Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Bush's Reality-Based Desperation

I'm back from overseas--just in time for Bush's big speech. The below comes from my "Capital Games" column at

George W. Bush finally has dipped his toe into the reality-based pool.

Standing in the White House library--because his PR guides wanted him to seem "conservational"--the president delivered a long-in-the-hyping speech on Iraq on Wednesday night, and he conceded what the American people have already figured out: his war is not faring well. Shortly before the November elections, Bush declared, "we're winning" in Iraq. With public opinion polls showing that close to three-quarters of the nation disapprove of his handling of the war, Bush wanted to demonstrate that he, too, is aware that Iraq is a mess. So he said, "The situation in Iraq is...unacceptable to me....Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." But here's the obvious question: given the president's history of false and misleading statements about the war and his record of poor decision-making related to the war, why should anyone accept anything he says or proposes now? He has no credibility--and far too long of a resume of failure. One speech--standing or sitting--will not make a difference in how Americans regard Bush and the war. There will be no surge of popular support for his newest plan: sending 21,000 additional US troops to Iraq for a last-chance stab at securing and stabilizing Baghdad.

Bush's announcement of this escalation came as no surprise. Critics and advocates of such a thrust have been debating the idea for weeks, anticipating Bush would order such a move. After all, it seemed the only choice left available to pro-war partisans. But the whole notion rests upon a rather iffy proposition: that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shares Bush's vision and can deliver. Maliki is Bush's lifeline in Iraq. Bush's escalation can only succeed if Maliki's government does what Bush says it will do: clamp down on the sectarian violence that is partly fueled by Shiites who are part of Maliki's government. In his speech, Bush credulously quoted a Maliki statement from last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation." And Bush noted that Maliki has pledged that there will be no "political or sectarian interference" in the coming campaign to pacify Baghdad. As a cynical foreign policy realist might say, Isn't it pretty to think so?

Maliki's word is not much better than Bush's. Parts of his government have protected--if not sponsored--Shiite death squads. And two weeks ago, Maliki told The Wall Street Journal that he wanted to bow out as prime minister before his term expires. Bush's reliance on Maliki's promises and character brings to mind his 2001 endorsement of Russian President Vladimir Putin: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy....I was able to get a sense of his soul." Without a sincere and successful effort from Maliki and his colleagues, Bush's plan has no real meaning. And that means the lives of US soldiers in Iraq will depend upon the integrity and competence of a leader who so far has failed and who recently expressed a desire to abdicate.

What's going to change on the Iraqi homefront to make the deployment of more American troops worthwhile? Bush said that Maliki's government has to meet a series of benchmarks (including assuming responsibility for security in all provinces by November, passing a law that ensures the sharing of oil revenue, spending $10 billion on reconstruction projects that create jobs, and reforming the draconian de-Baathification laws), and he reported that he had warned Maliki that the US commitment to Maliki's government is "not open-ended." But can Bush pressure Iraq's political actors to ignore domestic politics and behave in a fundamentally different manner than they have to date? Can the White House count on the current leaders in Baghdad to mount a multi-billion-dollar New Deal within months--and do so free of political and financial corruption? (Bush noted that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "will soon" appoint a "reconstruction coordinator" in Baghdad "to ensure better results" for US economic assistance being spent in Iraq. Why does no such animal exist--after nearly four years of botched and fraudulent reconstruction spending?) And how does Bush define "not open-ended"? In discussing his so-called surge, Bush never used the word "temporary."

Bush is doing what could be expected: digging a deeper hole in Iraq. It's possible that sending more troops might improve security in Baghdad and that doing so might create breathing space that might allow for some measure of political reconciliation. It's just as possible--if not more so--that the deployment of additional troops to Baghdad will do nothing other than force sectarian militants to do violence elsewhere and not address the basic factors driving the chaos and conflict that has been unleashed by Bush's war. Bush is merely placing a bet; the chips are the lives of American soldiers.

Bush's speech--make that, conversation--was absent soaring rhetoric. He did claim that the war in Iraq was essential to both the war on terrorism and the American mission to spread liberty. But it seemed that even he has come to realize that the time for such easy sentiments has passed. Americans, he acknowledged, want to know what he's going to do to undo the disaster in Iraq. He cannot say--as did James Baker and the other members of the Iraq Study Group--that there is no good solution for the problem he created in Iraq. So Bush is escalating the conflict. For him, there's not much choice. Staying the course would be unsellable. And extrication without victory is not an option. He has painted himself--and Americans and Iraqis--into a bloody red corner.

