Why is Michael Gerson stupid?

Did you happen to catch Michael Gerson's latest tripe in The Washington Post? Well, I have. And he repeats the same tired old talking points against Barack Obama that Obama himself cautioned us just yesterday not to believe. Wrote Gerson:

Over the months, Obama's claim to be a post-partisan moderate has also frayed, especially on foreign policy. Even the most vigorous advocates of global diplomacy would not suggest unconditional, head-of-state talks with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea -- exactly what Obama has promised. His foreign policy staff now admits that a series of lower-level meetings would be necessary to prepare for these summits -- hotel accommodations in Pyongyang are doubtless a challenge. But the problem is not with the preparation, it is with the pledge, which is not only wrong but ridiculous.

A simultaneous withdrawal from Iraq and an unconditional summit with Iranian leaders would be a capitulation to Iranian nuclear ambitions and terror sponsorship, a signal to our Sunni Arab allies that they will face the Iranian threat alone, and an unprecedented betrayal of Israel.

Sen. Obama said yesterday -- I heard him say it with my own ears -- that he will not negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah. I don't think he can say it any more clearly than he said it yesterday. So why is one of the nation's leading newspapers publishing something that blatantly, obviously isn't true?

And how can a columnist with a national forum write such utter, unadulterated bullshit like that last quoted paragraph? Here's what Obama actually said yesterday (paraphrased except where quotation marks are used):

First, I would never do anything to jeopardize the security of Israel. But I would introduce direct diplomacy with Iran, because the policy of not talking with our enemies has not worked. Over the last eight years, Iran has gotten stronger. If you think about it, when Bush took office, Iran was weakened, Iraq was a buffer, Hamas and Hezbollah were threats but not like they are now. Over the last eight years, Iran has become more powerful and has pursued nuclear weapons even more ... Hamas and Hezbollah are stronger, too. "How is it that the Bush-Cheney-McCain policy been good for Israel? I don't see it."

How can Gerson get away with writing total bullshit?

Do I really have to answer that question for you?

Just a matter of time

The Bush crime syndicate is turning up the rhetoric in order to justify another illegal and unnecessary war, this time in Iran. Remember, the vast majority of Americans -- or, I should say, By-God-'Merkins -- either make no distinction between Iran and Iraq or they just figure they're all Scary Brown People ... even though Iranians and Iraqis are dissimilar in ethnicity, language, culture, etc. ... pretty much everything except -- you guessed it -- religion (at least for the Shiites).

Anyway, the drumbeat is getting louder as the maladministration searches for some pretext -- any pretext -- that they can use to, as Huggy Bear sang, bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran. Here's the latest ... and it's a doozy:

Iran is ratcheting up its support for militias in Iraq, providing them with newly manufactured weapons and bringing them across the border to receive training from members of Tehran's elite Republican Guard, U.S. military officials said Friday.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military is preparing to roll out evidence — such as date stamps on newly found weapons caches — that shows that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate.

Mullen would not detail the evidence — which is expected to be unveiled by military leaders in Iraq as early as next week. But another senior military official said it will include mortars, rockets, small arms, roadside bombs and armor-piercing explosives — known as explosively formed penetrators or EFPs — that troops have discovered in caches in recent months.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the evidence has not yet been made public, said that dates on some of the weapons were well after Tehran signaled late last year that it was scaling back aid to insurgents.

In addition, the evidence will include information gleaned from detainees who were reportedly trained by members of Iran's elite Quds Force, as well as insurgents who received instruction on how to do the actual training.

Part of the firepower the military will unveil was used to support insurgents during the recent fighting in Basra in southern Iraq, officials said.

Mullen said he has seen evidence "that some of the weapons are recently not just found, but recently manufactured."

He also warned that the U.S. has the combat power to strike Tehran if needed.

Mullen did say that he can't prove Iran's leadership is involved in this, which I think is the key: even if we concede that the weapons in question are coming from Iran (and, given the track record of these fuck-ups in the White House, I'm reluctant to believe the sky is blue if they say so), we have no proof, and likely no way to prove, that the Iranian government is involved.

But that kind of nuance doesn't matter to the warmongers in charge. Why use diplomacy when you can scare all those Moron-Americans into voting for the GOP in November? Somehow, the Daddy Party manages to portray themselves as the party that's strong on defense and strong against terrorism ... when the facts show that they're anything but.

