Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 15, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

IS HE LYING OR IS HE DELUSIONAL?....For some reason, the local CBS affiliate in Los Angeles didn't air 60 Minutes last night, so I didn't get to see Scott Pelley's interview with George Bush. However, cruising around the internets this morning I found these two excerpts from Rosenfeld and Ackerman. Sounds like it was classic Bush.

UPDATE: More from Clara Jeffery and Elizabeth Gettelman. Apparently I missed a lulu. All for the best, perhaps.

Kevin Drum 12:31 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (125)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The doggerel du jour:

Lying or delusional?
Both, as usual.

Posted by: penalcolony on January 15, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, BOTH. duh

Posted by: spyder on January 15, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

In the interview, Bush says the Iraqi people owe the Americans a huge debt of gratitude for invading the country uninvited and on false grounds, degrading their public infrastructure and services, killing a few hundred thousand of them, and setting the conditions for a genocidal civil war.

That's a big debt they owe us, and presumably Bush thinks the Iraqis need to pay it back through generous access to Iraqi oil for his clients in the oil industry.

Posted by: McCord on January 15, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

No, you had to see it to comprehend how awful it was. I don't normally like to get carried away with criticisms of someone’s look, demeanor, delivery, projection, all of which is subject to bias and misinterpretation, especially when you don’t like them much in the first place.

But Bush was awful. He looked naked. Reminded me of Nixon at the very end.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, those ungrateful Iraqis, don't appreciate all he's done for them. Sucking the civil out of the cradle of civilization was a direct result of the American invasion, but the Iraqi's should be grateful.

Are we into fitness to serve territory yet, and if not, what the hell else will it take? Willful disregard for the will of the American people is a fitness to serve issue.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

K-Drum,
Did you see Darth Vader's interview with Chris Wallace yesterday? Truly frightening. Vader was basically telling Congress to bring it on. That Vader and Smirk are going to do what ever they damn well please. He also equated the elections with opinion polls. I hope those 60 million people are happy now.

Posted by: Ghost of Tom Joad on January 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Link's wrong on the Jeffrey. Try:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/01/3249_bush_says_iraqi.html

Posted by: mw on January 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

60 Minutes was on at 8:00pm in SoCal instead of the usual 7:00pm. God only knows why.

Posted by: Model 62 on January 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Harry Shearer, on his "Le Show" radio program this week, has the best summary of Bush's kind of thinking. To paraphrase Harry, if some country we don't like or fear might develop or even think of developing a nuclear weapon or weapons of mass destruction in the future, we'd better invade them now because if we don't and they do develop WMD or nuclear weapons later, we won't be able to invade them.

QED--Bush is out of his mind.

Posted by: PS on January 15, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

I like this one:

But the toll it's taking on soldiers, pushed Pelley, who then referenced Bush's brief service in the National Guard for comparison. "It was different then," answered Bush. "This is a volunteer army; I was drafted."

funny...the way I remember it daddy pulled strings to vault him past a long line of boys who wanted to get into the guard to avoid the draft. did I miss something?

Posted by: supersaurus on January 15, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK
Asked if he thinks he owes the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job, Bush says, "Well I don’t, that we didn’t do a better job or they didn’t do a better job?"
"Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion?" Pelley clarifies.
"Not at all. I think I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq," Bush replies.

Blog-whoring alert: My post, with a link to the video.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

That's an interesting looking post...Must have double-hit my hotkey...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing I miss about having TV is not being able to watch Bush so I can get wasted during the drinking game...

Posted by: NTodd on January 15, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

The full transcript of Bush's 60 Minutes interview is at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/14/60minutes/main2359119.shtml

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 15, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

It's time to get on board with Molly Ivins. I've had enough.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

I think the Iraqi people will pay us back, all right, but not in the way Bush expects.

Posted by: coffeequeen on January 15, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Last night I broke a rule. I had promised myself that I would never watch bush speak as a personal health benefit.

I watched 60 Minutes and my blood pressure went up and I was yelling at that murderous lying bastard as if he could hear me through the television.

Never Again!

Posted by: Charles Stanton on January 15, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Some children only learn with great difficulty. When confronted with such a case, educators are advised to develop a simplified message and repeat and review that simple message regularly with concrete examples until it becomes rote.

In this case the problem learners are the American public and the lesson is that Bush cannot be trusted.

Keep it simple, make it concrete, repeat daily and Bush's war support couls drop to 1 in 5, 20%.

Given that, only the equally delusional (Duncan Hunter) will support this policy. The Dems need to get real and get aggressive.

Posted by: Keith G on January 15, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: The full transcript of Bush's 60 Minutes interview...

Of course, as was already noted, a transcript couldn't convey how pathetic Bush looked.

Although I'm sure the thought never occurred to our resident neocon stooge, "ex-liberal"...

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

I was disappointed in Kevin's comment "lying or delusional," because he didn't specify which Bush statements he believes are dishonest or insane.

My guess is that all Kevin meant was the he is more pessimistic than Bush.

Nobody knows the future. I'm also more pessimistic than Bush, but his prediction may turn out to be closer to what happens. It cheapens the debate to characterize a different degree of optimism as lies and delusions.

