This seems to be Bush's favorite line--even before he was elected he looked forward to having this title. I wonder if he knows what it really means?
(of the armed forces only).

He's never been told "No" in his life, and he won't accept it now.

George Will once wrote about Bush's father that some people enter public life because they want to DO something, and others because they want to BE something, and Will concluded that Sr. was in the later group. It was not a compliment. George Will, of course, is a major douche bag. However, this comment was spot-on and it is ever so much more true about Chimp. I look forward to the day when this family will cease to blight our nation.

Hmm... This reminds me of something. Ah! Here it is: http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/31921/

Will Ferrell [as angry dad at dinner]: You do not talk to me like that!! I work too hard to deal with this stuff!! I work too hard!! I'm a Division Manager in charge of 49 people!! I drive a Dodge Stratus!!

And what role in history will Bush's unmatched stubborness really win for him?

The Worst President Of All Time.

We'll be able to kick him around long past the time he's no longer around to kick around.

And it's our job to remind the American people that all Republicans are Bush Republicans.

Ba'al: bad as George Sr. was in so many ways, there was a key difference between the father and the son: the father had a sense of responsibility. Can you imagine if Junior had been president in 1989-1992? Do you think that the Berlin Wall would have fallen without massive belligerence on the part of Dubya, leading to who knows how much bloodshed in Europe?

Both Bush Sr. and Gorbechev were failures in a number of senses, but between them they managed to let the Iron Curtain fall without violence. Part of H.W.'s "secret" was that he talked and corresponded with every significant world leader. There's no way Junior would have been capable of that.

I love when newspapers quote people like Bill Bennett. And they said he was a leading Republican moralist. I almost fell off my chair laughing at that one. Smirk really is delusional. Rolling Stone recently had a interview with Springsteen recently. He summed up Smirk pretty damn well, of all people.

Part of H.W.'s "secret" was that he talked and corresponded with every significant world leader. There's no way Junior would have been capable of that.

Yeah, for one thing, he'd have to be able to read and write...

Sounds like it came as a shock to Dick Durbin that he isn't the Commander In Chief.

We're doomed.

Or more precisely, the Iraqis are.

Jeebus can't help us now.

Oh, and by the way: I think that, on balance, it's just as well the Kerry lost in '04. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from not just the Right, but from the Liberal Media (tm) over Kerry's loss of Iraq?

At least this way, Bush's legacy as Worst President Ever is secure.

craigie:

And can you imagine Old Man McCain arguing that Bush didn't win because he didn't go at it *hard enough*?

And the GOP faithful just eating that up ...

All the Dems need to so is say "hey, we would've followed the bipartisan ISG recommendations."

Bob

craigie:

I take your point :)

Bob

Craigie, I love your posts and I know you're being snarky, but even the idea that it's good Kerry lost so this disaster will be secured on W. watch really just sticks in my craw. This man is responsible for god knows how many deaths in Iraq and he should have been voted out of office in '04 for the good of the country.

That was freakin' bizarre. Craigie just had a post here saying that while nobody wanted to admit it at the time, it was good that Bush won, because of how it positions us now.

Counterintuitive for Democrats, maybe -- but hardly trollish.

And it got zapped as I was writing my one-line response to him. Meanwhile, there are truly odious troll droppings on the preceeding thread which haven't been zapped.

Weird.

Bob

It may be good for the country in the long run that Bush won because the fall of the Republicans will that much greater, but for the people who have died since 2004, well.... not so good.

Hey, Al and all you other worthless trolls, did you vote for Bush?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/8/225311/741

Bob;

I'm enjoying watching the slime evaporate, but I bet overnight it's going to be catch-as-catch-can. Anyway, I'm off to bed. This has been a great day on PA. Let's hope the moderation wasn't a fluke.

I haven't had this many responses since I pointed out that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian. Did you guys know that, by the way?

This man is responsible for god knows how many deaths in Iraq and he should have been voted out of office in '04 for the good of the country.

That's true. And he probably was.

Global:

It certainly has. Mazel tov, and snuggle the Major for me :)

Goodnight.

Bob

Can you imagine how Harry Truman is freakin' spinning in his grave at that comparison? I cannot imagine that Truman would have given W the time of day. Thank you, Dick Durbin, for rocking that pigheaded oaf's boat.

Harry Truman once said the "S" stood for nothing. Would that W could only reach that mere level.

Sadly, Craigie is right. Sadly, because just as many, if not more, Americans and Iraqis would have died under Kerry as under Bush. Why? Because Kerry - at least at first - would have wanted to continue the war under the belief that his new policies (remember: engage with our allies, bring in the UN, etc.) could turn the situation around. After the inevitable failure and humiliation, the Republican congress and the SCLM would put overwhelming pressure on the Democratic White House to continue the war, making it politically and practically impossible for Kerry to disengage.

Then, riding on the failure of the "Kerry Democrats", the Republicans would have made major gains in the mid term elections, and a Republican hawk would be elected in 2008 on a platform of saving Iraq.

