That sounds about right

It’s probably just that I’ve got my tinfoil hat on too tight, but I find myself wondering if ginning up a war with Iran is part of a strategy for getting out of Iraq. The occupation is a political disaster for the administration, and the President has to know that, even if he can’t bring himself to admit that anything is wrong. He’s painted himself into a corner where he can’t withdraw substantial numbers of troops without being accused of flip-flopping and provoking the wrath of his base. But what if the troops were simply redeployed to counter a new “grave and gathering threat”, i.e. Iran? It wouldn’t be cutting and running, it’d be a strategic redeployment in the fight against Islamic fascism. It also neatly solves most of the “what army” question Tim poses. Bush can simultaneously remove the Iraqi monkey from his back and take advantage of a new round of fear-mongering and patriotic fervor as everyone rallies around the flag in the run up to war. Plus, his speechwriters have to do a minimum of editing, just change the “q” to an “n” and they can reuse their tried and true material. Normally I’d think that this sounds crazy (because it is), but I wouldn’t put much past the administration at this stage. I suspect Bush can see his presidency circling the drain, and is desperate to rescue it. I can see him thinking that this would be a gamble worth taking in hopes of salvaging his legacy as remaker of the Middle East.

-commenter Larv 0n Balloon Juice

Sometimes, even FreeRepublic can surprise you

"What about shoes? Is it okay if she wears shoes?"

-Free Republic commenter on a Forbes story titled "Don't Marry Career Women," the content of which should be self-evident

UPDATE: But then again, there's this, from the "You would hope it's humor but it's probably not" category:

"Look, I don't mind products made by Chinese slave labor, but I'll be damned if I'll shop at a place that cozies up to gays."
-Comment on a story about Wal-Mart making deals with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce

Nothing

Nada. Zip. Zero. Null. Zilch.

I'm numb.

Out Driving: A Play in One Act

George and Howard are in a car, traveling along a twisty mountain road. George is driving.

GEORGE: Hey, there's a steep cliff! Let's drive off it!

HOWARD: What, are you crazy? We'll be killed!

GEORGE: Heh. I don't think so. It'll be a rush!

[George swerves wildly, and the car careens off the cliff and into the air]

GEORGE: [mockingly, to HOWARD]: Go ahead, take the wheel if you think you're so goddamned smart.

Finis.

Words mean stuff

Jon Stewart pointed out on last night's Daily Show that the GOP is trying to get away from its last empty catchphrase, "Stay the course" - probably because everyone realizes now that if you don't know what your course is, it might not be all that advisable to keep on it.

Ken Mehlman's latest replacement phrase is "Adapting to Win." Apart from its awkwardness, there's two tiny problems with it: they haven't been adapting, and they sure as hell haven't been doing any winning. That phrase makes about as much sense as "Fishing to Surprise!" or " Knitting to Confound!"

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

BONUS: If the terrorists are Islamic fascists, then why wasn't Eric Rudolph described as a Christian fascist? (Maybe we should ask Dean Esmay.)

That's our Ann

Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat.

-Ann Coulter

If it weren't for the right-wing dominance of media and politics, Ann Coulter wouldn't have a job that didn't involve masturbating caged animals for artificial insemination.

That's our Joe

"Joe Lieberman has made up his mind. If not nominated, he will run. If not elected, he will serve."

-Samantha Bee, The Daily Show

Collected writings on HolyJoe

Lamont's victory isn't just a win for the antiwar wing of the party. It's a victory for Americans who fear the recklessness of the Bush administration, who feel the wheels are falling off the truck, and who want Democrats to fix it. Mainstream Democrats who can't see that political reality are a threat to the party. The charge of "liberal McCarthyism" against Lamont voters and their lefty blogger backers by some Beltway voices, including Beltway Democrats -- based mainly on the words of anonymous posters in comments threads, by the way, Lanny Davis -– is far worse for Democratic prospects than the random excesses of the antiwar left. (Imagine a GOP in which Karl Rove penned Op-Eds in the New York Times savaging the Christian right.) The notion that Lamont supporters are somehow "destroying the center" or killing bipartisanism is fiction; George W. Bush did that. Lieberman is suffering the consequences.

-Joan Walsh, Salon

You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.

