Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

“You’re Looking Beautiful Today, Dave”

by digby

Here is Bush getting pissed off at David Gregory for suggesting that North Korea or other countries might adopt Bush’s new way of dealing with the Geneva Conventions — “interpret” them however it suits them and change them at will. Bush seems to think that would be just great.

Dave? He’s back!

QUESTION: Sorry, I’ve got to get disentangled.

BUSH: Would you like me to go to somebody else, here, till you get…

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Sorry.

BUSH: Well, take your time, please.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: I really apologize for that. Anyway…

BUSH: I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you’re looking beautiful today, Dave.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there’s another important test. These critics include John McCain, who you’ve mentioned several times this morning.

And that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, “Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions,” and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that as commander in chief?

BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That’s my reaction.

We’re trying to clarify law. We’re trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.

And let me just repeat: We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don’t have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.

You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they’re not going to. They — let me finish please — they will not violate the law.

You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is — and the American people have got to understand this — that this program won’t go forward if there’s vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It’s just not going to go forward.

You can’t ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

Now, I know they say they’re not going to prosecute them. Think about that, you know. “Go ahead and violate it, we won’t prosecute you.” These people aren’t going to do that.

Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example. I’m just telling you the bottom line. And that’s why this debate is important and it’s a vital debate.

Now, perhaps, some in Congress don’t think the program is important. That’s fine. I don’t know if they do or don’t.

I think it’s vital and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country — I got to give them the tools they need, and that is clear law.

QUESTION: This is an important point, and I think it…

BUSH: The point I just made is the most important point, and that is the program is not going forward.

You can give a hypothetical about North Korea or any other country. The point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law.

And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That’s how we define Common Article 3. And it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.

Next man?

QUESTION: But wait a second. I think this is an important point.

BUSH: I know you think it’s an important point.

QUESTION: But, sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, as they see fit, you’re saying that you’d be OK with that?

BUSH: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article 3 we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.

And I will tell you again, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts.

And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules — if they do not do that, the program’s not going forward.

QUESTION: This will not endanger U.S. troops in your…

BUSH: Next man?

QUESTION: This will not endanger…

BUSH: David, next man please. Thank you.

He was angry and petulant throughout this press conference but especially in that exchange. He seemed to be truly pissed at McCain et al.

However, I must say that I’m so jaded about those so-called independent Republicans, particularly Huckelberry and McCain, that I have a strong feeling that this is some sort of Kabuki. Huck, especially, has never once failed to validate my belief that he is a phony little prick, pretending to be a moderating influence when he’s really just an egomaniac. (Besides, if there’s one member of congress who is subject to Rovemail, it’s him. I just don’t see him bucking the president on something that’s important to him.)

I think Bush is making a lot of noise about this right now because that’s how he hopes to keep the House on track to pass his bill. If that happens then he’s in a much stronger position to negotiate with the Senate — and I think they know that too. The compromise may already be being worked out. It may even be the case that they’ve decided to have the president “lose” so that a few Republicans can be seen as voting against him. It’s the smart play although I don’t know if Bush’s ego will allow him to do something like that.

I don’t believe for a minute that the CIA interrogators are going to feel constrained from torture of these “high value” secret prisoners because of the Geneva Conventions. They never have before and if they do feel constrained they’ll just “render” the prisoner to the prisoner’s home country for a little homegrown waterboarding. (For all we know they have bin Laden in thumbscrews as we speak.) The underlying issue is the congress legalizing the president’s prerogative to change the definition of the Geneva Conventions.

Marty Lederman, expounding on that, also points out that the major issue was always with the military torture and humiliation regime in the battlefield and Guantanamo and there seems to have been some “clarification” of that already. Therefore, there is no good reason to even be having this debate and many, many excellent reasons not to.

Powell is right about one thing, “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” Actually it isn’t beginning to doubt it, it sees us as downright immoral. If you want to talk about rhetoric that’s dangerous to the war effort, the president of the United States loudly and angrily proclaiming that he expects the congress to legalize this thing — and unilaterally “redefine” the Geneva Conventions”in the process would qualify. People around the world tend to see that as somewhat arrogant.

