,

Yep. That's me. Photogenic as hell, and ready to step into Tony Snow's spats at any moment.

Naturally, I find the font selection in haloscan frightfully limiting.)
pt bridgeport | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 5:01 pm | #

"The only way significant change will occur is if Bush finds himself so politically isolated ..."

Sorry, but no. He's already politically isolated, and he's made it clear he's not going to change direction.

The only way to change the course of Iraq policy is not only to impeach first Cheney, then Bush, but to convict them in a trial in the Senate.

Maybe they could be impeached and tried together, as co-conspirators often are.
Cal Gal | 01.02.07 - 5:41 pm | #

OwnedByTwoCats | 01.02.07 - 3:41 pm
------------

Iraq War surcharge: you'd see yellow ribbons literally flying off of those SUV's.
rollotomasi | 01.02.07 - 6:03 pm | #

Nuance and layers of meaning.

Immediate kneejerk liberal reactions.

People doubt the song was chosen deliberately?
daleyrocks | 01.02.07 - 6:25 pm | #

Since the war has been funded mostly by "emergency spending" bills and not a part of the normal budget process it would not be difficult to tally the "surge surcharge" tax bill into an individually itemized tax that could be assessed on taxpayers.

So Google miesters, how much in emergency spending have we done?

and,

How many individual taxpayers do we have?

Divide those together and the quotient equals radioactive political fallout for this republican war of choice.

Sacrifice will obviously be apart of the State of the Union; the introduction of tax legislation (as pointed out above) will be opposed only by those who don’t support the troops. (or hate America) They will not be willing to sacrifice as per the President’s humbling message of surge/stay the course/plan for victory.

It seems like that this legislation would write itself. Now all we need is a name. ‘Clear Skies’, ‘Healthy Forests’, 'Patriot Act' have all been taken. Hmmmm...

What should the name be? Iraq Escalation Tax Increase of 2007? Troop Relief Act?

Talk amongst yourselves.

Anybody got a reliable congresscritter to introduce the bill?
Politically Lost | 01.02.07 - 6:29 pm | #

Daley,

That's not nuance, it's lack of communication.

Sober up.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 6:31 pm | #

some suggestions

"Freedom Tax"

"Defense of Liberty Financial Initiative"

"Volunteer Support Donation"

"American Greatness Dividend"

"Support the Troops Initiative"

"Cost of Victory"
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 6:39 pm | #

"American Greatness Dividend"

I love that one.

Good use of irony.

Since this should be a separate special tax it should arrive in the mail looking out of the ordinary. Picture of Bush on the carrier?

Or, on a more somber note...make it look like an I.E.D.
Politically Lost | 01.02.07 - 6:46 pm | #

"daleyrocks":

People doubt the song was chosen deliberately?

Nah. We just don't think you had any clue as to what you were doing when you did choose it. Metaphor and background are not your forte. Then again, that's pretty much true of everything you do.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 7:30 pm | #

Speaking of wing-nuttery, the Times was just excoriated by it's own Byron Calame about a fake story around abortion. Meanwhile the reviled Eason Jordan is taking AP to task for non-existent sources. Tsk. Tsk.


So, when is the right going to attack Focus on the Family for their lying, cherry-picking gay-bashing articles? You know, those articles that come out nearly every month? The crap-fest prominantly featuring phoney research from the de-licensed psychologist...

:crickets chirping:

I thought so...
Moses | 01.02.07 - 8:48 pm | #

daleyrocks | 01.02.07 - 6:25 pm | #

Nuance and layers of meaning.

Immediate kneejerk liberal reactions.



What it means:

The title refers to a phrase reputedly used in a circus when an unforeseen disaster had occurred, with the clowns being sent in to distract the audience from the problem. Alternatively, the title could refer to the practice in vaudeville theatre of sending the clowns on to the stage to distract the audience after a particularly bad act, or to the practice of sending in clowns at a rodeo in order to divert danger from a fallen rodeo cowboy.

Simply put, your late claims of "nuance" don't line up with your obvious lack of knowledge. Send in the clowns is about RESCUING the sitution from danger, not sending in incompetents.


People doubt the song was chosen deliberately?

I believe it was. I just know you had no fucking clue to what it meant, knowledge not being one of your strong points. Along with morality, intelligence and relationship skills, I suspect.

The truth be told, the expression IS appropriate, only Bush is the FUBAR and the Democrats are there to save the show. So, even in your pathetic little attempt to insult the incoming Democratic Congress, you inadvertantly point out the truth:

Bush is a fuck-up. The Democrats need to rescue America.

Thank you for playing, please try again.
Moses | 01.02.07 - 8:57 pm | #

Could our shooter242 be the uber-douchebag Guy Montag ("shooter" in this article)?

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml? i=2...fairbanks070306

Warning - TNR link. USe bugmenot for a password.
Brooklynite | Homepage | 01.02.07 - 9:19 pm | #

SAS (Senior Administration Source) SAYS :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/6223923.stm

Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost'

...The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.

