This story sent to me by a good friend in Los Angeles is inspiring. The life and death of a gay athlete....read it.
Lordy - why don't Bush and his crew just come out and say "we are gonna attack Iran because we want to. nah nah nah" and quit with all the bullshit?
Today's Iran is bad story has this money quote: this possibility (of Iranian involvement) is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination. By the Pentagon's logic, the killers must have been German or Swiss, who always attack with coordination and sophistication. God knows the Iraqis we have trained could not have pulled this murder spree off.
MSNBC had "breaking" news about the bad, bad Iranians, along with an immediate pixar animation of the alleged Iranian attack. The story was animated the moment it broke. Thank God. It is hard to hate the Iranians unless I can see them as stick figure gun men who are coming to kill American children and then eat all my Hot Pockets. CNN dutifully picked up the story and blared it on the internets. Fox I cannot abide so who knows what they are doing. A story about how Al Gore molested Obama as a child and Obama liked it and showed pictures of it to Hillary who posted them on her myspace page where she sends secret coded messages to Rosie...all of which has been verified by a man with a colander on his head at the corner of Hollywood and Vine.
Alas , in the dead of night one day this spring W will bomb... etc etc etc. Cuz we would hate the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud...unless, of course, it is our mushroom cloud...
This is another war of choice. It can be stopped.
Speaking of the "Breaking News" on MSNBC last night they concluded that the plan to kidnap and kill the American soldiers must have been done by Iranians because it was too sophisticated. The inference being that the Iraqi's we've been training for four years could not have pulled it off. However, they would have had to assisted because all of the checkpoints the Suburbans went through were Iraqi check points.
By the way, MSNBC, lose the South Park animation and actually make the soldiers walk. To quote Wayne's World - it's a war - spend some bucks.
Does anyone doubt that bombs will be falling on Tehran soon? Is anyone else as terrifed as me? These schmucks have lost two wars and they're going to start a third?
Bush and the Doughboy have to go.
The man who advertised on line to take it up the ass sans condom says Hillary gives HIM "cooties". hahahahaha. These is the kind of thought process that results in Presidents like W - they think arrogance and belligerence in a white heterosexual man is "strength" . While a clear headed women give them a bad "vibe" and "cooties". Hence the politicians we have had for the last 6 years spending other people's money, killing other people's kids, and wondering why anyone could be upset with it - because they are "strong" and show "leadership".
Andrew, your dick did not get bigger because you voted for Bush and it would not get smaller if Clinton wins. Self Hate is not a political platform.
God save us from more conservative government. We need liberal government to right the ship. ASAP. Andrew Sullivan sucks and not in a good way.
So, I was flipping through the channels on Sunday and caught a bit of Fox News Sunday. They were talking about the Libby trial and Britt Hume said that there shouldn't even be a trial. There was no crime. Juan Williams did say deal with it - there is a trial. What he should have said is that we shouldn't even be in Iraq - there were no weapons of mass destruction - there was no plan for occupation - there were no grown ups in the room to say sit in the corner and shut up! You don't want to discuss that, do you? You don't want to discuss the runup to the war because it is a big screw up that you took part in.
Poor, poor Britt. The delicious Libby trial is giving us insight into the Bush White House and it is not pretty. Those neo-con bastards just can't deal.
I'm loving every minute of it.
So glad you started this war. Good Job, George!
We do have a choice.
We all must do what we can to stop the Bush war machine. The people in the White House are insane. They want to ignite the world.
How very quaint of the Brookings Institute. They think Bush's Iraq failure might cause a war with Iran. Oh. My. Why is it so hard for intelligent people to see that BUSHCO WANTS THE WAR TO SPILL OVER TO IRAN? Chaos IS the strategy.
We are in deep, deep trouble. The closer one looks the more CONFLAGRATION seems to be the Bush/Cheney goal. Main Entry: con·fla·gra·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-fl&-'grA-sh&n
Function: noun Etymology: Latin conflagration-, conflagratio, from conflagrare 1 : FIRE; especially : a large disastrous fire 2 : CONFLICT, WAR
P.S. Here is some more bad news we have to contend with since dickless, idiot corporate whore "conservatives" have been in charge too long. As long as quarterly earning are up they will happily continue to destroy the planet and say global warming is a "myth." VOTE FOR LIBERALS! ALL THE TIME!
