This point will probably come up so often that I’m tempted to create a new category. Unsurprisingly the contours of the President’s plans for Iraq look like what we’re already doing except with a slightly larger number of potential U.S. targets. The Maliki government will remain an Iran-aligned tool of the Shiite militias, the various sectarian factions will go on escalating their homegrown war and Iraq’s most important neighbors will remain unengaged by the U.S. The President’s behavior has become so predictable that we can more or less consider him a fixed quantity. Duncan Black long ago pointed out that Bush equates staying with winning and leaving with losing. Driven by his pathological inability to admit fault, the President will go on sending young men to die in Iraq until some external power forces him to stop.
Obviously if the nonsense lasts that long, term limits will kick in. We know that the deciding force won’t be common sense. An overwhelming nausea of guilt at wasted sacrifice in the name of vain ambition? Right. There might come a moment when the breaking military gives way with an audible snap, but I suspect that the process will be a bit subtler, more publicly deniable than that.
Democrats could cut the funding for the war. They could also resign en masse and start a commune, or try to end the war by focused Gregorian chant, both of which are just as politically feasible. I suppose that genuine Congressional oversight will count for something. Hearings and relentless subpoenas could well scare the worst incompetents and crooks out of the Iraq business. (It is hard to overstate the value of strong oversight to a military effort. Without it the government can waste billions-with-a-b on services that never come, or arrive so pitifully implemented that we might as well shoot the money into space). God knows that we could use it, but oversight won’t end the war.
On a separate, political level it isn’t the Democrats who stand to lose from two more years of war. If nothing changes or things get worse (which seems like a safe bet) the GOP bloodletting in ’08 could be catastrophic. By now it ought to be obvious that the President’s agenda is focused exclusively inwards on his own narcissistic navel. The President’s party is on their own. So what will they do? At least two prominent Republicans, Heather Wilson and Gordon Smith, have jumped ahead of the flip–flop curve, though both have served in Congress long enough to know how deeply the President cares what they think. Via Steve Benen, GOP Senator Dick Lugar takes it a step further:
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the outgoing chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said President Bush should have congressional support before he announces any plan for escalation in Iraq. “[I]n the past, the administration has been inclined not to disregard Congress but to not take Congress very seriously. I think this time Congress has to be taken seriously.”
If Bush ignores Congress, Lugar said he should expect “a lot of hearings, a lot of study, a lot of criticism,” and “demands for subpoenas.” Fox host Chris Wallace said, “You saying this could get ugly.” Lugar replied, “Yes, it could.”
Before getting too excited keep in ming that Lugar’s nightmare scenario basically entails doing what the Dems already plan to do. Again, hearings and oversight will only accomplish so much. It won’t help Dick Lugar’s party if the nation spends two years digesting how a craven GOP Congress looked the other way during the most catastrophic and inept war mismanagement in U.S. history, and at the end of it we still have kids dying in Mesopotamia. I guess that Lugar thinks the threat of oversight could force the President’s hand; I don’t see it. Weighed against the permanent shame of leaving Iraq in disgrace the threat of endless, overlapping Michael Brown scandals should seem bearable.
And that’s about it. The only other way to move George W. Bush ends with President Pelosi. I wonder why Lugar didn’t bring that up.
***Update***
Also read Bob Novak. The GOP raised George Bush on a pedestal, worshipped him, nurtured the worst elements of his narcissistic personality and now they need to find a way to put him down politically, before his anchor becomes theirs.
Steve
How about President Lugar? I’d be happy to let him play the Gerald Ford role for a couple years.
Jake
Sure It could force the President to remove his hand from his pants and sign some demented “emergency measure.” We could wake up and find that for the sake of National Securitah, anyone who disagrees with Bush will be shot. If Mr. President were just delusional, I would say this is 100% tin foil hatishness. But he’s delusional and desperate, so put it at 98 – 95%.
Mikef
I see that statement all the time and I think it shows a grave misunderstanding of how our government works.