In a moment of quasi-candor, Bush noted, "Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties." Indeed, Bush has gotten around to recognizing reality--at least its most obvious elements. Yet he still is boxed in by his earlier refusals to do so. As a consequence, Bush's war in Iraq is about to become larger.

Posted by David Corn at January 10, 2007 11:38 PM


uncledad said...

Please can I be first? Please can I?

uncledad said...

Another escalation, followed by an excuse, another bad division, based in the elite. Another bad excuse, enough with the neoconsuperfratboy's.

Robert S. said...

As many of you know, I'm a C-Span junkie - I just sent them this:


Thank you for having Rep. Dennis Kucinich on the show, but, I was extremely disturbed that the Robb did not introduce Mr. Kucinich as an announced candidate for the Presidency of the United States. It showed a clear bias against his candidacy to ignore the simple fact of the matter.

I am also disturbed about the way many of the hosts have been cutting off almost all callers who dare to talk about the bringing of War Crimes Trials against this maladministration; to quote Robert Jackson:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."


"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."


"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

This, with the recognition that we were deliberately mislead into this hell, (and war is a hell, as I know personally from my time with an NGO in Dashti Q'aleh, Afghanistan in January 2002,) as well evidenced by the Downing Street Memoranda and more, is clearly more than enough to warrant the War Crimes accusations.

Stop cutting off callers calling for holding George W. Bush & Richard Cheney, et al, to account for their crimes. They wait forever trying to get into the conversation. I know. I wake at 4:00 A.M. to watch from California.

Had I gotten into the mix today, I had wanted to ask Rep. Marshall; and his office couldn't answer this question, "After we buy the 100 Silverados, the 1000 rifles, the ammo, etc., (having heard the story told at CSIS, previously, so I was prepared,) have we created a private militia or a Sunni Death Squad, to use the terminology that is in current usage?" Also, "What is to assure us that these trucks, rifles and ammo won't be turned against us after the Sunnis chase out the 'terrorists'?"

Respectfully, and thank you for C-Span,
Robert S.

Robert S. said...

US forces storm Iranian consulate in Arbil
dpa German Press Agency
Published: Thursday January 11, 2007

Baghdad/Tehran- US forces accompanied by military helicopters on Thursday stormed the Iranian consulate in the Kurdish city of Arbil, arresting five Iranian employees, a Kurdish security source said. In addition to the arrests, US troops confiscated documents and computers, while Kurdish security authorities cordoned off all roads leading to the building.

In Tehran, the Iranian leadership responded by summoning diplomats representing US interests in order to protest.

Local Kurdish officials in northern Iraq refused to comment on the incident.

Arbil is located 350 kilometres north of Baghdad in Iraq's Kurdistan province, the only region officially recognized as a federal entity.

The raid came a day after US President George W Bush said the United States would confront Iran and Syria, accusing them of fomenting violence in Iraq by allowing insurgents into the country and supporting attacks on American troops.

The political and religious representatives of Iraq's Sunni Muslim population accuse the Iranian leadership of supporting Shiite militias and even sending its own fighters to take part in death squads.

In Tehran, Iran summoned the ambassadors of Iraq and Switzerland (which represents US interests in Iran) over the consulate raid, Iran's state television network IRIB reported.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry demanded explanations from the two ambassadors on the raid and stressed that the consulate was established in the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region at the explicit wishes of the Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish officials.

Meanwhile, a source close to the Kurdistani government said the administration was unaware of the US plans to raid the Iranian consulate and didn't know the purpose of the operation.

After raiding the consulate, the US forces headed for Eikawa district, which hosts foreign companies and countries' representatives. Security forces of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan (KDP) reportedly surrounded three US military vehicles to prevent them from further action.

Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini condemned the raid and called it contrary to diplomatic norms.

He also confirmed the arrest of the five consulate staff members, but could give no information on their whereabouts or whether they have been transferred outside Arbil.