BTW Bush is almost forced to be publicly optimistic about his plan, in order to maintain military morale.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 15, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

delusional — by definition you're not lying if you truly believe what you're saying is in fact the truth and that's george's problem. he was bad last night, very bad.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on January 15, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Watching the first few minutes (my blood pressure went up as well so I turned away) I wondered, is someone blackmailing him into doing this? He obviously does not seem behind the escalation. The cockiness is totally gone. What does Cheney have on him which could force Bush into a corner (and the country with it)? One out of four Americans believe that the end of the world is coming. Is Cheney singlehandedly trying to ensure it?

Posted by: ml on January 15, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

I just feel a need to repost the whole thing,

SCOTT PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

PELLEY: Americans wonder whether . . .

BUSH: Yeah, they wonder whether or not the Iraqis are willing to do hard work.

Selfish, puerile, infantile, insulting, stupid, cheating and smarmy. The whole thing about Republicans in two seconds. A masterpiece.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

ml...cheney is just telling the american people..

"Go F*ck Yourselves."

Posted by: mr. irony on January 15, 2007 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

I would doubt it's blackmail. To what end? This is what people like this live for. That no one in the universe wants them to do it makes it even better. They're getting away with it.

George and Dick are living the ultimate Republican experience. All that's left are the H-bombs.


Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Boy, talk about projecting:

PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?

BUSH: I'd say, first of all, to him, "You've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you've made your country the pariah of the world. You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon. You've defied international accord. And you're slowly but surely isolating yourself."

Posted by: hooboy on January 15, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

cld...exactly...


what is america going to do about it?

well?


Posted by: mr. irony on January 15, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Sixty Minutes was on in LA at 9:00 pm last night, not the usual 8:00 pm.

I missed Bush's interview too, but I did get to see the parents of the Duke lacrosse players.

Posted by: EB on January 15, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Since mass marches have no impact any more, there needs to be a boycott - of gasoline perhaps. The only way to receive any serious attention from the President is to get to his financial supporters. And even that probably won't work. There was a quote in an AP article yesterday that Bush thinks he is superior by ignoring the opposition to his decision. Maybe if religious leaders approach him??

Posted by: ml on January 15, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

A pray-in in front of federal buildings. Jesse Jackson should organize it. Let religious leaders implore god to talk to W to reconsider the escalation and the quick slide into war with Iran.

Posted by: ml on January 15, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

I think your being delusional! We freed Iraq from a raging tyrant. The Iraqis owe us bigtime, and I think the majority of them realize that. Look at the Kurds, the new capitalist center of the Middle East.

Why are you engaging in these disruptive posts? Because of the casualities? THe casualties are MINIMAL! 3000 dead and we're going to take our ball and go home? We will lose ALL CREDIBILITY if we do that. We will have no more war cred. We need to gut this out until we WIN. We can do it materially, its just our will that's a problem.

Posted by: egbert on January 15, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

ml, you have a good idea. I would participate in a pray-in, because to pray is to petition a higher authority, and i am doing just that, appealing to higher authorities for an end to this madness.

War would end if the dead could return. --Stanley Baldwin

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Look at the Kurds, the new capitalist center of the Middle East.

All those Assyrian Christians who have been ethnically cleansed by your pet ethnic group the Kurds would agree with you, I'm sure.

Go fucking learn something, you willfully ignorant sycophant.

BTW...I thought you were going to go away for two years,a nd return to laugh at us at that point?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

"All those Assyrian Christians who have been ethnically cleansed by your pet ethnic group the Kurds would agree with you, I'm sure."

I haven't heard this. Sounds like another Michael Moore lie to me.

Posted by: egbert on January 15, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

I was disappointed in Kevin's comment "lying or delusional," because he didn't specify which Bush statements he believes are dishonest or insane.

See, that's what I like about "ex-liberal" -- with his/her/its statements, it's all of them!

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

...whereas with "egbert", it's both! Neat trick, that...

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory may be thinking of the famous quote by Mary McCarthy, talking about Lilian Hellman"

"every word she says is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ "

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 15, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Bush on 60 Minutes video

Posted by: a friend on January 15, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Here is the link to the article on the Assyrian International News Agency website. (.pdf alert)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

The one I throw at you, ex-lib, but I throw in "if" as well.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Well? . . .


One way or another Congress has ultimate authority in all things.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

We're so desperate that were turning to Canadian pdf files now, Globule Citizen?

Posted by: egbert on January 15, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

God forbid I access a news source from a country with a free press!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Ignore Egbert. He's not an American.

Posted by: CN on January 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Egbert, where can I get a copy of your new book, "American Tool"?

Posted by: steph on January 15, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

USA Today reports a dramatic increase in police recruits in Anbar. This would support a degree of optimism about Bush's new plan:

RAMADI, Iraq — The U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.

In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.

Those figures compare with only "a few dozen" recruits in September, the U.S. military said.

In announcing his new Iraq strategy last week, President Bush said previous efforts to establish security in the country failed partly because there weren't enough Iraqi and American security forces.

U.S. commanders attribute the sudden increase in police applicants to the support of local tribal leaders and a deepening rift between Sunni tribesmen and extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"They've seen enough of the murder and intimidation," Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, commander of U.S. forces in Anbar, said of tribes in the Ramadi area.