Everyone seems to assume that the Congress merely gets to vote up or down on the President’s budget request – at least in terms of military funding. In reality it’s the Congress that sets the budget and the President who is forced to either accept or veto the bill.
To date, Congress has deferred to the executive on military requests, but this administration has shown an astounding inability to develop a war plan and has repeatedly failed to forecast future expenses.
Thus they originally requested $70 billion to cover this year’s costs in Iraq, followed by an ’emergency’ supplemental request of $100-150 billion (expected in February). To be off by that much year after year proves the administration is incapable of budgeting even for its own policy.
Congress can respond by accepting the numbers, rejecting the request entirely, creating it’s own budget with money clearly targeted towards certain missions, taking the money from the military’s pet weapons programs, demanding that the president include a war tax to cover the costs or any combination of the above.
To assume that the Democrats have zero options in this debate is simply wrong.
Ron Beasley
Good post Tim but you left out the military coup possibility.
Tim F.
Ron,
Yeah, I only listed the legal options. But besides being illegal, that idea is so horrible that I can bearly think about it. About the only thing that would not make the problem inestimably worse would be the military equivalent of a sit-down strike, and even that would probably (and justifiably) carry the death sentence for any commanders involved.
ThymeZone
“Our long national nightmare is over.”
Just seeing that during the last week reminds me of how easily we fell into another long national nightmare.
Surely, Nixon and Bush2 represent the worst executives in our lifetimes. What do they have in common?
One thing that strikes me is the arrogant assumptions about executive power common to both Nixon’s and Bush’s presidencies. The disdain for oversight and process.
I hope we are learning something.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
And the NY times is just reporting that Bush’s Law (If there’s a way to fuck it up more, he’ll find it) has indeed come into effect on Saddam’s hanging.
The unauthorized cellphone vid of the hanging shows Sadr’s supporters cheering and chanting during the hanging, resulting in outrage up and down the Sunni international community. Plus it’s now leaking out about all the laws the Iraqi ‘government’ bent or ignored to get their lynching done….with American support.
End effect, Bush has helped Saddam achieve what he’s always wanted. Martyrdom.
James F. Elliott
My understanding of the War Powers Act (going off of remembered lectures from about seven years ago) is that it isn’t a blank check. Was there some language in the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq that contravened or exempted the administration from that law? I’m pretty certain that it wasn’t a Declaration of War, right? I’m fairly positive that all military actions not falling under a Declaration of War are unreviewable for 90 days from the initiation of action, and that every 30 days thereafter Congress must re-authorize the military action or pass legislation good for a certain period of time within which the administration may act as it pleases (within the confines of the law).
Of course, this is all half-remembered and I could be wrong.
James F. Elliott
Yeah, I really don’t think this is a possibility. It would contravene over 200 years’ of military tradition (Alexander Hamilton notwithstanding). Harper’s did a roundtable on this very subject and found the possibility pretty unlikely.
Especially with 2/3 of the military’s forces unfit for deployment and the other 1/3 halfway across the world. Call me an idealist, but I think there are a few things Americans won’t tolerate.
scarshapedstar
Fixed.
Tsulagi
Hey, I’m not just looking forward to the New Surge Forward. Naw. Way, way too many times I’ve been proven wrong about Bush and his admin’s level of retardation. Always going into a realm beyond what you would think possible. In addition to the surge, I’m thinking couple it with the 80% Solution. You know, a real double down escalation of this Mother of all FUBARs. Get back on Cheney’s good side after dumping Rummy.
Plus don’t think you’re going to sneak Iran in on me. I know you’re still thinking about it. The Rapture nuts keep whispering in your ear: do it, do it…
DecidedFenceSitter
This issue with the War Powers Act (WPA) is that it has never been tested. When it was passed the executive branch has always thought that it was unconstitutional. The Legislative branch has always thought otherwise.
