Holy Shit

Did the president seriously just declare war on Iran and Syria? That's been the buzz since last night but I chalked that up to people taking the extreme definition of the Bush policies as what is actually happening. I think President CooCoo bananas has really gone insane this time. His team trying to claim the American Throne for his majesty must have assured him that there is literally nothing anyone can do to stop him from doing whatever the fuck he wants. Digby goes for the frat boy analogy calling him, "the typical spoiled rich kind, alcoholic style that is born of someone who has never had to deal with the consequences of their actions."

But the situation is a little more serious than the usual "Bush is a pawn with delusions of grandeur." There is some serious shit about to happen.

Greenwald says that "The President's Intentions Towards Iran Need Much More Attention" and makes an argument that Israel is planning on going to war with Iran, with America as its ally. That makes sense since the Coalition of the Willing is dwindling as even our British mates abandon this catastrophe. Whatever Israel does is their business. They have been fighting a war since the creation of the modern state and will continue fighting wars ad finitum. There is no way around that. Still, that doesn't mean we should get involved with their skirmishes and let them dictate our foreign policy. Israeli goals happen to sort of coincide with the aggressive fringe wing of the minority party so that we can make that section of the world mad at us to prove that section of the world is mad at us.

Tony Snow claimed that the election of Democrats into the Senate and House were a call for Bush to invade Iran and escalate troops in Iraq. Even if it was a very decisive factor in the election (it was), Snow claimed that what the American people and Congress want doesn't matter because "The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way".

Wrong. 100% Exactly Wrong.

If the people think the President is acting the wrong way (which he is) they have an obligation to dramatically change the political landscape he operates from, which they did. Not the other way around. Despite all the claims to the contrary, this administration has hardly been known for listening skills.

CooCooBananas 1/1/06
"As the Iraqis are able to take more of the fight to the enemy, our commanders on the ground will be able to make a different assessment about the troop strength. And I'm going to continue to rely upon those commanders, such as General Casey, who is doing a fabulous job and whose judgment I trust ..."

But after Abizaid and Casey rejected an increase in troop levels as a solution to the problem this administration got us in, they were both replaced. Now, Lincoln replaced his Generals many times during the Civil War but that was dependant on their performance not political stances. Bush made it clear more than ever that if you stand with him you are doing a fabulous job but if you disagree...

It doesn't matter what credentials you have, which the authors of the Baker-Hamilton commission found out right recently. Before the report came out Bush is supposed to have called it a "flaming turd". The administration decided that the most batshit crazy thing for them to do was do exactly the opposite of what the experts were recommending:

During White House deliberations, "How to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme.

"As described by participants in the administration review, some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton."

And: "In the end, the White House favored the idea of more troops as one visible and dramatic step the administration could take."

WTF??? Are we dealing with children who need to be reverse psychologied into making correct decisions?

Instead they formed their own study group to look at their options that resembles an actual study group much along the lines of what the Gitmo war tribunals resemble a real court. As with everything this administration does, they formed their opinions and need people to justify it with cyclical reasoning and baseless conjectures instead of facts.

Despite the ground Generals assessment of the situation and the Iraq Study Group's recommendation to pull out all troops by 2008, the White House has opted to send in more troops. Despite the ongoing call to engage Syria and Iran to help secure the region, the White House had begun picking a fight with them.

Glenn Greenwald has been documenting the rhetorical build up to war noting:

• Increasingly explicit advocacy by neoconservatives in the U.S. for a war with Iran, as reflected by the recent Washington Post Op-Ed by Joe Lieberman in which he really did declare that the U.S. is already at war with Iran ("While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran");

• in the later stages of 2006, the President's most prominent neoconservative supporters becoming increasingly explicit about their advocacy of war with Iran;

• The transparent and deliberate use by the President throughout the last several months of 2006 of highly threatening and accusatory language towards Iran that is identical in content and tone to the language he used towards Iraq in the months immediately preceding the U.S. invasion -- often verbatim identical.

Rhetorical talk aside, there is mounting evidence for a build up to another assault on some other country in the region. Patriot missles are being shipped over there, the standing fleet waiting, promotion of a Navy guy to lead ground operations, as well as this increase in troop levels and raiding Iranian and Syrian consolates (an act of war)

U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.

The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats.

The raid follows a warning yesterday to Iran and Syria from President George W. Bush in his address to the American people on a new strategy for Iraq. Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding the movement of ``terrorists and insurgents'' in and out of Iraq and said the U.S. will ``seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.''

Then there is this little gem

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

Does that sound unconstitutional? Joe Biden thinks it does.

"That will generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate, I predict to you,"

Holy Shit

Did the president seriously just declare war on Iran and Syria? That's been the buzz since last night but I chalked that up to people taking the extreme definition of the Bush policies as what is actually happening. I think President CooCoo bananas has really gone insane this time. His team trying to claim the American Throne for his majesty must have assured him that there is literally nothing anyone can do to stop him from doing whatever the fuck he wants. Digby goes for the frat boy analogy calling him, "the typical spoiled rich kind, alcoholic style that is born of someone who has never had to deal with the consequences of their actions."

But the situation is a little more serious than the usual "Bush is a pawn with delusions of grandeur." There is some serious shit about to happen.

Greenwald says that "The President's Intentions Towards Iran Need Much More Attention" and makes an argument that Israel is planning on going to war with Iran, with America as its ally. That makes sense since the Coalition of the Willing is dwindling as even our British mates abandon this catastrophe. Whatever Israel does is their business. They have been fighting a war since the creation of the modern state and will continue fighting wars ad finitum. There is no way around that. Still, that doesn't mean we should get involved with their skirmishes and let them dictate our foreign policy. Israeli goals happen to sort of coincide with the aggressive fringe wing of the minority party so that we can make that section of the world mad at us to prove that section of the world is mad at us.

Tony Snow claimed that the election of Democrats into the Senate and House were a call for Bush to invade Iran and escalate troops in Iraq. Even if it was a very decisive factor in the election (it was), Snow claimed that what the American people and Congress want doesn't matter because "The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way".

Wrong. 100% Exactly Wrong.

If the people think the President is acting the wrong way (which he is) they have an obligation to dramatically change the political landscape he operates from, which they did. Not the other way around. Despite all the claims to the contrary, this administration has hardly been known for listening skills.

CooCooBananas 1/1/06
"As the Iraqis are able to take more of the fight to the enemy, our commanders on the ground will be able to make a different assessment about the troop strength. And I'm going to continue to rely upon those commanders, such as General Casey, who is doing a fabulous job and whose judgment I trust ..."

But after Abizaid and Casey rejected an increase in troop levels as a solution to the problem this administration got us in, they were both replaced. Now, Lincoln replaced his Generals many times during the Civil War but that was dependant on their performance not political stances. Bush made it clear more than ever that if you stand with him you are doing a fabulous job but if you disagree...