One catalyst: the murder of a popular sheik in August. Tribal leaders blamed the death on al-Qaeda and formed a force to battle the terrorist network.

The force's leaders agreed to have their fighters join the ranks of local police under a deal U.S. commanders helped broker, said Lt. Col. James Lechner, deputy commander of the 1st Brigade.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070115/1a_lede15.art.htm

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 15, 2007 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

From the New York Times

BAGHDAD, Jan. 14 — Just days after President Bush unveiled a new war plan calling for more than 20,000 additional American troops in Iraq, the heart of the effort — a major push to secure the capital — faces some of its fiercest resistance from the very people it depends on for success: Iraqi government officials.

American military officials have spent days huddled in meetings with Iraqi officers in a race to turn blueprints drawn up in Washington into a plan that will work on the ground in Baghdad. With the first American and Iraqi units dedicated to the plan due to be in place within weeks, time is short for setting details of what American officers view as the decisive battle of the war.
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

That, my friend, is not a good example of war planning. That is a recipe to lose a unit. That is a blueprint for a Blackhawk Down but magnified by two disaster.

Is that what you fucking want? Because that's sure as hell how I see it.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

But being part of the 2% who has stepped up for your sorry ass kinda skews my view.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl, the spin in your cited article is why the New York Times is no longer the great paper it once was. That article paints a discouraging picture -- in fact, almost hopeless. And, yet, its facts are vague quotes, perhaps out of context.

One could take the same quotes and write an optimistic article about how hard Americans and Iraqis are working to fulfill Bush's plans.

I intend to wait and see how well the Iraqis cooperate and how well Bush's plan works.

BTW many observers have noted that the morale of the troops in Iraq is higher than the morale of us at home. This Times article, with its pessimistic spin, is an example of why that is.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 15, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Talk to some of the officers I talk to. conversations I have with my friends are not blog fodder, so accept of reject as you will, but I am hearing a different refrain in the O club than you are getting from Pajama's Media.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

"...working to fulfill Bush's plans..."

You really are delusional, as well. The man's a murderer, not a planner. And no one is following his dream, only vague, destructive orders that are putting everyone deeper into shit. Pessimistic? It's only just beginning, but you still can't small it, can you?

Posted by: Kenji on January 15, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

I was able to watch this in Los Angeles but 60 Minutes aired at 8PM not 7PM. About all you missed was how many times Bush laughed when he talked about this war. Why does he laugh anyway? Does he think this stuff is a joke?

Posted by: pgl on January 15, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, it's always delightful to see "ex-liberal" -- who was for free speech before he/she/it was against it -- sharpening up the dolchstosslegende.

(Notice, also, how "ex-liberal"'s counterexample is "how hard Americans and Iraqis are working to fulfill Bush's plans," as if optimism could be drawn from how hard people were working as opposed to the likelihood of securing Baghdad now where previous efforts have all failed. Similarly, you never saw any articiles about how hard the crew may have worked to bail out the RMS Titanic before it sank...)

As to the question of "lying versus delusional," one wonders -- or one would, if one wasn't fully aware of what a neocon tool "ex-liberal" -- what basis "ex-liberal" has for putting any faith in Bush's plan working this time. Is "ex-liberal" a dishonest propagandist, a sucker, or both?

As for the Mary McCarthy quote, "ex-liberal", when one's own handle is a lie -- as well as a sly smirk about ones actual neocon allegiances -- one is well advised not to trust anything that poster writes. I can only thank you for confirming my contentions about you with your every post, even as I wonder how it must feel to lack any shame at all.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

The cops in Anbar --this sounds more like they're anticipating the place going entirely to hell relatively quickly.

Whoever these guys are, once in uniform they can say they're the cops.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

My brother retired in April. He was doing some of the training of Iraqi forces. It isn't a problem getting recruits. They volunteer in droves. It's keeping them in the ranks after they pass out weapons and the first pay envelope. Duh.

The ones who do stick around you have to keep an extra careful watch on, because a lot of them have a penchant for dressing in black and covering their faces with ski masks and moonlighting on death squads.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

And you can't really know who they are in any event. I'd just bet forged Iraqi identity papers are a dime a dozen.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Everybody carries two sets of identity papers. One with a Sunni name and one with a Shia name. And chances are, the authentic ones say something else entirely and are in a lock-box at home.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

“But I was as surprised as anybody he didn't have them.” 1/14/07

Surprised? He made fun of the intelligence goof 3 years ago!


3/30/04

When presidents appear at the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner, it's traditional for them to tell a few jokes. But when George W. Bush appeared last week (3/24/04), he made a series of "jokes" about the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction that had been the central justification of his invasion of Iraq. Part of Bush's routine included slides showing administration officials looking around the White House for something. "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere," Bush explained while showing one of the images, which elicited laughter from the audience of politicians and media figures.

Beltway Humor:
Media React to Bush's Weapons Jokes
3/30/04

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1837

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 15, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Bush gave me the impression as if he does not comprehend what he has done, it does not sink in to him what he has done to our nation and the Iraqies. He just does not get it. Is that why he can sleep well?

Posted by: Renate on January 15, 2007 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Is that why he can sleep well?

I always assumed it is because of the hand jobs from Condi.