The IRIB Arabic network Al-Alam reported that the Iranian consulate employees had already been transferred to Baghdad although the president of the Kurdish autonomous region, Massoud Barzani, had tried to prevent the transfer.

Hosseini told ISNA news agency that all accusations by the US alleging Iranian interference in Iraq's internal affairs were just excuses to cover up the US failure in Iraq.

"Even the Iraqi officials have several times confirmed that Iran had no interference in Iraq," the spokesman said.

Elsewhere at least three people, including a local leader, were killed and 31 wounded when a truck bomb exploded Thursday in Samaraa, northern Iraq, an Iraqi police source said.

Among the dead was Asaad Yassin, president of the municipal council of Samaraa, near whose home the truck was parked, the source said.


What's that spell? - Country Joe McDonald

Robert S. said...

Breaking: US killed no top Qaeda targets in Somalia strike... Raw Story


Extrajudicial killings, no judge, no jury, only death from above by A-130 gunship.


Saladin said...

Blood Meridian: Bush's High Crimes of Torture and War
Chris Floyd, Atlantic Free Press

The regimen of torture and suffering being inflicted on captives in Bush's War of Terror is not some sort of aberrant overreaction to concerns about national security and public safety: these specifically designed, deliberately induced tortures are the expression of the President's deepest desires and clearly stated wishes. Just as the war of aggression in Iraq is his war, these crimes against humanity are his crimes. They are happening because he wants them too.

The only possible response of a sane society to the depredations of this man is his impeachment and removal from power. There is no other course of action for any responsible, patriotic member of Congress to take. Unfortunately, the American Establishment has clearly gone insane — so deranged from decades of bloated power and privilege that it can no longer act even to save itself from the general ruin that Bush is bringing upon the country. Unfortunately, there are very, very few responsible, patriotic members of Congress.

Witness the empty bluster behind the latest Democratic "opposition": in the face of Bush's imminent escalation of the war — with a "surge" that cannot possibly succeed in doing anything but increasing the bloodshed and hatred in the other nation he has ruined — they are offering a "series of symbolic votes" that "would do nothing in practical terms" to stop or even hinder this insane course, as the NY Times reports. The ever-hapless hairpiece hero, Joe Biden, believes this witless flapping of arms will "demonstrate to the president that he's on his own" — a realization that will somehow "spark real change."

But Bush already believes he is on his own — and he likes that way. He has already asserted that he will continue his course in Iraq even if he is deserted by everyone but his wife and dog. And his little mouthpiece, Tony Snow, has just announced that the President is an autocrat who cannot be restrained by any action of Congress whatsoever: "The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way." (Via Cenk Uygur by way of Steve Gilliard.)

"Symbolic votes" won't stop Bush. Even substantive actions — such as cutting off funding — will not stop him. He will clearly provoke a constitutional crisis and continue the war (and the tortures in his gulag) by any means necessary. He is probably willing to attempt to overthrow the government altogether with a military coup if he feels he is being thwarted in his "sacred duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the nation," which, in his mind, means waging aggressive war, torturing people, spying on us all and looting the treasury on behalf of his cronies. The only possible way to derail his destructive and criminal course is impeachment.

But how will that happen with the weak reeds and blathering hairpieces now in charge of Congress? What will it take to light a fire under them and force them to do what they are legally and morally bound to do — uphold the Constitution? Will they really let Bush go on and on, in slaughter and torture, escalating the war crime in Iraq and very likely launching a new war against Iran?

If the past five years is any indication, the answer is yes, they will. Consider that most leading Democrats are even more hawkish in their saber-rattling at Iran than the Bush Administration, which is even now methodically preparing for war with Tehran, either via a direct U.S. strike or else in reaction to the inevitable Iranian response to an attack by Israel. How can the bellicose Democrats object when Bush puts blood and iron to their rhetoric? A strike on Iran would be the perfect way to "restore bipartisan unity on the Hill."

Yet we live in hope and die in despair, as Brother Edsel always says. So keep pounding the drum: impeach, impeach, impeach. Make it so loud that one day it might even pierce the hairpiece of Joe Biden, and convince the cowardly lions of Congress to do their duty. The alternative is too ghastly to contemplate — although that grim reality may well be thrust upon us. But for God's sake, let's not go down without a fight.
This is wearing me out. If they won't obey the law, how can we make them, short of all out revolution?

