This straw-man attack on non-believers (as opposed to non-Christians?) shows how paranoid Christian faith is these days. It's not enough to have a government recognized holiday, to have outlets at every major intersection in America with Christmas nativity scenes (in front of Roman execution hardware) garishly illuminated, to have endless hours of public airwave time devoted to their holiday; now they have to actively attack atheists to deflect the shame for their slavish devotion to buying stuff for the holiday instead of actually following the philosophy of Christ and be charitable instead. Let us not forget that this 'religious observance' at the Malls accounts for nearly all the profits that the big box retailers earn during the year. So much for piety, eh?

So leave the atheists out of it. We didn't create this mess, and we don't care if you want to pursue this religious holiday on your own time, own property and with your own money. All we ask is that you recognized that the sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." means you can't use public land, nor public money to recognize this holiday (nor Hanukkah, nor Kwanza, not even Festivus). Seems pretty straightforward and one would think that limited-government, no taxation Republicans could get behind that idea. One would think ...

Jul. 04, 2007 | Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on what is, in everything but name, George Bush's pardon of Scooter Libby.

"I didn't vote for him," an American once said, "But he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." That -- on this eve of the Fourth of July -- is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The man who said those 17 words -- improbably enough -- was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them when he learned of the hair's-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon, in 1960.

"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier. But there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne's voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgment that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our commander in chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president's partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world, but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the 17 words of John Wayne is an implicit trust, a sacred trust: that the president for whom so many did not vote can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire republic.

Our generation's willingness to state "We didn't vote for him, but he's our president, and we hope he does a good job" was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us. We enveloped our president in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected -- indeed those who did not believe he had been elected -- willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of nonpartisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and reconfigured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete. Did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice. Did so despite what James Madison -- at the Constitutional Convention -- said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes "advised by" that president.

Did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told, "Break the law however you wish -- the president will keep you out of prison"?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation's citizens, the ones who did not cast votes for you.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the president of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the president of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party.

And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander in chief who puts party over nation. This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of "a permanent Republican majority," as if such a thing -- or a permanent Democratic majority -- is not antithetical to that upon which rests our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment.

The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws.

The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this president decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war. I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient. I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors. I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent. I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought. I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents. I accuse you of handing part of this republic over to a vice president who is without conscience and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that vice president, carte blanche to Mr. Libby to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to grand juries and special counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and, ultimately, the American people."

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people. It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party's headquarters, and the labyrinthine effort to cover up that break-in and the related crimes.

And in one night, Nixon transformed it. Watergate -- instantaneously -- became a simpler issue: a president overruling the inexorable march of the law, insisting -- in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood -- that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the courts. Just him. Just, Mr. Bush, as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plamegate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the "referee" of prosecutor Fitzgerald's analogy, these are complex and often painful to follow and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush, and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal, the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It's the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the prearranged lottery all rolled into one, and it stinks.

And they know it.

Nixon's mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment. It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of nonpartisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to "base," but to country, echoes loudly into history.

Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign. Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant. But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July Fourth, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a king who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them -- or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them -- we would force our independence and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time -- and our leaders in Congress, of both parties -- must now live up to those standards which echo through our history. Pressure, negotiate, impeach: get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our democracy, away from its helm.

And for you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone -- anyone -- about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

I would also submit that if war against Iraq was not justified--even without the WMDs--then there is no justification for war by American forces anywhere at any time.

Billmon's posting inspired me to dig up some of what I wrote at the time. What follows is from an email to a personal Yahoo! email group that I sent on March 17, 2003. The group was not political in any way, but as the war loomed, a few of us got into it with a lone war-supporter on the list. Part of his response to my email was this:

Over these past few weeks, I've essentially been called a stupid, idiotic, crack-smoking knucklehead deserving to be punched out. All this, because I'm apparently swallowing all the lies spit out by Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld.

In the face of such personal attacks, it's been some consolation to me that if I'm stupid, gullible, or a liar, than so must be those frequent defenders of my positions, such as Fox News, the WSJ editorial page, talk radio and a few hundred WarBloggers.

