Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Who's your daddy?

James Wolcott, with one swift, economical jab, deftly deflates the massive gasbag that is Roger L. Simon.

Update: More from Pandagon . . .


Tuesday, October 26, 2004


General JC Christian explains why we couldn't allocate troops and resources to guard those 380 tons of explosives that are now being used to blow the limbs off our troops. The picture says it all . . .

You've heard of the pity date?

Meet the pity vote.


Monday, October 25, 2004

Why I hate the media

Senator Joe Biden was just on Paula Zahn's show and she asked him some dumb-ass question about why Kerry isn't polling better. Biden launched into an impassioned denunciation of the administration's bumbling in Iraq, pointing out that Sanchez and Abizaid said last year that the explosives were there, etc. Then Zahn, that bimbo, simpered, "I'm not going to let you avoid my question" (I paraphrase) and asked him again about the polling. It went on and on. The interview ended with Biden saying he was very angry (Zahn sniffing "I can hear that in your voice") and then apologizing to Zahn. Fuck! Zahn should apologize to him and to the entire American public for her and her profession's obsession with process over policy.

Everything Bob Somerby says about these people, your millionaire press corps, is right. They're lazy, vapid, and obsessed with trivia. They'd rather gossip and speculate about the horse race aspect of the campaign than talk about real, profound policy differences between the candidates. Lazy, worthless bastards.


Sunday, October 24, 2004

This is just plain wrong

A handful of the lefty bloggers I read have been beside themselves with glee over this.

I guess I feel the same way about it as I do about the death penalty. I think the death penalty is wrong. I'm against it. But every now and then I hear about some heinous crime and I think, Well, if you're gonna have a death penalty, the perpetrator of that crime deserves it . . .

Same thing with cream pie assaults. They're wrong, damn it, and I'm against'em. But if we must have cream pie assaults, I can't think of any more worthy cream pie receptacle than Ann Coulter.


Thursday, October 21, 2004

"Yes, I'm guilty - guilty of loving freedom too much!"

Andrew Sullivan admits he was wrong, sorta, about this administration:

"I'm guilty as well. I was so intent on winning this war and so keen to see the administration succeed against our enemy that I gave them too many benefits of the doubt."

Given all Mr. Sullivan did to trash anyone who expressed reservations about this war, one would be forgiven for wondering if by "our enemy" he means domestic war opponents or terrorists.


Wednesday, October 20, 2004

I wouldn't call Rush Limbaugh a "terrorist" . . .

In some lame attempt to show a double standard on the part of Democrats or civil libertarians or somebody, Michael Graham whines, "Where is the ACLU when we need them? Oh, they’re busy trying to get terrorists back on the steets."

That's when "they" aren't busy trying protect blowhard Rush Limbaugh's privacy.

Via Pandagon.


Monday, October 18, 2004

Satan Formally Endorses Bush

No surprise there . . .

Mr. Short Term Memory

Andrew Sullivan, aflame with righteous outrage, cites the Knight Ridder report on the Bush administration's failure to plan for the Iraq war aftermath:

The only reasonable response to the Bush administration's non-existent war planning is outrage, mixed with incomprehension. Here's the latest evidence of their negligence. Money quote:

"The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious," warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an "overwhelming" effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: "The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making."

A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, but there's no evidence that anyone ever acted on it.

"It was disseminated. And ignored," said a former senior intelligence official.

What I simply don't understand is the silence of so many who supported this war about the appalling amateurism with which it has been conducted. I guess they think Kerry would be worse and are therefore hiding their criticism in public. But everything I hear in private is damning - even among the neocons. The question we have to ask is: if the Bush people screwed up Iraq this badly, how do we trust them in any future military operation? But that's a question the neocons refuse to ask. - Sullivan

Reading that took me right back to the Spring of 2003, when, while some people were baying hysterically for war, handing out "Sontag Awards," and accusing naysayers of being part of a fifth column, Andrew Sullivan was a lone voice of reason, constantly warning us of the dangers of rushing into Iraq without a postwar plan. If only more people had listened to Mr. Sullivan. (Strangely, although the Army War College report made the news in 2003, I could find no mention of it on Mr. Sullivan's blog. Maybe Blogger ate his archives.)

Lately, Mr. Sullivan has used his blog to decry the divisive tactics used by some people in pursuit of political advantage:

"Bush has managed to divide this country in wartime (with help, or course, from the Michael-Moore-Terry-McAuliffe left)."

Alone among bloggers and pundits, Mr. Sullivan is qualified to pass judgment on the dividers, for he has never contributed to the polarization of America.

But "Operation Crush Iraqis" just doesn't have the same ring to it

Via tbogg, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq tells us to win in Iraq, we must "crush these people and bring them to their knees."


Sunday, October 17, 2004

Beavis or Butthead?

Publius thinks Bush is more like Beavis than Butthead. I thought Mr. Bush's "Need some wood? Heheheheh" comment in the second debate was pure Butthead. And Mr. Bush's frequent "Uhhh's" are so Butthead. If you judge by the Bush cackle alone, it's a toss-up: The Bush laugh is a cross between the Beavis deranged giggle and the Butthead "huh huh huh" laugh.
But Publius has a point. Butthead is just a moron. Beavis is a demented moron. And Mr. Bush has had many moments of deranged behavior recently. Then there was that whole pretzel-choking incident. Very Beavis. At least Mr. Bush didn't set the pretzel aflame.

Daughter Jenna, though, is defintely more Butthead. Listen to the Bush twins' comedy routine during the RNC; Jenna kept emitting a dopey little "Huh huh huh" after her lame jokes. I found the laugh, and indeed the twins' whole routine, to be kind of endearing. I mean, it's touching to know that even with their educational opportunities and their family's millions of dollars and wide-ranging influence, the Bush twins are just average gals. Shallow and dopey, just like me. I can definitely relate to them more than I can the Kerry girls.

Classic Beavis and Butthead lines here.
And go here to listen to Beavis and Butthead laughing.


Tim Russert just hammered Jim DeMint on "Meet the Press," exposing DeMint for the radical right extremist he is. DeMint, of course, has said that gays should not be allowed to teach in public schools. DeMint was trying to hide his bigotry by simply refusing to answer any of Russert's questions. There were several variations of this Q&A passage: Russert:"Do you think gays should be allowed to teach?" DeMint: "I think local school boards should decide." Russert should have asked DeMint if he believed that local boards should be permitted to discriminate in hiring teachers.

It must have been hard (incredibly hard) for Inez Tenenbaum to sit there and maintain a poker face, instead of grinning like the cat that ate the canary, throughout DeMint's verbal squirming.

DeMint's probably gonna win the election, though . . .

Damn it

I wish that Atrios would stop copying my blog post headers. Look, Atrios, I know you're reading this. So here's a message for you: If you want to build up a global readership like mine, hard work is the key, dude, not copying my blog post headers. You're very talented. I'm sure that if you keep up the good work, someday your blog will get as many daily hits as mine does . . .


Saturday, October 16, 2004

"To be provided"

This article by Warren Strobel and John Walcott of Knight-Ridder details this administration's utter gross negligence in planning for post-war Iraq (the link is to a site with a pain-in-the-butt registration process. Sorry. Couldn't find it online elsewhere).


WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.

The slide said: "To Be Provided."

A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions.

In fact, some senior Pentagon officials had thought they could bring most American soldiers home from Iraq by September 2003. Instead, more than a year later, 138,000 U.S. troops are still fighting terrorists who slip easily across Iraq's long borders, diehards from the old regime and Iraqis angered by their country's widespread crime and unemployment and America's sometimes heavy boots.

"We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory," said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy.


The U.S. intelligence community had been divided about the state of Saddam's weapons programs, but there was little disagreement among experts throughout the government that winning the peace in Iraq could be much harder than winning a war.

"The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious," warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an "overwhelming" effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: "The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making."

A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, but there's no evidence that anyone ever acted on it.

"It was disseminated. And ignored," said a former senior intelligence official.

By all means go read the whole article. It's devastating. Much of the information is already well-known - well, it's out there, anyway - but this report pulls it all together, and adds new information. It's the first in a four part series.

How many thousands of people have died because this administration couldn't be bothered to plan for the invasion's aftermath?

And Rumsfeld initially proposed to go in with only 40,000 troops. 40,000. Sweet Bejus. Why does he still have a job?

Fire all these bastards on November 2.


Wednesday, October 13, 2004

"COURSE I met with the Congressional Black Caucus!"

"I met with'em at the White House!"

Er, Mr. President, that wasn't the Congressional Black Caucus . . .

My instant spin prediction

The network and cable blowhards will judge Bush the victor, simply because he didn't fall down, burst into tears, or charge Bob Schieffer and rip his throat out.

Seriously, he did LOOK much better this time.

Integrity, integrity, integrity

Hey, that's just one word three times . . .

Why do Bush and Cheney

Always start talking about secondary education when they're asked about jobs?

Are they saying unemployed American workers need to repeat the fourth grade?

Bush just steamrolls Bob Schieffer

He doesn't seem to want to answer that question . . .

Damn, Bush just told a HUGE LIE

Don't let him get away with that . . .

Bush: Government funded health care is BAD! BAD!

Unless you're a veteran! The VA is GOOD! GOOD!

What? Does Bush want to import third-world vaccines from Canada?

'COURSE I'm worried 'bout bin Laden!

Bwahahaha! I can't believe Bush fell for that again . . .


Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Bless his heart

While Kerry crams for the next debate, Dubya's handlers have been trotting Dub out in front of invitation-only audiences, where he can bolster his confidence by taunting the absent Kerry and bask in the rapturous applause of his loyal followers. And why not? That strategy - shielding Mr. Bush from challenging questions - has worked so well for him thus far.

Bless Dub's heart, he's so cute when he learns a new phrase. He wants to say it over and over again:
Again and again he repeated what has become a favorite refrain: Kerry "can run but he cannot hide" from his record.

No doubt he smirked happily each time he managed to deliver that line.

Daughter Jenna introduced her daddy:

Bush was introduced at a campaign rally by his daughter Jenna, who read from a prepared statement that delighted the president's audience in Colorado Springs.

"He has brought to our family the same values he's brought to this country: strength, compassion and integrity," she said, as her father stood blinking at her side with a slight smile, his hands clasped before him.

"As her father stood blinking at her side." Yes sir, we all know that look.


Monday, October 11, 2004

"You tell TONY BLAIR we're goin' it alone! Tell Tony Blair we're goin' it alone!"

Yeah, somebody needs to tell Tony Blair what that bastard Kerry is saying. Bush can't tell him, 'cause Mr. Blair won't be seen in the same room as Bush . . .

Bigley's death reminds the British that, where Iraq is concerned, they have made their bed with the Americans -- something Blair has tried hard to make them forget. Until the kidnapping, the British government had tried to create the impression that Iraq had become an exclusively American problem. The government rejected all suggestions from the Bush administration that it might increase troop strength in Iraq or expand its operational area. All the reported violence was in the U.S. zone of occupation. U.S. troops were blamed for heavy-handed tactics. When the Conservative Party's defense spokesman noted, in a radio interview, that British troops around Basra were back in hard helmets and armored transports and were being subjected to attacks, this was news to many people.

Downing Street had also done a consummate job of minimizing Blair's public contact with Bush and senior administration officials. Bilateral visits were kept formal and, if possible, under wraps. Photographs à deux at international gatherings, such as the G8 summit, were avoided. Britain's foreign secretary, not Blair, represented Britain at the recent U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York. If you ask his office when Blair plans to collect the U.S. Congressional Medal of Honor he was awarded more than a year ago, you are told no date has been set.

(Via Jack O'Toole)

Give'em hell, Tim Ryan!

Listen to this clip of Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan.

YEAH, baby! THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!


Saturday, October 09, 2004

Bush's anger management problem

Bush was angry, loud, and whiny last night, in contrast to his hapless and whiny performance in the previous debate. He just can't get the tone right, bless his heart. As Bush paced about, thrusting his head out pugnaciously, jabbing his finger at the audience and screaming at them in a grating, high pitched voice, I began to fear for the safety of the audience members. I wouldn't have been surprised if Bush had given them 48 hours to get out of St. Louis.

And watch here as Bush goes medieval on poor Charlie Gibson's ass.

I would like to know what steps are being taken for the third debate to protect Bob Schieffer and the audience members from our increasingly unhinged president.

Rising Hegemon has a very funny debate in pictures.


Friday, October 08, 2004

President Butthead

"Need some wood? Heheh."

Good GOD.

"I'm a good steward of the land"

OK, he's nuckin' futz.

It's long

AND it's hard!

Holy shit

Bush is out of control . . .


Why is Bush yelling at those poor people?


Monday, October 04, 2004


As reported [snicker] on Drudge, video clips of the debate depict Kerry reaching into his jacket and withdrawing an object. Kerry's people said "It was only a pen." But as you know, the debate rules clearly prohibited the use of unauthorized pens. Do you really want a president who so brazenly flouts debate rules of engagement? You let a man like that into office and the next thing you know he'll have teams of lawyers trying to figure out how circumvent Geneva Convention prohibitions against torture.

And if by chance you're thinking, "Hey, what's the harm, it was only a PEN. It's not like it affected the outcome of the debate," you're dead wrong. Our hapless president was clearly confused and distracted by the light flashing off Kerry's unauthorized contraband pen.

Some liberal moonbat tinfoil hat wearers are speculating on the nature of this lumpy T-shaped object under the president's jacket:


I think it's the lucky crucifix Peggy Noonan gave him.

(Bush crucifix photo courtesy of this site, via Digby)


Sunday, October 03, 2004

Global Test

Jack O'Toole discovers the origins of Kerry's radical "global test" doctrine.


