Daydream Pretender

Oh, if I could ride, into the West Wing
After W leaves this thing.
For that I’d even kiss James Dobson’s ring.
But even then, I’m surprised,
To find in Iowa, the war is despised.
My star has gone cold and it stings.

Wake up, Sleepy John.
Your time has come and gone.
You’re a daydream pretender
And now you simply make us yawn.

You once thought of me
As a maverick on a steed.
But now you know, just how wrong I can be.
Oh, and by the time I say the war can end
We’ll be left without dollar one to spend.
But how much healthcare do we need?

Wake up, Sleepy John.
Your time has come and gone.
You’re a daydream pretender
And now you simply make us yawn.

Wake up, Sleepy John.
Your time has come and gone.
You’re a daydream pretender
And now you simply make us yawn.

[Interminable Instrumental interlude]

Wake up, Sleepy John.
Your time has come and gone.
You’re a daydream pretender
And now you simply make us yawn.

[Surge and fade]

The Phlunkees - 2007

Surprisingly, still unsigned.

Not Taken So Well

I don't think I've ever seen as many negative comments as Liz Cheney's OP-ED did in the Washington Post. As of this time, there have been 2,326 comments to the piece. Record?

Ha

In case you didn't follow the Scooter Libby trial today, it appears Libby's defense is going to go at the Bush administration full force to try to get Libby off.

As Josh Marshall notes, do you think these assholes are happy now? To say I'm overjoyed would be an understatement.

They Hate Our Freedom Because They Are Lactose-Intolerant?

I know this is quite serious, but I had to chuckle when I read it. From Counterterrorismblog.org:

Last week a FARC truck bomb carrying 660 lbs of explosives destroyed most of a dairy owned by the Swiss food multi-national Nestle in the southern state of Caqueta [Columbia], one person was injured. Earlier in the week, also in Caqueta, a pair of cold-storage tanks owned by a Nestle supplier were destroyed in a FARC attack.

Damn lacto-terrorist milk haters. Seriously though, if they start bombing cheese factories then I'm all for an open ended deployment with no definition of victory. You gotta take a stand somewhere damnit!

The Package Has Arrived

God damn, 2-1/2 pounds is a lot of beef jerky!

I'm Joe Lieberman And You're Hearing Me Speak

In this video Joe Lieberman exhorts his colleagues not to move forward on any resolutions that criticize the president's new Iraq plan saying there will be plenty of time for that later if it fails.

Or, to paraphrase Little Orphan Lieberman much more succinctly: Tomorrow. Tomorrow. I love you, tomorrow. You're always a death away.

Accentuate The Positive

As President Bush's approval ratings continue on a collision course with his daughter's age, I have some advise for him tonight for the State Of The Nation speech. Hope nobody watches. I mean really, really, hope nobody watches.

There is only one topic the American people want to hear about tonight, Iraq. It's a topic that according to leaked previews Bush will only gloss over, preferring to address domestic issues. If this is true, he is going to go down in flames. I mean, the headline on the Columbus Dispatch, a fairly conservative paper, today is Polls: Union's State Is Grave.

Bush might want to start watching the windows for the torches and pitchforks crowd.

Dizzy Lizzy Cheney

Dickhead Cheney has an approval rating in the mid teens, so today, he puts his daughter out there to write a OP-ED in the Washington Post. Not miss turkey baster mind you, but the other nitwit, Liz. It is one of the most fatuous pieces I've ever read. Let me break down Ms. Cheney's talking points that, to be honest, nobody believes anymore. From the Washington Post:

We are at war. America faces an existential threat.

Yes, this threat is so damn existential that the government has went out of its way to demand that the American people make absolutely no sacrifice, unless you happen to be one of those poor souls getting ready to ship out for their third or fourth deployment. I'm sorry, but the only existential threat here is to the movement you belong to, and the military is for the defense of this country, not to be used as lubrication for your lifestyle.

Quitting helps the terrorists.

