An American Capacity for Evil

How could this have happened in America?  How did we get into this horrible mess?  Why is there not more outrage from the American people?  Why is the traditional media so compliant? Why are the Democrats so timid?  

As the full rotten fruits of the Bush Administration’s contempt for democracy, constitutional process, human rights, international law, middle-class economics and just plan basic human decency become increasingly apparent with each passing day, coherent and convincing answers to these questions become increasingly necessary.  It should be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about America as a nation and the principles upon which it was founded that our institutions could have become so easily subverted, and our national will so broken that we not only did nothing to prevent these disasters, but failed to act decisively to right the wrongs once they had become so appallingly obvious.  
It is these questions that Al Gore attempts to answer in his outstanding book Assault on Reason.  Gore’s answer in a nutshell is that representative democracy only functions based on a two-way conversation between its government those being governed; that in the days of pamphlets and the written word such communication was commonplace and easy (at least for the bourgeois); and that radio and especially television have broken down that communication into a one-way street from government to the people, with an ever decreasing attention span.

Al Gore is right about all this, of course–yet as I turn it over in my mind, it is clear to me that this explanation alone does not suffice to explain how we got to such a dreary state of affairs.  America has a long history of horrific corruption, appalling deficits of accountability, and immoral acts of oppression and war that predates radio and television.  Slavery, the Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson’s final “victory” in the war of 1812, the massacres of Native Americans at Wounded Knee and elsewhere, the brute aggression of the Mexican-American War, the Confederacy on the wrong side of morality and history, the lies of the Spanish-American war, the social injustice and government corruption of the Gilded Age and robber baron eras, Jim Crow and the White Man’s Burden of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson–all of these took place well before the advent of radio and television.  And nearly all took place with the fairly quiet consent of the governed.

No, the answer lies deeper.  While America’s ability to project might, together with the secrecy and corruption made possible by the unprecedented power of multinational corporations, has ensured that the Bush Administration’s misuse of both capacities will earn it the award of Worst Administration Ever, the uncomfortable truth is that the difference between Bush and many of his American predecessors is not one of quality, but rather of quantity.  One shudders to think what sort of damage might have been done by a President Jackson, President Grant or President Nixon, given Bush’s military power, post-9/11 national cohesion, and pressure from corporate interests.  Bush and his Republican corporatocratic cronies do so much damage because they have the power to–not because they are a uniquely destructive breed.

But even that is not enough.  Regardless of the power that can be wielded by an unholy alliance of religious dogmatism, military-industrial complex influence and corporate power, there still remains the question of how the American people, its media, and its supposed opposition parties could have remained so compliant for so long.

The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that most Americans simply do not believe their leaders and their government to be capable of sheer evil.  Certainly, we as Americans acknowledge the past sins of slavery, native exterminations, Jim Crow and the like–but we view these actions as a product of inadequate social enlightenment at the time, simply reflected by our leadership.  And certainly, we believe our politicians to be venal consummate liars who are inherently corrupt and self-serving.  But we are incapable of allowing ourselves to admit that we as a nation are capable of playing an utterly immoral role on the world stage.

Most other industrialized nations do not have this problem.  The nations of Europe learned the lessons of colonial exploitation, empires established and lost, and brutal world wars fought due to greed and stupidity.  Japan (in spite of its official refusal to acknowledge it) understands and is fairly contrite for the negative role it has played in military and economic exploitation of its neighbors.  Russia certainly is sadder but wiser for its experiences with state-run Communist Empire.  Even China has a storied history of imperial cruelty and rebellion from such–though its lessons tend to be internally rather than externally directed.

But America has not yet had its often heavy hand slapped by the forces of karma.  The impossibility of the maintenance of both military colonial empire and domestic democracy have not yet become apparent to the average American.  In fact, most Americans are still sitting on the laurels of overtly beneficial military campaigns overseas in World War II and in Korea–perhaps the only truly just wars America has fought since the war of 1812 (with the possible exceptions of Kosovo and Gulf War I).  Even when our actions are overtly aggressive, Americans have always found a way to justify them to ourselves.

Perhaps the best example of the philosophy that most Americans hold when it comes to foreign policy is presented by Trey Parker and Matt Stone in their 2004 comedy Team America: World Police.  Apologies for the crudeness here, but the words are Parker’s and Stone’s.  Shortly before the following speech in the film, the American heroes have foiled a plot of world domination by North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, who has made unwitting allies of the Hollywood celebrities the Right loves to hate (unless their running as Republicans for president, of course):

We’re dicks! We’re reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don’t like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn’t appropriate – and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves… because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don’t know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don’t let us fuck this asshole, we’re going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

As clammyc and I will be discussing tonight on our radio show Political Nexus, this speech, crude and filled as it is with misogynist sexual politics, underlines the American theory of domestic and foreign policy: we may be over-the-top sometimes, but our hearts are in the right place.  Our leaders stand up, we believe, to evil wherever it is–and sometimes some weaklings get hurt and offended in the process–but if it weren’t for our strong decisive leadership, all those weaklings would get abused by those evil people in the world.  This ethic applies just as much to our law-and-order attitude towards drugs and a variety of other crimes (leading to horrific incarceration rates) as it does to our foreign policy in Iraq.  In the minds of most Americans, we can always be overly aggressive dicks–but never assholes.  And the worst thing we could possibly have, we believe, is a President who is a “pussy”.  Indeed, it would be difficult to surmise how dickish an American president would have to be for us consider him/her enough of an asshole to actually impeach.

And that is why Chris Matthews can’t believe Americans don’t like George Bush.  That is why the idea of impeaching George Bush for war crimes and crimes against the American Constitution is so distasteful to so many Americans.  That is why our Democratic candidates have such difficulty saying that occupying Iraq is wrong, or that Bush deliberately lied to get us to invade; instead, they say their vote was a “mistake”, that they wish they had “known then what they know now”, that we were “misled”.  That is why Americans were so utterly shocked by Abu Ghraib, and why they did their best to forget about it just after it happened.  That is why Americans were so utterly shocked by the callous and incompetent response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, and why they did their best to forget about that, too, just months thereafter.  That is why it takes a Michael Moore to say explicitly that American healthcare isn’t just in need of adjustments, but is structurally bad.  

In sum, Americans cannot hold George Bush accountable for his evil actions if they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that any American president could be capable of using our power towards evil ends.  So long as conventional wisdom dictates that no politician or major media figure can speak badly of his/her country’s position on the world stage, no politician will truly be able to speak badly of the leadership that put us in that position.

