Wednesday, February 28, 2007


Absolutely, positively brain dead. (updated below)
PROPOSING AN EXPERIMENT, at InstaPunk. "I propose an exercise to be perfomed by those who have the software and expertise to carry it out. The exercise is this: Search six months' worth of content, posts and comments, of the 20 most popular blogs on the right and the left. The search criteria are George Carlin's infamous '7 Dirty Words.'"
Yeah. And that would prove---what exactly?
I am absolutely certain that the left will far exceed the right in the number of usages of all these words, which will go a long way toward proving that it's the right which is still concerned with ideas while it's the left that's obsessed with the lowest kind of hateful invective.
Ohhh-kay. Let's do a trial run.

Putz: What we really should be doing is killing Iranian civilians. Heh.
Malkin: Exactly. And the NY Times publishers should be locked up for treason.
Denny K: Yeah! Let's hunt them down and find out where their kids go to school.
Coulter: My only regret is that Tim McVeigh didn't blow up the NY Times.
Misha: Forget the Times, I want the Supremes. Five robes, five ropes, five trees.
Lefty Blogger: You're all fucking crazy.

InstaPunk: See? The lefty bloggers are more hateful.


Incredibly, GatewayRetard has actually wasted God knows how many hours of his life actually executing this colossally stupid exercise.

Hey Gateway -- since you've got the tech all worked out, why not run a few chapters of Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries through your little Shrill Detector, and then compare those results with a Richard Pryor set from the '70s.


Smearing Murtha.

What Putz wrote on 2/21/07:
THOUGHTS ON THE POLLS and Murtha's "slow bleed" strategy. Plus, Lilliputians on Capitol Hill.
John Harris, today:
With a mixture of pride and remorse, I have a confession: I am the author of the Democratic Party's "slow-bleed strategy" for ending the war in Iraq. I had nothing to do with the details of the plan that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) floated two weeks ago.
Waiting for the correction any minute now.

You're right, Putz.

The big news today isn't that the resurgent Taliban is running rampant in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or that Iraq is getting so bad that the Bushies are asking Iran for help, it's that Al Gore uses electricity.


Olbermann on the right wing attack on Gore.

It's great that Keith is so quick on the draw with stuff like this.

What are they thinking?

There better be a good reason for this.

Campos wins by knockout.

If you had any lingering doubts on who won the Putz-Campos dustup, just look at this sad and pathetic response to Campos' post at Salon.
FINALLY: Campos has responded over at Glenn Greenwald's. Being kind of busy, and bearing in mind the mud/pig/wrestling rule, I think I'll just point to Dan Riehl's treatment, and note that Campos doesn't seem to understand the difference between an executive order and a statute, or the point of my Libya example. Neither surprises me. And I liked this comment. Heh.
"Kind of busy"? What Dan said?


Condi Chamberlain to meet with Iran.

(Pictured: Conservative Neville Chamberlain, after his successful appeasement meeting with the Iran of the 1930s)


Changing course, the United States is joining the Iraqi government in a diplomatic initiative inviting Iran and Syria to a "neighbors meeting" on stabilizing Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday.
Doesn't she know that Iran has been at war with us since 1979?

What an unserious appeaser. She obviously didn't get Putz's "kill their scientists and religious leaders" memo.


Predictably, Michael "The Ayatollah Is Dead!" Ledeen over at Pajamas is furious.
Perhaps Secretary Rice can explain to us, slowly and clearly, why we should be negotiating with these bastards instead of supporting regime change in Tehran? Those lucky enough to escape their clutches—such as Ardeshir Dolat—understand that you can only lose by negotiating with terrorists.
You can almost hear the spit fly out of his mouth, can't you?

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The "Stupid Party."

Andrew Sullivan has lots more on Conservapedia, the greatest website in the history of mankind.

Why do Republicans always disavow Ann Coulter?

You hear it every time.

Coulter calls 9/11 widows "harpies," or says that Bill Clinton was a "very good rapist," or "raghead talk tough -- raghead face consequences." You know 'em all.

Then Republicans all say in unison,
Ann Coulter doesn't speak for most conservatives.
For his part, Putz says he "mostly ignores her" but that's a big lie.

If it's the case that Ann Coulter is mostly ignored and doesn't represent most Republicans, why does Ann Coulter keep appearing at very important Republican functions with very important Republicans?

I just got this e-mail from the American Spectator (don't ask how I got on the list.)

So Coulter will share the podium with the Vice President and three -- count 'em --- three GOP presidential candidates. Strange. Why does someone who doesn't speak for them keep getting invited to speak for them?

I wonder if the media will think to ask Rudy if he thinks 9/11 widows are "harpies" or ask Mike Huckabee if he agrees that we should invade more Middle Eastern countries and convert them all to Christianity?

Putz: For hypocrisy before he was against it!

Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite because he talks about global warming and lives in a big house.

So says Putz.
Moralists are especially vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy -- ask any backsliding fundamentalist preacher. If Gore were less moralistic in his approach -- as he gains weight, he's even starting to look a bit like a younger Jerry Falwell -- the charges of hypocrisy would have less bite. But is this the kind of defense he wants?
But Putz had a totally different attitude about hypocrisy and moralizing when he gave a glowing review to a book defending the likes of Bill Bennett from hypocrisy charges.

Gushed Putz:

IN THE MAIL: Jeremy Lott's new book, In Defense of Hypocrisy : Picking Sides in the War on Virtue.

I blurbed his book quite favorably, but the blurb doesn't really do it justice as it doesn't account for my delight in the excellent writing, which produces laugh-out-loud zingers on almost every page. I found it a really enjoyable book.

Apparently so.
"With verve, gusto, and just the right amount of humility, Jeremy Lott argues that hypocrisy isn't as bad as advertised, and that the critics of hypocrisy are often hypocritical themselves. A perfect read and a necessary corrective for this political season." --Glenn Reynolds,
The lesson here, for those keeping score at home, is when Bill O'Reilly is accused of sexual harassment, or it comes out that Bill Bennett is a degenerate gambler, or that Rush Limbaugh is a doper -- these examples of hypocrisy aren't "as bad as advertised" and those accusing them of hypocrisy are hypocrites themselves.

But a phony story about Gore --- the kind of hypocrisy that's completely made up --- that's worthy of extensive condemnation and deliberation.



Putz is getting a lot of well-deserved hate mail over this, and responds:

WOW, lots of lefty email about the Al Gore story, charging lies, "swiftboating," and smears. Hmm. Is the story a lie? Well, there's this:

Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records.