I do get a couple of things wrong. At one point, I cite 500,000 to 1,000,000 killed by Hussein, when upper estimates put that at around 350,000. I also claim that the U.S. sold Hussein chemical weapons. That's not strictly true. The weapons were sold by other countries — the U.S. just made sure to prevent any trade embargoes that would prevent the sales and helped cover up Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

Without further ado, the email (names have been changed):

I appreciate that Winston has risked Carpal Tunnel to expand upon his ideas, which I had not previously been able to derive.

Concerns present before 9/11 and still true today:

• Saddam continues to hide and stockpile chemical, biological, and conventional weapons.

Status: Lie

This "information" is only available from known liars. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the most authoritative possible source:

• Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons.

Status: Lie

• Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons.

Status: Lie

• Saddam continues to direct his country's resources -- significant because of the oil revenues -- towards the procurement of these weapons.

• Saddam has no interest in allowing inspectors to do the only thing that inspectors are equipped to do -- that being verifying that a country is disarming.

• Saddam runs a police state whose cornerstone for compliance is torture.

Status: True

If Saddam's Iraq is a "Police State," then what are we?

• The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Iraq's prisons are virtually empty.


• In 1970, the combination of crime and political executions made it the most "deadly" year in Iraq's history. The murder rate — again, including political executions — was still lower than the murder rate in the US today.

Describe what constitutes a "police state." It should make for a nice introduction to the USA PATRIOT act.

For the last time (hopefully): If I believed that our intervention in Iraq would make things better (even accidentally), I would support it. It didn't last time, and I haven't seen a credible argument that it will this time. There's no democratic regime ready to take over. The closest thing is KDP-controlled Kurdish areas and there's already so much ugliness brewing there that I've lost all hope. If the Turks don't extend their reign of US-approved murder and torture into the area, then the Kurds will create their own. A few weeks ago, Kurds attacked a group of Assyrians in Kirkuk. Their offense? Building a church. Oh yeah, things are lookin' up for Iraq. Send in the Marines!

Concerns amplified since 9/11:

See above, again. "Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons," is something George Bush and Friends say on CNN. They have cited two general source: IAEA officials, who have publically reiterated that Bush's claims are the exact opposite of theirs and that they are based on forged, vaporous, or otherwise manufactured "evidence." This has been pointed out to you over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

Just tell me, Jackass, because I need closure on this: are you really, really stupid, or just basically dishonest? Or is there a new "Post-9/11" rationale that makes the tireless repetition of discreditted assertions acceptable?

• Weapons of such destruction in the hands of tyrants who support terrorist tactics generate such a threat that the cost of inaction is greater threat than that of action.

• Bush is a tyrant.
• He has supported terrorist tactics.
• His regime does posses nuclear weapons.
• Bush has threatened to use them, even without the provocation of a nuclear threat.
• In 1945, the US struck two civilian targets with nuclear weapons, in admitted act of terrorism (The US was at war, but chose to hit non-military targets, placing it in material breach of binding international resolutions, and it did so to deliberately cause terror amongst non-combatants &Mdash; something that obviously calls for a pre-emptive strike, like, say, a bombing raid on Pearl Harbor. Oh, it's all so clear to me now...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/vips02082003.html

• Saddam will only throw bones at teams of disarmament inspectors, even with the imminent threat of hundreds of thousands of troops poised to take him out.

But you're right, it certainly is hard to believe that he's not complying with the inspections process when he's got Mechanized Death breathing staring him in the face. I mean, I found it hard to believe that the Iraqis weren't complying when with the inspections when the inspections teams said that the Iraqis were complying, but now that you mention this detail — yeah, only an idiot would believe that the Iraqis are hindering the inspections process.

So while the Bush Administration includes but downplays the oil-supply-stability issue, Winston makes this issue his central -- his only -- premise, insisting that the other concerns are spun out for p.r. purposes.

Many of [the historical] details [of previous oil-driven policy] may be true, and if so they do call into question the ethics of previous administrations. But making a case for guilt by association of G.W.Bush will not prove that his actions now are all about oil.

Instead, one only has to answer these two questions:

1. If an administration has a single-minded focus on oil supply stabalization, then would they believe that military tactics were and are the most sure-fire way of obtaining this objective?
2. Do the other seven reasons for action I've listed above really matter to Bush, and to America?

I've tried to answer the first question by pointing out how, for Bush 41, all the money and resources and risks of oil wells being set ablaze doesn't seem to line up with Bush's alleged accomplishment of getting a single, large oil well transferred over to Kuwait.