When it would have been an issue, one side or the other has always backed down, neither one wants it to go to the Supreme Court because they might lose.
So the WPA is the boogeymen that gets brought out when there’s a competition between a weak or strong executive and a strong legislative branch. However, for the last couple of decades the power of the executive branch as been ascending, and the legislative descending.
Jonathan
You’re assuming that the budget shortfall is accidental, that’s an awfully big assumption.
I seem to recall that “emergency” supplemental requests are somehow “off the budget”. But I could well be wrong, if I am I’m sure someone will gently correct my misapprehension.
Steve
You are quite correct. They use an emergency supplemental because it makes the deficit look smaller. Every once in a while, some naive legislator will point out how ridiculous it is that we keep calling Iraq an “emergency” year after year, like we have no idea there will be future expenditures, but no one pays attention to him.
Mikef
I know they’ve been gaming the numbers deliberately. I just think its time that Congress called them on it. If the Democrats are smart they’ll force some serious pain on the administration for playing games like this for the last few years.
Off budget doesn’t mean free.
Zombie Santa Claus
You fools are just deluded by the left-wing media filter. The simple fact is, things in Iraq are going just fine. Why, there are many, many American cities far more dangerous than Iraq: Camden, East St. Louis, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Gary, Indiana, to name just a few. We never hear the good news out of Iraq, the school murals that have been painted or the millions and million of Iraqis who WEREN’T killed, kidnapped, tortured, or horribly mutilated this week; instead, we only hear bogus stories about Sunnis getting burned alive and John Kerry being non-shunned by the troops while he’s visiting. Well, I’ve had it with this moonbat focus on negativism and defeatism. We’re going to win this Iraq thing, and I’m going to celebrate it by getting drunk and peeing on some liberal’s leg.
Ho ho ho, bitches!
Mark
When can we impeach this incompetent douche?
S.W. Anderson
What do you mean before?
That giant sucking sound a few weeks back was Republican senatorial and congressional careers going down the toilet. The flush handle was still warm from Bush’s hand.
The Other Andrew
To me, beyond the obvious route of hearings and the like, the best thing the Dems could do would be to publicly pressure Bush to define the mission as it exists now. No slogans, no vague faux-humanitarian statements, no generic evil-battling promises…try to corner him into stating a clear goal (i.e., “We’ll have this many Iraqi troops ready to go by this date”), and when it isn’t, go from there. Yeah, he’ll try to weasel on the definition, but just accuse him of Clinton-style wordplay, and then sit back and watch the fireworks. If we’re going to escape from this disaster, the first step is to knock down the “Progress is being made!” illusion/meme, and that’s what Congress is in a position to do. I can’t believe the media is just sitting back watching this amorphous “war” with no specific point or purpose, when they should at least be asking some basic, practical questions about it.
Tsulagi
Mikef is correct on the funding aspect. Of course, though, the Deciderator can decide to keep the same force levels in Iraq, or decrease or increase. Dems can’t touch that authority. If they tried to test WPA, the administration could likely keep that tied up for the next two years without a decision. Plus, would they really want to bring that before this Supreme Court?
You can see a lot of games coming up. If Dems reject Bush’s requests simply countering with approval of lower funding amounts trying to force him to withdraw forces, Bush can veto claiming Dems don’t support the troops and will not fund enough to keep them safe. You could hear the spin now. They don’t have a veto proof majority.
Off hand, I can think of one way Dems could bring pain to a stubborn president and McCain-Lieberman Republicans. Declare no deficit spending to cover Iraq War costs. Pay your bills. You go against the majority wishes of the country keeping a high force level there, then you and Paris Hiltons pay for it now rather than borrowing money from countries like China to pay back later with interest. Be kind of fun to see the Republican “fiscal conservatives” in Congress argue and vote against that.
Tulkinghorn
Yes.
Tulkinghorn
as in now. or something.
Mikef
That would be my choice too. And throw out the profiteering cost-plus Halliburton contracts. Once all the cheerleaders of this war have to start paying for it they’ll start clamoring for a way out.
