Environmentalists Enjoy Disasterbating

On Hannity & Colmes tonight, Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute implies that the environmentalists at CBS considered using stories about the Southern California fires as a means to advertise the series "Planet in Peril." Michaels referred to this action as "disaster baiting." At least I think that is what he said. For obvious reasons, I like the phrase.

Do you think Bush and Cheney every worked it like in "disasterbating" with Iraq?

Libro-Conservative Lovemaking

Here's the link. I suggest you read it for yourself before ....


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/now-in-paperb-3.html


Andrew Sullivan uses Glenn Greenwald to push his book. As has been intuited on many an ocassion beyond this blog, there is nothing as certain as "strange attractors'" ability to attempt to bind together that which seemingly could never, ever be tethered. But, apparently, such is now an endeavor.


Andrew is such the enigma. Not even the "pundidiot" (thanks nick) Chris Matthews can manifest such strange adherences. What is it that Greenwald serves up for endearing adoration?

-------------

"Sullivan was one of the very few conservatives who repudiated Bush and the Bush movement when Bush was still popular... The Conservative Soul highlights the true philosophical and psychological roots of the Bush movement - its first principles - and reveals just how rotted those fundamentalist roots are. "


-------------

Truth. Truth? It takes one to know one? One of the very few ...what...conservatives? Who realized the elected compassionate conservative Bush was....neither?

Wow. Thanks Greenwald. Thanks Andrew. Apparently liberal/progressive/loser/democrats (and the lonely Ron Paul paleo-) never really, really, really had an inkling of "the true philosophical and psychological roots of the Bush movement." NO! It took Andrew Sullivan to unearth, deconstruct, make known and manifest this "rotted" aspect of compassionate conservativism.

I just wonder about both Sullivan's and Greenwald's sympathy for the popular vote in 2000. Must have been an aberrant event?

Oh well. You do have to admire Andrew's and Glenn's ability to make money at this...ummm...post-ironic genre?

Yeee Hawwww!

Barometers and Thermometers

We'd Be Better Off If We All Were Christians.

Ann Coulter appeared on Donny Deutsch's show the other night and said that. No surprise. But, Donny seemed...surprised?? He said something to the effect of "I'm Jewish." Really? She basically said he needed to convert.

Ann Coulter is an anti-Semite?

Listen!!!!!!!

Chris Matthews literally has been on TV for the past week--24/7--promoting his new book. Here's what he has had to say:

It's about listening!
It's about listening!
It's about listening!
It's about listening!
It's about listening!
It's about listening!
It's about listening!
It's about listening!

Ok. I'm going to die from the abundance of irony, which--ironically--I thought had died after 9-11.

But, this is the man who compared George W. Bush to Atticus Finch. help! arrrggggh.

Petareus/Betrayus.

Man, did Moveon.org jump into the fray or not?

Not really. Not unless you are a true believer. The presentation was orchestrated as expected. What is really ... not..funny is how predictable the whole show was.

As research clearly shows, the military academies are predominantly Republican in their political affiliations (just google the air force academy and fundamental christianity). And, the research also shows that moving up the ranks in the military correlates quite consistently with conservative personality orientations.

So, what is the big deal here?

All this is not really new. The research on conservative-liberal psychology shows consistently that the conservatives--for all their desire to merge with God--fear death. Should irony be so hard to understand? That which you want most in your unconscious becomes the reality of your consciousness? Heraclitus wrote as much during the ego's first awareness. Jung co-opted this insight into a psychology.

But, such observations are mere ephemeral correlates of the realities...as our former Fed. chairman has acknowledged. Oil is life.

It will take a while for this reality to seep into the consciousness of our society. Let us hope (hope? such an abstraction!). Oil is blood. In modernity. Christ, of course, was not a petroleum engineer.

Over the past few weeks the Bush Administration has mounted a publicity surge to tout the success of the President's policy of a military surge in Iraq. The exemplary dynamics offered as proof of the success of this military surge are the events that have occurred in Al Anbar, the site of President Bush's recent visit to Iraq. And, indeed, something encouraging has happened in Anbar, the former home of the Sunni insurgency.

What has happened? In the spring and summer of 2006 various Sunni tribes began forming an alliance called Sahawah Al Anbar, or Anbar Awakening. This coalition of some 30 Sunni tribes has over the past year worked with U.S. forces to fight the Al Qaeda in Iraq (AIQ) extremists.