This is why Al Gore cannot decide whether or not to run for President.  As an outside figure, he can hold George Bush’s and America’s feet to the fire for dragging its feet on global climate change, and for abusing the awesome power of its military might.  As a politician, however, he knows that doing so is the kiss of death.

As Americans, we deserve the leadership that we get.  So long as we are incapable of admitting evil of ourselves, we will be incapable of having principled leadership like Al Gore is demonstrating today.  At best, we will get the calculated platitudes of a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama; at worst, we will get the utter depravity of a George Bush or Dick Cheney.

If we want to save our country, however, we will need to admit the truth.  We will need to be able to call a spade a spade, and acknowledge that great evil has indeed been done in our names.  I only hope that we as a nation can do so before it is too late.

CT-Sen: Not a Chance

That’s how I see the situation in the Connecticut Senate race.  Not a chance.  No way.  No way in Hell.

No way, that is, that the actual election results will look ANYTHING like what the polls are currently saying.

This race has been a muddled, confusing, surprising mess from the beginning, with nothing in it conforming to expectations.  The current polls show Lamont trailing by double-digits, and it’s caused everything from handwringing to outright obituaries all over the liberal blogophere.

Honestly, that’s a load of horse manure.  The polls showing Lamont leading by double digits before the primary were out to lunch.  And so are the current polls.

NOTHING about the race as it’s currently polling makes any sense–and it won’t pan out that way.  Ned Lamont is going to win this election, and here are the reasons why: 
1.  The Bush Voters.  A full 44% of Connecticut voters voted for George W. Bush in 2004.  That’s forty-four percent.  Connecticut is a Liberal State all right–but it ain’t THAT liberal.

And yet every single poll shows the actual Republican Senate candidate polling at only 5-7 percentage points in the race.  That is simply NOT going to happen.  No way, no how.  You would have to convince me that a full 39% of Bush voters will cross over to vote for a Connecticut for Lieberman DEMOCRAT on this year’s ballot.  Color me highly skeptical.

Lieberman may be a Bush toadie on the Occupation of Iraq, he may have his issues with women’s rights, and he may be a corrupt bastard, but he votes with Democrats over 70% of the time.  Ashamed as we are to admit it today, he was our Vice-Presidential Candidate in 2000–running alongside AL GORE.

Republicans know this.  Social conservatives will NOT vote for Joe Lieberman.  Fiscal conservatives will NOT vote for Joe Lieberman, who fits the mold of an old-time “tax and spend” Democrat.  Not even to prevent Ned Lamont from getting elected.

Meanwhile, Schlesinger performed VERY well at the recent debate (not factored into the polls), and will tap into a lot of disaffected conservative sentiment in the state.

2. The embarrassed respondent factor.  “Centrist” hack Mickey Kaus has actually discussed this at some length in regard to the difference between robo-polling and actual human-to-human polling.  I’ll take it a step further: when a pollster asks a respondent whom they are going to vote for, the respondent often tries to say the “respectable” thing–either because of the presence of the pollster, or perhaps of family members or friends listening to the responses.

There has been a lot of pressure on Republican voters to vote for Lieberman; some Dem households are quite divided.  Saying that you’ll vote for Lieberman is “respectable” in CT households of both political stripes.  But that doesn’t mean that people will actually vote that way when they step into the booth–especially Republicans.  While Republicans may say they will vote for Lieberman on the phone, it will be too much to ask them to stomach when they’re in the quiet privacy of a voting booth.

3.  Motivated voters.  Lieberman’s voters are not terribly motivated.  There are really two kinds of Lieberman voters: a) Dems who are distrustful of change and are simply comfortable with the status quo; and b) Republicans who will vote against their own ideology to keep Lamont out of power.  Neither of these are the kind of voters that you can count of making it to the polls.

Ned Lamont’s voters, on the other hand, are highly motivated and eager for a change.  They’ll make it to the voting booth (or vote absentee) come hell or high water.

4.  The Ground Game.  This has been discussed at length, and requires no great explanation from me.  Psifighter37 mentioned this factor most recently and famously here.  Markos himself says that the ground game alone will make up for about 5 polling points.

Me, I think it will be bigger than that.  Lieberman has literally NO ground game.  Nothing.  He’s paying unmotivated high school kids–that’s about it.  Meanwhile, Ned Lamont has the unions, the motivated voters, the grassroots, AND the Dem Party machinery behind him.  That’s a big, big difference–especially in a state as relatively small at Connecticut.

5.  The Ballot.  The actual ballot does not favor Lieberman.  Not at all.  For several reasons. 

A) Lieberman’s name comes at the bottom of the ballot–the worst possible position.

B) Alan Schlesinger’s name comes at the TOP of the ballot.

C) GOP voters will see the big fat (R) right next to Schlesinger’s name and be reminded that they have a populist, outsider GOP candidate to vote for.

D) Dem voters will see the (D) next to Lamont’s name, and the (CfL) next to Lieberman’s name–and be reminded of just who the Democratic candidate in this race really is.

The ballot alone will take a few points off of Lieberman’s final tally.

6.  The Fundraising Scandals.  Two new scandals over Joe’s campaign funds have come out just in the past few days.  First off, there’s the White House slush fund that has been keeping Joe afloat financially–a story with legs that will only remind Dem voters of Lieberman’s strong ties to Bush.  Second, Tim Tagaris informed us all yesterday about Joe’s petty cash slush fund problem.  It should be amusing to see how he responds to questions concerning his multiple, flat-out law-breaking on campaign finance.

Most importantly, these two stories bite into one of Lieberman’s strongest campaign arguments: that he’s a man of “integrity.”  It’s hard to look senatorial and above-the-fray when you’re caught red-handed violating the law and taking money from the opposition.

7.  The Endorsements.  John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have a LOT of pull in New England.  Both of them will be coming out strong for Lamont in the coming weeks.

Now, some say that the major Dems came out for Lieberman, and it didn’t have an effect.  The counters to this argument are easy: 1) it was a primary, where tuned-in voters uneasily swayed by big names were doing the voting; 2) who’s to say they didn’t?  If Boxer and Clinton hadn’t come out for Lieberman, his losses may well have been much more devastating.

8.  The Bush Factor.  A new Newsweek poll shows that a MAJORITY of Americans want to see Bush IMPEACHED.  That’s right.  Impeached.  Remember that Al Gore found it necessary to run away from Bill Clinton because of his “taint”, though Clinton’s popularity remained high throughout the Republican witch-hunt.