The Other Andrew
…and when it isn’t met, that is.
Jon H
Besides cutting funding for the war, the Dems could raise the top tax bracket by 1%-2% every month until we leave Iraq.
That’d put the hurt on Bush’s base (and personally on Bush and his cabinet, and Republicans in Congress), without being seen as pulling the rug out from under the troops themselves.
ThymeZone
Okay, this just in ….
Okay, here’s the bad news: God apparently has a sick and twisted sense of humor, choosing PAT FUCKING ROBERTSON as the messenger to whom to reveal this future tragedy.
Get it? Pat FUCKING Robertson. Not the Pope, or James Dobson, but this assclown. PFR.
To me, that’s the real tragedy here. Of all the people on earth he had to pick pat FUCKING Robertson?
SeesThroughIt
TZ–
God told he’s just doing his own version of Punk’d with ol’ Patty.
Pooh
FSM, that’s good.
The Other Steve
I say play chicken.
Pass something that says we send 2 million men, and see if the President goes for it.
If not, ask him why he believes it’s not worth doing what is necessary to win.
John Cole
All the talk of a military coup is just silliness and the sort of stuff that lets right-wingers mock people who have legitimate concerns about this government and this administration.
Steve
“All the talk”? By my count, one guy brought it up as though it were a real option.
When the Army Times published their editorial calling for Rumsfeld to resign, it occurred to me that while other countries have military coups…. we write editorials. It says something about the stability of our system.
In reality, the military has a zillion ways to push back without doing anything crazy. They didn’t overthrow Clinton, but he hardly ended up with gays in the military, now did he?
jake
Mmm. Yes. Yes! I see it too Pat! I see a bloated bigoted gas bag getting zapped by a lightning bolt and taking out half of old Virginny. Let’s hope Virgil Goode is visiting when it happens.
He did, but if you ask about it people will say “Shhh!” and shoo you away.
Tsulagi
Yep. You don’t see Wolfie and Feith at the Pentagon. Those two were absolutely hated.
craigie
Would it be rude to mention the Republican party?
GOP4Me et al
I just hope Bush uses his powers as Commander in Chief to stop this insane moonbat Congress from passing legislation that concedes defeat to Al Qaeda, permits gay marriage and man-on-dog sex, and hands over every job in America to an immigrant with possible ties to terrorist organizations and/or drug cartels. I truly believe that this is what America faces, if the Defeatorats are allowed to pass all the legislation they’ve been discussing for their first 100 days.
If the only way to save America is for Bush to authorize the military to arrest the renegade Congressmen, I’m all for it. We’ve got to do what it takes to preserve our nation, our faith, our freedoms, and our heritage.
ThymeZone
Okay, in that case, let the South secede. Thus can the faith and heritage of the Confederacy be preserved, at least for a while.
The American South: The New Canada. Only warmer.
Zifnab
We live in interesting times, John. You’ll have to forgive our imaginations.
Paddy O'Shea
House GOP: Don’t Hurt Us — Please
Republicans aren’t yet an official minority in the House, but they’re already beginning to portray themselves as victims of a heartless Democratic majority.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002257.php
It’s enough to break your heart.
Jonathan
Here’s a nice little list from the AmericaBlog’s comments section. I know it’s off topic but I just couldn’t resist sharing it with you.