Why did this happen? Quite simply, the moderate Sunnis in Anbar were forced to protect themselves against the murderous activities of AIQ. Having experienced the Taliban-like viciousness of AIQ, the Sunni tribal leaders decided that AIQ was to be more despised than the U.S. military. And, thus, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" became the operational policy. The former insurgents are now allies. (Talk about amnesty!)

How should these events be interpreted? The Bush Administration, understandably, has held up the Anbar events as a success of the U.S. military surge. The limitation of this argument, of course, is that the dynamics in Anbar were initiated by the Sunnis before the U.S. military surge even started. My opinion is that AIQ--by just acting out their totalitarian nature--precipitated these reactionary events. This is not to say the the support that the U.S. military has offered has not been of help.

Rather, I am concerned that the events in Anbar have been co-opted by the Bush Administration and used as not only a justification for the war but as a justification for continuing the Administration's current policies. And, given President Bush's Thursday night speech to the nation, he envisions these policies as continuing for many years.

Such "political spin" also seems evident throughout the Administration's presentation of the alleged decline in violence in Baghdad. Seldom is it mentioned that Baghdad has become a ghettoized city where Sunnis and Shiites have been so displaced into fortified ethnic enclaves that it has become much more difficult to fight each other. Add to this consideration the fact that an estimated four million Iraqis now form an Iraqi diaspora , and we must recognize that it is more difficult to enact a civil war if there if no one around to participate. And, of course, the untold thousands of dead Iraqis can not be blamed.

Honestly, I can't blame George Bush--the politician--for trying to find something positive to talk about in the midst of this tragic endeavor. But, I do wonder about George Bush--the man--and his oft reported concern about his presidential legacy. As a man who has stated that the key power in his life is God, what does he think God will make of all this? And, what does his party think?

What will the General tell us? Petraeus? The name is postively Greek. And so fitting, are we not in deep deep into the most Greek tragedy? Millions of Iraqi's displaced, dead and dismayed.


But, General P. will tell us...stay the course....in the older G.W.'s world it would be "a thousand points of light.' In the youger world of G.W. it will be "another thousand dead."

Do we not live in interesting times? While we are engaged in the depths of war, why don't we kill another couple of million people? We can do it easily....look out at the future of death, Iran. America is coming. We have the power. Do not fuck with us.


Or, pay the consequences.


We will not be jerked around by terror.


We have the capabilty to inflict terror on a much grander scale that you know.

success in anbar

I do find the bush cadre's elevation of anbar operations to be interesting. What has led to "success"? Oh, know we have aligned (i.e., dispensed major weapons supplies) to the sunnis in anabar because...well...they pissed about the AQ's blowing up their tribe.


Well, duh.

Now information makes an appearance. Al Anbar sunni .... does not equal...AQ.


Wow, i'm impressed. Really...impressed....rather than grant amnesty to Mexican's who come to cut my grass...I'm now ready to grant amnesty to the sunnis who were shooting at me ... but are now more pissed at the ... foreign AQ minority who is killing my Iraqi-Sunni-Bathistic--Human attempt to exist in the midst of this US cluster fuck.

But...what will happen after the Al-Anbar sunnis wipe out most of the foreign AQ's...???? which really won't take long to do...what will this sunni's do with all the weapons the US has given them???

Kinda reminds me of what it means to be something of an "independent" american. Sorta like....after we get the Brits outa here .... what will we do with the French.?


Well, that question was answered fairly quickly....the french ...once again..are ??? allowed??? to be our allies?


Anyway.


Post your responses. Or not.. Because if you don't post any responses...I won't have to even think about answering.


Ok.?

Well, here we are again with the psychology of W. On vacation while markets work their way into volatility and uncertainty. Up...down....up down.

And what does w. do.. Takes a vaction.. and meets with the new French dude leader. A few hotdogs... or maybe hamburgers. Iraq...forget it. Market volatility...forget it... Let's get close to the Frenchies! Ya know...those folks from the land of the Tower...who don't deserve to even have fried potatoes named after them? Now, Dan Quayle knew how to spell poatao(e).. but w.? nah, pase.. big deal.. now is the time to make nice, nice with the Frogs!

Oh, how the world turns.

Maybe, just maybe .. w. now is learning about the capabilities of the Suerte?

So. George has five fewer polyps. Dick has a new battery. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is subject to seizures. Whitehouse Communications Director Tony Snow has brain cancer.