Its central theme will be sacrifice.

The speech, the BBC has been told, involves increasing troop numbers.

The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion...

I think it's quite obvious that Americans have decided they've sacrificed quite enough.

Sacrifice is a blade that cuts two ways. Moments after the word reaches the rafters from Bush's mouth, Madame Speaker Pelosi or Sir Harry of Reid or Chris Dodd or some other sharpie is going to say, "We applaud the president's call for sacrifice. Therefore it is only fitting that he sacrifice permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for corporations."

Why doesn't Bush then cut his losses? He can't. His entire presidency revolves around the Iraq war. If he tries to cut his losses, he admits that he is responsible for a national disaster. So he has no choice but to try to bluff his way into 2009 and turn over the disaster to someone else. That is, he has no choice acceptable to him. But Bush is going to learn something in the next eighteen months...
...Life is difficult for a commander-in-chief who loses wars. That is true anywhere and everywhere. It will not be different in the United States of America.

I know people don't believe me, but I don't think Bush's presidency survives a rejection of his Iraq plan.

I wish I could agree with Steve Gilliard, but the simple fact is Bush will finish his term. He won't even be impeached, mainly because the Clinton witch hunt gutted impeachment of any significant meaning. The Republicans turned "high crimes" into a partisan smear tactic and, as is their wont, best thing to happen to the legacieperverted the highest intentions of the Constitution for a quicky political gain.

As evidence, compare impeached Bill's family's chances at returning to the White House to the unimpeached Bushes. Personally I hope Hillary doesn't get in, but Jeb don't stand a Rat's chance in Hell. Ever.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 9:47 pm | #

Whoah, apparently I mangled an edit pretty badly. The above should read

"The Republicans turned "high crimes" into a partisan smear tactic and, as is their wont, perverted the highest intentions of the Constitution for a quicky political gain."
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 9:50 pm | #

Arne, Moses, exactly so. Even though D is the best of the lot who've volunteered here, he's sadly like GWB -- much of what the rest of the world attends to escapes him.

He doesn't grasp the known unknowns, let alone the palpable contours of the unknown unknowns. Eyeless in Gaza seems appropriate. Blind though he and his companions in ideology seem to be, they're determined to pull down the temple.

They have no idea how old human wisdom is, or how adaptable. They're the children who never grew up, the listeners to commerce in a language they've never been able to learn.

Resentment is their key to participation, but it will never be enough, short of smashing things, to give them a seat at the table laid for them in the presence of their enemies.

Pity should be their portion, not outright rejection. The future will be theirs as well as ours after all.
William Timberman | 01.02.07 - 9:51 pm | #

Bush thinks the way out of Iraq is through Iran.
beca | 01.02.07 - 10:26 pm | #

I guess I accidentally chose the song at the same time I accidentally mentioned who wrote it. I sell clues and don't charge that much.
daleyrocks | 01.02.07 - 10:45 pm | #

Poor Junior. First he got bamboozled into invading Iraq by the bumbling CIA, now the military has let him down. America's Great Victim President.
poodlemama | 01.02.07 - 10:59 pm | #

poodelmama,

You got it. He's stepped up to the plate and now he's ready to lay the blame where it belongs: elsewhere.

Just because he's the decider doesn't mean he's responsible for the bad decisions.
Bullsmith | 01.02.07 - 11:39 pm | #

Karl Rove and W have managed in six short years to turn the US into a banana republic with nukes.

VIVA EL W!
Chris Marlowe | 01.03.07 - 12:10 am | #

Evidently Bush cannot admit to himself that he is a sorry failure. As I said before this is not denial it is delusion.
k | 01.03.07 - 1:26 am | #

D-rocks, seriously dude.. stay down.
Sir-Lurx-a-lot | 01.03.07 - 8:38 am | #

Why'd you have to tip him off?I wanted to see how long it took him to realize his contribution to this thread was a spirited defense of his song selection.
AnonE.Mouse | 01.03.07 - 11:01 am | #

Check out this excellent anti-war video, and please help to spread it;

Guernica Iraq
http://911blogger.com/node/5219
Chewbacca | Homepage | 01.03.07 - 1:27 pm | #

From the Beeb:

Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost'

...The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.

Its central theme will be sacrifice.

The speech, the BBC has been told, involves increasing troop numbers.

The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion...

While flying from the Bay area to Dallas today, I sat next to three young (and I mean really young) Army soldiers on their way to Iraq. Leaving the plane, I said them, "Take care of yourselves, may God be with you, and I hope you make it home safe and soon."

Yes, Dubya knows a good thing when he sees it. Those poor kids....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 01.03.07 - 6:13 pm | #

Just checkin'. the webmaster banned me from posting (tomorrow) and I didn't even use a BAD word!
Sue | 01.04.07 - 10:46 pm | #