A(nother) Crock of Shit

Gary Cross decides that Democrats don't really support the troops because John Murtha, David Obey and James McGovern have proposed that we actually ask the American people to pay for the war through a surtax referred to as the "McGovern surtax" after the Worcester, Ma representative.

I suppose that the GOP supports the troops, evidenced by

1. conditions at Walter Reed;
   
2. extending troop deployments from 12 to 15 months;
   
3. stop-loss orders & recruitment;
   
4. denial of VA benefits;
   
5. hanging the troops out to dry with lack of armored vests and vehicles;
   
6. obscured and juggled figures and reporting on the maimed, wounded and killed*;
   
7. reductions in the budget for handling returning vets service-related injuries and disabilities;
   
8. paying private contractors at multiples of what we pay US soldiers — even the British pay 100% more;
   
9. cutting the combat pay and family separation allowance by 60% since 2003 to a measly $100 a month;
   
10. doing absolutely nothing to help military families, including the 25,000 families that are on food stamps — food stamps for crying out loud! What a disgrace!

And you’re all worried about John Murtha? Can’t you have the intellectual honesty to look at how Bush is merely militaristic and not pro-military? How out of touch are you?

In 1999, Bush the candidate wrote “A volunteer military has only two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks. Or it can inspire the best and brightest** to join and stay.” Yet, after having 6 years, mostly with a free hand to spend as much as they wanted, the conditions for the troops remain largely unchanged. The troops don’t even qualify for Bush’s hyped child tax credit… because they make too little! Not only that, but Bush even had the gall to propose that combat pay not count towards eligibility for food stamps in 2005.

No, make no mistake about it. The Bush cabal cares no more about our troops than they did about serving our country in Vietnam. The presnit puts the W in aWol, bested only by five-deferment Dick, flag pin on his lapel and all.

And the idea that, somehow, by Murtha jumping to a conclusion before the facts are in, by MoveOn using a rhyme to make a point, and/or by Democrats calling for an end to the War makes them less patriotic or caring for our troops, is, forgive my language, a crock of shit.

---

* Interesting item of note (of what's missing): I input the entire sentence "obscured and juggled figures and reporting on the maimed, wounded and killed" into Google, and this was the first page that was listed.

** Another Google oddity: when searching for the original source, and using the entire quote as the search term, it was Donald Rumsfeld's swearing-in ceremony commemorative booklet in pdf format that came up first. I had to put George Bush in the search term to find a speech by W. which referenced his earlier (ghost-written) work.

Being Fiskally Conservative

Gary Gross takes on Satirist and Democrat Senate Candidate Al Franken for his op-ed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Al sez "It's been a banner week for ridiculous" and I cannot but agree.

Why does Mr. Franken think it’s ridiculous spending a day debating something as important as MoveOn.org’s defamation of a commanding general in wartime?

Because:

• The advertisement was in no way defamatory. It isn't defaming if the criticism is true, and in this case, it is demonstrably true;
  
• It's wartime, and topic "a" is an advertisement in the New York Times, not the war, not the troops, not stridently working on a practical political compromise (to whit, how can we expect the Maliki government to reach a grand compromise if we can't?));
  
• The continued reliance by the radical right wing of the republican party on hashing and rehashing a partisan grassroots level organization advertisement is wearing thin, to the point of becoming a hostile act, possibly even treasonous (we are at War!).
  
• Spending time debating this is an absurd waste of resources, and it would be laughable were 160,000 of our troops not in harm's way.

Why should Mr. Franken get away with not speaking out against a radical fringe organization after they’ve accused Gen. Petraeus of lying?

Al isn't getting away with anything. His op-ed was in response to an advertisement run by Norm Colman a day or two after the Senate voted to condemn Move On, attacking him because he was not joining in the condemnation (for those of you keeping score at home, this is Franken not getting away with it). However, MoveOn is not a radical fringe organization, nor did they not fully substantiate all of the claims in the ad. You've linked to the page on their web site, as I do above, with their fully-attributed and documented claim. Go back and look at it again... the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Your next fisk is the best part, though, because you shoot yourself in the foot saying "Would Franken stay silent if a Republican called Hillary a liar? Of [course -ed.]he wouldn’t stay silent nor would anyone expect him to." Setting up the classic straw man analysis requires parallel examples in the analogy. The better phrasing of this argument would have been "if a republican called Admiral Fallon a liar," in reference to Fallon's statement that Petraeus was an "ass-kissing chickenshit." But what is delicious, to borrow your term, is that you chose a highly political example because either you agree that Petraeus is a political figure, as anyone who undertakes water-carrying for the White House would be, or it just naturally came out due to subconscious thoughts or feelings that only a good therapist and several years on the couch could uncover. I don't think it's the latter.

But being intellectually honest, you have to look at Al Franken's stand on the issues, particularly Iraq before you say he "hasn’t shown even a slight interest in defeating the jihadists or in securing the Middle East." Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't mean his stand is ill-conceived or he has not given serious consideration to his position. Not knowing what you're talking about betrays your partisan position as superior to all else. Gary Gross is as guilty of mouthing anti-democratic talking points as he accuses Franken of likewise.

Skewing the Numbers

So, CalCon links to a rightwingnut "news" source under the guise of a Gallup report, which itself does not include a link to the Gallup poll, but instead offers it's "reporter" for interviews? And this is Proof that the public thinks that Petraeus didn't mislead the Congress and American people about the situation in Iraq.

Now that's what I call a stretch.

First, and setting aside the quotation of another rightwingnut as a evidence of anything, this particular wingnut gives away their bias by simply suggesting that they would give an interview, or at least the last time I checked the Columbia School of Journalism didn't offer that as a course. Reporters do the interviewing, as when you cross that line, you become a defacto pundit.

Second, Randy didn't link directly to the report because the report says nothing about why Petraeus favorable ratings went up, but rather, simply reports that they did. Co-incidentally, the "unknown" percentage decreased at the same time, while the "unfavorable" rating remained constant. What this tells you is that as people became aware of who he is, they had a "favorable" impression.

And, a favorable impression does not necessarily translate into a belief that he is right on the war.

The people may look at him more favorably and view him as a good spokesman for the war, he has not done much to change the public's opinion on the war.

But only if we're looking at the matter from an objective point of view.

After reading the comments on this post, it came to me that there is just too incredibly vast a difference between liberals and conservatives. From the Top 10 Differences Between Progressives and Conservatives list:

Number 9
• Progressives believe in facts.
• Conservatives believe that anything that does not explicitly favor them is biased against them.

For example, this post claiming that Petraeus' favorable ratings increasing means that the public believes him, that the war is going just great and we should stay for another 10 to 50 years. And the presnit is going to ask for $200 Billion for the continuing war effort next week, making 2008 the most expensive year yet.