"Swiftboating" seems to mean the disclosure of truths that are, er, inconvenient for Democrats. Likewise "smears."
"The story" is that a right wing political organization sent out a "press release" attacking Gore for having a large house which was picked up by Drudge and then the rest of the wingnut media, including Putz, who promptly pointed and shrieked at it.

"Al Gore is a fat hypocrite" isn't a story. It's a personal attack. It's a smear.

Putz was a big fan of the Swift Boat Liars so it's no surprise he equates that well-deserved term with "truth."

Putz hearts Lieberman.

What Putz says about Lieberman:
THE LONELINESS OF JOE LIEBERMAN. But at least he's not struggling to come up with a position. I guess that's the difference between knowing what you believe, and trying to figure out what will sell.
What the truth is about Lieberman:

Joe Lieberman, today: "previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias."

Joe Lieberman, 2005: "The administration's recent use of the banner 'clear, hold, and build' accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week."

A new series at Instaputz.


In case you missed it, the New Yorker ran a profile of Joel Surnow, wingnut producer of "24." He really perfectly personifies how morally bankrupt and delusional the conservative movement has become in this country.

Some highlights:
Surnow and his friend Ann Coulter—the conservative pundit, and author of the pro-McCarthy book “Treason”—talked about creating a conservative response to George Clooney’s recent film “Good Night, and Good Luck.” Surnow said, “I thought it would really provoke people to do a movie that depicted Joe McCarthy as an American hero or, maybe, someone with a good cause who maybe went too far.” He likened the Communist sympathizers of the nineteen-fifties to terrorists: “The State Department in the fifties was infiltrated by people who were like Al Qaeda.”
This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” ... Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.”

The meeting, which lasted a couple of hours, had been arranged by David Danzig, the Human Rights First official. Several top producers of “24” were present, but Surnow was conspicuously absent. Surnow explained to me, “I just can’t sit in a room that long. I’m too A.D.D.—I can’t sit still.”
Laura Ingraham, the talk-radio host, has cited the show’s popularity as proof that Americans favor brutality. “They love Jack Bauer,” she noted on Fox News. “In my mind, that’s as close to a national referendum that it’s O.K. to use tough tactics against high-level Al Qaeda operatives as we’re going to get.” Surnow once appeared as a guest on Ingraham’s show; she told him that, while she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, “it was soothing to see Jack Bauer torture these terrorists, and I felt better.” Surnow joked, “We love to torture terrorists—it’s good for you!”
“We’ve had all of these torture experts come by recently, and they say, ‘You don’t realize how many people are affected by this. Be careful.’ They say torture doesn’t work. But I don’t believe that."
A sadistic affection for torture. Contempt for military leadership and experts. The dismissal of research and hard evidence in favor of intuition. The lionizing of Joe McCarthy.

Nope. There's nothing "conservative" about them.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Fun with Red State.

It's not my normal beat, but you always find great stuff over there (see my Rumsfeld/Bolton '08 post).

In this episode, wingnut blames global warming on sunspots. A very impressive looking chart showing increasing sunspot activity is accompanied by this caption.
I am not a climatologist just but [sic] I do know how to read a graph. Which do you think is the big influence in [sic] global warming ?
Sounds compelling, doesn't it? It's the sun's fault! One small problem: actual scientists and various other people without their heads up their ass have declared the sunspot/global warming theory bogus.
The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study shows.

Red State -- home of non-climatologists who can read a graph but can't google!

Putz and the case of Jim Zumbo.

(Pictured: leftwing anti-gun rights activist Jim Zumbo posing with gun control advocate)

In case you didn't know, Jim Zumbo is a famous gun enthusiast who had his own hunting show, wrote for hunting magazines, and who for better than 40 years, had been an advocate for the gun lobby.

Not anymore
Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

Zumbo said what critics of assault rifles have said for years. No one needs an assault rifle. So the NRA whacked him. His show's cancelled. His career of five decades, over. That's what happens when you deviate even slightly from the party line in extremist organizations. You're purged.

So it's telling that all Putz can muster about the Jim Zumbo incident is to quote John Derbyshire.

I HAVEN'T WRITTEN MUCH ABOUT THE ZUMBO AFFAIR, and honestly I think the response was a bit of overkill. But here's a good observation:

The POLITICAL message here is the tremendous passion & solidarity of gun enthusiasts. (Plus, of course, as the above writer stresses, the power of the Internet.) We've all been ruminating on the need for Rudy Giuliani to do some hard thinking & plain talking about those social issues on which he is too liberal for a lot of Republicans: abortion, homosexual unions, gun rights. It may be that the greatest of these is gun rights. We folk at NRO being mainly a bunch of flabby Metrocons, perhaps we tend to underestimate this issue. Let's hope Rudy doesn't.

So far, I think that he does.

Three years ago, Putz was worried that Bush's stance on assault rifles would cost him the 2004 election, he's strongly opposed to gun control measures of any kind, and he takes perverse pleasure of calling gun rights "civil rights." He even trotted out the old, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" defense in response to a Washington Monthly piece that documented quite accurately how GOP gun policies enabled the DC Sniper to obtain his .223 semiautomatic. In short, he's a party-line NRA mouthpiece.

It's a shame Zumbo has apologized for his comment -- he was 100% correct. Giuliani was mayor of a city with a population greater than Putz's entire state. Under his policies, violent crime in NYC dropped. And yet Putz wants him to cow tow to the NRA's extremist party line on assault weapons -- otherwise, to Putz, that makes him an unacceptable candidate.

Just another day for the reasonable nonpartisan moderate.

More Conservapedia fun.

Agitprop found this beauty:

Stone Age

The Stone age is the prehistoric time before the Age of Metal. It is divided into two parts; Paleolithic and Neolithic. During the Paleolithic age, man harvested wild plants and animals for food. Agriculture began in the Neolithic age. The dates of the Stone age are debated. Biased historians often give older dates than can be proven by archaeology.

It's really the gift that keeps on giving.

Murtha "hasn't worked out."

This is simply nonsensical.

ON JOHN MURTHA and the limits of biography: Another veteran who hasn't worked out as Democrats hoped.

Murtha clobbered his Republican challenger in November, despite Putz and the Bushbots' eager campaigning for her, despite him being labeled a traitor and coward by the GOP (see Schmidt, Jean) and despite his status as the favorite target of right wing media. Make no mistake: Murtha's strong, public opposition to the war led the way for the Democrats to take over both houses. Without Murtha, the Dems don't win big. Period.