Is there anyone sadder and creepier right now in American life than John McCain?
and on a totally different note: Hillary wows them in Iowa. I love watching these people campaign. There is a fine line between over calibrating a message and being a smart campaigner. She is not as good as her husband - but here is the unexpected power of Hillary: -THE RIGHT HAS BEEN SO RELENTLESS IN INSISTING SHE IS A MONSTER THAT WHEN SHE ACTUALLY ARRIVES ON THE SCENE THE REALITY IS QUITE REFRESHING. So far expectations of Hillary are actually skewed in her favor. "Conventional Wisdom" is behind the curve, again. (if the "wisdom" is conventional is it really "wisdom". Is "conventional wisdom" actually just "the common assumption"?
I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT "WISDOM" - CONVENTIONAL OR NOT - CANNOT EVOLVE IN SOUND BITES.
This is why I love the Clintons:
"When you are attacked, you have to deck your opponent," Clinton said. "I have been through the political wars longer than some of you have been alive. We've got to be prepared to hold our ground and fight back." Go Hillary...
Now then about the actual war and how it will play out in 08:
Here is the problem with attacking "those who voted for the war before they voted against it." Voting for the war and then voting against it is what the whole country did. Vox Populi voted for the war before they voted against it. Clinton and Kerry and Hagel and Warner all represent different segments of an electorate "that voted for the war before they voted against it." To repeat myself again. and again.
If would be lovely if the media had given equal time to the minority who were clear and correct about the war from the gate - such as me, co blogger Lynne, Gore, Webb, and Obama - listed here in order of importance. But they did not.
08 is going to be about Iraq. Sadly, it is not going to be about who was always right about Iraq. Liberals, who consistently deserve and earn respect by being the vanguard of American history, get no respect in the media. 08 is going to be about "adulthood" - that's my guess so far.
Adults 08!
The question all the "conventional" wisdom foamers ask about Senator
Clinton continues to be the wrong one. It is not "Can she win? It is WHO CAN BEAT HER?
There are people on both side who can beat her - but none of the announced candidates will come close. ( Rudy is B.S. - wait until the klieg light shines on HIM - Hillary will clock him. She runs even with him NOW - and we know her. Warts and all. We think we know Rudy G. - we don't. His support is based on an impression. )
Who can beat her? Arnold (can't run)....Hagel (isn't running) ....the list is painfully short. McCain has ruined his chances. Unless he becomes vice-president....after the Libby trial...hahahahaha...could happen...
Hillary Clinton's Mission Unaccomplished
By FRANK RICH
HILLARY CLINTON has an answer to those who suspect that her "I'm in to win" Webcast last weekend was forced by Barack Obama's Webcast of just four days earlier. "I wanted to do it before the president's State of the Union," she explained to Brian Williams on NBC, "because I wanted to draw the contrast between what we've seen over the last six years, and the kind of leadership and experience that I would bring to the office."
She couldn't have set the bar any lower. President Bush's speech was less compelling than the Monty Python sketch playing out behind it: the unacknowledged race between Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney to be the first to stand up for each bipartisan ovation. (Winner: Pelosi.)
As we've been much reminded, the most recent presidents to face Congress in such low estate were Harry Truman in 1952 and Richard Nixon in 1974, both in the last ebbs of their administrations, both mired in unpopular wars that their successors would soon end, and both eager to change the subject just as Mr. Bush did. In his '52 State of the Union address, Truman vowed "to bring the cost of modern medical care within the reach of all the people" while Nixon, 22 years later, promised "a new system that makes high-quality health care available to every American." Not to be outdone, Mr. Bush offered a dead-on-arrival proposal that "all our citizens have affordable and available health care." The empty promise of a free intravenous lunch, it seems, is the last refuge of desperate war presidents.
Few Americans know more than Senator Clinton about health care, as it happens, and if 27 Americans hadn't been killed in Iraq last weekend, voters might be in the mood to listen to her about it. But polls continue to show Iraq dwarfing every other issue as the nation's No. 1 concern. The Democrats' pre-eminent presidential candidate can't escape the war any more than the president can. And so she was blindsided Tuesday night, just as Mr. Bush was, by an unexpected gate crasher, the rookie senator from Virginia, Jim Webb. Though he's not a candidate for national office, Mr. Webb's nine-minute Democratic response not only upstaged the president but also, in an unintended political drive-by shooting, gave Mrs. Clinton a more pointed State of the Union "contrast" than she had bargained for.