I'm not really sure I want to do that workshop in D.C. this fall.

No inspiration
No declaration
No direction
Unknown

No clue
No view
All new
U2

Millions lost
Millions tossed
Elliptically lost
Me too

In the shadows
of the grave
Remember
None are saved

From Frontpage.org

(Posted for latter comment)

Ok. Latter comments in

One of my students recently asked me, “What would happen if we withdrew our military from Iraq?” This is an intelligent question—in fact, it is the central question—but few politicians dare to address it. Our troops are in Iraq, whether you like it or not, whether you think we should have gone over there or not. We can’t change the past. The next step should be determined by one consideration only: What course of action will best protect American lives? Let us, then, look at a few possible (and, due to space limitations, necessarily simplistic) scenarios, some obviously less likely than others:

1) We leave. Iraq settles down, peace spreads across the Middle East, and Islamist militants beat their swords into pruning hooks. If that’s the likely outcome of U.S. withdrawal, sign me up.

Sign me up, too. This alternative has as much validity as most of the others I've seen discussed.

2) We leave. Shiite-dominated Iran and Iraq decide to settle age-old scores with the Sunni Muslims; our nemeses, Ahmadinejad’s regime and al-Qaida, like rival mob families fighting to expand their gangland fiefdoms, annihilate each other, leaving only peaceful Muslims alive; Islam, purged of hate-consumed fanatics, makes peace with religious pluralism and the modern world. We should be so lucky.

False premise. The Iranian Shia and the Iraqi Shia are about the same as the christian church during the reformation. As is now being seen, even the Shia in Iraq fight each other.

3) We leave. As happened in Vietnam, our abandoned allies in Iraq are exterminated, imprisoned, sent to re-education camps or whatever cruel reprisals their murderous Islamist brethren can dream up, but the orgy of violence and terrorist mayhem stays confined to the Middle East. This is a tougher call. The realist, pragmatic school of thought is that the purpose of American foreign policy is to preserve the life of Americans, not foreigners; the idealist school says we have moral obligations to aid others. Where do those who advocate departure stand on this? Would they view a bloodbath of Iraqi citizens following our departure—and the concomitant massive loss of faith in the reliability of the United States as an ally—as an acceptable price to pay for bringing the troops home?

GWB is an idealist? Woo!

But, who are our allies? Now that we are arming the former insurgents form Anbar? And, btw, where is the outrage about this amnesty?

4) We leave. Moderate, democratic Iraqis are crushed, and there is a blowback effect, with Islamist fanatics believing the American spirit is broken and expanding the battlefield to our homeland. The Vietnam parallel breaks down here: We were never concerned that Viet Cong fanatics wanted to fly airliners into our buildings or wreak havoc on our cities. If withdrawal were to enlarge the American casualty zone from Iraq to the United States, then: No, thank you.

False premise. We are not leaving.

It would be a lot easier to decide what course to pursue if we knew with certainty what the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq would be. The stakes are immense. Bush believes that continuing the fight is the best of unpalatable options. Democrats are fixed on withdrawal, apparently believing that we can disengage from Iraq with no calamitous repercussions. Which side is right? We’re going to find out in the next few years. When we do, I hope it is not with regret.

False premise. Democrats are not unified on "leaving". The notion of "leaving" is a straw-man argument. Not until the x-on's are ready. Not until the production sharing agreement negotiations has cost many more lives.

Leaving Iraq??

From Frontpage.org

(Posted for latter comment)

One of my students recently asked me, “What would happen if we withdrew our military from Iraq?” This is an intelligent question—in fact, it is the central question—but few politicians dare to address it. Our troops are in Iraq, whether you like it or not, whether you think we should have gone over there or not. We can’t change the past. The next step should be determined by one consideration only: What course of action will best protect American lives? Let us, then, look at a few possible (and, due to space limitations, necessarily simplistic) scenarios, some obviously less likely than others:

1) We leave. Iraq settles down, peace spreads across the Middle East, and Islamist militants beat their swords into pruning hooks. If that’s the likely outcome of U.S. withdrawal, sign me up.

2) We leave. Shiite-dominated Iran and Iraq decide to settle age-old scores with the Sunni Muslims; our nemeses, Ahmadinejad’s regime and al-Qaida, like rival mob families fighting to expand their gangland fiefdoms, annihilate each other, leaving only peaceful Muslims alive; Islam, purged of hate-consumed fanatics, makes peace with religious pluralism and the modern world. We should be so lucky.