Oh, and the majority of Americans support his plan for Iraq (via Atrios).

How in any way, shape or form has Murtha not "worked out"?

Putz finally breaks his silence about Walter Reed.

Pretty inocuous looking, isn't it? (Note: Don't follow the link just yet.)
LT SMASH returns to Walter Reed, and reports.
What do you think the post Putz linked to is about?

a) An update on the Army's "full court press" efforts to renovate Building 18
b) An interview with Robert Gates, who last week said that those responsible for the conditions would be "held accountable"
c) A follow up on some of the soldiers who publicly complained about conditions at the facility
d) An attack on Code Pink protestors plus a snarky dismissal of the reports about Walter Reed

Yep, you're correct. It's (d)!

Way to support the troops, Putz. You didn't disappoint.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Support the troops.

Via Greenwald, this exchange from the Victory [sic] Caucus forum tells you all you need to know about how these people feel about the troops.

Meanwhile, still nothing on Walter Reed from the troop-supporting Putz.

Phony outrage.

"Moral outrage from moral lepers."


Appeal for Redress.

Why don't Putz and the Victory [sic] Caucusers listen to the troops?
"What are we trying to accomplish over there? I mean, what is what are we trying to do in Iraq?" another soldier, Sgt. Ronn Cantu asks.

What does he think?

"I don't even know anymore," he tells Logan.

BREAKING. Putz declares that the surge is working!

And a media bash, to boot. Never saw this coming.

PATRICK RUFFINI SAYS the surge is working. Let's hope. Plus this: "When things don't go well in Iraq, we see the endless B-roll of chaos and carnage. When things are on the upswing, we tend to hear more about Anna Nicole Smith. " Things must be going really well, then.

Hear that? Really well!11!!! Take that media!!!1!

Meanwhile, on planet Earth -- today's reality-based roundup from Juan Cole.

Al-Hakim Targeted with Car Bomb;
Thousands of Shiites Protest US in Najaf;
Enormous Bomb Hits Habaniya Mosque

Late Saturday, the US Air Force launched a series of bombing raids on southeast Baghdad. This is absolutely shameful, that the US is bombing from the air a civilian city that it militarily occupies. You can't possibly do that without killing innocent civilians, as at Ramadi the other day. It is a war crime. US citizens should protest and write their congressional representatives. It is also the worst possible counter-insurgency tactic anyone could ever have imagined. You bomb people, they hate you. The bombing appears to have knocked out what little electricity some parts of Baghdad were still getting.

Guerrillas used a car bomb to target the residence of Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim in Baghdad on Saturday. Al-Hayat says that they killed 3 civilians and wounded 7 others. This report says that they killed one guard and wounded four. These were likely Sunni Arab guerrillas hoping that al-Hakim would see the attack as an American one. The US arrested al-Hakim's son on Friday, contributing to a fraying of US relations with Shiite Iraqis, especially those loyal to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Nearly 10,000 Iraqis demonstrated in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Saturday against the US arrest of Sayyid Ammar al-Hakim the previous day. Smaller demonstrations were held in other southern Shiite cities, including Kut and Basra. This young cleric is the son of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the largest bloc in the Iraqi parliament and an ally of the US.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called for the US military personnel who arrested Sayyid Ammar al-Hakim on Friday to be disciplined. He decried al-Hakim's treatment at US hands. Talabani, a Kurd, is typically a strong ally of the US.

A truck bomb devastated the congregation of a Sunni mosque in Habbaniya on Saturday, killing 45 and wounding 110.

AP speculates that the mosque was being punished for the stance of its imam against "extremism." The Baath Party and the Salafi Jihadis that dominate al-Anbar Province frequently kill other Sunnis whom they view as "collaborators" with the foreign occupation forces.

This article also discusses the way that the security plan in Baghdad and al-Anbar has displaced many guerrillas into Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad, where direct attacks on US troops are up 70 percent!

In Baghdad itself, three bombings and a mortar attack contributed to a death toll of some 20.

Cokie Roberts on "This Week."

Did I just hear Cokie Roberts say on "This Week" that it's a "problem" for Edwards to be talking about poverty because he's wealthy? Geebus, she's dumber than I thought.

She also called Ned Lamont's winning the CT primary a "disaster" for Democrats.


Saturday, February 24, 2007

More on Conservapedia.

Courtesy of the incomparable Jon Swift.

The problem with Hillary.

I know I'm repeating this, but it's worth going over:
Most of all, Obama said, Americans ask "why we are still in a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged..."
Here's what really bothers me about Hillary's authorization vote. She knew what the deal was. She was a Washington insider. She spent 8 years in the White House. A couple years as a Senator by then. She knew who the PNAC crazies were, what Wolfowitz and Feith were all about. She knew that Cheney had set up his own intelligence operation and that Bush wanted to one-up Daddy. I'm just a guy, and I knew all that stuff.

So why did she vote 'yea,' despite that?

The only logical explanation is that she bought the whole "cakewalk" theory. That's it. She knew what they were up to, but she thought it would be like Gulf War I, and she wasn't about to be on the wrong side of that politically in the wake of 9/11.

So I think her position on the war is untenable. Edwards can get away with his mea culpa, because he was only in the Senate a couple of years. But Hillary knew the score and she let Bush pull the trigger anyway, because she made the calculation that we'd win easily, and that opposing it was political suicide down the road.

So part of the reason she can't say, "I'm regret my vote" is because she can't claim ignorance and she knows we know that. She's made her bed.

Obama was in Austin yesterday.

And I had to get the highlights from Atrios. I don't know how he does it.

Anyway, this was a good line:
Most of all, Obama said, Americans ask "why we are still in a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. . . . Austin, it is time for us to bring this war to an end."

Friday, February 23, 2007

Putz's response to Campos.

Sadly, it appears this post is all Putz can manage in response to Paul Campos' epic smackdown. When you're publicly challenged on your lies and you respond only by smear and innuendo -- of a third party --- you know you've been had.

How embarrassing.

Red State fawns over biopic about liberal.

The folks at Red State say two thumbs way up for Amazing Grace, the new movie about William Wilberforce, the socially progressive, anti-torture abolitionist, who was a member of the Whigs, the party that became the Liberal Party.

I'm guessing the irony is probably lost on them.


This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

Via Kos, some nutbar decided that Wikipedia was too liberally biased to be trusted. Thus, Conservapedia was born.