And yet we’re expected to believe that the man to whom Bush gave the Kiss of Death is going to receive the votes of the same Democrats who want to see Bush impeached?  Color me severely skeptical about this.

8. The Wave.  There is a Democratic wave afoot this election.  No doubt about it.  We’re seeing it all over the country, as races thought to be unwinnable by Democrats have become competitive.

And yet, the only state appearing to buck this trends in the polls is Connecticut.  And it  makes absolutely no sense to any astute political observer.

As for me, I think the “Wave” will override whatever the polls are saying two weeks before the election.  Castles don’t stay in the air forever.

—————————————

To sum it up, All of these factors combined serve to erase in my mind even a double-digit Lieberman lead in the polls when the voters actually vote on election day.

The Bush voters will come home to the GOP to tune of at least 4 or 5 percentage points.

There are at least 1 or 2 percentage points worth of “embarrassed respondents” out there.

Lamont’s motivated voters will swamp Lieberman’s unmotivated cadre of weak Dems and disaffected Republicans to the tune of at least 3 percentage points.

Lamont’s ground game will make up at least another couple of points.

The structure of the ballot itself will give Lamont at least another couple of points.

Joe’s fundraising scandals may or may not have an impact on his image of respectability–I would say they are likely to do so.

Big heavyweight Dems coming to support Lamont will move at least a point or two of Democrats to Lamont’s side.

And the Democratic Wave will swamp whatever additional support Lieberman may have over Lamont.

This race will be VERY close–and I expect Lamont will win it, if we work hard enough and things fall our way.  But DON’T get discouraged by the polls–because there’s no way in Hell that this race will turn out that way. 

Lamont has every structural advantage, and it’s HIS race–and OURS–to win.

[Cross-posted from My Left Wing, and on Daily Kos]

They Let Him Get Away With It

They let him get away with it.

News reports are currently circulating that Osama Bin Laden is dead of a severe case of typhoid fever–and that he died last month in August.

Now, it could be that it’s a false rumor; after all, Bin Laden’s been thought to be dead before.  But then again, this might just be Karl Rove’s famed October Surprise.

But if it IS Rove’s October Surprise, we need to get out in the front of the story with the truth: These fuckers LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT.
That’s right.  If Karl Rove thinks this is his October Surprise, he’s got another think coming.  This SHOULD backfire on him.

Bin Laden’s death, if true, is a cause for great celebration.  But it is also a cause for great anger.

Much is made of the closure necessary for victims of heinous crimes and murders; one of the primary arguments for the death penalty in this country is that seeing the execution of the person who caused them such pain provides a sense of relief, closure and satisfaction for the victim’s family and friends.

Well, guess what?  Because of the mind-numbing incompetence and malfeasance of Bush and the Corrupt Bastards currently in power, America will NEVER have closure.

Instead, America will grieve forever the loss of her pride and of all the brave and innocent souls who died on that black day of September 11th–without relief.  Without closure.  Without satisfaction.

And the ghost of the greatest criminal perpetrator against her and her people will continue to thumb his nose at her forever from beyond the grave–both in spirit and through the spirits of his followers whose numbers have been increased and wills emboldened by this government of Weakness.

When this town we call America needed a sheriff who would bring this outlaw murderer to justice, we were told that “he just wasn’t that concerned about him.”  Our tough-talking all-hat, no-horse sheriff never even TRIED to catch the murderous mastermind of the greatest attack on this land since Pearl Harbor.

And now that killer may have escaped justice–forever.

——————————————————

If Bin Laden indeed died of natural causes outside American custody, it is indeed a dark day for America–and ultimately Bin Laden’s greatest victory and final achievement.  A final, irreversible defeat in Bush’s self-declared “war on terror.”  It is a national shame.

And this national shame needs to be hung on the head of Bush, Cheney, and every one of their treasonous, cowardly supporters–for all time.

He got away with it.  THEY LET HIM get away with it.

Say it.  Scream it.  Bellow it from the rooftops in a mournful cry of rage.

For it must be said–if for no other reason than to preserve OUR honor: the honor of all Americans who still grieve for the over 3,000 Americans who died on that horrible day for nothing.  And for the honor of the thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died in this criminal’s diversion of a useless war that disabled us from holding the perpetrator of that day’s evil responsible for his actions.

Damn them.  Damn them all.

[Cross-posted from My Left Wing, and on the Daily Kos]

Bush is a More Colossal Failure than you Know

I have to tell you: I do get discouraged.  I look at the horrible, monumental crimes and fuck-ups of this so-called Administration–from Iraq to Katrina to Abramoff to torture to everything else–and I cringe in horror at how we are fighting and scraping for every inch of our lives just to try to pick up a measly 20 House seats and 6 Senate seats.  This shouldn’t be so hard, I say to myself.

Indeed, sometimes I become apoplectic with an almost violent rage.  We should be picking up 50, 60 House Seats and 15 Senate seats, I tell myself.  After all, historians have already concluded that this is the worst administration in history–and we still have years left to go.

But then, history itself cheers me up again.  And on this day–five years and a day after the attacks of 9/11–it is to history that I would like you to turn for inspiration and a renewed sense of purpose.
It is not just that, all told, Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States.  That much is clear enough–even to some on the right wing.  No–Bush is, in historical terms, a failure of a truly epic and colossal magnitude.  Bush is sui generis–a creature all his own.  There never has been, and never will be in American history, anything like him again.

Now, an astute person might respond, “But Spoon–that should make our major struggles for comparatively minor gains even MORE infuriating and depressing, no?”

From one perspective, it might–if it’s the Administration failures you concentrate on.

But what I want to focus your attention on today is this Administration’s ADVANTAGES.  Yes, its advantages.  For it is in the inherent advantages that Bush was given–and squandered–that the truly extraordinary story lies, and the source of my renewed focus and inspiration.

——————————-

Great men are made, not born.

Attribution unknown

This statement is truer that most people know.  Without the Civil War, would Abraham Lincoln be on Mount Rushmore?  Without WWII and the Great Depression, would FDR have won a third term?  Would we know the name Martin Luther King, Jr., had he been born a slave 150 years earlier?

The truth is that sometimes history creates opportunities for men and women to achieve a greatness that they could never have achieved themselves.  Sometimes they achieve it in the face of monumental odds; sometimes the odds are not so difficult.

