Crushing Testicles? Oh Silly Yoo!
Our friends over at
Crooks and Liars have an
audio clip up that will demonstrate just how far into the septic tank this country has plummeted. Let's call this the get-to-know John Yoo post. He was a lawyer in the Justice Department who wrote the now infamous
torture memo, but he does a pretty good job of torturing American law and jurisprudence in many other ways.
If you harken back to the days when you were a tike or tikette sitting in civics class you may remember that the United States of America, under provisions given to us by the Constitution, has the ability to negotiate and ratify treaties with other countries. The Senate's job is make sure everything is honky-dory with a proposed treaty with another nation or nations, and then vote to either ratify it, or reject it. Rejecting it says to the other aforementioned parties, we're OUT. We do not agree. However, ratifying it, based on what the Constitution dictates, means that it unquestionably
becomes U.S. Law. As in the law of the land. As in offenses to said treaties prosecutable in U.S. courts of law. If the Senate ratified the Geneva Conventions, which bans torture of prisoners of war, then it's part of the U.S. legal code.
This fact alone drives Conservatives INSANE. They believe that we answer to no one but ourselves. For Conservatives, this is where lawyers like John Yoo come in handy. He believes the Executive branch, in this case George W. Bush, can interpret signed treaties as
extra-legal, or somehow outside the perview of the courts in the United States, but in some way under the mandate of the Executive branch. He couldn't be more wrong.
Here's some excerpts from the tape:
I think that's a matter of pure domestic Constitutional law...so I think, for example, that, I don't think a treaty can constrain the Preseident as Commander in Chief.
He's arguing here that our tough guy president doesn't have to follow the law. U.S. law. Signed, ratified, law. The key dodge here is the term "domestic". There's no domestic or foreign interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is the Constitution. Period. Now check out how he tries to use legal-speak to muddle the whole issue, and sound like a big smart guy at the same time:
The argument you're making about adaptation of the rules is a question about what the United States should do as a matter of international law, which I treat as being a seperate and distinct body of law from domestic law.
This is where our Founding Fathers would have handed him his hat and said, hit the bricks junior, you're not quite up to snuff. The above statement violates not only the letter of the law, but the
intent as well.
Now, let's get to the money shot (as they say, I don't know, somewhere they say that):
Interviewer: So, in other words, if the president deams that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Interviewer: And also, so no law by Congress, that's what you wrote in the August, 2002 memo?
Yoo: I think it depends on why the president think he needs to do that, I don't think presidents....
This from a person that was obviously a darling in the Bush Justice Department. How cute.
Go listen. The matter-of-fact way he's says it is absolutely loathesome. He's a cretin of the lowest sort. He can try and fudge it any way he wants, but
Treaty Is Law.
It seems to me that for many Conservatives, American history began on September 12, 2001. That's about as a far back as they can recall anything. Sad, really. It's instructive to remember that after our thirteen little colonies handed British Imperialism their soundest thumping, that we used those tricky treaty thingies to ally with France and continue to fuck with King George III. Now that's fun stuff that gets lost on Legal Beagals like John Yoo (no offense to beagals as a species intended. Fine animals, really). My how history has nearly come full circle. As a side note, you may remember that France crafted and delivered the Statue of Liberty in a gracious gesture to celebrate our fledgling nation's embrace of the Enlightenment. We should give it back. Not because Rush Limbuagh and Bill O'Reilly tell us we should hate the French forever, but because we don't fucking deserve it anymore.
Want more Yoo? Here's a roundup.
Josh Marshall stears us to this
diddy from the New York Review of Books (I highly recommend this piece. It has the added benefit of backing up my horse-hooey above). Tbogg has a short take,
here (Turkey's freak me out). Arthur Silber documents more of the ridiculous,
here. (Great thinker, writer).
Your Pain Is Chuck Norris' Business
And trust me, he doesn't play tidly-winks, he
serves it:
When Chuck Norris has sex with a man, it is not because he is gay, but because he has run out of women.
If you ask Chuck Norris what time it is, he always says, "Two seconds till." After you ask, "Two seconds to what?" he roundhouse kicks you in the face.
Filming on location for Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris brought a stillborn baby lamb back to life by giving it a prolonged beard rub. Shortly after the farm animal sprang back to life and a crowd had gathered, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked the animal, breaking its neck, to remind the crew once more that Chuck giveth, and he good Chuck, he taketh away.
Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
Chuck Norris lost his virginity before his dad did.
Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
Chuck Norris's girlfriend once asked him how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. He then shouted, "HOW DARE YOU RHYME IN THE PRESENCE OF CHUCK NORRIS!" and ripped out her throat. Holding his girlfriend's bloody throat in his hand he bellowed, "Don't fuck with Chuck!" Two years and five months later he realized the irony of this statement and laughed so hard that anyone within a hundred mile radius of the blast went deaf.
Chuck Norris is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris does not have AIDS but he gives it to people anyway.
To prove it isn't that big of a deal to beat cancer. Chuck Norris smoked 15 cartons of cigarettes a day for 2 years and acquired 7 different kinds of cancer only to rid them from his body by flexing for 30 minutes. Beat that, Lance Armstrong.
Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly to his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly after all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.
Chuck Norris only masterbates to pictures of Chuck Norris.
The original theme song to the Transformers was actually "Chuck Norris--more than meets the eye, Chuck Norris--robot in disguise," and starred Chuck Norris as a Texas Ranger who defended the earth from drug-dealing Decepticons and could turn into a pick-up. This was far too much awesome for a single show, however, so it was divided.
If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya".
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris doesn't understand why you should consult your doctor if your erection lasts for more than 4 hours. His erections have been known to last for up to 15 days.
Chuck Norris frequently signs up for beginner karate classes, just so he can “accidentally" beat the shit out of little kids.
Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
Helen Keller's favorite color is Chuck Norris.
When Chuck Norris's wife burned the turkey one Thanksgiving, Chuck said, "Don't worry about it honey," and went into his backyard. He came back five minutes later with a live turkey, ate it whole, and when he threw it up a few seconds later it was fully cooked and came with cranberry sauce. When his wife asked him how he had done it, he gave her a roundhouse kick to the face and said, "Never question Chuck Norris."
Chuck Norris attacked the butcher at the local deli for selling ground chuck. Afterwards he said to the butcher, "the only thing on the 'ground' is someone who uses my likeness without express written consent."
Chuck Norris produced much of the urban music that kids listen to today. How do you think we got the term "kickin' it?"
Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
It is scientifically impossible for Chuck Norris to have a mortal father. The most popular theory is that he went back in time and fathered himself.
(A special thank to E.M. and R.A. for that bit).
Monkey Business
Into the Weeds we go...
Go read
this... then come back. Okay, when you have time. It's one of the most incisive reads into modern American politics I've seen. Oh wait, then
this came along. It was discussed at length. One has nothing to do with the other. They're just recomendations. So, let's move on. I really like Wikipedia. It's an open-source, on-line encyclopedia that documents a lot of juicy stuff. Here we have Jeffersonian Democracy in a nutshell:
A Jeffersonian democracy is a form of government named for American statesman Thomas Jefferson. In its core ideals it is characterized by the following key elements:
- Government is a necessary evil to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community.
- Representative democracy (i.e. "democratic republicanism") is the best form of government and representative government is the best form of democracy to prevent the tyranny by the majority.
- Checks and balances between the separate branches of government are the best way to prevent political tyranny by the executive or the representatives in a legislature.
- A wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from government intervention.
- The government must protect the freedoms of individuals.
- Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government.
- Whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to the purposes of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety or of effectually securing against the danger of maladministration, a majority of the community has the indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public well-being.
A "necessary evil". God Damned Right. He had a nice disdain for authority, but he also realized that no one can organize a meaningful society based on anarchy and lawlessness.
Let's have a short look at "democratic republicanism". This kind of phrase would send the entire Fox News bash-o-matics into a complete lunatic frenzy because of their gross misunderstnding of American democracy. They wouldn't get it, and even if they did, they wouldn't care anyway, and that includes the bloggy cretans that will follow them down into history's toilet.
Wasn't he talking about a united national government, ruled by us, the people? It's worth re-visiting. That is if anyone really gives a shit anymore...
Where's My Barfbag?
I was just watching NBC Nightly News, and while there's no transcript up yet, the bimbo, Campbell Brown, with the make-up and cheery smile said something that goes like this:
We contacted the White House to see what the president is reading over the holiday season, and it's a book about Teddy Rosevelt's life post-presidency. We're not suggesting that the president is thinking about his life after his second term, but it's a book that our anchor Brian Williams highly recommended!