So in the big picture, we're better off now with the spectacular implosion of the Bush Presidency and an invigorated Democratic congress - and a real possibility of ending this foolish, tragic adventure.

aa

I can't help but wonder if Dubya is going to end up being forcibly removed from office, i.e., by armed guards. I just don't see him being reasonable or mature.

Impeachment is coming.

Truman is remembered for finishing off Japan. Korea is a blot on his record.

What war exactly did Bush finish off?

gryptpyre:

Well, I think he eventually *did* finish choking down that pretzel :)

Bob

It's great to see that winning the election didn't reduce the Democratic derangement any.

HST would beat Junior like a Missouri mule. Please hurry up, Father Time.

Didn't Truman get the peace accord signed that ended the war in the Pacific aboard the USS Missouri? Yeah, he had only been in office for fifteen minutes, but still, he sealed the deal.

W's reputational fate is sealed. But much more important than confronting and taunting him is minimizing the harm he does to the country on all policy fronts over the next two years. Since reason is not an option and threats are apt evoke ever more desperate behaviors, it is not at all clear how to proceed. It may get very ugly very soon.

Oh, and by the way: I think that, on balance, it's just as well the Kerry lost in '04. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from not just the Right, but from the Liberal Media (tm) over Kerry's loss of Iraq?

Give it time. The righties will try to -- and probably succeed in -- pinning the blame on the Democrats.

Something's gotta give. Bush is at the breaking point. It ain't gonna be pretty but it could be swift.

Bush still has options to save his historical legacy: He can start a war with Iran. Who knows, he might just succeed this time. At least some chance is better than no chance at all. Thus I fully expect military action against Iran some time next year. Just pray that it isn’t nuclear.

N.W.

Rook, if any president deserved to do the Frog March, it's W. But it probably won't happen. The best we can hope for is for the Democrats to develop enough back bone to use its funding authority to force an end to the Irag fiasco.

The only thing that can make impeachment a reality is for the American people to overwhelming demand it. And that won't happen as long as the "values" voters continue to consider killing innocent people good a Christian value.

Our only hope is if W gets caught in bed dead woman or a live boy, and that's not too likely to happen.

aa

To recycle an old pun, that's Hairy Ass Bush to you, Kev!

Ba'al quoted George Will:
...some people enter public life because they want to DO something, and others because they want to BE something...

Er... Maybe Sr. was the latter, but neither applies to Jr. A better choice might be "...because they want to do SOMETHING..."

If this account is accurate, one must contemplate the desirability of premature removal from office. I know there is a general reluctance, approximating unanimity, to even consider impeachment. It is very often said not to be a realistic option, and with the backstop of Cheney's imminence, forced resignation does not appear to be feasible either. But in all candor, I cannot see the present situation lasting for two more years. Too much is going to fall apart. The acceleration of decay is now palpable. I can only speculate that many private thoughts are being devoted to finding a solution within the context of existing law. The parliamentary system of government can handle this situation with aplomb and has done so many times in many different contexts. But we are dealing here with an elected dictatorship by fiat, lacking only full spending power for complete independence of action. It is possible then that cutting off the supply of funds is the ONLY way to stop this cruel farce. But cutting off the cash would instigate a profound constitutional crisis without a doubt. Nevertheless such a crisis, as ugly as it would certainly become, might prove to be preferable to the liquidation of the expeditionary armed forces in Iraq and all their heavy equipment in a contemporary re-enactment of the battle of Stalingrad, or the retreat to Dunkirk. It seems to me that if forces are not soon withdrawn they will be ground down until nothing is left. They are after all effectively surrounded with just a couple of long resupply corridors which are themselves subject to routine attack, much as the German Army was surrounded and engulfed at Stalingrad. And a catastrophic defeat of that magnitude would produce domestic crisis of biblical proportions.

How dare Durbin interrupt Bush's fantasy!

anon >"...It seems to me that if forces are not soon withdrawn they will be ground down until nothing is left..."

Which is EXACTLY why they will stay as long as Bush Handlers, Inc. remain in positions of power. The rationale is to make the rise of these folk easier over a short period of time than would otherwise be the case.

Yea, sure, laugh now while you can dipsy doodles. Wake up !

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu

30% approval rating
Start the impeachment hearings in April after
Bush has ignored the ISG report for 4 months.

So GWB is a petulant child. Is this news to anyone?

The Truman Doctrine was meant to contain and/or fight Communism. But apparently, the Bush Doctrine is to create more terrorists.

To paraphrase a man who knew Jack Kennedy. Harry's house is just a couple of blocks from my office. I knew a lot of his friends. They were friends of mine. Mr. Bush is no Harry Truman.

Truman was all about service. Bush is all about being served.

We still have two more years left of this guy. Jeebus.

You noticed, huh?