3) We leave. As happened in Vietnam, our abandoned allies in Iraq are exterminated, imprisoned, sent to re-education camps or whatever cruel reprisals their murderous Islamist brethren can dream up, but the orgy of violence and terrorist mayhem stays confined to the Middle East. This is a tougher call. The realist, pragmatic school of thought is that the purpose of American foreign policy is to preserve the life of Americans, not foreigners; the idealist school says we have moral obligations to aid others. Where do those who advocate departure stand on this? Would they view a bloodbath of Iraqi citizens following our departure—and the concomitant massive loss of faith in the reliability of the United States as an ally—as an acceptable price to pay for bringing the troops home?

4) We leave. Moderate, democratic Iraqis are crushed, and there is a blowback effect, with Islamist fanatics believing the American spirit is broken and expanding the battlefield to our homeland. The Vietnam parallel breaks down here: We were never concerned that Viet Cong fanatics wanted to fly airliners into our buildings or wreak havoc on our cities. If withdrawal were to enlarge the American casualty zone from Iraq to the United States, then: No, thank you.

It would be a lot easier to decide what course to pursue if we knew with certainty what the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq would be. The stakes are immense. Bush believes that continuing the fight is the best of unpalatable options. Democrats are fixed on withdrawal, apparently believing that we can disengage from Iraq with no calamitous repercussions. Which side is right? We’re going to find out in the next few years. When we do, I hope it is not with regret.

What the hell are we going to do with Iraq?

And, in the same consideration, why are the Repbub-Conserves so enamored with "winning" when the definition of winning keeps ... well, evolving. I think that is a nice term...not too derogational.

I am getting more and more clueless as to GWB's agenda. Are we going to stay in Iraq until the I's decide on the oil distribution? As best I can tell, those Iraqis who work in the oil fields are pretty much like any other human being--just doing their job. But, they are getting a little pissed at their country's ability to agree on whether or not they will have a job for the foreseeable near future. Sounds pretty demo-liberal to me: can't we just do our jobs and make a living?

But, I am clueless as to how many of these people have a say in anything that is going on in the land of chaos.

Do you?

Didn't think so. You are just as cluess as I am as to what the hell is going on "over there". (If you are old enough, you will know that "over there" was a WW-II song).

Are you as disappointed in the collective consciousness of our society as I am that we indulged ourselves in "hysteria" to the point that we were easily "led" into this cluster-fuck? What gets me is that the notion of "hysteria" is no longer an acceptable term is the clinical psychology realm. Only those who are enamored with the philosophical issues of hysteria even bother to write about the topic.

But, for argumentative purpose, let's just put the idea out there--the invasion of Iraq was a symptom of a hysterical culture--even when the term "hysteria" has lost all practical meaning.

How is it that those who engage the most hysterical vision of this world have managed to create their own self-fulfilling prophecy? Is this war about oil or salvation? Of course--the immortality symbolism is certainly going to answer: both. The world of either-or has dissipated, dissolved, deconstructted.

A short story from the first "Gulf War". One of my students said it honestly: "I don't want to pay $2.00 a gallon for gas." The impliction--kill 'em if they want to fuck with my gas budget."

Really. That is what the kid said. That is our society.

No wonder "they" want t0 fuck us over.

Chris Wallace Supports Valarie Plame

Boy, is the right-wing in a self-congratulatory mood over the supposed "smack-down" of Keith Olberman by Chris Wallace. But, listen closely--Wallace states that he believes Valarie Plame got a raw deal from the Whitehouse!

Wallace also states that he watchers KO; then states today he doesn't? Huh?

Ok. The president has decided to call the Democratic congress to task. These deomo's are irresponsible in their attachment of "pork" to the Iraq withdrawal bill. The domo's are irresponsible for micro-managing the war by insinuating that goals should be established for this endeavor/project. The demo's are irresponsible for trying to balance the budget.

Well, call me irresponsible.

And, let me say to you, George, not only are you the incarnation of he that "doest protest too much," but you are the incarnation of the lost child.

You can not withhold the veto of your porky friends and then deny pork.

You can not decry the micro-management of the war when your micro-management created this cluster fuck.

You can not hide behind the lack of any consistent principles while you fake the enactment of principles.