There is a major reason why Bush is trying to work the country into a frenzy of inchoate fear right now, even beyond the necessities of the upcoming election. The only way he can justify his torture regime and destruction of the Bill of Rights is to create a boogeyman so heinous that the rules that stood this country in good stead throughout its history and even in fighting WWII and the Cold War are no longer adequate. In fact, this enemy must be frightening beyond all previous human experienc so that we will have no choice but to loosen up other taboos as well.

There’s one nation of Iran and, you know, a bunch of nations like us trying to, kind of, head in the same direction. And my concern is that, you know, they’ll stall; they’ll try to wait us out.

So part of my objective in New York [at next week’s UN address] is to remind people that’s stalling shouldn’t be allowed. In other words, we need to move the process. And they need to understand we’re firm in our commitment and that if they try to drag their feet or, you know, get us to look the other way, that we won’t do that; that we’re firmly committed in our desire to send a common signal to the Iranian regime.

I hesitate to mention what product he’s in such a hurry to roll out this time.

.

Saddamites On The Rise

by digby

I noticed that after Bush belligerantly defended torture, he went on to describe Iraq as not being in a civil war using the term “Saddamist” to describe the people who are causing the trouble.

He’s been listening to Joe Lieberman and The Committee For Present Danger whose primary advice recently was to change the way we talk about the Iraq war to characterize it as a resurgent Saddam fedayeen trying to recapture the government.

This was their number one recommendation in its recent Iraq paper:

* Define the threat to stability to include Saddam Fedayeen insurgents, in addition to al-Qaeda in Iraq and its jihadi allies:

Keep your ears open for this latest slogan. They’re rolling out a new marketing campaign.

And, yes, the craziest grown-ups are still in charge.

*** Also, it seems that Rove has decided that having Bush blabbering incessantly on TV will result in their keeping the congress in the fall. Think it’ll work?

.

Carnegie Endowment On Iran

by tristero

One of the most remarkable things about that most remarkable of periods in recent American history, 2002/2003, was that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published paper after paper, sat for interview after interview, held seminar after seminar, about the dangers of pre-emptive unilateralism (PU) in general and conquering Iraq in particular – and nobody listened despite the fact that they got it nearly exactly right.

You think it might be a good idea to listen to them now, given their track record? I mean, sure, Kenneth Pollack is better connected to Big Media, and Bill Kristol has a disarmingly goofy smile, but they were after all wrong, and lots of people died because of their little oops moment. Maybe they’re not exactly the brightest bulbs in the firmament when it comes to foreign policy. And maybe, just maybe, one might pay attention to what Carnegie’s saying right now about Iran. So….

Here’s a book they publish – and lo and behold, it’s by an Iranian – entitled Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions and it looks pretty good. Shall we read it, folks? And that includes our friends on the right who comment here. If 10 of you, including the righties, pledge to read it (and be honest), I’ll contact the Endowment and see if I can get the author or some other spokesperson to answer our questions. (BTW, I’m sure there are plenty of other books to read, but this one is short and current and unusual so feel free to suggest additional reading for people, but I want to stick with this one for a blogread.)

Meanwhile, here’s some commentary I culled from the Carnegie website:

From a paper entitled Crisis in the Middle East, George Perkovich writes:

Iranian leaders risk over-reaching. If Hizbollah is perceived to lose badly (a big if), and Iran cannot come to its rescue, then Iran’s power would be diminished and the wisdom of confronting it, including on the nuclear issue, would be more apparent. And if Sunnis broadly conclude that Hizbollah and its Shiite Iranian patrons, despite the excitement generated by their anti-Israel words and deeds, actually harm Sunni interests, then resistance to Iran’s regional ambitions may become mobilized.

In other words, it will be very difficult to achieve a major defeat of Hezbollah. Indeed, one troubling result of the recent war in South Lebanon is the possibility of a stronger Sunni/Shi’a alliance against Israel. Such an alliance would enhance Iran’s standing in the region. Therefore, one way to resist this is to counterbalance ” the excitement generated by their [Hezbollah’s] anti-Israel words and deeds” by highlighting how much Iran’s ambitions will impinge Sunni interests.