It doesn't matter what credentials you have, which the authors of the Baker-Hamilton commission found out right recently. Before the report came out Bush is supposed to have called it a "flaming turd". The administration decided that the most batshit crazy thing for them to do was do exactly the opposite of what the experts were recommending:

During White House deliberations, "How to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme.

"As described by participants in the administration review, some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton."

And: "In the end, the White House favored the idea of more troops as one visible and dramatic step the administration could take."

WTF??? Are we dealing with children who need to be reverse psychologied into making correct decisions?

Instead they formed their own study group to look at their options that resembles an actual study group much along the lines of what the Gitmo war tribunals resemble a real court. As with everything this administration does, they formed their opinions and need people to justify it with cyclical reasoning and baseless conjectures instead of facts.

Despite the ground Generals assessment of the situation and the Iraq Study Group's recommendation to pull out all troops by 2008, the White House has opted to send in more troops. Despite the ongoing call to engage Syria and Iran to help secure the region, the White House had begun picking a fight with them.

Glenn Greenwald has been documenting the rhetorical build up to war noting:

• Increasingly explicit advocacy by neoconservatives in the U.S. for a war with Iran, as reflected by the recent Washington Post Op-Ed by Joe Lieberman in which he really did declare that the U.S. is already at war with Iran ("While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran");

• in the later stages of 2006, the President's most prominent neoconservative supporters becoming increasingly explicit about their advocacy of war with Iran;

• The transparent and deliberate use by the President throughout the last several months of 2006 of highly threatening and accusatory language towards Iran that is identical in content and tone to the language he used towards Iraq in the months immediately preceding the U.S. invasion -- often verbatim identical.

Rhetorical talk aside, there is mounting evidence for a build up to another assault on some other country in the region. Patriot missles are being shipped over there, the standing fleet waiting, promotion of a Navy guy to lead ground operations, as well as this increase in troop levels and raiding Iranian and Syrian consolates (an act of war)

U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.

The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats.

The raid follows a warning yesterday to Iran and Syria from President George W. Bush in his address to the American people on a new strategy for Iraq. Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding the movement of ``terrorists and insurgents'' in and out of Iraq and said the U.S. will ``seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.''

Then there is this little gem

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

Does that sound unconstitutional? Joe Biden thinks it does.

"That will generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate, I predict to you,"

Gobble Gobble

Happy Thanksgiving

Setting the Record Straight

The White House likes to put out these "Setting the Record Straight" releases whenever reality contradicts their spin. Today's Edition: America's Wage Growth Is Steady And Strong

Real Wages Have Risen 2.8 Percent Over The Past Year, Which Means An Extra $1,687 For The Typical Family Of Four With Two Wage Earners. This data is specifically for production and non-supervisory workers, about 80 percent of the workforce – the supervisory workers who tend to earn more are not included.

• The National Unemployment Rate Has Dropped To 4.4 Percent – The Lowest Rate In More Than Five Years.
  
• Over The Past Three Months, America Has Added 470,000 New Jobs, For A Total Of More Than 6.8 Million New Jobs Since August Of 2003.

What they are arguing here is things are starting to get to Clinton era levels. They fail to mention that median family income dropped almost three percent in the last six years. The method of taking averages glosses over the fact that job growth does not reflect quality job growth. Averages might be up because the top percentages are making money but the middle and low end as usual are stagnant or losing out.

Consumer Prices Fell For The Second Straight Month In October

Chinese brand televisions for all!!!

Energy Prices Fell 7 Percent In October

After a most incredible increase. Gas around here is only $2.50 so I should be thankful to this administration.

At the end of the day, the editorial they were trying to refute ("The Wage Picture – And What It Says About The Economy – Is Still Cloudy") seems to be an accurate assessment.

I'm not trying to be a gloomy gus and say that we are all doomed and everything is terrible but ignoring the problems we are facing and calling out anyone that questions where we are heading does not do us any good.

True but...

USNews & World Report

The degree to which the new Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill despises Vice President Dick Cheney is a big plus for President Bush. Consider why incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrapped an idea to impeach Bush: "Two words: Dick Cheney," he says, joking that it would vault the veep into the Oval Office.

That's one thing that has always bothered me about the Bush election is that people were also electing Cheney who is not just manipulatable but a truly truly bad and selfish man. The only way impeachment would work would be to impeach them both. I'm sure whatever George could be tried for, Cheney could be tried for.

But people might not want to see the big fuss and the Republicans get to blame Democrats for George's mistakes. It would have been better to do it two years ago.

Shays Blames Democrats for Iraq

ThinkProgress has a transcript of Republican Christopher Shays already trying to lay the blame for the screw up in Iraq on the yet to take power Democrats:

We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis and we’re gonna have to find a bipartisan solution, and the Democrats may not want to own Iraq but they own it now as much as this President.

This has been anything but bipartisan. It is terrible that so many Democratic hawks voted for this war but since the war has been so mismanaged and completely disregarding any Democratic input, they are calling for a change. I'd prefer a withdrawal but I'm willing to compromise.

Let's also not lose sight of the recurring theme Bush stuck with throughout this war:

As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq

Best Serving the Interests of Veterans

Remember Tammy Duckworth? The one who lost in Illinois' 6th District to extremist Peter Roskam. The one whose helicopter was shot down in Iraq which she still managed to land safely. The one who had to have both her legs amputated because of this incident. The one who served in Iraq. The one who still somehow didn't get the VFW endorsement who base whether or not to endorse a candidate on a questionnaire and not service, reputation, or history.

That Tammy Duckworth was just nominated to head Illinois' Department of Veterans Affairs.

From the words of partisan Salvatore Capirchio, head of the VFW PAC:

Our endorsement was about who was going to best serve the interests of the 40,600 veterans who reside in the Illinois 6th District.

Duckworth will do 100 times more for veterans than Roskam ever will pretend to. The fallout from the VFW PAC endorsement of Peter Roskam is just starting. Veterans and members of the Illinois Veterans of Foreign Wars 19th District is voting on dismantling the VFW PAC.

The resolution calls for the return of the PAC’s funding to the state department’s general fund and a written apology to all veterans...

“It’ll never happen,” conceded Past District 19 Commander Bill Wolff of Bloomingdale. “But that doesn’t mean we can’t ask for it and tell them how we feel.”...

“First, they need to apologize for not consulting us on our feelings and needs in this race,” Wolff said. “Then they need to apologize for turning their backs on Duckworth, who is a VFW member in good standing.”...

“What…does the (national VFW) headquarters in Kansas City) know about Peter Roskam or Tammy Duckworth?” said Tioga VFW member Bill Burde. “This endorsement does nothing but hurt the reputation of this organization, and they need to know that.”...