Don't worry; the weak and worthless Democrats in the Congress will fall all over themselves to give Bush every last dime, because the neocons and republicans have somehow managed to make funding the troops the same as supporting the troops and vice-versa. Nevermind that the liberal founding fathers set up the system specifically giving Congress the purse strings to check the president's power. Or, at least that was their stated goal.

The bottom line, as clearly evidenced on this blog over and over:

And, the Number 1 Modern Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives
• Progressives believe that “we are all in it together.”
• Conservatives believe that “you are on your own.”

Am I wrong?

Don't blame the Republicans!

This is rich, coming from California Conservative.

Nevermind that there is never a shortage of political finger pointing coming from this blog (and conservatives in general). Gosh, the bridge fell down, now let’s not point fingers. Why so defensive? Could it be the republican lawmakers who are responsible for this mess?

You’re right on one count: the 2007 transportation bill that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed wouldn’t have prevented the bridge from falling down, but the 2005 bill he vetoed sounds like it sure would have. Some facts:

Vetoed Transportation Bill: In 2005, Pawlenty vetoed a transportation finance bill that would have provided $7.8 billion over 10 years for roads, buses and passenger trains. The bill also included an increase in the state’s tax on gasoline by ten cents per gallon. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/20/05)

Pawlenty 2004-05 Budget Proposal Did Little For Local Roads & Transit: In 2003, Pawlenty conceded that his proposed 2004-05 budget proposal for transportation did little for local roads and transit. Pawlenty proposed an overall 11 percent cut in transportation funding with a 64 percent drop in state general fund money. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/24/03; Star Tribune, 2/19/03

Finances Delay Highway Construction: The state’s decision to build with borrowed money and expected federal funding has led to deteriorating roadways. Existing roads are now in their worst condition in decades, according to the state Department of Transportation. The agency’s cash balance dwindled from a $155 million surplus in 2002 to a deficit of $60 million before officials were legally required to get back in the black. According to the Star Tribune, tight finances are starting to delay highway construction, even on projects already underway. (Star Tribune, 7/4/06)

Funny how conservatives were so quick to blame Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco… yet want to wait an “appropriate amount of time” for the investigations to run their course before we hold anyone accountable for this disaster. I know, an oxymoron to use conservative and accountable in the same sentence, but this is theoretical. In practice, we all know how the cycle works. Which, of course, leads me to the question: When are we going to blame Bill Clinton for this?

The real gem, though, is this:

let’s all practice some personal accountability in this country by firing the blamers we put into office and find some real leaders.

What? Did this guy actually just say that we should hold the people who are asking questions about this disaster accountable, but not the people whose neglect and tax-cut politics at least contributed to this disaster, if not outright caused it? This is one of the finest pieces of spin, ever. Worthy of Billo! Congratulations, I nominate John G. Miller for today’s Worst Person in the World!

Simply shameless. And exactly what we should expect from republicans.

(Not) Understanding the Seperation of Powers

Blocked again in the midst of a discussion

Carlos criticized me on a previous post about focusing too much on the not-too-distant past (the 2000 election), suggesting that I should just put it behind me and move on. Well, TA, may I suggest that you put the Bill Clinton presidency behind you. The comparisons are so... well, pre-9/11. I mean, I guess it's okay to molest children, just so long as you do it under the auspices of religion. And maybe your parental rights should be subject to a foreign country's laws. Just hope you're wife doesn't die while in another country with your kids, 'cause who knows who'll get 'em since you seem to be for observing those laws, rather than your own.

No, let's talk about the countless children, both here in the US and the vastly higher number in Iraq who have lost parents, let alone those that have been killed and maimed, and the approximately 5,000 per month dying simply because they can't get clean drinking water, in Iraq. And how about all those refugees that have fled from Iraq to Syria, Egypt and elsewhere. Kind of makes the 21 who died as a result of their parents' religious zealotry pale in comparison, doesn't it?

Carlos, where are you coming up with this crap about Pelosi thinking she's running the war? Or did you forget that it was James Madison's famous quote regarding the power of the purse, a separation of power as enumerated in the Constitution? But I have to give you props for working Alice in Wonderland into a reply, however lacking in eloquence. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of your reference better than anyone else.

Allusions to literature aside, it is the insanity in the White House that is leading us down this path, towards a Constitutional crisis. This administration cabal is not unfamiliar with actions leading to a showdown, having started out under cloudy circumstances (oops, there I go again), and proceeding to lies, deceit, corruption, obsfucation, negligence, incompetence, and who knows how much criminal behavior. After all, in this presnit's government, the people don't deserve to know what's going on. It's not their government... anymore.

Coleman throws in towel, Klobuchar supports our troops

Indeed, “with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course.” We’ve pushed the violence out of Baghdad and into Mosul, Diyala and Kirkuk. Oh wait, unless you count the ever-present violence in Baghdad, where 11 people were killed including 3 soldiers on Wednesday, and then we have… no change. (And they wonder on Fox & Friends why McCain’s campaign is going up in smoke.)

But let’s turn to someone with first hand experience:

Salah Muhamad Amin, a retired army general from Baghdad said: “To be fair to the government, security has slightly improved since the implementation of the surge; however, it is not only about security.

“I am preparing myself to leave Baghdad, because I am not able to cope with day-to-day requirements. I am 70-years old and my wife is 62. We do not have enough electricity and we cannot tolerate the hot weather any more.”

He said his family has to daily manoeuvre through army checkpoints and barricades until they reach petrol stations where the queues can run for several blocks - all in the hope of securing fuel for the generators.

He said: “We are fed up with having to risk our lives every time we need to go and get our pensions, so I will sell my house and leave to a country where I can live normally.”

So, what small change has come, at least to Baghdad, has brought a new set of problems. Did this administration cabal foresee and account these changes? Of course not. We’re talking about the Bushes here. Even McCain admits that if we give the surge more time, he doubts that we can be successful there (”even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq.”). So, we’re just supposed to continue shedding blood and spending $12 Billion a month (I hope the grandkids have their charge cards handy!) for how long? Almost nobody knows, because nobody has planned for anything in Iraq. I say almost nobody, as Bush is just running out the clock, and “AQI” is prepared for this to go on forever. That is their plan.

Would that we had a plan for winning the war in Iraq. We haven’t from the beginning, and we still don’t. What do you expect from a presnit who, to repeat your test of Middle Eastern IQ, can’t name the capital of Diyala (or have you forgotten that Bush didn’t even know who Pervez Musharraf was prior to January 20, 2001)?

In the end, this vote was a good move for the Democrats. We now have, for the record, the names of 52 senators who support the troops, and the 47 who, at the cost of our soldiers lives, support the failures of the Bush cabal. That alone is worth the price of admission. The icing on the cake is the “get into Congress free” card that Norm Coleman just handed Al Franken.