-Gen. Wesley Clark

The man whose (largely Republican) media supporters glorified him as one of the few "men of principle" left in Washington has revealed himself to be bereft of all principles save one -- the "principle" that Joe Lieberman's Senate seat belongs to him personally and that no mere voters, those silly, unenlightened masses, have the right to take that away from him. In the face of this rare testament to true democracy -- the decisive rejection of Lieberman by Connecticut voters in defiance of virtually the entire national political establishment -- Lieberman had nothing but scorn, contempt and defiance for their decision.

He thus intoned: "I am disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand." This man of principle "will not let that result stand" -- "that result" being the considered decision of the voters whom he has claimed to represent for the last 18 years.

A more selfish and craven act is difficult to imagine.

-Glenn Greenwald, Salon's War Room

Lieberman finished his campaign on a desperate note, proclaiming his purity of heart as a Democrat and assailing Bush on Iraq blunders, even as he announced in losing that he would not abide by his party's verdict and instead run as an independent. The man of faith is now running on bad faith. Self-righteousness fostered self-delusion, leading to self-destruction. Lieberman's fall is a cautionary tale not limited to Connecticut.

-Sidney Blumenthal, Salon

Now Lieberman has the stink of loser on him. His concession speech was the last gasp of the man with cement shoes sinking into Long Island Sound, vowing impotent vengeance on those who did him in. Accusing someone of "partisan politics" in a party's primary is not unlike accusing a marathon runner of running a marathon. And sure, sure, Republicans and some Democrats will attempt to prop him up in his doomed "independent" run, but he's got no party machine behind him, only the hope that a three-term Senator can run as a heroic underdog rather than some pathetic figure who wasn't even good enough for his own party. Goddamn, it'll be sad. One hopes, desperately, that Bill Clinton'll show up on Lieberman's doorstep and get him to agree that the most noble thing is for a man to fall on his sword.

Lieberman lost because he was wrong, on the war, on indecency, on torture, on Social Security, and more, more, more. He lost not because he said he was right, but because he tried to say that wrong was right.

-Rude Pundit

Our new insect overlords

I saw Joe Lieberman on the Today show this morning, proving his epic level of egomania by promising to run as an independent in the fall. And it occurred to me that when I see Lieberman now, I think of The Simpsons' Kent Brockman, who freaked out when he saw what appeared to be giant ants floating around in the Space Shuttle in "Deep Space Homer":

"One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."

Let's face it: at this point, the best way to describe Lieberman is "appeaser." He's willing to sink both his own career and the interests of his party - the party that nominated him for VP in 2000 against Bush - to serve the President and his death cult administration. He's a sickening symbol of the weakness and appeasing nature of the current Democratic Party. It's time for him (and his mindset) to go.

It's funny because it's true, Part Deux

Former Diebold Executive O Dell Declares Lieberman Victory in Connecticut

I don't know how much more of this humor I can take.

Jaw-dropper quote of the week

I expected "World Trade Center" to recreate the shock, the disbelief, the horror and the fury of a nation gut-punched by the shattering realization it has been attacked and is at war.

To rewrite a Righteous Brothers lyric, we've lost that warlike feelin'.

-Stu Bykofsky, Philly.com

If you don't think these fucking bastards are not going to rest until the entire world is in flames, you're not paying attention.

Another reason to support Ned Lamont

Beyond striking a blow against the Iraq war and the neoconservatives who are responsible for it, a Lamont victory would deal a hard blow to the power of incumbency and the entitlement mindset it has spawned. It would be seen, rightfully so, as a repudiation of the Beltway pundit and political classes that, from the start and with virtual unanimity, viewed the Lamont challenge with scorn, as a distasteful rebellion by the crazed, dirty, unenlightened masses. The most important impact of a Lamont win is that it would shake the foundations of a self-contained Beltway political structure that is as unresponsive as it is corrupt at its core.

-Glenn Greenwald, Salon's War Room

It's funny because it's true

For a long time now, I've been saying that the Onion's days as a humor magazine are numbered. When you can't tell the difference between reality and an Onion article, is it even funny anymore?

Bush Grants Self Permission to Grant More Power to Self

And let's not forget the headline that started it all. Still gives me chills, the same way watching the "Greatest American Hero" theme song played over Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt does in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

Oh. my. god.