“There are some pretty unhappy people in the post, so Sunday should be interesting,” Chuck Yacullo said. “Members wish they had at least been given a chance to comment or a heads-up before reading about the endorsement in the paper.”

Sounds like a ringing endorsement of Peter Roskam. He is starting out his term with this hanging over him. He will continue to support the failed leadership of the war while Duckworth looks more and more like a hero.

Fringey and Foolish

Yglesias on the coalition to move the center away from the middle (aka: McCain/Lieberman):

Just because mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats both reject something doesn't make it centrist; it could just be fringey and foolish.

Hippies Still Trying to Ruin Country

That's the title of an article from a Kentucky paper. The whole thing is a joke and easy to dismiss as the rantings of a highly indocrinated wingnut. It is a shame that it is published in the paper but in our current "he said, she said" state of media today, this sort of thing passes as civil discourse. In the vain of Malking, Coulter, and Pam Atlas she begins with calling for the death of all liberals.

America won't win another war until the 1960s flower children are pushing up petunias.

Ok...maybe she disagrees with long haired anti war radicals and not all social progressives.

The flower children morphed into lefty loonies who now masquerade as social progressives. No matter what they rename themselves, however, their agenda hasn't changed.

I see. So according to Jeneane Mcbrearty, the only liberal is a dead liberal. That is a good place to start from for civil discourse to try to solve our problems.

She continues her tirade by setting up strawman liberal talking points without attributing them to anyone in particular, without giving any example to backup her claims, and with no point of reference other than willingly ignoring reality and what is being said. The point of the article is to advocate prowar policies...or at least to demonize those against the war without actually taking on any antiwar arguments. With prowar hacks like her arguing for continued presence in Iraq, it is no wonder support for the war is continually deflating.

They still want utopia and it wouldn't be worth mentioning except that their naivetŽ has aged into a persistent denial of reality that may have devastating consequences.

Actually it is Bush and his PNAC supporters who have flawed visions of a utopian, democratized middle east that loves America. Bush is the one who wanted to "transform a troubled region" and who claimed "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." It is this very simplistic and false utopian goal of American Empire that the people of America are railing against. This continued denial from the radical right of the lack of justification for the Iraq war and refusal to acknowledge that the war has been a complete failure any way you look at it. The people to blame aren't the troops who are doing what they are told but the leaders who, much like Jeneane, repeatedly refused to recognize the facts of what was happening on the ground. This "persistent denial of reality" has already had "devastating consequences" in terms of instability in the region, Iraqi deaths, American deaths, and the stretching of our army to be unprepared to face any real threat that comes up.

For example, consider their continued belief that America's armed forces are neo-Nazi stormtroopers who delight in burning babies to further the aims of imperialistic corporations.

Source? I'm assuming she is referring to a protorture stance and denouncing the Geneva Conventions and international law that we have been violating. But she also starts to confuse the issue in claiming falsely that there is a "hate the troops" movement when it is actually a "the leaders are evil" movement. Her apologizing for war profiteers is also disturbing as well as dishonestly ignoring the fact that a lot of the fighting on the ground is being done by mercenaries.

Such nonsense, now treated as legitimate by the left-leaning media, denigrates the patriotic values and sincerity of half the nation.

Ummm...the latest poll shows that 63% of Americans support leaving Iraq while only 33% support staying there. That is hardly half. But calling for the leaders to take responsibilty for their false justifications for a failing war is hardly denigrating patriotic values and sincerity of the supporters. Jeneane, criticism of the administration and people in charge has nothing to do with their public supporters. I may think you are absolutely wrong and an ignorant sap whose loyalties lie more with a party than with the country but that is another story. Keep calling for the death of all liberals and squeeze all that hate into your keyboard and maybe people will take you seriously. Please don't hold your breath, though.

It undermines the war effort, insults the dead and the survivors of battle and their families, and supports the aims of the enemy. Translated into immigration or national defense policy, it is an invitation to the world to destroy our country.

Which Democratic Party member, left wing pundit, or even liberal blogger has come out in support of the "aims of the enemy"? Exactly zero. This sentence of course comes right after her claim that liberals are denigrating the patriotic values of GOP party supporters. Calling for the US to abide by international law and Geneva Conventions are exactly that. How she misconstrues that to mean liberals want America to be invaded by foreign powers requires a blinding faith in the GOP and an intake of Limbaugh hate three times a day. Our country ratified these treaties and followed these policies for years but to her a radical change of this policy is unpatriotic.

Yet, this Vietnam-era ide fixe about the military, despite 40-plus years of proof to the contrary.

Not sure what she is arguing but I'm going to call shannanigans and ask for the source of this proof.

To renounce their military fictions would mean facing bigger, more important truths: Marxism doesn't work. Love is not all you need. Western culture is worth defending because it protects freedom, tolerance and the greatest material good for the greatest number. Government can't solve every problem. The American taxpayer has no obligation to support the rest of the world's exploding population.

So many fictitious and leading statements passed off as fact in one short paragraph. First, who is the Marxist that she is complaining about? I haven't heard anyone in a long time espouse the benefits of Marxism so we'll disregard that statement. She goes on to promote hate. 'Love' could be a poorly thought out metaphor for diplomacy in which case she is going to have a very very difficult time proving that diplomacy was an iferior course of action as opposed to the chaos we brought to Iraq. Fighting in Iraq had nothing to do with defending ourselves. There was no imminent threat from that country as well as no possible way that country could have ever posed any real threat to western culture. She continually defends the actions of our government only to tell us the government can't solve every problem. Our government sure proved that it can creat problems though and she proves that she can defend them. It would also be a good time to remind her that the war in Iraq is projected to cost around a trillion dollars. In taxpayer money. To support another part of the world (that we wrecked). Other than that, I'm not sure what she is arguing with her exploding world population line. Is she arguing we annhilate people because we sure are giving a lot of money away for free. All while cutting domestic spending and increasing our deficit to unsustainable proportions.

Terrorism is tortuous for them only because it forces them to pursue the political goals that will allow them to redistribute America's wealth by pulling the nation together and relying on the hated military for protection.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. The antiwar left and the antioccupation majority of Americans do not favor continued military presence. These aren't homeless people going into the military. A lot of them are professionals that are being pulled away from their job that helps support the American economy.

Thus, lefty loonies deny that terrorists have declared war on America, while insisting that we can win the war through negotiation. They seem to believe the terrorists will spare them because they are nice.

No. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Saddam didn't attack us. Osama attacked us and our pullout of Afghanistan to support a war in Iraq let him escape. Bush failed to catch the man that attacked our country and increased terrorism and anti-American views of the region. Hammas is now a legitamite, democratically power because of the wave of anti-American sentiment directed at Bush.

The truth is that there is no way out of our modern warfare dilemmas.

Because we should never have gotten into our dilemma. (as the antiwar people have repeatedly said)

Is it possible to protect non-combatants, given modern weaponry in total war?