Of course, we could just take the neocons’ advice and just kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out. No Shi’a, no Sunni, no problem. And I can also cure your dandruff by inviting Dick Cheney to join us for our next hunting trip. No head, no dandruff, done. Finis.

Now, here’s Joseph Cirincione:

It’s not just that the officials are saying that everything is still on the table; you can understand officials saying that. It’s beyond that. It’s very reminiscent of the coordinated campaign that we saw before the Iraq war. You have cabinet officials, the president, and the vice president giving major speeches on the subject. They’re labeling Iran the central or main threat. They try to link Iran to the war on terror, even to 9/11 itself, by talking about Iran as the central banker for terrorism, or the main state sponsor for terrorism. Officials have leaked information to the press just in the last couple of weeks that claims that the Iranian nuclear program is further advanced than it really is.

And there seems to be a concerted effort to convey this threat as imminent, without using that word, and that action will soon have to be taken. And, finally, you hear a drumbeat from both the neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby arguing for military action on Iran. None of this is conclusive in and of itself, but together they really present a very ominous picture. And it is now my working hypothesis that at least some members of the administration, including the vice president of the United States, have made up their mind that the preferred option is to strike Iran and that a military strike will destabilize the regime and contribute to their longtime goal of overthrowing the government of Iran.

You really can’t, I guess, comment on how strong the regime in power is in Iran, but it seems like a risky plan.

I believe a military strike would consolidate the hold of the Islamic government, not loosen it. If you want to keep President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad in power for the next five years, launch a strike on an Iranian facility. There is no doubt in my mind that the Iranian people would rally around the government and would become convinced that what the government has been telling them is true, that the main threat to the Iranian people comes from the United States or the U.S.-Israeli alliance. I can’t think of any more counterproductive move if you have the goal of enabling the Iranian people to choose their own government, than to launch a military strike against Iran now.

What is your analysis of Iran’s nuclear progress so far?

This is the key point. This is where I believe this whole debate should go over the next six months. The Iranian threat is a serious one but it is not an imminent one. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon; it is not going to get a nuclear weapon this year or even this decade. The Iranians are at least ten years away from the ability to enrich uranium either for fuel rods or a nuclear weapon.

You’re sure about that?

Everything we’ve seen indicates that that is in fact the case, and this is the consensus opinion of the U.S. intelligence agencies. We have a national intelligence estimate that was done last year and discussed in the Washington Post in August 2005 that reached the conclusion that Iran is five to ten years away. We’ve had testimony this year from John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, which confirms that U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran will not be able to construct a bomb until “sometime in the middle of the next decade.”

Now, what we need to do is declassify that intelligence estimate. Let’s get all the facts out on the table. Let’s examine this evidence in public, as to what Iran’s capabilities are and what various estimates are as to the nuclear timeline. If those intelligence estimates are wrong let’s find out why.

Sounds entirely reasonable to me.

By the way, Cirincione was recently interviewed on Fresh Air about Iran. I couldn’t find the link but if anyone has it, please post in comments.

Running Mates?

by poputonian

Ok – here’s an opening (from today’s WaPo editorial):

A Defining Moment for America
The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture

… and stepping forward to fill the breach:

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” former general and secretary of state Colin L. Powell wrote to McCain.

McCain/Powell in ’08?

I don’t know, but I think Karl Rove is losing his grip on the White House.

Who’s Appeasing Now?

by digby

This is unbelievable. We are facing a threat that dwarfs the threat of fascism, but Bush doesn’t think it’s important to remove Hitler. From ThinkProgress:

HOST: Alright Fred, you and a few other journalists were in the Oval Office with the President, right? And he says catching Osama bin Laden is not job number one?