I actually agreed with the reasoning for keeping impeachment off the table (dividing an already critically divisive country, distraction from actually repairing the damage done to and by congress, and so forth), but then I watch Bush and break into a cold sweat. I'm more afraid about what might happen with GWB at this point than I was when Nixon was wandering the halls of the White House after midnight, talking with the pictures on the walls.

i have a friend who likes to pose the following
question to all the bush haters he knows:

how much would you pay for the privilege of pounding both of george bush's balls to a pulp
with a top of the line stanley 16 oz. steel head
hammer(*)?

he also warns people that any offer over $10,000
is likely to get their name on a list the secret service keeps of presidential assassin wannabe's

(*)you have to supply your own hammer

I've got a nice little 5-lb engineer's hammer. Can I play too?

Didn't Truman get the peace accord signed that ended the war in the Pacific aboard the USS Missouri? Yeah, he had only been in office for fifteen minutes, but still, he sealed the deal.
Posted by: Never Drank the Kool-Aid on December 9, 2006 at 2:34 AM

You need to study up on your history a bit more. It was Truman who had to make the hard end-of-war decisions in the Pacific--including whether or not to use atomic bombs.

pounding both of george bush's balls to a pulp

That would be redundant.

Truman was deservedly unpopular because of the lousy way in which he waged the Korean War. His larger policies (NATO, containment of Communism, Marshall Plan, ...) were vindicated in the fullness of time, which is why his failure in Korea is overlooked now.

Can Bush look forward to the same? I think not. His failure in Iraq (and New Orleans) has little to balance it -- he doesn't really have other policies that can come to fruition. He just has an attitude.

Actually, Bush's Iraq policy may be vindicated by time, for the reason that the major change on the ground will not be undone by departure of our troops. That major change is that Iraq is back to full, even record, oil production and the checks are being mailed to the present Iraqi government.

Under Saddam, all this money went to the Baath Party, which meant Sunnis and almost nothing went to Shia or Kurds. Today a mostly Shia government gets the cash.

The Sunnis can car-bomb the Shia all they want but they will not physically get their hands on either oil or cash. The Kurds might get a pittance if they make nice.

As a practical matter, I don't see how the Sunnis or al Qaeda can un-do this reality. As long as the present Iraq government gets paid the big bucks it will retain some type of mailing address in Baghdad. My bet is that the Sunni can kill a lot of people if they want, but folks who have never had hundreds of billions of dollars flowing to them every year will be extremely reluctant to part with it.

Yeah, even Poppy Bush knew how to work with others, had NATO to help out. Bush is such a "non-starter".

This is why impeachment is good idea. The polls say that 71% don't think Bush is doing a good job with war in Iraq. Bush is in denial about the war AND about his place in history.

The only way forward will be to impeach the "non-starter" prezinut and "non-starter" VP.

That major change is that Iraq is back to full, even record, oil production and the checks are being mailed to the present Iraqi government.

On what planet? Iraq oil production hasn't even reached pre-war levels under Saddam. And the barrels that are being pumped are hardly secure -- disrupting production by attacking the oil infrastructure is a trivial feat for determined guerrillas.

BTW, USA Today is saying that Dennis Hastert knew about the Foley problem but did nothing about it except lie to the public, but is now serving again in office, and the panel, having waited until Hastert got re-elected to to report the fact that Hastert lied.

"The committee harshly criticized Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., saying the evidence showed he was told of the problem months before he acknowledged learning of Foley's questionable e-mails to a former Louisiana page. It rejected Hastert's contention that he couldn't recall separate warnings from two House Republican leaders."

And there were all those Religious right-wing voters that “voted for Hastert” saying it wasn’t Hastert’s fault since Hastert didn’t know anything about Foley’s sexually explicit e-mails.

BUT GET THIS - The Washington Post papers over the whole thing, barely reporting on the issue LEAVING THE FACT THAT HASTERT KNEW ABOUT FOLEY PROBLEM LONGER THAN HE CLAIMED TOO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT, COMPLETELY OUT OT THE ARTICLE, instead the WP leaves the entire artcle up the reader's imagination as if is NONE damn publics business to know about the final report.

The article's headline reads thus: The Buck Just Stops, those famous words out of Dennis Hastert's mouth, but the column NEVER comes out says that Hastert LIED, in fact the column say basically that congress should be ashamed but NEVER really states WHY congress should be ashamed.

The Washington Post treats the reader like it's none of our damn right to know that Hastert outright lied to Americans. In this way, the Washington Post helps congress cover-up the whole event.

This is why journalist don't need a sheild law, and Americans need protection from reporters like Judith Miller, whereby access is everything - facts are nothing, whereby Americans die in trumpet up wars but its no big deal for today's access loving news reporter just leave the facts out, using hype instead.

The Washington Post does say this:

It concluded that "the weight of the evidence" is that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was warned about Mr. Foley's "overly friendly" e-mails and that Mr. Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, his denials notwithstanding, had confronted Mr. Foley about his behavior years earlier.

This whole ordeal was over what Hastert knew and when did he know it? Hastert lied, got re-elected via the misleading of the so-called "values voter". That's should be big enough deal, big enough to get Hastert impeached.

Dan Froomkin writes this:

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, December 8, 2006; 12:50 PM

Long live the British press!

In contrast to the small-bore questions that American reporters posed to President Bush yesterday about his Iraq policy, two British journalists cut right to the central issue of the president's credibility.