Separation of church and state? Not in Bush's America

One wonders what country Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks he is in when he cites "God's law" for his belief that homosexual activity is immoral.

"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.

"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."

Anti-war protesters sitting behind Pace jeered the four-star general's remarks, prompting Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to abruptly adjourn the hearing and seal off the doors.

The hearing resumed about five minutes later in which Pace said he would be supportive of efforts to revisit the Pentagon's policy so long as it didn't violate his belief that sex should be restricted to a married heterosexual couple.

Lest anyone be deluded into thinking that the Bush crime syndicate believes in the Constitution, I'll remind you right now: they want to subvert the Constitution in every way and turn America into a fundamentalist theocracy, as hardline Christian as Iran is hardline Muslim. Put another way, the only difference in governance between Ahmadinejad's Iran and Bush's America is the deity they worship, not the fervor with which they worship nor the extent of their insistence that all citizens adhere to the same beliefs -- namely, theirs.

Gen. Pace's statement is not only abhorrent on its face, it's a sad, indeed tragic, indicator of just how far gone our government is. It will take years, probably decades, to undo the damage the Bush crime syndicate has inflicted on America in the last six and a half years. And the attitudes of people like Gen. Pace are perhaps the most injurious results of a series of heinous crimes against America.

Send Jim Naugle to Iran!

Really, this is perfect!

Fort Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle hates homosexuals ... and according to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Sounds like a match made in fundamentalist* heaven!

---

* Fundie Christian or Fundie Muslim: what's the difference?!

War with Iran? BOHICA

Oh, this is fucking ridiculous. We always knew Fox News was a sham news organization, but for them to actively and at least somewhat openly participate with the government in an effort to turn public sentiment in favor of war with Iran, that's unbelievable. Yet, it's true:

New Yorker writer George Packer wrote that the White House is reportedly planning a PR blitz to begin right after Labor Day to garner support for a war against Iran. Packer wrote

"[the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained."

FOX and Friends led the charge this morning, with Weekly Standard Editor and PNAC Chairman Bill Kristol telling Steve Doocy that the US will probably have to take action against Iran, not for their nuclear program so much as for their aggressive support of Iraqi insurgents.

Holy shit. Shouldn't the FCC be all over this?

Oh, yeah .... never mind.

This is why we need the Republicans out of power. This is why we need a return to the Fairness Doctrine in mainstream media, and why Fox News needs to be exposed once and for all as an "entertainment" outlet (and I use even that term loosely) -- it's as much news as pro wrestling is competition. Although I don't think even a collusive PR campaign can save the Bush crime syndicate and bolster their warmongering scheme, it's appalling that this kind of "agreement" can take place in a supposedly "free" country.

Meanwhile, here we are, "right after Labor Day," awaiting the next shoe to drop ... or the next bomb to fall. How much is too much, people?

Nancy? Harry? Hillary? Al? Anyone?

Illegal War II: Electric Boogaloo

Oh, shit.

Yesterday, Raw Story pointed out that former CIA operative Bob Baer told Fox News that the Bush administration will likely attack Iran in the coming months. “Iran policy is on close hold, but the feeling is we will hit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps sometime next six months or so,” said Baer.

Today, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton appeared on Fox News and responded. He said that while he couldn’t confirm Baer’s statements, he “absolutely” hoped they were true:

HEMMER: One final step here, too, that I want to take with you. You told one of our producers earlier today that you don’t know if it’s true — and you’ve made that clear in our interview here, that you don’t know what the odds are or are not against that — but you hope it’s true. Why do you hope it’s true?

BOLTON: Absolutely. I hope Iran understands that we are very serious, that we are determined they are not going to get a nuclear weapon capability, and unless they change the strategic decision they’ve been pursuing for close to 20 years, that that’s something they better factor into their calculations.

The Bush crime syndicate is oh, so seriously considering (if not planning) further destabilization of the Middle East, at the incalculable cost of more American lives and countless Iranian lives just as they've done in Iraq, spending untold billions of dollars (that won't be spent to help our own country's problems) and for what? More oil? Greater hegemony? National security?

Of course, it's ultimately none of the above (well, maybe oil, just a little). All the fighting and bloodshed and flag-waving and shit is for nothing more than fulfilling their own dick-swinging, hyper-masculine "my army can beat up your army" masturbatory fantasies. That's it.

So, the next question is, just how far are the Democrats in Congress willing to go to stop this ... or are they going to be enablers for the Bushies' war addiction yet again?