BARNES: Well, he said, look, you can send 100,000 special forces, that’s the figure he used, to the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and hunt him down, but he just said that’s not a top priority use of American resources. His vision of a war on terror is one that involves intelligence to find out from people, to get tips, to follow them up and break up plots to kill Americans before they occur. That’s what happened recently in that case of the planes that were to be blown up by terrorists, we think coming from England, and that’s the top priority. He says, you know, getting Osama bin Laden is a low priority compared to that.

Yesterday, the WaPo reported it this way:

On another topic, Bush rejected sending more troops to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas to find Osama bin Laden. “One hundred thousand troops there in Pakistan is not the answer. It’s someone saying ‘Guess what’ and then the kinetic action begins,” he said, meaning an informer disclosing bin Laden’s location.

Fred’s president is waging a war like no other, on an enemy that is allegeldy more dangerous than anything the world has ever known, who is plotting to take over the United States of America and end western civililzation as we know it. Yet, he’s sitting around waiting for a tip from some sheep-herder in Waziristan to tell him where the leader of this dastardly plot is so that he can send someone in to catch him? Whah?

And that whole definition of a war on terror sounds shockingly like that wussified Democrat law enforcement and intelligence crap, doesn’t it? Here I thought we were going to “fight” this war like manly men with big brass bombs, take it to the terrists and all that. Guess not. We’re taking our lead from the Euro-weenies, instead.

Bush cannot be allowed to demagogue this thing into some sort of War of the Worlds alien invasion and then say he’s waiting around for some goatherd to drop a dime on bin Laden. Democrats need to wrap this BS around every Republican candidate’s neck and set it on fire.

.

Crusader Codpiece

by digby

President Bush said yesterday that he senses a “Third Awakening” of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation’s struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as “a confrontation between good and evil.”

Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln’s strongest supporters were religious people “who saw life in terms of good and evil” and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.

“A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me,” Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. “There was a stark change between the culture of the ’50s and the ’60s — boom — and I think there’s change happening here,” he added. “It seems to me that there’s a Third Awakening.”

I love this. He and his administation want to try people for treason for leaking to the papers about his illegal spying on US citizens and then he blurts out some babble that validates every stupid thing bin Laden preaches to his deluded followers. He might as well just call it a Christian Crusade and get it over with. He just framed his War On Terror in religious terms, which is very, very dumb.

Perhaps everyone has forgotten, what with all the idiotic hyperbole about “The Ideological Struggle of the 21st century” but al Qaeda framed this jihad from the very beginning as being a religous war against the “Jews and Crusaders.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it’s very smart for the president of the United States to keep helping him make that case. It’s the basis for bin Laden’s demagogic appeal.

Meanwhile, Bush goes on and on about how we can’t leave Iraq because bin Laden will think we’re chicken and … I don’t know … be “emboldened.” This is based upon bin Laden trash talk, which really seems to make these wingnuts so mad they just lose their wits:

“We are sending signals today that no matter how much you provoke us, no matter how viciously you describe things in public, no matter how many things you’re doing with missiles and nuclear weapons, the most you’ll get out of us is talk,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said.

Viciously describing things in public will not stand! For a superpower, we sure are easily provoked by religious fanatics calling us chicken if we leave Iraq or fail to respond militarily to some Iranian nutcases ramblings.

Meanwhile the president of the United States is holding court with a bunch of his sycophants characterizing the U.S. as being in the midst of a Christian crusade. Oy.

Why is it they do absolutely everything bass-askwards? It’s a bad idea to base US policy on trash talk. We should not be making national security decisions on whether bin Laden will “think” we are weak. We are the United States of America and we are too big and powerful to be playing games like this.

On the other hand, it makes no sense to provide bin Laden and his ilk with ready made recruiting tools and propaganda for no good reason either. It is irresponsible for Bush to be characterizing this “war” in religious terms when it isn’t true, it’s purely for his own political purposes and it gives the terrorists ammunition.

The administration and its allies succumb to bin Laden’s taunts when it comes to important matters of policy and then turn around and overtly help bin Laden recruit terrorists with ridiculous rhetoric about Great Awakenings and the war on terror. (Meanwhile, he’s got his inane undersecretary of state for public diplomacy running around the mid-east talking about her experiences being a suburban soccer mom.)