ACLU v. NSA reversed, Gross Gloats

The ACLE v. NSA ruling was reversed not because of the merits of the arguments at the heart of the case, but rather, that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case. Don't make this out for more than it is; the arguments still hold water, and if not the ACLU, then some other group or individual may certainly step forward to bring this case, and this time, clearly with standing.

What is it about conservatives that they hate our freedoms? Why gloat, and why oppose a fight that is for some of our most fundamental rights? Why conflate international and domestic intelligence gathering (as though the separate agencies hadn't been in place for a reason)? Its not like anybody said the government shouldn't investigate and survey suspicious characters; there already is that mechanism and system under the FISA courts, which you ironically quote and twist their argument to support this, frankly un-American concept.
History seems to have to repeat itself, as we go through yet another cycle in which individual rights are curtailed by the government, only to have the rights restored with an even greater understanding of why they should not be curtailed, and the ensuing regulation and law that comes with further guarantees. Commenter Carlos continuously accuses me of wanting a huge "guvmint" that coddles every citizen, when this is case-in-point that I want the government out of my private life, along with shedding the huge bureaucracy required to perform this level of domestic spying!

Meanwhile, the chatter that has been reported is being compared to the level the Summer before 9/11. Al Queda is issuing statements of "spectacular" attacks. I suppose that despite these warnings, it will be a big shock that no one was paying attention, and we can attribute it to the liberals fighting domestic spying terrorist surveillance.

And not the fact that we're creating enemies faster than we can kill them.

Surge Offensive and the Blame Game

What an interesting piece of spin, this article is. At first glance, you take aim at Sen. Reid, but as you lay out your argument, it seems that the Majority Leader is directing the armed forces (which we know he isn’t), as first he says there’s a problem in Baghdad, so Petraeus focuses there; then the Senator says there’s a problem in suburbs, so Petraeus moves the fight outward…

But after reading the AP article, which among other gems includes “There is no guarantee that driving the organization out of current sanctuaries would prevent it from migrating to other regions to continue the fight,” you really can’t help but wonder what you’re talking about. “If they were smart,” you suggest, “Democrats would shut up and let the surge play out.” Well, are Democrats stopping the surge? No. They caved and let Bush have everything he asked for, no strings attached. And Congress’ poll numbers plummeted as a result, not, as you suggest, because Sen. Reid made some strong statements. Democrats, especially the liberal blogosphere, are furious with Congress, having promised to rein in the Adminsitration on the War.

I’d like to see your source for your claim that the poll numbers reflect Sen. Reid’s comments, and not the caving in to the presnit.

But your house of cards falls completely apart on “Democrats keep moving the yardsticks in determining whether the surge is working and whether we’re winning the war.” Hardly. The problem is, as The Sydney Morning Herald succintly states,

Sadly, the US generals in Baghdad have their pencil poised over F for failure. Security is still a shambles and Iraq’s paralysed political leadership is unable to compromise on any of a list of benchmarks set by Washington: how to share oil revenue; the status of the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk; the powers of the Iraqi presidency; allowing former Baathists back into public life; and more.

So, I guess if our great friends and allies, the Iraqis, can’t manage to meet even the most basic of benchmarks, the easiest thing to do is obsfucate the issue and blame the Democrats. Exactly what we’d expect from the radical right. Afterall, its not incompetance, mismanagement, and failure of the administration; it’s Harry Reid pointing out the failures and giving voice to the country’s frustration (in case you haven’t noticed, the real polls say that the American people are fed up with the Iraq mess and want a way out, now.)

But back to moving yardsticks. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, the US Ambassador to Iraq appeared and floated the administration’s trial balloon for how to deal with the coming September masssacre (with thanks to the HuffPo for the translations):

“America could not ask for a finer, more experienced and more able military leader than they have in Gen. Petraeus. I have heard him give tough, clear assessments to the president, to congressional visitors as they come through, and you’ve heard him in the open media… He calls it as he sees it.” Translation: So, in September, when he tells you that the surge is working, you had better believe him!

“The other thing I think we’re going to do [in September], because we owe it to our leadership at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, is also try to provide an assessment of what the consequences might be if we pursue other directions.” Translation: Even if the surge isn’t going so well come September, we are going to tell everyone — especially those in Congress — that if we leave Iraq we will unleash a genocidal bloodbath and war throughout the planet and, indeed, the entire galaxy. So we really need to give it more time.

“The surge buys time for a political process to get some legs under it.” Translation: We really, really need to give it more time.

“There is nothing easy about the task in front of [Iraq’s leaders], and I have certainly been struck since I’ve been here at the amount of commitment and effort that senior Iraqi officials have demonstrated to try and get the job done.” Translation: We really, really, really need to give it more time.

“It’s definitely not by any means a universally negative picture.” Translation: Don’t believe the facts, believe us!

You know the soft bigotry of the Bush administration’s low expectations for Iraq has finally hit bottom when “Hey, we’re doing slightly better than universally negative!” has become the rallying cry.

In the end, Reid and the Democrats are not stupid. Have you ever heard the saying Give them enough rope, and they’ll hang themselves?

MtB and I don't mean the drug!

Another rightwingnut ("Mitch the Bitch") replied to one of Gary Gross' amusing rants, with a harsh tone and some course language. Here's my reply:

Who cares? Well, pretty much everybody except Bush and you, Mitch. And does the timing really matter? You're forgetting the lies the administration told about how the WMDs were under development and we had to stop Saddam before they were complete... only, they weren't anywhere near 'under development' and no "mushroom cloud over an American city," as Secretary Rice put it, was looming. The most recent estimate puts Saddam's plans some 7 to 10 years out, and beyond that, Saddam was more worried about gold-plating the toilet seats in his latest palace than he was about WMDs. If only we'd realized this before we aided and abetted the Iranians in taking Saddam out.

Human rights victory? I want some of what you've been smoking, 'cause it must be good! You apparently haven't noticed that Bush announced to Saddam that he had 48 hours to leave Iraq (if there ever was a date definite announcement, this was it), and then we just rushed in, guarded the oil ministry and nothing else, and put up signs on the torture chambers and rape rooms saying "under new management!" I guess that would be a human rights victory, if by that you mean we'd kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, throw our own Constitution under the bus (habeas corpus, free speech, you know, everything in the Bill of Rights except the 2nd ammendment, becuase the NRA would rather see deranged students at college campuses nationwide, and terrorists with radical ideologies, with machine guns than have anyone not be able to freely buy any gun, any where, any time), and leave an entire region unstable for at least two generations.

The destruction of the USA, you idiot, began six years ago when the Supreme Court just couldn't stay out of the way and let the process work the way the Founding Fathers foresaw, and it's all been downhill since then. It took a while for the country to wake up and smell the coffee, but now that it has, we can get back on the right track. With a year-and-a-half under this disgraced, lame-duck president left, the adults can step in and begin the process of cleaning up his messes.