Posted by: Disputo on January 15, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

The fecklessness is manifest. It's time to stand up.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Extraordinary article from behind the scenes of the Sunni insurgency,


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1989397,00.html


Sunnis are souring on al-Qaeda.

I'd quote something, but I'd just quote the whole thing.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq," Bush replies.

OK, I'm willing to give Bush six months. If I don't get the candy, flowers, and free oil that they owe me, I'm going to think this was all a bad idea.

Posted by: Gomer on January 15, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

thx, cld; that is an amazing piece.

Posted by: Disputo on January 15, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

OK, I'm willing to give Bush six months.

Gome's down for one Friedman Unit.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

No more Friedmans. Enough Friedmans have been afforded. Time to try a fundamentally different approach and surge the other direction.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.

Those figures compare with only "a few dozen" recruits in September, the U.S. military said.

In announcing his new Iraq strategy last week, President Bush said previous efforts to establish security in the country failed partly because there weren't enough Iraqi and American security forces.

U.S. commanders attribute the sudden increase in police applicants to the support of local tribal leaders and a deepening rift between Sunni tribesmen and extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"They've seen enough of the murder and intimidation," Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, commander of U.S. forces in Anbar, said of tribes in the Ramadi area.


What does this have to do with the 20,000+ troops being sent to Baghdad in order to secure it?

Posted by: bigcat on January 15, 2007 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

bigcat: What does this have to do with the 20,000+ troops being sent to Baghdad in order to secure it?

Bush's plan calls for an extra 4000 troops to be sent to Anbar.

However, the increased recruiting mentioned in the article took place before Bush announced the specifics of his plan. It's conceivable that the early discussion of the Bush surge helped a little. However, the article attributes the successful recruitment to the local tribal chiefs turning against al Qaeda.

I posted this article to show that there are some favorable developments taking place in Iraq. It provides some evidence that Iraq may not be hopeless.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 15, 2007 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

from Global Citizen,

http://bluegalinaredstate.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-time-to-stand-up.html

Americans, that is, not Iraqis. We are well into "fitness to serve territory" and it is up to us - you and me and the rest of the country who feels like we do - to put an end to this insanity.

This president will never resign and we can not abide two more years. He is pathologically bent on a Revelations inspired vision of the world, bringing about Armageddon. His pathologies regarding the middle east dovetail nicely with the interests of his friends in big oil.

We have reached a point where it is undeniable. The campaign to remove this feckless leader from office starts NOW.

On January 27th, there will be a rally on the mall in Washington against this presidents plans to escalate our involvement in the Iraqi civil war. If there is any way possible that you can get to Washington, GO. If you can't get to Washington, attend a rally in your area. If you can't attend a rally, write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Write your Senator's and Representatives. Educate yourselves and talk to your neighbors and friends and co-workers. Don't just accept this.

America was not founded by those who meekly accepted their lot, and this American has no intention of meekly accepting her lot now.

My peers and I have changed the world before and I'm game to give it another go. We got a Nuclear Freeze and we ended Apartheid. We have had the playbook for years, and now we have the netroots, so what the hell is stopping us? Only our own inaction.

We had an election to set things right, and the president refuses to acknowledge it. We want change, we voted for change and he insists on giving us more of the same plus 20%. Bullshit. I won't abide it and neither should you. Our children are the ones who will pay the price for this folly. Those who serve will pay in blood and those who do not will pay the tab to China when it comes due.

The ramifications of this presidents actions are too far reaching and to universally against the interests of the American people and it is up to us to stop it.

It's time to stand up.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

It provides some evidence that Iraq may not be hopeless.


If the Sunnis are souring on al-Qaeda and international jihad that suggests an improvement in the global war on terror, but if it means the US will lean to the Sunni side against the Mahdi army I can't imagine how that would lead to an improved situation in Iraq.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Yesterday at Daily Kos, commenting on as much as I could stand of the Bush interview:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/14/134657/616

Besides the insinuation that Iraqis need to apologize to the US, I was also struck by Bush's offer to present himself as a "scapegoat" for the failures in Iraq.

>>>PELLEY: The troop levels . . .

BUSH: Could have been a mistake.

PELLEY: Could have been a mistake?

BUSH: Yeah. [General] John Abizaid, one of the planners, said in front of Congress, you know, he thought we might have needed more troops. My focus is on how to succeed. And the reason I brought up the mistakes is, one, that's the job of the commander-in-chief, and, two, I don't want people blaming our military. We got a bunch of good military people out there doing what we've asked them to do. And the temptation is gonna find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me 'cause it's my decisions.

So how is it scapegoating to blame somebody for their own disastrous actions?

Posted by: smintheus on January 15, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush White House has yet to find a suitable partner in Iraq for the great plan.

And there will be no impeachment. Bush and Cheney have too little time left in the Oval Office. Their political opponents, and they are genuine, will simply try to impede their progress.

But Bush and Cheney are made of contempt. If the approval rating for their war was 10% they would pursue their goals with gusto. They have contempt for the Congress, the Constitution and the American people. Theirs is a special kind of tyranny. One that says I know what you want and what is good for you even though you are blind to it yourself. In the Cheney Regency liberty and tyranny are one.

Posted by: bellumregio on January 15, 2007 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

"God told me to get Sadaam."

Do we need anymore evidence of delusions?