When the transcript comes up I will post exactly what she said. My reaction was, why isn't Brian Williams on a plane headed for Crawford so he can read George a bedtime story before he goes night-night at 8:30? Can they send a bigger winky-winky to the Bush administration saying, don't worry, we're here being vigilant for you? Maybe Condi can scrape Georgie's FromUnda Cheese and FedEx it to Brian so he can slap it on his eggs in the morning. Jeebus Fucking Christ...
[Okay, that was a little uncalled for...]
Update: [12/28/05 7:44 PM] Here's the exact text from the
show:
CAMPBELL BROWN, anchor:
President Bush is on vacation at his Texas ranch this week, and the White House today revealed what he's reading while he's relaxing: a book titled "When Trumpets Called: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House." A spokesman said that title is not an indication that the president is already thinking about the end of this term. And according to the White House, the book came highly recommended by NBC's own Brian Williams. We just wanted to let our vacationing anchorman know that.
I'll be right back with a new way to cook that may mean the future of fine dining is in the bag.
No, Campbell, you and your producers are in the Bag. This is what passes for "news" in our country these days. They couldn't care less if their anchorman knew that, they wanted to make sure Karl Rove and George Bush knew it. When Bill Clinton was president, everyone assumed he was pretty well read. He was a Rhoades Scholar. With Mr. I'm-Not-Really-That-Interested, Rove and his never-ending political operation have to advertise that our president is actually reading a book. And, more importantly, the producers at NBC News lap it up like kittens to milk. Who decides that that deserves air time?
The propaganda they throw at us is that George W. Bush is the everyman, the common man, the tough guy, a man who never met a patch of brush he couldn't shred. And then we get the silly bullshit that he might actually be consuming something meaningful. What they're selling is, "he's a thinker too, but mostly he's a doer, he thinks about the tough stuff, but his actions are clear". Such claptrap, if anyone would care to take a look past the thin veneer, is obviously utter tripe. This is propaganda nearly at its purest form. During the holiday lull, when Congress is out of session, and the president is nestled down quiet like in Texas, his political operation is in full stint busy convincing us that presidentin' is indeed hard work. Bike ridin' and readin' is hard work.
Here's another nugget. Nora O'Donnell, filling in for the
Misinformer of the Year, tells me that the president is also reading
Imperial Grunts by Robert Kaplan. Here I might be set right with a firm correction. Slogging through the horseshit Kaplan churns out might indeed make presidentin' tough work.
(Let me preface my next few comments by saying that I believe NCO's truly are the bedrock of our military. When the men and women who comprise our armed forces rise to that rank, they have truly earned it. And they deserve our utmost respect. I know a Marine who rose to that rank during the first Gulf War, and he is one of the most upstanding individuals that I'll ever know. He's a Teddy Bear with a razor-sharp mind. Full disclosure: I never served in the military. When I was coming up, and of age, there was no need. Our nation was not at war. Not like the supposed permanent one we have now. I regret it now for the experience I missed. That ship has set sail, and there's nothing I can do about it now. I'm too damned old.)
As far as Kaplan is concerned, he's ensconsed in his cozy book barn up in Massachusetts before he decides to jet off to parts unknown where he can thrill us all with his bold adventures. Roaming the dangerous countryside with his American protectorates. Pining for the overt militarism that is American foreign policy. Tough Guy meets Brown Guy, and Robert makes sure we know who wins. Returning from his mission to tell us what a bunch of soft-heeled shitheads that we all are.
Staying out of Washington is a badge of honor Robert wears proudly. The big problem is he doesn't quite get it when he becomes so out of touch. I wondered if Dear Ms. Nora didn't actually do a supposed well-prespected writer a real disfavor. She trumpeted the fact that one of our most incurious of presidents was reading something based on the coveted "on the ground" perspective, you know, the kind of perspective that gives you no view of what the big picture looks like. Would you recommend that kind of book to
anyone?
Richard had it
right, oh so many years ago, this president is proud of saying, "I'm the illegal dummy, you figure it out on your own. Dummies."
(Thanks be to Tbogg and James Wolcott)
That "Liberal" Media & HBO Programming
When someone starts a post with
this:
It must be awfully uncomfortable watching TV or going to the movies with a stick up your ass. Makes it hard to sit.
You know it's worth reading. More? How about this, in reference to the perenial jerk-off Tim Graham:
The righteous stick up his butt extends to the top of his head, leaving a little nub that he's convinced has magical qualities. He believes that if he keeps rubbing it the Hooters girls will bring him extra pie.