It seems, Mitch, you either need to stroll over to one of the online dictionary sites to look up the meaning of 'sedition', or go back and take a basic civics course. Sedition is the reason this country exists, and is a time-honored and righteous tradition. To simply lay down and accept whatever our government says is an act of treason. And at this point in the history of the US, you'd have to be brain-dead to believe anything this administration says.

Jerry Falwell 1933 - 2007

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for an American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say `you helped this happen.'

VT and Wacko Whats-his-Name exhollywoodliberal

So Clark Baker puts up this tome on why the shootings at Viginia Tech are the result of gun control, and not the logical alternative.

Au contraire; we should require everyone to carry guns. Even little children… I mean, if you knew the room was packed with pistol-totin’ third graders, you’d think about before barging in and opening a book, let alone firing a gun! Imagine the savings on education, healthcare and social services if we just had more people killing each other, more often.

Coursework could include: shoot first and ask questions later; how to buy a gun without so much as a drivers’ license; and my favorite, Vigils in the Making: What to Wear, What to Say and How to Act.

And just to add icing to the cake, the NRA is holding its annual meeting! What timing!

The Consequences of Words

"Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words." --George W. Bush, interview with Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 1, 2006

In my end of weekend/day perusal of the web, the headline on CalCon Murtha in Full Denial Mode caught my eye. I'd just read an email from a new customer -- of which I have never done business, never heard of, and do not know -- in which he said that he was "Sick of being abused by vendors who always want it their way." I pondered what he meant and how I would respond, given the conditions upon which he demanded that I deal with his order. It hit me that often, people project their issues on others, expecting the result that they would themselves offer when presented with a series of conditions. My customer had had a poor experience with another vendor, and even though we had never conducted business, he presumed that I would treat him similarly, or worse, that I would treat him like he treats his customers (having said that he was in a position to deal with customers himself). The tone and content of my customer's email was very similar to Gary Gross' post: condescending, incredible, and so full of self-importance, that I could not help but see the similarities, and that further, Gross is merely projecting his issues onto Jack Murtha, based on what he said on CNN's Late Edition this morning.

So, let's parse what Murtha said, and examine: whose words do you want to believe?

Murtha: They’ve mismanaged this war. They talk about us micromanaging. They’ve mismanaged the war so badly, they put the commanders in impossible positions.

No one can argue with Murtha's statement of mismanagement of this war. Thankfully, Rumsfeld is gone. Thankfully, the Democrats took back control of Congress, and are at least attempting to oversee this out-of-control administration. But the impossible positions that Murtha speaks of, from stretching the troops so thin, the Army is about to break:

General Joulwan: And so we are stretched thin. And I think it's very difficult to meet the sort of commitments we have, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but globally.

to having tired, wounded and improperly trained and equipped soldiers:

Reserve and Marine Corps tours have lasted longer than a year (shorter tours had been the norm)
• Many military personnel have come under “stop-loss” orders that have barred them from leaving the service, have been extended in their tours, or have anticipated multiple combat tours
• No Army division has been available as a strategic reserve (air and naval forces have been shifted to cover key contingencies)

Murtha continues "look, they're going to ask for a trillion dollars" which is, actually, a low estimate. Truly, the war without end.

But where Gross goes berserk is over his contention that Congress is attempting to micromanage the war, and is in violation of the Constitution, specifically the separation of powers clause. Interesting that Gross chooses to look Constitutionally at this issue, given two facts: this administration regularly chooses to ignore the Constitution, and that there is no verbiage in the Constitution that specifically declares "that the powers of the three branches of the federal government shall be separated." A seeming paradox, but one that George W. Bush has successfully exploited. See: Alberto Gonzales' declaration that there is "no right of habeas corpus in the Constitution". To paraphrase, Gross' assertion that Congress is violating the Constitution does, in fact, ring hollow.

But where Gross reveals himself as truly projecting his beliefs onto Murtha comes when he says "Murtha’s saying that casualties in Baghdad have shrunk but the 'incidents have increased outside Baghdad' is proof that the surge is working. [emphasis mine]" How is increasing violence proof that the surge is working? Did Gross not watch the previous segment Blitzer did, or at least read the transcript before he wrote this blather? Gen. Joulwan specifically says:

"what we are seeing now is what even the commanders on the ground will tell you is a very adaptable enemy. This enemy has adapted over the last four years to every tactic or strategy that we've come up. And I think you're going to see an adaptability to this one, to what we call the surge. And I think it's going to be interesting to see what's going to happen, not just in three or four months like some politicians want the surge to end, but in months or years that I think it's going to take to bring some sort of stabilization to this country."

How many brain cells does it take to see that if the insurgents will just wait for us to leave Iraq if we make a firm, date-certain commitment to leave, they will wait for us to leave even if we don't say we're going to leave? It is as though these thoughts have never occur ed to Gross, or anyone else, specifically on the right.

We have a choice to make: either we redeploy and get the troops out of harm's way now, or "kick the can down the road" and wait to do it another day... loosing lives, treasure, and time.

So just who is in denial?

I'm going to reply to my customer's email, and ask him to go elsewhere for his needs. I don't need to deal with demagoguery at the outset of a relationship. I'm not going to put myself in the position of having to deal with a problem that I know can be avoided, right here and now. Do I lose out on the sale? Sure. I also know I avoid setting myself up for failure. But just like Iran and North Korea are out there, rattling much more real sabres, there are more customers out there, and I know I can successfully work with them. Sometimes you just have know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em.

Tom Tomorrow and The Mystery of...

h/t Crooks and Liars

Democrats' Threat to Withdraw Working!!!

Nouri al-Maliki sees that the newly elected Democratic Congress is proposing withdrawing from Iraq, and knowing that insurgents are sure to take over should US troops leave, he finally begins stepping up to the plate. Bush's "come to Jesus" [let's pause here for a moment and consider the ramifications of this spin... mind-boggling, to say the least] visit highlighted the coming Demcratic plan, which calls for a removal of troops, unlike every previous Bush plan or surge (or whatever you want to call it).

Once again, the Democrats fix the Republican f**k-ups. What else is new?

Still More Defense of the Indefensible—or— What is it with Republicans and Homosexuals?

The Coulter wars drag on over at CalCon, with wacky former LA cop/hollywood liberal/Marine (wow, a former Marine, too!) Clark Baker weighing in. To sum up Baker's philosophy: mAnn's remarks are okay, she's just saying what we're thinking.

Many Republicans, especially heterosexual white men, appreciate Ann Coulter because she says things that would have gotten them pilloried for the past thirty years.