Scott Ritter gets it

You know, I've never read much by (or, for that matter, about) Scott Ritter. Remember him? He was castigated by the Bush crime syndicate for saying there were no WMDs in Iraq. Oh, yeah, and he was right.

Ritter puts things very simply, with regard to Iraq:

Some people say [the war in Iraq is] a gamble worth taking. Fine. I’d just ask the American people to pass a pop quiz. Tell me about the city of Karbala. Tell me about the city of Baghdad. Tell me about the city of Kirkuk. Explain to me the significance of these three cities both in terms of Iraqi history past, current and future. And if you’re sitting there shaking your head, going, “What the hell is he talking about?” ladies and gentlemen, we need to get out of Iraq right now! Because if you can’t answer that question right now, you are not even equipped to weigh in intelligently about a policy decision that has America committed to several decades of involvement in this nation.

Karbala is the birthplace of Shiism. That’s where Hussein [in the seventh century] was wiped out by Sunni apostates, creating not only the Shia faith but creating the schism between the Shia and the Sunni.

Baghdad was sacked in the 12th century by the Mongols. As a result of the sack of Baghdad, the Sunnis said, “We got defeated because we lost pure Islamic faith.” It’s the birth of Wahhabism. Wahhabism, Osama bin Laden’s version of Sunni Islamic fundamentalism, was derived by foreign occupation of Baghdad. Huh? We’re at war with al-Qaida and the Wahhabists. And we just empowered them by occupying Baghdad. If it isn’t sinking into your head yet, it never will.

Kirkuk. Oil. Kurds. Turkmen. Shia. Kirkuk. If you’re going to have any hope of a unified Iraq, you have to tell me how Kirkuk is going to emerge from any post-Saddam environment, a unified city. Kirkuk is where the formal civil war in Iraq will start. Not Baghdad, not Karbala: Kirkuk.

And if you don’t know this, if you can’t tell me why, if you can’t tell me who the players are, ladies and gentlemen, you’re ill equipped to enter into a debate about the long-term presence of Americans in Iraq. So that’s where I come down to. Can we get out of Iraq? Absolutely. Should we get out of Iraq? If we, the people of the United States of America, don’t know enough about a country where we’re asking our armed services to give the ultimate sacrifice for, then we have no business being in that country.

The fact is, the Bush cabal has no idea what Iraq is like or how to solve the problem, because they're trying to impose American standards and models on a country -- really, an amalgam of disparate nations or tribes or sects, like so many countries are -- that can't be Americanized. They've been doing this forever ... and I really believe they understand this. It's just that in their megalomania, they believe they can't leave without "victory," whatever that means. (Which reminds me: has any member of the crime syndicate actually stated what "victory" is? How will we know when we've "won?")

Meanwhile, what about Iran? (NOTE: I broke this passage into paragraphs for easier reading.)

The funny thing about 10 years is, when someone says someone is 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon, ladies and gentlemen, if that’s the standard you use, every nation is 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon. Being 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon means you don’t have anything. Nothing. You’re starting from scratch. Yeah, you know, you can sit there. But what the CIA is saying—when they say they’re 10 years away—is: “We don’t have any hard data on Iran. We’re just making this stuff up as we go along.”

The most current one is that Iran is one year away from having it. You heard the talk. They can have fissile material in one year. That’s derived from the premise that they will get 3,000 centrifuges to be up and running tomorrow and to run, nonstop, for a year—a year of nonstop operation, at the end of which you’re going to get 20 kilograms of 85 percent enriched, highly enriched uranium. Theoretically, that’s possible. Right now the Iranians can only get 164 centrifuges up and running; they have another 164 cascade-ready, but they’re testing it. And they have bits and pieces of the total 3,000, but they can’t assemble them. Here’s the other, unknown secret, ladies and gentlemen: They can’t do it. They can’t do it. Centrifuges are complex. They’re about yea big. Cylindrical tube. They have to spin around at 70,000 rpm. Did you ever play with a gyroscope as a kid? Spin it up and hold it in your hand and just doing this? That’s mass. It’s moving you because the mass is shifting around. That’s only a couple of hundred rpm. Seventy-thousand rpm. If it’s not perfectly balanced, it blows up, falls apart. To be perfectly balanced, not only do you have to have precision machining throughout, you have to have ball bearings, magnets. The Iranians don’t have enough ball bearings and magnets that work, so when they spin these things up, they tend to pop, and when you pop open in a centrifuge, it shuts down. They can’t get them running for a day, let alone a year. Then, there’s the problem of feeding in the gas, the uranium hexafluoride. It’s contaminated with a substance called molybdenum. Molybdenum—even if you’re just talking about a few, microscopic pieces of it—when it spins up at 70,000 rpm, develops a mass the equivalent of several kilograms. And what happens when you have something spinning with several thousand kilograms moving around inside? It pops. It blows up.