My god is telling me that our preznut is a jerk and not quite smart enough to be an idiot.

So how come his "god voices" are more right than mine?

Folks seem to forget that he was a coke-head, an alcoholic, and awol during the last presidentialfollywar (Vietnam).

The fact that I posted the above sentences, means some FBI hack is monitoring this thread, and we should all be very afraid!

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 15, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK


60 Mins. piece is on their Web site.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2359185n

Posted by: marymad on January 15, 2007 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

bush, And the temptation is gonna find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me 'cause it's my decisions.


The move for Republicans in the future will be to blame eveyone in the universe but themselves for this and here Bush seems to be heading them off. Why?

Another interesting thing that happened recently was when some blowhards started carping on about Barack Obama not wearing a tie and almost immediately the whole Bush cabinet started appearing tie-less.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

PELLEY: The Democrat leadership says, "We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000."
PELLEY: There's no Democrat plan.

I see 60 Minutes hates the ic as well. Rush is laughing.

Posted by: patrick on January 15, 2007 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me

My Pet ScapeGoat.

Posted by: Gomer on January 15, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Scholar William Graham Sumner:
Critical thinking is the examination /test of propositions of any kind which are offered for acceptance in order to find out whether they respond to reality or not.
The critical faculty is a product of education and training. It is a mental habit and power.
It is a prime condition of human welfare.
It is our only guarantee against delusion, deception, superstition and misapprehension of ourselves and our earthly circumstances.

It would appear Dubya was absent from the school the days they went over the importance of critical thinking skills.


Posted by: consider wisely always on January 15, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Bush doesn't even know the definition of the term "scapegoat". First he takes full responsibility if mistakes were made then he says he'll willingly be the scapegoat for the people who made those mistakes. What an idiot.

Posted by: rita on January 15, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

During the height of WWII, I can't imagine any American citizens calling FDR "delusional." Could not the DDay invasion be considered reckless? Did a certain class of citizens cry foul when we sent those troops into the jaws of certain death?

I wish liberals could take a step back sometimes and see the big picture.

Posted by: egbert on January 15, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone know what has happened to the level of violence in Baghdad since Bush announced his new plan? Is it up, down or the same?

I've seen no reports, which makes me suspect that violence may be down.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 15, 2007 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal (way upthread) attacked a news source I losted from the New York times as spinning negative. I should have pointed out that the link to that story came in my morning email from the


"Air Force Times Early Bird Brief

Today's top military news: January 15, 2007


The Early Bird Brief features exclusive summaries of the Current News Early Bird. Published every morning by the Department of Defense."

Just FYI. I'm not trolling sites desperately seeking agreement. It's everywhere I look.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

The Air Force Times Magzine is owned by Gannett. That doesn't make their story wrong, but I just wanted to point out that it's not published by the military.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 15, 2007 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

Ignore Egbert. He's not an American.

Posted by: CN on January 15, 2007 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Self-deception, false beliefs, distortion and wishful thinking, rationalizing away what the rest of us know to be strongly opposing evidence, persistence with a long-standing and self-serving bias in thinking--all the while ignoring the reasonable ideas of others.

Such simplistic thinking, i.e., saying "Using bad language, like, you know, bring them on, was a mistake." Notice he did not use an "I" statement when admitting that major error in judgment-- It is actually quite significant in that he is not capable of accepting responsiblity at all.

Magical thinking, wishing everything to be the way he so deeply wants it to be, trying still to persuade us, while digging in deeper-- despite the advice of wise people.

We are in big-time trouble. How in the hell is all of this going to turn out?

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 15, 2007 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Yes it is published by Gannett. Just like USA today, which printed the article you referenced and to which I was responding.

The only official military publications are Stars & Stripes and Pacific Stars & Stripes and they have uniformed officers on their editorial boards, so we will not be seeing anything negative come out in them, as that would be insubordinate, and insubordination is a punishable offense.

But the Military Times publications are geared to the Active Duty forces, specifically the career officers and NCO's. They are not a hotbed of liberal ideology.

Just for the record.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I knew FDR. Bush is no FDR. How stupid can a person be?

I think you should give back the money they are paying you, you're not worth it.

Posted by: Tripp on January 15, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

egbert,

During the height of WWII, I can't imagine any American citizens calling FDR "delusional." Could not the DDay invasion be considered reckless? Did a certain class of citizens cry foul when we sent those troops into the jaws of certain death?

I wish conservatives could take a step back sometimes and see the big picture.

Posted by: cld on January 15, 2007 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

I missed a lulu

Yeap, it was a real lulu alright and today some Repugs are having serious second thoughts about Bush's (Cheney's) little surge.

Thanks are due mostly to an increditable stupid hour, whereby Bush just made shit up, so now Repugs are wonder if Bush isn't stupid---are something like that.

I mean really, could Bush be as stupid as he appears?

Imagine that!

Posted by: Cheryl on January 15, 2007 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert - someone who doesn't know how to post links sent this to me and asked me to post it just for you. I am thrilled to oblige.

Just for egbert.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

I've seen no reports, which makes me suspect that violence may be down.

Irony alert: "ex-liberal," of all people, making snide remarks about the media's credibility.

"ex-liberal," you dolt, I expect the violence is down coinciding with the end of the Muslim holy months. Why? Because it's a cyclical occurrence.