And why is it that these "things she says" would get you pilloried, Clark? Could it be because they are offensive, malicious and outright lies? The last time I saw John Edwards kiss his wife, she was still a woman, and the kids were in tow. Now, that's not to say that a married man can't be homosexual, but I really, truly doubt that Edwards is gay. I certainly can't find any reference online that even remotely suggests that Edwards is gay. According to what I could find, he certainly doesn't take the gays' side in the marriage debate, and somehow I think, were he gay, he wouldn't vote against his own interests (but alas, that is a topic for another time and place).

Nevertheless, be careful saying "heterosexual white men appreciate Ann Coulter" as there is rampant speculation that mAnn is, well, a man. All those straight guys may take offense at suggesting they like men.

There is a reason that heterosexual white men have had to stifle themselves: a history of homophobic, racist and misogynistic behavior. Let's be clear, though. Only heterosexual white men and Coulter are entitled to this behavior, as we saw when Edwards hired an outspoken liberal blogger and was summarily thrown to the wolves for her previous and unaffiliated postings, by (yes, you might have guessed it) heterosexual white men and Ann Coulter.

Coulter’s comment clearly referred to limp-wristed, spineless, whiney philosophical fags rather than homosexuality.

Interesting set of links here. First, linking to the Belfast Telegraph? What's up with that, especially given that the term "fag" in British slang is entirely different than American slang. Then, linking the word "fag" to Dictionary.com, which then gives every conceivable derivative except the one in which Coulter used the term? How about linking to the term Ann used, or perhaps Meriam-Webster, The American Heritage Dictionary, Wikipedia, (and don't forget about the fake wiki, Conservapedia where there are no homosexuals); hell, just type "faggot" into The Google and watch the page fill with references to homosexuals and Ann! Of course, this would show that the word "faggot" does, in fact, reference "slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a male homosexual."

I would argue that the use of the word "faggot" in the context of Ann's speech had one and only one meaning. Ann thought it would be funny/explosive/attention grabbing. I guess two out of three ain't bad. Then again, anything an attention-deficit whore says is explosive. Ann knows that, and certainly isn't shy about vocalizing insensitive, offensive and obnoxious sentiments. And that is the point: Ann used the word "faggot" because of its meaning not, as Baker suggests, in spite of its meaning.

Many Republicans have shown moral character in this episode, joining Edwards, Democrats and patriots in castigating Coulter. Too bad Baker is not among them.

Amy loves Ann

And so, is Amy Proctor siding with Ann? There was nothing wrong with calling John Edwards a "faggot"? Let's turn to people who are called derogatory names -- among them, "faggot" -- and see what they think:

When Ann Coulter referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a faggot, we all knew there is something more wrong about it than the individual insult. Not only are we incensed because the term is often yelled out when hate crimes are committed against LGBT people, but because we know that what Ann Coulter was also saying in calling John Edwards a faggot is that there is something inherently wrong about being gay.

I know many of us abhor pejoratives because there is nothing wrong with being black (related to the n-bomb), nothing wrong with being female (related to the c-word), nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim (related to the term rag-head), and nothing wrong with being gay (related to the other f-word).

The 2005 and 2006 winner for best LBGT blogs

A schoolyard prank? Tell that to Kevin Aviance who was beaten as the thugs "were yelling, ‘Die, faggot,’ and ‘We’re going to kill you, faggot,’”

Or, how about the gay guy who was beaten, hit by a car and then had life support terminated by his family?

Then there's the "faggot" who who fell victim to "a man who jumped out of car and began yelling homophobic epithets at the 20 year old student. The young man was then beaten and received a concussion and fractured eye socket."

Harmless! Can't take a joke! A schoolyard prank!

Funny how conservatives can say anything, and Amy Proctor will stand up for them. Funny how Ann Coulter is an attractive, obviously intelligent (but misguided) woman, but just can't find the right guy, settle down and get married. Funny...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." --Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

Update:

Rachel Madow on Countdown:

"I know that Ann Coulter needs publicity in the same way that a tapeworm needs a large intestine. This is the environment that makes it possible for her to continue to make a living doing what she does."

Watch it here.

Update 2: What I said yesterday is now a meme?

Ronald Reagan, appeasement, and the Bush Criminal Cabal

I guess Reagan's non-appeasement attitude so deftly promoted in this video was suspended when he appeased Hezbollah terrorists by withdrawing from Lebanon. So much for his iron will.

That aside, exactly what "moral principle" that Bush exhibits do you stand by, Amy? Would it be the "don't bother with bin Laden, I'm on vacation" policy? Or would it be the "don't bother with New Orleans, I'm on vacation/Brownie, you're doin' a heck-of-a-job" policy? Or, perhaps it would be the policy of lying to Congress and the American people about WMD. Maybe, it was the "deflect responsibility at all costs" policy that resulted in Scooter Libby taking the fall for another pack of lies. Or, could...

I could go on for hours, but when Amy blindly follows corrupt leaders without question, I'm not going to change anyone's mind.

But nevertheless, here we are. Stuck in Iraq with no viable alternatives. The administration demonstrating THEIR total lack of support for OUR troops. mAnn Coulter making defamatory remarks before the leading conservative political action group, running around calling everyone a "faggot". How, exactly, does that impact John Edwards' family? The party of "family values" strikes out... again.

We're not helping one bit, risking the lives of American Marines serving over there, trying to keep peace, when they've got a bunch of jackasses who want to kill each other. I'd get out of there and let them shoot.

--Barry Goldwater

The bottom line, Amy, is that Bush has sold out everyone in this country, including conservatives. Maybe you'll all wake up one day and realize this, and hopefully, it won't be too late.

Where's the Outrage... now?

"We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

Senator (and Presidential candidate) John McCain, Feb. 28, 2007

...but it would be a waste of breath trying to get Sen. Obama McCain to acknowledge the existence of countless soldiers and their families who reject his patronizing, infantilizing, and insulting view of all American troops as dupes/victims who have squandered their lives.

--Michelle Malkin, Feb. 12, 2007

I'm waiting for Michelle to call for McCain's apology whilst slamming him with his unpatriotic demonstration of his contempt to our troops (but not holding my breath).

And anyone wonders why he isn't going to the little CONservative CONfab?

Oil.

My take on the Iraq mess is that 'W' has blown a hole in the middle east that is going to take at least two generations, if not longer, to repair, if it can ever be fully repaired. I fear that the US is not going to be able to fully withdraw, and when we try (and we will try, if not in the next two years, then as soon as we can elect a real president) we will fail. I pray that we are not laying the foundation for World War III.

My hope lays with a few intelligent politicians and leaders that can take control of this mess and clean it up. With Hillary not yet addressing the issue with any concrete proposal -- even refusing to state the obvious: we were lied to by this president -- and none of the other way-too-early presidential candidates saying anything of substance, I look to the few who are willing to open themselves up to the rightwingnuts and their incessant griping. Joe Biden's piece in the Boston Globe is one of the more sound, reasonable plans that anyone has proposed across the political spectrum. And of course, this means that Gary Gross has to slam it.