Bush has squandered an extraordinary opportunity to achieve an almost unparalleled greatness–with virtually every advantage a person could have, and little to no opposition.

Let’s look at some presidential comparisons, shall we?  Abraham Lincoln (a success) was given the Civil War; FDR (a success) was given the Great Depression and WWII; Nixon (a mixed bag, but largely a failure) was given Vietnam and a nation in the midst of social revolution.  Let’s see what advantages and disadvantages they had.

The Press:

Abraham Lincoln: Inherited a divided country, and a viciously brutal press both in the South and the North.

FDR: Had to contend with William Randolph Hearst as the primary journalist of his day–and no friend of FDR, by a long shot.

Nixon: Had to contend with Walter Cronkite and the intrepid reporters of the Washington Post.

Bush: The leading opinion and newsman of Bush’s day was Bill O’Reilly, Bush’s own propagandist.

The political opposition:

Lincoln: Lincoln had a hostile Northern Congress, in large part; and the Southern Delegates seceded from the Union, so badly did they despise Lincoln.

FDR: FDR’s grand plans won him the enmity of much of Congress, who didn’t like him upsetting the status quo.

Nixon: Had to deal with a truly hostile Democratic congress.

Bush: Republican House, Republican Senate.  Pathetic Opposition (Joe Lieberman, anyone?)

The Electoral Opposition:

Lincoln: Divided between the Hawks and the Copperheads, Lincoln easily trounced his divided opposition.

FDR: Easily trounced his presidential opponent in every election.

Nixon: Won in a landslide over George McGovern.

Bush: Went up against the DLC and John Freaking Kerry–and only won 51% of the vote–if that.

The Wartime Enemy:

Lincoln: Had to face the entire South, with Robert E. Lee at its head.  The North won.

FDR: Hirohito and Hitler.  Need I say more?  Destroyed both.

Nixon: The Vietcong, with the full backing of Red China, in the context of the possible nuclear annihilation of the Cold War.  Lost–but “winning” was really never an option.

Bush: a ragtag band of terrorists, with a 6’5″ man on a dialysis machine, hiding in caves, for their leader.  In Iraq, a crazed but impotent despot with no weapons and an army that rolled over in less than a week.  Bin Laden remains at large, and Iraq is a disaster.

Domestic situation and economy:

Lincoln: The economy was shattered–and there was a freaking Civil War!

FDR: The Great Depression.  ‘Nuff said.

Nixon: Good economy, but a nation in the midst of extraordinary social upheaval.

Bush: Inherited from Clinton record surplusses, and one of the greatest economies in American history.

—————————————

So let’s put this into perspective, shall we?

Before 9/11, Bush was a mediocre and almost laughable president.  Stem Cells were the biggest issue of the day.

When 9/11 happened, the nation cried out desperately for a leader.  Almost all of us put ourselves in Bush’s hands and tabled our partisanship, and were willing to do almost anything that Bush asked.  Bush was given an extraordinary opportunity at greatness.

What’s more, he had EVERY ADVANTAGE IN THE WORLD: A favorable and kowtowing press.  Pathetic or nonexistent political opposition.  A pathetically easy enemy to fight.  And a great economy.

And he blew it all.  

—————————————-

And he STILL holds most of those same advantages.

What is truly incredible is not that we aren’t making bigger gains; it that only FIVE YEARS AFTER ONE OF THE GREATEST SHOCKS IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and with every possible advantage handed to him on a silver platter, this president has a 35% approval rating, and 36% of the country wants to impeach him.

And he hasn’t even been blamed for letting it happen or failing to prevent it, he’s been treated with such kid gloves.

Historically speaking, given his opportunities for greatness and the advantages he was given, Bush is a failure of truly cataclysmic porportions that will become obvious with the advantage of historical distance.

———————————-

So do not despair, folks.  Take heart.

It may be frustrating at times to watch the public apathy in the face of monumental failure, but you must remember that we are up against extraordinary odds: a president given EVERY shot at greatness, with a public that WANTS him to be great–and virtually no opposition to speak of until recently.

And he’s STILL going to lose the House, and maybe the Senate–and impeachment may just be around the corner.

That’s because he has created a governmental failure of such epic proportions that, when we look back on it 20 or 30 years from now, will practically need its own monument.

So get to work with renewed hope.  Let’s start chiseling that monument now, and send these criminals packing.

[Cross-posted from My Left Wing, and on DailyKos]

Is THIS what they’re reduced to?

Those of you who have followed my diaries over the last year know that I’m an avowed pessimist about Democrats’ electoral chances in 2006 and 2008 because our elected officials refuse to stand for what we believe in and get smart about how we talk about issues.  I’m the guy who writes diaries like 2006 will be a major disappointment.  So will 2008 and Why the Right-Wing Gets It–and Dems Don’t.

But I’ve got to tell you: even my unbridled pessimism has its limits when I see the sorts of drivel the GOP and its shills have been reduced to lately.

At this point, they’re literally grovling and begging for support they know they don’t deserve.
In a hilarious column today, Jonah Golberg says that we should just Give Bush a Break:

Lord knows I have my problems with President Bush. He taps the federal coffers like a monkey smacking the bar for another cocaine pellet in an addiction study. Some of his sentences give me the same sensation as falling backward in one of those “trust” exercises, in which you just have to hope things work out. Yes, the Iraq invasion has gone badly, and to deny this is to suggest that Bush meant for things to turn out this way, which is even crueler than saying he failed to get it right.

In other words, Jonah knows that Bush’s head is squarely up his rectum.  All Jonah has here is 1) that Bush isn’t Republican enough; 2) that one just has to have “faith” in Dilbert’s Pointy-Haired Boss; and 3) that we’re all a bunch of meanies for suggesting that Bush is malicious, rather than merely incompetent.

But do keep in mind that this is the start of his pro-Bush column.

But you know what? It’s time to cut the guy some slack.

If this were The Onion, I would be laughing out loud.  Unfortunately, it’s not.

Of course, I will get hippo-choking amounts of e-mail from Bush-haters telling me that all I ever do is cut Bush slack. But these folks grade on the curve. By their standards, anything short of demanding that a half-starved badger be sewn into his belly flunks.

Jonah, that would be too nice for Cheney.  I think a hamster would be more apt for Bush.

Jonah then spews some tripe about Bush-bashers and the Plame/Armitage affair–nicely debunked by emptywheel–before continuing:

And then there’s Hurricane Katrina. Yes, the federal government could have responded better. And of course there were real tragedies involved in that disaster. But you know what? Bad stuff happens during disasters, which is why we don’t call them tickle-parties.