If you didn’t know better, you’d think that Osama bin Laden had George W. Bush wrapped around his little finger.

*** Following up on tristero’s posts below about Bush’s potential use of tactical nuclear weapons — a fear that I share, since, for all the reasons tristero outlines, it’s hard to see how the GOP’s fear mongering can lead to anything else — I recall a post I wrote some months back on the subject of taboo’s. It ended with this quote from Gene Lyons:

Once again Bush has denied hostile intent, just as he did for many months after secretly ordering the Pentagon to draft detailed war plans against Iraq. Writing in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh suggests that all systems are go at the White House, including possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. He hints that the neo-conservative ideologues around Dick Cheney have deluded themselves that bombing Iran would lead to internal rebellion and the overthrow of the nation’s Islamic regime.

Yeah, sure it would. Ever noticed how much the neo-cons’ ignorance of basic human psychology rivals only Osama bin Laden’s ?

yep.

.

Ahh, Bush Is Just Bluffing On The Nukes

by tristero.

The hell he is.

Let’s go back to more innocent times. When I first heard of the New Product (the unilateral, unprovoked invasion and conquest of Iraq), which was nearly nine months before its official release in September ’02, I thought Bush was bluffing. I thought this was just a way to put pressure on Saddam. But by the early summer of ’02, it was quite clear that if this was a bluff, it was one helluva realistic one. Perhaps folks don’t remember, but I distinctly recall that the Bush administratin declared around July that their lawyers had determined Bush had all the authority he needed to order a pre-emptive unilateral strike. He did not have to get permission from Congress, he did not have to go back to the UN. He could just do it. And they were quite sincere-sounding: Bush planned to assert his authority even if it caused a constitutional crisis. The congressional resolutions in the fall were a meaningless rubber stamp; Bush had simply permitted Congress-critters to save face by pretending to decide. By then, it was a fait accompli, and everyone but the American public knew it.

But even that fall, as I was thinking, “He really is gonna do it, he means it, he doesn’t care what anyone says” I held out some hope that this was just one helluva bluff, to bring the inspectors back and so humiliate Saddam he would fall from power and be destroyed. But in late winter, I heard rumors that hospital ships had moved near Iraq. Bush was not bluffing, he was actually going to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 because…well, because he could. It is still the only reason that makes sense. Because he could.

During this time, many folks thought Bush was playing one helluva sophisticated game of chicken. Nope. He wanted war, he wanted bang-bang. And that is exactly what he got.

As for Iran, let me explain: YOU may think it’s highly unlikely – the famous 1% probability, as a commenter mentioned – that Bush won’t use nukes and is setting us up for conventional warfare. That is because you are sane and sensible. But the Bush administration thinks it’s very likely. Hersh is alarmingly clear that there was close to a mutiny at the highest levels of the military recently until the nuclear option was taken off the table vis a vis Iran. Now, do you think it’s still off the table? Don’t be naive. Remember TIA and how it was scuttled? But what’s all this brouhaha I hear about mass data mining of information the Bush administration has no business looking at whatsoever?

Folks, many people have made the mistake of misunderestimating Bush again and again. He can’t be that stupid. He can’t be that vindictive or violent. He can’t be that immature. He can’t be that incapable of remorse or that messianic and delusionally religious.

It’s time to face the fact that Bush is all these things and many more. He has been consistent from the earliest days of his regime – consistently incompetent, delusional, and violent. He does not bluff. He does exactly what he wants to do. And there is nothing he wants more right now than to use nukes on Iran. It’s not merely because he’s a kid with a cool popgun, but one shouldn’t misunderestimate his impulsiveness and immaturity. It’s also because he, and the other rightwing lunatics genuinely believe that since 1945, liberals have severely crippled America by making such a big deal out of nukes. By all means, check out Curtis Lemay’s “America is in Danger” for an historical example (late 60’s) of this delusion. How are we crippled? Well, according to them, by refusing to use nukes, America fights bloody prolonged conflicts that are difficult to conclude with decisive victories.