The Iranians can’t do it. Everybody knows this. Except we, the people of the United States of America, who continue to believe anything we’re told by a media that repeats without question the assertions put forward by an administration that doesn’t give a damn about disarming Iran and is only focused on regime change using the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran as an excuse.

So, like we've known all along, Iran is just the same song, second verse. And I hope we can stop the criminals -- the Bush cabal -- before they kill again ... and again and again and again ...

McCain: I see your 21,000 and raise you ...

St. John McCain, the erstwhile "maverick" turned right-wing nutjob, left a trail of oratorical devastation in Florida yesterday.

At a campaign stop in Vero Beach, he said the surge is too small:

The U.S. senator from Arizona said the war has been badly managed and he would "like to send more troops" than President Bush is planning to send in an effort to end the violence in Iraq.

McCain spoke to a crowd of nearly 1,000 attending the Riverside Theatre Distinguished Lecture Series held at the Community Church of Vero Beach.

He also bitch-slapped Rummy ...

Earlier in the day during a stop in South Carolina, McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, blamed mismanagement of war on former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, calling him "one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

And he made fun of a foreign leader ...

McCain also called the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "a dangerous regime." In an aside, McCain said he "refuses to learn how to pronounce the name" of the Iranian leader.

Seriously, with clowns like McCain and Romney among the "front-runners" for the 2008 GOP preznitshul nomination, the Democrats could nominate a toaster for president and still win in a landslide.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: George W. Bush

This probably is the first time that the Daily Schadenfreude award has gone to someone on the basis of a single quote. But Drunky McStagger was at his whiny best today, as he faces the passage of a non-binding resolution in Congress opposing sending additional troops to Iraq.

Bush administration officials and their allies are resigned to House passage of the resolution and have worked in recent days to hold down defections by GOP lawmakers.

But Bush took a swipe at his critics during the day.

"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle," the president said.

The Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen David Petraeus last week to take over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Quick, get the preznit a crying towel!

It's really quite simple, Drunky, but I'm definitely not surprised that a person like you, with the intellectual capacity of a Triscuit, couldn't figure it out. Let me spell it out for you: Gen. Petraeus was confirmed because there really wasn't any good reason to oppose him, and his appointment was largely uncontroversial. Your little vendetta in Iraq, on the other hand -- very controversial. Also stupid, pointless, and quite likely criminal.

Adding to my happiness at Drunky's political self-immolation is this nugget from Madame Speaker:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.

Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

You get that, Drunky? Despite your lame and ultimately futile attempts, à la WMD, etc., to tie Iran to Iraq, you're not going to get away with it this time. In fact, perhaps you should remember and take heed of your very own immortal words: "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. ........You fool me, you can't get fooled again." Think about it ...

So, to George W. Bush, a/k/a Drunky McStagger, congratulations! Today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Same song, second verse

Remember the halcyon days of 2003 when Iraq was tied to al-Qaeda? And the "fact" that there were weapons of mass destruction just littering Iraq? Well, that's what Drunky McStagger told us, and far too many Americans bought into the ruse.

BOHICA, folks:

Serial numbers and other markings on bombs suggest that Iranians are linked to deadly explosives used by Iraqi militants, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in some of the administration's first public assertions on evidence the military has collected.

[...]

Gates told reporters Friday that markings on explosives provide "pretty good" evidence that Iranians are supplying either weapons or technology for Iraqi extremists.

"I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found" that point to Iran, he said.

Gates' remarks left unclear how the U.S. knows the serial numbers are traceable to Iran and whether such weapons would have been sent to Iraq by the Iranian government or by private arms dealers.

You think? You think?! There may be some markings?! The guy's barely been in office, what, two months, and already he's got to roll out the same tired stories that will get the moronic brownshirt fucks (whoops, I said it again -- so much for being hired to blog for a major campaign!) all lathered up without any proof whatsoever.

Can it be any clearer? You've just read the administration's justification for invading Iran. Doesn't matter that it isn't likely to be true; they'll beat this dead horse until 2009 if need be.