Money and resources? Dick Cheney's Halliburton made a fortune rebuilding Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil production. If anything, the money and resources needed to fix the oil wells were incentive.

Risks? Heavily mitigated. Oil reserves, I pointed out. Also, consider the fact that Saudi Arabia can produce a sufficient supply on its own, but it's a risk. Long term strategy: diversify supplies. Short term strategy: Troops in Saudi Arabia. The official reason for those troops being there was to deter Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia, but there isn't one shred of evidence that he ever intended to. Instead, the evidence suggests that threat was invented for the purpose of getting the American and Saudi people to approve a US military presence in that country.

"Bush's alleged accomplishment of getting a single, large oil well tranferred over to Kuwait."

OK, Jackass, we speak English here, not Newspeak. First, it wasn't an alleged accomplishment, is was an actual accomplishment — unless you have evidence that this transfer didn't occur. "Single, large oil well" sounds pretty trivial, I admit, but an accurate description of the Rumaila asset is "the 2nd largest oil field in the world." It's like calling the Hope Diamond, "a piece of jewelry." Third, is wasn't the only accomplishment; Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the most powerful country on the Arabian peninsula that wasn't on a US leash, lost its autonomy. How convenient.

Do the other seven reasons for action I've listed above really matter to Bush, and to America?

As far as the American people go, yes, I believe they are genuinely concerned. That's why it angers me to see them lied to. If the American people have cause for concern, the cause should be addressed, and the concern remedied. If the concern is based on a lie, the remedy is exposing the lie. A widespread or sincere belief in a lie does not make it a truth.

Many Americans are concerned about gay people being school teachers because they believe the gay teachers will "recruit" children into "the homosexual lifestyle." Should we A) educate these well-meaning folks that people enter the "homosexual lifestyle" because they are sexually attracted to people of their own gender or B) persecute homosexuals by barring them from the teaching profession? If you picked B, then we should invade Iraq!

Finally, the opinion of the American people no longer matters. If you think it does, I have some unpleasant facts to introduce you do. Now, I've introduced you to a lot of facts already, and you've been very rude to them — snubbing them, and making fun of their hairstyles, and the like — and it's hurt their feelings. However, these are some particularly unpleasant facts, so I really don't care as much.

Similarly, Bush 43 is risking his entire Presidency on this crisis.

As opposed to risking it on:

• Not meeting any of his campaign promises on education
• Not meeting any of his promises on social security
• Not having a viable economic strategy
• Pushing through a tax cut for the rich in the middle of a weak economy.

I think the only other choice he has, besides Iraq, is risking his entire Presidency on a country music career and I don't think his singing voice is that good.

Including spending much of the past 5 months trying to get the rest of the U.N. Security Council to live up to the unanimously voted Resolution 1441.

He's waited and waited, giving Saddam opportunity to wire up all those 'production-stabalizing' wells, like he did the last time around.

I've also tried to present, over all my previous emails, why these other seven reasons are so important for all free nations to act upon.

Not one. I'm serious. If you can provide an example from the last year where Bush has made a significant statement regarding his personal beliefs and intentions, that is provably true, in its entirety, I'd like to know about it.

Ironically, I can cite you examples where Saddam Hussein was branded a liar, when he was telling the truth. For example, the reason the weapons inspections process broke down in 1998 was that Iraq, after 4 years of patiently waiting for the UN to act on their complaints, finally put its foot down and demanded an end to the US using the inspection mission as a cover for unauthorized covert activity. Of course, Saddam was called a liar and we made vigorous denials that any spying was being done under the cover of the inspections process.

But Saddam Hussein wasn't lying. We were spying, in violation of the agreement. Think about it. We're supposed to buy a lot of the hype because of what a big fat liar Saddam Hussein is, and he has a better record of honesty than George W. Bush. Amazing!

And now it seems we're on the eve of an invasion. I cannot at this time elaborate more on answering these two questions, and I doubt this newsgroup wants me to.

I'm curious to know what events would have to transpire for Winston to admit that his judgment has been wrong.

What if Iraqi citizens really do publicly express their appreciation for liberation?

I'm sure the Arabs cheered the conquering British soldiers in 1918. Read up on 1920.

Or if Saddam uses on our soldiers the chemical or biological weapons he has so often claimed he does not have?

