You are treating the lunatic Glenn Reynolds and his cheap-tv-series-style fantasies to murder Iranian civilians as if he is important and as if they are a serious proposal that needs to be parsed and understood rather than deplored, utterly condemned, and mocked. No matter how inadvertent your actions and well-intentioned you may be, you are providing him – and worse, his sick, insane, idiotic proposals – with crediblity. And believe me, Reynolds knows it.
Back in 2002/03, this is precisely how Bush et al built up support for the utterly ridiculous idea of invading Iraq without reason. Incredibly, people who should have known better felt, well yes, it’s a “breathtaking” idea, even an “audacious” one, but let’s look at it and not, you know, just reject it out of hand. Riiiight. We all know how that’s turning out, and it’s going to get a lot worse.
But there you were, in the runup to Bush/Iraq, when it was patently obvious that it was to be the worst foreign policy decision in US history, still opining that if Bush could get it right – hah! – then maybe it’s worth the risk. It wasn’t. It was a crazy idea and no one as intelligent and savvy as you should ever have been bamboozled.
And here you go again, reasonably entertaining notions that are sheer madness. You write there there is some kind of heavy-duty ethical conundrum at stake. There isn’t, not to Reynolds and his ilk. You talk about “moral knots” and definitions of terrorism. But Kevin, don’t you see, these terms have no meaning outside of the social philosophy of liberalism, which Reynolds and his fellow brown-shirts emphatically reject.
Talking about implied moral knots in Reynolds’ ideas is not sober commentary on your part, even if it sounds like it. Given what you are trying to take seriously – running the world, the real world, as if it were a 1 dimensional cable-tv thriller – you are talking sheer nonsense. There is a failure on your part to recognize what is really going on. Reynolds gleefully interprets your willingness to take him seriously and talk about moral dilemmas as a victory. And he is right. It is his victory.
Sure, sure, sure, I know you’re appalled at what Reynolds said. I know you don’t agree with any of it. But that’s not the point. You think there’s a moral knot where there is nothing but Reynolds’ stupid, ignorant, and utterly naive totalitarianism. Remember, Kevin, you are not dealing with liberals. You are dealing with people who do not accept the proposition that if they do the same thing al Qaeda does, it is terrorism by definition. You are dealing with people who do not believe in concepts like equal justice, liberty, or fair debate.
Please Kevin, for heaven’s sake, think before you discuss the utterly deranged ideas of people like Reynolds in a sober fashion. The only thing to take seriously about Reynolds and the rest of Bushism is their will to power and you have failed once again to recognize one important way they do it. They fool people like you into permitting them a place at the table.
I hope that all of you Pacific Northwest readers keep this in mind as we look toward the next election:
McKay, who stepped down recently, said in an interview that his positive review in May 2006 didn’t explain his ouster, nor did the phone call he received in December from a Justice Department official who ordered him to resign.
The 65-page evaluation described McKay’s relationship with most of the federal judges in his area as “excellent” and praised the quality of his office’s work.
McKay “is an effective, well-regarded and capable leader,” the evaluation stated.
The review had some criticism, including descriptions of several administrative problems in McKay’s office.
But the issues were apparently minor because the director of the executive office for U.S. attorneys later wrote McKay, praising him for his “very positive” evaluation.
“I understand that the recent evaluation of your office went well,” director Michael Battle told McKay in a letter dated April 7, 2006.
Despite the praise, Battle called McKay and other U.S. attorneys in December to ask them to step down.
Supporters said they believed McKay may have been removed because he was seen as a maverick.
McKay came under fire when right-wing organizations in his state claimed that he wasn’t aggressively pursuing voter fraud allegations against Democrats in the 2004 governor’s race. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, was eventually declared the winner by a margin of 129 votes.
I love how someone is seen as a “maverick” for refusing to “find” voter fraud where there wasn’t any.
This is reason number 2,862 that Republicans must be removed from power. Giving cronies positions to the best political stepping stones is probably not unprecedented. But removing federal prosecutors from office because they didn’t agree to overturn an election is something else entirely.
Remember That Helicopter Crash In Iraq? Seven Dead, Due To “Mechanical Failure?”
by tristero
Recently, I expressed skepticism that the cause of this helicopter crash in Iraq was due to mere “mechanical failure.”* In comments, several folks disagreed, describing in detail that these machines are more complex than one might think, implying that my skepticism was misplaced.