You know what really, really helped the terrorists? Starting. Before setting off on this fool's folly, we had the backing of the entire international community in the fight on terrorism, a weapon more powerful than anything a brigade of marines can hump around in the sand. Now, we've lost that. And to make matters worse, we've brought the violence and occupation that breeds such things from the mountains of the middle of nowhere to one of the most strategic places on earth.

As for the redeployment you bemoan as quitting, nope, you're wrong. Your father and his cohorts royally fucked this thing up. Our best shot now is to redeploy and attempt to contain. You see, it's a hell of a lot better to stand outside the circle and shoot in than to stand in the middle and shoot out.

Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home.

24 is a fucking TV show you stupid twit. Our presence in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with their capabilities here in this country. What, you think they can't spare a dozen guys to carry out an operation here? No, they fight us there because we are there and it's easy to do. 99.9999% of the actual jihadists in Iraq are doing so because it is convenient for them to do so. They might walk across the street to kill an American, but they don't have any real operational prowess to carry out attacks in the rest of the world.

Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan.

The exact opposite is true, staying there hurts us in the broader war. As for those leaders you note, Karzai is worthless and Musharraf, well, friends like these, who needs enemies?

Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily.

No shit. This just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation. The terrorism that we see in Iraq is not part of a greater movement, it is simply a tactic used by an inferior fighting force because they cannot fight us militarily. I'm sure the British thought we were terrorists in the American Revolution when we refused to stand in a line and get shot by them. It's the same thing. And like us in the American Revolution, as the home team they have a lot more to fight for than we do. Namely in this case, several trillion dollars worth of oil.

After reading Liz Cheney on Iraq, I'm surprised we haven't done even more poorly than we have.

It's Over

Our long city-wide nightmare is finally over. Yes, friends, Time Warner has settled its dispute with Sinclair Broadcasting and the local ABC and Fox affiliates have shown up on my TV in high definition. Now if there was just anything worth watching on ABC.

Flipping The Race For The White House On Its Ear

There is an very probable upcoming event that is going flip the entire 2008 presidential race on its ear. No, I'm not talking about the "official" official Barack Obama announcement. It is that the California legislature is likely to take up the task of moving the state's primary up from June 3rd to February 5th.

This move would make California's primary the fifth one on the schedule and would dramatically change the nomination process.

The conventional wisdom says that a California primary that early in the schedule would eliminate any second and third tier candidates as it would likely cost $6-8 million dollars according to one strategist interviewed by the LA Times. I myself think it might very well cost twice that much to win. In fact, I might be tempted to sit it out. While there are a lot of eggs in that basket, do you want to bet all of yours to get them? I think it would be better to just make a good showing than win anyway.

It saves you cash to fight another day, plus there is one other thing that could come into play. You might not want to win it. I know that might sound crazy, but follow me for a minute if you will.

I've lived in the Midwest all of my life, and for whatever reason, there is a very palpable bias against any and all thing Californian, and for that reason you just might not want to be labeled the "California Candidate." This bias extends into other regions of the country as well.

It's a very strange phenomenon to see. You might think it's because of "Hollywood liberals," or "San Franciscan values" because those phrases are thrown around oh so much by conservative talking heads, but that's not really it. In fact, depending on who you talk to, it can mean anything from loony to smarmy. Again, I don't know how this started, but I do in fact see it a lot, especially among older people.

Now, it is true that we have had two presidents from California in the last forty years, but both those presidents were republicans and both ran the gauntlet of several other states before securing their party's nomination. Perhaps a California preferred republican is a little more palatable than a California preferred Democrat to the rest of the country as well.

Also, the news cycle, and the smear machines have drastically changed since then. Winning this primary may do as much harm as good on the Democratic side. I guess we'll have to wait and see though.