GOODBYE TO:
Donald Rumsfeld: GONE
John Bolton: GONE
Ken Mehlman: GONE
Rick Santorum: GONE
Bill Frist: GONE
George Allen: GONE
Mike DeWine: GONE
Jim Talent: GONE
Lincoln Chafee: GONE
Conrad Burns: GONE
Richard Pombo: GONE
J.D. Hayworth: GONE
Curt Weldon: GONE
Katherine Harris: GONE
Mark Foley: GONE
Henry Hyde: GONE
Don Sherwood: GONE
Kenneth Blackwell: GONE
Porter Goss: GONE
Dusty Foggo: GONE
Jeb Bush: GONE
Tom Delay: INDICTED
Scooter Libby: INDICTED
Duke Cunningham: CONVICTED
Bob Ney: CONVICTED
Jack Abramoff: CONVICTED
Michael Scanlon: CONVICTED
David Safavian: CONVICTED
Claude Allen: CONVICTED
Bryan Doyle: CONVICTED
Frank Figueroa: CONVICTED
Ken Lay: CONVICTED
Jeff Skilling: CONVICTED
Thomas Noe: CONVICTED
Bob Taft: CONVICTED
James Tobin: CONVICTED
Wayne Semprini: CONVICTED
Chuck McGee: CONVICTED
Shaun Hansen: CONVICTED
Ted Haggard: FALLEN HYPOCRITE
Ralph Reed: FALLEN HYPOCRITE/’CHERUB’
Unitary Executive Rule: GONE
Lack of Oversight: GONE
3 Day Work Week: GONE
KEWL!
Mikef
There’s a good place to begin the cutting.
Jake
President Bush to the rescue!
Tsk, tsk. Congress has been tucking pork into bills in the dead of night? Mercy me, we had NO idea. Thanks for pointing that out Mr. President, we are so glad you’re stepping in to stop this despicable practice.
24k, 24/7, Absolut Creep.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Please, not this load of old tripe again.
The Army Times isn’t actually published by the military (Gannett publishes it FOR military readership), so their views are about as representative of the views of soldiers as a standard New York Times editorial. Robert Hodierne, the senior managing editor of the Army Times, is a Berkeley-educated lefty journo going back to Vietnam. So any criticism of Rumsfeld by him was more of the same old same old from the media, not the stunning j’accuse of the military that it was (intentionally and falsely) portrayed to be, a week before the last election.
Punchy
For a Pres who openly and brazenly defied FISA–a on-the-books law, y’all got WAY too much confidence in the Bush White House obeying and complying with subpoenas.
Just watch what “national security concerns” do to those pesky subpoena requests for testimony.
demimondian
I think that you’ll find the Congress no more sympathetic to national security claims than the Courts have been — deferential, but not subordinate.
Tsulagi
Gee, Lambchop, apparently the Commander in Chief agreed with that no doubt Birkenstock wearing editor of the Army Times. Rummy’s gone.
Steve
Yes, yes. I’m stunned by your revelation that a newspaper is published by journalists and not by soldiers. And here I thought all along that the Wall Street Journal was written by stockbrokers. What you’re really doing is repeating the line that all journalists are biased liberals and thus we can safely ignore them, which I’m sure plays well with your friends but not so much in the real world.
I’m sure you can provide me with a long list of similar editorials published in the Army Times, to support your position that their editorial stance is indistinguishable from that of the New York Times. Why, by the sound of it, they must call for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense virtually on a weekly basis. The crickets and I will be waiting for your response.
Detlef
Uh huh.
As you say, it´s published “FOR military readership”.
And not losing that readership would be a goal for Gannett, wouldn´t you say? So it seems that Gannett was pretty confident that this editorial wouldn´t outrage the readership.
Punchy
Using this logic, I cant wait to see the new issue of Playboy, the one with pics of naked men. Because, ya know, the photographer and editor are both gay men.
Lee
Re: Playboy
Isn’t the CEO of Playboy a female?
mrmobi
Not so fast, Jonathan! Good list, though. It reminds one of the depths to which the Party of Torture can sink.
Some of you here might remember the Saturday Night Massacre. Richard Nixon ordered Elliott Richardson, his Attorney General to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. He refused and immediately submitted his resignation. Bill Ruckelshaus, his deputy, was given the same order with the same result, until Robert Bork, the Solicitor General carried it out.
Anyone here care to imagine AG Abu Gonzalez refusing any Presidential order?
I thought not.