It's a short reading assignment from the best on the web, now
go...
You Tell Me
Matt Yglesias over at the TAPPED poses a great question,
here:
KNOWING THEN, KNOWING NOW. The headline of this story is Bush's acknowledgment that, yes, lots of Iraqis have gotten killed in his war. But I think this is more significant: "Knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again," Bush told a questioner after a speech here. "Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country."
The President has said this before, but I think Democrats and the press alike have failed to give it adequate attention. Tons of time and energy have been spent arguing about the extent to which the administration deliberately misled people about Saddam’s WMD programs, but to a large extent the White House is giving up the game right here. Bush says he would have gone to war anyway. But if the case for war was so solid, whether or not all that stuff about looming mushroom clouds was true, then how come the argument he made in public leaned so heavily on the WMD threat? If Bush really thinks it makes sense to launch "pre-emptive" attacks on countries that even in retrospect lacked the capacity to harm us, then exactly how crazy is he?
Bush never would've been able to convince the American public that bringing democracy to Iraq, or whatever his current re-selling point is, would've justified invading, and I think that's pretty obvious. This reminded me of this
little exchange between reporters and John Kerry on the campaign trail last year:
...stopped by reporters. Among the questions asked, "If you knew then what you know now, would you still have voted for the Iraq war resolution?"
KERRY: I'd challenge the president back. But I'm ready for any challenge and I'll answer directly.
Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.
And my question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?
This came in early August of 2004, so we all knew damn well there were no WMD in Iraq, and this answer absolutely stunned me. Not because I'm an filthy, stinking Liberal, but because the politics of it were so horrible. Democrats, according to public opinion, somehow always seem to be in the toilet when it comes to national security. So, in an attempt to shore up his credentials, trying to look like the tough guy who would go to war anyway, he gives the exact answer that makes him look weak.
Let me explain. If Kerry had emphatically said no, he could've made a stark delineation between the way he and Bush handle national security. He could've said, "Putting war powers in the hands of this administration was a profound mistake, and I was wrong, so no, knowing what we all know now, I would've voted against it". That would've taken the "I voted for the war before I voted against it" silliness off the table completely. It would be a tight rope to walk, but given his comments were made on August 9th, he could've taken the points that the Bush administration led us into an intractable conflict, and can't be trusted to handle our nation's security, and hammered Bush over the head with them for a solid three months. I could go on and on about this, but just one more point: if Kerry wanted to get nasty about it, he could've said that Bush had betrayed the public's trust in the presidency. And that's not even Swift Boat/Rove nasty, not even close.
For me, when Kerry said that, his campaign really took a hit. Not necessarily a noticeable one, but it seemed to me those statements took the wind out of his sails. I have no idea whether my prescription above would've turned the tides in the election, but Americans are willing to forgive politicians that admit mistakes. In addition, admitting you were wrong to vote for a fraud , and showing some backbone at the same time can go a long way.
Instead, well, we have...Crazy.
Out Of The Bubble?
Bush's Bubble, the cacoon he governs from, is now the subject of pin-ups in
Newsweek and
Time magazines. And, low and behold, there's shock and surprise from some quarters that he may be busting out: via
Dan Foomkin at the Washington Post:
Here's something you don't see every day: Kind words from Bush's traditionally toughest critics.
Tim Grieve writes in Salon that "more often than not, Bush unscripted was a whole lot better than the teleprompted president has been lately. He may not be able to change the way Americans think about Iraq, but more appearances like this one could change the way Americans think about their president. As the New York Times said the other day, Bush should get out more."
The Carpetbagger blogs: "To be sure, this is a pleasantly surprising development. Maybe it's because of the Newsweek cover , or maybe it's because Brian Williams is following Bush around today and they wanted to score some p.r. points, or maybe the Bush gang decided to just take a chance. Whatever the motivation, they're to be congratulated -- allowing the president to hear five questions from regular Americans may seem pretty routine for a president, but for these guys, it's a quite a breakthrough."
Ooooo!!! I'm excited, aren't you?!?!?!? Okay, maybe not so much. I'll go with
Kevin Drum's repsonse, in which he calls both the Time and Newsweek pieces "thumbsuckers". Sweet:
It's a measure of just how far into his bubble Bush is that these kinds of routine activities are supposed to be newsworthy.
Clinton met with Republicans all the time, and to be fair, they controlled the House so he needed their support to get anything done. Bush, especially in his first term, governed as if Democrats didn't exist. They were to be pee'd on, not spoken to. Like I said
before, let's everyone grow up and get a hold of the new rules for fuck's sake.