To the political consultants favored by both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bush, Mr. Webb is an amateur. More than a few Washington insiders initially wrote him off in last year's race to unseat a star presidential prospect, the incumbent Senator George Allen. Mr. Webb is standoffish. He doesn't care whom he offends, including in his own base. He gives the impression - as he did Tuesday night - that he just might punch out his opponent. When he had his famously testy exchange with Mr. Bush over the war at a White House reception after his victory, Beltway pooh-bahs labeled him a boor, much as they had that other interloper who refused to censor himself before the president last year, Stephen Colbert.
But this country is at a grave crossroads. It craves leadership. When Mr. Webb spoke on Tuesday, he stepped into that vacuum and, for a few minutes anyway, filled it. It's not merely his military credentials as a Vietnam veteran and a former Navy secretary for Ronald Reagan that gave him authority, or the fact that his son, also a marine, is serving in Iraq. It was the simplicity and honesty of Mr. Webb's message. Like Senator Obama, he was a talented professional writer before entering politics, so he could discard whatever risk-averse speech his party handed him and write his own. His exquisitely calibrated threat of Democratic pushback should Mr. Bush fail to change course on the war - "If he does not, we will be showing him the way" - continued to charge the air even as Mrs. Clinton made the post-speech rounds on the networks.
Mrs. Clinton cannot rewrite her own history on Iraq to match Mr. Obama's early opposition to the war, or Mr. Webb's. She was not prescient enough to see, as Mr. Webb wrote in The Washington Post back in September 2002, that "unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's existence is clearly at stake." But she's hardly alone in this failing, and the point now is not that she mimic John Edwards with a prostrate apology for her vote to authorize the war. ("You don't get do-overs in life or in politics," she has said.) What matters to the country is what happens next. What matters is the leadership that will take us out of the fiasco.
Mr. Webb made his own proposals for ending the war, some of them anticipating those of the Iraq Study Group, while running against a popular incumbent in a reddish state. Mrs. Clinton, running for re-election in a safe seat in blue New York, settled for ratcheting up her old complaints about the war's execution and for endorsing other senators' calls for vaguely defined "phased redeployments." Even now, after the Nov. 7 results confirmed that two-thirds of voters nationwide want out, she struggles to parse formulations about Iraq.
This is how she explains her vote to authorize the war: "I would never have expected any president, if we knew then what we know now, to come to ask for a vote. There would not have been a vote, and I certainly would not have voted for it." John Kerry could not have said it worse himself. No wonder last weekend's "Saturday Night Live" gave us a "Hillary" who said, "Knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it."
Compounding this problem for Mrs. Clinton is that the theatrics of her fledgling campaign are already echoing the content: they are so overscripted and focus-group bland that they underline rather than combat the perennial criticism that she is a cautious triangulator too willing to trim convictions for political gain. Last week she conducted three online Web chats that she billed as opportunities for voters to see her "in an unfiltered way." Surely she was kidding. Everything was filtered, from the phony living-room set to the appearance of a "campaign blogger" who wasn't blogging to the softball questions and canned responses. Even the rare query touching on a nominally controversial topic, gay civil rights, avoided any mention of the word marriage, let alone Bill Clinton's enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
When a 14-year-old boy from Armonk, N.Y., asked Mrs. Clinton what made her "so inspirational," it was a telltale flashback to those well-rehearsed "town-hall meetings" Mr. Bush billed as unfiltered exchanges with voters during the 2004 campaign. One of those "Ask President Bush" sessions yielded the memorable question, "Mr. President, as a child, how can I help you get votes?"
After six years of 'Ask President Bush," "Mission Accomplished" and stage sets plastered with "Plan for Victory," Americans hunger for a presidency with some authenticity. Patently synthetic play-acting and carefully manicured sound bites like Mrs. Clinton's look out of touch. (Mr. Obama's bare-bones Webcast and Web site shrewdly play Google to Mrs. Clinton's AOL.) Besides, the belief that an image can be tightly controlled in the viral media era is pure fantasy. Just ask the former Virginia senator, Mr. Allen, whose past prowess as a disciplined, image-conscious politician proved worthless once the Webb campaign posted on YouTube a grainy but authentic video capturing him in an embarrassing off-script public moment.