Deja vu all over again

Bringing "Democracy" to the Middle East:
A Play in One Act

NEOCON: That hornet's nest is interfering with my enjoyment of our tree. Let's poke it and get all those hornets out.

LIBERAL A: What, are you crazy?

NEOCON: No, it's a great plan. I have my hornet-poking stick, and it's still got a few good pokes left in it. Here goes!

[frenzied poking]

[swarm of hornets emerge, stinging both NEOCON and LIBERAL A]

NEOCON: Damn you, Liberal A! You didn't help me poke! This is all your fault.

[THE WORLD EXPLODES]

Finis.

What neoconservatism is really all about

Glenn Greenwald hits it out of the park, again.

That really is the essence of neoconservativsm. It's nothing more noble or complex than a base belief that we have to wage as many wars as possible and kill as many people as possible until people are sufficiently fearful of the U.S. that they will comply with our mandates...

To neconservatives, everything that made the U.S. a respected superpower over the last six decades is all obsolete and worthless. To them, foreign policy experts from both political parties are responsible for 9/11 and the rise of Islamic extremism because they believe too much in diplomacy and restraint. They didn't wage enough wars and the wars they did wage weren't ferocious enough... People around the world need to know that they either comply with our instructions or fire and brimstone will rain upon their heads...

[Neoconservatism] is opposed to every guiding principle of American foreign policy under both political parties, and seeks to transform the U.S. into a rogue state which operates with no moral limits or ethical constraints, and for which unrestrained war is always the preferred option. All failures can be and are explained away by the fact that we just haven't killed enough people yet. It is homicidal madness, real derangement, masquerading as some sort of serious philosophy, and it is a true indictment of our political life that its advocates are taken seriously at all, let alone often listened to at the highest levels of our government.

Some things I have no interest in discussing with anyone ever again

• Valerie Plame
• WMDs
• John Kerry's war service
• Howard Dean
  
• Creationism
• Church-state separation
• Liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism
• Michael Moore
• "Fahrenheit 9/11"
• 9/11
• Patriotism
• Ann Coulter
• The "War" on Christmas
• Joe Lieberman
• Global warming
• Liberal weblogs
• Hitler
• Islam
• Bill Clinton
  
• The death penalty
• Stem-cell research
• Gay marriage

There's lots more, but this is a start. I'll add them as I think of them.

Useful infographics

Hey! Now I'm as informative as Fox News!

That wasn't hard.

Crapweasel of the Week

Apparently, any portrayal of 9/11 that doesn't emphasize rage against Muslims is not good enough for crapweasel right-wingers like John Podhoretz, who wrote this about Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center":

It is undeniably powerful, an immensely affecting and well-meaning real-life tale of two Port Authority policemen trapped in the rubble underneath the collapsed concourse between the North and South Towers.

Nonetheless, because "World Trade Center" tells a story of joyous survival rather than a story of death, it is a fundamental falsification of the meaning of 9/11 - even though the story it tells is true.

Just when you think they can't get any lower, they grab a shovel.

Oh and guess what he thought of "United 93"? He loved it, because the movie "showed it all - the monstrous terrorists, the confused responders and the unimaginable heroics." I for one am so fucking sick of right-wing crapweasels telling me what I should think about 9/11. How dare they.

Totally nucking futs

After the whole "looking forward to the pig" incident in Germany before the G8 summit, why should we be surprised that President Bush decided to give German Chancellor Angela Merkel an impromptu massage? Something like this would probably be considered wildly inappropriate at, say, a school board meeting. But for the leader of the free world, it's just a sign of the carefree fratboy insouciance we all love so much, right?

Gak.

Maybe on the way home, he can stop over in London and grab the Queen's boobs or something. Now that would make for some great TV. (Maybe he can make a honking noise at the same time. No, that's just too much to hope for.)

Let's face it, about 25 percent of the American electorate would have cheered Bush on if he had slashed Merkel's throat on live TV. That's just the world we're living in, folks. Enjoy.

UPDATE: As a commenter on Oliver Willis' site said, imagine the right-wing reaction if, say, Jacques Chirac had done something similar to Condi Rice.

The wingnuts were right!

I took a look at Joe Wilson's "Who's Who" entry, and I found this:



(Shamelessly stolen from Democratic Underground)