Bush and his pals wants to save America from liberals that will once again deny America a critical victory, crucial to its safety and security. Bush wants to break the nuclear taboo.

How to stop him? First of all, don’t be fooled or gulled into thinking he’s not serious. He, and they, are very serious indeed. So raise a stink. If we out the nuke strategy prematurely and fuck up its marketing, it may backfire, as a lucky jumping of the gun in Pennsylvania derailed “intelligent design” creationism, which while still around shows some hopeful signs of dying – oh sure, they’ll be back, they’ll always be back, but they gotta craft an entirely new strategy now. In any event, getting the nukes off the table will be much harder.

Secondly, for heavens sake, vote, and vote responsibly. Do not vote for Republicans – as Atrios and others have said, there are no good Republicans: they will do Bush’s bidding if they get in, every last one of them. And remember before you cast that vote for the Ralph Nader clone who says all the right things about class revolution and impeaching the entire judiciary along with the executive, that in the close races between Republicans and Democrats, that righteous sounding reincarnation of Eugene Debs very well may be accepting cash from Republicans intent on splitting the ticket. Vote for the 3rd party candidate if you want to – hell, I’m not a Democrat but an independent, I have no loyalty to the Democratic Party per se – but be responsible, fer crissakes. If there’s even a chance of a Florida 2000 again, do you want to vote for a Nader and get another Bush? I don’t think so (and no, I’m not entirely blaming Nader for the 2000 debacle, but he’s not entirely innocent either).

It looks very likely that the Democrats will get at least one of the houses away from the Republicans. If so, that may be enough to put a stop to Bush’s (nuclear or non-nuclear) invasion of Iran, but it will be very, very hard. With a Republican lock on the government, it will be impossible. Iran will almost surely be invaded and if so, I firmly believe that the chance Bush will use nukes is very high. How high? I don’t know, but hovering too close to the 50-50 mark for comfort. It’s is much higher than 1%. It’s somewhere in the two digits.

Okay, enough, I’ve done my posts on this issue for quite a while. Frankly, it is exhausting to play nuclear Cassandra and terribly painful to watch the same patterns of denial and disbelief play themselves out again. But I also understand how it must sound to the unconvinced among you. It sounds like I’ve gone overboard, succumbed to the delusional paranoia I’m warning you against. I am quite aware that it really is hard to keep in the forefront of one’s mind that Bush and Co. really are nuts enough to use nukes in Iran. And Christ, I hope I’m crazy. But I look back at what he’s done over the past five years – one utter catastrophe after another, the unspeakable, pointless violence – and I am very alarmed.

Just do me a favor, okay?

When Bush is out of office, in January 2009, and the nukes haven’t fallen (and btw, everyone sane and knowledgeable agrees that none are coming our way from Iran by then) let’s laugh together at tristero’s ridiculous terror over the essentially harmless, befuddled fake cowboy George W. Bush was. But until then, please humor me and treat Bush as a very serious…concern… and work to put as many legislative and legal restraints on his wanton presidency as we can this fall.

At the very least, consider the possibility that he really is not bluffing and intends, no matter what, to deploy nuclear weapons, and what that would mean.

The New New Product

by tristero

Hey! Remember Andy Card back in 2002, about selling the country on the idea of invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.

A line that ranks as one of the ugliest lines ever in American politics. I wonder how the mothers of all those Americans who died in Iraq since Card said this feel about having their children’s sacrifice characterized as a new product. I wonder what the mothers of all those Iraqis who died – their deaths being in fact one of the main ingredients of the new product – would feel about Card if they were told about what he said.

But I digress. Because we now have a NEW new product for the fall of 2006. And it’s being marketed the most effective way possible, word of fucking mouth;

On the September 12 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck said that “[t]he Middle East is being overrun by 10th-century barbarians” and “[i]f they take over … we’re going to have to nuke the whole place.”

CNN, ladies, gentlemen, and Republicans. This was said on the Communist News Network, not Fox. Not the Washington Times.