The image that Mrs. Clinton wants to sell is summed up by her frequent invocation of the word middle, as in "I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America." She's not left or right, you see, but exactly in the center where everyone feels safe. But as the fierce war critic Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska, argues in a must-read interview at gq.com, the war is "starting to redefine the political landscape" and scramble the old party labels. Like Mrs. Clinton, the middle-American Mr. Hagel voted to authorize the Iraq war, but that has not impeded his leadership in questioning it ever since.
The issue raised by the tragedy of Iraq is not who's on the left or the right, but who is in front and who is behind. Mrs. Clinton has always been a follower of public opinion on the war, not a leader. Now events are outrunning her. Support for the war both in the polls and among Republicans in Congress is plummeting faster than she can recalibrate her rhetoric; unreliable Iraqi troops are already proving no-shows in the new Iraqi-American “joint patrols” of Baghdad; the Congressional showdown over fresh appropriations for Iraq is just weeks away.
This, in other words, is a moment of crisis in our history and there will be no do-overs. Should Mrs. Clinton actually seek unfiltered exposure to voters, she will learn that they are anxiously waiting to see just who in Washington is brave enough to act.
Had Friday's Keith Olberman with my Saturday coffee. DVRs are near to being the perfect invention. I have to admit - Chuck Hagel is an attractive candidate. He does give me pause. Real pause. What a strange election Clinton/Hagel would be. The GOP candidate slightly to the Left of the DEM on the war. And to the Right on everything else.
For a host of reasons I do think we need a liberal government for 4 to 8 years. Liberal as in FDR. I think we need a Marshall Plan type of government intervention when it comes to global warming and energy. WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD FOUR MORE YEARS OF "CONSERVATIVE" ATTITUDES TOWARD GLOBAL WARMING. We are in real danger. A President beholden to the Fox News audience could very well do catastrophic damage with inaction. The Federal Government in this country is going to have to be aggressive in curbing CO2s. Also, the Robber Baron society created by Bush and the super wealthy has got to be reigned in - before - we'll just before....wealth imbalance like we have now in this country never turns out well. We need national health care. I really can't even engage an argument about it anymore. We are 20 years past due. We will leave Iraq no matter who wins. And in this country we need to be able to discuss "class" with modifiers other than "middle". How the top 1% and the bottom 20% came to be where they are has got to be a topic on the table.
The next President is going to have to raise taxes on the rich. Bush's war is being financed by unborn children. This is an obscenity.
Can Hagel deal with this? Of course. Does he want to? Bill Clinton did it the last time GOPS ran the country's finances into a ditch. Hagel is certainly up to it. I happen to think, like Newt G, it is Hillary's job to lose. And she or Hagel are as close as we are going to get to someone who can handle the many messes the Bush GOP has left us. Many many things can happen though. I do love politics.
Anyway, I, John in Los Angeles and my running mate - Monty Hall - (my overweight border collie) have set up a presidential exploratory committee. To go where Presidential exploratory committees have never gone before. Only he and I are on it - but things are moving fast. Carlton the door man, Mel Gibon's neighbor's maid's son, and Shirley Q. Liquor are hosting a big Hollywood fund raiser for us at Norm's by LAX - SAVE THE DATE!
I do love my Trojans. I hope that Reggie Bush and his parents did not screw the university over with their greed and stupidity. This quote from the LA Times is saddest of all:
"Griffin went to Los Angeles, where he and Bush used the cash to buy a 1996 Chevrolet Impala, "
Are you kidding me? Reggie, you endangered a National Championship, two conference championships and your Heisman - to buy 1996 Impala????? Say it ain't so.
IF true this is a sign of the end times. What ever became of tact and good taste anyway? I miss it. They were so 20th Century....
Regardless, the rapacious college presidents and television executives have slaves called "players" they cash in on big time. How is a 20 year old with greedy parents who is on the verge of a huge payday supposed to wait 2 years? Most do, I admit, but not all. The system is set up to use and screw the players.
John made valid points about Chuck Hagel's voting record but I have to say that the next president is not going to be able to accomplish much in the way of domestic policies. The next president is essentially a maid hired to clean up after a week long frat party. It's messy and disgusting and we need someone with a strong stomach to clean up that bathroom.
The next president is more than likely going to be a one-termer. He/She is going to be the Ford of our time. Stop the war and hopefully heal the country.
Who wouldn't vote for a Hagel/Powell ticket?
Poor Libby he was "Scapegoated" by the other vipers in the White House. So sad for Scooter. Now daddy dick is gonna say "you hurt my boy!! Karl and I am so mad at you."