“Hey, c’mon!  Katrina wasn’t exactly a tickle-party!  This is hard work!”

Again, this does NOT come from The Onion.  The man actually said this.  What is it about Republicans that they INSIST on minimizing tragedies and dissasters–unless they can be exploited for cynical political gain?  What kind of American do they think is going to buy this bullshit?

The anti-Bush chorus, including enormous segments of the mainstream media, sees Katrina as nothing more than a good stick for beating on Piñata Bush’s “competence.” The hypocrisy is astounding because the media did such an abysmal job covering the reality of New Orleans (contrary to reports, there were no bands of rapists, no disproportionate deaths of poor blacks, nothing close to 10,000 dead, etc.).

Step one: invent racist and malicious stories about black people to minimize the horror of the government response.

Step two: feed these stories to media.

Step three: blame the media for telling racist stories that you promoted.

Step four: Use this to say the media overblew BUSH’s incompetence.

What the Fuck?  Again, is there ANY American who is really going to buy the bridge he is selling?

The Mississippi coast was hit harder by Katrina than New Orleans was. And although New Orleans’ levee failure was a unique problem – one the local leadership ignored for decades – the devastation in Mississippi was in many respects more severe. And you know what? Mississippi has the same federal government as Louisiana, and reconstruction there is going gangbusters while, after more than $120 billion in federal spending, New Orleans remains a basket case. Here’s a wacky idea: Maybe it’s not all Bush’s fault.

Actually, Jonah, try this for a wacky idea: New Orleans is a major city whose residents won’t vote for a Republican again in their natural lives.  The Mississippi coast is far smaller and generally more rural and Republican area that includes Trent Lott’s porch.  It couldn’t have anything to due with incompetence and political cronyism, could it?

But you knew that already.  So does most of America, dimwit.

I mean, this is what they’re reduced to?

Then, of course, there’s the war on terror. Democrats love to note that Bush hasn’t caught Osama bin Laden yet, as if this is the most vital metric for success….But even nicer than catching bin Laden is not having thousands of dead Americans in New York, Washington and L.A. Contrary to all expert predictions…

Reporter: Sargeant, have you caught the serial killer yet?

Sargeant: No.  I’m not that concerned about him.

Reporter: WTF?!

Sargeant: As if that’s the measure of success!  Have any more people been killed???

———-

Go read the whole thing.  It’s amazing.

If this is what they’ve been reduced to, victory is ours.

Seriously.  And take that from an avowed pessimist.

[Cross-posted at My Left Wing, and on Daily Kos]

Now CONDI embarrasses herself before the American Legion

This is unbelievable, sheer insanity now.

Just two days after Donald Rumsfeld decided to excoriate the United States of America in front of the American Legion, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice ALSO decided to embarrass herself with yet another speech to the American Legion.

While Rumsfeld’s speech could only have appealed to people who hate America and find brown shirts vaguely attractive, Condi’s address could only appeal to those with the attention span of a gnat, and the intellect to boot.

But they appear to be written to work together–good cop and bad cop, says RedState.com–but this could only be described as a sinister version of a Laurel & Hardy film called “Nazi Cop, Dumb Cop.”
The transcript of the speech can be found at the Secretary of State’s website–and it’s a scary one as well.

I’m especially reminded of America’s resolve in times of adversity, as we come upon the fifth anniversary of September the 11th. That day, America encountered the darker nature of our world, and our nation’s course was profoundly altered.

Yes.  That’s true.  You know that seemingly genial, kinda slow-witted guy who seemed like a good beer-buddy when 49% of Americans voted for him for president?  Turns out he’s an aggressively belligerent dry-drunk sociopath with a theocratic megalomania complex and a gift for corporate cronyism.

Who knew?  The world’s nature is dark indeed.

Consider the progress we have made: Five years ago, the members of al-Qaida were largely free to operate, to organize, to travel, to move money, to communicate with each other, and to plan attacks to murder innocent people. Today, however, five years later, America is leading a great coalition of countries in the fight against terrorists.

You know, when I think about the truly GREAT countries of the world, Britain, Poland and Costa Rica are the first ones that come to mind.  Absolutely.  I’m sure that most Americans would agree.

Together, we are seizing their money. We’re closing their sanctuaries.

Sanctuaries like…Pakistan.  Have you seen the sheer number of troops we have in Waziristan right now?  Why, the number must be in the high two-figures!  The Taliban that originated in Pakistan, the terrorist network that the British liquid explosives guys went to in Pakistan–all being scoured as we speak by…umm….well, never mind.

We’re hunting their cells. We’re killing and capturing their leaders.

Lemme see about this.  Osama bin Laden?  Alive.  Ayman al-Zawahiri, his #2?  Alive.  Al-Zarqawi?  Dead–after three years.  The general Al-Qaeda network? Stronger, by all accounts, than it used to be.

Heckuva job, Condi!

Because we’ve gone on the offense, America is safer, but we are not yet safe, as we’ve seen just recently with the foiled terror plot in London.

Gee, ya think?  Two years later: “Because we’ve gone on the offense in bombing Tehran, America is safer–but we are not yet safe, as we’ve seen just recently with the spate of Iranian suicide bombings in Starbucks all across America.  As long as Republicans remain at the helm, you can trust that America will take the fight to its enemies.

By the way, Syria?  You’re next.  Bring ’em on!”

We know that every day, each and every day, violent extremists are plotting new ways to do us harm.

That’s true: President Bush himself said that he is always thinking of new ways to harm our country.  I know I’m scared of these violent extremists in the White House–I think most Americans are, too.

Today, five years after the attack on our nation, people still differ about what September 11th called us to do. On the one hand, if you focus only on the attacks themselves and believe that they were caused by 19 hijackers supported by a network called al-Qaida, operating from a failed state, Afghanistan, then the response can be limited.

Condi, on the other hand, believes that it was actually a Balrog of Morgoth from Transylvania who attacked us.  We, on the other hand, believe that 19 Saudi terrorists training in Afghanistan attacked us because we happen in live in a little place called reality.

But if you believe, as I do, and as President Bush does, that the root cause of September 11th was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an ideology that thrives on the oppression and despair of the Middle East, then we must seek to remove this source of terror by helping the people of that troubled region to transform their countries and to transform their lives.

Do you mean the sort of oppression and despair fostered by our Saudi allies?  The dictatorship of our Pakistani allies?  The bloody dictatorship of our Uzbek ally?