American reporters have gotten lazy, don't want to report anymore, are afraid to report on Bush and his many lies, that gets many people killed. And for this they want a shield law?

Judith Miller went to jail, not because she WAS a reporter, it was because she wasn't one. Does the Washington Post or the NYT know what reporters are suppose to do?

This is why know one trust the media anymore, because they bent to willingly to the Bush/Cheney pack of Whitehouse lies and became nothing more than a pack of Whitehouse damage control aids.

Sort of hate to use the Caine Mutiny as an anology as the Captain of that vessel had served honorably in war time conditions - But there does seem an element of Shrub rolling marbles in his hand while talking and demanding an investigation into the missing strawberries.

Kudos to the Senator from my state, of whom I did not vote, for having the guts to stand very tall indeed in the Senate and say that our actions in Iraq, perhaps, are criminal. Senator Gordon Smith stood very tall indeed. May have missed FAUX News - Not enough "drama" to the moment.

A report from Baghdad states that out of a 1,000 employees at our embassy, only 33 have any knowledge of Arabic and only 6 can speak the language fluently. I wonder how this compares with the English language at 1600 Penn.

Well I hope the Dems pile on justified ridicule at Bush 43 comparing himself with Harry Truman. That's a new level of pathetic. More like the anti-Truman. Bush is as far from Truman as a president could get. Truman was a courageous, strong man who came from humble origins, served in WWI, etc. etc. etc. This, versus the weak coward, this excuse for a president. You can just imagine the cursing old Harry must be doing from beyond the grave. And let's not get too carried away with Bush 41 (who, you may recall, in the closing days of the '92 election also tried to compare himself the Truman. That whole family has no shame; no matter how cynical I get about them, I just can't seem to keep up. (One of my biggest fears in '08 is that if McCain wins the nomination, he'll put Jeb on the ticket.)

Froomkin writes:

American reporters dutifully but fruitlessly tried to get Bush to explain what he meant. Their colleagues from across the pond took a different tack.

Why, the two Brits asked Bush in slightly different ways, given your track record on Iraq, should we believe you now?

Not surprisingly, Bush failed to provide a persuasive answer.

I'm pretty sure that Bush go combative over that type of question, acting as if the press has no business calling out his lies?

this part should not have been in italics:

I'm pretty sure that Bush go combative over that type of questioning, acting as if the press has no business calling out his lies.

Not long ago, that kind of "combativeness" USE to be a signal for the press to go into attack mode, but anymore the press dutifully backs off. And for this the press wants a *ucking shield law?

Shrub likes to compare himself with Truman and Winston Churchill - However, I think he has been watching some re-runs of Alexander Haig running amok yelling, "But, I am in charge, I am in charge" - At least Shrub has the title, but his demeanor is the same.

Froomkin: First off was Nick Robinson of the BBC: "Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as 'grave and deteriorating'. You said that the increase in attacks is 'unsettling'. That won't convince many people that you're [not] still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course."

Bush's response was at first testy, then jokey, then righteously indignant.

"It's bad in Iraq. Does that help?" Bush snapped. Then he chuckled.

If the US press would just do it *ucking job, US miltiary members would not now be Iraq and people never would have died there. If the US would just now do its damn job, we could impeach Bush for lying, a-hole that he is.

There is no such thing as a "liberal" press, only press that refused to get the facts in light of access, BS, and hype.

But, Uncle Paul, he does have so much on his mind - Geez, the same four red $800 and change dresses show up at a State Dinner - a Christmas tree falls over in front of the White House (O'Arrogantone's intrepid team of crack head investigators are looking into the possible War on Christmas meme) and Barney's X-mas video is being panned by the critics.

Give the little Roi a break.

Cheryl,

David Schuster is doing his job - However, he is doing it so well, that Fox and Friends and others over at FAUX are demanding that he be fired by MSNBC.

Rove writes the text, FAUX reports the text, You Decide.

If the best counter to GWB you can put up is the oleaginous Durban, maybe Bush's record won't be so bad. Truman had responsible allies to work with, not pimps for Oil For Food. Maybe if you guys directed your fire at our common enemies instead of lusting for our defeat this war would be on a different track.

Oh yeah, that's right, minion of rove, the catastrophe in Iraq Kevin Drum's and his posters fault! What's it like to live in a world where it's always someone else's fault?

To follow on craigie's notion, imagine if Bush had pulled troops out after capturing Saddam...where do you think we'd be, Iran or North Korea?

Best president ever, that's what many buscists wanted us to believe. At least one person will continue to believe that: George W. Bush

To me, this leads directly to the impeachment argument. If Bush adamantly refuses to lead, and perpetuates his mistakes simply to remind everyone that he is still the "commander in chief", then what recourse remains? I'm aware that is not the legal basis for impeachment. But insofar as I believe there already exists multiple legal bases for impeachment, and that the only reason we may not pursue it is for political reasons (pursue a positive agenda for change in leiu of impeachment), might this petulant, recalcitrant behavior override those concerns and force impeachment?

Just asking the question...