If the oil revenue sharing plan recently passed by Iraq's parliament is our great hope, we are in trouble. Some oil revenue sharing plan:

the Iraqi Government’s approval of the ‘Iraq Oil Law‘ has opened the door to a dismantled Iraq along sectarian fault lines, allows Big Oil corporations carte blanche to the world’s third largest proven oil reserves... [which] provides the required momentum for the dismantling of Iraq and the further destabilization of the entire middle east region.

Watch for the rapid disembowelment of Iraq and the creation of Shiastan, a Kurdish Republic and a sidelined Sunni state. The Iranians will annex and fold southern Iraq - Shiastan - into the Islamic Republic of Iran. Turkey will follow through with their promise of conflict against an emboldened Kurdistan in northern Iraq. The Sunnis will be left with nothing but a poor central region and one hell of a chip on their shoulders.

-http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blog/opinionist/2007/feb/27/bush_genius_iraq_softened_gutted_ready_for_oil_vultures

But the best quote from Gary's piece, "Iraq is a soveriegn nation" is a little more than 4 years too late. The level of violence, according to Stars and Stripes remains at "the highest level since major combat operations ended" yet, "The Defense Intelligence Agency estimates that less than 10 percent of insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters, and the majority of those are suicide bombers." Translation: the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions are fighting more vigorously than ever. Where's the room, or in Gary's words, what is the "incentive" for them to work together?

Gary Gross is the epitome of what is wrong in this country. Fighting keyboardists have no knowledge of what makes the middle east tick, no understanding of what we're up against, and no real solution to propose. Evidence: they still think that Saudi Arabia is our friend. They still think we can "defeat the terrorists" without defining (understanding?) who the terrorists are. The rightwingnuts think that blaming liberals is the answer to every problem this country faces.

I have some news for them: it wasn't just the Republic party that was attacked on Sept. 11. It was all of us.

Two Birds with One Stone

CalCon poster The Gentle Cricket thinks its really cool to waste gas, time and blood to drive across the country. How fitting; a drive-a-thon from San Francisco to Washington DC to support our troops fighting for our right to the oil under Iraq's sand. When we're beginning to understand the concept of blood for oil, it is only appropriate that support would be shown in a manner consistent with the rationale behind the war.

Assuming that the average passenger vehicle gets 22 miles per gallon, the shortest route is 2840 miles, that's 129 gallons of gas, minimum. Since the war is ongoing, we don't yet know the ratio of blood lost to barrel of oil, but in a perverse sense, wasting gas like this actually pushes the ratio lower, i.e., fewer soldiers killed per gallon of gas burned.

Wow, not only supporting the troops, but rubbing the ol' thumb in the eye of global warming alarmists. Well done!

Liars, Damn Liars and Statisticians

What do you call someone who has worked for a political campaign? And what do you call someone who has donated the personal maximum allowable amount to political campaigns? And what do you call someone involved in an scheme to avoid public revelation and discourse on a consultancy contract awarded to a private firm but paid for with public dollars?

That's right, a partisan hack, potentially engaging in criminal behavior. Now, if I were to tell you that the hack worked for a democratic congressman, donated large sums to liberal causes, and was involved in a cover up of a contract awarded to a left-leaning organization, you'd dismiss their opinions and research as bunk without further consideration.

But Davis Lundy, head of the Moriah Group and who commissioned this poll, worked for the campaign to elect Congressman Zach Ramp (R-TN), is on the public record of donating thousands of dollars to Republicans and conservative causes, and is up to his eyeballs in an educational board scandal, and is (without further research, I won't say a conspirator) implicated in violation of Tennessee's Sunshine Law as part of a group that withheld information from voting members of a school board "to avoid public debate."

The poll itself was conducted by a firm named Public Opinion Strategies that makes no bones about being Republican, and shreds their objectivity at first glance with the headline PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES MOURNS REPUBLICAN LOSSES, CONGRATULATES MANY INDIVIDUAL WINNERS IN TOUGH RACES in a prime spot on their homepage. An analysis of the poll, says David E. Johnson of Strategic Vision (a Republic polling firm themselves, ahem...) shows it was "leading and designed to elicit the answers they got."

Pure bunk. So much for this talking point.

Read more here and here.

Oh, that Sam Johnson

CalCon, quick to quote any rightwingnut who supports his position, cites Sam Johnson's (R-TX 3rd) speech before the House on Friday evening. Would this be the Sam Johnson who abused his (former) position on the House Ways and Means committee to have the IRS "investigate" the books of a non-profit organization, the Texans for Public Justice after they alleged campaign contribution irregularities against disgraced (and thankfully former and soon to be convict) House leader Delay?

Of course, the investigation turned up absolutely no inproper accounting or filings by the TPJ. Meanwhile, Delay has been indicted and faces trial for his illegal activities.

Of course, this is the same Sam Johnson who offered to drop not one but two nuclear bombs on Syria back when Bush was lying to the American people about WMD in Iraq.

And the same Sam Johnson who doesn't actually live in his home district -- he just rents an apartment there so that he could be elected!

Oh yeah, that hero.

And Conservatives Don't Support Our Troops, Either!

Crazy Clark Baker uses a nifty modified Uncle Sam postage stamp to invite Liberals to move to Canada under the inflammatory headline Liberals DON’T Support Our Troops, which given the circumstances is quite ironic.

Baker points to another right-wing hack, Joan Swirsky of The New Media Journal, a self-described "conservative leaning" website that publishes what "pundits" have to say (their word, not mine, I swear!). Swirsky last wrote about the pathology of liberals, which is in and of itself funny, but interestingly attempts to tie mental illness to liberalism. Apparently, Swisky and Baker have not researched this topic even superficially, as they'd quickly find the link between mental illness and conservative thought:

The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election... [The study] found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

But its not just Bush, per se: its the ideology as evidenced:

A 1977 study... found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.

Not satisfied to draw a simple line from point "A" to "B", I dug deeper. I was startled to find that the United States is the craziest country on the planet! Not just by a little bit, but heaping doses of crazy! The closest competitor for crazy is the Ukraine, a full 5 points behind us! Who-hoo (as Homer Simpson would say). David Podvin points to the clear link between mental illness and conservatism:

Rather than educating himself on major issues of life and death by studying, George W. Bush faithfully listens to the voices in his head that have been keenly honed during a lifetime of not studying. Bush takes this approach based on his deeply held belief that only by remaining abjectly ignorant of all relevant facts can he possibly make a fully informed decision. His commitment to prioritizing fantasy over reality is strong and unyielding.

...

The W.H.O. awarded America numerous insanity bonus points for the insistence by our Holy Rollers that the bible must be interpreted literally. The English word “gay” doesn’t mean what it meant just a few decades ago, yet American zealots insist that the meaning of words translated from six thousand year old Hebrew can be defined with precision and should be used to justify persecuting human beings.