A Sea Knight helicopter that crashed last week northwest of Baghdad was shot down, the U.S. military said Wednesday.
The Marine CH-46 helicopter went down northwest of Baghdad, killing all seven people on board, and an al-Qaida-linked Sunni group claimed responsibility and aired a video.
But military officials initially said they did not believe it was downed by insurgents.
“Initial evidence indicated that the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter went down as a result of mechanical failure. After further investigation using all available means, the cause of the incident has been confirmed to be hostile fire,” said Maj. Jeff Pool, a spokesman for the Multi National Force—West.
Yup, that’s how it happened. They just didn’t want to tell you when it was on the front pages.
More misinformation. More time wasted arguing the patently obvious. Of course it was shot down. And of course the US military knew it when the tragedy was first reported.
But hey! Y’never know! It’s possible, after all, that a deadly helicopter crash in an area crawling with bastards just dying to bring that chopper down crashed by accident, mechanical, failure, or pilot error, isn’t it?
No, my friends. It is not possible. You want to talk mathematics, then alright, yes, there’s a small possibility it could happen. But in the real world, when a helicopter crashes and burns in a war zone, it’s because it was attacked. Especially when the Bush military hastens to tell the media that it wasn’t an attack. **
The Bush administration has played this game over and over and over. It’s high time people stopped falling for it. They lie, prevaricate, distort, procrastinate, cover-up, and hide. Did I forget to mention that they also lie?
My God, to be the loved ones of the people that got killed and have to listen to your government’s bullshit about their deaths…
* If the link is bloggered, do a search for “mechanical failure” and you should find it.
** Of course I know that accidents are common in war zones. But I also know that the Bush administration manipulates the press and public opinion with cynical ruthlessness. It really didn’t take too many street smarts to perceive this was one of them.
Following up on my post from last night about how the Republicans have been exposed as total frauds, I see that my pal Tom Schaller has a new column in the Baltimore Sun making the same point:
According to the latest Gallup survey, Republican self-identification has declined nationally and in almost every American state. Why? The short answer is that President Bush’s war of choice in Iraq has destroyed the partisan brand Republicans spent the past four decades building.
That brand was based upon four pillars: that Republicans are more trustworthy on defense and military issues; that they know when and where markets can replace or improve government; that they are more competent administrators of those functions government can’t privatize; and, finally, that their public philosophy is imbued with moral authority. The war demolished all four claims.
They’ll just lie and pretend it was all the fault of the hippies, but still, it’s a moment to savor.
Dear God, it’s painful watching the empty codpiece blather on incoherently. I can hardly wait until we have a president, any president, who can appear before the public and speak extemporaneously on higher than a 9th grade level.
And it’s even more painful to watch him repeatedly say things like “I think people who disagree with me can be patriotic” as if he’s granting some sort of dispensation. But by far the most painful thing is watching the press corps laugh and laugh when he treats them like children and makes unfunny, puerile jokes at their expense. It’s the most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen and that includes many decades in a business where brownnosing the boss has been raised to the level of religion.
Sickening.
Update:
On Iran:
What matters is, we’re responding. My job is to protect our troops!
Lotsa people say “meet!” but I want results.
“This is one of the issues where people would say ‘why didn’t they see the impending danger?'”
He really believes that history will vindicate him.
And he believes he’s regained his credibility because of North Korea and insists everyone is supposed to believe him when he says he wants diplomacy to work.
By Comparison, The “Young Lincoln Portrait” Has Far More Cred
by tristero
Let’s not waste your time trying to be polite about it. It’s just a simple fact that neo-conservatives are ignorant fucks that make shit up. And they do it over and over again. They cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Ever.
Incredible. Anyone who has ever bothered to read Lincoln or learn about his life (and once you do, you realize it’s the opposite of a bother) should have known he never would have advocated the hanging of members of Congress.
And this is no isolated incident of the rightwing making an accidental attribution. There are numerous “quotes” from the likes of Thomas Jefferson floating around advocating a “Christian nation,” totally fabricated and disseminated by christianists.
These people have as much business gaining regular access to the mainstream public discourse as Charlie Manson, even in a filthy rag like the Moonie Times. And in terms of the number of people who have been killed and maimed in Iraq directly due to their lies and distortions, they have proven themselves far more dangerous. And this is before Iran.