Nothing as pathetic as the boss who always needs to remind people that he's the boss.
We're getting a long way past Harding. This is Carlos II country.

Deciders ain't gotta take none a that Defeatocrat crap!

Amen, Steve. Hey, forgive my ignorance, but what is the Carlos II reference?

Bush's "Decider" stuff, his repeatedly needing to assert he's the Commander in Chief all just underscore what a weak man he is.

It's also interesting how he's never been made accountable for his personal cowardice on 9/11 - hiding all over the country that day. Can anyone imagine any of our other presidents - Reagan, JFK, ANY of them behaving that way? Every one of them would have immediately returned to Washington.

If those "determined guerillas" could stop oil production, they'd have done it. They are real good at suicide car bombs and roadside I.E.D.'s in population centers. It will probably be a good thing that the hamstrung American forces get out of the way and let the Shia protect their valuable new assets in a pro-active way. Otherwise Sunni communities might become launch points for Palestinian-style rocket attacks on oil infrastructure.

The Truman Doctrine called for efforts to combat communism wherever it surfaced. This meant needless US intervention in places of no instrinsic value (witness Korea and Vietnam). It was a strategic disaster.

HST did many good things. The doctrine wasn't one of them.

Thanks, once again Mike - Now, get down to lst Ave and pick some day laborers to help with your tree.

My, oh my, what a MBA degree can accomplish.

Arbusto (Spanish for Bush) Energy or Oil failed; Spectrum 7 Energy failed; Harken Energy failed - The Rangers were pathetic, handling of Katrina was a disaster and now, Iraq is lost.

Geez, the lines must indeed be long for a MBA from Harvard. Perhaps, if he had only been a haberdasher and a Captain in Artillery.

On his own, W would not have even known the specifics of the Truman situation. The comparison is something W's handlers have explained to him in order to soothe his desperate little brain. They need to keep it from exploding shit all over the walls of the Oval Office for another two years.

How about a Trumanesque photo of smirking George, holding up a newspaper with the huge headline: "GORE WINS"

I’ve got just the prescription for taking the wind out of Bushie boy’s sails: An independent counsel investigation into his sex life!!!

After all, Bush’s sex life sure seems to be a lot more unusual and interesting than Bill Clinton’s sex life!

We could start with an in-depth look at Bush’s homoerotic relationship with gay male prostitute Jeff Gannon. What happened during those slumber parties that Gannon had at the White House with Bush? A little “hide the salami” in the Lincoln Bedroom, perhaps? The independent counsel could also ask a few questions about Bush’s old college roommate, Victor Ashe. It seems that Bush and Ashe (nice ring to that, huh?) have been butthole buddies since college.

If Ken Starr can spend $100 million investigating Bill Clinton’s heterosexual relations, I think the Democrats should spend about $200 million investigating Bush’s homosexual relationships.

Do you suppose Harry S. Truman handed out ambassadorships to his homosexual lovers???

Actually, Bush's Iraq policy may be vindicated by time, for the reason that the major change on the ground will not be undone by departure of our troops. That major change is that Iraq is back to full, even record, oil production and the checks are being mailed to the present Iraqi government.

That indeed would be inspiring! I wonder why this wasn't the advertised rationale for going to war in the first place.

I may have missed it, but has anyone confirmed if bush has actually read the report?

Maybe if you guys directed your fire at our common enemies instead of lusting for our defeat this war would be on a different track.

Where have I heard this before? Oh wait, now I remember:

"I would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling kids."

Has anyone confirmed if he has actually read the report?

If those "determined guerillas" could stop oil production, they'd have done it.

They did for three years, you ignorant dumbshit. They have other priorities now, obviously.

Really, stop embarrassing yourself and watch something other than Fox for your news every once in awhile.

For an excellent short course on Harry Truman's presidency I'd direct ya'll to 'The Course of our Times - The Men and Events That Shaped the Twentieth Century' - Abram l. Sachar

I quote this fragment:

" in the Context of what became known as the Truman Doctrine, the pledge that the United States was bound to offer support 'wherever free peoples resisted attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.'"

Sorry - typo crept in: That's Abram L. (not I.) Sachar.

He identifies the Truman Doctrine as the precursor of the Marshall Plan.

Thanks, CFShep, for the recommendation; I've been looking to read something along those lines. I recently finished "The Conquerers" by beschloss, pretty good. The Truman doctrine (with the able help of Marshall, Kennen, Acheson et al) had it's flaws - they got Vietnam wrong and set us on that course (but they got Korea right), but they set the course for the triumphs of '89 and '91.

Another example of polar opposites of Truman versus Bush43 - knowledge of history. Truman was arguably the best historian and arguably on par with Wilson, in 20th Century presidents. His grasp of American history was absolutely first rate. Bush34, of course, is the most ignorant and willfully ignorant of them all - and so are his top advisors. Prior to the Iraqi invasion, not one of them even knew the differnce between Shiite and Sunni Muslems. Pathetic.