Actually is is delicious to see these scumbags eat their own. Let them ALL rot in jail. God will sort it out eventually.
Bush said yesterday: "I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers.
Military advisers thought "No, you created this mess we are in now - why the F*** should anyone believe you now? For F*** sake - shut up, resign, and go back to Crawford."
Cheney told Wolf Blitzer that the idea that blunders had been made in Iraq :"Hogwash"
Blitzer thought: Wow - this guy is truly out of his mind. I think he really believes nothing has gone wrong in Iraq. This is amazing. I think I love him. I can't wait to bring him home to meet Mommy.
hmmm what else? Bushco wants a fight with Iran. This is clear. They are also spoiling for a fight with congress.
I find this remarkable. Go look. How is this possible?
Oh my - there is no joy in what Bush is doing in our name in Iraq. But I had a moment of glee in reading that even the Vice President of Iraq says the invasion was an "Idiot Decision."
Good lord. Gotta love that. Even the peeps Bush installed think he is a moron.
They are, of course, correct.
And another thing - and I think this is really what is sticking in my craw about the over reporting of GOPs who are turning on Bush and his war of choice after 4 years - WHY DOES THE MEDIA GO APESHIT WHEN A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FINALLY COMES TO HIS SENSES?
Yes, Hagel is forceful now about the stupidity of the war. That's nice. RUSS FEINGOLD ACTUALLY STOOD UP FOR WHAT WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. What we should be doing right now is examining how it is that yet again - THE LIBERALS HAD IT RIGHT YEARS AGO, AND NO ONE IN THE MEDIA LISTENED. How many times does this have to happen? Frankly, I am sick of the deification of the Johnny come lately Republican. Liberals like Obama and Feingold should be the focus of our admiration and respect now.
They were right all along. If we had listened to Feingold, and Kennedy, and Jack Reed and the rest a long time ago we would not be in this fix.
Was at church last night listening to a talk given by Chris Hedges. Strongly recommend that we all listen to him. So Tivo'd Keith O. and just watched Chuck Hagel. The ever intelligent and lovely c0 blogger Lynne and I may part ways on Hagel. I have deep reservations about his voting record - some of which is listed below.
I wrote last night there is no GOP on the horizon who COULD beat Hillary. Horizon being defined as assumed to be running. I think Keith is one of the few who have assumed this. If Hagel gets in I would, in fact, have a hard time choosing between Clinton and Hagel because Hagel has been so clear about the war. I would want him to run as an independent. Read this. Hagel is a true national hero for, in essence, calling Bushco what it is - a pack of liars.
War mongering is the most important issue right now - BUT it is not the only issue. Hagel's votes on many things are simply put, morally wrong.
But read this about Hagel, it is not pretty:
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
I am for Chuck Hagel for President.
I like Hillary but I love Senator Hagel. He is impassioned and reasonable. Watching him yesterday made me so proud.
We need someone who has convictions and will stand by them. We need someone who is willing to come in and clean up the massive mess that Bush and the Doughboy will have left.
Let's go Chuck.
The "surge" is about Iran. Not Iraq.
Former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, has laid out a grisly and very plausible scenario for the attack on Iran. The US and the British, possibly with the aid of the Israelis, launch a missile attack on Iran. In retaliation, Iran will try to cut off all oil and gas flowing from the Persian Gulf. Also, Iran has an agreement with Venezuela that, if the US should attack Iran, then Venezuela will also cut off its exports to the US. Within one week, US motorists will be crying at the gas pumps and the US economy will be in danger of collapse. Bush will send in troops, but he will not have adequate forces available to even begin the job. US forces will be caught inside Iran and threatened with capture or destruction. As per his stated policy should US troops be overpowered, Bush will resort to nuclear weapons. And once the US drops nuclear weapons on the Middle East, the madness will not stop until we lose one or two US cities to nuclear retaliation.
I think President Hillary is a done deal. I like her. I am going to vote for her. I like voting for a winner and rarely get to - being a Democrat. She is going to win. No GOP on the horizon will be able to take her down. Obama is Howard Dean circa 2008. The sooner we all get over him the sooner we get on to winning the Presidency.
But I feel bad for her. Or anyone who might be President next. Bush is burning down the country, grabbing cash and running for cover between now and 2009.
However, I would walk out on the Clintons in a heartbeat if Gore got in the race. It is not exclusively Nader's fault Gore lost - but all that arrogant bastard had to do was tell his voters to vote for Gore in Florida. In one state. Think it doesn't matter? Think about the last 8 years.