A stay-at-home mom convinced a newly-elected State Senator to tread where others feared. Listen (and watch) as Eric Oemig — a Democrat with a conscience — speaks for us, the people.
One of the more refreshing developments in the last year or so has been the total immolation of the phony concept of “principled conservatism.” With the Bush meltdown, the corruption, the incompetence and the continuing support among the leadership and the base for all of it, we no longer have to endure the stupid fiction that Republicans stand for anything other than their shared hatred for liberals and their desire to steal the taxpayers blind. Our long national nightmare of listening to them drone on and on about how liberals will say and do anything to win, how they have no ethics, morals and principles, how they flip-flop in the wind is over.
Observe how Pat Buchanan, Mike Barnicle and Chris Matthews demonstrate that conservatism is a fraud on today’s “Hardball”:
CM: …But let’s take a look at two different clips, perhaps two different Romney’s floating around YouTube right now. The first was posted by opponents of Mitt Romney, the second is Romney’s YouTube response: Video of Romney: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the boy scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.
Video of Romney: I was wrong on issues back then. I’m embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have..
CM: The phrase that’s a problem here Pat Buchanan and Mike Barnicle is “back then,” back then in 2004. MB: Yeah, not only was it in 2004, thre’s all sorts of fodder for Romney and he’s going to have to explain his ideological journey from 1994 not just 2004, but again, as you can see on those clips he is capable of doing it. It would be think for evangelicals and the Christian Conservatives and the Republican side to decide no matter whether it’s Romney or Rudy Giuliani, do you what hardline doctrinaire ideology or do you want to win? Do you want the aforementioned Hillary Clinton? Can Romney do it?
CM: You’re treating him like he’s a trade from the Patriots to somebody out west, to the Utah Jazz or something, — a cross reference there — I mean do you think it’s that easy to just change uniforms and the other side’s glad to have you? MB: No. no. It’s not that easy.
CM: Alan Iverson is going to go play for Colorado and they’ll be glad to have him, but can you do that in politics?
MB: Well we’re gonna see if Romney can dribble behyind his back, huh?
PB: And Chris, if Iverson joined the priesthood, that would be a similar change. Look, I think this, look, clearly Romney’s position is 180 degress from what it was. If I were him I wouldn’t say “I evolved,” I would say “I changed my mind.” What he has going for him is that there’s an enormous vacuum on the Reagan right. Reagan was a believer in these things and Giuliani and McCain and Romney are all suspect. But they’re the three front runners and they’re running into that vacuum — and some lower conservatives are trying to get up into it — so that’s what gives Romney the possibility of winning some of those votes.
CM: But what does it mean Pat, you’re an ideologue, what does it mean he’s just denying … he’s got an anullment of his past beliefs, I mean, is it like Rudy dumping three wives fromk history? How can you dump from your past your entire ideological rap sheet and just say that doesn’t matter, never mind. How do you do that
PB: Very simple. These are not conviction politicians. They are politicians trying for the nomination of a party which is conservative and traditionalist which is [against] a lot of what they believe … argued and said, so they are accomodating themselves to the party. Is it sincere? I don’t know but everybody knows what’s going on. CM: You’re being generous. This is like th kind of conversion you have in Spain in the old bad days where if you were Jewish you were Christian the next day or you were burned alive, I mean, what kind of conversion are we talking about here Mike?
PB: (laughing) We don’t do that in the Republican Party anymore.
CM: …what kind of conversion are we talking about whereby a person can simply say “I swear to God I never believed what I believe.” PB: Do I believe that these are sincere honest conversion of Rudy or, uuh, Romney, in my judgment, probably not. They’re changing their positions for political reasons and you’ve got to accept that or you’ve got to take the alternative which may be Hillary Rodham Clinton.
CM: Wow. Pretty rough stuff here.
MB: You cross your fingers if you’re Mitt Romney and you fib or you lie, depending on your point of view. From 1994 he stood next to Ted Kennedy in a debate for the US Senate in Massachusetts and said at one point he felt he could do more for the gay community than Ted Kennedy could. So what do you do about that with the evangelicals? I don’t know. You lie.
CM: I don’t know what to make of this. It seems to me that you could change religions on this spot. You could go from Mormanism to Baptist. To use your favorite phrase from the past, if we’re all engaged in cross dressing how do you believe what anybody’s costume really is?
