Shithouse rats

Pull up your chairs, folks. It's time, once again, for another exciting episode of Conservative BatShit Theater.

From the nonsensical Crazy:

LIMBAUGH ON THE MADE-UP DEAD: "I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left."

To the Piss-On-Your-Political-Mealticket variety:

ANNE COULTER ON THOSE SURRENDER MONKEYS IN NEW YORK: "the savages have declared war, and it's far preferable to fight them in the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York (where the residents would immediately surrender)."

To the arms-flailing, mouth-foaming, babbling batshit Craaaaaaziest:

PAT ROBERTSON ON ASSASSINATING THE DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT, HUGO CHAVEZ: "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war...We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

A comedy of errors

It's the complete and utter disconnect from reality that makes me wonder why exactly the Bush administration and its quasi-religious loyal supporters are qualifiied to be dogcatchers, much less in any real positions of power. It's this kind of maladaptive, and quite frankly pathological, illusion they're defending that made me spray coffee across the room in a fit of laughter tonight.

From the cult of personality that is Blogs For Bush:

Now, the concept that Iraq only became a terrorist haven after our liberation of the country is a rather idiotic leftwing talking point - but the fact that our lefties say this and say we should pull out can only mean that they believe we shouldn't be fighting terrorists. Regardless of why the terrorists are there, if they are in Iraq, then that is the place we need to be, right? If we pull out of Iraq, do our leftwing friends think the terrorists there will pack up and go home? Hardly - we leave Iraq, and the terrorists will just be freed to strike elsewhere...to strike not well-armed American military personnel, but unarmed American civilians here in the United States.
It is a strange world our Democrats live in - a world in which the best way to beat terrorists is to stop fighting them.

The bit about Iraq, the new terrorist haven, being an 'idiotic leftwing talking point' is probably my favorite part of the whole thing. God knows those guys in the National Intelligence Council and their report on Iraq are just a buncha Birkenstock-wearin', dreadlock sportin' hippies. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we found out they were financially supported by MoveOn.Org.

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

And the proof that this conclusion isn't real, dont-pay-attention-to-the-partisan-hackery-just-take-it-all-on-faith? Why a screwy pundit site showing proof that Saddam Hussein gave money to the families of Palestinian bombers (Correlation is not causality) and other flimsy opinion pieces from the National Review, a magazine that's unapologetic about being a biased and factually skewed publication. As the NR reporter enthusiastically boasts, "No claims of fairness or objectivity here!"

But wait. If terrorism has always existed in Iraq and Saddam was a major contributor to it, shouldn't that mean that since we captured Saddam and overthrew his reign, terrorism should be on the run there?

Don't ask about the missing WMD. Just belieeeeeeve.

(Nevermind that a Congressional commission of Republicans and Democrats found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was linked to 9/11. They plan to hold onto that one and the Vince Foster conspiracy till they die)

But I think I'm in love with the beautifully constructed strawman that is "the fact that our lefties say this and say we should pull out can only mean that they believe we shouldn't be fighting terrorists." A logical fallacy given that no one except the tiny fringe left is advocating a capitulation to terrorism. Certainly not anyone in the Democratic Party. So Mark Noonan's assertion that the political Left "believes we shouldn't be fighting terrorists" is completely false, one that I guarantee you he can't prove via direct quotation from any standing Democrat. Not even Howard Dean. So let's just put that little lie straight to bed.

More importantly (or rather conveniently), Mark ignores the fact that it isn't just lefties that are looking at Iraq as a tarbaby we should have never been involved in. It's slowly becoming the consensus of Republican after Republican after Republlcan. The GOP is hemorrhaging politically over the issue and the gang at B4B want to claim it's only the Left that's concerned about it. Comedy gold.

But the gem of this whole thing? The one that had me gasping for air, snorting and cackling like a donkey on nitrous?

This bit of strategy from Mark Noonan's comments:

Be that as it may - yes, if you turned off the cameras, terrorism would whither away.

You just can't make this schtick up. With logic like that, with the belief that an aberrant war would take care of Bin Laden and with a steadfast refusal to commit the necessary troops, armor and equipment to win this thing, I'd say these guys are, without a doubt, the men for the job. So long as the job meant building and strengthening terrorism instead of, y'know, actually taking it down.

Bravo.

A mother's right

For anyone who isn't up to speed on the Cindy Sheehan discourse that's currently running its laps within the blogosphere, here's the summary.

Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Iraq. And while the big brouhaha is over her efforts to meet with President Bush, face-to-face, in the hopes of asking him just what exactly her son's death was for, there's something more about this mother's protest that's gathering attention. Her disallusion, dissent and its lens-like focus of the antiwar movement is proving to be a major sticking point with the GOP neo-McCartheyites, to the point that they've begun attacking her from every angle they can find. Up to and including summoning the opinions of her dead son to oppose her.

I only wish I was exaggerating.

So while it's good to see at least one conservative's honest smackdown of the vitriol machine in action and Sheehan's right to change her mind...

The essence of the right-wing smear machine's "outing" of Cindy Sheehan is her supposed flip-flop from supporting President Bush in 2004 to disapproving of him in 2005. As details of this have become clearer, it's obvious the flip-flop is nothing more than a canard. But setting aside the Sheehan story for a moment, have any of the shameless smearsters seen the public opinion polls recently? Here's some breaking news for them: a whole lot of Americans who supported Bush a year ago---including an increasingly large part of his "base"---have turned against him. And that includes many millions of people who haven't lost a parent, child, or sibling in Iraq.

...it's a bit disappointing to see another conservative, John Cole, whose blog I make a habit of reading, being a bit disingenuous when he says:

So what do I think of the whole situation? I think she should be left alone and ignored. She is a grieving mother, and she can do or say what she wants, and hopefully, some day, she will find her peace.

But she doesn’t have the right to set policy, she doesn’t have the right to make demands of the President, and she most certainly doesn’t have the right to be used as a weapon by people, who, like herself, want only to savagely attack this administration and expect that every0ne will just sit back and take it and not respond.. And that is what is going on right now. She has been adopted by the anti-war left, their surrogates in some sectors of the media, and in whole flanks of the blogosphere as a club to attack the President.

She can't possibly be coming to these conclusions on her own, conclusions most Americans have come to already. No, it has to be because the big bad Left is using her. Like a club. Honed by some phantom Left-wing media enterprise into a perfect weapon by which to attack the White House. Yeah, that's got to be it exactly.

When the did asking the White House "what's our purpose there" become synonymous with some evil machinations from the Radical Left? With disrespecting the troops? Or supporting 'the enemy'? Hell, given the imbedded softball journalism of guys like Jeff Gannon and FOX News, isn't it a bit dishonest to think she's crazy when she argues that "Since Congress is not holding George Bush accountable and the media is not doing their jobs and holding George Bush accountable, we the American people need to hold him accountable for lying to us to get us into a disastrous war"? Sounds like a fair fucking statement to me.

John forgets that Cindy Sheehan's right as an American citizen allows her to change her mind about an incompetent war and voice her opinion accordingly. John forgets that Cindy Sheehan's right as a mother of a fallen soldier affords her reasonable demands of accountability from this President, especially as it involves the lives of other mothers and their children. And I'd say asking the POTUS the following sits well within the realm of reasonable:

"He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."

God forbid the president be asked a sincere and piercing question from a mother who lost her son in his war. A president who has not attended a single funeral of any of the men he's sent to die but who has the gall to say, very cheaply, "I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place". Was that before or after "Bring it on"?

Yeah, I'd say Cindy Sheehan has certainly paid up with the right people. Certainly enough to ask the simple question of, "why Mr. President, did we go?".

John also conveniently forgets, as was the case with Michael Schiavo, that opposing the neo-conservative rhetoric is met with immediate character assassination from the Right Wing smear machine. Given that she's actually questioning the reasoning behind this war and doing so publically (making it doubly egregious in the minds of these chickenhawks) in the words of old Turd Blossom, "she's fair game".

And, baby, it's in high gear right now. So it's no surprise to me the anti-war Left have adopted her and taken up a common cause (despite the crazy Leftist-must-have-brainwashed-her nonsense coming from conservative pundits). God knows Powerline and Little Green Footballs aren't about to defend her. Certainly not now, anyway, since she left the Bush-love reservation.

'Anger pimps' indeed.

Drunk on the ashes

It started with all the bellicose jingoism they could wring out of the 9/11 dead. And like a junkie in need of his fix or a bad vampire movie, this administration's habit of mining tragedy and pain for political sustenance knows no boundary. Nor sliver of dignity.

From the Pentagon's press release:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2005 – The Defense Department today announced the first "America Supports You Freedom Walk" to honor the victims of 9/11 and America's military personnel, as well as to celebrate freedom.