What we have here, gentlemen, is an imminent collision between the democratically-elected Congress and the only Supreme Court appointed President.
You see, the Constitution is what Bush says it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Laws are simply general guidelines for our hereditary King. When the shit hits the fan on Congressional oversight, we’re going to need men like Elliott Richardson.
I pray we have some.
Jonathan
Good point. Considering though that Congress ultimately controls the purse strings I suspect that, although it might take quite some time, the legislative branch will eventually come out on top.
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. :)
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Oh, so you were fully aware that the editorial was written by just another journo with no ties to the military, yet you wrote:
Hmmmm. What an odd thought to occur to you, if you knew the military didn’t have anything to do with the Army Times article.
Nice try to disavow, but it’s clear from your initial post that you were one of those who were duped into thinking that the Army Times reflected the opinion of someone in the army. Which is exactly what the media wanted you to believe.
Steve
Of course I think the editorial reflects the opinion of someone in the military, in fact, a great many someones. You’re the clown who’s trying to assert that it’s just the work of some left-wing journalist out there on a cloud with no connection to anyone. Oh, but the righty blogs say Rumsfeld is immensely popular with the troops, it must be true!
Here, let me defer to the supposed “lefty editor” himself:
Of course the military is not of one mind with regard to Rumsfeld or any other issue. But either you believe the editorial is based on actual sentiments the paper’s journalists are hearing from men in uniform, or you believe the paper decided to alienate its entire readership by taking a position that the military overwhelmingly disagrees with.
We’ve seen this before from Darrell and others, the notion that “of course” the military supports the mission, “of course” the military wants to stay as long as it takes, “of course” they support Bush and Rumsfeld and the whole crew. And the supposed “evidence” for this is the fact that the military doesn’t come out and openly challenge the civilian leadership, which in our system is nothing more than what you expect.
This sort of disingenous denial – if there’s no open mutiny, the troops must not have any complaints! – is emblematic of the closed-minded thinking that got us in this deep in the first place. Keep it up, you’ve done great by your country so far.
jg
IIRC Rumsfeld was Nixon’s Chief of Staff and Cheney was Rummy’s assistant. Then Cheney was Chief of Staff under Ford and fought hard to prevent FISA from becoming law. I do believe Negroponte was employed in their also. We’ve had the same paranoid republican leadership since McCarthy.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Come on, you were caught pants down, and now you’re grasping. Your first post doesn’t make a bit of sense unless that Army times editorial is written by someone in the military, or at least cites bigtime military brass who want Rumsfeld gone. That editorial presented nothing of the kind. For all its assertions that Rumsfeld had lost all credibility with military leaders and the troops, not one soldier’s opinion on that issue was cited. That call for Rumsfeld’s ouster and the attendant rationale came entirely from the liberal editor of a Gannett newspaper, not from anyone in the Army, and you should be clear on that point.
The paper may well have been right about it being time for Rummy to go, but there’s no way that this editorial should’ve made it occur to you that while other countries’ militaries have coups, ours writes editorials, because our military didn’t. The media tried to make you think they did, and they obviously succeeded in your case, but they didn’t.
GOP4Me et al
Somehow, I don’t see the concept of socialized medicine catching on down there. Call me crazy, but I think it might not happen anytime soon in the C.S.A.
Steve
Now you’re doing exactly what I said you right-wing denial specialists always do, which is claim that unless “bigtime military brass” are willing to go on record with open mutiny against Rumsfeld, then opposition to Rumsfeld doesn’t exist, and some random journalist just made the whole thing up out of thin air.
You want to keep on pretending that that editorial wasn’t based on journalists’ actual conversations with military personnel – that to a man, our military was outraged to pick up the paper and see this left-wing hit job on their beloved Rummy – then you go right on ahead. Denying reality served you guys so well in the last election, after all.
HyperIon
if you seek
check this out…
Military Times Poll: Support for the War Declining among Soldiers
it was published in the seattle times but i have not seen it in many other places. pretty damning.