I never said that Saddam Hussein had no CBW, just that his stockpile wasn't a threat to us or his neighbors.

Here's a question for you, Jackass: if the US were invaded by an enemy army — in violation of international law — and the army was overrunning us by commiting blatent violations of the Geneva Convention, would it be acceptable to use our NBC weaponry to defend ourselves? I'm just curious, seeing as how you seem to have such a passion for bestowing Iraq with the same rights and freedoms America has. I assume that means the right to defend its borders against unprovoked and unauthorized attack.

We aren't attacking "Saddam Hussein." "Saddam Hussein" is not going to be firing any bullets and "Saddam Hussein" is not going to be launching any artillery, CBW or otherwise. There are 22 million other people in Iraq. Those are the people who will be killed by our forces. You're correct that Saddam Hussein has taken away most of their rights. Why are we the Good Guys when we take away what few they have left with no promise that they'll get any of them back?

Or if many more details about Iraq's nuclear weapons program come out?

Or Iraq is caught harboring scores of known terrorists?

If Iraq is actively supporting Al Qaeda, I'd find that interesting.

I'm not saying that all these scenarios will come to pass. I'm just publicly wondering exactly how many things have to happen that fly in the face of his current world-view for Winston to eventually come to terms with his misjudgment of the Bush Administration's motives.

• A stable, independant, elected government,
• National control of its oil
• Return of territory "granted" to Kuwait
• Adequate national defense (no NBC weapons, though)

But if they had a capacity for shame, we'd live in a different world.

I, for one, agree to radically re-examine my own world view should a significant amount of the following occur: Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil reserves get moved into posession of U.S.-run energy companies.

No further evidence of hidden Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs surfaces.

Scientists freed from Saddam's threats of torture do not give grizzly details of Saddam's Modus Operandi, up through and including his threats to them about cooperating with the recent "inspections process."

The U.S. and its allies do not devote major effort to building a peaceful representative government in Iraq.

No officially approved harboring of terrorists within Iraq's borders are uncovered.

And finally, if the Iraqi people, who have genuine reason to be suspicious of America's intentions, don't show a similar amount of the same appreciation that has been shown for our recent efforts to spread freedom in the former Communist Bloc, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in Afghanistan.

Winston has written, somewhat cryptically, in an earlier posting:

"A lot of people like Fascist rule. It makes a lot of stuff simpler.

"Like, usually, you don't have to remember when the Jewish holidays are anymore."

Regarding the first sentence, I'm of the optimistic bend. And I think that even with decades of living under tyranny, people yearn to be free.

The Shi'a Muslims in the south were really pissed off when his expelled Ayatollah Khomeini in 1977, and had another Ayatollah put to death in 1980. After years of brutal war with their Shi'a brothers in Iran, and then the betrayal of the rebellion by the Americans in 1991, the Shi'ite Iraqis are widely convinced that, warts and all, Saddam Hussien isn't such a bad deal. He has certainly done better for them than we ever have.

I know you think we will do better for them. Even if we really, really wanted to, they might not give us the chance.

I'm not sure where Winston is going with the second sentence

Saddam, who fancies himself as the reincarnation of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, surrendered Gulf War I on Purim 12 years ago. Tonight, on Purim, he gets perhaps his final opportunity to spare many of his people from the consequences of his actions.

I pray he takes it.

We'll all watch on TV.

And as the piles of smouldering bodies light up our video displays, millions of ignorant, deluded, self-important, smug assholes will shake their heads and go, "Why did Saddam let this happen?"

If you're going to pray for something, I suggest you pray it's not as bad in Hell as they say it is.

In response to outcry from many different corners, including a denunciation from the ADL (Prager, by the way, is Jewish), Dennis published a jaw-dropping follow-up response to critics. He notably cited the profanity used on the left-wing blogs and the fact that they called him a bigot. I, myself, called him a "dick" and a "fucking asshole" — "whiny fucking asshole" is more accurate.

Dennis is back today, which an incoherent and fact-free rant clarifying the importance of the Bible to everyone except bad people. What was interesting to me was that in Prager's second column — his response to critics — he claims to believe that all events in public political life should use a Christian Bible and that he disagrees with fellow Jews who would just use an Old Testament (Torah). In this latest column, he bases his moralizing on the idea that the first five books of the Old Testament — the ones that comprise the Torah — are considered "divine" (he doesn't explain what that means) by Jews, Catholics, Protestants and even them there Mormons. So, now he's backed off from the importance of the entire Christian Bible and is now hiding behind the supposed universal authority of the Torah.