The Freedom Walk will begin at 10 a.m. Sept. 11 in the Pentagon South parking lot, near the site where the airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. The walk route will consist of a two-mile trek through Arlington National Cemetery, over the Potomac River, and will end by the reflecting pool on the National Mall, where a free concert featuring country music star Clint Black will take place.

"I am proud and honored to be part of the America Supports You Freedom Walk to honor the victims of 9/11 and to support our men and women in uniform," Black said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made the announcement today at the Pentagon.

"Every year since the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans have commemorated that anniversary. This year the Department of Defense will initiate an American Supports You Freedom Walk. The walk will begin at the Pentagon and end at the National Mall. It will include many of the major monuments in Washington, D.C., reminding participants of the sacrifices of this generation and of each previous generation that have so successfully defended our freedoms," Rumsfeld said.

Because nothing eases the pain of losing a loved one like a free concert and a flag-waving hootenanny. Christ. Any chance we could commemorate September 11th with just a bit of solemnity and respect by... I don't know... it's a shot in the dark here.. but by maybe, just maybe letting the dead rest in peace? Instead of trotting out the ashes year after year for a pro-Bush Nuremberg rally, all in the hopes it'll rescue a party asphyxiating on its own bullshit?

This from an administration that never wanted an investigation into 9/11 to begin with, then wanted the final report kept out of the hands of the public until after the November elections. This from an administration that was more obsessed with Iraq than actually fighting terrorism (and ironically, still are). Oh yeah. These guys LOVE the 9/11 families. Without them, this White House loses its political mealticket.

Steve Gilliard is exactly right. They have no idea the kind of gale force blowback they're going to dust up with this one. The people are increasingly growing sick of it.

Fucking ghouls.

Pitted against each other

For years Republicans have been trying to create a divide between blacks and homosexuals that simply isn't there. Certainly not on the level they'd like it to be.

The argument is that black evangelicals, being good Christians themselves, should come to the same conclusions white evangelicals have come to regarding homosexuality and Scripture. Nevermind that whites used Scripture to advocate slavery and racism for centuries. No, what neo-conservatives really desire is to see two groups within the Democratic party pitted against each other, in the hopes it will unravel the progressive consensus. Every time a conservative black deacon condemns the homosexual lifestyle on television, the glee of that possible division swells within neo-con circles (an object of delight seconded only by reports of tortured Muslims or the crash of a liberal actor's career). So they really would like to see this idea pan out. And to do so, that means pandering to a voter bloc they've previously ignored for nearly 40 years.

That's why there's been a couple half-ass apologies lately (or even non-apologies in some instances) by the Republican Party to black voters, all in a very laggard attempt to sweep away the dirty tricks they played on the black community for half a century, and all to try to shore up black support for a party that's historically done its damnedest to fight against the interests of minorities.

That apology, mind you, comes just one year after Bush snubbed the NAACP's national convention for the fourth straight year in a row. Talk about historical context. This is a party that, from one side its of mouth, wants to severely cripple if not strike down Affirmative Action completely and yet placates and pays lip service to black interests from the other side. Only a true racist would have the gall to believe that black voters would fall for that kind of duplicity. Pretty insulting.

So it's no surprise to me that a growing tide of black leaders are slowly catching wise to the GOP's strategy of 'divide and conquer'.

NEW YORK (AP) -- The Rev. James A. Forbes spoke with a joyous righteousness as a preached to a hall of black faces Sunday at a cathedral at the edge of Harlem, and the words he chose might have come straight from the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.

Discrimination, he said, has no place in this world, and he urged his audience to liberate themselves from the notion put forward by some that they are less favored by God.

"Your job is to get up every day and be grateful to God for your DNA," Forbes said. "It took an artist divine to make this design!"

What made his words stand out was that they were spoken to a roomful of gay and lesbian faithful, and the would-be oppressors he referred to during the spirited religious service weren't white segregationists, but the pastors of some black churches.

...Speaking in a hall at the Riverside Church, the Rev. Cari Jackson, of the Center of Spiritual Light, said some conservative black clergy had, perhaps unintentionally, incited hate against lesbians and gays by repeatedly condemning them as sinners.

"Like our slave ancestors, we are being spiritually, psychologically and physically abused." she said.

Driving a wedge between the black community and the gay community isn't catching on as well as Republicans would like. The jig, as they say, is up.