Jimmy Mack
I’m really sick of this sort of thing:
As someone who voted for Bush twice, the second time while holding my nose, I can tell you that this simply is not true. Bush was given as much or more scrutiny than other presidents by his own supporters. Many of his programs have failed and I’d be the first to admit it. So let’s lay his meme to rest once and for all.
The Other Steve
You forget.
Republicans *HATE* Adam Smith Free Market Economics.
The Other Steve
Oh give me a fucking break. The way Republicans have been suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome since sometime in 2000. I haven’t seen this level of mooney eyed fawning since Jim Jones made them drink the kool-aid down in Guyana.
The Other Steve
More information on Bush Derangement Syndrome can be found in Eric Hoffer’s excellent work on The True Believer.
demimondian
By the way, folks…you do know what Lambchop was, don’t you? An..errr…sock puppet.
Steve
I’m going to mildly disagree. For a great many Bush voters, their major voting issue in 2004 was… John Kerry. (And for many of these same people, their voting issue in 2000 was Al Gore.) It wasn’t that they loved Bush so much, you see, it’s just that the Democrats happened to run the worst human beings on the planet, the guy who shot himself to get a Purple Heart, so they had no choice, you know?
For some, but not all, of these people, they were sufficiently fired up to crush Kerry that they managed to convince themselves that Bush was an awesome leader, that he was the only man who could win the war on terror, blah blah blah. So you’re correct to that extent. But by this point, the pool of Republican supporters has basically been reduced to (1) Laura Bush and (2) the people who are stupid enough to believe the Democrats want to surrender to al-Qaeda. It’s not a given that anyone in these two categories actually likes George Bush.
Newport 9
I still think the War of 1812 holds the record for most catastrophic and inept war mismanagement. It was at least as badly managed as the Iraq Adventure, and since we were picking a fight with a much stronger adversary, the stakes were higher.
I do think Iraq has displaced Vietnam for the #2 spot.
TenguPhule
For someone who voted for Bush twice to claim that with a straight face makes you look very much a liar.
John threw away the kool-aid and came clean. I respect him for that.
scarshapedstar
It’s really, really hard to read that and not smash something. Where, oh where, to even fucking begin? Enron, I guess. The extent of the rightwing “scrutiny” of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, which lined the pockets of dozens of Republican congressmen and toppled a Democratic governor, perpetrated by a man who sent George Bush handwritten Christmas cards and for whom George Bush even had a nickname, was that:
A phony right-wing chain letter said Clinton was even more in bed with Enron. Oh, and Bush said he never knew the guy. Case Closed!
Imagine seeing that play out about 10,000 times over the past six years, with mountains of money disappearing overnight and Americans dying for no reason all the while, and maybe you’ll understand why we think you ought to cram your scrutiny up your ass.
The Other Steve
And Germany supported Adolf Hitler because he promised to save them from the Communists.
And for some reason, the entire time of the War they just didn’t realize what was going on in thos concentration camps.
Sorry, I don’t have any sympathy for a willful ignorance argument.
scarshapedstar
Lately, I’ve noticed that the ultimate rightwing fallacy is this:
When a country has a dictator, he calls himself a dictator and loudly proclaims his involvement when people disappear in the night. He makes no pretense of following the Constitution, and the legislature makes an unequivocal announcement that they have entered Dictatorial Rubber-Stamp Mode. All media consists of comical 1950s-Soviet-style propaganda. The entire populace runs around fretting about how terrible it is to be living in a dictatorship and wishing somebody would come save them because they know the elections are rigged.
Isn’t it nice to think like a six-year-old?
scarshapedstar
Oh, and I forgot, there are only two ways that people can tolerate such a life.
1) They are cowards, unlike red-blooded Americans who would take up arms at the slightest sign of undemocratic tendencies.
2) Brown-skinned people have an inborn genetic tolerance for generally being shat upon and living in utter despair.