Saladin said...

Noel Gibeson
Free Market News

Thursday, January 11, 2007

In the petrodollar wars, stage one was Iraq and stage two is Iran. Both dared to propose to use the euro instead of the U.S. dollar (USD) to buy Middle East oil. That was a big mistake because it jeopardized the solvency of the USD, a fiat currency; and, therefore, the very heart of the U.S. economy itself. Big business will not stand for that.

New York Post columnist Ralph Peters in "Eyeing Iran" (NYP, January 8, 2007) described the new U.S. military Middle East leadership lineup with General Patreus going to Iraq and Admiral Fallon going to CENTCOM as a sign for the future. Appointing a naval officer to command CENTCOM for the first time is seen as a harbinger of things to come with regard to Iraq, Somalia, and in particular, Iran. The Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean are key geographical areas in this region. Any attempts by Iran (or anyone else for that matter) to block key strategic geographic features, such as the Strait of Hormuz, or otherwise impede the transport of oil or strategic materials could be met with an instantaneous naval military response. The presence of increased naval forces in the area could also be a sign of potential military action.

What has become more even important than national boundaries, according to Anthony Wile in High Alert (High Alert Publishing, 2007), is the control and domination exercised by global elites over the economies of nations and the destinies of people. Few people are aware of this relationship and this excellent book goes into detail describing how this works. These are the forces that are currently in play worldwide that affect the U.S., Iraq, and Iran, among many other nations.

So when Iraq President Saddam Hussein said in 2000 that Iraq would begin selling Iraqi oil using the euro instead of the USD he instantly became a marked man. Why; because it is vital to the solvency of U.S. fiat currency that there are many foreign holders of the USD in order to keep it afloat; to keep it solvent. This is particularly important in the oil markets where trade must be conducted using the USD that the United States set as the standard long ago for oil purchases. This was done on purpose (Krassimir Petrov, "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse," Energy Bulletin, January 26, 2006).

Iran's plan to complete with dollar-dominated and American-owned New York's NYMEX and London's IPE, met with frosty reception from the beginning and things never got better. Because of the United States' high debt levels and stated neo-conservative quest for world domination, the euro inroads to establish a foothold in the dollar-dominated world oil market and posed a direct threat both to the U.S. dollar and to the U.S. economy (William Clark, "The Real Reasons Why Iran is the next Target," Energy Bulletin, October 26, 2004).
I've posted on this subject numerous times over the past year. All these wars always boil down to one thing, money, always have, always will. The people have allowed this infection to fester far too long, now there is no stopping it, it will be the death of us.

Robert S. said...

How do you expect to ever end this war, if ya can't sing any louder than that. - Country Joe McDonald, live from a TAZ (Google Hakim Bey for what is a TAZ) known as Woodstock Nation. Summer '69.

The War Is Over
By Phil Ochs

Silent Soldiers on a silver screen
A F#m E A F#m
Framed in fantasies and dragged in dream
Bm E7 A
Unpaid actors of the mystery
Bm E F#m E
The mad director knows that freedom will not make you free
F#m E
And what's this got to do with me
I declare the war is over
A E E A E C#m
It's over, it's over

Drums are drizzling on a grain of sand
Fading rhythms of a fading land
Prove your courage in the proud parade
Trust your leaders where mistakes are almost never made
And they're afraid that I'm afraid

I'm afraid the war is over
It's over, it's over

Angry artists painting angry signs
Use their vision just to blind the blind
Poisoned players of a grizzly game
One is guilty and the other gets the point to blame
Pardon me if I refrain

I declare the war is over
It's over, it's over

So do your duty, boys, and join with pride
Serve your country in her suicide
Fly the flag so you can wave goodbye
But just before the end even treason might be worth a try
This country is to young to die

I declare the war is over
It's over, it's over

One-legged veterans will greet the dawn
And they're whistling marches as they mow the lawn
And the gargoyles only sit and grieve
The gypsy fortune teller told me that we'd been deceived
You only are what you believe

I believe the war is over
It's over, it's over


Sing Out! I didn't excise the chords this time!

Robert S. said...

Boxer vs. Rice, now on C-Span 2.

Robert S. said...