Resident Theologian, Sister Weasle explained to me that although all the aforementioned religions include the Torah in their Bibles, none of them use the same text. The Jews who consider the Torah to be divine, such as the Hasidim, goes as far as considering the sequence of Hebrew characters in the text itself to be sacred. To them, a book like the King James Bible, used by Protestants or the Catholic Septuagint is a blaphemy. Also, good luck getting any of these groups to agree on the proper interpretation of the books. Prager sees no potential disagreement:

And they line up together on virtually every major social/moral issue.

Name the issue: same-sex marriage; the morality of medically unnecessary abortions; capital punishment for murder; the willingness to label certain actions, regimes, even people "evil"; skepticism regarding the United Nations and the World Court; strong support for Israel; or a willingness to criticize the moral state of Islamic societies. While there are exceptions -- there are, for example, secular conservatives who share the Bible-believers' social views -- belief in a God-based authority of the Torah is as close to a predictable dividing line as exists.

Then there is Prager's inexplicable claim that the books of the Torah are "over 2,500 years" old. That is technically true, but a more accurate — and knowledgeable — statement would be that the Torah dates back over 4,500 years. It seems odd that a religious Jew who claims to have some kind of broad knowledge about world religions, and teaches the Torah at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, doesn't seem to know when his own holy books were written.

The only answer is that Dennis Prager is also... a complete moron.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again, "Free Republic has some of the finest minds I’ll ever know."

And a special thanks to Rush Limbaugh. You have galvanized the conservative movement, enacted the "New Media," and given hope and optimism to so many people. You ardently support Americans and give us daily doses of truths. Thank you for keeping “The Passion” alive. Merry Christmas, Rush Limbaugh.

Condor7: "Aha. Now the treasonous nature of the Dmocrat Party comes flying to the fore. I wonder how many of the liberal socialist crowd have back channels to Zahwhari? It is likely the prime reason they were caterwalling so loudly about the Presidents telephone surveillance program."
Responding to Al Qaeda's message about the American elections

bray: "These people were shields for the terrorists and our Marines are getting railroaded. We have to make sure they get a fair and OPEN trial. Pray for W and Our Marines
In chorus with others that the charges against the Marines in Haditha must be completely false. Why we need to pray for President Bush is beyond me. Maybe so he doesn't get tried for his war crimes either.

all the best: "Progressive is to keep moving, moving, moving in a leftward direction. Moving and never arriving. No matter how far we go they want to take us a little bit farther. I wish that all liberal/progressives would have the guts to come out and say what their desired end result is. And then they will tell us the shocking truth and we will all know. Or they will lie and then we can hold them to the limit of their lie."
This was on a thread about Air America Radio in Madison, WI. Not sure what it was getting at.

King Moonracer: "I'm sure Al-Quaeda loves Gore too."
Responding to a 3-year-old article about Al Gore joining the Apple board of directors.

chiefqc: "This judge can sleep well knowing he just enabled this horrific doctor to continue to murder babies for money."
Responding to a story about a judge who threw out a baseless case against an abortion provider. The case had been brought by an anti-abortion crusading DA in Kansas.

An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, "We're not winning, we're not losing."

I actually find that statement to be pretty accurate. The current situation may seem intolerable to some but we’re nowhere near losing.

Whatever the case, I'd like to explore the ramifications of agreeing with the President. If we're not winning and we're not losing, then we are not moving towards any kind of end condition, positive or negative. So... does that mean we're going to keep treading blood water indefinitely? Or are we going to wait until there is an unmistakable outcome? If so, what outcome?

As comments to the "Blogs of War" post point out, the situation in Iraq is trending towards bad. If we aren't losing, we'll need to turn that around before we are losing. Rosy predictions from armchair pundits aren't going to help. Consider this post at Military.com — not a haven for anti-military hippies — claiming that pessimistic press coverage of a recent Pentagon report wasn't pessimistic enough.