It is possible to avoid total war with countries that don't attack ours.

Are people who make weapons innocent citizens of their warring governments, or integral non-uniformed soldiers and legitimate targets?

I think she is advocating terrorist views here.

Must we surrender our country to our enemies because our weapons are too terrible to use?

WTF?

Whose life is more important: the 12-year-old Iraqi firing an Uzi or a soldier from Kentucky?

Haven't heard this story yet. She is really off topic at this point, failing to recognize still that we have no reason to be in Iraq and that crtisicm is aimed at officials not soldiers dying. War critics are arguing for troops to come home out of this unwinnable situation while people like her are arguing to keep our troops there dying for no reason

Do we want a military strong enough to protect our homeland?

Yes. Tell the Bush administration to stop using up all our resources.

It's crucial that we come to terms with war questions because we will have war with Iran and North Korea.

She hasn't addressed any war questions brought up. All she has done is argued that we don't need to take the high ground anymore and should pitch our morals aside as we attempt to annhilate races. War is not inevitable. War will not happen with Iran because there is no reason to go to war against them and our military isn't physically capable of fighting another war. War will not happen with North Vietnam because China won't be happy

For aging hippies, it's easier to keep blaming old enemies than to confront new ones, especially the young and ruthless. Hating a military-industrial complex is safer and less tiring. It's less complicated -- and less dangerous.

Yes, she is complaining about aging hippies blaming old enemies. Take a moment to let the irony sink in.

It's less complicated and dangerous for her to fight those wicked strawmen than to take on any real issue and debate it honestly instead of creating making up arguments from the other side. It is easier to follow the leaders blindly without question and blame internal enemies than to acknowledge that maybe our leaders sent thousands of troops to be maimed and killed in Iraq for no apparent reason.

Abstract institutions neither bleed nor shoot back.

Is she referring to her attack on strawmen?

They are a lot more fun and allow the fiction of activist moral superiority to persist.

I guess so.

Their BAWL (Buddha-Allah-Wicca-Lenin) is better than some old Judeo-Christian God.

That would make us bloggo-buddhi-islamo-witcho-commie-fascists who hate her because she loves God. That is 63% of Americans she is calling that.

In their heart of hearts, lefty loonies do want America to lose in Iraq and every military theater.

Source? Who on the left said this?

They want outside enemies to accomplish quickly the demolition of American capitalism, using the violence the lefty loonies are too old, too scared and too well-invested to use.

I better end this quick because my computer keeps giving me "logic errors" whenever I type anything from this column.

After all, lefty loonies want their social justice and their pensions, too.

Damn Justice!!! And Damn Pensions, Too!!!

Just don't vote for them in 2008.

Reality: Americans rejected this platform resoundingly in 2006 and will reject it in 2008. The GOP lost because of their corruption and war stance. Things will only get worse with the war and the information that comes out will only undermine the prowar arguments further.

Thanks for the entertaining opinions, though!

Not Getting It

Conservatives have hated Jon Stewart and the string of successful comedians/actors that have come off his show. They consistently tried to demonize the Daily Show unsuccessfully for years while supporting the propaganda arm of Fox News. What they didn't understand was that The Daily Show was the only outlet for any sort of non-conservative news since for years they were the only ones who reported critical of the Administration and Congress while the debate on other cable and network news shows centered on the degree of awesomeness this President is so awesome at.

It is basic supply and demand. With ABC's clinton-did-it-umentory and CBS's extremely right leaning news show with Couric, everyone is trying to outdo Fox. Fox News debuted successfully but has been slumping recently. Whether that has to do with shows immitating the Fox format or whether it has to do with the direct correlation of Bush's approval ratings to Fox News viewers, is up for debate. The point is that Fox found something conservatives like (angry conservatives being angry at liberals) and ran with it successfully for some years.

The Daily Show and Colbert Report are successful because there was that end of the market untended to (no such thing as liberal media) and because liberals have a sense of humor. Conservative humorists include the bland What About Raymond? and the not even mildly funny, and extremely derivative Mind of Mencia. This would mean that there is an open market for Conservative humor except most conservatives don't have the sense of humor that would draw them to a "conservative Daily Show" show day after day. Dennis Miller tried it briefly and very unsuccessfully. Fox News is going to debut a conservative Daily Show soon, though.

Fox News Channel might air two episodes of a "Daily Show"-like program with a decidedly nonliberal bent on Saturday nights in late January, with the possibility that it could become a weekly show.

The half-hour show would take aim at what executive producer Joel Surnow, the co-creator of "24," calls "the sacred cows of the left" that don't get made as much fun of by other comedy shows.

"It's a satirical news format that would play more to the Fox News audience than the Michael Moore channel," Surnow said. "It would tip more right as 'The Daily Show' tips left."...

Surnow said it's not going to be strictly conservative but more in the spirit of the old and rebellious "Saturday Night Live."

"It's not going to hit you over the head with partisan politics," Surnow said. "It'll hit anything that deserves to be hit."

So much to digest there. It is being promoted with much anger at the left but it isn't going to be strictly conservative or partisan.

This aside, Surnow doesn't understand that humor doesn't come from partisan politics but from...people having a talent at making people laugh. Stewart, Colbert, and the group of comedians that move through the show are very talented at mocking the right leaning news broadcasts that attempt to portray themselves as center. I have a feeling this conservative version is just going to immitate Fox News with jokes like "Pelosi is a woman..haha" "Billary....haha" "Defeatocrat surrender monkey....haha".

The Daily Show's success didn't come because they were the laughing show of some left leaning network, it came because there was no way to get news without an ultra conservative spin...and because everyone on the show was extremely funny and talented.

The right has too much righteous indignation frothing from the mouths and minds of O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, etc. to effectively switch gears to some sort of funny take on politics. There are no funny right wing blogs and no funny right wing comedians. The Hillbilly comedy tour was successful but it would be a stretch to label that as funny. What it comes down to is that there is just no market for rightwing humor. What are they going to make of? The fact that they had control of every branch of government for the last six years and screwed everything up really bad? Deficit...hilarious. War...haha. Cronyism...bust your sides humor. Multiple Republicans being indicted and under investigation with an alarming number of White House officials going to jail...haha...those damn liberals.

They have their indignation but that is it. We'll see how the show goes though.

109th Congress Fails Again...and Again...

The Republicans of the 109th Congress will go down in history as one of the most incompetent legislative bodies to ever represent America. They refused to act on anything that wasn't a media circus. They will be the Congress known for having special hearings to know if baseball players used steriods and calling special sessions to proclaim they don't agree with doctors and feel they should intervene in personal lives. Meanwhile, they refused to provide any sort of oversight at all over the President's unconstitutional programs such as domestic wiretapping. To justify its existence, most sited reasons that terrorists needed to be spied on and promptly shot down any suggestions that non-terrorist Americans would be monitered. Predictably that wasn't the case as military documents suggest Bush was spying on personal enemies rather than enemies of the state.