It's to this Administration's everlasting shame (you might want to look that word up, "ex-liberal") that one can't dismiss out of hand the possibility that Bush's tardy announcement was in fact timed to coincide with this cyclical drop.

That "ex-liberal" raises the subject, of course, only supports the likelihood of mendacity.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2007 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl, that was uncalled for.

Posted by: egbert on January 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Self-deception, false beliefs, distortion and wishful thinking, rationalizing away what the rest of us know to be strongly opposing evidence, persistence with a long-standing and self-serving bias in thinking--all the while ignoring the reasonable ideas of others.

At first, consider wisely, I thought you were describing "ex-liberal," not Bush -- although either is apt, come to think of it.

Posted by: Gregory on January 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Only if you were not an idiot would it be uncalled for, but since that fact is well established, no, it wasn't.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory - I pointed out the statistics of the uncoming .5 F.U. yesterday in a post about the Brits ginning up for drawing down.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 15, 2007 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Ha, hah--very good, Gregory!

Bush's handlers must have given up. It seems they should have reined him in, kept him underwraps. That was a loose caboose.
The jig is up with that 60 minutes interview.
I bet repug congressmen had some heavy duty private meetings today.

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 15, 2007 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal thinks death took a holiday since Bush announced his "new plan"

Posted by: consider wisely on January 15, 2007 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

I can't stomach watching any of them anymore. I get too upset at the lies on top of lies on top of covering for lies.

January 27th, get to Washington however you can.

Posted by: A Concrned Citizen on January 15, 2007 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK
....I've seen no reports, which makes me suspect that violence may be down.x-li at 9:04 PM
By now, even you should be aware of the distortion of reporting of the violence in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group made a special issue of requesting that Bush become honest with the numbers
...I wish liberals could take a step back sometimes and see the big picture eggbutt at 8:54 PM
Since Bush's invasion of Iraq is more of a colonial war than an act of defense to a major attack by a militaristic state, your statement is meaningless as usual. By the way, FDR wasn't delusional. He knew what was happening and wasn't lying to himself.
The Air Force Times Magzine is owned by Gannett.... it's not published by the military. x-li at 9:18 PM
The stories are reported by the military. It doesn't matter that the publication has been privatized, but according to rightists that something good when it leads to higher profits for some and bad if there's a story not in accord with your political agenda. Posted by: Mike on January 16, 2007 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

If you can't get to Washington, take part in a local rally. If you can't take part in a rally, write letters. To the editors of your newspapers, to your congressmen, to your senators. Educate yourselves and debunk the lies when they are soft-peddled. Spread truth.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 16, 2007 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

Is he lying or delusional?

Bush is a sociopath/psychopath. Simple explanation from Wiki:

Diagnosis of Antisocial personality disorder is significantly more common among men than among women [1].
Central to understanding individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, is that they appear to experience a limited range of human emotions. This can explain their lack of empathy for the suffering of others, since they cannot experience the emotion associated with either empathy or suffering. Risk-seeking behavior and substance abuse may be attempts to escape feeling empty or emotionally void. The rage exhibited by psychopaths and the anxiety associated with certain types of antisocial personality disorder may represent the limit of emotion experienced, or there may be physiological responses without analogy to emotion experienced by others. [citation needed]
According to the older theory of Freudian psychoanalysis, a person with antisocial personality disorder has a strong id and ego that overpowers the superego. The theory proposes that internalized morals of our Unconscious mind are restricted from surfacing to the ego and consciousness. However, this explanation provides no insight into the cause or treatment of the problem.[citation needed]
Research has shown that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are indifferent to the possibility of physical pain or many punishments, and show no indications that they experience fear when so threatened. This may explain their apparent disregard for the consequences of their actions, and their aforementioned lack of empathy.[citation needed]
For more in-depth analysis, see Dr. Robert D. Hare, the foremost authority on sociopaths and psychopaths. He says they account for about 1% of the population. More from Wiki:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1 failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2 deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3 impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4 irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated fights or assaults (both physically or mentally)
5 reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6 consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7 lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
Another thing... just because Bush can shed a tear upon occasion doesn't mean he isn't a sociopath/psychopath. If anyone has watched the interviews with the Iceman, Richard Kuklinski, or Green River killer, Gary Ridgway, know that they can cry when confronted with the imapct of their crimes...and in Bush's case of tears, dealing with dead soldiers or troops he's about to send into harm's way. He may also be reminded of a deep childhood trauma, the death of his sister, Robin.

A childhood pal of Bush described how he would shoot frogs or put firecrackers in the frogs, throw them, and blow them up [Kristoff, NYTimes]...a hallmark trait of a sociopath/psychopath. Who can forget Bush's mockery ("Dont kill me" in falsetto) of executed killer Karla Fae Tucker when he was governor of Texas during which, he presided over more executions than any past governor. Other examples, see Dr. James Oliver, Bush on the Couch by Dr. Justin Frank, and Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work by Paul Babiak & Robert D. Hare.

The only way to actually determine if Bush is clinically a sociopath/psychopath is to subject him to the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). But for me, having seen and known sociopaths in a therapeutic setting, Bush fits the bill. Borderline personalities are also notorious for being alcoholics, prone to substance abuse.