Some sample excerpts.

On global warming
The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community despite a lack of any conclusive evidence. ...It should be noted that these scientists are largely motivated by a need for grant money in their fields. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests [sic], untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.
On Bill Clinton
The re-election of Clinton despite the demonstrated preference of the electorate in 1994 for Republican candidates may well be due to the electorate's preference for a divided government, in which the executive branch and the congress are representative of different parties. Clinton spent the remainder of his presidency combatting [sic] scandals. A special prosicutor [sic] was named to investigate Clinton for allegations of impropriety in the Whitewater real-estate scandal, an investment of Clintons in a failed real estate venture.
On Stalin
Josef Stalin was an atheist communist Russian dictator during World War II. He was defeated by Adolph Hitler, despite Hitler also being an atheist...
Err, whaaa...?

On this particular entry, Darksyde at Kos notes,
Hitler, the ever-clever Nazi atheist, not only fooled everyone by couching his perverse ideology in the context of religion again and again, he defeated Stalin in World War II by ingeniously committing suicide while Soviet troops mopped up the last crumbling remnants of the Third Reich in 1945 Berlin.
Seriously, this shit is funnier than The Onion.

Democrats doing what they were elected to do.

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.
This is what the electorate sent them to Congress for. And Joe Biden makes this very good point.
"We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein," Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."
The screws tighten.

Dean takes the bait.


Just got this e-mail:

Dear Friend,

Dick Cheney is still linking Democrats with terrorist priorities.

During a press interview in Tokyo, the vice president said, "'I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy... The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

What is it that Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are really suggesting? Stopping the escalation. Changing the course. Bringing our brave young men and women home.

That's not breaking the will of the American people -- it's representing it.

I've never been more committed to building a Democratic Party that will put an end to this sort of nonsense once and for all. In all 50 states, we're building an infrastructure to combat smears just like this. If you're as fired up as I am, channel it into something constructive.

Donate to the Democratic Party and show Dick Cheney that his insults only make us stronger.

C'mon, Howard. You're too smart for this -- no one cares what Dick Cheney says anymore.

Will Putz reply to Campos?

There's still crickets chirping over at Putz's in the wake of Paul Campos' devastating takedown.

Maybe Greenwald has it right:
As much as the extreme barbarism and amorality which lies at the heart of Reynolds' call for assassination of Iranian scientists and clerics, it was the sheer dishonesty of his subsequent self-defense that prompted so much commentary. When defending himself from objections to his post (from me and others, none of whom he linked to despite complaining about Campos' failure to link to his argument), Reynolds just asserted factually false claims, and -- despite how unusual it is to see among law professors -- Professor Campos expressly made clear what Reynolds was doing when defending himself: namely, "lying."

Yet in all of his insulting responses to Professor Campos, Reynolds never addressed those charges, because there simply is no response. Then again, that accusation has been made about Reynolds so many times in the past that he may just not even notice it anymore when someone accuses him of dishonesty.

I'm still holding out hope that Putz is dumb enough to respond.

How irrelevant is Dick Cheney?

Who cares what "Last Throes" says? This is a controversy?

I think it was very silly of Nancy Pelosi to call Bush to complain about Cheney's remark that she's doing al Qaeda's bidding. Yawn. That's so 2005. Cheney and Bush both said the same thing for an entire year and in Novemeber and no one listened.

People just don't care what Dick Cheney says anymore, and they haven't for years. Pelosi should just ignore him, as everyone else is doing.

Give him the total disregard and contempt he deserves, Nancy. The man is about as popular as botchulism botulism.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Campos besmacks Putz around.

Paul Campos has responded to Putz's unhinged rebuttal over at Glenn Greenwald's.

Two words: Beat. Down.

Some of the juicier highlights (go to Salon, get a day pass and Read The Whole Thing).
First, Reynolds argues there are circumstances under which government-sponsored assassination is both legal and morally defensible. Yet whatever merits that general claim might have, it has nothing to do with the legality and mortality of Reynolds’ specific recommendation that the United States government should be “quietly” assassinating Iranian mullahs and atomic scientists, today if not sooner. Obviously there is a world of difference between speculating on whether it would have made sense to assassinate, say, Saddam Hussein, or the Iranian head of state (presumably at some time when we weren’t funneling arms to them), and advocating the assassination of civilian research scientists.
This is a distinction I pointed out earlier, but I'm pretty sure it's lost on Putz. Scientists, terrorists. Whatever.
As for Reynolds’ claim that killing scientists wouldn’t be murder because it’s only against the law until the law is changed, what can one say?... It’s shocking that a professor of law would dare make such a despicable argument in print. In fact assassinations are currently prohibited by U.S. law – something Reynolds cannot of course dispute – and the law would have to be changed before what Reynolds says our government should be doing at the present moment could even arguably begin to be considered legal.
Campos is very unserious and clearly doesn't understand that Everything Changed on 9/11.

But my favorite part:
The United States isn’t at war with Iran, and the Iranian regime has never threatened to use nuclear weapons against our nation. My column emphasized these points, and in doing so essentially called Reynolds a liar. Yet he hasn’t even bothered to try to refute that charge – for the simple reason that he can’t.
Nope. The only people who claim we are at war with Iran, and have always been since 1979, are the same flavor of nutbar that gets their news from Putz and Pajamas Media.

Game. Set. Match.

The Victory [sic] Caucus fizzles.

What a shame.

On a positive note, I did hear that they were nominated for the "Most Orwellian Logo of the Year" award.

Pajamas Picture.

This photo was posted at Pajamas Media. I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure they intended it as a scathing critique of the Bush Adminstration's prosecution of the war in Iraq, but I sure do.

Who keeps insisting "America is at war" while telling us to go shopping?

Kinda mutually exclusive.

Hanson's stupid question.

Hanson: "Why did a majority of Democratic senators — such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer — vote to authorize a war with Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002? And why is this war now supposedly George Bush’s misfortune and not theirs?"

Short answer: because George Bush is the President.

Long answer: because George Bush asked Congress for the Iraq Resolution, George Bush said at the time that the resolution wasn't actually a vote to go to war, George Bush as Commander-in-Chief made the final decision to go to war, and George Bush as Commander-in-Chief is ultimately responsible for the prosecution of the war.

Does that clear it up?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Jeff Goldstein is out of context.