Found via Kevin Drum

The Patron Saint Of Liars

Did you catch John McCain on Meet The Press yesterday? It was amazing how he just sat there like a robot and spit out lie after lie after lie. I'll just take a moment here to address his lies in the first three questions Tim Russert asked him. From MSNBC:

TIM RUSSERT: Senator, welcome. I want to raise first The Economist magazine, this is The Economist’s intelligence unit. They say this: “Unless their mission is very well-defined, 20,000 troops are probably too few to make a significant difference - and may be too few under any circumstances. ... Adding around 20,000 to the 132,000 currently there will increase U.S. capabilities, but not enough to stabilize the country.” You agree with that?

SEN. McCAIN: I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not. I would have like to have seen more. I looked General Petraeus in the eye and said, “Is that sufficient for you to do the job?” He assured me that he thought it was and that he had been told that if he needed more he would receive them. I have great confidence in General Petraeus. I think he’s one of the finest generals that our military’s ever produced, and he has a proven record on that. He wrote the new Army counterinsurgency manual. But do I believe that if it had been up to me would there have been more? Yes, but one of the keys to this is get them over there quickly rather than feed them in piecemeal as some in the Pentagon would like to do today.

As has been frequently noted, this is the exact number McCain lobbied for most of the last year to be added. That is, until it looked like McCain was going to get what he wanted. Only then did McCain move the goalposts for his own political agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: You are a veteran of Vietnam, and you understand when public opinion slips away from support of a war. Here’s the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out this morning. And we asked, if Congress passes a resolution against the president’s position on more troops, should President Bush proceed? Yes, 30; no, 65 percent. Two out of three Americans, senator. And look at this breakdown by party. Democrats, 85 percent say no. Independents, voters you know well, 71 percent say no, do not proceed. And now 33 percent, one third of Republicans, say listen to Congress more than the president. Why should the American people, after they voted the midterm elections and have a Congress that says no to the president, why shouldn’t they be listened to?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I understand their frustration and sometimes anger over the lack of success and lack of progress, particularly coupled with optimistic statements made time after time when things were not going well and deteriorating. At the time of the first Gulf War, only 15 percent of the American people thought we ought to go to Kuwait and get rid of Saddam Hussein there. If it was as clear-cut as someone described, Tim, Joe Lieberman would not have been re-elected in the state of Connecticut.

That's a nice statistic pulled out of magic pixie dust land. In reality, the exact opposite was true. According to The New York Times, only 15% disapproved of American intervention to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things the American people do remember, September 11th, 2001, the Taliban had harbored al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and then they read this from the Baltimore Sun: “A U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq. According to Army Brigadier General Anthony Tata and other senior U.S. commanders [there], that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar.” Should we be moving troops from Afghanistan, at this delicate stage in that war, to Iraq?

SEN. McCAIN: I’m not aware of that, and on its face I would be very concerned. A recent trip that we made to Afghanistan, it’s clear to one and all that the Taliban has been reconstituted, particularly in safe area in Pakistan just across the Afghan border, and there will be increased attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. So, as I say, I’ve—had not seen the report, but I would be concerned about it.

Um, McCain is the ranking member for the GOP on the Armed Services Committee. Certainly this has came across his desk, or perhaps he could have read it in any number of newspapers that ran the story. What the hell does he do all day, sudoku?

Look, either McCain knows this is happening, or he isn't doing his job. He's probably lying.

U-N-I-T-Y

David Broder thinks unity can be achieved with regards to the nation's Iraq policy. How do you ask? It's really quite simple, Democrats just have to agree to support President Bush's policy and in return for that, new commander David Petraeus will jump through a couple of hoops for them. Then we can all get down to the serious business of blaming the Iraqis for the administration's failures. From the Washington Post:

The suggestion made here last week that Congress require frequent briefings from Petraeus and the embassy in Baghdad, to ensure that Maliki is keeping his promises to supply troops and avoid political interference, is one that Petraeus is prepared to endorse.

[snip]

Petraeus's offer, which I am told will be made in explicit terms unless his civilian bosses in the Pentagon and White House intervene, provides the best avenue yet to appear for dealing with the mess in Iraq.

It will not satisfy those in Congress who would like to block or protest the "surge" of additional troops into Iraq ordered by President Bush. But the resolutions and legislation they are discussing will not keep Bush from carrying out his plan.