Scream as loudly as you like. Throw an angry temper tantrum that simulates the testosterone of the neo-con mentality--it no longer works.


Duh.

I can not believe that I am the only person is the U.S. that is more than just a little disappointed ... with the DemoRepub structure that exists as the only alternative in the consciousness of the Constitutionally allowed freedom to question both.

If one takes the time to look at the surveys that the Government has paid good tax dollars to conduct....one sees that the whole notion of liberal-conservative is a miniscule sense of the populace. Most of the "citizens" in this United States happen to be ... well, "moderates."

Yet, somehow, the totality of the bureaucratic is ...dialectical. It is most interesting that those who have chosen to professionalize their political lives...manage...in some way...to enact an exacerbated sense of reality. Us...them.

And, we still buy into this sublimated Manicheisism.

The world is exploding
In the Lavant
But George
Decides
to go...south

Coulter's Conservative Chrisitian Corprolalia

God, I love this woman. Call her a clueless, crass, constipated conservative...but bless that mouth. No, I know her behavior technically is not corprolalia, but listen to the vitriol! Such passive-aggressive anger, sublimated and projected..."It is just a joke." Why not?

Have you ever read any of her books? I made it through one and about 1/4 of another. Whatever logic, facts, and conservative philosophy lurks in her republican rhetoric ultimately pales, dissipates, and is negated next to the hate.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

And who says irony is dead?

The bitch is bad. And that is good.

Cheney Warns!!!!!!!

Cheney warns on China, N Korea

Cheney warns Iran about nuke program

Cheney Warns Disney/ABC To Stay With Republicans Or Else

Cheney warns of “dire threat” posed by Lamont candidacy

Cheney warns Asian allies

Cheney warns NRA against Kerry presidency

Cheney Warns Iraq Terrorists Trying to Sway U.S. Election

Cheney warns of Iraq domino effect

Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins

Cheney Warns Democrats

Cheney warns of vetoes if Congress loads budget with pork


And, this is the guy who didn't warn his own hunting partner before shooting him?

From John Hawkins at Townhall.com:

Moreover, in Thomas Sowell's immortal words, conservatives believe that, "There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs." Because of this, conservatives regularly do something that liberals seldom do: they consider the long-term consequences of their policies. Sometimes in politics, that's a tough duty. It's always easier to say, "We're going to use someone else's tax money to give you this right now," than it is to say, "We're going to keep government out of your way and let you do this for yourself." But, that's the path conservatives have chosen for themselves. They're willing to be attacked and called, in some form or fashion, "mean" in order to advocate policies that are good for the country.

First, the whole notion that there are "no solutions, only trade-offs" is the worst kind of defeatist mentality, what is know as the "zero-sum" game. So much for any synergistic mentality, here. What happened, John, to the conservative supply sider's belief in the mystical "invisible hand" that works magic through the mass of individual irrationality to produce rational economics?

Second, here we have another clueless conservative that doesn't understand the difference between the liberal's "tax and spend" mentality and the conservative's "borrow and spend" mentality. So much for moral concerns about the fiscal burden willed to future generations.

Third, this whole notion that conservatives are going to "keep government out of your way" is only partly true. Conservatives are willing to borrow to let you keep your tax dollars; just don't try spending them on libertarian vices! Give me the decadent liberal who will spend my tax dollars but respect my social autonomy.

Sometimes I think the conservatives forget to read that portion of the Constitution's preamble that states "promote the general welfare:"

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No, John, conservatives aren't "mean." Just clueless.

Bleedin' Red All Over

(Click on image for better view).


Tax and Spend Liberals pay as they go.

Borrow and Spend Conservatives just put it on the card.

Weird.

Tucker Carlson Admires Dumb Politicians

Watching Tucker Carlson tonight. The "tie" states regarding politicians: "it is the smart ones who cause all the problems." So, George W. --with the estimated second lowest IQ ever amongst presidents--has caused no problems?

Tucker also stated--predictably--that some cultures (U.S.) are superior to other cultures and then mentioned/mumbled something about Europe! Maybe our clueless conservative of the day might want to check out UNICEF's most recent rankings of countries in terms of child welfare showing the U.S. ranking below 18 European countries.

Cool. The more clueless, the better.