Why has Ralph Nader never run for an office he could actually win? Why do otherwise thoughtful people on the Left who support Nader never ask this question? He could be mayor of Berkeley. A state rep. from Santa Monica. Lt Governor of Vermont. There are many places in this country Nader could actually implement policy. If he ran. If he meant what he says he would run in a race he could win. And yet he runs for President. He is no longer a serious man. He is an arrogant buffoon who gave us George W Bush.
Imagine. Gore could have won. Imagine. Decisive victory in Afghanistan, no war in Iraq, serious progress stopping Global warming, real alternative energy developed....etc etc etc.
Thanks, Ralph. Good job
Bush is so shameful and pathetic I ignored most of his blather last night while i waited for Senator Webb to speak. But one line Bush excreted really sticks in my craw: "Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq "
America did not fail in Iraq, Mr. Bush. You did.
So many lies so little time.
When is this moron out of a job? There was no good reason to attack Iraq. It turned out just like many many liberals and moderates and true conservatives said it would. The war is making America's situation WORSE. Bush created this war.He and Rummy lost this war. He ought to send his daughters or get us out.
And is anyone else sensing a Bush vs. Cheney bitch fight brewing?
The first category of nominees for the Conservative Amoral Awards - popularly known as The Weenies- were announced this morning.
For Most Despicable Comment the competition was tough in 2006 but the five nominees are:
1. George W Bush for "Iraq will be just a comma..."
2. George Allen for "Maccaca"
3. Ann Coulter for "9/11 widows attack"
4. Rush Limbaugh for "Mocking Michael J. Fox."
5. Bill O'Reilly for "Do I care if Sunnis and Shiites kill each other?"
Mr. O'Reilly was also nominated in the Most Idiotic Rant and Gaseous Blowhard categories. He will go up against the Vice President in the latter category.
Hot new couple Ted Haggard and Mark Foley will present the award.
The Weenies will be hosted by Bill Frist . Mr Frist won the coveted GOLDEN ASS in 2005 for "Terri Shiavo Video Diagnosis."
Talking about 2008 seems a little early to me, what with the war and all, but if you look at the difference in the parties and who is running it's amazing that any minority would support the Republicans.
All of their candidates are white, rich men.
Meanwhile, we have a woman, a black and a Latino. We also have a plethora of rich, white men but the field running for President is much more representative of the United States. We had a woman on the ticket in 1984. A Jew in 2000. An openly gay man in the House. The Republicans may try to represent themselves as a big tent party but the non-white members are only there to hold up the poles and look good on TV.
Although, if the war continues to go the way it's going and we're still mired in Iraq in 2008 it won't matter who we run. We will win.
Today in Iraq: Here and here.
There will be a relentless meme to"look forward in Iraq" or a "we must have a new way forward." etc etc. But beware the attempt by the Bushies to avoid accountability. We cannot finally and totally learn the true lesson of Vietnam and this idiotic Bush created war without examining what happened, how it happened, and why. Too many people have died for no reason. Too many of our kids have been maimed and killed for no reason. We must find and affix blame. Unless we understand what happened we cannot heal. And this country needs to heal from 6 years of lies, deceit and cavalier contempt for our collective well being as a nation.
None of this had to happen. Thoughtful liberals and moderates predicted exactly this outcome in Iraq before the war began. Clear headed people knew and were vocal about the fact that Iraq had no WMD's and that it had no connection to Bin Laden.
These people were ignored because neo-cons, oil interests, and war profiteers wanted war.
In no particular order these are some of the people who need to be held to account for the international, unnecessary crisis in Iraq and our country. Some should be punished legally. Some should resign and apologize. Some should be removed from our political life, some should simply be ignored forever more. This is not a small mistake. The Neo-cons were so wrong, in such a large and destructive way, that they should be SHUNNED. And no - not everyone thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Many people did not. And said so. This lie is particularly putrid.
George W Bush
Dick Cheney
Condi Rice
Paul Wolfwitz
Andrew Sullivan
Fox News
Scooter Libby
Joe Lieberman
John McCain
Rush Limpbough
Jonah Goldberg
Ann Coulter
Judas Miller
Bill Kristol
Bill Frist
Newt Gingrich
Feel free to add to the list.