...

Projection is a component of mental illness that consists of attributing one’s own deficiencies to others.

Podvin uses the example of Rush Limbaugh to illustrate this point, but his article was written some time ago, at least before Rush appeared in a "comedy" skit on Fox Noise set in January, 2009, wherein he was elected president and his opponent, Howard Dean, was finally getting the "help he needed"... which is just ripe. A drug-addled, impotent tub of lard saying anyone else needs help...

But back to Baker's posting. Talk about projection of one's deficiencies to others! Through the use of Swisky's premise, Baker imagines what various well-known liberals would say to a cancer victim (funny, that was the premise behind another skit on the painfully bad Fox show; maybe this is a conservative thing, making fun of cancer patients?), and gosh, it sure is funny! While I could similarly entertain what some prominent conservatives would say, I find it childish to engage in that type of tit-for-tat.

Baker's problem, however, is that he fails to see the breakdown in logic that Sworski's article proposes: that the troops will be demoralized by the House resolution supporting them, but not Bush's tactical surge, but then goes on to say that you couldn't demoralize the troops even if you tried, they're such fierce warriors. Well, which is it?

Here's the crux of the matter, however. Conservatives don't support the troops, either. For instance, what about care for the wounded veterans? Dana Priest exposes the care at Walter Reed:

On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of "Catch-22." The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.

Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.

"We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it," said Marine Sgt. Ryan Groves, 26, an amputee who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months. "We don't know what to do. The people who are supposed to know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of stalling."

...

Evis Morales's severely wounded son was transferred to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda for surgery shortly after she arrived at Walter Reed. She had checked into her government-paid room on post, but she slept in the lobby of the Bethesda hospital for two weeks because no one told her there is a free shuttle between the two facilities. "They just let me off the bus and said 'Bye-bye,' " recalled Morales, a Puerto Rico resident.

Morales found help after she ran out of money, when she called a hotline number and a Spanish-speaking operator happened to answer.

"If they can have Spanish-speaking recruits to convince my son to go into the Army, why can't they have Spanish-speaking translators when he's injured?"

Because, Evis, how that your son has done his part for the USA, he can rot. Kanye West wasn't right when he said "George Bush doesn't care about black people." What he should have said was "conservatives don't care about anyone but themselves."

Case in point and on target to this example:

House Republican leadership had removed [GOP] Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey as chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. The extraordinary purge buttressed the growing impression of arrogance as Republicans enter their second decade of power in the House.

The party's House leaders purportedly removed Smith, a tireless promoter of spending for veterans, to save money....

The leadership's problem with Smith has been his insatiable desire to make life better for veterans during 24 years on the Veterans Affairs committee (six years as vice chairman, four years as chairman).

No, that's not some quote from any liberal or even friend of left-leaning causes... it's none other than Robert Novak! If that's what a friend says about you, you know you've got problems.

Supporting the troops means more than putting a yellow ribbon bumper sticker on your SUV. It's more than finally providing armor and equipment to the troops. Its about not frivolously tossing American blood and treasure at some neocon idealogue's dreams of world dominance.

No George Bush and the conservatives got us into this mess. But here's my startling request: please, continue. You're guaranteeing Hillary in the White House in '08.

Maybe somebody then will mock up an old recruitment poster, saying "Conservatives! I Want You to Move to Mexico!" You see, I doubt Canada would take you.

The Results of a Conservative Education?

Amy P. once again posts some crap about how Democrats are evil but misses a critical fact... that the majority of the Senate wants to go on record opposing Bush's 'surge' but in a tactic suggested by Newt "I am the Government" Gingrich, the minority filibustered the debate on the measure.

Oh Amy, you are so... misinformed. But what do you expect, you quoted Fox Noise. The vote for cloture (which is the process by which the Senate votes to close discussion and proceed to a debate, a parlimentary trick and one that is sure to make Newt Gingrich happy) was, at 56-to34:

...four short of the 60 needed to advance the nonbinding measure. The resolution is identical to one recently passed by the house.

Seven GOP senators broke ranks, compared with only two joining in an earlier test on the issue but it wasn't enough.

So, proving that Amy has trouble understanding how our government works, her calculations were wrong, and more importantly, as a result were misleading. There were 56 senators that voted to bring the non-binding resolution before the Senate, but due to this parlimentary maneuver, the minority of the Senate, the Republicans, were able to prevent going on the record as to their committment to the President. That means that, aside from Joe Lieberman, every Democrat voted to debate the issue, and 7 Republicans crossed the party line.

So, in fact, the majority of the Senate wanted to debate the issue; it was 34 disgracefully petulant and unpatriotic Republicans that prevented what the American people want: an open and honest discussion about Iraq, and a movement to bring it to a conclusion.

By your logic (not to mention reality), perhaps the mandate Speaker Pelosi has is from the majority of the country. Maybe the Congress should wake up a realize this fact.

Disingenuous at Best

CalCon is on another rampage, impuning democrats and liberals integrity. Today's rant involves the House resolution supporting the troops and denouncing Bush's 'surge.' Predictably, CalCon chimes in saying the Dems are treasonous for passing a non-binding resolution.

Firstly, this is the same old crap CalCon's been spouting since before the midterm elections. In case you didn't notice, your side lost becuase it is fundamentally wrong. The Iraq war was started without merit, Bush lied, and the American people have awoken to this fact.

Second, I think CalCon is just upset that John Murtha got sick and tired of the republican method of governing: hamstring an issue around emotional topics with which no one can argue (or be called every name from unpatriotic to treasonous), obscure the debate in rhetoric, and walk to victory. Murtha is simply borrowing your methods.

Finally, this is no "low point" and your accusation "No one in their right mind thinks that Democrats have a conscience beyond a desire for acquiring and increasing power" in the context of this posting is, plainly, an admission of your modus operandi en large.

Of course, this is what republicans do best. Whine on!

Michael Crichton Causes Global Warming

What's with CalCon's wood for Crichton this week? This is like the third or fourth time CalCon's cited him. Either he's the only critic of global warming out there, or Gary has some strange fascination with this guy who is best known for works of fiction, thinks that he's had paranormal experiences, and uses characters in his books to mock his critics. Nevermind that his rationale for criticizing global warming is based on an assumption that he is the Galileo of our era.

What he fails to address (and by extension, CalCon too) is a very basic question: whom does our current use of fossil fuels benefit, and who does it harm? Do we want to send our dollars to Iran and Venezuela, or do we want to put our resources behind developing alternative, clean fuel that can be grown or made right here in the USA? And what about the potential for our enemies to do it first? Talk about homeland insecurity!