And you thought I was joking. Let’s make this very, very clear:

The world will not tolerate the use of nuclear weapons by George W. Bush (or anyone else for that matter, but it’s Bush who is wagging the nuclear cock most often these days, and yes, Beck is reading from a White House script). The consequences for this country will not be nuclear retaliation, of course, not in the short term at least. There are plenty of other ways to attack America. And if Bush does drop even one itty bitty “tactical” nuke, this country will be at war. For real. Not with some neocon delusion, but with nearly everyone on the planet. Trust me on this: it won’t be pretty.

Adults are needed to tell Bush and Rove to zip it. Fast. They are in way over their heads. The White House isn’t a frat house and nuclear saber-rattling is no joke. This is one New Product that should be pulled from the market before it’s ever released.

“Poor George. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

by digby

It is probably inappropriate to bring this up on the sad occasion of her death, but the passing of Governor Ann Richards tonight brings to mind one of the most despicable political campaigns in American politics. I have a feeling that Governor Richards would understand, though — she didn’t seem to care too much for stiff propriety — and it may be just the right moment to remind every Democrat running for office right now to watch his or her back.

The Bush family hated her for saying that “poor George” line at the 1988 convention. When Junior ran against her for governor, Karl Rove got their revenge for them.

Ann Richards was a socially progressive and inclusive governor of Texas, appointing a few gays and lesbians to state boards and commissions. In 1994, Rove pinpointed this as an issue certain to help George W. Bush win election in a conservative state. Of course, Rove was not about to let his candidate broach the subject himself. Instead, he worked through Republican operatives in East Texas. Rumors soon began to circulate through coffee shops and agricultural co-ops that implied Gov. Richards, an unmarried woman, might be a lesbian. Without identifying the topic, she acknowledged she was being hurt. “You know what it’s about,” she told reporters, dismissively, after being asked about the rumors. “And I’m not talking about it.”

But Republican state Sen. Bill Ratliff from East Texas, who was also Bush’s regional coordinator for that part of the state, was quoted in newspapers as criticizing Richards for “appointing avowed homosexual activists” to state jobs. The rumors were then given a form of legitimacy and widely reported. Then just as he did with Kerry and the Swift Boat controversy, Rove had Bush step forward as a voice of understanding and reason. “The senator doesn’t speak for me,” Bush told reporters. “I don’t know anything about what he’s talking about. I’m trying to run an issues-oriented campaign.”

Governor Richards would undoubtedly join us in hoping that it won’t be too many more years before that particular “smear” will no longer be a smear at all but just a natural description of a person that carries no value judgment one way or the other.

She lost that election, of course, but she carried on with style, panache and great wit. She was a great lady and one of my favorite Texans. RIP.

.

Answering Kevin’s Question

by tristero

Riffing off Atrios, I’d like to take a stab at answering Kevin Drum’s question. Briefly, neocons like Kristol and others are calling for more troops, but there ain’t any, cause they’re really lowering standards to get more folks enlisted , so Kevin asks:

If we need more troops to win, but there aren’t any more troops to be had, then what?

And the answer, as far as Kristol, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration are concerned is obvious:

What do you think all those “tactical” nukes are for, anyway?

And anyone who doesn’t think the neocons aren’t advocating nukes as the answer to the troop shortage hasn’t been paying attention. Hersh made it clear that’s the plan back in April, 2006.

Nukes replace troops. Not to mention that Bush et al are jonesing to drop the first Big Ones since Dubya Dubya Two. For one thing, they don’t want Kim Jong Il, let alone other losers like India or Pakistan to have any fun before they do.

If that sounds gruesomely cynical, that’s because it is. And I hope to hell that is all it is. But I’m afraid it’s also an accurate description of the Bush administration’s thinking.

Folks, let’s remember this: The next time you vote for president that guy or gal is gonna have his hand on The Button. You think Frist or Jeb Bush is mature enough to control themselves? Or Rice? Or McCain? Let’s get real here. Say what you want, Kerry could. Clark could. Gore could. As Clinton could, and did.

Voting for president is serious bizness, people. You don’t vote for a moron like Bush if you’re serious. Ever.