My two cents...

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 16, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Another nice quote: "At a hearing Friday of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the deployment of the Kurds in Baghdad could bring "balance in that they are not either for Sunnis or for Shia but for Iraq." But Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) countered, "I think they are for the Kurds."

Posted by: tre on January 16, 2007 at 4:45 AM | PERMALINK

Some of these media people need to understand that chickengeorge is not popular anymore. Over 60% of the American people hate the lying cocksucker.
Pelly should have said, "the National Guard has never drafted anyone, and they never will. So, Mr. Bush, are you lying or do you just not realize that you are not telling the truth"?
It's too bad chickengeorge is too much the coward to let Olbermann interview him.

Posted by: ex conservatard on January 16, 2007 at 6:45 AM | PERMALINK

"Just give me the callback codes, and I'll be right there, feeding you shells, Jack old boy".
--Peter Sellers as Group Captain Lionel Mandrake in the movie "Dr. Strangelove"

Posted by: Quotation Man on January 16, 2007 at 8:05 AM | PERMALINK

"I do not shun the company of women, Mandrake.

But I do deny them my essence."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 16, 2007 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not an expert on Iraq, but I'm guessing it might help our public diplomacy if someone at state would convince the DoD to stop using the terms "tribal leader" and "tribal elder" in countries we invade.

1). The term strongly implies we think that these countries are filled with savages with a social system that is essentially a Mesolithic pre-agrarian construct.

2). The plan where you gather up a bunch of pro-western sycophants, call them a "council of tribal elders", and then have them define and populate a transitional government has been used a little too much lately. Put it up on the top shelf and let it collect dust for a few decades.

Posted by: B on January 16, 2007 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

B:

Well no, I have to strongly disagree with you there. Most of the Mideast (not to mention Afghanistan) is quite proudly tribalistic. The term is not merely redolent of patronizing 19th century anthropology -- the term is something the tribal leaders themselves would endorse.

These are societies where first cousin marriages are more the norm than the exception. So you do have fairly large population clusters who are interrelated -- and family ties in the Mideast tend to trump all other forms of intra-group solidarity. This is naturally why it's so difficult to build a society based on role-based contract relations (what you do, what you know) rather than ascribed status relations (who you are, who you know). Max Weber write about this extensively in his works on authority and the modernization process.

So when the idea is to try to quell the Sunni insurgency by drawing the tribal elders together in Anbar -- it's about the best we can do, really. Councils of tribal elders have been the time-honored way of settling intra-tribal disputes (you -- give the other tribe a herd of goats, you -- give our tribe your first-born daughter in marriage, etc.) since Biblical times. Certainly the insurgents themselves would more likely heed the edicts of their tribal leaders than anything that might come out of the Green Zone ...

Tribal leaders, who have ascended to their status by surviving as venerated elderly men, tend to posess more wisdom and thus make more careful decisions than hot-blooded and impatient younger people. It's not deliberative democracy -- but it's surely better than an imposed authoritarianism a la Saddam or the anarchy of sectarian warfare ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 16, 2007 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

I just broke down and read the transcript.

Kevin, they are right, you are a tool.

There is absolutely NOTHING delusionary about this man. He knows exactly what he is doing and what he is saying. This was a pure propaganda piece, executed according to script. It is lying in the most obscene sense of the word. This is what you get with a 3rd gen silver spoon product. The rest of the world exists to feed their wallets.

Get with the program folks. The Cheney/Bush regime only cares about the money, and they are getting rich in this deal. End Of Story.

Posted by: TT on January 16, 2007 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

As I said, I'm no expert here, but am strongly suspicious when something our government describes as a "council of tribal elders" is consulted and votes to place western educated exhiles in charge of transitional governments. I didn't really blink in Afghanistan where the concept of the Loya jirga exists (albeit only sees the light of day every decade or two). Here we clearly gamed the system and kept certain folks out, but I don't think they ended with a terrible result.

Then I saw the term used in Iraq where Rumsfeld and the CPA declared that they consulted unnamed tribal leaders in the election of Allawi and Chalabi's bizarre group of exhiles.

And then I saw the term used in Haiti when we exhiled the democratically elected socialist leaning president.

I think you are right that "tribe/clan" roles are very important in Iraq at this time. Certainly sectarian religious leaders have lost their ability to be a unifying force and there are no non-sectarian strong mayor/governors that we can rely on. And I think we have no incentive to game the system at this point. Certainly tribes were a little less important a few short years ago.

Posted by: B on January 16, 2007 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

B:

Well Saddam, as has been noted by many observers, certainly didn't suppress tribalism the way he suppressed Islamism. In fact, he governed precisely like a tribal strongman (he never bleached out the tattoo on his hand which signified his Tikriti tribe, even though people from those areas who attained a wider status in Iraqi society through education or military service consider it a mark of backwardness) given control of a modern state. In many ways, Saddam was like the tribal African strongmen in the aftermath of colonialism who took the appurtenances of a parliamentary system and twisted them into instruments of absolute power by becoming Presidents-For-Life, etc. Tribalism as the ultimate wellspring of political legitimacy combined with modern weaponry generally leads to horrendous government, not to mention atrocities ...

