Wednesday, January 31, 2007
As someone once said on Democratic Underground, "Can't we find a woman to give Bush a blowjob, so we can impeach him?"
Related post: Blowjobs and broomsticks
Monday, January 29, 2007
CHENEY: [If the U.S. had not invaded Iraq,] Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran --
BLITZER: But he was being contained as we all know --
CHENEY: He was not being contained. He was not being contained, Wolf.
"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capacity with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001
-National Security Advisor Condi Rice, July 29, 2001
Sunday, January 28, 2007
I think the answer is twofold: one from the negative side, and one from the positive side. They're really just two sides of the same coin.
The positive: I don't think people on the left have to be coddled and reassured of their opinions every moment of every day, like people on the right. Righties seem to need constant assurance that yes, they are of course right about everything, and damn those traitorous bastards who are cheeky enough to think otherwise. On the left, largely, I think people have come to their positions over time, through actually thinking about them. Right-wing ideology, to me, seems to be more the product of indoctrination and imposition. That's not to say that some on the left can't be just as rigid and doctrinaire as any Michelle Malkin or Dean Esmay. But overall, I think the idea holds.
The negative: People on the left are so beaten down by the dominant right-wing ideology in this country that even they flinch when confronted with people and ideas that the right finds abhorrent. It's practically stylish in my Commie bubble called Madison to be openly scornful of Michael Moore, for example, even though he's one of the few pop culture figures who have forcefully rebelled against the horrors of the neocon worldview. Lefties can be so conciliatory that they won't support people on their own side if they are too "strident." Let's just get along, be nice and smile, and maybe everyone will hold hands and buy each other a Coke.
To which I say: HELL NO. That time has passed. Fight back. Get in their face. Stand up for what you believe in, goddamn it. Get a bloody nose, and give two back. We didn't start this fight, but we better damn well win it.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Now that the non-existent threat of Iraq (remember the 45-minute launch of drone planes?) has been justly thrown into the dustbin, the crapweasel right-wing has successfully managed to completely change the subject. They will deny utterly that the "threat" was the reason for the war, and point to various mentions of "freedom" and "democracy" sprinkled through Bush speeches and official documents as proof that FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY were the reasons for the war all along. You like democracy, don't you, punk? Don't you like freedom, you Commie bastard? Purple fingers, bitches!
Too bad this justification is just as fake as the last one.
What's magic and brilliant about this new construct is that it allows us to blame the Iraqis for not being grateful enough that we invaded their nation, killed hundreds of thousands of their friends and family, and destroyed their infrastructure. Bush even explicitly mentioned this "debt of gratitude" in his last up-against-the-wall Iraq speech.
All I can say is, those Iranians better be ready with the flowers and candy.
Monday, January 22, 2007
...you must be having a Very Bad Day.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Feingold began by pointing out that the administration, including Gonzales, has many times accused opponents of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" -- meaning those who insisted that eavesdropping take place within the law, within the FISA framework -- of "opposing eavesdropping on terrorists" (I can find 20 examples in 5 minutes of that).
Feingold's first question - "do you know of any one in the country who opposed eavesdropping on terrorists?"
Gonzales: Sure - if you look at blogs today, there is a lot of concern about all types of eavesdropping, who don't want us eavesdropping at all.
Feingold: Do you know anyone in government who ever took that position?
Gonzales: No, but that is not what I said.
Feingold: It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.
Gonzales: I didn't have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.
Feingold: Oh, well it's nice that you didn't have us "in your mind" when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn't have Congressional Democrats in "mind" isn't significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the "TSP" did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.
Gonzales: I wasn't referring to Democrats.
So, apparently, all those speeches Bush officials and their supporters have spent the last year giving accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists, and all the television commercials making the same accusations throughout the months leading up to the election, were not about Democrats at all, but were about random bloggers who are against all eavesdropping. Where? Maybe on Smirking Chimp and Democratic Underground. That is who they meant when they were talking about opposing eavesdropping on Osama bin Laden. They didn't mean Democrats in Congress. The entire campaign and all of those accusations were directed only to the bloggers who don't want them eavesdropping at all.
I confess to finding that exchange deeply revolting though satisfying at the same time. Can't they just all yield all of their time to Feingold?
Damn I wish that man was running for President.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
"I am amazed at the 24/7 obsession that these people have with sexual activity."
Mind you, this is a site that has a permanent category called "Homosexualagenda."
Memo to all the gay-hating troglodytes on FreeRepublic:
I'm not the one defining myself by my sexuality. I'm not the one obsessed with sex. I'm not the one calling people names based on who they love.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Tonight, she was asked to watch video of (wait for it) Saddam's execution.
She proclaimed that just before the hanging Saddam "experienced anxiety."
I wonder, though, if Nixon had been tried and convicted, whether we might have been spared imperial presidencies such as that of George W. Bush. Maybe these men might not have thought that they were above the law, that they were invincible.