Terry Jeffrey disses Protestants

Tonight on the daft Chris Matthews' show right-winger Terry Jeffrey rants on about how John Edward's feminist bloggers dissed the Catholics, Catholics, Catholics. No mention at all about the Virgin's role in Christianity, generally. The retro-right really is dissolving deep into the archetype, now ignoring the Reformation. And, of course, Mr. Chris "George-Bush-reminds-me-of-Atticus-Finch" doesn't mention to Terry that he might want to throw a bone to the evangelicals.

Good. The more clueless, the better.

Bomb Bomb Bomb

Ah, bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

Oh bomb Iran, take that land
Bomb Iran
You got me rockin and a-rollin
Rockin and a-reelin
Bomb Iran ba ba...

Heck, maybe the "decider" just gets old songs confused with foreign policy?

(With apologies to all Beach Boys fans everywhere.)

Pimples on the Ass of the Implicate Order

Inherent in the flow of time, the psychic and spiritual energy of the implicate order emerges or int-er-rupts into the explicate order ... manifesting the range of the mundane, the sublime, the profane.

Here we have the constant reminder that all of us -- at some time -- are pimples on the ass of the implicate order.

(Note: Photo creatively acquired from here.)

Cal Whines

Cal Thomas rants on about the recent anti-war protests in Washington:

The ideologically decrepit anti-war crowd returned to Washington last weekend for a reunion. The older among them abandoned hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Vietnamese to imprisonment, torture, death and re-education camps. Their demonstrations were encouraging to the communist Vietnamese, sending the message that America lacked the will to win. These aging hippies and their progeny now want to do the same to millions of Iraqis, who have democratically elected their leaders.

What is it with the pro-war right wingers like Cal Thomas, David Horowitz, Rush Limbaugh (ad nauseum) that they just can't help but blame the "hippies," "feminazi's," etc. for the loss of the war in Vietnam? Do these revisionist rightists ever critique Truman's decision to support the return of Vietnam to the French after WWII--even after Ho Chi Minh asked the U.S. for help in creating democracy. If the "hippies" helped lose the war, then the establishment helped start, sustain, and escalate the war.

Thomas laments the "possibly" millions of Vietnamese who were abandoned to tragedy. Rightly so. But does Thomas say anything about the estimated 4 to 5 million Vietnamese killed during the war? And, why doesn't Thomas point out that winning the war most likely could only be accomplished by invading the North--an action not taken given LBJ's right reasonable fear that China would have intervened on N. Vietnam's behalf? (And, don't forget, the memo to LBJ from the military did mention that such an action--reminiscent of the Korean War--might have necessitated the use of nuclear weapons).

The US military-industrial complex spent more than 20 years trapped in the "domino" paradigm and in the process supported French Imperialism and propagated a war that killed millions. But, oh yes, blame the peace-nicks for the failure.

Thomas continues:

Why do these people always oppose America's efforts to defend itself and others? Why did they not protest in Washington, or in Baghdad, when Saddam Hussein was practicing genocide and his sons were raping and torturing their fellow Iraqis? Will we ever see an anti-Taliban protest? How about a demonstration against suicide bombers, or even those who produce and detonate roadside bombs in Iraq? Why do these people think only their country is evil?

"These people." Now, that is elitist snobbery! And, what is it that "these people" are doing? Oh, yes--opposing America's efforts to defend itself and others. Well, yes, American troops certainly are trying to defend themselves and others. Can't argue about that. But, does Cal mention just how the troops found themselves in this mess? Nope. Does Cal note the misleading, cherry-picking, fear-mongering Republican rhetoric that put the troops in harms way when Iraq and Saddam posed no imminent threat (and very likely little threat in the future). No, Cal seems to equate the misplaced troops with the totality of America--a form of magical thinking reminiscent of Freud's primary narcissism.

And the really, really worn out indignity: "Why do these people think only their country is evil?" The clueless conservatives never get it...the hippies don't think their county is evil. Rather, it is the leadership that is duplicitous and downright incompetent that leads to a disgust with the leadership--not the country. PLEASE, Cal...stop the magical thinking. George W. Bush is not America. GWB does not equal USA.

Man. Where is the critical thinking, Cal?

And "Why did they not protest in Washington, or in Baghdad, when Saddam Hussein was practicing genocide and his sons were raping and torturing their fellow Iraqis?" Well, first, maybe you should ask Donald Rumsfeld this question. He was in Baghdad when all these atrocities were happening. And what was he doing besides ignoring these atrocities?