Jeff Goldstein is now accusing me of taking him "out of context" to "score cheap rhetorical points." (Updated below)
(Nor did I intentionally take something out of context and try to use it as a bludgeon to score some cheap rhetorical points, or so that I could post an “artist’s rendering” of my critics—which, were I to do so, would consist of a simple empty shirt with the legend, “BU$H SUX!1! OPEN THREAD!” But that’s a different post).
I don't think Jeff Goldstein knows what "out of context" means.

Let's recap.

Goldstein wrote this on his blog and in my comments:
Of course, the elephant in the room here is that Iran has been at war with us since 1979.
And Goldstein wrote this in an e-mail to me:
And Iran declared war on us when the took hostages from our embassy in 1979. So they are indeed at war with us, for whatever that's worth to you.
So apparently, because he failed to italicize "us" in his e-mail (as though that seriously changes his meaning, which is clear)-- that's me taking him out of context. And on top of that, I'm doing so intentionally to "score cheap rhetorical points" by simply asking Goldstein to defend his nutty theory with a question: if in fact Iran has been at war with us since 1979, why did the Reagan administration arm them?

What a piece of work.


Sigh. This is getting ridiculous.

Jeff Goldstein writes,
Again, the fact that Iran considered itself at war with us does not mean we treated them as if we were on a war footing. Frankly, Reagan believed with [sic] had other, more pressing concerns, and in the realpolitik of the day, the US was willing to use Iran in any way it could to advance its own interests.
I'm pretty sure that selling weapons to a nation you know is at war with you isn't called "Realpolitik." It's called "treason." One might also call it "stupid." The simpler, more reasonable explanation: Iran wasn't at war with us.

By the way, didn't Cheney's Halliburton do business with Iran? Wouldn't that also be treason? Where are the calls for him to be impeached and Halliburton to be investigated for doing business with a nation that's at war with us?
Similarly, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda declared war on us a number of years before 911. We, however, didn't believe ourselves to be officially at war with them -- at least, not in the active sense -- until after 911.
Er, except "Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda" aren't a nation and Clinton didn't sell them weapons. And if he did, I imagine you'd have something to say about it other than mislabeling it, "Realpolitik."
I'm sorry my comment didn't take and that I had to dash off an email to you instead. But my post is clear: "Of course, the elephant in the room here is that Iran has been at war with us since 1979."
I get it already, as did everyone the first three times. And it's still insane italicized. And Jeff, please. I cited recent comments by the Sec. of Defense and the US Senate about Iran (surprise -- no mention of war!) and you give me Putz? C'mon, Jeff.

If Iran is indeed at war with us, and has been since 1979, show me the money. Let's see a quote by Bush 43, Condi or Rummy or Powell or Bush 41 or Gates or hell, even Cheney -- that unequivocally states, "Iran is currently at war with the United States and has been since 1979." In those words.

Put up or shut up.


Here is the US Dept. of State's web page on Iran. I don't see any mention of Iran being at war with us since 1979. Kind of a glaring omission, no?

Putz: Paul Campos is an ignorant clown!

Wow, check out Putz's totally unhinged reply to Paul Campos in the Rocky Mountain News.

Your false dilemma! ("I'm just sayin'--isn't it really more reasonable to kill a few scientists and mullahs than nuke the whole country?"):
Campos chose to devote an entire column (“The right’s Ward Churchill,” Feb. 20) to a blog entry of mine from last week, in which I wondered why the Bush administration wasn’t acting covertly to kill radical mullahs and atomic scientists, rather than preparing a major attack on Iran. (Silly me, I thought this was advocating a less warlike approach).
Your apples-to-oranges comparison! ("Heads of state and terrorists" = "scientists and religious leaders"):
History first: There’s nothing beyond the pale about suggesting assassination and covert action as an alternative to warfare. In 1998, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Joseph Biden, D-Del., asked the government to look into assassination as a means of dealing with terrorists; Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., suggested assassinating Saddam Hussein the same year. On Jan. 3, 2001, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., introduced legislation to facilitate the assassination of terrorists.
And finally, your bogus WWII analogy! ("Just look at what we did to those Nazis when our nation was at war with them!"):
“Similarly, the September 1944 Allied bombing raids on the German rocket sites at Peenemunde regarded the death of scientists involved in research and development of that facility to have been as important as destruction of the missiles themselves. Attack of these individuals would not constitute assassination.”
Putz goes on to accuse Campos of being "thuggish." Yikes.

I think Putz is going to regret this for a while.


Putz has unsurprisingly declared himself the winner of this exchange with Campos.
I see that at least one commenter at the RMN is calling for Campos to be fired. That rather misses the point of my column. Yes, he wrote a silly, uninformed, hysterical, and rather thuggish column. But the solution to bad speech is more speech, not suppression. That Campos hasn't learned that reflects poorly on him, but I don't think firing is the solution.
Again, wow. Projection much? Campos is the one who is "uninformed," "hysterical," and "thuggish" after Putz calls for the murder of Iranian civilians, then makes a series of bogus arguments defending it (Dave Barry?), and then launches a bizarre counterattack on Campos as an ignorant clown.

Stop digging, Putz.

Will Putz and the Victory Caucusers thank the Washington Post?

While the troop-supporting Putz still hasn't uttered a single "heh" or "indeed" about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed, the army is finally taking action. This passage of the Washington Post article is particularly galling.
Snow said Bush "first learned of the troubling allegations regarding Walter Reed from the stories this weekend in The Washington Post. He is deeply concerned and wants any problems identified and fixed." The spokesman said he did not know why the president, who has visited the facility many times in the past five years, had not heard about these problems before.
Bush found out about the problem only because of the evil, troop-hating, Bush-bashing, terror-emboldening MSM. So shouldn't Putz and his minions be nothing but grateful to Dana Priest? Shouldn't he be writing her and the Post long love letters of thanks for bringing this to the attention of the President, since he's such a passionate, devoted advocate for the troops and their well-being?

I do see that Michelle Malkin has finally gotten around to the Walter Reed story and has used it as an opportunity to attack (quick quiz):

a) The Army
b) The Bush Administration
c) Rummy
d) Left-wingers

If you guessed (d), you'd be correct!
I do hope all the left-wingers who are now newly enraged by problems at the VA sustain their interest beyond the time frame in which these stories maximize embarrassment of their political opponents. Supporting the troops takes much more than exploiting their neglect.

At last!

For the first time ever -- an actual, completely nonpartisan post at the Putz's!

The one where the non-partisan uses a GOP talking point.