An antiterrorist database used by the Defense Department in an effort to prevent attacks against military installations included intelligence tips about antiwar planning meetings held at churches, libraries, college campuses and other locations, newly disclosed documents show.

One tip in the database in February 2005, for instance, noted that “a church service for peace” would be held in the New York City area the next month. Another entry noted that antiwar protesters would be holding “nonviolence training” sessions at unidentified churches in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

This should be shockingly big news but it is something I came to expect in the last few years. The article goes on with DOD officials claiming they had to monitor peaceful groups that adovated non-violence because their events where likely locations where violence break out. It wasn't a problem with agitators who came to the events to deliberately provoke a violent response (there are very few cases of violence breaking out at these) but the problems with the groups themselves. That means the violent people weren't monitored, only people that dissented with the Bush doctrine.

Whose fault is it that this happened? Higher ups couldn't say "not mine" fast enough.

Mr. Baur said that those operating the database had misinterpreted their mandate.

That's why there is supposed to oversite to these programs and it is why the 109th Congress will go down as a failure. Their claims that no one would monitor anybody but international terrorists has been proven wrong along with their assertions that the program didn't need to report to Congress. To be fair, it was mainly the Bush administrtation who kept saying this but the Republican Congress time and time again refused to put up any resistence so they are just as guilty.

Instead of protecting the American people they chose party loyalty. The political games of this deeply corrupt Congress will continue long after many of them find themselves unemployed next session. Their reckless spending and failure to help balance any budget will leave a deep scar in America that won't heal for a long time.

This time it goes beyond that. This time they are giving a massive half trillion dollars of spending bills that were supposed to have been authorized, to incoming Democrats. It is a political stunt played at the tax payers and constituencies expense.

Republicans vacating the Capitol are dumping a big spring cleaning job on Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills...

The bulging workload that a Republican-led Congress was supposed to complete this year but is instead punting to 2007 promises to consume time and energy that Democrats had hoped to devote to their own agenda upon taking control of Congress in January for the first time in a dozen years...

Under a formula dating back to 1997, Medicare payments to doctors for office visits will drop an average 5 percent on Jan. 1 - unless Congress steps in...

Driving the decision to quit and go home rather than finish the remaining budget work is a determined effort by a group of conservative Republicans to prevent putting a GOP stamp on spending bills covering 13 Cabinet Departments...

Republicans also look forward to using unfinished budget work to gum up an early Democratic agenda that includes raising the minimum wage, negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, cutting interest rates on college loans and repealing some tax breaks for oil companies.

"Other stuff may get pushed off the table," said GOP lobbyist Hazen Marshall, a former longtime Capitol Hill aide. "It kills (Democrats') message."

Hopefully, voters will remember this stunt in 2008. This is the type of scorched earth policies Democrats will deal with for the next two years. Republicans continue to choose their party of American interests and it looks like they will attempt to stonewall any helpful legislation.

Laesch on Grassroots vs. BlueDog Illinois Politics

John Laesch in a question/answer forum at FDL:

Nobody wants a repeat of IL 6th...

TeddySanFran @ 25

John Laesch, many GOP Congresscritters were defeated in their elections because not only was their Speaker toxic and thus dis-invited to their campaigns, but Denny had to spend his own money right at home to defeat a progressive, grassroots first-time candidate. I hope your IL-14 supporters who gave your campaign its 40% recognize their contribution to the national Blue Wave.

High-fives all around! John Laesch in 2007!

=======
Who’s Next?
=======

We will make this well-known. I have to wait for H4C to file his final report before we know exactly how much $$$ he spent in IL 14th, but I am guessing it is near $1M. That amount could have swayed votes in one or two other target districts...

Howie Klein @ 30

John, have you had any communication with the DCCC? Is there any chance they will support you in a bid to take IL-14 when Hastert resigns? My understanding is that Pelosi appoints a new DCCC chair next week.

Not yet, but it will happen in the near term. Durbin is the first hurdle to cross in Illinois...

Laesch: "On the campaign trail I talked about the 5,000 people who contributed to JDL 2006 vs. the millions that Hastert took from special interest groups. “We can’t change a republican party for a Democratic Party - we have to change the system.”"

This is the list of potential challengers that I would take seriously. Hastert does not like Lauzen and a battle between Hastert pick (Schmitz) and Lauzen would be IDEAL in a special election scenario.

We also know that at least three other candidates have contacted the IL State Board of Elections and we are staying tuned for the exact rules that will apply.

Before departing, it occurred to me that I could leave some things that need to be done. I know Hastert like a book b/c I have read his book. I do not know much about some of the potential GOP opponents and we could use some research help. My guess is that Lauzen will win. Lauzen by the way wrote a bill that would ban women from breast feeding in public… further right than Hastert, but opposed to Hastert’s highway (the real issue for the GOP).

Here are some things that we need from the Blog Community:
1) Opposition research on Chris Lauzen
2) Opposition research on Patricia Lindner
3) Opposition research on Tim Schmitz
4) Opposition research on Steve Rauchenberger

Research needs to be:
- Where do they get their $$
- What votes make them vulnerable?

H.W.'s Baker and Gates for the Bailout

From Tom Englehardt:

The ten key ISG members, in fact, are largely not military strategists or geopolitical thinkers of a sort who might be expected to offer Iraq solutions. They are instead a who's who of establishmentarianism, extending back to the Reagan era. Is this a major shift in Washington? You bet. How big remains to be seen. But here's the real question: Can the new crowd -- even if the President bows down to Daddy's Boys, which is hardly a given -- get us out of Iraq? Do they even want to?

It is a great article that Alterman recommends:

You'll find discussions of the return of Baker, of the way he has been conducting his own off-shore foreign policy, of a possible purge of some of the last key neocons in the Bush administration, and of the attempted isolation of the vice president. You'll also find a clear-eyed discussion of what all the "redeployment" and "phased withdrawal" plans now floating around Washington really add up to; and, perhaps most important of all, a consideration of two key aspects of our Iraqi venture that the mainstream media essentially have not cared to cover: our permanent bases in Iraq and our use of air power in heavily populated urban areas of that country.

Roskam in USAToday

Peter Roskam:

"Republicans were just discouraged about the (federal) spending" being out of control.

How does he plan to curb federal funding? As a supporter of the war in Iraq and with tax cuts. Errr...that's what he used to win the election.

Roskam refuses to be critical of Bush and continues to flaunt his Republican bonafides while claiming he doesn't like the federal spending. Republicans have overseen the five largest deficits in American history with the current President presiding over the top four. As a fiscally responsible Republican he should be against this but as a member of Republican business as usual in Washington, he won't.