Maybe it can be argued that we are not currently losing the war in Iraq, but there is abundant evidence that we are headed towards a loss. Sending more troops will solve nothing — note that Iraq reached it's "worst point this year" during Operation Together Forward, a military operation intended to secure Baghdad.

The remaining war cheerleaders don't seem to understand: it is possible for America to lose a war. Let's not prove that, OK? Time to get out of Iraq.

We now return to our 'round the clock "Zippy the Pinhead" commentary on "winning the war." The Preznit says, "I ... don't believe most Americans want us just to get out now." Actually only 32% of Americans want troops to stay indefinitely. Meanwhile, only 11% support sending more troops.

Hiccuping & trembling into the WASTE DUMPS of New Jersey like some drunken CABBAGE PATCH DOLL, coughing in line at FIORUCCI'S!!

"Oh!" you say, "This isn't about blow jobs! It's about underage sex!" Well, actually it's about blow jobs. You see, if the guilty party had actually had sexual intercourse with his young partner, he would have been guilty of committing a misdemeanor. Since he got a blow job, he's subject to a minimum sentencing guideline of 10 years in prison.

Justice is served — and it tastes like manmeat.

Despite the languishing middle class, Republicans love to talk about how great the economy is doing. Their proof? Well, look at the fabulous stock market! The market is only part of the economic picture, but since it's the only really rosy part, that's what we're supposed to focus on.

OK, now that we're all focusing on the thriving stock market... omygawd!!!! It's choking on regulation! Oh no, we've got to save it! Never fear, Henry Paulson (Treasury Secretary) is here! Paulson will get rid of all that regulation that's keeping the market down! Oh, did we mention how well the market is doing?

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has more here.

Good choice.

Now that Iraq has turned into the 21^st Century's first great debacle, many people have made the indisputable, and thoroughly unfortunate, observation that the average Iraqi had a better life under Saddam Hussein than they do under the current Iraqi/American regime. In an obvious attempt to deflect attention from reality, Iraq War supporters reflexively answer this observation with, "Oh! So you would rather have Saddam Hussein in power! You must love Saddam!"

Bullshit.

Mohammed, an Iraqi blogger at Iraq the Model, who has been cheering the arrival of his American overlords since 2004, noticed this as well. On "Democracy Day 2006" he lamented the outcome of the 2005 Iraqi elections:

...these results shown that Islamists have the advantage and it shown the humble achievements of the secular/liberals.

As is Iraq the Model's MO, the article ends with a hopeful note that predicts success once just a few more hurdles are cleared. For example:

It is difficult to convince the simple segment of the population that democracy will not allow dictators to appear again and that it guarantees pluralism.

Rumsfeld and friends set up an environment where only the very corrupt could wield power and only the very violent could keep it, and now the situation is worse than when Saddam ruled. Last week, Kofi Annan had the gaul to point out this obvious fact, and Omar, the other blogger at ITM went all-American on him and accused the departing UN leader of being a Saddam sympathizer. He is nothing of the sort. Omar, like other Iraqis who have hitched their future to the engine of American imperialism, can't bring himself to blame the chaos on the people who instigated it:

But that's the worst part about Kofi; he knows how things are in Iraq right now yet instead of trying to do anything to help us out, and instead of apologizing for the UN's failure to do something good for Iraq, he comes and says he's sorry he couldn't save the dictator!

Neither are any of us who opposed the invasion of Iraq and criticize its bungled execution. Many of us opposed Bush's version of regime change because we predicted exactly what's happening. Part of Iraq the Model's overarching theme is that what is happening now is all part of process of Iraq becoming a stable democracy. That's possible, but not likely. If history is a guide (and it usually is), what's happening now is part of the process of Iraq becoming a war-torn hell-hole and center for regional conflict for at least the next decade if not longer. To quote Iraqi blogger Salam Pax:

We all know that it got to a point where we would have never been rid of Saddam without foreign intervention; I just wish it would have been a bit better planned. Does this mean that I will be wearing a (I [heart] Bush) t-shirt? NO, because I don’t believe there is any altruism in politics and the way he sees the world scares me.

Omar raises a challenge to Kofi Annan and others — like myself — who express opinions about life in Iraq without every having lived there, "[you] cannot just come like this and say that Iraqis were better off under Saddam... you didn't live here." This is a valid point, so let me turn this back to some actual Iraqis.