Gee, I wonder he got this?
THOUGHTS ON THE POLLS and Murtha's "slow bleed" strategy.
As usual, Media Matters has the scoop.
CNN and MSNBC are among the latest media outlets to suggest that the term "slow bleed" was the Democrats' description of Rep. John Murtha's strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq. In fact, the term has been embraced by Republicans to attack Democrats after it appeared in a Politico article.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Putz, the victim.

I'm tired of updating the post below, so I'll note here Putz's latest update to his rebuttal of the op-ed that ran in the Rocky Mountain News today. He links approvingly to Dan Riehl who calls the piece "trash" -- without factually rebutting a single word of it -- and writes,
So, just who is the fascist here, Mr. Campos? From where I sit, it looks as if it's actually you. Assassinating free speech is far more dangerous to America than killing some Iranian nuclear scientist, though I'll just assume you'd disagree.
Nice perspective there, Dan. So holding Putz accountable for his un-American calls for the murder of civilians is "assassinating free speech." Seriously, how do these people actually type this stuff without just cracking up laughing?

I can't locate any posts by Riehl where he bemoans the fascistic assassination of free speech by the University of Colorado. Maybe someone can point me to one.


Geez, Putz must be really worried that he's stepped in it this time and actually jeopardized those cushy gigs he gets with Howie Kurtz, because he keeps linking desperately to everyone and anyone who'll defend him, no matter how lamely.

This new link to Dr. Sanity appears to be little else than a 17,000 word ad hominem (and again, doesn't factually disupute the Campos piece) and contains this bit of stupid:
The left's current consensus view on terrorism and Iraq ("Victory is not an option") is just plain wrong and cannot be justified or supported by the facts that are available.
The article Dr. Sanity links to is the recent op-ed on Iraq in the WaPost by Gen. William Odom, who would be very surprised indeed to learn that he's now a member of "the left."

The Rocky Mountain News: Putz is the right's Ward Churchill.

It's finally happened.

The mainstream media finally sees Putz for what he is: not a moderate, reasonable "non-partisan" -- but a hard-right extremist. Columnist Paul Campos not only takes Putz to task for his assassination fantasies, he does so by equating him Ward Churchill -- exactly the right analogy.
Murder is the premeditated unlawful killing of a human being. Glenn Reynolds, the well-known University of Tennessee law professor who authors one of the Internet's most popular blogs, recently advocated the murder of Iranian scientists and clerics.
Doesn't seem so reasonable does it?
Of course Iran is not at war with America, but just as Reynolds spent years repeating Bush administration propaganda about Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, he's now dutifully repeating the administration's claims about supposed Iranian government involvement in Iraq's civil war.
It's just so great to finally see old media get it: Putz is not a non-partisan. He's a rabid Bush partisan. That he's been able to fool them this long is astonishing.
Moreover, even if Iran were at war with the United States, the intentional killing of civilian noncombatants is a war crime, as that term is defined by international treaties America has signed. Furthermore, government-sponsored assassinations of the sort Reynolds is advocating are expressly and unambiguously prohibited by the laws of the United States.
It should be noted that Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado, so his words have some additional weight. Look how he picks apart Putz's shallow rationalization of his own extremism.

How does a law professor, of all people, justify advocating murder? "I think it's perfectly fine to kill people who are working on atomic bombs for countries - like Iran - that have already said that they want to use those bombs against America and its allies, and I think that those who feel otherwise are idiots, and in absolutely no position to strike moral poses," Reynolds says.

Now this kind of statement involves certain time-tested rhetorical techniques. First, make a provocative claim that happens to be false. In fact, no Iranian government official has ever said Iran wants to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. Then use this claim to defend actions, such as murdering civilians, which would remain immoral and illegal even if the claim happened to be true. Finally, condemn those who object to using lies to justify murder as "idiots," who don't understand the need to take strong and ruthless action when defending the fatherland from its enemies.

Finally, Campos wonders,

Why does right-wing extremism in our universities, as represented by such things as law professors calling on the Bush administration to commit murder, get so much less attention?

Easy answer: because Putz, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Hew Hughitt, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett, and the rest of the right wing echo chamber who consistently elevate obscure figures like Churchill naturally ignore their own extremism.

Finally, Putz's pathetic response to Campos includes the same old right wing canards:

He [Campos] hurts his credibility up front by saying that Iran is not at war with us -- when, in fact, it has been since 1979, with the deaths of many Americans, soldiers and otherwise, on its hands.

I've already thoroughly debunked this ludicrous claim when Jeff Goldstein raised it on this very blog (and for more rebuttals, see here). But it's downright hilarious for Putz to impugn Campos' credibility while making the nonsensical claim that Iran has been at war with us since 1979.

The rest of Putz's rebuttal consists mainly of adolescent finger-pointing ("well, a few Democrats have said the same thing!") and starts with this false dilemma.
PAUL CAMPOS thinks I'm beyond the pale for suggesting (in this post, which he does not link) that the Bush Administration might have been better off trying to use covert action to kill Iranian nuclear scientists and radical mullahs, instead of having to look at the massive air strikes now reportedly being planned, which would surely kill more people.
See? The choice is either carpet bombing the entire country or killing a few scientists. I mean, isn't killing a few scientists and religious leaders the more reasonable?

Please thank Paul Campos for his excellent work.



A couple of people have written in, claiming that Putz's advocacy is more extremist/worse than Ward Churchill's, so Campos' analogy fails. I do think there's some merit to this argument, but for a different reason. Churchill is not representative of "the Left" --- Putz and the Limbaugh/Fox machine created him and cast him in that role (Putz ridiculously called him "the very image of the Left today.") In contrast, Putz is largely representative of the Bush Right and is popular because of it -- not because Air America plucked him from obscurity to point and shriek at him. So, point taken.

Still, I do think that anyone who calls the victims of 9/11 "Little Eichmanns" is just as silly and absurd and fringe as someone who claims Iran has been at war with us since 1979. And I know Campos' analogy absolutely infuriates Putz, which is why I love it.


Atrios (after generously linking to the post above) notes this funny post at American Prospect by Scott Lemieux, that so artfully dispatches Putz's Iran War myth:
I UNDERSTAND THAT TRYING TO INFER LOGIC FROM INSTAPUNDITRY IS FUTILE, BUT... Glenn Reynolds asserts that Iran has been at war with the United States "since 1979." My question: when does he start calling for Michael Ledeen to be put on trial for high treason for helping to sell arms to a country the U.S. is at war with?