Imagine if the Middle East didn't matter to us. Let 'em fight amongst themselves. Imagine if Hugo Chavez's funding dried up, and he no longer had a world stage to stand upon and castigate us. Imagine the money to be made if the US developed a fuel that could be sold to the rest of the world, making our trade deficit disappear and ensuring American dominance for the next hundred years.

The Pathology of Conservatives

CalCon posts another of his wacked-out buddy's rants, claiming liberals are pathological.

Interesting.

Likewise:

at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

...these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination.

Conservatives fear change because they are unable to see the world through an open lens.

Of particular note, conservatives are xenophobic:

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views...

A basic tenet of human psychology is a desire to propagate the self as being more influential, intelligent and important then other individuals. In many cases this results in forming rigid ties to one's own group and therefore, through the strength of the group, increase the sense of self of the individual. While this effect is seen across all groups, conservative groups are influenced by religious beliefs that offer the individual a complete metaphysical framework presented with such simplicity that a 5 year old can understand the basic laws of the universe. This results in the conservatives’ conflict with science. Science is constantly growing from one idea to the next based on continual testing. This resulted in a system of thought that does not want the established thought of the 19th century found unsupported by the evidence to pervade current rationale. Conservatives desire to preserve the past have come in to conflict with this form of thought.

Conservatives, such as Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan, all have another common thread: thinking they're better than everyone else:

...right-wing conservatives ...preach a return to an idealized past and condone inequality in some form... one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

And as for thinking outside of the box:

...intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes.

For example, if you take a look at the country by zip code and break it down along income and wealth lines, the richer an area the more likely it is to be conservative and Republican. Children born into this stratified world lack the capabilities of understanding that they have been born into wealth, and instead, look at the poor and not understanding how others may have been disadvantaged from day one, think they are less intelligent, less educated, and lazy. "If only they'd work harder!" conservatives think. Yet, conservatives revile the government when it attempts to level the playing field, and would rather donate huge sums of money to political causes that prevent those less fortunate from succeeding.

But such circular (and faulty) logic doesn't end there. Conservatives like to start wars in order to push their world-view on everyone, which in turn, results in a swing to conservativism:

right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability

which creates a continual state of war. Sound familiar?

And so the question boils down to, do you want to take the conservative approach (be afraid, run from challenge, conform to a forced position -- live under totalitarian rule, in other words -- or take the liberal approach, live free, exercise personal liberty, and enjoy life -- live under democratic rule, in other words?

Thanks, I'll choose freedom.

Conservatives seem incapable of grasping the nature of our Consitutional Republic with its uncertainties (hence, constant fear mongering) , conflicts (hence, the need to put others down in a vain attempt at making themselves feel superior), and vagarities (hence, the constant charge that judges are writing their views into law rather than the messy, complicated and uncertain work in interpreting the Constitution).

And you call liberals pathological.

Read more here, and here.

I Suppose She Shouldn't Get an Office, either...

I knew California Conservative wouldn't be able to resist putting the talking points up. So, in fairness, let's set the record straight.

First, Pelosi did not make this request; the House Seargant at Arms did. That Pelosi is second in line to the presidency, it is imperitive that she be protected to the same standards that Speaker Hastert was.

Statement from House Sergeant At Arms Bill Livingood, Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the House:

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Second, Mrs. Pelosi's time is exremely valuable. If she can avoid the landing cycle time required to refuel, it is worth the government's time and people's money to save those lost hours.

Third, if you're going to say that it is a waste of taxpayer's money to provide a plane to the Speaker of the House, I'l say you should have thought of that before we dumped a trillion dollars (and counting!) in Iraq Speaker Hastert flew Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) back to Washington to appear in a press conference regarding disgraced ephebophile Foley 9/11! 9/11! Look over here!.

Finally, when are you going to stop letting the Moonies set the national agenda? Is this even worth the time to discuss?

Now back to our regularly scheduled Republican whining...

Gore, Limbaugh nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

CalCon has got to be kidding. Comparing Rush with Vice President Gore? It's not a comparison between apples and oranges; it's more like comparing an egg and a pig. Rush Limbaugh isn't even qualified to shine Al Gore's shoes. And it is beneath Gore that there is even this way to draw any comparison.

Al Gore has a list of accomplishments longer than your arm.

Rush Limbaugh is a drug-addled hypocrite incapable of thinking about anything besides where his next meal is coming from, and a way to blame the media for whatever crosses his mind (and I use the word "mind" loosely here).

Al Gore spearheaded the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, laying the groundwork for the modern internet. Gore's oft-quoted and lampooned "creator of the Internet" remark not withstanding, the blogosphere owes its very existance to Gore.

Rush Limbaugh's contribution to the technology sector? He sells trinkets on the internet, runs a pay-for-access website from which his innacurate, misleading, and bloviating spreads far and wide, and reaches a huge, largely conservative radio show audience where it becomes difficult to know whether he's talking about current events or selling mattresses.

Al Gore sits on the board of the Apple Computer, is a senior advisor to Google, and has now created the Alliance for Climate Protection which boasts numerous republican board members, including Brent Scowcroft, national-security adviser to presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford, Lee Thomas, EPA chief under Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt IV, venture capitalist and great-grandson of his namesake.

Rush Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease affliction, exposing his lack of empathy (at best), and willingness to exploit anything for radical right wing ideology, laying bare his total lack of morality. At least it helped influence the November elections, sweeping Democrats back into power.

At least Gary Gross understands the fact that Limbuagh stands absolutely no chance of winning the Nobel, while Al Gore is a serious contender. I guess he'll have to rush to Norway after he attends the Oscars, where his film An Inconvenient Truth is up for best documentary.

How's that again?

Amy Proctor sez Democracy in Iraq is just a success yet to be! (as opposed to the failure that it currently is).

Gosh, Amy, only four years after invading, we've finally gotten around to some police training! Well done!

Except, maybe not so well. Oh well. Good propaganda, though.

I guess when Saddam does it, he's "ruthless and brutal" and when we do it we're just kind, benevolent visitors to a foreign land.

Alas, the country has awoken to the incompetance of the Bush administration, despite the republicans.

On the Politics of War

Guest columnist Gary Aminoff suggests that politics trumps patriotism during this time of war, and it's all the liberals in Congress' fault:

It is displayed in the congressional games that focus on appeasement, surrender and withdrawal for political reasons regardless of the cost to America and the West.

--Gary Aminoff, California Conservative

And whose fault is that? Congressional games, indeed…

To quote Senator McCain:

There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .

I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.

I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.

We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.

I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible.

This speech (quoted by Glen Greenwald) was delivered by McCain on October 19, 1993, when the shoe was on the other foot (one of my favorite tests). Of course, it was Clinton’s White House and strategy in Somalia he railed against, successfully, which contributed to what this post implies as an American inability to win a war.

I ask again: what does winning this war mean? Can anyone tell me what that would look like?