Meanwhile, I do agree with Condi on one point: bunker-buster bombs do wonders for transforming lives and the landscapes of troubled regions.  What greater transformation is there than “here today, gone tomorrow?”

The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East…

What is she talking about?  Who is she talking about?  I’d like her to show me the American who thinks that we shouldn’t have dismantled Al-Qaeda and killed Osama Bin Laden.  Where is that American, Condi?  We’re angry because you HAVEN’T done those things, dimwit.

Under President Bush’s leadership, the United States is now standing shoulder to shoulder with moderate men and women all across the Middle East.

That’s good, because you certainly aren’t standing with moderate men at home.

Five years ago, who could have imagined that a vibrant debate about democratic reform and economic reform and social reform would be raging in every country of the Broader Middle East, a debate not about whether to proceed with reform, but how to proceed? Who could have imagined the positive changes we have already witnessed in places as different as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait and Morocco, and Jordan? Sure, there have been many setbacks and step backs in each of these cases, but the steps forward are also taking place.

“Who could have imagined?”  She didn’t just say that again, did she?  Seems to be an incredible failure of imagination by this White House, no?

And Earth to Condi: I think there have been more setbacks than steps forward.  Just possibly.

And who could have imagined that the people of Lebanon would stand up by the hundreds of thousands and call for the Syrian occupation of their country to end and for a new democratic future to begin?

That’s right, folks.  Lebanon is one of the greatest success stories of our times.  That’s how this Administration defines success.  Didn’t you know?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban is terrorizing the Afghan people and trying to stop their democratic progress.

Oh yeah, those guys.  I thought we defeated them.  Guess not.  Given that we first invaded Afghanistan five years ago, the Taliban must have greater military capabilities than the combined forces of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  Tough nut to crack, those guys.

But on the other hand, there are unsettling questions. Is success possible? Is it really worth the effort? Do the Iraqi people really want to live together in peace and freedom, the peace and freedom for which our troops have sacrificed so much. Or do they desire a darker path, somehow, of violence?

Well, let me answer that for you, Condi.  Success is NOT possible–not while you are the Secretary of State.  And yes, the Iraqi people desire a darker path of violence, as long as American troops are occupying their country.

See?  That was simple.  You asked questions, and I answered them.

————————–

And there’s so much more where that came from.

I encourage you all to read the whole thing.  It’s an encyclopedia of inane stupidity.

Which is apparently all they’ve got at this point: fascism and inane stupidity.

[Cross-posted from My Left Wing, and on the Daily Kos]

Why Does Donald Rumsfeld Hate America?

I wish this were snark.

Donald Rumsfeld came out with a vicious screed against mom, baseball and apple pie today, launching a vicious rhetorical assault on the United States America.

In an especially candid interview, Rumsfeld compared Uncle Sam to a dim-witted Neville Chamberlain, stating that Americans were guilty of appeasement of fascists.

Of course, it’s not suprising that Mr. Rumsfeld has contempt for Joe Sixpack, given his intellectual elitism that leads him to believe he has a better grasp on history than the vast majority of Americans.

To top it off, apparently Rumsfeld believes that Americans are deeply befuddled about themselves and the world–not only on an rational level, but on a deep-seated moral and personal level.

I’m not kidding.
Rumsfeld said all this in a speech today to the American Legion in Salt Lake City, Utah.  The transcript is not yet available, but certain quotes are, through releases in the traditional media.

As you read this, please keep in mind that a full 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the Iraq “war”.  

A FULL SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT OF AMERICA.  That this were a presidential election, it would be a landslide of epic proportions.

And yet Rumsfeld truly believes that sixty-five percent of America are cowardly, traitorous, dim-witted, morally confused appeasers.

Some choice quotes:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of lacking the courage to fight terror.

That’s sixty-five percent of America he’s talking about.  He just called America a nation of cowards. Personally, from what I’ve seen of America, we’re not a country to be messed with.  We pull pre-emptive strikes on other nations and stuff.

If I hated America as much as Donald Rumsfeld does, I’d be worried; after all, look at what we did to Saddam Hussein–and he never threatened us at all!

More:

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral and intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security.

I do wish most Americans had Donald Rumsfeld’s intellectual and moral clairvoyance.  Most Americans are too stupid and too sociopathic to see how our troops are being greeted as liberators, how Saddam had huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, how the war has paid for itself in a few short months with Iraqi oil, and how Iraq is now a beacon of democracy for the Middle East.

Donald Rumsfeld has the moral vision and intellectual clarity to see it.  Why doesn’t America?

Addressing several thousand veterans at the American Legion’s national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

“I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism” he said.

My friends, this is NOT the same America that defeat Germany and Japan in World War II.  This is a cowardly nation, a defeatist nation–a nation quivering in terror at Islamofascism.  If liberals were in charge, we’d all be quivering in terror at airports, unable to bring personal possessions on a plane, and we’d be locking up, deporting, and denying entry to Americans simply on suspicion of being Muslim.  Thank God that Republicans are in charge, so that we don’t have to live in liberal fear.

And frankly, since sixty-five percent of America apparently wants to live in Neville ChamberLand, I say, “to hell with America!”  I am glad that Donald Rumsfeld agrees.

More:

“But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons,” he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

There goes that liberal elitist intellectual paternalism  again.  These people think that regular Americans don’t know anything, that we’re stupid to figure out what’s best for us.

Real Americans know that Iraq is a major front in World War III against IslamoFascists; that negative media images lost us the Vietnam War (thank God we hanged Walter Cronkite for Treason); and that pro-war propaganda was the only reason we won the Battle of Midway.

Of course, most Americans aren’t real anymore.  They’re fake Americans.  Sixty-five percent of ’em.

——————————————————

I just have one question for the right wing at this point: “Why does Donald Rumsfeld Hate America?”  He’s an intellectual elitist snob who thinks that Americans are confused, cowardly appeasers who are voting against their own self-interest.

After all, if it’s good for the goose, it’s gotta be good for the gander.

Right?

[Cross-posted from My Left Wing, and on the Daily Kos]

It’s Now or Never: Run Against Corporate America’s GOP

They’re down, but they’re not out.  Yet.

It’s time to put the GOP out of its misery this election cycle by standing up for REAL America, and against the GOP’s Corporate America.

Don’t believe me?  You think that running against corporate America is a bad idea?