Putz has updated his response again, this time enlisting a 1994 interview from humorist Dave Barry in his defense. Yes, that Dave Barry. Geebus.

He also cites a portion of an article from Washington Quarterly (emphasis mine).
In the international community, states have always reserved the right to use force to maintain world order and safeguard their own defense. When containment fails, diplomacy is ineffective, and a full-scale war is too costly, killing a regime leader is an option a state should seriously consider. In a world in which states will amass WMD, unlawfully invade their neighbors, and threaten other’s national and international security, national security experts and policymakers may need to reexamine their choices, including killing regime leaders, as a means of ensuring security.
All for naught, of course, since Putz wasn't advocating killing regime leaders, but civilians.


This time, Putz turns to Powerline.
Campos' attack on Reynolds and Hewitt betrays his ignorance of the subject matter at hand and his failure to do even the most elementary research before denouncing others as "accessor[ies] to murder." As happens so often on the left, "murderer" and "fascist" are the common coin of a polemic that bears no relation to reality. And, needless to say, Campos offers no constructive thoughts as to how we should deal with the threat Iran poses to our troops in Iraq, or the threat a nuclear Iran will pose to us and our allies
No substantive rebuttal of Campos' article at all. And why is Campos required to offer "constructive thoughts" about Iran? Red herring. His article is about how extremist Putz is, and he nailed it. But even so, I don't think calling for the insertion of death squads into Iran -- somehow -- to kill various Iranian civilians "quietly" is very constructive.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Historical perspective alert.

I really have no idea what this means:
That Steyn was warning of a future, not advocating one, has always been obvious to me. And it's a serious warning, especially given that the current civil authorities in most European countries are ineffectually waffling in full Weimar mode.
Is Putz actually claiming that most European countries currently resemble Weimar Germany? So most European countries are about to collapse from economic depression, unemployment and hyperinflation, and succumb to fascist dictators?

I don't think Putz knows much about Weimar Germany.

The International Monetary Fund currently lists the EU as the world's biggest economy by GDP. And the World Bank currently ranks 5 European nations in the top 10 of GDP (Germany, UK, Italy, Spain and France). And the CIA currently has the EU practically tied with the United States in GDP (purchasing power parity).

That doesn't seem so ineffectual or Weimar-like.

But wait!

There is a country with an ineffectual government, a 25% unemployment rate, a Weimaresque 50% (!) inflation rate, and that every day seems more likely to fall into the hands of a dictator.

Hint: it's spelled like "Iran" but with a "q."

More outrage over Walter Reed.

"Who Really Supports The Troops?"

Meanwhile, still complete radio silence on this from Putz. Curious.


Greenwald also noticed the odd silence of Bush followers about the Walter Reed story. Really, it's weird.

Putz: "Support the troops! Support the troops! Support the troops! SUPPORT..."

The Washington Post: "Walter Reed is a hellhole out of Dante, and our wounded troops are being shamelessly neglected."

Putz: (crickets)

Putz has some Volunteer State critics.


Science update.

Sunday 2/18/07:
The world's largest general scientific society on Sunday joined the concern over global climate change, calling it a "growing threat to society."


"The evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and is a growing threat to society," the group, which serves 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, said at its annual meeting.
Putz, on Sunday Feb. 3, 2007:
Do I believe that global warming is anthropogenic? Not so clear. Plausible, but still far from certain.

Pakistan and al Qaeda.

Today, Putz writes:
PAKISTAN'S WAZIRISTAN ACCORD with the Taliban/Al Qaeda remnants has failed, and they're using the safe haven to reconstitute. Is anyone surprised by this?
But on 9/6/06, Putz went out of his way to parrot the Bush administration's talking points on the deal, qualifying the alarmist post from Roggio.
BILL ROGGIO: "The news of the Pakistani government signing a truce agreement with the Taliban in North Waziristan is far worse than being reported." Note, however, that Pakistan is denying reports that it's given Osama a pass.
Hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like what Tony Snow said on 9/6/06:
The White House also defended the deal, saying Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's government "has been very cooperative in helping track down members of al-Qaeda."

"There's been an implication that somehow this throws open the border area to al-Qaeda. That does not make sense for the government of Pakistan," White House spokesman Tony Snow said, responding to reporters' questions in Washington. "We don't believe it is the case," he said. "And I think what's happened is, as quite often happens, people try to connect dots that aren't there."
Why no condmenation of the Bush White House on this, Putz? Can you imagine if Clinton or Obama sat on their hands while one of our "allies" signed a treaty with al Qaeda -- and the White House Press Secretary publicly defended it? Putz and the Victory Caucusers would be in full-on lynch mob mode.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

The cynical meaning of the Victory Caucusers.

It's finally clear.

The reason Putz, Hew Hughitt, Malkin, Bay, and the rest of the kooky Bush dead-enders of the Victory Caucus mindset are so adamently in favor of the surge is because, even though they know Iraq is a lost cause, they want to be on record as supporting "victory" later.

Either way, the way they see it, it's a win for them. If we "win" (though they tellingly never define what this actually means) they can claim they were prescient. If we "lose" they can claim they alone stood up for America while the liberal media and the Democrats stabbed the troops in the back.

And thus The Stabbed In The Back Myth has a new, powerful chapter.

They must know America will "lose," but unlike with Vietnam, they can actually claim this time around that they were saying all along the war was winnable, and why, and point to all reasons why that was so.

It's really beyond cynical.


LGM has a similar thought here.
The stab-in-the-back narrative is now in full gear. What Kaus merely abets, Glenn Reynolds, Mark Steyn, and the editors of Investors Business Daily push full throttle; America will lose because of the perfidy of liberals. The Surge is providing the proximate excuse. After four years of disastrous ineptitude during which Reynolds et al happily watched the Bush administration destroy America's standing in the world and wage the most incompetent conflict since the War of 1812, they've decided that opposition to the trivial escalation provided by the Surge is the final necessary indicator of treason in the Democratic Party.

Putz and Althouse concern trolling for Hillary.

Putz links to Althouse, who is so genuinely concerned for Hillary (someone neither one of them have any intention whatseover of voting for) and writes:
Don't listen to him. I want to be able to love you, and I think there are a lot of people in my part of the electorate.

Listening to the lefty bloggers won't get you far.
Wrong, Ann. There's actually not a lot of people in your part of the electorate at all. Your part -- the part that supports Bush and the war -- is about 30% and dropping. So it doesn't matter what you say. You're fringe and out of the mainstream.