Tragically,for all of us, Dubja is caught up in a delusional certitude about his Iraq positions and nation building fantasy. Now it is a full-blown fixed delusion, complicated by his rationalization that his father wasted political capital after forcing Iraqi people out of Kuwait. Psychologically convinced he needs war success, he flees from the truth, ignoring the carnage and chaos of this war. Just as he has minimized the number of deaths from his unwinnable war, he is dimissive with rational suggestions. Recall he already said the next president will have to figure it out. Total denial, evident early on as he refused to release photos of soldiers' flag-draped coffins. And evident now. His only regret is what his legacy may ultimately be.

On his own, W would not have even known the specifics of the Truman situation. The comparison is something W's handlers have explained to him in order to soothe his desperate little brain.

Precisely. Note that the Troll Whose Name We Dare Not Speak, as well as numerous other trolls, pundits and assorted GOP mouthpieces, have been spouting this ridiculous line for months now. They started trying to get Smirky to say it in early summer, but it took six months for him to properly memorize the phrase. And to figure out that Harry S Truman isn't a GOP donor from Lufkin.

(And Ferruge, that cracked me up.)

You're welcome, Max.

I've gotten the feeling that people are confusing Truman with John Foster Dulles...

'The Course of Our Times' is an excellent overview of the issues. Well written, well organized and concise.

The immediate issue for Truman at that point wasn't in Asia. It was the attempted Communist takeovers in Greece and Turkey and assistance he was seeking was very modest: advisors and so forth.

So, Bush has permanently changed Iraq by taking away the petroleum money stream from the Sunnis and giving it to the Shia. The Sunnis will continue to kill a lot of folks out of pique but they will not get them money back.

Bush is also precisely correct in being skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. In the long run the harshest critics will have to swallow that one (but not the Russian or Chinese climate scientists because they agree with the Bushites and with Exxon mobile scientists, all of whom have luckily picked the winning horse for different motives.)

Bush was right to try to bring back nuclear power as bird-whacker power (otherwise known as windmills) suffer from the inherent problem that even in the windiest places the air is still many hours of the average day.

Solar power is better than wind energy and has the added bonus that most of us individuals can invest in our own units and avoid the basically socialist aspect of large power grids altogether.
That would be a very big plus and would tend to make society decidedly more conservative in the long run, especially if we can power our individual vehicles on energy that government can only with difficulty interdict or tax.

CFShep, not to pick a nit, but "y'all" is a contraction of "you all," and so the apostrophe goes before the A, not after.

I thank y'all for your forbearance as I address this small pet peeve. Back to extending the mockery W so richly deserves...

Thanks, again, CFShep - and right again: Turkey, Greece; also the Berlin air lift, Austria, Italy . . .

Imagine a president who actually knew how to hire good people and knew what he was doing.

Regarding:

*Impeachment
*Future efforts by conservatives to blame the Iraq debacle and its repercussions on Democrats, the media, etc.

The ISG report makes the former much more likely and the latter much more difficult. The ISG report may not get us out of Iraq through its recommendations but it provides a wildly different depiction of the situation on the ground than Bush's recent statements. It even goes to the extent of commenting on the under reporting of violence. It's bipartisan proof that he's been lying to us and makes me wonder if people like Baker may even see the need to have W impeached. It reminds me of a review you give to someone you want to force out of a job. This report and his predictable reaction to it so isolates him from all but the dead-enders that I can't believe that Baker didn't have in mind to throw him under the bus, politically, historically. This mess can't be blamed on the left so the next best thing for him was to pin the blame on W, Cheney and their ilk sparing future republicans.

I remain firmly in the 'ya'll' camp.

Well, I figured that anyone who could survive the Mt St Helens disaster, was all right in my book.

consider wisely always: Good summation.

All of this feeds my half-serious prediction that the question of impeachment may never come up because Bush, bereft of coping skills and unacquainted with having any desire rebuffed, is cruising for a complete meltdown. Of course, then they'll just tuck him away in his bedroom like Woody Wilson.

Yes, Mike Cook has become rdwNorthWest.

That would be a contraction of "ya all," then? Hmmmm. Well, suit yourself.

This reminds me that Drum usually provides a holiday list of what he deems the best political books of the year, and then readers weigh in with their own recommendations. I'd like to see that again this year. Maybe I'll just drop him a little note.

(And Ferruge, that cracked me up.)

Thanks - it's sad commentary that the creators of Scooby-Doo know more about Dolchstosslegende than our resident trolls.

clauswitz and van crevold, who needs 'em?
The Bush cheerleaders have revolutionarized strategy with the new principles of warfare

1. You can't win a war if there are any critics at home.

2. It's not your fault if you start a war, despite critics at home, because they are supposed to shut up and salute once you start the war.

Vietman. Iraq. "History repeats itself twice; the first as tragedy, the second as farce."

Yeah, Lawnguylander, I think that's exactly what Baker had in mind.

My recurring '08 fear is that the Dems nominate someone who can't win (Hillary, Obama) and that McCain, age 72 then, puts Jeb on the ticket.

it's sad commentary that the creators of Scooby-Doo know more about Dolchstosslegende than our resident trolls.

Another excellent line...

Well, I figured that anyone who could survive the Mt St Helens disaster, was all right in my book.

Unfortunately, George W. he didn't.

And g'mornin' to any Breakfast Clubber from the Windy City, y'hear!

git, silly, it's da Windy City. Good morning to you!

Say what? But, I have a picture of him standing like a stonewall next to Spirit Lake.

The "ya'll" camp contains only a handful of dead-enders.

Truman's unpopularity had as its basis the enormous economic and social problems attendant upon reintegration of the millions of returning veterans where they faced competition for jobs with entrenched unions, fattened on years of heavily subsidized war-time contracts, severe housing shortages and other pressing issues.

He imposed wage and price controls to attempt to rein in spiraling inflation and in doing so angered both capital, resisting any limits on profits, and labor, resisting any wage freezes.

There were coal strikes. Threats of a paralyzing rail strike. Farmers and ranchers withheld their products from the markets leading to shortages.

After the mid-terms of 1946, the low point of Truman's popularity, he came out swinging, proposing:

1) Extension of Social Security
2) National health insurance
3) Vastly expanded Federal aid to education
4) Civil rights for Black Americans.

He couldn't get any of through the newly Republican Congress of course. Couldn't get most of it out of committee.

"I'm going to fight," he said, "I'm going to give 'em hell."

"Don't vote for me. Vote for yourselves, vote for your interests. Go after the mossbacks, the gluttons of privilege. Don't let them make America an economic colony of Wall Street." Harry S. Truman

He was re-elected.

But thanks to Reagan and his successors we are now in fact 'an economic colony of Wall Street' and 'the gluttons of privilege' are in complete control.

One of them has the sheer gall to compare himself to this man!

It should also be noted that an important difference between the Korean War and the invasion of Iraq is that North Korea started the Korean War by invading another country. Iraq had invaded no one in 2003 and was no real threat to any of its neighbors.

Bush is more analogous to the leader of North Korea in 1950 than he is to Harry S Truman.

Methinks, that if Shrub continues on with this Iraqian fiasco, he will end up more like the Harry Truman who tried to stonewall the massive surge of the mountain and, who is forever entombed in the depths of the once beautiful Spirit Lake than the once haberdasher from Independence, MO.

Well, I figured that anyone who could survive the Mt St Helens disaster, was all right in my book.

Unfortunately, George W. he didn't.

Better link

From novelist E.L. Doctorow: "This president doesn't know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMD's he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country."
"But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be...to mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing."

George W.,

Can you post a link? Sounds like a great picture.

Oh, Paul, the dress in question cost $8,400 not $800...$800 is what this crowd pays for a single pair of slacks or a handbag...

consider wisely always,

Very good point - In contrast, Truman had seen death close up in France - I believe that the A-Bombings left him a very sober man. He felt that the bombings were necessary, but that he was left with an awesome responsibilty to never use them again, unless it was absolutely vital to this country's defense.

This is why he stopped Dug-out Doug from using the weapons against the Chinese after Doug's ego had led our forces, ala Col Thursday from Ft Apache, into a box canyon, called North Korea at the Yalu.

The ultra conservatives castigated Truman for reining in MacArthur.

As 'The Oxford Companion to the English Language' is unfortunately silent on the issue of the correct contraction of the colloquialism 'you all'. So too is the 'Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage'.

I hope that the esteemed Shortstop and I can amicably agree to disagree as to our preferred usage.

Shortstop: I agree with you. In the waning days of HIS failed presidency, Richard Nixon was observed roaming the halls, unglued, debating with the portraits of presidents that were hanging on the many walls of the white house.

Must have been thinking about Monica's.

$8400 is about the yearly gross pay of a minimum wage worker working 30 hours per week for 50 weeks per year.

"Of course I believe in the free enterprise, but in my system of free enterprise, the Democratic principle is that there never was, never has been, and never will be room for the ruthless exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few."
President Harry S. Truman

$8,400? Well, I guess there will not be four red dresses in the windows of the local Sallie's Thrift Store. E-Bay perhaps?

Dave Howard, Thanks - Yeah, I live in the shadows of the mighty mountain - Just wanted to poke fun at the lack of historical knowledge of Shrub.

third Paul: Absolutely, Dubya is simply and totally detached, likely from his lifetime experience of privilege and family wealth, successfully awol from the Texas Air National Guard... this uncurious man...he sees what he wishes to see.

consider wisely always: Yes, but I think my favorite Nixon meltdown moment, as reported by Kissinger (Grain. Salt. Big.), involved Dick on all fours beating the carpet with his fists, crying, "What has happened?" Who among us would be so churlish as to hope Smirky has a similar episode?

(Raises hand cheerfully.)

We can certainly agree to amicably disagree, CFShep, but I really would like to know what "ya'll" could possibly be contracting, other than "ya all."

Some admittedly non-professional opinions (as you say, the actual English usage bibles are silent on this) nixing "ya'll" appear here, here and
here.

In contrast, I was unable to find any source that argues for "ya'll" to the exclusion of "y'all."