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

Yes: good ol' conservative Republican real politik: let 'em kill each other. We'll be there to help (harummmp) rebuild, rearm, and restore the flow of oil.

And, BTW Cal, I don't remember even a dribble of your tribe doing any marching. Where were they?

Come on Cal, let's win this war. Raise taxes, institute the draft, make a long-term commitment to the region.

Stop whining.

Inverting the Interrogatory

From Michael Nyilis at the American Thinker:

Answers to basic questions elude us. Is the main enemy in Iraq al-Qaeda or Sunni Baathists? Should our focus be on Shia militias? To what degree are foreign jihadists working with former Baathist regime members? What is the relationship between the Syrian government and the Sunni insurgents? Who is coordinating insurgent activity? Is Iran supporting the insurgency and how? Is our intelligence getting better over time-or are incorrect assumptions about the enemy we face actually making our understanding of the insurgency worse?

I can't remember seeing so many questions strung together in such a small context throughout the past 4 years. And such is just the beginning:

Should our focus be on Shia militias? Which ones? Why them?

To what degree are foreign jihadists working with former Baathist regime members? Which foreign jihadists? Are there separate groups or some monolithic movement? And, btw, how many former Baathist members are active here? An interview some years ago with one of the leaders of this group suggest about 30-40,000 active and another 300,000 or so "reservist" members. If true, we're outnumbered.

Is Iran supporting the insurgency? Lord, there's that word "insurgency". In-'surge'-ncy. We surge, they surge, everybody surge now. Wang Chung Iraq. Sunni insurgents? Shia insurgents? al-Sadarist Shia insurgents? al-Sadarist Shia insurgents with acne?

The evolving specificity and complexity of the questions--four years into this cluster-cluck--suggests no one in the administration had a clue to Ashby's law of Requisite Variety when going forth boldly and blindly into into Iraq.

Knee deep in big-muddy and Iraq is our tar-babby.

OBL got just what he wanted.

Quitting Iraq

Dilbert deconstructs withdrawing from Iraq. In an odd sort of way--after all the abstractive "them evil" rhetoric--Adam's anal-ysis is comforting.


http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/quitting_iraq.html

Transitive Passivity

From GWB concerning the troop "surge," "escalation," "augmentation," "reinforcement," "dribble," "spurt," increase:

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

"Where mistakes have been made...." Bush's use of the transitive passive here reflects one of the syntactical tactics at the heart of the Republican rhetorical reconstruction of reality, and gives the appearance of a responsible apologetics while managing to avoid any admission of responsibility.

"Where mistakes have been made...." The phrasing, of course, first implies that mistakes are relatively isolated as indicated by the use of spatial trope "where". But the passive transitive is even more effective in that the reader can not discern the logical agent of action. Who, we might ask, made these mistakes? The "Decider/Decision-Maker" whose decisions produced the mistakes is no where to be found.

"...the responsibility rests with me." Does the phrase state "I am responsible"? Nope. Ya got to love how responsibility is anthropomorphized into something that "rests." Responsibility is now at rest, inert, motionless, and thus psychologically passified--controlled. Thank goodness we don't have to deal with "...the responsibility falls on me." Good heavens, to be hit by "falling" responsibility would be like, well--maybe, being shot at?

"I have made mistakes and am responsible for those mistakes." Now that would be a straight-forward admission.

"I have made 'boo-coo' sad-assed mistakes and thus I am responsible for more death and destruction than any other living person on the face of the planet." Now that would be the truth.

These rhetorical tactics seem sophisticated stuff for a man with a reputation for mangling the English language.

Clueless Conservatism

FYI: There are 73 hits on Google when you search for "clueless conservatism." Maybe 74 now.

From the SoD

Robert Burns of the Associated Press writes today the following about SoD: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that an effort in Congress to pass a resolution opposing President Bush's troop buildup undercuts U. S. commanders in Iraq and 'emboldens the enemy.'" Burns further refers to Gates' comments as "strong language."

Strong language? So much for any notion of the diminishing marginal utility of redundancy.

And, btw, who is "the enemy" that is being emboldened ... after 4 years of war?

Oh. Forgot. It is "them."

Pluperfection

My latest favorite woop-warf from GWB: "I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning a plan even before it has had a chance to work."

Ok. I get it. So, we're supposed to wait until after the plan has worked before we criticize it.

My admiration for GWB's pluperfect logic remains unbounded.