Even with all I know about Holy Joe I still had a hard time believing he penned this silly paean to Bush's escalation plan. I thought it might be someone's idea of a joke, especially since I first noticed it on a Tbogg-link to NRO.
So I went to Holy Joe's website to confirm. And sure enough, it's there, in all its infamous glory.
But this time I noticed the by-line in the top right hand corner--the former BullMoose, the former Christian Coalitionist of the Willing, Marshall Wittman, Holy Joe's new grandpoobah of communication.
Quite naturally, the remarks contained within bare a striking similarity to what the BullMoose used to post on his blog, as well as an op-ed that helped encourage a Democratic primary challenger, Ned Lamont, last year.
Anyway--
I know there are deep differences of opinion about what the President has proposed tonight. In the coming days and weeks, we should undertake respectful debate and deliberation over this new plan.
Why? What would be the purpose of "respectful debate and deliberation"? The deliberation was already done, and it failed to take account of the fact that, as that shrill Tom Shaller reminded us, elections have consequences. And over what are we supposed to engage in "respectful debate"? What's there to debate? And if that 'fatalist' pansy, quitting coward, former Marine John Murtha succeeds in locking up any additional escalation funds, but does it nice and respectful-like, will that be OK with Joe?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Apocalypse Iran
Glenn Greenwald:
As Think Progress notes, the White House took multiple steps yesterday to elevate dramatically the threat rhetoric against Iran. Bush included what The New York Times described as “some of his sharpest words of warning to Iran” yet. But those words could really be described more accurately not as “threats” but as a declaration of war.
(snip)
More importantly, a war with Iran can happen in many ways other than by some grand announcement by the President that he wants to start a war, followed by a debate in Congress as to whether such a war should be authorized. That is the least likely way for such a confrontation to occur.
We have 140,000 troops (soon to be 20,000 more) sitting in a country that borders Iran and where Iran is operating, with an announced military build-up in the Persian Gulf imminent, increased war rhetoric from all sides, the beginning of actual skirmishes already, a reduction (if not elimination) on the existing constraints with which our military operates in Iraq, and a declaration by the President that Iran is our enemy in the current war.
That makes unplanned -- or seemingly unplanned -- confrontations highly likely, whether through miscalculation, miscommunication, misperception, or affirmative deceit. Whatever else is true, given the stakes involved -- the unimaginable, impossible-to-overstate stakes -- and the fact that we are unquestionably moving forward on this confrontational path quite deliberately, this issue is receiving nowhere near the attention in our political discussions and media reports that it so urgently demands.
For all the pious talk about the need to be "seriously concerned" and give "thoughtful consideration" to what will happen if we leave Iraq, there is a very compelling -- and neglected -- need to ponder what will happen if we stay and if we escalate. And the need for "serious concern" and "thoughtful consideration" extends to consequences not just in Iraq but beyond.
Indeed.
As Think Progress notes, the White House took multiple steps yesterday to elevate dramatically the threat rhetoric against Iran. Bush included what The New York Times described as “some of his sharpest words of warning to Iran” yet. But those words could really be described more accurately not as “threats” but as a declaration of war.
(snip)
More importantly, a war with Iran can happen in many ways other than by some grand announcement by the President that he wants to start a war, followed by a debate in Congress as to whether such a war should be authorized. That is the least likely way for such a confrontation to occur.
We have 140,000 troops (soon to be 20,000 more) sitting in a country that borders Iran and where Iran is operating, with an announced military build-up in the Persian Gulf imminent, increased war rhetoric from all sides, the beginning of actual skirmishes already, a reduction (if not elimination) on the existing constraints with which our military operates in Iraq, and a declaration by the President that Iran is our enemy in the current war.
That makes unplanned -- or seemingly unplanned -- confrontations highly likely, whether through miscalculation, miscommunication, misperception, or affirmative deceit. Whatever else is true, given the stakes involved -- the unimaginable, impossible-to-overstate stakes -- and the fact that we are unquestionably moving forward on this confrontational path quite deliberately, this issue is receiving nowhere near the attention in our political discussions and media reports that it so urgently demands.
For all the pious talk about the need to be "seriously concerned" and give "thoughtful consideration" to what will happen if we leave Iraq, there is a very compelling -- and neglected -- need to ponder what will happen if we stay and if we escalate. And the need for "serious concern" and "thoughtful consideration" extends to consequences not just in Iraq but beyond.
Indeed.
Apocalypse Iraq
Everyone gets everything he wants.
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
Brought it up to me like room service.
It was a real choice mission, and when it was over, I never wanted another.
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
Brought it up to me like room service.
It was a real choice mission, and when it was over, I never wanted another.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Taking Back the Car Keys
BooMan (via Atrios)
Friends do not let friends drive drunk. In the case of George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives, they not only are insisting on driving intoxicated, they won't let us out of the car and they respond to all requests to slow down by stomping on the accelerator. In this situation the only rational thing to do is to wait for them to come to a halt at a stop sign (if they are sober enough to avoid running it) and smack them in the head with a sock full of pennies. We need to take away the car keys, Mr. Klein.
Friends do not let friends drive drunk. In the case of George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives, they not only are insisting on driving intoxicated, they won't let us out of the car and they respond to all requests to slow down by stomping on the accelerator. In this situation the only rational thing to do is to wait for them to come to a halt at a stop sign (if they are sober enough to avoid running it) and smack them in the head with a sock full of pennies. We need to take away the car keys, Mr. Klein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)