In effect, Petraeus is offering a way to convert the opposition to the war that is growing in both Republican and Democratic ranks into leverage on Maliki. Together, they can hold the prime minister to his pledge to go after all the combatants -- Shiites as well as Sunnis -- and to provide the troops for the fight.

Ugh. Where to even start? Why in the world would the Democrats in Congress choose to endorse failed policy? Because it would make the DC cocktail party circuit more, comfortable?

Look, 68% of the American people do not support this policy. These same people brought the Democrats to power to fight this policy, not to embrace it. It's not America's war anymore, it's George Bush's war, like it or not.

Furthermore, it's a policy that is unlikely to work. There is something inherently evil in endorsing policy that will do little else than send more Americans home in boxes. But Broder thinks that if everyone will just get behind it and clap harder, it just might work. I guess Broder likes a challenge, as long as the chips used are someone else's loved ones. And oh what a challenge it is! Again from the Washington Post:

The challenge is immense, but for a change, there is a chance to get the full weight of our government pulling in the same direction. Congress ought to seize the opportunity.

David Broder, you ought to seize the opportunity to retire.

Looney About Loonies

I don't know how you're going to spend your weekend, but I guess I'm going to spend mine peeling all the damned aluminum foil off my ceiling and walls. From Kevin Drum:

Reversing itself, the Defense Department says an espionage report it produced that warned about Canadian coins with tiny radio frequency transmitters was not true.

I guess I can take that radio signal detector out of my pocket as well.

Ney Gets A Thirty Month Stay

Bob Ney has been sentenced to thirty month in the federal pen. the judge actually imposed a harsher sentence than prosecutors sought. It's a good thing, and furthermore, it's over.

I have, as have many, skewered Bob Ney here and at other sites. Ney was a crook and on the take. The one thing he wasn't, however, was bad at serving his constituents. I work in Ney's district and to be honest, when it came down to serving the people that elected him, he actually did a pretty good job. That being said, it didn't give him licence to do what he did.

I have no beef at all with the man himself, but it's politics, so when you see a fish in a barrel, you shoot that motherfucker til it's dead. Now that Ney's political career is now dead, I wish him the best in the future.

So Tasty

Follow the link, it's the best beef jerky on the face of the planet. I just ordered 2-1/2 pounds of it. Yes, you read that right, pounds.

Lamest Hit Piece Ever

I guess the Washington Post needed some filler material today, because I can't think of any other reason to run John Soloman's piece today about John Edwards selling his house. Soloman alludes to, but doesn't point to any wrong doing.

The bottom line is that Edwards bought a house in DC in 2002 for $3.8 million, did as Solomon notes "substantial renovations", and then sold it four years later for a half million dollars less than the asking price after the house sat on the market for eighteen months. I'd be surprised if Edwards walked away from the deal with more than a couple of thousand dollars. No big deal, or is it? (Cue ominous music!)

The people Edwards sold the house to are, in fact, under investigation by the SEC. (Cue louder, even more ominous music!!) Even more strange, the buyers, Paul and Terry Klaussen, did as most people do that are buying a house of this size. They formed a limited liability partnership to shield themselves from, well, liability. (Blare the ominous music from every rooftop!!!)

The Klaussens company, dare I say the nefarious Klaussens, is also facing a lawsuit from SEIU. They very same SEIU that Edwards is trying to win support from? Yes, the very same one. Clearly Edwards is spitting the face of all unions with this land for less cash deal. And I love this paragraph from the article. From the Washington Post:

Ellen S. Miller, head of the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which studies public officials' real estate deals, said presidential candidates should go the extra mile by determining who they are doing business with, especially when "a substantial amount of cash is changing hands on the eve of his campaign."

I'm sure that Miller does good work, but this is simply ridiculous. It's not like they offered Edwards $20 million for the house. They bought it below list, after eighteen months on the market. Nobody in their right mind is going to investigate the buyer in that situation, no matter what office they are seeking. The whole article is simply farcical. By the way, it ran on the front page.