Well, don’t take MY word for it.  Take the word of Frank Luntz.  And the words of his Republican friends.
Lost in the already much discussed New York Times article about the Living Wage vs. Productivity gap are some flatly AMAZING quotes from the GOP side of the aisle.

But polls show that Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the economy by wide margins and that anxiety about the future is growing. Earlier this month, the University of Michigan reported that consumer confidence had fallen sharply in recent months, with people’s expectations for the future now as downbeat as they were in 1992 and 1993, when the job market had not yet recovered from a recession.

“Some people who aren’t partisans say, `Yes, the economy’s pretty good, so why are people so agitated and anxious?’ ” said Frank Luntz, a Republican campaign consultant. “The answer is they don’t feel it in their weekly paychecks.”

Gee…you think, Frank?  Maybe if you keep helping enough voters believe that the Estate Tax is wrongly named, and call it the Death Tax instead to get it repealed, the average American will have more money in their pockets.  No?  You mean the billionaires are keeping it all and the little guy is getting screwed?  Unbelievable!  Where’s the trickle down when we need it!?

But it gets even better.  Here’s the money quote:

But Mr. Luntz predicted that the economic mood would not do significant damage to Republicans this fall because voters blamed corporate America, not the government, for their problems.

You hear that, you timid DLC Democrats?  You hear that, you populist-message-averse moral midgets of the “centrist” left?  That’s the horsey’s own mouth talking.

The horsey is letting you know in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that the same Corporate America that is buying America lock, stock and barrel in a Hostile Takeover through the ventriloquist dummy of the Republican Party, is viewed completely separately from that Republican Party.

The same Corporate America that is lining the pockets of everyone from George Bush to Rick Santorum’s lowliest staffer is going to get away with the wholesale purchase of the government, and the public isn’t going to call them on it.

And the same GOP that has been trashing and ruining our Government by selling us down the river to the Corporate fat cats and then telling us, “See? Government doesn’t work!”, are going to get away with dissociating themselves the very government they created as if the disaster happened all by itself.

It’s time to grow some balls (figuratively speaking) and TIE THIS ELEPHANT TO CORPORATE AMERICA–AND RUN AGAINST THEM BOTH.

There are two economies out there,” Mr. Cook, the political analyst, said. “One has been just white hot, going great guns. Those are the people who have benefited from globalization, technology, greater productivity and higher corporate earnings.

“And then there’s the working stiffs,” he added, “who just don’t feel like they’re getting ahead despite the fact that they’re working very hard. And there are a lot more people in that group than the other group.”

Two economies: one for the working stiffs, the other for Corporate America.

And yet, according to Frank Luntz, the working stiffs will rail against Corporate America, while voting in their favorite Gods, Guns and Gays politicians.

And he’s right.  They’ll do exactly that.  Unless, of course, some progressive politicians with a fucking spine step in draw the connection for the voters.

I’ll close where the article closes–with a quote from Treasury Secretary Paulson that would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic and infuriating:

“Many aren’t seeing significant increases in their take-home pay,” Mr. Paulson said. “Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising health care costs, among others.”

At the same time, he said that the Bush administration was not responsible for the situation, pointing out that inequality had been increasing for many years. “It is neither fair nor useful,” Mr. Paulson said, “to blame any political party.”

Oh…I think it’s fair alright.  It’s true that the disparities were also growing under Clinton–though slower than they are now.  Then again, Clinton’s DLC policies allowed for NAFTA and a host of other anti-worker legislation.

But whether or not it’s fair–and it is–I’ll be damned if it isn’t useful.  I can guarantee you Frank Luntz would use it.  Of course, the Bob Shrums and D.C. Democratic consultants have such a better track record than the likes of Frank Luntz, that I’m sure they know what they’re doing.  They’ll just come out with a fany slogan like “Six for ’06” or “Let America Be America Again” and everything will be fine and dandy…

What are you waiting for, Reid and Pelosi?  A graven invitation?  

The GOP is running scared.  The door has been left wide open.

It’s time get some balls and walk through it.  It’s time to run an old-school, Huey Long populist economic campaign to go along with a national-security Withdraw from the Occupation of Iraq campaign.

It’s time to draw the distinction between REAL America–owners of the DEMOCRATIC party–and CORPORATE America, owners of the GOP.

Or we can play timid and watch Frank Luntz laugh.

Your choice.

[Cross-posted from My Left Wing, and Daily Kos]

Faithless: The REPUBLICAN War on Faith

Republicans like to talk a lot about faith.  In their incessant pandering to the insatiable beast that is the religious right, the word “faith” tends to come up in Republican discourse with the depressing inevitability of an unwanted season.  And even our politicians have fallen into the trap of talking about this ill-defined word “faith”.

Well, there’s a reason for that.  In keeping with the typical Rovian strategy of taking one’s greatest weaknesses and attempting to convert them into one’s greatest strengths, these deplorable criminals must talk about their “faith” because they have singlehandedly created the most faithless administration in American history.
Indeed, they demand a conversation about Faith.  They demand the conversation so that they can frame the very word Faith in their own terms.  The right wing demands that when you hear the word “Faith”, that you think only about its singular definition as “Belief that does not require Logic.”  But that’s only ONE definition of the word.  The other definition–the one that is political death to them if it is brought into the open–is this:

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.

The truth is that they demand a universal faith in things that cannot be proven because they have utterly destroyed–through methodical, evil planning–the people’s faith in the United States of America and its government.  They have attempted to renege on every decent contract between this government and its citizens–leaving them only with God to rely on for their well-being.

Examples of this are numerous, but the most poignant to me is occurring as we speak.

I cannot find this story on the Internet as yet, but I was listening to NPR on my way to work on a research project this morning when they were discussing the State Department’s plan to force Americans being evacuated from Lebanon to reimburse the government for the costs of their evacuation.  Question and answer session followed, in which callers could tell the station whether or not they supported this plan.  I called the station in a rage, and was placed on the air during question and answer, where I stated the obvious:

“You know,” I said, “A U.S. passport is a contract between an American citizen and the Secretary of State of the United States.  It is a guarantee that the United States will vouchsafe the safety and security of its citizens overseas.  And if the United States can spend $6 billion a month of the taxpayers’ money in Iraq on a war which, if anything, violated a contract between this government and its people, then the State Department can surely spend a minimal amount of taxpayer money to honor its contract with American citizens.