Roskam blames fiscal recklessness as the reason his party lost control of the House and Senate last week and why, instead of joining the majority party, he now must settle for minority status.

This man supports tax cuts which helped create the current budget crisis, the mishandled war on terror which ballooned the deficit more, and the Iraq War which secured our status as a super-debtor country. For some reason he sees himself as Mr. Smith when his party's corruption and mismanagement is the reason they are the minority party. It is possible for him to be a reformer and a Republican but that is not the platform he ran on and does not match his history. Socially he is one of the most conservative elected members of the incoming Congress supporting the most radical agendas such as no gun control of assault weapons, against human rights for the gay, against minimum wage hike, against embyonic stem cell research, and of course wants rape victims to carry the child to term. As for his fiscally responsible credentials, they include repeated investigations into fundraising irregularities and supporting a local Republican political machine illegally raise funds.

Roskam was an aide for the indicted Tom DeLay and for the 16 term serving Henry Hyde. He his anything but an outsider and prefers Republican business as usual over helping out the general population. The reason he gives for his victory center on him being a native of the district.

"If you're running for Congress, being in the Lombardian is where you want to be," he said. "I knew that (and) it worked."

This of course completely ignores the fact that every single local paper supported Duckworth. All Roskam had to run on was the fact that he was part of the crumbling Illinois Repulican machine and even that barely helped him win the district with a mere 2% edge over Duckworth. When Hyde was in office, he routinely carried the district by wide margins with the closest competitor being Christine Cegelis who closed the gap to 11% before her grassroots campaign was booted in favor of Rahm and the Blue Dog's failed attempt to take the district.

The only reason Roskam won was because Duckworth ran a weak campaign despite the massive amount the money spent on her behalf. It had nothing to do with Roskam being the more favorable candidate but it looks like he is already moving on something analogous to Bush's 2004 "mandate".

Since the 110th Congressional session hasn't even started it is too early to tell exactly what Roskam will be like. From his history, how he ran his campaign and how he is talking now, it looks as if he is leaning towards being another yes man to failing Republican policies that continually do a diservice to the Ameican public's needs.

Welcome back to Washington Peter Roskam.

Filed Under O for Obvious

(*Update Below)
I'm glad to see that reporters are finally losing their fear of reporting reality but it would have been nice to see this earlier:

The iconic figures of this era were Newt Gingrich, Richard Armey and Tom Delay. They were zealous advocates of free markets, low taxes and the pursuit of wealth; they were hawks and often bellicose; they were brutal critics of big government.

Yet none of these guys had success in capitalism. None made any real money before coming to Congress. None of them spent a day in uniform. And they all spent the bulk of their adult careers getting paychecks from the big government they claimed to despise. Two resigned in disgrace.

Having these guys in charge of a radical conservative agenda was like, well, putting Mark Foley in charge of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. Indeed, Foley was elected in the Class of '94 and is not an inappropriate symbol of their regime.

As much as I'm glad Foley is the one who helped bring this particular class down, I'd rather see them remembered for their ultra-partisan, lie-infested, corrupt politics. But like they say, Capone was brought down on Tax evasion. Hopefully, reporters won't be afraid to criticize the GOP anymore.

For 12 years, the media didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do...This is a story I should have written 12 years ago when the "Contract with America" Republicans captured the House in 1994. I apologize.

Apology accepted. Do your job.

That is just one man at CBS News so I don't want to pile all of the lopsided reporting favoring the GOP on him. Most of the prominent media aren't even fair weather fans, but GOP hardliners. They never called bullshit on the morale majority that the Newt Republicans ran on but continue to pick up every single talking point offered by the GOP. Even after the affairs, mistresses, pedophile solicitations, wife beating, and who knows what else, the media continued to offer up the GOP as representing the moral majority.

"The media didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do." They sure as hell weren't against calling a blowjob a blowjob. They weren't afraid to offer up fallacious claims that Democrats support terror. They were, however, afraid to question a misleading president. They weren't afraid to trumpet the Iraq war as a postive for the nation.

It continues today with Time magazine cover referring to the GOP's capture of the House in 94 as stampede but the current cover referring to the Democrats sweep of both the House and Senate as a victory for the middle. No matter what the outcome of the election would have been they would have proclaimed it a victory for the Republicans so their opinions are rather invalid at this point.

The big worry on the rightwing blogs has been that the media will give Pelosi a "honeymoon" period where they won't write anything critical about her. But as she is a woman representative from California, the pundits could only wait a week and a half. Wolf Blitzer compared her to an unfaithful wife or whoring woman who has been around the block with an onscreen question asking if she was "Damaged Goods". (refer to artist rendering of MediaMatter's CNN screencap)

The "bad wife" analogies continue with the Time's "The Honeymoon Is Over" by Mike Allen. Most of the quotes come from anonymous Democratic Aides and officials who have nothing but foreboding statements about the Democratic Party.

"We had a great deal of unity last week and encouraging Murtha to run against Hoyer really threatens to fray that unity at a time when we want to project an image of being strong and together," said one Democratic aide. "It doesn't bode well for our first 100 hours. To be a majority party, you have to bring disparate groups together, and she's been given credit for being very good at that. If she departs from that record or that approach, it's harder to stay a majority."...

"People were surprised that she would so publicly endorse Murtha, particularly because it could end up hurting her," said a Democrat not aligned with either side. "She could lose her first big fight, which is not good for her leadership."...

"She wants to purge the leadership of people who disagree with her," said a Democratic official with a front-row seat. "It's about people she can personally control."

The gist of the article is that Pelosi backing Murtha is sowing dissent in the Demcratic Party which has a hard enough time to stick together as it is. This is the same bullshit analysis that kept Bush from any oversight for years. It implies that any debate or alternate opinions are signs of defections and sedition to the US or the party.

Pelosi backed Murtha for House Majority seat because she worked with him in the past and they work well together. He didn't win. The Democratic Party isn't in turmoil because of this. She wanted someone and everyone else didn't - the majority one and democracy works. Hooray.

There are so many conflicting reports about what the Democratic Party is supposed to be right now that it seems best to leave the know it all pundits out of this. The GOP claims Pelosi brings some elusive San Francisco values to the table but supports conservative Democrat Murtha. The new breed of Democrats are supposed to be very conservative yet they overwhelmingly voted for Hoyer. Pelosi is here to rule the Democratic party with an iron fist to destruction but since she can't get Murtha elected she is a failure and her tenure as speaker is already sunk before it began.

Sometimes it seems as if pundits are racing towards being the first to accurately predict the Democrats demise and which scandal will break them. Digby has a fantastic post about "these catty little MSNBC snots enjoying their full-on Demo bitch fest." As most Digby posts are, it is a recommended read:

Norah O'Donnell, Lawrence O'Donnell, Mary Ann Akers and some other person I don't know have just spent half an hour discussing the fact that Nancy Pelosi ruined her own honeymoon and now it is really quesionable whether she can lead...