Always Remember...
Check out this
post from Josh Marshall:
New York Magazine ...
Bush-administration officials privately threatened organizers of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, telling them that any chance there might’ve been for the United States to sign on to the Kyoto global-warming protocol would be scuttled if they allowed Bill Clinton to speak at the gathering today in Montreal, according to a source involved with the negotiations who spoke to New York Magazine on condition of anonymity. Bush officials informed organizers of their intention to pull out of the new Kyoto deal late Thursday afternoon, soon after news leaked that Clinton was scheduled to speak, the source said.
The threat set in motion a flurry of frantic back-channel negotiations between conference organizers and aides to Bush and Clinton that lasted into the night on Thursday, and at one point Clinton flatly told his advisers that he was going to pull out and not deliver the speech, the source said.
Priorities.
When thinking about what the Bush administration does, and why it does it, the overriding principle, the one that has the biggest influence over everything they do, you have to cite one thing: Politics. Maybe it's better described by a popular word with political consultants of any stripe: Optics. Whatever they do, it's not about whether a policy helps people, or makes things better for average Americans, or fixing some problem, it's all about making sure Republicans stay in power. The story above is just one example of the only way they know how to operate. Everything they do is
politically motivated. Always and forever. Josh nicely ties it up with one word.
(As an aside, this reminds me of an article I read in the Washington Monthly a while back,
here. Basically, Wonks are policy eggheads, Hacks are political operatives, and you can be sure the Bush administration doesn't welcome wonks at all; good policy isn't on their agenda.)
The RNC Attacks
The Republican National Committee that is. You can go see their "retreat and defeat" attack ad aimed at Democrats over at gop.com (I won't provide a link to it).
As Dan Froomkin of the Washinton Post
pointed out the other day, the polls on what exactly the U.S. should do about Iraq are all over the place, and it usually depends on how the questions are asked (go see Dan's article to see what all that means).
I'm sure the RNC ad makes for good politics in their view because it will shore up their base, but a majority of Americans really aren't too enthusiastic about how the President is performing. From the
Polling Report:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
Approve - 36%
Disapprove - 59%
And take a look at Independants, the swing voters:
Approve - 33%
Disapprove - 61%
"Stay the course" ain't working, and they know it. What to do? Change the policy? Present a plan? That's for sissies. Attack the Democrats. That'll work. Oh yeah, and send George W. Bush out onto the hustings to do what he does best: campaign. The only problem with that is this time he's campaigning against himself. Poor guy. Don't you feel for him?
Crazy People
There sure are a lot of them in this grand land of ours. Here's
one, her name is Tammy Bruce:
"Good. We should kill all the savages' friends and family. They give aid and succor to these freaks who murder little Christian girls, blow up school buses of children, and massacre kids at schools, cut peoples heads off and plan the bombings of houses of worship. Indeed, their entire families and associates should fear for their lives."
Got that America? Wait just a minute, succor? Wow. James Wolcott, Contributing Editor at Vanity Fair slices and dices. Step into his crosshairs, and
pay the price. Tammy sure deserves it...Freak Show...
What Is Conservatism?
I read the blogger
Digby all the time. He has some of the best medium-to-long form posts out there, and he can boil things down like few others. I had forgotten one of his quotes until today, when Rick Perlstein, a higly acclaimed political
writer, recycled it in a
speech at a conference at Princeton Univeristy:
"'Conservative' is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals."
I would highly recommend reading the whole
speech (don't be scared, it's fairly short), but there is a lot of inside-baseball-political stuff in it, so I'll snag a few bits and post them here. Like this:
Well, I'm writing now, however, not in an age of Clintonian triangulation, but in an age where the notion of conservative Republicans seeing as their first duty divesting themselves of the power they have been given seems perfectly absurd. Perhaps that is why it has become my thesis that the Republicans are less the party of Goldwater, and more the party of Watergate--and this not despite the operational ascendecy of the conservative movement in its councils but in some sense because of it.
The quotes from prominent conservatives in the next couple of grafs are priceless:
This past year, I interviewed Richard Viguerie about conservatives and the presidential campaign. I showed him an infamous flier the Republican National Committee had willingly taken credit for, featuring a crossed-out Bible and the legend, "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." "To do this," Viguerie told me, "it reminds me of Bush the 41st, and not just him, but other non-conservative Republicans.