Raptors, Robots, and Rods from God
The Nightmare Weaponry of Our Future
By Frida Berrigan

We are not winning the war on terrorism (and would not be even if we knew what victory looked like) or the war in Iraq. Our track record in Afghanistan, as well as in the allied "war" on drugs, is hardly better. Yet the Pentagon is hard at work, spending your money, planning and preparing for future conflicts of every imaginable sort. From wars in space to sci-fi battlescapes without soldiers, scenarios are being scripted and weaponry prepared, largely out of public view, which ensures not future victories, but limitless spending that Americans can ill-afford now or twenty years from now.

Even though today the Armed Forces can't recruit enough soldiers or adequately equip those already in uniform, the Pentagon is committing itself to massive corporate contracts for new high-tech weapons systems slated to come on-line years, even decades, from now, guaranteed only to enrich their makers.



This theft from our nation, what does this massive ILLTH, as opposed to WEALTH, lead to?

How about:

Study: 744,000 Are Homeless in US
By Stephen Ohlemacher
The Associated Press Wednesday 10 January 2007

There were 744,000 homeless people in the United States in 2005, according to the first national estimate in a decade. A little more than half were living in shelters, and nearly a quarter were chronically homeless, according to the report Wednesday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, an advocacy group.

A majority of the homeless were single adults, but about 41 percent were in families, the report said.

The group compiled data collected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development from service providers throughout the country. It is the first national study on the number of homeless people since 1996. That study came up with a wide range for America's homeless population: between 444,000 and 842,000.

Counting people without permanent addresses, especially those living on the street, is an inexact process. But the new study is expected to provide a baseline to help measure progress on the issue.

"Having this data brings all of us another step closer to understanding the scope and nature of homelessness in America, and establishing this baseline is an extremely challenging task," HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson said. "Understanding homelessness is a necessary step to addressing it successfully."

HUD is preparing to release its own report on homelessness in the coming weeks, Jackson said. In the future, the department plans to issue annual reports on the number of homeless people in the U.S.

Some cities and states have done their own counts of the homeless, providing a mix of trends, said Nan Roman, president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. For example, New York City and San Francisco have seen decreases, while the number of homeless in Washington, D.C., has increased, Roman said.

"In the last 12 to 18 months, the homeless population has essentially exploded in Philadelphia," said Marsha Cohen, executive director of the Homeless Advocacy Project, which provides free legal services to the homeless in Philadelphia. "We are seeing big increases in singles and families, both on the street and attempting to enter the homeless system."

"It's a whole influx of new people, and that's the really scary part," Cohen said.


Robert S. said...

"I have not been told the truth. I have not been told the truth over and over, again. And the American people have not been told the truth." - Senator Bill Nelson to the Dishonorable Sleezy Rice.

Robert S. said...

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) "I raise the issue that Sen. Boxer raised." - to the Dishonorable Sleezy Rice, as to why are the Brits leaving Iraq...?

Is the poodle off the leash, or just being sent to the pound by the British voters?

capt said...

Breaking: Bush invaded Iran last night

"Last night, Bush sent US forces to attack the inviolate territory of a foreign diplomatic mission, the Iranian mission in northern Iraq - legally, the land of a foreign nation - and took the Iranians hostage. It's hard to see under international law how this is legal, let alone how this isn't an act of war. And it's beyond ironic that we appear to have condoned the very action that we condemned Iran for - attacking diplomatic missions in violation of international law," writes John Aravosis.

"But what's most troubling about this is the transparency of what Bush is up to. He's trying to provoke a war with Iran, either by forcing Iran to strike back, or by discovering secret Iranian diplomatic documents that would prove their complicity in helping the insurgents in Iraq. We just invaded Iran last night, folks. Foreign embassies and diplomatic outposts are legally the foreign soil of the country represented. We invaded Iran. This is an act of war."

"U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members," according to state-run Iranian news, via Bloomberg.

We don't know whether it was Iranians or Iranian diplomats who were captured or why the raid even took place. But the timing is curious, given Bush's speech last night.


*****end of clip*****

I bet the increase in troops has little or nothing to do with Iraq. It is all about Iran.


capt said...


That's what I get for starting late, being in a hurry - jumping on out of disgust over a headline before reading the blog.

Thanks Robert.


Robert S. said...