After a thorough discussion of how hapless the Democratic nerds have already proven to be, Mary Ann Akers whispers that reporters all over town are "loving" this story. It's so much fun! All the kidz squealed like schoolgirls at prospect of the merciless going-over they are preparing to give these totalbigfatlosers. ("We're so not being mean or anything cuz they like totally deserve it cuz they just don't get it, ok?")...

(The problem is) that the patented 90's style smug, juvenile, derisive Kewl Kidz tone is once again ooozing through everything they say...

It's as if all these unpleasant events of the last six years never happened and we are back in the days of endless cable bitch-fests filled with sniggering about unauthorized blow jobs and earth tones and "grown-ups" who eat PB&J's and travel with their favorite pillies...

They were certainly enjoying themselves tonight. Rolling their eyes and laughing and even snorting a time or two at the completely absurd sight of Democrats in power. I expected to see Yoohoo spray out of Norah's nose at one point. It was just so, like, awesomely super-fun!

The questions arise about whether or not the in-crowd treated the Newt's Contract with America in the same doubting, snide fashion. It must have been funny to see these angry white men going off about about moral superiority and running on a vague set of principals instead of a set plan. The Contract with America surely must have been met with the same doubts and derision that the first 100 Hours have been met with. Newt surely must have been criticized as much as Pelosi. Digby pities you for being so naive:

It's worth noting that the last time the House turned over, in 1994, Tom Delay beat Newt Gingrich's handpicked choice for majority leader and somehow the whole town didn't interpret that as Newtie's waterloo. As a matter of fact, the press was giving him such wet slurpy blowjobs they could hardly come up for air...

There are no honeymoons for Democrats. Remember that. And "moral authority" is about haircuts and Hollywood, not torture and illegal wars. It is not merely a fight against the Republicans or a fight over politics and policy. It is a non-stop battle with the press to cover events with seriousness and responsiblity. For some reason, when Democrats are in power the press corps immediately goes from being merely shallow to insufferable, sophomoric assholes.

Mike Allen agrees that there should be no honeymoons for Democrats criticizing the workings of the party as signs of divisiveness at every turn. Every possible scenario can be seen as a victory for the GOP as long as debate between Democrats is highlighted while disarray and confusion within the Republican party is downplayed.

Republicans have their own tense leadership battle going on, but the Pelosi letter provided a respite from all the adulation for the Democrats.

Tense leadership battles like Trent Lott winning the Senate minority whip by one vote. But of course Democrats are the ones who are breaking apart. His whole article seems to be eerily similar to a statement made by Minority Whip, Roy Blunt:

Each time we hold our team together and force the Democrats to vote like Democrats, we’ll be taking one more step toward recapturing our majority in 2008.

One-hundred-forty-nine Democrats demonstrated yesterday that they are willing to buck Nancy Pelosi.

Backing friends made George Bush loyal and decisive. Nominating John Bolton was a strong and bold move considering no one wanted him before and no one wants him now. Pelosi backing Murtha however shows signs of disfunction.

-----

I'm not sure what she planned to accomplish with a last minute backing of Murtha over heavily favored Hoyer just like I'm not sure what she is trying to accomplish with her backing Hastings instead of ranking member Harmon. To a novice like me it looks like she is trying to let people know she wants things done her way. It sounds like both of these nominations are long shots so it may be her telling the Democrats that she doesn't want it to be business as usual and that the status quo or what was previously acceptable is open for review. However, her backing different members of the party for positions is not a sign of failed leadership.

(*Update)

Ok...this isn't going to turn into a "rehash Greenwald blog" but once again he outhshines everyone else writing about this.

Why she supported Murtha:

It is painfully obvious that Pelosi supported Murtha for one very simple and extremely common reason -- because unlike Hoyer, with whom she has a tense and uncomfortable working relationship and with whom she has worked at cross-purposes in the past, Murtha is her ally and supporter.

To put this into perspective:

The Bush administration has spent six years completely obsessed with personal loyalty to the President and intolerant of the slightest independence. The entire Congress was kept strictly in line for the last five years. Every official who showed the slightest independence was replaced by obedient Bush loyalists. Yet Pelosi does nothing other than support an ally rather than an opponent for the position immediately underneath her, and that makes her some out-of-control egomaniac consumed by personal vanity and emotional impulses.

He notes that Beltway "common knowledge" is that Pelosi hates Harman because they wore the same dress one night. More substansive and logical reasons why Pelosi would oppose Harman:

Personally, I think Harman -- who was one of the most aggressive defenders of the President's warrantless eavesdropping program ("both legal and necessary," she repeatedly chimed) and is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC...She has been far too sympathetic to the administration's excesses and far too eager to serve as a Democratic shield publicly defending the President.

He covers why it is important to note that above all, it was an election and how it pales in comparison to the Republicans fighting viciously for every little seat they have left. Mostly, though, his post deals with the ridiculous nature of the punditry already proclaiming the Democratic House under Pelosi hopelessly divided, complete with links to specific columnists and why they are dead wrong in there "smart boys" assumptions.

I have no idea whether Pelosi will be a good Speaker, but I'm going to withhold judgment until she actually at least starts, and Americans are obviously doing that as well.

Let's hope The New Republic, Slate, The Washington Post, CNN, and anyone else with premature mischaracterizations (her tenure as speaker hasn't even started yet) will do the same. Obviously, that is not going to happen.

Malkin Gets It Wrong Again

Michelle Malkin gripes about the bad press she is getting because one of her loyal followers ("I worship Michelle Malkin") sent fake anthrax letters to prominent comedians and pundits he didn't agree with. Her claim is that someone that worships her and then goes and commits terrorism is old hat and not her fault. The crux of her argument rests on the incident where Keith Olbermann made a joke in poor taste that in order to beat Bill O'Reilly in dancing with the stars he would have to cut O'Reilly's hamstring and promptly apologized, then apologized again saying "But...it's beyond the pale. You shouldn't, you can't joke about physical stuff no matter what you think of somebody politically, broadcasting-wise, reputationally. It's just beyond the pale. I apologize. You know, we gotta draw the line somewhere and the line is: You wanna criticize, be critical, be humorous, be sarcastic, yell stuff, great. But physical stuff is out of bounds. Even joking about it."

Of course, no where in her complaining about Olbermann does she apologize for inciting such hatred in her worshipper. Keep in mind that Bill O'Reilly's hamstring is still intact. Instead of owning up to the fact that she has a history of inciting violence, she blames liberals and their attacks as old hat. (Ironically her piece is called "Pot Meet Kettle".)

When a Chancellor at UC-Santa Cruz committed suicide soon after Malkin placed the Chancellor's contact information on Malkin's blog, Michelle still refused to admit that perhaps doing so was in bad taste. No stranger to irony, even after the Chancellor's suicide Michelle still had the audacity to call her an anti-war "thug". In Malkin's response to calls for her to apologize for posting personal information about this lady, Malkin mocked critics saying "Weigel attacks me for not saying anything about Denton's suicide... Weigel wants me to "apologize"".