Let's start with Mohammed from Iraq The Model. Last April, Mohammed's brother-in-law was senselessly murdered by unknown assailants. Lot's of people lost family members — or whole families and even whole communities — under Saddam, but how many family members did Mohammed lose? According to the post, the brother had gone abroad — during Saddam's reign — to study medicine. He returned post-war and was tragically killed. Had he returned to an Iraq still ruled by Saddam, he'd probably be practicing medicine today. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

How about Omar, himself? Recently, he wrote this:

Thursday began differently for me, first thing in the morning I received very troubling news that one of our friends has been kidnapped. His shocked, terrified father came to us looking for any bit of information that might be possibly helpful in the search for his son who vanished a day before. We in turn became anxious because we too would be in danger if that friend fell in the hands of very bad guys.

...

Some news were really bad though, my uncle called on Friday to tell me that he and his family of eight were being forced to leave their neighborhood.

One of my aunts lives in Adhamiya, she told me they received heavy bombardment from mortars. Another friend from the same sector relayed some odd news to me "there's a war raging between the Islamists and the Baathists…the Islamists have near full control now"

Was life for Rosie Make-Yonan this bad under Saddam? Did Raghda Zaid ever feel the need to flee Iraq for her safety under Saddam? Were Nancy's fond memories of Baghdad formed before or after Saddam was in power? (And would she be as upbeat about the future if she was in Iraq instead of the US?) How many times, under Saddam, was "Sunshine" involved in a shooting while waiting for a ride to school?

I could go on. This is just from following the links Omar and Mohammed provide on ITM. Supposedly, these Iraqi's share their support for the American intervention, but most of them have fled the country, didn't live in it in the first place, or have a steady supply of horrible experiences. In response to ITM's Democracy Day post Salam Pax wrote, "Sorry Mohammed but, to repeat a cliché, denial is not just a river in Africa." Seeing that coming, Omar's Kofi-loves-Saddam post includes the disclaimer:

I'm not living in denial, I admit it that living here is so difficult and there's a lot of fear and pain...

did [Kofi Annan] consider Kurdish mothers and wives when he made that statement?

But none of this perspective is part of a wish for Saddam to return. I opposed the war from the start, but I don't regret that Saddam is gone. No, if you want to find people who want Saddam back, you have to turn to war supporters like Bill O'Reilly or Jonathan Chait, along with many other's who have decided Democracy has failed, so we should just install a Saddam replacement.

Those of us who opposed this war and criticize it today do not do so because we love Saddam, but because we wanted the best for the Iraqi people. That, obviously isn't Saddam, but neither is it the bloody chaos wrought by amoral clowns sending in a military force to destroy the backbone of Iraqi society.

Subsequent to his admission to George Washington University Hospital yesterday, Sen. Tim Johnson was found to have had an intracerebral bleed caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation. He underwent successful surgery to evacuate the blood and stabilize the malformation. The Senator is recovering without complication in the critical care unit at George Washington University Hospital. It is premature to determine whether further surgery will be required or to assess any long term prognosis.

Well, look, I want control of the Senate as much as the next Republican, but not this way: best wishes for a speedy recovery to Senator Johnson. Sheer human decency should overrule partisanship on a story like this…

If you guys acted like this when you were running the place, you might still be in power (i.e., WWTDD — What Would Tom DeLay Do?”)

Maybe never. If Johnson dies or decides to resign, the Republicans will gain a Senate seat. They will probably accept this gracefully, given the circumstances, but I predict it won't be long before they start claiming a "mandate" kept them in power in the Senate, trying to erase the electoral beating of last month. But there's another possibility.

If Johnson neither dies nor resigns, he keeps the seat. He may be unable to function, but that's never been a problem for the Republicans. Strom Thurmond was obviously senile in his last couple of years in office, but the Republicans wheeled the poor old man around the Senate chambers anyway, just to keep the seat. So if Johnson turns out to be too disabled to realistically conduct his duties as Senator, but the Democrats convince him to hold the seat anyway, how long until the Republican wailing and gnashing of teeth begins? Who is going to be the first Freeper to call for someone to "remove Johnson's feeding tube"? How long before the talking points declaring that Thurmond was sharp as a tack until his last day are circulated?

My prediction? Well, if you don't know what a nanosecond is, you will after measure the duration of Republican civility in the face of a disabled Johnson holding his seat.