The station host, taken a little aback, then asked me whether I thought that the State Department would therefore be more stringent in issuing its advisories to Americans overseas in order to save taxpayers money in the event of possible evacuations.  To which I responded:

You know what? That may be a concern, but only in an immoral administration.  Since this country’s taxpayers can spend $6 billion a month on an unnecessary military action that only inflames tensions in the region, then we have seriously misplaced priorities if the State Department, already the victim of major budget cuts, considers reneging on its contractual obligations to its citizens overseas.

That’s really the key.  This Republican administration has shown itself completely willing to dispense with its reputation and the trust of its citizens in order to save mere pennies, while they spend fortunes propping up their favorite corporate contributors.  They work nonstop, every day, to destroy our faith in the United States itself:

And this, fundamentally, is the fruit of Republican policy: American citizens in Lebanon will no longer be able to have faith in the United States of America–but they are perfectly free to pray to God for their continued safety in the wake of their government’s abandonment.  We are, in other words, in the Dark Night of the American Soul.

———————————–

And it’s not the first time.

Bush committed one of his many impeachable offenses by questioning the Full Faith and Credit of the United States by telling Americans that Social Security monies were “just IOUs” in a safe.  In other words, Bush said, don’t trust in the United States.  Don’t put faith in that greenback in your wallet.  If you want to eat something besides cat food in your declining years, go pray to God.  But don’t come knocking on my door, because your president and your government won’t be home.

He showed the American people that their faith in United States Emergency Services could not be counted on in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  When the earthquakes and the floods come, America, don’t have faith in your government; it won’t be there.  Instead, as you sit stranded on your sinking rooftop or under the broken freeway overpass, pray to God instead, because your faith in anything else is misplaced.

He has shown our soldiers, as Michael Moore pointed out, that they cannot rely on the good faith of their civilian leadership to send them to battle only when necessary to defend their country.  And he has demonstrated to our brave servicemen and servicewomen that they cannot have faith in their government to supply them with adequate vehicle and body armor: instead, as they drive down that IED-laden road, they must look solely to their God to keep them safe.

He has shown our children that they cannot have faith in the education system, because the government will not fund it.  Instead, they must insert prayers into the pledge of allegiance, and read the Ten Commandments in their classrooms, because God is all that stands between them and a future of ignorance and poverty.

———————————–

These are the wages of Republican sin: the perversion of faith, and destruction of that confidence in the American system of governance on which we have come to depend.  

When Republicans talk of faith, they talk of faith in things that cannot be seen or touched–because everything they see and touch turns to rot and ruin.

It’s time to remove the faithless bastards from office, and restore REAL faith–faith in America.

Is Bush Telling Cheney to go Fuck Himself?

First it was the End of Cowboy Diplomacy, and the ascendancy of diplomacy in dealing with Iran–leaving Sy Hersch with some egg on his face.

Then it was the Bush Administration failing to act on their usual grandstanding and beliigerence to the other branches of government by actually reversing their ground on detainees after the Hamdan decision–not just for those at Gitmo, but also for those at CIA prisons worldwide.

And now the third blow in less than a week: The end of unconditional Halliburton contracts in Iraq, and the divvying up up contracting duties to no less than three independent, audited, competing contractors.
These are three pieces of shockingly good news that should take us all aback.  I haven’t seen this administration go this much on the defensive and actually reconcile themselves to somewhat saner versions of hare-brained policies in the six years since I’ve been watching them.

And there can be only one reason for this in my mind: a deep and personal rift between President Bush and V.P. Cheney that has now moved into actual policy considerations.

For the record, I have never believed that Bush was evil to the core.  I believe he is an arrogant and totally-out-of-touch rich frat-boy.  I believe that he is a deeply insecure and spiteful man.  I believe he is a sociopath without human compassion.

But at heart, I think he’s a privileged little brat who has had everything done for him all his life, and who still thinks he’s a big kid–and who’s in a job that’s WAY too big for him.

Cheney, on the other hand, is an evil bastard.  Cheney is a man who, as John Edwards pointed out, voted against meals on wheels and the MLK, Jr. holiday.  He’s a man who calculated his college attendance, marriage, and even his wife’s pregnancy to exactly coincide with draft deferrals from Vietnam.  He’s a man who was on the inside of the Nixon administration, and felt that Nixon was wronged.

And these policies that are being reversed are Cheney’s pet policies.

As many journalists and bloggers have pointed out, the Gitmo detainee policy has been Cheney’s brainchild and pet issue.  It is Cheney who insisted on the Gitmo policy; Cheney who lashed out at Democrats and the press over torture; Cheney who first and most violently claimed that CIA prisons and extraordinary rendition were absolutely necessary.  Bush’s defenses of these policies have, by contrast, seemed tepid, petulant and annoyed by comparison.

Interestingly, they have by contrast NOT stood down on the NSA spying after Hamdan.  I believe that’s because the NSA spying program was more Bush’s idea than Cheney’s–and that Bush personally stands to lose a great deal politically (possibly even impeachment) by backing down on it.

And Iran?  Remember that it was CHENEY who was and remains a member of PNAC.  It is Cheney who wants to nuke Iran.  Bush may have been gung-ho to attack Iraq for on account of various personal demons, corporate allegiances and bad advice, but I doubt very much that Bush has any personal incentive to attack Iran.  Bush isn’t PNAC, and it’s rumored that Bush highly resents his PNAC advisors for their bullshit lies about how the post-war occupation would turn out.

And Halliburton?  This is not only the corporation that Cheney used to run and with whom he still has ties, but it’s the corporation that continues to line Cheney’s pockets.  What else can we surmise from a move to hamstring Cheney’s favorite little corporation?  I doubt very much that the move is to save face politically, since Halliburton’s horrible misdeeds in Iraq have not exactly been in the news lately.  What about the character of this administration over the last six years would lead us to believe that they would make this move out of the kindness of their own hearts?

——————————————

No, my friends.  Something very deep is at work here.  Strange events have been taking place–strange events that would bespeak, for this first time, a shred of sanity in this administration.

And every piece of unexpected good news comes at the price of a policy very near and dear to Cheney’s heart.

My suspicion is that little boy Bush has seen the political handwriting on the wall, and told Cheney to go fuck himself in none too equivocal terms.  I could be wrong, but that’s what my objective analysis tells me.

What do you all think?

[UPDATE: I understand that all this could be political grandstanding and approval-seeking.  But then again, it’s not like Halliburton’s been in the news lately, and the GOP stands to lose significant ground with its base by complying with Hamdan.  I still believe something bigger is afoot.]

[Cross-posted from My Left Wing, and on my dKos]