De nada, Capt., two eyes on the ball are much better than zero eyes on the ball.

Joe Biden to the Dishonorable Sleezy Rice: "You do not, let me repeat, you do not have the authority to attack Iran."

O'Reilly said...

Robert, Your letter is spot on. Thank you for sharing it with us.

O'Reilly said...

Robert S. said...
Breaking: US killed no top Qaeda targets in Somalia strike...

It's troubling that so many reported successes in the war on terror turn out to be successes in the war on innocent bystanders.

I assume reports of al Quida in Somolia are accurate and therefore I'm inclined to think our gunship attack was ordered to kill real targets rather than manipulate US public opinion and refresh support for the WoT.

Having been so wrong about WMD in Iraq, you can understand how my DISTRUST of our own government has become a sever handicap for me in understand such events.

Bush is once again taking action and creating a new reality. This approach is driven by his belief that there is good and evil in the world, and he is an agent for good. Whether his beliefs boarder on delusion is not important. What is important is that his ignorance about his own potential for ordering action that has evil consequences, in not part of his calculus.

capt said...


I heard they had a cure for any future mistakes (ala Haditha) - if they F'up they call in an airstrike. No evidence of anything after the fact.


Robert S. said...

Capt., & O'Reilly,

"The War on Innocent Bystanders" a phrase for the age!

Consider the code phrase "rules of engagement." The rules that applied in Fallujah defined any male between puberty and wizzened as an enemy combatant. The same may now apply in Sadr City.

capt said...

Speaking of Embassies:

The crazyman and his masters and minions are using American EMBASSIES AS COMMAND POSTS IN THE ANTI-TERROR CAMPAIGN



capt said...

Since bluster is his only diplomacy, I guess the militarization of our Embassies makes perfect sense to him.

Impeaching the SOB is our only shot at stopping him, even impeached I wonder . . .


Robert S. said...

Militarization of Embassies? Can you say J-O-H-N N-E-G-R-O-P-O-N-T-E?

Sure, I knew you could.

Robert S. said...

New Iraq Commander Spoke Up for Judith Miller
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 11, 2007

The military commander President Bush is counting on to rescue Iraq from chaos, Lieutenant General David Petraeus, once came to the defense of an American reporter caught up in one of Washington's most intense legal battles.

In 2005, when Judith Miller of the New York Times was facing the possibility of jail for refusing to name one of her sources in front of a grand jury, General Petraeus wrote to a federal judge to discourage him from imprisoning her.

"Judith demonstrated a deep commitment to her work and values as an American citizen," the general wrote. "Based on my interaction with her, I find it unlikely that Judith would compromise on those values, to include betraying information gained in confidence from her sources. ... Judith is clearly a highly professional journalist, one who has demonstrated to me that she will keep her word."



This is the reality based General that the pResidunce is basing his hopes on?

capt said...

Today, at exactly 3:11 pm Eastern time, the House of Representatives passed legislation that expands federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Praise the lord and pass the pancakes! This is a good thing.


capt said...


Wilson AND Domenici were against the idea os additional troops or the "surge".

They are both Bushbots of the first order.

Things that make me go Hmmmm.


Saladin said...

Capt, as much as I want to see that psycho impeached I don't think it will stop anything, beheading the puppet still leaves the puppeteers in charge, and they've really gone around the bend and come out the other side haven't they?

capt said...


The "powers that be" can change figureheads like nothing. The figureheads can be one side or the other. I'm not even sure impeachment could slow the handbasket down much.

Bunnypants et al would just ignore it.



capt said...

New thread!

Mookie said...

Mr Corn, if you read these comments, I have a bone to pick with you. Every time you say something like this:

"But here's the obvious question: given the president's history of false and misleading statements about the war and his record of poor decision-making related to the war, why should anyone accept anything he says or proposes now?"

I can't help but remember how you claim that impeachment is not an option. You recognize as well as anyone how bad a job he has done, yet deny the political feasibility of impeachment. I believe it is as Cornposters have been saying for months: no amount of whining, complaining and petitioning on our part, nor course corrections, personnel changes, mission statements, and other mismanagement on their part will bring an end to US involvement in this war. His ass must be impeached. Mark my words carefully, because I have an aching suspicion that I am correct in this assessment.