It's more accurate to say that Saddam used tribal relationships (he certainly set his own Tikriti tribe up nicely to share in the spoils) to confer legitimacy on himself and manage rivalries by pitting tribe against tribe, than to say that tribal relationships were less important in the Saddam era, I think.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 16, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

During the height of WWII, I can't imagine any American citizens calling FDR "delusional."

Yes. The Republicans did.

Could not the DDay invasion be considered reckless?

Since by comparison to the Bush approach it was actually adequately planned, organized, supplied, armed and manned, no, not really.

Did a certain class of citizens cry foul when we sent those troops into the jaws of certain death?

Yes. The Republicans did.

Posted by: Stefan on January 16, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

B:

No doubt about it -- we gamed the system, especially in the beginning. The idea of using "tribal elders" to try to legitimate Chalabi & Co. was a complete farce.

So I do agree strongly with your general point that we tend to exploit tribal relationships to do what we want to do in developing countries -- and it's absolutely right to be suspicious whenever we hear Western interlopers talk about "convening tribal councils" ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Remarkable series of meetings between Israel and Syria included the idea of turning the Golan Heights into a park,

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/813817.html

Posted by: cld on January 16, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

I pray Stefan is referencing Egbert and not my parody of Egbert.

Posted by: cld on January 16, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

cld - Did I insult you? The laughing "idiot" link was meant for the */real* egbert.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 16, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

During the height of WWII, I can't imagine any American citizens calling FDR "delusional

Perhaps because he wasn't...and Bush clearly is.

Posted by: ckelly on January 16, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Global --No! I knew that was aimed at Egbert.

Though it took me an hour to shake off the induced epilepsy.

Posted by: cld on January 16, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

My lame parody was at 9:59 where I copied out one of his posts verbatim changing only the word 'liberal' to 'conservative', trying to suggest that it made as much or more sense that way.

Signed it as myself.

Posted by: cld on January 16, 2007 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Okay - *whew* - Wouldn't want that.

I'm considering adding that link to my online quizzes. (Tenure is not in my future, I fear).

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 16, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

I keep popping in looking for a new thread. I hate the inservice day that I have to suffer through the day before classes resume. (Those physicists down the hall aren't nearly as funny as they think they are.)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 16, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

I don't want people blaming our military. We got a bunch of good military people out there doing what we've asked them to do. And the temptation is gonna find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me 'cause it's my decisions.

It's a slight misuse of the word "scapegpat", but other than that it is the right sentiment. When Truman received that desk ornament with "The buck stops here", it wasn't about a literal "buck", and Bush's comment is about responsibility and blame, not about a literal "scapegoat". It is perhaps a challenge to the Democrats: if they want something done different, or differently, then they better pass a law saying what they want. He believes that he is right. If the members of Congress believe that they are right, then they need to take the responsibility and order him to do whatever it is they think is right.

Consider John Murtha: last year he voted against a Republican-written resolution based on one of his speeches. Now that the Democrats have the majority, he can write out the resolution that he supports and submit it. I don't know why he hasn't done so (or if he has, I missed it) but there are two obvious possibilities: (1) he doesn't think it has any chance of getting a majority even of Democrat votes; (2) he suspects that he may be wrong. I think that a lot of Democrats share suspicion #2: the surge might work (this was admitted by Kevin Drum about 10 days or so ago), and they do not want to vote against it until its failure is obvious.

Stefan, you are correct that Republicans called FDR delusional (corrupt, and worse), but the mistakes at the Normandy invasion were many and costly. To start with the planning, all the reconnasiance failed to reveal the "hedgerows" behind the beaches; German use of the hedgerows for defense slowed the Allied advance for weeks later than the Allies planned. The Allies underestimated the effectiveness of the defenses at Omaha Beach (or else you can blame the total ineffectiveness of the aerial and naval bombardments in reducing those defenses.) America's previous wars have had mistakes as great as those committed in Iraq, and as frequent.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on January 16, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

requests for British troops to stay:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=5FOROUHVWPPA5QFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/12/wiraq712.xml

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on January 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

I've seen no reports, which makes me suspect that violence may be down.

Well, the headline today reads "Bomb Blasts in Baghdad Leave 109 Dead." I'm not sure what that's down from.

Posted by: asdfg on January 16, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal thinks death took a holiday since the McCain/Bush/Lieberman/Cheney gang pushed the new plan, John Edwards says speak out---" Congress, use that power, use it now: Stop funding the increase in this war: Stop the escalation and continuing in tragic mistakes that were made in Iraq. There is clear constitutional authority for it. Those who know in good conscience should speak out against it."
I like him. Says he said he also spoke to American people in saying this-- they also need to speak out against this war. Reminds us that Martin Luther King said silence is a betrayal. Edwards hopes the congress will stand up to the president. He lets us know that when he was in congress he felt at the time that voting for $87 billion additional was wrong--he voted no. He is "now running for president, now is the time for leadership. We need to have the strengths of our convictions, to speak up."

Wow--Scooter Libby trial starts--political theatre abounds-- jurors are asked about their feelings about Cheney. Charged with deliberately misleading investigators= Libby. Rice and Cheney will be testifying. Former special prosecutor--Scott Fredreickson(?) on CNN says this will be real different for Cheney.
Wow, wow and more wow--Barack Obama entering the race

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 16, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly