Seems like my birthday seems to be a focal point of stupidity (no surprise there), so here are several stupid things all wrapped up in one post.
1.) The first comes via Misha and is a visual:
Syrian journalists on Monday, June 20, 2005, make TV images of the fence built by Syrian border soldiers near Badiah on the border between Syria and Iraq to prevent militants from infiltrating from Syria into Iraq to fight the U.S.-led coalition forces.
As noted at Misha’s:
No insurgent jihadist splodeydopes could get through that. Cows maybe, sheep certainly, but not insurgents.
2.) The second entry comes via America Blog and is a pair of quotes regarding the House passage of a flag burning amendment (yes, I know- wtf???):
“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center,” said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, “If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.”
A more damning indictment of the problems inherent in a two party system could not be produced.
3.) We’ll just call this an Everett Dirksen moment:
An audit by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction said U.S. auditors could not account for nearly $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds and the United States had not provided adequate controls for this money.
“The CPA’s management of Iraqi money was an important responsibility that, in my view, required more diligent accountability, pursuant to its assigned mandate, than we found,” said chief inspector Stuart Bowen in testimony.
A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking big money.
4.) Finally, there is this:
Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville political landmark since 1986, will face a re-election fight from conservative activist Randall Terry.
Terry, a nationally known abortion opponent and spokesman for Terri Schiavo’s parents this year, is scheduled to announce today he will run to unseat King next year. He had previously announced he was considering a run.
The contest is already centering itself as a core fight over Republicanism. King is a social moderate and fiscal conservative who has sometimes clashed with the right-wing elements of the party. Terry says the district has no room for moderation and that he can better represent Republican principles.
“I want a smaller government, lower taxes and more respect of life and marriage,” he said Tuesday.
Oh, f**k me. Serenity now.
Stormy70
Randell Terry will get beat, he’s a total nutter. What is with Florida, anyway?
Flag Amendment – free speech, anyone? I don’t think it will survive the Senate.
jcricket
Yeah, what’s the deal with the flag burning amendment? Why now? I read (on AmericaBlog) there was 1 (yes, only one) incident of flag burning reported last year. And for that we need to have an amendment? So some protester wants to burn the flag – I fail to see how this tears at the very fabric of our existence. I think America’s a “big country”, we can handle a couple of ineffective flag-burning protestors. It’s like referencing the Nazis in a political speech – gets you a lot of attention, but for all the wrong reasons.
But more importantly, Ralph Reed and Terry Randall elected officials? What’s next, David Duke for Senate majority leader?
p.lukasiak
An audit by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction said U.S. auditors could not account for nearly $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds and the United States had not provided adequate controls for this money.
Is this a reference to the 9 Billion that we already knew was missing, or does this just make it official?
I mean, how do you lose track of 9 billion dollars?
I would suggest that, just as we really knew that Saddam had destroyed most, if not all, of the “unaccounted for” WMDs, we also have a pretty good idea where most of this 8.8 billion dollars went — and it didn’t go toward anything that would be legal under existing US law…. (heck, i’ll go out on a limb here, and say that a nice big chunk went to Kurdish tribal leaders as bribes to prevent them from taking advantage of the political chaos in Iraq and declaring Kurdistan an independent nation…)
Rick
Ralp Reed (no relation) doesn’t belong in the same sentence as Randall Terry. That’s like saying Joe Lieberman and Louis Farrakan.
As for Duke as Senate majority leader, that wouldn’t be setting any precedent: here it comes–a Klansman has already filled that post.
Ahh, the glorious past.
Cordially…
John Cole
I mean, how do you lose track of 9 billion dollars?
I have lost my senses, so losing a couple billion seems plausible.
Steven
Y’all missed the best part of all of this. Duke “Don’t burn my flag because of the WTC” Cunningham is in a bit of pickle himself these days. You asked the other day, John, where has all the money gone? Well, it appears part of it has gone to one of the Duke’s constituents.
For more, Josh Marshall has been covering the story.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
JPS
p.lukasiak:
“I mean, how do you lose track of 9 billion dollars?”
Well, if we can’t find it, obviously we never had it.
p.lukasiak
John…
the picture is pretty funny, but I think its safe to say that much of your wingnut readership will walk away from this joke thinking that the fence represents Syria’s entire efforts to control its borders — when the full AP caption for the article makes it clear that there are Syria Army outposts every few hundred yards on the border, each manned by about half a dozen soldiers.
Of course, the border remains quite porous, especially at night. The really funny/sick part of the story is that according to the AP, its tough for Syria to stop infiltration at night because the Syria army lacks night-vision goggles. Of course, two years ago, Rummy was claiming that Syria was providing the Baathist insurgents with…wait for it…
night-vision goggles…
Stormy70
As a proud member of John’s wingnut faction, I say Syria’s control of it’s border is a joke, with or without night-vision goggles.
Rick
Syria’s interest in controlling this border is as serious (or maybe “syrias”) as is Mexico’s watchfulness of its northern frontier.
And as a blood-lusting warhawk, I do hope some of our special ops folks find it a sieve, as well. We’re watching *you,* Assad-hat.
Cordially…
SeesThroughIt
That flag-burning amendment is ridiculous. Honestly, I don’t even think the point of this amendment is to get it passed; I think the point is for Republicans to further their claim that they have a monopoly on patriotism and that all opposed to them are pinko commie America-hating assholes. I guaran-fucking-tee you that at some point during upcoming elections, a Republican will get on the stump and say, “I supported an amendement to prevent flag burning because I love my country. My opponent would rather hate America and support the destruction of our national symbol.”
Geek, Esq.
“I mean, how do you lose track of 9 billion dollars?”
Put the Bureau of Indian Affairs in charge of it.
Stormy70
Good one, Geek,Esq.
Jon H
If Syria’s not monitoring their border, it’s only because they’re being rational.
The easier the US occupation of Iraq is, the more likely it is that they’ll attack Syria. So it is in Syria’s interest for the occupation to be difficult. The US isn’t likely to attack Syria when we’re still so busy fighting insurgents.
It would not be wise for them to blatantly support the insurgents, but the longer they can pull off the Sgt Schultz routine, the better. For them, anyway.
Jon H
“I mean, how do you lose track of 9 billion dollars?
At the rate Bush is running up expenses, that’s just a rounding error. You can’t seriously expect him to worry about such trivial amounts, can you?
Bush wastes that much money before breakfast.
Andrei
“As a proud member of John’s wingnut faction, I say Syria’s control of it’s border is a joke, with or without night-vision goggles.”
As opposed to hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegals that cross into this country along our borders?
Gary Farber
John, I realize it’s painful for you to not try to balance something negative about Republicans with something negative about Democrats, but precisely what was wrong with Nadler’s comment?
On Dirksen, it pays to not use obviously lousy, possibly randomly chosen out of Google, websites as sources. First of all, the famous quote alleges that Dirksen said “real money” not “big money”; this changes the meaning not at all, but is the equivalent of referring to that well-known Lincoln speech that began “Twenty-odd and seven years ago….” It’s just awfully jarring to get such a famous quote wrong.
Second, there’s no evidence Dirksen ever said it. Not that this fact is likely to ever catch up with urban legend, even when people, say, use search engines to find obviously unreliable web sites. Because, after all, it’s on the web so it must be true!
Besides, I heard it from my brother-in-law’s friend who heard it from a guy at work.
John Cole
John, I realize it’s painful for you to not try to balance something negative about Republicans with something negative about Democrats, but precisely what was wrong with Nadler’s comment?
Nadler’s comment:
“If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.”
Well, other than the built in assumption that those who oppose the amendment are somehow better than those who support the amendment is the fact that one of those freedoms symbolized by the flag is to have duly elected members of congress pass whatever amendment they want.
The correct approach is neither Nadler’s and nor Duke’s, but the following:
“This amendment is pointless, silly, and solves no pressing social demand. Furthermore, it is impossible to enforce, vaguely defined, and serves no purpose. Additionally, no amendment should be offered that appears to reign in or step on the rights as they were outlined inthe Bill of Rights.”
And thanks for the attribution thingee…
James Emerson
I’m surprised no one has yet pointed out the obvious advantage the Republicans will get from the flag burning ban. Afterall…they’re the ones wrapping themselves it in every chance they get. Can’t have one of those leftwing radicals setting their asses on fire. No matter though. After the Iraq debacle, they’re as good as toast anyway.
Fledermaus
“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center,” said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”
Now, maybe it’s just me but I think they would be just a little more concerned with finding the guy planned this. After all CIA Chief Peter Goss said he has a pretty good idea where OBL is but, alas, because, we have such great respect for national boundries we can’t go and get him.
Perhaps we would be better served by a constitutional amendment directing Bush to go get OBL.
JG
‘After all CIA Chief Peter Goss said he has a pretty good idea where OBL is but, alas, because, we have such great respect for national boundries we can’t go and get him.’
Didin’t Bush say something about not distinguishing between the terrorists and those who harbor them?
Jon H
“After all CIA Chief Peter Goss said he has a pretty good idea where OBL is but, alas, because, we have such great respect for national boundries we can’t go and get him.”
Yeah, we’d never just send some hooded CIA guys in a Gulfstream V to pick him up in the dead of night and take him someplace.
We’d never do something like *that*.
Actually, I don’t think Goss has the faintest clue, and this was a pathetic attempt to “flush them out”.
Kimmitt
those who oppose the amendment are somehow better than those who support the amendment
Well, um.
Hector
the built in assumption that those who oppose the amendment are somehow better than those who support the amendment…
Huh? Is this some bizarre moral relativism thing? People who oppose the amendment *are better* than those who support it, because opposing it is the right thing to do.
…the fact that one of those freedoms symbolized by the flag is to have duly elected members of congress pass whatever amendment they want.
The freedom of congress to trample to bill of rights is more important than the freedoms guaranteed therein?
John Cole
Opposing the amendment for the reasons I stated is the appropriate course of action. But that doesn’t mean that people who support the amenment are somehow worse than those who oppose it.
It ain’t moral relativism, and this isn’t a moral issue. This isn’t an amendment, say, to, band homosexual unions. Thise supporting the amendment may be wrong, in my opinion, but they are well within their rights to be wrong.
wild bird
Are those guys working for the NYTs or a hollywood celebety looking to make another crappy movie?
Gary Farber
“Well, other than the built in assumption that those who oppose the amendment are somehow better than those who support the amendment is the fact that one of those freedoms symbolized by the flag is to have duly elected members of congress pass whatever amendment they want.”
You seem to be implying some sort of unfair or illegitimate semantic maneuver by Nadler, but he simply made an assertion to the effect that Representatives favoring the need to amend the Constitution of the U.S. in response to the burning crisis threatening the nation seem to be less interested in actual freedom than in making a demagogic gesture. I agree with said assertion, and note that it is a fact that one of those freedoms symbolized by the flag is to have duly elected members of Congress criticize whatever amendment they want and whichever Representatives are such rabble-rousers. So possibly our views differ on the equivalency of passing an (in my opinion) idiotic Amendment which would inherently devaluing passing Amendments, due to its demogogic nature, and criticizing such a passage.
“This amendment is pointless, silly, and solves no pressing social demand. Furthermore, it is impossible to enforce, vaguely defined, and serves no purpose. Additionally, no amendment should be offered that appears to reign in or step on the rights as they were outlined inthe Bill of Rights.”
Call me someone who would vote for you over many other choices, but I’d consider that a far better stance than voting for, let alone calling for, such a trivial amendment, and anyone who takes such a stance a “better” politician, in terms of who I think is being more responsible and patriotic, than anyone who opposes it. But it’s possible I’m all wrong, and you should be “damned” for that stance. I don’t know why, but I might be quite entertained by your explanation.
:-)
(In other words, I’m still having considerable problems understanding what distinction you are trying to make between Nadler’s stance and yours, other than that he is a Democrat; I’m perfectly willing to believe that this is my blankness at fault, though, assuming you can explain it better.)
Gary Farber
“This isn’t an amendment, say, to, band homosexual unions. Thise supporting the amendment may be wrong, in my opinion, but they are well within their rights to be wrong.”
Yes, of course, but endless things are within the rights of Americans, and yet are still wrong. No one that I’m aware of says that Representatives in the Congress have no right to offer any Constitutional Amendment that flies into their heads, no matter how moronic said Amendment might be. Arguing as if anyone, including Nadler, did is arguing with a straw man. You know, John, if you stop and think, that Nadler said no such thing, right? (How would offering an Amendment to ban homosexual unions be more “wrong” than offering an Amendment to ban flag-burning, anyway?; are there some objective criteria you are using to make such a distinction that I’m simply not understanding?)
Gary Farber
To be clear here, I’m using “wrong” in this context to mean “very very bad policy.” How are you using it?
DougJ
To all you Randall Terry-bashers: you’re a bunch of whining RINOS. Randall Terry is a hero. He stands up for what he believes in: the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of life, which is a whole lot more than you can say for your “heros” the mealy-mouthed McCains, Hagels, and Voinovichs of the world.
Jon H
DougJ writes: “He stands up for what he believes in: the sanctity of marriage”
Isn’t he divorced?
jcricket
Isn’t [Randall Terry] divorced?
Yes, amid rumors of infidelity. But he keeps standing up for marriage, so that counts, right? ;)
Who is Randall Terry by Media Matters. My favorite bits:
“[The] same month he paid the deposit on his new home, a court ruled that Terry, who divorced his first wife and has remarried, “‘was not paying a fair share of child support.'”
and
“According to the February 12, 2000, Washington Post report, Terry was censured by his church, the Landmark Church of Binghamton, New York, for a “‘pattern of repeated and sinful relationships and conversations with both single and married women.'”
Here’s a more concise summary from Newsday.com
Don’t forget his gay son.
Gary Farber
“Don’t forget his gay son.”
Um, and um.
Bob
Rick, here’s hoping your warmongering ass files its next report from Damascus. And take the Bush twins with you.
Rick
That’d be *GLORIOUS,* Bob! Another “Mission Accomplished” notched into the gun-belt.
Borrowing from James Lileks, I am cordially yours,
CAPT Jesusland von Patriot
Don
Personally I’m in favor of flag burning. Not to do myself – even if you don’t think, as I do, that it’s horribly disrespectful to the symbol of the ideal, it’s a waste of a perfectly good flag. I’d never make it criminal, however, since it’s a sure-fire way to let complete jackholes identify themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt. Jackhole self-identification is a great time-saver, plus it sends the message to all observers “look, we are so loving and accepting of diverse opinion that even an inbred mouth-breather like this can be a part of our national dialog, even if their contribution is disjointed and stinks of patchoolie.”
Sojourner
Hey, don’t look at the mess in Iraq. Don’t focus on the tanking economy. Don’t give our declining civil rights another thought.
Hey, look over here! Let’s worry about people burning the flag. That’s SO MUCH MORE of a problem! I mean, how many flags get burned on a regular basis? It’s a huge epidemic, right?