PB: I’ll say this about Romney. He hasn’t denied he took those positions. We’ve seen them all. He’s taken a new position now. You know George Bush Sr was pro-choice in 79 or 80. He came and ran and said I will be pro-life and if you look at the positions he took from 89 to 93 he was totally faithful to the prolife position… CM: .. yeah
PB: …even though in his heart I don’t think he really believed it. I think that’s the situation you’ve got. Rudy says, I’ll give you Scalia and judges like that and we know how they’ll vote on abortion.
CM: So is Senator Allen now able to reclaim his senate seat by saying “I never said macaca?” PB: No he’s gone… CM: That’s all you have to do is deny, right?
PB: Well he can’t deny it. YouTube’s got it. CM: We’ll be right back. This sounds hilarious, but it’s not. Pat, you are a man of principle not necessarily good principles, but thanks you, Pat Buchaqnan, Mike Barnicle…
Matthews seems to be truly surprised that Buchanan has completely thrown in he towel on any kind of ideological integrity. But c’mon. It’s been like this since at least Nixon. And Buchanan, Nixon’s creature, like modern conservatism as a whole, is a product of the Watergate white house. (Don’t take my word for it. Read this, by Rick Perlstein.) It’s just that they’ve made such a fetish of their allegedly religious and ideological purity the last few years that now their machinations look particularly hypocritical to anyone but their hardcore supporters. But that’s who they are fighting for right now, after all; they know just how to (dog) whistle that tune.
For instance, Mitt pulled a Reagan today and gave his announcement speech at a venue that honors one of the most notorious anti-semites in American history. Jewish organizations protested, he went ahead anyway and the NY Times didn’t even mention the flap. (Maybe if he’d blogged about it they would have found it worthy of a story.) But you can bet that the mouth-breathing racist neanderthals of the GOP base got the message. Ole Mitt knows what signals to send and that’s all that matters.Ain’t no libruls gonna push him around.
I have no doubt that the GOP faithful will eventually enthusiastically vote for Rudy, Mitt or St. John, even if all three appear at the debates in feather tutus and french kiss each other on the stage. All that matters is which one will beat the dirty hippies. Good old Pat let the cat out of the bag today and just as Felix Allen can’t take back his macaca moment, neither can Buchanan. He said it: “everybody knows what’s going on.”
Well, everyone but Chris Matthews who was shocked today by what he heard. But he’ll get over it:
CM: So Pat Buchanan, what do you make of Mitt Romney’s personality? Because he’s a real unknown in this race?
PB: Everything I know about Romney speaks very well of that. I’ve got a lot of friends who say he lights up a room when he comes in. He’s got a fine personality, he’s friendly, he’s an extremely handsome man as his father was. And he’s always got a big smile. I think in the personality contest, he’s all over Hillary.
CM: He’s got a great chin, I’ve noticed. Does that mean he might not have a glass jaw?
Notice how throughout the discussion of the flip-flopping Republican candidates lying as easily as they breathe to the dipshit phonies who make up the Republican base, not one person used the word “calculating” to describe any of them.
Atrios mentioned this recently and I had noticed the same thing. For some reason the Republican primary doesn’t seem to be getting the same kind of coverage the Democratic primary is. I think that’s probably a good thing on balance, but it does make for some odd media errors and omissions. Here’s a reporter from MSNBC earlier today talking about Mitt Romney:
What was interesting today is that he took some not so veiled swipes at his potential competitors. He talked about his experience in running a state. He said and there are some occasions when you simply can’t afford to have someone who’s never run so much as a corner store let alone the largest enterprise in the world. That seemed to be a jab at Barack Obama, someone who is obviously lacking in national experience. And perhaps even a veiled swipe at Hillary Clinton who though she has been a sitting Senator has obviously never been a chief executive.
Isn’t it just a little bit strange that Romney’s more immediate rivals aren’t mentioned? John McCain’s been a prima donna Senator whose biggest organizational task is figuring out his speaking schedule while Rudy Giuliani has exactly zero national experience.
The press seems to have taken Ronald Reagan’s old advice to heart — thou shalt not speak ill of a Republican.All of politics are now filtered through a prism made up of Clinton’s cold, calculating bitchiness and Obama’s callow, empty phoniness. Republicans? They’re the alternative.