And please, do tell -- what is the difference between Kos' position on the surge and the war and the 63% of the American people who oppose it? And finally, are Chuck Hagel and John Warner and the seven Republicans who voted with the Democrats "lefty bloggers"?

Support the troops?

While Putz equates support of the troops with support of a failed President, it's a little strange -- since he's so very concerned about the troops and everything -- that he hasn't even mentioned the cover story of the Washington Post today (via Aravosis). Strange.

Doesn't he give a shit about the wounded soldiers at Walter Reed?

Putz equates opposing the surge with treason.

An un-American, unhinged smear from America's favorite non-partisan blogger.

J.D. JOHANNES SAID IT BEST: "Support the troops. Let them win."
UPDATE: By contrast, Charles Schumer promises another Vietnam.

To some people, Vietnam wasn't a defeat, but a victory. To them, the right side won. And lost. Naturally, they're happy to repeat the experience.

You hear that, Chuck Schumer and 63% of America, who oppose the surge? You're traitors.


Greenwald has an excellent post on Gen. William Odom's op-ed in the Washington Post titled, "Victory is Not an Option" and his subsequent smackdown of Hew Hughitt. Gen. Odom was in the Reagan adminstration, and is the Military Hall of Fame, but I guess this makes him a defeatist traitor who hates the troops.


Gen. Odom thinks Putz's "Support the troops - let them win" meme is absurd.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

During their first tours, most may well have favored "staying the course" -- whatever that meant to them -- but now in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to reporters on the ground.

But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president's course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops.

The illogic of "support the troops by supporting the President's failed policy" is self-evident: it's just a shallow rhetorical device for attacking critics of the war. But worse, it's the height of cowardice to use troops on the battlefield (from the comfort and safety of your keyboard) as political pawns to prop up a failed policy and a failed President.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Why won't Republicans debate the war?


As Reid said, they can run, but they can't hide. 7 Republicans joined the Dems this time. They'll be more next time.

The non-partisan's TV habits.

Doesn't this say it all?

Putz, concern trolling again.

After citing a lengthy WaPost op-ed slamming Murtha, Putz helpfully writes,
Murtha is the face of today's Democratic Party on the war. This is bad for the country, and likely to prove unwise politically.
There is absolutely no objective evidence to support this claim. Let's try again.

The Republicans just suffered historical losses in November because of Iraq. The American people elected Democrats, led by Murtha's strong opposition to the war. Murtha trounced his pro-Bush Republican challenger. Two-thirds of the American people oppose the surge. Seventy percent oppose the President's war policy.

The lesson: backing the President is political suicide, as is backing a failed war policy.

Putz is delusional.

Why do Pajamas Media readers hate the troops?

This is rich. White Flag Republican Ron Paul (R-TX), who's currently leading the Pajamas Media straw poll and finished second last week, was one of the 17 Republicans to vote with the Democrats on H.R. 63 yesterday. It's also noteworthy that Paul voted against the war in 2002. Surrender Monkey.

Pajamas is claiming that Paul is benefting from a spam campaign, but it's still hilarious.

Friday, February 16, 2007

H.R. 63 passes.

17 White Flag Surrender Monkey Republicans join the Democrats. Putz is calling this the "resolution in favor of defeat," linking Bush's policy with victory. I guess the November Midterms were the elections in favor of defeat.

Elections have consequences.

Greenwald smacks Gaffney around.

In case you missed it, Glenn Greenwald took apart Frank "What Lincoln Said" Gaffney last night on Faux News Radio. Gaffney was unhinged, claiming that there are "consequences" for publicly debating war policy in a democracy (without stating what those were), that there were WMD in Iraq, and that we've always been at war with Oceania.

At one point, he totally loses it and drops a four-letter bomb, forcing Colmes to bleep him out. Then he accuses Greenwald of emboldening the enemy.

A classic.

Pajamas Putziness.

Simon Says: It's a fact that John Murtha is pond scum, just listen to what Sean Hannity says about him.

Dumb headline alert.

Let's review:
  • The Republicans just got summarily trounced out of both houses and lost a bunch of governorships and state houses -- largely because of Iraq.
  • An historically unpopular Republican President is still in charge of the war and will be for 2 more years.
  • 68% of Americans don't approve of his handling of the war.
  • 60% oppose the surge.
  • And 51% supports the nonbinding resolution criticizing Bush.
I don't think Putz knows what "in a pickle" means.


Look, you can make an honest argument that the Democrats have to do something about Iraq. But that has nothing to do with them appeasing some "anti-war left," (whoever they are) it's simply a question of accountability now that they're in power. But no matter what happens, voters just aren't going to hold Democrats ultimately responsible for Iraq -- this is Bush's and the GOP's war. And because of that, trying to imply that Democrats are somehow trapped or in an untenable position is just wishful partisan thinking on behalf of Putz.

Circular firing squad update.

This morning, Putz links approvingly to the hilarious Victory Caucus, boasting a "board of governors" consisting of Dean Barnett, Austin Bay, Hew Hughitt, and Frank "What Lincoln Said" Gaffney, just to name a few.

Their mission?
Deliver the perspectives and news on the war effort which the mainstream media neglects to help the American public understand the nature of our conflict and its true progress.
It just cracks me up that these nutbars actually think the liberal media distortion meme still has any traction, anywhere. I mean, who do they think are they talking to? Do they think the three-fourths of the American people who don't support the escalation of Bush's 4-year war will read this and change their mind? And telling 75% of the public they just don't get it doesn't seem like good messaging.

But the real point of the site seems to be to take down the "White Flag Republicans" who aren't sufficiently loyal to the Great Leader and His Glorious War. Notes Hew Hughitt,

Today’s vote in the House will be significant only for the light it will cast on the Republicans. We know the Democrats are committed to defeat in Iraq, and Congressman Murtha is the gift of clarity that keeps giving.

But we will also get the outlines of the extent of the White Flag Republicans, and while not all of them will draw the same level of ire as term-limit pledge breaking “Lawnboy” Ric “It Runs Like A Deere” Keller, the WFRs will not escape that designation even if the war goes well and Iraq stabilizes. At a crucial moment, they bolted.

They are leaving behind a House GOP badly scarred. I doubt very much if the message isn’t getting through or the NRC or the NRCC. The latter will have to radically restructure if it is to get grassroots appeal back. I won’t be giving to the NRCC because it will be supporting WFRs.

I love it when wingnuts eat their own. Pass the popcorn.