What a classy lady.

Why she still is paid to write is a mystery to me. Her responses don't reflect the issue at hand, merely resorting to character attacks on her critics so that she doesn't have to ever face responsibility. The fact that readers connected with her have a history of harassment and terrorism is obscene and refusal to acknowledge this is disgusting.

To further show she wasn't in the wrong about one of her faithful being a terrorist, she points to a deranged individual sending an anthrax hoax to President Bush. Despite what Malkin is trying to insinuate, this man did not publish anything saying he worshipped Keith Olbermann. There are nutjobs out there, which is why Olbermann was quick to point out that threats of physical violence are uncalled for.

Nowhere in her post does she denounce what her worshipper did. She mentions the incident at the beginning of her unfocused tirade but never refers to it negatively nor does she try to assure her readers that she does not promote violence. That is the heart of the argument and which she just doesn't get. She is supposed to be one of the centers of the neocon movement as a popular apologist and attack dog.

The fact is that the man who is accussed of domestic terrorism named her as a pundit he worshipped. The fact is that she has yet to denounce this type of violence. Instead of owning up to these facts she characteristically points to the left to say that they are the ones to blame so stop blaming her.

Another one of the right's intellectuals. She is yet another example of why the neocon movement is flawed and wrong.

Divorce Imminent

George Bush and reality have never seen eye to eye which is why I expect him to file papers soon for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. He knows his legacy rests on this stupid damn war but he refuses to face the truth about what is going on, opting instead to go with lines like:

"We'll succeed," Bush added, "unless we quit."

The unconventional weapons caches that were supposed to be there have disappeared. The region is in chaos. Osama is still at large. Hamas gained legitamite power in the middle east because of Bush. Global terrorism is up. We are so hated over there that as long as we remain in the region the area will never settle down. It is a shame that we messed up the region so badly without having a plan to fix it but our current strategy has not been working and will not work. As long as we stay there the situation will only get worse.

Meanwhile, Senator Inhofe is following suit and and looks to be filing divorce papers with reality soon. Maybe, I'm not reading it correctly though. After all, it could just be another front of the war on reality. That seems more apt since he is following the way we were led into the war in Iraq with hand picked intelligence, ignoring leading experts, and blaming a figure head that has nothing to do with the current fight.

Hand picked, misleading "facts":

Inhofe: "We still have these natural changes, and this is what’s going on right now...They said the warming is due to the sun."

Ignoring leading experts that don't agree with his position:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries who develop detailed reports on climate change, produced a report in 2001 which was reviewed by more than 1,000 top experts, including so-called “climate skeptics” and representatives from industry. The report stated, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

Most recently, the National Academy of Sciences has unequivocally concluded that natural causes cannot explain the unprecedented warmth over the last 400 years. Rather, “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” the report states.

Blaming a figure head that has nothing to do with the issue:

Inhofe: "The other side, the far left, the George Soros, the Hollywood elitists, the far left environmentalists on the committee that I chair — all of them want us to believe the science is settled and it’s not."

101st Keyboardists Attack

(*update below)

In the last few weeks right wing fanatics who get boiled to a frenzy by Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, et. al. have been disappointed by the rejection of their extreme politics. The elections were a travesty to them, to be sure, but what really bothers them is that any dissent to their opinion is possible.

Chad Castagana, a stay at home seether and proud member of the 101st Keyboardists, was indicted for sending out 17 letters to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, and David Letterman (among others) filled with white powder and notes with such literary gems as "Death to Demagogues", "CUNTFACE. IMPEACH THIS", and "All of you are poisoning the well! Time to give your kind a taste of your own medicine". The terrorist Castagana was a blogger at the Free Republic where we proudly says, "Ann Coulter is a Goddess and I worship Laura Ingraham and Michele Malkin."

Ann Coulter is the voice of reason who wondered whether we should impeach or assassinate then President Clinton, execute people to intimidate liberals, and who was dismayed that right wing terrorist Timothy McVeigh did not blow up the New York Times building.

Michelle Malkin is not a girl who likes to be one-upped, so she put on her website the home phone numbers of Dean she didn't agree, resulting in many harassing calls which may or may not have had influenced the woman to commit suicide right after Malkin's stunt.

One prominent conservative blogger he did not deify was Pam Atlas who this week called for the State Department to be bombed.

Accepting Hamas? Perhaps Hamas will blow up State. Someone has to.

“We are looking at creative ways to get around this,” one diplomat said. “I would not call this ‘Hamas lite,’ but if we could get a government of negotiators instead of terrorists we’d take it.”

First, kill all the diplomats (before they get us killed.)

Greenwald goes on to note that the Christian Pat Robertson has also advocated in the past, the bombing of the State Department.

This isn't the cutesy Coulter-thrives-on-controversy-so-let's-put-her-on-the-cover-of-Time, this is serious. This is extremist "demagogues" advocating domestic terrorism with sheeple willing to do what these gorgons want.

The biggest threat right now, though, isn't from the violence they threaten but from the media ignoring this trend. Media Matters notes that the liberal blogger's run in with the Allen campaign was covered extensively to show the blogger in a negative light. Halperin and Hewitt were also quick to agree that Daily Kos and the left wing is a "fever swamp" full of Mary Mapes. With the GOP in another last push offensive against the Democrats to try and paint them as terrorists, the evidence, however, seems to completely contradict the conservative spin.

George W. Bush on November 8, 2006 after Democrats swept the House and Senate, implying that terrorists and Democrats have the same goals:

To our enemies, do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracies with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America’s strength and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy.

Fox News, Novemeber 12, 2006:

Are liberal blogs sending the same message as terrorists?

And the Fox News internal memo leaked at Huffington Post:

“Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress.”

Why they choose to ignore reality and allow hardliners in the GOP to falsely imply that liberals advocate terrorism, is not clear when the opposite appears to be true. Greenwald floats a theory that journalists are still stuck in the the mindframe that neo-Nazis are the far right and Communist Sympathisers are the far left.

But right-wing hate-mongering that is fueled by religious extremism (Christian and Jewish) is infinitely more dangerous and significant in the U.S. A strong argument can be made that religious fanaticism constitutes a significant motivating force for much of our foreign policy and certainly for the support of many people for those policies, including -- to one degree or another -- the President himself. Yet that topic makes the media very uncomfortable and it is therefore almost never discussed. It ought to be.

Amen.

*Update
Back in April 2005 there was another string of nuanced threats made by GOP Congressman against judges.

Tom DeLay referring to state and federal judges involved in the Shiavo case:

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Senator John Cornyn blaming the judges for getting themselves murdered:

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."