Because Victor Borge Is Dead

To be honest, I also thought Rich Little was dead as well. Nope, he's alive and mimicking and has been slated for the entertainment for the White House Correspondents Dinner. That's pretty lame in itself, but get this, the White House press corps has asked Little to take it easy on the boy king. Apparently, he's having a rough year. From Attytood:

Little said organizers of the event made it clear they don't want a repeat of last year's controversial appearance by Stephen Colbert, whose searing satire of President Bush and the White House press corps fell flat and apparently touched too many nerves.

"They got a lot of letters," Little said Tuesday. "I won't even mention the word 'Iraq.'"

Little, who hasn't been to the White House since he was a favorite of the Reagan administration, said he'll stick with his usual schtick -- the impersonations of the past six presidents.

"They don't want anyone knocking the president. He's really over the coals right now, and he's worried about his legacy," added Little, a longtime Las Vegas resident.

They got a lot of letters? Jeez, how much free time does Richard Cohen have on his hands?

The really amazing thing about picking Little is that I can't even begin to imagine how the selection process worked. How do you manage to snatch Rich Little out of whatever Vegas has-been show's bullpen he's sitting in? Do you call David Broder who informs you he saw a young whippersnapper at the Sands last week, and that he was funny and centrist?

Or was he simply second on the list after the Clown Prince of Denmark? Hey, everybody loves a guy playing a piano when the sheet music is upside down. It's a hoot.

What The Hell Is This?

This is the worst piece of drivel I've ever read, and trust me, I know drivel. God knows I write enough of the stuff myself. Seriously though, Newsweek should ask Howard Fineman for the check back.

I don't think I'll be renewing my subscription.

Iraq: al-Maliki Wants More Than Broomsticks

In an interview in today's Washington Post, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes the point that the US has been less than forthcoming with the equipment the Iraqi military needs to make itself a viable fighting force. From the Washington Post:

One Maliki aide said the prime minister wants "heavier weapons" and is concerned that Iraqi security forces are outgunned by militias and insurgents.

"Basically the level of weapons in the current army is really a disgrace," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. In many cases, gunmen are "definitely better armed" than the police and the army, the aide said.

Bush administration officials have long expressed concern in private about delivering military equipment to Iraq because of uncertainty that it would be kept out of the hands of militiamen, common criminals and insurgents.

I wrote of this catch-22 back in November in a piece called Iraq: Why We Can't Win While We Are There. It's truly a circle jerk. We can't leave until they "stand up." They can't "stand up" without weapons. We can't provide them with the weapons while we're there.

Al-Maliki goes on to say that if his military is properly equipped, American forces could withdrawal significant troops within three to six months so you know the Bush administration isn't going to do that.

Stupidity

It is very hard not to lose faith in the intelligence of the American public when you read that, in this day and age of information, a contestant died during a water drinking contest held by a radio station in a major city.

It's understandable that the morning DJs of KDND in Sacramento didn't know any better, morning DJs generally fall just above local TV talking heads when it comes to smarts, but there had to be any number of people at the station that could have pulled the plug on this before this woman died. To make matters worse, they were even warned on the air. From ABC News:

Judy Linder, a registered nurse, was listening to the program and was so alarmed that she asked a colleague to call and warn the station.

"She told them you could die from water intoxication," Linder told ABC affiliate KXTV in Sacramento. "He [the disc jockey] pretty much blew that off and said they signed a release so, so what? Then he said why don't your guys come down here and do it, and we said because we don't want to die."

According to a tape of the show, the disc jockeys appeared to joke about the possible dangers of consuming too much water and alluded to a college student who had died during such a stunt in 2005.

"Yeah, we're aware of that," one of the disc jockeys said.

Another disc jockey said: "Yeah. They signed releases, so we're not responsible. We're OK."

Needless to say, the DJs and others have been fired, and a lawsuit is in the works. I think the station is likely to find out that those waivers were worth the paper they were printed on.