Is George Bush really comparing himself to Harry S. Truman? The same Truman who gave this speech?:

We will do that because they are wrong and we are right, and I will prove it to you in just a few minutes.

...The reason is that the people know that the Democratic Party is the people's party, and the Republican Party is the party of special interest, and it always has been and always will be.....Confidence and security have been brought to the people by the Democratic Party.

... That's labor, and labor never had but one friend in politics, and that is the Democratic Party and Franklin D. Roosevelt....These benefits have been spread to all the people, because it is the business of the Democratic Party to see that the people get a fair share of these things. This last, worst 80th Congress proved just the opposite for the Republicans.

The record on foreign policy of the Democratic Party is that the United States has been turned away permanently from isolationism, and we have converted the greatest and best of the Republicans to our viewpoint on that subject.

The United States has to accept its full responsibility for leadership in international affairs. We have been the backers and the people who organized and started the United Nations, first started under that great Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, as the League of Nations. The League was sabotaged by the Republicans in 1920. And we must see that the United Nations continues a strong and growing body, so we can have everlasting peace in the world.

...We have started the foreign aid program, which means the recovery of Europe and China, and the Far East. We instituted the program for Greece and Turkey, and I will say to you that all these things were done in a cooperative and bipartisan manner. The Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate and House were taken into the full confidence of the President in every one of these moves, and don't let anybody tell you anything else.

As I have said time and time again, foreign policy should be the policy of the whole Nation and not the policy of one party or the other. Partisanship should stop at the water's edge; and I shall continue to preach that through this whole campaign.

....The situation in 1932 was due to the policies of the Republican Party control of the Government of the United States. The Republican Party, as I said a while ago, favors the privileged few and not the common everyday man. Ever since its inception, that party has been under the control of special privilege;...

...Now everybody likes to have low taxes, but we must reduce the national debt in times of prosperity. And when tax relief can be given, it ought to go to those who need it most, and not those who need it least, as this Republican rich man's tax bill did...it still helps the rich and sticks a knife into the back of the poor.

They [the Republican Congress] are going to try to dodge their responsibility. They are going to drag all the red herrings they can across this campaign, but I am here to say that Senator Barkley and I are not going to let them get away with it...And in the record is the stark truth, that the battle lines of 1948 are the same as they were in 1932, when the Nation lay prostrate and helpless as a result of Republican misrule and inaction...The country can't afford another Republican Congress.

millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/truman/hst_1948_0715.html

Well, seein' as how I represent the great state of Missouri in these parts, and specifically the great county of Jackson, home of Harry S Truman, just let me say I find any comparissons between aWol and Give 'em Hell Harry to be an utter apostacy.

I don't know about any of that, Stefan. Karl just told me to say I was Truman and talk about the courage to be unpopular.

Thanks again, CFShep! You're on a roll this morning. And thanks also, Stephan.

See what wonderful level of discourse can be had on this site, when we ignore the trolls?

>>I find any comparissons between aWol and Give 'em Hell Harry to be an utter apostacy.

Seconded.

Psst: Firefox 2.0

Ya'll hear now:

Harry S Truman once said the following,

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all it's citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in terror."

And Shrub thinks he is emulating Whom? Y'all hear now.

The irony, of course, is that if a Democratic politician gave in the present day the speech Truman gave above he would be denounced by the GOP and their corporate media enablers as a dangerous out of touch lunatic and radical (just as the GOP of 1948 did to Truman, of course: plus ca change, plus ca meme change), whereas now Republicans try to wrap themselves in Truman's cloak, hoping his good name will give feeble cover to their perversion, corruption and incompetence.

Dr. Johnson was wrong, it seems, since now impersonation, not patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Dr. Johnson was wrong, it seems, since now impersonation, not patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Ooooh, good one.

LOL, Paul.

You know what happens when ya try to please both camps, eh?

You end up like the character in Flaubert who preached moderation to the radicals and accommodation to the Royalists. The first wanted to hang him. The second wanted to shoot him.

Man, I've just got to locate the exact passage.

Pay attention children Mike Cook found one piece of the puzzle.

CFShep may be on a roll, but it's still "y'all"....

Well, this was a pleasant exercise in troll-free chat. But I'm still in my nightgown, and invoices aren't getting generated, Meaningless Atheist Christmas Trees and groceries aren't getting bought, dogs aren't getting walked and bathrooms aren't getting cleaned.

Wishing all...you guys...a good Saturday.

Kinda hard to do a y'wohl.

The more I think about this, the more it drives me mad: the same pundits who go on TV and the Op-Ed pages every week to whine "why can't today's Democrats be more like Harry Truman?" would reach for the smelling salts if they ever heard a real-life Democrat gave a speech in which he said, like Truman, "this Republican rich man's tax bill...helps the rich and sticks a knife into the back of the poor." They'd mewl and whine about how unfair he was being, and about the need for civility, and how this was just class warfare, etc.

You say to-May-to and I say to-Mah-to...

Ya know, darlin'?

I'm leaving. Not in a huff or anything. I've got errands to run and things to do.

Play nicely.

Well, it took me forever to stop fighting it and emb