"Republicans are different from conservatives: that was one of the first lessons I learned when I started interviewing YAFers. I learned it making small talk with conservative publisher Jameson Campaigne, in Ottawa, Illinois, when I asked him if he golfed. He said something like: "Are you kidding? I'm a conservative, not a Republican."
Really? You're neither. You're an intellectual fraud. This is about nothing more than the consolidation and maintenance of power. It's really very simple. Go looking for some kind of logical underpinning to the way conservatives govern and all you'll find is an empty lot.
I get the question all the time from smart liberal friends: what is conservatism, anyway? They're baffled. "As far as I can tell, anything someone on the right does is, by definition, ethical. It's not about the act, or even the motivation. It's about who's perpetrating it." It has become the name for a movement that can scream from the rooftops that every Supreme Court nominee should have an expiditious up-or-down vote, then 15 seconds later demand tortuous proceduralism when that nominee is Harriet Miers. Flexibility is the first principle of politics.
...
I'm trying to make here an argument not about instances, but about a structure of thought. It is the structure of thought betrayed, I think, by Ahmed Chalabi, explaining his deliberate deception of U.S. intelligence: "We were heroes in error."
Is Chalabi, or Jerry Falwell, a "principled conservative" or a "pragmatic conservative." That's a question I'd like to pose to you all. My head hurts just thinking about it.
Mine too. That's because the "party of ideas", the Republicans, home to conservatism, completely lacks any that lead to solid governance.
Let's tack in the other direction. Here we have Ann Coulter, Acid Queen from the right (not the good stuff either, the sulfuric kind that burns your face off), saying things like
this, right after I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted:
And as for Rove and Libby, I don't know. I don't understand why that would have any effect on the White House. He doesn't need Rove anymore. I feel sorry for Rove personally -- I don't know what's going to happen. If he is indicted, I feel for him personally. It has nothing to do with Bush and the Republican Party. He doesn't need Rove again, and I never heard of Scooter Libby until 10 minutes ago. (emphasis mine)
We have someone who presents herself as an astute political analyst playing the dumb blonde who has no idea what's going on. On national TV no less. Now, many people who follow politics would pooh-pooh me here for even bringing Ann Coulter up, but, as I've said before, she sells a lot of books. Millions, in fact. The point here is that she wears her
anti-intellectualism like a badge of honor. She needs to foist it on us all like a proud marker. She's either lying through her teeth about Libby, or, if she really has no idea who he is, then she has no business writing about politics at all.
This represents the other face of modern conservatism: obfuscation, lying, and playing dumb. Really dumb.
So, what is Conservatism? As near as I can tell it's about buying and maintaining political power, shifting the tax bruden from corporations and rich people to the lower and middle classes, alienating our allies abroad, and poking the entire world in the eye by stomping around like a mad elephant and starting a war of chioce for little or no reason at all.
Now, run along and go read
this piece by Digby...
Update: [12/7 5:52 pm] Here's another great bit on the subject from James Wolcott over at Tracer Fire:
Intelligent Design: Opiate of the Dummies
Surprise, Surprise
The left side of the blogostan is
all a twitter about the story that the Pentagon's psy-ops people have paid Iraqi newspapers to plant phony stories. Ooo, and there's even worry that it may cause "blowback" here at home because the American media may source some of the stories, obviously based on the fake reporting. And then there's all the outrage. Boo Fucking Hoo.
My only question is: would you expect anything less of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon? Please people. The Republican Party uses propaganda and information warfare here in the U.S.
on a daily basis. So, we're all to be shocked when they use it in Iraq?
Call me a cynic, but I'm numb to getting worked up about any of the Cheney administration's shenanigans. It's all of the same piece. And you know what? The American public is so cowed, bought, and sold, they couldn't care less. Drive to the Mall you fucking morons, there's no such thing as a War in Iraq, nevermind the meta-detail about a home-grown
insurgency.
One thing the average person doesn't realize is that we're all children of Democracy. The Founding Fathers laid out a blueprint, but if we don't follow it fairly closely, we're no better than any other third-world banana shit hole. America's democracy is just under 230 years old, and that's a sliver of time if you're a historian. And now we're supposed to be exporting the whole adventure to the rest of the Muslim world?
Isn't it the ultimate projection to claim you're spreading democracy abroad while you systematically crush it here at home?
I know this diatribe has been all over the map, but seriously, Grow Up America. What The Fuck...