Some of these people are hucksters, some are just stupid, some war profiteers, some are just too arrogant to admit a mistake. A few are still true believers. People in mental hospitals around the world believe they are Napoleon. This does not make it so - and no one is giving them an army to fight with.
Laws have been broken. Lives ended and destroyed. People must be held responsible.
A sane near future is contingent on understanding the recent past.
OK - here's a great idea - let's send more troops in to Iraq and once again not give them armored vehicles.
The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.
Vehicles such as the Cougar and the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle have proven ability to save lives, but production started late and relatively small numbers are in use in Iraq, mostly because of money shortages, industry officials said.
More than 1,000 American troops have been killed by roadside bombs since the war began in March 2003. At present there are fewer than 1,000 of the new armored trucks in Iraq. At $500,000 to $700,000 each, they cost more than twice as much as a standard Humvee, but already they are proving their worth.
So, where is the $2 billion per week going? Into Halliburton's coffers? Apparently it's not going to "support" the troops.
This is the answer to the troop surge - if you cannot protect them with armored vehicles you cannot send them.
Newt G. is wrong about nearly all policy. But he engineered the end of 40 years of Democratic rule in the House. Not a small feat. He has damn good political instincts. He is one of the few that has stated clearly that Rove's genius was an illusion. This is true. I have said so on this blog. Rove lost 2000 and had to have James Baker and Katherine Harris step in. He won 2002. He barely won 2004 against a pathetic opponent. And lost 2006. He is 2-2. He is not a genius. He is a prick with a good work ethic.
Newt also assumes Hillary Clinton will be President. And I think he is right. She is gonna be one tough broad in every sense. T.T. = Think Thatcher. Her political instincts probably still suck - but who cares. Her husband's are the best.
Hillary is too far to the Right for me. Fine. I am with her anyway. The Dennis Kusinch, Phil Angelides, Eugene McCarthy loser wing of the Democratic party is consistent in two things: principles and losing.
(The Clintons are GOOD - she has moved so quietly and consistently Rightward the gripe against her on the actual Right as being a "loony liberal" seems laughable now. ) She has won the positioning primary and regardless of what Ms. Huffington thinks good repositioning wins elections. We DO NOT have a parliamentary system. The middle is what it is all about in this country.
I am perfectly willing to be wrong. I have been - in 2000 I thought Bush would serve only one term. Then Kerry did not respond to the Swift Boat bullshit for 3 weeks - and I knew by mid August of 04 nothing would make a difference. W had won.
I knew GW Bush was going to be President in 2000 way back in 1994 the night he beat Ann Richards.
In 1992 Bill Clinton had just come in 2nd in New Hampshire - 2nd! He went on 60 minutes and one could see right then that this guy was going to win.
And when did Bill Clinton win reelection? Watch his speech in Oklahoma City after the bombing. He was very unpopular 2 years into his first term - but watch that speech - it is the moment he became a two term President.
AND when did Bush the First lose reelection ? When he was at about 88% approval and did not know what a grocery store scanner was.... I turned to my father and said - "that guy just lost"
And he did.
Anyway I do not go back much further. My gut says Hilary is not only the favorite but the overwhelming favorite to win it all. It takes a strange combination of timing, and guts, and viciousness, and savvy, and positioning, and the right opponent and the backing of the largely unseen powers "that be" and frankly - she has been roasted by the FOX Rightwing for a decade. Her weaknesses are old news. And new "revelations" about her will be suspect and since she is not John Kerry "new" bull shit from the Fox News Toadies will be dealt with swiftly and brutally by her team.
She did spent too much money on her last election - and Newt is right here - Obama forced her to enter sooner than she wanted to. Fine. She is already polling ahead of McCain and even with Rudy G. Which is to say she is running even with "for" Clinton and "for" who ever is not Clinton. -Rudy is a thrice married ex Mayor to the Left of Hillary on some core social issues.
The IRON LADY with Bubba Bill Clinton in tow vs. the ex Mayor of NEW YORK who supported gay rights - who is gonna win Florida and Arkansas? All a Democrat really needs down there. As my pal Cartman from South Park says "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" Look at them both closely. Rudy is not a President.
Hillary is.
Rudy's "base" is ABC - Anybody But Clinton. And when is the last time an "Anybody But _____" won?
She could blow it. Hagel could get in. A lot can happen. Watch and listen to Newt. He gets the game.
I AM JUST DAMN EXCITED TO HAVE BILL BACK ON THE TRAIL. WHOO HOO!