Saturday, October 02, 2004

Best debate joke

From Satan:

LEHRER: Mr. President, after tonight's painfully atrocious performance on your part, do you see yourself going the way of the last unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate and becoming the new Viagra spokesman in the near future?

BUSH: No, Jim, because I'm looking at my -- at the whole package -- and listen, it's hard. There's no doubt about that. Every angle I see it from, it's very hard. I know because I've grappled with it throughout my presidency. It's just extremely hard.


Check out Andy's new kitty.

A William Safire column you'll never see

Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. " U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343.

WASHINGTON — At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by the duped Fox network may turn out to be a felony by its faithless Kerry campaign correspondent.

Some person or persons conceived a scheme to create a series of false Kerry quotes and embed them in a news story as actual Kerry quotes. The perpetrator then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of Internet communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election.

That was no mere "dirty trick"; it could be a violation of the U.S. criminal code. If the artifice had not been revealed by sharp-eyed bloggers, a national election could have been swung by a blatant falsehood.

We know who the faker was. Did others conspire with him or her to present phony Kerry quotes - with knowledge of their falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Florida? Who was to benefit and how?

Fox News apologized and offered the excuse that its reporter was "fatigued." That's a start, albeit a lame one.

What benefit did the Kerry-hating Cameron gain from the Bush campaign in return for his fake Kerry quotes, drawn straight from the Bush campaign's talking points? One plausible answer: he will receive coveted access to someone high up in the Bush campaign. Or perhaps the rewards would have accrued to his wife, who has actively campaigned for Bush.

What should Fox do now? First, release all of Cameron's notes in their entirety; viewers are entitled to know how extensive Cameron's bias is. Second, let the supervisor who permitted Cameron's phony story to be posted as an actual story on Fox's website speak to reporters. Third, expend some Fox resources to track down the potential collaborators in the fraud.

We have hard evidence of crimes by low-level operatives here, including wire fraud, as well as the potential of high-level political involvement. Is no prosecutor prepared to enforce the law?

Liberals should stop slavering over Carl Cameron's scalp, and conservatives should stop pretending that noble ends justify fake-quote means. Both should focus on the lesson of the early 70's: from third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate fake quotes, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections.

Why I didn't do more debate blogging

It's not because I am lazy, readers. Oh no. It's because I knew other, superior bloggers would have it covered.

So, here's my debate blogging: I agree with him. And him. And them.

Go here for the debate in pictures.

And Satan has posted a transcript.
Satan backs Bush, so he's edited out all of Bush's "ums" and "uh . . . uhhhhh's" but his transcript otherwise is accurate.

Kerry did MUCH better than I thought he would. A couple of clunkers, but he was good. And Bush was shockingly bad. Worse than I ever could have hoped or dreamed he would be. Disastrous. He actually sounded whiny. How could that have happened? Wasn't he prepped AT ALL? Bejus, I thought his people ran a tighter ship than that. Perhaps he is so accustomed to delivering his canned lines to adoring, hand-picked, loyalty-oath-signing supporters, who applaud his every sentence, that the silence in the debate hall just rattled him. Plus he had to stand there and take it while Kerry hammered his record, and he's not used to that, either:

The president was often seen pursing his lips or clenching his jaw while Kerry was criticizing him, prompting focus group members to react with words like "arrogant," "nervous" and "not well prepared."

One reason could be that Bush is not used to having his record challenged face to face. Since taking office, he has been largely protected from rhetorical confrontations and tough questioning.

Bush, for example, has held just 15 formal press conferences in three and a half years, the fewest of any president in half a century. That does not count shorter question-and-answer sessions with a few reporters, but those are rarely televised.

And his town-hall meetings on the campaign are actually stage-managed events where only Bush supporters are allowed in and the questions are usually easy for him to address.

At one recent "Ask President Bush" event in Pennsylvania, one questioner asked, "After you are elected in 2004, what will your memoirs say about you, what will the title be and what will the main theme say?"

Another asked, "When you defeat your opponent this fall, Jane Fonda's poster boy, are you going to be able to keep Colin Powell on your team?"

At a recent session in Ohio, the first questioner asked, "I was wondering if you would permit me the honor of giving our commander-in-chief a real Navy salute, and not a flip-flop."

The second opened by saying, "I just want to say that I'm proud that I'm going to be voting for you."

It's possible, of course, that Mr. Bush's god-awful performance was part of a larger strategy by his team - to really, really lower expectations for the next debate to rock bottom, so that if Mr. Bush manages to get through them without bursting into tears or stalking off the stage it will be declared a victory for him.

Update: What he said . . .

Double secret update: Things Bush should not have said


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?