We've heard this song before, Bob, and we didn't like it the first time. Does the number 32% mean anything to you?

The urge to surge is verging on a scourge

If you didn't like the original surge, maybe you'll enjoy Surge II: Electric Boogaloo.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday he would consider more troops for Afghanistan where U.S. commanders say the Taliban insurgency, controlled from Pakistan, is expected to intensify.

Gates, in Afghanistan to ensure commanders have the resources to counter an expected Taliban offensive in the spring, said it was very important the United States and its allies did not let the success achieved there slip away.

[...]

Asked how many more troops might be sent, he said: "It depends on different scenarios and those are the kinds of decisions that we're going to have to look at."

There are more than 40,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the highest level since 2001, about 22,000 of them American.

Remember Afghanistan? The place where the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks purportedly was? I know it's hard to remember, what with the four-year-long personal vendetta of Drunky McStagger still in high gear, but think back ...

At some point, you have to question: do we actually have enough troops to handle all these surges?

Hell, we might not be done yet. There's Iran, of course, and even ...

NATO spokesman Brigadier Richard Nugee also cited a Pakistani attack on a militant camp in its South Waziristan tribal region on Tuesday as an example of efforts to coordinate with Pakistan.

Gates, who left Afghanistan later on Wednesday, said Pakistan was "an extraordinarily strong ally" in the war on terrorism but militancy on the Pakistani side of the border would have to be dealt with.

Don't you hate when you plan a surge, but you don't plan for a surge? Bummer, dude.

Dear Leader speaks

Remarks from the Pentagon this afternoon:

I'm pleased when Iraqi leaders go to Saudi Arabia and talk to my friend, the King of Saudi Arabia, and talk about how they can work together to achieve stability. It's in Saudi's interest, it's in Jordan's interest, it's in the Gulf Coast countries' interest that there be a stable Iran [sic], an Iran [sic] that is capable of rejecting Iranian influence -- I mean, Iraq that is capable of rejecting Iranian influence. It's in our interests that we succeed in Iraq so that we can continue to send a clear message to those in Iran that are desirous of a free society that freedom is possible in your neighborhood.

I have no words.

I mean, I have no words that Dear Leader would understand.

(Cap tip to P. O'Neill at Best of Both Worlds)

UPDATE (4:27 pm 12/13/06): Actually, I do have words:

Note how skillfully he conflates the two greatest fuck-ups in a presidency rife with colossal fuck-ups. He mixes the Gulf Coast (Katrina) with the Persian Gulf.

Un-fucking-believable.

Gates confirmed, 95-2 - but it's the "2" that worry me

As you probably know, Robert Gates sailed through his Senate confirmation vote yesterday. But what struck me was who voted against him and why:

Two Bush allies, Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Jim Bunning, R-Ky., voted against Gates, citing his criticism of the war and his view that the U.S. should engage Iran as part of a solution.

"Mr. Gates has repeatedly criticized our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without providing any viable solutions to the problems our troops currently face," Bunning said. "We need a secretary of defense to think forward with solutions and not backward on history we cannot change."

Let me get this straight, Sen. Bunning: we should, essentially, "stay the course," but not look backward? This guy gives "screwball" an entirely new meaning.

Santorum, who lost his re-election bid last month, mocked the idea of engaging dictators and talked at length of the evils of "radical Islamic fascism." When it comes to reaching out to Iran to discuss the security of Iraq, Santorum said of Gates, "I think he is in error."

Yep, let's forget about diplomacy and invade Iran. After all, that strategery has worked so well in Iraq.

Hey, Ricky - there's a reason you lost. Look in the mirror, pal.

And now, another exciting episode of "Why Is This News?"

Apparently there's a big difference between 100,000 centrifuges and 60,000 centrifuges:

"We intend to install 60,000 centrifuges and, God willing, Iran will be able to provide for its needs in nuclear fuel by next year," [Iranian president] Ahmadinejad was quoted by ISNA as saying in a corrected report.

It earlier quoted him saying Iran wanted to install 100,000 machines. Ahmadinejad had also said last week that Iran wanted to install 60,000 centrifuges.

That's it. That's the gist of the article. "I said 60,000, not 100,000." Woot.

And so begins the Thanksgiving news cycle. I can hardly wait for what's next. Maybe "Using Condoms Reduces Risk of STD Transmittal," or "Sky Reportedly Blue," or "Bush Is a Wanker."